project overview project area- airshed and class 1...

Air Quality Report Final June 9, 2014

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report was submitted as a draft for the NEPA writer’s use in incorporating relevant information into Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS-Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Subsequent reviews, corrections, and additional information, some of which are a result of the response to comments on the Draft EIS, to the Chapter 3 were completed in the Final EIS, rather than in this report

Project Overview The southwest Jemez Mountain landscape restoration project, proposes several actions that could affect air quality in the surrounding communities near the project area. The primary concern from an air quality perspective is the public health impacts from smoke produced from proposed tool of prescribed fire. In this section, this issue will be explored. Included in this section is a project overview including a description of the area and communities that could be exposed to smoke as well as a description of applicable laws and policy related to air quality, as it relates to the proposed action and alternatives. The existing conditions relative to air quality will be discussed as well as the effects that past actions, similar to those being considered here, had on air quality. The environmental consequences of each alternative are presented, as well as the consideration of cumulative effects could have on air quality.

Project Area- Airshed and Class 1 Areas The project area is located within the Middle Rio Grande Airshed (NMED 2003). All airsheds in New Mexico are based on watershed boundaries developed by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Although the Middle Rio Grande River basin covers many counties, the project area lies completely within Sandoval County. The project area is primarily north and east of Ponderosa and the Jemez Pueblo. The project area also includes a portion of the Jemez Pueblo, the community of Jemez Springs, as well as many other small communities.

There are two Class 1 areas within 50 miles of the project area, Bandelier National Monument and San Pedro Parks Wilderness. Bandelier National Monument is approximately 15 miles to the east of the project area and San Pedro Parks Wilderness is approximately 25 miles northwest of the project area. Class 1 areas are identified in the Clean Air Act, as areas that require the highest level of protection for both National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Visibility.

Topography, Winds and Receptors The project is located in the Jemez Mountains north of Albuquerque. Elevations range from about 6,100 feet near the Community of Ponderosa to over 10,100 feet on near Cerro Pelado Peak. The project area generally drains in a southwesterly direction into the Rio Guadalupe, Jemez River, and Vallecito Creek, which all come together just north of the Jemez Pueblo. From there, the flow is generally southeasterly towards the Rio Grande Valley near Rio Rancho, and the Albuquerque metro area, which is approximately 25 miles away.

In mountainous terrain, winds are often influenced by the differential heating of slopes. In general, upslope and up-canyon winds can be expected on sunny afternoons with downslope and down-canyon winds developing overnight and continuing until around sunrise. Average wind patterns from the nearest Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) in Jemez from May 1 through October 31, from 1985 through 2012, are represented in Figure 1 for May and October. The prevailing winds typically blow from southwest to northeast (southwesterly winds), during the day and then reverse direction overnight. Winds in the spring and summer are stronger during the day with lower winds overnight, as represented by the top row for day and nighttime winds in May. The second row in Figure 1 represents typical winds in October, with lighter daytime winds and stronger downslope winds at night. The down drainage flows typical of fall are coupled with strong inversions that tend to trap cool air close to the surface through the evening and into the morning, during that time period. This influence is not typical during the spring and summer when any cool air is dispersed quickly once the sun can heat up the valley floors.


Figure 1. Wind Rose Data from Jemez Remote Automated Weather Station for May and October, daytime and nighttime wind direction and speed. Based on data from 1985- 2012.

The primary concern from this project from an air quality perspective is smoke from prescribed fire. There are several populations that could potentially be impacted by poor air quality associated from prescribed fire. Generally those communities nearest a given project, particularly those down drainage, would have the greatest impacts (e.g. Ponerosa, Jemez Pueblo, etc). However, potential impacts further away in Bernalillo County, and the Middle and Upper Rio Grande Valley, including the cities of Rio Rancho, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Espanola could be expected.

In conducting the effects analysis, smoke sensitive receptors or resources within the potentially affected area that may be sensitive to smoke impacts were identified. Sensitive receptors include populations or specific places, views, hospitals, airports, schools, highways, or businesses that would likely be impacted by smoke coming from the project area. The following specific sensitive receptors were identified and considered: the Community of Ponderosa, the Jemez Pueblo, San Yisidro, Jemez Springs, and the Zia Pueblo, which would primarily be effected by smoke settling in the drainages at night. During the day with predominately southwesterly winds, the communities most likely impacted would be Los Alamos, and White Rock. In addition, Bandelier National Monument, a Class 1 Area, is approximately 15 miles to the southwest of the project area.


Figure 2. Air quality sites, climate stations, smoke sensitive areas and Class 1 Airsheds of Concern Relevant policy, law, and regulation.

This section evaluates and compares the existing and reference conditions of the air resource within the assessment area, specifically regarding pollutants and visibility. Reference conditions refer to the national and state standards for managing air quality. The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments require the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The act also allows states to adopt additional ambient air quality standards. Both the state and EPA are responsible for improving visibility in New Mexico under Sections 308 and 309 of the CAA. New Mexico has been implementing an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) under Phase I of these requirements since 2006. Currently, the state is in the process of pursuing the Phase II visibility protection regulations, commonly referred to as the Regional Haze Rule. The goal of the Regional Haze Rule is return visibility in Class 1 Areas to conditions prior to anthropogenic impacts by 2064. Included in the state’s EPA approved SIP is a Smoke Management Program.

The NAAQS were established to set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, as well as to protect against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set NAAQS for six principal pollutants referred to as “criteria” pollutants. These pollutants are lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 micron-size particulate matter (PM2.5). The New Mexico Environment Department is responsible for regulating NAAQS for these pollutants in New Mexico to protect human health and welfare. Air quality in a given location is defined by pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere. The NAAQS represent maximum acceptable concentrations. Table 1 presents the NAAQS that must be met to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Table 1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Primary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3) 8-hour (1)

35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

1-hour (1)

Lead 0.15 µg/m3 (2) Rolling 3-Month Average 1.5 µg/m3 Quarterly Average Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb (3) Annual (Arithmetic Average) 100 ppb 1-hour (4)

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 24-hour (5)

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 12.0 µg/m3 Annual (6) (Arithmetic Average) 35 µg/m3 24-hour (7)

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std)

8-hour (8)

0.08 ppm (1997 std)

8-hour (9)

0.12 ppm 1-hour (10)

Sulfur Dioxide 0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Average) 0.14 ppm 24-hour (1)

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/co/

http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html%231


http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/


http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/



http://www.epa.gov/pm/


http://www.epa.gov/pm/



http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/




http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/



75 ppb (11) 1-hour

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. (3) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard (4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). (5) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3. (7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). (8) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) (9) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.

(b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.

(c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). (10) (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard ("anti-backsliding").

