Principle – Maintenance of Ecological Integrity

Criterion- Incidence of disturbance and stress

Indicator – CCFM 2.1.4 – Rates of pollutant deposition

CIFOR 2.1.1 – No chemical contamination to food chain and ecosystems.

Revised indicator – Pollutant levels in the ecosystem (Implement screening procedure)

Box B: Definition:

Pollution, acting alone or in combination with other stressors, affects ecological systems in general and forests in particular. Common types of pollutants in North America forest ecosystems include sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ), along with their oxidation products of sulfuric acids and nitric acids, ground level ozone and pesticides. There is also concern for the impact of increased UV-B radiation and heavy metal contamination (i.e. mercury). The need to understand pollution– forest interactions is paramount in view of the increasing evidence linking the long-term effects of pollutants (i.e. acid deposition).

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

Pollutant problems would only apply if a landowner was recording an ecological impact from the pollutant. Thus this indicator would not apply to all landowners.

Box E: Overlap:

CCFM - 2.1.5 Ozone concentrations in forested regions – This was grouped with the CCFM 2.1.4 and CIFOR 2.1.1 indicators for testing. Ozone was considered to be one specific type of pollutant. It was lumped as ozone problems do not occur in all America and did not apply to the study area.

Notes: It is well known that pollutants travel worldwide via the atmosphere. For example toxophenes travel from Asian rice fields and concentrate in high altitude lakes in the Rocky Mountains. Some issues are North American in scope. Acidic precipitation generated in the great lakes industrial region if the United States and Canada has had dramatic impacts on forests and fresh water ecosystems in eastern North America. There are also more locally based toxic impacts such as the high arsenic levels in the old gold fields of the Boise study area.

Notes: Primarily diagnostic but toxic levels can have strong predictive capabilities for such variables as reproductive rates in accumulator species.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Pollutants are so widespread on the earth that it is impossible to find a food chain, or ecosystem, which does not carry some level. Depending on the compound, the impacts of pollutant can range from insignificant to extreme. An extreme example is the levels of DDT in America in the 1950’s and 1960’s that extirpated populations of Peregrine falcons, Bald eagles and other species that bioaccumulate such compounds.

Two of the most common types of air pollutants in North American forest ecosystems are sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx ), along with their oxidation products, sulfuric acids and nitric acids. Despite substantial progress in reducing SO2 emissions, both unilaterally and through Canada - United States co-operative agreements, acidic deposition remains a threat to forest ecosystem condition and productivity in the Boreal Plains, Mixedwood Plains and Atlantic Maritime terrestrial ecozones of Canada, as well as the Northeastern United States. Forest ecosystem sensitivity to acid deposition is dependent on a number of factors, including physical and chemical soil characteristics. However, in these regions there is direct tree mortality as well as a decline of annual forest biomass and accumulation. The impacts of long-term effects of acid deposition on biogeochemical processes are complex and not well understood.

Another pollutant impacting North American forests is ground level ozone, which may adversely affect the metabolic systems of plants, and is known to be phytotoxic to trees. Plant exposure to ozone that exceeds 2–3 times background levels over a number of growing seasons may result in changing patterns of carbon allocation, premature defoliation, and loss of plant productivity. Ecosystem structure and function also may be altered, depending on the sensitivities of different species. Ozone is a regional-scale pollutant subject to long-range transport. Forests in California, the Great Lakes Region of North America, the northeastern United States as well as most of southern parts central and eastern Canada are regularly exposed to concentrations of ozone above the defined target level of 82 parts per billion per hour.

A third group of pollutants impacting forest lands are pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides (see review by Freedman et al. 1994). The impacts of pesticides are grouped around three types of impacts. In some cases there is direct mortality to individuals in a species (i.e. songbird mortality from phosphamidon). Second there may be indirect impacts in individuals through alteration of metabolic pathways impacting normal functioning (i.e. DDT interfering with reproduction in raptors). Third are indirect effects of the pesticide on the ecosystem resulting from changes in habitat structure, species composition, and food availability.

Insecticides are primarily used in forestry for the control of defoliation by irruptive insects. By far the largest insecticide-spray programs in North America have been carried out against Spruce Budworm. In the United States between 1945 and 1974, about 6.4 million hectares of budworm-infested forest were sprayed with insecticide, accounting for 52% of all forest insecticide spraying. In Canada between 1952 and 1986, about 45.4 million hectares were sprayed, with the most prominent chemicals being DDT, fenitrothion, phosphamidon, and aminocarb, and more recently, the bacterial insecticide, B.t. or Bacillus thuringiensis (Freedman, 1989). The impacts of such widespread pesticide use included a dramatic reduction in non-target insect pollinators. The resulting decline in fruit and seed production impacted many species. However, except for DDT, long-term reductions in populations, or species loss, from insecticide use in forestry has not been documented.

Some concern about pesticide use in forested ecosystems has focussed on aquatic communities. Several studies have shown high mortality rates of aquatic insects and even fish after insecticide applications, especially form DDT and fenitrothion. However, the delivery of pesticides to surface waters from forestry operations is variable, depending on application technique, the presence or absence of buffers, and pesticide characteristics. Norris et al. (1991) compiled information from multiple studies that evaluated the peak concentrations of herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers in soils, lakes, and streams. They found pesticide delivery to streams was highest from treated marshland, ephemeral streams and unbuffered forest lands. Most researchers conclude that chemical application should not pose a threat to water quality when chemicals are applied at rates established on the product label, well away from flowing streams and streamside buffers are maintained.

