UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
June 23, 2005
EPA-COUNCIL-ADV-05-001
The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Advisory on Plans for Ecological Effects Analysis in the Analytical Plan for
EPA's Second Prospective Analysis—Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,
1990-2020
Dear Administrator Johnson:
In May of 2004, the Advisory Council for Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council)
submitted its Advisory that responded to a long list of charge questions posed by the EPA with regard
to the Revised Analytical Plan for EPA 's Second Prospective Analysis — Benefits and Costs of the
Clean Air Act J 990-2020.l However, three of these charge questions were beyond the expertise of
Council members (who are primarily economists). The Council elected to await the establishment of
its Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES), and to defer to the expertise of this subcommittee in
completing its responses to charge questions 18, 19, and 20. The Council met by teleconference on
May 24, 2005, to review the attached Advisory by the EES. The Council hereby transmits to you this
EES Advisory, along with some additional comments detailed below.
In light of the capable advice provided by the EES, the Council supports the EPA's plans for
(a) qualitative characterization of the ecological effects of CAA-related air pollutants throughout the
country, (b) an expanded literature review, and (c) a quantitative, ecosystem-level case study of
ecological service benefits. Implementation of the plans, as amended based on the suggestions of the
EES, will signal the Agency's concern for an adequate accounting of the ecosystem service benefits
of improved air quality. These ecosystem benefits will supplement the human health benefits that
have traditionally been the largest component of benefits in the Agency's benefit-cost studies. These
initial efforts will also provide a solid foundation for subsequent work of broader scope.
1 Review of the Revised Analytical Plan for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis-Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
1990-2020, An Advisory by a Special Panel of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, May 2004
(EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-04-004).
-------
The EES has gone beyond their requested charge by not simply evaluating the two case
studies currently proposed by the Agency, but by providing an inventory of eleven potential
alternatives with a thorough evaluation of the pros and cons of each case from an ecological
standpoint. In the attached Advisory, the EES describes contexts for prospective case studies where
poor air quality has a demonstrable effect on the services provided by ecosystems.
We recognize that a comprehensive quantitative national assessment of the ecological benefits
of the CAAA is not a realistic expectation for the Second Prospective Analysis. Valuation methods
(both ecological and economic) for undertaking these assessments are not well established and the
data necessary to execute available methods are often lacking. One or two case studies will not
resolve all of these problems, but the goal of any case study should be a comprehensive quantitative
estimate of the ecosystem benefits of the CAAA in that particular context. Even this goal may not be
fully achieved, but the effort will illuminate the specific research and data gaps that must be filled for
future success in this effort, and thereby help to define next steps in the research agenda. We expect
that a well-executed case study will illustrate the potential importance of ecosystem service benefits
achieved by the CAAA.
A key recommendation made by the EES is that the Agency consider adding a second case
study at an upland site in addition to a coastal site. The EES notes that air pollutants are not the
dominant source of ecosystem injury in coastal estuaries and that this complicates any assessment of
the benefits from reduced air pollution. In contrast, for the upland sites suggested by the EES, air
pollution is a dominant source of injury. If the Agency decides to do just one ecosystem case study,
the EES suggests that the Agency reconsider whether it should be an upland site rather than a coastal
site.
Given its composition and limited resources, the EES did not attempt in this Advisory to
undertake an assessment of whether there exists sufficient data on the market and non-market
economic benefits associated with each of the new case study alternatives it has identified. The
Council emphasizes that the EES's Advisory —especially its negative judgment on the two case
studies that the Agency is currently considering — clearly identifies the need for a set of short- term
research activities. To demonstrate that quantified economic benefits (both market and non-market,
measured in dollar values) can be developed for the effects of Clean Air Act policies on selected
ecosystems, it will be valuable to identify any economic studies that bear on the specific regions
and/or ecological resources relevant to each of the potentially viable ecosystem case studies identified
by the EES.
Often, economic analyses that rigorously measure economic benefits from ecosystem
protection have been pursued because promising data happen to be available. Few, if any, of these
studies have been designed to produce a comprehensive valuation for a specific policy analysis
objective. Consequently, these studies may not be sufficient for the Second Prospective Analysis.
The Council feels an essential task is to evaluate the fit between the existing economic literature and
each of the eleven ecological case studies newly proposed by the EES in this Advisory, especially
those that the EES identifies as higher priority. As the Agency moves toward assessing ecological
benefits for the Second Prospective Analysis, input from the SAB's Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (CVPESS) may be helpful as well.
-------
The Council recognizes that as the Agency allocates resources toward the Second Prospective
Analysis, there may be tradeoffs to consider. There will be merit associated with pursuing well-
known methods and data which yield relatively quick and readily monetized results. There will also
be good reasons to explore new terrain—to embark upon a more protracted effort to develop newer
methodologies and to explore benefits and costs that have not yet been fully appreciated. We
encourage the Agency to weigh these choices carefully.
Sincerely,
/Signed/ /Signed/
Dr. Charles Driscoll Dr. Trudy Cameron
Chair Chair
Ecological Effects Subcommittee Advisory Council for Clean Air
Compliance Analysis
in
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Ecological Effects Subcommittee
CHAIR
Dr. Charles T. Driscoll, Chair, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
MEMBERS
Dr. Elizabeth Boyer, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Dr. Mark Castro, University of Maryland, Frostburg, MD
Dr. Christine Goodale, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Mr. Keith G. Harrison, Michigan Environmental Science Board, Lansing, MI
Dr. Scott Ollinger, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
Dr. Ralph G. Stahl, Jr., DuPont Inc., Wilmington, DE
PARTICIPATING MEMBERS
from the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CLEAN AIR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Dr. Trudy Cameron, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Ms. Lauraine Chestnut, Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, CO
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer
IV
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
CHAIR
Dr. Trudy Cameron, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dr. David T. Allen, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Dr. Dallas Burtraw, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Ms. Lauraine Chestnut, Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder , CO
Dr. Charles T. Driscoll, Jr., Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Dr. Wayne Gray, Department of Economics, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Dr. James K. Hammitt, Center for Risk Analysis, School of Public Health, Harvard University,
Boston, MA
Dr. F. Reed Johnson, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
NC
Dr. Katherine Kiel, Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA
Dr. Nino Kuenzli, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Dr. Virginia McConnell, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Dr. Bart Ostro, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, CA
Dr. V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Dr. Chris Walcek, State University of New York, Albany, NY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF OFFICE
Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer
-------
NOTICE
This notice has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council), a public advisory group providing extramural scientific
information and advice to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection
Agency. The Council is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters
related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the
Agency, and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch
of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute a
recommendation from us. Reports of the Council are posted at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 4
2.1 Background on this Advisory 4
3. RESPONSES TO CHARGE QUESTIONS 5
3.1 Agency Charge Question 18: 5
3.2 Agency Charge Question 19: 5
4. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS 10
4.1 WaquoitBay 10
4.2 Chesapeake Bay 12
4.3 Long Island Sound 13
4.4 Everglades 15
4.5 Lake Michigan 17
4.6 BarnegatBay 19
4.7 Tampa Bay 20
4.8 Gulf of Maine 21
5. UPLAND FOREST ECOSYSTEMS 25
5.1 Adirondacks 25
5.2 Catskills 27
5.3 Southern Appalachian Mountains 28
5.4 Rocky Mountains 30
6. CHARGE QUESTION 20 32
6.1 Agency Charge Question 20 32
7. REFERENCES 35
8. BIOSKETCHES 43
Vll
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this Advisory, the Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on
Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) provides detailed advice related to a wide range of
ecological effects to be addressed in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) forthcoming
Second Prospective Analysis, the third of a series of reports from the Office of Air and Radiation
on the costs and benefits of regulations issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The overall
purpose of the Advisory is to assist the Agency in fully characterizing the science associated
with ecological effects related to the CAA. The Council formed this Subcommittee to focus
specifically on ecological effects and the questions issued from the Office of Air and Radiation
pertaining to these effects.
In 2003, the EPA issued a document that describes EPA's plan for conducting the Second
Prospective Study. This document, Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020: Revised
Analytical Plan for EPA 's Second Prospective Analysis (Analytical Plan), specified three charge
questions related to ecological effects (charge questions 18-20):
Charge Question 18. Does the Council support the plans in Chapter 7 for: (a)
qualitative characterization of the ecological effects of Clean Air Act-related air pollutants,
(b) an expanded literature review, and (c) a quantitative, ecosystem level case study of
ecological service benefits? If there are particular elements of these plans which the
Council does not support, are there alternative data or methods the Council recommends?
Charge Question 19. Initial plans described in Chapter 7 reflect the preliminary
EPA decision to base the ecological benefits case study on Waquoit Bay in Massachusetts.
Does the Council support these plans? If the Council does not support these plans, are
there alternative case study designs the Council recommends?
Charge Question 20. Does the Council support the plan for a feasibility analysis for
a hedonic property study for valuing the effects of nitrogen deposition/eutrophication
effects in the Chesapeake Bay region, with the idea that these results might complement the
Waquoit Bay analysis?
The EES strongly supports the EPA's plans for: (a) qualitative characterization of the
ecological effects of CAA-related air pollutants, (b) an expanded literature review, and (c) a
quantitative, ecosystem-level case study of ecological service benefits. These activities would
help serve notice of the importance of ecosystem service benefits and could provide a foundation
for future advances to quantify the complete benefits associated with air pollution control
programs.
The EES recommends that the EPA consider conducting two case studies, one involving
a coastal ecosystem, and a second involving an upland region. In this Advisory, the EES
summarizes several regions where case studies quantifying ecosystem service benefits associated
with air pollution control might be conducted, including a suite of coastal and upland regions.
The EES encourages the EPA to consider sites in different regions and with different resources at
risk to help focus attention on the importance of ecosystem valuation. The EES suggests
consideration of: 1) clear quantifiable ecological effects due to air pollution; 2) the degree to
which a significant component of ecological effects are attributable to air pollution; 3) the
-------
responsiveness of ecosystem services to changes in air pollution; 4) the cumulative impacts of
multiple air pollutants; 5) the abundance of ecological effects and economic benefit cost
analysis; and 6) the visibility to the public and value of resources at risk in the selection of a site
(or sites) for an ecological benefits case study.
The EES has some reservations with focusing the proposed ecological benefits case study
initiative exclusively on Waquoit Bay, MA. The EES understands the advantages of studying
the Waquoit Bay ecosystem, given the quality and depth of the information available on the
long-term inputs of nitrogen and the resulting effects. However, there are several disadvantages
associated with Waquoit Bay as a potential case study. First, the watershed is small and may not
be representative of coastal ecosystems, and their associated functions and services in the U.S.
Second, although atmospheric deposition is an important input of nitrogen to the Waquoit Bay
watershed, it is not the largest or the source of nitrogen that is most rapidly changing the coastal
zone. Hence, the EES has concerns that it would be difficult to quantify the specific contribution
of regulated atmospheric nitrate deposition to changes in the Waquoit Bay ecosystem. Further,
the EES believes that by conducting a case study solely on Waquoit Bay, an opportunity is lost to
consider the service benefits associated with control of two or more air pollutants
simultaneously, such as are currently being considered with proposed multi-pollutant legislation
(i.e., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury).
The EES also has some reservations concerning the proposed feasibility analysis for a
hedonic property study focusing on Chesapeake Bay. The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay
Property Value Feasibility Study is to investigate the possibility of using a hedonic analysis of
coastal area property values to estimate the benefits to waterfront and near-water front
homeowners of changes in water quality that can be linked to reductions in atmospheric nitrogen
deposition associated with the CAA. Because property owners do not directly observe nitrogen
deposition, two elements are necessary for a property value study to provide information on the
benefits of reducing nitrogen deposition. First, there has to be a measurable relationship between
water quality and property values. Measures of water quality for this purpose have to relate to
what people notice and what affects their use and enjoyment of the property. Second, there needs
to be an ability to link these measures of water quality to changes in nitrogen deposition. Both of
these steps face challenges that need to be addressed in a feasibility study.
As with most other coastal ecosystems, atmospheric nitrogen deposition derived from
sources regulated under the CAA represents just a fraction of the total nitrogen loading to
Chesapeake Bay. It is recognized that atmospheric nitrogen deposition contributes to coastal
area eutrophication, but it may be difficult to determine the specific incremental effect of
changes in atmospheric deposition on the relevant water quality measures for the Chesapeake
Bay locations included in the study.
The selection of water quality measures for a property value study also presents
challenges. There is an absence in the environmental literature of hedonic studies dealing with
water quality, largely due to the fact that homeowners do not understand or relate to many of the
water quality indices used to track water quality or that they do not experience any impairment of
the enjoyment derived from their waterfront homes. To address this problem, the Feasibility
Study proposal indicates that continuous near-shore chlorophyll a measurements, coupled with
annual measurements of near-shore submerged aquatic vegetation and periodic observations of
macroalgal blooms, can be used as a surrogate for nitrogen deposition. Although this approach
-------
may hold some merit, the EES is concerned that it relies too heavily on assumptions that cannot
be fully substantiated. The EES recommends that the EPA not proceed with the Feasibility
Study as it is currently proposed. Rather, it is recommended that alternative case studies, such as
those summarized in this document, be explored that could be better correlated with atmospheric
nitrogen deposition.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background on this Advisory
The purpose of this Advisory is to provide commentary and guidance on the EPA plans
for developing the ecological effects analysis described in the 2003 review document, Benefits
and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020: Revised Analytical Plan for EPA 's Second
Prospective Analysis (Analytical Plan). Chapter 7 of this Plan, "Characterizing the Ecological
Effects of Air Pollution," is the basis for the three charge questions discussed in this Advisory.
The Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis (Council) met in a face-to-face public meeting on November 5, 2004 and
held teleconferences on December 9, 2004 and December 20, 2004 to discuss the charge
questions provided by the Agency related to the ecological effects analysis for the Analytical
Plan. In addition to the EES members listed on Page ii of this Advisory, the Chair of the
Council, Dr. Trudy Cameron, and one additional member of the Council, Ms. Lauraine Chestnut,
participated in these meetings and contributed substantively to this Advisory. The EES's
deliberations were also greatly aided by discussions and presentations from Mr. Jim DeMocker
of the Office of Air and Radiation.
This Advisory serves as a sequel and supplement to the Council's Advisory issued in
May 2004, Review of the Revised Analytical Plan for EPA 's Second Prospective Analysis -
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020, which addresses the full spectrum of charge
questions from the 2003 Analytical Plan. However, the Council declined to fully answer charge
questions 18-20 until the Ecological Effects Subcommittee could be formed and respond to these
three charge questions with its unique expertise. This Advisory constitutes the completion of
the Council's advice on the 2003 Analytical Plan.
