DOCSLIB.ORG

Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone Final This page intentionally left blank. EPA-452/R-14-005a August 2014 Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone Final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Health and Environmental Impacts Division Risk and Benefits Group Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by staff from the Risk and Benefits Group, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Questions on this document should be addressed to Dr. Bryan Hubbell at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 109 TW Alexander Drive, C504-02, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or email -- [email protected]. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2 CURRENT RISK AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS: GOALS AND PLANNED APPROACH .................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT ............................................................................. 1-5 2 FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 O3 CHEMISTRY ............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 SOURCES OF O3 AND O3 PRECURSORS ................................................................... 2-4 2.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS .............................................................................................. 2-5 2.4 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .............................................................................................. 2-8 3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW OF RISK AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Exposure Characterization ................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.2 Assessment of Risks to Vegetation ...................................................................... 3-4 3.2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT PLAN .................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 Air Quality Considerations .................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.2 Relative Tree Biomass Loss and Crop Yield Loss .............................................. 3-8 3.2.3 Visible Foliar Injury ........................................................................................... 3-11 3.3 UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY ....................................................................... 3-13 4 AIR QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 OVERVIEW OF O3 MONITORING AND AIR QUALITY .......................................... 4-1 4.3 OVERVIEW OF AIR QUALITY INPUTS TO RISK AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.3.1 Air Quality Metrics .............................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Ambient Air Quality Measurements .................................................................... 4-7 4.3.3 National-scale Air Quality Surfaces for Recent Air Quality ............................... 4-8 4.3.4 Air Quality Adjustments to Meet Existing Primary and Potential Alternative Secondary O3 Standards ..................................................................................... 4-10 4.4 ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY .......................................................................... 4-29 4.5 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY RESULTS ................................................................ 4-43 4.6 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 4-43 v 5 O3 RISK TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .................................................................... 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 REGULATING SERVICES ............................................................................................ 5-3 5.2.1 Hydrologic Cycle ................................................................................................. 5-3 5.2.2 Pollination ............................................................................................................ 5-4 5.2.3 Fire Regulation..................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3 SUPPORTING SERVICES ............................................................................................. 5-8 5.3.1 Net Primary Productivity ..................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.2 Community Composition and Habitat Provision ................................................. 5-9 5.4 PROVISIONING SERVICES ....................................................................................... 5-10 5.5 CULTURAL SERVICES .............................................................................................. 5-14 5.5.1 Non-Use Services............................................................................................... 5-15 5.6 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY ............................................... 5-17 5.7 KEY OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................ 5-21 6 BIOMASS LOSS ............................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 RELATIVE BIOMASS LOSS ........................................................................................ 6-2 6.2.1 Species-Level Analyses ....................................................................................... 6-7 6.3 COMMERCIAL TIMBER EFFECTS ........................................................................... 6-23 6.4 NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS ......................................................................... 6-33 6.4.1 Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products ......................................................... 6-36 6.4.2 Informal Economy or Subsistence Use of Non-Timber Forest Products .......... 6-38 6.5 AGRICULTURE ........................................................................................................... 6-40 6.5.1 Commercial Agriculture .................................................................................... 