EPA/600/R-08/042
                                                   MARCH 2008
       SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE
      WORKSHOP ON INTEGRATING
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION INTO
    AIR QUALITY DECISION MAKING
                            by:

                     Eastern Research Group, Inc.
                       Lexington, MA 02421
                    EPA Contract No. EP-C-07-015
                     Work Assignment Number 0-2
                National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                   Office of Research and Development
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

-------

-------
                                 Table of Contents

1.0    Introduction	1
2.0    Opening Plenary Session	3
   2.1   Welcome and Introduction to the Workshop, Tim Johnson, EPA-ORD	3
   2.2   Adapting to a Changing Climate to Protect Air Quality, Joel Scheraga, EPA-ORD	4
   2.3   Using Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in 2050, Chris Nolte, NOAA-EPA	5
   2.4   Integrating Climate Change into Air Quality Programs, Lydia Wegman, EPA-Office of
   Air Quality Planning and Standards	8
   2.5   Air Quality Issues with Changing Climate in the West, Tom Moore, Western Regional
   Air Partnership (WRAP)	9
   2.6   Integrating Climate Adaptation into Air Quality Decision Making, Kenneth Colburn,
   Center for Climate Strategies	10
3.0    Brainstorming Session on Policy Issues	13
4.0    Summary of Breakout Group Discussions	16
   4.1     Breakout Group 1: Multi-Pollutant Control Strategies and Co-Benefits	16
   4.2     Breakout Group 2: Un-Regulated Sources	20
   4.3     Breakout Group 3: Translation of Global Issues to Local Scales	28
   4.4     Breakout Group 4: Planning Now for a Future Climate	32
5.0    Concluding Plenary Session	38
Appendix A: List of Participants	41

-------
                               List of Abbreviations
CCS         Center for Climate Strategies
CCSP        Climate Change Science Program
CIRAQ      Climate Impact on Regional Air Quality
EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERG         Eastern Research Group, Inc.
GCAQ       Global Change Impact on U.S. Air Quality
GCRP        Global Change Research Program
GHG        greenhouse gas
IPCC        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MARKAL    MARket ALlocation energy systems model
NAAQS      National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NESCAUM   Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
NOAA       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx         nitrogen oxides
OAQPS      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ORD         Office of Research and Development
ppb          parts per billion
PM          particulate matter
PM2.5        particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns
SIP          state implementation plan
STAR        Science to Achieve Results
VMT        vehicle miles traveled
VOC         volatile organic compound
WRAP       Western Regional Air Partnership

-------
1.0    Introduction

Over the past few decades, air quality planners have forecasted future air pollution levels based
on information about changing emissions from stationary and mobile sources, population trends,
transportation demand, natural  sources of emissions, and other pressures on air quality. However,
these planning efforts typically have not considered the fact that our future climate will likely
differ from present conditions and that climate change can affect both emissions sources and
atmospheric fate and transport processes that determine air pollution levels.

To develop an understanding of the highest-priority science questions regarding adaptation and
the effects of climate change on air quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
held a "Workshop on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Air Quality Decision
Making." The workshop (referred to in this report as the "ORD Adaptation Workshop") took
place on December 4-5, 2007, at the Holiday Inn Brownstone Hotel and Conference Center in
Raleigh, North Carolina. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) organized the
workshop, with contractor support provided by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

EPA invited approximately 65 individuals from various scientific disciplines and affiliations to
attend the ORD Adaptation Workshop. The workshop participants included EPA personnel,
academics, consultants, and numerous individuals with air quality planning responsibilities at
local,  state, tribal, regional, or national levels. Appendix A lists the workshop participants and
provides their contact information.

This report documents the discussions at the workshop, which was intended to achieve two
primary goals: (1) to determine, through dialog with the air quality planning and research
communities, ORD stakeholders' highest priority needs with respect to decision support for
climate change adaptation; and (2) to identify which ORD research initiatives and products (e.g.,
analyses, decision support tools) will be most useful in addressing the stakeholders' needs.

The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections:

   •   Section 2: Opening Plenary Session. This section  summarizes presentations made in the
       opening plenary session, when invited speakers presented background information on
       EPA's Global Change Research Program, previous  and ongoing modeling efforts to
       estimate the impact of climate change on regional air quality, and critical information
       needs regarding adaptation to the effects of climate change on air quality from both
       national and regional perspectives.

   •   Section 3: Brainstorming Session on Policy Issues. This section documents the
       outcome of a brief brainstorming session, during which all workshop participants were
       asked to identify and discuss priority air quality policy issues that may be informed by
       ORD research.

   •   Section 4: Summary of Breakout Group Discussions. This section summarizes
       discussions that occurred in four breakout groups, which were asked to provide ORD
       additional feedback on specific topic areas identified in the brainstorming session: multi-
       pollutant control strategies and co-benefits, unregulated emissions sources, translation of

-------
       global issues to local scales, and planning now for a future climate. Discussions on these
       topics addressed issues and questions raised in the "guidance on breakout sessions"
       included in the workshop Participant's Guide. To stimulate discussions during the
       breakout groups,  all participants were asked to read a "white paper" on the impacts of
       climate change on air quality. A copy of this paper, which all participants received prior
       to the workshop,  is available upon request. This section also reviews the "report-outs"
       from the breakout groups, drawing largely from the summary statements that each group
       prepared.

    •   Section 5: Concluding Plenary Session. This section documents selected concluding
       remarks made during the final plenary session.

Technical writers from ERG who attended the workshop prepared this report. While the report
thoroughly summarizes the workshop discussions, the report should not be considered to be a
transcript and may not capture all issues that were raised. Further, because the ORD Adaptation
Workshop was not designed to seek consensus on any topic or to prioritize the participants'
many suggestions, the ideas presented in this report should be viewed as a collection of ideas
from the workshop participants for EPA's further consideration; the ideas and suggestions
throughout this report should not necessarily be viewed as formal consensus recommendations.

ORD  organized the workshop to provide input to EPA regarding science needs to address the
integration of climate change into air quality management. The perspectives discussed during the
workshop were not part of EPA's regulatory development process, but emerged from a process
of open discussion and therefore add to the understanding of broader issues; they are included
here only to capture the full range of workshop discussions. Note that some of the comments in
this summary refer to state and local actions, rather than matters dealt with at the federal level.

-------
2.0    Opening Plenary Session

The ORD Adaptation Workshop opened with background presentations given by invited
speakers. This section summarizes the presentations and documents question-and-answer
sessions that followed.

2.1    Welcome and Introduction to the Workshop, Tim Johnson, EPA-ORD

Dr. Johnson thanked participants for attending the ORD Adaptation Workshop and reviewed the
two main workshop objectives: (1) to determine, through dialog with the air quality planning and
research communities, ORD stakeholders' highest priority needs with respect to decision support
for climate change adaptation; and (2) to identify which ORD research initiatives and products
(e.g., analyses, decision support tools) will be most useful in addressing the stakeholders' needs.
Dr. Johnson clarified that for the purpose of this workshop, "stakeholders" include EPA Program
and Regional Offices, as well as state, local, and tribal air quality planning agencies with
responsibility for making policy decisions. With all of these different groups represented among
the participants, Dr. Johnson strongly encouraged stakeholders to participate actively in
workshop discussions to ensure that their viewpoints are communicated to EPA.

For the benefit of workshop discussions, Dr. Johnson clarified the difference between adaptation
and mitigation in regards to climate change and stressed that the workshop should focus on
adaptation. Adaptation, he noted, includes strategic actions that air quality planners can take to
achieve and maintain its air quality goals (e.g., attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards [NAAQS]} in the face of climate change. Mitigation includes actions that planners can
take to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Dr. Johnson acknowledged that air quality planners routinely factor several issues into policy
decisions, including population growth, economic growth, and technological change. In addition
to issues  that have conventionally factored into planning efforts, climate change can have direct
and indirect impacts on air quality. Direct impacts include changes to meteorology and
atmospheric chemistry that may result from changes to temperature and humidity. Indirect
impacts include changes to emissions from temperature-dependent sources (e.g., some biogenic
emissions, evaporative losses). As an example of these indirect effects, Dr. Johnson noted that
future temperature increases will likely lead to increased demand for air conditioning, which in
turn will  lead to higher demand for electricity and emissions from electricity generating facilities.
Quantifying such anticipated future impacts, and how they vary with region, may be of great
interest to the air quality planning community.

Dr. Johnson concluded by reviewing workshop logistics, noting that participants will break into
smaller groups to discuss climate change adaptation considerations in regards to air quality, such
as: What long-term challenges do planners face in regards to reaching and maintaining
attainment with NAAQS? What regional differences are important in terms of how climate
change will affect air quality? Which  emissions source categories are increasing in importance?
How might mitigation efforts affect air quality adaptation strategies?

Dr. Johnson concluded by thanking the Workshop Steering Committee and other attendees
instrumental in planning the workshop.

-------
2.2    Adapting to a Changing Climate to Protect Air Quality, Joel Scheraga, EPA-OKD

Dr. Scheraga's presentation outlined several of EPA's ongoing climate change research
activities, particularly those conducted under the Agency's Global Change Research Program
(GCRP) (see: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/). Dr.  Scheraga explained that the GCRP is assessing
potential consequences of global change, which includes climate change along with the larger
context of population growth, economic development, technology change, and other factors that
will likely impact EPA's ability to fulfill statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements.
A broad goal of the GCRP  is to provide timely and useful scientific information to planners and
other stakeholders in order to support  decision-making processes. One component of this broader
goal is to help environmental managers mainstream climate change considerations into day-to-
day decision-making to better attain their air quality goals.

Dr. Scheraga noted that the GCRP's assessment activities are part of the larger U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP), an interagency program responsible for leveraging and
coordinating global change and climate change research activities across agencies (see:
http://www.climatescience.gov/). After describing the various CCSP goals and strategic planning
efforts, Dr.  Scheraga identified two key products that EPA is  developing:

    •   An Interim Assessment, scheduled to be released in 2008, to evaluate the effects of
       climate change on air quality, and

    •   A more comprehensive assessment,  scheduled to be released in 2012, to evaluate the
       effects of global change on air quality.

These assessments will help EPA and  the broader planning community understand what climate
change means for air quality in the U.S. and learn how best to deal with the risks and
opportunities posed by climate change. Dr.  Scheraga emphasized that ongoing GCRP assessment
activities are entirely separate from the periodic reviews of the NAAQS. He explained that the
GCRP assessments will help determine how climate change might affect an area's ability to
attain the NAAQS, but those assessments will not change the standards themselves. In short, the
NAAQS review process is  conducted  independently of the GCRP assessments.

Dr. Scheraga listed several  reasons why the GCRP assessment activities are important. He noted,
for instance, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that a
warming climate will lead to significant changes in regional meteorological patterns, some of
which will affect air quality.1 However, IPCC's findings  do not quantify how a changing climate
might affect air quality in a given region, and  many air quality planners are interested in knowing
the extent to which climate change might affect future success in attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS. Dr. Scheraga listed several other  ways that climate change may be expected to affect
air quality (e.g., by affecting chemical reaction rates, atmospheric transport processes, biogenic
emission rates, selected anthropogenic sources). Examples of key questions being considered in
the GCRP assessments include:

    •   What is the effect of projected  changes in climate, climate variability, and land use
       patterns on regional U.S. air quality?
1 See http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm.

-------
    •   Which areas will experience air quality improvements and which will experience
       deterioration due to climate change alone? How many areas are at risk of failing to attain
       standards due to climate change?

    •   What is the impact of climate change relative to other factors that affect air quality?

Dr. Scheraga emphasized that stakeholder input plays an important role in establishing these key
questions and directing future research efforts, and such input comes to the agency through
various means, such as the ORD Adaptation Workshop. Accordingly, he encouraged workshop
participants to provide ORD feedback on decision support needs, future research directions, and
potential adaptation strategies. A record of the question-and-answer session following Dr.
Scheraga's presentation follows:

    •  Question 1: How does one distinguish adaptation to global climate and multi-pollutant
       planning? Dr. Scheraga noted that adaptation and multi-pollutant planning are closely
       related, with no need to consider them separately during the workshop. He added that
       multi-pollutant planning is gaining increasing attention, both in terms of research and
       policy.

    •   Question 2: Does the interim assessment examine metropolitan and rural areas
       throughout the entire  U.S. ? Dr. Scheraga noted that the 2007 Interim Assessment
       examines the impact of climate change on air quality in urban and rural areas throughout
       the 48 contiguous states. Though this assessment does not address Hawaii and Alaska,
       those states will be included in the 2012 comprehensive assessment.