-------
3. RESPONSES TO CHARGE QUESTIONS
3.1 Agency Charge Question 18:
Charge Question 18. Does the Council support the plans in Chapter 7 for: (a) qualitative
characterization of the ecological effects of Clean Air Act-related air pollutants, (b) an
expanded literature review, and (c) a quantitative, ecosystem level case study of ecological
service benefits? If there are particular elements of these plans which the Council does not
support, are there alternative data or methods the Council recommends?
The EES strongly supports EPA's plans for: (a) qualitative characterization of the
ecological effects of Clean Air Act-related air pollutants, (b) an expanded literature review, and
(c) a quantitative, ecosystem-level case study of ecological service benefits. There is increasing
recognition of the value of ecosystem functions and services. The importance of some of these
functions and services has been long acknowledged, such as the supply of abundant, clean water,
forest biomass production, fisheries habitat and support of recreation. Other processes and
phenomena, such as the regulation of trace gases or biological or landscape diversity, are more
subtle and their link to human welfare is only starting to be understood.
Research over the past few decades has established that air pollutants can affect the
structure and function of ecosystems, which in turn can alter ecosystem services. Many
important air pollutants are regulated under the Clean Air Act, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide and certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPS; e.g., benzene; mercury). Other air
pollutants such as ammonia and carbon dioxide have clear effects on ecosystem functions and
services but are not addressed in the Clean Air Act. There are many examples of significant
effects of air pollution on ecosystems. Elevated emissions and atmospheric deposition of
nitrogen contribute to the over-enrichment of coastal waters. This disturbance can reduce
submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen, diminishing recreational and commercial
fisheries. Atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen can acidify base-poor soils and waters
in high elevation forested regions. These inputs can decrease species diversity and the
abundance of sensitive species in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, altering recreational
opportunities and possibly impacting forest productivity. Atmospheric deposition of mercury
can contaminate consumable fisheries and, in part, has led to the plethora of consumption
advisories on the nation's waterways.
It is difficult to quantify ecological service benefits. The EES agrees that an expanded
literature review and case studies of ecological service benefits would be important undertakings.
These activities, and publication of the findings, would help serve notice of the importance of
ecosystem service benefits and could provide a foundation for future advances to quantify the
complete benefits associated with air pollution control programs.
3.2 Agency Charge Question 19:
Charge Question 19. Initial plans described in Chapter 7 reflect the preliminary EPA
decision to base the ecological benefits case study on Waquoit Bay in Massachusetts. Does
-------
the Council support these plans? If the Council does not support these plans, are there
alternative case study designs the Council recommends?
The EES generally supports the EPA's plans to conduct a quantitative ecological benefits
case study. However, the EES has some reservations about focusing this initiative on Waquoit
Bay, MA. Waquoit Bay's watershed and estuary are small and relatively homogenous, and there
is a substantial knowledge base on the long-term inputs of nitrogen, its fate, and effects on the
ecosystem (Section 4.1). In this regard, the EES acknowledges the benefits of conducting a
quantitative case study here. However, there are some disadvantages with relying solely on this
watershed as an ecological case study. Waquoit Bay is small and relatively homogenous. Thus,
it is probably not representative of coastal ecosystems and their associated functions and services
in the U.S. Because it is located in unconsolidated sediments of a glacial outwash plain typical
of the Cape Cod region, Waquoit Bay is largely supplied by groundwater. Given the long
hydraulic residence times associated with these deep groundwater flowpaths, it is anticipated that
the nitrogen loading to Waquoit Bay would change slowly in response to future changes in
atmospheric nitrogen deposition loadings to the region. Although atmospheric deposition is the
largest input of nitrogen to the upland components of the watershed, fertilizer inputs are also
important and human waste is the largest overall source of nitrogen to the Waquoit Bay estuary.
In recent decades the contributions of nitrogen loading from wastewater have increased
substantially, while atmospheric nitrogen deposition has remained relatively constant (Section
4.1). Thus, recent changes in the Waquoit Bay ecosystem are probably driven more by changes
in inputs from human wastes than by changes in air pollution. The EES is concerned that it
would be very difficult to quantify the specific contribution of regulated atmospheric nitrogen
deposition (e.g., nitrate originating from regulated emission sources) to the benefits of the
Waquoit Bay ecosystem.
Conceivably, the EPA could consider a case study in which the ecosystem would receive
large and/or changing inputs of a contaminant of interest from a source that might be used as a
surrogate for an air pollutant. For example, the proposed case study on Waquoit Bay might
consider nitrogen inputs to an estuary from a wastewater treatment facility, as a surrogate for
inputs from air pollution. The EES urges caution in any chosen case study when using surrogate
sources to quantify ecological effects of air pollutants. "New" nitrogen (or mercury)2 derived
from air pollutants is generally more bioavailable than "old" nitrogen (or mercury). Moreover,
ecosystems and associated organisms respond differently to different species and sources of
nitrogen (and mercury). The response of an ecosystem to changes in nitrate (say due to controls
on nitrogen oxide emissions) is likely to be different from the response to an equivalent change
in inputs of nitrogen from wastewater effluent or agricultural runoff (i.e., a mixture of
ammonium, organic nitrogen and nitrate). For example, recent research on algal blooms on both
the east and west coasts of the U.S. shows that the growth of toxic and harmful algae is
stimulated specifically by urea, a nitrogen compound dominant in nitrogen inputs from
agricultural and urban runoff, over inorganic nitrogen sources such as ammonium and nitrate that
are dominant in nitrogen inputs from atmospheric deposition. The EES emphasizes that the
ecological effects associated with nitrogen loadings are not the same regardless of precursor
source. In order to meet the EPA's goals of assessing the ecological effects of reductions in
atmospheric pollutants associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act, it is important to
choose case studies where atmospheric deposition itself can be distinguished from other sources
2 "New" nitrogen (or mercury) is nitrogen (or mercury) that is derived from atmospheric deposition (and partially
from anthropogenic sources) as opposed to nitrogen (or mercury) that already resides in ecosystems.
-------
contributing to the ecological effects of interest. Thus the selection of an appropriate case study
should be based not only on the type of ecosystem and its geographical location, but the sources
and types of air pollutants that impact it.
Further, the EES believes by conducting a case study solely on Waquoit Bay, or any
other coastal ecosystem, an opportunity is lost to consider the benefits associated with control of
two or more air pollutants simultaneously, such as are being currently considered with proposed
multi-pollutant legislation (i.e., sulfur, nitrogen, mercury). The EPA could consider the benefits
of nitrogen and mercury controls to a coastal ecosystem, such as Waquoit Bay, but the processes
regulating mercury concentrations in estuarine fish are not well established.
The EES recommends that the EPA consider conducting two ecological benefits case
studies, one involving a coastal ecosystem and a second involving an upland region. In this
regard we have summarized below several possible regions where case studies quantifying
benefits of ecosystem services associated with air pollution control might be conducted (Table
1). The EES encourages the EPA to consider sites in different regions with different resources at
risk to help bring attention to the importance of ecosystem valuation. Several of these potential
case study sites provide the opportunity to examine the effects of control of multiple pollutants
individually or in combination. In some instances information is available to determine both the
"before" and "after" impacts of atmospheric deposition, thus enhancing the scope of the
particular case study.
As the EPA moves forward to select a site (or sites) for an ecological benefits case study,
the EES urges consideration of the following:
• Sites with clearly quantifiable ecological effects due to air pollution;
• Sites where a significant share of the documented ecological effects is attributable to air
pollution (as opposed to another input or disturbance);
• Sites that are expected to be responsive to changes in air pollution;
• Sites that are impacted by multiple air pollutants;
• Sites where considerable ecological effects and research on economic valuation has been
conducted; and
• Sites that are visible to the public and have highly valued resources.
Many quantitative models are potentially available to investigate ecological effects of air
pollutants in the watersheds described herein. One useful approach is mass balance type models
describing fluxes of air pollutants in watersheds. These budgeting models provide a full
accounting of inputs, outputs, and storages, providing an understanding of the relative
contributions of various sources of a contaminant to each region (such as atmospheric deposition,
fertilizers, fixation, human & animal waste, weathering) and relative contributions to receiving
waters. Such approaches have been developed for nitrogen for many individual watersheds
throughout the US including most of the coastal basins identified in this report (Castro et al.
2001, Alexander et al. 2002, Boyer et al. 2002, Driscoll et al. 2003, Boyer et al. in preparation).
-------
Another useful approach is the spatially referenced regression on watersheds (SPARROW)
modeling approach, which was developed by Smith et al. (1997) and is used to predict surface
water quality and to understand sources of pollutants to streamflow (Alexander et al. 2000;
2001). Though empirical in nature, this approach uses mechanistic formulations, imposes mass
balance constraints, and provides a formal parameter estimation structure to estimate sources and
fate of nutrients in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Model predictions include estimates
(including uncertainty measures) of concentrations and loadings of nutrients in individual stream
reaches, characterizing the delivery of pollutants from point and non-point sources to streams
and their transport and fate as they move to downstream locations within the stream network.
SPARROW models are currently in advanced stages of development describing contemporary
fluxes of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, flows, and organic carbon, which can be used to
investigate questions of interest to EPA in any major watershed described herein (E. Boyer and
R. Alexander, personal communication). Further, several models of estuarine response to
nutrient loadings have been developed that might be useful to investigate ecological effects. For
example, Valiela et al. (2004) have developed and calibrated an estuarine loading model for
nitrogen for the Waquoit Bay estuary. Further, simulations of system wide eutrophication
responses are in advanced stages of development, describing multiple nutrient and pollutant
loadings to Long Island Sound and other areas of the northeast region (E. Boyer and V. Bierman,
personal communication).
There are also a series of mass balance models that are available to assess and quantify
the effects of acidic deposition on forest ecosystems. These models include MAGIC (Cosby et
al. 2001), PnET-BGC (Gbondo-Tugbawa et al. 2001) and several others. These models have
been applied to intensive study sites and regionally to the Adirondacks, Catskills, Southern
Appalachian Mountains, and Rocky Mountains. These models could be used as tools to facilitate
an ecological benefits case study.
-------
Table 1. Summary of potential sites for an ecosystem-level case study of ecological
service benefits associated with reductions in air pollutants.
Percentage(s)
Ecosystem / Main CAA Attributable to
Region Pollutant(s) Atmospheric
1 I Deposition
Coastal I |
Waquoit Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Long Island
Sound
Everglades
Lake Michigan
Barnegat Bay
Tampa Bay
Gulf of Maine
Casco Bay
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen; Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nitrogen
Nitrogen; Mercury
Nitrogen
Nitrogen; Mercury
30%
20 - 30%
Nitrogen = 23 -
35%;
Mercury = ?
20-85%
87%
50% total
Direct deposition
30-39%
Nitrogen = 25 -
30%
Low
Nitrogen = 30 -
40%;
Mercury = 84 -
92%
Forested | |
Adirondacks
Catskills
Southern
Appalachian
Mountains
Rocky
Mountains
Nitrogen; Sulfur;
Mercury
Nitrogen; Sulfur
Nitrogen; Sulfur
Nitrogen
Nearly 100%
Nearly 100%
Nearly 100%
Nearly 100%
Quantitative Ecological
and Economic
Information
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ecological = yes;
Economic = uncertain
Ecological = yes;
Economic = lacking
Yes
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EES Comments
High priority. Higher loading
from non depositional sources
may confound analysis.
High priority. Loading from
diverse sources, particularly
agricultural, may confound
analysis.
High priority. High nitrogen
loading from wastewater
treatment plants may confound
analysis.
Medium priority. Reductions
in atmospheric deposition has
already resulted in decreased
mercury burdens in fish and
other biota.
Medium priority. Lack of
quantitative economic data may
restrict analysis.
High priority. Direct linkage of
ecological effects with
atmospheric deposition,
quantitative economic data
exist.
Medium priority. Examined in
previous EPA efforts.
Variability in loading data may
confound analysis.
Low priority. Linkage of
nitrogen loadings and
ecological impacts is not well
established. Major source of
nitrogen is open ocean influx.
Medium priority. Good data on
ecological and economic
impacts are available.
High priority. Good
quantitative ecological and
economic data exist. Previous
studies can be augmented
readily.
Medium priority. Economic
data may be lacking. Issues
similar to the Adirondacks.
Medium priority. Economic
data on fisheries are available.
Issues similar to the
Adirondacks.
Medium priority. Levels of
nitrogen loading much lower
than for Northeastern locations.
Economic data may be lacking.
-------
4. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
4.1 Waquoit Bay
Waquoit Bay is a very small watershed located on Southern Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
draining an area of 52 km2 (CCW 2004) to the Waquoit Bay estuary which encompasses an area
of about 3 km2 with a shallow average depth of about 1 m (WBNEER 2004). The region is
underlain by unconsolidated sandy deposits with very high infiltration rates. Thus groundwater
transports the bulk of the flow and solutes entering the estuary. In addition to the dominant
contributions to the Bay from groundwater flows, fresh water enters the Bay from the
Quashnet/Moonakis River, Red Brook, and the Childs River.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Waquoit Bay NERR.
Falmouth & Mashpee, MA
Figure 1. The Waquoit Bay watershed in southern Cape Cod, Massachusetts
(WBNEER 2004).
Degradation of the estuary has been well publicized. The Waquoit Bay region was once
a highly productive shellfishing area, but eutrophication has resulted in increased algae, loss of
eel grass beds, depleted oxygen, and a significant decline in shellfish productivity, and increased
incidences offish kills. These ecological effects have been attributed to pollution by nitrogen,
the limiting nutrient in the estuary.
Nitrogen concentrations in groundwater below areas of Cape Cod are directly linked to
development and have increased as building density has increased (Valiela et al. 1992). Human
waste, largely transported via groundwater flow paths, is the largest source of nitrogen to the
estuary (Sham et al. 1995; Valiela and Bowen 2002). Though atmospheric deposition is the
largest source of nitrogen inputs to the watershed, waste, deposition, and fertilizer are all
important sources to the estuary in that order (Figure 2, Valiela and Bowen 2002). This reflects
that storage and loss of nitrogen inputs occur within the watershed and highlights the importance
of groundwater residence times in controlling water quality in the estuary.
