1. Air Quality In Our Public Lands:
Opportunities for Co-benefits
Trent Wickman
US Forest Service

2. Why Should I Be Interested in Air Pollution?
Stippling and
Very small amounts of air pollution can Necrosis
affect forest health.
Healthy Black Tissue Injury
Cherry Leaves
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.

3. 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

4. Tools to Address Air Quality Impacts
Wilderness Act
Clean Air Act

5. 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)

6. 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)]

8. Air Quality Impacts to the Forests
• Acid Deposition
• Mercury Deposition
• Ozone (smog)
• Visibility
So What?

9. Air Quality Impacts to the Forests
• Acid Deposition
• Mercury Deposition
• Ozone (smog)
• Visibility

11. pH
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2 ash river
5.1 fernberg
wolf ridge
5 hovland
4.9 marcell
4.8
4.7
4.6
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

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

14. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19841985 1986

15. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19851986 1987

16. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19861987 1988

17. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19871988 1989

18. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19881989 1990

19. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19891990 1991

20. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19901991 1992

21. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19911992 1993

22. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19921993 1994

23. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19931994 1995

24. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19941995 1996

25. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19951996 1997

26. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19961997 1998

27. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19971998 1999

28. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19981999 2000

29. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
19992000 2001

30. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20002001 2002

31. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20012002 2003

32. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20022003 2004

33. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20032004 2005

34. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20042005 2006

35. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20052006 2007

36. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20062007 2008

37. Inorganic Nitrogen Wet Deposition
1985-2008
20072008 2009

39. Air Quality Impacts to the Forests
• Acid Deposition
• Mercury Deposition
• Ozone (smog)
• Visibility

40. Why is Mercury Important ?

41. What it s All About !

42. What are We Doing About It?
Monitoring
Fernberg Station

43. 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?

44. Air Quality Impacts to the Forests
• Acid Deposition
• Mercury Deposition
• Ozone (smog)
• Visibility

45. Last NAAQS proposal had a REAL secondary std!

46. Air Quality Impacts to the Forests
• Acid Deposition
• Mercury Deposition
• Ozone (smog)
• Visibility

47. What Do IMPROVE Data Show ?
BWCAW, Minnesota
Clear Day Hazy Day
Natural Visibility Degraded Visibility
> 125 miles < 30 miles

48. What Does the Visibility Data Show
for the BWCAW?
BWCAW profile is in
between that seen at
the typical Eastern
site and the typical
Western site

49. So What?
What can be done about this?

50. Fernberg Air Monitoring Site

51. Where does it come from?

52. Contribution to 20% Worst Visibility Days at BWCAW in 2018
Outstate Minnesota EGU
Outstate Minnesota EGU
8%
13% Outstate Minnesota other point
Outstate Minnesota other point Outstate Minnesota NH3
8%
Outstate Minnesota off road
Outstate Minnesota on road
Outstate Minnesota NH3
4% Outstate Minnesota area
12% Tw in Cities - all sources
2%
Wisconsin
1% Iow a
3% North Dakota
Missouri
Twin Cities - all sources
Illinois
3%
Indiana
10% Canada
Wisconsin Michigan
9% South and West US
2%
Eastern US
2% World minus US and Canada
Iowa
2% 4%
Missouri North Dakota 7%
4% 5%

54. Regional Haze Glidepath
25.0
Baseline Conditions
20% Worst Days
20.0 2018 RPG: 18.6
dv
15.0
Deciviews
Natural Conditions
20% Worst Days
10.0
Baseline Conditions
20% Best Days
5.0
Natural Conditions
20% Best Days
0.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year

55. 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,

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

57. Change in NOx

58. 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

59. 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

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

61. 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