1. Urban Tree Cover: An Innovative Strategy for Air Quality Planning David J. Nowak USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station Syracuse, NY

2. Goal  Use urban tree cover and its management as a strategy to reduce ozone with State Implementation Plans

3. Overview  History – How we got here  Why Ozone?  Why Trees?  SIPs – brief overview

4. History – How we got here  1992 NUCFAC grant –Feasibility of funding urban tree management based on the benefits of urban trees

5. 1992 NUCFAC Grant  Can we convert benefits to dollars? –CO 2 and Carbon  Global warming –Air pollutants  Commodity trading of NO x and SO x

6. Final Result Final Result  Ozone reduction by trees had the greatest funding potential  EPA seemed interested –Regulatory programs termed “directionally sound”

7. 1995 NUCFAC Grant  Quantify the effect of urban trees on ozone –Urban forest field survey  NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston  Cover and composition study –Used and improved “EPA” models  Updated cover data, VOC emissions data, deposition data  NYS DEC Division of Air Resources –Modeling work

8. U.S. East Coast Study-1995 U.S. East Coast Study-1995  Increased tree cover from 20% to 40% in urban cells –Demonstrated a measurable impact on ozone ( Nowak, Civerolo, Rao, Sistla, Luley and Crane, 2000)

9. 1995 NUCFAC Grant  Met with EPA –Presented the East Coast study (w/ NYS DEC)  EPA appreciative of research but: –Needed data specific to one non-attainment area (NYC)

11. What Happened?  NYS has decided to wait to submit a request to the EPA – Jan 2002  No reason to submit at that point –Already accepted –Next SIP call

12. Latest Meetings  Summer 2002: Met with EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to discuss urban tree issues –Mike D’Errico –Roni Olizo  Feb. 2003: Met with EPA Staff –Maryland came on board (work also on-going in Houston) –Defined and discussed a series of regulatory issues –Developed paper on issues  April 2004: Meeting with State Foresters and Air Quality personnel

13. Ozone  VOC’s and NO x are precursors  Highest under high temperatures during the day  No point source –So control strategy is typically aimed at VOC and NO x emission reductions

14. Why Ozone?  Significant effects on human health, plants and environmental quality:

15. Why Ozone?  Persistent problem  Many areas still in non-attainment –159 million people affected –474 counties or parts of county in non-attainment

16. StateNonattainment Area NameCountiesClassificationMaximum Attainment Date (from June 1, 2004) ConnecticutGreater Connecticut, CTHartford; New London Tolland; Windham Litchfield ModerateJune 2010 New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ-CT Fairfield; Middlesex New Haven ModerateJune 2010 MainePortland, MECumberland (P); Sagadahoc York (P); Androscoggin (P) MarginalJune 2007 Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Cos, MEKnox (P); Lincoln (P) Hancock (P); Waldo (P) BasicJune 2009 MassachusettsBoston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. MA), MABarnstable; Bristol; Dukes Essex; Middlesex; Nantucket Norfolk; Plymouth; Suffolk Worcester ModerateJune 2010 Springfield (Western MA), MABerkshire; Franklin ; Hamden Hampshire ModerateJune 2010 New HampshireBoston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), NHHillsborough (P); Merrimack (P); Rockingham (P) Strafford (P) ModerateJune 2010 Rhode IslandProvidence (All RI), RIBristol; Kent; Newport Providence; Washington ModerateJune 2010 Vermontentire state is attainment [1] [1] Includes Tribal lands 1 1 Includes Tribal lands Non Attainment – EPA Region 1

17. StateNonattainment Area NameCountiesClassificationMaximum Attainment Date (from June 1, 2004) [1] [1] Includes Tribal lands 1 1 Includes Tribal lands Non Attainment – EPA Region 2 New JerseyNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CTBergen; Essex; Hudson Hunterdon; Middlesex Monmouth; Morris; Passaic Somerset; Sussex ; Union Warren ModerateJune 2010 Philadelphia - Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE- MD-NJ Atlantic; Cape May; Burlington; Camden Cumberland; Gloucester Mercer; Salem; Ocean ModerateJune 2010 New YorkJamestown, NYChautauquaBasicJune 2009 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NYErie; NiagaraBasicJune 2009 Rochester, NYGenesee; Livingston ; Monroe; Ontario; Orleans; Wayne BasicJune 2009 Syracuse, NYCayuga; Madison; Onondaga Oswego Unclassifiable Jefferson Co, NYJeffersonModerateJune 2010 Essex Co, NY (Whiteface Mountain)Essex (P)BasicJune 2009 Albany- Schenectady-Troy, NY Albany; Greene; Montgomery Rensselaer; Saratoga Schenectady; Schoharie BasicJune 2009 New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CTBronx ; Kings; Nassau; New York; Queens; Richmond; Rockland; Suffolk; Westchester ModerateJune 2010 Poughkeepsie, NYDutchess; Putnam; OrangeModerateJune 2010 1 1 Includes Tribal lands 2 2 EPA decision on attainment or nonattainment designation by the end of 2004 pending review of data

18. VirginiaNorfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads),VA City of Chesapeake; City of Hampton; James City; City of Newport News; City of Norfolk; City of Poquoson ; City of Portsmouth; City of Suffolk; City of Virginia Beach; City of Williamsburg; York; Gloucester; Isle of Wight MarginalJune 2007 Richmond-Petersburg, VACharles City; Chesterfield; City of Colonial Heights; Hanover; Henrico ;City of Hopewell; City of Richmond; City of Petersburg; Prince George ModerateJune 2010 Washington, DC-MD-VAAlexandria City; Arlington; Fairfax City; Fairfax; Falls Church City; Loudoun; Manassas City; Manassas Park City Prince William ModerateJune 2010 Fredricksburg, VASpotsylvania; Stafford; City of FredericksburgModerateJune 2010 Roanoke, VABotetourt; Roanoke; City of Roanoke; City of SalemBasicDec 2007 Madison and Page Cos (Shenandoah National Park),VA Page (P); Madison (P)BasicJune 2009 Frederick Co, VAFrederick; City of WinchesterBasicDec 2007 West Virginia Charleston, WVKanawha PutnamBasicJune 2009 Huntington-Ashland- KY-WVCabell; WayneBasicJune 2009 Parkersburg-Marietta, OH-WVWoodBasicJune 2009 Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WVBrooke; HancockBasicJune 2009 Wheeling, OH-WVMarshall; OhioBasicJune 2009 Berkeley & Jefferson, WVBerkeley ; JeffersonBasicDec 2007 StateNonattainment Area NameCountiesClassifica tion Maximum Attainment Date (from June 1, 2004) Non Attainment – EPA Region 3 DelawarePhiladelphia - Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ Kent; New Castle; SussexModerateJune 2010 DCWashington, DC-MD-VADistrict of ColumbiaModerateJune 2010

19. [1] [1] Includes Tribal lands 1 1 Includes Tribal lands MarylandBaltimore, MDAnne Arundel; Baltimore City; Baltimore Carroll; Harford; Howard ModerateJune 2010 Kent and Queen Anne’s Cos, MDKent; Queen Anne’sModerateJune 2010 Philadelphia - Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ CecilModerateJune 2010 Washington, DC-MD-VACalvert; Charle; Frederic; Montgomery Prince George’s ModerateJune 2010 Washington Co, (Hagerstown), MDWashingtonBasicDec 2007 PennsylvaniaYork, PAAdams; YorkBasicJune 2009 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PACarbon; Lehigh; NorthamptonBasicJune 2009 Altoona, PABlairBasicJune 2009 Erie, PAErieBasicJune 2009 Franklin Co, PAFranklinBasicJune 2009 Greene Co, PAGreeneBasicJune 2009 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PACumberland; Dauphin; Lebanon; PerryBasicJune 2009 Johnstown, PACambriaBasicJune 2009 Lancaster, PALancasterModerateJune 2010 Philadelphia - Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ Bucks; Chester; Delaware; Montgomery Philadelphia ModerateJune 2010 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PAAllegheny; Armstrong; Beaver; Butler; Fayette Washington; Westmoreland BasicJune 2009 Reading, PABerksBasicJune 2009 Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH- PA MercerBasicJune 2009 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PALackawanna; Luzerne; Monroe; WyomingBasicJune 2009 Clearfield and Indiana, PAClearfield; IndianaBasicJune 2009 State College, PACentreBasicJune 2009 Tioga Co, PATiogaBasicJune 2009

20. Why Ozone?  States in Non-Attainment –Large Regulatory Implications  Restrictions on Federal Funding  Costly to manage –$600 million to 1 billion per ppb!!!

