A screening procedure to evaluate air pollution effects in Region 1 wilderness areas, 1991

46 Pages·1997·2.6 MB·English

by  Stanford, Jack

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

I IQnA ^D^e^p^a^'r^tmSetnattesof A Screening Prppe^ure to
^^^^
Agriculture
Forest Service f
Evaluate Air Pollution ffectslin
Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range
Experiment Station Region Wilderness Areas,
1
Fort Collins,
Colorado 80526
General Technical Jack Stanford
Report RM-GTR-294
Ann Acheson
U^S
David Brakke
Sharon Eversman
Kristi Savig
Heceivedby:
'S^/^^l^ Joe Eilers
iQdezlngBranoti
Abstract
Stanford, Jack; Acheson, Ann; Brakke, David; Eversman, Sharon; Savig, Kristi; Eilers, Joe.
1997. A screening procedure to evaluate air pollution effects in Region 1 wilderness
areas, 1991. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-294. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 34 p.
Based on mandates contained in the 1977and 1990Clean AirActamendments (Public Law
95-95) and the 1964 Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-557), 25 scientists and 15 managers
discussed approaches forevaluating airpollution effects on aquatic, terrestrial, and visibility
resources in wilderness areas administered by Region 1 of the Forest Service. Participants
identifiedscreening parametersthatmaypredictablyvarywith changes in airquality. Criteria
for those parameters were identified for assessing permit applications involving new emis-
sions that may impactwilderness values. Region 1 participation in the multi-agency process
for evaluating proposed emissions would require a monitoring program, effective analysis
methodology, and proactive review and consultation.
Keywords: air pollution, wilderness, acid neutralizing capacity
The Authors
Jack Stanford is with the University of Montana, Flathead Lake Biological Station.
Ann Acheson is with the USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Region 1.
David Brakke is with the University of Wisconsin, Department of Biology.
Sharon Eversman is with Montana State University, Department of Biology.
Kristi Savig is with Air Resources Specialists Inc.
Joe Eilers is with E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc.
Publisher
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Fort Collins, Colorado
July 1997
You mayorderadditional copies ofthis publication by sending your mailing information in
labelformthroughoneofthefollowingmedia. Pleasesendthepublicationtitleandnumber.
Telephone [phone]
DG message R.Schneider:S28A
FAX [phone]
E-mail /s=r.schneider/[email protected]
Mailing Address Publications Distribution
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station
3825 E. Mulberry Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Coverphoto: Mission Mountains Wilderness
A
Screening Procedure to Evaluate
Air Pollution Effects in Region 1
Wilderness Areas, 991
1
Jack Stanford, Ann Acheson, David Brakke, Sharon Eversman,
Kristi Savig, and Joe Eilers
Contents
Acronymns v
Introduction 1
KeyTerms and Definitions 1
The Regulatory Process 3
Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration 3
OtherLegal Requirements 3
Workshop Goals and Objectives 4
Aquatic Resources 4
Background Information 4
Working Group Approach 6
Screening Parameters 6
ScreeningCriteria 7
Limits ofAcceptable Change (LAC) 7
Monitoring Programs 8
Modeling Responsesto Atmospheric Deposition of Pollutants 9
Future Monitoring ofWilderness Lakes 14
Research Needs 15
Terrestrial Resources 15
Background Information 15
Working GroupApproach 16
Screening Parameters 16
iii
9
Contents (Cont'd.)
Terrestrial Resources (Cont'd.)
ScreeningCriteria 17
Limits ofAcceptable Change 17
Models forAssessing Air Pollution Impacts 18
Future Monitoring 18
Research Needs 18
Visibility 19
BackgroundInformation 19
Working GroupApproach 19
Screening Parameters
1
ScreeningCriteria 19
Modeling VisibilityChanges 20
Limits ofAcceptable Change 20
Future Monitoring ofVisibility 20
Research Needs 22
Alternative ManagementActions 22
DocumentBaselineConditions 23
RecognizeCritical Uncertainties 23
Implement Monitoring with WildernessAreas Now 23
Use Better Modeling Approaches 23
Refine the PSD Screening Process 24
Involve University Scientists in Basic Research 24
Involve the Public 24
LiteratureCited 24
Appendix A. Participants 27
Aquatic Working Group 27
Terrestrial Working Group 27
VisibilityWorking Group 28
Appendix B. AirQuality Related Values (AQRVs) in Class
I
Wilderness Areas in the USDA Forest Service Region 1 29
Bob Marshall Wilderness 29
Anaconda-PintlerWillderness 30
Mission MountainsWilderness 30
Selway-BitterrootWilderness 31
CabinetMountainsWilderness 32
ScapegoatWilderness 33
Gates ofthe Mountains Wilderness 34
iv
Acronyms
ABW
Absaroka-BeartoothWilderness
ANC
Acid NeutralizingCapacity
AQRV AirQuality Related Values
BMW
BobMarshall Wilderness
CALK
CalculatedAlkalinity
DOC Dissolved OrganicCarbon
EPA Environmental ProtectionAgency
CIS GeographicInformationSystem
IMPROVE InteragencyMonitoringofProtectedVisualEnvironments
LAC LimitsofAcceptableChange
MAGIC Model ofAcidificationofGroundwaterInCatchments
MDFWP Montana DepartmentofFish, Wildlifeand Parks
N
Nitrogen
NADP NationalAtmosphericDepositionProgram
NAPAP NationalAcid PrecipitationAssessmentProgram
NTN NationalTrendsNetw^ork
P Phosphorus
PSD PreventionofSignificantDeterioration
SAA Sum ofAcid Anions
SBC Sum ofBaseCations
SBW Selway-BitterrootWilderness
SIP StateImplementationPlan
SVR Standard Visual Range
USGS United StatesGeological Survey

