7. Attachment

Exhibit A

7/12/22, 9:02 AM                                              Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] July 12 Port Commission Meeting - Public Comment re the need to protect
urban tree canopy
Anne Miller 
Tue 7/12/2022 8:57 AM
To: Commission-Public-Records 
WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.

I am writing to express my concerns about the Port of Seattle's planned development for North SeaTac
Park and surrounding tree covered areas.
As a mother and person of faith, I am deeply concerned about our environment and the legacy that
we are leaving to our children. I want a world in which my children, and all children, have clean air to
breathe, clean water to drink, food that is safe to eat and wilderness left to explore. I believe that each
of us has a duty to protect and preserve our environment but public officials have a special duty
because they are making decisions on behalf of the public.
The Port of Seattle Commission has a duty to support, not just the short term economic well-being of
their local constituents but, also to the long term environmental health of the wider community. In
addition, we will not have long term economic health in a world that is environmentally in peril. With
global warming and increased storms, floods, fires etc. public officials need to work to mitigate the
environmental challenges that we are already seeing. This means that they need to protect our
remaining forests, streams, wetlands, and wild areas which help to sequester carbon, clean our air, and
provide needed recreational and cooling areas for people as well as habitat for birds and other wild
As such, I would ask that the Port of Seattle immediately support the following Community Forest
Consensus to defend the people in the community surrounding North SeaTac Park, and all people
living within the ten-mile community surrounding this airport, from the negative health and climate
impacts posed by near-term plans for extensive deforestation as and green space destruction by the
Port of Seattle, the current owner and assigned steward of North SeaTac Park. The Consensus is as
��������������-�������������� �������������������� ���� ���������� ������������ �������� ���� �� �������� ���� �������������������� �������� �� ������������������ 
����������������������, ������������ ������ ��������, ���� �������������������� ���������������������� ������ �������� ��������������. This may be 
accomplished by changes in zoning and law, by conservation easement, by transfer or sale of this park 
land to an appropriate governmental entity, or by a combination of these or other means. 
The Port caused the removal by eminent domain of thousands of residents, along with their homes and 
schools, from the land that this park now occupies. The Port has acknowledged that the creation of the 
park was “the culmination of a long term and very open planning process to compensate the area’s 
residents for cumulative airport impacts.” (1) This measure would honor that expressed intent of the Port. 
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/deeplink?Print                                                       1/3

       7/12/22, 9:03 AM                                              Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook

���� ������������������ �������������������� ���� �������� �������������� ������ ���������� ���������� ���������������������� ���� ������ �������� ���� �������������� ���� 
������������ ���������� ������������ �� ���������� ���� ������������ �������������������������� �������������� with exceptions only for targeted 
measures to protect public safety or the health of the surrounding natural ecosystem, or to prevent 
substantial physical damage to existing private or public property, when these objectives cannot be 
reasonably achieved through other means. 
This call for action responds to the recommendation of Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHS&KC) to 
increase green space and tree coverage, particularly coniferous trees, within ten miles of SeaTac 
International Airport in order to reduce human exposure to airport-generated pollutants known to cause 
disease and shorten lives. (2) PHS&KC has found that, with severity increasing as proximity to the airport 
increases, lifespans in this ten-mile area are between 1.7 and 5 years shorter than in the balance of the 
county; premature births, low birthweights, and childhood learning problems are more common; and rates 
of cancer, and heart, respiratory, and cardiovascular disease are significantly higher. (2) 
Furthermore, this call is put forth in order to safeguard human health in a community where residents 
experience high levels of environmental health disparities as measured by the Washington State 
Department of Health. (3) 
Furthermore, this call holds the Port of Seattle and our greater community accountable to the principles of 
environmental justice required under Presidential Executive Order 12898 and US Department of 
Transportation Order 5610.2. That order requires that activities that would have “a disproportionately high 
and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations” be avoided or mitigated when 
practicable. (4, 5) 
As reported by PHS&KC, “the majority of people in King County identifying as Black/African American, 
Hispanic/Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander live in communities within 10 miles of the airport”, 
“a greater proportion of people in these communities are immigrants, and a slightly higher proportion are 
children,” and the percentage of people in near poverty or poverty increased the closer you are to the 
airport”, ranging from 37.2% - 24.4% within ten miles of the airport as compared with 16.1% in the balance 
of the county. These poverty rates are even higher for children. (2) 
This moratorium must go into effect immediately in order to prevent the Port of Seattle from 
implementing its current near-term plans that would result in significant reduction of green space and tree 
coverage in this community, and must continue until the CARE Plan for the Greater North SeaTac Park 
Community, as outlined below, or a plan with comparable protections for our community’s health, is in 
�� �������� ������ �������������������������� ������������ ���� �������������� ������ �������������� ���� ���������� ������������ �������� ������ ������������������ 
(CARE Plan), by the Port of Seattle and other partnering jurisdictions, that is fully funded and 
professionally managed, in order to restore and maintain for future generations the natural areas within 
and surrounding North SeaTac Park, including forests and waterways and with emphasis on Tub Lake and 
its prehistoric peat bog, a type of wetland that is highly environmentally sensitive and increasingly rare in 
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/deeplink?Print                                                       2/3

