EPA-R5-72-009
August 1972 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
Assessment Of Air Pollution Damage
To Vegetation In New England
July 1971 - July 1972
Final Report
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D. C. 20460
-------
EPA-R5-72-009
Assessment of Air Pollution Damage
To Vegetation In New England
July 1971 - July 1972
Final Report
by
John A. Naegele, William A. Feder,
and C. Jeffrey Brandt
Suburban Experiment Station
University of Massachusetts
240 Beaver Street
Wai than), Massachusetts 02154
Contract No. 68-02-0084
Program Element No. All004
Project Officer: Donald G. Gillette
Office of the Director
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
August 1972
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments IV
Abstract V
List of Tables and Figures VI
Introduction 1
Methods 5
Results 6
Discussion 14
Recommendations 16
Appendix: Air pollution injury report form 17
References 18
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This survey was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Air
Pollution Control Office contract number 68-02-0084 and was carried out at the
Suburban Experiment Station of the University of Massachusetts, Walt ham,
Massachusetts.
Personnel of the Suburban Experiment Station (SES) directly concerned
with this survey are:
John A. Naegele, PhD (Entomology)
Director, SES
Project co-director
William A. Feder, PhD (Plant Pathology)
Professor of Plant Pathology, SES
Project co-director
C. Jeffrey Brandt, MS (Plant Ecology, Botany)
Technical Assisstant, Senior Chemist, SES
Principal investigator
Grateful acknowledgment is also extended to support personnel at the
Suburban Experiment Station and to agents and specialists of the Cooperative
Extension Service of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Maine.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
A regional survey of New England was initiated to determine the economic
losses to the agricultural industry from injury caused by air pollutants. Eighty-three
investigations were made in 40 counties of the six New England states. Direct air
pollution injury was observed in 14 counties and accounted for 29 of the reports.
Greatest economic losses were observed on vegetables and agronomic crops
as well as on flowers and foliage plants. Direct economic losses were estimated to
be approximately $1. 1 million for the 1971-72 season. As some incidents *e
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table no. Page
I. Land use in New England 3
II. Value of selected crops for New England 4
III. Summary of vegetation damage reports by location 8
IV. Crops affected by particular pollutants 10
V. Direct losses by crop and pollutant 11
VI. Summary of losses by crop and pollutant 1.2
Figure no.
1. Areas of observed air pollution injury to vegetation . .• 9
VI
-------
ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION DAMAGE TO VEGETATION IN NEW
ENGLAND: July 1971-July 1972.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years surveys designed to assess the economic effects of air pollution
on vegetation have been carried out in several states, notably California and
Pennsylvania. Surveys are necessary to establish substantiated and realistic estimates
of the annual losses of agricultural products from air pollution, to indicate areas m
which research is needed, and to show the effectiveness or need of air pollution
control programs.
In 1969-70 the Center for Air Environment Studies of the Pennsylvania State
University conducted such a survey and showed that during that year an excess of
$3. 5 million was lost to air pollution. A survey conducted the following year indicated
direct losses to crops due to air pollution of only $218,630. These differences show
the importance of yearly assessment programs and also the effects that meteorological
differences, changes in cultural practices, and the addition of pollution controls
can have on the results of the survey. The California Department of Agriculture
carried out a similar survey and assessment of air pollution damage to vegetation in
1970 and found that the California agricultural industry suffered losses in the
neighborhood of $26 million.
The surveys have been very effective in showing the public the extreme effects
of air pollutants on the agricultural industry. Several air pollution code violation;
have been brought to court and control measures have been adopted as a direct
result of them.
-------
Using data from these surveys and other available information on vegetation
damage, the Stanford Research Institute prepared a mathematical model to estimate
losses due to air pollution on a regional and national basis. The SRI estimate for
air pollution damage to vegetation in the nation is about $132 million.
In continuing its survey program, the Environmental Protection Agency
recognised the necessity for an assessment of vegetation damage along the eastern
seaboard. The New England region was chosen for a survey that would reflect the
regional extent of air pollution damage for the 1971-72 growing season. A similar
survey and assessment was carried out in New Jersey at the same time.
