1

Critical Loads of Atmospheric Deposition (CLAD) Science Committee

April 23, Spring 2013 NADP Meeting, Madison, WI

NOTES

1:15 PM Welcome and CLAD Business (Jason Lynch & Jennifer Phelan)

The 18 participants introduce themselves: Claire O’Dea (USFS), Rich Pouyat (USFS), Cindy Huber (Focus

Project management, NADP Contractor), Jason Lynch (EPA), Tamara Blett (NPS), Doug Burns (USGS),

John Sherwell (MD DNR), Donna Schwede (EPA), Dan Johnson (WESTSTAR), Jennifer Phelan (RTI), Tim

Sullivan (E&S Environmental Chemistry), Chuck Sams (USFS), Gary Lear (EPA), Eladio Knipping (EPRI),

David Gay (NADP), Chris Clark (EPA), Cathy Weathers (Cary Institute), Leiming Zhang (Environment

Canada)

Phone: Clara Funk (EPA), Kris Novak (EPA), Ellen Porter (NPS), Hobie Perry (USFS), Anne Mebane (USFS),

Jon Kachmar (TNC), Rich Scheffe (EPA), Pat Shaw, Randy Waite (EPA), Robin Dennis (EPA), Krish

Vijayaraghavan (Environ), Jill Webster (US Fish and Wildlife), Linda Pardo (USFS), and Jeffrey Herrick

(EPA).

1:30-2:30 PM FOCUS Update (Cindy Huber, Jennifer Phelan, Jason Lynch, Linda Pardo)

A. Report on FOCUS status

FOCUS (Focal Center Utility Study) is a project of CLAD that was initiated in the fall of 2010. FOCUS

followed the guidance of UNECE to assemble a national critical loads database; the first version was

completed in the spring of 2011. The Phase I report was presented in the spring of 2012; Tamara Blett is

leading the way on a publication/report which is in final review prior to submission. A work plan was

created for FOCUS Phase II to improve and refine the database by developing standardized methods and

protocols, and enhancing the resolution and spatial-temporal coverage of data to reduce the

uncertainty in CL estimates and deposition rates. Goals include expanding and improving the existing

database, making the database more widely accessible, bringing together scientists and professionals to

improve the database, describing and reducing uncertainty, identifying information gaps and prioritizing

how to fill gaps, and identifying and defining database-related needs. Phase II work remains a work-in-

progress, expanding and bringing in new people and ideas.

At this time, the database complete and ready to go public (for real this time)! The database will likely

be available through university of Illinois site. CLAD group members will be able to get access to site and

download database through the BOX file sharing site.

Working Group: Updates

2

The mission of the working groups is to review and recommend improvements to specific parameters

in the Simple Mass Blance (SMB) model.

Work Group A: Review and recommendation of methods to improve estimates of base cation

(BC) weathering and acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) leaching for SMB model to estimate

terrestrial critical loads of acidity -(Jen Phelan). Based on review of currently available methods,

found that a variety of methods are suitable to calculate or estimate BCw a variety. The work

group identified that data availability was one of the most important factor to determine

method choice. Work group A will work on revising proposal (following comments from CLAD

steering committee) in anticipation of future funding opportunities. Current efforts have been

somewhat stalled by federal budget issues.

o Comment: Methodology should be based on merit, not available data. Response: This

was part of the review process- looking at national coverage, amongst many other

things. “Suitability” drives the decision-making for application within the US;

o Comment: There is obvious value to a national coverage, but attempting to make a

national database with single method could be dangerous: There may be greater value

(more accuracy) in having multiple methods for different regions. Coverage shouldn’t

preclude quality;

Work Group B: Nitrogen (N) leaching, N immobilization, and detnitrification for SMB model to

estimate terrestrial critical loads of acidity- (Mark Fenn). Workgroup was able to engage MSc

student ‘interns’ via the Pathways program to complete literature and database searches that

can be applied towards improved definition of three key parameters of SMB approach for

calculating eutrophication CLs: 1) Drew Bingham will focus on Nimmob term and will result in a

publication, and 2) Derek Wiggam will focus on Nleach and NDenit;

Work Group C: assess current knowledge and data linking soil chemistry and vegetation

response and provide recommendations on critical thresholds for SMB model to estimate

terrestrial critical loads of acidity – (Rich Warby and Linda Pardo). Warby has a student working

on literature review and review of available plant response data. Work is included in Powell

Center Proposal;

Work Group D: improve CLs of nutrient N for epiphytic lichens (Linda Geiser)– working to

develop a model that relates lichen response to deposition data for each forested Level I

Ecoregion, using existing monitoring data. Current efforts are focused on organizing FIA lichen

database and working on ecosystem specific relationships to build CLs, esp. in eastern

ecoregions. Look forward to another update in the fall;

Work Group E: improve empirical CLs of nutrient N -(Claire O’Dea and Linda Pardo).