10
-------
TO WATERSHED
30
Tola i
AtmasphBric
Wasiewater
Fertilizer
19SC 1950 1980 1970 190C i960 20CO
TO ESTUARY
Total
i J waslewater
r" '4
'Atmospheric
•-_^,--* Fertilizer
19*0 i9it-
I»3 2003
Figure 2. Nitrogen loads over time to the Waquoit Bay watershed (top) and Estuary
(bottom) from the major sources: wastewater, deposition, and fertilizer. Figure
taken from Valiela and Bowen 2002.
There is considerable potential in using Waquoit Bay as an ecological benefits case study.
It is small and one of the best studied watershed-estuary ecosystems in the nation. The region
has been the focus of extensive work by researchers, stakeholders, and community watershed
groups, providing a wealth of data to be synthesized on its water quality, watershed processes,
and land use change. Much of the research conducted has been directed at the impacts of
nutrient loading. The Waquoit Bay is a National Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR)
facility. Many publications and data links about the issues and effects from a host of sources can
be found on their web site (http://www.waquoitbavreserve.org/resproj.htm). Further, significant
information about the nitrogen issues and effects are related to Ivan Valiela's research group in
the Boston University Marine Program (http://www.bu.edu/biology/Faculty Staff/valiela.html),
resulting in nutrient loading models for the estuary.
However, the EES emphasizes that there are several disadvantages in focusing on
Waquoit Bay as a case study given the EPA's goals of assessing the ecological effects of
reductions in atmospheric nitrogen deposition associated with the Clean Air Act. Due to its very
small size and the sandy sediments of the glacial outwash plain, Waquoit Bay may not be
representative of nitrogen-impacted estuaries of the eastern U.S. Nitrogen inputs to the estuary
are largely due to wastewater effluent, although atmospheric deposition and fertilizer inputs are
significant.
Over the past six decades atmospheric deposition inputs to the watershed have remained
relatively constant while contributions of nitrogen loading from wastewater and fertilizers have
increased (Figure 2, Valiela and Bowen 2002). Therefore, recent changes in the Waquoit Bay
ecosystem are likely driven by changes in inputs due to human wastes and fertilizers, rather than
11
-------
by air pollution. The EES is concerned that it would be very difficult to quantify the specific
contribution of regulated atmospheric nitrogen deposition (e.g., nitrate originating from regulated
emission sources) to the ecosystem response of Waquoit Bay. Due to the relative long hydraulic
residence time associated with these deep groundwater flowpaths, it is anticipated that the
nitrogen loading to Waquoit Bay would change slowly in response to future changes in
atmospheric nitrogen deposition loadings to the region.
Table 2. Qualitative evaluation rating for Waquoit Bay, MA.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Typical coastal nitrogen over-enrichment problems: eutrophication, hypoxia,
shellfish declines.
b.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Atmospheric deposition
is about 30% of the total nitrogen inputs to the estuary; see Figure 2. Wastewater is the dominant
source of nitrogen to the estuary, and fertilizer inputs are also important.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Estuarine water quality. Pollution level, species health, and population
statistics. From the analytical blueprint: "studied ecological endpoints that may be amenable to
economic valuation include changes in percent eelgrass cover, shellfish abundance, andfmfish
assemblages. Further, annual landings data and recreational harvest statistics are available for
certain species (e.g., winter flounder, tautog, Atlantic menhaden, scup, summer flounder, bay
scallops, softshell clams, hardshell clams, and blue crabs). "
!economic (specify): Not known by the committee.
Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): This is a potential case study put
forth by EPA.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Research and data are extensive
and available as is a nutrient loading model for the region.
4.2 Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. It is about 320 km long,
has a width that varies from 5 to 55 km and has an average depth of about 34 m. The Bay
receives about 50% of its water volume from the Atlantic Ocean and the rest is supplied from the
166,000 km2 watershed, which includes portions of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and all of the District of Columbia. There are about
150 rivers and streams in this watershed. The Susquehanna River provides about 50% of the
fresh water that enters the Chesapeake Bay from the watershed. The Bay and its watershed is an
incredibly complex ecosystem that supports about 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals,
including 348 species of fmfish, 173 species of shellfish, about 2,700 plant species and 29
species of waterfowl. The Chesapeake Bay is a valuable commercial and recreational resource
for the 15 million people who live in the watershed. For example, the Bay produces about 500
million pounds of seafood each year. The Chesapeake was also the first estuary in the nation to
be targeted for restoration as an integrated ecosystem.
12
-------
Currently, the health of the Chesapeake Bay estuary is severely degraded (Bricker et al.
1999). For example, in the summer of 2004 approximately 35% of the water in the main stem of
the Chesapeake Bay had unhealthy oxygen concentrations (< 5 mg/L). As in many previous
years, the primary cause of this degradation was the large watershed inputs of nitrogen. This
nitrogen fueled massive algal blooms that were decomposed by oxygen consuming bacteria,
which lowered the oxygen concentrations in the water column to unhealthy concentrations. In
2004, annual nitrogen inputs were 2.5 times greater than the level needed to meet the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement (80 million Kg).
Over the past 10 years, considerable research has been devoted to determining the
sources of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Several studies suggest that agricultural
activities are the most important source of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay, followed by point
sources and atmospheric deposition. Most of the recent studies suggest that atmospheric
deposition accounts for between 20 and 30% of the total nitrogen input. Whitall et al. (2004)
suggested that realistic changes in nitrogen emissions from utility and mobile sources are not
likely to produce significant reductions in the contribution made by atmospheric nitrogen to the
total nitrogen inputs to the Chesapeake Bay. However, the authors also noted that changes in
animal emissions could reduce the agricultural nitrogen input by approximately 50%. The EES
believes there are several advantages to the Chesapeake Bay estuary as a potential ecological
benefits case study. This ecosystem is highly visible to the public, perhaps the most well studied
estuary in the U.S., with several long-term data sets on water quality, living resources and others.
However, atmospheric nitrogen deposition is not a dominant source of nitrogen to this estuary.
Table 3. Qualitative evaluation rating for Chesapeake Bay Estuary.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
Impacts (specify): Eutrophication; loss of aquatic vegetation, low dissolved oxygen concentrations
in main stem and possibly other locations; decrease in fish and shellfish harvest. The fishery is
contaminated with mercury and other toxic chemicals.
b.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Severe.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): About 20-30% of the
total nitrogen inputs are from atmospheric deposition.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of
Clean Air Act pollutants
a. Ecological (specify): Fisheries and shellfish declines.
economic (specify): Not known by the committee.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Not known by Committee.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, there has been considerable
work from federal, state, and local governments and researchers at many universities and research
institutions.
4.3 Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound (LIS) is located on the Atlantic shoreline of the states of New York
and Connecticut. There are approximately 7.3 million people living in the watershed. Long
Island Sound has a watershed area of 40,770 km2 and a surface area of 3,400 km2. The Sound
has 960 km of coastline and is about 34 km across at its widest point. The estuary provides
13
-------
feeding, breeding, nesting and nursery areas for a diversity of plant and animal life. More than
120 species of fmfish can be found in LIS, with at least 50 species that spawn in the estuary.
This coastal area contributes an estimated $5.5 billion per year to the regional economy from
boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and sight-seeing.
There has been considerable analysis of the impacts of nitrogen and mercury to LIS.
Several mass balance studies for nitrogen have been conducted. Castro et al. (2003) estimated
the contribution of nitrogen from atmospheric deposition to be 23%, while Alexander et al.
(2001) suggested that atmospheric inputs were 35% of total nitrogen loading. The Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection has collected long-term data on the oxygen status of
LIS, and has regularly observed a large area of hypoxic water for one to two months during the
summer. Due to water quality violations, the states of Connecticut and New York have
conducted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis for LIS. This analysis will guide future
management decisions and reductions in nitrogen load, particularly from wastewater treatment
facilities. Currently atmospheric nitrogen deposition is a small but significant component of the
total nitrogen load to the ecosystem; the dominant source being nitrogen from wastewater
treatment plants. However, with additional controls on nitrogen loading from wastewater
treatment plants, it is anticipated that the contribution of atmospheric nitrogen deposition will
increase in the future.
Researchers from the University of Connecticut have conducted extensive analysis of
mercury inputs and transformations for LIS. Mass balance studies indicate that atmospheric
deposition is a major source of mercury input to the ecosystem.
There have been several economic analyses of LIS that could help advance an ecological
benefits case study (Apogee Research Inc. 1992; Altobello 1992; Yale Center for Environmental
Law and Policy 1995; Carstensen et al. 2001; Kildow et al. 2004).
The EES believes that there are several advantages and disadvantages of LIS as a
potential ecological benefits case study. Long Island Sound is highly visible to the public and an
important resource for tourism, recreation and commercial fisheries. There is a major focus on
reductions of nitrogen loading to this ecosystem, which could undoubtedly support an ecological
benefits case study. In addition, there is considerable information on mercury inputs and
contamination for the ecosystem. Extensive databases for these two contaminants would allow
the EPA to examine the ecological benefits associated with control of multiple air pollutants.
There have been several economic analyses of the LIS ecosystem. The major disadvantages of
LIS as a case study are that it is a large and complex ecosystem and that atmospheric deposition
is not the major source of nitrogen inputs. Note however that the contribution of atmospheric
nitrogen deposition to the total nitrogen loading for the ecosystem will likely increase in the
future following plans to reduce nitrogen loading from wastewater treatment plants.
Table 4. Qualitative evaluation rating for Long Island Sound.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Eutrophication; loss of submerged aquatic vegetation and decreases in dissolved
oxygen; decreases aquatic habitat. Mercury contamination of fisheries.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): 20-35%; major inputs
from other nitrogen sources, particularly treated wastewater. Atmospheric deposition is a large
component of the mercury inputs to LIS.
14
-------
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Loss of aquatic habitat. Mercury contamination in fisheries.
economic (specify): Loss of recreational and commercial fisheries.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Yes, the State of Connecticut
conducted a cost analysis for removing nitrogen in wastewater. There may be economic analysis
associated with TMDL developed for LISfor N.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, there is considerable work
going on in the States of Connecticut and New York. Researchers from the University of Connecticut
have done considerable research of impacts of atmospheric mercury deposition on LIS.
4.4 Everglades
The Everglades and associated Everglades National Park (ENP) is a diverse aquatic
ecosystem in southern Florida covering more than 10,000 km2. Despite the absence of major
industrial point sources of contamination, the water, sediments and numerous biota of the ENP
are known to contain elevated levels of mercury (Kang et al. 2000). One main pathway of
mercury to the ENP is through atmospheric deposition, stemming from near and far-field sources
such as incinerators and electrical power generating facilities. Upwards of 30 |ig/m2-yr (total
Hg, wet + dry deposition) (Table 5) is estimated to fall in the ENP area (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection 2003; Schuster et al. 2002), where approximately 85% results from
atmospheric deposition. There are three forms or species of atmospheric mercury: elemental
mercury (Hg(0)), reactive gaseous mercury (Hg(II)), and particulate mercury (Hg(p)). The
sources and speciation of the mercury deposited in the ENP is shown in Table 6, and illustrated
in Figure 3.
The deposition of Hg has led to elevated levels of mercury in fish species, and reductions
in some populations of piscivorous birds (Sepulveda et al. 1999). The decline in bird
populations and the potential for reduced human recreational use offish and other aquatic
species impacted by mercury contamination may provide a sufficient backdrop for estimating the
potential economic consequences of the contamination in this area.
Even more importantly, recent controls on emissions from point sources have resulted in
concomitant reductions in body burdens of mercury in selected species; however the reduction in
atmospheric deposition does not result in a linear reduction in body burdens due to the recycling
of mercury inventory in the sediments and other media (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 2003). Given this relatively new information, this case may present a situation for a
"before" and "after" analyses of the economic benefits that might have accrued as a result of the
reduction in atmospheric deposition.
The Everglades case provides a tangible example of the array of impacts associated with
atmospheric deposition of mercury in a sensitive aquatic and semi-aquatic habitat. Moreover, as
noted above, there is the possibility, pending further evaluation of the literature, to conduct a
before and after assessment of the economic benefits stemming from a reduction in emissions.
This is predicated on obtaining quantitative economic data (e.g. tourism, recreational use, etc.)
that can link directly to existing quantitative biological data collected on resident organisms
within the ENP system.
15
-------
Table 5. Estimates of mercury loading to the Everglades Protection Area. Taken
from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003), based on U.S. EPA
estimates in 1994-1995.
Year
1994
1995
Atmospheric Deposition
Hg kg/ yr.
238
206
Table 6. Sources and speciation of mercury deposited in the Everglades. From
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003).
Mercury Emission Source Type
Municipal Waste Combustion
Medical Waste Incinerators
Electric Utility Boilers (coal, oil, gas)
Commercial and Industrial Boilers
% Hg(0)
20
2
50
50
%Hg(II)
60
73
30
30
%Hg(p)
20
25
20
20
Emission Sources
=] Hg(ll)
O Hg(0)
1=1 Hg(p)
• WCA-3A
I 1 Watershed Boundary
I 1 State Boundary
Figure 3. Illustration of the sources and species of mercury deposited in the
Everglades study area. From Florida Dept. Environmental Protection (2003).
16
-------
Table 7. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Florida Everglades.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Reduction in piscivorous, wading bird populations. Contamination of lower and
upper trophic level biota.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate. Appears to be improving as a
result of the reduction in atmospheric emissions.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Estimated low of 20%,
estimated high of 85%. Majority of deposition results from incinerators, boilers, etc.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
a.
ecological (specify): Contamination of food web with mercury; reduction in wading bird
population.
economic (specify): Potential reductions in human use and recreational opportunities; reduction in
tourism.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Tourism, angler fishing
days/license fees, etc.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, national initiative on
mercury emissions.
4.5 Lake Michigan
Considerable work regarding mercury deposition has been amassed in the Great Lakes
Region from studies conducted primarily from Lake Superior and Lake Michigan (Back et al.
2002; Landis and Keeler 2002; Vette et al. 2002; Back et al. 2003; Cleckner et al. 2003; Rolfhus
et al. 2003; Great Lakes National Program Office 2004; McCarty et al. 2004). All of these Great
Lakes studies have added considerably to the resource knowledge base regarding the sources,
speciation, and impacts of mercury deposition to freshwater ecosystems. Probably one of the
most comprehensive and concerted investigations conducted for any of the Great Lakes has been
the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office's (2004) Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
(LMMB Study).