       7/12/22, 9:03 AM                                              Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
King County. 
The plan must include control of invasive weeds and preparation for existing and expected climate 
impacts such as drought, high heat, and pests. 
It must, in a manner and at a scale recommended by experts in urban forestry and public health, propose 
specific steps to implement the recommendation made by the Seattle-King County Health Department to 
increase green space and tree coverage, particularly coniferous trees, near SeaTac Airport in order to 
reduce residents’ exposure to toxics from airport operations. 
It must protect and retain existing trees, as large-diameter trees can capture more toxic particulates, store 
“disproportionally massive amounts of carbon,” and “fulfill a variety of unique ecological roles such as 
increasing drought-tolerance, reducing flooding from intense precipitation events, altering fire behavior, 
redistributing soil water, and acting as focal centers of mycorrhizal communication and resource sharing 
networks." (6) 
It should set a goal of restoring urban tree canopy coverage in this community from its current low 
averages, for example, of 21% in SeaTac (25% not including the airport), 30% in Burien, and 29% in Des 
Moines, to 40% or more, as recommended by Forterra NW in three studies that it prepared for the Port of 
Seattle Airport Community Ecology Fund. (7-9) 
And it must include concrete actions to limit, to the extent reasonably possible, development activities of 
the Port of Seattle within ten miles of the airport to its existing developed footprint. The Port controls 
sprawling multi-acre, single-level parking lots as well as other already-paved and underutilized properties, 
where redevelopment with higher density approaches are feasible and ecologically sound. 

Anne Miller

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/deeplink?Print                                                       3/3


7/12/22, 8:56 AM                                              Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Public Comment Concerning North SeaTac Park
Isla Scott 
Tue 7/12/2022 8:54 AM
To: Commission-Public-Records 
2 attachments (452 KB)
TreeEquityFactsheet_3_11_22.pdf; Tree Equity List of Sources.pdf;

WARNING: External email. Links or a achments may be unsafe.

I wish to speak at today's meeting (July 12th, 2022) about North SeaTac Park and the Port of Seattle's
proposal to commercially develop within the park. I will be speaking on a lot of scientific research, so I
have included my document of sources. I have also included a South Seattle Climate Action Network
fact sheet on tree equity and a link to their website page about what trees are at risk and why that
matters. That link can be found here: https://www.kctreeequity.org/trees.
Most importantly, I have included a link to the Defenders of North SeaTac Park's Community Forest
Consensus. This consensus calls for "emergency action and long-term solutions by our elected
officials to defend the health of people in the North SeaTac Park community and within the 10 miles of
SeaTac International Airport as well as the stability of our climate by protecting this community's
forests, waterways, parklands, and trees." You can find more information on the consensus and its
sources at this link: https://www.kctreeequity.org/consensus. I encourage you to read through it and
consider signing the consensus, as commissioners are a critical factor in helping save our parks and
At the meeting today, I will be saying this: 
"Hi My name is Isla Scott, and I am a University of Washington student studying the environment. I am
working with the South Seattle Climate Action Network and am here today to speak to you about our
concerns for North SeaTac Park. Within the Port of Seattle's Sustainable Airport Master Plan and the
Port's Real Estate Strategic Plan, the port proposes to commercially develop 31.5 acres inside North
SeaTac park and over 70 acres in neighborhoods around it to expand SeaTac International Airport.
Conversely, the Public Health of Seattle and King County has actually recommended an increase in
green spaces and tree coverage near the airport to reduce human exposure to deadly airport
As a person pursuing environmental science as a career, I cannot urge you enough to honor this
recommendation and defend North SeaTac Park. I have done extensive research into the effect of
airports and aircrafts on the communities that surround them. The closer one is to an airport, the
higher chances of decreased lung and cardiac function, chronic respiratory and heart disease, lung
cancer, bronchitis, asthmatic attacks, depression, anxiety, respiratory infections in children, and much
more. However, it has been found that green spaces and tree canopy cover can largely mitigate these
impacts. And not only that, but they can also reduce crime, contribute to energy conservation,

