This summary begins with a description of the ACERP process by which the ACERP Steering Committee and three Technical Committees identified a list of 14 environmental issues to be studied in Arizona. Each of the 14 issues is briefly described.
Following the description of the ACERP process, summaries of findings from a survey research project and the three Technical Committees are presented. These are:
The Public Advisory Committee overall ranking of issues is presented last, in a summary table.
On February 25, 1993, Governor Fife Symington signed Executive Order 93-5, which established the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project (ACERP) and a Project Steering Committee. Shortly thereafter, three Technical Committees were established:
Each of the three Technical Committees subsequently developed a list of issues to be examined based on criteria and perspectives specific to the particular Committee, such as air pollution and human health risks. A comprehensive list of all the issues identified by the Committees was then submitted to the ACERP Steering Committee for review.
The Steering Committee revised the list and returned it to the Technical Committees for additional review and discussion. Following that review and discussion, a revised list was forwarded to the Steering Committee for final approval. A December 1993 press release from the Steering Committee identified 14 issues on the final list.
The Technical Committees then researched and ranked these 14 issues according to the risk they pose to Ecosystems, Human Health and Quality of Life in Arizona.
The following descriptions of the 14 issues include examples of the activities and related pollutants that cause environmental problems. The issues are listed alphabetically.
This issue includes contaminants accidentally released during transportation, production, storage and use of materials. It includes accidental releases from underground and above ground storage tanks. It also includes contamination from industrial fires, explosions, and train derailments.
Pollutants include industrial chemicals such as PCBs, acids, ammonia, pesticides, and various petroleum products.
Activities that produce biological alteration of ecosystems include hunting, fishing, illegal collection of sensitive species, predator control, and the introduction of insects, pests and diseases. This includes the introduction and perpetuation of non- native species of flora and fauna, a reduction in biodiversity, and species extinction.
This issue refers to cultural losses resulting from human activity and applies to the human population.
It includes the loss of visibility and other impacts on view sheds and landscapes caused by air pollution and built structures. It also includes the loss of unique or significant built and cultural environments such as neighborhoods, rural and sacred areas, and the loss of open spaces. In addition, litter, noise, odor, and light pollution are included in this issue.
This issue includes environmental risks posed by food consumption, whether the source of the food is inside or outside of Arizona.
It includes risks posed by drinking water from public and private water systems, either from surface or ground water supplies. The water contamination may occur from source to tap and may occur in bottled water as well. This issue also covers supply and distribution of drinking water.
The issue also includes:
o Biological contaminants such as microbes, viruses, bacteria, protozoans, and pests
o Chemical residues in food such as pesticides, hormones, and drugs
o Irradiation of food
This issue includes risks to Arizonans from global climate change and the increase in ultraviolet radiation. It includes Arizona's contribution to the depletion of stratospheric ozone and increases in the level of carbon dioxide.
This issue includes ground water contamination from agriculture, sludge application, sewage treatment plants, landfills, hazardous waste sites, injection wells, septic tanks, and other industrial sources. Pollutants include pesticides nitrates, gasoline and various industrial chemicals.
Releases from underground and above ground storage tanks, however, are included in Accidental Releases.
This issue includes indoor air pollution at the work place, in public buildings, and in the home. Activities include cooking, heating, use of household chemicals, painting, pesticide application, living in a confined space, demolition and renovation of buildings.
This issue includes releases from municipal and industrial solid waste sites, seepage from open and closed landfills, and legal and illegal disposal of household hazardous waste.
It also includes:
o Disposal of medical waste, sludge, and mining waste
o Active, inactive, and abandoned hazardous waste sites
Contaminants may include TCE, lead, toluene, heavy metal, PCBs, other toxic chemicals, microbes (for example, Cocci) and nutrients.
This issue includes events that, while natural, have an incidence and severity that may be increased by human activity and management practices. This includes such events as drought, earthquakes, floods, lightning, and wild fires.
This issue includes air pollution caused by automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, industry, manufacturing, agricultural activities, timber processing, mining activities, and urban activities such as fireplace smoke.
Air pollutants include fuels, solvents, airborne pesticides, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and airborne metals such as arsenic and lead. Pollutants also include airborne allergens and infectious agents such as pollens, molds, bacterias, and viruses.