(b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1. (11) (a) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

Smoke is a mixture of fine particulates and gases, and contains a wide range of pollutants, which can remain suspended in the atmosphere anywhere from a few seconds to several months. The pollutants in the greatest amount produced during combustion of organic material, such as would be found in smoke from a wildfire, include carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and hydrocarbons. Lead, SO2, and other compounds, including toxics and carcinogens, are also contained in wood smoke but in such small amounts that they are less of a concern in terms of their effect on human health, than PM. NOx and hydrocarbons can react with each other in the presence of sunlight and produce ground level ozone.

While many of these pollutants as well as some toxic pollutants are present from smoke from wildland fire, PM2.5 is the pollutant of greatest concern and is the most likely to result in public health impacts. PM2.5, which has an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micro meters or less and can become imbedded deep in the lungs. PM2.5 is a major component of smoke and is produced in large quantities in both prescribed fire and wildfires. It also has the ability to be dispersed great distances due to its small size which enables to stay aloft in the atmosphere over long distances. Particulate matter has the potential to impair human health and visibility. PM10 causes eye, nose, and throat irritation. Because of its relatively larger size, it remains in the upper respiratory tract. PM2.5, due to its smaller size, travels to the lungs and can cause more serious health impairments, especially in individuals with pre-exisiting health issues related to the


http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/oindex.html


respiratory and circulatory system. Exposure to PM 2.5 is associated with premature death, heart attacks, and stroke (Pope 2002)(Pope 2004)(Brook 2004). Additionally it can trigger asthma attacks among those with asthma and respiratory problems ((Sheppard 1999)(Delfino 2009)(Elliott 2013).

Carbon monoxide is another major product of prescribed fire and wildfire smoke, but as a gas, it is quickly diluted in the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide can be of concern to firefighters and those conducting prescribed burns as a result of working quite close to the source of the smoke, but in general has little impact away from the immediate project area and only for those in the immediate vicinity of any wildland fire.

Ozone has been associated with smoke from prescribed fire and wildfire. While ozone is not directly produced by wildland fire, precursors of ozone are found in smoke. Ozone is formed by the interaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Both NOx and VOCs are produced from wildland fire. Ozone production from wildland fire is a complex process involving numerous variables including fire emissions, chemical and photochemical reactions, aerosol effects on chemistry, as well as local and downwind meteorological patterns (Jaffe 2012). Wildfires have been shown to contribute to ozone concentrations downwind however predicting it is a challenge (Jaffee 2012). Ozone has been shown to result in a number of health effects and symptoms across a wide range of the population, including inducing respiratory symptoms such as coughing, pain, discomfort, and tightness in the chest, inflammation of the lung, loss of lung function, and asthma attacks (EPA 2013).

Affected Environment

The affected environment within and surrounding the project area meets air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants, so is not listed as a “non-attainment” area (USEPA 2012). As defined by the Clean Air Act, a non-attainment area is one that does not meet the standards for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. The area within and surrounding the project area typically has excellent air quality conditions, though there is some concern from elevated ozone levels in the Albuquerque metro area. In addition there have been impacts from smoke from wildland fire in many of the communities near the project area in recent years. Regarding wildland fire, the criteria pollutants of concern are ozone and PM2.5, which are being monitored in the assessment area.

Air quality monitors at several locations were used in this assessment to evaluate existing pollutant and visibility data. Data from nearby monitors were examined for all criteria pollutants. As noted previously, air quality in the area is considered to be very good, typically well below standards set by EPA and NMED to protect human health and the environment. The area meets all air quality standards and there are no nonattainment areas nearby. Monitoring data for ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) is presented here, since these are the criteria pollutants of greatest concern. While the monitoring stations nearest the project area are located in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and are strongly influenced by the urban Albuquerque metro area, they are typically well below the standards deemed protective of human health. While air quality on the forest, without the immediate influence of the metro area is likely better, smoke from the project area can impact the nearby areas which have permanent monitoring stations, which is why these monitors were chosen. Data from visibility monitors at San Pedro Parks Wilderness and at Bandelier National Park, (Interagency Monitoring for Protection of Visual Environments or IMPROVE 2009), both nearby Class 1 areas, were also examined.

Particulate Matter


Annual Arithmetic Mean PM 2.5

Selected Sites

14 Standard = 12 ug/m3 *

12 10

8

6

4

2

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Del Norte High School South East Heights Santa Fe Runnels

Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter is a criteria pollutant. PM2.5 is produced by all types of burning including power plants, combustion engines, woodstoves, and wildland fire. Figure 3 shows annual arithmetic mean for PM 2.5 from 2006 to 2012. The 12 ug/m3 standard was reduced from 15 ug/m3 in March 2013. Over the last seven years the annual values have been well below the current standard. Figure 4 shows the values 98th percentile concentrations for the 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m3. The standard for PM2.5 requires the 98th percentile of the 24-hour average concentration to be at or below 35ug/m3, averaged over three years. Concentrations of PM 2.5 are far below the annual and 24-hour standards.

Figure 3. Annual arithmetic mean of PM 2.5 (ug/m3) at selected sites, 2006-2012 (*Annual mean averaged over 3 years)

PM 2.

5 (u

g/m

3 )


Figure 4. 98th percentile PM 2.5 concentration (ug/m3) at selected sites, 2006-2012 (*98th percentile averaged over 3 years)

While the area typically has very good air quality, there have been some notable impacts from smoke from wildland fire over the last several years in many of the potentially affected communities. Large wildfires in 2011, notably the Wallow fire in Arizona and the Las Conchas fire, adjacent to this project area, had significant impacts from smoke. For example, Albuquerque, which is over 150 miles away from the Wallow fire, had notable impacts over several days from smoke, with the 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m3 exceeded over several days in the beginning of June 2011 (Figure 5).

98th Percentile 24-hour PM 2.5

Selected Sites 35

Standard = 35 ug/m3* 30 25 20 15 10

5

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Del Norte High School South East Heights Santa Fe Runnels

PM 2.

5 (u

g/m

3 )


Figure 5. Wallow Fire growth and PM2.5 concentrations in Albuquerque, daily maximum 1-hour and 24-hour averages. (Only potential exceedances on the 24- hour of 35 ug/m3 standard are shown.)

Los Alamos also had significant impacts from smoke from the Las Conchas wildfire as did many of the Pueblos directly below the fire. One notable difference between the impacts in Albuquerque during the Wallow fire and in Los Alamos during the Las Conchas fire, were the magnitude. Both the 1-hour maximum and 24-hour averages were greater. For example, there were several days when the 1-hour averages in Los Alamos during the Las Conchas fire were 2-5 times higher than the highest days in Albuquerque during the Wallow fire. Figure 6, below shows the days that had measured values above the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 of 35 ug/m3 in Los Alamos during the Las Conchas fire in 2011. While Albuquerque had 7 days with values that potentially exceeded the 24-hour standard, the range of values was generally between 40 and 60 ug/m3 PM2.5. By comparison, Los Alamos had potentially 10 days when the 24-hr average was above the standard that summer, the range of values was much higher, with five days with measured values over 100 ug/m3 of PM2.5. Most of these differences can be attributed to the proximity of the wildfires. The Wallow fire was more than 150 miles from Albuquerque, while the Las Conchas fire was within a mile or two of Los Alamos at times. Fortunately, Los Alamos residents had been evacuated during most of the worst days in terms of air quality.

