USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Richard L. Johnson

Publications and source records attributed to Richard L. Johnson.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS1987

Results of a workshop concerning assessment of the functions of bottomland hardwoods

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) to participate in the regulation of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This regulatory authority is exercised in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has responsibility for permit issuance, and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Through amendments to the original statute, a series of legal actions and court decisions, and the development of operating guidance among the responsible agencies, Section 404 has evolved into the primary mechanism afforded Federal authorities for the protection of wetlands. EPA recognizes the importance of wetlands in achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, which are to protect and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. EPA Administrator Lee Thomas has identified wetlands protection as among the highest of Agency priorities. EPA recognizes that bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands have vital and unique attributes that, if lost, would severely impact the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. As part of a broad program to better protect the Nation's wetlands, EPA has therefore identified bottomland hardwood wetlands as a priority resource requiring special attention on a national basis. Recognizing the importance of implementing an effective, nationally consistent, and scientifically defensible regulatory program, EPA, in October 1984, issued Interim Operating Guidance to its field personnel for implementing the Section 404 regulatory program in bottomland hardwood wetlands. With the goal of improving and finalizing that guidance, EPA is sponsoring a series of workshops designed to answer key questions concerning BLH wetlands, based on the best scientific and technical information currently available. The first two workshops were directed toward summarizing existing scientific and technical knowledge concerning the functions of BLH ecosystems, the characteristics that are important to each function, and the impact of various development activities on those characteristics. The first workshop, which was held in St. Francisville, Louisiana, in December, 1984, examined a wetland zonation concept as a framework for gaining a greater understanding of BLH structure and function. The workshop set out to determine whether characterization of BLH resources as a series of relatively distinct zones, defined by concomitant variation in hydrologic regime, soils, and vegetation, might provide the basis for a useful and scientifically sound regulatory framework. For examp1e, if certain zones are of particular importance to one or more wetland functions that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect, then the zonation concept might be useful from the perspective of how various activities should be regulated. Discussions during the first workshop, however, indicated that the zonation concept provides, at best, only an incomplete picture of the structure and function of BLH ecosystems. In many cases, BLH functions are not limited to or closely correlated with particular zones and, furthermore, many factors other than zone are important determinants of BLH functions. With these responses in mind, the second workshop, held at Lake Lanier, Georgia, in July, 1985, was designed to elicit information on two questions. First, if zones are not an adequate framework for understanding the functions of BLH systems, what characteristics (predictors) can be used to assess the extent to which a particular site performs these functions? And second, what are the impacts of various development activities that often occur in BLH ecosystems on those characteristics and thus on the functions themselves? At the second workshop, individual workgroups dealing with particular subject areas (e.g., hydrology, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ecosystem processes, and cultural/recreational/economic resources) were able to identify site characteristics that are important determinants of the performance of various functions. For example, the Hydrology Workgroup identified flood storage as one of three major hydrologic functions that BLH ecosystems perform. The workgroup then identified the most important characteristic (e.g., surface area of the site, soil saturation, and others) that determine flood storage and the likely impact of several common activities (e.g., conversion to soybean production and levee construction) on these characteristics. Some of the workgroups also provided estimates of the aggregate impact of activities, acting through all of the characteristics, on certain functions. The workgroups also identified key characteristics that could be used to identify high-value wetlands for various functions. In addition, the workgroups pointed out a number of topics needing further examination and discussion. First, all of the workgroups identified the need to develop the technical basis and information sources to address the problem of cumulative impacts in the regulatory process. Second, most of the workgroups noted the important of contextual variables in assessing the function of a particular site. For example, the location of a BLH site in relationship to other tracts of habitat is an important variable for many wildlife species. Similarly, the extent to which a site retains or transforms contaminants is depended not only on the characteristics of the site, but also on its position in a watershed relative to contaminant inputs. And finally, several of the workgroups pointed out that assessing the impact of an activity on a function is not as simple as "adding up" the impact on individual characteristics, but may depend instead on complex interactions among characteristics. Addressing these questions, as summarized in the objectives and discussions that follow, was the focus of the third workshop, the results of which are described in this report.