The New England region occupies a land area of approximately 40.3 million
acres and is composed of six states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Of this Ignd area, 16% is occupied by farmland and
71% is covered by forests. Nearly 6 million acres are occupied by the urban sprawl
stretching from New York City through Connecticut and Rhode Island to north of
Boston (Table I).
Although nearly 50% of the land used in farms is in the states of Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Maine, the highest and most diverse agricultural productivity
occurs in Massachusetts and Connecticut (Table II). The other New England states
are significant for their production of specialty crops suited to the climate and
topography of the particular state. Vermont ranks high in production of hay and
silage with most farmland devoted to pasturage and dairy farming. Maine is the
leading producer of potatoes in the northeast and Rhode Island has large turf and
nursery industries. The total dollar value of agricultural productivity in New
-------
Table I. Land use in New England
State Farmland*
Forested
Land
Other Land
Uses**
Total Land
Area
Acres XI000
Vt.
N.H.
Me.
Ma.
Ct.
R.I.
2,200 (37%)***
720 (12%)
2,300 (12%)
720 (14%)
600 (19%)
90 (13%)
3,114 (53%)
4,355 (75%)
15,971 (80%)
2,927 (58%)
1,795 (57%)
387 (57%)
621 (10%)
706 (12%)
1,526 ( 8%)
1,366 (27%)
722 (23%)
194 (28%)
5,935
5,781
19,797
5,013
3,117
671
Total 6,630
% of total
area
28,549
16%
71%
5,135
13%
40,314
* Includes crop, fallow, pasture, forest, and other land used in farms.
** Includes urban, industrial, nonfarm residential areas, and related land uses.
*** Figures indicate the percentage of the state total land area in each land use
category.
Data from: Agricultural Statistics, 1971,
-------
Table II. Value of selected crops for New England ($Mi(lions/year).
Hay & Si (age
Grains
Fruits & Maple syrup
Vegetables
Potatoes
Tobacco
Cut Flowers
Total
Vt.
32.5
8.5
4.5
0.7
46.2
N.H.
7.5
1.2
3.6
0.6
0.5
13.4
Me.
13.5
2.6
4.4
1.5
64.3
86.3
Ma.
9.3
2.5
20.1
10.1
2.9
11.8
7.7
64.4
Ct.
8.3
3.7
4.0
6.2
3.3
27.3
5.2
58.0
R.I.
1.1
Q. 4
0.5
3.5
5.5
Total
72.2
18.9
37.1
18.4
75.2
39.1
12.9
274.5
Based on 1970 statistics from Agricultural Statistics, 1971.
-------
England is approximately $275 million/year. While agriculture in the New England
is not a major industry when compared with the United Slates as a whole or even with
the agricultural industry of some individual states, it is definately important on a
regional basis and continues to contribute to the welfare of the two large Eastern
markets in Boston and New York City.
Because the New England growing season is influenced by air masses which
carry pollutants northward along the entire eastern seaboard, problems relating to the
air environment are likely to assume great importance for agricultural production in
the region. Unless measures are taken to assess, and deal with these problems it is
highly likely that the New England region will have to alter agricultural emphasis
with the possible loss of economic stability.
METHODS
This survey was carried out with the co-operation of the county agricultural
agents and extension specialists of the six New England states and air pollution
specialists at the Suburban Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts, Wai thorn.
It was designed to cover the entire region, with emphasis on Massachusetts and
Connecticut. Before the survey started, a three-day short course was he|d at the
Suburban Experiment Station to acquaint the county agents with sources of pollutants
and symptomology of pollution injury.
In July of 1971 field report forms (Appendix) were distributed to the county
agents and field investigations and verification of damage reports was begun.
Identification of the suspected pollutant was based on visible symptoms and
vegetation samples were processed through the Plant Diagnostic Lab, Suburban
-------
Experiment Station for verification and further analyses for plant diseases.
Consideration was given to cultural and climatic influences when evaluating injury.
Estimates of economic losses were based on grower costs and crop value at
the time of harvest and the possibility of recovery of the crop follpwing the pollution
incident was taken into account. Losses to growers were based on the potential
value of the crop without injury and actual value from market returns. Losses reflect
reductions in yield and/or quality and profit losses when compared to previous years.