6-40 6.6 CLIMATE REGULATION ........................................................................................... 6-48 6.6.1 National Scale Forest Carbon Sequestration ...................................................... 6-48 6.6.2 Urban Case Study Carbon Storage .................................................................... 6-50 6.7 URBAN CASE STUDY AIR POLLUTION REMOVAL ............................................ 6-55 6.8 ECOSYSTEM-LEVEL EFFECTS ................................................................................ 6-59 6.8.1 Potential Biomass Loss in Federally Designated Areas .................................... 6-63 6.9 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY ............................................... 6-64 6.10 KEY OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................ 6-72 7 VISIBLE FOLIAR INJURY ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Ecosystem Services .............................................................................................. 7-4 7.2 NATIONAL-SCALE ANALYSIS OF FOLIAR INJURY ........................................... 7-10 vi 7.2.1 Forest Health Monitoring Network .................................................................... 7-10 7.2.2 NOAA Palmer Z Drought Index ........................................................................ 7-12 7.2.3 Results of National-Scale Analysis .................................................................... 7-13 7.3 SCREENING-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF VISIBLE FOLIAR INJURY IN 214 NATIONAL PARKS ..................................................................................................... 7-19 7.3.1 Screening-Level Assessment Methods .............................................................. 7-20 7.3.2 Screening-Level Assessment Results and Discussion ....................................... 7-25 7.3.3 Sensitivity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Great Barrington Pollinator Action Plan Connecting Habitat & Community
    Great Barrington Pollinator Action Plan Connecting Habitat & Community The Great Barrington Pollinator Action Plan is an educational toolkit for identifying, prioritizing, and implementing pollinator habitat on sites across Great Barrington. While its analyses are specific to the town, its recommendations are broad enough to be used almost anywhere in the northeast United States. Anyone with access to a piece of land or sidewalk strip can use this plan. Through a collaborative effort, reaching across experiences, social strata, and ecosystems, the citizens of Great Barrington hope to establish a thriving, diverse, pollinator-friendly network, and inspire other communities to do so, too. Winter 2018 Evan Abramson • Elan Bills • Renee Ruhl Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 History & Context 6 Why Pollinators? 9 Environmental Conditions 22 Local Views 31 Opportunities in Great Barrington 33 Considerations in Planning a Pollinator Network 55 Toolkit 58 Resources 78 References 82 body Virginia Fringetree, Chionanthus virginicus (top) and the endangered rusty-patched bumble bee, Bombus affinis (bottom). Photographs courtesy Helen Lowe Metzman and USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab. 2 POLLINATOR ACTION PLAN Executive Summary: Life as We Know It Our responsibility is to species, not to specimens; to commu- Threats are also present: among them, the potential for nities, not to individuals. continued expansion of human development into the intact natural spaces that pollinators need. Pesticide use, —Sara Stein, Noah’s Garden particularly in large scale agriculture, is decimating pol- There is a worldwide phenomenon taking place, and it linator communities. Global climate change has shown to affects every element of life as we know it.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees, Lies and Evidence-Based Policy
    WORLD VIEW A personal take on events Bees, lies and evidence-based policy Misinformation forms an inevitable part of public debate, but scientists should always focus on informing the decision-makers, advises Lynn Dicks. aving bees is a fashionable cause. Bees are under pressure from in the UK farming press is that, without them, UK wheat yields could disease and habitat loss, but another insidious threat has come to decline by up to 20%. This is a disingenuous interpretation of an indus- the fore recently. Concern in conservation and scientific circles try-funded report, and the EU is not proposing to ban neonicotinoid Sover a group of agricultural insecticides has now reached the policy use in wheat anyway, because wheat is not a crop attractive to bees. arena. Next week, an expert committee of the European Union (EU) As a scientist involved in this debate, I find this misinformation will vote on a proposed two-year ban on some uses of clothianidin, deeply frustrating. Yet I also see that lies and exaggeration on both thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. These are neonicotinoids, systemic sides are a necessary part of the democratic process to trigger rapid insecticides carried inside plant tissues. Although they protect leaves policy change. It is simply impossible to interest millions of members of and stems from attack by aphids and other pests, they have subtle toxic the public, or the farming press, with carefully reasoned explanations. effects on bees, substantially reducing their foraging efficiency and And politicians respond to public opinion much more readily than ability to raise young.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Imagining Agriculture Department, 269-932-7004