A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects in
Region Wilderness Areas, 1991
1
for consensus but to provide options to managers that
would move the Region toward meeting the goals ofthe
Introduction
CleanAirAct.Thisdocumentintegratesreportsproduced
by thesegroups duringand after theworkshop.
The1977CleanAirActamendmentsreinforcedbythe
1990amendmentsgavetheForestServicethe"affirmative Key Terms and Definitions
responsibility"toprotectairqualityrelatedvalues(AQRVs)
of certain wilderness areas from adverse air pollution To clearly understand the permitting process and the
effects.TheForestServicemustrecommendtotheappro- results of the workshop, important terms that describe
priateairregulatoryagencies,usuallythestate,whethera impacts of changing air quality on wilderness resources
proposed emission source will have adverse impacts on were defined. A list of acronyms appears after the Con-
wildernessresources.Theairregulatoryagencyconsiders
tents page.
therecommendationbeforepermittingtheproposedsource —
Class I areas all international parks, national parks
to discharge pollutants. The objective of the process, ex- greater than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas
amined herein, is the preventionofsignificantdeteriora- greater than 5,000 acres that existed on August 7, 1977
tionofairqualitywithinClass1andotherwildernessareas (when theClean AirActamendmentswerepassed). This
of Region 1 as mandated by the Clean AirAct. Class provides the most protection to pristine lands by
Airpollution sources from outsidewildernessbound- severely limiting the amount of additional air pollution
aLwiritiltedlseerairnseeskpsenrrovewasonsuirvacebeosa.untdWhhiamotpwarceatissrouaprroceleldsuiftbfarinoctausldtlmytaocyqhuaarinamtcpitafecyrt.- athdamtinciasntbeereaddbdyedRetgoitohnes1e(afriegausr.eT1h)earse:even Class I areas
ize the wilderness setting in the context of air quality?
Howshouldtheybemonitoredtodetecteffectsofdeterio- Wilderness Forest(s)
ratingairquality?Areimpactsoccurringnowthatcompli-
Anaconda-Pintler Bitterroot, Beaverhead, Deerlodge
cate a state's assessment of permit applications for new Mission Mountains Flathead
emissions? We need answers to such questions to be an Seiway-Bitterroot Bitterroot, Cleanwater, Nez Perce
effectivepartnerinjudgingemissionpermitapplications. Cabinet Mountains Kootenai
Therefore,workshopswereheldineachForestService Scapegoat Helena, Lewis & Clark, Lolo
Region to help define resources or air quality related Gates of the Mountains Helena
valuesthatcouldbeimpactedbyairpollution(e.g.,Adams Bob Marshall Flathead, Lewis & Clark
et al. 1991, Peterson et al. 1992). Workshops were pat- —
terned after a national workshop that brought together Class II areas all Forest Service lands that are not
scientistsand forestmanagersinroundtablediscussions designatedClassIarereferredtoasClassIIlands(figure1).
(Fox etai. 1989). This includes the wilderness areas: Gospel Hump, Wel-
The Region 1 workshopwas held attheFlatheadLake comeCreek,LeeMetcalf,GreatBear,Absaroka-Beartooth,
Biological Station from April 29 through May 2, 1991.^ Rattlesnake, and Frank Church-River of No Return. A
Threeworkinggroups(AppendixA) consideredaquatic, greateramountofadditionalairpollutionmaybeallowed
terrestrial, and visibility resources in the context of per- withinClass II areas. —