Most loss estimates were made by the growers from daily or monthly market returns
and many estimates had to be revised either up or down after yearly market receipts
were received by the growers and their books had been balanced.
Direct losses include grower profit losses, reduction in yield and/or quality
and were based on observed injury from air pollution or records of previous air pollution
injury. Again, cultural and climatic factors were taken into pccojnt when estimating
these losses. Indirect losses attributable to air pollution include costs to replace a
sensitive crop with a tolerant one, aesthetic considerations, and farm abandonment.
Indirect losses were either absorbed by the growers prior to this survey or could not
be assessed in the time available and they ate, therefore, not included in this report.
Monthly progress reports stating where the pollution incident occurred, the
suspected pollutant, the crop affected, and the approximate amount of damage were
prepared for all co-operating agencies.
RESULTS
Field investigations were made in 40 of th$ 59 counties of the six New
England states. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island were covered
-------
completely and selected farmland areas and greenhouses were investigated in the
other states. Field investigations were made either in response to verify a report or
by independent examination by survey personnel of the Suburban Experiment Station.
Not all investigations revealed injury to vegetation from air pollution. Direct air
pollution injury was observed in 14 counties and accounted for 29 of the 83 reports
filed (Table III). Injury resulting from air pollution occurred primarily on farmland
or in greenhouses located in or near metropolitan areas (Figure 1).
Eighteen reports of injury were submitted for Massachusetts, four for Vermont.
three for New Hampshire, one for Maine, and three for Connecticut. No injury to
commercial plants resulting from air pollution was reported for Rhode Island; however,
injury to forest trees and other non-commercial vegetation was observed. Due to
limited personnel available, no assessment could be made of losses incurred from
injury to non-commercial plants such as home-garden plants, flowers, or ornamental
plantings. The crops affected and the suspected pollutants are summarized in Table IV.
From data obtained through this survey in 1971, past agricultural statistics, and
records made available by individual growers, it was determined that fruits, vegetables,
and agronomic crops suffered the greatest losses. These crops accounted for about
$1. 1 million in losses. Losses in excess of $20 thousand were realized for commercial
flowers and foliage plants (Table V). Lawn grasses, shrubs, and woody ornamentals
did not suffer severe damage and any injury did not contribute to the total loss. Any
reductions in timber production incurred prior to and during 1971 could not be directly
attributed to air pollution injury. The nursery and turf industries suffered no apparent
losses from air pollution injury. The total amount of damage during the 1971-72
-------
Table III. Summary of vegetation damage reports by location.
State/County
Pollutant
Number of Reports
Investigated
Massachusetts
Barnstable
Bristol
Essex
Hampshire
Middlesex
Plymouth
Worcester
Vermont
Bennington
Orange
Rutland
Windsor
New Hampshire
Merrimack
Maine
Lincoln
Connecticut
Hartford
Oxidant
SO2
Oxidant
S02
Oxidant
Oxidant
Oxidant
Ethylene
Oxidant
Ethylene
Oxidant
Oxidant/SO2
Oxidant
S02
Oxidant/SO2
Oxidant
3
4
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
3
8
-------
Burl
Figure 1. Areas of observed air pollution injury to
vegetation.
-------
Table IV. Crops affected by particular pollutants.
(Data from field observations, May 1971-July 1972)
Oxidants
SO2
Ethyl ene
Oxidont/SQ7
Cucumber
Eggplant
Lilac
Petunia
Potato
Pumpkin
Spinach
Summer Squash
Tobacco
Tomato
Watermelon
Apple
Corn
Geranium
Peach
Pear
Plum
Carnation
Orchid
White Pine
10
-------
Table V. Direct losses ($ thousands) by crop and pollutant.
