ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands

/ The US Environmental Protection Agency's Wetlands ResearchProgram has developed the synoptic approach as a proposed method forassessing cumulative impacts to wetlands by providing both a general and acomprehensive view of the environment. It can also be applied more broadly toregional prioritization of environmental issues. The synoptic approach is aframework for making comparisons between landscape subunits, such aswatersheds, ecoregions, or counties, thereby allowing cumulative impacts tobe considered in management decisions. Because there is a lack of tools thatcan be used to address cumulative impacts within regulatory constraints, thesynoptic approach was designed as a method that could make use of availableinformation and best professional judgement. Thus, the approach is acompromise between the need for rigorous results and the need for timelyinformation. It is appropriate for decision making when quantitative,accurate information is not available; the cost of improving existinginformation or obtaining better information is high; the cost of a wronganswer is low; there is a high demand for the information; and the situationcalls for setting priorities between multiple decisions versus optimizing fora single decision. The synoptic approach should be useful for resourcemanagers because an assessment is timely; it can be completed within one totwo years at relatively low cost, tested, and improved over time. Anassessment can also be customized to specific needs, and the results arepresented in mapped format. However, the utility of a synoptic assessmentdepends on how well knowledge of the environment is incorporated into theassessment, relevant to particular management questions.KEY WORDS: Cumulative impact assessment; Landscape ecology; Regionalprioritization     

Development of a decision support system for Prioritization of multimedia dischargers

In 1990 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began sponsoring several pilot projects in its regional offices to examine the potential benefits of adopting a multimedia approach to facility management. This approach differs from traditional practices at EPA in that facilities (dischargers regulated under permits issued by the agency) are managed based upon their cumulative impacts to all media: air, water, and land. Currently, facilities are managed by separate programs at EPA that evaluate environmental impacts from a single-media perspective. One aspect of discharger management is the necessity to allocate limited financial resources in a way that will minimize risk to human health and the environment. A careful, risk-based prioritization of facilities is one means of providing insight to the most effective strategy of allocating monitoring, inspection, and enforcement resources. Prioritization from a multimedia perspective is particularly difficult, however, since it requires translation and integration of medium-specific facility performances, management objectives, and perceptions of risk into a cumulative rating. A computerized decision support system (DSS) designed to guide management through the prioritization process from a multimedia perspective was identified as a potentially valuable tool for use in the pilot projects. This article describes the development of such a prototype, outlines the features of the completed system, and discusses its potential for use at EPA.     

An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis

Cumulative impact analysis is examined from a conceptual decision-making perspective, focusing on its implicit and explicit purposes as suggested within the policy and procedures for environmental impact analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. In this article it is also linked to different evaluation and decision-making conventions, contrasting a regulatory context with a comprehensive planning framework. The specific problems that make the application of cumulative impact analysis a virtually intractable evaluation requirement are discussed in connection with the federal regulation of wetlands uses. The relatively familiar US Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps) permit program, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) responsibilities in managing its share of the Section 404 regulatory program requirements, is used throughout as the realistic context for highlighting certain pragmatic evaluation aspects of cumulative impact assessment.To understand the purposes of cumulative impact analysis (CIA), a key distinction must be made between the implied comprehensive and multiobjective evaluation purposes of CIA, promoted through the principles and policies contained in NEPA, and the more commonly conducted and limited assessment of cumulative effects (ACE), which focuses largely on the ecological effects of human actions. Based on current evaluation practices within the Corps' and EPA's permit programs, it is shown that the commonly used screening approach to regulating wetlands uses is not compatible with the purposes of CIA, nor is the environmental impact statement (EIS) an appropriate vehicle for evaluating the variety of objectives and trade-offs needed as part of CIA. A heuristic model that incorporates the basic elements of CIA is developed, including the idea of trade-offs among social, economic, and environmental protection goals carried out within the context of environmental carrying capacity.     

Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington,USA

The effects of permitting decisions made under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for which compensatory mitigation was required were examined. Information was compiled on permits issued in Oregon (January 1977–January 1987) and Washington (1980–1986). Data on the type of project permitted, wetland impacted, and mitigation project were collected and analyzed. The records of the Portland and Seattle District Offices of the US Army Corps of Engineers and of Environmental Protection Agency Region X were the primary sources of information. The 58 permits issued during the years of concern in Oregon document impacts to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80. The total area of wetland impacted was 74 ha while 42 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 32 ha or 43%. The 35 permits issued in Washington document impacts to 72 wetlands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland impacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 16 ha or 26%. In both states, the number of permits requiring compensation increased with time. The area of the impacted and created wetlands tended to be ≤0.40 ha. Permitted activity occurred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in the vicinity of urban centers. Estuarine and palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most frequently. The wetland types created most often were not always the same as those impacted; therefore, local gains and losses of certain types occurred. In both states the greatest net loss in area was in freshwater marshes. This study illustrates how Section 404 permit data might be used in managing a regional wetland resource. However, because the data readily available were either incomplete or of poor quality, the process of gathering information was very labor intensive. Since similar analyses would be useful to resource managers and scientists from other areas, development of an up-to-date standardized data base is recommended.     

Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status,perspectives, and prospects

The incongruity between the regional and national scales at which wetland losses are occurring, and the project-specific scale at which wetlands are regulated and studied, has become obvious. This article presents a synthesis of recent efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ecosystems Research Center at Cornell University to bring wetland science and regulation into alignment with the reality of the cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on entire landscapes and regions. The synthesis is drawn from the other articles in this volume, the workshop that initiated them, and the scientific literature. It summarizes the status of our present scientific understanding, discusses means by which to actualize the existing potential for matching the scales of research and regulation with the scales at which effects are observed, and provides guidelines for building a stronger scientific base for landscape-level assessments of cumulative effects. It also provides the outlines for a synoptic and qualitative approach to cumulative effects assessment based on a reexamination of the generic assessment framework we proposed elsewhere in this volume.The primary conclusion to be drawn from the articles and the workshop is that a sound scientific basis for regulation will not come merely from acquiring more information on more variables. It will come from recognizing that a perceptual shift to larger temporal, spatial, and organizational scales is overdue. The shift in scale will dictate different—not necessarily more—variables to be measured in future wetland research and considered in wetland regulation.     

美国环境与健康管理体制借鉴

美国为应对环境污染带来的公共健康灾难,建立了环保局与卫生部既分工又协作的体制,两个部门都关注环境污染对人类健康的危害。在职能上,环保局侧重于管制和"污染者",卫生部侧重于服务和"潜在受害者"。联邦层面,环保局与卫生部在管制方面和研究(信息共享)方面紧密合作。地方层面,环保局的主要职能是监督各州执行联邦标准,卫生部的主要职能是提供健康和医疗服务,并在具体工作中密切配合。借鉴美国的经验教训,明确建立"公众健康优先"的环境管理价值取向,针对环境与健康风险管理的特点推进生态环境统一监管机构改革,以法治思维和法治方法推进环境与健康治理体系建设;加强科学研究,加快建设环境与健康风险控制信息系统。     

IMPROVED ESTIMATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS USING AN EMPIRICAL BAYES METHOD1

ABSTRACT: The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently developing guidance for assessing environmental impact using biocriteria within a regulatory framework. Of particular interest are statistical methods of design and analysis to test for impairment of biological assemblages in stream ecosystems associated with water pollution. Current recommendations emphasize frequentist statistical methods with the problem expressed as one of classical hypothesis testing. An empirical Bayes approach is proposed here as an alternative and applied for multi-site inference. The advantages of an empirical Bayes approach, in particular the substantive contribution of collateral information from nearby sites, are discussed in contrast to traditional methods that employ site-specific information only. The approach is illustrated in an application concerning trends in the Index of Biotic Integrity (IHI) for the Scioto River in Ohio.     

