p. 1



# OAR Box 1793
Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 11 ) ll-F-5 3

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54

AM Sheet 11 of 45Lv* / -!-•> U 5 lUJo / ''Hi-- IV* JOZ- WA*> 0 iNK/A y iNi^ S P. 2 l^jOOl/00 4



## Unite dState s Departmen t o f th e Interio r

^ - F

- f

j

NATIONA L PAR KSERVIC E

RO.BO X 3712 7

I N U.I. Y R_.t RTO : 

## r

u u f | fi> R [

j y4|H^|ON

. D.C

. 200J3-712

7


### AP R3 0199 6
EPA/^ l DOCKE T 

# 3 NUMBE RO F PAGE S T O FOLLOW :

TO :

FROM :

SUBJECT : 

# £

o^r*s\ UoJiOX

___ _ 

# $4fe\S 'TCJ^TIX OATE : 

# Wi2

, UJr

K 

## s l6e^ p \\ Q{Lo\*- "hurL. REMARK S

I F YO U HAV E AN Y PROBLEMS H1T H THI S FAX O RTROUBLE RECEIVIN G A FAX PLEAS E CAL L THE IWIVIDUA L FRO N HHO N YO U ARE RECEIVIN G TH E FAX
. BLAOCHEU , LAURE

N COMINS
. BIL L DENNIS , jam D l SALVO , CARO

L EADY , COLLETT E JOHfSTON , GAR

Y KLWINSKI
. SHARO

N NAUIN , KARE

K 202-208-491 2

202-208-463 1 202-208-519 3 202-219-893 6 202-208-588 6 202-208-463 9 2£.-219-' W NCCLELLAN) , LINDSA Y NILLER , ABB Y OLMELL , PEGG Y PECK , DEBB Y SHAFER , CRAI G KALKER
. BIL L MATKINS v tflLN A H'-SO*
. Hi,A 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-219-893 3 202-208-462 4 202-219-893 4 202-219-338 6 202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4•XL. / ±<i< o J iu-- i g_;u_ ; _u a <»t P. 3



### Rationale : Wh y NP S an d USFW S 

### oppos e SAM I 

### Establishing AQR V Target s

Th e Nationa l Par k Servic e (NPS ) an d U.S . Pis han

d wildlif e Servic e (USFWS ) broadl y define AQRV s a s al l value s possesse d b y an are a excep t thos e tha t ar e no t affected b y change s i n ai r quality . Thes e specificall y include visibility , flora , fauna , soils , water , odor , cultur e an d histori c resources . Whil e al l thes e resource s need t o be protected an d enhanced fro

m the impact s o f human-induced impairment , w e focu s o

n the sensitiv

e receptor s o r sensitiv e AQRVs o f eachClas s I area ; i.e. . thos e resource s mos t sensitiv e t o ai r pollution (e.g, . specie s o f plant s o r invertebrates , particula r stream s o r lakes) . Afte r all , the legislativ e histor

y o f the Clean Ai r Ac t 197 7 Prevention o f Significan t Deterioratio n Amendment s explicitl y instruc t u s t o "er r o n the side o f protectin g the ai r quality
related value s for futur e generations. " S . Rep . No . 95-127 , 95t h Cong , 1s t Sess . 3 6 (1977 ) . The NP S Organi c Ac t require s u s t o preserve an

d protec t r.l

l resource s o f the nationa l par k syste m "i n suchmanne r an d b y suc hmean s a s wil l leav e the m unimpaired fo r th e enjoymen t o f futur e generations. " 1 6 U.S.C . Sec . 1 (1916) . I n additior . the Wildernes s Ac t o f 196 4 instruct s NP S an d USFWS , a s wel l ao a-. - Federa l Lan d Managers , t o preserv e designate d wildernes s area s in thei r natura l condition s "wher e th e influenc e o f peopl e i s substantiall y unnoticeable. " 1 6 U.S.C . Sec . 11 3 (1982) . Nevertheless , despit e ou r attempt s t o protec t sensitive AQRVs , extensive researc han d monitorin

g ove r mor e than a decad e attest s t o existing , widespread advers e impact s t o AQRV s i n the Clas s I area s o f th

e Southern Appalachian s managed b y NPS ; i.e. . ShenandoahNationa l Park an d Grea t Smok

y Mountain s Nationa l Park . Resource s know

n t o b e impacte

d include visibility , streams , soils , an

d vegetation . 199 0 an d 199 2 Federa l Registe r notice s an d technica l suppor t document s alerte d th e publi c a t larg e t o thes e effects ; subsequen t an d continuin

g researchan

d monitoring furthe r suppor t the earlie r studies . Th e formation o f SAM I wa s understoo d a s a positive ste p toward seeking regiona l solution s t o reduc e th e emission s o f concern causing thes e widel y recognized advers e impact s i n th e Clas s I areas . T o tha t end , w e strongl y

encourage : l ) SAM I t o recommen d emission managemen t option s tha t wil l reduc e th e emission s o f concern , a s ranke d b y the SAM I Polic

y Committee ; 2 ) th e appropriat e official s i n charge t o implemen t thos e recommendations ; an d 3 ) the measuremen t o f progres s throug hpost implementation researchan d monitoring . A s a mean s o f grouping EMO s t o hel p ensur e progres s i n reducin g emissions , w

e suppor t regiona l emission s cap s for th e primar

y pollutant s identified b y th e PC , startin

g wit hnitrogen oxides .p. .