Wallow fire growth and PM 2.5 (ug/m3) concentrations in Albuquerque Max and 24 Average

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

24 hour Standard 35 (ug/m3)

50.0

0.0

Acres MAX 1-hr 24-hr AVE

6/20/2011 6/19/2011 6/18/2011 6/17/2011 6/16/2011 6/15/2011 6/14/2011 6/13/2011 6/12/2011 6/11/2011 6/10/2011 6/9/2011 6/8/2011 6/7/2011 6/6/2011 6/5/2011 6/4/2011 6/3/2011 6/2/2011 6/1/2011 5/31/2011

Acre

s

PM 2.

5 (u

g/m

3 )


24-hour averages of PM2.5 in Los Alamos during the Las Conchas fire in 2011. (ug/m3) *

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 6/27 6/28 6/29 6/30 7/1 7/2 7/3 7/4 7/5 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9

* Only days were shown that exceeded the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 of 35 ug/m3.

Figure 6. 24-hour averages of PM2.5 in Los Alamos during the Las Conchas fire in 2011. (ug/m3)

While typically, the most significant impacts from smoke are associated with wildfires, there have been impacts from prescribed fires as well. In 2012, the Santa Fe National Forest conducted two prescribed fires near the proposed project area in the Jemez Mountains that resulted in impacts in both in communities nearest the project, but also in Albuquerque.

On October 17th and 18th of 2012, The Santa Fe National Forest conducted an approximately 7,000 acre prescribed burn in the Jemez Mountains. Figure 7 presents 24 hour averages for PM2.5 at monitoring locations in the Albuquerque metro area during the San Juan prescribed burn. The two days following the burn had the greatest impacts in the Albuquerque area, with increases in the 24 hour average for PM2.5, however these were below the 24 hour standard of 35 ug/m3. There were periods of higher levels of smoke in the Middle Rio Grande Valley on the 19th and 20th, as smoke drained down into the valley. For a period of four to five hours, from approximately 6 to 10 am, smoke concentrations were measured between approximately 35 and 65 ug/m3, through the valley, and visibility dropped to less than 3 miles in the downtown area at about 9 am. These levels correspond with Moderate impacts based on the Air Quality Index (AQI), developed by the EPA and used by California Air Resource Board, for short term impacts (less than 24 hours) from smoke from wildfires (AIRNow 2013)(CARB 2013). Not shown in the figure were monitored values, in the town of Ponderosa, directly below the prescribed fire. In Ponderosa, impacts were significantly higher, with the 24-hour averages for PM2.5, peaking at 155 ug/m3 on Oct. 19th and 47 ug/m3 on Oct. 20th. Based on the AQI, this corresponds to a Very Unhealthy Alert and Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, respectively. Both the proximity to the prescribed fire as well as conditions during the time of the burn, that resulted in a relatively large area that was smoldering overnight and meteorological conditions that resulted in smoke settling

PM2.

5 (u

g/M

3 )


in low lying areas overnight and into the morning, were likely the cause of the higher impacts. In addition, conditions in the early fall typically result in smoke lingering into the morning longer, since it takes longer for the sun to heat the valley floors, which in turn leads to smoke dispersing more slowing, under these conditions.

Figure 7. 24-hour averages of PM2.5 at selected sites during the San Juan prescribed fire in 2012. (ug/m3)

The San Juan prescribed fire was followed by the Chaparral prescribed burn approximately 1 week later. This burn occurred during the week of October 29th when approximately 1,500 acres were treated. Again there were similar impacts in the Albuquerque metro area, as seen in Figure 8. There were approximately 3 days of elevated PM2.5 concentrations measured in the Moderate level for 24-hours based on the AQI. During this prescribed fire a monitor was not deployed in the drainages below the prescribed fire but there were reports of elevated smoke in the Jemez Pueblo during this time.

24-hour average for PM2.5 values at selected sites during the San Juan Prescribed burn

20 18 16 14 12 10

8 6 4 2 0

10/17/2012 10/18/2012 10/19/2012 10/20/2012 10/21/2012

ABQ-North Valley ABQ-South Valley Bernalillo Santa Fe-Airport

PM2.

5 (u

g/m

3 )


24-hour averages for PM2.5 at selected sites during the Chaparral Prescribed burn 2012

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 29-Oct 30-Oct 31-Oct 1-Nov 2-Nov 3-Nov 4-Nov

ABQ-North Valley ABQ-South Valley Bernalillo Santa Fe- Airport

Figure 8. 24-hour averages of PM2.5 at selected sites during the Chaparral prescribed fire in 2012. (ug/m3)

Elevated PM2.5 concentrations can be attributed to both prescribed fires and wildfires, as have occurred in the area over the last several years. Communities closest to the fire typically experience the greatest impacts. Wildfires often have greater impacts than prescribed fire, both in terms of concentrations and duration of impacts of PM2.5 concentrations. While generally, the area has very good air quality in terms on particle pollution, there have been incidences of Unhealthy air quality based on the AQI associated from both wildfire and prescribed fire in the past several years.

Ozone

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that forms as a result of chemical reactions in the atmosphere when the primary pollutants of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are exposed to sunlight. The precursors to ozone are generally produced as emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. Sources in this area include two power plants near Farmington in San Juan County, engine exhaust from oil and gas development, and mobile sources including cars, trucks and recreational vehicles. However, smoke from wildland fire does contain precusors for ozone, and fire smoke has been known to contribute to increased ozone concentrations under certain conditions (Jaffe 2012).

Ozone levels are monitored in the geographic area. Figure 5 shows the 4th highest value for 8-hour ozone from 2007 through 2012. The ozone standard is 0.075 ppm (for the 3-year average of the 4th highest value of 8-hour ozone). Although standards are currently being met, one monitored site in Albuquerque has exceeded the standard for two years, though the 3 year average is below the standard.

However, during recent events described in the previous section, no significant impacts to ozone concentrations occurred as a result of the wildfires or prescribed fires in the communities in the project area, including the Albuquerque and Santa Fe metro areas. In addition due to the complexity and uncertainty of ozone modeling from wildfires and since no impacts have been noted in recent years from wildland fire events, impacts to ozone levels was not considered as part of this analysis.

PM2.