Evaluation of US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's (EMAP)-Wetlands sampling design and classification

The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) will monitor the nation's resources by evaluating the status and trends of selected indicators of condition using a probability-based sampling design. The EMAP-Wetlands program will monitor the condition of the nation's wetlands. The EMAP classification system is an aggregation of the many subclasses of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification system. This aggregation results in fewer wetland classes with more wetlands per class than the NWI system. Aggregation of the NWI classification was based primarily on dominant vegetation cover, flooding regimes, dominant water source, and adjacency to rivers and lakes. We evaluated the EMAP classification system and sampling design using NWI digital wetlands data for portions of Illinois, Washington, North Dakota, and South Dakata. Relative numbers of wetlands, total areas, average areas, and common versus rare classes were compared between the EMAP and NWI classification systems. As expected, the EMAP classification provided fewer wetland polygons, each with larger areas, without altering total wetland area. Summary statistics comparing sample estimates to true population parameters (represented by the NWI data) demonstrated the effectiveness of the EMAP sampling design with the exception of rare EMAP classes in the selected regions. Although simple random sampling is inadequate for both large and small wetlands, the EMAP sampling design is readily adapted to provide better estimates for these categories. Aggregating the NWI classification to the EMAP classification provides fewer wetland classes, with more wetlands per class, for EMAP's annual reports and statistical summaries. The research in this report has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contracts 68-C8-0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. and 68-03-3532 to The Bionetics Corporation. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.     

Onsite Sewage System Regulation Along the Great Lakes and the US EPA “Homeowner Awareness” Model

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), a significant percentage of residential onsite sewage systems (OSSs) are failing at any given time. The US EPA has therefore issued a set of recommended guidelines for OSS regulatory programs aimed at reducing overall failure rates. We conducted a survey of OSS regulatory program administrators with jurisdictions bordering a Great Lake. Our goal was to determine their programs’ capacities to meet the US EPA’s recommendations. We found that although some local programs meet the US EPA’s recommendations, most do not. In this article, we present our findings and conclusions for one of the US EPA’s models, the baseline “Homeowner Awareness” model. Most areas do not have recommended requirements that systems be inspected when properties transfer between owners. A majority do not track changes in ownership within the computerized databases they use to record information about systems. Although most provide at least “one-time” information to homeowners regarding proper OSS maintenance, most do not contact them periodically with reminders of needed maintenance. We include recommendations for resolving some of the issues that our research identified.     

The computers and electronics industry alternative system of environmental protection: A new pilot program

New systems approaches by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have attempted to prevent and limit environmental damages through multimedia management of resources, energy, and environmental impacts, while engaging communities, environmental groups, facilities, industries, states, and local agencies. Collectively these diverse interests have begun to partner with corporate management to work toward a shared vision of how multimedia management and multistakeholder participation can best evolve in concert with environmental management system approaches. This article analyzes one industry-specific program under the Common Sense Initiative, called an Alternative System of Environmental Protection (ASEP) for the Computers and Electronics Subcommittee. The significance of this working group's attempt to increase regulatory flexibility lies in its collective establishment of an alternative regulatory framework for an entire industry. Contrary to many other EPA single-facility pilot programs, this method cuts across the entire computer and electronics industry. The group hopes to achieve sector-wide regulatory improvements through a process providing funding for shared research, dynamic feedback, and technical assistance, while engaging in multistakeholder relationships with communities, workers, local governmental agencies, and other stakeholders.     

Applying Ecological Risk Principles to Watershed Assessment and Management

Considerable progress in addressing point source (end of pipe) pollution problems has been made, but it is now recognized that further substantial environmental improvements depend on controlling nonpoint source pollution. A watershed approach is being used more frequently to address these problems because traditional regulatory approaches do not focus on nonpoint sources. The watershed approach is organized around the guiding principles of partnerships, geographic focus, and management based on sound science and data. This helps to focus efforts on the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas. Ecological risk assessment is a process to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information to improve decision making. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored three watershed assessments and found that integrating the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment increases the use of environmental monitoring and assessment data in decision making. This paper describes the basics of the watershed approach, the ecological risk assessment process, and how these two frameworks can be integrated. The three major principles of watershed ecological risk assessment found to be most useful for increasing the use of science in decision making are (1) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, (2) holding regular interactions between scientists and managers, and (3) developing a focus for multiple stressor analysis. Examples are provided illustrating how these principles were implemented in these assessments.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: IV. Model selection,applications, and critical loads mapping