Report↗
USGS1987

Results of a workshop concerning impacts of various activities on the functions of bottomland hardwoods

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory responsibilities related to the discharge of dredged or fill material into the Nation’s waters. In addition to its advisory role in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit program, EPA has a number of specific authorities, including formulation of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, use of Section 404(c) to prohibit disposal at particular sites, and enforcement actions for unauthorized discharges. A number of recent court cases focus on the geographic scope of Section 404 jurisdiction in potential bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands and the nature of landclearing activities in these areas that require a permit under Section 404. Accordingly, EPA needs to establish the scientific basis for implementing its responsibilities under Section 404 in bottomland hardwoods. EPA is approaching this task through a series of workshops designed to provide current scientific information on bottomland hardwoods and to organize that information in a manner pertinent to key policy questions. The first two workshops in the series were originally conceived as technically oriented meetings that would provide the information necessary to develop policy options at the third workshop. More specifically, the first workshop was designed to examine a zonation concept as a means of characterizing different BLH communities and describing variations in their functions along a soil moisture gradient. The second workshop was perceived as an attempt to evaluate the impacts of various activities on those functions. However, one conclusion of the first workshop, which was held in December 1984 in St. Francisville, Louisiana, was that the zonation approach does not describe the variability in the functions performed by BLH ecosystems sufficiently well to allow its use as the sole basis for developing a regulatory framework. That is, factors other than zone were considered critical for an effective characterization of the structure and functions of bottomland hardwoods. The approach to the second workshop, the results of which are described in this report, was therefore modified in response to the conclusions from the first workshop. The focus of the second workshop remained an analysis of the impacts of various activities or the functions of BLH ecosystems. However, as a prerequisite to this analysis, participants were also asked to develop a list of characteristics that determine the extent to which BLH sites perform the important functions. The workshop was organized such that alternating plenary and workgroup sessions allowed ample time for communication while still maintaining a focus on the overall goal. In the initial session, various individuals gave presentations concerning methodologies for evaluating the functions performed by wetlands, factors influencing the conversion of BLH forests to other uses, and the impacts of conversion activities. These were followed by a series of case study presentations designed to familiarize participants with the kinds of issues that are dealt with in the Section 404 program. These presentations are cited in this report as (author, workshop presentation). At the conclusion of these presentations, participants were divided into six workgroups to examine the functions of BLH ecosystems in the areas of hydrology, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ecosystem processes, and culture/recreation/economics. Each workgroup was asked to undertake the following tasks. 1. Developed a list of functions performed by BLH ecosystems from the perspective of the workgroup's expertise and area of responsibility. 2. Identify those activities (e.g., impoundment construction, conversion to soybean farming) that impact the major functions (e.g., sediment retention, detrital export) performed by BLH ecosystems. 3. Develop a list of characteristics that determine the extent to which a BLH site performs each function and describe the relationship of each characteristic to the function. Develop, with supporting evidence where possible, an analysis of the impact of each activity (Task 2) on each characteristic (Task 3) and on each function as a whole. Upon completion of Task 2, in an effort to provide some uniformity in the analysis by the various workgroups, EPA personnel and several participants met and compiled a complete list of all the activities identified as having significant impacts in bottomland hardwoods (Table 1). From this list the group derived a set of seven activities, and a number of specific actions associated with each, for analysis by the workgroups (Table 2). These activities were selected on the basis of their perceived importance in BLH ecosystems and their interest from the perspective of EPA. Each workgroup was also encourage to ass any activities of particular important from its perspective. The workgroup reports that follow document the results of discussion concerning the above tasks. The WORKSHOP SUMMARY attempts to summarize these workgroup results, discuss availability of information, and identify some problems that must be addressed prior to the third workshop in this series.