    •   Question 3: How might climate change affect the susceptibility or vulnerability of human
       health and ecosystems to air quality impacts? Some research has shown an interaction
       between higher temperatures and adverse health  effects due to air quality. Dr. Scheraga
       agreed that research should examine and characterize any such climate-related
       susceptibilities to outdoor air quality, whether for humans or ecosystems. He emphasized
       that the GCRP is examining a broad spectrum of  climate-related impacts to human health
       and the environment, including any information available on such potential interactive
       effects (i.e., effects resulting from exposure to increased air pollution in a warmer
       climate, in addition to  effects resulting strictly from increased air pollution due to a
       warmer climate).

2.3    Using Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in 2050, Chris Nolte, NOAA-EPA

Dr. Nolte gave an update on ongoing modeling analyses to estimate how future climate might
impact U.S.  air quality in the year 2050. The modeling results presented were conducted as part
of a multi-agency collaborative effort, known as the Climate Impact on Regional Air Quality
(CIRAQ) project. One major goal of CIRAQ, according to Dr. Nolte, is to use models to
simulate how future climate conditions may affect regional air quality (in particular, ozone and
paniculate matter) under future emissions scenarios—an important issue to research because
future climate conditions are typically not factored into current air quality decision-making
processes. Insights offered from these models can help policymakers determine whether, and to
what extent, climate change adaptation considerations should factor into decision-making.

-------
Dr. Nolte then reviewed CIRAQ's general modeling approach, which predicts regional-scale
meteorology and air quality based on "downscaled" global climate and chemistry modeling. This
modeling is simulating regional air quality for a current (1999-2003) and a future (2048-2052)
5-year time frame. Dr. Nolte emphasized that this modeling is based on IPCC's "A1B" emissions
scenario, which includes several important assumptions, such as considerably decreased
emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by the year 2050. Other
modeling studies based on different IPCC emissions scenarios should not be expected to yield
comparable results. Readers interested in more complete documentation of the CIRAQ modeling
studies should refer to original publications (see: http://www.epa.gov/AMD/Climate/index.html).

Dr. Nolte then reviewed several results that have emerged from CIRAQ's modeling efforts; note
that regulatory comparisons are with respect to standards in effect at the time of analysis.

   •   Change in mean summer 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations. Dr. Nolte first
       presented findings for the modeling simulations based on "climate change only" (i.e.,
       precursor emissions fixed at 2001 levels except VOC emissions from biogenic sources
       were allowed to vary with temperature), which found that future mean summer 8-hour
       maximum ozone concentrations were predicted to increase (between 2 and 5 ppb) in only
       a few isolated regions of the country—parts of California and Texas and in the coastal
       areas of mid-Atlantic states. However, when these models were run allowing nitrogen
       oxides and VOC emissions to vary according to the IPCC A1B emissions scenario, future
       mean summer 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations were predicted to decrease
       throughout virtually the entire United States, including decreases by more than 10 ppb in
       much of the Midwest. Dr. Nolte acknowledged,  however, that the IPCC A1B scenario
       assumes a considerable decrease in future emissions of ozone precursors: a 48% decrease
       in emissions of nitrogen oxides and a 21% decrease in emissions of VOCs.

   •   Change in 95th percentile summer 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations. Dr. Nolte
       then reviewed predicted future ozone concentrations based on a statistic more indicative
       of peak concentrations—the 95th percentile summer 8-hour maximum concentration. For
       the "climate change only" simulation, ozone concentrations in the 95  percentile were
       predicted to increase over a broader region and by a greater magnitude in comparison to
       the predictions for mean summer 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations. This finding,
       when compared to that presented in the previous bulleted item, suggests that peak ozone
       levels in the future are likely much more sensitive to climate change than are summertime
       mean ozone concentrations.

   •   Change in mean September-October 8-hour maximum ozone concentration. Dr.
       Nolte next presented simulation results depicting changes in mean 8-hour maximum
       ozone concentrations computed for the months of September and October. For the
       "climate change only" simulation, the future concentrations during these months
       exceeded the current concentrations over much of the United States—a finding that
       suggests that the future climate may lead to a longer ozone season.

   •   Changes in ozone associated with  increased methane concentrations. Dr. Nolte then
       discussed modeling results in simulations that evaluated how increasing concentrations of
       atmospheric methane might impact ozone levels. These simulations suggested that

-------
       increased methane concentrations over the next 50 years (i.e., from 1.85 ppm to 2.40
       ppm) has the potential to increase ozone concentrations throughout much of the United
       States, and the methane-related increases could be comparable to the increased ozone
       levels resulting from climate change.

Summarizing, Dr. Nolte noted that the effect of climate change on ozone concentrations is
smaller than the effect of planned emission changes, which he acknowledged are highly
uncertain. CIRAQ's research suggests that factors other than climate change (e.g., increases in
atmospheric methane concentrations) should also be considered when predicting future changes
in ambient ozone concentrations. These and other findings have considerable inter-annual
variations, underscoring the need for using multi-year assessments in future modeling work. Dr.
Nolte also commented on important sources of bias and uncertainty in the linked modeling
system. Dr. Nolte concluded by discussing NOAA's ongoing work to improve its climate and air
quality modeling capabilities. A record of the question-and-answer session following Dr. Nolte's
presentation follows.

   •   Question 1: Why do ozone concentrations in the Los Angeles appear to be far more
       sensitive to climate than ozone concentrations elsewhere in the country? Dr. Nolte said
       he has not fully investigated this issue, but suspected that the unique findings for the Los
       Angeles area might result from this area being highly sensitive to changes in nitrogen
       oxide concentrations and the fact that regional air quality models have historically not
       performed well in this area. Dr. Nolte  added that these findings warrant further
       examination.

   •   Question 2: Has CIRAQ conducted modeling to evaluate future changes in PM2.5
       concentrations? Dr. Nolte said that CIRAQ  has conducted some PM2.5 modeling, but he
       did not present these results due to time restrictions. Dr. Nolte noted that PM2.5 is
       difficult to model because it is composed of many constituents (several of which have
       unique atmospheric chemistries) and because the modeling must evaluate all four
       seasons, rather than focusing primarily on summertime in the case of ozone. Dr. Nolte
       briefly discussed some results  of PM2.5 modeling, and he referred workshop  participants
       to slides at the end of his presentation  for additional preliminary results.

   •   Question 3: Did CIRAQ's modeling consider other IPCC emission scenarios? If so, what
       did these modeling results find? Dr. Nolte said his group has not conducted extensive
       research into other IPCC emissions scenarios, but may do so depending on availability of
       funding.

   •   Question 4: Recent increases in carbon dioxide emissions appear to exceed the increases
       based on the IPCC emissions scenario used in the CIRAQ modeling. Should this
       modeling be based on a scenario that is less optimistic about future changes in carbon
       dioxide emissions? Dr. Nolte noted that his research has been criticized on both sides of
       this issue: some reviewers have commented that this modeling is based on overly
       optimistic assumptions (i.e., assumed future emissions being unrealistically low), while
       others have commented that the modeling is based on overly pessimistic assumptions
       (i.e., assumed future emissions being higher than what would be expected as a result of
       future regulations and anticipated technology change).

-------
       Two workshop participants commented further on this issue. One participant noted that
       the IPCC A1B emissions scaling factors predict a very substantial, and possibly
       unrealistic, decrease in future nitrogen oxides emissions. Another participant noted that
       researchers from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
       (NESCAUM), Georgia Institute of Technology, and Massachusetts Institute of
       Technology have conducted extensive research on future emissions and air quality
       projections under an EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant. Dr. Nolte added that
       the CIRAQ results and the STAR grant results are qualitatively similar, but he
       recommended that future modeling efforts more fully investigate the sensitivity of these
       findings to alternate emissions scenarios.

2.4    Integrating Climate Change into Air Quality Programs, Lydia Wegman, EPA-
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Ms. Wegman's presentation provided a national perspective on climate-related impacts on air
quality and national policies, research activities, and programs that have already begun to
evaluate or inform adaptation strategies. Ms. Wegman first offered a very general review of the
state of the science on climate-related air quality impacts:

   •   Particulate matter and visibility. Ms. Wegman noted that climate change is expected to
       have mixed impacts on airborne particulate matter (PM) and visibility, with increases and
       decreases projected for different regions. The modeling used to make these projections is
       highly complex,  as many different interrelated factors affect PM concentrations and
       visibility (e.g., changes in precipitation, wildfire frequency and intensity, air quality
       feedbacks on  climate).

   •   Ozone. Future ozone concentrations throughout much of the United States are generally
       expected to be higher in a warmer climate, assuming that decreases in precursor
       emissions do not offset the temperature-related ozone increases. Ms.  Wegman cited a
       recent modeling  study2 that projects that 50 cities in the eastern United States will
       experience, on average, more than 5 additional days with 8-hour concentrations above the
       NAAQS by 2050, when assuming a "business-as-usual" climate change scenario (i.e., the
       IPCC  A2 emissions scenario).

   •   Research  needs. Ms. Wegman identified several general areas where research is needed
       to inform adaptation policies. Examples include: What is the magnitude of the so-called
       "climate penalty" for ozone, and how does that vary regionally and with emissions
       scenarios? What are the "win-win" scenarios for climate and air quality? Which
       components of PM are most important for public health in a future climate? How are
       changes in ozone and PM concentrations expected to contribute to climate change?

Ms. Wegman added that efforts to develop and implement adaptation strategies may also be
complicated by recent and anticipated future changes to the NAAQS. For fine particulate matter,
the 2006 revisions to the 24-hour average NAAQS, for instance, will lead to new attainment
2 Bell ML, R Goldberg, C Hogrefe, PL Kinney, K Knowlton, B Lynn, J Rosenthal, C Rosenzweig, JA Patz. 2007.
Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities. Climatic Change, 82(1-2): 61-76.

-------
designations in December 2008. Additionally, proposed changes to the ozone standard, if
promulgated, will likely result in numerous areas that meet the current standard to be designated
as non-attainment, not even considering the added challenges that climate change might pose.

Given these challenges, EPA and air quality planning authorities may need to start developing
new approaches for maintaining air quality. Some approaches, Ms. Wegman noted, have already
been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee, such as: comprehensive multi-pollutant air quality planning;  integrating air quality
planning with other regional planning goals (e.g., land use, transportation, renewable energy and
energy efficiency); and implementing multi-pollutant sector-specific approaches.

Finally, Ms. Wegman highlighted ongoing EPA activities related to the links between climate
and air quality. These included regulatory activities, research into the links between climate
change and effects on human health and welfare, voluntary emissions reduction programs, and
multi-pollutant sector-based approaches. Ms.  Wegman concluded by stating that: (1)  significant
additional investment in research and analysis, both internal  and external to EPA, will be
necessary to understand and take advantage of linkages between climate change and air quality
programs and (2) multi-pollutant approaches  are needed to simultaneously address criteria
pollutants, air toxic pollutants,  and greenhouse gases (climate change).

2.5    Air Quality Issues with Changing Climate in the West, Tom Moore, Western
       Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)

Dr. Moore's presentation  addressed climate change adaptation strategies potentially applicable to
air quality issues in the western United States. He began by describing several ways that climate
change has already impacted (or may be expected to impact) air quality in the West. For
instance, in some areas of the West, climate change  may result in decreased amount and duration
of snow-pack, increased temperature, and magnified drought—all of which are expected to
increase the risk for large wildfires and lead to higher emissions from this source. Further,
changes in precipitation patterns and drought will likely affect emissions of fugitive dust, an
important component of the primary PM emissions inventory in the western United States. Dr.
Moore noted that these and various other climate-related factors have a strong bearing on air
quality issues in the West.

Focusing on wind-blown  dust, Dr. Moore presented data from a 2002 primary PMio emissions
inventory. The inventory  showed considerable spatial variations in total primary emissions
throughout the western United  States, as well as differences in the factors contributing to the
wind-blown dust (e.g., agriculture, land cover).  He also displayed photographs and satellite
images to illustrate the significance of major dust storms in Phoenix and northwest Texas. Dr.
Moore advocated  greater  use of satellite imagery and remote sensing to evaluate the frequency
and severity of dust storms  and to assess other emissions and air quality issues, as appropriate.
Dr. Moore advocated careful evaluation of all types of dust emissions, whether the emissions
originate from sources that  are  clearly anthropogenic (e.g., construction, mining), sources that
are clearly natural (e.g. volcanoes), or sources that are influenced by both anthropogenic and
natural forces (e.g., wind  erosion from bare areas or dry reservoirs and lake beds). Dust
emissions will likely continue to be important when addressing air quality concerns and potential
climate change mitigation efforts.

