Thanks everybody for being here. My name is Gail Good. I'm the director for the air management program at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and I'm glad to be with you. I know you're really engaged in air quality work and we're looking forward to sharing some information with you today. I'm Katie Prandle. I'm the air monitoring section chief for the state and I've been doing that for about five years. Thank you. I know you have a lot of interest in ozone issues and for very good reason and we are going to talk about certainly some of the ozone air quality issues that are impactful on the Lake Michigan shoreline in particular Sheboygan. We wanted to also take the opportunity here tonight to talk to you a bit more about kind of the full program approach that goes into resolving non-attainment issues like ozone and just give you a little bit more information about what our program does and how the pieces fit together to work toward resolving air quality issues. So the slide that Katie's got up here and thanks for running those. We went through a process to talk about what it is that we do from kind of a strategic planning perspective and what really our jobs are, why do we do what we do. And really when we took a look at this as a program we talked about really what we're trying to do is enhance the quality management and protection of the state's air resources. That's an important resource and that's our job to protect that, protect health and the environment. So that's kind of long term and it is a long game when you're talking about air quality issues for sure and you're very well aware of that. But long term that's our goal and that's what we're trying to do. Our program works at that by utilizing state and federal rules, laws, statutes related to air quality and following those with the Clean Air Act as our guide to be able to implement laws that help us achieve air quality goals. So some of our kind of larger priorities that are obviously working to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Sometimes we say NAACS. That's what we mean National Ambient Air Quality Standards. You may hear some acronyms tonight and by the way this is intended to be very conversational. So if you know we're saying something that doesn't make sense, please ask a question or if I let an acronym slip out because we got a whole language in the Air Management Program just to stop me and please ask for clarification. Happy to pause. So long term some of our priorities obviously are to attain those National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to work toward attainment across the state. To make sure that we're providing information to people, that's a very high priority for us to be able to make informed decisions about how they manage their lives, their to-dos and everything that you take on in your day relative to air quality. That is important. And we want to be able to also, we need to work with some of our sources. So we provide them compliance assistance to help make sure that they can be in compliance or kind of acting relative to what their permit tells them to do and making sure that they're able to do that and understand what their permit says and how they comply with it. So those are I think some of our higher priorities and how we kind of work toward as a program making sure that we're providing the best air quality that we can and that we're working kind of across our entire program to be able to do that. You can maybe go to the next slide. I mentioned the Clean Air Act is really kind of our guide. We're really implementing the Federal Clean Air Act. And just wanted to give you a little bit of an idea from, you know, kind of 1990 on and there's a lot on there on that slide. But what I want you to take away from that is that the Clean Air Act was really designed to bring down emissions of some of the common pollutants, things like nitrogen oxides, right, that make up one of the ingredients of ozone. And it's really intended to do that while also allowing for innovation and economic growth, which, you know, we've certainly have seen as a country since the Clean Air Act. So, but what we've been able to see is with the, that kind of federal backbone and the regulation that the Clean Air Act provides and state law provides, we really have seen emissions of pollutants come down quite a bit. But you know, right, the work is not over, right, the ozone issue, especially along the Lake Michigan shoreline here remains something that we continue to study, work toward, work with our sources on, work with you all on, work with our researchers on to try and understand, you know, how we're going to be able to bring this area, into attainment for ozone while managing some of the other different pollutants that we need to manage. EPA sets, and there's that acronym NACS, National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA periodically looks at some of those common pollutants, and you can see some of them here and I apologize for how small some of them are. But EPA looks at these on a periodic basis and makes sure that they're using the most up-to-date science and health information to make sure that they are setting standards for these pollutants that take health into account, not cost health. So I wanted to mention that. Some of the standards that, you know, I think you all are very familiar with, kind of right in the middle of that is ozone and actually EPA is kind of going through a process right now of looking at the ozone standard and deciding if it needs to be revised. We'll expect some information on that in the near future. Also, one of the pollutants that I wanted to mention to you too, also a regional pollutant like ozone, so something that kind of moves around and can be transported, they looked at the, EPA recently looked at the particulate matter standard and proposed some revision to that. So I see a lot of head nodding, which is great. You're really well aware of that. And that's actually something that's out for public comment right now. And you are all very engaged. I encourage you to put some comments in if you do have them. But they did, in that proposed revision, take a look at the PM25 refined particle standard, tiny, tiny particles that we can inhale, get into our lungs, it can get into the bloodstream and cause a host of health issues. So it's an important pollutant like ozone to have periodic review of and standards on that we can be