PB89-189401
Crop Loss Due to the Ozone in New England
Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
1988
8:S. tapartrnentot'Commerce
National tecfmfoel'lnfermatien'Service
-------
scar;. mi
< TIM am) Sutxito
PORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
I.BEPOfltNO,
600/9-89/007
2.
}
Crop Loss Due To Ozone in New England
7 Authofftl
Thomas J^Maldonato, Graduate Student
9 P«1oiinnjO>gtt.i»fionN*in»*A4A«M
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
499 South Capitol Street, SW A101-F6
Washington. DC 20460
No<««
4 Report Out
J^qmpleted Fallj 988
».
I. Pwloonng O gin I a on R«pi No.
11. Corttia(C) or &*nt(C) No,
IQ
(G)
13. T)0*al Riqan I Pwod Cov»>«d
Technical Report
14.
AMtrta (UM. 200 wort*)
1302 CROP LOSS DUE TO OZONE in NEW ENGLAND
This report is part of the National Network for Environmental Management Studies under the auspices of the
Office ol Cooperative Environmental Management of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone is known to
damage crops and forests; a national estimate of it's detrimental effects on crops is 2-3 billion dollars per year. This
paper attempts to quantify the economic losses in New England due to ozone exposure. The monitored ozone
values for each of the New England States and their means are established. The major cash crops grown in the
area and their cash values are also presented. Using the Weibull function, a dose-response calculation for specific
crops, a dollar value for crop loss is calculated. The dollar value for lour crops (corn, hay, tobacco, and sweet corn)
is estimated at approximately 12 million dollars (for the 1986 growing season). The New England forest species that
are sensitive to ozone damage are also presented. Based on the lack of established Weibull functions for the other
cash crops grown in New England and the lack of a method to quantify the cash value of forest damage due to
ozone, the conclusion of this paper is that the economic loss in New England due to ozone is at least 12 million
dollars per year.
17. DocuoiTwrt AntlyM t DecuwwH Ducrptwt
b. l '
-------
Crop Loss Due To Ozone in New England
Thomas J. Haldonato
i. Ji
-------
Disclaimer
This report was furnished to the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the graduate student identified on the cover page, under
a National Network of Environmental Policy Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Ozone is known to damage crops and forests and a national
estimate of its detrimental effects on crops is 2-3 billion
dollars per year. This paper attempts to quantify the economic
losses in New England due to ozone exposure. The monitored ozone
values for each of the New England States and their means are
established. The major cash crops grown in the area and their
cash value are also presented. Using the Weibull function, a
dose-response calculation for specific crops, a dollar value for
crop loss is calculated. The dollar value for five crops, corn,
hay, tobacco, and sweet corn, the only species grown in New
England for which there are established Weibull functions, is
estimated at approximately 12 million dollars (for the 1986
growing season). The New England forest species that are
sensitive to ozone damage are also presented. Based on the lack
of established Weibull functions for the other cash crops grown
in New England and the lack of a method to quantify the cash
value of forest damage due to ozone, the conclusion of this paper
is that the economic loss in New England due to ozone is at least
12 million dollars per year.
-------
Research and field observations indicate that Oj [ozone]
alone or in combination with SOr [sulfur dioxide] and nitrogen
dioxide (N0t) is responsible for up to 90% of the crop loss in
the U.S. caused by air pollution (1). Economic assessments of
crop loss due to ozone have been conducted for various geographic
areas and a variety of crops. Olszyk et al. conducted an
assessment of the effects of ozone on crop productivity in the
state of California. In order to conduct a valid study, one must
first quantify the species of crops grown in a region of
interest. Then ^ set of ozone values must be reviewed to decide
which stations best describe the area of interest, i.e.
agriculturally located stations. Research work on particular
crops of interest must be gathered and reviewed to determine
their value to the assessment. Crop production and its cash
value must also be obtained for the area to be assessed. Once
these are obtained then an assessment can be conducted.
When quantifying a region's crops and tree species many
resources can be utilized. For the New England area, the New
England Agricultural Statistics were obtained and condensed into
Table 1. The data presents crop production for the major crops
in the New England area. After a conversation with the New
England statistician it was discovered that the Department of
Agriculture for New England is unable to obtain the data needed
to track all of the crop production in the area. The Department
of Agriculture for New England does include major crops for the
New England Area with a breakdown for each state in its listing.
-------
C <
r
CONNECTICUT CROPS - ACREAGE, PRODUCTION AND VALUE. 1986 AND 1987
CROPS
! ACRES
I HARVESTED
| 1986 | 1987
YIELD
PER ACRE
1986 j 1987
UNIT
1
PRODUCTION |
1
1986 [ 1987 I
VALUE OF
PRODUCTION J/
1986 | 1987
1,000
1,000 Dollars
1 *or Silage 51,000
; AH
itoes
ICCO
•oadleaf
,iade
11 3/
les, Com'l
:hes 2/
is 2/~
(t Torn
'E TOTAL
86,000
900
1,000
990
1,990
21
4,600
144.490
50,000
88,000
500
930
870
1,800
...
...
4,400
144,700
20.0
2.43
236
1,750
1.325
1,539
...
...
76
...
18.0
2.26
2*0
1,725
1,260
1,500
...
...
'71
—
Ton
Ton
Cwt.
Pound
Pound
Pound
42-Pound
48-Pound
Ton
Cwt.
...
1,020
209
212
1,750
1.312
3,062
1,095
54
1.60
359
...
900
199
110
1,604
1,096
2,700
1,024
52
1.45
312
—
27,540
19,855
1,442
3,150
17,187
20,337
8,869
1,248
776
6,283
86,350
26,100
19,104
748
n/a
n/a
17,085
9,331
1,300
725
4,711
79,104
Relates to marketing season or crop year.
Production is the quantity sold or utilized.
Preliminary 1987 value of production.
MAINE CROPS - ACREAGE, PRODUCTION AND VALUE, 1986 AND 1987
CROPS
| ACRES
| HARVESTED
j 1986 j 1987
! YIELD !
