Critical Loads for Atmospheric Deposition: Assessing, Evaluating and Protecting Natural Resources

1. National Park Service Critical Loads for Atmospheric Deposition: Assessing, Evaluating and Protecting Natural Resources Tamara Blett Air Resources Division – National Park Service CANS Workshop Feb 2006

2. Development/Use of Critical Loads IMPLEMENTATION (how can the CL be used to protect parks & wilderness areas? DEVELOPMENT (what is the CL?) Regulators Scientists Land Managers, (NPS/FS), EPA

3. Definitions…

4. Critical load/Target load • Critical load: “The quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge.” (Nilsson and Grennfelt 1988) • Target load: The level of exposure to one or more pollutants that results in an acceptable level of resource protection; may be based on political, economic, or temporal considerations. Critical loads and target loads can be developed for any pollutants.

5. Preserve and Protect “…conserve [natural and cultural resources]…as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” (NPS Organic Act) “Wilderness areas…shall be administered…in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness…” (Wilderness Act of 1964) “…preserve, protect and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores…” (Clean Air Act as amended in 1977) “In cases of doubt the land manager should err on the side of protecting the air quality-related values for future generations.” (Senate Report No. 95-127, 95th Congress, 1977) [Rocky Mountain NP should be managed for] “…preservation of the natural conditions and the scenic beauties thereof.” (1915 park enabling legislation)

6. Defining the critical load • ”The maximum amount of pollution into an ecosystem that does not cause significant damage to system resources, survival, structure or function” • “The quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge.” (Nilsson and Grennfelt 1988) This first CL definition used in some European approaches… request that we use the *second definition for sensitive U.S. systems and this modeling effort

7. European CL approach vs US approach….

8. Use of Critical/Target loads: Europe vs U.S. • Europe: • multi-national, coordinated approach (International Cooperative Programmes) for critical loads research and implementation; critical/target loads for N, S (acidif & fertil.) used to set emissions reductions goals. • Canada: • critical/target loads (N&S acidification) used to set emission reductions goals. • U.S. EPA: • currently does not incorporate critical loads in air pollution increments or standards- not likely to ever be used to drive reductions as in Europe. – type of info needed might be different • NOx Increment Rule discussed optional State uses of critical loads (site by site, approach) • U.S. Federal Land Managers (National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service): • No national funds source for national-scale 1000’s of plots for ecosystem data to develop & track CL • define “sensitive resources” and “harmful effects” by using AQRV identification, AQRV screening thresholds, limits of acceptable change

9. Large-scale monitoring (Level I) • Low monitoring intensity • European-wide systematic • grid (16 x 16 km) • 6000 monitoring plots • Crown condition assessment • Soil survey (5300 plots) • Foliar survey (1500 plots)

10. Level 2: Intensive monitoring • Aimed at cause-effect relationships • High monitoring intensity • 866 monitoring plots • Plots in important forest ecosystems • 11 different surveys

11. Implications: Don’t have European CL infrastructure- people & $ Don’t have large # plots – ecosystem data and sensitivities May have more sensitive ecosystems in U.S. Europe focused on mitigation, not protection Have hierarchy of “protected” areas in U.S.- managed to more pristine levels Have more “stakeholders” in U.S. with input into policy emissions decision-making Need to learn from European CL process but may not want to develop the science in precisely the same way

12. Indicators and Thresholds….

13. Rocky Mountain National Park: Continuum of Impacts to Ecological Health Ecosystem endpoints for CL: Conceptual Diagram N Load (kg/ ha /yr) Effects on aquatic animals (episodic acidification) Forest decline (acidification effects on trees) Changes in soil & water chemistry Surface water N saturation Changes in tree chemistry Change in aquatic plant species composition Change in alpine plant species Lethal effects on fish, other aquatic animals (chronic acidification) Critical loads are defined for specific indicators and endpoints

14. CRITICAL LOAD DEVELOPMENT SCIENCE FEDERAL MANAGER Federal manageris guided by agency policy in selecting sensitive resources and indicators of change; defines”harmful” changes to sensitive resources based on policy goals. Scientists conduct empirical studies to identify resources sensitive to deposition Scientists derive critical loads from empirical studies and modeling analyses. Decisions about interim or sustainable levels of N and S deposition on federal lands are made by federal manager, with consultation with air regulators and others if target loads will be used for emissions control strategies.

15. Science/Policy Integration Recommendation- March 2004 FLM CL Workshop 4 box model is useful conceptual framework for considering S and N Critical Loads Acidif. Nutrient Aquatic Terrestrial

16. “Sensitive Elements” and “Effects” • “Specified sensitive elements”: ecosystems sensitive to nitrogen and/or sulfur deposition, e.g., • Poorly buffered lakes, streams, soils • Ecosystems that evolved under low nutrient conditions and/or with short growing season (e.g. deserts or alpine areas) • “Harmful effects”: changes in the natural functioning of an ecosystem, e.g., • Loss of acid-neutralizing capacity affecting biota (growth, viability, condition, etc) • Unwanted enrichment by nitrogen resulting in changes in natural vegetative community