### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 40 CFR Part 50 2 [EPA - HQ - OAR- 2007 - 1145] 3 RIN: 2060 - AO72 4 Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur 5 6 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 7 ACTION: Proposed rule. 8 SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air quality criteria and the secondary national ambient 9 air quality

standards (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur, EPA proposes to 10 retain the current nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) secondary stand ards to 11 provide requisite protection for the direct effects on vegetation resulting from exposure to 12 gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in the ambient air. Additionally , w ith regard to protection 13 from the deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to sensitive aquatic and terrestrial 14
ecos ys tems, including acidification and nutrient enrichment effects, EPA is proposing to add 15 secondary

standards identical to the NO 2 and SO 2 primary 1

- hour standards and not set a new 16 multi

- pollutant secondary standard i n this review

. The new 1

- hour secondary NO 2 standard is 17 set at a level of 100 ppb and the new 1

- hour secondary SO 2 standard is set at 75 ppb. In addition , 18 EPA has decided to undertake a field pilot program to gather and analyze additional relevant data 19 so as to enhance the Agency ’s understanding of the degree of protecti veness that a new multi

20 pollutant approach , defined in terms of an aquatic acidification index (AAI), would afford and to 21 support development of an appropriate monitoring network for such a standard. The EPA 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 solicits comment on the framework of such a standard and on the design of the field pilot 1 program. 2 This proposal is being issued as required b y a consent decree governing the schedule for 3 completion of this review. The EPA will sign a notice of final rulemaking for this review no 4 later than March 20, 2012. 5 DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received b y [insert date 60 days 6 after date of publication in the Federal Register]

. 7 Public Hearings : The EPA intends to hold a public hearing around the end of August to 8 earl y September and will announce in a separate Federal Register notice the date , time, and 9 address of the public hearing on this proposed rule. 10 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 11 1145, by

one of the following methods: 12

 www.regulations.gov : Follow the on

- line instructions for submitting comments. 13

 Email: a - and

- r - Docket@epa.gov

. 14

 Fax: 202

- 5 66

- 1741. 15

 Mail: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 1145, Environmental Protection Agency , Mail 16 code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 17 total of two copies. 18

 Hand Delivery : Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 1145, Environmental Pro tection 19 Agency , EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Such 20 deliveries are onl y accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special 21 arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 Instructions: D irect your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 1145. The 1 EPA’s policy

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change 2 and may

be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including an y personal information 3 provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 4 In formation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Do not submit 5 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or 6 email. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anony mous access” sy stem, which means EPA 7 will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 8 comment. If you send an email comment directl y to EPA without going through 9 www.regulations.gov , your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 10 the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 11 submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 12 information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

- ROM you submit. I f EPA 13 cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 14 EPA may

not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 15 characters, any form of en cryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 16 information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 17 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm

. 18 Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 19 Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 20 information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Certain other material, such as copy righted 21 material, will be publicly available onl y in hard copy . Publicly available docket materials are 22 available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 1 Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 2 through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The tel ephone number for the Public Reading Room is 3 (202) 566

- 1744 and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 4 Center is (202) 566

- 1742. 5 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Scheffe, Office of Air Quality 6 Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Mail code C304

- 02, Research 7 Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: 919

- 541

- 4650; fax: 919

- 541

- 2357; email: 8 scheffe.rich@epa.gov. 9 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 10 General Information 11 What Should IConsider as I Prepare M y Comments for EPA? 12 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or 13 email. Clearl y mark the part or all of the i nformation that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 14 information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 15 CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD ROM the specific 16 information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 17 that includes information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comment that does not contain 18 the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 19 In formation so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 20 forth in 40 CFR part 2. 21 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments . When submitting comments, remember to: 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5  Id entify

the rulemaking by

docket number and other identifying information (subject 1 heading, Federal Regist er date and page number). 2

 Follow directions

– The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 3 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section 4 number. 5

 Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your 6 requested changes. 7

 Describe an y assumptions and provide an y technical information and/or data that you 8 used. 9

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 10 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 11

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 12

 Explain your views as clearl y as possible. Make sure to submit your comments by the 13 comment period deadline identified. 14 Availability

of Related Info rmation 15 A number of documents relevant to this rulemaking are available on EPA web sites. The 16 Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur

- Ecological Criteria: FINAL 17 REPORT (I SA) is available on EPAs National Center for Environmental Assessment web site. 18 To obtain this document, go to http://www.epa.gov/ncea , and click on Air Quality then click on 19 Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur. The Policy Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessment (REA) , 20 and other related technical documents are available on EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 21 Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN) web site. The Policy Assessment is 22 available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/c r_pa.html, and the exposure and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 risk assessments and other related technical documents are available at 1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_rea.html

. These and othe r related 2 documents are also available for inspection and copying in the EPA docket identified above. 3 Table of Contents 4 The following topics are discussed in this preamble: 5 I. Background 6 A. Legislative Requirements 7 B. History of Reviews of NAAQS for Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 8 1. NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen 9 2. NAAQS for Oxides of Sulfur 10 C. History of Related Assessments and Agency Actions 11 D. History of the Current Review 12 E. Scope of the Current Review 13 II. Rationale for Proposed Decision on the Adequacy of the Current Secondary Standards 14 A. Ecological Effects 15 1. Effects Associated with Gas

- Phase Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur 16 a. Nature of ecos ys tem responses to gas
- phase nitrogen and sulfur 17 b. Magnitude of ecos ys tem response to gas
- phase nitrogen and sul fur 18 2. Acidification Effects Associated with Deposition of Oxides of N itrogen 19 and Sulfur 20 a. Nature of Acidification

–related Ecosy stem Responses 21 i. Aquatic ecos ys tems 22 ii. Terrestrial ecos ys tems 23 iii. Ecosy stem sensitivity 24 b. Magnitude of Acidification

- related Ecos ys tem Respo nses 25 i. Aquatic acidification 26 ii. Terrestrial acidification 27 c. Key Uncertainties Associated with Acidification 28 i. Aquatic acidification 29 ii. Terrestrial acidification 30 3. Nutrient Enrichment Effects Associated with Deposition of Oxides of 31 Nitrogen 32 a. Nature of Nutrient Enrichment

- related Ecos ys tem Responses 33 i. Aquatic ecos ys tems 34 ii. Terrestrial ecos ys tems 35 iii. Ecosy stem sensitiv ity to nutrient enrichment 36 b. Magnitude of Nutrient Enrichment

- related Ecos ys tem Responses 37 i. Aquatic ecos ys tems 38 ii. Terrestrial ecos ys tems 39 c. Key Uncertainties Associated with Nutrient Enrichment 40 i. Aquatic ecos ys tems 41

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 ii. Terrestrial ecos ys tems 1 4. Other Ecological Effects 2 B. Risk and Exposure Assessment 3 1. Overview of Risk and Exposure Assessment 4 2. Key Findings 5 a. Air quality anal ys es 6 b. Deposition

- related aquatic acidification 7 c. Deposition

- related terrestrial acidification 8 d. Deposition

- related aquatic nutrient enrichment 9 e. Deposition

- related terrestrial nutrient enrichment 10 f. Additional effects 11 3. Conclusions on Effects 12 C. Adversity of Effects to Public Welfare 13 1. Ecosy stem Service s 14 2. Effects on Ecosy stem Services 15 a. Aquatic Acidification 16 b. Terrestrial Acidification 17 c. Nutrient Enrichment 18 3. Summary 19 D. Adequacy of the Current Standards 20 1. Adequacy of the Current Standards for Direct Effects 21 2. Appropriateness and Adequacy of the Current Standards for Deposition

22 related Effects 23 a. Appropriateness 24 b. Adequacy of Protection 25 i. Aquatic Acidification 26 ii. Terrestrial acidification 27 iii. Terrestrial nutrient enrichment 28 iv. Aquatic nutrient enrichment 29 v. Other effects 30 3. CASAC Views 31 4. Administrator’s Proposed Conclusions Concerning Adequacy of Current 32 Standard 33 III. Rationale for Proposed Decision on Alternative Multi

- pollutant Approach to Secondary 34 Standard s for Aquatic Acidification 35 A. Ambient Air Indicators 36 1. Oxides of Sulfur 37 2. Oxides of Nitrogen 38 B. Form 39 1. Ecological Indicator 40 2. Linking ANC to Deposition 41 3. Linking Deposition to Ambient Air Indicators 42 4. Aquatic Acidification Index 43 5. Spatial Aggregation 44 a. Ecoregion Sensitivity 45 b. Representative Ecoregion

- specific Factors 46

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 i. Factor F1 1 a) Acid

- sensitive Ecoregions 2 b) Non
- acid sensitive Ecoregions 3 ii. Factor F2 4 iii. Factors F3 and F4 5 c. Factors in Data

- limited Ecoregions 6 d. Application to Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Territories 7 6. Summary of the AAI Form 8 C. Averaging Time 9 D. Level 10 1. Association Between pH Levels and Target ANC Levels 11 2. ANC Levels Related to Effects on Aquatic Ecos ys tems 12 3. Consideration of Episodic Acidity 13 4. Consideration of Ecos ys tem Response Time 14 5. Prior Examples of Target ANC Levels 15 6. Consideration of Public Welfare Benefits 16 7. Summary of Alternative Levels 17 E. Combined Alternative Levels and Forms 18 F. Characterization of Uncertainties 19 1. Overview of Uncertainty 20 2. Uncertainties Associated with Data Gaps 21 3. Uncertainties in Modeled Processes 22 G. CASAC Advice 23 H. Administrator’s Proposed Conclusions 24 IV
. Field Pilot Program and Ambient Monitoring 25 A. Field Pilot Program 26 a. Objectives 27 b. Overview of Field Pilot Program 28 c. Complementary Measurements 29 d. Complementary Research Efforts 30 e. Implementation Challenges 31 f. Final Monitoring Plan Development and Stakeholder Participation 32 B. Evaluation of Monitoring Methods 33 1. Potential FRMs for SO 2 and p

- SO 4 34 2. Potential FRM for NO y 35 V. Statutory

and Executive Order Reviews 36 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 37 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 38 C. Regulatory Flexibility

Act 39 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 40 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 41 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 42 Gover nments 43 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and 44 Safety Risks 45

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

9 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, 1 Distribution, or Use 2 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 3 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 4 Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations 5 References 6 7 I. Background 8 A. Legislative Requirements 9 Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the 10 NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. section 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list 11 certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator 12 is to list those air pollutants that in her “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may 13 reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence of which in the 14 ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources;” and “for which . . . 15 [the Administrator] plans to is sue air quality criteria...” Air quality criteria are intended to 16 “accuratel y reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all 17 identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] 18 pollutant in the ambient air . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7408(b). Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the 19 Administrator to propose and promulgate “primary” and “secondary” NAAQS for pollutants for 20 which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(b)(1) de fines a primary standard as one “the 21 attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such 22 criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety , are requisite to protect the public health.” 1 A 23 secondary

standard, as defined in section 109(b)(2), must “specify a level of air quality the 24 attainment and maintenance of which, in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such 25

1 The legislative history of section 109 indicates that a primary standard is to be set at “the maximum permissible am bient air level . . . which will protect the health of any [sensitive] group of the population,” and that for this purpose “reference should be made to a representative sample of persons comprising the sensitive group rather than to a single person in such a group” S. Rep. No. 91

- 11 96, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970).

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

10 criteria, is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects 1
asso ciated with the presence of [the] pollutant in the ambient air.” Welfare effects as defined in 2 section 302(h) (42 U.S.C. § 7602(h)) include, but are not limited to, “effects on soils, water, 3 crops, vegetation, man

- made materials, animals, wildlife, weather , visibility and climate, damage 4 to and deterioration of property , and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic 5 values and on personal comfort and well

- being.” 6 In setting standards that are “requisite” to protect public health and welfare , as provided 7 in section 109(b), EPA’s task is to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent 8 than necessary

for these purposes. In so doing, EPA may not consider the costs of implementing 9 the standards. See generally , Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465

- 10 472, 475

- 76 (2001). Likewise, “[a]ttainability and technological feasibility are not relevant 11 considerations in the promulgation of national ambient air quality standards.” American 12 Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F. 2d at 1185. Section 109(d)(1) requires that “not later than 13 December 31, 1980, and at 5

- ye ar intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall complete a 14 thorough review of the criteria published under section 108 and the national ambient air quality 15 standards . . . and shall make such revisions in such criteria and standards and promulgate such 16 new standards as may be appropriate . . . .” Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent 17 scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary 18 and secondary

ambient air quality

standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any 19 new . . . standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .” 20 Since the earl y 1980's, th is independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air 21 Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). 22 B. History of Reviews of NAAQS for Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

11 1. NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen 1 After reviewing the relevant science on the publ ic health and welfare effects associated 2 with oxides of nitrogen, EPA promulgated identical primary and secondary NAAQS for NO2 in 3 April 1971. These standards were set at a level of 0.053 parts per million (ppm) as an annual 4 average (36 FR 8186). In 1982 , EPA published Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen (US 5 EPA, 1982), which updated the scientific criteria upon which the initial standards were based. In 6 February

1984 EPA proposed to retain these standards (49 FR 6866). After taking into account 7 public comments, EPA published the final decision to retain these standards in June 1985 (50 FR 8 25532). 9 The EPA began the most recent previous review of the oxides of nitrogen secondary 10 standards in 1987. In November 1991 EPA released an updated draft air quality criteria 11 document (AQCD ) for CASAC and public review and comment (56 FR 59285), which provided 12 a comprehensive assessment of the available scientific and technical information on health and 13 welfare effects associated with NO2 and other oxides of nitrogen. The CASAC reviewed the 14 draft document at a meeting held on July 1, 1993 and concluded in a closure letter to the 15 Administrator that the document “provides a scientifically balanced and defensible summary of 16 current knowledge of the effects of this pollutant and provides an adequate basis for EPA to 17 make a decision as to the appropriate NAAQS for NO2” (Wolff, 1993). The Air Quality Criteria 18 for Oxides of Nitrogen was then finalized (US EPA, 199 5 a). EPA’s OAQPS also prepared a 19 Staff Paper that s ummarized and integrated the key studies and scientific evidence contained in 20 the revised AQCD for oxides of nitrogen and identified the critical elements to be considered in 21 the review of the NO2 NAAQS. CASAC reviewed two drafts of the Staff Paper and co ncluded 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

12 in a closure letter to the Administrator that the document provided a “scientifically adequate 1 basis for regulatory

decisions on nitrogen dioxide” (Wolff, 1995). 2 In October 1995 the Administrator announced her proposed decision not to revise either 3 the primary

or secondary NAAQS for NO2 (60 FR 52874; October 11, 1995). A year later, the 4 Administrator made a final determination not to revise the NAAQS for NO2 after careful 5 evaluation of the comments received on the proposal (61 FR 52852; October 8, 1996). While the 6 primary

NO2 standard was revised in January 2010 by supplementing the existing annual 7 standard with the establishment of a new 1

- hour standard , set at a level of 100 ppb (75 FR 6474), 8 the secondary

NAAQS for NO2 remains 0.053 ppm (100 mi crograms per cubic meter [μg/m3] of 9 air), annual arithmetic average, calculated as the arithmetic mean of the 1

- hour NO2 10 concentrations. 11 2. NAAQS for Oxides of Sulfur 12 EPA promulgated primary and secondary

NAAQS for SO2 in April 1971 (36 FR 8186). 13 The secondary

standards included a standard set at 0.02 ppm, annual arithmetic mean, and a 3

- 14 hour average standard set at 0.5 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year. These 15 secondary

standards were established solel y on the basis of evidence of adverse effects on 16 vegetation. In 1973, revisions made to Chapter 5 (“Effects of Sulfur Oxide in the Atmosphere on 17 Vegetation”) of Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides (US EP A, 1973) indicated that it could not 18 properl y be concluded that the vegetation injury reported resulted from the average SO2 19 exposure over the growing season, rather than from short

- term peak concentrations. Therefore, 20 EPA proposed (38 FR 11355) and then finalized (38 FR 25678) a revocation of the annual mean 21 secondary

standard. At that time, EPA was aware that then

- current concentrations of oxides of 22 sulfur in the ambient air had other public welfare effects, including effects on materials, 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

13 visibility , s oils, and water. However, the available data were considered insufficient to establish 1 a quantitative relationship between specific ambient concentrations of oxides of sulfur and such 2 public welfare effects (38 FR 25679). 3 In 1979, EPA announced that it wa s revising the AQCD for oxides of sulfur concurrentl y 4 with that for particulate matter (PM) and would produce a combined PM and oxides of sulfur 5 criteria document. Following its review of a draft revised criteria document in August 1980, 6 CASAC concluded that acid deposition was a topic of extreme scientific complexity because of 7 the difficulty

in establishing firm quantitative relationships among (1) emissions of relevant 8 pollutants (e.g., SO2 and oxides of nitrogen), (2) formation of acidic wet and dry deposition 9 products, and (3) effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecos ys tems. CASAC also noted that acid 10 deposition involves, at a minimum, several different criteria pollutants: oxides of sulfur, oxides 11 of nitrogen, and the fine particulate fraction of susp ended particles. CASAC felt that any 12 document on this subject should address both wet and dry deposition, since dry

deposition was 13 believed to account for a substantial portion of the total acid deposition problem. 14 For these reasons, CASAC recommended th at a separate, comprehensive document on 15 acid deposition be prepared prior to any consideration of using the NAAQS as a regulatory 16 mechanism for the control of acid deposition. CASAC also suggested that a discussion of acid 17 deposition be included in the A QCDs for oxides of nitrogen and PM and oxides of sulfur. 18 Following CASAC closure on the AQCD for oxides of sulfur in December 1981, EPA’s OAQPS 19 published a Staff Paper in November 1982, although the paper did not directly assess the issue of 20 acid depositi on. Instead, EPA subsequently prepared the following documents to address acid 21 deposition: The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects: Critical Assessment Review 22 Papers, Volumes I and II (US EPA, 1984a, b) and The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

14 Effects: Critical Assessment Document (US EPA, 1985) (53 FR 14935

- 14936). These 1 documents, though they were not considered criteria documents and did not undergo CASAC 2 review, represented the most comprehensive summary of scientific information relevant to acid 3 deposition completed by EPA at that point. 4 In April 1988 (53 FR 14926), EPA proposed not to revise the existing primary and 5 secondary

standards for SO 2 . This proposed decision with regard to the secondary SO 2 NAAQS 6 was due to the Administrator ’s conclusions that (1) based upon the then

- current scientific 7 understanding of the acid deposition problem, it would be premature and unwise to prescribe any 8 regulatory

control program at that time and (2) when the fundamental scientific uncertainties had 9 been decreased through ongoing research efforts, EPA would draft and support an appropriate set 10 of control measures. Although EPA revised the primary SO 2 standard in June 2010 by 11 establishing a new 1

- hour standard at a level of 75 ppb and revoking the ex isting 24

- hour and 12 annual standards (75 FR 35520), no further decisions on the secondary SO 2 standard have been 13 published. 14 C. History of Related Assessments and Agency Actions 15 In 1980, the Congress created the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program 16 (NAPAP) in response to growing concern about acidic deposition. The NAPAP was given a 17 broad 10

- ye ar mandate to examine the causes and effects of acidic deposition and to explore 18 alternative control options to alleviate acidic deposition and its effect s. During the course of the 19 program, the NAPAP issued a series of publicl y available interim reports prior to the completion 20 of a final report in 1990 (NAPAP, 1990). 21 In spite of the complexities and significant remaining uncertainties associated with the 22 acid deposition problem, it soon became clear that a program to address acid deposition was 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

15 needed. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included numerous separate provisions related 1 to the acid deposition problem. The primary and most important of the provisions, the 2 amendments to Title IV of the Act, established the Acid Rain Program to reduce emissions of 3 SO 2 by

10 million tons and emissions of nitrogen oxides by 2 million tons from 1980 emission 4 levels in order to achieve reductions over broad geogra phic regions. In this provision, Congress 5 included a statement of findings that led them to take action, concluding that (1) the presence of 6 acid compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere and in deposition from the atmosphere 7 represents a threat to natural resources, ecos ys tems, materials, visibility , and public health; (2) 8 the problem of acid deposition is of national and international significance; and (3) current and 9 future generations of Americans will be adversely affected by

delaying measures to remedy the 10 problem. 11 Second, Congress authorized the continuation of the NAPAP in order to assure that the 12 research and monitoring efforts already undertaken would continue to be coordinated and would 13 provide the basis for an impartial assessment of th e effectiveness of the Title IV program. 14 Third, Congress considered that further action might be necessary in the long term to 15 address an y problems remaining after implementation of the Title IV program and, reserving 16 judgment on the form that action coul d take, included Section 404 of the 1990 Amendments 17 (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L . 101

- 549, § 404) requiring EPA to conduct a study 18 on the feasibility

and effectiveness of an acid deposition standard or standards to protect 19 “sensitive and criti cally sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources.” At the conclusion of the 20 study , EPA was to submit a report to Congress. Five years later, EPA submitted its report, 21 entitled Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study : Report to Congress (US EPA, 1995 b ) in 22 fulfillment of this requirement. That Report concluded that establishing acid deposition 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

16 standards for sulfur and nitrogen deposition may at some point in the future be technically 1 feasible, although appropriate deposition loads for these acidifying chemicals could not be 2 defined with reasonable certainty at that time. 3 Fourth, the 1990 Amendments also added new language to sections of the CAA 4 pertaining to the scope and application of the secondary NAAQS designed to protect the public 5 welfare. Spec ifically , the definition of “effects on welfare” in Section 302(h) was expanded to 6 state that the welfare effects include effects “...whether caused by transformation, conversion, or 7 combination with other air pollutants.” 8 In 1999, seven Northeastern state s cited this amended language in Section 302(h) in a 9 petition asking EPA to use its authority under the NAAQS program to promulgate secondary 10 NAAQS for the criteria pollutants associated with the formation of acid rain. The petition stated 11 that this langu age “clearly references the transformation of pollutants resulting in the inevitable 12 formation of sulfate and nitrate aerosols and/or their ultimate environmental impacts as wet and 13 dry deposition, clearl y signaling Congressional intent that the welfare damage occasioned by 14 sulfur and nitrogen oxides be addressed through the secondary standard provisions of Section 15 109 of the Act.” The petition further stated that “recent federal studies, including the NAPAP 16 Biennial Report to Congress: An Integrated Asses sment, document the continued and increasing 17 damage being inflicted by acid deposition to the lakes and forests of New York, New England 18 and other parts of our nation, demonstrating that the Title IV program had proven insufficient.” 19 The petition also list ed other adverse welfare effects associated with the transformation of these 20 criteria pollutants, including impaired visibility , eutrophication of coastal estuaries, global 21 warming, and tropospheric ozone and stratospheric ozone depletion. 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

