Daniel J. Sobota Nitrogen Deposition and Final Ecosystem...

awma.org20 em july 2015

em • feature

by Jana E. Compton, Dixon H. Landers and Daniel J. Sobota

GOODSSERVICES

Nitrogen DepositionConnecting

and Final Ecosystem

and

for Air Quality Standards Review

20-EM0715-FT3-Compton.indd 20 6/25/15 1:45 PM

Copyright 2015 Air & Waste Management Association

july 2015 em 21awma.org

th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth

ANNNNIVERIVERIVERIVERSARY

Nitrogen (N) emission to air and subse-quent deposition to land and water can affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems directly by changing their chemistry and

indirectly by changing their structure and function through chains of events that affect plant or micro-bial community composition, fi re susceptibility, and soil properties. Key changes in ecosystem struc-ture and function can result in impacts that are important to the public, including negative effects on recreation, drinking water, timber production, wildlife viewing, hunting, climate stability, fi re risk and human “non-use” values associated with the existence of intact, natural ecosystems. Figure 1 illustrates how these adverse effects occur along the N cascade and then connect to ecosystem services and human benefi ciaries. Daily (1997) defi ned ecosystem services as the “conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and species therein sustain and fulfi ll human life or have the potential to do so in the future.” While this defi -nition is a useful starting point for discussion, recent work is expanding our ability to quantify ecosys-tem services in a way that can be used for policy and regulatory endpoints that benefi t people.

The prior secondary NAAQS review process began to explore the potential for incorporating the concept of ecosystem services to representpublic welfare impacts (U.S. EPA 2008). The science

connecting ecological research, in terms of the eco-system service supply, to human demands for and impacts on ecosystem services is relatively new. While the concept of ecosystem services includes many of the public welfare issues described in the CAA statute, some authors have pointed out that there are few examples of scientifi cally defensible accounting frameworks that have linked ecosys-tem services to decision-making (Daily et al. 2009; Jordan et al. 2010). Emerging work is beginning to develop more precise and useful concepts and defi nitions regarding ecosystem services. Boyd and Banzaf (2007) defi ned Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) as those components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being. There has been an effort to identify the mechanistic links between N and ecosystem ser-vices (Compton et al. 2011; Rea et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013), and to develop approaches to econom-ically value the impacts of N on ecosystem ser-vices (van Grinsven et al. 2013; Sobota et al. 2015). Developing a framework that makes the connec-tions between N deposition and FEGS explicit can inform our regulators by clearly illustrating the impacts of N deposition on important issues for public welfare. Here we describe the FEGS concept and how it can be applied to the air quality stan-dards review process, and provide some examples of some of the currently quantifi able damages to ecosystem services from N deposition in the U.S.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing the secondary

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur (NOx

and SOx). In addition to the primary NAAQS based on human health effects, the Clean

Air Act calls for setting secondary standards based on the adverse effects on public wel-

fare, defi ned as effects on “soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals,

wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and

hazards to transportation” (section 302h, Clean Air Act 1970 [CAA]). These standards

are reviewed every fi ve years for their adequacy based on the current state of the sci-

ence. While the statute has been in existence for 40+ years, scientists are continually

improving our understanding of air quality effects. This article discusses new research

to create a framework that allows for a fuller quantifi cation of air pollutant impacts on

many aspects of public welfare.

About the authors:Jana Compton and Dixon Landers are with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR; Dan Sobota is currently with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Solutions Division, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. Email: [email protected]

Recent work is

expanding our

ability to quantify

ecosystem services

in a way that can be

used for policy and

regulatory endpoints

that benefi t people.

20-EM0715-FT3-Compton.indd 21 6/26/15 8:03 AM


22 em july 2015 awma.org

Application of the FEGS framework to policy and decision-making During the initiation of EPA’s Ecosystem Service Research Program in 2008, research and policy staff began to explore the use of the ecosystem services concept for cost/benefi t analysis and other regulatory needs. This required a system for defi n-ing and classifying ecosystem services that was: 1) relatively complete; 2) minimally duplicative; 3) linked to benefi ciaries; and which 4) facilitated met-ric identifi cation. At the time, commonly cited defi -nitions and uses for ecosystem services stemming from the Millennium Assessment (MA 2005) were found to be inadequate for many of the applica-tions that EPA envisioned for ecosystem services. One of the major issues was that identifying what to measure as an ecosystem service was a diffi -cult problem (Nahlik et al. 2012). Additionally, for