1 PERACRE 1 UNIT
j 1986 | 1987 j
1
PRODUCTION |
1
1986 -| 1987 j
VALUE OF
PRODUCTION ]/
1986 j 1987
1,000
1,000 Dollars
j-*r- '
toes "
e Syrup
es, Com
(berries
'E TOTAL
Relates
Ia5e 34
40
225
86
'1 21
IT
.ODD
,0-00
,000
,030
*• te *
385,000
to marke
32,000
38,000
216,000
86,000
—
372,000
:ino season or
Production is quantity
Preliminary 1987
value
SOld or
14.0
65.0
1.99
255
...
—
16.0
75.0
1.98
285
...
—
Ton
Bushel
Ton
Cwt.
Gal Ion
42-Puund
Pound
—
476
2,600
448
21,930
6
2,048
40,169
—
512
2,850
428
24,510
5
36,' 330
—
12,138
2,080
30,464
131,580
178
16,505
12,854
205,79?
12,288
2,993
28,248
116,423
193
14,800
16,349
191,294
crop year. S3fe&»^
utilized
of production.
NEW HAMPSHIRE CROPS
CROPS
! ACRES
j HARVESTED
j 1986 !
R
tf*orSs7i
&S1I
TeSyrup
1
T
es, Com'
E TOTAL
TgfP 25,
87,
1 2/
112,
000
000
...
1987
"?,000
oS.OOO
- "ACREAGE
j r,
j PER
J 1986 j
18.5
2.28
...
fe££S?
gT.^^ax
, PRODUCTION AND
ELD
ACRE
1987
19.0
2.13
—
1
| UNIT
"1
Ton
Ton
Gal Ion
42-Pound
^T*"",
**Gfi
VALUE, 1986 AND
PRODUCTION
1986
1,
463
198
60
1,190
| 1987
000
437
181
47
1,190
000 108,000
1987
( VALUE OF '
| PRODUCTION V
j 1986^
1987
1,000 Dollars
12,733
18,216
1,5/4
9,932
<2,605
11,581
16,471
1,607
10,000
39,659
Relates to marketing season or crop year.
Production is the quantity sold or utilized.
-------
KASSACHUSETTS CROPS - ACREAGE, PRODUCTION AND VALUE, 1986 AND 1987
/. "W»W, I "wt>
CROPS
ACRES
HARVESTED
1986 | 1987
il
PER
1986
ill •
ACRE
1987
UNIT
PRODUCTION j PKT^N1/
1986 j 1987 j 1986 } 1987
1,000
1,000 Dollars
Corn^or^S^age
Potatoes 2/
•tylaple Syrup
Jkpples, Com'l If
STATE TOTAL
90,000
440,000
100
530,100
87
410
49/
,o;o
,000
,000
14.0
2.13
200
...
16.0
2.08
—
Ton
Ton
Cwt.
Gallorp.
42-PourtK
—
1,260
938
20
338
1,143
—
1,392
851
275
976
...
30,870
71,288
136
8,687
8,480
119,461
34
66
8
7
116
,104
,378
,388
,462
,332
Production is the quantity sold or utilized.
Vermont potato estimate discontinued 1987.
-------
The Crop Summary includes 1986 and 1987 values for comparison,
also including acres harvested, yield per acre, production, and
production value.
Raw ozone data is necessary to calculate an ozone value for
an area to be assessed. The raw data used in this assessment was
obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's Aerometric
Information Retrieval System (AIRS). This data provides an ozone
value for a particular site every hour on the hour, unless the
station was not in operation. Sites used in the assessment were
selected by their geographical location. If a site was within
city limits, or near a major highway, it was not included. The
data is manipulated by taking the monthly sets of data and
calculating a 7-hour/day period between 0900 and 1600 hours. As
ozone is a diurnal pollutant, this time period is when the daily
ozone values are likely to be at their greatest value and the
plants are most responsive. The 7-h period (0900-1600, Standard
Time) was chosen to include the hours when plants are generally
the most physiologically active and 03 concentrations are usually
the highest (2). The 7-hour/day mean ozone values, from 1987,
for each site are presented in Appendix A, with state, city,
setting, and land use information. One crop, tomatoes, required
a 12-hour/day period between 0800 and 2000 hours. The 12-
hour/day data is included in Appendix A, it was also obtained
from the AIRS data. The sites were plotted on maps of the region
to get an idea of the distribution of the sites. Ozone values
for each state are calculated and the standard deviation is shown
-------
in Table 2. Thjs shows the variability of using a state wide
ozone value for crop assessment.
One source of variability in the sites is that most sites
are located in cities, or populated areas, not in agricultural
areas. That does not infer that the true ozone values in an
agricultural area are going to be less than a populated area but
a standard state can not be justified. Even though the sites
located in cities were omitted, the sites used in the calculation
of a state ozone value are not all located in agricultural
regions. In this assessment there was no choice but to consider
the data and to figure an ozone value for each state to be used
in the functions used to calculate a loss.
The National Crop Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN) was
introduced by the EPA to assess crop loss due to air pollution.
The primary objectives of the NCLAN are:
1. To define the relationships between yields of major
agricultural crops and doses of O3, S02, N02, and their
mixtures as required to satisfy the needs of the economic
assessment and to support the development of NAAQS;
2. to assess national primary economic consequences
resulting from the exposure of major agricultural crops
to 03, SO2>- NO2, and their mixtures;
3. to advance the understanding of the cause and effect
relationships that determine crop response to pollutant
exposure (ij.
The NCLAN sponsors many research projects to assess the crop loss
due to ozone and other air pollutants. The 7-hour/day value
described earlier was accepted by the NCLAN as a value to be used
in calculating a dose-response function.
-------
Table 2. 7/hour mean ozone values
State Ozone calc.