17 In a related matter, the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) 1 requested in 2000 that EPA initiate a rulemaking proceeding to enhance the air quality in 2 national parks and wilderness areas in order to protect resources and values that are being 3 adversel y affected b y air pollution. Included among the effects of concern identified in the 4 request were the acidification of streams, surface waters, and/or soils; eutrophication of coastal 5 waters; visibility

impairment; and foliar injury from ozone. 6 In a Federal Register notice in 2001, EPA announced receipt of these requests and asked 7 for comment on the issues raised in them. EPA stated that it would consider any relevant 8 comments and information submitted, along with the information provided by the petitioners and 9 DOI, before making any decision concerning a response to these requests for rulemaking (65 FR 10 48699). 11 The 2005 NAPAP report states that “... scientific studies indicate that the emission 12 reductions achieved b y Title IV are not sufficient to allow recovery of acid

- sensitive ecos ys tems. 13 Estimates from the literature of the scope of additional emission reductions that are necessary in 14 order to protect acid

- sensitive ecosy stems range from approximately 40

- 80% beyond full 15 implementation of Title IV....” The results of the modeling presented in this Report to Congress 16 indicate that broader recovery is not predicted without additional emission reductions (NAPAP , 17 2005 ). 18 Given the state of the science as described in the ISA, REA, and in other recent reports, 19 such as the NAPAP reports noted above, EPA has decided, in the context of evaluating the 20 adequacy

of the current NO2 and SO2 secondary standards in this review, to revisit the question 21 of the appropriateness of setting secondary NAAQS to address remaining known or anticipated 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

18 adverse public welfare effects resulting from the acidic and nutrient deposition of these criteria 1 pollutants. 2 D. History of the Current Review 3 The EPA initiated this current review in December 2005 with a call for information (70 4 FR 73236) for the development of a revised Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of 5 Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur

- Ecological Criteria (henceforth the "ISA"). An Integrated 6 Review Plan (IRP) was developed to provide the framework and sc hedule as well as the scope of 7 the review and to identify policy

- relevant questions to be addressed in the components of the 8 review. The IRP was released in 2007 (US EPA , 2007) for CASAC and public review. EPA 9 held a workshop in July 2007 on the I SA to o btain broad input from the relevant scientific 10 communities. This workshop helped to inform the preparation of the first draft ISA , which was 11 released for CASAC and public review in December 2007; a CASAC meeting was held on April 12 2

- 3, 2008 to review the f irst draft ISA. A second draft ISA was released for CASAC and public 13 review in August 2008, and was discussed at a CASAC meeting held on October 1

- 2, 2008. T he 14 final I SA (US EPA, 2008) was released in December 2008. 15 Based on the science presented in the I SA, EPA developed a Risk and Exposure 16 Assessment for Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of 17 Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur (henceforth the “REA”) to further assess the national impact of 18 the effects documented in th e I SA. The Draft Scope and Methods Plan for Risk/Exposure 19 Assessment: Secondary NAAQS Review for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur outlining 20 the scope and design of the future REA was prepared for CASAC and public in March 2008. A 21 first draft REA w as presented to CASAC and the public for review in August 2008 and a second 22 draft was presented for review in June 2009. The final REA (US EPA 2009) was released in 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

19 September 2009. A first draft Policy Assessment was released in March 2010 and reviewed b y 1 CASAC on April 1

- 2, 2010. In a June 22, 2010 letter to the Administrator, CASAC provided 2 advice and recommendations to the Agency concerning the first draft Policy Assessment (Russell 3 and Samet, 2010 a). A second draft Policy Assessment was released to CASAC and the public 4 in September 2010 and reviewed b y CASAC on October 6

- 7, 2010. CASAC provided advice 5 and recommendations to the Agency regarding the second draft Policy Assessment in a 6 December 9, 2010 letter (Russell and Samet 2010 b ). CASAC and public comments on the 7 second draft Policy

Assessment were considered by EPA staff in developing a final Policy 8 Assessment (US EPA, 2011). CASAC requested an additional meeting to provide additional 9 advice to the Administrator based on the final Policy As sessment on February 15

– 16, 2011. 10 EPA released on January 14, 2011, the final Policy Assessment prior to final document 11 production, to provide sufficient time for CASAC review of the document in advance of this 12 meeting. A final Policy Assessment, incorporating final reference checks and document 13 formatting, was released in February 2011. In a May

17, 2011 letter (Russel l and Samet, 2011 a), 14 CASAC offered additional advice to the Administrator with regard to recommendations and 15 revisions to the secondary NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. 16 On February 3, 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity and four other plaintiffs filed a 17 complaint alleging that EPA had failed to complete the current review within the period provided 18 by statute. 2 Th e schedule for completion of this review is governed b y a consent decree 19 resolving that lawsuit and the subsequent extension agreed to b y the parties . The schedule 20 presented in the original consent decree that governs this review, entered by the court on 21 N ovember 19, 2007, was revised on October 22, 2009 to allow for a 17 month extension of the 22 schedule. The current decree provides that EPA sign for publication notices of proposed and 23

2 Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Johnson, No. 05

– 1814 (D.D.C.)

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

20 final rulemaking concerning its review of the oxides of nitrogen and oxi des of sulfur NAAQS no 1 later than July

12, 2011 and March 20, 2012, respectively

. 2 This action presents the Administrator’s proposed decisions on the review of the current 3 secondary

oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur standards. Throughout this preamble a number 4 of conclusions, findings, and determinations proposed by the Administrator are noted. While 5 they identify the reasoning that supports this proposal, they are onl y proposals and are not 6 intended to be final or conclusive in nature. The EPA i nvites general, specific, and/or technical 7 comments on all issues involved with this proposal, including all such proposed judgments, 8 conclusions, findings, and determinations. 9 E. Scope of the Current Review 10 In conducting this periodic review of the secon dary NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen and 11 oxides of sulfur, as discussed in the IRP and REA, EPA decided to assess the scientific 12 information, associated risks, and standards relevant to protecting the public welfare from 13 adverse effects associated jointly with oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Although EPA has 14 historically

adopted separate secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur, 15 EPA is conducting a joint review of these standards because oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and 16 their associate d transformation products are linked from an atmospheric chemistry perspective, 17 as well as from an environmental effects perspective. The National Research Council (NRC) has 18 recommended that EPA consider multiple pollutants, as appropriate, in forming the scientific 19 basis for the NAAQS (NRC, 2004). As discussed in the I SA and REA, there is a strong basis for 20 considering these pollutants together, building upon EPA’s past recognition of the interactions of 21 these pollutants and on the growing body of scient ific information that is now available related to 22 these interactions and associated ecological effects. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

21 In defining the scope of this review, it must be considered that EPA has set secondary 1 standards for two other criteria pollutants related to oxides of nitrogen and sulfur: ozone and 2 particulate matter (PM). Oxides of nitrogen are precursors to the formation of ozone in the 3 atmosphere, and under certain conditions, can combine with atmospheric ammonia to form 4 ammonium nitrate, a component of fine PM. Oxides of sulfur are precursors to the formation of 5 particulate sulfate, which is a significant component of fine PM in many parts of the U.S. There 6 are a number of welfare effects directl y associated with ozone and fine PM, including ozone

7 related damage to vegetation and PM

- related visibility impairment. Protection against those 8 effects is provided b y the ozone and fine PM secondary standards. This review focuses on 9 evaluation of the protection provided b y secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur 10 for two general types of effects: (1) direct effects on vegetation associated with exposure to 11 gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in the ambient air, which are the effects that the current 12 NO 2 and SO 2 secondary standards protect against and (2) effects associated with the deposition 13 of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecos ys tems, including 14 deposition in the form of particulate nitrate and particulate sulfate. 15 The I SA focuses on the ecological effects associated with deposition of ambient oxides of 16 nitrogen and sulfur to natural sensitive ecos ys tems, as distinguished from commercially managed 17 forests and agricultural lands. This focus reflects the fact that the majority of the scientific 18 evidence regarding acidi fication and nutrient enrichment is based on studies in unmanaged 19
ecos ys tems. Non
- managed terrestrial ecos ys tems tend to have a higher fraction of N deposition 20 resulting from atmospheric nitrogen (US EPA , 2008, section 3.3.2.5). In addition, the I SA note s 21 that agricultural and commercial forest lands are routinely fertilized with amounts of nitrogen 22 that exceed air pollutant inputs even in the most polluted areas (US EPA , 2008, section 3.3.9). 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

22 This review recognizes that the effects of nitrogen depositio n in managed areas are viewed 1 differentl y from a public welfare perspective than are the effects of nitrogen deposition in 2 natural, unmanaged ecosystems, largely due to the more homogeneous, controlled nature of 3 species composition and development in manag ed ecos ys tems and the potential for benefits of 4 increased productivity in those ecos ys tems. 5 In focusing on natural sensitive ecosy stems, the Policy Assessment primarily

considers 6 the effects of ambient oxides of nitrogen and sulfur via deposition on multiple ecological 7 receptors. The ISA highlights effects including those associated with acidification and nitrogen 8 nutrient enrichment. With a focus on these deposition

- related effects, EPA’s objective is to 9 develop a framework for oxides of nitrogen and su lfur standards that incorporates ecologicall y 10 relevant factors and that recognizes the interactions between the two pollutants as they deposit to 11 sensitive ecos ys tems. The overarching policy objective is to develop a secondary standard(s) 12 that is based on the ecological criteria described in the I SA and the results of the assessments in 13 the REA, and is consistent with the requirement of the CAA to set secondary standards that are 14 requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated 15 with the presence of these air pollutants in the ambient air. C onsistent with the CAA, this policy 16 objective includes consideration of “variable factors . . . which of themselves or in combination 17 with other factors may alter the effec ts on public welfare” of the criteria air pollutants included in 18 this review. 19 In addition, we have chosen to focus on the effects of ambient oxides of nitrogen and 20 sulfur on ecological impacts on sensitive aquatic ecosy stems associated with acidifying 21 dep osition of nitrogen and sulfur, which is a transformation product of ambient oxides of 22 nitrogen and sulfur. Based on the information in the I SA, the assessments presented in the REA, 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

23 and advice from CASAC on earlier drafts of this Policy Assessment (Russe ll and Samet, 2010a, 1 2010b), and as discussed in detail in the Policy Assessment , we have the greatest confidence in 2 the causal linkages between oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and aquatic acidification effects 3 relative to other deposition

- related effects, i ncluding terrestrial acidification and aquatic and 4 terrestrial nutrient enrichment. 5 6 II. Rationale for Proposed Decision on the Adequacy of the Current Secondary 7 Standards 8 D ecisions on retaining or revising the current secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen 9 and sulfur are largely public welfare policy

judgments based on the Administrator’s informed 10 assessment of what constitutes requisite protection against adverse effect s to public welfare. A 11 public welfare policy decision should draw upon scientific information and anal ys es about 12 welfare effects, exposure and risks, as well as judgments about the appropriate response to the 13 range of uncertainties that are inherent in th e scientific evidence and analy ses. The ultimate 14 determination as to what level of damage to ecos ystems and the services provided by those 15
ecos ys tems is adverse to public welfare is not wholly a scientific question, although it is 16 informed b y scientific studies linking e cos ys tem damage to losses in ecosy stem services, and 17 information on the value of those losses of ecos ys tem services. In reaching such decisions, the 18 Administrator seeks to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than ne cessary 19 for this purpose. 20 This section presents the rationale for the Administrator’s proposed conclusions with 21 regard to the adequacy of protection and ecological relevance of the current secondary standards 22 for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. As discussed more full y below, this rationale considered the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

24 latest scientific information on ecological effects associated with the presence of oxides of 1 nitrogen and oxides of sulfur in the ambient air. This rationale also takes into account: (1) staff 2 assessments of the most policy

- relevant information in the I SA and staff analy ses of air quality , 3 exposure, and ecological risks, presented more fully in the REA and in the Policy Assessment , 4 upon which staff conclusions on revisions to the secondary oxides of nitrog en and oxides of 5 sulfur standards are based; (2) CASAC advice and recommendations, as reflected in discussions 6 of drafts of the I SA, REA, and Policy Assessment at public meetings, in separate written 7 comments, and in CASAC’s letters to the Administrator; and (3) public comments received 8 during the development of these documents, either in connection with CASAC meetings or 9 separately

. 10 In developing this rationale, EPA has drawn upon an integrative s ynthesis of the entire 11 body

of evidence, published through early 2008 , on ecological effects associated with the 12 deposition of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur in the ambient air (US EPA, 2008)

. As 13 discussed below in section II.A, this body of evidence addresses a broad range of ecological 14 endpoints asso ciated with ambient levels of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur

. In 15 considering this evidence, EPA focuses on those ecological endpoints, such as aquatic 16 acidification, for which the IS A judges associations with oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur 17 to be causal, likel y causal, or for which the evidence is suggestive that oxides of nitrogen and/or 18 sulfur contribute to the reported effects. The categories of causality determinations have been 19 developed in the ISA (US EPA, 2008) and are discussed in Section 1.6 of the I SA. 20 Crucial to this review is the development of a form for an ecologicall y relevant standard 21 that reflects both the geographicall y variable and deposition

- dependent nature of the effects. 22 The atmospheric levels of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur that afford a particular level of 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. ecos ys tem protection are those levels that result in an amount of deposition that is less than the 1 amount of deposition that a given ecos ys tem can accept without defined levels of degradation. 2 Drawing from the f ramework developed in the REA, the framework we used to structure 3 an ecologically

meaningful secondary

standard in the 4 the indicator, form, level, and averaging time of such as standard in section III of this propos 5 depicted below and highlights the three key linkages that need to be considered in developing an 6 ecologicall y relevant standard. 7 8

9 Figure II - 1. Sim plified conceptual design of the form of an aquatic acidification standard 10 for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. 11 12 The following discussion 13 The Policy

Assessment includes staff’s evaluation of the policy implications of the scientific 14 assessment of the evidence presented and assessed in the ISA and the results of quantitative 15 assessments based on that information presented and assessed in the REA. Taken together, 16 information informs staff conclusions and the development of policy options in the 17 Assessment for consideration in addressing public and welfare effects associated with the 18 presence of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur in the ambient air. 19 2 of the Policy

Assessment presents information not repeated here that characterizes emissions, 20 air quality , deposition and water quality. It includes discussions of the sources of nitrogen and 21 

### g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

25 ecos ys tem protection are those levels that result in an amount of deposition that is less than the amount of deposition that a given ecos ys tem can accept without defined levels of degradation. ramework developed in the REA, the framework we used to structure an ecologically

meaningful secondary

standard in the Policy

Assessment and to further develop the indicator, form, level, and averaging time of such as standard in section III of this propos depicted below and highlights the three key linkages that need to be considered in developing an

Sim plified conceptual design of the form of an aquatic acidification standard

sulfur.
The following discussion relies heavil y on Chapters 2 and 3 of the Policy Assessment includes staff’s evaluation of the policy implications of the scientific assessment of the evidence presented and assessed in the ISA and the results of quantitative assessments based on that information presented and assessed in the REA. Taken together, information informs staff conclusions and the development of policy options in the

for consideration in addressing public and welfare effects associated with the presence of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur in the ambient air. Of particular note, chapter presents information not repeated here that characterizes emissions, air quality , deposition and water quality. It includes discussions of the sources of nitrogen and



### g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

ecos ys tem protection are those levels that result in an amount of deposition that is less than the amount of deposition that a given ecos ys tem can accept without defined levels of degradation. ramework developed in the REA, the framework we used to structure and to further develop the indicator, form, level, and averaging time of such as standard in section III of this propos al is depicted below and highlights the three key linkages that need to be considered in developing an

Sim plified conceptual design of the form of an aquatic acidification standard

Policy Assessment

. includes staff’s evaluation of the policy implications of the scientific assessment of the evidence presented and assessed in the ISA and the results of quantitative assessments based on that information presented and assessed in the REA. Taken together, this information informs staff conclusions and the development of policy options in the Policy

for consideration in addressing public and welfare effects associated with the Of particular note, chapter presents information not repeated here that characterizes emissions, air quality , deposition and water quality. It includes discussions of the sources of nitrogen and

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

26 sulfur in the atmosphere as well as current ambient air quality monitoring networks and models. 1 Additional information in this section includes ecological modeling and water quality data 2
sources. 3 Section II.A presents a discussion of the effects associated with oxides of nitrogen and 4
s ulfur in the ambient air. The discussion is organized around the ty pes of effects being 5 considered, including direct effects of gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur , deposition

- related 6 effects related to acidification and nutrient enrichment , and other e ffects such as materials 7 damage, climate

- related effects and mercury methylation

. 8 Section II
. B presents a summary and discussion of the risk and exposure assessment 9 performed for each of the four major effects categories. The REA uses case studies repres enting 10 the broad geographic variability of the impacts from oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to conclude 11 that there are ongoing adverse effects in many ecosy stems from deposition of oxides of nitrogen 12 and sulfur and that under current emissions scenarios thes e effects are likely to continue. 13 Section II
. C presents a discussion of adversity linking ecological effects to measures that 14 can be used to characterize the extent to which such effects are reasonabl y considered to be 15 adverse to public welfare. This involves consideration of how to characterize adversity from a 16 public welfare perspec tive. In so doing, consideration is given to the concept of ecos ys tem 17 services, the evidence of effects on ecos ys tem services, and how ecos ys tem services can be 18 linked to ecological indicators. 19 Section II
. D presents an assessment of the adequacy of the c urrent oxides of nitrogen and 20 oxides of sulfur secondary standards. Consideration is given to the adequacy of protection 21 afforded b y the current standards for both direct and deposition

- related effects, as well as to the 22 appropriateness of the fundamental structure and the basic elements of the current standards for 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

27 providing protection from deposition

- related effects. Considerations as to the extent to which 1 deposition

- related effects that could reasonably be judged to be adverse to public welfare are 2
oc curring under current conditions which are allowed b y the current standards is also considered

. 3 Discussion of the structures and basic elements of the current NO 2 and SO 2 secondary standards 4 and whether they are adequate to protect against such effects is presented

. 5 A. Ecological Effects 6 This section discusses the known or anticipated ecological effects associated with oxides 7 of nitrogen and sulfur, including the direct effects of gas

- phase exposure to oxides of nitrogen 8 and sulfur (section II.A.1) and effe cts associated with deposition

- related exposure (sections 9 II.A.2 and 3)

. Section II .A. 2 addresses effects related to acidification of aquatic and terrestrial 10
ecos ys tems and s ection II A.3 addresses effects related to nutrient enrichment of aquatic and 11 terrestrial ecos ys tems
. These sections also address questions about the nature and magnitude of 12
ecos ys tem responses to reactive nitrogen and sulfur deposition, including responses related to 13 acidification, nutrient depletion, and, in Secti on II.A 4 the mobilization of toxic metals in 14 sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecos ys tems . T he uncertainties and limitations associated with the 15 evidence of such effects are also discussed throughout this section

. 16 1. Effects Associated with Gas

-Phase Oxid es of Nitrogen and Sulfur 17 E cological effects on vegetation as discussed in earlier reviews as well as the I SA can be 18 attributed to gas

- phase oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Acute and chronic exposures to gaseous 19 pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), n itrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), nitric oxide (NO), nitric acid 20 (HNO 3 ) and perox yacetyl nitrite (PAN) are associated with negative impacts to vegetation. The 21 current secondary

NAAQS were set to protect against direct damage to vegetation by exposure to 22 gas - phase oxi des of nitrogen and sulfur , such as foliar injury , decreased photosy nthesis, and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

28 decreased growth. The following summary is a concise overview of the known or anticipated 1 effects to vegetation caused by gas phase nitrogen and sulfur

. Most phototoxic effe cts associated 2 with gas phase oxides of nitrogen and sulfur occur at levels well above ambient concentrations 3 observed in the U.S. (US EPA, 2008, section 3.4.2.4). 4

a. Nature of ecosystem responses to gas

- phase nitrogen and sulfur 5 The 2008 I SA found that gas phase N and S are associated with direct phy totoxic effects 6 (US EPA, 2008, section 4.4). The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between 7 exposure to SO 2 and injury to vegetation (US EPA, 2008, section 4.4.1 and 3.4.2.1). Acute foliar 8 inj ury

to vegetation from SO 2 may occur at levels above the current secondary standard (3

- h 9 average of 0.50 ppm). Effects on growth, reduced photosy nthesis and decreased yi eld of 10 vegetation are also associated with increased SO 2 exposure concentration and tim e of exposure. 11 The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to NO, NO 2 12 and PAN and injury to vegetation (US EPA, 2008, section 4.4.2 and 3.4.2.2). At sufficient 13 concentrations, NO, NO 2 and PAN can decrease photosy nthesis and induce visible foliar injury 14 to plants. Evidence is also sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to HNO 3 15 and changes to vegetation (US EPA, 2008, section 4.4.3 and 3.4.2.3). Phytotoxic effects of this 16 pollutant include damage to the leaf cuticle in vascular plants and disappearance of some 17 sensitive lichen species. 18 b. Magnitude of ecosystem response to gas