Coordinating efforts of other groups (Porter, Clark, etc). FS pilot project in Northeastern US

incorporates climate change and disturbance help refine spatial resolution of empirical CLs of N

from the Level I Ecoregion to a 4 km2 grid cell scale. Literature search and database are under

development.

Work Group F: improve surface water CLs and uncertainty – (Jason Lynch and Jack Cosby)

comparison of different modeling approaches for estimated surface waters CLs, with particular

3

focus on the weathering component, and quantifying uncertainty related to these modeling

approaches. Work group efforts are currently on hold while other projects are being addressed.

Work Group G: maintain and expand the CL database – (Jason Lynch) Database and associated

metadata completed. Database is ready to be posted -currently investigating ways to make

database publicly available.

Working Groups: Looking ahead, outreach efforts, and final thoughts

Near term: post database, support literature and dataset search and review. In October 2013,

the Work Group leads will report on progress. Also at the Oct mtg. put out a new call for data,

and new data and new endpoints (e.g biodiversity CLs).

Linda Pardo and Richard Warby gave presentations to NERC and NE Soil Monitoring Cooperative

Workshops looking at the relationship between soil chemistry and plant response.

Reminder that CLAD and its working groups are an entirely a volunteer effort. How can we keep

efforts and goals manageable?

o Comment: How much funding would be needed to do what we want to do? What

would the funding go towards? Powell Center proposal should clearly elucidate this

point.

FOCUS Phase II Goals

Expand and improve the resolution of national-scale critical loads database that was created in

Phase I, and make it more widely accessible.

Bring together scientists and practitioners with expertise to improve modeling and empirical

critical loads estimates, especially with regard to defining the uncertainties surrounding those

estimates (and other issues uncovered during Phase I).

Identify gaps in data necessary for estimating critical loads and validating and parameterizing

deposition and critical load models. Strategize, prioritize and initiate ways to address these

gaps.

Identify and define US critical loads database and related infrastructure needs and suggest

solutions.

Phase II Objectives and Accomplishments

Refine the critical load database documentation to include the key decisions. Completed April

2012.

Develop and document method(s) to characterize empirical and modeled CLs at national scales

in a reproducible fashion. In progress.

Facilitate the publication and reporting of the Phase I process and results in appropriate

publications/journals. In progress.

Identify and analyze gaps in available data (spatial and temporal) and evaluate CL methods,

including CL method comparison and uncertainty analysis using current data and newly acquired

data. In progress, work Groups are actively addressing priority topics.

4

Achieve wider involvement of CL community in refining the initial CL to more fine-scale levels

using the best available science. Continuing Process.

Provide information on the uncertainties associated with CLs that will enable agencies to better

utilize CLs as an air quality management tool. Continuing Process.

B. Report on UNECE CCE Mapping and Modeling meeting and ICP Workshops- 2013

Chris Clark, Jason Lynch, Linda Pardo, Rick Haeuber and Cindy Huber participated remotely in the

UNECE/ LRTAP/ Working Group on Effects / International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and

Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects. There are six ICP groups: Forest, Water, Vegetation, Modeling, and

Mapping. The meeting addressed how nations were reaching out to Eastern European countries and SE

Asia (source of much of their pollution). Countries presented preliminary work for 2014 Call for Data

and all ICP groups provided status reports.

The Mapping and Modeling workshop focused on CLs to protect biodiversity. Workgroups are making

progress and discussing best CL indices. Group has not yet come to universal agreement amongst

countries about how they should be doing this. Individual countries should be able to do what they

want, but integrated assessment still necessary.

Workshop also featured a training session on VSD + Studio for dynamic modeling of soil acidification.

C. Powell Center update

Powell Center Proposal due Apr. 30th, Linda Pardo leads effort. The proposal on forest response to N

deposition through synthetic analysis is currently being finalized for submission. It includes:

Analysis of soil solution and plant response data to indentify detrimental plant response

threshold.

o Question: Are invasive species a part of this proposal? A: not specifically, it

depends on what data is available. Invasives are not targeted but if data are

available, it would be used.