Std. Dev
n
Connecticut 0.051 ppm 0.0032 7
Maine 0.040 ppm 0.0029 10
Massachusetts 0.042 ppm 0.0030 11
New Hampshire 0.041 ppm 0.0040 3
Rhode Island 0.054 ppm 1
Vermont 0.040 ppm 0.0008 2
note:
Ozone calc. - Ozone value used in the Weibull for
crop yield.
Std. Dev - Standard Deviation.
n - number of stations where ozone data were obtained.
ible 3. New England 1987 Crop Reduction Values for the Selected Crops
Ambient MA MF CT NH VT RI
Value
Hay
%red.
Lost "
>rn 3780
%red.
Lost
>rn 397
%red.
Lost
obacco
%red.
Lost
Wheat
%red.
Lost
Ambient
4101
11118
12149
316
4703
0.042
3856
6.0
1581748
10958
1.4
248209
12126
0.2
33182
305
3.6
256146
3557
24.4
— -
0.040
3904
4.8
1359647
10986
1.2
145720
12131
0.2
18437
306
3.0
— -
3694
21.5
22314
0.041
3881
5.4
1026763
10973
1.3
341210
12128
0.2
44375
306
3.3
561786
3625
22.9
5502
0.051
3560
13.2
2173513
10798
2.9
333698
12089
0.5
56860
296
6.2
— —
3002
36.2
— — —
0.040
3904
4.8
3194939
10986
1.2
404430
12131
0.2
51169
306
3.0
— _
3694
21.5
6437
0.054
3429
16.4
320784
10730
3.5
47958
12071
0.6
8826
293
7.2
2836
39.7
/hour ozone
0.039
0.039
0.047
0.039
0.038
0.049
eet Cor
%red.
Lost
294
283
3.9
3898
283
3.9
_: —
276
6.1
288
283
3.9
283
3.6
_ —
274
6.7
tes:
bient - 0.025 ppm.
ed. - percent reduction for each crop
Lost - Dollar amount lost due to ozone in each particular state.
-------
The Weibull model is used to describe crop yield due to
ozone effects for a varie+" ^f reasons:
1. It has a fle>..j.ole form that covers the range of
responses observed.
2. The form of the Weibull is biologically realistic.
3. The parameters of the Weibull have straight-forward
interpretations.
4. The Weibull provides direct estimates of
proportional yields.
5. Tests of homogeneity of proportional yield responses
over data sets are readily accomplished (3).
The Weibull is a function involving derivatives and parameters
which must be experimentally derived. Using data from
experiments and the Weibull function, dose-response functions can
be calculated. The dose-response functions can be used to create
dose-response curves, where the X-axis is the ozone value and the
Y-axis is percent reduction. Once a dose response curve is
created, a corresponding percent reduction can be found for any
ozone value.
The Weibull function can also be used for any specific ozone
value simply by inserting the ozone value and calculating a
response. In order to compare the Weibull functions, the NCLAN
has used the Weibull calibrated to 0.025 ppm ozone which is an
*,
accepted background ozone value with no anthropogenic addition
(1) . The Weibull has been use>.d and dose-response functions
calculated for most research conducted since 1984. This limits
the assessment to research conducted in the past four years.
While obtaining research articles and contacting authors it
was discovered that for most of the crops included in the New
England Crop Summary, no research was conducted. Most crops
4
-------
which have been studied have been major production crops. The
New England Crop Summary only contained four crops which have
been researched. Weibull functions had only been produced for
three of the four crops which had been researched.
This put severe restrictions on the assessment mainly
because it now only includes three of the major crops produced in
the New England Region. The Weibull functions are described for
each crop below:
Corn "PAG 397" (4) .
Corn "Pioneer 3780" (4).
Hay r ?
y,
-------
particular state, from the 1987 ozone data. Once the two values
are calculated a percent loss can be figured. Then using the
percentage loss for each crop and state, and the production value
from the 1986 New England Crop Summary, a rough estimate of the
economic loss can be determined. The crop losses and percent
loss is presented in Table 3.
The assessment shows that for the five crops studied there
was a loss of approximately twelve million dollars for the 1986
growing season. The reason that two species of corn were used is
to explain that the exact cultivar of corn is unknown. In Table
3, the percent loss is different for each of the corn cultivars.
This presents the need to know the exact cultivar being produced
in a study area. One way of getting around this is to find an
accepted common Weibull response for the particular crop being
studied. There wasn't an available common Weibull response
function for corn.
A state wide ozone value is used because the crop production
is on a state basis. The Census Bureau conducts county level
crop production every five years. This can be used, but the
ozone data has to be from the same year that the county data is
derived. Ozone data from 1987 and crop production from 1983
cannot be used in the same assessment. For rough assessments,
ozone data and crop data from different years can be utilized.
It crop production values on a county level are used, then ozone
values must also be calculated on the county level to be used in
an assessment.
-------
Table 4 was created to summarize the crop values used in the
calculations of crop loss. The values are taken from Table 1.
Table 5 is a summary of the crop losses in each state to derive a
statewide economic loss, and to be able to determine which states
suffer the greatest from increased ozone levels. When viewing
Table 5 it should be reminded that the study does not include
various crops for lack of information, i.e. potatoes, no function
describing loss could be located.
Assessing ozone damage to trees was difficult to explore.
There is a lack of research data on the effects of ozone on tree
species. For this assessment table 6 was constructed using
forest statistics from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont (8, 9, 10, 11). Statistics for Massachusetts and Rhode
Island were not obtained and therefore are not included. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service produces
publications for each state "Forest Statistics" for any state.
The publications include many statistics for tree production in
the particular state. The publication also includes a list of
the trees known to exist in the states, and their frequency. The
tree listing is duplicated in table 6. Table 6 includes the
occurrence, and the ozone sensitivity of the particular tree.