- phase nitrogen and sulfur 19 Vegetation in ecos ys tems near sources of gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or where 20 SO 2 , NO, NO 2 , PAN and HNO 3 are most concentrated are more likel y to be impacted b y these 21 pollutants. Uptake of these pollutants in a plant canopy is a complex process involving 22 adsorption to s urfaces (leaves, stems and soil) and absorption into leaves (US EPA, 2008, section 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

29 3.4.2). The functional relationship between ambient concentrations of gas phase oxides of 1 nitrogen and sulfur and specific plant response are impacted b y internal factors s uch as rate of 2 stomatal conductance and plant detoxification mechanisms, and external factors including plant 3 water status, light, temperature, humidity , and pollutant exposure regime (US EPA, 2008, section 4 3.4.2). 5 Entry

of gases into a leaf is dependent upon phy sical and chemical processes of gas phase 6 as well as to stomatal aperture. The aperture of the stomata is controlled largely by the 7 prevailing environmental conditions, such as water availability , humidity , temperature, and light 8 intensity . When the stomata are closed, resistance to gas uptake is high and the plant has a very 9 low degree of susceptibility to injury . Mosses and lichens do not have a protective cuticle barrier 10 to gaseous pollutants or stomata and are generall y more sensitive to gaseo us sulfur and nitrogen 11 than vascular plants (US EPA, 2008, section 3.4.2). 12 The appearance of foliar injury can vary significantly

across species and growth 13 conditions affecting stomatal conductance in vascular plants (US EPA, 200 9 , section 6.4.1). For 14
e xample, damage to lichens from SO 2 exposure include s decrease d photosynthesis and 15 respiration, damage to the algal component of the lichen, leakage of electroly tes, inhibition of 16 nitrogen fixation, decreased K+ absorption, and structural changes. 17 The phy

t otoxic effects of gas phase oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are dependent on the 18 exposure concentration and duration and species sensitivity to these pollutants. Effects to 19 vegetation associated with oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are therefore variable acro ss the U.S. 20 and tend to be higher near sources of photochemical smog. For example, SO 2 is considered to be 21 the primary

factor contributing to the death of lichens in many urban and industrial areas

. 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

30 The I SA states there is very limited new research on phy totoxic effects of NO, NO 2 , PAN 1 and HNO 3 at concentrations currentl y observed in the United States with the exception of some 2 lichen species ( US EPA, 2008, section 4.4). Past and current HNO 3 concentrations may be 3 contributing to the decline in lichen s pecies in the Los Angeles basin . Most phy totoxic effects 4 associated with gas phase oxides of nitrogen and sulfur occur at levels well above ambient 5 concentrations observed in the U.S. (US EPA, 2008, section 3.4.2.4). 6 2. Acidification Effects Associated with Deposition of Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur 7 Sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere undergo a complex mix of reactions 8 in gaseous, liquid, and solid phases to form various acidic compounds. These acidic compounds 9 are removed from the atmosphe re through deposition: either wet (e.g., rain, snow), fog or cloud, 10 or dry

(e.g., gases, particles). Deposition of these acidic compounds to ecosy stems can lead to 11 effects on ecos ys tem structure and function. Following deposition, these compounds can, in 12
s ome instances unless retained b y soil or biota, leach out of the soils in the form of sulfate (SO 4 2

- 13 ) and nitrate (NO 3 - ), leading to the acidification of surface waters. The effects on ecosy stems 14 depend on the magnitude and rate of deposition, as well as a host of biogeochemical processes 15 occurring in the soils and waterbodies ( US EPA, 200 9 , section 2.1). The chemical forms of 16 nitrogen that may

contribute to acidifying deposition include both oxidized and reduced chemical 17 species , including NH x . 18 When sulfur or nitrogen leaches from soils to surface waters in the form of SO 4 2

- or NO 3 - , 19 an equivalent amount of positive cations, or countercharge, is also transported. This maintains 20 electroneutrality . I f the countercharge is provided by base cations, such as calcium (Ca2+ ), 21 magnesium (Mg 2+ ), sodium (Na+ ), or potassium (K+ ), rather than h ydrogen (H + ) and dissolved 22 inorganic aluminum, the acidity of the soil water is neutralized, but the base saturation of the soil 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

31 decreases. Continued SO 4 2

- or NO 3 - leaching can deplete the available base cation pool in soil. 1 As the base cations are removed, continued deposition and leaching of SO 4 2

- and/or NO 3 - (with 2 H + and Al 3+ ) leads to acidification of soil water, and by connection, surface water. Introduction 3 of strong ac id anions such as sulfate and nitrate to an already acidic soil, whether naturally or due 4 to anthropogenic activities, can lead to instantaneous acidification of waterbodies through direct 5 runoff without an y significant change in base cation saturation. Th e ability of a watershed to 6 neutralize acidic deposition is determined by a variety of biogeoph ys ical factors including 7 weathering rates, bedrock composition, vegetation and microbial processes, phy sical and 8 chemical characteristics of soils and hydrologic flowpaths. (US EPA, 200 9 , section 2.1) Some of 9 these factors such as vegetation and soil depth are highl y variable over small spatial scales such 10 as meters, but can be aggregated to evaluate patterns over larger spatial scales. Acidifying 11 deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and the chemical and biological responses associated 12 with these inputs vary temporally

. Chronic or long

- term deposition processes in the time scale of 13 ye ars to decades result in increases in inputs of N and S to ecos ys tems an d the associated 14 ecological effects. Episodic or short term (i.e., hours or day s) deposition refers to events in which 15 the level of the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of a lake or stream is temporaril y lowered. In 16 aquatic ecosy stems, short

- term (i.e., h ours or day s) episodic changes in water chemistry can have 17 significant biological effects. Episodic acidification refers to conditions during precipitation or 18 snowmelt events when proportionately more drainage water is routed through upper soil horizons 19 that tend to provide less acid neutralizing than is passing through deeper soil horizons (US EPA, 20 200 9 , section 4.2). In addition, the accumulated sulfate and nitrate in snow packs can provide a 21 surge of acidic inputs. Some streams and lakes may have chro nic or base flow chemistry that is 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

32 suitable for aquatic biota, but may be subject to occasional acidic episodes with deleterious 1 consequences to sensitive biota. 2 The following summary is a concise overview of the known or anticipated effects caused 3 by aci dification to ecos ys tems within the United States. Acidification affects both terrestrial and 4 freshwater aquatic ecosystems. 5

a. Nature of acidification

- related ecosystem responses 6 The I SA concluded that deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and NH x leads to the 7 varying degrees of acidification of ecos ys tems (US EPA, 2008 ). In the process of acidification, 8 biogeochemical components of terrestrial and freshwater aquatic ecos ys tems are altered in a way 9 that leads to effects on biological organisms. Deposition to terrestrial ecosy stems often moves 10 through the soil and eventually leaches into adjacent water bodies. 11 i. Aquatic ecosystems 12 The scientific evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between acidifying 13 deposition and effects on biogeoc hemistry and biota in aquatic ecos ys tems (US EPA, 2008, 14 section 4.2.2). The strongest evidence comes from studies of surface water chemistry in which 15 acidic deposition is observed to alter sulfate and nitrate concentrations in surface waters, the sum 16 of ba se cations, ANC, diss olved inorganic aluminum and pH (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.2). 17 ANC is a key

indicator of acidification with relevance to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems. 18 ANC is useful because it integrates the overall acid

- base status of a lake or stream and reflects 19 how aquatic ecos ys tems respond to acidic deposition over time. There is also a relationship 20 between ANC and the surface water constituents that directl y contribute to or ameliorate acidity

21 related stress, in particular, concentrations of h ydrogen ion (as pH), Ca2+ , and aluminum. 22 Moreover, low pH surface waters leach aluminum from soils, which is quite lethal to fish and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

33 other aquatic organisms. In aquatic s ys tems, there is a direct relationship between ANC and fish 1 and phy

to
- zoop lankton diversity

and abundance

. 2 Low ANC coincides with effects on aquatic s ys tems (e.g., individual species fitness loss 3 or death, reduced species richness, altered community structure). At the community level, 4 species richness is positively correlated with pH and ANC because energy cost in maintaining 5 phy siological homeostasis, growth, and reproduction is high at low ANC levels. For example, 6 there is a logistic relationship between fish species richness and ANC class for Adirondack Case 7 Study

Area lake s that indicates the probability of occurrence of an organism for a given value of 8 ANC

. Biota are generally not harmed when ANC values are >100 microequivalents per liter 9 (μeq/L). The number of fish species also peaks at ANC values >100 μeq/L. Below 100 μ eq/L 10 ANC , fish fitness and community diversity begin to decline (US EPA, section 4.2) . Specificall y 11
at ANC levels between 100 and 50 μeq/L , the fitness of sensitive species (e.g., brook trout, 12 zooplankton) begins to decline. When ANC concentrations are <50 μeq/L, they are generall y 13 associated with death or loss of fitness of biota that are sensitive to acidification. 14 Consistent and coherent documentation from multiple studies on various species from all 15 major trophic levels of aquatic sy stems shows that geo chemical alteration caused b y acidification 16 can result in the loss of acid

- sensitive biological species (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.3). This is 17 most often discussed with relation to pH. For example, in the Adirondacks, of the 53 fish species 18 recorded in Adirondack lakes about half (26 species) were absent from lakes with pH below 6.0. 19 Biological effects are linked to changes in water chemistry including decreases in ANC and pH 20 and increases in inorganic Al concentration. The direct biological effects are caused b y lowered 21 pH which leads to increased inorganic Al concentrations (US EPA, 20 11 , Figures 3

- 1 and 3

- 2 ). 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

34 While ANC level does not cause direct biological harm it is a good overall indicator of the risk 1 of acidification (US EPA, 20 11 , section 3.1.3). 2 There are clear associations between ANC, pH, and aquatic species mortality and health 3 which are summarized in section 3.1.1 of the Policy Assessment

. Significant harm to sensitive 4 aquatic species has been observed at pH levels below 6. Normal s tream pH levels with little to 5 no toxicity

range from 6 to 7 (MacAvo y et al, 1995). Baker et al (1990) observed that “lakes 6 with pH less than approximately 6.0 contain significantly

fewer species than lakes with pH levels 7 above 6.0”. As noted in Chapter 3, ty picall y at pH <4.5 and an ANC <0 μeq/L , complete to 8
near - complete loss of many taxa of organisms occur, including fish and aquatic insect 9 populations, whereas other taxa are reduced to only acidophilic species. A cid N eutralizing 10 C apacity is a measur e of how much acid can be neutralized in a specific surface water sy stem. 11 An ANC value of 0 or below means that surface waters have no ability to neutralize any 12 additional acid inputs. 13 Additional evidence can help refine the understanding of effects occurring at pH levels 14 between 4.5 and 6. When pH levels are below 5.6, relativel y lower trout survival rates were 15 observed in the Shenandoah National Park. In field observations, when pH levels dropped to 5, 16 mortality

rates went to 100 percent. (Bulger et al, 2000). At pH levels ranging from 5.4 to 5.8, 17 cumulative mortality continues to increase. Several studies have shown that trout exposed to 18 water with varying pH levels and fish larvae showed increasing mortality as pH levels decrease. 19 In one study

al most 100 percent mortality was observed at a pH of 4.5 compared to almost 100 20 percent survival at a pH of 6.5. Intermediate pH values (6.0, 5.5) in all cases showed reduced 21 survival compared with the control (6.5), but not by statisticall y significant amo unts (US EPA, 22 2008, section 3.2.3.3). 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

35 One important indicator of acid stress is increased fish mortality . The response of fish to 1 pH is not uniform across species. A number of s yn optic survey s indicated loss of species 2 diversity

and absence of several fish species in the pH range of 5.0 to 5.5. If pH is lower, there is 3 a greater likelihood that more fish species could be lost without replacement, resulting in 4 decreased richness and diversity . In general, populations of salmonids are not found at pH le vels 5 less than 5.0, and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) populations are usually not found at 6 pH values less than about 5.2 to 5.5. From Table 3

- 1, only one study

showed significant 7 mortality

effects above a pH of 6, while a number of studies showed significant mortality when 8 pH levels are at or below 5.5. 9 The highest pH level for any of the studies reported in the I SA, is 6.0, suggesting that pH 10 above 6.0 is protective against mortality effects for most species. Most thresholds are in the 11 range of pH of 5.0 to 6.0, which suggests that a target pH should be no lower than 5.0. 12 Protection against mortality in some recreationally important species such as lake trout (pH 13 threshold of 5.6) and crappie (pH threshold of 5.5), combined with the evidence of effects on 14 larval and embryo survival suggests that pH levels greater than 5.5 should be targeted to provide 15 protection against mortality effects throughout the life stages of fish. 16 Non
- lethal effects have been observed at pH levels as high as 6. A study in the 17 Shenandoah National Park found that the condition factor, a measure of fish health expressed as 18 fish weight/length multiplied by a scaling constant, is positively correlated with stream pH 19 levels, and that the condition factor is reduced in stre ams with a pH of 6.0 ( US EPA, 2008, 20 section 3.2.3.3). 21 Biodiversity is another indicator of aquatic ecos ys tem health. A key study in the 22 Adirondacks found that lakes with a pH of 6.0 had only half the potential species of fish (27 of 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

36 53 potential species) . There is often a positive relationship between pH and number of fish 1 species, at least for pH values between about 5.0 and 6.5, or ANC values between about 0 to 2 100 μeq/L . Such observed relationships are complicated, however, by the tendency

for smaller 3 lakes and streams, having smaller watersheds, to also support fewer fish species, irrespective of 4 acid

- base chemistry . This pattern may be due to a decrease in the number of available niches as 5 stream or lake size decreases. Nevertheless, fish species richness is relatively easily determined 6 and is one of the most useful indicators of biological effects of surface water acidification. 7 Changes in stream water pH and ANC also contribute to declines in taxonomic richness 8 of zooplankton, and macroinvertebrate s which are often sources of food for fish, birds and other 9 animal species in various ecos ys tems. These fish may also serve as a source of food and 10 recreation for humans. Acidification of ecos ys tems has been shown to disrupt food web 11 dy namics causing alte ration to the diet, breeding distribution , and reproduction of certain species 12 of birds (US EPA, 2008, section 4.2.2.2. and Table 3

- 9). For example, breeding distribution of 13 the common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula ) , an insectivorous duck , may be affected by 14 changes in acidifying deposition. Similarly , decreases in prey diversity and quantity

have been 15 observed to create feeding problems for nesting pairs of loons on low

- pH lakes in the 16 Adirondacks. 17 ii. Terrestrial ecosystems 18 In terrestrial ecos ys tems, the evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between 19 acidifying deposition and changes in biogeochemistry ( US EPA, 2008, section 4.2.1.1). The 20 strongest evidence comes from studies of forested ecos ys tems, with supportive information on 21 other plant taxa, including shrubs and lichens (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.2.1.). Three useful 22 indicators of chemical changes and acidification effects on terrestrial ecos ystems, showing 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

37 consistency

and coherence among multiple studies are: soil base saturation, Al concentrations in 1 soil water and soil C:N ratio (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.2.2). 2 As discussed in the I SA and REA, i n soils with base saturation less than about 15 to 20%, 3 exchange chemistry

is dominated by

Al. Under these conditions, responses to input s of sulfuric 4 acid and HNO 3 largel y involve the release and mobilization of dissolved inorganic Al. The 5 effect can be neutralized by weathering from geologic parent material or base cation exchange. 6 The Ca2+ and Al concentrations in soil water are strongl y influenced b y soil acidification and 7 both have been shown to have quantitative links to tree health, including Al interference with 8 Ca2+ uptake and Al toxicity to roots. Effects of nitrification and associ ated acidification and 9 cation leaching have been consistently shown to occur onl y in soils with a C:N ratio below about 10 20 to 25. 11 Soil acidification caused by acidic deposition has been shown to cause decreased growth 12 and increased susceptibility to disea se and injury

in sensitive tree species. Red spruce ( Picea 13 rubens ) dieback or decline has been observed across high elevation areas in the Adirondack, 14 Green and White mountains. The frequency of freezing injury

to red spruce needles has 15 increased over th e past 40 years, a period that coincided with increased emissions of S and N 16 oxides and increased acidifying deposition. Acidifying deposition can contribute to dieback in 17 sugar maple (

Acer saccharum ) through depletion of cations from soil with low levels of available 18 Ca. Grasslands are likel y less sensitive to acidification than forests due to grassland soils being 19 generall y rich in base cations. 20 iii. Ecosystem sensitivity 21 The intersection between current deposition loading, historic loading, and sensitivity 22 defines the ecological vulnerability to the effects of acidification. Freshwater aquatic and some 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

38 terrestrial ecos ys tems, notably forests, are the ecosy stem ty pes which are most sensitive to 1 acidification. The IS A reports that the principal factor gover ning the sensitivity

of terrestrial and 2 aquatic ecosy stems to acidification from sulfur and nitrogen deposition is geology (particularly 3 surficial geology). Geologic formations having low base cation supply generall y underlie the 4 watersheds of acid

- sensiti ve lakes and streams. Other factors that contribute to the sensitivity of 5 soils and surface waters to acidifying deposition include topography , soil chemistry , land use, 6 and hydrologic flowpaths. Episodic and chronic acidification tends to occur in areas that have 7 base

- poor bedrock, high relief, and shallow soils (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.4.1). 8 b. Magnitude of acidification

- related ecosystem responses 9 Terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems differ in their response to acidifying deposition. 10 Therefore the magnitu de of ecos ys tem response is described separatel y for aquatic and terrestrial 11
ecos ys tems in the following sections. The magnitude of response refers to both the severity of 12 effects and the spatial extent of the U.S. which is affected. 13 i. Aquatic acidification 14 Freshwater ecos ys tem survey s and monitoring in the eastern United States have been 15 conducted b y man y programs since the mid

- 1980s, including EPA’s Environmental Monitoring 16 and Assessment Program (EMAP), National Surface Water Survey (NSWS), Temporall y 17 Integrated Monitoring of Ecosy stems (TIME), and L ong - term Monitoring (LTM) programs. 18 Based on anal ys es of surface water data from these programs, New England, the Adirondack 19 Mountains, the Appalachian Mountains (northern Appalachian Plateau and Ridge/Blue Ri dge 20 region), and the Upper Midwest contain the most sensitive lakes and streams (i.e., ANC less than 21 about 50 μeq/L). Portions of northern Florida also contain many acidic and low

- ANC lakes and 22 streams, although the role of acidifying deposition in this re gion is less clear. The western U.S. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

39 contains many

of the surface waters most sensitive to potential acidification effects, but with the 1 exception of the L os Angeles Basin and surrounding areas, the levels of acidifying deposition are 2 low in most areas. Therefore, acidification of surface waters by acidic deposition is not as 3 prevalent in the western U.S., and the extent of chronic surface water acidification that has 4 occurred in that region to date has likel y been very limited relative to the Eastern U.S. (US EPA, 5 2008, section 3.2.4.2 and US EPA, 200 9 , section 4.2.2). 6 There are a number of species including fish, aquatic insects, other invertebrates and 7 algae that are sensitive to acidification and cannot survive, compete, or reproduce in acidic 8 waters ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.3). Decreases in ANC and pH have been shown to 9 contribute to declines in species richness and declines in abundance of zooplankton, 10 macroinvertebrates, and fish. Reduced growth rates have been attributed to acid stress in a 11 numb er of fish species including Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Chinook salmon (Oncorh ynchus 12 tshawy

tscha), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), rainbow trout (Oncorhy nchis my kiss), brook 13 trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). In response to small to moderate 14 changes in acidity , acid

- sensitive species are often replaced by other more acid

- tolerant species, 15 resulting in changes in community composition and richness. The effects of acidification are 16 continuous, with more species being affect ed at higher degrees of acidification. At a point, 17 ty picall y a pH <4.5 and an ANC <0 μeq/L , complete to near

- complete loss of many taxa of 18 organisms occur, including fish and aquatic insect populations, whereas other taxa are reduced to 19 only

acidophilic species. These changes in taxa composition are associated with the high energy 20 cost in maintaining ph ys iological homeostasis, growth, and reproduction at low ANC levels (US 21 EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.3) . Decreases in species richness related to acidification have been 22 observed in the Adirondack Mountains and Catskill Mountains of New York, New England and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

40 Pennsylvania, and Virginia. From the sensitive areas identified by the ISA, further “case study” 1 anal ys es on aquatic ecosy stems in the Adirondack Mountains and Shenandoah National Park 2 were conducted to better characterize ecological risk associated with acidification (US EPA, 3 200 9 , section 4). 4 ANC is the most widely used indicator of acid sensitivity and has been found in various 5 studies to be the best sin gle indicator of the biological response and health of aquatic 6 communities in acid

- sensitive sy stems (Lien et al., 1992; Sullivan et al., 2006; US EPA, 2008). 7 In the REA, surface water trends in SO 4 2

- and NO 3 - concentrations and ANC levels were 8 anal yz ed to affirm the understanding that reductions in deposition could influence the risk of 9 acidification. ANC values have been categorized according to their effects on biota, as shown in 10 the table below . Monitoring data from TIME/LTM and EMAP programs were asses sed for the 11 ye ars 1990 to 2006, and past, present, and future water quality levels were estimated by both 12 steady

- state and dyn amic biogeochemical models. 13

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

41 Table II - 1. Ecological effects associated with alternative levels of acid neutralizing capacity 1 (ANC ). (source: USEPA, Acid Rain Program) 2 Category

L abel ANC Levels and Expected Ecological Effects
Acute Concern <0 μeq/L Complete loss of fish populations is expected. Planktonic communities have extremel y low diversity and are dominated by

acidophilic taxa. The numbers of individuals in plankton species that are present are greatl y reduced. Severe Concern 0

–20 μeq/L Highl y sensitive to episodic acidification. During episodes of high acidifying deposition, brook trout populations may experience lethal effects. The diversity and distribution of zooplankton communities decline sharpl y. Elevated Concern 20

– 50 μeq/L Fish species richness is greatl y reduced (i.e., more than half of expected species can be missing). On average, brook trout populations experience sublethal effects, including loss of health, ability to reproduce, and fitness. Diversity and distribution of zoo plankton communities decline. Moderate Concern 50