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…   1/2

       7/12/22, 8:56 AM                                              Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook
promote economic prosperity, and cool neighborhoods. And I haven't even begun to touch on the
environmental benefits and how vital trees are to mitigating climate change. 
This is a major environmental health issue. And as shown by the US Census Bureau, this is a major
environmental justice issue. Please defend this park and the community that surrounds it. Trees save
lives. Before this meeting, I emailed you all of my sources and more. Please read through them and
feel the impact this community will feel if you take those trees away.
I thank you for your time and for allowing me to speak today.
Kindest regards, 
Isla Scott

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO…   2/2


Human health:
Lammers A, Janssen NAH, Boere AJF, Berger M, Longo C, Vijverberg SJH, Neerincx
AH, Maitland - van der Zee AH, Cassee FR. 2020. Effects of short-term exposures to
ultrafine particles near an airport in healthy subjects. Environment International.
141:105779. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105779.
Quote: Short-term exposures to aviation-related UFP near a major airport, was
associated with decreased lung function (mainly FVC) and a prolonged QTc interval in
healthy volunteers. The effects were relatively small, however, they appeared after single
exposures of 5 h in young healthy adults.
Kampa M, Castanas E. 2008. Human Health Effects of Air Pollution. Environmental
Pollution. 151(2):362–367. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012.
Quote: Air pollution has both acute and chronic effects on human health, affecting a
number of different systems and organs. It ranges from minor upper respiratory irritation
to chronic respiratory and heart disease, lung cancer, acute respiratory infections in
children and chronic bronchitis in adults, aggravating pre-existing heart and lung
disease, or asthmatic attacks. In addition, short- and long-term exposures have also been
linked with premature mortality and reduced life expectancy.
Lin S, Munsie JP, Herdt-Losavio M, Hwang SA, Civerolo K, McGarry K, Gentile T. 2007.
Residential proximity to large airports and potential health impacts in New York State.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 81(7):797–804.
Quote: Increased relative risks of hospital admissions for respiratory conditions were
found for residents living within 5 miles from the airports compared to those living >5
Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence. 2016 Copenhagen: WHO
Regional Office for Europe
Quote: This report summarized the existing evidence of health effects of urban green
spaces to conclude that there are many public health benefits through diverse pathways,
such as psychological relaxation and stress reduction, enhanced physical activity, and

                       mitigation of exposure to air pollution, excessive heat, and noise as well as other harmful
factors in the urban environment
Quote: A city of well‐connected, attractive green spaces that offer safe opportunities for
urban residents for active mobility and sports as well as for stress recovery, recreation
and social contact, is likely to be more resilient to extreme environmental events, such as
heat waves (due to the mitigation of urban heat island effect) and extreme rainfall (due to
reduced surface run‐off). Such a city is also likely to have healthier citizens, reducing
demands on health services and contributing to a stronger economy.
Wolf KL, Lam ST, McKeen JK, Richardson GRA, van den Bosch M, Bardekjian AC.
Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2020 Jun 18;17(12):4371. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124371. PMID: 32570770; PMCID:
Quote: Overall, we have found that exposure to trees is associated with multiple health
benefits. Underlying this relationship is the importance of access. Studies have found that
there are often disparities in distribution of trees in urban areas with greater tree density
being found in neighborhoods having higher household incomes, which may in turn
exacerbate existing socio-demographic health inequities. For example, people who may
not have sufficient resources to operate air conditioning in their homes may also live in
neighborhoods that lack the cooling benefits of urban trees, thereby compounding their
vulnerability to extreme heat events. Adopting a health equity lens in the planning and
management of urban forests can ensure a more equitable distribution of trees across
towns and cities and provide residents with access to the health benefits of trees.
Quote: This review will help inform future research and practice, and demonstrates why
urban forest planning and management should strategically promote trees as a social
determinant of public health.