This issue includes activities such as agriculture, domestic livestock grazing, highway and road construction, energy production, fire suppression, mining activities, timber management, interbasin water transfers, surface water channelization, water diversion, ground water drawdown and subsidence, water impoundments, recreation and urbanization.
Alteration and loss of ecosystems includes the physical removal of soil and vegetation, loss of riparian wildlife habitat as a result of channelization and diversion of natural water courses.This issue does not include biological and chemical effects on ecosystems, however. They are covered in other issues.
This issue includes exposure of workers and the public to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Sources of ionizing radiation are found in the nuclear power fuel cycle, including power plant operation, mining, milling, and processing of uranium fuels, and the disposal and storage of spent nuclear fuels. It includes medical wastes, industrial sources, and low-level radioactive waste.
Sources of non-ionizing radiation include microwave and radio frequencies used in telecommunications, radar, and microwave heating. Other sources are low-frequency electromagnetic fields produced from overhead power lines, consumer products, and solar radiation.
This issue does not include radionuclides in drinking water, which are covered in Food and Water Contamination.
This issue includes non-point source (indirect) contamination such as agricultural runoff, urban storm water runoff, energy production, construction, timber harvesting, wood processing, mining, domestic livestock grazing, and runoff from hazardous waste sites. Pollutants from non-point sources include pesticides, nutrients, sediment, fecal material, petroleum-based chemicals, and temperature changes.
Also included is point source (direct) discharge from sewage treatment plants, mines, manufacturing, and industrial facilities. Pollutants from point sources include sewage, ammonia, chlorine by-products, metals and nutrients.
This issue includes consumer exposure to hazardous materials in the home such as lead paint dust, paint thinner, cleansers, and asbestos. It also includes on-the-job exposure to toxic chemicals, both inhaled and absorbed through the skin. Risk from pesticide applications to farm workers, applicators within buildings, home users, and bystanders are also included. Pollutants include lead, pesticides and solvents.
This issue does not include exposure to radioactive materials, which is covered under the Radiation category.
The Public Values Assessment of the ACERP 1995 Project Report describes the methodology and results of a linked, two-phase survey used to determine how Arizonans perceive environmental risks in the state. It is the result of research conducted by the Social Research Laboratory of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.
In the first phase, groups of environmentally-interested adult Arizonans were invited to meet in focus groups to discuss environmental concerns and issues in the various parts of the state. These environmental concerns and issues were recorded and became the basis for constructing a survey questionnaire used in the next phase of the process.
In the second phase, the questionnaire developed from the focus group meetings was administered by telephone to a randomly selected group of 799 adult Arizonans around the state.
The goal of this process was two-fold:
o Develop a representative, state-wide understanding of public sentiment regarding various environmental issues and policies
o Develop an in-depth understanding of how people think and talk about their views of the environment and its future.
This section of the ACERP 1995 Project Report describes both the methodology used and the findings.
For more detailed information on the focus groups or the telephone survey, contact the Social Research Laboratory, College of Social Behavioral Sciences at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
The Public Values Survey indicates that the environment is highly valued in Arizona, and that the vast majority of Arizonans are very concerned with preserving its quality. Many people are drawn to Arizona for the climate, natural areas, and other environmentally-related reasons.
While the environment rates third in level of concern within a list of four major state- wide issues, many of the people involved in this study say they have great concern for the environment. This level of concern holds across all demographic groups.
The high levels of concern for the environment among Arizonans is also evident with a significant number of respondents either belonging to, or donating money to, environmental organizations. This indicates substantial public willingness to support environmental causes.
Overall, Arizonans feel strongly that industry and government should both be involved in protecting the environment. The vast majority feel that industry should pay for the environmental harms it generates, and that Arizona government currently over-emphasizes economic growth to the detriment of environmental protection.
When it comes to costs, the public is most willing to pay for the increased costs of goods and services that may be passed on to consumers by industry being environmentally responsible. A significant portion of the public is also willing to pay higher government taxes to sustain the environment, and indicated their support runs well into significant dollar outlays over the course of one year.
Introduction
Ecosystems are subject to an assortment of stresses and impacts from both natural and anthropogenic (human-engineered) sources.