Evaluate parity of exchangeable soil chem to soil solution data

National scale analysis of species-specific responses to elevated N inputs and associated

changes to soil chemistry using FIA data.

Comments: Jen Phelan made a point that the relationship between exchangeable chemistry and plant

response should be a first effort in the proposal. Is there a relationship? Tim Sullivan said that focusing

on the soil solution chemistry is misleading- recommends instead on focusing on soil base saturations in

acid sensitive areas. Eladio Knipping says that should be looking at areas of a range of sensitivities, not

just the most sensitive ones.

Funding : Cindy Huber has a list started for leveraged funds (of sorts). Currently have in-kind dedications

but no cash. Question about leveraged funding for specific tasks that they need to have done to finish

5

proposal, specific tasks needed for workshop. Those count! Can critical loads studies count? A: maybe,

needs some scrutiny.

a. National Critical Load Database

The national CL database was developed to unofficially submit to a UNECE Call for Data. Improvements

have been made to the original version before release.

1. Update completed: updated, corrected, resolved it at various grid levels (size 4, 12, and 36 km).

Expanded database in size. Expanded attribute tables and added other parameters to enrich the

data (e.g. surface waters got substantially revised), included metadata etc. also expanded

references within database. All parameter are now associated with a reference, i.e. are better

documented, and all the variables have been defined.

o Q: about coordinate grid system. Is there a way to account for other models and other

projections? A: Re-project data. Surface water data and empirical CLs are based on

lat/long, and also have link ID that will link back to the polygon. Each point is uniquely

identified via GIS. Working out logistics now.

2. The Box: a collaborative site to house the database? Would need to have access through an

account. Whatever option we end up going with will have to be blessed by Bob Larson, etc.

3. Disclaimers? What caveats are necessary in documentation, wherever the DB is housed? Do we

even need disclaimers?

o Yes. Example is NADP Data and Information Use Conditions disclaimer. Is ‘Disclaimer’

different from ‘Caveat’? Will need to make very general caveat statements, otherwise

they will be too numerous.

o Is there a public opportunity to respond to the database, a feedback process? There will

be something, perhaps in the comment box when downloading data.

4. Citation for data and CL database: Will there be a DOI that goes with the data? Do we cite it as a

general citation they have on their website or something more specific, unique? See NADP’s

generic citation.

o Bob Larson says that should work towards getting a DOI. Gary Lear commented that

there is a financial commitment ($10K+/ yr) and ongoing effort. Does University of

Illinois have other options available?

o Soliciting a small group of people to work on drafting a citation with Jason (Tamara

Blett, Claire O’Dea , Chris Clark). Return to issue in fall mtg. to formalize.

2:30 – 3:30 PM UNECE 2014 CCE Call for Data (Chris Clark)

A. Introductions

The goal of the 2014 CCE call for data is “to assess to which extent ‘no net loss of biodiversity’ [from N+S

deposition] is achieved using suitable biodiversity endpoints (e.g. protection of rare species,

provisioning, regulation or cultural services) of interest on a regional scale.” Deadline March 3, 2014.

6

“In the following stepwise approach the NFC:

(1) … selects (at least) two sites within every (level-3) EUNIS class present in the country (preferably in a

Natura 2000 area), for which the chosen soil-vegetation model (‘the model’) can (or has been) calibrated

(with historic depositions);

(2) … selects the endpoint pertinent to the site and a corresponding biodiversity indicator;

(3) …runs the model (e.g. VSD+Veg) with (at least) the background and the GP positions to 2100

(provided by the CCE);

(4) …reports the indicator values and other variables computed for 2100 to the CCE”

--CCE Call for Data 2014

In general, there has been a lot of latitude on model (VSD+VEG, ForSAFE-VEG, BERN, etc.), on

end point (species richness, target species, etc.), and indicators, but less latitude with the

ecosystem classification group (EUNIS-3). Many are not appropriate for use in the US, but great

examples.

Summary of what each country is doing: if we choose to take this up, have the opportunity to

make a national protocol early on in process. Need to be very specific about what we choose to

use as a biodiversity indicator and why.

Lessons learned from 2012 data: France and Switzerland have the most advanced and sophisticated

approach to date. Model always needs to be calibrated against observed data. US will have an

advantage that way, more data at hand. They are just further along in the CL process.