Beyer KM, Kaltenbach A, Szabo A, Bogar S, Nieto FJ, Malecki KM. Exposure to
neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of
Wisconsin. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Mar 21;11(3):3453-72. doi:
10.3390/ijerph110303453. PMID: 24662966; PMCID: PMC3987044.
Quote: A 25% increase in the proportion of tree canopy in a neighborhood is associated
with a decrease in the DASS score for depression of approximately 1 point.
Quote: We found in our sample that higher levels of neighborhood green space


correspond to better mental health outcomes, when controlling for a wide range of
confounding factors. The associations between green space and mental health are
significant and sizeable and persist with different measurement techniques. Furthermore,
the estimated effect of environmental green space is similar in magnitude to that of other
well-known and studied contributors to symptomology for depression, anxiety and stress.
For example, results indicate that the difference in depressive symptoms between an
individual living in an environment with no tree canopy and an environment with 100%
tree canopy is larger than the difference in symptoms associated with an individual who
is uninsured compared to an individual with private insurance.
Salmond JA, Tadaki M, Vardoulakis S, Arbuthnott K, Coutts A, Demuzere M, Dirks KN,
Heaviside C, Lim S, Macintyre H, McInnes RN, Wheeler BW. Health and climate related
ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ Health.
2016 Mar 8;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6. PMID: 26961700;
PMCID: PMC4895605.
Quote: We show that by ensuring that the specific aim of the intervention, the scale of the
desired biophysical effect and an awareness of a range of impacts guide the choice of i)
tree species, ii) location and iii) density of tree placement, street trees can be an
important tool for urban planners and designers in developing resilient and resourceful
cities in an era of climatic change.
Quote: The presence of street trees can also modify indoor temperatures by shading
buildings and significantly reducing the risk of indoor overheating) [42]. This can benefit
human health where economic resources are unavailable to cool buildings or could
provide further co-benefits by reducing energy demands for building cooling [43]. One
study shows that tree shade can reduce wall temperatures by 9 °C and air temperatures
by up to 1 °C [44].
Carbon sequestration
Buotte PC, Law BE, Ripple WJ, Berner LT. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity
co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecol Appl. 2020
Mar;30(2):e02039. doi: 10.1002/eap.2039. Epub 2019 Dec 27. PMID: 31802566;
PMCID: PMC7078986.
Snehlata, Rajlaxmi A, Kumar M. Urban tree carbon density and CO2 equivalent of
National Zoological Park, Delhi. Environ Monit Assess. 2021 Nov 25;193(12):841. doi:
10.1007/s10661-021-09619-5. PMID: 34822017.
Nair RK, Perks MP, Weatherall A, Baggs EM, Mencuccini M. Does canopy nitrogen uptake