Pollutant/Crop
S02
Agronomic crops
and Tobacco
Vegetables
Flowers and
Foliage plants
Fruits
Ethylene
Agronomic crops
and Tobacco
Vegetables
Flowers and
Foliage plants
Fruits
Revised
Estimated Loss Before Estimated Loss After
May 1, 1972 May 1, 1972 *
Total
Oxidants
Agronomic crops
and Tobacco
Vegetables
Flowers and
i
Foliage plants
Fruits
60
1,260
3
None
+ 20
-300
+ 2
None
80
960
5
___
45
None
3
35
None
None
14
None
-2.5
None
- 5
None
None
None
43.5
3
30
14
Totals
1,420.0
-285. 5
1,135.5
Many of the estimates were revised after the growers received market receipts and
reviewed their financial statements, (see text)
11
-------
Table VI. Summary of losses ($ thousands) by crop and pollutant
Pollutant
Crop Oxidants SO2 Ethylene Total
Agronomic cropss
and Tobacco 80 43.5 — 123.5
Vegetables 960 — — 960
Flowers and
Foliage plants 5 3 14 22
Fruits — 30 — 30
Totals 1,045 76.5 14 1,135.5
12
-------
survey period was estimated to be less than $1.5 million, or less than 1% of the total
production receipts for New England. Incidents not reported by the county agents
or observed by the survey personnel, accidental fumigations which are not expected
to be a problem in the future because of control measures, and the fact that observed
pollution injury to New England vegetation was not as great as in previous years, all
contribute to the estimate which is believed to represent a fairly realistic figure for
continuing annual losses. In some cases reports of injury lead to litigation and in one
case the contributing source has been controlled. In other cases tolerant crops have
been substituted for sensitive crops grown near continuing pollution sources and may
indicate indirect losses.
Based on economic losses and injury with no apparent loss, the major pollutants
in the New England region are, in order of importance, oxidants, sulfur oxides, and
in localized incidents, ethylene, particulates, and very locally, fluorides.
Aesthetic considerations, although not included in this assessment, were quite
significant and losses were noted on several thousand acres of forested land. Losses in
aesthetic value came primarily from the so-called Eastern White Pine needle-blight
which has affected many acres and is generally believed to be caused by an
oxidant-SO2 synergism.
In general, the effects of air pollution-caused vegetation injury were not
severe enough to cause many indirect losses. As far as could be determined, no
growers have relocated or abandoned farms because of air pollution; nor can erosion ,
stream silting, or deforestation be attributed to air pollution injury to vegetation in
the New England region.
13
-------
DISCUSSION
This survey is a First attempt to obtain a reliable estimate of economic losses
due to air pollution injury for the agricultural industry of the New England region.
The estimates of losses reported in this report come from experience, value judgements,
use of the most recent agricultural statistics, and are based on observed visible
symptoms of injury. It is important to realize the problem involved with using
expressed symptoms as the bsis for this type of estimate. In many cases it was
extremely difficult to determine the amount of permanent damage that would result
in reductions of yield or quality. For example, a field of tomatoes was observed to
have moderate foliar injury from oxidants after a period of temperature-inversion.
When observed a month later after a period of local rains, all the plants had outgrown
the injury and losses in yield or quality could not be demonstrated. There are also
effects on plants which have no visible symptomatology but may affect vigor and
ultimate yield of the plant. At the present time there are no guidelines for the
assessment of this type of injury and it is obvious that research on these problems
should have a very high priority.
Direct losses, as reported in this survey, include production costs as well as
grower profit losses. Profit losses may result from reduced yields, selling in a lower
quality category, or selling on a late market. It is interesting to note that most of
the major agricultural areas of New England are in or near large metropolitan areas.
Although permanent injury was not great, production of some crops was delayed
enough to necessitate selling on a late market after prices had dropped. No crops
were lost entirely, but quality of some crops was reduced several grades. With
14
-------
some crops where quality was reduced it was extremely difficult to assess the loss.
The vegetable industry suffered the largest losses, probably due to the
proximity of vegetable growing areas to large metropolitan areas. Also, the
development of tolerant species has not progressed as quickly with vegetables as
it has with other crops. Tobacco is a $40 million industry in the Connecticut
River valley of Massachusetts and Connecticut, but because growers use tolerant
varieties very little loss was realized.
