National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Inventory and Monitoring National Parks to Acidification Effects from Atmospheric Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Main Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/349 ON THE COVER Some ecosystems and vegetation types, such as remote high-elevation lakes, sugar maple trees, headwater streams, and red spruce trees, are sensitive to the effects of acidification from atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition. Photograph by: National Park Service Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Inventory and Monitoring National Parks to Acidification Effects from Atmospheric Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Main Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/349 T. J. Sullivan G. T. McPherson T. C. McDonnell S. D. Mackey D. Moore E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc. P.O. Box 609 Corvallis, OR 97339 April 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Denver, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from Air Resources Division of the NPS (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/ Permits/ARIS/networks/acidification-eval.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Sullivan, T. J., G. T. McPherson, T. C. McDonnell, S. D. Mackey, and D. Moore. 2011. Evaluation of the sensitivity of inventory and monitoring national parks to acidification effects from atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition: main report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/349. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. NPS 909/107377, April 2011 ii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................. v Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vi Maps .............................................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix 1. Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Overall Project Approach ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Pollutant Exposure ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Emissions into the Atmosphere .......................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Atmospheric Deposition..................................................................................... 2 1.3 Ecosystems Effects......................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Terrestrial Effects ............................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Aquatic Effects ................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Park Protection ............................................................................................................. 15 2. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 17 2.1 National Mapping Approach ........................................................................................ 17 2.2 Network Mapping Approach ....................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Pollutant Exposure ........................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Ecosystem Sensitivity ...................................................................................... 23 2.2.3 Park Protection ................................................................................................. 26 2.3 Park Mapping Approach .............................................................................................. 26 2.4 Calculation of Network and Park Rankings ................................................................. 27 iii Contents (continued) Page 3. Results.................................................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Overall Ranking of Networks and Parks ...................................................................... 33 3.1.1 Networks .......................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Parks ................................................................................................................. 49 3.2 Results by Network ...................................................................................................... 58 References Cited ........................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A: Rankings of all Park-Specific Variables for Each of the 271 I&M Parks .............. 65 Appendix B: Ranking Scores for Pollutant Exposure, Ecosystem Sensitivity, Park Protection, and Overall Risk for Each of the 271 I&M Parks .................................................... 107 ii Figures Page Figure 1. Calculated S and N Pollutant Exposure ranking for each of the 32 I&M networks ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 2. Calculated Ecosystem Sensitivity ranking for each of the 32 I&M networks .............. 36 Figure 3. Calculated Park Protection ranking for each of the 32 I&M networks ........................ 37 Figure 4. Results of the Summary Risk assessment to rank the 32 networks according to their likely risk of acidification effects, based on the average of the quintile ranks for S and N Pollutant Exposure, Ecosystem Sensitivity, and Park Protection metrics.......................... 38 Figure 5. Calculated S and N Pollutant Exposure ranking, expressed relative to all I&M parks, for each of the 79 I&M parks larger than 100 square miles ............................................... 50 Figure 6. Calculated Ecosystem Sensitivity ranking, expressed relative to all I&M parks, for each of the 79 I&M parks larger than 100 square miles ......................................................... 51 Figure 7. Calculated Park Protection ranking, expressed relative to all I&M parks, for each of the 79 I&M parks larger than 100 square miles ............................................................... 52 Figure 8. Results of the Summary Risk assessment ranking the 79 I&M parks that are larger than 100 square miles according to their likely risk of acidification effects, based on an average of the quintile ranks for the three themes: Pollutant Exposure, Ecosystem Sensitivity, and Park Protection .................................................................................................... 53 iii Tables Page Table 1. List of Inventory and Monitoring networks and associated network codes................... 21 Table 2. Variables used to determine network rankings .............................................................. 22 Table 3. Acidification risk rankings for quantitative variables calculated for each of the 32 I&M park networks .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 4. Variables to determine I&M park rankings ................................................................... 31 Table 5. Relative rankings of individual I&M parks, by network, for Pollutant Exposure, Ecosystem Sensitivity, Park Protection, and Summary Risk from acidification due to acidic deposition ..........................................................................................................................