working towards. So I wanted to mention that one too, that that's something we're paying very close attention to, as it's another very important health pollutant. I'm going to turn it over to Katie to talk to you a little bit more about monitoring for a bit and the work that she does. Thanks, Gail. So the primary mission of the monitoring group is consistent with the air management team as a whole. So we ensure the NAACS are attained and maintained through the monitoring of air quality at various locations throughout the state. So the first goal, specific goal, speaks right to that is to judge compliance and progress made towards meeting those attainment goals. But then we also observe pollution trends throughout the state. So as you can see, our data goes back, you know, you'll see on future slides, our data goes back over 30 years in a lot of cases. So it gives you a really good long-term look at air quality throughout the state. We do this through an annual trends report that's released every October. So be on the lookout for that. We alert the public to changing air quality. You can see the visual of the map there. Some areas are in the moderate in this example. We also have a listserv where people can sign up and get text notifications for your specific area if it is in an alert that day. I think that's really important and if folks even, and we got the slides from you all and that's really great. And hopefully you can highlight this one. If you can screenshot this, it's really great to get those air quality alerts. They've really gotten a lot better even like the day before, kind of looking at some trends and stuff. So it's a really helpful tool. That's great. That's great feedback and that's like why we do what we do. So we're happy to hear that. Thank you. And I'll get you the specific link. Yep, go ahead. You're going to put those air quality alerts on television? Sometimes they get picked up by local meteorologists. Do you send them out or meteorologists have to go find them? We send them out on all of our social media platforms and they're plugged into those. And then we also work with the National Weather Service and we let them know. So meteorologists at a television station, usually that's their first place they look. And I think like with the PM, with the wildfires, that was getting a lot. A lot of media attention. When there are major alerts in terms of trends, in particular areas, is information sent to the local, if you want to call the press local, newspapers to inform people of what's going on in the areas where there's a problem emerging or present or in the future? I think those people would have to be signed up to receive the alerts specifically. But we do our best to get it on all of the platforms that they access on a regular basis. So then they have the information, I think it's just whether or not they post it that day. And then finally, we provide a database for research, which kind of drives a lot of the policy that we use for ozone attainment planning, which I'll get more into in the enhanced ozone monitoring section. Here's an example of a monitoring network site. Now I've kind of added on that this is a regulatory monitoring site because of the crop up of so many sensors in the area. I always like to explain the difference. So this is really prescribed by the Clean Air Act of exactly where it needs to be located, exactly the parameters being measured there and how we're measuring them. So a couple of examples just from this picture that this meteorological tower is required to be 10 meters and it's required to be audited once a year. This inlet probe can only be located in that location at this site and there's Teflon tubing that runs from the outside, gathering outside air at a known flow rate and it pulls it into the back of many different analyzers. So there's one tube for each pollutant that we monitor at each site and even the tube material and diameter is prescribed in the Clean Air Act. And then the instruments that collect data in that way, they report real-time data to the public on air quality conditions. So I'll show you an example again of that map, but this map, so this is what we have online reporting real-time air quality. And then if you, so, I did a different one. But we have a lot more monitors than are located here, or displayed here, right? I don't think it is. So there's another type of monitoring that we do and that's called discrete monitoring and it's usually those samples are maybe on a filter or collected in a canister and they need to go to a lab for analysis and we get the data a little bit. We can't get that data in real-time due to that. So we have about 40 monitoring sites throughout the state. These are the ones that plug into this map are primarily the continuous criteria pollutants, most notably PM 2.5 and ozone. And the location of these, like I said, that the site, as I used as an example, is really a good example of how prescriptive the Clean Air Act is and where we locate these monitors. We prescribe really rigid and specific monitoring requirements that are associated with the network design and they set definitive requirements for siting. So there's no gray area. And to be responsible stewards of federal and state funding, we make it a priority to only monitor where required and we make this process public, which that's required. So we define the timelines and expectations for core work through this as well. These requirements take a lot of people time. An example is that an ozone monitor needs to be checked every 14 days and that's a quality control check that we submit to EPA. So that's kind of the scope of the work that the regulatory monitoring network takes. Can I mention too just that, so your second monitor here follows all of that same procedure, even though it is sited and some of you who may have been part of that, it was sited not because it had to be, but because we wanted to have another data point and a lot of folks in this county in particular were instrumental in helping make sure that we could be able to do that. But it follows all of those same requirements, procedures, very prescriptive, you know, siding requirements and so on to make sure that it is absolutely comparable to the regulatory required monitor at Sheboyton-Colar Andre. Yeah. Can I ask a good question, Gail? About that. So as everybody may know, we have two monitors in Sheboyton County which is not required by the EPA because we are