One hurdle regards the overestimation of species richness by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude. Calibrating for

species composition will help. Overall there is good acceptance and agreement for biogeochem but not

for biodiversity (presents Switzerland graphic as an example).

Take home message: how much confidence is appropriate for us expect? We should start now and

refine the model and process as we are able and constantly calibrate models. Also keep in mind that

there is a subsampling issue. Need to specialize the model to reference it.

Ongoing EPA/ORD Activities:

Proposal A: Modeling biodiversity responses to N and climate Change (not related to CLAD, though

possibly relevant to it)

Contract with RTI (Jen Phelan) and Salim Belyazid, plus cooperation from many others (Sam

Simkin, Bill Bowman, Scott Bailey, Linda Pardo, etc.) on ForSAFE-Veg for three systems: NE forest

understory, CA sagebrush, and WI forest grassland. Currently focused on herbaceous communities as a

starting point (more responsive in terms of biodiversity). Calibrate model on biogeochemistry and

composition, want to expand to regional area using FIA-P3 plots. This group will hopefully be able to

present at the fall NADP meeting.

7

Proposal B: Using existing data, observed impacts across long N deposition gradients

• Contract with UC Boulder (Bill Bowman and Sam Simkin), collaboration with USGS (Powell

center, Edie Allen, Jill Baron), USFS (Linda Pardo), NPS (Tamara Blett and Ellen Porter), and many

others. 47 independent datasets include some 15,000 plots nationally (trees, herbs,

nonvascular plants). Currently working to assemble all the covariates (soil properties, climate,

land use history, etc.). Need to understand the basic architecture of a response, to start building

functional response curves based on real data.

Proposal C: Hybrid. We’re ready to do an aquatic analysis. Link Al based functional response curves to

changes in taxa and water chemistry. This particular area could be ready for a Call for Data.

Proposal D-Z: Others?

What should the US do? Submit data? Develop a plan for submitting data? Agree to develop a plan to

submit data? Nothing?

If Chris Clark convened a monthly workgroup to work through some of these discussions, would others

go for it? Which working group does would it fit under? FOCUS? Vegetation response and biodiversity

go together nicely. Having this under the umbrella of CLAD is very appealing. If its coming from the US

as a submission, then CLAD provides the perfect platform.

Propose to send out a mailing list, folks respond to it and form a monthly working group. General

interest, but concerns over time. Goal is to come up with a plan and answer some of the key questions

and develop a proposal (National Assessment) and also a case study and national submission down the

road.

3:45-5:30 PM Critical Load Maps (Jason Lynch)

Discussion: where do we go from here? NADP provides deposition maps, how do these link with CL

maps?

Advantages:

1. There is a need to have the maps for different agencies to be able to review and check if their

particular ecological targets have been properly reviewed. Take time to incorporate comments and

feedback, esp. to give agencies a chance to create a sense of ownership.

2. Use the opportunity to appeal to American industry

3. Activate sleeping sources of good data for input databases. Allow universities to contribute

and review.

8

4. To make possible for conservation interests to start thinking about how to properly use/ best

use the CL maps.

5. Looks very good internationally, gives us something to send to the LRTAP as test maps

6. Maps could be used as a tool to leverage for additional funding.

Discussion: Is CLAD in favor of producing critical load maps?

Do you provide the map and/or the data for people to make and interpret their own maps?

o Which is being implied in this discussion, a CL map or a CL exceedance map? Start with

coverage of CL then incorporate exceedances eventually, but not initially (simple CL is less

controversial). Just start with defining a given sensitivity in terms of the landscape without

implying a policy statement. It would be good to have a variety of CL maps based on different

assumptions. By developing several maps, you demonstrate the potential but not take the next

step- leave that to the user. CLAD has made a huge leap in that it has demonstrated the ability

to show the European groups that we can come to the table with this concept. A map would

help identify where the problems are, what needs to be fixed.

o Is the map simply a spatial representation of what’s in the database? Yes and no, must make a

range of choices to make a map. Don’t confuse uncertainty with grid sensitivity. Must be very

clear/ explicit about what the maps represents. Couple maps with a description of how the

maps were created with the disclaimer, will that be sufficient?

o Making the maps is a distraction to focusing on the sticky points. By putting something in map

form, we are assigning a level of confidence to it -and this would be premature. The work being

done by the working groups is essential and must continue. Don’t go too far too fast with the

maps, allow our knowledge to improve and develop in parallel and continue to inform database

(and map) development. Maps have not yet benefitted from anything in the working groups.