The trees are listed in order of ozone sensitivity. Because
there isn't an ozone sensitivity listed for the trees located at
the bottom of the list does not mean that they are not damaged by
ozone. It means that no ozone sensitivity data was found for
that tree specie. They are included to give a complete inventory
-------
Table 4. 1987 Crop Values (1,000 Dollars)
MA
ME
CT
NH
VT
RI
Table 5.
Crop
Hay
Corn 3780
Corn 397
Tobacco
Wheat
Sweet Cor
Corn
17298
12288
26100
11581
34104
1373
Crop Loss
MA
1581748
248209
33182
256146
_ —
3898
Hay
26481
28248
19104
16471
66378
1957
for each
ME
1359647
145720
18437
—
22314
— — —
Tobacco
7210
— _
17085
-...
...
State
CT
1026763
341210
44375
561786
5502
288
Wheat
»-»•»
104
24
...
30
...
NH
2173513
333698
56860
...
...
...
Sweet Corn
101
— __
5
...
— _
...
VT
3194939
404430
51169
_ —
6437
...
RI
320784
47958
8826
...
State Tot 2123183 1546118 1979924
New England Total 12247839
2564071 3656975 377568
-------
of the tree species in each state.
There are many problems trying to create ozone sensitivity
data for trees. Most of the research includes ozone sensitivity
for seedlings, they are easier to monitor that full grown trees.
The problem with using full grown trees is how to dispense th*-
ozone and how long to monitor for results. The difficulties are
obvious in trying to expose full grown trees to ozone in a
chamber. It is difficult to determine that a particular specie
of tree is very sensitive to ozone and correlate that to a full
grown tree. This is one of the reasons that table (, only
includes whether the specie is sensitive, intermediate, or
tolerant.
Most of the research has been conducted in this field. The
remaining articles being published will decrease according to
Robert Kohut, a leading crop loss research scientist.
The assessment included deriving site sampled ozone values,
equating different functions to assess the loss due to ozone, and
calculating an economic loss for each crop. The ozone values
could have been more sound if a statistical analysis was
conducted to discover if the averaging of site values is valid.
The overall assessment concludes that in the New England states
there is a 12 billion dollar loss due to ground level ozone. The
assessment for trees did not arrive at an economic value for the
loss but does show, from Table 6, that the trees in the New
England states are sensitive to ozone.
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity.
Connecticut Trees
Species
Ailanthus
Eastern white pine
Green ash
Quaking aspen
Sycamore
White ash
White oak
Apple
Black oak
Pin oak
Pitch pine
Scarlet oak
Scotch pine
Black locust
Eastern hemlock
Flowering dogwood
Northern red oak
Norway spruce
Red maple
Red pine
Sugar maple
American basswood
American beecb
American chestnut
American elm
American hornbeam
Atlantic white-cadar
Bigtooth aspen
Black ash
Black cherry
Blackgum
Butternut
Chestnut oak
Eastern cottonwood
Eastern hophornbeam
Eastern redcedar
Gray birch
Hickory
Northern white-cedar
Paper birch
Pin cherry
Sassafras
Slippery elm
Striped maple
Swamp chestnut oak
Sweet birch
Yellow birch
Yellow-poplar
Occurrence 03 sens,
vr
c
vr
r
vr
c
vc
r
c
r
r
c
r
r
vc
r
vc
r
vc
r
c
r
c
vr
c
T"
vr
r
r
c
r
vr
c
r
r
c
r
c
vr
c
vr
c
vr
vr
vr
vc
c
r
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
notes:
Occurrence: in decreasing order.
vc - very common; c - common;
r - rare; vr - very rare.
Ozone Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
S - Sensitive;
I - Intermediate;
T - Tolerant.
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity, (cont.)
Maine Trees
Species
Ailanthus
Eastern white pine
Green ash
Quaking aspen
White ash
White oak
Apple
Black oak
Pitch pine
Scarlet oak
Willow
Balsam fir
Black locust
Black spruce
Eastern hemlock
Northern red oak
Norway spruce
Red maple
Red pine
Sugar maple
White birch
White spruce
American basswood
American beech
American elm
American hornbeam
Balsam poplar
Bigtooth aspen
Black ash
Black cherry
Black willow
Blackgum
Brown ash
Butternut
Eastern hophornbeam
Eastern redcedar
Gray birch
Hickory
Mountain maple
Northern white-cedar
**in cherry
Red ash
Red spruce
Silver maple
Slippery elm
Striped maple
Sweet birch
Tamarack
Yellow birch
Occurrence 03 sens,
vr S
c S
r S
c S
c S
r S
r I
r I
vr I
vr I
vr I
vc T
vr T
c T
c T
c T
vr T
vc T
r T
C T
vc T
C T
r
c
r
vr
r
c
c
r
vr
vr
c
vr
r
vr
c
vr
vr
vc
r
r
vc
vr
vr
c
vr
c
c
notes:
Occurrence: in decreasing order. Ozone Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
vc - very common; c - common; S - Sensitive;
r - rare; vr - very rare. I - Intermediate;
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity, (cont.)
New Hampshire
Eastern white pine
Green ash
Quaking aspen
White ash
White oak
Apple
Pitch pine
Scarlet oak
Balsam fir
Black spruce
Eastern hemlock
Red maple
Red pine
Sugar maple
White birch
White spruce
American beech
Balsam poplar
Bigtooth aspen
Black ash
Black cherry
Butternut
Eastern hophornbeam
Eastern redcedar
Gray birch
Hickory
Mountain maple
Northern white-cedar
Pin cherry
Red spruce
Silver maple
Striped maple
Sweet birch
Tamarack
Yellow birch
Occurrence 03 sens,
vc
vr
c
c
c
r
c
r
vc
r
vc
vc
r
vc
vc
c
c
r
c
r
c
r
r
r
c
r
vr
r
r
vc
vr
r
c
r
vc
S
S
S
S
S
I
I
I
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
notes:
Occurrence: in decreasing order. Ozone Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
vc - very common; c - common; S - Sensitive;
r - rare; vr - very rare. I - Intermediate;
T - Tolerant.