– 100

μeq/L Fish species richness begins to decline (i.e., sensitive species are lost from

lakes). Brook trout populations are sensitive and variable, with possible sublethal effects. Diversity and distribution of zooplankton communities also begin to decline as species that are sensitive to acidifying deposition are affected. Low Concern >100 μeq/L Fish species richness may be unaffected. Reproducing brook trout populations are expected where habitat is suitable. Zooplankton communities are unaffected and exhibit expected diversity and distribution. 3 Studies on fish species richness in the Adirondacks Case Study Area demonstrated the 4 effect of acidification. Of the 53 fish species recorded in Adirondack Case Study Area lakes, 5 only 27 species were found in lakes with a pH <6.0. The 26 species missing from lakes with a 6 pH <6.0 include important recreational species, such as Atlantic salmon, tiger trout (Salmo trutta 7 X Salvelinus fontinalis ), red breast sunfish (

Lepomis auritus ), bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), 8

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

42 tiger musky (

Esox masquinongy X lucius ), walleye (Sander vitreus ), alewife ( Alosa 1 pseudoharengus ), and kokanee ( Oncorhynchus nerka ), as well as ecologically important 2 minnows that are common ly consumed b y sport fish. A survey of 1,469 lakes in the late 1980s 3 found 346 lakes to be devoid of fish. Among lakes with fish, there was a relationship between 4 the number of fish species and lake pH, ranging from about one species per lake for lakes hav ing 5 a pH <4.5 to about six species per lake for lakes having a pH >6.5. In the Adirondacks, a 6 positive relationship exists between the pH and ANC in lakes and the number of fish species 7 present in those lakes ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.4). 8 Since the mi d

- 1990s, streams in the Shenandoah Case Study Area have shown slight 9 declines in NO 3 - and SO 4 2

- concentrations in surface waters. The 2006 concentrations are still 10 above pre

- acidification (1860) conditions. MAGIC modeling predicts surface water 11 concentrat ions of NO 3 - and SO 4 2

- are10

- and 32

- fold higher, respectively , in 2006 than in 1860. 12 The estimated average ANC across 60 streams in the Shenandoah Case Study Area is 57.9 μeq/L 13 (± 4.5 μeq/L). 55% of all monitored streams in the Shenandoah Case Study Area have a current 14 risk of Elevated, Severe, or Acute. Of the 55%, 18% are chronically acidic today

( US EPA, 15 200 9 , section 4.2.4.3). 16 Based on a deposition scenario for this study area that maintains current emission levels 17 from 2020 to 2050, the simulation f orecast indicates that a large number of streams still have 18 Elevated to Acute problems with acidity in 2050 . In fact, from 2006 to 2050, the percentage of 19 streams with Acute Concern is predicted to increase by 5%, while the percentage of streams in 20 Moderat e Concern decreases b y 5%. 21 Biological effects of increased acidification documented in the Shenandoah Case Study 22 Area include a decrease in the condition factor in blacknose dace and a decrease in fish 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

43 biodiversity

associated with decreasing stream ANC. On average, the fish species richness is 1 lower b y one fish species for every 21 μeq/L decrease in ANC in Shenandoah National Park 2 streams (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.3.4). 3 ii. Terrestrial acidification 4 The I SA identified a variety of indicators that can be used to measure the effects of 5 acidification in soils. Most effects of terrestrial acidification are observed in sensitive forest 6
ecos ys tem in the U.S. Tree health has been linked to the availability of base cations (Bc) in soil 7 (such as Ca2+ , Mg 2+ and po tassium), as well as soil aluminum (Al ) content. Tree species show a 8 range of sensitivities to Ca/Al and Bc/Al soil molar ratios, therefore these are good chemical 9 indicators because they directly relate to the biological effects. Critical Bc/Al molar rati os for a 10 large variety of tree species ranged from 0.2 to 0.8. This range is similar to critical ratios of 11 Ca/Al. Plant toxicity or nutrient antagonism was reported to occur at Ca/Al molar ratios ranging 12 from 0.2 to 2.5 (US EPA, 200 9 ). 13 There has been n o s ys tematic national survey of terrestrial ecos ys tems to determine the 14 extent and distribution of terrestrial ecos ys tem sensitivity to the effects of acidifying deposition. 15 However, one preliminary national evaluation estimated that ~15% of forest ecosy st ems in the 16 U.S. exceed the estimated critical load based on soil ANC leaching for S and N deposition by 17 >250 eq/ha

/yr (McNulty

et al., 2007). Forests of the Adirondack Mountains of New York, Green 18 Mountains of Vermont, White Mountains of New Hampshire, the Allegheny Plateau of 19 Pennsylvania, and high

- elevation forest ecos ys tems in the southern Appalachians are the regions 20 most sensitive to terrestrial acidification effects from acidifying deposition (US EPA, 2008, 21 section 3.2.4.2). While studies show some re covery of surface waters, there are widespread 22 measurements of ongoing depletion of exchangeable base cations in forest soils in the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

44 northeastern U.S. despite recent decreases in acidifying deposition, indicating a slow recovery 1 time. 2 In the REA, a critic al load anal ys is was performed for sugar maple and red spruce forests 3 in the eastern United States by using Bc/Al ratio in acidified forest soils as an indicator to assess 4 the impact of nitrogen and sulfur deposition on tree health. These are the two most commonly 5 studied tree species in North America for effects of acidification. At a Bc/Al ratio of 1.2, red 6 spruce growth can be decreased b y 20%. Sugar maple growth can be decreased by 20% at a 7 Bc/Al ratio of 0.6 (U S EPA, 2009 , section 4.4). The REA anal ys i s determined the health of at 8 least a portion of the sugar maple and red spruce growing in the United States may have been 9 compromised with acidifyingtotal nitrogen and sulfur deposition. Specifically , total nitrogen and 10 sulfur deposition levels exceeded three selected critical loads for tree growth in 3% to 75% of all 11 sugar maple plots across 24 states

-- that is, it exceeded the highest (least stringent) of the three 12 critical loads in 3% of plots, and the lowest (most stringent) in 75% of plots . For red spruce, total 13 nitrogen and sulfur deposition levels exceeded three selected critical loads in 3% to 36% of all 14 red spruce plots across eight states ( US EPA, 200 9 , section 4.4). 15

c. Key uncertainties associated with acidification 16 There are different levels o f uncertainty associated with relationships between deposition, 17 ecological effects and ecological indicators. In Chapter 7 of the REA, the case study analy ses 18 associated with each targeted effect area were s ynthesized by identifying the strengths, 19 limitat ions, and uncertainties associated with the available data, modeling approach, and 20 relationship between the selected ecological indicator and atmospheric deposition as described 21 by the ecological effect function (US EPA, 200 9 , Figure 1

- 1). A further discu ssion of 22 uncertainty in aquatic and terrestrial ecos ys tems is presented below. The key uncertainties were 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

45 characterized as follows to evaluate the strength of the scientific basis for setting a national 1 standard to protect against a given effect (US EPA, 2 00 9 , section 7): 2 (1) Data Availability: high, medium or low quality . This criterion is based on the availability and 3 robustness of data sets, monitoring networks, availability of data that allows for extrapolation 4 to larger assessment areas, and input paramete rs for modeling and developing the ecological 5 effect function. The scientific basis for the ecological indicator selected is also incorporated 6 into this criterion. 7 (2) Modeling Approach: high, fairl y high, intermediate, or low confidence. This value is based 8
o n the strengths and limitations of the models used in the anal ys is and how accepted they are 9 by

the scientific community for their application in this analy sis. 10 (3) Ecological Effect Function: high, fairl y high, intermediate, or low confidence. This ranking is 11 based on how well the ecological effect function describes the relationship between 12 atmospheric deposition and the ecological indicator of an effect. 13 i. Aquatic acidification 14 The REA concludes that the available data are robust and considered high quality

. There 15 is high confidence about the use of these data and their value for extrapolating to a larger 16 regional population of lakes. The EPA TIME/LTM network represents a source of long

- term, 17 representative sampling. Data on sulfate concentrations, nitrate concentrations and ANC from 18 1990 to 2006 used for this analy sis as well as EPA EMAP and REMAP survey s, provide 19 considerable data on surface water trends. 20 There is fairly high confidence associated with modeling and input parameters. 21 Uncertainties in water quality estimates (i.e., ANC) from MAGIC were derived from multiple 22 site calibrations. Pre
- acidification refers to retrospective modeling to estimate water quality 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

46 conditions before man

- made contributions of acidifying inputs. The models are evaluated under 1 current conditions to determine how well they replicate observed ANC values. The 95% 2 confidence interval for pre

- acidification of lakes was an average of 15 μeq/L difference in ANC 3 concentrations or 10% and 8 μeq/Lor 5% for streams (US EPA, 200 9 , section 7.1.2). The use of 4 the critical load model to estimate aquatic critical loads is limited by the uncertainties associated 5 with runoff and surface water measurements and in estimating the catchment supply of base 6 cations from the w eathering of be drock and soils (McNulty et al., 2007). 7 ii. Terrestrial acidification 8 The available data used to quantify the targeted effect of terrestrial acidification are 9 robust and considered high quality. The USFS

- Kane Experimental Forest and significant 10 amount s of research work in the Allegheny Plateau have produced extensive, peer

- reviewed data 11 sets
. Sugar maple and red spruce were the focus of the REA since they are demonstrated to be 12 negativel y affected b y soil available Ca2+ depletion and high concentratio ns of available Al, and 13 occur in areas that receive high acidifying deposition

. There is high confidence about the use of 14 the REA terrestrial acidification data and their value for extrapolating to a larger regional 15 population of forests. 16 There is high confidence associated with the models, input parameters, and assessment of 17 uncertainty used in the case study for terrestrial acidification. The Simple Mass Balance (SMB) 18 model, a commonly used and widel y applied approach for estimating critical loads, was used in 19 the REA anal ys is (US EPA, 2008, section 7.2.2). There is fairly high confidence associated with 20 the ecological effect function developed for terrestrial acidification (US EPA, 200 9 , section 21 7.2.3). 22 3. Nutrient Enrichment Effects Associated with Deposition of Oxides of Nitrogen 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

47 The following summary

is a concise overview of the known or anticipated effects caused 1 by nitrogen nutrient enrichment to ecosy stems within the United States. Nutrient

- enrichme nt 2 affects terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine ecos ys tems. Nitrogen deposition is a major source of 3 anthropogenic nitrogen. For many terrestrial and freshwater ecos ys tems other sources of 4 nitrogen including fertilizer and waste treatment are greater th an deposition. Nitrogen deposition 5 often contributes to nitrogen

- enrichment effects in estuaries, but does not drive the effects since 6 other sources of N greatly exceed N deposition. Both oxides of nitrogen and reduced forms of 7 nitrogen (NH x ) contribute to nitrogen deposition. For the most part, nitrogen effects on 8
ecos ys tems do not depend on whether the nitrogen is in oxidized or reduced form. Thus, this 9 summary

focuses on the effects of nitrogen deposition in total. 10

a. Nature of nutrient enrichment

- related ecosystem responses 11 The I SA found that deposition of nitrogen, including oxides of nitrogen and NH x , leads to 12 the nitrogen enrichment of ecos ys tems (US EPA 2008). In the process of nitrogen enrichment, 13 biogeochemical components of terrestrial and freshwater aquatic ecos ys tems are altered in a way 14 that leads to effects on biological organisms. 15 i. Aquatic ecosystems 16 In freshwater ecos ys tems, the evidence i s sufficient to infer a causal relationship between 17 N deposition and the alteration of biogeochemical cycling in freshwater aquatic ecos ys tems (US 18 EPA, 2008, section 3.3.2.3 ). N deposition is the main source of N enrichment to headwater 19 streams, lower orde r streams and high elevation lakes. The most common chemical indicators 20 that were studied included NO 3 − and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) concentration in surface 21 waters as well as Chl a:total P ratio. Elevated surface water NO 3 − concentrations occur in both 22 the eastern and western U.S. Studies report a significant correlation between N deposition and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

48 lake biogeochemistry

by identifying a correlation between wet deposition and [DI N] and Chl a: 1 Total P. Recent evidence provides examples of lakes and str eams that are limited by N and show 2 signs of eutrophication in response to N addition. 3 The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between N deposition and the 4 alteration of species richness, species composition and biodiversity in freshwate r aquatic 5
ecos ys tems (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.5.3 ). Increased N deposition can cause a shift in 6 community

composition and reduce algal biodiversity , especially in sensitive oligotrophic lakes. 7 In the IS A, the evidence is sufficient to infer a causal rel ationship between N deposition 8 and the biogeochemical cycling of N and carbon (C) in estuaries (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4.1 9 and 3.3.2.3 ). In general, estuaries tend to be nitrogen

- limited, and many currentl y receive high 10 levels of nitrogen input from hum an activities (US EPA, 200 9 , section 5.1.1 ). It is unknown if 11 atmospheric deposition alone is sufficient to cause eutrophication; however, the contribution of 12 atmospheric nitrogen deposition to total nitrogen load is calculated for some estuaries and can b e 13 >40% (US EPA, 200 9 , section 5.1.1 ). 14 The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between N deposition and the 15 alteration of species richness, species composition and biodiversity in estuarine ecos ys tems (US 16 EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4.2 and 3. 3.5.4 ). Atmospheric and non

- atmospheric sources of N 17 contribute to increased phy toplankton and algal productivity , leading to eutrophication. Shifts in 18 community

composition, reduced h ypolimnetic DO, decreases in biodiversity , and mortality of 19 submerged a quatic vegetation are associated with increased N deposition in estuarine s ys tems. 20 ii. Terrestrial Ecosystems 21 The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between N deposition and the 22 alteration of biogeochemical cycling in terrestrial ecos ys tem s (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.1.1 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

49 and 3.3.2.1 ). This is supported by numerous observational, deposition gradient and field addition 1 experiments in sensitive ecos ys tems. T he leaching of NO 3 - in soil drainage waters and the export 2 of NO 3 - in stream water w ere identified as two of the primary indictors of N enrichment. Several 3 N
- addition studies indicate that NO 3 - leaching is induced b y chronic additions of N

. Studies 4 identified in the I SA found that surface water NO 3 - concentrations exceeded 1 μeq/Lin 5 waters heds receiving about 9 to 13 kg N/ha/yr of atmospheric N deposition. N deposition 6 disrupts the nutrient balance of ecos ys tems with numerous biogeochemical effects. The chemical 7 indicators that are typically measured include NO 3 − leaching, soil C:N ratio, rates of N 8 mineralization, nitrification, denitrification, foliar N concentration, and soil water NO 3 − and 9 NH 4 + concentrations. Note that N saturation (N leaching from ecos ys tems) does not need to 10 occur to cause effects. Substantial leaching of NO 3 − from forest soils to stream water can acidify 11 downstream waters, leading to effects described in the previous section on aquatic acidification. 12 Due to the complexity of interactions between the N and C cycling, the effects of N on C budgets 13 (quantified input an d output of C to the ecosy stem) are variable. Regional trends in net 14
ecos ys tem productivity (NEP) of forests (not managed for silviculture) have been estimated 15 through models based on gradient studies and meta

- anal ys is. Atmospheric N deposition has been 16 sh own to cause increased litter accumulation and carbon storage in above

- ground woody 17 biomass. In the West, this has lead to increased susceptibility to more severe fires. Less is 18 known regarding the effects of N deposition on C budgets of non

- forest ecosy s tems. 19 The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between N deposition on the 20 alteration of species richness, species composition and biodiversity in terrestrial ecos ys tems (US 21 EPA, 2008, section 4.3.1.2 ). Some organisms and ecos ys tems are m ore sensitive to N deposition 22 and effects of N deposition are not observed in all habitats. The most sensitive terrestrial taxa to 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

50 N deposition are lichens. Empirical evidence indicates that lichens in the U.S. are affected by 1 deposition levels as low as 3 kg N/ha/yr. Alpine ecosystems are also sensitive to N deposition, 2 changes in an individual species ( Carex rupestris ) were estimated to occur at deposition levels 3 near 4 kg N /ha/y

r and modeling indicates that deposition levels near 10 kg N/ha/yralter pl ant 4 community

assemblages. In several grassland ecosy stems, reduced species diversity and an 5 increase in non

- native, invasive species are associated with N deposition. 6 iii. Ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment 7 The numerous ecos ys tem ty pes that occur a cross the U.S. have a broad range of 8 sensitivity

to N deposition (U S EPA, 2008, Table 4

- 4 ). Increased deposition to N

- limited 9
ecos ys tems can lead to production increases that may be either beneficial or adverse depending 10 on the sy stem and management goals

. 11 Organisms in their natural environment are commonly adapted to a specific regime of 12 nutrient availability . Change in the availability of one important nutrient, such as N, may result 13 in an imbalance in ecological stoichiometry , with effects on ecos ys tem processes, structure and 14 function. In general, N deposition to terrestrial ecosy stems causes accelerated growth rates in 15 some species deemed desirable in commercial forests but may lead to altered competitive 16 interactions among species and nutrient imb alances, ultimately affecting biodiversity . The onset 17 of these effects occurs with N deposition levels as low as 3 kg N/ha/yr in sensitive terrestrial 18
ecos ys tems to N deposition. In aquatic ecos ys tems, N that is both leached from the soil and 19 directly

depo sited to the water surface can pollute the surface water. This causes alteration of the 20 diatom community at levels as low as 1.5 kg N/ha/y r in sensitive freshwater ecos ys tems. 21 The degree of ecos ys tem effects lies at the intersection of N loading and N

- se nsitivity

. 22 N
- sensitivity

is predominately

driven by the degree to which growth is limited by nitrogen 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

51 availability . Grasslands in the western United States are typically N

- limited ecos ys tems 1 dominated by

a diverse mix of perennial forbs and grass species. A meta

- analy sis discussed in 2 the I SA (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.3), indicated that N fertilization increased aboveground 3 growth in all non

- forest ecosy stem s except for deserts. In other words, almost all terrestrial 4
ecos ys tems are N
- limited and will be altered b y the addition of anthropogenic nitrogen. 5 Likewise, a freshwater lake or stream must be N

- limited to be sensitive to N

- mediated 6 eutrophication. There are many examples of fresh waters that are N

- limited or N and 7 phosphorous (P) co

- limited (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.3.2 ). A large dataset meta

- analy sis 8 discussed in the I SA (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.3.2), found that N

- limitation occurred as 9 frequentl y as P
- limitation in freshwater ecos ys tems. Additional factors that govern the 10 sensitivity

of ecos ys tems to nutrient enrichment from N deposition include rates and form of N 11 deposition, elevation, climate, species composition, plant growth rate, length of growing season, 12 and soil N retention capacity (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3 ). Less is known about the extent and 13 distribution of the terrestrial ecos ys tems in the U.S. that are most sensitive to the effects of 14 nutrient enrichment from atmospheric N deposition c ompared to acidification. 15 Because the productivity of estuarine and near shore marine ecos ys tems is generall y 16 limited by

the availability

of N, they

are susceptible to the eutrophication effect of N deposition 17 (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4.1 ). A recent national assessment of eutrophic conditions in 18 estuaries found the most eutrophic estuaries were generall y those that had large watershed

- to
19 estuarine surface area, high human population density, high rainfall and runoff, low dilution, and 20 low flushing rates. In the REA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 21 (NOAA) National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) assessment tool, Assessment of 22 Estuarine Tropic Status (ASSETS) categorical Eutrophication Index (EI) was used to evaluate 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

52 eutrop hication due to atmospheric loading of nitrogen. ASSETS EIis an estimation of the 1 likelihood that an estuary is experiencing eutrophication or will experience eutrophication based 2 on five ecological indicators: chlorophyll a , macroalgae, dissolved oxygen , nuisance/toxic algal 3 blooms and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). 4 In the REA, two regions were selected for case study anal ys is using ASSETS EI , the 5 Chesapeake Bay

and Pamlico Sound. Both regions received an ASSETS EIrating of Bad 6 indicating that the estuary had moderate to high pressure due to overall human influence and a 7 moderate high to high eutrophic condition (US EPA, 200 9 , section s 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2 ). These 8 results were then considered with SPAtially Referenced Regression (SPARROW) modelin g to 9 develop a response curve to examine the role of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in achieving a 10 desired decrease in load. To change the Neuse River Estuary ’s EI score from Bad to Poor not 11 only

must 100% of the total atmospheric nitrogen deposition be eliminated, but considerabl y 12 more nitrogen from other sources as well must be controlled (US EPA, 200 9 , section 5.2.7.2). In 13 the Potomac River estuary, a 78% decrease of total nitrogen could move the EI score from Bad 14 to Poor (US EPA, 200 9 , section 5.2.7. 1 ). The results of this analy sis indicated decreases in 15 atmospheric deposition alone could not eliminate coastal eutrophication problems due to 16 multiple non

- atmospheric nitrogen inputs (US EPA, 200 9 , section 7.3.3 ). However, the 17 somewhat arbitrary discret eness of the EI scale can mask the benefits of decreases in nitrogen 18 between categories. 19 In general, estuaries tend to be N

- limited, and many currentl y receive high levels of N 20 input from human activities to cause eutrophication. As reported in the IS A (U S EPA, 2008, 21 section 3.2.2.2), atmospheric N loads to estuaries in the U.S. are estimated to range from 2

- 8% 22 for Guadalupe Bay , TX on the lowest end to as high as 72% for St Catherines

- Sapelo estuary , 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

53 GA. The Chesapeake Bay is an example of a large, well

- s tudied and severely eutrophic estuary 1 that is calculated to receive as much as 30% of its total N load from the atmosphere. 2 b. Magnitude of ecosystem responses 3 i. Aquatic ecosystems 4 The magnitude of ecos ys tem response may be thought of on two time scales, current 5 conditions and how ecosystems have been altered since the onset of anthropogenic N deposition. 6 As noted previousl y, studies found that N