Lots of work has been done by the working groups, lots of progress made, BUT those aren’t yet

incorporated into the maps. So why start this process before we are able to incorporate those

changes? Or at least start to incorporate it… Example, lichens will be ready sooner rather than

later. Start there? Comment: the FOCUS group needs to answer the ANC leaching term before

continuing. Is that the decision of a workgroup or of the broader group?

o Are we holding ourselves to an unrealistically high bar with the production of the maps, as

compared with the Europeans? Their CLs inform their policies, ours will not, so why are we

placing such a high degree of scrutiny on something that is not yet used for ‘official business’?

Response: there is a need to use these maps for official business. Decision makers won’t look at

a database, but they WILL look at a map. Response: For the next round of 2nd stds decisions,

these maps will play an important role. Decisions are inherently imbedded in the maps, so the

scrutiny is necessary.

9

o Approach the maps as an educating opportunity. Present the things for which the maps might

be made. Use them as an advertising tool.

o There is concern that, if the maps aren’t or wouldn’t be ready to go public, then is the database

ready to go public?

Summary:

1) First concern: We need to clearly explain the map and how it was made. Can we agree on what

will be incorporated, or is this effort so broad that we couldn’t possibly cover it?

2) Second concern: is the data quality ready to employ for this purpose? At what point does one

stop pushing it off? It’s a judgement call. How to develop a process to make that call in the most

informed way… Maps change and evolve, so that’s a fair part of the process.

3) Final answer is ‘yes’, in favor of creating the maps, but there lots of work to do. There is a need

to start on the maps and incorporate whatever improvements we can, and also a need to think

about WHAT are the maps we want to produce and using what data?

Before the next CLAD meeting:

The co-chairs will draft the decisions to be made by the group as a whole. Each working group will try to

agree on the specific recommendations each would make to improve/refine the maps AND list what

that working group would choose to map.

8:15-8:30 Day 2 Introductions & Agenda Review (Jason Lynch)

On the phone: Clara Funk, Ellen Porter, Jon Kachmar (TNC), Linda Pardo (USFS), Randy Waite (EPA),

Robin Dennis (EPA), Linda Geiser (USFS)

8:15-8:30 Critical Loads Projects: Status and Results “Round Robin”

Jason Lynch (EPA)

1. CL Database finalized

2. Also a project with Charlie Driscoll in Great Smoky Mtn NP. comparing PnET-BGC and MAGIC.

Intercomparison of models, looking at water quality.

3. Critical Load intercomparison of methodologies within the CL database using Monte Carlo

simulations.

10

Linda Pardo (USFS)

1. Overview of recently published paper on Susceptibility of Forests in the Northeastern USA to

Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition. Uncertainty of Steady State Mass Balance (SSMB) CLs using soil

maps to look at acid impacts on forest health. Over 4000 sites in NE, regional forest health

surveys and FIA/FHM sites. Looking at CLs of N+S, soil weathering maps using clay percent

method. Found a really big range reported for many of the soil series parameters, exceedances

also therefore cover a broad range. Coarse method, but still able to see patterns. Additional

work is included in the Powell Center proposal.

Jennifer Phelan (RTI)

1. Work with Randy Waite (EPA-OAQPS) on application of PROFILE mode to estimate base cation

weathering rates to improve term w/in terrestrial CL of acidity SMG calculations and develop a

methodology that can be applied nationally. Have now run the analyses in PA and the

manuscript is in preparation. It should be ready for distribution in the fall.

2. With Chris Clark (EPA) on combined impacts of N dep and climate change on ecosystem

services. First stage complete: review of biogeochemical – vegetation response models. Will

be applying ForSAFE-Veg in model simulations. Currently developing “methodology” for model

calibration and validation in data-rich research areas and regional simulations using FIA data

(for plots with tree, soil and understory plant data)

Tamara Blett (NPS)

1. Two studies in the Southwestern US: The first is in the Four Corners area looking at N deposition

effects on desert soils that will eventually be related back to CLs. Second study with N Arizona

U. on the impacts of N deposition on soils and ecosystems using stable isotope analysis

(vehicular vs. power plant).