5 (u

g/m

3 )


4th Highest 8-hour O3 Selected Sites

0.090

0.080

0.070

0.060

0.050

0.040

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000

Standard = 75 ppb*

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Del Norte High School Far North East Heights South Valley Mountain View

South East Heights Westside Santa Fe Airport

Figure 5. 4th highest 8-hour ozone concentrations (ppm) for selected monitoring sites, 2006-2012 (*Standard applies to 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value averaged over 3 years)

Visibility

Visibility relates to conditions that allow humans to see and appreciate the inherent beauty of the landscape features, and these conditions can be greatly impacted by particular matter and gasses that are in smoke or dust (Malm 2000). Visibility and other air quality standards are most stringent within designated Class 1 areas, such as in wilderness areas over 5000 acres and national parks over 6000 acres. Thus, most air quality visibility monitoring is conducted in the Class 1 areas, shown in Figure 2.

The IMPROVE network was established in 1985 to measure visibility at Class 1 areas. The IMPROVE site monitors at Bandelier National Park and the San Pedro Parks station measure aerosols and particulate matter that can contribute to reduced visibility and identify the chemicals and emissions responsible for human-caused visibility impairment (FLAG 2002).

The Regional Haze Rule sets a goal to return these areas to natural visibility conditions by 2064. Figures 6 and 7 show the visibility conditions on the 20% worst visibility days at San Pedro Parks Wilderness and Bandelier National Park, from 2000 through 2011. It also shows the glide path that would be necessary in order to return visibility conditions to normal by 2064, based on baseline data from 2006 through 2010. Measurements are in deciviews (an index that approximates the amount of visibility change that can be observed by the human eye) and beta extinction (a more scientific measure of light reduction). As of 2010, both Class 1 areas were slightly ahead of schedule but further improvements will be needed to meet the national visibility goal. In 2011, visibility was impacted at both monitoring locations as a result of smoke from the Las Conchas and Wallow fires.

O3

(ppm

)


Figure 6. Visibility Conditions on Worst 20% Visibility Days for San Pedro Parks Wilderness and Glide Path to 2064 Goal.

Figure 7. Visibility Conditions on Worst 20% Visibility Days for Bandelier National Park and Glide Path to 2064 Goal.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology The following section analyzes the potential emissions from the5 alternatives being considered. Emissions were evaluated rather than direct air quality impacts, due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with assessing impacts, for future actions, such as prescribed fire. This is because the most significant factor that affects impacts to air quality is the meteorology at a specific time which a project is implemented. Impacts to ozone levels, visibility, and direct PM2.5 concentrations downwind were not directly analyzed, due to the high level of uncertainty with modeling these conditions and the significant variability associated with such an assessment. The primary factor necessary for understanding these


effects in populated areas of these pollutants are the meteorological conditions during any specific wildland fire event. Due to the variability and uncertainty of specific meteorological conditions at any given time and that each alternative could be implemented in identical conditions, it is best to drop this variable from the analysis, since it would make evaluating any differences between alternatives irrelevant. Therefore this analysis compares the modeled emission of various pollutants, to draw distinctions between alternatives, while holding weather conditions constant. While this approach does not predict direct impacts, it does provide some indication of the relative magnitude between alternatives, based on the predicted emissions between each alternative.

The primary environmental impacts to air quality analyzed in this assessment are total emissions from prescribed fire. Presented here are total emissions for PM2.5 and carbon dioxide (CO2) for each alternative, the average emissions of each treatment by alternative, the average annual emissions, and the maximum annual emissions.

Consume, v. 3.0 was used to model the five alternatives. Consume is a fuels model commonly used to estimate smoke emissions. Basic input data, such as fuel types, the type of fire (prescribed fire or wildfire), the condition of the unit (has it been mechanically treated or is the fire simulate a natural broadcast burn), and environmental conditions (fuel moisture) are entered into the model. The model then estimates emissions for a variety of pollutants, such as PM2.5 and carbon dioxide. For this analysis, the alternatives were modeled based on estimated acres of four main fuel types, ponderosa pine, wet and dry mixed conifer, and piñon-juniper forests. Alternatives were varied by acres for prescribed fire and those acres that were harvested and then treated with prescribed fire. Fuels moistures were used consistent with conditions in which prescribed fire would take place. For each fuel type, it was assumed that fire suppression and grazing had affected the fuel loads, by increasing the standing biomass in each fuel type, from a natural fire regime that would have reduced the biomass available to burn. The wildfire scenario had the same footprint (area) as the prescribed fire alternatives and assumed that 30% of the area burned with high severity, which is similar to other large wildfires in this area in these fuel types. To make the comparison meaningful, it was assumed that all the acres were burned according to the constraints in each alternative. However, it is understood that under any of the alternatives the final footprint could vary significantly, both as a result of final implementation and recognizing the fire both from prescribed fire and wildfire leaves a mosaic of burned and unburned fuel across the landscape, which is the largest factor influencing uncertainty in the analysis. A complete set of assumptions and outputs for all pollutants modeled is in the record (Hall 2013).

Ozone concentrations approaching the federal standard as a result of prescribed fire, is not expected to be significant. Furthermore as a result of the high level of uncertainty associated with the models, the lack of data to support such models, the significant amount of resources required for such an analysis, and the highly uncertain results from such an analysis, direct modeling of ozone was not done. In addition, past wildfires in the area have not resulted in impacts to ozone concentrations in the analysis area, so it was assumed that emissions from prescribed fire is not likely to result in significant impacts to ozone concentrations in the analysis area.

Impacts from toxics known to be present in smoke, metals including mercury, radionuclides, by products of accelerants, are not expected to result in any significant public health impacts. Direct modeling of impacts from toxics was not done, due to the high level of uncertainty in such an analysis, both in terms of quantifying the amounts both produced and estimated concentrations downwind, and the high degree of uncertainty quantifying health impacts. In addition, since significant impacts have been shown from PM from smoke from wildfire and prescribed fire, it was determined to focus on those pollutants, rather than pollutants not known to have resulted in significant impacts.


Vehicle emissions, associated from roadwork, equipment used for mechanical treatments, thinning, and harvesting wood are not expected to result in significant impacts from any of the alternatives. Impacts from these types of emissions were not directly modeled, except for carbon dioixide, to illustrate the emissions relative to those from prescribed fire. Most emissision were not modeled due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with such an analysis and that air quality in the project area is considered to be very good such that the relatively small amount of emissions from such actions, and the relatively short period that these actions would take place, would be considered negligible to the broader airshed. In addition, emissions from any of these actions are already reduced by federal fuel standards.

Fugitive dust from roadwork and quarries, is not expected to create significant impacts to air quality. Impacts from these types of emissions was not directly modeled . This is also due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with such an analysis and that air quality in the project area is considered to be very good such that the relatively small amount of emissions from such actions would be considered negligible to the broader airshed. Any actions building roads or mining quarries, is likely to last for a very short period of time, a few months rather than years, and the dust would be isolated to very small areas and would pose a threat to visibility or air quality standards. In addition, fugitive dust from the construction, operation, and maintenance of quarries and roads, could be reduced by federal contract requirements dictating standard specifications and best management practices to reduce fugitive dust, if deemed necessary for a particular project (FHA 2003)(USFS 2012).