The critical loads approach is emerging as an attractive means for evaluating the effects of atmospheric deposition on sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Various approaches are available for modeling ecosystem responses to deposition and for estimating critical load values. These approaches include empirical and statistical relationships, steady-state and simple process models, and integrated-effects models. For any given ecosystem, the most technically sophisticated approach will not necessarily be the most appropriate for all applications; identification of the most useful approach depends upon the degree of accuracy needed and upon data and computational requirements, biogeochemical processes being modeled, approaches used for representing model results on regional bases, and desired degree of spatial and temporal resolution. Different approaches are characterized by different levels of uncertainty. If the limitations of individual approaches are known, the user can determine whether an approach provides a reasonable basis for decision making. Several options, including point maps, grid maps, and ecoregional maps, are available for presenting model results in a regional context. These are discussed using hypothetical examples for choosing populations and damage limits. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., and Interagency Agreement #1824-B014-A7 with the U.S. Department of Energy and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 3904. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.     

EPA proposes TSCA user fees

We all knew it was coming, and the proposal has finally arrived. On February 8, 2018, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA provides the EPA the authority to levy fees on certain chemical manufacturers, including importers and processors, to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law” (EPA, 2018a, p. 1). The EPA states in its press release that these fees:

相似文献   

Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale

Society needs a quantitative and systematic way to estimate and compare the impacts of environmental problems that affect large geographic areas. This paper presents an approach for regional risk assessment that combines regional assessment methods and landscape ecology theory with an existing framework for ecological risk assessment. Risk assessment evaluates the effects of an environmental change on a valued natural resource and interprets the significance of those effects in light of the uncertainties identified in each component of the assessment process. Unique and important issues for regional risk assessment are emphasized; these include the definition of the disturbance scenario, the assessment boundary definition, and the spatial heterogeneity of the landscape. Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Interagency Agreement Number DW89932112-01-2 to the U.S. Department of Energy, it has not been subjected to EPA review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of EPA and no official endorsement should be inferred.     

Efficient regional ozone control strategies for the eastern United States

When environmental regulatory bodies formulate control plans, it is incumbent upon them to try to achieve the stated goals in an economically efficient manner. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is presently developing regulations to limit the influence of transported ozone on areas that are having difficulty meeting the ambient air quality standard. EPA has proposed stringent control measures for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 22 states of the eastern US. The strategy would necessitate the use of selective catalytic reduction or similar high-performance technology on almost all major power plants in the region, as well as extensive controls on industrial sources. This paper suggests several alternative approaches that would achieve equal or better environmental improvement at lower cost. These include focusing control efforts on sources closer to the North-east Corridor, pushing controls on close-in sources to a higher level of technology performance, and relaxing the stringency of requirements for states remote from ozone problem areas. All the approaches examined are two to three times more cost-effective than EPA's proposed approach in the North-east Corridor.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: I. Method summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is examining the utility of a critical loads approach for evaluating atmospheric pollutant effects on sensitive ecosystems. A critical load has been defined as, “a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge.” Working in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Community for Europe’s (UN-ECE) Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Convention, the EPA has developed a flexible, six-step approach for setting critical loads for a range of ecosystem types. The framework is based on regional population characteristics of the ecosystem(s) of concern. The six steps of the approach are: (1) selection of ecosystem components, indicators, and characterization of the resource; (2) definition of functional subregions; (3) characterization of deposition within each of the subregions; (4) definition of an assessment end point; (5) selection and application of models; and (6) mapping projected ecosystem responses. The approach allows for variable ecosystem characteristics and data availability. Specific recognition of data and model uncertainties is an integral part of the process, and the use of multiple models to obtain ranges of critical loads estimates for each ecosystem component in a region is encouraged. Through this intercomparison process uncertainties in critical loads projections can be estimated. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with Man Tech Environmental Technology, Inc. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse ment or recommendation for use.     

Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments

Environmental concerns such as loss of biological diversity and stratospheric ozone depletion have heightened awareness of the need to assess cumulative impacts in environmental documents. More than 20 years of experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have provided analysts in the United States with opportunities for developing successful techniques to assess site-specific impacts of proposed actions. Methods for analyzing a proposed action's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are generally less advanced than those for project-specific impacts.The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impact to include the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action. Court decisions have helped clarify the distinction between reasonably foreseeable future actions and other possible future actions. This paper seeks to clarify how past and present impacts should be included in cumulative impact analyses.The definition of cumulative impacts implies that cumulative impact analyses should include the effects of all past and present actions on a particular resource. Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments increases the likelihood of identifying significant impacts. NEPA requires agencies to give more consideration to alternatives and mitigation and to provide more opportunities for public involvement for actions that would have significant impacts than for actions that would not cause or contribute to significant impacts. For an action that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts, the additional cost and effort involved in increased consideration of alternatives and mitigation and in additional public involvement may be avoided if the action can be modified so that its contributions to significant cumulative impacts are eliminated.Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.     

WETLAND DESIGN METHODS FOR RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT1

ABSTRACT: Constructed wetlands have recently gained popularity as an alternative method for wastewater treatment. This paper compares two design methodologies currently used for constructed wetlands; Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods. A discussion of parameters for both methods is given and a wetland treatment system is designed for an individual residence with typical BOD5 loads and flow rates. Calculation results revealed significant discrepancies in the required constructed wetlands volume, and thus detention time, stemming from inherent differences in the design methodologies. The EPA method relies heavily on plug flow kinetics, and is therefore sensitive to changes in the reaction rate constant and media porosity. Conversely, TVA determines the surface area by sizing in accordance with a recommended hydraulic loading criterion and is affected only by the hydraulic flow rates. This study concluded that a constructed wetland is a viable option under design considerations that are not favorable for traditional on-site wastewater treatment methods. However, it is recommended that conservative values for flow and loading rates be assumed to assure complete treatment for either of the design methods.     

Drawing the battle lines: tracing the "Science War" in the construction of the chloroform and human health risks debate

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the Chlorine Chemistry Council, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and others have been embroiled in a legal challenge concerning the US EPA's "reversal" regarding the scientific assessment of chloroform's carcinogenicity. This issue arose during the US EPA's November 1998 promulgation of a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for chloroform in the Stage 1 Final Rules for Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts in drinking water. In this paper we adopt a claimsmaking approach: to trace the development and outcome of the chloroform court challenge in the USA, to examine the construction of scientific knowledge claims concerning chloroform risk assessments, and to investigate how different interpretations of scientific uncertainties regarding the evidence are contested when such uncertainties are brought into a regulatory and judicial arena. This "science war" (Chlorine Chemistry Council and others v. US EPA and others) took place in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The scientific "authority" in the construction of scientific claims in this dispute is based on the International Life Sciences Institute expert panel report on chloroform. Examining these science wars is important because they signal critical shifts in science policy agendas. The regulatory outcome of the chloroform science war in the United States can have profound implications for the construction and acceptance of scientific claims regarding drinking water in other jurisdictions (e.g., Canada). In this challenge, we argue that the actors involved in the dispute constructed "boundaries" around accepted and credible scientific claims.     

Drawing the Battle Lines: Tracing the “Science War” in the Construction of the Chloroform and Human Health Risks Debate

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the Chlorine Chemistry Council, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and others have been embroiled in a legal challenge concerning the US EPA's “reversal” regarding the scientific assessment of chloroform's carcinogenicity. This issue arose during the US EPA's November 1998 promulgation of a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for chloroform in the Stage 1 Final Rules for Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts in drinking water. In this paper we adopt a claimsmaking approach: to trace the development and outcome of the chloroform court challenge in the USA, to examine the construction of scientific knowledge claims concerning chloroform risk assessments, and to investigate how different interpretations of scientific uncertainties regarding the evidence are contested when such uncertainties are brought into a regulatory and judicial arena. This “science war” (Chlorine Chemistry Council and others v. US EPA and others) took place in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The scientific “authority” in the construction of scientific claims in this dispute is based on the International Life Sciences Institute expert panel report on chloroform. Examining these science wars is important because they signal critical shifts in science policy agendas. The regulatory outcome of the chloroform science war in the United States can have profound implications for the construction and acceptance of scientific claims regarding drinking water in other jurisdictions (e.g., Canada). In this challenge, we argue that the actors involved in the dispute constructed “boundaries” around accepted and credible scientific claims.