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity, (cont.)
Vermont
Ailanthus
Eastern white pine
Green ash
Quaking aspen
White ash
White oak
Apple
Boxelder
Balsam fir
Black locust
Black spruce
Black walnut
Eastern hemlock
Northern red oak
Red maple
Red pine
Sugar maple
White birch
White spruce
American basswood
American beech
American elm
American hornbeam
Balsam poplar
Bigtooth aspen
Black ash
Black cherry
Butternut
Chestnut oak
Eastern cottonwood
Eastern hophornbeam
Eastern redcedar
Gray birch
Hawthorn
Hickory
Honeylocust
Northern white-cedar
pin cherry
Red spruce
Silver maple
Slippery elm
Striped maple
Swamp white oak
Sweet birch
Tamarack
Yellow birch
Occurrence 03 sens,
vr S
vc S
r S
c S
c S
r S
r I
vr I
vc T
vr T
r T
vr T
vc T
c T
vc T
r T
vc T
vc T
c T
r
vc
c
vr
vr
r
r
c
r
vr
vr
c
r
c
vr
c
vr
c
r
vc
c
r
c
vr
c
r
vc
notes:
Occurrence: in decreasing order. Ozo.ie Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
vc — very common; c — common; S - Sensitive;
r - rare; vr - very rare. I - Intermediate;
T - Tolerant.
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity, (cont.)
New Hampshire Occurrence 03 sens.
Eastern white pine vc S
Green ash vr S
Quaking aspen c S
White ash c S
White oak c S
Apple r I
Pitch pine c I
Scarlet oak r I
Balsam fir vc T
Black spruce r T
Eastern hemlock vc T
Red maple vc T
Red pine r T
Sugar maple vc T
White birch vc T
White spruce c T
American beech c
Balsam poplar r
Bigtooth aspen c
Black ash r
Black cherry c
Butternut r
Eastern hophornbeam r
Eastern redcedar r
Gray birch c
Hickory r
Mountain maple vr
Northern white-cedar r
Pin cherry r
Red spruce vc
Silver maple vr
Striped maple r
Sweet birch c
Tamarack r
Yellow birch vc
notes: .
Occurrence: in decreasing order. Ozone Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
vc - very common; c - common; S - Sensitive;
r - rare; vr - very rare. I - Intermediate;
T - Tolerant.
-------
Table 6. State Tree compilation, occurrence and sensitivity, (cont.)
Vermont
Ailanthus
Eastern white pine
Green ash
Quaking aspen
White ash
White oak
Apple
Boxelder
Balsam fir
Black locust
Black spruce
Black walnut
Eastern hemlock
Northern red oak
Red maple
Red pine
Sugar maple
White birch
White spruce
American basswood
American beech
American elm
American hornbeam
Balsam poplar
Bigtooth aspen
Black ash
Black cherry
Butternut
Chestnut oak
Eastern cottonwood
Eastern hophornbeam
Eastern redcedar
Gray birch
Hawthorn
Hickory
Honeylocust
Northern white-cedar
Pin cherry
Red spruce
Silver maple
Slippery elm
Striped maple
Swamp white oak
Sweet birch
Tamarack
Bellow birch
Occurrence 03 sens,
vr S
vc S
r S
c S
c S
r S
r I
vr I
vc T
vr T
r T
vr T
vc T
C T
vc T
r T
vc T
vc T
C T
r
vc
c
vr
vr
r
r
c
r
vr
vr
c
r
c
vr
c
vr
c
r
vc
c
r
c
vr
c
r
vc
notes:
Occurrence: in decreasing order. Ozo.ie Sens.: Ozone sensitivity
vc - very common; c - common; S - Sensitive;
r - rare; vr - very rare. I - Intermediate;
T - Tolerant.
-------
Works Cited
1. Heck, Walter W., o.C. Taylor, Richard Adams, Gail Bingham,
Joseph Miller, Eric Preston, and Leonard Weinstein.
"Assessment of Crop Loss from Ozone" Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association 32 (1982) : 353-61.
2. Heck, Walter W., William W. Cure, John O. Rawlings, Lawrence
J. Zaragoza, Allen S. Heagle, Howard E. Heggestad, Robert J.
Kohut, Lance W. Kress, and Patrick J. Temple. "Assessing
Impacts of Ozone on Agricultural Crops: I. Overview" Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association 34 (1984) : 729-35.
3. Rawlings, J. O., and W. W. Cure. "The Weibull Function as a
Dose-Response Model to Describe Ozone Effects on Crop Yields"
Crop Science 25 (1985) : 807-14.
4. Kress, L. W., and J. E. Miller. "Impact of ozone on field-
corn yield" Canadian J_Qu.r_na_l__of__Bptany 63 (1985) : 2408-15.
5. Kohut, Robert J., John A. Laurence, and Robert G. Amundson.
11 Effects of Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide on Yield of Red Clover
and Timothy" Submitted for publication.
6. Heagle, Allen S., W. W. Heck, V. M. Lesser, and J. 0.
Rawlings. "Effects of Daily Ozone Exposure Duration and
Concentration Fluctuation on Yield of Tobacco" Phytopathology
77 (1987) : 856-62.
7. Olszyk, David M., Homero Cabrera, and C. Ray Thompson.
"California Statewide Assessment of the Effects of Ozone on
Crop Productivity" Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 38 (1988) : 928-31.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Forest
Statistics for Connecticut-1972 and 1985"
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Forest
Statistics for Maine-1971 and 1982"
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Forest
Statistics for New Hampshire-1973 and 1983"
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Forest
Statistics for Vermont-1973 and 1983"
-------
Appendix A. 7-Hour/day mean ozone values
State: Massachusetts
County: Barnstable
City: Truro
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
Setting: Rural
Land Use Residential
May
0.040
0.041
0.043
0.045
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.045
0.044
June
0.044
0.046
0.050
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.053
0.051
Site Mean
July
0.040
0.042
0,046
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.049
0.049
0.047
0.043
August
0.032
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.043
0.039
Sept .