2. Pacific NW aquatic CL: a) Looking at sediment diatoms in 3 Pacific NW parks, do all species that

respond to N deposition and will it be possible to determine a CL from diatom record? Hope to

find diatom indicator species, if can’t, then find others. B) In situ fertilization studies in Pacific

NW lakes to look at N&P dynamics in those lakes. Working with Jason Williams (Washington

State U.), under Jason Lynch (EPA).

Claire O’Dea (USFS) and Cindy Huber (NADP)

1. Update on implementing CL for forest planning using Air Quality Portal. Developing a resource

to guide managers through planning process for air quality assessment required by under the

new 2012 planning rule. Operationalization of CL for planning management, using CLAD

database. Presenting overview/ walk-through of FS portal and CL assessment process.

Currently using 2006 data, will be using T-dep data through 2012 when it becomes available

later this summer. Currently portal is only available via intranet for FS, but soliciting interest

from other agencies- contact Claire or Cindy with interest.

11

Chris Clark (EPA)

1. See UNEC Call for summary. Also Jen Phelan at RTI

Doug Burns

Work at the Neversink basin in the Catskills, similar datasets in ADR streams (Greg Lawrence and others

at USGS), focused on aquatic inverts and fish.

Cathy Weathers (Cary Institute)

John Sherwell (MD DNR)

1. Southeastern Aerosol Characterization (SEARCH) network. Ozone and related gasses since 1992,

Hg started around 2000… GA, AL, MI, FL. Extensive rural and air quality dataset. Not part of

AMON, but does measure NH4.

Eladio Knipping (EPRI)

1. Literature and database search to look at BC weathering rates and supply for improved CL

calculations (similar, but unrelated, to Jennifer Phelan’s project).

2. Working to improve organic acid estimates for CL calculations and understand whether a system

is naturally acidic or acidified.

3. Atmospheric research on estimating dry deposition rates, and modeling wet and dry dep.

Participating in large campaign in SE Southern Atmospheric Studies that is studying reactive N,

biogenic fluxes, and transformation rates in the atmosphere.

Leiming Zhang (Environment Canada)

1. Determine the net acidification of the ecosystem, N critical loads western Canada

2. Starting monitoring network for wet deposition, mostly in eastern Canada and expanding west.

Working towards a global assessment of precipitation chemistry.

3. Modeling N and CL exceedances nutrient N

4. Oil sands critical load project being developed

Donna Schwede (EPA)

1. N and S maps from Tdep, available soon via CASTNET website.

2. CMAQ group: always improving the model, working on NH4 bidirectional flux, using agricultural

management practice.

3. Working with Eladio K. to run CAMEX.

Chuck Sams (USFS)

1. Enforcement settlements with EPA and DOJ, FS has received a lot of money as a result. Using

funds to collect empirical data in Upper Midwest area. Specifically, upper WI has recently

12

received settlements. Collecting lots of data, esp. at TVA sites (water chem and soil solution

chem for calculations of CLs).

Anne Mebane (USFS),

1. Forest service air quality program collects more water data than the water program.

2. Involved with USGCRP and national climate assessment (currently under review). Ecological

indicator section for next assessment. Perhaps the CLAD database is something the working

groups might be interested in. Effort to get N integrated in next assessment (thanks to Chris

Clark, CLUSTERS working group).

Tim Sullivan (E&S Environmental Chemistry)

1. Ecosystem services project focused at blending CL and ecosystems services approaches;

published a paper since last CLAD mtg.

2. Sugar maple assessments in ADR for NYSERDA. Assessment is pretty much finished. 50+ sites in

ADR on growth and health. Manuscript under revisions. With respect to CL, have good tipping

point functions with which to set CL. Regeneration as a function of base saturation in upper B

horizon. Below 12% saturation, no regeneration and between 12-20% there is a linear trend of

regeneration. Also good correlation with spatial patterns.

3. Appalachian Trail effort: database is constructed now, getting tweaked. PIs working on analyzing

data. Using MAGIC model for CLs. Hoping to have modeling wrapped up by the end of the

summer.

4. Analyses on forest regeneration in Southeastern US, changes in deposition and climate and

moisture on CL calculations.

5. Ecosystems Management Decision Support (EMDS) project has produced several papers.

Surface water ANC to calibrate a dataset. Geology, soils, topography, vegetation. Making robust

calculations and estimation of ANC in SE US. Also another paper on base cation weathering,

projecting for small watersheds (1km square), and extrapolate for streams sites. Looking at

effects on fish and stream macro inverts. On decision support side, using the EZ tool for

management. Some outputs from EMDS will go into the EZ tool.