- limitation occurs as frequently as P
- limitation in 7 freshwater ecos ys tems ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.3.2 ). Recentl y, a comprehensive study of 8 available data from the northern hemisphere surveys of lakes along gradients of N deposition 9 show increased inorganic N concentration and productivity to be correlated with atmospheric N 10 deposition. The results are unequivocal evidence of N limitation in lakes with low ambient inputs 11 of N, and increased N concentrations in lakes receiving N solel y from atmospheric N deposition. 12 It has been suggested that most lakes in the northern hemisphere may have originall y been N

13 limited, and that atmospheric N deposition has changed the balance of N and P in lakes. 14 Available data suggest that the increases in total N deposition do not have to be large to 15 elicit an ecological effect. For example, a hindcasting exercise determined that the change in 16 Rocky

Mountain National Park lake algae that occurred between 1850 and 1964 was associated 17 with an increase in wet N deposition that was only about 1.5 kg N/ha. Similar ch anges inferred 18 from lake sediment cores of the Beartooth Mountains of Wyoming also occurred at about 1.5 kg 19 N/ha deposition. Pre

- industrial inorganic N deposition is estimated to have been onl y 0.1 to 0.7 20 kg N/ha based on measurements from remote parts of the world. In the western U.S., pre

21 industrial, or background, inorganic N deposition was estimated b y to range from 0.4 to 0.7 kg 22 N/ha/y

r. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

54 Eutrophication effects from N deposition are most likely to be manifested in undisturbed, 1 low nutrient surface wate rs such as those found in the higher elevation areas of the western U.S. 2 The most severe eutrophication from N deposition effects is expected downwind of major urban 3 and agricultural centers. High concentrations of lake or streamwater NO 3 − , indicative of 4
e cos ys tem saturation, have been found at a variety of locations throughout the U.S., including the 5 San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains within the L os Angeles Air Basin, the Front Range 6 of Colorado, the Allegheny mountains of West Virginia, the Catskill Mountains of New York, 7 the Adirondack Mountains of New York, and the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee (US 8 EPA, 2008, section 3.3.8 ). 9 In contrast to terrestrial and freshwater s ys tems, atmospheric N load to estuaries 10 contributes to the total load but do es not necessarily drive the effects since other combined 11 sources of N often greatly exceed N deposition. In estuaries, N

- loading from multiple 12 anthropogenic and non

- anthropogenic pathway s leads to water quality deterioration, resulting in 13 numerous effect s including hy poxic zones, species mortality , changes in community composition 14 and harmful algal blooms that are indicative of eutrophication. The following summary is a 15 concise overview of the known or anticipated effects of nitrogen enrichment on estuaries within 16 the United States. 17 There is a scientific consensus (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4) that nitrogen

- driven 18 eutrophication in shallow estuaries has increased over the past several decades and that the 19 environmental degradation of coastal ecos ys tems d ue to nitrogen, phosphorus, and other inputs is 20 now a widespread occurrence. For example, the frequency of phyt oplankton blooms and the 21 extent and severity of hypoxia have increased in the Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico estuaries in 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

55 North Carolina and along the continental shelf adjacent to the Mississippi and Atchafalaya 1 rivers’ discharges to the Gulf of Mexico. 2 A recent national assessment of eutrophic conditions in estuaries found that 65% of the 3 assessed s ys tems had moderate to high overall eutrophic con ditions. Most eutrophic estuaries 4 occurred in the mid

- Atlantic region and the estuaries with the lowest degree of eutrophication 5 were in the North Atlantic. Other regions had mixtures of low, moderate, and high degrees of 6 eutrophication (US EPA, 2008, sec tion 4.3.4.3 ). 7 The mid

- Atlantic region is the most heavily impacted area in terms of moderate or high 8 loss of submerged aquatic vegetation due to eutrophication (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4.2 ). 9 Submerged aquatic vegetation is important to the quality of estuarine ecosy stem habitats because 10 it provides habitat for a variety of aquatic organisms, absorbs excess nutrients, and traps 11 sediments (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.4.2). It is partly because many estuaries and near

- coastal 12 marine waters are degraded by nutrient enrichment that they are highl y sensitive to potential 13 negative impacts from nitrogen addition from atmospheric deposition. 14 ii. Terrestrial ecosystems 15 Little is known about the full extent and distribution of the terrestrial ecos ystems in the 16 U.S. th at are most sensitive to impacts caused b y nutrient enrichment from atmospheric N 17 deposition. As previously stated, most terrestrial ecos ys tems are N
- limited, therefore they are 18 sensitive to perturbation caused b y N additions (US EPA, 2008, section 4.3.1)

. Effects are most 19 likely

to occur where areas of relativel y high atmospheric N deposition intersect with N

- limited 20 plant communities. The alpine ecos ys tems of the Colorado Front Range, chaparral watersheds of 21 the Sierra Nevada, lichen and vascular plant c ommunities in the San Bernardino Mountains and 22 the Pacific Northwest, and the southern California coastal sage scrub (CSS) community are 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 6 among the most sensitive terrestrial ecos ys tems. There is growing evidence (US EPA, 2008, 1 section 4.3.1.2) that existin g grassland ecos ys tems in the western United States are being altered 2 by elevated levels of N inputs, including inputs from atmospheric deposition. 3 In the eastern U.S., the degree of N saturation of the terrestrial ecos ys tem is often 4 assessed in terms of the degree of NO 3 − leaching from watershed soils into ground water or 5 surface water. Studies have estimated the number of surface waters at different stages of 6 saturation across several regions in the eastern U.S. Of the 85 northeastern watersheds examined 7 60% were in Stage 1 or Stage 2 of N saturation on a scale of 0 (background or pretreatment) to 3 8 (visible decline). Of the northeastern sites for which adequate data were available for assessment, 9 those in Stage 1 or 2 were most prevalent in the Adirondac k and Catskill Mountains. Effects on 10 individual plant species have not been well studied in the U.S. More is known about the 11 sensitivity

of particular plant communities. Based largel y on results obtained in more extensive 12 studies conducted in Europe, it is expected that the more sensitive terrestrial ecos ys tems include 13 hardwood forests, alpine meadows, arid and semi

- arid lands, and grassland ecos ys tems (US 14 EPA, 2008, section 3. 3.5)

. 15 The REA used published research results (US EPA, 200 9 , section 5.3.1 and US EPA, 16 2008, Table 4.4) to identify meaningful ecological benchmarks associated with different levels of 17 atmospheric nitrogen deposition. These are illustrated in Figure 3

- 4 of the Policy Assessment

. 18 The sensitive areas and ecological indicators identifi ed by the IS A were analyzed further in the 19 REA to create a national map that illustrates effects observed from ambient and experimental 20 atmospheric nitrogen deposition loads in relation to Community Multi

- scale Air Quality 21 (CMAQ) 2002 modeling results and NADP monitoring data. This map, reproduced in Figure 3

- 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

57 5 of the Policy

Assessment , depicts the sites where empirical effects of terrestrial nutrient 1 enrichment have been observed and site proximity to elevated atmospheric N deposition. 2 Based on information in the I SA and initial anal ys is in the REA, further case study 3 anal ys es on terrestrial nutrient enrichment of ecosy stems were developed for the CCS 4 community

and Mixed Conifer Forest (MCF) (US EPA, 2009). Geographic information sy stems 5 (GI S) analy sis supported a qualitative review of past field research to identify ecological 6 benchmarks associated with CSS and mycorrhizal communities, as well as MCF nutrient

7 sensitive acidoph yt e lichen communities, fine

- root biomass in Ponderosa pine, and leached 8 nitrate in receiving waters. 9 The ecological benchmarks that were identified for the CSS and the MCF communities 10 are included in the suite of benchmarks identified in the I SA ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.3 ). There 11 are sufficient data to confidently relate the eco logical effect to a loading of atmospheric nitrogen. 12 For the CSS community , the following ecological benchmarks were identified: 13 (1) 3.3 kg N/ha/yr
– the amount of nitrogen uptake b y a vigorous stand of CSS; above this level, 14 nitrogen may

no longer be limiting 15 (2) 10 kg N/ha/yr
– mycorrhizal community changes 16 For the MCF community, the following ecological benchmarks were identified: 17 (1) 3.1 kg N/ha/yr
– shift from sensitive to tolerant lichen species 18 (2) 5.2 kg N/ha/yr
– dominance of the tolerant lichen species 19 (3) 10.2 kg N/ha/yr
– loss of sensitive lichen species 20 (4) 17 kg N/ha/yr
– leaching of nitrate into streams. 21 These benchmarks, ranging from 3.1 to 17 kg N/ha/y r, were compared to 2002 22 CMAQ/NADP data to discern an y associations between atmospheric deposition and changing 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

58 co mmunities. Evidence supports the finding that nitrogen alters CSS and MCF communities

. 1 Key findings include the following: 2002 CMAQ/NADP nitrogen deposition data show that the 2 3.3 kg N/ha/yrbenchmark has been exceeded in more than 93% of CSS areas (654,0 48 ha). 3 These deposition levels are a driving force in the degradation of CSS communities. Although 4 CSS decline has been observed in the absence of fire, the contributions of deposition and fire to 5 the CSS decline require further research. CSS is fragmente d into many small parcels, and the 6 2002 CMAQ/NADP 12

- km grid data are not fine enough to fully validate the relationship 7 between CSS distribution, nitrogen deposition, and fire. 2002 CMAQ/NADP nitrogen deposition 8 data exceeds the 3.1 kg N/ha/y r benchmark i n more than 38% (1,099,133 ha) of MCF areas, and 9 nitrate leaching has been observed in surface waters. Ozone effects confound nitrogen effects on 10 MCF acidoph yt e lichen, and the interrelationship between fire and nitrogen cycling requires 11 additional researc h. 12

c. Key uncertainties associated with nutrient enrichment 13 There are different levels of uncertainty associated with relationships between deposition, 14 ecological effects and ecological indicators. The criteria used in the REA to evaluate the degree 15 of confidence in the data, modeling and ecological effect function are detailed in Chapter 7 of the 16 REA . Below is a discussion of uncertainty relating aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems to nutrient 17 enrichment effects. 18 i. Aquatic ecosystems 19 The approach for a ssessing atmospheric contributions to total nitrogen loading in the 20 REA was to consider the main

- stem river to an estuary (including the estuary) rather than an 21 entire estuary

s ys tem or bay . The biological indicators used in the NOAA ASSETS EIrequired 22 th e evaluation of many national databases including the US Geological Survey National Water 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

59 Quality Assessment (NAWQA) files, EPA’s STORage and RETrieval (STORET) database, 1 NOAA’s Estuarine Drainage Areas data, and EPA’s water quality standards nutrient crit eria for 2 rivers and lakes (US EPA, 200 9 , Appendix 6 and Table 1.2.

- 1 ). Both the SPARROW modeling 3 for nitrogen loads and assessment of estuary conditions under NOAA ASSETS EI , have been 4 applied on a national scale. The REA concludes that the available data are medium quality with 5 intermediate confidence about the use of these data and their values for extrapolating to a larger 6 regional area ( US EPA, 200 9 , section 7.3.1 ). Intermediate confidence is associated with the 7 modeling approach using ASSETS EIand SPARROW. The REA states there is low confidence 8 with the ecological effect function due to the results of the anal ys is which indicated that 9 reductions in atmospheric deposition alone could not solve coastal eutrophication problems due 10 to multiple non

- atmo spheric nitrogen inputs (US EPA, 200 9 , section 7.3.3 ). 11 ii. Terrestrial ecosystems 12 Ecological thresholds are identified for CSS and MCF areas and these data are considered 13 to be of high quality , however, the ability to extrapolate these data to larger regional areas is 14 limited (U S EPA, 2009 , section 7.4.1 ). No quantitative modeling was conducted or ecological 15 effect function developed for terrestrial nutrient enrichment reflecting the uncertainties 16 associated with these depositional effects. 17 4. Other Ecologic al Effects 18 It is stated in the ISA ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.4.1 and 4.5 ) that mercury is a highl y 19 neurotoxic contaminant that enters the food web as a methylated compound, methylmercury

. 20 Mercury

is principally

methylated by

sulfur

- reducing bacteria and c an be taken up by 21 microorganisms, zooplankton and macroinvertebrates. The contaminant is concentrated in higher 22 trophic levels, including fish eaten b y humans. Experimental evidence has established that only 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

60 inconsequential amounts of methylmercury can be produced in the absence of sulfate. Once 1 methylmercury

is present, other variables influence how much accumulates in fish, but elevated 2 mercury

levels in fish can only

occur where substantial amounts of methylmercury are present. 3 Current evidence indicates that in watersheds where mercury is present, increased oxides of 4 sulfur deposition very likely results in additional production of methylmercury which leads to 5 greater accumulation of MeHg concentrations in fish. With respect to sulfur deposition and 6
merc ury

methylation, the final I SA determined: The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal 7 relationship between sulfur deposition and increased mercury methylation in wetlands and 8 aquatic environments. 9 The production of meaningful amounts of methyl mercury (MeHg) requires the presence 10 of SO 4 2

- and mercury , and where mercury is present, increased availability of SO 4 2

- results in 11 increased production of MeHg. There is increasing evidence on the relationship between sulfur 12 deposition and increased methylation o f mercury in aquatic environments; this effect occurs onl y 13 where other factors are present at levels within a range to allow methylation. The production of 14 methylmercury

requires the presence of sulfate and mercury , but the amount of methylmercury 15 produced varies with oxygen content, temperature, pH, and supply of labile organic carbon (US 16 EPA, 2008, section 3.4 ). In watersheds where changes in sulfate deposition did not produce an 17 effect, one or several of those interacting factors were not in the range re quired for meaningful 18 methylation to occur (US EPA, 2008, section 3.4 ). Watersheds with conditions known to be 19 conducive to mercury methylation can be found in the northeastern United States and 20 southeastern Canada. 21 While the relationship between sulfur and methylmercury production was concluded to 22 be causal in the IS A, the REA concluded that there was insufficient evidence to quantify the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

61 relationship between sulfur and meth yl mercury . Therefore onl y a qualitative assessment was 1 included in Chapter 6 of the REA

. The Policy Assessment was then unable to make a 2 determination as to the adequacy of the existing SO 2 standards in protecting against welfare 3 effects associated with increased mercury methylation. 4 B. Risk and Exposure Assessment 5 The risk and exposure assessment conducted for the current review was developed to 6 describe potential risk from current and future deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to 7 sensitive ecos ys tems. The case study anal ys es in the REA show that there is confidence that 8 known or anticipated adverse ecological effects are occurring under current ambient loadings of 9 nitrogen and sulfur in sensitive ecosy stems across the United States. An overview of the 10 material covered in the REA , a summary of the key

findings from the air quality analy ses, 11 acidification and nutrient enrichment case studies, and general conclusions from evaluating 12 additional welfare effects, are presented below. 13 1. Overview of the Risk and Exposure Assessment 14 The REA evaluates the relationships between atmospheric concentrations, deposition, 15 biologicall y relevant exposures, targeted ecos ys tem effects, and ecos ys tem services. To evaluate 16 the nature and magnitude of adverse effects associated with deposition , the REA also examines 17 various way s to quantify the relationships between air quality indicators, deposition of 18 biologicall y available forms of nitrogen and sulfur, ecologicall y relevant indicators relating to 19 deposition, exposure and effects on sensitive receptors, and related effects resulting in chang es in 20
ecos ys tem structure and services. The intent is to determine the exposure metrics that incorporate 21 the temporal considerations (i.e., biologically relevant timescales), pathways, and ecologicall y 22 relevant indicators necessary to determine the effects on these ecos ys tems. To the extent feasible, 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

62 the REA evaluates the overall load to the s ys tem for nitrogen and sulfur, as well as the variability 1 in ecosy stem responses to these pollutants . It also evaluates the contributions of atmosphericall y 2 deposited nitrogen and sulfur individually relative to the combined atmospheric loadings of both 3 elements together . Since oxidized nitrogen is the listed criteria pollutant (currentl y measured b y 4 the ambient air quality indicator NO 2 ) for the atmospheric contributi on to total nitrogen, the REA 5 examines the contribution of nitrogen oxides to total reactive nitrogen in the atmosphere, relative 6 to the contributions of reduced forms of nitrogen (e.g., ammonia, ammonium), to ultimately 7 assess how a meaningful secondary N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) might be 8 structured. 9 The REA focuses on ecosy stem welfare effects that result from the deposition of total 10 reactive nitrogen and sulfur. Because ecos ys tems are diverse in biota, climate, geochemistry , and 11 hydrology , response to pollutant exposures can vary greatl y between ecos ystems. In addition, 12 these diverse ecos ys tems are not distributed evenly across the United States. To target nitrogen 13 and sulfur acidification and nitrogen and sulfur enrichment, the REA addresses four main 14 targeted ecos ys tem effects on terrestrial and aquatic sy stems identified by the IS A (US EPA, 15 2008 ): a quatic acidification due to nitrogen and sulfur ; t errestrial acidification due to nitrogen 16 and sulfur ; a quatic nutrient enrichment, inc luding eutrophication ; and t errestrial nutrient 17 enrichment. 18 In addition to these four targeted ecos ys tem effects, the REA also qualitatively addresses 19 the influence of sulfur oxides deposition on methylmercury production; nitrous oxide (N 2 O) 20 effects on climate; nitrogen effects on primary productivity and biogenic greenhouse gas fluxes; 21 and phy

totoxic effects on plants. 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

63 Because the targeted ecosy stem effects outlined above are not evenl y distributed across 1 the United States, the REA identified case studies for each targeted effects based on ecos ys tems 2 identified as sensitive to nitrogen and/or sulfur deposition effects. Eight case study areas and 3 two supplemental study areas (Rocky Mountain National Park and Little Rock Lake, WI) are 4
summ arized in the REA based on ecos ys tem characteristics, indicators, and ecos ys tem service 5 information. Case studies selected for aquatic acidification effects were the Adirondack 6 Mountains and Shenandoah National Park. Kane Experimental Forest in Pennsylv ania and 7 Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire were selected as case studies for 8 terrestrial acidification. Aquatic nutrient enrichment case study locations were selected in the 9 Potomac River Basin upstream of Chesapeake Bay and the Neuse Riv er Basin upstream of the 10 Pamlico Sound in North Carolina. The Coastal Sage Scrub Communities in southern California 11 and the Mixed Confer Forest Communities in the San Bernardino and Sierra Nevada Mountains 12 of California were selected as case studies for t errestrial nutrient enrichment. Two supplemental 13 areas were also chosen, one in Rocky Mountain National Park for terrestrial nutrient enrichment 14 and one in L ittle Rock Lake, Wisconsin for aquatic nutrient enrichment. 15 2. Key findings 16 In summary , based on case study anal ys es, the REA concludes that known or anticipated 17 adverse ecological effects are occurring under current conditions and further concludes that these 18 adverse effects continue into the future

. Key findings from the air quality analyses, acidification 19 and nutrient enrichment case studies, as well as general conclusions from evaluating additional 20 welfare effects, are summarized below. 21

a. Air quality analyses 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

64 The air quality analyses in the REA encompass the current emissions sources of nitrogen 1 and sulfur, as well as atmospheric concentrations, estimates of deposition of total nitrogen, 2 policy

- relevant background, and non

- atmospheric loadings of nitrogen and sulfur to ecos ys tems, 3 both nationwide and in the case study areas. Spatial fields of depo sition were created using wet 4 deposition measurements from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) National 5 Trends Network and dry deposition predictions from the 2002 Community Multi

- Scale Air 6 Quality

(CMAQ) model simulation. Some key conclusi ons from this analysis are: 7 (1) Total reactive nitrogen deposition and sulfur deposition are much greater in the East 8 compared to most areas of the West. 9 (2) These regional differences in deposition correspond to the regional differences in oxides of 10 nitrogen and SO2 concentrations and emissions, which are also higher in the East. Oxides of 11 nitrogen emissions are much greater and generally more widespread than NH 3 emissions 12 nationwide; high NH 3 emissions tend to be more local (e.g., eastern North Carolina) or sub

13 regional (e.g., the upper Midwest and Plains states). The relative amounts of oxidized versus 14 reduced nitrogen deposition are consistent with the relative amounts of oxides of nitrogen 15 and NH 3 emissions. Oxidized nitrogen deposition exceeds reduced nitrogen deposition in 16 most of the case study areas; the major exception being the Neuse River/Neuse River Estuary 17 Case Study

Area. 18 (3) R educed nitrogen deposition exceeds oxidized nitrogen deposition in the vicinity of local 19 sources of NH 3 . 20 (4) There can be relative ly large spatial variations in both total reactive nitrogen deposition and 21 sulfur deposition within a case study area; this occurs particularl y in those areas that contain 22 or are near a high emissions source of oxides of nitrogen , NH 3 , and/or SO 2 . 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

65 (5) The seas onal patterns in deposition differ between the case study areas. For the case study 1 areas in the East, the season with the greatest amounts of total reactive nitrogen deposition 2 correspond to the season with the greatest amounts of sulfur deposition. Depos ition peaks in 3 spring in the Adirondack, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, and Kane Experimental 4 Forest case study areas, and it peaks in summer in the Potomac River/Potomac Estuary , 5 Shenandoah, and Neuse River/Neuse River Estuary case study

areas. For th e case study areas 6 in the West, there is less consistency in the seasons with greatest total reactive nitrogen and 7 sulfur deposition in a given area. In general, both nitrogen and/or sulfur deposition peaks in 8 spring or summer. The exception to this is the Sierra Nevada Range portion of the Mixed 9 Conifer Forest Case Study Area, in which sulfur deposition is greatest in winter. 10 b. Deposition

- related aquatic acidification 11 The role of aquatic acidification in two eastern United States areas

— northeastern New 12 York’s Adirondack area and the Shenandoah area in Virginia

— was anal yz ed in the REA to 13 assess surface water trends in SO 4 2

- and NO 3 - concentrations and acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) 14 levels and to affirm the understanding that reductions in deposition could influence the risk of 15 acidification. Monitoring data from the EPA

