ÿWPCå ûÿ2© ZB œ0¦ÿÿXXxþ6X@X@ÐЫXxþ6X@X@<Ô6X9`+CourierXXϾ¦ P7ûXP)Ͼ¦ p`CG TimesX%ƒÏ¾¦ P7û%P)Ͼ¦ p`CG Times%ûÿ2Ûã"|xÐ °°ÐÐ ÐÑ#XϾ¦ P7ûXP#ÑÐ È Ð CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF EMISSION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS BY THE SAMI 12/2/94 DRAFT Ñ#%ƒÏ¾¦ P7û%P#Ñ The Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative (SAMI) has been created to examine the issues raised by trends in air quality in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, especially in Class I areas. On 11/17/93, SAMI adopted the following Mission Statement: Through a cooperative effort, identify and recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing and to prevent future adverse effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related values (AQRVs) of the Southern Appalachians, primarily those of Class I parks and wilderness areas, weighing the environmental and socioeconomic implications of any recommendations. As part of its work, SAMI will assess the effect on air quality, air quality related values, and socio-economics of the Clean Air Act Amendments and alternative options for reducing the emissions. The emissions of interest are those associated with anthropogenic activity that lead to impairment of visibility in the Southern Appalachian Mountains (particularly in class I areas), add to acid deposition on forest and aquatic ecosystems, and elevate ozone concentrations in forest lands. The purpose of this paper is to identify the criteria that SAMI proposes to use to evaluate the options. So their definition and intent are clear, each criterion has been expressed as a set of questions. This approach allows for testing the criteria for consistency and thoroughness and helps in determining whether relevant data or information could be gathered about each option. By answering these questions, SAMI can assess the overall effects of implementing the various management options. While an attempt must be made to address all criteria in the evaluation of each EMO (see process steps below), each question may not require positive resolution in order to move forward in recommending an EMO. The steps by which each EMO is to be described and assessed using these criteria are described in Section I. The EMO evaluation criteria are described in Section II. The attached table displays the proposed evaluation criteria and their component parts. These criteria are: effectiveness in managing the anthropogenic emissions associated with effects on resources (e.g., AQRVs) of the Southern Appalachian Mountains (especially in Class I areas), economic effects, social effects, other environmental effects, equity, and administrative ease and effectiveness. Although SAMI may eventually decide to prioritize the criteria to indicate their relative importance, no such ranking has been attempted to date. I. EMO DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION PROCESS STEPS A. Step One Any party seeking consideration of an EMO by the SAMI Policy Committee shall prepare an EMO summary. To the extent practicable, the summary should have the following characteristics: 1. It should be as specific as possible regarding actions to be taken, by whom, and when, where, and how they are to be implemented. 2. It should identify any data or completed studies which support the EMO and its intended effects. In addition, it should evaluate these data for reliability and certainty to the extent practicable. 3. It should address whether the EMO is to be reviewed in detail or whether it is a candidate for "near-term" review by the Policy Committee. 4. It should attempt to address as many of the questions listed in Section II of this document as possible. These questions are grouped into the following six major criteria for evaluation: a. The effectiveness in managing anthropogenic emissions associated with effects on visibility (especially in class I areas), terrestrial, and aquatic resources of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. b. Costs and other economic effects. c. The associated advantages and disadvantages to society. This includes identifying groups to be affected and possibly soliciting their involvement through the PAC in developing the EMO. d. The additional benefits for other environmental parameters. e. Equity among contributors and beneficiaries in sharing burden of implementing alternative EMO. f. Examination of implementation strategies and enforceability. B. Step Two The EMO summary is reviewed by the Policy Committee (or a subgroup of the Policy Committee) for the purpose of deciding on what level of Technical Oversight Committee support the PC may need in evaluation of the EMO. Should the PC determine that an EMO requires further clarification before a decision on TOC level of support can be made, the submittor, or a designated PC subgroup (including the submittor), will take the appropriate steps to clarify the EMO in an expeditious manner. 1. Initially, EMO review should be done on a case-by-case basis. If the PC decides that an EMO could be evaluated in the "near-term" (requiring no major TOC assistance), the Committee will evaluate the EMO and have recommendations ready for the Governing Body within 6 months. 2. General guidance on "near-term" EMO candidates may be developed at a future date based on the experience of the Policy Committee. Such future guidance would likely be based on: the scope of emissions changes, degree of resource improvement expected, the economic costs or benefits expected, or other working knowledge developed over time. C. Step Three For those EMO's that require "long-term" review, the Policy Committee and the Technical Oversight Committee will form a coordination group which will consider the following: 1. Which questions in the SAMI EMO Evaluation Criteria Document will be addressed and why. 2. Resources needed for the assessment of the EMO within the Integrated Assessment Framework. 3. Timing for assessment components and overall review of the EMO. 4. Responsibilities for assessment components. 