In arid and semiarid lands like Arizona, these impacts are often intensified by environmental variables like rainfall patterns and winds. As a result, the ecosystems occurring in these regions are subject to a variety of naturally-occurring stresses such as drought, salinity, low nutrient availability, and freezing temperatures.
The US Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program has identified major anthropogenic stresses in arid lands as the following:
o Loss of riparian habitat
o Overgrazing
o Introduction of exotic species
o Increased fire frequency
o Effects of global climate change
o Decrease in water supplies
The objective of this section of the ACERP Project Report is to address the existing and potential sources of stress (stressors) that may impact the health or biological integrity of Arizona's ecosystem. There are 14 categories of human-derived stressors identified by the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project.
A healthy ecosystem exists when the system's inherent potential is realized, its condition is stable, its capacity for self-repair is preserved, and minimal external support for maintenance is required (Karr et al. 1986).
Biological integrity can be termed the wellness of an ecosystem.
o Lack of integrity may be represented by a decline in biological diversity, an imbalance in trophic levels, or inability to buffer changes in chemical status.
o Declining integrity may result from specific human-caused stressors, but may yield a greater susceptibility to damage from naturally-occurring stressors, completely unrelated to the source of the original stress. The end result is a decline in ecosystem health.
The Ecosystems Technical Committee would like to suggest to readers that they consider that ecosystems are not closed systems, but function inter-connectedly, and keep in mind that stressors themselves interact, and the impact of one stressor may exacerbate the effects of another stressor.
Arizona's Ecosystems
The Ecosystems section of ACERP 1995 describes and analyzes Arizona's aquatic, terrestrial, and human-engineered Ecosystems. This includes identifying an ecosystems' major environmental stressors, and evaluating the impact these stressors have on the them.
Arizona's diverse ecosystems include eight distinct zones:
o Riparian Systems: Lands dependent on water sources
o Natural Lakes And Reservoirs: Bodies of water supported by
watershed
o Streams and Rivers: Includes other flowing water systems such as permanent streams created by the disposal of wastewater
o Pinyon-juniper Woodlands and Great Basin Desert Shrublands
o Hot Desert Scrublands: Southwestern Arizona, including the Sonoran Desert and portions of the Chihuahuan and Mojave deserts
o Forest Systems: Generally found at elevations higher than 5,000 feet and located in the eastern mountains, along the Mogollon Rim, and on the Kaibab and Coconino plateaus, as well as on isolated peaks in southeastern Arizona
o Grassland Systems: Found at mid-elevation in southwestern Arizona, and at other locations on the Colorado Plateau and mountains
o Agricultural: Systems throughout Arizona, controlled by humans, for food production
Arizona's ecosystems are the source of fiber, food, minerals, and clean air and water, as well as recreational pursuits and revenues.
Overuse and poor management have spurred degradation of many ecosystems, and retarded recovery of many others, leading to the need for risk assessment as part of state and federal resource management.
The Risk Assessment Process
For purposes of this report, the term risk entails the following:
o Defining an activity, such as grazing, that creates a stressor, or definition of a stressor, such as air pollution, that is a result of activities;
o Describing the response of the Ecosystem; for example:
Resistance
Resilience
o Using the response potential to determine whether the ecosystem has been, or will be at risk of continued degradation (lack of sustainability); if the ecosystem's response shows continued potential degradation, then it is at a high risk level.
The Ecosystem Technical Committee assessed risk using a three-part approach:
1. Identified a list of stressors with the cooperation of ACERP management and members of the community. In most cases, human activities were the stressors.
o The list of stressors was then expanded, under the heading of Ecosystem Alteration, to include:
Grazing
Agriculture
Urbanization
Fire Suppression
Timber Management
Water Management
Hunting
Fishing
Illegal collecting
Species introduction
2. Evaluated the effect of each stressor or activity on specific Ecosystems, and prepared supporting technical documents.
3. Compared the stressor evaluations through an aggregate ecosystems matrix to determine stressors with the greatest impact.
The risk assessment process indicates that:
o For all of Arizona's ecosystems, grazing and species introduction pose the highest risk, followed by fire suppression, mining, timber management, and water management.
o For aquatic and riparian systems in particular, the stressors that project the greatest risk are grazing, agriculture, water diversion, groundwater pumping, impoundments, and species introduction.
o Terrestrial systems' highest risk stressors include grazing, species introduction, and timber management in forest systems. Human-engineered systems were not evaluated in this context.