-------
With respect to air emissions from fires, Dr. Moore addressed several topics. For instance, he
noted that the annual amount of wildfire acres burned in the United States increased between
1991 and 2006—a trend that he argued cannot be attributed solely to climate change, because it
also results from fire management policies implemented over the years. He added that changes in
land management practices are expected to result in increased prescribed burning activity in the
next decade. Given that fires account for a considerable portion of criteria pollutant air emissions
in the West, Dr. Moore emphasized the need to integrate land management practices (e.g., fire
management policies) into air quality planning and adaptation efforts.

Dr. Moore presented additional findings from other studies to introduce concepts for further
discussion during the workshop. First, he presented an analysis of airborne sulfate data for the
Grand Canyon National Park to emphasize that, in some areas, a considerable portion of air
pollution originates from locations outside the area. Second, based on the same inventory, Dr.
Moore noted that an emissions source of growing interest on the West coast is from "Pacific
offshore"  sources (i.e., emissions from shipping vessels along the coastline of California,
Oregon, and Washington)—a category that is not explicitly included in EPA's National
Emissions Inventory. He added that emissions from the "Pacific offshore" sources might
increase in a future climate of reduced productivity in agriculture in the western United States.
Based on these and other observations, Dr. Moore strongly advocated that ORD more explicitly
consider emissions sources and source categories of interest in the western United States,
including dust,  fires, agriculture, offshore vessels,  and contributions from other countries.

Dr. Moore closed his presentation by introducing two existing programs that may become focal
points for managing GHG emissions in the West, and perhaps eventually on a national scale.
First, he introduced The Climate Registry (see hjtg7/wwwjhjclimaterggistry.org for more
details)—a collaborative effort among states, regions, provinces, and tribes to develop and
manage a  GHG emissions reporting system and to examine potential mitigation policies. Second,
he introduced the Western  Climate Initiative (see http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org for
more details), which  is a collaborative effort among several western states and Canadian
provinces to address regional challenges posed by climate  change. Dr. Moore recommended that
EPA consider coordinating with these groups when identifying and evaluating potential
adaptation strategies.

2.6    Integrating Climate Adaptation  into Air Quality Decision Making, Kenneth
       Colburn, Center for Climate Strategies

Dr. Colburn's presentation addressed various policy implications of climate change and its
impacts on air quality. He began by commending ORD for its ongoing research efforts under the
GCRP, which have been designed to help  inform policy decisions. Dr. Colburn emphasized the
importance of continuing to seek stakeholder input to ensure that the GCRP products adequately
meet decision-makers needs. He also strongly advocated the need for GCRP products to be
"place-based" in order to be most useful for state, local, and tribal decision makers. Dr. Colburn
noted that decision makers will continue to seek information from ORD, particularly in the form
of assessments  and various types of modeling analyses  (e.g., economic modeling, adaptation
options modeling). A particularly vital tool,  he noted, is an integrated modeling framework for
air quality, which will effectively downscale global models and incorporate inputs from various
scientific disciplines. Developing and refining this modeling framework is a challenging task,


                                           10

-------
due to the underlying scientific and technical complexities, but is a worthwhile endeavor, given
the extent of policy needs for adaptation strategies.

To illustrate an area requiring further research, Dr. Colburn reviewed some findings from a
recent presentation delivered by Praveen Amar (NESCAUM) at a Symposium on Climate
Change held in August, 2007. That presentation addressed the significance of the so-called
"climate penalty" for regional ozone and PM2.5 concentrations in the United States. While
modeling results suggest that this climate penalty in 2050 may be relatively "small" for some
regions (assuming no changes to anthropogenic emissions), Dr. Colburn emphasized that "small"
increases in ozone and PM2.5 concentrations can be very important for regions with air quality
currently at or near the NAAQS. These initial modeling efforts, Dr. Colburn noted, raise many
issues that future research can examine, such as apparent regional differences in the climate
penalty, future patterns in extreme stagnation events, seasonal effects for precursors and other
pollutants, feedback loops, and the changing nature and composition of PM.

Recognizing that emissions data are critical inputs to modeling how climate may affect air
quality, Dr. Colburn recommended that future research examine a broader range of emissions
scenarios, considering estimates of actual emissions. Dr. Colburn noted that some researchers'
models are based on fairly optimistic projections of future GHG emissions; however, some
analyses suggest that "observed" GHG emissions between 2000 and 2006 (3.3%) are increasing
at a faster rate than predicted by multiple IPCC emissions  scenarios (1.1-2.4%). This
observation, Dr.  Colburn noted, is consistent with other recent findings, such as: carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel combustion have been increasing faster than expected, the "carbon
intensity" of the  global economy has stopped decreasing, and the carbon dioxide removal
efficiencies of some natural sinks are decreasing.  These observations collectively suggest that the
carbon cycle is generating stronger climate forcing and sooner than expected. As a result, current
and ongoing modeling efforts, by relying on overly optimistic future GHG emissions scenarios,
may not adequately represent the future climate and therefore understate climate-related air
quality impacts.

Dr. Colburn then reviewed different ways that air quality planning agencies can contribute to
ongoing efforts to implement effective mitigation and adaptation strategies. He noted, for
instance, that the Center for Climate Strategies has already worked cooperatively with  states to
develop baseline GHG emissions inventories, identify action options (e.g., mitigation strategies),
and investigate the implications of those options. Through these and other efforts, 37 states now
have or are developing climate action plans, most with a goal of reducing 80% of GHG
emissions by 2050.

While many states have launched mitigation actions to reduce GHG emissions, Dr. Colburn
acknowledged that very few states have developed and implemented adaptation strategies,
especially in the  area of air quality. Given this situation, ORD has an excellent opportunity to
provide the necessary tools and  guidance to help state, tribal, and regional planning agencies
integrate climate change adaptation into air quality decision making.

Dr. Colburn emphasized that air quality planners are ideal  candidates to develop effective
mitigation and adaptation strategies. While climate change undoubtedly affects many resources
beyond air quality, air quality planners have a well-established history of providing consistent
                                           11

-------
leadership on environmental issues that bridge gaps across multiple disciplines. For example, the
air quality community was instrumental in promulgating national energy policies, even though
this issue influences a number of different sectors of the environment and economy. A record of
the question-and-answer session following Dr. Colburn's presentation follows.

   •   Question 1: Alaska has recently experienced significant air quality problems due to
       massive wildfires and wind-blown dust. Thus,  the impacts of climate change on air
       quality are already being observed in Alaska.  Might some consider Alaska a "testing
       ground" for adaptation? Satellite imagery does confirm the existence of tundra fires, a
       new and unique problem facing air quality managers in Alaska that they never
       anticipated. In that sense, Alaska is indeed already facing climate-related  air quality
       impacts that other states are not encountering.

   •   Question 2: In Minnesota, mitigation efforts started to move forward, but some factions
       resisted these efforts unless adaptation was officially "taken off the table. " Why might
       this be happening? Some states view mitigation as a more tangible concern that can be
       addressed through multiple sectors: energy supply and demand, transportation,
       agriculture, waste management, and others; and a state's growing interest in mitigation
       should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in adaptation.

   •   Question 3: What is ORD 's focus with regards to monitoring of carbon dioxide? Does
       ORDplan to do any monitoring from satellites? Dr. Joel Scheraga (EPA-ORD) answered
       this question,  noting that the CCSP has a tremendous focus on monitoring atmospheric
       concentrations of GHGs, including carbon dioxide. While EPA does not conduct this
       monitoring, the agency works closely with the other federal agencies (e.g., the National
       Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space
       Administration) who are responsible for the monitoring.

   •   Question 4: Scientists predict that temperatures will continue to rise and climate  will
       continue to change for several decades, even if major mitigation efforts are immediately
       launched nationwide. Therefore, adaptation strategies will be necessary, regardless of
       the extent of mitigation that takes place. Dr. Colburn agreed, noting that the planning
       community should not consider launching mitigation or adaptation strategies, but rather
       must start developing and implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies.
                                           12

-------
3.0    Brainstorming Session on Policy Issues

After the opening plenary session, workshop participants were asked to break into small groups
(5-10 people) to identify priority air quality policy issues and questions that ORD research can
help inform. After this 30-minute brainstorming session ended, an individual from each group
communicated a list of priority air quality policy issues to the larger group. A composite list of
policy issues and questions was generated based on these report-outs, and ORD representatives
at the workshop then organized this list into four categories for purposes of subsequent
discussion. Later in the workshop, four breakout groups further discussed the policy issues and
questions for these categories and identified research questions and products associated with
each listed item. Section 4 of this report documents the discussions during those breakout groups.

Following is the composite list of air quality policy  issues and  questions developed by the small
groups. Except for minor editorial revisions, this composite list is identical to the one displayed
at the workshop:

Topic #1: Multi-Pollutant Control Strategies and Co-Benefits

    •   How can we better understand co-benefits and dis-benefits for traditional pollutants and
       GHGs?

    •   How do we balance concerns across pollutants (i.e., air toxics, criteria pollutants,
       GHGs)?

    •   What range of pollutants (e.g., coarse PM) have climate-related sensitivity?

    •   What models or policies should be developed for multi-pollutant issues?

Topic #2: Un-regulated sources

    •   How do we deal with sources that have not been regulated or not as extensively studied
       (e.g., agriculture, buildings, aviation, shipping, etc.)?

    •   How sensitive are individual sectors to the effects of climate change?

    •   What is  the most appropriate regulatory approach for agriculture?

    •   How do fires affect air quality and carbon sinks? How does climate change affect the
       frequency and severity of fires? What fire management policies should be developed in
       light of climate change?

    •   Should the natural events policy be reevaluated?

    •   How do we address increased residential and commercial cooling, taking into account
       regional differences?
                                           13

-------
Topic #3: Translation of Global Issues to Local Scales

    •   How do you make local policy to address regional issues? How do local decisions affect
       regional air quality?

    •   How should uncertainty be factored into policy?

    •   What impacts can air quality assessments have on future air quality planning actions?

    •   How do we factor global "stressors" into regional air quality planning efforts?

    •   Modeling issues: How can planners interface with modelers to ensure their questions are
       answered? Do we have consensus on models to use? Can models offer the type of
       predictions that planners may ideally want?

Topic #4: Planning now for future climate

    •   How do you plan in the face of potential extreme and episodic events?

    •   How do we plan for future air quality in the  context of climate change?

    •   Should we consider "proactive maintenance plans" and how would they be implemented?

    •   How do we take a system-wide approach for air pollution control?

    •   How do we improve our monitoring of rural areas and other under-monitored regions?

    •   How do we bridge gaps between climate science and air quality planning, considering
       differences in temporal scales?

    •   How do we include tribal communities in policy decisions?

Miscellaneous: Policy issues and questions identified by workshop participants, but not
classified into any of the categories during the workshop3

    •   How will climate change policies impact air quality?

    •   How do you build a successful program at state or municipal level?

    •   How uniform should  federal policies be?

    •   Will we need to apply "significance levels" to GHGs?

    •   What ambient or source monitoring strategy is needed for GHGs? Is a strategy needed for
       "ambient" GHGs? How can we measure the impacts of climate change on air quality?
3 The grouping of policy issues and questions occurred during a short break at the workshop. However, not enough
time was available to assign every policy issue or question into one of the four categories listed in the section. The
policy issues and questions listed in this "miscellaneous" category were not classified into the four categories strictly
due to timing constraints.


                                           14

-------
    •   How are modeling results best communicated and by whom? How do we communicate to
       various audiences (e.g., children)?

    •   What motivates people to change behavior?

    •   What indicators can be developed to track climate-related impacts on air quality?

    •   What level of detail regarding technology portfolios do policy planners need for their
       decision-making?

    •   What adaptation strategies can be implemented at the local level to reduce temperatures?

    •   What are the air quality impacts of changes in precipitation patterns, and how do these
       vary regionally?

    •   What incentive structures (e.g., subsidies) can be put in place to encourage design and
       retrofit of communities to reduce GHG emissions and meet air quality  objectives?

    •   What do technology choices for GHGs mean for air quality at different time horizons?
       What are the win-win scenarios?

    •   What are the air quality impacts of mitigation strategies?

    •   How can the state implementation plan development and review process motivate
       planners to incorporate climate change into their planning?

    •   How do we coordinate research and planning efforts across universities,  states, etc.?

In summary, the previous list documents priority air quality policy issues and questions that
workshop participants identified during the brainstorming session. Section 4 of this report
documents discussions during four breakout groups, which were asked to further discuss the
issues and questions listed above.
                                            15

-------
4.0    Summary of Breakout Group Discussions

Following the opening plenary session (Section 2) and the small group brainstorming session
(Section 3), the workshop participants split into four self-selected groups to discuss how ORD
research can help inform four categories of policy issues and questions. Each breakout group had
two sessions that were framed around guiding questions and suggested processes listed in the
Workshop Participant's Guide, though some groups did not adhere strictly to this framework:

    •  During the first breakout group session, the groups were asked to identify research
       questions that ORD can  and should address to inform the  highest priority policy issues
       and questions regarding  adaptation to the impacts of climate change on air quality.