- administered Temporall y Integrated Monitoring of 16 Ecosy stems (TIME)/Long

- Term Monitoring (LTM) programs and the Environmental Monitoring 17 and Assessment Program (EMAP) were assessed for the ye ars 1990 to 2006, and past, present, 18 and future water quality levels were estimated using both steady

- state and dy namic 19 biogeochemical models. 20 Although wet deposition rates for SO 2 and oxides of nitrogen in the Adirondack Case 21 Study

Area have reduced s ince the mid

- 1990s, current concentrations are still well above pre

22 acidification (1860) conditions. Model of Acidification of Groundwater in Catchments (MAGIC) 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

66 modeling predicts NO 3 - and SO 4 2

- are 17

- and 5

- fold higher today , respectively . The estimated 1
average ANC for 44 lakes in the Adirondack Case Study Area is 62.1 microequivalents per liter 2 (μeq/L) (± 15.7 μeq/L); 78 % of all monitored lakes in the Adirondack Case Study Area have a 3 current risk of Elevated, Severe , or Acute . Of the 78%, 31% experience episodic acidification, 4 and 18% are chronicall y acidic today

. 5 (1) Based on the steady- state critical load model for the year 2002, 18%, 28%, 44%, and 58% of 6 169 modeled lakes received combined total sulfur and nitrogen deposition that exceeded 7 critical load s corresponding to ANC limits of 0, 20, 50, and 100 μeq/Lrespectivel y. 8 (2) Based on a deposition scenario that maintains current emission levels to 2020 and 2050, the 9 simulation forecast indicates no improvement in water quality in the Adirondack Case Study 10 Are a. The percentage of lakes within the Elevated to Acute Concern classes remains the same 11 in 2020 and 2050. 12 (3) Since the mid

- 1990s, streams in the Shenandoah Case Study Area have shown slight declines 13 in NO 3 and SO 4 2

- concentrations in surface waters. ANC leve ls increased from about 50 14 μeq/Lin the earl y 1990 s to >75 μeq/Luntil 2002, when ANC levels declined back to 1991

– 15 1992 levels. Current concentrations are still above pre

- acidification (1860) conditions. 16 MAGI C modeling predicts surface water concentrations of NO 3 and SO 4 2

- are 10

- and 32

- 17 fold higher today , respectively . The estimated average ANC for 60 streams in the 18 Shenandoah Case Study Area is 57.9 μeq/L (± 4.5 μeq/L). 55% of all monitored streams in 19 the Shenandoah Case Study Area have a current risk of Elevated, Severe , or Acute . Of the 20 55%, 18% experience episodic acidification, and 18% are chronically acidic today

. 21

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

67 (4) Based on the steady- state critical load model for the year 2002, 52%, 72%, 85%, and 93% of 1 60 modeled streams received combined total sulfur and nitrogen deposition that exceeded 2 critical load s corresponding to ANC limits of 0, 20, 50, and 100 μeq/Lrespectivel y. 3 (5) Based on a deposition scenario that maintains current emission levels to 2020 and 2050, the 4 simulation forecast indicates that a la rge number of streams would still have Elevated to 5 Acute problems with acidity

. 6
c. Deposition

- related terrestrial acidification 7 The role of terrestrial acidification was examined in the REA using a critical load 8 anal ys is for sugar maple and red spruce forests in the eastern United States by using the base 9 cation to aluminum (Bc/Al) ratio in acidified forest soils as an indicator to assess the impact of 10 nitrogen and sulfur deposition on tree health. These are the two most commonly studied species 11 in North America for impacts of acidification. At a Bc/Al ratio of 1.2, red spruce growth can be 12 reduced b y 20%. Sugar maple growth can be reduced b y 20% at a Bc/Al ratio of 0.6. Key 13 findings of the case study are summarized below. 14 (1) Case study

results suggest that the health of at least a portion of the sugar maple and red 15 spruce growing in the United States may have been compromised with acidifying total 16 nitrogen and sulfur deposition in 2002

. 2002 CMAQ/NADP total nitrogen and sulfur 17 deposition levels exceeded three selected critical loads in 3% to 75% of all sugar maple plots 18 across 24 states. The three critical loads ranged from 6,008 to 107 eq/ha/y r for the Bc/Al 19 ratios of 0.6, 1.2, and 10.0 (increasing levels of tree protection). The 2002 CMAQ/NADP 20 total nitrogen and sulfur deposition levels exceeded three selected critical loads in 3% to 36% 21 of all red spruce plots across 8 states. The three critical loads ranged from 4,278 to 180 22 eq/ha

- yr for the Bc/Al ratios of 0.6, 1 .2, and 10.0 (increasing levels of tree protection). 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

68 (2) The Simple Mass Balance model assumptions made for base cation weathering (Bcw) and 1 forest soil ANC input parameters are the main sources of uncertainty since these parameters 2 are rarel y measured and require researchers to use default values. 3 (3) The pattern of case study results suggests that nitrogen and sulfur acidifying deposition in the 4 sugar maple and red spruce forest areas studied were similar in magnitude to the critical 5 loads for those areas and both ecos ys tems are likely to be sensitive to any

future changes in 6 the levels of deposition. 7 d. Deposition

- related aquatic nutrient enrichment 8 The role of nitrogen deposition in two main stem rivers feeding their respective estuaries 9 was anal yz ed in the REA to determine if decreases in deposition co uld influence the risk of 10 eutrophication as predicted using the Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status eutrophication 11 index (ASSETS EI) scoring s ys tem in tandem with SPAtially Referenced Regression on 12 Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) modeling. This modeling approach provides a transferrable, 13 intermediate

- level anal ys is of the linkages between atmospheric deposition and receiving waters, 14 while providing results on which conclusions could be drawn. A summary of findings follows: 15 (1) 2002 CMAQ/NADP results showed that an estimated 40,770,000 kg of total nitrogen was 16 deposited in the Potomac River watershed. SPARROW modeling predicted that 7,380,000 kg 17 N/y

r of the deposited nitrogen reached the estuary (20% of the total load to the estu ary). The 18 overall ASSETS EIfor the Potomac River and Potomac Estuary was Bad (based on all 19 sources of N)

. 20 (2) To improve the Potomac River and Potomac Estuary ASSETS EIscore from Bad to Poor , a 21 decrease of at least 78% in the 2002 total nitrogen atmospheric deposition load to the 22 watershed would be required. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

69 (3) 2002 CMAQ/NADP results showed that an estimated 18,340,000 kg of total nitrogen was 1 deposited in the Neuse River watershed. SPARROW modeling predicted that 1,150,000 kg 2 N/y

r of the deposited nitrogen rea ched the estuary (26% of the total load to the estuary). The 3 overall ASSETS EIfor the Neuse River/Neuse River Estuary was Bad

. 4 (4) It was found that the Neuse River/Neuse River Estuary ASSETS EIscore could not be 5 improved from Bad to Poor with decreases onl y in the 2002 atmospheric deposition load to 6 the watershed. Additional reductions would be required from other nitrogen sources within 7 the watershed. 8 The small effect of decreasing atmospheric deposition in the Neuse River watershed is 9 because the other ni trogen sources within the watershed are more influential than atmospheric 10 deposition in affecting the total nitrogen loadings to the Neuse River Estuary , as estimated with 11 the SPARROW model. A waterbody’ s response to nutrient loading depends on the magnitu de 12 (e.g., agricultural sources have a high er influence in the Neuse than in the Potomac ), spatial 13 distribution, and other characteristics of the sources within the watershed ; therefore a reduction 14 in nitrogen deposition does not alway s produce a linear response in reduced load to the estuary , 15 as demonstrated b y these two case studies. 16

e. Deposition

- related terrestrial nutrient enrichment 17 California C oastal S age S crub (CSS) and M ixed C onifer F orest (MCF) communities 18 were the focus of the Terrestrial Nutrient Enrichment Case Studies of the REA. Geographic 19 information sy stems (GIS) analy sis supported a qualitative review of past field research to 20 identify

ecological benchmarks associated with CSS and mycorrhizal communities, as well as 21 MCF’s nutrient

- sensitive acidoph yt e lichen communities, fine

- root biomass in Ponderosa pine, 22 and leached nitrate in receiving waters. These benchmarks, ranging from 3.1 to 17 kg N/ha/yr, 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

70 were compared to 2002 CMAQ/NADP data to discern any associations between atmospheric 1 depositi on and changing communities. Evidence supports the finding that nitrogen alters CSS 2 and MCF. Key

findings include the following: 3 (1) 2002 CMAQ/NADP nitrogen deposition data show that the 3.3 kg N/ha/yr benchmark has 4 been exceeded in more than 93% of CSS areas (654,048 ha). This suggests that such 5 deposition is a driving force in the degradation of CSS communities. One potentially 6 confounding factor is the role of fire. Although CSS decline has been observed in the 7 absence of fire, the contributions of deposit ion and fire to the CSS decline require further 8 research. CSS is fragmented into many small parcels, and the 2002 CMAQ/NADP 12

- km 9 grid data are not fine enough to full y validate the relationship between CSS distribution, 10 nitrogen deposition, and fire. 11 (2) 2002 CMAQ/NADP nitrogen deposition data exceeds the 3.1 kg N/ha/yr benchmark in more 12 than 38% (1,099,133 ha) of MCF areas, and nitrate leaching has been observed in surface 13 waters. Ozone effects confound nitrogen effects on MCF acidoph yt e lichen, and the 14 inter

relationship between fire and nitrogen cycling requires additional research. 15 f. Additional effects 16 Ecological effects have also been documented across the United States where elevated 17 nitrogen deposition has been observed, including the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains 18 where shifts in dominant algal species in alpine lakes have occurred where wet nitrogen 19 deposition was only about 1.5 kg N/ha/yr. High alpine terrestrial communities have a low 20 capacity

to sequester nitrogen deposition, and monitored deposition exceeding 3 to 4 kg N/ha/yr 21 could lead to community

- level changes in plant species, lichens, and mycorrhizae. 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

71 Additional welfare effects are documented, but examined less extensively , in the REA. 1 These effects include qualitative discussions rel ated to visibility and materials damage, such as 2 corrosion, erosion, and soiling of paint and buildings which are being addressed in the particulate 3 matter (PM) NAAQS review currently underway . A discussion of the causal relationship 4 between sulfur deposi tion (as sulfate, SO 4 2

- ) and increased mercury methylation in wetlands and 5 aquatic environments is also included in the REA. On this subject the REA concludes that 6 decreases in sulfate deposition will likely result in decreases in methyl mercury concentrat ion; 7 however, spatial and biogeochemical variations nationally hinder establishing large scale dose

8 response relationships. 9 Several additional issues concerning oxides of nitrogen were addressed in the REA. 10 Consideration was also given to nitrous oxide (N 2 O), a potent GHG. The REA concluded that it 11 is most appropriate to analyze the role of N 2 O in the context of all of the GHGs rather than as 12 part of the REA for this review. The REA considered nitrogen deposition and its correlation 13 with the rate of p hotos ynthesis and net primary productivity

. Nitrogen addition ranging from 14 15.4 to 300 kg N/ha/yr is documented as increasing wetland N 2 O production by an average of 15 207% across all ecos ys tems . Nitrogen addition ranging from 30 to 240 kg N/ha/y r increased CH 4 16 emissions by

115%, averaged across all ecos ys tems, and methane uptake was reduced b y 38% 17 averaged across all ecosystems when nitrogen addition ranged from 10 to 560 kg N/ha/yr , but 18 reductions were onl y significant for coniferous and deciduous forests. The heterogeneity of 19
ecos ys tems across the United States, however, introduces variations into dose

- response 20 relationships. 21 The p hy

totoxic effects of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur on vegetation were also briefl y 22 discussed in the REA which concluded that si nce a unique secondary NAAQS exists for SO 2 , 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

72 and concentrations of nitric oxide (NO ) , NO 2 , and PAN are rarely high enough to have 1 phy totoxic effects on vegetation , further assessment was not warranted at this time. 2 3. Conclusions on E ffects 3 For aquatic and terrestrial acidification effects, a similar conceptual approach was used 4 (critical loads) to evaluate the impacts of multiple pollutants on an ecological e ndpoint, whereas 5 the approaches used for aquatic and terrestrial nutrient enrichment were fundamentally distinct. 6 Although the ecological indicators for aquatic and terrestrial acidification (i.e., ANC and Bc/Al) 7 are very

different, both ecological indicators are well

- correlated with effects such as reduced 8 biodiversity

and growth. While aquatic acidifi cation is clearl y the targeted effect area with the 9 highest level of confidence, the relationship between atmospheric deposition and an ecological 10 indicator is also quite strong for terrestrial acidification. The main drawback with the 11 understanding of terrestrial acidification is that the data are based on laboratory responses rather 12 than field measurements. Other stressors that are present in the field but that are not present in 13 the laboratory

may confound this relationship. 14 For nutrient enrichment effe cts, the REA utilized different types of indicators for aquatic 15 and terrestrial effects to assess both the likelihood of adverse effects to ecosy stems and the 16 relationship between adverse effects and atmospheric sources of oxides of nitrogen. The 17 ecologic al indicator chosen for aquatic nutrient enrichment, the ASSETS EI, seems to be 18 inadequate to relate atmospheric deposition to the targeted ecological effect, likely due to the 19 many

other confounding factors. Further, there is far less confidence associate d with the 20 understanding of aquatic nutrient enrichment because of the large contributions from non

21 atmospheric sources of nitrogen and the influence of both oxidized and reduced forms of 22 nitrogen, particularl y in large watersheds and coastal areas. However, a strong relationship exists 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

73 between atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and ecological effects in high alpine lakes in the 1 Rocky

Mountains because atmospheric deposition is the only source of nitrogen to these 2 sy stems. There is also a strong weight

- of

- e vidence regarding the relationships between 3 ecological effects attributable to terrestrial nitrogen nutrient enrichment; however, ozone and 4 climate change may

be confounding factors. In addition, the response for other species or species 5 in other regions o f the United States has not been quantified. 6 C. Adversity of Effects to Public Welfare 7 Characterizing a known or anticipated adverse effect to public welfare is an important 8 component of developing any secondary

NAAQS. According to the Clean Air Act, welfare 9 effects include: “ effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, 10 weather, visibility , and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to 11 transportation, as well as effect on economic values and on perso nal comfort and well

- being, 12 whether caused b y transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants ” (CAA, 13 Section 302(h)). While the text above lists a number of welfare effects, these effects do not 14 define public welfare in and of themselv es. 15 Although there is no specific definition of adversity to public welfare, the paradigm of 16 linking adversity to public welfare to disruptions in ecos ys tem structure and function has been 17 used broadl y b y EPA to categorize effects of pollutants from the cellular to the ecos ys tem level. 18 An evaluation of adversity to public welfare might consider the likelihood, ty pe, magnitude, and 19 sp atial scale of the effect as well as the potential for recovery and any uncertainties relating to 20 these considerations. 21 Similar concepts were used in past reviews of secondary NAAQS for ozone and PM 22 (relating to visibility ), as well as in initial review s of effects from lead deposition. Because 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

74 oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are deposited from ambient sources into ecosy stems where they 1 affect changes to organisms, populations and ecosystems, the concept of adversity to public 2 welfare as a result of alterations in structure and function of ecos ys tems is an appropriate 3 consideration for this review. 4 Based on information provided in the Policy Assessment , the following section discusses 5 how ecological effects from deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulf ur relate to adversity to 6 public welfare

. In the Policy Assessment , p ublic welfare was discussed in terms of loss of 7
ecos ys tem services (defined below) , which in some cases can be monetized. Each of the four 8 main effect areas (aquatic and terrestrial aci dification and aquatic and terrestrial nutrient over

9 enrichment) are discussed including current ecological effects and associated ecos ys tem services

. 10 1. Ecosystem Services 11 The Policy

Assessment defines ecosy stem services as the benefits individuals and 12 organizations obtain from ecosy stems. Ecos ys tem services can be classified as provisioning 13 (food and water), regulating (control of climate and disease), cultural (recreational, existence, 14 spiritual, educational), and supporting (nutrient cycling). Conceptuall y, changes in ecos ys tem 15 services may

be used to aid in characterizing a known or anticipated adverse effect to public 16 welfare. In the REA and Policy Assessment ecosy stem services are discussed as a method of 17 assessing the magnitude and significance to the public of resource s affected by ambient 18 concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and deposition in sensitive ecos ys tems
. 19 EPA has in previous NAAQS reviews defined ecological goods and services for the 20 purposes of a Regulatory Impact Anal ys is as the “outputs of ecological functions or processes 21 that directly

or indirectl y contribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the future. 22 Some outputs may

be bought and sold, but most are not marketed.” It is e specially important to 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

75 acknowledge that it is difficult to measure and/or monetize the goods and services supplied by 1
ecos ys tems. It can be informative in characterizing adversity to public wel fare to attempt to 2 place an economic valuation on the set of goods and services that have been identified with 3 respect to a change in policy however it must be noted that this valuation will be incomplete and 4 illustrative only

. 5 Knowledge about the relati onships linking ambient concentrations and ecosy stem 6 services is considered in the Policy Assessment as one method by which to inform a policy 7 judgment on a known or anticipated adverse public welfare effect. For example, a change in an 8
ecos ys tem structure and process, such as foliar injury , would be classified as an ecological effect, 9 with the associated changes in ecos ys tem services, such as primary productivity , food 10 availability , forest products, and aesthetics (e.g., scenic viewing), classified as pub lic welfare 11 effects. Additionally , changes in biodiversity would be classified as an ecological effect, and the 12 associated changes in ecosy stem services

— productivity , existence (nonuse) value, recreational 13 viewing and aesthetics

—would also be classified a s public welfare effects. 14 As described in Chapters 4 and 5 of the REA , case study analy ses were performed that 15 link deposition in sensitive ecos ys tems to changes in a given ecological indicator (e.g., for 16 aquatic acidification, to changes in acid neutralizing capacity [ANC]) and then to changes in 17
ecos ys tems. Appendix 8 of the REA links the changes in ecos ys tems to the services they 18 provide (e.g., fish species richness and its influence on recreational fishing). To the extent 19 possible for each targeted effect area, the REA linked ambient concentrations of nitrogen and 20 sulfur (i.e., ambient air quality indicators) to deposition in sensitive ecosy stems (i.e., exposure 21 pathway s), and then to system response as measured by a given ecological indicator (e.g., lake 22 and stream acidification as measured b y ANC). The ecological effect (e.g., changes in fish 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

76 species richness) was then, where possible, associated with changes in ecosy stem services and 1 the corresponding public welfare effects (e.g., recreational fishing). 2 2. Effects on Ecosystem Services 3 The process used to link ecological indicators to ecosy stem services is discussed 4 extensively

in Appendix 8 of the REA. In brief, for each case study area assessed the ecological 5 indicators are linked to an ecologi cal response that is subsequently linked to associated services 6 to the extent possible. For example in the case study for aquatic acidification the chosen 7 ecological indicator is ANC which can be linked to the ecos ys tem service of recreational fishing. 8 A lthough recreational fishing losses are the onl y s ervice effects that can be independentl y 9 quantified or monetized at this time, there are numerous other ecos ys tem services that may be 10 related to the ecological effects of acidification. 11 While aquatic acidification is the focus of this proposed standard, the other effect areas 12 were also anal yz ed in the REA and these ecos ys tems are being harmed by nitrogen and sulfur 13 deposition and will obtain some measure of protection with any decrease in that deposition 14

regardless of the reason for the decrease. The following summarizes the current levels of specific 15
ecos ys tem services for aquatic and terrestrial acidification, and aquatic and terrestrial nutrient 16
over - enrichment and attempts to quantify and when possible monetize the harm to public 17 welfare, as represented by ecos ys tem services, due to nitrogen and sulfur deposition. 18
a. Aquatic Acidification 19 Acidification of aquatic ecosy stems primarily affects the ecos ys tem services that are 20 derived from the fish and other aquatic life found in surface waters. In the northeastern United 21 States, the surface waters affected b y acidification are not a major source of commerciall y raised 22 or caught fish; however, they are a source of food for some recreational and subsistence fi shers 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

77 and for other consumers. Although data and models are available for examining the effects on 1 recreational fishing, relatively little data are available for measuring the effects on subsistence 2 and other consumers. Inland waters also provide aestheti c and educational services along with 3
non - use services, such as existence value (protection and preservation with no expectation of 4 direct use). In general, inland surface waters such as lakes, rivers, and streams also provide a 5 number of regulating servi ces, playing a role in hydrological regimes and climate regulation. 6 There is little evidence that acidification of freshwaters in the northeastern United States has 7 significantl y degraded these specific services; however, freshwater ecos ys tems also provide 8 biological control services by providing environments that sustain delicate aquatic food chains. 9 The toxic effects of acidification on fish and other aquatic life impair these services b y disrupting 10 the trophic structure of surface waters. Although it i s difficult to quantify these services and how 11 they

are affected by

acidification, it is worth noting that some of these services may be captured 12 through measures of provisioning and cultural services. For example, these biological control 13 services may

ser ve as “intermediate” inputs that support the production of “final” recreational 14 fishing and other cultural services. 15 As summarized in Chapter 4 of the Policy Assessment , recent studies indicate that 16 acidification of lakes and streams can result in signifi cant loss in economic value. For example, 17 data indicate that more than 9% of adults in the northeastern part of the country participate 18 annually

in freshwater fishing yielding 140 million freshwater fishing day s. Each fishing day 19 has an estimated average value per day of $35. Therefore, the implied total annual value of 20 freshwater fishing in the northeastern United States was $5 billion in 2006. Embedded in these 21 numbers is a degree of harm to recreational fishing services due to acidification that has o ccurred 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

78 over time. These harms have not been quantified on a regional scale; however, a case study was 1 conducted in the Adirondacks area ( US EPA, 20 11 , section 4.4.2). 2 In the Adirondacks case study , estimates of changes in recreational fishing services were 3 determined, as well as changes more broadl y in “cultural” ecos ys tem services (including 4 recreational, aesthetic, and nonuse services). First, the MAGIC model (U S EPA, 2009, 5 Appendix 8 and s ec tion 2.2) was applied to 44 lakes to predict what ANC levels would be under 6 both “business as usual” conditions (i.e., allowing for some decline in deposition due to existing 7 regulations) and pre