The rankings for all aquatic and terrestrial stressors are shown in the matrix on the following page. See Appendix A, ACERP 1995, Section 2: Ecosystems, for the ranking summary of the 14 issues for all ecosystem categories studied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stressor | High | Medium | Low | ======================================================================================================== | Aquatic | Agriculture | Channelization | Accidental releases | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Grazing | Energy production | Fire | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Impoundments/dams | Ground water | Fire suppression | | | | | | | | | contamination | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Pumping | Mining-extraction | Fishing | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Species introduction and | Surface water | Floods | | | control | | | | | | contamination: non-point | | | | | source | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Water diversion | Timber management | Highways/roads | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Urbanization | Hunting | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Interbasin water transfers | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Outdoor air pollution | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Recreation | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Surface water | | | | | | | | | | contamination: point | | | | | source | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Terrestrial | Grazing | Fire suppression | Accidental releases | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Species introduction and | Recreation | Agriculture | | | control | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Channelization | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Energy production | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Fire | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Highways/roads | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Hunting | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Illegal collecting | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Impoundments/dams | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Interbasin water transfers | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Mining-extraction | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Outdoor air pollution | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Pumping | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Timber management | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Urbanization | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Water diversion | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Technical Committee Summary
The Human Health Committee ranked environmental risks to Arizonans' health according to three categories: High, Medium, and Low. These categories and their associated risks are summarized in the following table.
The listings in the table do not include all of the environmental risks posed potentially to Arizonans. For example, the impact on individuals exposed to electromagnetic fields was not ranked because insufficient data exists. Similarly, transboundary exposures (for example, open air burning at dumps along the Mexico- U.S. border) and reproduction problems are discussed in this report, but are not ranked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | High Risk | Medium Risk | Low Risk | ============================================================================================ | Allergens and Valley | Drinking Water | Accidental Releases of Toxic | | Fever | | Substances | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Environmental Tobacco | Hazardous Air Pollutants | Air Pollutants Other Than Lead | | Smoke | | and Fine Particulates | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Fine Particulate Matter | Medical Exposure to | Animal Vectors of Human | | | Ionizing Radiation | Diseases | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Food Safety | Natural Hazards | Asbestos | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Ionizing Radiation | Occupational Exposure to | CERLA (Federal Superfund) | | | Toxic Materials | and WQARF (State Superfund) | | | | sites | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lead Poisoning | | Farmworker Exposure to | | | | Pesticides | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Radon | | Ionizing Radiation from Man- | | | | Made, Non-Medical Activities | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Ultraviolet Radiation | | Leaking Underground Storage | | | | Tanks | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Noise | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Resources Conservation and | | | | Recovery Act Sites | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Surface Water Contact | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Life Technical Committee Summary
The objective of this section of the ACERP 1995 Project Report is to assess the risks posed by environmental problems in Arizona as they impact the quality of life in the state.
The Quality of Life Technical Committee began meeting in June 1993 to gather and analyze the available information for developing this assessment. The group consisted of the following:
o Social scientists from universities, the private sector, and government
o Economists
o Attorneys
o Public involvement specialists
o Other generalist disciplines
As the first step, the Quality of Life Technical Committee coordinated with the Human Health Technical Committee and the Ecosystems Technical Committee to develop a preliminary list of environmental issues.
Following this work, a draft Issues List was published in October 1993. The List was further refined until June 1994. In its final version, the list included the 14 environmental issues and concerns described above, under the ACERP Process heading.
After the Issues List was developed, the Quality of Life Technical Committee gathered the best available information on how each of these issues is impacted by Arizona's environment. This information was gathered through use of background papers written by Committee members, faculty, and graduate students from the state's three public universities. Also providing background papers were other persons with expertise in specific technical areas.
The purpose of each background paper was to provide Arizona-specific information about the issue. The goal was to provide a common understanding of the available scientific knowledge about each issue. To provide a standardized viewpoint, each background paper assumed that current environmental regulations would remain in effect, and that only the residual risks of each issue would be addressed.