Lake Michigan, the second largest Great Lake by volume with just under 4,917 cubic
kilometers of water, is the only Great Lake entirely within the United States. Approximately 190
kilometers wide and 494 kilometers long, Lake Michigan has more than 2,576 kilometers of
shoreline. Averaging 85 meters in depth, Lake Michigan reaches 282 meters at its deepest point.
Lake Michigan's northern tier is in the colder, less developed upper Great Lakes region, while its
more temperate southern basin contains the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas. Lake
Michigan's drainage basin includes portions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Lake
Michigan, as well as the other Great Lakes, supports an important sports and commercial fishery
and serves as a recreational resource for the Great Lakes Region (Fuller et al. 1995).
The LMMB Study was instituted in 1997 to measure and model the concentrations of
representative pollutants within important compartments of the Lake Michigan ecosystem (Great
Lakes National Program Office 2004). The goal of the LMMB Study was to develop a sound,
17
-------
scientific base of information to guide future toxic load reduction efforts at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. The objectives of the study were to:
1. Estimate rates of pollutant load;
2. Establish a baseline to gauge future progress;
3. Predict the benefits associated with load reductions; and
4. Further understand ecosystem dynamics.
Mercury was among the pollutants investigated in the LMMB Study. Lake Michigan
receives approximately 86% of its mercury input through direct atmospheric deposition
(McCarty et al. 2004).
Global releases of mercury to the environment come from both natural and anthropogenic
sources. Many of these sources are the result of releasing geologically bound mercury to the
atmosphere. Once mercury enters the atmosphere, it becomes part of a global cycle of mercury
among land, water, and the atmosphere. In the LMMB Study, mercury was extensively
measured in atmospheric, tributary, open-lake water column, sediment, lower pelagic food web
organism, and fish samples. Methylmercury, the major toxic and bioaccumulative form of
mercury, also was measured in tributary samples. Extensive modeling of Lake Michigan
atmospheric mercury deposition also took place in conjunction with the LMMB Study (Landis
and Keeler 2002; Cohen 2004; Cohen et al. 2004).
The EES believes that there are several advantages and disadvantages to the use of the
LMMB Study as a potential ecological benefits case study. Lake Michigan is a major freshwater
ecosystem and an important economic and recreational resource. Considerable information
regarding atmospheric mercury inputs to this freshwater ecosystem has been amassed as a result
of the comprehensive LMMB Study. The disadvantage of using the LMMB Study is that
economic impacts were not specially identified or evaluated since neither constituted the primary
purpose for the investigation.
Table 8. Qualitative evaluation rating for Lake Michigan.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
Impacts (specify): Generalized impacts to fish and wildlife: Focus of information is on fish
advisories dealing with Coho salmon and lake trout. In fish, mercury has been shown to cause (in
high enough doses) increased mortality, decreased growth, sluggishness, poor reproduction and
deformities.
Level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
Importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Estimated atmospheric
deposition contribution 87%.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked directly (or indirectly) to atmospheric deposition of
Clean Air Act pollutants.
Ecological (specify): Contamination of sediments and aquatic biota with mercury.
Commercially exploited resources (specify): Impact to recreational and commercial fishery industry
and tourism.
Quantified economic benefits estimates: Yes, for impacts to commercial and sport fisheries.
4. Takes advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, part of larger Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Project and Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan.
18
-------
4.6 Barnegat Bay
The Barnegat Bay estuarine system includes Barnegat Bay, Manahawkin Bay and Little
Egg Harbor. This system covers about 70 km of shoreline in Ocean County, New Jersey,
supports a thriving tourist industry, and has a fishery that is a valuable recreational and
commercial resource. For example, $1.71 billion tourist dollars were spent in Ocean County in
1995 (STAC 2001). The watershed of the Barnegat Bay estuarine system drains 1700 km2, which
was dominated in 1995 by forests (45.9%), wetlands (25.2%) and urban areas (19.5%). This
watershed is home to about 460,000 people year-round and more than 800,000 people during the
summer (STAC 2001). These people enjoy an array of recreational activities, such as boating,
fishing, swimming, and hunting.
There have been several water quality studies of the Barnegat Bay estuarine system. For
example, STAC (2001) reported elevated concentrations of nitrogen in the water column of this
system. Total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.3-1.1 mgN/L (1989-1996). Organic
nitrogen was the dominant form of nitrogen, about 10 times greater than the inorganic nitrogen
concentrations. Seasonal averaged (1989-1996) ammonium concentrations were 0.04 mg N/L
and nitrate concentrations were 0.05 mg N/L. These high nitrogen concentrations fueled intense
blooms of phytoplankton, which created low dissolved oxygen concentrations (< 5 mg/L) in the
central part of this estuarine system (STAC 2001). These blooms, together with elevated
sediment loads, have increased the turbidity and reduced the area of submerged aquatic
vegetation. There have also been changes in fish and shellfish numbers and fisheries revenue.
For example, the annual commercial value of American eel in Barnegat Bay declined from
$62,857 to $17,150 from 1989 to 1994 (STAC 2001).
Atmospheric deposition is clearly the dominant source of nitrogen to this estuary
ecosystem (Castro et al. 2001), primarily because point sources of wastewater are discharged
offshore bypassing this estuary. Castro et al. (2001) estimated that atmospheric deposition
accounted for 50% of the total nitrogen inputs to this ecosystem, followed by agricultural runoff
(32%) and septic systems (16%). The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC,
2001) estimated that direct deposition to the surface of this estuarine ecosystem accounts for
39% of the total nitrogen inputs. Similarly, Castro et al. (2001) estimate direct deposition
accounted for approximately 30% of the total nitrogen inputs.
The EES believes that there are several advantages to the Barnegat Bay estuarine system
as a potential ecological benefits case study. This ecosystem is highly visible to the public, an
important economic and recreational resource, is well studied and atmospheric deposition is the
dominant nitrogen source. In addition, since this ecosystem has a relatively large direct
depositional input of nitrogen, ecosystem responses due to changes in atmospheric deposition are
more likely to be observed in this ecosystem compared to other ecosystems with much smaller
direct deposition inputs.
Table 9. Qualitative evaluation rating for Barnegat Bay ecosystem.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
impacts (specify): Eutrophication; loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, low dissolved oxygen in
places; changes in fish and shellfish populations. Mercury and other trace metal contamination of
19
-------
fisheries.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): 50 % of the total
nitrogen inputs from atmospheric deposition.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of
Clean Air Act pollutants
ecological (specify): Fisheries decline for several species.
economic (specify): Decrease d revenues from commercial fisheries, diminished recreational
benefits, local economic impacts.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Yes, there are some data for
selected fishery endpoints.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, there has been considerable
work on this system for several researchers associated with the National Estuary Program and
Rutgers University.
4.7 Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay covers 1000 km2 and has a watershed of 5700 km2 on the west coast of
Florida. More than 2 million people reside within the watershed, including the cities of Tampa
and St. Petersburg. One of the fastest-growing urban regions in the U.S., its population increased
25% between 1975 and 1995, with another 20% gain expected by 2010. As of the mid-1990s,
approximately 17% of the watershed was urban, and another 40% was agricultural. The major
rivers draining into Tampa Bay are the Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee, and Manatee
Rivers. Tampa Bay provides rich habitat for diverse species offish, invertebrates and birds in
habitats ranging from mangrove, oyster reef, and seagrass bed to salt marsh and sand beach.
Species of particular interest that reside in the Bay include the federally threatened piping
plovers and loggerhead sea turtles, and the endangered West Indian manatee, bald eagle,
shortnose sturgeon, as well as the green, hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles.
Water quality decreased through the first half of the 20th century associated with
increases in nitrogen loading. By 1982, seagrass beds had declined to 20% of their pre-
settlement area. However, the introduction of advanced wastewater treatment in Tampa, St.
Petersburg, and Clearwater in the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the loading of nitrogen
from wastewater by 90%. Seagrass growth began to recover between 1982 and 1992 following
reductions in nitrogen loading.
Tampa Bay has been part of the Clean Water Act's National Estuary Program since 1991
(Tampa Bay Estuaries Program, TBEP), through which multiple stakeholders are brought
together in regional planning actions, including development of a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan, and a Nitrogen Management Consortium developed in 1996. The TBEP
estimates that in the early 1990s, atmospheric deposition contributed 25-30% of the nitrogen
loading to the Bay; point sources, 14%; fertilizer, 4%; and the remainder was mostly stormwater
runoff (45%). These estimates were based on data sources of varying quality. Total nitrogen
deposition was estimated by assuming that the rate of dry deposition amounted to twice that of
wet deposition (Zarbock et al. 1996). Recent data indicate that total inorganic nitrogen
deposition to the estuary during the late 1990s averaged -8.0 kg N ha"1 y"1 (Poor 2000). Of this
total, dry deposition contributed just less than half, with ammonia (a constituent not routinely
20
-------
measured) making up 75-85% of total dry deposition (Poor 2000). Alternative estimates of
nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay (Castro et al. 2001; Alexander et al. 2001) suggest a much
smaller contribution from atmospheric deposition (-8-11%), due to inclusion of fewer forms of
nitrogen in deposition, and to 3-4-fold higher estimates of total loading of nitrogen from fertilizer
and agriculture.
Tourism and both recreational and commercial fishing are important industries dependent
on the health of the bay. Commercial harvest of shellfish is presently banned. Recreational
harvest of shellfish is confined to clamming. Assessments of the economic value and impacts on
these resources exist as part of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
Tampa Bay (TBNEP 1996). In addition, past workshops by the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) have examined four disparate approaches for examining public valuation of ecological
resources, using the Tampa Bay Estuary as a case study (US EPA 2001).
The very real and direct impacts of nitrogen loading on estuarine resources, combined
with an abundance of past and ongoing research, make Tampa Bay an advantageous area for
further benefits study. The water quality impacts are significant, and most (but not all) lines of
evidence suggest that atmospheric deposition plays a major role in nitrogen loadings.
Table 10. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Tampa Bay, FL.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
impacts (specify): Eutrophication; loss (and recovery) ofseagrass and fisheries. Mercury
contamination of fisheries
b.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate and improving.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Recent estimates
suggest -25-30%; published range 8-50%. Other sources either fertilizer & agriculture or
stormwater runoff.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Seagrass habitat impaired due to eutrophications; concerns over habitat for
endangered species.
economic (specify): Loss of recreational and commercial fisheries. Adverse impact on tourism and
recreation.
Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Bay resources quantified in the
TBEP Conservation & Management Plan.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project. See prior 1999 EPA Prospective
analysis for consideration of Tampa Bay, particularly EPA SAB workshop on public valuation of
ecological resources (US EPA 2001).
4.8 Gulf of Maine
The Gulf of Maine (GOM) watershed includes several large river basins spanning eastern
New England and the Maritime provinces of Canada with a total land area of approximately
177,000 km2. Major rivers within New England include the Merrimack, Saco and
Kennebec/Androscogin systems in Massachusetts and Maine. The region is heavily forested
with increasing population densities along immediate coastal areas and towards the Boston
Metropolitan area to the south.
21
-------
Gulf of Maine Study Area
Yarmouth
3. Mary's Bay
Annapolis Basin
Avon River
S hub en aca die River
Minas/Cobequid
C inn berland Basin
Shepody Shore
Fundy Shore
10 St. John River
11 Migaguadavic Bay
12 a.CroixRiver
kkjor Water stKXfc
13 Passamaquoddy Bay
14 Englishman Bay
ISNarraguagus Bay
16 Blue Hill Bay
17 PenobscotBay
ISMuscongusBay
ISSheepscotBay
20Casco Bay
21 Sato Bay
22Great Bay
23Merrimack River
24 Massachusetts Bay
25 Cape Cod Bay
Figure 4. Watersheds in the Gulf of Maine region (from
http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/proiects/gomaine/gome wtshd.html).
Links between nitrogen pollution and harmful algal blooms have been a cause for
concern, particularly in southern portions of the Gulf such as Casco Bay. In addition, blooms of
toxin-producing dinoflagellates (e.g., Red tide) have known adverse effects on shellfish. These
toxins could also harm humans so this condition led to closure of numerous shellfish beds. What
is less well understood is the underlying cause of harmful algal blooms and the degree to which
nutrients derived from terrestrial runoff versus open ocean influx are responsible. Red tides in
the eastern portions of the GOM, for example, are believed to be caused by oceanic nutrient
influx (Townsend et al. 2001). However, coastal blooms have also been reported and terrestrial
nitrogen sources likely have a greater role in these events.
For the basin as a whole, the largest single source of inorganic nitrogen is inflow from the
open ocean. Based on estimates from Christensen et al. (1992) and Townsend (1998), as much
as 95% of the total nitrogen load to the GOM is ocean derived. Nevertheless, the relative
importance of terrestrial runoff increases towards inland bays and estuaries, where terrestrially-
derived nitrogen is most concentrated and where most nutrient problems appear to exist.
However, the relationships between nutrient loadings and estuarine degradation are largely
anecdotal and do not appear to have been quantified.
Many organizations are presently involved in either monitoring environmental
parameters relevant to GOM marine ecosystems or in distributing data from research and
monitoring efforts. These include the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System
(http://www.gomoos.org/), the Center for Coastal Ocean Observation and Analysis
(http://www.cooa.sr.unh.edu/) and the WebCoast data retrieval system
(http://webcoast.sr.unh.edu/home.jsp). Further, a consortium of federal, state, and local agencies
22
-------
has developed the Gulf of Maine Land-Based Sources Inventory, a digital database that contains
information on the location, timing, and magnitude of point and nonpoint source discharges to
the rivers, streams, lakes, and estuarine and coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine drainage area
(http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/projects/gomaine/).
The EES believes that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the GOM basin as
an ecological benefits case study. The principal advantage is that atmospheric deposition
represents the dominant source of nitrogen in runoff from the upland watershed and is an
important source of nitrogen for inland estuaries. There are also several active scientific
investigations encompassing terrestrial nitrogen budgets, estuarine ecosystem dynamics and
oceanic chemical and biological processes, including the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and
their effects on shellfish production. Two substantial disadvantages are the following: 1) for the
GOM basin as a whole (i.e. including offshore waters), the largest overall source of nitrogen is
influx from the open ocean, and 2) although harmful algal blooms have been anecdotally
connected to nitrogen pollution, there is little hard evidence of a causal link and some researchers
believe that oceanic nutrient influx is the primary controlling mechanism. The EES believes that
these disadvantages probably outweigh the advantages of an entire GOM case study, although
the potential for a more narrowly defined study of an individual river basin within the GOM
(where open ocean processes play a smaller role) may warrant future consideration.