- emission (i.e., background) conditions. Second, to estimate th e recreational 8 fishing impacts of aquatic acidification in these lakes, an existing model of recreational fishing 9 demand and site choice was applied. This model predicts how recreational fishing patterns in the 10 Adirondacks would differ and how much higher the average annual value of recreational fishing 11 services would be for New York residents if lake ANC levels corresponded to background 12 (rather than business as usual) conditions. To estimate impacts on a broader category of cultural 13 (and some provisioni ng) ecos ys tem services, results from the Banzhaf et al (2006) valuation 14 survey

of New York residents were adapted and applied to this context. The survey used a 15 contingent valuation approach to estimate the average annual household WTP for future 16 reducti ons in the percent of Adirondack lakes impaired b y acidification. The focus of the survey 17 was on impacts on aquatic resources. Pretesting of the survey indicated that respondents 18 nonetheless tended to assume that benefits would occur in the condition of b irds and forests as 19 well as in recreational fishing. 20 By

extrapolating the 44 lake Adiriondack case study to all 3,000 Adirondack lakes and b y 21 applying the willingness to pay survey results to all New York residents, the study estimated 22 aggregated benefit s between $300 and $800 million annually for the equivalent of improving 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

79 lakes in the Adirondacks region to an ANC level of 50 μeq/L . The REA estimated 44% of the 1 Adirondack lakes currently fall below an ANC of 50 μeq/L . Several states have set goals for 2 improving the acid status of lakes and streams, generall y targeting ANC in the range of 50 to 60 3 μeq/L , and have engaged in costly activities to decrease acidification. 4 These results imply significant value to the public in addition to those derived f rom 5 recreational fishing services. Note that the results are onl y applicable to improvements in the 6 Adirondacks valued b y residents of New York. If similar benefits exist in other acid

- impacted 7 areas, benefits for the nation as a whole could be substantial. The anal ys is provides results on 8 only a subset of the impacts of acidification on ecosy stem services and suggests that the overall 9 impact on these services is likely to be substantial. 10 b. Terrestrial Acidification 11 Chapter 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of the Policy Ass essment review several economic studies of 12 areas sensitive to terrestrial acidification. Forests in the northeastern United States provide 13 several important and valuable provisioning ecos ystem services, which are reflected in the 14 production and sales of tree products. Sugar maples are a particularly important commercial 15 hardwood tree species in the United States, producing timber and maple s yrup that provide 16 hundreds of millions of dollars in economic value annually . Red spruce is also used in a variety 17 of wood products and provides up to $100 million in economic value annually . Although the 18 data do not exist to directly link acidification damages to economic values of lost recreational 19
ecos ys tem services in forests, these resources are valuable to the p ublic. A recent study, 20 reviewed in the Policy Assessment, suggests that the total annual value of recreational off

- road 21 driving was more than $9 billion and the value of hunting and wildlife viewing was more than $4 22 billion each in the northeastern United States. EPA is not able to quantify at this time the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

80 specific effects on these values of acid deposition, or of any specific reductions in deposition, 1 relative to the effects of many other factors that may

affect them. 2

c. Nutrient Enrichment 3 Chapter 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 of the Policy Assessment summarize economic studies of east 4 coast estuaries affected by nutrient over

- enrichment or eutrophication. Estuaries in the eastern 5 United States are important for fish and shellfish production. The estuaries are capabl e of 6 supporting large stocks of resident commercial species, and they serve as the breeding grounds 7 and interim habitat for several migratory species. To provide an indication of the magnitude of 8 provisioning services associated with coastal fisheries, fro m 2005 to 2007, the average value of 9 total catch was $1.5 billion per year in 15 East Coast states. Estuaries also provide an important 10 and substantial variety of cultural ecos ys tem services, including water

- based recreational and 11 aesthetic services. For example, data indicate that 4.8% of the population in coastal states from 12 North Carolina to Massachusetts participated in saltwater fishing, with a total of 26 million 13 saltwater fishing day s in 2006. Based on estimates in the Policy Assessment , total recreational 14 value from these saltwater fishing days was approximately $1.3 billion. Recreational 15 participation estimates for 1999

–2000 showed almost 6 million individuals participated in 16 motorboating in coastal states from North Carolina to Massachusetts. Th e aggregate value of 17 these coastal motorboating outings was $2 billion per year. EPA is not able to quantify at this 18 time the specific effects on these values of nitrogen deposition, or of an y s pecific reductions in 19 deposition, relative to the effects of man y other factors that may affect them. 20 Terrestrial ecos ys tems can also suffer from nutrient over

- enrichment. Each ecos ys tem is 21 different in its composition of species and nutrient requirements. Changes to individual 22
ecos ys tems from changes in nitrogen deposition can be hard to assess economically . Relative 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

81 recreational values are often determined b y public use information. Chapter 4.4.7 of the Policy 1 Assessment reviewed studies related to park use in California. Data from California State Parks 2 indi cate that in 2002, 68.7% of adult residents participated in trail hiking for an average of 24.1 3 day s per year. The anal ys es in the Policy Assessment indicate that the aggregate annual benefit 4 for California residents from trail hiking in 2007 was $11.59 bi llion. EPA is not able to quantify 5 at this time the specific effects on these values of nitrogen deposition, or of any specific 6 reductions in deposition, relative to the effects of many other factors that may

affect them. 7 The Policy

Assessment also ident ified fire regulation as a service that could be affected 8 by nutrient over

- enrichment of the Coastal Sage Scrub and Mixed Conifer Forest ecos ys tems by 9 encouraging growth of more flammable grasses, increasing fuel loads, and altering the fire cycle. 10 Over th e 5
- ye ar period from 2004 to 2008, Southern California experienced, on average, over 11 4,000 fires per ye ar, burning, on average, over 400,000 acres per ye ar. It is not possible at this 12 time to quantify

the contribution of nitrogen deposition, among many other factors, to increased 13 fire risk. 14 3. Summary 15 Adversity

to public welfare can be understood by looking at how deposition of oxides of 16 nitrogen and sulfur affect the ecological functions of an ecos ys tem (see II.A.), and then 17 understanding the ecosy stem services that are degraded. The monetized value of the ecos ys tem 18 services provided b y ecosystems that are sensitive to deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur 19 are in the billions of dollars each ye ar , though it is not poss ible to quantify or monetize at this 20 time the effects on these values of nitrogen and sulfur deposition or of an y changes in deposition 21 that may

result from new secondary standards . Many

lakes and streams are known to be 22 degraded b y acidic deposition whic h affects recreational fishing and tourism. Forest growth is 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

82 likely suffering from acidic deposition in sensitive areas affecting red spruce and sugar maple 1 timber production, sugar maple sy rup production, hiking, aesthetic enjoy ment and tourism. 2 Nitroge n deposition contributes significantly to eutrophication in many estuaries affecting fish 3 production, swimming, boating, aesthetic enjo ym ent, and tourism. Ecosy stem services are 4 likely

affected by

nutrient enrichment in many natural and scenic terrestrial areas , affecting 5 biodiversity , including habitat for rare and endangered species, fire control, hiking, aesthetic 6 enjoy

ment, and tourism. 7 D. Adequacy of the Current Standards 8 An important issue to be addressed in the current review of the secondary standards for 9 oxides and nitrogen and sulfur standard is whether, in view of the scientific evidence reflected in 10 the I SA, additional information on exposure and risk discussed in th e REA, and conclusions 11 drawn from the Policy Assessment , the existing standards provide adequate protection. The 12 Administrator therefore, has considered the extent to which the current standards are adequate 13 for the protection of public welfare. Havin g reached th e general conclusion that aquatic and 14 terrestrial ecos ys tems can be degrade d by deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur , it is then 15 necessary

to first evaluate the appropriateness (in terms of form and structure) of the current 16 standards to address the ecological effects of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur as well as the 17 adequacy

of the current secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to provide requisite 18 protection by

considering to what degree risks to sensitive ecos ys tems would be expected to 19 occur in areas that meet the current standards. Conclusions regarding the adequacy of the current 20 standards are based on the available ecological effects, exposure and risk

- based evidence. In 21 evaluating the strength of this information, E PA has taken into account the uncertainties and 22 limitations in the scientific evidence. This section addresses the adequacy of the current 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

83 standards to protect against direct exposure effects on plants from oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, 1 the appropriatene ss of the current structure of the standards to address deposition

- related effects 2 of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur on sensitive ecos ystems and finally, the adequacy of such 3 standards to protect against adverse effects related to the deposition of oxides o f nitrogen and 4 sulfur. 5 1. Adequacy of the Current Standards for Direct Effects 6 The current secondary oxides of nitrogen and sulfur standards are intended to protect 7 against adverse effects to public welfare. For oxides of nitrogen, the current secondary standard 8 was set identical to the primary standard 3 , e.g. an annual standard set for NO 2 to protect against 9 adverse effects on vegetation from direct exposure to ambient oxides of nitrogen. For oxides of 10 sulfur, the current secondary standard is a 3

- hour standard intended to provide protection for 11 plants from the direct foliar damage associated with atmospheric concentrations of SO 2 . It is 12 appropriate to consider whether the current standards are adequate to protect against the direct 13 effects on vegetation resulting from ambient NO 2 and SO 2 which were the basis for the current 14 secondary

standards. The I SA concluded that there was sufficient evidence to infer a causal 15 relationship between exposure to SO 2 , NO, NO 2 and PAN and injury to vegetation. Additional 16 research on acute foliar injury has been limited and there is no evidence to suggest foliar injury 17 below the levels of the current secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. There is 18 sufficient ev idence to suggest that the levels of the current standards are likely adequate to 19 protect against direct ph ytotoxic effects. 20 2. Appropriateness and Adequacy of the Current Standards for Deposition

- related Effects 21

3 The current primary NO 2 standard has recently been changed to the 3 year average of the 98 th percentile of the annual distribution of the 1 hour daily maximum of the concentration of NO 2 . The current secondary standard remains as it was set in 1971.

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

84 This section addresses two concepts necessary to evaluate the current standards in the 1 context of deposition related effects. First, appropriateness of the current standards is considered 2 with regard to indicator, form, level and averaging time. This discussion centers around the 3 ability

of the c urrent standards to evaluate and provide protection against deposition related 4 effects that vary

spatiall y and temporall y. It includes particular emphasis on the indicators and 5 forms of the current standards and the degree to which they are ecologically

relevant with regard 6 to deposition related effects. Second, this section evaluates the current standards in terms of 7 adequacy

of protection. 8
a. Appropriateness 9 The I SA has established that the major effects of concern for this review of the oxides of 10 nitrog en and sulfur standards are associated with deposition of N and S caused by atmospheric 11 concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. The current standards are not directed toward 12 depositional effects, and none of the elements of the current NAAQS

– in dicator, form, 13 averaging time, and level

– are suited for addressing the effects of N and S deposition. 14 F ive issues arise that call into question the ecological relevance of the structure of the 15 current secondary

standards for oxides of nitrogen and su lfur. 16 (1) The current SO 2 secondary standard (0.5 ppm SO 2 over a 3

- hour average) does not utilize an 17 exposure period that is relevant for ecos ys tem impacts. The majority of deposition related 18 impacts are associated with depositional loads that occur over periods of months to years. 19 This differs significantl y from exposures associated with hourly concentrations of SO 2 as 20 measured b y the current secondary standard. By addressing short

- term concentrations, the 21 current SO 2 secondary standard, while protective against direct foliar effects from gaseous 22 oxides of sulfur, does not take into account the findings of effects in the I SA, which notes the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

85 relationship between annual deposition of S and acidification effects which are likel y to be 1 more severe and widespr ead than ph yt otoxic effects under current ambient conditions, and 2 include effects from long term deposition as well as short term. Acidification is a process 3 which occurs over time, as the ability of an aquatic sy stem to counteract acidic inputs is 4 reduce d as natural buffers are used more rapidly than they can be replaced through geologic 5 weathering. The relevant period of exposure for ecosy stems is therefore not the exposures 6 captured in the short averaging time of the current SO 2 secondary standard. The current 7 secondary

standard for oxides of nitrogen is an annual standard (0.053 ppm averaged over 1 8 ye ar) and as such is more ecologicall y relevant. 9 (2) Current standards do not utilize appropriate atmospheric indicators. NO 2 and SO 2 are used 10 as the component of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur that are measured, but they do not provide 11 a complete link to the direct effects on ecos ys tems from deposition of oxides of nitrogen and 12 sulfur as they

do not capture all relevant chemical species of oxidized nitrogen and oxidized 13 sulfur that contribute to deposition. The I SA provides evidence that deposition related 14 effects are linked with total nitrogen and total sulfur deposition, and thus all forms of 15 oxidized nitrogen and oxidized sulfur that are deposited will contribute to effects on 16
ecos ys tems. Thus, by using atmospheric NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations as indicators, the 17 current standards address only a fraction of total atmospheric oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, 18 and do not take into account the effects from deposition of total atmospheric oxides of 19 nitrogen and sulfur. This suggests that more comprehensive atmospheric indicators should 20 be considered in designing ecologicall y relevant standards. 21 (3) Current standards reflect separate assessments of the two individual pollutants, NO 2 and SO 2 , 22 rather than assessing the joint impacts of deposition to ecos ys tems. Recognizing the role that 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

86 each pollutant play s in jointly affecting ecos ys tem indicators, functions, and services is vital 1 to developing a meaningful standard. The clearest example of this interaction is in 2 assessment of the impacts of acidifying deposition on aquatic ecosy stems. Acidification in 3 an aquatic ecos ys tem depends on the total acidifying potential of the deposition of both N 4 and S from both atmospheric deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur as well as the inputs 5 from other sources of N and S such as reduced nitrogen and non

- atmospheric sources. It is 6 the joint impact of the two pollutants that determines the ultimate effect on organisms within 7 the eco sy stem, and critical ecos ys tem functions such as habitat provision and biodiversity

. 8 Standards that are set independentl y are less able to account for the contribution of the other 9 pollutant. This suggests that interactions between oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur 10 should be a critical element of the conceptual framework for ecologically relevant standards. 11 There are also important interactions between oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and reduced 12 forms of nitrogen, which also contribute to acidificati on and nutrient enrichment. It is 13 important that the structure of the standards address the role of reduced nitrogen in 14 determining the ecological effects resulting from deposition of atmospheric oxides of 15 nitrogen and sulfur. Consideration will also hav e to be given to total loadings as ecos ys tems 16 respond to all sources of N and S. 17 (4) Current standards do not take into account variability in ecos ys tem sensitivity . Ecos ys tems 18 are not uniforml y distributed either spatiall y or temporally in their sensitivity to oxides of 19 nitrogen and sulfur . Therefore, failure to account for the major determinants of variability , 20 including geological and soil characteristics related to the sensitivity to acidification or 21 nutrient enrichment as well as atmospheric and landscape characteristics that govern rates of 22 deposition, may lead to standards that do not provide requisite levels of protection across 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

87 ecos ys tems. The current structures of the standards do not address the complexities in the 1 responses of ecos ys tems to deposit ion of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Ecosy stems contain 2 complex groupings of organisms that respond in various way s to the alterations of soil and 3 water that result from deposition of nitrogen and sulfur compounds. Different ecos ys tems 4 therefore respond in different way s depending on a multitude of factors that control how 5 deposition is integrated into the sy stem. For example, the same levels of deposition falling 6 on limestone dominated soils have a very different effect from those falling on shallow 7 gl aciated soils underlain with granite. One s ys tem may over time display

no obvious 8 detriment while the other may experience a catastrophic loss in fish communities. This 9 degree of sensitivity is a function of many

atmospheric factors which control rates of 10 deposition as well as ecological factors which control how an ecosy stem responds to that 11 deposition. The current standards do not take into account spatial and seasonal variations not 12 only

in depositional loadings but also in sensitivity of ecos ys tems e xposed to those loadings. 13 Based on the discuss ion summarized above, the Policy Assessment concludes that the current 14 secondary

standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur are not ecologically relevant 15 in terms of averaging time, form, level or indicator. 16 b. Adequacy of Protection 17 As described in the Policy Assessment , 2005 ambient conditions indicate that the current 18 SO 2 and NO 2 secondary standards are not exceeded (US EPA, 20 11 , Figures 6

- 1 and 6

- 2) in 19 locations where ecological effects have been observed. In many locations, SO 2 and NO 2 20 concentrations are substantially below the levels of the secondary standards. This pattern 21 suggests that levels of deposition and any effects on ecos ys tems due to deposition of oxides of 22 nitrogen and sulfur under r ecent conditions are occurring even though areas meet or are below 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

88 current standards. In addition, these levels based on conclusions in the REA will not decline in 1 the future to levels below which it is reasonable to anticipate effects. 2 Indetermining th e adequacy of the current secondary standards for oxides of nitrogen 3 and sulfur the Policy Assessment considered the extent to which ambient deposition contributes 4 to loadings in ecos ys tems. Since the last review of the secondary standard for oxides of ni trogen, 5 a great deal of information on the contribution of atmospheric deposition associated with 6 ambient oxides of nitrogen has become available. The REA presents a thorough assessment of 7 the contribution of oxidized nitrogen to nitrogen deposition throu ghout the U.S., and the relative 8 contributions of ambient oxidized and reduced forms of nitrogen. The REA concludes that based 9 on that anal ys is, ambient oxides of nitrogen are a significant component of atmospheric nitrogen 10 deposition, even in areas with relatively high rates of deposition of reduced nitrogen. In 11 addition, atmospheric deposition of oxidized nitrogen contributes significantly to total nitrogen 12 loadings in nitrogen sensitive ecosy stems. 13 The I SA summarizes the available studies of relative nitrogen contribution and finds that 14 in much of the U.S., oxides of nitrogen contribute from 50 to 75 percent of total atmospheric 15 deposition relative to total reactive nitrogen that includes oxidized and reduced nitrogen species 16 (US EPA, 2008, section 2. 8.4 ). Although the proportion of total nitrogen loadings associated 17 with atmospheric deposition of nitrogen varies across locations the IS A indicates that 18 atmospheric N deposition is the main source of new anthropogenic N to most headwater streams, 19 high e levation lakes, and low

- order streams. Atmospheric N deposition contributes to the total N 20 load in terrestrial, wetland, freshwater, and estuarine ecos ys tems that receive N through multiple 21 pathway s. In several large estuarine s ys tems, including the Chesa peake Bay , atmospheric 22 deposition accounts for between 10 and 40 percent of total nitrogen loadings (U S EPA, 2008 ). 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

89 Atmospheric concentrations of oxides of sulfur account for nearl y all S deposition in the 1 US. For the period 2004

–2006, mean S depositio n in the U.S. was greatest east of the 2 Mississippi River with the highest deposition amount, 21.3 kg S/ha

- yr, in the Ohio River Valley 3 where most recording stations reported 3 year averages >10 kg S/ha

- yr . Numerous other stations 4 in the East reported S dep osition >5 kg S/ha

- yr. Total S deposition in the U.S. west of the 100th 5 meridian was relativel y low, with all recording stations reporting <2 kg S/ha

- yr and man y 6 reporting <1 kg S/ha

- yr. S was primarily deposited in the form of wet SO 4 2

− followed in 7 decre asing order b y a smaller proportion of dry SO 2 and a much smaller proportion of deposition 8 as dry

SO 4 2

−

. 9 As discussed throughout the REA (US EPA, 200 9 and s ection IIB above), there are 10 several key

areas of risk that are associated with ambient concentrations of oxides of nitrogen 11 and sulfur. As noted earlier, in previous reviews of the secondary standards for oxides of 12 nitrogen and sulfur, the standards were designed to protect against direct exposure of plants to 13 ambient concentrations of the pollutants. A significant shift in understanding of the effects of 14 oxides of nitrogen and sulfur has occurred since the last reviews, reflecting the large amount of 15
re search that has been conducted on the effects of deposition of nitrogen and sulfur to 16
ecos ys tems. The most significant current risks of adverse effects to public welfare are those 17 related to deposition of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur to both terrestrial a nd aquatic ecosy stems. 18 These risks fall into two categories, acidification and nutrient enrichment, which were 19 emphasized in the REA as most relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the existing standards in 20 protecting public welfare from adverse ecological effects. 21 i. Aquatic acidification 22

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

90 The focus of the REA case studies was on determining whether deposition of sulfur and 1 oxidized nitrogen in locations where ambient oxides of nitrogen and sulfur were at or below the 2 current standards was resulting in acidification and related effects, including episodic 3 acidification and mercury meth yl ation. Based on the case studies conducted for lakes in the 4 Adirondacks and streams in Shenandoah National Park (case studies are discussed more full y in 5
s ection IIB and US EPA, 2009 ), there is significant ri sk to acid sensitive aquatic ecos ys tems at 6 atmospheric concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur at or below the current standards. 7 The REA also supports strongl y a relationship between atmospheric deposition of oxides of 8 nitrogen and sulfur and los s of ANC in sensitive ecosy stems and indicates that ANC is an 9 excellent indicator of aquatic acidification. The REA also concludes that at levels of deposition 10 associated with oxides of nitrogen and sulfur concentrations at or below the current standards, 11 ANC levels are expected to be below benchmark values that are associated with significant 12 losses in fish species richness. 13 Significant portions of the U.S. are acid sensitive, and current deposition levels exceed 14 those that would allow recovery of the mo st acid sensitive lakes in the Adirondacks (US EPA, 15 2008, Executive Summary). In addition, because of past loadings, areas of the Shenandoah are 16 sensitive to current deposition levels (US EPA, 2008, Executive Summary). Parts of the West 17 are naturall y les s sensitive to acidification and subjected to lower deposition (particularl y SO x ) 18 levels relative to the eastern United States, and as such, less focus in the ISA is placed on the 19 adequacy

of the existing standards in these areas, with the exception of the mountainous areas of 20 the West, which experience episodic acidification due to deposition. 21 In describing the effects of acidification in the two case study areas the REA uses the 22 approach of describing benchmarks in terms of ANC values. Many locations in sensitive areas of 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