In many cases, however, adequate information for the background papers did not exist.
o For example, there is extensive international research about stratospheric ozone depletion, but nothing specific to Arizona.
In other cases, the nature of the problems analyzed in the papers is so localized, like ground water contamination, that the impacts can vary greatly.
Due to budgetary limitations, the Committee did not have the resources to initiate new research. Instead, it analyzed research that already existed. Therefore, the Committee's goal was to obtain as much material as possible, and to make educated judgments based on the available data.
Several of the background papers analyzed the issues according to 7 quality-of-life criteria developed by the Committee. These are as follows:
o Economic Impacts: The Committee looked at the present value of damages or potential damages if environmental problems occurred.
o Future Generation Impacts: The Committee considered short-term versus long-term impacts, and estimated the chances for restoration.
o Aesthetics Impacts: The Committee looked at potential impacts such as visual degradation, changes in comfort, distasteful smells, and damage to or loss of, pleasing environments. This was often a very subjective criterion, because it involved personal tastes and considerations.
o Peace of Mind Impacts: The Committee considered fears related to health impacts, contamination, and/or ecological deterioration, and included risk perception issues.
o Fairness and Social Impacts: The Committee looked at the correlation between the occurrence of an environmental impact and the demographic characteristics of the exposed population. It also considered changes to the social fabric of our human communities as a result of environmental issues, including:
Possible class/ethnic inequities
Changes in community activism
Potential struggles over limited resources
Increased community conflict/cohesion
o Recreational Impacts: The Committee considered possible changes to recreational areas, loss of recreational access and/or damages to hunting, fishing, and other biological recreation.
As the background papers were drafted, they were circulated for review and comments among Quality of Life Technical Committee members, university faculty, and state agency representatives. There was also limited distribution to members of the public.
As a result of these reviews, which lasted for over a year, the documents were further refined. Additionally, the Quality of Life Technical Committee used selected data prepared by the Human Health and Ecosystem Technical Committees to augment its analysis.
The revised papers were then distributed to all members of the Quality of Life Technical Committee for final review. In April 1995, based on a review of the final background papers, the Committee determined relative rankings for the 14 issues. The final rankings are shown in the following matrix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | High Priority | Medium Priority | Low Priority | ================================================================================================ | Degradation of the built | Food and drinking water | Accidental releases | | and cultural environment | contamination | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Physical/biological | Natural Hazards | Global climate change and | | alteration, fragmentation | | stratospheric ozone depletion | | and loss of ecosystems | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Urban outdoor air pollution | Rural outdoor air pollution | Indoor air pollution | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Surface and groundwater | Land and soil contamination | | | contamination | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Radiation | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Workplace and consumer | | | | exposure to hazardous | | | | materials | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These final rankings were then submitted to the ACERP Public Advisory Committee.
Of the 14 issues examined, the most significant is the continuing Degradation of the Built, Cultural, and Natural Environment (Ecosystems).
The overall impacts for all issues are summarized in Appendix A, ACERP 1995, Section 4: Quality of Life Report.
Public Advisory Committee Final Ranking
The ACERP Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was composed of representatives from a broad range of stakeholders directly involved in issues surrounding Arizona's environment, as well as members of the ACERP Steering Committee.
The final ranking of the stressors by the ACERP Public Advisory Committee follows. With the exception of Outdoor Air Quality, the stressors were ranked fairly closely within the categories of High, Medium and Low Risk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Very High | High | Medium | Low | ================================================================================================== | Outdoor air quality | Degradation of the | Biological alteration | Accidental releases | | | built and cultural | of ecosystems | | | | environment | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Ground water | Food and water | Global climate | | | contamination | contamination | change and | | | | | stratospheric ozone | | | | | depletion | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Physical alteration | Indoor air quality | Natural hazards | | | of ecosystems | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Land and soil | Radiation | | | | contamination | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Surface water | Workplace and | | | | contamination | consumer | | | | | exposure to | | | | | hazardous materials | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent of disparity in voting among PAC members was strongest surrounding third-ranked Physical Alteration Of Ecosystems and sixth-ranked Food and water Contamination. Perhaps surprisingly, disagreement was also high surrounding the tenth-ranked stressor, Workplace and Consumer Exposure To Hazardous Materials and twelfth-ranked Accidental Releases.