    from the President Engage! ngage—my simple chal- Providing the world of 2050 with ample safe and nutri- lenge to you this year is to tious food under the ever-increasing pressures of climate make a mark where you change, water limitations, and population growth will be a E are. ASABE is comprised monumental challenge that requires engagement of ASABE of outstanding engineers and scien- members with their colleagues and thought leaders from tists who are helping the world with around the world. Inside this issue, you will find perspectives their work. Whether you are design- on the topic by contributors ranging from farmers to futurists. ing a part to make precision agri- The challenges of food security are daunting, but I can think culture more effective, evaluating of no other profession that’s better equipped or better quali- the kinetics of cell growth to better fied to tackle them. I hope you are as inspired as I am by understand a biological process, these articles. exploring ways to extend knowl- As I close, I would like to thank Donna Hull, ASABE’s edge on grain storage to partners recently retired Director of Publications. For 34 years, around the world, or working in another of the many areas that Donna worked to enhance our publications, from Resource ASABE represents on equally important tasks, you are making to our refereed journals. These publications are a key part of an impact. As an ASABE member, you also have an opportu- our communication to the world, and their quality reflects nity to help make your Society as strong as it can be.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Declines in the Anthropocene
    EN65CH23_Wagner ARjats.cls December 19, 2019 12:24 Annual Review of Entomology Insect Declines in the Anthropocene David L. Wagner Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, USA; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020. 65:457–80 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on insect decline, agricultural intensi!cation, climate change, drought, October 14, 2019 precipitation extremes, bees, pollinator decline, vertebrate insectivores The Annual Review of Entomology is online at ento.annualreviews.org Abstract https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019- Insect declines are being reported worldwide for "ying, ground, and aquatic 025151 lineages. Most reports come from western and northern Europe, where the Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. insect fauna is well-studied and there are considerable demographic data for All rights reserved many taxonomically disparate lineages. Additional cases of faunal losses have been noted from Asia, North America, the Arctic, the Neotropics, and else- where. While this review addresses both species loss and population declines, its emphasis is on the latter. Declines of abundant species can be especially worrisome, given that they anchor trophic interactions and shoulder many Access provided by 73.198.242.105 on 01/29/20. For personal use only. of the essential ecosystem services of their respective communities. A review of the factors believed to be responsible for observed collapses and those Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020.65:457-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org perceived to be especially threatening to insects form the core of this treat- ment. In addition to widely recognized threats to insect biodiversity, e.g., habitat destruction, agricultural intensi!cation (including pesticide use), cli- mate change, and invasive species, this assessment highlights a few less com- monly considered factors such as atmospheric nitri!cation from the burning of fossil fuels and the effects of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Time-Delayed Biodiversity Feedbacks and the Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/112730; this version posted March 1, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-ND 4.0 International license. Time-delayed biodiversity feedbacks and the sustainability of social-ecological systems A.-S. Lafuitea,∗, M. Loreaua aCentre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station, CNRS and Paul Sabatier University, Moulis, France Abstract The sustainability of coupled social-ecological systems (SESs) hinges on their long-term ecological dynamics. Land conversion generates extinction and functioning debts, i.e. a time-delayed loss of species and associated ecosystem services. Sustainability theory, however, has not so far considered the long-term consequences of these ecological debts on SESs. We investigate this question using a dynamical model that couples human demography, technological change and biodiversity. Human population growth drives land conversion, which in turn reduces biodiversity-dependent ecosystem services to agricultural production (ecological feedback). Technological change brings about a demographic transition leading to a population equilibrium. When the ecological feedback is delayed in time, some SESs experience population overshoots followed by large reductions in biodiversity, human population size and well-being, which we call environmental crises. Using a sustainability criterion that captures the vulnerability of an SES to such crises, we show that some of the characteristics common to modern SESs (e.g. high production efficiency and labor intensity, concave- down ecological relationships) are detrimental to their long-term sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Climate Change on Pollinators and the Implications for Global Agriculture
    The Effect of Climate Change on Pollinators and the Implications for Global Agriculture A Case Study in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon Anna Young Yale College ‘16 Senior Essay in Environmental Studies Advisor: Jeffrey Park April 2016 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 Importance of pollinators for global agriculture .............................................................. 5 The effect of climate change on plant-pollinator networks ............................................. 8 II. Methods ............................................................................................................................... 16 Study Site ....................................................................................................................... 16 Analysis of climate data ................................................................................................. 18 Plant and pollinator data collection ................................................................................ 19 Calculation of estimates for flowering phenology ......................................................... 23 Analysis of flowering phenology ................................................................................... 26 Analysis of pollinator phenology