10/18/9 5 10:5 8 O20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S $003/00 4

Pleas e understan

d w e recogniz e th e benefit s involved in identifyin

g sensitiv

e AQRV s an

d establishin

g unquestionabl e effect s threshold s o r target s o r levels . Federa l Lan d Manager s (FLMs ) hav e worked , an d wil l continue t o work , wit hai r pollutio n effect s scientist s t o develop list s o f sensitiv e resource s an

d sensitivit y

thresholds . However , ai r pollution effect s researc h i s a relativel y

youn g field ; an

d the complexit y

an d changing dynamic s o f the natura l worl d make s compilin g an d updating comprehensive , accurate , resourc e specifi c list s an d threshold s difficult , expensive , an d extremel y

time-consuming . I n addition t o technica l feasibility concerns , w

e shar e severa l lega l an

d polic y

concern s relate

d t o SAMI' s propose d setting o f target s o r level s fo r AQRVs . Congress , i n passing the 197 7 Clean Ai r Ac t Amendments , provided for case-by-cas e FL M advers e impac t determination s t o protec t AQRVs fro m emission increase s associate d wit hne w an d modified project s seekin g Prevention o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permit s fro m stat e an

d EP A permitting authorities : The Ac t charge s the Secretar y o f Interio r wit ha

n "affirmativ

e responsibility " t o protec t AQRVs , making advers e impac t determinations , a s appropriate , an d "satisfying " permittin g authoritie s wit hthos e determinations . Sinc e th e criteri a for suc hsatisfactio

n i s no t defined , a potentia l exist s for SAM I "targets " t o be misuse d t o undermin e th e FLMs ' abilit y

t o carr

y out thei r mandate s an d protec t AQRV s o n a case-by-bas e basis . For example , applicant s an d permitting authoritie s frequentl y hav e misused PS D incremen t significanc e level s b

y applyin

g thos e level s t o AQR V impac t analyses . Althoug hEP A repeatedl y

ha s state

d tha t incremen t an d AQR V advers e impac t ar e separat e test s required unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d implementin

g regulations , th

e misus e i s stil l pervasive .

Mor e broadly , th e Ac t explicitl y "declare s a s a nationa l goa l the prevention o f an

y future , an

d the remedyin

g o f an

y existing , impairmen t o f visibilit y i n mandator

y clas s I Federa l area s whic h impairmen t result s fro m manmade ai r pollutants. " 4 2 U.S.C . Sec . 7492 . Sinc e the goa l i s clear , SAM I participant s shoul d wor k togethe r t o achieve emissio n reduction s tha t mak e reasonabl e furthe r progres s toward achievin g tha t goal . A

decivie

w metri c ma y b e employed t o visuall y sho w ho w reduction s improv e visibility . However , an y ultimat e "target " whichaccept s a leve l o f manmad e impairment , withou t seekin g progres s toward furthe r reductions , woul d see m t o contradic t the intent o f the statute .
AQRV s have been the subjec t o f considerabl e discussion ove r the pas t tw o year s i n connectio n withEPA' s Ne

w Sourc e Revie

w Refor m Subcommittee , o f the Clean Ai r Ac t Advisor y Act , established unde r th e Federa l Advisor y committe e Act .P. 5

1 0 /18/9 5 10:5 9 **20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS0_NR/A Q NP S

_ _BI004/0Q 4

Th e New

Sourc e Revie

w Refor m Subcommitte e recommendation s an d EPA' s draf t ne

w sourc e revie

w regulation s provid e tha t FLM s shoul d continu e t o b e responsibl e for definin g the sensitive AQRV s fo r eac ho f the area s the y manage . The

y als o sugges t tha t FLM s continu e t o defin e the critica l load s o f ai r pollution tha t can b e tolerate d i n eachclas s I are a or b y eachAQRV . Th e specifi c AQRV s an

d critica l load s selected fo r eachClas s I are a shoul d b e selected an d updated , a s necessary , based o n bes t availabl e scienc e wit hful l disclosur e an d consideration o f managemen t objective s for the are a i n question . Havin

g SAM I se t predetermine d target s fo r AQRV s i n the Southern Appalachian s seems counte r t o the recommendation s o f EP A an d the NS R Subcommittee . Give n the lac k o f site-an d resource-specifi c information o n sensitivit y

an d effect s thresholds , a s wel l a s lega l an d polic y concerns , i t woul d b e inappropriat e for SAM I t o se t targets . Fo r al l o f the reason s discussed above , the Departmen t o f the Interio r an

d it s bureaus , NP S an d USFWS , oppos e SAM I setting "ai r qualit y targets. " W

e urg e the Governin g Bod y t o adop t th e position NP S presented befor e the Operation s Committee , a s drafte d i n the Novembe r 25 , 1994 , memorandu m fro m Joh n Bunya k an

d Karen Malki n (cop

y attached) .