91 the U.S. have ANC levels below benchmark levels for ANC classified as severe, elevated, or 1 moderate concern (US EPA, 20 11 , Figure 2

- 1). The average current ANC levels across 44 lakes 2 in the Adirondack case study area is 62.1 μeq/L (mode rate concern). However, 44 percent of 3 lakes had deposition levels exceeding the critical load for an ANC of 50 μeq/L , and 28 percent of 4 lakes had deposition levels exceeding the (higher) critical load for an ANC of 20 μeq/L(US 5 EPA, 200 9 , section 4.2.4.2). This information indicates that almost half of the 44 lakes in the 6 Adirondacks case study area are at an elevated concern level, and almost a third are at a severe 7 concern level. These levels are associated with greatly diminished fish species diversity , and 8 losses in the health and reproductive capacity of remaining populations. Based on assessments of 9 the relationship between number of fish species and ANC level in both the Adirondacks and 10 Shenandoah areas, the number of fish species is decreased b y over half at an ANC level of 20 11 μeq/Lrelative to an ANC level at 100 μeq/L (US EPA, 200 9, Figure 4.2

- 1). When extrapolated 12 to the full population of lakes in the Adirondacks area using weights based on the EMAP 13 probability

survey (US EPA, 200 9 , section 4.2.6 .1 ) , 36 percent of lakes exceeded the critical load 14 for an ANC of 50 μeq/L and 13 percent of lakes exceeded the critical load for an ANC of 20 15 μeq/L

. 16 Many

streams in the Shenandoah case study area also have levels of deposition that are 17 associated with AN C levels classified as severe, elevated, or moderate concern. The average 18 ANC under recent conditions for the 60 streams evaluated in the Shenandoah case study area is 19 57.9 μeq/L , indicating moderate concern. However, 85 percent of these streams had recent 20 deposition exceeding the critical load for an ANC of 50 μeq/L , and 72 percent exceeded the 21 critical load for an ANC of 20 μeq/L . As with the Adirondacks area, this information suggests 22 that ANC levels may decline in the future and significant numbers of s ensitive streams in the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

92 Shenandoah area are at risk of adverse impacts on fish populations if recent conditions persist

. 1 Many

other streams in the Shenandoah area are also likely to experience conditions of elevated 2 to severe concern based on the prevalence in the area of bedrock geology associated with 3 increased sensitivity to acidification suggesting that effects due to stream acidification could be 4 widespread in the Shenandoah area (US EPA, 200 9 , section 4.2.6.2). 5 In addition to these chronic a cidification effects, the I SA notes that “consideration of 6 episodic acidification greatly increases the extent and degree of estimated effects for acidifying 7 deposition on surface waters.” (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.1.6 ) Some studies show that the 8 number of lakes that could be classified as acid

- impacted based on episodic acidification is 2 to 3 9 times the number of lakes classified as acid

- impacted based on chronic ANC. These episodic 10 acidification events can have long term effects on fish populations (US EPA, 2008, section 11 3.2.1.6 ). Under recent conditions, episodic acidification has been observed in locations in the 12 eastern U.S. and in the mountainous western U.S. (US EPA, 2008, section 3.2.1.6 ). 13 The I SA, REA and Policy Assessment all conclude that th e current standards are not 14 adequate to protect against the adverse impacts of aquatic acidification on sensitive ecos ys tems. 15 In the IS A it is noted that significant portions of the U.S. are acid sensitive, and that current 16 deposition levels exceed those that would allow recovery of the most acid sensitive lakes in the 17 Adirondacks ( US EPA, 2008, Executive Summary). In addition, because of past loadings, areas 18 of the Shenandoah are sensitive to current deposition levels (US EPA, 2008, Executive 19 Summary). A recent survey , as reported in the ISA, found sensitive streams in many locations in 20 the U.S., including the Appalachian Mountains, the Coastal Plain, and the Mountainous West 21 (US EPA, 2008, section 4.2.2.3). In these sensitive areas, between 1 and 6 percent of stream 22 kilometers are chronically acidified. The REA further concludes that both the Adirondack and 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

93 Shenandoah case study areas are currentl y receiving deposition from ambient oxides of nitrogen 1 and sulfur in excess of their ability to neutralize such inputs. In addition based on the current 2 emission scenarios, forecast modeling out to the year 2020 as well as 2050 indicates a large 3 number of streams in these areas will still be adversely impacted ( s ection IIB). Based on these 4 considerations, the Pol icy Assessment concludes that the current secondary NAAQS for oxides 5 of nitrogen and sulfur do not provide adequate protection of sensitive ecos ystems with regard to 6 aquatic acidification

. 7 ii. Terrestrial acidification 8 Based on the terrestrial acidification case studies (Kane Experimental Forest in 9 Pennsylvania and Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest described in section IIB) on sugar maple 10 and red spruce habitat, the REA concludes that there is significant risk to sensitive terrestrial 11
ecos ys tems from acidifi cation at atmospheric concentrations of NO x and SO X at or below the 12 current standards. The ecological indicator selected for terrestrial acidification is the base 13 cation to aluminum ratio (BC:Al), which has been linked to tree health and growth. The re sults 14 of the REA strongly support a relationship between atmospheric deposition of oxides of nitrogen 15 and sulfur and BC:Al, and that BC:Al is a good indicator of terrestrial acidification. At levels of 16 deposition associated with oxides of nitrogen and sul fur concentrations at or below the current 17 standards, BC:Al levels are expected to be below benchmark values that are associated with 18 significant effects on tree health and growth. Such degradation of terrestrial ecos ys tems could 19 affect ecos ys tem services such as habitat provisioning, endangered species, goods production 20 (timber, sy

rup, etc.) among others. 21 Many

locations in sensitive areas of the U.S. have BC:Al levels below benchmark levels 22 classified as providing low to intermediate levels of protecti on to tree health. At a BC:Al ratio of 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

94 1.2 (intermediate level of protection), red spruce growth can be reduced b y 20 percent. At a 1 BC:Al ratio of 0.6 (low level of protection), sugar maple growth can be decreased b y 20 percent. 2 The REA did not evaluat e broad sensitive regions. However, in the sugar maple case study area 3 (Kane Experimental Forest), recent deposition levels are associated with a BC:Al ratio below 4 1.2, indicating between intermediate and low level of protection, which would indicate the 5 potential for a greater than 20 percent reduction in growth. In the red spruce case study area 6 (Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest), recent deposition levels are associated with a BC:Al ratio 7 slightly

above 1.2, indicating slightl y better than an intermedi ate level of protection (US EPA, 8 200 9 , section 4.3.5.1 ). 9 Over the full range of sugar maple, 12 percent of evaluated forest plots exceeded the 10 critical loads for a BC:Al ratio of 1.2, and 3 percent exceeded the critical load for a BC:Al ratio 11 of 0.6. H owever, there was large variability across states. In New Jersey , 67 percent of plots 12 exceeded the critical load for a BC:Al ratio of 1.2, while in several states on the outskirts of the 13 range for sugar maple (e.g. Arkansas, Illinois) no plots exceeded th e critical load for a BC:Al 14 ratio of 1.2. For red spruce, overall 5 percent of plots exceeded the critical load for a BC:Al ratio 15 of 1.2, and 3 percent exceeded the critical load for a BC:Al ratio of 0.6. In the major red spruce 16 producing states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont), critical loads for a BC:Al ratio of 1.2 17 were exceeded in 0.5, 38, and 6 percent of plots. 18 The I SA, REA and Policy Assessment all conclude that the current standards are not 19 adequate to protect against the adverse impacts of te rrestrial acidification on sensitive 20
ecos ys tems. The main drawback, as stated in the REA and Policy Assessment , with the 21 understanding of terrestrial acidification lies in the availability of data by

which we can predict 22 critical loads and that the data are based on laboratory responses rather than field measurements. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

95 Other stressors that are present in the field b ut that are not present in the laboratory may 1 confound this relationship. The REA does however, conclude that the case study results , when 2 extended to a 27 state region, show that nitrogen and sulfur acidifying deposition in the sugar 3 maple and red spruce forest areas caused the calculated Bc/Al ratio to fall below 1.2 (the 4 intermediate level of protection) in 12% of the sugar maple plots and 5% of the red spruce plots; 5 however, results from individual states ranged from 0 to 67% of the plots for sugar mapl e and 0 6 to 100% of the plots for red spruce. 7 iii. Terrestrial nutrient e nrichment 8 Nutrient enrichment effects are due to nitrogen loadings from both atmospheric and non

9 atmospheric sources. Evaluation of nutrient enrichment effects requires an understanding t hat 10 nutrient inputs are essential to ecosy stem health and that specific long term levels of nutrients in 11 a sy stem affect the types of species that occur over long periods of time. Short term additions of 12 nutrients can affect species competition, and even small additions of nitrogen in areas that are 13 traditionally

nutrient poor can have significant impacts on productivity as well as species 14 composition. Most ecosy stems in the United States are nitrogen

- limited, so regional decreases 15 in emissions and depo sition of airborne nitrogen compounds could lead to some decrease in 16 growth of the vegetation that surrounds the targeted aquatic s ys tem but as discussed below 17 evidence for this is mixed. Whether these changes in plant growth are seen as beneficial or 18 adve rse will depend on the nature of the ecosy stem being assessed. 19 In formation on the effects of changes in nitrogen deposition on forestlands and other 20 terrestrial ecos ys tems is very limited. The multiplicity of factors affecting forests, including other 21 po tential stressors such as ozone, and limiting factors such as moisture and other nutrients, 22 confound assessments of marginal changes in any one stressor or nutrient in forest ecos ys tems. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

96 The I SA notes that only

a fraction of the deposited nitrogen is taken up by the forests, most of 1 the nitrogen is retained in the soils (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.2.1 ). In addition, the I SA 2 indicates that forest management practices can significantly affect the nitrogen cycling within a 3 forest ecos ys tem, and as such, the re sponse of managed forests to NO x deposition will be 4 variable depending on the forest management practices emplo yed in a given forest ecos ys tem 5 (US EPA, 2008, Annex C C.6.3 ). Increases in the availability of nitrogen in N

- limited forests 6 via atmospheric deposition could increase forest production over large non

- managed areas, but 7 the evidence is mixed, with some studies showing increased production and other showing little 8 effect on wood production (US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.9) . Because leaching of nitrate can 9 promote cation losses, which in some cases create nutrient imbalances, slower growth and 10 lessened disease and freezing tolerances for forest trees, the net effect of increased N on forests 11 in the U.S. is uncertain ( US EPA, 2008, section 3.3.9). 12 The sc ientific literature has many examples of the deleterious effects caused by excessive 13 nitrogen loadings to terrestrial sy stems. Several studies have set benchmark values for levels of 14 N deposition at which scientifically adverse effects are known to occur. Large areas of the 15 country

appear to be experiencing deposition above these benchmarks. The I SA indicates that 16 studies have found that at 3.1 kg N/ha /yr , the community

of lichens begins to change from 17 acidoph yt ic to tolerant species; at 5.2 kg N/ha /yr, the ty pical dominance b y acidoph yt ic species 18 no longer occurs; and at 10.2 kg N/ha /yr , acidophy

tic lichens are totall y lost from the 19 community . Additional studies in the Colorado Front Range of the Rocky Mountain National 20 Park support these findings. These three values (3.1, 5.2, and 10.2 kg/ha/y r) are one set of 21 ecologicall y meaningful benchmarks for the mixed conifer forest (MCF) of the pacific coast 22 regions. Nearl y all of the known sensitive communities receive total nitrogen deposition levels 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

97 above the 3.1 N kg/ha/yr ecological benchmark according to the12 km, 2002 CMAQ/NADP 1 data, with the exception of the easternmost Sierra Nevadas. MCFs in the southern portion of the 2 Sierra Nevada forests and nearl y all MCF communities in the San Bernardino forests rec eive 3 total nitrogen deposition levels above the 5.2 N kg/ha/y r ecological benchmark. 4 Coastal Sage Scrub communities (CSS) are also known to be sensitive to community 5 shifts caused b y excess nitrogen loadings. Studies have investigated the amount of nitrogen 6 utilized by

healthy and degraded CSS sy stems. In healthy stands, the authors estimated that 3.3 7 kg N/ha/yr was used for CSS plant growth. It is assumed that 3.3 kg N/ha/yr is near the point 8 where nitrogen is no longer limiting in the CSS community and above which level community 9 changes occur, including dominance b y invasive species and loss of coastal sage scrub

. 10 Therefore, this amount can be considered an ecological benchmark for the CSS community . The 11 majority

of the known CSS range is currentl y rec eiving deposition in excess of this benchmark. 12 Thus, the REA concludes that recent conditions where oxides of nitrogen ambient concentrations 13 are at or below the current oxides of nitrogen secondary standards are not adequate to protect 14 against anticipate d adverse impacts from N nutrient enrichment in sensitive ecos ys tems. 15 iv. Aquatic nutrient enrichment 16 The REA aquatic nutrient enrichment case studies focused on coastal estuaries and 17 revealed that while current ambient loadings of atmospheric oxides of nitrogen are contributing 18 to the overall depositional loading of coastal estuaries, other non

- atmospheric sources are 19 contributing in far greater amounts in total, although atmospheric contributions are as large as 20 some other individual source types. The abi lity of current data and models to characterize the 21 incremental adverse impacts of nitrogen deposition is limited, both by the available ecological 22 indicators, and b y the inability to attribute specific effects to atmospheric sources of nitrogen. 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

98 The REA case studies used as the ecological indicator for aquatic nutrient enrichment an index 1 of eutrophication known as the Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status Eutrophication Index 2 (ASSETS EI). This index is a six level index characterizing overall eutrophic ation risk in a 3 waterbody. This indictor is not sensitive to changes in nitrogen deposition within a single level 4 of the index . In addition, this ty pe of indicator does not reflect the impact of nitrogen deposition 5 in conjunction with other sources of nitrogen. 6 Based on the above considerations, the REA concludes that the ASSETS EI is not an 7 appropriate ecological indicator f or estuarine aquatic eutrophication and that additional analy sis 8 is required to develop an appropriate indicator for determining the appropriate levels of 9 protection from N nutrient enrichment effects in estuaries related to deposition of oxides of 10 nitroge n . As a result, EPA is unable to make a determination as to the adequacy of the existing 11 secondary oxides of nitrogen standard in protecting public welfare from N nutrient enrichment 12 effects in estuarine aquatic ecos ys tems. 13 Additionally , nitrogen deposit ion can alter species composition and cause eutrophication 14 in freshwater s ys tems. In the Rocky Mountains, for example, deposition loads of 1.5 to 2 15 kg/ha/yr which are well within current ambient levels are known to cause changes in species 16 composition in diatom communities indicating impaired water quality (US EPA, 2008, section 17 3.3.5.3 ). This suggests that the existing secondary standard for oxides of nitrogen does not 18 protect such ecos ys tems and their resulting services from impairment. 19

v. Other effects 20 An important consideration in looking at the effects of deposition of oxides of sulfur in 21 aquatic ecosy stems is the potential for production of methylmercury , a neurotoxic contaminant

. 22 The production of meaningful amounts of methyl mercury (MeHg) requires the presence of SO 4 2

- 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

99 and mercury , and where mercury is present, increased availability of SO 4 2

- results in increased 1 production of MeHg. There is increasing evidence on the relationship between sulfur deposition 2 and increased meth yl ation of mercury in aquatic environments; this effect occurs onl y where 3 other factors are present at levels within a range to allow methylation. The production of 4 methylmercury

requires the presence of sulfate and mercury , but the amount of methylmercury 5 produced varies with ox ygen content, temperature, pH, and supply of labile organic carbon (US 6 EPA, 2008, section 3.4). In watersheds where changes in sulfate deposition did not produce an 7 effect, one or several of those interacting factors were not in the range required for mean ingful 8 methylation to occur (US EPA, 2008, section 3.4). Watersheds with conditions known to be 9 conducive to mercury methylation can be found in the northeastern United States and 10 southeastern Canada (US EPA, 200 9 , section 6). 11 With respect to sulfur depo sition and mercury methylation, the final ISA determined: The 12 evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between sulfur deposition and increased 13 mercury

methylation in wetlands and aquatic environments. However, EPA did not conduct a 14 quantitativ e assessment of the risks associated with increased mercury methylation under current 15 conditions. As such, EPA is unable to make a determination as to the adequacy of the existing 16 SO 2 secondary standards in protecting against welfare effects associated with increased mercury 17 methylation. 18 vi. Summary of Adequacy Considerations 19 In summary , the Policy Assessment concludes that currently available scientific evidence 20 and assessments clearl y call into question the adequacy of the current standards with regard to 21 deposition

- related effects on sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecos ys tems, including acidification 22 and nutrient enrichment. Further, the Policy Assessment recognizes that the elements of the 23

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

100 current standards

-- indicator, averaging time, level and form

– are not ecologically relevant, and 1 are thus not appropriate for standards designed to provide such protection. Thus, the Policy 2 Assessment concludes that consideration should be given to establishing a new ecologically 3 relevant multi

- pollutant, multimedia standard to provide appropriate protection from deposition

4 related ecological effects of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur on sensitive ecosystems, with a focus 5 on protecting against adverse effects associated with acidifying deposition in sensitive aquatic 6
ecos ys tems. 7 3. CASAC Views 8 In a letter to the Administrator (Russell and Samet 2011 a), the CASAC Oxides of 9 Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur Panel, with full endorsement of the chartered CASAC, 10 unanimously

concluded that : 11 EPA staff has demonstrated through the Integrated Science Assessment (I SA), 12 Risk and Exposure Characterization (REA) and the draft PA that ambient NOx 13 an d SOx can have, and are having, adverse environmental impacts. The Panel 14 views that the current NOx and SOx secondary standards should be retained to 15 protect against direct adverse impacts to vegetation from exposure to gas phase 16 exposures of these two fam ilies of air pollutants. Further, the ISA, REA and draft 17 PA demonstrate that adverse impacts to aquatic ecosy stems are also occurring due 18 to deposition of NOx and SOx. Those impacts include acidification and 19 undesirable levels of nutrient enrichment in so me aquatic ecosy stems. The levels 20 of the current NOx and SOx secondary NAAQS are not sufficient, nor the forms 21 of those standards appropriate, to protect against adverse depositional effects; thus 22 a revised NAAQS is warranted. 23 24 Inaddition, with regard t o the joint consideration of both oxides of nitrogen and oxides 25 of sulfur as well as the consideration of deposition related effects, CASAC concluded that the 26 Policy

Assessment had developed a credible methodology for considering such effects. The 27 Panel s tated that “the Policy Assessment develops a framework for a multi

- pollutant, multimedia 28 standard that is ecologically relevant and reflects the combined impacts of these two pollutants as 29 they

deposit to sensitive aquatic ecosy stems.” 30

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

101 4. Administrator’s Prop osed Conclusions Concerning Adequacy of Current Standard 1 Based on the above considerations and taking into account CASAC advice, the 2 Administrator recognizes that the purpose of the secondary standard is to protect against 3 “adverse” effects resulting from exposure to oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, discussed above in 4 section IIA. The Administrator also recognizes the need for conclusions as to the adequacy of the 5 current standards for both direct and deposition related effects as well as conclusions as to t he 6 appropriateness and ecological relevance of the current standards. 7 In considering what constitutes an ecological effect that is also adverse to the public 8 welfare, the Administrator took into account the ISA conclusions regarding the nature and 9 stren gth of the effects evidence, the risk and exposure assessment results, the degree to which the 10 associated uncertainties should be considered in interpreting the results, the conclusions 11 presented in the Policy Assessment , and the views of CASAC and members of the public. On 12 these bases, the Administrator concludes that the current secondary standard s are adequate to 13 protect against direct ph ytotoxic effects on vegetation. Thus , the Administrator proposes to 14 retain the current secondary standard for oxides of nitrogen at 53 ppb, 4 annual average 15 concentration, measured in the ambient air as NO 2 , and the current secondary standard for oxides 16 of sulfur at 0.5 ppm , 3

- hour average concentration, measured in the ambient air as SO 2 . 17 With regard to deposition

- related effects, the Administrator has first to consider the 18 appropriateness of the structure of the current standards to address ecological effects of concern. 19 Based on the evidence as well as considering the advice given b y CASAC on this matter, the 20 Administrator conclud es that the elements of the current standards are not ecologically relevant 21 and thus are not appropriate to provide protection of ecos ys tems
. On the subject of adequacy of 22

4 The annual secondary standard for oxides of nitrogen is being specified in units of ppb to conform to the current version of the annual primary standard, as specified in the final rule for the most recent review of the NO 2 primary NAAQS (75 FR 6531; February 9, 2010).

### Interagency Workin g Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 and

13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

102 protection with regard to deposition

- related effects, the Administrator considered the full nature 1 of ecological effects related to the deposition of ambient oxides of nitrogen and sulfur into 2 sensitive ecos ys tems across the country . Her conclusions are based on the evidence presented in 3 the I SA with regard to acidification and nutrient enrichment effects, the findings of the REA with 4 regard to scope and severity of the current and likely

future effects of deposition, the sy nthesis of 5 both the scientific evidence and risk and exposure results in the Policy A ssessment as to the 6 adequacy

of the current standards, and the advice of both CASAC and the public. After such 7 consideration, the Administrator concludes that current levels of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are 8 sufficient to cause acidification of both aquatic and terrestrial ecos ys tems, nutrient enrichment of 9 terrestrial ecos ys tems and contribute to nutrient enrichment effects in estuaries that could be 10 considered adverse, and the current secondary standards do not provide adequate protection from 11 such e ffects. 12 Having reached these conclusions, the Administrator determines that it is appropriate to 13 consider alternative standards that are ecologically relevant. These considerations support the 14 conclusion that the current secondary standard s is neither appropriate nor adequate to protect 15 against deposition related effects

. The Administrator’s consideration of such alternative 16 standards is discussed below in Section III. 17