2010 Progress Report - International Joint Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 38. Current Manitoba and Saskatchewan Aquatic Critical Load Exceedances Progress Report 2010 Note: Current aquatic critical load exceedances (eq/ha/yr) calculated as a grid square’s estimated S deposition plus nitrate export (to quantify the N-based component) minus its critical load. Positive exceedance values indicate that 5% (or more) of the lakes in the square are receiving acidic deposition (over the long term) in excess of their neutralizing ability. Source: Environment Canada 2010 In the United States, the critical load approach is not an offi cially accepted approach to ecosystem protection. For example, language specifi cally requiring a critical load approach does not exist in the Clean Air Act. Nevertheless, the critical load approach is being explored as an ecosystem assessment tool with great potential to simplify complex scientifi c information and effectively communicate with the policy community and the public. UNITED STATES Between 2002 and 2006, federal agencies and the scientifi c research community convened workshops and conferences to develop critical load science and modeling efforts and explore the use of a critical load approach in air pollution control policy in the United States. As a result of these developments, agencies such as the NPS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service developed specifi c recommendations for using the critical loads approach as a tool to assist in managing federal lands. Several federal agencies are now employing critical loads approaches to protect and manage sensitive ecosystems. For example, in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, the NPS has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Colorado Department of Public Health and 68
Environment (CDPHE) and the EPA to address harmful impacts to air quality and other natural resources occurring in the park, and to reverse a trend of increasing nitrogen deposition. The MOU requires the NPS to develop a resource management goal to protect park resources and requires the CDPHE to develop an air management strategy that will help to meet park goals. This approach also provides a useful lens through which to assess the results of current policies and programs and to evaluate the potential ecosystem protection value of proposed policy options. Since 2008, the U.S. EPA has employed the critical load approach to assess the ecological benefi ts of current air pollution programs, such as Title IV emissions reductions, and to review whether the secondary national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulphur protect surface waters from acidifi cation. In addition to activities within federal and state agencies, the scientifi c research community has recently published many peer-reviewed scientifi c articles that advance the tools for calculating critical loads in the United States. Figure 39 illustrates critical loads for sulphur plus nitrogen in acid-sensitive lakes in the northeastern Appalachian Mountains and streams in the central Appalachian Mountains. These estimates are based on the recent peer-reviewed work by DuPont et al. (2005) 8 and Sullivan et al. (2007) 9 . Critical load estimates illustrated in Figure 39 include data collected in lakes and streams by EPA-administered surface water monitoring programs, such as the National Surface Water Survey (NSWS), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) program, and the LTM program. The lakes and streams associated with these programs consist of a subset of lakes and streams that are located in areas most impacted by acid deposition, and many sites provide long term records of surface acidification. For example, the LTM lake and stream sites are monitored 3 to 15 times per year, with some site records dating back to the early 1980s. In New England, the LTM project collects quarterly data from lakes in Maine, Vermont and the Adirondack region of New York. The NSWS, EMAP and TIME programs employ probability sampling; each monitoring site was chosen statistically from a predefi ned target population. In New England and the central Appalachian Mountains, the target populations include lakes and streams likely to be responsive to changes in acidic deposition. TIME lakes in Maine, Vermont and the Adirondack region of New York and TIME streams in Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia are monitored annually. Drawing on the peer-reviewed scientifi c literature (e.g. Dupont et al. 2005 and Sullivan et al. 2007), critical load estimates for about 1,100 lakes and streams were calculated using a modifi ed SSWC model. The critical load in this study represents the combined deposition load of sulphur and nitrogen to which a lake or stream could be subjected and still have an ANC of 50 μeq/L or higher. This ANC level tends to protect most fi sh and other aquatic organisms, although some sensitive species may be lost. Critical loads of combined total sulphur and nitrogen are expressed in terms of ionic charge balance as milliequivalent per square metre per year (meq/m 2 /yr). When actual measured deposition of nitrogen and sulphur is greater than the critical load, the critical load is “exceeded,” meaning that combined sulphur and nitrogen deposition was greater than a lake or stream could sustain and still maintain the ANC level of 50 μeq/L or above. Scientific and Technical Cooperation and Research 8 Source: US EPA, 2008 and DuPont J, Clair TA, Gagnon C, Jeffries DS, Kahl JS, Nelson SJ, Peckenham JM. 2005. Enviro Monit Assess 109:275-291. 9 Sullivan T.J., Cosby BJ, Webb JR, Dennis RL, Bulger AJ, Deviney, FA Jr. 2007. Streamwater acid-base chemistry and critical loads of atmospheric sulfur deposition in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Enviro Monit and Assess 137:85–99. 69
Page 1 and 2:
Canada • United States Air Qualit
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . .
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES
Page 7 and 8:
Progress Report 2010 Introduction B
Page 9 and 10:
3 Progress Report 2010
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1. Total Canadian Emissions
Page 13 and 14:
y power plants and other sources (s
Page 15 and 16:
Acid Deposition Monitoring, Modelli
Page 17 and 18:
y 2007 the regions receiving greate
Page 19 and 20:
The United States has various progr
Page 21 and 22:
Following guidelines approved by th
Page 23 and 24: The Off-Road Compression-Ignition E
Page 25 and 26: Regulation 194/05 (Industry Emissio
Page 27 and 28: The NO x Budget Trading Program (NB
Page 29 and 30: Figure 13. Affected Units in CAIR N
Page 31 and 32: In addition, the EPA had previously
Page 33 and 34: The proposed reductions in air poll
Page 35 and 36: The compilation of the comprehensiv
Page 37 and 38: Figure 18. U.S. NO x Emission Trend
Page 39 and 40: Commitments Figures 20 and 21 show
Page 41 and 42: Ozone Concentration (ppb) 100 90 80
Page 43 and 44: Figure 26. Network of Monitoring Si
Page 45 and 46: (86% of electric utility emissions)
Page 47 and 48: emissions have also been successful
Page 49 and 50: The Transportation and Air Quality
Page 51 and 52: • VOC emissions are the most dive
Page 53 and 54: In the United States, there is an o
Page 55 and 56: As of 2008, over 300 NAPS air monit
Page 57 and 58: Table 3 (continued) MAJOR ROUTINE O
Page 59 and 60: Health Effects CANADA Health Canada
Page 61 and 62: Canadian Health and Exposure Tools
Page 63 and 64: such as premature mortality, hospit
Page 65 and 66: information and the risks posed by
Page 67 and 68: Ecological Effects Aquatic Effects
Page 69 and 70: Reduction in surface water calcium
Page 71 and 72: Declines in sulphate deposition lev
Page 73: etained within their catchments (la
Page 77 and 78: Figure 40. Lake and Stream Exceedan
Page 79 and 80: Figure 44. Ammonia Monitoring Netwo
Page 81 and 82: Figure 46. Major Atmospheric Transp
Page 83 and 84: APPENDIX A Canada-U.S. Air Quality
Page 85 and 86: APPENDIX B Appendix B: List of Acro
Page 87 and 88: PCB polychlorinated biphenyl SLAMS
Page 89 and 90: Notes Progress Report 2010 83
Page 91: To obtain additional information, p
show all

2010 Progress Report - International Joint Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?