    •  During the second breakout group session, the groups were asked to identify short-term
       and long-term research products for the individual research questions and to provide
       specific recommendations as to how EPA can most effectively deliver its products and
       decision support tools to the planning community.

This section summarizes the discussions that occurred in each breakout group and during the
groups' "report-outs" in the final plenary session. ERG technical writers who attended the
various breakout group discussions prepared the following  summaries, all of which were
reviewed by at least one EPA representative who also attended the respective groups. As noted
elsewhere in this report, all content in this section should be viewed as a collection of individual
opinions, as the breakout group format was not designed to reach  consensus or assign priorities
to specific suggestions or recommendations.

4.1    Breakout Group 1: Multi-Pollutant Control Strategies  and Co-Benefits

Marcus Sarofim and Gary Kleiman facilitated discussions in this breakout group. Other
participants attending this breakout group were:

       Bob Bielawa        Joe DeCarolis       Dale Evarts          Alice Gilliland
       Doug Grano         Carey Jang          Rhea Jones           David Kryak
       Meredith Kurpius    Tonalee Key        Dan Loughlin        Douglas McKinney
       Paulette Middleton   Sharon Phillips      SamudraVijay       Darrell Winner

During the "report out" at the plenary session, Gary Kleiman summarized this group's
discussions. The following text provides a general overview of the discussions.

4.1.1   Day One Discussions

During the first session, the breakout group initiated conversation reviewing the four questions
assigned to this breakout from the brainstorming session (see Section 3). The breakout group
participants conducted another brainstorming activity to further develop specific research and
policy questions. Every participant in the breakout group was asked to write additional ideas on
note cards, which were then posted on flipcharts for all participants to review. The facilitator
then worked with the participants to re-categorize the ideas and identify several common themes.
Following are the major  discussion points that emerged:
                                           16

-------
    •   Characterizing technologies and actions for multi-pollutant air quality planning:
        Participants noted a need to characterize the co-benefits and dis-benefits (or trade-offs)
        of technologies or policy actions with respect to air quality, climate, economy, human
        health, and the environment. The characterization should consider both temporal and
        spatial issues and should also address behavioral changes. Although the group noted the
        importance of evaluating technologies and actions among a variety of sectors, the group
        highlighted a near-term focus on characterizing bio-fuels technology and policy.

    •   Developing decision support information and tools. Participants discussed the need for
        decision support tools to facilitate a state-local-federal partnership on climate and air
        quality. The tools should be flexible, given that the users will have different baseline
        capabilities and available data (e.g., regional meteorological data, emissions inventory
        data).  The tools should also assist states and regions in calibrating energy models to
        current inventory data.

    •   Creating robust policy to address both air quality and GHG emissions. Participants
        defined robust policies that offer "win-win"  scenarios for improving air quality and
        reducing emissions of GHGs. Discussion touched on regulatory approaches, market-
        based  approaches, and other incentives for improving air quality in a "climate-friendly"
        way. Participants were also interested in the interactions of policies at the local, state,
        regional, and federal levels. Specifically, how a local policy might best prepare for more
        stringent federal policies expected to apply in the future.

    •   Balancing air quality and climate strategies. While a robust policy helps improve air
        quality and reduces GHG emissions, participants also identified several niche areas that
        require planners to focus on a balance of air quality and climate, taking into account
        human health, the environment, and other factors. Participants listed several specific
        research areas when discussing this topic, such as better quantifying how atmospheric
        concentrations of methane and nitrogen oxides contribute to climate change and air
        quality, evaluating how climate change may lead to changes in aerosol composition, and
        identifying situations in which well-intentioned GHG mitigation strategies may actually
        worsen air quality.

During their discussions, the breakout  group participants noted that several common themes (or
cross-cutting issues) emerged that may warrant further consideration by ORD. Following is a
brief summary of those themes:

    •   Uncertainty. Participants recognized that the complex modeling systems used to predict
       the impact  of climate change on air quality have considerable uncertainty.  They added
       that ORD should attempt to quantify and discuss uncertainties inherent in any tools,
       databases, and other products prepared for the air quality planning community. The
       implications of uncertainties for policy development should also be addressed.

    •    Behavior.  ORD should consider providing more emphasis on understanding how to
       change human behaviors with respect to perceptions and actions on air quality and
       climate. Participants provided an example of using technology-specific discount rates to
       represent a balance between short-term air quality benefits and longer-term and inter-
                                            17

-------
       generational climate benefits. Participants encouraged EPA to tackle the difficult
       challenge of promoting behavior change on a local level for a problem that is of global
       scale.

    •   Communication. Recognizing the complexity of research on the impacts of climate
       change on air quality, participants emphasized the need for ORD to communicate
       findings effectively. Part of these communications includes acknowledging and
       characterizing uncertainties for decision makers. Participants recommended that ORD
       document uncertainties in a manner that still encourages action and implementation of
       technologies and policy actions, while not providing decision makers an excuse for
       inaction.

    •   Planning horizons. Participants also noted an inherent conflict in the planning horizons
       for air quality policies and climate change policies. Effective air quality policies may
       result in reduced ambient concentrations over a short time  frame (years), while effects of
       climate change policies likely will not be realized for a much longer time frame (several
       decades). Similarly, air quality planners must meet looming deadlines for air quality
       policies,  whereas GHG policies  are focused on 2020 and beyond. Assessments and the
       related models and data must consider the different planning horizons and realities that
       planning authorities face. Participants asked for an appropriate planning horizon (in
       years) for assessing how GHG policy impacts on air quality.

    •   Collaborations. Participants emphasized the need for ORD to collaborate with other
       research, assessment, and stakeholder groups during all stages of its assessment
       processes. As one example, participants noted that many stakeholders—some from the
       international community—have substantial experience in implementing GHG policies
       and assessing their effectiveness. Participants encouraged ORD to engage these
       stakeholders and the global community  in their research efforts. Another suggestion for
       collaborating and maintaining stakeholder input was for EPA to hold a follow-up meeting
       with the planning community and to use a new round of research grants (e.g., Science to
       Achieve  Results) to help focus research questions.

4.1.2   Day Two Discussions

During the  second session, the breakout group brainstormed a list  of potential products and
delivery mechanisms for the research and policy questions. A record of these discussions
follows:

    •   How can EPA characterize technologies or actions for multi-pollutant air quality
       planning? Some participants compared these characterizations to a Best Available
       Control Technology/Reasonably Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
       Emission Rate listing equivalent for GHG technologies and policies. Participants agreed
       that for a characterization exercise to be useful for air quality planners, the listing should
       enable analysis of benefits and trade-offs from a perspective of environmental attributes,
       economic attributes, and public health attributes. Participants also discussed important
       content and features of a characterization product. The content should eventually span all
       sectors, although the group prioritized the following topics for characterization: bio-fuels,
                                           18

-------
       land use and forestry policies (including albedo effects), energy efficiency and renewable
       energy opportunities, and control technologies for GHG, criteria pollutants, and air
       toxics. The tool's format should remain simple and be widely accessible, with individual
       records containing information on cost-effectiveness, marginal abatement curves, spatial
       and temporal variability, and impacts on radiative forcing.

    •   What decision support information or tools are needed to facilitate state-local actions
       and state-local-federal interactions? Participants noted that one product of potential
       interest is regional level multi-pollutant emissions inventories, which ORD may be able
       to develop from existing inventories and emission factors, filling data gaps where
       possible. More generally, participants noted that ORD tools and other products should be
       user-friendly, publicly available, capable of running on desktop computers, and have
       "plug-and-play" functionality. Participants noted that multiple tools may need to be
       developed to address various issues, such as co-benefits and trade-offs for multi-pollutant
       control strategies, impacts on multiple environmental media, and relationships between
       pollutant emissions and estimated climate forcings (or radiative forcings).

    •   How do planners balance air quality and climate strategies? Participants noted several
       areas where ORD research or guidance can better prepare air quality planners for
       implementing policy with the greatest benefit for both air quality and climate. Some
       participants wondered if planners should place equal focus on climate and air quality.
       Others sought guidance  on how to determine whether (and to what extent) a GHG
       mitigation policy might  affect air quality. Examples of additional specific research
       questions identified for this topic include: Under what circumstances do albedo changes
       have positive effects on  both climate and air quality? What control measures for black
       carbon are expected to have a positive effect on both climate and air quality? What
       factors (e.g., temperature) or co-exposures (e.g., to pollen,  dust) might exacerbate ozone-
       related health effects? What are the light reflective and absorbing properties of key
       components of PM2.5 and is it possible to rank these components in terms of adverse
       health effects and radiative forcing? To what extent do reductions  in PM emissions affect
       precipitation trends?

At the end of the second session, the participants in this breakout group reflected on their earlier
discussions and developed a short list of "prioritized research products" and other action items,
which included the following items:

    •   Ongoing summaries on current technologies and policy actions with respect  to climate
       and air quality linkages. The 2007 assessment will provide useful information, but
       participants envision the need for ORD to publish a broader literature review.

    •   A catalog of measures and strategies for air quality and climate planning that is easily
       tailored for location-specific applications.

    •   Regional multi-pollutant inventories.
                                            19

-------
    •   User-friendly decision support tools that can be run with default values or user-specific
       inputs for certain applications.4

    •   Continued research on balancing air quality concerns with climate concerns.

    •   Training opportunities for using and communicating research products.

    •   Follow-up workshops, teleconferences, or peer reviews to allow for stakeholder input and
       collaboration.

The participants also briefly discussed means by which EPA can most effectively deliver its
research products  and decision support tools.  Some suggestions for delivery included preparing
additional white papers, developing Web sites, hosting workshops, preparing research agendas,
and distributing various "tools" (which may include inventories, decision support tools, and
emissions verification tools).

4.2    Breakout  Group 2: Un-Regulated Sources

Cynthia Gage and Brian Morton facilitated discussions in this breakout group, which was
attended by the following participants:

       Rebecca Dodder             Heather Hawkins            Vinson Hellwig
       Robert Noland               Jim Southerland             Sara Terry
       Richard Valentinetti          Shelley Whitworth

During the "report out" at the plenary session, Cynthia Gage summarized this group's
discussions. The text below (in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) provides a record of discussion for this
breakout group.

4.2.1   Day One Discussions

During the first session, the breakout group brainstormed about various  emissions sources that
are currently un-regulated or under-regulated  by state, tribal, regional, or federal authorities.
Topics and categories discussed included energy efficiency, agriculture, some categories of
mobile sources (including shipping, trucking and ports), biogenic emissions, land use, and
current barriers to regulation. Breakout group participants offered several observations and listed
research questions on each of these topics, though they did not engage in highly detailed
discussions given  the large number of topics to  consider and the limited time available. A brief
summary of the breakout group members' main points and questions raised  on the individual
topic areas follows:
4 When discussing this topic, some participants commented at length about the need for professional software
development support. ORD representatives noted that their role is usually limited to developing prototypes, because
significant investment is required to design and code user-friendly interfaces and to conduct necessary product
testing and user training. Participants suggested that prior to making large investments for usability, ORD should
poll the actual population of potential users on the need for these enhanced software design features, given that some
modeling tools may only need source code, scripts, and limited user-interfaces. Most participants agreed that
maintaining a collaborative approach among stakeholders will help identify how to prioritize the content, features,
and usability of any research product.


                                             20

-------
Energy Efficiency
       Improving energy efficiency of buildings has both climate change and air quality
       benefits.

       While electricity generating facilities generally are becoming more efficient, less
       efficient facilities occasionally come on-line to generate power during peak demand
       periods.  This issue may be of concern in a warmer climate, as peak demand periods may
       become more frequent to support a greater demand for cooling.

       Can state implementation plans (SIPs) or emission inventories account for increased use
       of appliances at off-peak times or improved energy efficiency of appliances? Should
       consumer products with high energy efficiency be taxed at a lower rate?

       The U.S. should consider researching relevant regulations and policies that other
       countries have implemented. In the United Kingdom, for example, energy efficiency
       evaluations may soon be required as part of most residential  real estate transactions,
       which should allow prospective buyers to factor this information into their purchasing
       decisions.
Agriculture
       As agriculture output changes regionally and worldwide, transportation patterns will also
       change in order to ship agricultural products to their destinations. Such shifts in
       agricultural resources and transportation demand should be considered in research on
       impacts of climate change on emissions sources.