For most of the 1971-72 growing season pollutant levels in New England
were lower than in previous years and the reports of air pollution injury to
vegetation were fewer. This lack of injury may be due to the occurrence of fewer
pollutant-trapping temperature-inversions and to conditions unfavorable for injury
when an inversion did occur. Plants are more sensitive to pollutants when they are
young and when growing conditions are optimum. Most injury was reported in the
springs of 1971 and 1972. However, when large-scale inversions occurred later
in the summer, the plants had passed the age of maximum sensitivity and very
little injury was reported during these months. Injury from sulfur oxides and
ethylene was most extensive on greenhouse crops during the winter and very early
spring months.
In August of 1972, although not included in this survey period, the pollution
levels were much higher. A large temperature inversion covered the entire east
coast and oxidant levels as high as .47 parts per million in Washington, D. C. and
.30 ppm in Boston were reported. This inversion occurred after a period of extensive
rainfall and injury to vegetation was reported to be quite severe, but no estimate of
the extent of injury is available at this time.
15
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An area the the size of New England cannot be sufficiently surveyed by one
man in the field. It is recommended that there be at least three investigators,
preferably plant pathologists and an entomologist trained in the recognition
of air pollution injury to vegetation.
2. A training program at the beginning of the survey to acquaint county agents
with air pollution symptomatology is a necessity/ however, attendance must
be emphasized in order to get the necessary co-operation during the field work.
3. News releases issued during the survey period could aid co-operation and
would certainly keep the public informed about the progress of the survey.
4. Prompt reporting of air pollution injury must be emphasized to facilitate
field investigations.
5. The survey should be conducted over a period of several years to take into
account the yearly differences in pollutant levels and to insure a more
accurate and reliable estimate of continuing annual losses.
-------
APPENDIX: Air pollution injury report form.
-------
REFERENCES
A survey and assessment of air pollution damage to California vegetation in 1970.
Arthur A. Millecan. Bureau of Plant Pathology, California Department of
Agriculture, Sacramento, California. 1971.
Agricultural Statistics, 1971. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C. 1971.
Assessment of air pollution damage to vegetation in Pennsylvania, 1970-1971.
N. L. Lacasse. Center for Air Environment Studies, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania. CAES Publication No. 209-71.
1971.
Economic effects of air pollution externalities, with a case study of the greenhouse
industry in southeastern Pennsylvania. James W. Carroll. Center for Air
Environment Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania. CAES Publication No. 235-72. 1972.
Economic impact of air pollutants on plants in the United States. H. M. Benedict,
C. J. Miller, and R. E. Olson. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California. SRI Project No. LSD-1056. 1971.
Handbook of effects assessment: vegetation damage. Edited by N. L. Lacasse and
W. J. Moroz. Center for Air Environment Studies, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 1969.
Statewide survey of air pollution damage to vegetation—1969. Center for Air
Environment Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania. Publication No. 148-70. 1970.
18
-------
AIR POLLUTION INJURY REPORT
DATE
LOCATIONS
(CITY/COUNT^
STATE)
REPORTER
GROWER
CROP i VARJETY
AGE OR DATE PLANTED
AEREAGE AFFECTED
EXPECTED HARVEST DATE
OR NO. OF PLANTS
AVERAGE % OF EACH PLANT AFFECTED: 0-10, 11-25, 26-SO, 51-75, 76-99, 100
(CIRCLE QNE)
AVERAGE % OF PLANTS AFFECTED:
(CIRCLE ONE)
LOSS IN: GUALITY
(CHECK ONE OR
ESTIMATED CROP LOSS:
0-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-99, 100
, OUANTTY
% AND/OR $
SUSPECTED POLLUTANT:
(CIRCLE)
SUSPECTED SOURCE
REMARKS:
SO2, OXIDANT, OTHER (SPECIFY)
DATE OF INCIDENT
' (OR WHEN NOTICED!
USE SEPARATE SHEET FOR EACH CROP AND SEND TO C. JEFFREY BRANDT, SUBURBAN
EXPERIMENT STATION, 240 BEAVER STREET, WALTHAM, MASS. 02154. YOUR COOPERA-
TION IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.
------- |