0.027
0.028
0.030
0.032
0.035
0.038
0.040
0.040
0.034
State:
County:
City:
J
State:
County:
City:
Massachusetts
Bristol
Easton
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
Setting: Rural
Land Use Residential
May June July
0.043 0.043 0.037
0.046 0.050 0.043
0.049 0.053 0.048
0.051 0.054 0.047
0.053 0.056 0.050
0.053 0.057 0.051
0.051 0.056 0.048
0.050 0.057 0.046
0.050 0.053 0.046
Site Mean 0.046
August
0.035
0.043
0.046
0.050
0.051
0.052
0.051
0.050
0.047
Massachusetts
Bristol Setting: Suburban
Fairhaven Land Use Residential
Hour May June July August
9 0 045 0.042 0.036 0.034
10
W
11
12
J. ft
1
2
ft
3
>ij
4
Mean
0.047 0.046 0.040
0.049 0.049 0.043
0.050 0.051 0.047
0.051 0.053 0.048
0.052 0.056 0.049
0.052 0.056 0.046
0.053 0.055 0.045
0.050 0.051 0.044
Site Mean 0.045
0.039
0.042
0.047
0.048
0.045
0.044
0.043
0.043
Sept.
0.024
0.028
0.034
0.038
0.040
0.042
0.038
0.034
0.035
Sept.
0.028
0.032
0.035
0.039
0.040
0.039
0.039
0.038
0.036
10
-------
State: Massachusetts
County: Essex Setting:
City: Lawrence Land Use
Hour May June
9 0.033 0.035
10 0.038 0.039
11 0.041 0.042
12 0.043 0.044
1 0.043 0.043
2 0.043 0.044
3 0.043 0.045
4 0.042 0.045
Mean 0.041 j.042
Sit: Mean
Urban and Center City
:Residential
July August
0.031
0.037
0.042
.047
.049
0.048
0.047
0.043
0
0
0.043
0.037
0.027
0.034
0.038
0.041
0.043
0.041
0.039
0.035
0.037
Sept.
0.016
0.021
0.023
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.023
State: Massachusetts
County: Essex
City: Newburyport
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
May
0.042
0.045
0.047
0.049
0.050
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.048
Setting: Suburban
Land Use Residential
Jane
0.034
0.039
0.044
0.047
0.052
0.052
0.051
0.049
0.046
Site Mean
July
0.036
0.043
0.046
0.047
0.048
0.048
0.047
0.047
0.045
0.041
August
0.025
0.029
0.034
0.036
0.037
0.039
0.038
0.035
0.034
Sept.
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.031
0.032
0.034
0.035
0.032
0.030
State: Massachusetts
County: Hampden Setting:
City: Agawam Land Use;
Hour May June
9 0.034 0.034
10 0.040 0.038
11 0.044 0.041
12 0.047 0.043
1 0.048 0.044
2 0.049 0.043
3 0.050 0.044
4 0.046 0.043
Mean 0.045 0.041
Site Mean
Rural
Agricultural
July August
0.034
0.038
0.042
0.043
0.044
0.046
0.047
0.045
0.042
0.040
0.027
0.033
0.039
0.044
0.046
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.041
Sept.
0.021
0.027
0.031
0.032
0.033
0.033
0.032
0.030
0.030
11
-------
State: Massachusetts
County : Hampden
City: Chicopee
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
Setting: Suburban
Land Use: Residential
May
0.039
0.044
0.048
0.051
0.053
0.054
0.055
0.052
0.050
June
0.036
0.043
0.047
0.043
0.051
0.052
0.049
0.048
0.047
Site Mean
July
0.038
0.046
0.052
0.055
0.057
0.058
0.059
0.059
0.053
0.046
August
0.031
0.037
0.045
0.050
0.052
0.053
0.051
0.050
0.046
Sept.
0.023
0.028
0.033
0.036
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.033
0.033
State:
County :
City:
State:
County:
City:
Massachusetts
Hampshire
Amherst
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
May
0.033
0.037
0.042
0.045
0.046
0.047
0.047
0.046
0.043
Setting:
Land Use:
June
0.030
0.036
0.039
0.040
0.042
0.042
0.043
0.041
0.039
Site Mean
Rural
Agricultural
July
0.032
0.040
0.043
0.047
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.048
0.045
0.038
August
0.024
0.029
0.037
0.040
0.041
0.043
0.043
0.040
0.037
Sept.
0.015
0.022
Q.026
0.023
0.030
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.026
Massachusetts
Hampshire
Ware
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
May
0.042
0.046
0.048
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.049
Setting:
Land Use:
June
0.038
0.043
0.048
0.050
0.049
0.050
0.049
0.049
0.047
Rural
Forest
July
August
0.034
0.040
0.045
0.046
0.049
0.051
0.050
0.049
0.046
Sept.
0.026
0.030
0.033
' 0.035
0.037
0.039
0.039
0.037
0.035
Site Mean 0.044
12
-------
State: Massachusetts
Mean
g
o
\J
1
2
1
2
3
4
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
— ^
' 030
'.030
.031
.031
.032
.032
.031
.031
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Site
033
039
044
044
045
045
045
042
042
Mean
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 041
. 051
.058
.059
.064
.062
.059
.056
.056
.041
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.041
'.047
.048
.049
.048
.043
.044
u
o
0
0
0
0
0
• .1
. 027
!032
.034
'.033
.030
.030
State:
County:
City: Scituate
Hour
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
Mean
May
0 039
0 041
0 043
0 045
0 045
0 046
n 044
0.044
Setting:
Land Use:
June
0.041
0.045
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
Suburban
Residential
July
0.026
C.031
0.036
0.040
0.042
0.042
0,042
0.041
0.043 0.048 0.038
Site Mean 0.040
0.030
0.036
0.042
0.045
0.049
0.048
0.046
0.044
0.043
Sept.