mittingprocessesmandatedbythefederalCleanAirAct. Preventionofsignificantdeterioration(PSD) aper-
Eachworkinggroupattemptedtodeterminetheresources mittingprocessdescribedunderPartC,Section 160ofthe
sensitivetoairpollutants,thresholds,orcriteriathatwould Clean Air Act. Goals of the program include: preserving
demonstrate adverse impacts. Each one also discussed and protecting air quality in national parks and wilder-
monitoring and research needs. In compliance with the ness areas; assuring that emissions in a state will not
federalAdvisoryCommitteeAct,thegroupsdidnotstrive interfere with the prevention ofsignificant deterioration
of air quality; and assuring that any decision to permit
of'tThhiiss1d9o91cuwmoernktshcoapp.tuWrietshtfheewceoxncvepetrisoantsi,onitsdaonedsncootncilnucsoiropnos- increased airpollution is madeonly aftercareful evalua-
ratechangesinairqualityregulationsorscienceoccurringsince tion of all the consequences and after informed public
thattime. participation.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-294. 1997
1
.
STATE BOUNDARIES
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
I. WILDERNESSAREAS
Figure 1. Wilderness areas administeredby ttie ForestService in Region 1 (from Saunders. G. 1991). *Hells Canyon is adminis-
teredby Region 6. **Tlie Franl< Church andportions ofthe RiverofNo Return are administeredbyRegion 4.
—
Air quality related values (AQRVs) the features or tralizing capacity or specific conductance are measures
properties of a Class I wilderness that made the area used tocharacterizethestatusofwaterbodiesrelativeto
worthyofdesignationasawildernessareaandthatwould pollutionloads. —
orcouldbeadverselyaffectedbyairpollution. Examples Screening criteria measures ofsensitivity to change
of adverse effects are degraded visibility or impaired or critical thresholds for screening parameters. For ex-
biologicalpopulations.AQRVsgenerallyrelatetovisibil- ample, extremely low specific conductance in lake water
ity,odor, flora, fauna, soil, water, climate, geological fea- could indicate potential sensitivity toacidification. Criti-
tures, and cultural resources. AQRVs are specific and calconditionscouldbeindicatedbyveryloworhighpH.
describeddifferently,however, foreachRegion 1 wilder- Quantification ofcriteria requires quality-assured meth-
odology, often using experiments to determine dose-re-
ness (Appendix B).
— sponserelations.
Sensitive receptor a wilderness component clearly —
Dose-response relations the assumption that a
related to an AQRV. For example, an individual lake or subject's response to a new compound (chemical) will
stream may serve as a sensitive receptor indicating the intensify in a predictable way as the dose or level of
overall health oflakeso—rstreams in the wilderness. exposureincreases.
Baselineconditions Thechemicalandbiologicalsta- Limits of acceptable change (LAC)—the amount of
tus ofan AQRV orreceptor as determined on the date of changethatcouldoccurwithoutsignificantlychangingan
first measurement or quantification. Baseline conditions AQRV or receptor. For example, the aquatic working
arenotnecessarily pristin—e. groupidentifiedachangeinthesulfateloadthatcouldbe
Screeningparameters variablesusedtocomparecon- toleratedinlakeswithoutadeleteriouseffectonsensitive
ditions in different ecosystems. For example, acid neu- receptors.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-294. 1997