For example, Bliven (2001) points out that unlike other water bodies, anthropogenic
deposition loadings in the Gulf of Maine do not appear to have had ecosystem-wide impacts, but
rather have affected individual estuaries and embayments, due to the topographic setting and
tidal flats. Rather than the Gulf region as a whole, the EES believes that the Casco Bay
watershed in particular may hold potential for a case study.
The Casco Bay watershed is located entirely in the U.S. (in southern Maine), and drains
an area of 2550 km2. The Casco Bay estuary itself covers 518 km2, and was designated an
estuary of national significance in 1990. Twenty-five percent of the population of Maine (about
0.25 million people) live in the Casco Bay watershed. The estuary is home to a major port and
fishery.
The contributions of nitrogen via atmospheric deposition to the Casco Bay estuary from
its watershed are estimated to be 30% by Castro et al. 2001, 34% by Driscoll et al. 2003, 30-40%
by Ryan et al. 2003, and 40% by the EPA in their report on the environmental effects of acid rain
(http://www.epa.gov/boston/eco/acidrain/enveffects.html). The contributions of mercury via
atmospheric deposition to the Casco Bay estuary are estimated to be 84 to 92% (Ryan et al.
2003). Data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) site at Casco Bay for
2003 (annual) indicate a pH of 4.8, nitrate deposition of 1.5 kg N/ha-yr, and sulfate deposition of
2.9 kg S/ha-yr; mercury deposition and other atmospheric monitoring data are also available.
Ecological effects of concern in Casco Bay include eutrophication, harmful algal blooms,
shellfish losses and closures, and habitat loss. There is particular interest in maintaining
biodiversity in the tidal flats for aquatic species and in the 758 islets for birds and plant species.
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the estuary is well underway, and
there is ongoing monitoring to assess results (see weblinks specific to Casco Bay below, in
addition to those described above for the entire Gulf of Maine area). Regarding resources for a
case study and economic valuation, the EPA's Analytical Plan (Appendix F-G by Jim DeMocker
23
-------
5/12/03) indicates that their Office of Water and the National Center for Environmental
Economics has completed an economic profile of the estuary and determined that the health of
the estuary impacts tourism and recreation. The Estuary Program highlights that many of the
commercially valuable fisheries and seafood species in the New England region (e.g., lobsters,
mussels, scallops) depend upon the health of Casco Bay for survival, and also points out the
recreational value of the Bay and the local economic impacts of these activities.
Web resources regarding Casco Bay:
http://www.americanoceans.org/issues/pdf/casco.pdf (issues)
http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/SONOMA.html (atmospheric deposition)
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/programs/cb.htm (EPA's Casco Bay activity)
http://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/state of gulf report nutrientslO 03.pdf (nutrients)
Table 11. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Gulf of Maine.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service:
a.
impacts (specify): Primary impacts include algal blooms and associated declines in shellfish
populations and larval stage offinfish.
b.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate degradation has occurred in some
areas, but specific causes are unclear.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Most terrestrially-
derived nitrogen is from atmospheric sources, although influx from the open ocean is by far the
largest source to the entire GOM (approximately 95%).
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Declines in shellfish and larval stages of vertebrate fish.
b.
economic (specify): Loss offisheries, decline in the number of shellfish beds that are open for
harvesting.
Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Monetary values of species that
are part of the GOM fisheries industry are available, but again, linkages with nitrogen pollution aren't
well established.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: A good deal of data are available
on water chemistry, nitrogen loadings and populations of commercially-important species. However,
the degree to which declining fisheries have been directly linked with nitrogen pollution remains
unclear.
24
-------
5.
UPLAND FOREST ECOSYSTEMS
5.1 Adirondacks
The Adirondack region in northern New York State is a large (24,000 km2) forested area,
ranging in elevation from 30 to 1,630m. It is underlain by bedrock composed primarily of
granitic gneisses and metasedimentary rocks which are generally resistant to chemical
weathering. Surficial materials are primarily the result of glacial activity. Soils are generally
developed from glacial till, and are shallow and acidic. There are approximately 2,800 lakes in
the Adirondacks (with surface area > 0.2 ha). The region receives elevated inputs of acidic
deposition of nitrate, sulfate and mercury (Table 12) and probably exhibits the most severe
ecological impacts from acidic deposition of any region in the U.S. For example, in a survey of
1469 lakes during 1984-87, 27% were chronically acidic (i.e., acid neutralizing capacity (ANC)
< 0 |j,eq/L; Baker et al. 1990). An additional 21% had summer ANC values between 0-50 |j,eq/L
and could experience hydrologic events which decrease ANC values near or below 0 |j,eq/L.
Decreases in pH and elevated concentrations of aluminum have reduced species diversity and
abundance of aquatic life in many lakes and streams in the Adirondacks. Fish have received the
most attention to date, but entire food webs are often adversely affected. There is also apparently
a linkage between acidic deposition and fish mercury contamination (Driscoll et al. 1994).
Table 12. Summary of the pH of wet deposition, and wet deposition of sulfate and
nitrate for long-term precipitation chemistry station in the Adirondacks (1998-
2000). Data taken from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu.
Site
Huntington Forest
Whiteface Mountain
pH
4.50
4.56
Sulfate
(kg S/ha-yr)
4.7
4.9
Nitrate
(kg N/ha-yr)
3.1
3.1
Effects of acidic deposition are less well documented for terrestrial ecosystems.
Nevertheless it appears that acidic deposition has resulted in: 1) elevated accumulation of sulfur
and nitrogen in soil, 2) depletion of available pools of nutrient cations (i.e., calcium,
magnesium), and 3) the mobilization of aluminum from soil (Driscoll et al. 2001). The long-
term impacts of these perturbations are not clear but recent studies suggest linkages to the
decline of sensitive tree species such as red spruce and sugar maple.
Long-term monitoring and modeling studies have documented the response of the
Adirondacks to recent decreases in acidic deposition (Driscoll et al. 2003) and the potential
response to future reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (Chen and Driscoll 2004;
Chen and Driscoll 2005).
Recently Banzhaf et al. (2004) conducted a study on valuation of natural resource
improvements in the Adirondacks. Based on their estimates of willingness to pay, benefits in
New York State from reductions in acidic deposition in the Adirondacks range from $336
million to $1.1 billion per year. The 1999 Prospective Study considered economic impacts
associated with recreational fisheries due to acidic deposition in the Adirondacks.
25
-------
There have been numerous assessments of the effects of acidic deposition on the
Adirondacks (Baker et al. 1990; Driscoll et al. 1991; Wigington et al. 1996; Sullivan 2000;
Driscoll et al. 2001). Numerous groups continue to conduct research concerning the effects of
air pollution in the Adirondack region, including the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority,
the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation, the U.S. Geological Survey, Syracuse University,
Cornell University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
There are several advantages to conducting an ecological benefits case study in the
Adirondacks. The region receives elevated inputs of sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, and
atmospheric deposition is the major source of these materials. There are well-documented
effects of acidic deposition on large number of lakes and streams and associated fisheries in the
region. To a lesser extent there are studies documenting air pollution impacts on trees. There
have been several studies quantifying the response of Adirondack ecosystems to past and future
changes in atmospheric deposition. There is considerable ongoing research on the effects of air
pollution in the Adirondacks. Finally, there have been economic studies on the impacts of air
pollution to the region.
Table 13. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Adirondack region of New York.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Soil and surface water acidification; decreases in diversity in aquatic biota;
possible impacts to red spruce and sugar maple.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Severe.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Virtually 100%; some
inputs of naturally occurring organic acids.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
a. ecological (specify): Soil and surface water acidification.
economic (specify): Loss offisheries; possible loss of tree species.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Yes, from Banzhaf(2004).
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, much work is going on in the
Adirondacks; it would be good to take advantage of the Banzhaf (2004) study.
26
-------
5.2 Catskills
Covering approximately 15,540 km2 (1,554,000 ha) in southeast New York State, the
Catskill Mountains receive some of the highest rates of acidic deposition in the nation, with a
suite of impacts on forest vegetation, soils, and streams roughly comparable to those in
Adirondack forests. In addition, the region supplies 90% of New York City's fresh water.
Hence, water quality issues are of particular concern, although at present, phosphorus loads are
of greater concern than nitrogen.
The Catskill Mountains consist of broad peaks up to -1200 m elevation, dominated by
quartz sandstone and formed as erosional remnants of an uplifted sedimentary delta. Northern
hardwood forests cover most of the region, with some oak at low elevations and mixed spruce-fir
at the highest elevations. Rates of atmospheric deposition are high: in the late 1990s, wet + dry
sulfate-S deposition averaged 8-12 S kg/ha- y (15-27 kg SO4/ ha-y of in precipitation), and
nitrogen deposition averaged 10-13 kg N/ ha-y (NADP, Lovett et al. 2000). Acidic deposition
has depleted soil calcium (Lawrence et al. 1999) and contributed to stream acidification. A
survey of 66 headwater streams in 1985-87 indicated that 8% were chronically acidic, and at
least 16% were acidic under high-flow conditions (Stoddard and Murdoch 1991). Effects of
acidification on vegetation in the region are not well documented. The Catskill region has a
world-renowned trout fishery. Native brook trout occur in headwater streams and the more acid-
sensitive brown trout occur farther downstream. Streams chronically or episodically acidified
exhibit reduced fish diversity and biomass, and increased trout mortality (Baker et al. 1996).
Twenty percent of 61 streams surveyed in the Appalachian Plateau lack any trout (Sharpe et al.
1987). Mercury advisories have been issued for fish consumption in all of the Catskill reservoirs
(NYS Dept. of Health 2004).
New York City relies heavily on natural systems to filter its drinking water, although
water treatment includes addition of sodium hydroxide to increase water pH. Regulation of non-
point source pollution is focused on phosphorus, with several reservoirs exceeding their Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). Stream and reservoir nitrate concentrations are presently
below the EPA threshold of 10 mg N/L nitrate-N: nitrate-N concentrations in drinking water
from the Catskill/Delaware system average 0.19 mg N/L (range 0.10- 0.89 mg/L) (NYC DEP
2003). Peak nitrate-N concentrations in streams in spring can exceed 1.5 mg N/L (Murdoch and
Stoddard 1992). Yet, stream nitrate is likely to increase in the future in response to chronic
deposition or disturbances. If forest ecosystems were not accumulating and denitrifying the
nitrogen received in deposition, stream nitrate concentrations might be expected to average -1-3
N mg/L (assuming that all nitrogen from deposition passed through the system, and 1/3 to 1/2 of
precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration). Stream nitrate concentrations following disturbances
can be quite high, due to continued soil nitrogen mineralization and lack of plant uptake.
Following an experimental clear-cut, stream nitrate-N concentrations averaged 2-4 mg N/L and
peaked at 19.6 mg N/L, or twice the EPA standard (Burns and Murdoch, in press). The
particularly large response to disturbance by these forests relative to harvests elsewhere in the
U.S. likely reflects the long-term accumulation of atmospheric nitrogen in these forest soils.
Hence, ecosystem services help maintain stream nitrate levels below the EPA threshold; should
this threshold be lowered, additional treatment could be needed to reduce stream nitrate.
The advantages of an ecological benefits case study in the Catskills are similar to those in
the Adirondacks in many ways: the region receives similarly elevated inputs of sulfate, nitrogen,
27
-------
and mercury, with similarly documented effects on vegetation, soils, and streams. Features
particular to the Catskills include the exceptional trout fishery and the importance of the NYC
drinking water supply. No studies are known on the economic impact of acidic deposition on
these particular resources, although efforts from the Adirondacks may be transferable. In
addition, New York City depends upon the natural water-filtering ability of the Catskills. To
fend off the multi-billion dollar cost of new drinking water treatment facilities, New York City in
1997 began a program of land purchases and conservation easements to maintain the water
cleansing capabilities of the land and considerable information is available on NYC water
treatment.
Table 14. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Catskill Mountains, NY.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Soil and surface water acidification; episodic acidification effects on fish; effects
on vegetation poorly documented. Significant nitrogen loading to NYC drinking water reservoirs.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Severe ecosystem effects; moderate fish
effects; nitrate loading to important drinking water source.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): 100% to forest/stream
ecosystems; a dominant contributor of nitrate to drinking water reservoirs.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Soil and surface water acidification.
economic (specify): Loss of fisheries; possible loss of tree species; avoided drinking water
treatment/possible treatment required should drinking water standard be lowered.
Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): None known specifically for
Catskill region, although many effects transferable from Adirondacks; locally valuable fisheries;
water treatment costs might be transferable from elsewhere.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Ample work on stream
acidification, fisheries, and drinking water monitoring; less known work on monetized benefits.
Active research groups include:
U.S. Geological Survey - New York District, Watersheds Research Section, Troy, NY
Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection
National Atmospheric Deposition Program: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/
5.3 Southern Appalachian Mountains
The southern Appalachian region of the U.S. includes approximately 140,000 km2 from
northeastern Alabama to West Virginia and Virginia. This region receives elevated inputs of
atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition (Table 15). Bedrock geology of the Southeast is more
variable than that of the Northeast and includes shales and metabasalts as well as granites and
quartzites. Surficial deposits are much older than the glaciated Northeast. Soils in high
elevation sensitive areas are typically shallow, acidic and adsorb inputs of sulfate. Acid-
sensitive surface waters of the Southern Appalachian region are generally limited to low-order or
headwater streams; lakes are rare.
Table 15. Summary of wet deposition at sites in the Southern Appalachian
Mountain region 2003. Data are from the National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu.
28
-------
Site
Parsons, WV
Coweeta, NC
pH
4.48
4.74
Sulfate
(kg S/ha-yr)
7.5
6.4
Nitrate
(kg N/ha-yr)
3.4
2.8
The southern Appalachian region includes Class I wilderness areas, such as the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park and the Shenandoah National Park. This region includes many
air quality related values, such as forest ecosystems, stream ecosystems, and vistas. Air quality
issues of concern from the region include visibility, acidic deposition and ground-level ozone.
Ecological effects of these air quality issues include acidic deposition to forest ecosystems,
ozone damage to terrestrial resources, acidic deposition to aquatic ecosystems and visibility
impairment. The economy of the southern Appalachians is highly dependent on the natural
resources of the region.
There have been several assessments of the effects of acidic deposition on the southern
Appalachian mountain region (Cosby et al.1991; Elwood et al. 1991). An important recent
initiative was the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative (SAMI). The objective of SAMI is
to identify air pollution effects in the southern Appalachian region, particularly Class I
wilderness areas, and to make recommendations to mitigate these impacts. SAMI is a multi-
institution, multi-stakeholder initiative (http://www.epa.gov/region4/programs/cbep/saaa.html).