0.019
0.023
0.027
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.030
0.028
0.027
State
County
Site
Connecticut
Fairfield
Greenwich Pt . Park
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
May
0.036
0.040
0.045
0.050
0.055
0.057
0.054
0.050
June
0.039
0.049
0.055
0.060
0.066
0.066
0.064
0.060
Mean
0.048 0.057
Monthly Mean
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.037
0.045
0.054
0.058
0.068
0.076
0.077
0.075
0.061
0.050
Greenwich
Suburban
Residential
Aug.
0.030
0.036
0.043
0.052
0.057
0.062
0.061
0.057
0.050
Sept
0.023
0.029
0.034
0.038
0.040
0.041
0.041
0.038
0.036
13
-------
State Connecticut
County Fairfield
Site W. Connecticut State U.
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
May
0.041
0.047
0.049
0.052
0.054
0.055
0 054
0.052
June
0.041
0.046
0.051
0.055
0.057
0.060
0.059
0.058
Mean
0.051 0.053
Monthly Mean
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.042
0.049
0.054
0.057
0.062
0.065
0.066
0.065
0.058
0.048
Danbury
Suburban
Residential
Aug.
0.030
0.038
0.044
0.049
0.053
0.054
0.056
0.055
0.047
Sept
0.023
0.030
C.033
0.035
0.036
0.036
0.036
0.031
0.033
State
County
Site
Connecticut
Fairfield
USCG Lighthouse
Hour May
9 0.038
10 0.045
11 0.053
12 0.056
13 0.059
14 0.061
15 0.062
16 0.060
Mean 0.054
Monthly Mean
City Stratford
Setting Suburban
Land Use Residential
June
0.041
0.048
0.058
0.067
0.074
0.075
0.073
0.067
0.063
in
July
0.047
0.053
0.064
0.076
0.082
0.084
0.083
0.079
0.071
0.057
Aug.
0.038
0.042
0.051
0.058
0.064
0.066
0.067
0.065
0.056
Sept
0.030
0.034
0.038
0.042
0.045
0.046
0.047
0.044
0.041
State Connecticut
County Middlesex
Site Conn. Valley Hosp.
Hour May
9 0.041
10 0.047
11 0.051
12 0.054
13 0.057
14 0.057
15 0.057
16 0.054
Mean 0.052
Monthly Mean
City Middletown
Setting Suburban
Land Use Agricultural
June
0.043
0.048
0.054
0.059
0.060
0.059
0.063
V • V v *f
0.062
0.056
in
July
0.041
0.050
0.057
0.062
0.066
0.068
0.071
0.068
0.060
0.051
Aug.
0.031
0.038
0.048
0.051
0.054
0.055
0.055
0.052
0.043
Sept
0.026
0.032
0.037
0.041
0.041
0.039
0.037
0.035
0.036
14
-------
State
County
Site
State
County
Site
State
County
Site
Connecticut City Madiijon
New Haven Setting
Hammonasset State Park Land Use
Hour May June July Aug.
9 0.041 0.042 0.038 0.030
10 0.045 0.047 0.045 0.035
11 0.047 0.055 0.050 0.039
12 0.054 0.061 0.055 0.046
13 0.055 0.066 0.061 0.048
14 0.055 0.070 0.062 0.048
15 0.057 0.071 0.062 0.048
16 0.057 0.068 0.058 0.050
Mean 0.051 0.060 0.054 0.043
Monthly Mear 0.049
Connecticut City Groton
New London Setting Suburban
Univ. of Conn. Land Use Residential
Hour May June July Aug.
9 0.044 0.046 0.040 0.034
10 0.047 0.050 0.045 0.040
11 0.051 0.059 0.051 0.046
12 0.055 0.065 0.056 0.050
13 0.060 0.070 0.059 0.051
14 0.061 0.075 0.060 0.054
15 0.060 0.075 0.064 0.056
16 0.060 0.070 0.064 0.055
Mean 0.055 0.064 0.055 0.048
Monthly Mean 0.053
Connecticut City Stafford
Tolland Setting Rural
Shenipsit State Forest Land Use Forest
Hour May June July Aug.
9 0.042 0.042 0.044 0.033
10 0.046 0.046 0.049 0.038
11 0.047 0.050 0.055 0.043
12 0.050 0.052 0.056 0.047
13 0.051 0.051 0.059 0.048
14 0.051 0.051 0.062 0.047
15 0.053 0.051 0.060 0.046
16 0.052 0.051 0.058 0.046
Mean 0.049 0.049 0.055 0.044
Monthly Mean 0.046
Sept
0.026
0.030
0.034
0.037
0.040
0.041
0.041
0.039
0.036
Sept
0.031
0.035
0.039
0.043
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.047
0.043
Sept
0.028
0.031
0.035
0.037
0.039
0.037
0.036
0.033
0.035
15
-------
State
County
Site
Maine
Cumberland
Shelter Site
Hour
9
10
12
13
A
-------
State
County
Site
State
County
Site
Maine
Hancock
McFarland Hill, Arcadia
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May
0.043
0.044
0.045
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.045
June
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
038
040
041
042
045
045
046
047
043
Monthly Mean
Maine
Hancock
Bald Mtn
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
. , Dedham
May
0.042
0.044
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.046
0.046
June
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
038
039
041
042
043
044
044
045
042
Monthly Mean
Maine
Kennebec
Gardiner
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May
0.040
0.042
0.045
0.045
0.047
0.047
0.048
0.047
0.045
June
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
037
040
040
043
043
044
044
045
042
Monthly Mean
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.031
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.038
0.038
0.040
0.041
0.037
0.039
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.033
0.035
0.037
0.038
0.040
0.041
0.040
0.041
0.038
0.040
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.029
0.033
0.036
0.040
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.041
0.038
0.039
Rural
Residential
Aug.
0.033
0.036
0.038
0.039
0.039
0.040
0.039
0.039
0.038
•»«••
Rural
Agriculture
Aug.