21. Why Ozone?  Limited emission reduction sources left

22. Why Trees? TREE

23. Temperature reduction REE

24. Latent Heat of Vaporization Heat of vaporization for water = 539 cal / g

25. (Data from Lawrence Berkeley Lab)

26. Temperature reduction RemovalEE

28. -estimated range given in parentheses; value based on median externality value of the pollutant ($/t) times deposition value - 15.7% tree cover Air Pollution by Trees in Philadelphia, PA (1994)

29. Temperature reduction RemovalEmissionsE

30. Volatile Organic Compounds: VOCs  Natural Plant Compounds - essential oils (odor or essence of species) - toxic to insects and fungal pathogens - insect aggregation and disaggregation pheromones - plant allelopathy  Common Types - isoprene (light and temperature dependent) - monoterpenes (temperature dependent)

31. High Isoprene Emitting Genera Casuarina (beefwood) Populus (poplar) Eucalyptus (eucalyptus) Quercus (oak) Liquidambar (sweetgum) Robinia (black locust) Nyssa (black gum) Salix (willow) Platanus (sycamore) (>70 ug C / g leaf wt at 30 o C and full sunlight )

33. Temperature reduction RemovalEmissions Energy Conservation

34. Temperature reduction Removal Emissions Energy Conservation

35. Literature - Atlanta Case Study 14% increase in maximum ozone concentration due to loss of vegetation Maximum: June 4, 1984 123 20% reduction in natural hydrocarbon emissions 116 Photochemical effect (2 o C increase) 121 Biogenic emission effect (2 o C increase) 137 Anthropogenic emission effect (2 o C increase) 140 Ozone conc. (ppb) (Cardelino and Chameides, 1990)

36. Los Angeles Basin Study Air quality impacts of increased urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative with respect to ozoneAir quality impacts of increased urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative with respect to ozone Net basin-wide effect of increased urban tree cover is a decrease in ozone concentrations if the additional trees are low VOC emitters Net basin-wide effect of increased urban tree cover is a decrease in ozone concentrations if the additional trees are low VOC emitters (Taha, 1996)

37. N EW S Boston New York City Philadelphia Baltimore Field Sites Increase urban tree cover along East Coast from 20 to 40%

41. Urban Trees and Ozone in the Northeastern United States Increased urban tree cover: Reduced ozone (O 3 ) in urban areas (-1 ppb daytime)Increased urban tree cover: Reduced ozone (O 3 ) in urban areas (-1 ppb daytime) Physical effects of trees on pollution removal, air temperature, wind speed and boundary layer height are importantPhysical effects of trees on pollution removal, air temperature, wind speed and boundary layer height are important Tree removal of NO x lead to increased O 3 at night (loss of NO x scavenging of O 3 )Tree removal of NO x lead to increased O 3 at night (loss of NO x scavenging of O 3 ) Tree VOC emissions had no detectable (<1 ppb) effect on O 3Tree VOC emissions had no detectable (<1 ppb) effect on O 3 (Nowak, Civerolo, Rao, Sistla and Luley, 2000)

43. Why Trees?  Innovative Strategies Group –Interested in use of urban forest –U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park –5 meetings since 1993  State will have a hard time meeting new air quality standards  Trees can reduce ozone  Innovative approaches needed

44. Regulatory Approach  State Implementation Plan (SIP) –Show’s EPA how NAAQS will be reached –Legally binding document –Typically developed for a metro area airshed –Emissions driven/modeling –Updated by State periodically and approved by EPA –Shows effect of action on future ozone concentrations, but assumes system does not change (no land use change)

45. SIPs  SIPs contain a series of requirements that are structured to reduce emissions or prevent additional emissions from occurring that contribute to air quality problems. The SIPs must include provisions to: –monitor the ambient air to determine air quality –establish rules, regulations, permitting restrictions and other programs to limit emissions from industry, businesses, cars trucks and buses –establish legal authority, resources, and enforcement sufficient to ensure compliance with the restrictions on emissions –model the airshed to: a) estimate the air quality impact of State and Federal rules, regulations, and other programs; and b) demonstrate that the restrictions on emissions will actually achieve air quality compliance air over time.

46. SIP Approach  Place tree cover goals in SIP –Tie ozone attainment to cover goals –State would depend on urban forest management for attainment  Would require the State to meet forestry goals  Potential funds for urban forestry

47. Goal of Meeting  Facilitate discussion and action on how to use urban vegetation as a means to reduce ozone within SIPs