As part of SAMI, an assessment of economic impacts of acidic deposition on recreational
fisheries in the region was conducted (Abt Associates, 2002). This analysis suggested that
emission controls would not have positive impacts on recreational fisheries because acid-
impacted streams are not expected to recover substantially.
There are many groups with ongoing research activities on effects of air pollution on
resources of the southern Appalachian mountains, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the University of
Virginia.
There are several advantages associated with conducting an ecological benefits case
study in the Southern Appalachian region. The region is highly visible to the public and a valued
resource which includes Class I wilderness areas. There have been well-documented effects of
air pollution on forests and streams. Atmospheric deposition is the major source of acid inputs to
the Southern Appalachian region. There is a major ongoing research effort on air pollution
effects, most notably the SAMI. This research effort includes long-term measurements of stream
chemistry and application of acidification models. The major disadvantage of the region is that
there have not been significant responses to recent decreases in sulfur dioxide emissions due to
the fact that soils strongly retain atmospheric sulfur deposition.
Table 16. Qualitative evaluation rating for the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
impacts (specify): Soil and surface water acidification; decreases in diversity in aquatic biota;
possible impacts to tree species.
b.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): Virtually 100%; some
limited inputs of sulfur from local mineral deposits.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
29
-------
a. ecological (specify): Soil and surface water acidification.
economic (specify): Loss offisheries; possible loss of tree species.
Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Not sure possibly from the SAMI
study.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: Yes, much work is going on in the
southern Appalachian region; it would be good to take advantage of the SAMI study.
5.4 Rocky Mountains
Upland watersheds in the Colorado Rocky Mountains are experiencing high levels of
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and mercury with well documented ecological effects on
terrestrial biogeochemistry and water quality in the region. Soils and biota in these sensitive,
thin-soiled landscapes have a limited capacity to assimilate chronic additions from deposition
(Mast et al. 2003). Researchers have documented that there has been a shift from nitrogen-
limitation to non-nitrogen-limitation in terrestrial ecosystems in recent decades attributed to
increases in atmospheric nitrogen deposition (Williams et al. 1996). This change is derived from
increases in emissions from stationary, automotive, and agricultural sources (Baron et al. 2000).
Many forests in the region are at an advanced stage of nitrogen saturation with accelerated
nitrogen cycling and with elevated nitrogen concentrations in fresh waters that are similar to
those of highly disturbed forested ecosystems in the northeastern U.S. (Mast et al. 2003; Burns
2002; Fenn et al. 2003).
There are many advantages to considering the Rocky Mountain Region as an ecological
case study. This region of Colorado has been the focus of extensive work by researchers in
multiple locations on the effects of atmospheric deposition on vegetation, soil, and water quality
The region and the research are highly visible to the public, with much of the work conducted in
managed lands including National Forests, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Wilderness
Areas. The ecological effects are clearly associated with changes in atmospheric deposition.
Considerable work on the sources and fate of nitrogen has been done, and many reports have
synthesized the numerous ecological effects of atmospheric deposition over space and time in the
region (e.g., Williams et al. 1996; Baron et al. 2000; Heuer et al. 1999; Williams and Tonnessen
2000; Wolfe et al. 2001; Burns 2002; Mast et al. 2003; Fenn et al. 2003). Most of the
documented ecosystem effects focus on biogeochemical cycling shifts in plant and microbial
communities, changes in biodiversity, and trends in water quality of wetlands, lakes and streams.
While current nitrogen deposition rates in the Rocky Mountain region are low compared to some
terrestrial locations in the northeastern U.S., they are high in the context of internal nitrogen
cycling of the region, given low rates of nitrogen mineralization and low rates of biological
uptake. Thus, small changes in deposition inputs to the region are likely to have observable and
quantifiable effects (Bowman 2000; Burns 2002). Important data are available through long
term research programs at Niwot Ridge (http://culter.colorado.edu/NWT/index.html), Loch Vale
(http://co.water.usgs.gov/lochvale/index.html), and Rocky Mountain National Park
(http://co.water.usgs.gov/projects/CO257/CO257.html). Further, there is ongoing monitoring at
a number of NADP NTN and MDN network sites. Through these observations, changes in
atmospheric deposition have been observed (Table 17).
Table 17. Summary of the pH of wet deposition, and wet deposition of sulfate and
nitrate for long-term precipitation chemistry stations in the Rocky Mountains
30
-------
(2003). Data from National Atmosphere Deposition Program (NADP)
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu.
Site
Niwot Ridge
Loch Vale
pH
4.95
5.26
Sulfate
(kgS/ha-yr)
3.02
1.24
Nitrate
(kg N/ha-yr)
4.94
1.53
Table 18. Qualitative evaluation rating for Rocky Mountains, CO.
1. Well-documented impacts to a particular ecosystem function or service: Yes.
a.
impacts (specify): Increase in nitrogen deposition at high elevations in front range, and ecosystem
effects are well documented. Effects include shifts in plant species and algae, rates of forest & soil
nitrogen cycling, changes in aquatic nitrogen fluxes.
level of degradation (specify severe, moderate, mild): Moderate.
c.
importance of atmospheric deposition source (specify % and other sources): 100% to forest/stream
ecosystems; both mercury & nitrogen deposition are important atmospheric stressors being studied
in this region.
2. Quantifiable physical endpoints that can be linked to atmospheric deposition of Clean Air Act
pollutants
ecological (specify): Soil and surface water acidification, plant community response, amphibian
response.
economic (specify): Change in forest structure and function - very important as this region includes
wilderness areas and national park land.
3. Available monetary values for at least some endpoints (if available): Uncertain. Forest species
composition data may be available and could inform assessments of the change in commercial
forestry values. Benefits transfer opportunities may exist for some recreational values.
4. Take advantage of existing initiatives to maximize use of available resources, avoid redundant
research, and demonstrate multiple applications of ongoing project: There is ample work on
identifying sources and vectors of atmospheric inputs, ecosystem responses, and water quality
responses. Information is also available on national park/wilderness area use.
31
-------
6. CHARGE QUESTION 20
6.1 Agency Charge Question 20
Charge Question 20. Does the Council support the plan for a feasibility analysis for a
hedonic property study for valuing the effects of nitrogen deposition/eutrophication effects
in the Chesapeake Bay region, with the idea that these results might complement the
Waquoit Bay analysis?
The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Property Value Feasibility Study (Markowski et al.
2003) (Feasibility Study) is to investigate the possibility of using a hedonic analysis of coastal
area property values to estimate the benefits to waterfront and near-water front homeowners of
changes in water quality that can be linked to reductions in atmospheric nitrogen deposition
associated with the CAA. Because property owners do not directly observe nitrogen deposition,
two elements are necessary for a property value study to provide information on the benefits of
reducing nitrogen deposition. First, there has to be a measurable relationship between water
quality and property values. Measures of water quality for this purpose have to relate to what
people notice and what affects their use and enjoyment of the property. Second, there needs to be
an ability to link these measures of water quality to changes in nitrogen deposition. Both of these
steps face challenges that need to be addressed in a feasibility study.
The ability to ascribe changes in coastal area water quality to fluctuations in atmospheric
nitrogen deposition may be limited by the fact that this is not the predominant source of nitrogen.
Paerl (1993) estimated that between 10 and 50% of anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to coastal
estuaries come from atmospheric deposition. However, more recent evaluations (Carpenter et al.
1998; Boyer et al. 2002; Driscoll et al. 2003) suggest that this range may be high and, in fact,
submit that eutrophic conditions observed in northeastern coastal areas stem more from non-
atmospheric, rather than atmospheric, sources of nitrogen. In particular, Driscoll et al. (2003)
found that atmospheric deposition to New York and New England estuaries accounted for only
14 to 35% of total nitrogen inputs. Non-atmospheric nitrogen sources contributed considerably
more to the eutrophic conditions of the estuaries (wastewater effluent, 36 to 81%; runoff from
agricultural lands, 4 to 20%; runoff from urban lands, less than 1 to 20%; and runoff from forest
lands, less than 1 to 5%). Consequently, while it is recognized that atmospheric nitrogen
deposition contributes to coastal area eutrophication, it may be difficult to determine the specific
incremental effect of changes in atmospheric deposition on the relevant water quality measures.
A second challenge for the proposed Feasibility Study concerns the selection of water
quality measures for use in the hedonic property value study. According to Leggett and
Bockstael (2000), there is an absence in the environmental literature of hedonic studies dealing
with water quality due to the fact that many water quality indices measure pollutants that are
impractical for homeowners to observe or that do not directly impair the enjoyment individuals
derive from their waterfront homes. In particular, Leggett and Bockstael (2000) specifically note
three indices (i.e., dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen), commonly used to measure water
quality, that are normally obscure to homeowners. Of the three, nitrogen is recognized as the
major limiting factor of primary productivity and most responsible for the process of
eutrophi cation of coastal waters such as the Chesapeake Bay and Waquoit Bay (Ryther and
Dunstan 1971; Howarth et al. 1996; Carpenter et al. 1998). High nitrogen levels can have
32
-------
adverse impacts on coastal area aquatic plants and animals, but, according to Leggett and
Bockstael (2000), variations in such nutrient concentrations tend to go unnoticed by homeowners
unless the high nutrient levels combine with the requisite chemical, biological, and physical
conditions to cause episodic algal blooms and/or fish kills.
In an attempt to address this problem, the Feasibility Study proposal suggests that three
water quality indicators (continuous near-shore chlorophyll a measurements, coupled with
annual measurements of near-shore submerged aquatic vegetation and periodic observations of
macroalgal blooms) be used as a surrogate for time-series of nitrogen deposition. The proposed
continuous measurement of chlorophyll a, which is a direct quantitative measure of primary
productivity (National Research Council 2000) would be an appropriate indicator to track
fluctuating eutrophic conditions (Whittaker 1972; Brewer 1979), and, therefore, nitrogen
deposition in coastal waters. The EES has concerns with the assumption that chlorophyll a is
indicative of nitrogen deposition to Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, the remaining two water quality
indices would not eliminate the problem of a lack of direct awareness of water quality by the
shoreline and near-shore populace. The Feasibility Study's water quality monitoring protocol
could be strengthened with the inclusion of Secchi-disk transparency readings (to capture water
column clarity, a water quality index that volunteers could assist in providing, and for which
users of the Chesapeake Bay might be able to observe changes over time), more frequent
evaluations of near-shore submerged vegetation surveys, and frequent public media reporting of
all the collected water quality data and its meaning.
Finally, the Feasibility Study proposal indicates that time series ecological data would not
be collected since such data are less important to a property value analysis than are high quality
ecological data on variation across space. This is supported with the statement that since the
spatial pattern of nitrogen sources and flushing environments does not change dramatically
through time, the spatial pattern of eutrophication is also likely to be somewhat stable from one
year to the next. While this rationale has some merit, the inclusion of time series data would
make the proposed water quality investigation much more robust (Paerl et al. 1997) and would
be consistent with the need to demonstrate how variations in nitrogen deposition influence
eutrophic conditions in coastal waters. For example, Boyer et al. (in preparation) explore
hydrological controls on variability in annual nutrient loading from the Susquehanna River
watershed (at Conowingo, MD), which is the largest inflow of both water and nutrients to
Chesapeake Bay. Nitrogen loadings from the river to the Bay exhibit large interannual
variability, more than doubling between wet and dry periods typical of the past three decades
(Figure 6). Knowing temporal variations in indicator values is important for interpreting
monitored data (National Research Council 2000). This, in turn, could provide a much clearer
understanding of how the varying eutrophic conditions might influence shoreline and near-shore
property values.
Given the above, the EES recommends that the Council not proceed with the Feasibility
Study as it is currently proposed. Rather, it is recommended that alternative case studies be
explored that could be better correlated with atmospheric nitrogen deposition.
33
-------
1500 -i
1250
1000
750 -
500
1
Figure 5. Nitrogen loadings (kg N km-2 yr-1) from the Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake Bay
exhibit large interannual variability, more than doubling between wet and dry periods. Data from
United States Geological Survey., 2005 National Water Information System (NWIS) for surface
water and water quality http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.
34
-------
7. REFERENCES
Abt Associates. (2002). The Value of Improved Recreational Fisheries from Reduced Acid
Deposition in the Southern Appalachian Mountain Region, Report prepared for SAMI by
Abt Associates, Inc.
Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E. (2000). Effect of stream channel size on the
delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403: 758-761.
Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Preston, S.D., Brakebill, J.W., Srinivasan, R.,
Pacheco, P. A. (2001). Atmospheric nitrogen flux from the watersheds of major estuaries
of the United States: an application of the SPARROW watershed model. In: Valigura,
R.A., Alexander, R.B., Castro, M.S., Meyers, T.P., Paerl, H.W., Stacey, P.E. Turner, R.E.
(Eds.) Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric Perspective.
Monograph 57, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 119-170.
Alexander, R.B., Johnes, P.J., Boyer, E.W., Smith, R.A. (2002). A comparison of methods for
estimating the riverine export of nitrogen from large watersheds. Biogeochemistry 57:
295-339.
Altobello, M.A. (1992). The economic importance of Long Island Sound's water quality
dependent activities. University of Connecticut. Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Region 1,
Boston. 41 p.
Apogee Research, Inc. (1992). Options for financing nitrogen control in Long Island Sound and
the potential impact of those options on the states and selected communities. Final
Report prepared for the Long Island Sound Study. 64 p.
Back, R.C., Hurley, J.P., Rolfhus, K.R. (2002). Watershed influences on the transport, fate and
bioavailability of mercury in Lake Superior: Field measurements and modeling. Lakes
and Reservoirs: Research and Management 7: 201-206.
Back, R.C., Gorski, P.R., Cleckner, L.B., Hurley, J.P. (2003). Mercury content and speciation in
the plankton and benthos of Lake Superior. Science of the Total Environment 304: 349-
354.
Baker, J.P., Gherini, S.A., Christensen, S.W., Driscoll, C.T., Gallagher, J., Munson, R.K.,
Newton, R.M. (1990). Adirondack Lake Survey: An Interpretive Analysis of Fish
Communities and Water Chemistry, 1984-87. Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation,
Ray Brook, NY.