There are many other examples of toxic and pollutant impacts on forested ecosystems. These include increased UV-B radiation and heavy metal contamination. It is not possible to review all pollutants here.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Pollutants are of direct interest to sustainability if they impair ecosystem function or negatively impact populations. They also can have direct impacts on human health.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement methods vary by the type of toxic or pollutant considered. Direct measurements require standard laboratory procedures, many of which are highly sophisticated and expensive. For example to assay one sample for organochlorides costs approximately $200.00 US. The governments of Canada, United States and Mexico have national monitoring programs and established measurement protocols for many pollutants.

Box L: Data Required:

Various. Depends on the pollutant in question and the type of impact.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

It was not possible to examine data for a wide range of pollutants as suggested by this indicator. However data sets for many pollutants are available through national and state agencies. For example:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation regularly reports on the status and trends of a range of pollutants, including NO_x, SO_x and ground level ozone. In Canada, the Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada operates the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) and National Atmospheric Chemistry Database, which provides similar information. These data sets are based on networks of monitoring stations and certified testing laboratories. Emission standards exist for all monitored compounds. There are also US standards for visibility provided by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program.

The USDA – Forest Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency jointly maintains the National Forest Health Monitoring Program. This program is implemented with regional cooperators, such as the State of Idaho, to provide estimates of forest ecosystem health. The program works closely with the Canadian Acid Rain National Early Warning Program as well as the United Nations International Cooperative Program on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests. (Contact - Program director; Forest Health protection, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC).

In the Boise study site, Idaho’s Division of Environmental Quality works to protect air quality. Their activities are in response to the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the state Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution, yearly agreements between the state and EPA and state rules for the control of air pollution. The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive federal law which regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources.

No data was available on the use of pesticides in the study area. Generally pesticides are not an important part of the management of the area at present.

Box N: Example Results:

Non-applicable because of the nature of this indicator. Results were available on a range of pollutants at the Boise Test Site.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

The practicality of assessing pollutants will vary by specific case. Certainly in North America there already exists a range of national, state and provincial programs to track individual issues. The missing link seems to be a practical mechanism for managers at the forest management unit to assess the relative importance of individual pollutants in the ecosystem in which they operate.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

This is difficult to evaluate because of the comprehensive nature of this indicator. Certainly agencies in North America have a long history of reporting on toxic and pollutant issues to the public. There is a substantial body of laws and regulations providing standards for pollutants. There is an inherent problem in translating chemical concentrations to policy level actions, but this appears to be substantially solved, or at least solvable.

Box Q: Overall assessment – Accepted but needs development:

See Box R. This indicator was rewritten as a screening process that would lead to a detailed monitoring program for each specific toxic and pollutant identified as a problem.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

Revised indicator: Pollutants levels in the ecosystem

Because "pollutants" covers such a wide subject area, it is impossible to discuss the indicator in the same detailed way that other indicators have been examined in this CIFOR test. . Certainly pollutants need to be a considered in the sustainable management of any ecosystem. There are too many problems surrounding bioaccumulation of compounds and worldwide transport of toxics to ignore the issue. However, some areas are recording significant ecological impacts while other areas are recording none. As a substitute indicator, we propose a simple screening tool for forest managers to consider if toxics are pollutants are having undesirable impacts. The screening facilitates the identification of compounds likely to be problems and leads to the development of detailed a monitoring program for each problem compound. The screening is adapted from the Intergovernmental Forum On Chemical Safety (1997), Criteria and Procedure for Identifying Further Candidates for Action:

• Local screening for Potential Pollutants. Using a group of local and outside experts, answer the following questions:
• Scoping list of potential toxics/pollutants: Compile a list of local chemicals with significant use in the forest or region, including insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and industrial compounds. For each compound assess the following:
• Persistence: Is there evidence the compound may persist? What level of persistence is considered significant? How are these levels measured?
• Bioaccumulation: Is the compound likely to bioaccumulate? If yes, what methodologies are used to measure these rates? What species are likely to accumulate the compound?
• Transport: Is there evidence the compound may be easily transported within the area? How does volatility and other factors determine/predict the distance substances travel through air, water, biota and other media?
• Risk and/or Hazard Evaluation: If the compound is known to be persistent, can bioaccumulate and or is easily transported, does the substance have the potential to cause adverse effects to the environment (including human health)? What types of data or information are taken into consideration (e.g., toxicity, exposure)? How is scientific uncertainty addressed in the evaluation? How are the local circumstances taken into account, particularly where climatic, socioeconomic or other conditions vary greatly.
• Information from National or Regional Monitoring Programs: Using information from national or regional monitoring programs, what compounds are causing large scale ecological impacts that should be further assessed locally (i.e. ground level ozone or acidic precipitation).
• Monitoring Program: Using the results from the Risk/Hazard evaluation and the known problems from the National and regional monitoring programs, develop a monitoring program for each compound likely to be impacting the ecosystem. Include both exposure and response measures. If possible, incorporate the monitoring program into existing national and regional programs to ensure quality assurance and cost savings.
• Review the program: The screening process should be repeated and the monitoring program reviewed at 5 year intervals, or more frequently if seems warranted.

Box S: References:

• Freedman, B. 1989. Environmental Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
• Freedman, Bill, Stephen Woodley and Judy Loo. 1994. Forestry practices and biodiversity with particular reference to the Maritime provinces. Environmental Reviews. 2:33-77.
• Intergovernmental Forum On Chemical Safety (1997). Criteria and Procedure for Identifying Further Candidates for International Action. United Nations Environmental Program. http://www.who.org/whosis/ifcs/pops/pops_eng.htm.
• Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 207-296.
• Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W.J. Roach, E. Graap., W.S. Keeton, and G. Selig. 1991. Environmental end economic effects of reducing pesticide use. Bioscience, 41: 402-409.