    [Show full text]
  • Safeguarding Pollinators and Their Values to Human Well-Being Simon G
    REVIEW doi:10.1038/nature20588 Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being Simon G. Potts1, Vera Imperatriz-Fonseca2, Hien T. Ngo3, Marcelo A. Aizen4, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer5,6, Thomas D. Breeze1, Lynn V. Dicks7, Lucas A. Garibaldi8, Rosemary Hill9, Josef Settele10,11 & Adam J. Vanbergen12 Wild and managed pollinators provide a wide range of benefits to society in terms of contributions to food security, farmer and beekeeper livelihoods, social and cultural values, as well as the maintenance of wider biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Pollinators face numerous threats, including changes in land-use and management intensity, climate change, pesticides and genetically modified crops, pollinator management and pathogens, and invasive alien species. There are well-documented declines in some wild and managed pollinators in several regions of the world. However, many effective policy and management responses can be implemented to safeguard pollinators and sustain pollination services. ollinators are inextricably linked to human well-being through Diversity of values of pollinators and pollination the maintenance of ecosystem health and function, wild plant Pollinators provide numerous benefits to humans, such as securing a relia- Preproduction, crop production and food security. Pollination, ble and diverse seed and fruit supply, sustaining populations of wild plants the transfer of pollen between the male and female parts of flowers that underpin biodiversity and ecosystem function, producing honey and that enables fertilization and reproduction, can be achieved by wind other beekeeping products, and supporting cultural values. Much of the and water, but the majority of the global cultivated and wild plants recent international focus on pollination services has been on the benefits depend on pollination by animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Decline of Wild Bees: Optimizing Conservation Measures and Bringing Together the Actors
    insects Review Beyond the Decline of Wild Bees: Optimizing Conservation Measures and Bringing Together the Actors Maxime Drossart * and Maxence Gérard * Laboratory of Zoology, Research Institute for Biosciences, University of Mons (UMONS), Place du Parc 20, B-7000 Mons, Belgium * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.D.); [email protected] (M.G.) Received: 3 September 2020; Accepted: 18 September 2020; Published: 22 September 2020 Simple Summary: Wild bees represent the main group of pollinators in Europe, being responsible for the reproduction of numerous flowering plants. However, like a non-negligible part of biodiversity, this group has been facing a global decline mostly induced by numerous human factors over the last decades. Overall, even if all the questions are not solved concerning the causes of their decline, we are beyond the precautionary principle because the decline factors are roughly known, identified and at least partially quantified. Experts are now calling for effective actions to promote wild bee diversity and the enhancement of environmental quality. In this review, we present a general and up-to-date assessment of the conservation methods, as well as their efficiency and the current projects that try to fill the gaps and optimize the conservation measures. This publication aims to be a needed catalyst to implement concrete and qualitative conservation actions for wild bees. Abstract: Wild bees are facing a global decline mostly induced by numerous human factors for the last decades. In parallel, public interest for their conservation increased considerably, namely through numerous scientific studies relayed in the media. In spite of this broad interest, a lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject is blatant and reveals a gap between awareness and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinator Eco-Services and Causes for the Pollinator Decline
    Part 6-B: Pollinator Eco-Services and CAUSES for the Decline in Pollinators The Contribution of Bees to our Eco System Native bees are considered a 'keystone' species for almost all terrestrial ecosystems: • Most wild plants depend on pollination by insects for reproduction. • Bee pollinators contribute to seed set and plant diversity. • These insects form the basis of an energy-rich food web. • Plants and their native pollinators have co-evolved over millions of years. • Certain native bees (Bumblebees / Bombus species) are more efficient pollinators than honeybees. • Specialist native bumble bees can buzz pollinate certain crops, such as squashes, tomatoes, peppers, melons and cucumbers. Honey bees can not pollinate these crops. It is estimated that in 2009 bees contributed to 11% of the nation's agricultural value, roughly $14.6 billion per year. Of this, at least 20% ($3.07 billion) is provided by wild pollinators. These important native pollinators need suitable land for nesting and foraging near the cultivated fields. Related Research: • Kearns et al. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interaactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:83-112 • Losey JE, Vaughan M. 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56(4):311– 323. The Causes for Native Pollinator Decline ONE: Land Use Intensification / Urbanization / Habitat Loss These practices contribute to the decline in pollinators: • growth of mega-scale agricultural operations; • loss of hedge rows and field borders; • excessive use of herbicides, and drift from the application of these chemicals; • large monocultures of food crops that lack habitat refuge for native bees; • overgrazing; • lawns and fields with mowing that prevents plants from flowering.