In the DEIS, emissions associated from other operations such as mechanical haversting, timber hauling, gravel operations, road maintenance, construction, and decommissioning, was not modeled or considered since it was likely insignificant compared to the emissions from prescribed fire and further any emissions would likely be negligible in terms of potential impacts to NAAQS in the surrounding area. To address commenters concerns, this analysis has now been included below.

Summary of environmental impacts by alternative

The primary environmental impacts to air quality analyzed in this assessment are emissions from prescribed fire. To distinguish between alternatives, the maximum acres of the project area that could have prescribed fire applied were modeled for each alternative to assess the maximum amount of potential emissions from each alternative. The main differences between alternatives relevant to this assessment are: the number of acres that could have prescribed fire: whether the acres have been harvested prior to using prescribed fire or not; and the type of vegetation on each acre treated by prescribed fire. For this assessment, approximately 72,000 acres were treated with prescribed fire for both Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. The main difference for this assessment between Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 are the proportions of acres that are primarily ponderosa pine, wet and dry mixed conifer, and piñon- juniper. Alternative 2, assumed approximately 18,000 acres would be treated with prescribed fire and Alternative 4, assumed that prescribed fire would only be used on acres that had not been harvested or approximately 40,000 acres. The specific location in the project area was not considered since any type of fire in the project area would affect the same airshed.

Presented here are total emissions for PM2.5 and carbon dioxide (CO2) for each alternative, the average emissions of each treatment by alternative, the average annual emissions, and the maximum annual emissions.

Total Project Emissions by Alternative

Modeled total emissions were greatest in Alternatives 1, 3, and 5, with no significant distinction between the three alternatives. Total emissions were least in Alternative 2, the No Action Alternative, with estimated total emissions approximately 19% of Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. Alternative 4 had approximately


39% of the total emissions of Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. Figure 8 and 9, below, illustrates the differences between alternatives using the total metric tons of PM2.5 and carbon dioxide (CO2) estimated for each alternative. Emissions from each fuel type for acres treated with prescribed fire only and those acres that were mechanically harvested and then treated with prescribed fire were modeled for the five alternatives. All pollutants modeled, resulted in the same pattern between alternatives, though the total emissions for each pollutant varied. As illustrated below, with approximately 19,000 metric tons of PM2.5 for Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 and approximately 2.4 million metric tons of CO2 in Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. Also for reference, Figures 8 & 9 has the estimated modeled emissions for PM2.5 and CO2, from a wildfire, assuming that a wildfire was contained in the same footprint as Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. In each case, wildfire’s total emissions exceed that of any of the alternatives. It should be noted however, that a wildfire would likely occur over single event potentially lasting for several weeks, while all of the proposed alternatives would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 10 years for the initial treatments modeled here, to occur.

Figure 8. Total PM2.5 Emission By Alternative (Metric Tons PM2.5)

PM2.5 Emissions By Alternative (Metric Tons PM2.5) 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Wildfire

Prescribed fire Mechanical & Prescribed fire

Tons

PM

2.5


Figure 9. Total CO2 Emission By Alternative (Metric Tons CO2)

Average emissions of each treatment by alternative

While total emission for each pollutant is the most illustrative difference between alternatives, the tons per acre of emissions for various treatments is also important to note. Alternatives 1-3, and 5 are all a combination of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments that are then treated with prescribed fire. Alternative 4 only treats acres with prescribed fire that have not been treated mechanically. Figure 10 below, shows the estimated average metric tons/acre of emissions of PM2.5 that would be produced for various treatments. While other pollutants were also modeled only PM2.5 emissions are shown because they are the most significant concern. In addition, while the average metric tons/acre varies between pollutants, they all follow the same pattern as demonstrated in figure 10. The modeled metric tons/acre shows that acres that have been mechanically treated and then burned produce the most emissions on a per acre basis. This is a result of higher fuel loads from the slash or activity fuels that have been left behind after a unit has been mechanically harvested. On a per acre basis, prescribed fire of natural fuels (acres not previously harvested) produces the least amount of emissions. Also presented is the average metric tons/acre of PM2.5 for all the acres combined for each alternative. While the estimated metric tons/acre for prescribed fire vs. the metric tons/acres from units harvested and then burned fairly consistent between alternatives, any differences is a result of the various proportions of fuel types and their treatment type between alternatives. For example, alternatives 1, 3, and 5, approximately 73% of the acres that are mechanically harvested and burned are ponderosa pine, vs. approximately 71% of the acres that are mechanically treated and then burned in alternative 2 are the dry mixed conifer fuel type. While the main driver in the differences in total emissions between alternatives, is the total number of acres treated by fire, the average metric tons/acre varies considerably by treatment type.

Figure 10 shows the average amount of PM2.5 produced in metric tons per acre under each alternative by treatment type. The metric tons per acre are presented in addition to the total emissions, to further illustrate the differences between alternatives, and to also address the uncertainty between alternatives regarding their final footprints. This analysis is presented to draw distinction between alternatives at the smallest scale, reducing the greatest factor contributing to the uncertainty, which are the total acres treated with prescribed fire under each alternative. The combined emissions per acre provide the weighted average between treatments across each alternative. The wildfire emissions present the weighted average

CO2 Emissions by Alternative (Metric Tons CO2) 3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Wildfire

Prescribed fire Mechanical & Prescribed fire

Tons

CO

2


of emissions per acre combining a mixture of burn severity and crown fire, based on similar severities seen on recent large fires in the Jemez Mountains.

Figure 10. Average emissions of PM2.5 by alternative (metric tons/acre PM2.5)

Maximum and average annual emissions

Unless the project area were to have a wildfire burn the entire area at one time, it is assumed that individual prescribed burns would be implemented annually over a 10 year time period, in order treat the entire project area. These individual prescribed burns could range anywhere from a couple hundred acres up to 15,000 acres in a single year. To estimate the relative magnitude of emissions between alternatives both the maximum amount of a single prescribed fire was modeled as well as the annual average emissions between alternatives.

Figure 11, illustrates the differences in estimated emissions between alternatives for a 15,000 prescribed fire, or the estimated maximum size of a single prescribed fire. Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 produced the most emission of PM2.5, with an estimated amount of approximately 4,400 tons of PM2.5. Alternative 4 and 2 produced approximately 30% less emissions of PM2.5. While the acres for each of the prescribed burns modeled for each alternative was the same the estimated tons per acre of emissions is different, which is represented in the emission reductions for alternatives 2 and 4. It is assumed that a prescribed fire such as this would take more than a week to implement, and based on past monitoring data presented earlier in this assessment, concentrations would likely fall into the Unhealthy category of the AQI for several days during the prescribed burn, in communities directly below the individual project. However, this is based on the specific meteorological conditions at the time of those prescribed burns and may not represent the impacts that could be associated with any of these alternatives. The emissions presented in Figure 11 only represent the maximum emissions of PM2.5 from the assumed largest prescribed burn that could be implemented. Thus the figure represents the relative difference in the magnitude of emissions.