Report↗
USGS1987

Results of a workshop concerning ecological zonation in bottomland hardwoods

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory responsibilities concerning the discharge of dredged or fill material into the Nation's waters. In addition to its advisory role in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit program, EPA has a number of specific authorities, including formulation of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, use of Section 404(c) to prohibit disposal at particular sites, and enforcement actions for unauthorized discharges. A number of recent court cases focus on the geographic scope of Section 404 jurisdiction in potential bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands and the nature of landclearing activities in these areas that require a permit under Section 404. Accordingly, EPA needs to establish the scientific basis for implementing its responsibilities under Section 404 in bottomland hardwoods. EPA is approaching this task through a series of workshops designed to provide current scientific information on bottomland hardwoods and to organize that information in a manner pertinent to key questions, including the following. What are the characteristics of bottomland hardwoods (in terms of hydrology, soils, vegetation, fish, wildlife, agricultural potential, and the like) and how can the functions (e.g., flood storage, water quality maintenance, detrital export) that they perform best be quantified? How do perturbations like landclearing, levee construction, and drainage impact the functions that bottomland hardwoods perform and how can these effects best be quantified? And finally, how significant are the impacts and how is their significance likely to change under various management scenarios? The first workshop in this series was held December 3-7, 1984, in St. Francisville, Louisiana. The workshop was attended by over 40 scientists and regulators (see ACKNOWLEDGMENTS section) and facilitated by the editors of this report under an Interagency Agreement between EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The general objective of the workshop was to examine ways in which the structure and function of BLH ecosystems can be characterized and, in particular, to investigate the utility of a conceptual framework developed at a workshop held in Lake Lanier, Georgia, in 1980. In this framework, the transition from aquatic habitats to upland habitats through a BLH ecosystem is divided into six zones based on concomitant variation in the soil moisture regime and associated vegetation (Table 1). The zonation concept is of particular interest to EPA from at least two perspectives. The first is simply as a framework for organizing information. If the zones are discernible in the field, have recognizable characteristics, and perform identifiable functions, they might form a useful basis for tasks such as assessing the impacts of a particular site-specific activity. The second is the potential utility of the zonation concept in identifying the wetland portions of BLH communities. If the zones can be recognized in the field, and if one or more of them can be shown consistently to have wetland characteristics (i.e., perform functions, such as detrital export, often attributed to wetlands), while others do not, then the zones might have utility in identifying areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Section 404. The workshop itself was divided into two parts. The first was a series of papers in which authors described current research and data-synthesis activities in the context of the zonation concept. The second was a series of six workgroups in which participants discussed the zonation concept from the perspective of hydrology, soils, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and ecosystem processes. This report is a compilation of the written material from those workgroups, much of which was produced at the workshop. The formal papers presented in the first part of the workshop have been distributed to participants under separate cover, but are referenced in this report by citations such as: (Jones, workshop presentation).

Report↗
USGS1983

Evaluating environmental and economic consequences of alternative pest management strategies: results of modeling workshops

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs a comprehensive method to evaluate the human health and environmental effects of alternative agricultural pest management strategies. This project explored the utility of Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA) techniques for meeting this need. The project objectives were to produce models for environmental impact analysis, improve communications, identify research needs and data requirements, and demonstrate a process for resolving conflicts. The project was structured around the construction (in an initial 2 1/2-day workshop) and examination (in a second 2 1/2-day workshop) of a simulation model of a corn agroecosystem. The model conceptualized at the first workshop simulates the effect of corn agrecosystem decisions on crop production, economic returns, and environmental indicators. The model is composed of five interacting submodels: 1) a Production Strategies submodel which makes decisions concerning tillage, planting, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and harvest; 2) a Hydrology/Chemical Transport submodel which represents soil hydrology, erosion, and concentrations of fertilizers and pesticides in the soil, runoff, surface waters, and percolation; 3) a Vegetation submodel which simulates growth of agricultural crops (corns and soybeans) and weeds; 4) a Pests submodel which calculates pest population levels and resulting crop damage; and 5) an Environmental Effects submodel which calculates indicators of potential fish kills, human health effects, and wildlife habitat. The most persistent data gaps encountered in quantifying the model were coefficients to relate environmental consequences to alternative pest management strategies. While the model developed in the project is not yet accurate enough to be used for real-world decisions about the use of pesticides on corn, it does contain the basic structure upon which such a model could be built. More importantly at this stage of development, the project has shown that very complex systems can be modeled in short periods of time and that the process of building such models increases understanding among disciplinary specialists and between diverse institutional interests. This process can be useful to EPA as the agency cooperates with other institutions to meet its responsibilities in less costly ways. Activities at the second 2 1/2-day workshop included a review of the model, incorporation of necessary corrections, simulation of policy scenarios, and examination of techniques to address remaining institutional conflicts. Participants were divided into three groups representing environmental, production or industry, and regulatory interests. Each group developed scenarios that would be most appealing to their particular interest and the scenarios were simulated by the agroecosystem computer model. Negotiators from each of the interest groups decided whether a hypothetical herbicide should be relabeled and if certain restrictions should be imposed on its use. Other participants functioned as experts and consultants on caucus teams. A solution to the hypothetical problem was successfully negotiated. Workshop participants and project staff agreed that the model and processes developed during the project should be used in training students, extension specialists, farmers, researchers, and chemical producers in collaborative problem solving methods. More productive research can be planned, and more realistic models of complex systems can be built in this way. More importantly, greater trust of decisionmakers in computer models, better understanding by technical experts about disciplines other than their own, and improved cooperation between institutional interests can be achieved. This trust, understanding, and cooperation are critical ingredients in solving problems that are too complex to be resolved by independent disciplinary activity and unilateral decision authority.

Report↗