useful accounting, the overlap or double-counting among various ecosystem services needed to be eliminated or minimized. Double-counting occurs when ecosystem processes, structure and function are combined in some ecosystem service and there is no way to effi ciently and accurately separate them. To value ecosystem services (and perform cost-benefi t and cost-effectiveness analyses), inform policy and management decisions that are relevant to human wellbeing, and effectively communicate, it is imperative to identify ecosystem services that are connected directly to what people value. There-fore, determining the connection between ecosys-tem services and value is as equally important as identifying their relationship with nature.

EPA staff proceeded to develop a new classifi ca-tion scheme based on the Final Ecosystem Goods

Air

Land

Water

NO3-

Groundwater effects

Particulate matter effects

Stratospheric Ozone (UV)

Agroecosystem effects

Greenhouse Gas

Tropospheric Ozone

Natural land effects

N source

Beneficiaries

All Humans

Transportational

Recreational

Recreational

All Humans

Foresters

Recreational

Residential

Commercial

Non-use

Farmers

Non-use

Surface water effects

NOx NHy

NOx NH3 N2O

N2O

Coastal & Ocean effects

Figure 1. Connections between N deposition, effects and links to benefi ciaries of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) through the Nitrogen cascade (modifi ed from Galloway et al. 2003 and Compton et al. 2011).




th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth


and Services perspective championed by Boyd and Banzaf (2007). This approach was published as a report and sets of FEGS tables that may be manip-ulated online based on the needs of a user (Landers and Nahlik, 2013). Each FEGS is identifi ed in the EPA classifi cation system (FEGS-CS) by a unique six digit number that represents the environment from which it was derived (e.g. lake, forest, grassland, cre-ated greenspace) and to whom it is a service. By defi ning who the specifi c benefi ciary of this specifi c FEGS from nature may be, FEGS function as the hand-off from the natural to social sciences.The FEGS concept can be used to distinguish the production function that is mainly ecological in nature from the other inputs that are mainly eco-nomic (Figure 2). The ability to defi ne and identify FEGS and the specifi c biophysical components of goods and services that are derived princi-pally from nature across the landscape is a con-siderable advancement in the understanding of ecosystem services. The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classifi cation System (FEGS-CS; Landers and Nahlik, 2013) provides the detailed rationale for such a system and the principles on which the FEGS-CS was based. This new classifi -cation system is a critical foundation for measur-ing, quantifying, mapping, modeling, and valuing ecosystem services, as well as for other ecosystem service-centric activities that are dependent on a defi ned and rigorous framework.

As Figure 2 illustrates, there are myriad interme-diate ecosystem services (often processes and functions) represented in the ecological produc-tion function that are vital to the production of

FEGS. A large component of common benefi ts derived by people, such as agricultural products or even drinking water, are typically not attained until there is some signifi cant input of labor and/or capital goods (for example human capital to plant and harvest crops, or to treat and deliver drink-ing water). These benefi ts are not predominantly ecological in nature, since they result from the addition of human capital. However, since we can identify the benefi ciaries for specifi c FEGS, we can determine those ecosystem attribute(s) associated with the specifi c FEGS that the benefi ciary values, and these can directly lead to identifying appro-priate metrics and indicators for FEGS. The FEGS, therefore, represent those goods and services that are largely environmentally derived without major inputs of human capital.

The FEGS-CS is a good way to link potential bene-fi ciaries of air quality to human well-being directly through human health impacts relevant to the pri-mary NAAQS, or indirectly through the N cascade, where air-mediated impacts such as deposition of acids and N cause changes in the environment that people care about. The FEGS-CS can be used to directly identify specifi c benefi ciaries and to hypothesize what it is that they appreciate or value in the environment that is altered by acidic depo-sition and/or nutrient deposition. Many of these impacts have links to timber production, recreation, water quality and climate stability that benefi t for-esters, recreationists, residential land owners and all humans (Figure 1). Making these connections quantitatively requires interdisciplinary thinking and systems research described in the next section.

ecos

yste

m

naturalexternalforcing

ecosystem processes(i.e., intermediate services)

human activities

humanwell-beingFEGSecosystem

structure

input and stressors

non-use

ecological production function economic production function

Figure 2. Connections between the environment, benefi ciaries and ecolog-ical production functions, and economic production functions that lead to human well-being and economic values.

