Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 7 OF 10

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title National Critical Loads Framework for Atmospheric Deposition Effects Assessment: II. Defining Assessment End Points, Indicators, and Functional Subregions.
Author Hunsaker, C. ; Graham, R. ; Turner, R. S. ; Holdren, G. R. ; Strickland, T. C. ;
CORP Author Corvallis Environmental Research Lab., OR. ;Oak Ridge National Lab., TN. Environmental Sciences Div.
Publisher c1993
Year Published 1993
Report Number EPA/600/J-93/242;
Stock Number PB93-212496
Additional Subjects Air pollution ; Deposition ; Environmental impact assessments ; Atmospheric composition ; Ecosystems ; Regional analysis ; Biological indicators ; Lakes ; Air water interactions ; Water pollution ; Baseline measurements ; Environmental transport ; Reprints ; Critical loads
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB93-212496 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 11/22/1993
Collation 9p
Abstract
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admn (NOAA) has been evaluating the feasibility of an effects-based (critical loads) approach to atmospheric pollutant regulation and abatement. The rationale used to develop three of the six steps in a flexible assessment framework is presented along with a discussion of a variety of implementation approaches and their ramifications. The rationale proposes that it is necessary to provide an explicit statement of the condition of the resource that is considered valuable because: (1) individual ecosystem components may be more or less sensitive to deposition; (2) it is necessary to select indicators of ecosystem condition that can be objectively measured and that reflect changes in the quality of the assessment end point; and (3) acceptable status must be defined. The rationale also stresses the importance of defining the assessment regions and subregions to improve the analysis and understanding of the indicator response to deposition. Subregional definition can be based on a variety of criteria, including informed judgment or quantitative procedures. (Copyright (c) 1993 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.)