1 / 20

Critical Loads in the USDA Forest Service Status Update

Critical Loads in the USDA Forest Service Status 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. Air Program Mission.

airell
Download Presentation

Critical Loads in the USDA Forest Service Status Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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.

More Related