Determining the

connection between

ecosystem services

and value is as

equally important

as identifying their

relationship with

nature.




Measuring damages to ecosystem services from N deposition There are a number of pathways for effects of N deposition on ecosystem services and beneficiaries (Figure 1). These impacts can be broadly catego-rized into effects on air quality, climate and UV regulation, and effects on terrestrial, freshwater, groundwater and coastal systems. Nitrogen depo-sition intersects with climate regulation in a num-ber of ways, directly by increasing the production of the important greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O), and indirectly through impacts on net car-bon storage in plants and soils (Liu and Greaver 2010). NOx also causes ozone formation, which impact production in crop and natural ecosystems; however in a regulatory sense this effect is covered through the ozone NAAQS, and is thus excluded from this discussion.

In terms of the impacts on ecosystem services, it is important to focus on the internal components of Figure 1. Nitrogen deposition can alter the struc-ture and function of terrestrial ecosystems through eutrophication and acidification. Eutrophication

can alter the internal N cycle of terrestrial eco-systems, which in turn can result in changes in species composition, altered organic matter stor-age, increased herbivory, increased N leaching, increased fire risk and changes in net carbon storage (Fenn at al. 2003; Rao et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2014). Acidification in terrestrial ecosystems can alter soil pH, organic matter dynamics, metal dynamics, forest growth and species composition. These impacts can change climate stability and water quality, and can feed into changes in aquatic ecosystems via effects on pH and cycling of metals (Greaver et al. 2012).

Impacts on the terrestrial landscape could con-nect to multiple beneficiaries. For example, forest-ers could be affected where species composition or forest production is altered by acidification or nutrient enrichment; recreational users could be affected by reductions in visibility or changes in the habitat that alters wildlife viewing or hiking aes-thetic qualities (Banzhaf et al. 2006). Recent work in Europe revealed significant economic benefits of N reductions on recreation (Jones et al. 2014).

Nitrogen deposition can alter plant species composition to annual exotic grasses and, in turn, wildfire risk in some areas like these coastal sage scrub and chaparral ecosystems in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California.




th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth


Impacts on freshwater and coastal ecosystems can be diffi cult to directly connect to N deposition because often N inputs to these systems come from various sources other than deposition. Also, in many cases a complete set of potential benefi ciaries

is undefi ned and therefore unknown. Based on pre-vious work mapping of N inputs to watershed units (HUC8), we estimated the contribution of N depo-sition to total N inputs to these watershed units in the U.S. (Figure 3a). Across most of the U.S., at least

In Next Month’s Issue...

Increased Useof Natural Gasand Its Implications on GHG Emissions and Air Quality

A look at topics related to the increased use of natural gas by all economic sectors, its impact on air quality, potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, discussions on proposed regulations, and future fuel replacement trends estimates for 2025/2040/2050 from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Also look for… • IT Insight • Asian Connections • Etcetera

©iS

tock

.com

/drn

adig

Part of our new series on environmental issues and emerging technologies in the oil and gas industry, thisconference will cover broad scale topics on current onshoreand offshore oil and gas multi-media environmental issuesin the Gulf of Mexico Region. With a mix of panels andtechnical presentations, sessions will include air quality, spillresponse, waste management, transportation and storageissues, hydraulic fracturing, and oil and gas environmentallegislation and litigation.

Speakers will include federal and state regulatory authorities,industry experts, environmental interest groups, universityresearchers, consultants and attorneys.

Gulf Coast Oil and Gas Environmental Conference

September 22-23, 2015 • Hyatt Regency New Orleans, LA




20% of the anthropogenic N inputs to those water-shed units come from deposition; the exception is the midwestern and western U.S. where agricultural activities dominate N inputs (Figure 3b). In forested areas at least 20% and sometimes more than 40% of the N comes from deposition, representing an important input of N to the landscape. In streams and lakes where atmospheric N is a dominant source of N loading to the landscape, N deposition altered stream species composition, N concentra-tions, organic matter dynamics and denitrification (Baron et al. 2006; Elser et al. 2009). Given that N deposition is an important component of total loading to watersheds across the U.S. (Figure 3), approaches that link impairment of waters to N loading by source is a key research need.