Average emissions PM2.5 by alternative, by treatment (metric tons/acre)

0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Wildfire

Prescribed fire Mechanical & Prescribed fire Combined


Figure 11. Maximum emissions from a single prescribed fire of PM2.5 by alternative

Figure 12, illustrates the average annual emissions, in tons of PM2.5 from each alternative. The assessment is based on the average acres between alternatives, assuming the entire project area would be treated over a 10 year period. For Alternatives 1, 3, and 5, it is assumed that they would treat between 7,000 and 8,000 acres annually with prescribed fire. Alternative 2, would treat approximately 2,000 acres per year, and Alternative 4 would treat approximately 4,000 acres per year with prescribed fire. Assuming that the tons/acre of emissions are consistent with the combined tons/acre of PM2.5 in Figure 10, Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 would produce the most emissions annually. Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 would produce the least amount of emissions of PM2.5 (tons) compared to Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 with reductions of 82% and 61%, respectively.

Figure 12. Average annual emissions of PM2.5 by alternative

Average Annual Emissions PM2.5 (tons) 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Maximum emissions PM2.5 by Alternative- assuming 15,000 acre prescibed burn (tons )

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000



It should be noted that Figure 11 represents the maximum emissions for a single year and Figure 12 represents the average emissions for a single year over the life of the project. In reality, some years could have more or less prescribed burning based on conditions in that specific year. For example, if meteorological conditions or conditions in the forest are not consistent with those defined in the design criteria, there would be no prescribed fires that year. Alternatively, some years there could be more prescribed burning, if conditions were very conducive to using prescribed fire. Estimates in Figures 11 and 12 are just the best estimates at maximum emissions and average emissions between alternatives, and are presented to illustrate potential differences between alternatives and should not be construed as actual emissions in a given year.


To address concerns from commenters, an analysis of emissions associated from other operations such as mechanical harvesting, timber hauling, gravel operations, road maintenance, construction, and decommissioning was conducted for carbon dioxide, using the carbon content of gasoline, diesel fuel, and aviation gasoline (EPA, 2004). For each alternative, emissions were calculated using the carbon content of the associated fuels, the amount of operations that is assumed to occur for each activity under each alternative, and the fuel efficiency of each operation. For example, for each alternative that would remove biomass from the forest, the total volume of material was calculated. Based on this volume and the volume a log truck could remove and total number of round trips was calculated. This value was then used with the fuel efficiency of a truck, and the estimated distance that it would need to travel, to estimate the total amount of metric tons of carbon dioxide that would be associated with hauling material off the forest. A similar calculation was conducted for harvesting, road maintenance, construction, and decommissioning, prescribed fire operations not including smoke, and gravel operations. All calculations and assumptions can be seen in project record (Napp, 2014).

Figure 13, illustrates the total estimated emissions of carbon dioxide from non-prescribed fire activities in metric tons by alternative for the life of the project. Alternatives, 1, 3, 4, and 5 have similar emissions, producing approximately and estimated amount of 2,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide over the life of the project. In each alternative, harvesting produces approximately 70% of the total carbon dioxide emissions resulting from non-prescribed fire carbon dioxide emissions.

Figure 13. Total emissions of carbon dioxide by alternative (metric tons CO2) not including smoke from prescribed fires. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 produce approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide .

Total non-smoke emissions of carbon dioxide by alternative (metric tons)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500


Harvesting Gravel Roads Air Ops/RX Burn


When compared to carbon dioxide produced from smoke in each alternative, non-smoke related emissions of carbon dioxide are estimated to be less than 1% of the total carbon dioxide emissions over the life of the project for all alternatives. Table 5 shows the estimated carbon dioxide in metric tons produced for various operations including carbon dioxide from smoke associated with prescribed fire. In comparison, the sum of all non-smoke carbon dioxide emissions from Alternatives 1, 3, 4 or 5 for the life of the project is equal to approximately 1.5 hours of carbon dioxide emissions from an average coal fired power plants or approximately 473 passenger vehicles per year (EPA 2014).

Table 1.Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide, by category for each alternative.

Operation

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Harvesting

1,525

98

1,444

1,525

1,664

Gravel

424

212

424

424

424

Roads

117

117

112

117

117

Air Operations/Prescribed fire

77

19

77

46

77

Smoke / Prescribed fire

2,388,809

469,004

2,353,482

1,063,991

2,373,331

Effects of Forest Plan amendments on alternatives There are twelve proposed forest plan amendments for alternatives 1-4. These amendments effect treatments in areas associated with various wildlife species (Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO), Northern Goshawk, turkey, and Peregrine Falcon) and the management of Visual Quality. These amendments have very small and insignificant effects on air quality as it relates from distinguishing one alternative from another. This is primary a result of the small areas affected by the amendments. For example, eliminating the MSO amendments from analysis in Alternative 5, resulted in a less than 1% change in emissions between alternatives 1 and 3. Considering the degree of uncertainty in the models and the analysis, this amount of change is insignificant and does not allow for a meaningful distinction between the three alternatives. Since the air quality analysis examined effects at the project level, these amendments have no effect of the results of the analysis and have insignificant effects on air quality.

Climate Change

Recent research has demonstrated that there is a close relationship with increased areas burned in wildfires and higher temperatures in the west (Westerling 2006). Future predictions of the southwestern climate forecast a drier future, which in turn leads to an increase in wildfire risk (Seager 2012). While forests store large amounts of carbon, research has consistently shown that after a wildfire, they become a source of releasing carbon into the atmosphere for decades afterwards, even after the initial loss of carbon in smoke (Dore 2012). The same research shows that forests are far more resilient to drier conditions and act as carbon “sinks”, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere more that they release, within a few years after thinning projects and prescribed fire projects (Dore 2012)(Fule 2012)(Stephens 2012)(Honig 2012).


The purpose and need states that the reason for conducting the project is to make the forest “less susceptible to undesirable, large-scale disturbances such as high severity wildfire and climate change”. At the same time comments have been made that this project will contribute to climate change by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a result of prescribed fire. Figure 9, illustrates that large amounts of CO2 will be produced in each alternative. Alternatives 1, 3, and 5, would produce the most amount of CO2, followed by alternative 4, and alternative 2 would produce the least. The amount of CO2 produced by a wildfire that burned the entire project area, would be greater than any of the alternatives. Not shown, are other greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, however it is assumed that the pattern between alternatives will remain the same with all greenhouse gases. Also, the forest’s capacity to absorb carbon in its biomass, or release it through decomposition between alternatives was not modeled. However, as indicated in the previous paragraph, research suggests that on the whole, forests that are thinned and treated with prescribed fire: produce significantly less greenhouse gases initially; will start absorbing more carbon than they produce with a couple years after treatment; and are more resilient to large scale disturbances that are likely to result from the forecasted warmer drier climate, than those that have had uncharacteristically severe wildfires.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for considering cumulative smoke related effects is the portion of the Middle Rio Grande airshed. It would not be necessary to analyze all the activities within the entire Middle Rio Grande airshed, which covers a large portion of the state of New Mexico spanning several counties. The relatively short term duration of smoke emissions from this project would not affect long term air quality in the area, and may mitigate the effects on air quality from a wildfire.