5. How the "long-term" review fits within the Operating Plan and its 3-year goal. 6. Application of the Integrated Assessment Framework. D. Step Four An EMO recommended by the PC for approval to the Governing Body shall include a summary of comments (supporting and dissenting) on the EMO and a summary of specific analyses conducted as part of the EMO review by the PC and/or TOC. If an EMO is not recommended to the Governing Body, a summary of reasons why it is not recommended is to be prepared and available for Governing Body review if necessary. II. SAMI EMO EVALUATION CRITERIA Listed below are the SAMI EMO evaluation criteria in question format. A. EFFECTIVENESS IN MANAGING THE ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EFFECTS ON RESOURCES (E.G. AQRVs) OF THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS 1. Visibility a. DESCRIPTION: The thrust of this criterion is the ability of an option to improve visibility in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, especially in class I areas, by contributing to the management of anthropogenic emissions taking into account the magnitude, location, and timing of the visibility changes. b. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: i. Will the option improve visibility and/or prevent future degradation? ii. How much will visibility be affected? What is the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the change? iii. When will visibility be affected? a. When do the improvements occur? b. What is the rate of improvement? iv. Where will visibility be affected? (Which areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, particularly class I areas, are affected?) v. With what certainty can the effectiveness of this option be predicted? vi. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the effectiveness of this option can be predicted, can its effectiveness be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. vii. Will the selected option significantly affect the spatial and temporal distribution of visibility? a. Spatial distribution refers to the distribution over the Southern Appalachian Mountains, especially in Class I areas. b. Temporal distribution refers to both the seasonal changes in visibility and the inter-annual changes into the future as air quality control measures are implemented. 2. Terrestrial Resources A. DESCRIPTION: The thrust of this criterion is the ability of an option to reduce terrestrial resource effects in the Southern Appalachian Mountains by contributing to the management of anthropogenic emissions associated with acid deposition and ozone, taking into account the magnitude, location, and timing of the changes in terrestrial resources. B. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: i. Will the option reduce effects on terrestrial resources and/or prevent future degradation? ii. How much will the terrestrial resources be affected? What is the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the change? iii. When will terrestrial resources be affected? a. When do the improvements occur? b. What is the rate of improvement? iv. Where will terrestrial resources be affected? (Which areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains are affected?) v. With what certainty can the effectiveness of this option be predicted? Œ vi. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the effectiveness of this option can be predicted, can its effectiveness be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. vii. Will the selected option significantly affect the spatial and temporal distribution of effects on the terrestrial resources? a. Spatial distribution refers to the distribution over various areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. b. Temporal distribution refers to both the seasonal changes in effects on the terrestrial resources and the inter-annual changes into the future as air quality control measures are implemented. 3. Aquatic Resources A. DESCRIPTION: The thrust of this criterion is the ability of an option to improve the status of aquatic resources in the Southern Appalachian Mountains by contributing to the management of anthropogenic emissions associated with acid deposition, taking into account the magnitude, location, and timing of the changes in the status of aquatic resources. B. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: i. Will the option improve the status of aquatic resources and/or prevent future degradation? ii. How much will the status of aquatic resources be affected? What is the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the change? iii. When will the status of aquatic resources be affected? a. When do the improvements occur? b. What is the rate of improvement? iv. Where will the status of aquatic resources be affected? (Which areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains are affected?) Œ v. With what certainty can the effectiveness of this option be predicted? vi. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the effectiveness of this option can be predicted, can its effectiveness be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. vii. Will the selected option significantly affect the spatial and temporal distribution of the status of aquatic resources? a. Spatial distribution refers to the distribution over various areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. b. Temporal distribution refers to both the seasonal changes in the status of aquatic resources and the inter-annual changes into the future as air quality control measures are implemented. B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS 1. DESCRIPTION: The economic and related costs and benefits of each emission management option is important to provide a perspective for its potential acid deposition, ozone, and visibility benefits and to contribute to the input for the social effects assessment discussed below. 2. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: a. What are the direct and indirect costs and benefits of this option? b. How will this option affect the key economic sectors in the region, nation, and state (e.g., tourism, industry, agriculture, and so forth)? c. How will this option affect employment? d. How does this option affect local, state, regional, and national economic development? e. What will the administrative and enforcement costs of this option do to taxes, revenues, and the state, and national budgets? (NOTE: This issue relates to the Administrative Ease/Effectiveness criterion and is also addressed under that section.)Œ™ f. With what certainty can the economic costs of this option be predicted? g. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the economic costs and benefits of this option can be predicted, can its costs be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. C. SOCIAL EFFECTS 1. DESCRIPTION: The implementation of certain emission management options may have certain direct and indirect effects on social activity. This criterion addresses the non-economic changes that could be created by implementing an emission management option. 2. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: a. What will be the social/cultural consequences (such as public enjoyment of the improvement at class I and other areas and the social and cultural changes (+/-) that would be associated with changes in environmental quality and/or changes (+/-) in remediation efforts)? b. What fundamental lifestyle-behavioral changes will be required by constituents? c. How will infrastructure, goods, and services be affected? d. How would demographics and population migration be affected? e. How will land use patterns and/or plans be affected? f. With what certainty can the social effects of this option be predicted? g. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the social effects of this option can be predicted, can its social effects be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. D. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. DESCRIPTION: Environmental effects -- other than the effects on forests due to acid deposition and ozone, aquatic resources due to acid deposition, and visibility in the Southern Appalachian Mountains -- of any emission reductions are to be assessed for each emission management option. 2. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: a. What is the effect on air quality (criteria pollutants, acid deposition, hazardous air pollutants, and visibility) outside of the Southern Appalachian Mountains? b. What is the effect on public health and welfare? c. What is the effect on land and water use? d. What is the effect on solid and hazardous waste disposal? e. What is the effect on threatened, endangered, rare, and sensitive species? f. What is the effect of light scattering on the night sky (celestial)? g. What is the effect on emissions of stratospheric ozone depleters and gases capable of causing climatic modification? h. With what certainty can the other environmental effects of this option be predicted? i. Considering the certainty/uncertainty with which the other environmental effects of this option can be predicted, can these effects be distinguished from the reference case defined by compliance with federal and state requirements such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. E. EQUITY 1. DESCRIPTION: This criterion asks whether all contributors to anthropogenic impairment and all beneficiaries of any improvements fairly share the burden of implementing alternative emissions management options. The following questions ask whether the allocation of the costs and benefits of the various options are equitable.Œ™ 2. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: a. Are the sources causing the problem paying for/contributing fairly to the solution? Are the sources causing the problem paying for the solution in proportion to their contribution and current control levels? b. Are the beneficiaries paying for/contributing fairly to the solution? Is the rest of the country paying for/contributing fairly to the solution? c. Is any sector of population (age, income, ethnicity, future generations) or economic sector unfairly burdened by the solutions? d. To the extent the emission management option may not ensure improvements associated with acid deposition, ozone, and visibility, is any sector of population unfairly burdened? e. Is air pollution being shifted away from areas within the Southern Appalachians to areas or States outside of the Southern Appalachians so as to produce an unfair burden on these other areas? F. ADMINISTRATIVE EASE AND EFFECTIVENESS 1. DESCRIPTION: Each emissions management option should be assessed with regard to the ease and effectiveness of its being administered to achieve its objectives. 2. RELEVANT QUESTIONS: a. Can this option be implemented with existing regulatory mechanisms and resources? If not, would creation of a new mechanism allow other programs to be consolidated or eliminated? How would the proposed option affect the air quality management authorities and responsibilities among local, state, tribal, and federal governments? b. Does adequate legal, statutory authority exist? (Consideration of these authorities on local, state, federal, tribal and multi-state levels may be relevant.) Does it conflict with other regulatory programs (e.g., energy regulatory agencies, prescribed fire plans)? c. Does the option include the flexibility to be adjusted or changed in the future in light of its effectiveness? d. How do we know if forest health, aquatic resources, and visibility has changed as a result of this option, and does the evaluation mechanism for the changes that do occur feed back to policy review and update? e. What are the shifts in administrative costs; how are they allocated across political boundaries (federal, state, local, tribal, etc.); and where do the funds come from? f. Is implementation of the option feasible, both in terms of complexity and enforceability? (Complexity refers to the structure of the program, while enforceability refers to the ability to verify implementation of the requirement.) EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SAMI EMISSION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE EASE AND EFFECTIVENESS ECONOMIC EFFECTS EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING FOREST/AQUATIC/VISIBILITY GOALS Flexibility Verifiability (Measurement) Administrative costs Existing mechanisms and resources Adequate legal authority Feasibility of implementation Direct effects - control costs, O/M, jobs Indirect effects - State, region Economic development - e.g. tourism, jobs, business shifts Taxes and revenue Certainty of economics What is the effect on the resource? - Improve existing/prevent future degradation - When? How much? Where is the effect? Certainty of effectiveness ASSESSMENT GOAL: To identify and recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse effects from human-induced air pollution on air quality related values in the Southern Appalachian Mountains OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SOCIAL EFFECTS EQUITY Criteria and hazardous air pollutants Stratospheric ozone, climate change Threatened, endangered, rare, and sensitive species Land and water use Waste disposal Public health/Welfare Lifestyle/behavioral Effects on infrastructure, goods and services Demographics Social and cultural Land use patterns and/or plans Inter/intra-regional Income, generational, ethnicity, race Shift problem to other geographic region Failure to improve visibility,terrestrial, aquatic resources