6. Project for NPS Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) report to inventory and AQ monitoring efforts

for national parks across the US. Looking at aspects of AQ values, what’s known in the parks and

surrounding lands that can be linked across all the parks? Lots of information relevant to FS as

well (esp. from an ecoregion perspective). Ellen Porter leading, currently in review.

7. Modeling in Rocky Mountain NP using ForSAFE-Veg model. Cooperators from Sweeden, Bill

Bowman and others. Interaction terms between climate (temp and precip) and N-deposition

impacts tree line, meadows, and wildflowers etc. Thus far, the model is based on expert

judgment and currently being calibrated. Hope to get manuscript written this summer.

8. ADR CL project with NYSERDA. Published MAGIC CL and exceedance. Jack Cosby (Uva) and Doug

Burns (USGS), Greg Lawrence (USGS) are involved. Awaiting completion of Pnet BGC CL

modeling before looking at extrapolation to broader populations and policy implications.

Working with dynamic models only, not steady state.

13

Linda Geiser (USFS) and Sarah Jovan (USFS)

1. Refining Lichen-based CLs of N and Acidity for the NE US for FS planning rule for CL of N, and

acidity for community response. Looking at individual species to characterize their individual

response to N and to acidity and rate it, then calculate community index. Observing community

shift towards more N tolerant species at the expense of sensitive species. Greatest change

happens at the lowest levels of deposition (4-8 kg/ha). Next step is to examine role of

temperature response. Eventual aim is to compile sets of indicator species by ecoregion, and a

national set of indicator species to test the rating system w/in ecoregions using the Payne et al

TITAN approach for NRS using Hyperniche or Pc-Ord.

Ellen Porter (NPS)

1. Tim Sullivan summarized several projects she’s involved with.

2. Using Pardo’s empirical CLs and applying those to western parks in the US. Esp in relation to oil

and gas exploration and development.

3. Project in the Santa Monica Mountains in CA, doing fertilization of plots.

4. NPS Air Office is leading several targeted monitoring studies, looking at sources and types of N

deposition.

Jon Kachmar (TNC)

1. TNC is largely focused on estuaries and coastal environments, esp. in southern New England.

Target to reduce reactive N in estuaries to 0.3 mg/L. Thus far, their research has shown that

seagrasses grown in eutrophic systems show the greatest ability to rebound when high nutrient

and low light stresses are removed as compared to grasses from pristine beds. Contribution

from atmospheric Ndep contribute between 10-70% of total reactive N, depending largely on

prevalence of other large sources (fertilizers, sewage, septic, etc.).

Robin Dennis (EPA)

1. Working with Donna Schwede (EPA) to advance CMAQ model. Added that the 2002 and 2003

runs are now completed, years 2006 and 2007 should be complete by end of June, and 2009 and

2010 by end of July. Following the runs, they will do some projections to compare with Tdep

maps.

Hobie Perry (USFS)

1. Sugar Maple research

2. Work for North American soils conference.

Cindy Huber (NADP)

1. Note that NADP is now posting a number of fields and applications for CLAD (maps and data)

14

11:30-12:00 AM Wrap-Up (Jason Lynch)

Maps: where are we in the process to move forward.

1. NADP Procedure. Need to get approval for strategy from greater organization.

2. Task force to develop example maps and examples of decisions. Then have a discussion of

these during fall meeting, after which CLAD would make a recommendation (or not) to

move to joint session for decisions regarding the maps.

a. Volunteers for reporting on the procedure.

b. Ellen Porter, Eladio Knipping and Chuck Sams and co-chairs for the maps

New CLAD Business for General Discussion

Fall CLAD will have a session at the fall meeting

Doug Burns: Is there discussion as the whether we are ready to address CL for Hg deposition? Is there

discussion? Are we ready? Who even knows?

Discussion: It will be complicated, yes. Will need other indicators. Differing opinions on the importance

of Hg CLs. Randy Waite supports, esp. with S deposition and methylation. Potawanamee tribe in UMW is

actively using the CL technique to apply.

Eladio Knipping : Organic Acids- increase understanding and constrain

Adjourned at 12:00 PM.

Notes recorded remotely by Clara Funk, FY2013 CLAD Secretary. Send corrections to funk.clara@epa.gov