       Further research can help inform other topics related to agriculture, such as (1) the extent
       to which climate change will affect species migration and the implications on agriculture
       and (2) whether climate change is expected affect emissions of ammonia from
       agricultural sources.

       Animal feeding operations emit large amounts of methane. Mitigation strategies (e.g.,
       supplementing the diets of livestock) can reduce methane emissions from these
       operations. Further, EPA's AgSTAR program (httg;//wwLgBi:4|Q^      has promoted
       technologies (e.g., anaerobic digestion of manure to capture biogas) to harness energy
       from methane that would otherwise be released by these operations.
Mobile sources
        State and local planning agencies develop policies to address air emissions from mobile
        sources, which account for a large portion of emissions of certain criteria pollutants,
        precursors, and GHGs. However, these agencies generally cannot regulate air emissions
        from international shipping and trucking, which can also account for a considerable
        portion of these emissions in certain jurisdictions.

        Breakout group members offered different perspectives on whether mobile sources
        should be considered as  "un-regulated" or "under-regulated" sources. On the one hand,
                                           21

-------
       many regulations (e.g., emissions standards, inspection and maintenance programs)
       apply to mobile sources. On the other hand, regulations typically have not addressed
       travel demand and traffic congestion. Even though emissions standards have been
       developed to limit the amount of emissions per mile traveled, the number of miles driven
       (or vehicle miles traveled) is largely unregulated.
Biogenic Emissions
       What are the biogenic sources of isoprene? How sensitive are biogenic emissions to
       changes in temperature? How will species migration patterns driven by climate change
       affect biogenic emissions in different regions? How well do models characterize the
       atmospheric chemistry of isoprene and what key uncertainties might research inform?

       How will changes in land use and land cover alter future anthropogenic and biogenic
       emissions of isoprene, VOCs, and carbon dioxide? Projections made by existing models
       differ based on assumptions used.
Land use
Ports
       What impact might sea level rise have on land use and associated air emissions from
       residential, transportation, and industrial sources? How will these impacts be quantified
       and over what time frame might they be observed? Can new communities be more
       "sustainable"?

       What insights can be gleaned from Hurricane Katrina regarding air quality impacts from
       extreme weather events that may be more frequent in a future climate? How did air
       emissions change as a result of population displacement, construction and demolition
       activities in damaged neighborhoods, and other adaptation outcomes?

       How might population migration patterns change due to perception of extreme weather
       events that may be more frequent or severe in a warmer climate? How might these
       perceptions affect corporate decisions for locating businesses?
       To what extent can or should ports implement standards to reduce emissions from
       vessels? How would these standards affect shipping patterns? In California, for instance,
       all major ports are in non-attainment areas; therefore, vessels that ship products to or
       from the state have no choice but to comply with any statewide port policies that apply
       to non-attainment areas. In Texas, however, Houston is the only major port in a non-
       attainment area. As a result, if Texas has statewide policies or standards that address
       ports in non-attainment areas, vessels that ship products to or from Texas have a choice
       of complying with these policies or standards or using other nearby ports in attainment
       areas (e.g., Corpus Christi). Developing standards for ports poses other challenges, such
       as the potential need for federal and international agreements.

       Ship idling could be reduced through use of generators or shore-to-ship power (also
       referred to as "cold ironing"), similar to truck-stop electrification.
                                           22

-------
    •  One breakout group member likened massive container ships to unregulated electricity
       generating facilities and recommended that standards be considered to use cleaner
       burning fuels, which would help reduce emissions from this source.

Barriers

    •  Breakout group members identified possible regulatory approaches to address emissions
       from selected transportation sources, but also identified barriers preventing their
       application to the United States. For example, one participant noted that trucks entering
       London now must demonstrate that they meet applicable emissions standards or pay fees
       to operate the trucks in the city. While some breakout group members agreed that this
       could be an effective incentive to reduce emissions from trucking sources, others noted
       that such policies might be difficult to implement in the United States due to existing
       interstate commerce clauses. More generally, participants noted that interstate and
       international commerce clauses must be considered prior to proposing regulations to
       limit emissions from the trucking and shipping industry.

    •  Breakout group members voiced concern about the fact that certain sources, particularly
       international shipping and aviation, remain largely un-regulated in comparison to other
       air emissions sources. Some breakout group members feared that efforts to regulate these
       sources will continue to be unsuccessful, until a consensus is reached that the sources are
       major emissions problems for attaining air quality standards. However, some participants
       suspected that political barriers largely prevent regulatory development efforts for some
       of these un-regulated or under-regulated sources.

4.2.2   Day Two Discussions

At the beginning of the second session, the group returned to the original questions developed
during the first day's larger group brainstorming session on policy issues. Those questions
follow, exactly as they were presented  (except for minor editorial revisions for clarity).
Observations made by breakout group members are documented in  brackets.

    •  How do we deal with sources that have not been regulated or as extensively studied?
       What is the magnitude of those unregulated sources? Worldwide, what regulatory and
       economic incentive-based approaches are in use? Are the existing statues  and treaties
       obstacles to regulation?

    •  How sensitive are individual sectors to the effects of climate change?

    •  What is the most appropriate regulatory approach to agriculture? How does climate
       change affect ammonia emissions and PM formation?

    •  How do fires affect air quality  and  carbon sinks? How do higher temperatures and
       drought affect wildfires and the frequency of prescribed burns? Do we need to change
       the way we count exceedances related to fires (prescribed burns vs. wildfires)? [One
       breakout group member wondered if wildfires may no longer be  considered "exceptional
       events" if they become increasingly frequent occurrences.]
                                           23

-------
    •  How do we address increased residential and commercial cooling, taking regional
       differences into account? Quantification of emissions and emission reductions (criteria
       pollutants, air toxics, and GHGs) associated with heating and cooling needs and building
       retrofits is needed. Could this type of quantification be included in SIPs? Is there a way
       to get credit for emission control strategies used outside of a specific jurisdiction that
       affect that jurisdiction? [One breakout group member noted that the Renewable Energy
       Certificate program in the Northeast is an example of such credits.] Are there any
       barriers to inclusion?

    •  How and who does scientific research into behavior change? What is working in the
       European Union in regards to behavior change?

In addition, the facilitator listed several topics on flipcharts that were posted around the meeting
rooms. Breakout group members were asked to write underlying research and policy questions
they had regarding these topics. The following text lists the questions that breakout group
members posted on the flipcharts (which have been revised only for editorial purposes),
organized by topic. Some breakout group members made comments when the facilitator read the
following questions. Those comments are presented below in brackets.

Land Use/Sustainable Communities

    •   Better tools for evaluating alternative land use designs are needed.

    •   What hardware would be required to continually monitor or track carbon dioxide
       emissions from a house or car, which could provide feedback to the consumer?

    •   Do land use policies have co-benefits for air quality?

    •   How do we account for changes in major urban areas and how do we quantify the impact
       or mitigation of these changes (examining the inter-relationship of climate change and
       non-attainment areas)?

    •   What are the measurement criteria for validating "smart growth" policies? What are the
       metrics for success?

    •   Better guidelines to calculate benefits/disincentives for developing town centers or
       sustainable communities are needed.

Non-criteria pollutants

    •   Quantification and evaluation of GHG reductions, by way of technological advances or
       reduction techniques (such as no-till farming), are needed. Incentives to help induce new
       technologies are needed. If a benefit can be quantified, economic incentives may follow.

    •   Do state emission reduction  estimates and  emission inventories match? Are we starting
       from a common inventory? Do bottom-up  and top-down approaches match?
                                           24

-------
   •   A way to keep track of voluntary GHG reduction programs and emission reductions is
       needed. Are state efforts being synthesized? Is there a way to perform an objective
       evaluation of these programs? Has the Government Accountability Office done this?

   •   Where is the verification of GHG reduction measures? The climate registry users want
       certainty on the protocols. Does the science back it up?

   •   There are differences in the impacts of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

   •   A review of chlorine's role in tropospheric ozone formation and formaldehyde as an
       ozone precursor is needed.

   •   How can we factor in water vapor and other GHGs that have not been addressed in a
       satisfying manner? Can a state receive credit for ozone and black carbon reductions,
       which both act as "warmers"?

   •   Methane should be added back to the list of ozone precursors. It impacts background
       ozone.

   •   How will carbon dioxide reductions reduce other pollutants? Can regulation of carbon
       dioxide reduce other pollutants enough to offset climate impacts on air quality? How can
       this be quantified?

Shipping, Ports, and Freights

   •   Where are the new ports going to be as sea level rises?

   •   As new regulations are promulgated, as driven by new technologies, how can a ramp-up
       of old technology use be prevented prior to the new technology requirement?

On-road Transportation and Non-Road Sources

   •   How do we address growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in SIP planning? What are
       the barriers? Is conformity a better way to address VMT growth? How could conformity
       be changed to include carbon dioxide?

   •   Identification of institutional barriers to federal funding program guidelines and the
       development of recommended changes is needed.

   •   What policies work for areas where transportation is the main contributor to non-
       attainment?

   •   Can states quantify impacts on biofuel penetration? What are the health effects? Models
       do not reflect these newer forms of fuels.

   •   Requiring that the air conditioning flag in MOBILE6 to be turned on would improve
       modeling.
                                          25

-------
    •   How often is transportation the main contributor to non-attainment? How do new fuel
       standards impact this? What kind of standard might help solve related nonattainment
       problems?

    •   Are evaporative emissions going to be impacted by climate change? Do models reflect
       this?

    •   If fossil fueled electricity generation and gasoline- or diesel-fueled transportation are
       greatly reduced, what is the largest possible impact on GHG reductions? Other GHG
       categories are at or near the "worst" level until these are controlled.

    •   What is technically feasible in regards to transportation to get an 80% carbon dioxide
       reduction?

Shipping, Freight and Aviation

    •   What can be achieved by regulating carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides from shipping
       and aviation (including international trucking)? What are the costs and benefits? Is this a
       federal issue? What are the economic benefits? These are sources of fine PM and ozone
       but states have no authority beyond regulating ground  equipment.

    •   What are the freight transport consequences of climate-induced shifting of agricultural
       processes?

    •   Is there a global warming metric for contrails?

Agriculture

    •   Are there under-documented health effects from consolidated animal feeding operations
       (such as from hydrogen sulfide) that may be expected to increase under future climate?
       How can we implement technological options such as methane from consolidated animal
       feeding operations for power? Would there be any benefits in regards to water quality?
       [A breakout group member indicated that Vermont power companies are currently
       attempting to improve their public image by funding alternative energy sources, such as
       methane recovery from animal feeding operations. Other members added that public
       image and perceptions have a history of helping to shape public policy. Finally, another
       participant noted that many mitigation efforts, while motivated by concerns of climate
       change, ultimately require behavioral change, and the underlying factors that drive
       behavioral change should be investigated.]

    •   Will economics act as a hindrance?  What are the economics of large-scale manure
       conversion (considering stench, water quality)?

    •   How will climate affect emissions from agriculture, including consolidated animal
       feeding operations, and how will that affect air quality?
                                           26

-------
    •   We need to evaluate agriculture in a "systems approach" to determine lifecycle cost,
       benefits and dis-benefits, including biofuels, changes in practices, and regional
       differences in practices. Does the structure of subsidies need to change?

    •   How can agriculture be regulated to reduce emissions? What are the options with land
       use approaches to reduce transportation emissions? What are the climate change and air
       quality tradeoffs of urban sprawl versus agriculture?

    •   In regards to agriculture and forestry, research is needed on ways to increase carbon sinks
       and minimize agricultural and forestry losses due to poor air quality in conjunction with
       rising temperature, decreasing water availability, and shifts to different industries.

    •   How are forest species changing due to climate change? Are climate-stressed ecosystems
       more susceptible to the impacts of climate change? Emissions from some species are
       regionally influenced by climate.

    •   Agriculture is an important sink and a source of non-fossil fuel.  How do we transport
       biofuels to demand sites? [One breakout group member emphasized that the viability of
       bio-fuels as an alternative fuel source depends, in part, on proximity of fuel production
       facilities to demand sites.]

Parking Lot (used for comments that do not fit under the previous topics)

    •   How effective  are voluntary emission reduction programs?

    •   ORD should provide technical assistance with downscaling global circulation models to
       facilitate integrations of climate change and SIP air quality modeling.

    •   Are the emission inventories used in global circulation models prepared with sufficient
       spatial, temporal, and sector-specific resolution to allow a meaningful comparison with
       the inventories used for regional air quality monitoring?

    •   Local and state actions, no matter how stringent, will be most effective locally. How can
       we motivate local actions?

    •   If federal law does not require action, states are somewhat limited to those  mitigation
       actions that generate jobs and result in short- and long-term economic gains (based on
       public perspective). Can we document the advantage of green technologies?

