Wickman - Air Quality in Our Public Lands: Opportunities for Co-Benefits

Air Quality In Our Public Lands: Opportunities for Co-benefits

Trent Wickman US Forest Service

Visitors rank “breathing fresh, clean air” as a principle reason for visiting the national forests. Poor air quality and impaired visibility are an economic drag on local communities who rely upon tourism.

Why Should I Be Interested in Air Pollution? Very small amounts of air pollution can

affect forest health. Healthy Black Cherry Leaves

Stippling and Necrosis

Tissue Injury

Who are the Federal Land Managers? (FLMs)

•  USDA Forest Service – Class I Wildernesses

•  National Park Service - Class I National Parks

•  US Fish and Wildlife Service - Class I National Wildlife Refuges

Tools to Address Air Quality Impacts

Wilderness Act Clean Air Act

Wilderness Act - maintain Wilderness character and natural conditions.

The Act defines Wilderness as follows:

•  "...lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition..." Section 2(a)

•  "...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man..." Section 2(c)

•  "...an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation..." Section 2(c)

•  "...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable..." Section 2(c)

•  "...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." Section 2(c)

•  "...shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic use." Section 4(b)

Federal Clean Air Act

“The Federal Land Manager and the Federal official charged with direct responsibility for management of such lands shall have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values (including visibility) of any such lands within a class I area and to consider, in consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact on such values.” [CAA Section 165(d)(2)(B)]

Air Quality Impacts to the Forests

•  Acid Deposition •  Mercury Deposition •  Ozone (smog) •  Visibility

So What?

Air Quality Impacts to the Forests

•  Acid Deposition •  Mercury Deposition •  Ozone (smog) •  Visibility

pH

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

ash riverfernbergwolf ridgehovlandmarcell

Figure 3: Sulfate Deposition During 1999* and Largest Sulfur Dioxide Point Sources**

1985 1986 1984

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1986 1987 1985

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1987 1988 1986

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1988 1989 1987

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1989 1990 1988

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1990 1991 1989

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1991 1992 1990

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1992 1993 1991

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1993 1994 1992

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1994 1995 1993

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1995 1996 1994

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1996 1997 1995

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1997 1998 1996

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1998 1999 1997

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

1999 2000 1998

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2000 2001 1999

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2001 2002 2000

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2002 2003 2001

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2003 2004 2002

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2004 2005 2003

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2005 2006 2004

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2006 2007 2005

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2007 2008 2006

Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition 1985-2008

2008 2009 2007

Air Quality Impacts to the Forests

•  Acid Deposition •  Mercury Deposition •  Ozone (smog) •  Visibility

Why is Mercury Important ?

What it’s All About !

What are We Doing About It? Monitoring

Fernberg Station

Trend reversal

•  Work done by Monson and others have shown a recent increasing trend in mercury in fish in the Great Lakes states after many years of decrease

•  Deposition data does not appear to explain the change in trend

•  Climate?

Air Quality Impacts to the Forests

•  Acid Deposition •  Mercury Deposition •  Ozone (smog) •  Visibility

Last NAAQS proposal had a REAL secondary std!

Air Quality Impacts to the Forests

•  Acid Deposition •  Mercury Deposition •  Ozone (smog) •  Visibility

What Do IMPROVE Data Show ? BWCAW, Minnesota

Hazy Day Clear Day

Natural Visibility > 125 miles

Degraded Visibility < 30 miles

BWCAW profile is in between that seen at the typical Eastern site and the typical Western site

What Does the Visibility Data Show for the BWCAW?

So What? What can be done about this?

Fernberg Air Monitoring Site

Where does it come from?

Contribution to 20% Worst Visibility Days at BWCAW in 2018

4%2%

2%

2%

10%

12%

13%

Missouri4%

North Dakota5%

Iowa7%

Wisconsin9%

Twin Cities - all sources3%

3%

1%

2%

Outstate Minnesota NH34%

Outstate Minnesota other point8%

Outstate Minnesota EGU8% Outstate Minnesota EGU

Outstate Minnesota other point

Outstate Minnesota NH3

Outstate Minnesota off road

Outstate Minnesota on road

Outstate Minnesota area

Tw in Cities - all sources

Wisconsin

Iow a

North Dakota

Missouri

Illinois

Indiana

Canada

Michigan

South and West US

Eastern US

World minus US and Canada

Regional Haze ”Glidepath”

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Dec

ivie

ws

Year

Baseline Conditions 20% Worst Days

Baseline Conditions 20% Best Days

Natural Conditions 20% Worst Days

Natural Conditions 20% Best Days

2018 RPG: 18.6 dv

Regional Haze - NE Minnesota plan NE Minnesota Emission Reduction Target Year Total Emitted (tpy) 2002 – Combined SO2 and NOX 95,562 2012 Goal – 20% Reduction 76,450 2018 Goal – 30% Reduction 66,894 This area (St. Louis, Lake, Cook, Carlton, Itasca and Koochiching) was targeted because they have a much larger impact on the Class I areas than emissions from farther away. In addition, the taconite facilities may be currently uncontrolled or under-controlled for SO2 or NOX,

MPCA Plan - Air sources of mercury will have a 93% emission reduction goal from 1990 levels by 2025

Change in NOx

Cross Connections

•  S: highest contributor to haze and acid rain, also enhances Hg methylation

•  N: contributes to acid rain, artificial fertilization, ozone formation and haze

•  Climate change –  bleeding organic carbon out of wetlands and

hence also increasing acidity and Hg in lakes –  increasing temps also make ozone problem

worse regardless of emission reductions

What to Do? •  Its all about N, S, and Hg - with overlay of climate

change (CO2)

•  Sources and culpability are known

•  Haze program and Mercury TMDL are declining emission programs

•  This is BOTH a local and a regional/national story

•  Don’t care how or why emission reductions are made - Time to act is now

Am I the problem or is it the industrial source down the road?

Solution – Sustainable Living •  “The agency (MPCA) recommends that more

effort be focused on education and partnerships -- as well as specific actions to encourage conservation, efficiency and the use of cleaner renewable energy sources -- to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing renewable energy production and reducing energy use will not only reduce carbon dioxide, but will also reduce many other pollutants such as fine particles, ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. “

From: Air Quality in Minnesota — Challenges and Opportunities 2007 Report to the Legislature