    [Show full text]
  • What Do Pollinator Declines Mean for Human Health?
    What do pollinator declines mean for human health? Human activity is transforming natural systems and endangering the ecosystem services they provide, which has consequences for human health. This study quantified the human health impact of losses to pollination, providing 11 February 2016 the first global analysis of its kind. The researchers say pollinator declines could Issue 446 increase the global disease burden and recommend increased monitoring of Subscribe to free pollinators in at-risk regions, including Eastern and Central Europe. weekly News Alert Human activity is accelerating the loss of biodiversity. Pollinators are experiencing Source: Smith, M., Singh, particular declines, including insects like bees as well as birds (e.g. hummingbirds) and G., Mozaffarian, D. & mammals (e.g. fruit bats). In the past 10 years, the number and species diversity of both Myers, S. (2015) Effects of managed and wild pollinators has decreased. decreases of animal pollinators on human These declines are of direct concern for human health. This is because the work of nutrition and global health: a modelling analysis. The pollinators is critical for growing crops — pollinators contribute to yield for an estimated Lancet, 386(10007), 35% of global food production. They are also directly responsible for up to 40% of the global pp.1964-1972. DOI: supply of certain nutrients, including vitamin A, which is important for growth and 10.1016/S0140- development, and folic acid, which is essential for bodily function and cannot be synthesised 6736(15)61085-6. by humans. Pollinator loss could therefore not only reduce energy intake, but also threaten Contact: population health.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes and Effects of the Worldwide Decline in Pollinators and Corrective Measures
    Causes and effects of the worldwide decline in pollinators and corrective measures by Madeleine Chagnon for the Quebec Regional Office Of the Canadian Wildlife Federation December 2008 This document can be reproduced only in whole for purposes of disseminating information. Any duplication of this document, itself thereof, is contingent upon proper citation of the author and owner as follows: Chagnon, M. 2008. Causes and effects of the worldwide decline in pollinators and corrective measures. Canadian Wildlife Federation. Quebec Regional Office. Canadian Wildlife federation. Quebec Regional Office. ii Table of Contents 1. POLLINATION ................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Flowers and Their Pollinators.............................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Wild, Native, Exotic or Introduced Pollinators ..............................................................................................................1 1.2.1 Wild Pollinators and Native Pollinators ..................................................................................................................1 1.2.2 Introduced Pollinators .................................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Bees ...........................................................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the World's Energy, Materials, Food, and Water Needs
    McKinsey Global Institute McKinsey Global Institute McKinsey Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice Resource Revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, and needsResource food, energy, water Meeting Revolution: the world’s November 2011 Resource Revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs The McKinsey Global Institute The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, was established in 1990 to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. Our goal is to provide leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors with the facts and insights on which to base management and policy decisions. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our micro-to-macro methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on four themes: productivity and growth; the evolution of global financial markets; the economic impact of technology and innovation; and urbanization. Recent research has assessed job creation, resource productivity, cities of the future, and the impact of the Internet. MGI is led by three McKinsey & Company directors: Richard Dobbs, James Manyika, and Charles Roxburgh. Susan Lund serves as director of research. Project teams are led by a group of senior fellows and include consultants from McKinsey’s offices around the world. These teams draw on McKinsey’s global network of partners and industry and management experts. In addition, leading economists, including Nobel laureates, act as research advisers.
    [Show full text]