Critical Loads in the USDA Forest Service Status Update

1. Critical Loads in the USDA Forest ServiceStatus Update Rich Fisher National Air Program – Technical Leader USDA Forest Service Fort Collins, CO 970-295-5981 rwfisher@fs.fed.us Denver CO November 16, 2005

2. Air Program Mission We protect resources on the national forests from the adverse effects from human-caused air pollution for the use and enjoyment of all people in perpetuity.

3. Air Program • Decision-making delegated locally • Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors are the FLMs • 25 full time dispersed air professionals • Assigned to the FLMs. • Skill mix includes meteorologists, hydrologists, ecologists, environmental engineers, entomologists, foresters – no policy analysts • No service center for air • Only a national office of four people • Air research scientists in Riverside, Ft Collins, New England • Ozone effects, alpine ecosystem emphasis, monitoring techniques

4. Agency organization and culture: • Necessitates detailed written direction • Provides for focused ecological research – less on visibility • Facilitates close linkage between R&D and operations • Resulted in 3 progressive steps forward relating pollution to decision-making • Screening reports (from Cary Arboretum) • FLAG • Critical Loads

5. 1. Screening Methods • Cary Arboretum Workshop (1988) • Designed technique for merging policy & science • Regional & sub-regional workshops (1989-1991) • All stakeholders invited – open meetings announced in FR • Identified specific “air quality related values” for 88 areas • Recommended “screening criteria” for 3 pollutants (Ozone, S, N) • New source permit applicants could easily determine at what level they would not likely be a threat to wilderness values Limitation: very little site specific data available. Effects were inferred based off-site ‘representative’ data.

6. 2. FLAGFederal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup • 2000 – Report consolidated and simplified common techniques by FS, NPS and FWS • Guidelines used to evaluate specific air pollution effects: • Scenic enjoyment (visibility) • Ecosystem health (deposition) • Plant respiration (ozone) • Still no new science for deposition & ozone

7. 3. Critical Loads • Allows analyses using new & better site specific data collected over last 15 years • Proven protocols available (Canada & Europe)

8. Critical Loads Topics • Terrestrial & aquatic assessments • Requires close collaboration between policy and science • Varying spatial scales • Success most likely when regulators, FLMs, industry and advocacy groups team together

9. Critical Load Data Requirements Terrestrial & aquatic (model dependent) • Climate • Soil – physical and chemical • Geology substrate and weathering • Surface water chemistry – FS 400-500 samples/yr • Plant canopy structure and tissue analyses • Atmospheric deposition (incl mercury; fog water) • Catchment physical parameters • Throughfall • Runoff • Evapotranspiration • Total biomass • Nutrients lost (e.g., by fire, harvest) • Aerometric (e.g., ozone) • FIA/FHM • Prototype CL monitoring sites

10. Forest Service Prototype Critical Load Monitoring Sites 2005-06 Glacier Lakes King’s River Otter Creek San Bernadino

11. Surface Water Chemistry Monitoring Data Exist in: CO, WY, MT, ID, OR, WA, CA, VA, NC, TN, AL, UT, MN, WV, VT, NH Major cations, anions, pH, ANC, alkalinity 400-500 samples collected annually now About 15,000 records spanning 1982 – present depending upon the location Currently available on CD – soon to be on the web

12. Critical Loads Spatial Scales • Create coarse scale critical loads map for the US • use a Simple Mass Balance critical load model (SMBCLM) • Calculate CLs for special interest/data areas • (e.g. Otter Creek, Kings River, GLEES, Coweeta, Hubbard Brook, Fernow • Examine relationships between the coarse scale and fine scale • Perform a spatial sensitivity analysis for CL mapping. • Identify key environmental factors with largest effect on CLs • apply to the continental scale - develop confidence intervals to CL predictions • Evaluate SMBCLM for non-pollutant stress • e.g. climate, insects, and fire) impacts on ecosystem critical loads • Assess alternative management options • e.g., fuels management, more ap controls impact critical loads, • Incorporate non-pollutant stress into revised CL model

13. How CL Concept Be Used in Decision-Making • Land Management Planning – management objectives for forests over next 10 years • Resource Planning Act (RPA) – strategic goals for forest and range management • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) e.g., EIS, EA to disclose the effects from individual small and large projects or large programs on federal lands • State Implementation Plans – States establishing binding rules to reduce emissions and protect federal lands from air pollution • Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) altho focused on haze • States are interested in documenting addtl benefits of emissions reductions; e.g., Interstate Transport Rule • New Source Review (PSD) – effective at negotiating individual new project emission setting locally (modifications to existing sources mostly escape)

14. Advantages of CL Conceptfor Resource Management • Integrates assessment of air quality related values and accounts for other related management activities such as: • Biomass utilization • Fire • Soil disturbance • Potentially applicable to many disturbances besides air • Applicable to many policy requirements • SIPS, NEPA, NSR, RPO, RPO, LMP • Implicitly retrospective • Could be prospective

15. Advantages of CL Conceptfor Resource Management – Cont’d • Science-based and R&D is establishing CL as an important research area for the future. • Internationally adopted technique • Components can be modified and improved as knowledge grows • Allows “what if….” games • Can assess importance of various system components • Management options • Lends itself well to GIS – a successful business model now and more in the future

16. Disadvantages of CL Conceptfor Resource Management • Complex – a blackbox only scientists fully understand • May only need to be “good enough” for managers • Research model v. Management model ? • Different way of doing business - management inertia may make acceptance slow • Does CL concept carry some political baggage? • Data requirements too many; too expensive; non-standard? • Representativeness issues?

17. Critical Loads • Requires close collaboration between policy and science • Success most likely when regulators, FLMs, industry and advocacy groups team together

18. Vision • The USDA Forest Service Air Program envisions a healthy environment for current and future generations where natural processes occur. • We believe that: • The health of humans and ecosystems are inseparable, • Clean air is essential, and • Science is a foundation for taking action.

19. Back up slides

20. Air Program Mission To provide sound counsel on air quality issues to decision makers.