0.034
0.037
0.039
0.039
0.040
0.041
0.040
0.039
0.039
Gardiner
Suburban
Residential
Aug.
0.033
0.037
0.039
0.039
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.040
0.039
Sept
0.029
0.032
0.033
0.034
0.035
0.034
0.035
0.035
0.033
Sept
0.030
0.031
0.032
0.034
0.034
0.035
0.034
0.034
0.033
Sept
0.024
0.028
0.031
0.032
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.031
0.031
17
-------
State
County
Site
Maine
Knox
Isle Au
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
Haut
May
0.037
0.040
0.046
0.050
0.053
0.054
0.055
0.057
0.049
City
Setting
Land Use
June July
0.040 0.036
0.042 0.038
0.043 0.039
0.046 0.043
0.048 0.046
0.048 0.049
0.051 0.050
0.050 0.048
0.046 0.044
___
Rural
- —
Aug.
0.038
0.041
0.044
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.052
0.053
0.047
Sept
0.029
0.031
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.038
0.039
0.040
0.035
Monthly Mean 0.044
State
County
Site
Maine
Knox
Port Clyde
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May
0.041
0.042
0.044
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.046
City
Setting
Land Use
June July
0.039 0.030
0.042 0.032
0.044 0.035
0.046 0.039
0.047 0.043
0.051 0.045
0.051 0.047
0.052 0.046
0.047 0.040
WM»«*
-._-
Aug.
0.032
0.036
0.039
0.042
0.044
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.042
Sept
0.029
0.031
0.033
0.035
0.037
0.039
0.041
0.041
0.036
Monthly Mean 0.042
State
County
Site
Maine
York
Kennebunkport
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May
City
Setting
Land Use
June July
0.030
0.036
0.040
0.046
0.048
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.044
*»«
Suburban
Residential
Aug.
0.031
0.037
0.041
0.046
0.047
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.043
Sept
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.030
0.033
0.034
0.035
0.034
0.030
Monthly Mean 0.039
18
-------
State
County
Site
Maine
York
Nubble Point
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May
June
Monthly Mean
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.032
0.039
0.046
0.050
0.049
0.051
0.051
0.047
0.046
0.040
York
Aug.
0.035
0.040
0.043
0.046
0.045
0.045
0.046
0.049
0.044
Sept
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.030
0.032
0.034
0.034
0.033
0.030
State
County
Site
New Hampshire GitV Berlin
Coos Setting Urban and City Center
Lancaster Street Trailer Land Use Residential_
Hour
9
10
11
•L *
12
* *•
14
15
16
May
0.037
0.039
0.039
0.040
0.039
0.040
0.041
0.041
June
0.033
0.035
0.034
0.037
0.037
0.035
0.036
0.036
July
0.035
0.038
0.040
0.040
0.041
0.040
0.041
0.042
Aug.
0.031
0.037
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.038
sept
0.025
0.026
0.029
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.029
Mean 0.040 0.035
Monthly Mean
0.040
0.036
0.038
0.029
State New Hampshire
County Merrimack
Site So. Bow and Dunbarton Rd., Bow
Hour May June
9 0.037
10 0.042
11 0.047
12 0.052
13 0.053
14 0.052
15 0.052
16 0.053
Mean
Monthly Mean
0.049
0.042
City
Setting
Land Use
Aug.
0.039
0.041
0.044
0.045
0.047
0.046
0.046
0.045
0.044
Sept
0.026
0.029
0.031
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.036
0.035
0.033
19
-------
State
County
Site
New Hampshire
Rockingham
Rye Harbor
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
State Park
May June
0.041 0.042
0.047 0.045
0.049 0.048
0.052 0.051
0.050 0.053
0.051 0.056
0.051 0.055
0.050 0.055
0.049 0.051
Monthly Mean
State
County
Site
Rhode Island
Kent
Parkfield
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
May June
0.050 0.048
0.054 0.054
0.056 0.059
0.057 0.061
0.058 0.067
0.059 0.070
0.060 0.072
0.059 0.070
0.057 0.063
Monthly Mean
State
County
Site
Vermont
Bennington
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mean
Me
May June
0.046 0.041
0.047 0.044
0.049 0.047
0.051 0.048
0.053 0.046
0.052 0.046
0.055 0.047
0.055 0.048
0.046
jnthly Mean
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.034
0.038
0.046
0.051
0,056
0.057
0.059
0.055
0.050
0.046
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.044
0.047
0.052
0.055
0.058
0.061
0.063
0.063
0.055
0.054
City
Setting
Land Use
July
0.038
0.044
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.049
0.048
0.049
0.047
0.041
Suburban
Residential
Aug . Sept
0.037 0.025
0.042 0.027
0.047 0.030
0.051 0.033
0.054 0.035
0.053 0.037
0.053 0.037
0.050 0.034
0.048 0.032
West Grenwich
Rural
Agricultural
Aug. Sept
0.037 0.030
0.043 0.035
0.049 0.040
0.054 0.043
0.058 0.045
0.059 0.045
0.060 0.045
0.058 0.042
0.052 0.041
Bennington
Rural
Agricultural
Aug . Sept
0.031 0.026
0.035 0.031
0.038 0.035
0.039 0.036
0.042 0.036
0.042 0.035
0.041 0.034
0.041 0.031
0.039 0.033
20
-------
State Vermont
County Chittenden
Site
Hour
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
City Burlington
Setting Rural
Land Use Residential
May
0.037
0.039
0.041
0.044
0.046
0.047
0.047
0.047
June
0.038
0.039
0.039
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.043
0.041
July
0.034
0.038
0.040
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.041
Aug.
0.034
0.037
0.040
0.042
0.045
0.045
0.044
0.042
Sept
0.026
0.030
0.031
0.034
0.035
0.035
0.036
0.032
Mean 0.044 0.041 0.040
Monthly Mean 0.040
0.041
0.032
------- |