Baker, J.P., Van Sickle, J., Gagen, C.J., DeWalle, D.R., Sharpe, W.E., Carline, R.F., Baldigo,
B.P., Murdoch, P.S., Bath, D.W., Kretser, W.A., Simonin, H.A., Wigington Jr., P.J.
(1996). Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States: effects
on fish populations. Ecological Applications 6(2): 422-437.
Banzhaf, S., Burtraw, D., Evans, D., Krupnick, A. (2004). Valuation of natural resource
improvements in the Adirondacks. Resources for the Future Report, September.
35
-------
Baron, IS., Rueth, H.M., Wolfe, A.M., Nydick, K.R., Alstott, E.J., Minear, J.T., Moraska, B.
(2000). Ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range.
Ecosystems 3: 352-368.
Bliven, S. (2001). Pressing Management Issues Related to Nitrogen in the Gulf of Maine Region.
White paper prepared for Workshop on Nutrient Management in the Gulf of Maine.
Sponsored by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technology, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, and The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Ocean Services, Portsmouth, NH.
Bowman, W.D. (2000). Biotic controls over ecosystem response to environmental change in
alpine tundra of the Rocky Mountains. Ambio 29(7): 396-400.
Boyer, E.W., Goodale, C.L., Jaworski, N.A., Howarth, R.W. (2002). Anthropogenic nitrogen
sources and relationships to riverine nitrogen export in the northeastern U.S.A.
Biogeochemistry 57/58: 137-169.
Brewer, R. (1979). Principles of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. 299p.
Bricker, S.B., Clement, C.G., Pirhalla, D.E., Orland, S.P., Farrow, D.G.G. (1999). National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: A Summary of Conditions, Historical Trends, and
Future Outlook. National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Springs, MD.
Burns, D.A. (2002). The effects of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in the Rocky Mountains of
Colorado and southern Wyoming; a synthesis and critical assessment of published results.
US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations, No.WRI 02-4066, 36p.
Burns, D.A., Murdoch, P.S. (2005). Effects of a clear-cut on the net rates of nitrification and N
mineralization in a northern hardwood forest, Catskill Mountains, New York, USA.
Biogeochemistry (in press).
CCW. (2004). Cape Cod Watershed Assessment and Action Plan, Massachusetts Watershed
Initiative, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Final Draft-
February 2003. Online url: http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqa/96wqar.pdf
Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Cornell, D., Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N., Smith, V.H. (1998).
Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological
Applications 8: 559-568.
Carstensen, F.V., Lott, W.F., McMillen, S., Shrestha, H. (2001). The economic impact of
Connecticut's deepwater ports: an IMPLAN and REMI analysis.
Castro, M.S., Driscoll, C.T., Jordan, T.E., Ray, W.G., Boynton, W.R., Seitzinger, S.P., Styles,
R.V., Cable, I.E. (2001). Contribution of atmospheric deposition to the total nitrogen
loads to thirty-four estuaries on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. In:
36
-------
Valigura, R.A., Alexander, R.B., Castro, M.S., Meyers, T.P., Paerl, H.W., Stacey, P.E.
Turner, R.E. (Eds.) Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric
Perspective. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 77-106.
Castro, M.S., Driscoll, C.T., Jordan, I.E., Reay, W.G., Boynton, W.R. (2003). Sources of
nitrogen to estuaries in the United States. Estuaries 26: 803-814.
Chen, L, Driscoll, C. T. (2004). Modeling the response of soil and surface waters in the
Adirondack and Catskill regions of New York to changes in atmospheric deposition and
historical land disturbance. Atmospheric Environment 38: 4099-4109.
Chen, L., Driscoll, C.T. (2005). Regional assessment of the response of the acid-base status of
lake-watersheds in the Adirondack region of New York to changes in atmospheric
deposition using PnET-BGC. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 787-794.
Christensen, J.P., Smith, D.B., Mayer, L.M. (1992). The nitrogen budget of the Gulf of Maine
and Climate Change. Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Workshop. Woods Hole, MA 8-
10 January, 1991. Urban Harbors Institute, Boston, MA.
Cleckner,L.B., Back, R.C., Gorski, P.R., Hurley, J.P., Byler, S. (2003). Seasonal and size-
specific distribution of methyl mercury in seston and zooplankton of two contrasting
Great Lakes embayments. Journal of 'Great Lakes Research 29: 134-144.
Cohen, M. (2004). Modeling the Transport and Deposition of Atmospheric Mercury to the Great
Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, Presentation at the 7th International Conference on
Mercury as a Global Pollutant (ICMGP), Llubljana, Slovenia, June 27-July 2, 2004.
(http://www.arl.noaa.gOv/data/web/reports/cohen/2 l_ICMGP.pdf)
Cohen, M., Artz, R., Draxler, R., Miller, P., Poissant, L., Niemi, D., Ratte, D., Deslauriers, M.,
Duval, R., Laurin, R., Slotnick, J., Nettesheim, T., McDonald, J. (2004). Modeling the
atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury to the Great Lakes. Environmental
Research 95: 247-265.
Cosby, B.J., Ryan, P.P., Webb, J.R., Hornberger, G.M., Galloway, J.N. (1991). Mountains of
Western Virginia. In: D.F. Charles (ed.) Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems:
Regional Case Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 297-318.
Cosby, B.J., Ferrier, R.C., Jenkins, A., Wright, R.F. (2001). Modelling the effects of acid
deposition: refinements, adjustments and inclusion of nitrogen dynamics in the MAGIC
model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 5: 499-519.
Driscoll, C.T., Newton, R.M., Gubala, C.P., Baker, J.P., Christensen, S. (1991). Adirondack
Mountains. In: D.F. Charles (ed.) Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems: Regional
Case Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 133-202.
Driscoll, C.T., Yan, C., Schofield, C.L., Munson, R., Holsapple, J. (1994). The mercury cycle
and fish in the Adirondack lakes. Environmental Science and Technology 28:136A-143A.
37
-------
Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan, C.S., Eagar, C., Lambert, K.F.,
Likens, G.E., Stoddard, J.L., Weathers, K.C. (2001). Acidic deposition in the
northeastern U.S.: sources and inputs, ecosystems effects, and management strategies.
BioScience 51: 180-198.
Driscoll, C.T., Whitall, D., Aber, I, Boyer, E., Castro, M., Cronan, C., Goodale, C.L., Groffman,
P., Hopkinson, C., Lambert, K., Lawrence, G., Ollinger, S. (2003). Nitrogen pollution in
the northeastern United States: sources, effects, and management options. BioScience 54:
357-374.
Elwood, J.W., Sale, M.J., Kaufman, P.R., Cada, G.F. (1991). The Southern Blue Ridge Province.
In: D.F. Charles (ed.) Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems: Regional Case Studies.
Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 319-364.
Fenn, M.E., Haeuber, R., Tonnesen, G.T., Baron, J.S., Grossman-Clarke, S., Hope, D., Jaffe,
D.A., Copeland, S., Geiser, L, Rueth, H.M., Sickman, J.O. (2003). Nitrogen emissions,
deposition, and monitoring in the Western United States. BioScience, 53(4), 391-403.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2003). Integrating Atmospheric Mercury
Deposition with Aquatic Cycling in South Florida: An approach for conducting a Total
Maximum Daily Load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant.
Fuller, K., Shear, H., Wittig, J. (eds). (1995). The Great Lakes An Environmental Atlas and
Resource Book. Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html)
Gbondo-Tugbawa, S.S., Driscoll, C.T., Aber, J.D., Likens, G.E. (2001). Evaluation of an
integrated biogeochemical model (PnET-BGC) at a northern hardwood forest ecosystem.
Water Resources Research 37: 1057-1070.
Great Lakes National Program Office. (2004). The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
(http ://www. epa. gov/glnpo/lmmb/proj ect. html)
Heuer, K., Tonnessen, K.A., Ingersoll, G.P. (1999). Comparison of precipitation chemistry in the
Central Rocky Mountains, Colorado, USA. Atmospheric Environment 34: 1713- 1722.
Howarth, R.W., Billen, G., Swaney, D., Townsend, A., Jaworski, N., Lajtha, K., Downing, J.A.,
Elmgren, R., Caraco, N., Jordan, T., Berendse, F., Freney, J., Kudeyarov, V., Murdoch,
P., Zhao-Hang, Z. (1996). Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine inputs of N and P for
the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natural and human influences.
Biogeochemistry 35: 75-139.
Kang, W.-J., Trefry, J.H., Nelsen, T.A., Wanless, H.R. (2000). Direct atmospheric inputs versus
runoff fluxes of mercury to the lower Everglades and Florida Bay. Environmental
Science and Technology 34: 4058-4063.
38
-------
Kildow, J.T., Colgan, C.S., Kite-Powell, H., Shivendu, S., Tindall, R. (2004). Estimates of water-
quality related values and other relevant data for Long Island Sound. National Ocean
Economics Project. Prepared for the Long Island Sound Study, U.S. EPA. 73 p.
Landis, M.S., Keeler, GJ. (2002). Atmospheric mercury deposition to Lake Michigan during the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 4518-
4524.
Lawrence, G.B., David, M.B., Lovett, G.M., Murdoch, P.S., Burns, D.A., Stoddard, J.L.,
Baldigo, B.P., Porter, J.H., Thompson, A.W. (1999). Soil calcium status and the response
of stream chemistry to changing acid deposition rates. Ecological Applications 9:1059-
1072.
Leggett, C.G., Bockstael, N.E. (2000). Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential
land prices. Journal of'EnvironmentalEconomics andManagement 39: 121-144.
Lovett, G.M., Weathers, K.C., Sobczak, W.V. (2000). Nitrogen retention in forested watersheds
of the Catskill Mountains, New York. Ecological Applications 10(1): 73-84.
Markowski, M., Leggett, C., Flight, M., Neumann, J. (2003). Chesapeake Bay Property Value
Feasibility Study (OPAR WA 3-5/812), August 29, 2003. Memorandum to Jim
DeMocker, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Cambridge Massachusetts. 14p.
Mast, M.A., Campbell, D.H., Ingersoll, G.P., Foreman, W.T., Krabbenhoft, D.P. (2003).
Atmospheric Deposition of Nutrients, Pesticides,and Mercury in Rocky Mountain
National Park,Colorado, 2002. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03 -4241.
McCarty, H.B., Miller, K., Brent, R.N., Schofield, J., Rossman, R. (2004). Results of the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Study: Mercury Data Report (EPA 905 R-01-012), February
2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. 171p.
(http ://www. epa. gov/grtlakes/lmmb/results/mercury/lmmbhg.pdf)
Murdoch, P.S., Stoddard, J.L. (1992). The role of nitrate in the acidification of streams in the
Catskill Mountains of New York. Water Resources Research 28: 2707-2720.
National Research Council. (2000). Ecological Indicators for the Nation. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC. 180p.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP). (2003). New York City
drinking water supply and quality report. New York City, Department of Environmental
Protection, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/wsstate.html.
New York State Department of Health. (2004). Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: 2004-05
Health Advisories. NYS Department of Health, Albany, NY.
www.health.state.nv.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm
Paerl, H.W. (1993). Emerging role of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in coastal eutrophication.
39
-------
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50: 2254-2269.
Paerl, H.W., Aguilar, C., Fogel, M.L. (1997). Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in estuarine and
coastal waters: biogeochemical and water quality impacts, pp 415-429. In Baker, I.E.
(ed.). Atmospheric Deposition of Contaminants to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters.
Proceedings form a Session at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC) 15th Annual Meeting, October 30 - November 3, 1994. SETAC Press,
Pensacola, Florida. 477p.
Poor, N. (2000). Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (TBADS) Final Interim Report.
http ://dl .nwrc. gov/tampa/prod_search_tampa.aspx
Rolfhus, K.R., Sakamoto, H.E., Cleckner, L.B., Stoor, R.W., Babiarz, C.L., Back, R.C.,
Manolopoulos, H., Hurley, J.P. (2003). The distribution of mercury in Lake Superior.
Environmental Science and Technology 37: 865-872.
Ryan, P. A., Hafner, H.R., Brown, S.G. (2003). Deposition of air pollutants to Casco Bay. Final
Report, Sonoma Technology, STI 902150-2209-FR2.
Ryther, J. H., Dunstan, W.M. (1971). Nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophication in the coastal
marine environment. Science 171: 1008-1112.
Schuster, P.F., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Naftz, D.L., Cecil, L.D., Olson, M.L., DeWild, J.F., Susong,
D.D., Green, J.R., Abbott, M.L. (2002). Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last
270 years: a glacial ice-core record of natural and anthropogenic sources. Environmental
Science and Technology 36: 2303-2310.
Sepulveda, M.S., Frederick, P.C., Spalding, M.G., Williams, G.E. (1999). Mercury
contamination in free ranging great egret nestlings (Ardrea albus) from Southern Florida,
USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 985-992.
Sham, C.H., Brawley, J.W., Moritz, M.A. (1995). Quantifying septic nitrogen loadings to
receiving waters: Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems 9(4): 463-473.
Sharpe, W.E., Leibfried, V.G, Kimmel, W.G, DeWalle, D.R. (1987). The relationship of water
quality and fish occurrence to soils and geology in an area of high hydrogen and sulfate
ion deposition. Water Resources Bulletin 23: 37-46.
Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Alexander, R.B. (1997). Regional interpretation of water-quality
monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33: 2781 -2798.
Sullivan, T. J. (2000). Aquatic Effects of Acidic Deposition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
373 pp.
STAC. (2001). The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program Characterization Report, Barnegat Bay
National Estuary Program, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee,
http://www.bbep.org/char rep.htm, January 2001.
40
-------
Stoddard, J.L., Murdoch, P.S. (1991). Catskill Mountains. In: D.F. Charles (ed.) Acidic
Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems: Regional Case Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York.
pp. 237-271.
Tampa Bay National Estuaries Program. (1996). Charting the Course: the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program and U.S. EPA, Region IV. http://www.tbep.org/pdfs/ctc/ctctoc.html.
Townsend, D.W. (1998). Sources and cycling of nitrogen in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of
Marine Systems 16: 283-295.
Townsend, D.W., Pettigrew, N.R., Thomas, A.C. (2001). Offshore blooms of the red tide
dinoflagellate, Alexandrium sp., in the Gulf of Maine. Continental Shelf Research 21:
347-369.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Understanding public values and attitudes
related to ecological risk management: an SAB workshop report of an EPA/SAB
workshop.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-
2020: Revised Analytical Plan for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis. See Appendix
F. http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/appendixfg51203.
Valiela, I, Foreman, K., LaMontagne, M., Hersh, D., Costa, J., Peckol, P., DeMeo-Anderson, B.,
D'Avanzo, C., Babione, M., Sham, C.H., Brawley, J., Lajtha, K. (1992). Coupling of
watersheds and coastal waters: sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment in
Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 15: 443-457.