Cumulative effects include those from past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities that combine with effects of the proposed project in contributing to the total particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and ozone load in the same airshed. Generally, the cumulative effects analysis area lacks large industry capable of contributing significant PM or carbon dioxide. While the other potential sources of these pollutants cannot be accurately quantified, they are as follows:

• Use of fireplaces and wood stoves contributes PM and CO2 mostly from November-April.

• Dust from unpaved roads does not typically travel very far or contribute large amounts of PM.

• Industry emissions are a negligible contribution.

• Prescribed burning by agencies and private landowners are a common contribution of PM and CO2.

• Wildfires usually occur annually and contribute relatively large amount of PM and CO2 .

Thus, emissions from prescribed burning activities outside of the project area, but within or near the same airshed, in addition to emissions from the various other sources, and the existing PM and CO2 in the air from past activities, would increase the amount of pollutants that would be distributed to areas downwind. Of these sources of PM and CO, prescribed burning and fireplace smoke are the most common and would be the primary contributors to cumulative air quality effects. Fall and winter burning of slash piles in the project area and in the surrounding forests would contribute incrementally to the cumulative smoke effects from residential use of wood stoves and fireplaces. Cumulative effects from prescribed burning would be mitigated through coordination with other prescribed fire projects and NMED, so that multiple prescribed burns do not affect the same airshed at the same time, if they were determined to cumulatively result in significant impacts.


Fine particulate emissions from the proposed action combined with other sources would add to the regional haze that results when there are multiple sources of emissions during the same time period. During temperature inversions, the haze becomes concentrated near the surface. Proposed actions would contribute an insignificant amount to the regional haze and overall air pollution load within this airshed, in part due to the timing, coordination and monitoring, low emissions concentrations, and other mitigation measures previously described. Although burning could occur any time throughout the year, a higher percentage of the broadcast prescribed burning would likely occur in the spring, summer, or fall rather than during the winter when residents use wood-burning stoves/fireplaces and there are more air inversions. Piles burned during the winter months would involve timing restrictions to allow for adequate smoke dispersal. To further reduce cumulative effects to air quality, prescribed burning would be coordinated between Federal land managers and the State regulatory agency so as not to overwhelm the air resource. The State would regulate and decide if and when burn permits are issued to the Forest Service and others in order to avoid cumulative effects that might exceed air quality standards. Thus overall, the cumulative increase in emissions from this project is not expected to be significant enough to approach concentrations that would exceed State or Federal air quality standards.

Conclusion about effects

While there is a potential for significant health impacts from any of the alternatives associated with the public’s exposure to PM2.5, the relative risk corresponds to the total amount of emissions produced from each alternative as shown in Figure’s 8 and 9. All of the alternatives would comply with state and federal law, as well as are consistent with all forest plan standards and guidelines. No amendment to the forest plan would be needed.

Emissions on the Santa Fe National Forest are regulated by the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau. All prescribed burns would comply with Mew Mexico’s Smoke Mangement Program. Prescribed burning would be restricted on days with less than good ventilation conditions and emission reduction techniques (ERTs) would be required. As a result, the effects to air quality would be minimized due to the reduction of emission produced. In addition, monitoring equipment will be deployed to assess impacts to communities likely affected from prescribed burning. In addition, due to the potential to have significant health impacts to communities downwind and down drainage from prescribed fire a high level of communication and coordination, would be required prior to the implementation of any prescribed fire project.

No smoke would be generated from thinning or wood and slash removal; however, there would be other minor impacts to air quality by these activities, such as fugitive dust and exhaust from vehicles, heavy equipment, and chain saws. The levels of exhaust are anticipated to fall well below EPA emission standards. Road dust would be higher than current conditions during these activities unless they are conducted while the ground is frozen or the road is moist. Constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads would also stir up dust; however, this kind of dust settles fairly quickly, can be mitigated with dust abatement techniques, and is limited spatially.

Based on typical daytime winds in the area, smoke would likely move toward the northeast and would likely dissipate during the periods of active burning. During the daytime burns, the amount of smoke generated would tend to be greatest for a few hours in the late afternoon when the fire is hottest. However, people in the surrounding areas and in Albuquerque and Santa Fe would likely see smoke in the air.

In the evenings, it is likely that smoke would settle into canyons and stream valleys and would likely drain down into Ponderosa and the Jemez River valley, potentially reaching the Albuquerque metro area. Thus, smoke would be most noticeable in the late evening and early morning hours. Smoke would be


noticeable during the periods of burning which, for individual projects could be expected to last for five to seven days, followed by several days afterwards as the interior fuels smolder.

Based on past prescribed burns in the same area, it could be expected that individual projects under each alternative have the potential to cause short term impacts in communities downwind of the projects. These impacts decrease the further away from the project area a community is located. For example, it should be expected that communities such as Ponderosa would experience periods when air quality is unhealthy, while Albuquerque or Santa Fe may experience periods when air quality falls into the moderate range for a 3 or 8 hour period based on levels identified under the Air Quality Index modified for exposure to smoke (CARB 2008).

Emission reduction techniques would be used to reduce the actual amount of emissions produced from fire, where appropriate, to aid in the maintenance of air quality. For broadcast burning, the following techniques could be used:

• Burning could occur with higher fuel moistures in the larger fuels so that they are not readily consumed. Based on estimates by research compiled by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) this could reduce emissions by 43%.

• A backing fire could likely be utilized for significant portions of the burn area. WRAP estimates that this can reduce emissions by up to 45%.

• Aerial Ignitions could also be employed which WRAP estimates can reduce emissions by 10%, due to the efficiency in the burn.

Mechanical treatments, thinning, and harvesting can reduce the amount of fuels available to be burned, which in turn can lead to lower emissions, when biomass is removed. Mechanical treatments, thinning, and harvesting can also lead to higher emissions, when those areas are subsequently burned after treatment due to the higher amount of fuel available after these types of treatments. Non-burning alternatives would achieve fuels treatments while mimicking prescribed burning efforts. The following methods would be used to achieve this goal for both alternatives:

• Cut material could be piled to allow for most complete consumption of particulate matter.

• Material could be hauled offsite and utilized for woody products to reduce the total volume of material burned.

The emission estimates, in Figures 8 and 9 do not apply any reductions from ERTs other that the fuel consumption reduction associated with default fuel moistures. Reductions from aerial ignition were not considered.