    •   How can GHG and air pollution impacts be considered as part of regional energy
       regulation (energy generation and distribution regulation)? Regional dispatch is part of
       the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which does not include air quality issues,
       just costs.

    •   We need a strategy to communicate modeling results to state and local agencies. Many
       believe that existing emission reduction programs are more important, but climate
       programs will be more relevant to those areas on the cusp of attainment.
                                           27

-------
    •   Are there under-utilized technologies to get reductions in currently unregulated sectors?
       Can we quantify potential reductions?

    •   How sensitive are current models to extreme weather events and what impact would
       these have on air quality? What does this mean in regards to attainment? Can models
       predict extremes and can probabilities be assigned? Can this be done at the local level?

    •   How do we integrate climate change adaptation into non-attainment SIPs?

    •   We need better modeling tools to show how climate change impacts NAAQS attainment.

    •   How accurate are regional and local climate forecasts? If they are not that accurate, how
       should a local planning area use this information in planning?

The facilitator summarized the various issues placed in the "parking lot," noting that they fall
under the following topics: Successes of regulatory programs need to be measured and verified;
uncertainties in climate modeling and predictions need to be communicated; extreme weather
events and their impacts need to be modeled, and the probability of their occurrence should be
estimated; and current emissions from un-regulated and under-regulated sectors needs to be
quantified and their potential climate-related sensitivities assessed.

4.3    Breakout Group 3: Translation of Global Issues to Local Scales

Susan Wierman facilitated this group. Other participants attending this breakout group were:

       Edith Chang                Rich Damburg              Brooke Hemming
       Robert Hodanbosi           Tom Moore                 Chris Nolte
       Roman Orona              Carol Shay

During the "report out" at the plenary session, Susan Wierman summarized this group's
discussions. The following text presents a record of the discussion that led up to the group's
main findings.
4.3.1   Day One Discussions

During the first session, the breakout group focused on identifying the highest priority research
questions to inform policy questions pertaining to "translation of global issues to local scales."
The initial discussion addressed the following issues:

    •   What is a decision support system? Breakout group members first discussed the essential
        and most helpful elements of an effective decision support system. Models and other
        software tools to run analyses, a pre-built framework that can be filled in with local data,
        and other software-based tools that can be tailored to use in air quality planning were all
        identified as tools that be most beneficial to air quality planners.
                                           28

-------
What challenges might ORDface in creating a decision support system? Participants
discussed several challenges to developing a decision support system, with most of the
comments addressing two general topics.

   o  Complexity. The linked modeling systems used to assess impacts of climate
      change on air quality bring together individual models or analytical tools from
      multiple different fields (science, economics, etc.). Further, the number and
      variety of models available may create more questions than answers, especially
      when they generate different results. Examples of questions that need to be
      considered include: what are the underlying differences between the available
      models, which model is best for a given application, and what assumptions should
      be used for a particular analysis.

   o  Different time horizons. Climate models are typically run to simulate conditions
      over several decades or even centuries into the future, and air quality models tend
      to be used to characterize regional air quality scenarios for much shorter time
      frames. With the 5- or 10-year time horizon of most SIPs, air quality planners
      may not be familiar with characterizing inputs (e.g., emissions scenarios) for
      many decades into the future. Some participants noted that member states of the
      Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have  set timelines for meeting air quality and
      mitigation goals, and that experience may serve as a model for how to help air
      quality planners recognize and understand the complications presented by
      evaluating issues that have inherently different time scales.

In "global to local", what does local mean? The breakout group members also discussed
which parties are expected to lead efforts to incorporate climate change into air quality
planning, with discussions centering on the following topics:

   o  State versus federal lead. Workshop group members acknowledged an intrinsic
      conflict between states' flexibility and their need for federal guidance or pressure
      to address an issue such as climate-related impacts on air quality.  States
      frequently have  better knowledge and data to support decisions of a local nature,
      but they may lack the broader climate change expertise necessary for developing
      adaptation strategies. Furthermore, states  have various in-house capabilities and
      tendencies when taking on new issues: some have limited resources and tend to be
      reactive to federal pressure or requirements, others with greater internal resources
      might still need  direction and the necessary clout to persuade political entities to
      act on climate change, and still have a track record for tackling emerging issues
      without federal pressure. In  short, many states likely will not develop and
      implement adaptation strategies without at least some direction from EPA or a
      federal requirement to do so.

   o  Local variability. Citing remarks from the plenary presentations and text in the
      "white paper," several breakout group members indicated that climate-related
      impacts on air quality are expected to vary throughout the United States.
      Accordingly, participants noted that ORD faces  a challenge of developing
      products that are useful to planning agencies nationwide, while being capable of
                                    29

-------
          addressing the considerable spatial variations in regional air quality and their
          differing pressures. Because the impact of climate change on air quality varies
          throughout the United States, the most effective adaptation strategies will also
          vary from one location to the next.

       o  What can ORD do to help air quality planners incorporate adaptation into
          decision making? With some state, regional, tribal, and national air quality
          planning agencies having limited resources  and time to address emerging issues,
          breakout group members urged ORD to leverage  existing research findings and
          results from ongoing research products to the greatest extent possible. By
          compiling and reviewing this information (e.g., as is being done in the pending
          2007 assessment of climate change and regional air quality), ORD can have a
          better sense of what has been done and what needs to be done. This information
          should also be communicated to other planning agencies so that they do not have
          to conduct independent reviews of the scientific literature. ORD could assist air
          quality planners by aiding in decision support tool development and possibly by
          building a consortium for better communication of available tools, data, and
          modeling results.

After this discussion, the breakout group compiled suggestions and recommendations for the
report-out, based on the guidance in the Participant's Guide.  The notes that follow document
the remaining discussions that occurred during the first session, which this group later
revisited during the second session (see Section 4.3.2 for a summary of those discussions).
Therefore, the following summary does not represent the final recommendations from this
breakout group.

•  Item 5a: "The policy question/issue you want ORD to inform and why. " What is the
   scientific justification for regional differences in control programs both in air quality and
   climate,  and how will policy incorporate this regional variability?

•  Item 5b: "The highest-priority science questions that ORD can and should pursue to
   inform that policy issue. "

       o  What are the most likely scenarios that  state, local, and tribal air quality managers
          should be using in their planning? A range of best and worse case scenarios would
          be helpful.

       o  Has the scientific community reached a consensus on the preferred global models
          to use (including their inputs, assumptions, boundary constraints, and so on)?
          Which inputs are most uncertain? What sensitivity analyses are available? What
          pressures on air quality (e.g., fires, off-shore shipping) are specifically factored
          into these models, and which pressures are excluded?

       o  Which sectors (e.g., electricity, water resources, and transportation) are expected
          to be most affected by climate change?

•  Item 5c: "The most important near-term and long-term research products and decision
   support tools that ORD should provide, including those that are available now. "


                                        30

-------
          o   Few air quality planners are qualified to run and interpret global climate models,
              due to the models' complexity. ORD should therefore develop a collaborative
              means for establishing consensus model inputs to be used for air quality
              management decisions, such as meteorology, climate conditions, reaction rates,
              and emission rates. ORD should also identify input parameters that are expected
              to vary depending upon region-specific factors.

          o   ORD should develop or identify  the most accurate global emission inventories
              and enhance national biogenic and anthropogenic VOC emissions inventories for
              use in a modeling framework to support air quality planning. Further, ORD
              should provide guidance on scenarios and projections that models use to forecast
              future climate and emissions.

          o   ORD should consider developing a transparent, reproducible, Web-based model
              for evaluating climate-related impacts on  regional air quality, while allowing
              users to incorporate local data (e.g., emissions inventory, meteorology) as
              necessary. Any such modeling framework should be well-documented and
              include sufficient user training and guidance, as well as various scenarios for
              future emissions and land use.

          o   ORD should identify or develop  simple, common metrics to help state, tribal, and
              regional planning agencies quantify the impacts of adaptation strategies.

    •   Item 5d: "Recommendations as to how EPA can most effectively deliver its products and
       decision support tools to the air-quality planning community and obtain continuing
       feedback on the usefulness of its research products. "

          o   EPA should develop a clearinghouse of relevant information (e.g., peer-reviewed
              publications, models, assessments) and work in progress to address the current
              lack of communication between  stakeholders. A consortium of air quality
              planners and researchers could help better disseminate existing data, tools, and
              model results, increasing the effectiveness and coordination of research efforts
              and policy development.

          o   Breakout group members noted that increasing communication and cooperation
              with tribal agencies may require  a different approach than with other state and
              local agencies. Because some initiatives are perceived as "the outside community
              attacking sovereignty of tribal lands," EPA should, as appropriate, involve tribes
              in consultative roles in the beginning of major initiatives, training them in
              analytical tools and assisting in characterizing issues of cultural or other
              significance to the individual tribes.

4.3.2   Day Two Discussions

During the second session, the breakout group continued discussing issues raised on the first day,
with the goal of expanding their previously-identified primary needs and formulating concise
research recommendations for EPA.
                                           31

-------
Breakout group members initially discussed the feasibility of translating global climate models
and complex linked modeling systems into simplified models that air quality planners can more
easily use. Some breakout group members cautioned that efforts to simplify models to make
them more accessible to planners might cause them to lose some of their predictive capability.
The inherent complexity in the models results from their need to evaluate multiple spatial scales
and pollutants and complex atmospheric chemistry. However, other breakout group members
expressed interest in creative ways to characterize potential climate change impacts without
relying on complex climate models, perhaps through use of reduced-form models.

Breakout group members also revisited the concept of a "users' community" for developing
ORD research products. One workgroup member discussed her recent efforts with the
"Networked Environmental Information Systems for Global Emissions  Inventories" system, for
which she evaluated all available information on bottom-up emission inventories developed by
different parties with different goals. Her project resulted in a Web-based, distributed database
that provides users  with tools, data access, and means for identifying the most current inventory
data available. Noting the success of that project, some breakout group members suggested that
ORD consider launching a similar collaborative effort to ensure that air quality planners remain
informed of the latest science regarding climate-related impacts and adaptation strategies.

To prepare for the "report out" in the final plenary session, the breakout group members then
identified analytical needs that air quality planners will likely experience when incorporating
climate change into their decision making. The following three main needs were identified on
page 15 of the "Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Air Quality Decision Making" white
paper and served as the guiding outline for the second session's discussion:

   •  Need for primary scientific or technical support

   •  Need for guidance on using linked modeling systems

   •  Need for inter-agency coordination

For each type of need, the breakout group posted written comments on flipcharts that identified
research questions,  research products, and delivery methods. The facilitator further organized
this feedback into a table, which she presented and summarized during the final plenary session.

4.4    Breakout Group 4: Planning Now for a Future Climate

Julia Gamas facilitated  discussions in this breakout group, which was attended by the following
participants:

      Ashlea Anderson           Bryan Bloomer              Ira Domsky
      Laura Draucker            Robert Elleman             Bryan Hubbell
      Tim Johnson                Ozge Kaplan                Gail Lacy
      Andy Miller               Natividad Urquizo
                                           32

-------
During the "report out" at the plenary session, Ira Domsky and Robert Elleman summarized this
group's discussions. The text below (in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2) provides a record of the
discussion for this breakout group.

4.4.1   Day One Discussions

To initiate discussion, the facilitator first listed several topics on multiple flipcharts and posted
those around the breakout meeting room. The facilitator then asked breakout group members to
write down research and policy questions relevant to the topics and to post those written
comments on the corresponding flipcharts. After completing this exercise and reading through
the posted comments, the facilitator moderated a brief discussion on overarching topics, which
addressed the following issues:

   •   Consider resource limitations. Some breakout group members emphasized that air
       quality planning agencies have limited resources (e.g., funding, staffing, computational
       power) necessary for modeling air quality impacts due to climate change. Accordingly,
       they recommended that ORD be mindful of these significant resource limitations when
       developing products to be used by the various agencies.  Overly complicated products,
       whether they are assessments, guidance, case studies, or decision support tools, might
       prove to be of limited utility for the agencies with  the most limited resources.

   •  Make  better use of existing information. Some breakout group members noted that ORD
       may be able to provide some insights on potential  climate-related impacts on air quality
       through review of existing data, particularly the extremely large volume of ambient air
       monitoring data for ozone. With approximately 30 years of measurement results available
       for stations nationwide, ORD can characterize associations between ozone levels and
       certain meteorological conditions, as well as document how these associations vary
       regionally.

   •   Characterize the impact of climate on meteorology. Noting that workshop discussions
       focused on how climate change might affect air quality,  one breakout group member
       emphasized that climate change has an intermediate but equally important affect on
       regional meteorological patterns. This breakout group member encouraged ORD to
       prepare information on how climate change is expected to affect key meteorological
       parameters and to document regional variations in these effects.