Valiela, I, Bowen, J.L. (2002). Nitrogen sources to watersheds and estuaries: role of land cover
mosaics and losses within watersheds. Environmental Pollution 118(2): 239-248.
Valiela, I, Mazzilli, S., Bowen, J.L., Kroeger, K.D., Cole, M.L., Tomasky, G., Isaji, T. (2004).
ELM, an estuarine nitrogen loading model: Formulation and verification of predicted
concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 157: 365-
391.
Vette, A.F., Landis, M.S., Keeler, GJ. (2002). Deposition and emission of gaseous mercury to
and from Lake Michigan during the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (July, 1994 -
October, 1995). Environmental Science and Technology 36: 4525-4532.
WBNEER. Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. (2004). Online URL:
http://www.waquoitbayreserve.org/resproj.htm.
Whitall, D., Castro, M., Driscoll, C. (2004). Evaluation of management strategies for reducing
nitrogen loadings to four U.S. estuaries. Science of the Total Environment 333: 25-36.
Whittaker, R.W. (1972). Communities and Ecosystems. Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc,
41
-------
New York, New York. 387p.
Wigington Jr, P.J., Baker, J.P., DeWalle, D.R., Kretser, W.A., Murdoch, P.S., Simonin, H.A.,
Van Sickle, 1, McDowell, M.K., Peck, D.V., Barchet, W.R. (1996). Episodic
acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States: Episodic Response
Project. Ecological Applications 6: 374-388.
Williams, M.W., Baron, J.S., Caine, N., Sommerfeld, R., Sanford, R. (1996). Nitrogen saturation
in the Rocky Mountains. Environmental Science and Technology 30(2): 640-646.
Williams, M.W., Tonnessen, K.A. (2000). Critical loads for inorganic nitrogen deposition in the
Colorado Front Range, USA. Ecological Applications 10(6): 1648-1665.
Wolfe, A.P., Baron, J.S., Cornett, RJ. (2001). Anthropogenic nitrogen deposition induces rapid
ecological changes in alpine lakes of the Colorado Front Range (USA). Journal of
Paleolimnology 25: 1-7.
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (1995). Costs and benefits of cleaning up Long
Island Sound. Prepared for Connecticut Fund for the Environment.
Zarbock, H.W., Janicki, A.J., Janicki, S.S. (1996). Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and total suspended solids to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical appendix: 1992-94 Total
nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida.
42
-------
8. BIOSKETCHES
OF EES MEMBERS AND PARTICIPATING COUNCIL MEMBERS
Biosketches of Ecological Effects Subcommittee
Boyer, Elizabeth
Dr. Elizabeth W. Boyer is an Assistant Professor of Watershed Processes at the University of California, Berkeley in the
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, and holds adjunct assistant professor positions at the State
University of New York and at Syracuse University. Her research, in the area of eco-hydrology, involves characterizing how
water and solutes are transported and transformed in the environment. She is interested in how human activities such as
land use change and urbanization and natural variability such as droughts and floods influence ecosystems and water
quality. Boyer has been elected Chair of an upcoming Gordon Conference on Catchment Science: Interactions of
Hydrology, Biology & Geochemistry, and is active participant in activities of the American Geophysical Union and the
International Nitrogen Initiative. Sources of recent funding include the New York State Energy Research & Development
Authority, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Department of Agriculture.
Castro, Mark
Dr. Mark Castro is an associate professor at the Appalachian Laboratory of the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, Department of Environmental Sciences. He is a
biogeochemist, specializing in the interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Dr. Castro
has completed several studies that document the impacts of forest management on soil trace gas fluxes. He has been
involved in collaborative projects designed to assess the importance and impacts of atmospheric deposition on terrestrial
ecosystems and estuaries. Currently, Dr. Castro is studying the movement of mercury from the atmosphere through mixed
land-use watersheds into freshwater lakes and the biotic communities. In addition, He is establishing an atmospheric
chemistry/meteorological station in western Maryland to examine the transport of pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. His research has been supported by national (NSF, NOAA, DOE), state (MDNR and MDE) and private
organizations (A.W. Mellon).
Driscoll, Jr.,
Charles T.
Goodale,
Christine
Dr. Charles T. Driscoll received his B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Maine in 1974. He received his M.S.
in 1976 and Ph.D. in 1980 in Environmental Engineering from Cornell University. In 1979 he took a position on the faculty of
the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Syracuse University. Dr. Driscoll is currently University Professor of
Environmental Systems Engineering and Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse
University. His teaching and research interests are in the area of environmental chemistry, biogeochemistry and water
quality modeling. A principal research focus has been the investigation of effects of air pollution on forest, aquatic and
coastal ecosystems. His research on effects of acidic deposition was initiated in the mid-1970s. Since that time he has used
a variety of research approaches to study the effects of atmospheric deposition on forest, aquatic and coastal ecosystems,
including field investigations, laboratory studies, long-term field measurements, whole-ecosystem manipulation studies, and
the development and application of models. Dr. Driscoll has authored or co-authored more that 250 peer-reviewed articles,
many of which focus on effects of acid rain. He has had more than 70 funded research projects, most of these were
obtained from competitive research programs such as the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection
Agency and many address impacts of air pollutants on forest and aquatic ecosystems. He is currently the principal
investigator of the National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research project at the Hubbard Brook Experimental
Forest, New Hampshire. Dr. Driscoll has received numerous awards and honors. In 1984, he was designated as a
Presidential Young Investigator by the National Science Foundation. He has provided expert testimony on ecological effects
of air pollution to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee. He has been acknowledged by
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as one of the top 250 most highly cited researchers in two areas: environmental
science and engineering. Dr. Driscoll has served on many local, national and international committees. He was a member of
the National Research Council Panel on Process of Lake Acidification. He currently is a member of the National Research
Council Committee of Air Quality Management. He was a member of the board of trustees of the Hubbard Brook Research
Foundation and the Upstate Freshwater Institute.
Dr. Christine Goodale is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University.
Dr. Goodale previously held postdoctoral fellowships at the Woods Hole Research Center (Woods Hole, MA) and the Carnegie
Institute of Washington (Stanford, CA). She received her Ph.D. and M.S. in natural resources from University of New
Hampshire, and an A.B. in biology, geography, and environmental studies from Dartmouth College. Her research centers on
understanding the effects of human activities on temperate forests, including the direct effects of land-use change and the
indirect effects of human alteration of carbon and nitrogen cycles. Key research questions include: How have direct and
indirect human activities affected forest growth and net carbon accumulation? What factors control the spatial and temporal
patterns of watershed nitrogen retention? How do the legacies of past disturbances affect current rates of carbon and
nitrogen accumulation? Research approaches range from plot-level field studies to regional modeling and collaborative data
43
-------
Harrison, Keith
syntheses.
Keith G. Harrison has been employed with the state of Michigan for 24 years. For the last 12 years, he has held two
concurrent positions within state government. He has served from 1992 -1997 as the Director of, initially, the Michigan
Department of Management and Budget's Environmental Administration Division and, later (since 1997) due to
interdepartmental transfer, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Office of Special Projects (OSP)(1). He also
has served since 1992 as the Executive Director of the Michigan Environmental Science Board. Concurrent with the two
positions above, he currently is assigned as a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory
Board's Ecological Processes and Effect Committee, and from May to October 2001, he served as the Acting Director of the
Michigan Office of the Great Lakes. Previous positions held within state government include two years as Environmental
Affairs Manager for the Michigan Department of Corrections; five years as Senior Environmental Specialist for the Michigan
Toxic Substance Control Commission, and four years with the Michigan Department of Public Health. Prior to state service,
Mr. Harrison was employed as a Senior Ecologist with an environmental engineering firm; Chief Environmental Planner for a
regional planning agency; and Sanitarian with a local county health department .Mr. Harrison obtained his Bachelor of
Science degree in 1972 in fisheries and wildlife biology from Michigan State University and a Master of Arts degree in 1974 in
biology (ecology) from Western Michigan University. He has been licensed since 1978 as a Registered Sanitarian and
Registered Environmental Health Specialist, and, since 1981, has been certified as an Ecologist by the Ecological Society of
America (ESA). In 2004, Mr. Harrison's certification was upgraded to Senior Ecologist by the ESA. Mr. Harrison's
professional research and work have resulted in over 90 governmental and professional scientific publications addressing a
wide variety of environmental, environmental health, natural history, and natural resources management topics. His areas of
expertise are ecology, environmental science, and environmental health science. He has recently served as Michigan's
representative to the Great Lakes Commission's Project Management Team on the development of a decision tool to review
the use and management of Great Lakes surface and groundwater and as invited expert peer reviewer for the USEPA its
Environmental Indicators Initiative for the United States.
Ollinger, Scott
Dr. Scott Ollinger is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Hampshire with joint appointments in the Institute for
the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space and the Department of Natural Resources. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Ecology
and Environmental Science from Purchase College in 1989 and Master's and Ph.D. degrees in Natural Resources from the
University of New Hampshire in 1992 and 2000. His research interests include forest ecology and biogeochemistry with
emphasis on basic ecological processes and interactions with human-induced environmental change. His current research
involves understanding the combined effects of multiple atmospheric factors—including nitrogen deposition, tropospheric
ozone pollution and elevated C02—on rates of productivity and carbon storage in forests. He is also interested in the use of
foliar chemistry as an indicator of ecosystem carbon-nitrogen interactions. His work is part of the recently-formed North
American Carbon Program and he currently acts as the principal investigator of a NASA aircraft remote sensing campaign. He
has published on a variety of topics including climate and atmospheric chemistry, growth and nutrient status of temperate
forests, and the use of hyperspectral remote sensing in regional ecological analyses. Dr. Ollinger's research has been funded
through competitive grants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to his research
activities, Dr. Ollinger teaches courses in Terrestrial Ecosystems and Forest Ecology and serves on several science advisory
committees. Recent service in this regard includes the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation's Science Links Program, the
Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment (SCOPE) and the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority.
Stahl, Jr., Ralph
Dr. Ralph G. Stahl received his B.S. in Marine Biology from Texas A&M University (cum laude) in 1976, his M.S. in Biology
from Texas A&M University in 1980 and his Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Toxicology from the University of Texas
School of Public Health in 1982. After receiving his Ph.D., he was a Senior Postdoctoral Fellow in the Dept. of Pathology at
the University of Washington in Seattle where he investigated the impact of genetic toxins on biological systems. Ralph
joined the DuPont Company in 1984 and in the intervening years has held both technical and management positions in the
research and consulting arenas. His research over the last 20 years has focused primarily on evaluating the effects of
chemical stressors on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. He has been involved with oceanographic studies in the Atlantic,
Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, biological and ecological assessments at contaminated sites in the US and Europe,
and numerous toxicological studies with mammals, birds and aquatic organisms. Dr. Stahl has been selected by USEPA,
Army Corps of Engineers, SERDP, National Academy of Science, the Water Environment Research Foundation, NOAA and
others to national peer review panels on ecological risk assessment, endocrine disruption in wildlife, and natural resource
injury determination. He is active in the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, serving on the Ecological Risk
Assessment Advisory Group and the Technical Committee, and is a Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology. He has
authored over 25 peer reviewed publications and two books in environmental toxicology and most recently has been
responsible for leading DuPont's corporate efforts in ecological risk assessment and natural resource damage assessments
for site remediation. Dr. Stahl chairs the American Chemistry Council's Environmental Technical Implementation Panel that is
implementing ecological research under the chemical industry's Long Range Research Initiative. He currently resides in
Wilmington, Delaware, where in his spare time he enjoys woodworking, fly fishing and watching his son play soccer.
44
-------
Trudy Cameron
Chestnut,
Lauraine
Biosketches of the Participating Members
of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron is the Raymond F. Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics at the University of
Oregon. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University, and was a member of the faculty in Economics at UCLA
for seventeen years before moving to U of 0 in January of 2002. She has served as a member of the board of directors, as
well as vice-president, of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, and as an associate editor for the
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management and the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. For the EPA's
Science Advisory Board, she has served on the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee and the Economics and
Assessment Working Group of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and she now chairs the US EPA Advisory
Council for Clean Air Compliance Analysis. Dr. Cameron's research concentrates on the methodology of non-market resource
evaluation, with special emphasis on econometric techniques for the analysis of stated preference survey data. Her recent
projects have included a study of popular support (i.e. willingness to pay) for climate change mitigation programs (funded by
the National Science Foundation). A current project, begun at UCLA with former colleague JR DeShazo, uses stated
preference survey methods to elicit household choices that reveal willingness to pay to avoid illness, injury, and death. The
value of a statistical life is a key ingredient in the benefit-cost analysis of many environmental, health, and safety
regulations, and this project seeks to more clearly identify how the context of such choices influences the public's willingness
to pay for such policies.
Ms. Lauraine G. Chestnut, a manager at Stratus Consulting, Inc., is an economist who specializes in the quantification and
monetary valuation of human health and environmental effects associated with air pollutants. She has 20 years of
experience with Stratus Consulting and its predecessors working for clients including the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, California Air Resources Board, Environment Canada, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank, quantifying the
damages of air pollution, including human health effects, visibility aesthetics, materials damages, and crop damage. She has
conducted original economic and survey research to estimate the value to the public of protecting human health and visibility
aesthetics from the effects of air pollution. She has developed quantification models to estimate the health benefits of
reductions in air pollutants that have been used to assess the benefits of provisions of the Clean Air Act in the U.S., proposed
Canadian air quality standards, air quality standards in Bangkok, and elsewhere. Ms. Chestnut has published articles related
to this work in Land Economics, Environmental Research, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, and Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, and as chapters in the following titled books: Valuing Cultural Heritage, Air Pollution and
Health, and Air Pollution's Toll on Forests and Crops. Ms. Chestnut managed an epidemiology and economic study of the
health effects of particulate air pollution in Bangkok, working closely with the Thai Pollution Control Department, the School
of Public Health at Chulalongkorn University, and the World Bank. Ms. Chestnut co-authored publications on the Bangkok
studies in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Environmental Health Perspectives, American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. Ms. Chestnut received a B.A. in
economics from Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, in 1975, and an M.A. in economics from the University of Colorado,
Boulder, in 1981. She is a member of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists and of the Air and Waste
Management Association.
45
------- |