                      enhance carbon sequestration by trees? Glob Chang Biol. 2016 Feb;22(2):875-88. doi:
10.1111/gcb.13096. Epub 2015 Dec 14. PMID: 26391113; PMCID: PMC4738422.
Fu D, Bu B, Wu J, Singh RP. Investigation on the carbon sequestration capacity of
vegetation along a heavy traffic load expressway. J Environ Manage. 2019 Jul
1;241:549-557. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.098. Epub 2018 Oct 11. PMID:
Zhao C, Sander HA. Quantifying and Mapping the Supply of and Demand for Carbon
Storage and Sequestration Service from Urban Trees. PLoS One. 2015 Aug
28;10(8):e0136392. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136392. PMID: 26317530; PMCID:
Mitigating climate change:
Arshad S, Ahmad M, Saboor A, Ibrahim FH, Mustafa MRU, Zafar M, Ashfaq S. Role of
trees in climate change and their authentication through scanning electron microscopy.
Microsc Res Tech. 2019 Feb;82(2):92-100. doi: 10.1002/jemt.23106. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
PMID: 30511479.
Bonan GB. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of
forests. Science. 2008 Jun 13;320(5882):1444-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1155121. PMID:
Chapman M, Walker WS, Cook-Patton SC, Ellis PW, Farina M, Griscom BW, Baccini A.
Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands. Glob Chang
Biol. 2020 Aug;26(8):4357-4365. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15121. Epub 2020 Jun 2. PMID:
Law BE, Hudiburg TW, Berner LT, Kent JJ, Buotte PC, Harmon ME. Land use strategies to
mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2018 Apr 3;115(14):3663-3668. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720064115. Epub 2018 Mar 19.
PMID: 29555758; PMCID: PMC5889652.
Shahmohamadi P, Che-Ani AI, Etessam I, Maulud KNA, Tawil NM. 2011. Healthy
Environment: The Need to Mitigate Urban Heat Island Effects on Human Health.
Procedia Engineering. 20:61–70. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.139.
Salmond JA, Tadaki M, Vardoulakis S, Arbuthnott K, Coutts A, Demuzere M, Dirks KN,
Heaviside C, Lim S, Macintyre H, McInnes RN, Wheeler BW. Health and climate related
ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ Health.
2016 Mar 8;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6. PMID: 26961700;
PMCID: PMC4895605.
Energy conservation:
Akbari H. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power

                     plants. Environ Pollut. 2002;116 Suppl 1:S119-26. doi: 10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00264-0.
PMID: 11833899.
Roman LA, Conway TM, Eisenman TS, Koeser AK, Ordóñez Barona C, Locke DH,
Jenerette GD, Östberg J, Vogt J. Beyond 'trees are good': Disservices, management costs,
and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio. 2021 Mar;50(3):615-630. doi:
10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8. Epub 2020 Oct 4. PMID: 33011917; PMCID:
Noise reduction:
Ozkurt N, Hamamci SF, Sari D. 2015. Estimation of airport noise impacts on public
health. A case study of İzmir Adnan Menderes Airport. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment. 36:152–159. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.002.
Defrance J, Jean P, Barrière N. Les arbres et les forêts peuvent-ils contribuer à
l’amélioration de l’environnement sonore ? [Can trees and forests help in improving
environmental noise quality?]. Sante Publique. 2019 May 13;S1(HS):187-195. French.
doi: 10.3917/spub.190.0187. PMID: 31210479.
Zhao N, Prieur JF, Liu Y, Kneeshaw D, Lapointe EM, Paquette A, Zinszer K, Dupras J,
Villeneuve PJ, Rainham DG, Lavigne E, Chen H, van den Bosch M, Oiamo T, Smargiassi
A. Tree characteristics and environmental noise in complex urban settings - A case study
from Montreal, Canada. Environ Res. 2021 Nov;202:111887. doi:
10.1016/j.envres.2021.111887. Epub 2021 Aug 20. PMID: 34425113.
Dadvand P, Ostro B, Figueras F, Foraster M, Basagaña X, Valentín A, Martinez D, Beelen R,
Cirach M, Hoek G, Jerrett M, Brunekreef B, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Residential proximity
to major roads and term low birth weight: the roles of air pollution, heat, noise, and
road-adjacent trees. Epidemiology. 2014 Jul;25(4):518-25. doi:
10.1097/EDE.0000000000000107. PMID: 24787556.
Gaudon JM, McTavish MJ, Hamberg J, Cray HA, Murphy SD. Noise attenuation varies by
interactions of land cover and season in an urban/peri-urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst.
2022;25(3):811-818. doi: 10.1007/s11252-021-01194-4. Epub 2022 Jan 16. PMID:
35068919; PMCID: PMC8761103.
Stormwater management:
Janke BD, Finlay JC, Hobbie SE. Trees and Streets as Drivers of Urban Stormwater
Nutrient Pollution. Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Sep 5;51(17):9569-9579. doi:
10.1021/acs.est.7b02225. Epub 2017 Aug 11. PMID: 28756675.
Berland A, Shiflett SA, Shuster WD, Garmestani AS, Goddard HC, Herrmann DL, Hopton
ME. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017
Jun;162:167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017. PMID: 30220756; PMCID:

              Bartens J, Day SD, Harris JR, Wynn TM, Dove JE. Transpiration and root development of
urban trees in structural soil stormwater reservoirs. Environ Manage. 2009
Oct;44(4):646-57. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9366-9. Epub 2009 Aug 26. PMID:
Burley BA. Green infrastructure and violence: Do new street trees mitigate violent crime?
Health Place. 2018 Nov;54:43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.015. Epub 2018
Sep 19. PMID: 30240934.
Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Green Infrastructure and Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr
1;42:317-328. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102511. Epub 2021 Dec 14.
PMID: 33317317.
Zuniga-Teran AA, Orr BJ, Gimblett RH, Chalfoun NV, Guertin DP, Marsh SE. Neighborhood
Design, Physical Activity, and Wellbeing: Applying the Walkability Model. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2017 Jan 13;14(1):76. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14010076. PMID:
28098785; PMCID: PMC5295327.
Shepley M, Sachs N, Sadatsafavi H, Fournier C, Peditto K. The Impact of Green Space on
Violent Crime in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2019 Dec 14;16(24):5119. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245119. PMID: 31847399;
PMCID: PMC6950486.
Venter ZS, Shackleton C, Faull A, Lancaster L, Breetzke G, Edelstein I. Is green space
associated with reduced crime? A national-scale study from the Global South. Sci Total
Environ. 2022 Jun 15;825:154005. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154005. Epub 2022 Feb
19. PMID: 35192811.
Tan PY, Wong NH, Tan CL, Jusuf SK, Schmiele K, Chiam ZQ. Transpiration and cooling
potential of tropical urban trees from different native habitats. Sci Total Environ. 2020
Feb 25;705:135764. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135764. Epub 2019 Nov 27. PMID:
Shahmohamadi P, Che-Ani AI, Etessam I, Maulud KNA, Tawil NM. 2011. Healthy
Environment: The Need to Mitigate Urban Heat Island Effects on Human Health.
Procedia Engineering. 20:61–70. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.139.
Bosch M, Locatelli M, Hamel P, Remme RP, Jaligot R, Chenal J, Joost S. Evaluating urban
greening scenarios for urban heat mitigation: a spatially explicit approach. R Soc Open
Sci. 2021 Dec 8;8(12):202174. doi: 10.1098/rsos.202174. PMID: 34909207; PMCID:
Werbin ZR, Heidari L, Buckley S, Brochu P, Butler LJ, Connolly C, Houttuijn Bloemendaal

                      L, McCabe TD, Miller TK, Hutyra LR. A tree-planting decision support tool for urban
heat mitigation. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 8;15(10):e0224959. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0224959. PMID: 33031384; PMCID: PMC7544061.
Brown H, Proust K, Newell B, Spickett J, Capon T, Bartholomew L. Cool
Communities-Urban Density, Trees, and Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018
Jul 22;15(7):1547. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071547. PMID: 30037129; PMCID:
de Jesús Crespo R, Rogers RE. Habitat Segregation Patterns of Container Breeding
Mosquitos: The Role of Urban Heat Islands, Vegetation Cover, and Income Disparity in
Cemeteries of New Orleans. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 26;19(1):245.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010245. PMID: 35010505; PMCID: PMC8751023.
Mohajerani A, Bakaric J, Jeffrey-Bailey T. The urban heat island effect, its causes, and
mitigation, with reference to the thermal properties of asphalt concrete. J Environ
Manage. 2017 Jul 15;197:522-538. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.095. Epub 2017 Apr
14. PMID: 28412623.
Ozdemir H. Mitigation impact of roadside trees on fine particle pollution. Sci Total Environ.
2019 Apr 1;659:1176-1185. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.262. Epub 2018 Dec 18.
PMID: 31096331.
Pace R, Guidolotti G, Baldacchini C, Pallozzi E, Grote R, Nowak DJ, Calfapietra C. Comparing
i-Tree Eco Estimates of Particulate Matter Deposition with Leaf and Canopy
Measurements in an Urban Mediterranean Holm Oak Forest. Environ Sci Technol. 2021
May 18;55(10):6613-6622. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c07679. Epub 2021 Apr 28. PMID:
Quote: Trees and urban forests remove particulate matter (PM) from the air through the
deposition of particles on the leaf surface, thus helping to improve air quality and reduce
respiratory problems in urban areas.
Letter, C., Jäger, G. Simulating the potential of trees to reduce particulate matter pollution in
urban areas throughout the year. Environ Dev Sustain 22, 4311–4321 (2020).
Quote: Particulate matter pollution, especially in an urban environment, is a health risk
that affects many people, and the current trend shows that these problems will increase in
the near future…In this study, we explore the idea of using trees in an urban area to
reduce particulate matter concentration. Since the absorption of fine dust by trees is a
complex problem, influenced by many factors, we use a computer model to simulate the