In order to inform the use of the ecosystem ser-vices concepts in the current NOxSOx secondary NAAQS review process and to develop greater connectivity between clean air and nature’s bene-fits, EPA and the National Park Service (NPS) con-vened a workshop on Air Quality and Ecosystem Services (AQES) in February 2015. The AQES workshop convened a diverse group of 27 scientists

and environmental policy makers from EPA, NPS, USGS, USFS and university and private entities in order to identify linkages between existing criti-cal loads for atmospheric deposition and FEGS. Critical loads represent the point at which eco-system processes and characteristics begin to be impaired (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/brochures/criticalloads.pdf). When critical loads are exceeded by current atmospheric deposition, human welfare benefits may be altered, and in some cases impair-ment of ecosystem services may occur. A critical load does not, however, provide a measure of impairment of ecosystem services or of economic value to the people concerned by the impairment (beneficiaries). The workshop explored a process to link biological indicators to the ecological con-ditions that support or lead to FEGS. This group adopted the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System/FEGS-CS as their starting point for connecting thresholds of N and sulfur loading. Subsequently, we identified metrics and beneficiaries to characterize change in specific final ecosystem goods and services that occur when critical loads are exceeded. Final products of the workshop will include a report and journal articles.

Figure 3. Nitrogen inputs to the landscape (Sobota et al. 2013). Watershed units are 8-digit hydro-logic unit codes.

3a) Dominant anthropogenic N sources to the U.S. landscape.

3b) Percentage of anthro-pogenic N inputs to the U.S. landscape derived from deposition.

a) b)

From data in Sobota et al. 2013 FIEE

Dominant human-mediated N source

Synthetic fertilizer

Atmospheric N deposition

Agricultural BNF

Confined feedlot manure

Centralized Sewage

Most: Synthetic fertilizer (886 HUC-8s)Least: Centralized sewage (32 HUC-8s)

Atmospheric N deposition, as % of all anthropogenic N inputs

circa 2000

0 – 20

20 –

40

40 –

60

60 –

80

80 –

100




th

ANNIVERSARY

ttth


Summary There has been an increased effort to document changes in ecosystem structure and function in response to changing N deposition, and a picture is beginning to develop that connects the specifi c effects to benefi ciaries of these changes in the ecosystem (Chestnut and Mills 2005; Banzhaf et al. 2006; Evans et al. 2008; Compton et al. 2011). In spite of this renewed interest, the 2011 NAPAP assessment concluded that current information about response of ecosystem services related to changes in N and sulfur deposition was insuffi cient to examine in a comparable way to human health and cost information (Burns et al. 2011). Making

these linkages will require more ecological and eco-nomic research that allows adequate assessment of monetary benefi ts to ecosystem services of changes in N and sulfur deposition. Using a FEGS framework in addressing these questions will allow research-ers to make these connections to the benefi ciaries and ultimately to economic valuation. More study is needed at local and regional scales to identify the specifi c damages and benefi ts associated with N and S emissions and deposition. And as more studies are completed, they can be placed into the FEGS-CS systems-level framework for identifying benefi ciaries in order to economically value the effects of N deposition on ecosystem services. em

References1. Banzhaf, H.S., D. Burtraw, D. Evans, and A. Krupnick. 2006. Valuation of natural resource improvements in the Adirondacks.°Land Econom-

ics°82:445-464.2. Baron J.S. 2006. Hindcasting nitrogen deposition to determine ecological critical load. Ecological Applications 16 433-439.3. Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units.°Ecological Eco-

nomics°63:616-626.4. Burns, D.A., J.A. Lynch, B.J. Cosby, M.E. Fenn, J.S. Baron, US EPA Clean Air Markets Div. 2011. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Pro-

gram Report to Congress 2011: An Integrated Assessment, National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC, 114 p. 5. Chestnut, L. G., and D.H. Mills. 2005. A fresh look at the benefi ts and costs of the US acid rain program.°Journal of Environmental Man-

agement°77:252-266.6. Compton, J.E., J.A. Harrison, R.L. Dennis, T.L. Greaver, B.H. Hill, S.J. Jordan, H. Walker, and H.V. Campbell. 2011. Ecosystem services altered

by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for US decision making.°Ecology Letters°14:804-815.7. Daily, G., Editor. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.8. Daily, G.C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P.M. Kareiva, H.A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, T.H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, and R. Shallenberger. 2009. Ecosystem

services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment°7: 21-28.9. Elser, J.J., T. Andersen, J.S. Baron, A.K. Bergström, M. Jansson, M. Kyle, K.R. Nydick, L. Steger and D.O. Hessen. 2009. Shifts in lake N:P

stoichiometry and nutrient limitation driven by atmospheric nitrogen deposition.°Science°326:835-837.10. Evans, D. A., H.S. Banzhaf, D. Burtraw, A.J. Krupnick and J. Siikamäki, J. 2008. Valuing Benefi ts from Ecosystem Improvements Using Stated