In addition to health concerns associated with particulates and other emissions, high levels of particulate matter in smoke can impair visibility. Significant visibility impairment can lead to highway accidents or problems with planes landing at airports. If an intensive wildfire would occur, visibility along Highway 4 in the Jemez Springs Area to Los Alamos and Highway 550 to Bernalillo could be reduced. This could result in a higher risk of traffic accidents, road closures, or other impacts to motorists along portions of New Mexico Highways and local private and forest roads. There could also be major impairments to visibility in portions of the Bandelier National Monument and San Pedro Parks Wilderness, however, this should reduce impacts in future years and should not impede progress towards the 2064 visibility goals.

Best Available Science


For this assessment the Best Available Science was used, that is relevant, accurate, and reliable. Uncertainty in the assessment has been appropriately documented where relevant. Government data that has met strict protocols for data collection was used to assess the current conditions and trends with regards to ambient air quality, and visibility. Monitoring data and models used were based on multi- agency government research, analysis, and following Forest Service protocols.


References

AIRNow. 2013. Air Quality Index (AQI)- A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health. Accessed May 2013 at: http://www.airnow.gov/?action=aqibasics.aqi and http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=pubs.aqguidepart

Arkell, R. E, and F. Richards. 1986. Short duration rainfall relations for the western United States. Conference on Climate and Water Management—A Critical Era and Conference on Human Consequences; August 4-7, 1986, Asheville NC. Published by the Meteorological Society.

Brook, RD, B Franklin, W Cascio et al. (2004). Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association. Circulation 109: 2655–2671.

Butler, B. W., M. Finney, L. Bradshaw, J. Forthofer, C. McHugh, R. Stratton, and D. Jimenez. 2006. WindWizard: a new tool for fire management decision support. Conference Proceedings: Fuels Management- How to Measure Success, March 28-30, 2006. Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. US

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2013. Wildfire Smoke: A Guide for Public Health Officials. 2008. Accessed May 2013 at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/carpa/toolkit/data-to-mes/wildfire-smoke-guide.pdf with 2013 update: http://www.arb.ca.gov/carpa/toolkit/data-to-mes/wildfire-smoke-guide-table3-2013.pdf

Delfino, RJ, S Brummel, J Wu, H Stern et al. (2009). The relationship of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions to the southern California wildfires of 2003. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66: 189-197.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.10 p. FLAG. 2002. Federal land managers' air quality related values workgroup, phase 1 report. December 2000. 186 pp. Dore, S., M. Montes‐Helu, S.C. Hart, B.A. Hungate, G.W. Koch, J.B. Moon, A.J. Finkral, and T.E. Kolb. 2012. Recovery of ponderosa pine ecosystem carbon and water fluxes from thinning and stand-replacing fire. Global Change Biology 18:3171-3185.

Elliott, CT, SB Henderson, V Wan (2013). Time series analysis of fine particulate matter and asthma reliever dispensations in populations affected by forest fires. Environmental Health 12:11

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, J.P. Roccaforte, and E.L. Kalies. 2012. Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? Forest Ecology and Management 269: 68–81.

Hall, J. (2013) SWJMR Consume assumptions. Excel- PDF

Honig, K.A., and P.Z. Fulé. 2012. Simulating effects of climate change and ecological restoration on fire behavior in a southwestern USA ponderosa pine forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate change 2000: synthesis report, summary for policy makers. p. 2 and p. 5.<http://www.ipcc.ch> Accessed April 2008.

http://www.airnow.gov/?action=aqibasics.aqi

http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=pubs.aqguidepart

http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=pubs.aqguidepart

http://www.arb.ca.gov/carpa/toolkit/data-to-mes/wildfire-smoke-guide.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/carpa/toolkit/data-to-mes/wildfire-smoke-guide-table3-2013.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,Z. Chen, M. Marquis,

K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp.15-16.

Napp, C. 2014. Carbon dioxide emissions estimates for all alternatives for mechanical harvesting, tree hauling, road construction, and gravel production. Excel- PDF.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2003. New Mexico Counties and Airsheds map; New Mexico Environment Department, Air Qulaity Bureau. Accessed online May 2013 at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/SMP/GuidanceDoc/SMPAppxO03.18.04.pdf.

Pope, CA 3rd, RT Burnett, MJ Thun et al. (2002). Lung cancer,cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287: 1132-1141.

Pope, CA 3rd, RT Burnett, GD Thurston et al. (2004). Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution: epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways disease. Circulation 109: 71-77.

Seager, R., and G.A. Vecchi. 2012. Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate of southwestern North America. PNAS 107:21277- 21282.

Sheppard, L, D Levvy, G Norris, TV Larson et al. (1999). Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on Nonelderly Asthma Hospital Admissions in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Epidemiology 10: 23-30.

Smidt, M & Gallagher, T. 2013. Auburn School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. Accessed online at: http://web1.cnre.vt.edu/forestry/cofe/documents/2013/Smidt_Gallagher.pdf

Stephens, S.L., J.D. McIver, R.E.J. Boerner, C.J. Fettig, J.B. Fontaine, B.R. Hartsough, P. Kennedy, and D.W. Schwilk. (2012) Effects of forest fuel reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience, 62, 549-560.

Swetnam, T.W.1988. Fire history and climate change in the Southwestern United States, Proceedings- Symposium on effects of fire in management of Southwestern natural resources, Nov.15-17, 1988,

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Accessed online on June 9, 2014 at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. EPA Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. As of December 14, 2012. Accessed online in May 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA Air data monitor values report. On-line at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html, June 2009.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Unit Conversions, Emissions Factors, and other reference data. Source: U.S. EPA U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002, 2004. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/brochure.pdf

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/SMP/GuidanceDoc/SMPAppxO03.18.04.pdf

http://web1.cnre.vt.edu/forestry/cofe/documents/2013/Smidt_Gallagher.pdf

http://web1.cnre.vt.edu/forestry/cofe/documents/2013/Smidt_Gallagher.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html%23results

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html

http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/brochure.pdf


US Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Standard Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects: FP-03. U.S. Customary Units. U.S. Department of Transportation.

US Forest Sevice. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands: Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FS-990a. April 2012.

Union Pacific Railroad Application for Development Project Approval: INTERMODAL CONTAINER TRANSFER FACILITY (ICTF) ODERNIZATION PROJECT- Conceptual Construction Equipment Utilization, Appendix B, Union Pacific ICTF Modernization Project. 2008. Accessed online at: http://www.ictf-jpa.org/document_library/application_development_project_approval/App%20B.pdf

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). 2013. Western Regional Air Partnership Technical Support System database (WRAP TSS), Haze Planning Modeling Database. Accessed May 2013 at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx.

Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789), 940–943.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2013. Station Wind Rose Climatology, Jemez RAWS station. Accessed May 2013 at http://www.raws.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?nmXJEM.

http://www.ictf-jpa.org/document_library/application_development_project_approval/App%20B.pdf

http://www.ictf-jpa.org/document_library/application_development_project_approval/App%20B.pdf

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx

http://www.raws.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?nmXJEM

project overview project area- airshed and class 1...

Documents