   •   Consider other research and policy suggestions. At the end of the first session,  some
       breakout group members offered specific suggestions for ORD to consider, though the
       suggestions were not discussed in detail. Examples of the suggested research activities
       follow:

          o   Modeling studies that predict future climate-related air quality impacts have
              conflicting findings, many of which can be explained by underlying assumptions
              in the modeling protocols (e.g., use of different IPCC emissions scenarios). Air
              quality planning agencies might benefit from some guidance on how to  evaluate
              seemingly contradictory findings. Alternatively, rather than leaving interpretation
              up to the planning agencies, ORD may consider developing a preferred  set of
                                           33

-------
             models and model inputs and publish the associated predictions of how the
             "climate penalty" is expected to vary by region and decade.

          o  The "events" that trigger significant air quality concerns vary from region to
             region. For example, wind-blown dust and wildfires are of particular significance
             in parts of the West, while heat waves and stagnation episodes may play a greater
             role in other parts of the country. One breakout group member recommended that
             ORD consider listing the various "events" that are most highly associated with
             regional air quality concerns and then evaluate whether climate change is
             expected to affect the frequency and severity of these events.

          o  One breakout group member recommended that ORD consider focusing initial
             efforts on some near-term goals. As one example, for areas believed to be "at
             risk" for non-attainment due to climate change, ORD can help identify market-
             based approaches, non-regulatory incentives, and other strategies to help offset
             the anticipated climate-related impacts on air quality.

          o  A breakout group member emphasized that ORD should not limit its research to
             climate change's impacts on ambient concentrations of ozone and PM2.5. Impacts
             on deposition and re-emission of pollutants like mercury should be considered,  as
             well.

4.4.2   Day Two Discussions

During the second session, breakout group members revisited several  discussion topics covered
during the first day (see Section 4.4.1) and organized their ideas into two main themes. The two
themes, along with a summary of the main discussion points, are listed below. After the
discussion ended, the breakout group facilitator further organized the main points into a
presentation, which was displayed during the final plenary session.

How do we begin planning in the context of climate change?

The breakout groups focused on two topics: science issues (data and models) and planning
issues. Regarding the science issues, breakout group members raised numerous points. For
instance, some encouraged ORD to collect data and run models that will help examine best-case
and worst-case scenarios. However, breakout group members had differing opinions on how
ORD  should proceed with modeling efforts. Some recommended that ORD develop a preferred
complex, integrated modeling framework that planners may eventually use to examine climate-
related air quality impacts under a wide range of scenarios. Other breakout group members
advocated development of reduced-form models that can provide information much more
quickly to state, regional, and tribal planners, but without compromising precision and predictive
capabilities. Regardless of model complexity, breakout group members noted that stakeholders
will ultimately require guidance on the use of the models, such as the appropriate temporal and
spatial scales to consider, which time horizons to evaluate, ranges of acceptable inputs, which
emissions sources have climate dependencies, and so on.
                                          34

-------
More generally, some breakout group members encouraged ORD to examine existing modeling
frameworks and evaluate the climate-sensitivities among individual elements (e.g., emissions,
meteorology, land use change). This evaluation can help identify which climate-related
sensitivities are well characterized, and which require further research. Breakout group members
then listed several specific areas that may be informed by research: the influence of climate
change on the frequency and severity of drought in arid areas and the resulting changes in PMio
emissions and ambient concentrations; the impact of climate change on biogenic emissions,
including region-specific effects; and climate-related effects on atmospheric deposition
processes.

During this discussion, breakout group members raised several additional questions that ORD
may consider evaluating further. Examples of the questions include: How does climate change
affect the vulnerability of human health and ecosystems? Are our existing standards sufficiently
protective? Are we using the appropriate metrics in our standards? What are the appropriate time
scales for planning, implementation, and impacts? Do we have sufficient data to characterize
how climate change might affect interactions between environmental media (e.g., deposition)?
What motivating factors are most effective for imparting behavior change?

Regarding the planning issues, breakout group members raised numerous points. Most generally,
some asked how EPA would help ensure that evolving science is communicated to the planning
community and integrated into policies. These breakout group members suggested that EPA
consider issuing periodic updates to key products (e.g., assessments, white papers) to reflect the
latest science; and others recommended that planning agencies consider implementing, as
warranted by major scientific advances, "mid-course corrections" in their climate or air quality
planning efforts. Overall,  these comments noted that planning authorities may need to develop a
flexible planning structure to accommodate the emerging science in climate change and its
impacts on air quality.

The workshop group members offered several additional recommendations for how climate
change impacts could be integrated into air quality planning. Some breakout group members, for
instance, suggested that some formal mechanism be established to ensure that climate change is
included in maintenance plans. ORD could develop case studies or other guidance to help
planning agencies explicitly factor adaptation into their planning efforts. Other breakout group
members emphasized that all air quality planning agencies should be aware of potential impacts
of climate change,  even though some states, regions, and tribes may have limited or no
experience preparing SIPs. As for policy implications, two breakout group members commented
on the need for "system-wide" adaptation strategies that incorporate planning activities from
various disciplines, such as climate action planning, air quality planning, and land use planning
(e.g., sustainable development, smart growth, "cool cities"). One added that other forms of
planning—such as fire management and agriculture—have links to air quality and climate, and
should be considered in "system-wide" approaches. Finally, one  breakout group member
suggested that OAQPS consider, possibly through input from ORD, the need for probabilistic
approaches in SIPs for reaching attainment with air quality standards.
                                           35

-------
What elements of planning might ORD research and products inform?

After discussing general approaches for incorporating climate change into air quality planning,
the breakout group considered four specific elements of planning where further research might
be warranted:

   •   Research into emissions inventories. Recognizing the importance of emissions
       inventories in air quality modeling studies, several breakout group members
       recommended that ORD conduct further research into the existing inventories. Examples
       of potential research areas follow: Conduct studies to reconcile discrepancies between
       modeling results (based on emission inventory inputs) and ambient air monitoring data;
       harmonize top-down inventories (which are commonly used for future climate scenarios)
       and bottom-up inventories (which are typically used for air quality applications); consider
       lifecycles and economics when assessing emission reduction strategies; and review
       existing emission factors to identify those that should be updated with more current
       information (some PMio emission factors were noted as being based on decades-old
       studies of questionable quality).

   •   Exceptional and episodic events. The breakout group discussed at length how climate
       change might affect the frequency and severity of air quality "events." During this
       discussion, breakout group members used multiple terms—extreme, exceptional,
       episodic—to describe these events, and some terms were used interchangeably.
       Ultimately, they recommended that EPA not only better define  "exceptional" events (e.g.,
       hurricanes, dust storms) and "episodic" events (e.g., stagnation periods), but also evaluate
       how these events will differ in our future climate. These  evaluations should consider
       regional differences in exceptional and episodic events, including impacts in rural  areas.
       One breakout group member noted that future climate change can have direct bearing on
       important policies pertaining to air quality "events," such as possible changes to the
       exceptional event rule (i.e., if these events become more commonplace, should they  still
       be considered "exceptional"?) and to significant harm levels (i.e., if health effects  due to
       exposure to outdoor air pollution are exacerbated by high temperatures). Further,
       planning agencies may need to develop and implement adaptation strategies specific to
       these events, such as outreach to sensitive populations to prevent harmful exposures and
       temporary emissions reduction strategies to mitigate air quality "events."

   •   Monitoring strategies. The breakout group also discussed whether and how monitoring
       strategies should be enhanced to assess impacts  of climate change on air quality. Most
       generally, breakout group members recommended that EPA consider developing a new
       monitoring network optimized for detecting the  "climate penalty" signal among ambient
       air monitoring data, rather than relying on an existing monitoring network established for
       an entirely different purpose.

       The breakout group members then offered several specific considerations for improving
       ambient air monitoring strategies. Regarding ground-level monitoring, several questions
       were asked: What enhancements to the existing  monitoring network are necessary to
       assess and quantify climate-related impacts in rural areas? What other changes should be
       made to the existing network (e.g., develop new monitoring methods, measure air  quality
                                           36

-------
       at different elevations, change monitoring frequencies, monitor for additional pollutants,
       identify surrogates for climate "signals") to inform planners of the potential "climate
       penalty"? How can modeling be used to inform decisions, without the need for designing
       and implementing monitoring networks? Finally, breakout group members also
       encouraged ORD to ensure it makes best use of existing remote sensing data, which may
       provide insights on spatial variations in air quality, biogenic emissions, and other issues.

   •   Tribal governments. The breakout group concluded their second session by discussing
       how EPA can best coordinate with tribal governments on adaptation strategies for climate
       change, and these discussions addressed numerous topics. One breakout group member,
       for instance, felt EPA should try to build more capacity with tribal planning agencies,
       perhaps through additional workshops or conferences. Others recommended that
       assessments of climate-related impacts should consider resources  of cultural significance
       to tribes. Finally, multiple breakout group members said ORD should not only consider
       what products to develop for tribes, but seriously consider what insights it can learn from
       tribes. For instance, oral  histories from tribes may offer insights into the impacts of
       climate change on various environmental media that cannot be gleaned from existing
       measurements. Such insights might be particularly valuable in areas where monitoring
       has not been conducted.  Additionally, one breakout group member recommended that
       ORD consult directly with tribes to understand their perspectives of environmental
       impacts.

After these discussions ended, the facilitator organized key points into a brief presentation for the
closing plenary session.
                                           37

-------
5.0    Concluding Plenary Session

The concluding plenary session involved three activities. First, facilitators from the four breakout
groups presented key discussion points from their respective groups. Limited discussion occurred
during these presentations. However, a meeting facilitator wrote the following overarching
questions on flipcharts during the report-out presentations:

Adapting to Climate Effects

   •   How does climate impact areas just in or just out of attainment?

   •   How do we address increased residential cooling, taking into account regional
       differences?

   •   What do increasing fires and changes in fire policy mean for protection of public health?
       Should the natural events policy be re-evaluated?

   •   How should climate change be considered in air quality maintenance plans and in  SIPs
       (possibly in a weight-of-evidence section)?

   •   Are there local measures (e.g., "cool cities") to reduce regional temperatures to avoid
       ozone increases due to global change?

   •   More than temperature will change in the future climate. How might precipitation
       changes affect air quality?

Interplay of Adaptation and Mitigation

   •   How can we encourage the design and retrofit of communities to both reduce GHG
       emissions and meet air quality objectives?

   •   What do the technology choices made for GHG reductions mean for local air quality for
       the next 20 years? For the next 50 years? How can we make the best choices (e.g., "win-
       win" strategies)?

   •   What multi-pollutant strategies best protect human health and climate (e.g., sulfate, black
       carbon, organic carbon, methane)?

   •   What are the air quality impacts of mitigation technologies (e.g., bio-fuels)?

Second, workshop participants were asked to identify common themes that emerged during the
four report-out presentations, and the participants' feedback was typed into a computer and
projected on a screen for everyone's review. The following common themes were identified:

   •   Inventories: reconciliation  of global and regional inventories, comparisons across
       pollutants and sources, etc.
                                           38

-------
    •   Characterization and communication of uncertainty throughout the modeling framework
       (e.g., from emissions to climate modeling to air quality modeling).

    •   Understanding different temporal and spatial scales of climate and air quality issues.

    •   Evaluate co-benefits and trade-offs.

    •   Modeling of different scenarios, with consideration of "extremes" (both range of weather
       patterns and range of other inputs).

    •   Impacts of regulatory approaches for different issues, such as multiple pollutants and un-
       regulated sources.

    •   Metrics and quantification: How do we measure the impact of the full range of policies?

    •   Impact metric for climate change and air quality planning.

    •   Need for effective communications to all audiences.

    •   Need to engage the public about their role in climate change and air quality.

    •   Take advantage of social sciences: What is the full range of influences that can be used to
       promote GHG and multiple pollutant reductions? Who can do this research?

    •   Forming a community with: academia; the international community; state, tribal, and
       local planners; and other stakeholders.

    •   Better characterization of uncertainties in the linked modeling systems.

Third, the workshop concluded with a brief brainstorming session on immediate needs and next
steps for identifying adaptation strategies for climate-related air quality impacts. Workshop
participants listed recently completed and ongoing research projects that might inform ORD's
research on adaptation strategies. One participant noted that EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards is already  conducting air quality management pilot projects with
multiple states and "Sustainable Skylines" projects with Dallas and Kansas City, and the results
from these  projects (when completed) might be of interest to ORD. Multiple participants
identified existing modeling results that may help inform research into adaptation. Specific
results mentioned included MARKAL energy systems modeling conducted by EPA and
NESCAUM, climate and air quality modeling conducted by CIRAQ,  and publications submitted
through STAR grants.