                       effect of various trees throughout the year to find the optimal candidate. We find that
coniferous trees have a significant advantage, since they also absorb during the winter
months, where the air quality is worse. We also conclude that a large enough area of a
well-suited tree species is a feasible way to increase air quality and in some cases even to
reduce the particulate matter pollution to an acceptable level.
Economic/ Inequity:
Healy M, Rogan J, Roman LA, Nix S, Martin DG, Geron N. Historical Urban Tree Canopy
Cover Change in Two Post-Industrial Cities. Environ Manage. 2022 Jul;70(1):16-34. doi:
10.1007/s00267-022-01614-x. Epub 2022 Mar 8. PMID: 35258643.
Gerrish E, Watkins SL. The relationship between urban forests and income: A
meta-analysis. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018 Feb;170:293-308. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.005. Epub 2017 Nov 1. PMID: 29249844; PMCID:
Watkins SL, Gerrish E. The relationship between urban forests and race: A
meta-analysis. J Environ Manage. 2018 Mar 1;209:152-168. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.021. Epub 2018 Jan 4. PMID: 29289843; PMCID:

                    Tree Equity near SeaTac International Airport
Selected comparisons for those living close to SeaTac
Airport and all King County residents
1.   American Forests: Trees are a Pathway to Creating Social Equity
2.   Report to the Legislature in Response to Washington State HOUSE BILL 1109, Public
Health Seattle King County, 12/2020 https://tinyurl.com/mwk9p7vn 
3.   Port of Seattle Equity Index Map https://tinyurl.com/5n6pw23u accessed 3/10/22
4.   King County 30 year forest plan, 2/21. page 17 https://tinyurl.com/ydbw74u5 
Trees are a Pathway to Creating Social Equity1 
“a map of tree cover is too often a map of income and race — especially in cities. That’s
because trees are often sparse in socioeconomically disadvantaged urban
neighborhoods and some neighborhoods of color. The inequitable distribution of trees
exacerbates social inequities.”
Trees Protect Health and Lives Near SeaTac International Airport 
Public Health Seattle-King County recommends increasing trees and green space near the
airport to protect residents from airport-generated pollution that shortens lives and
disproportionately impacts health. 2 But the Port of Seattle proposes to build on dozens of
acres of tree-covered land in this community, including 31 acres inside N. SeaTac Park.
King County Residents     People living within two miles 
of the airport
How Equitable is this             MODERATE EQUITY                   VERY LOW EQUITY
neighborhood for
health and income?3 
Tree Canopy4 versus                     Tree Canopy Cover             Poverty rate
Poverty rate3            Normandy Park:             46%                               6%
Bellevue                   37%                              7%
SeaTac, home of the   Burien                   30%                            11%
Des Moines:               29%                              8%
airport, ranks 40th out   Seattle                      28%                                10%
of 45 King County      Tukwila                   24%                             12%
cities for tree canopy4   SeaTac                      22%                                12%
White Center                21%                                17% 
Median Household                $106,000                          $76,000
Households below                   7.6%                              11%
Life Expectancy2       Years of Life  Distance from Airport    Years of Life  Distance from Airport
82.9       More than 10 miles     77.9       Less than 1 mile 
79.4       Less than 5 miles 
81.2        Less than 10 miles 
Race and Ethnicity2     King County is 64% White, 18% Asian,  Within 2 miles of the airport: 50%
10% Hispanic, 6% African American,    White, 15% Asian, 18% Hispanic, 14%
1% Native American, 1%Pacific         African American, 1% Native
Islander3                                  American, 4%Pacific Islander3


Limitations of Translatable Documents

PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.