Preference Methods: an Example from Reducing Acidifi cation in the Adirondacks Park. In°Saving Biological Diversity°(pp. 101-117). Springer US.

11. Fenn, M.E., E.B. Allen, S.B. Weiss, S. Jovan, L.H. Geiser, G.S. Tonnesen, R. F. Johnson, L. Sheppard, R. Smith, M. Sutton, K. Hicks, M. Ash-more, R. Haines-Young, and L. Harper-Simmonds. 2010. Nitrogen critical loads and management alternatives for N-impacted ecosystems in California.°Journal of Environmental Management°91:2404-2423.

12. Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.W. Howarth, E.B. Cowling, and B.J. Cosby. 2003. The nitrogen cascade.°Biosci-ence°53:341-356.

13. Greaver, T.L., T.J. Sullivan, J.D. Herrick, M.C. Barber, J.S. Baron, B.J. Cosby, M.E. Deerhake et al. 2012. Ecological effects of nitrogen and sulfur air pollution in the US: what do we know? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment°10:365-372.

14. Jones, L., A. Provins, M. Holland, G. Mills, F. Hayes, B. Emmett, J. Hall et al. 2014. A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services°7:76-88.

15. Jordan, S.J., S.E. Hayes, D. Yoskowitz, L.M. Smith, J.K. Summers, M. Russell, and W.H. Benson. 2010. Accounting for natural resources and environmental sustainability: Linking ecosystem services to human well-being. Environmental Science & Technology°44:1530-1536.

16. Landers, D.H. and A.M. Nahlik. 2013. Final ecosystem goods and services classifi cation system (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

17. Liu, L., and T.L. Greaver. 2010. A global perspective on belowground carbon dynamics under nitrogen enrichment. Ecology Letters°13: 819-828.

18. Nahlik, A.M., M.E. Kentula, M.S. Fennessy, and D.H. Landers. 2012. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice.°Ecological Economics°77:27-35.

19. Rao, L.E., E.B. Allen and T. Meixner. 2010. Risk-based determination of critical nitrogen deposition loads for fi re spread in southern California deserts.°Ecological Applications°20:1320-1335.

20. Rea, A.W., C. Davis, D.A. Evans, B.T. Heninger, and G. van Houtven. 2012. Using ecosystem services to inform decisions on US air quality standards. Environmental Science & Technology°46:6481-6488.

21. Sobota, D.J., J.E. Compton, and J.A. Harrison. 2013. Reactive nitrogen inputs to US lands and waterways: How certain are we about sources and fl uxes? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment°11: 82-90.

22. Sobota, D.J., J.E. Compton, M.L. McCrackin, and S. Singh. 2015. Cost of reactive nitrogen release from human activities to the environment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters°10: 025006.

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Ecological Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/082F.

24. U.S. EPA. 2011. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. EPA-452/R-11-005a (http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/no2so2sec/data/20110204pamain.pdf).

25. U.S. EPA. 2012. Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur; Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 50, April 3, 2012, pp. 20218 – 20272.

26. van Grinsven, H.J.M., M. Holland, B.H. Jacobsen, Z. Klimont, M.A. Sutton, and W.J. Willems. 2013. Costs and benefi ts of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation.°Environmental Science & Technology 47:3571-3579.

This new

classifi cation

system is a

critical foundation

for measuring,

quantifying,

mapping, modeling,

and valuing Final

Ecosystem Goods

and Services

(FEGS), as well as

for other ecosystem

service-centric

activities that are

dependent on

a defi ned and

rigorous framework.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency.



Daniel J. Sobota Nitrogen Deposition and Final Ecosystem...

Documents

Transcript of Daniel J. Sobota Nitrogen Deposition and Final Ecosystem...