Workshop participants also listed several immediate needs for air quality planning agencies.
Examples of these included: information on the sensitivity of the "climate penalty" to different
emissions scenarios, examples of adaptation strategies that can be implemented to address
extreme air pollution episodes (e.g., outreach to the public on how to minimize exposures), and
reconciliation of different emission inventories (e.g., global versus regional, bottom-up versus
top-down). Additionally, several participants encouraged ORD to evaluate and address not only
how to adapt to the effects of climate change, but also how to adapt to the mitigation strategies
                                           39

-------
being implemented to address climate change. Some of these participants emphasized the need to
factor economics into mitigation and adaptation strategies and also to consider the potential
"penalties" of not taking actions now (particularly for mitigation).

Representatives from some state agencies noted that SIP updates present a good opportunity for
integrating climate change into air quality planning. Some feared, however, that adaptation
would not become part of SIPs unless EPA develops case studies, detailed guidance, or specific
requirements on exactly how this should be done. As one example, a participant noted that her
planning efforts would benefit from knowing how many additional tons of VOC reductions over
a certain time frame is needed to offset the so-called climate penalty. Without some direction
from EPA on such issues, different states and regions may approach adaptation in entirely
different ways, and some areas may not consider adaptation at all. This was of particular concern
for planning agencies with limited resources and that are focusing on  meeting other statutory
requirements. In addition, some participants were concerned that adaptation and mitigation
efforts may be difficult to launch locally, given a perception that such local efforts have limited
benefit on worldwide GHG concentrations and climate change.

The participants also discussed means by which ORD can communicate adaptation issues to
stakeholders. Specific options included: holding additional workshops to present key research
products, posting results from STAR research grants on the Web, presenting findings at
upcoming conferences, holding internal EPA meetings with representation from many programs
and offices, and developing a centralized Web site that can serve as a  clearinghouse for relevant
information (e.g.,  white papers, STAR grant research products, links).
                                           40

-------
Appendix A: List of Participants
Ash lea Anderson
Air Quality Specialist
Environmental Protection
Department
Ak-Chin Indian Community
42507 Wes t Peters & Nail Road
Maricopa, AZ 85239
520-568-9378
Fax: 520-568-9380
Email: aanderson@ak-chin.nsn.us

Robert Bielawa
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12233
518-402-8396
Email: rdbielaw@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Karen Blanchard
Acting Associate Director
Outreach and Information Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C304-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-5503
Fax: 919-541-0072
Email: blanchard.karen@epa.gov

Bryan Bloomer
Physical Scientist
National Center for
Environmental Research
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9078
Fax: 202-233-0677
Email: bloomer.bryan@epa.gov
Gina Bonifacino
Air Quality Planner
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(AWT 107)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2970
Fax: 206-553-0110
Email: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov

Edith Chang
California Air Resources Board
10011 Street
Sacramento, CA 95812
916-324-2302
Email: echang@arb.ca.gov

Kenneth Colburn
Symbiotic Strategies, LLC
26 Winton Road
Meredith, NH 03253
Email:
kcolburn@symbioticstrategies.com

Dan Costa
National Program Director for Air
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E205-09)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-2532
Fax: 919-685-3248
Email: costa.dan@epa.gov

Rich  Dam berg
Team Leader, Fire Particle
Implementation Programs
State and Local Programs Group
Air Quality Policy Division
Office of Air Quality  Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C504-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27701
919-541-5592
Email: damberg.rich@epa.gov
Joe DeCarolis
Environmental Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-3200
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: decarolis.joe@epa.gov

Rebecca Dodder
Environmental Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-5376
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: dodder.rebecca@epa.gov

Ira Domsky
Deputy Director, Air Quality Division
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
1110 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-771-2365
Fax: 602-771-2366
Email  : domsky.ira@azdeq.gov
                                                 41

-------
Laura Draucker
Environmental Engineer
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexnader Drive (E320-E1)
Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711
919-541-2904
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: draucker.laura@epa.gov

Robert  Elleman
Meteorologist
Environmental Characterization Unit
Office of Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 6th Avenue - Suite 900 (OEA-
095)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1531
Email: elleman.robert@epa.gov

Ken Elstein
Organizational Development
Specialist
Office of Resources
Management & Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E205-07)
Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711
919-541-3581
Fax: 919-541-2215
Email: elstein.kenneth@epa.gov

Dale Eva its
Group Leader
Climate, International & Multimedia
Group
Health &  Environmental Impacts
Division
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
(C504-04)
Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711
919-541-5535
Fax: 919-685-7719
Email: evarts.dale@epa.gov
Cynthia Gage
Senior Research Engineer
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02)
Durham, NC 27709
919-541-0590
Email: gage.cynthia@epa.gov
Julia Gamas
Environmental Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution & Control Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
(E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7915
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: gamas.julia@epa.gov

Alice Gilliland
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E243-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-0347
Email: gilliland.alice@epa.gov

Doug Grano
Environmental Scientist
Climate ,  International & Multimedia
Group
Health and Environmental Impacts
Division Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
(C539-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-3292
Fax: 919-541-5598
Email: grano.doug@epa.gov

Heather Hawkins
Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment & Natural Resources
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Email: heather.hawkins@ncmail.net
G. Vinson Hellwig
Chief, Air Quality Division
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
525 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-7069
Fax:  517-373-1265
Email: hgHwjgy^mjchjgaji.goy

Brooke Hemming
Air Quality Team Leader
Global Change Research Program
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
Office of Research & Development
U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency
(B242-01)
Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711
919-541-5668
Email: hemming.brooke@epa.gov

Robert Hodanbosi
Chief, Division of Air Pollution
Control
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
50 West Town Street
Columbus, OH 43215
614-644-2270
Fax:  614-644-3681
Email:
bob.hodanbosi@epa.state.oh.us

Bryan Hubbell
Senior Advisor for Science & Policy
Analysis
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
Health & Environmental Impacts
Division
U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C504-02)
Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711
919-541-0621
Email: hubbell.bryan@epa.gov
                                                  42

-------
Carey Jang
Air Quality Modeling Group
Air Quality Assessment Division
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C439-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-5638
Fax: 919-541-0044
Email: jang.carey@epa.gov

Timothy Johnson
Senior Physical Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
919-541-0575
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: johnson.tim@epa.gov

Rhea Jones
Group Leader
Geograhic Strategies Group
Air Quality Policy Division
Office of Air Quality Policy Division
109 TW Alexander Drive (C539-04)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-2940
Email:  jones.rhea@epa.gov

Ozge Kaplan
Orise Post-Doctoral Fellow
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-5069
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: kaplan.ozge@epa.gov

Tonalee Carson Key
Research Scientist
New Jersey Department of
Environmental  Protection
P.O. Box 418
401 East State  Street - 7th Floor
Trenton, NJ  08625
609-984-2036
Email: tonalee.key@dep.state.nj.us
Gary Kleiman
Science and Technology Program
Manager
NESCAUM
101 Merrimac Street - 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
617-259-2027
Fax: 617-742-9162
Email: gkieirnajT@nescaum.org

David Kryak
Assistant  Laboratory Director
Research Planning & Coordination
Staff
Inner Office of the Director/National
Exposure Research  Laboratory
U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (D305-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-1457
Email: kryak.davidd@epa.gov

Meredith Kurpius
Air Monitoring Manager
Technical Support Office
Air Division
U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-7)
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-947-4534
Fax: 415-947-3579
Email: kurpius.meredith@epa.gov

Gail Lacy
Environmental Engineer
Climate, International & Multimedia
Group
Health &  Environmental Impacts
Division
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency
(C504-04)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5261
Fax: 919-541-5598
Email: lacy.gail@epa.gov
Michael Ling
Associate Director
Air Quality Policy Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-4729
Email: ling.michael@epa.gov

Dan Loughlin
Environmental Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-3928
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: loughlin.dan@epa.gov

Douglas McKinney
Assistant Lab Director
Immediate Office of the Lab Director
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-3006
Fax: 919-541-5227
Email: mckinney.douglas@epa.gov

Paulette Middleton
President
Panorama Pathways
2385 Panorama Avenue
Boulder, CO  80304
303-442-6866
Email:
                                                  43

-------
Andy Miller
Acting Chief
Atmospheric  Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2920
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: miller.andy@epa.gov

Tom  Moore
Technical Air Quality Program
Manager
Western Regional Air Partnership
Western Governors' Association
1375 Campus Delivery
CIRA/Colorado  State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
970-491-8837
Fax: 970-491-8598
Email:
Brian Morton
Senior Research Associate
Center for Urban and Regional
Studies
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
4417 Sunny Court
Durham,  NC  27705
919-962-8847
Fax: 919-962-2518
Email: bjmorton@unc.edu

Robert  Noland
Reader in Transport and
Environmental Policy
Centre for Transport Studies
Imperial College London
Exhibition Road
London SW7 2AZ
United Kingdom
+44-20-7594-6036
Fax: +44-20-7594-6102
Email: r.noland@imperial.ac.uk

Chris Nolte
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E243-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2652
Email: nolte.chris@epa.gov
Roman Orona
Air Quality Specialist
Environmental Protection
Department
Ak-Chin Indian Community
42507 West Peters & Nail Road
Maricopa, AZ  85239
520-568-9378
Fax: 520-568-9380
Email :  rorona@ak-chin.nsn.us

Sharon Phillips
Air Quality Modeling Group
Air Quality Assessment Division
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C439-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
919-541-2138
Fax: 919-541-0044
Email: phillips.sharon@epa.gov

Frank Princiotta
Director, Air Pollution Prevention &
Control Division
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Email: princiotta.frank@epa.gov

Jason Samenow
Climate Analyst
Climate Science and Impacts Branch
Climate Change Division
Office of Air & Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(6207J)
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9327
Fax: 202-343-2202
Email: samenow.jason@epa.gov

Marcus Sarofim
Postdoctoral Associate
MIT
195 Binney Street - Apt. 2209
Cambridge, MA 02142
617-253-3895
Email: msarofim@mit.edu
Joel Scheraga
National Program Director
Global Change Research Program
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-3385
Fax: 202-565-2430
Email: scheraga.joel@epa.gov

Carol Shay
Environmental Scientist
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division/Office of Research &
Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-1868
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: shaycarol@yahoo.com

Jim Southerland
Division of Air Quality
North  Carolina Department of
Environment & Natural Resources
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC  27699
Email: jim.southerland@ncmail.net

Ravi  Srivastava
Senior Technical Advisor
Sector Policies and Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (D205-01)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-3444
Email: srivastava.ravi@epa.gov
                                                  44

-------
Sara Terry
Policy and Communication Staff
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
Office of the Director
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
(C404-03)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7576
Email: terry.sara@epa.gov

Natividad Urquizo
Environmental Planner - Air and
Energy Initiatives
City of Ottawa, Ontario
110 Laurier Avenue, W - 4th Floor
Ottawa, ON  KIP Ul
613-580-2424
Fax: 613-580-2459
Email:

Richard Valentinetti
Director
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
Building 3 South
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
802-241-3860
Fax: 802-241-2590
Email: dick.valentinetti@state.vt.us

Samudra Vijay
Research Fellow
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention & Control
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive  (E305-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-1315
Fax: 919-541-7885
Email: vijay.samudra@epa.gov
Lydia Wegman
Division Director
Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive (C504-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5507
Email: weman.lydia@epa.gov
Shelley Whitworth
Houston-Galveston Area Council
P.O. Box 22777
Houston, TX  77227
713-627-3200
Susan Wierman
Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA)
711 West 40th Street - Suite 312
Baltimore, MD 21211
410-467-0170
Fax: 410-467-1737
Email:

Darrell Winner
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(8723 F)
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9748
Fax: 202-233-0677
Email: winner.darrell@epa.gov
ERG Contractor Support:

Jaime Mauser
Environmental Scientist
ERG
1600 Perimeter Park Drive - Suite
200
Morrisville, NC  27560
919-468-7813
Email: Jaime.hauser@erg.com

Heather Perez
Environmental Scientist
ERG
1600 Perimeter Park Drive - Suite
200
Morrisville, NC  27560
919-468-7892
Email: heather.perez@erg.com

Erin Pittorino
Conference Coordinator
ERG
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
781-674-7260
Fax: 781-674-2906
Email: enn.gittorjno@erg.com

Amanda Singleton
Junior Engineer
ERG
1600 Perimeter Park Drive - Suite
200
Morrisville, NC  27560
919-468-7807
Email: Amanda.singleton@erg.com

John Wilhelmi
Vice President/Chemical Engineer
ERG
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
781-674-7312
Fax: 781-674-2851
Email: john.wilhelmi@erg.com
                                                 45

-------