Why metrics matter: Evaluating policy choices for reactive nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 168-174

  Birch, Melissa B L ^a   Gramig, Benjamin M ^b   Moomaw, William R ^a   Doering III, Otto C ^b   Reeling, Carson J ^b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABATEMENT COSTS; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM; CHESAPEAKE BAY; CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED; CLEAN AIR; CLEAN WATER ACT; DAMAGE COSTS; DIRECT RELEASE; DYNAMIC NATURE; HUMAN HEALTH; MASS FLUX; MULTIPLE SOURCE; POLICY CHOICES; POLICY TOOLS; REACTIVE NITROGEN;

ECOSYSTEMS; NITROGEN;

COSTS;

FRESH WATER; NITROGEN; OZONE; REACTIVE NITROGEN; REACTIVE NITROGEN SPECIES; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ABATEMENT COST; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; BAY; ECOSYSTEM HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; MASS TRANSPORT; MORTALITY; NITROGEN; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLLUTION POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; WATERSHED;

AIR POLLUTION; AIR QUALITY STANDARD; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ARTICLE; ATMOSPHERE; ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION; BIOMETRY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EXHAUST GAS; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; POLICY; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATERSHED; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FRESH WATER; HUMANS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; NITROGEN CYCLE; REACTIVE NITROGEN SPECIES; SEAWATER; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL; WATER POLLUTION, CHEMICAL; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES;

CHESAPEAKE BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650699113     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es101472z     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Chesapeake Bay Program. Setting and Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment Loads: The Collaborative Process, Technical Tools and Innovative Approaches; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program Office: Annapolis MD, 2003.
2. Hoogeveen, H.; Moomaw, W. R.; Najam, A.; Verkooijen, P. Transforming Sustainable Development Diplomacy: Lessons Learned from Global Forestry Governance; Earthscan: London, 2010.
3. Dzombak, D. A.; Cheng, H. H.; Craig, R. K.; Doering, O. C.; Luneburg, W. V.; Mehan, G. T.; Park, J. B.; Schnoor, J. L.; Soballe, D. M.; Thackston, E. L.; Trimble, S. W.; Vicory, A. H. Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008.
4. Galloway, J. N.; Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change Ambio 2002, 31, 64-71
5. Galloway, J. N.; Aber, J. D.; Erisman, J. W.; Seitzinger, S. P.; Howarth, R. W.; Cowling, E. B.; Cosby, B. J. The nitrogen cascade Bioscience 2003, 54, 341-356
6. Clean Air Act. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
7. Clean Water Act. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program- id=45.
8. Commonwealth of Virginia; State of Maryland; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; District of Columbia; United States of America; Chesapeake Bay Commission. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. 2000. Available at http://www. chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx?menuitem=14904.
9. Linker, L. C.; Shenk, G. W.; Dennis, R. L.; Sweeney, J. S. Cross-media models of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and airshed. 1999. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data-modeling.aspx.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005) National Emissions Inventory data and documentation; 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 2005inventory.html.
11. Shenk, G. W. Personal Communications. Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee, 2004, 2009.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Fertilizer consumption and use - by year: U.S. consumption of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash, 1960-2007; 2009. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ FertilizerUse/.
13. U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008; USDOE, EIA, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting: Washington, DC, 2009.
14. Chesapeake Bay Program. CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.2; 2009. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data-modeling.aspx.
15. 2 emissions on ozone and fine particulate matter in the Eastern United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 4677-4689 (Pubitemid 47047406)
16. Odman, M. T.; Boylan, J. W. Integrated modeling for air quality assessment: The Southern Appalachians Mountains initiative project J. Phys. IV France 2002, 12 (10) 211-234
17. Boylan, J. W.; Odman, M. T.; Wilkinson, J. G.; Russell, A. G.; Doty, K. G.; Norris, W. B.; McNider, R. T. Development of a Comprehensive, Multiscale "One Atmosphere" Modeling System: Application to the Southern Appalachian Mountains Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 3721-3734
18. Boylan, J. W.; Odman, M. T.; Wilkinson, J. G.; Russel, A. G. Integrated Assessment Modeling of Atmospheric Pollutants in the Southern Appalachian Mountains: Part II. Fine Particulate Matter and Visibility J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2006, 56 (1) 12-22
19. Boylan, J. W.; Odman, M. T.; Wilkinson, J. G.; Russel, A. G. Integrated Assessment Modeling of Atmospheric Pollutants in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Part I: Hourly and Seasonal Ozone J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2005, 55 (7) 1019-1030
20. Palmer, K.; Dallas, B.; Jhih-Shyang, S. The benefits and costs of reducing emissions from the electricity sector J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 83 (1) 115-130
21. Abt Associates, Inc. Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP, version 3.0). Abt Associates, Inc.: Bethesda, MD, 2008.
22. Cohan, D. S.; Hakami, A.; Hu, Y.; Russell, A. G. Nonlinear response of ozone to emissions: source apportionment and sensitivity analysis Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (17) 6739-6748
23. Hakami, A.; Odman, M. T.; Russell, A. G. Nonlinearity in atmospheric response: a direct sensitivity analysis approach J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109 (D15) D15303
24. McCubbin, D. R.; Benjamin, J.; Apelberg, S. R.; Frank, D., Jr. Livestock Ammonia Management and Particulate-Related Health Benefits Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36 (6) 1141-1146
25. Moomaw, W. R.; Birch, M. B. L. Cascading costs: an Economic Nitrogen Cycle Sci. China, Ser. C: Life Sci. 2005, 48, 678-696; Special Issue
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule; EPA-452/R-05-002; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, 2005.
27. x SIP Call, FIP, and Section 126 Petitions. U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, 1998.
28. x Emissions: A Policy Analysis; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, 1998.
29. Chesapeake Bay Program. Economic Analyses of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Actions to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality; EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office: Annapolis MD, 2003.
30. Ackerman, F.; Biewald, B.; White, D.; Woolf, T.; Moomaw, W. R. Grandfathering and coal plant emissions: the cost of cleaning up the Clean Air Act Energy Policy 1999, 27, 929-940