a smaller population. But because that second monitor at Hayden is technically a state monitor, right? Is there a chance that the state could come back and say, we don't want to have this anymore? Or does the EPA say you have such an interesting and unique situation going on in Sheboyton? What do you think you should keep it? So at this point, we've utilized it for state planning processes and what's called a state implementation plan, basically kind of a set of rules about how you're going to try to attain NACS and do a lot of your other air quality work. We've used that second monitor at Sheboyton-Hayden to show that, you know, what we know through decades of research that there is a lake shore impact and that there is certainly elevated concentrations at the shoreline that do decrease as you move inland. And we've utilized that monitor to show that and you all have a non-attainment area that reflects that, right? You have a partial county non-attainment area. So at this point, we wouldn't be shutting that monitor down. We're not able to because we've utilized it for state planning purposes. Good question. And I'll just add that Sora is always really good about the annual monitoring network plan process and we always appreciate your comment. So it's a 30-day public comment period and the meeting, we hold a public meeting normally around mid-May and then it's due for submittal to EPA by July 1st and then they respond with approval in 90 days. So here's a little bit of a video on ozone and just a really high-level background. I'll note that there is an update that we need to make to this video but we'll explain it in future slides. It's a previous non-attainment area, which has been updated. Ozone. It's good up high but bad nearby. The ozone that naturally forms in the Earth's upper atmosphere and protects us from the Sun's harmful UV rays is the same chemical compound that forms at ground level where we live, work and play. However, unlike in the upper atmosphere, ground-level ozone can have an adverse impact on health. When inhaled, it can irritate the lining of the respiratory tract including the nose, throat and lungs. Plants can feel the impacts of ground-level ozone pollution too. Trees and other plants including crops like corn and soybeans can begin to show signs of distress after high levels of ozone are present for a few days. Ground-level ozone is not directly emitted from smokestacks or tailpipes but forms via chemical reactions in the atmosphere between other pollutants like volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. These ozone precursors are mainly emitted from sources that burn fossil fuels like coal, gas or diesel. The ozone precursors that affect Wisconsin's air quality may originate in other states, particularly those to the south. The highest measured ozone concentrations typically occur downwind of urban areas on hot sunny days with light winds. Therefore, the department monitors for ozone from spring through fall. The DNR Air Program monitors for ozone at 30 monitoring stations throughout the state and shares the information with the public in near real-time. Wisconsin counties along Lake Michigan experienced the highest ozone concentrations on days with southerly winds which transport ozone precursors north into Wisconsin. Ozone transport occurs when the winds blow precursors out over Lake Michigan where they react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. When the land has warmed sufficiently, temperature changes from the shoreline to the lake can create pressure differences, which cause an onshore flow of air or lake breeze. Winds from the south, in combination with the lake breeze, push ozone formed over the lake onshore, causing ozone concentrations in Wisconsin to be closely correlated with the distance from the Lake Michigan shoreline. Winds from the south carry the ozone plume gradually northward along Wisconsin's coastline. While the state currently has portions of Lake Shore counties in non-attainment of the ozone standard, the vast majority of Wisconsin's population lives in areas meeting all federal air quality standards. Overall, ozone pollution in the state has decreased over the last two decades and emissions of ozone precursors in the state have decreased by 50% since 2002. Reducing ozone levels along the Lake Shore requires a regional, multi-state approach. In addition to the Ozone Monitoring Network, DNR has a state-of-the-art mobile air monitoring lab used to measure a suite of pollutants including ozone precursors along Wisconsin's Lake Shore. Informed by DNR's air quality forecast, the mobile lab is deployed throughout the summer to capture ozone precursor measurements when elevated levels of ozone are predicted. Real-time ozone levels can be viewed at any monitor by visiting DNR's air quality map. We can all play a role in reducing ozone formation across Wisconsin. Vehicles continue to be the largest source of ozone-forming pollutants in Wisconsin. Consider taking the bus, carpooling, or biking to work or school. Other small tasks can continue to improve Wisconsin's air quality as well. Consider the use of electric lawn equipment instead of equipment with gas-powered motors. Conserve energy around the house by turning off lights and appliances when not in use. Wisconsin is committed to clean air. For more information, visit dnr.wi.gov and search air quality. So that just gave kind of a really high level overview like I said. But here we're showing our most recent ozone design values throughout the state. Just as background, a design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status at a given location relative to the level of the national ambient air quality standard. So these design values represent three years' worth of data. The reason why it's 2021 was the last year is because we're still working on certifying the 2022 data. So this is the most recent design value we have available. It showed decreases in ozone values kind of overall, small decreases, but most noticeably in the Lakeshore regions. Despite that 5 of 13 Lakeshore monitors exceeded the 2015 ozone acts of 70 PPBs and no sites that we categorize as inland or far north had any exceedances of the nacks. So now I'll pass it to Gail to more specifically talk about non-attainment related to these design values. And I'll just point out, before I do that, here's the Sheboygan-Colar-Andre monitor that's at 72, which is kind of actually a little lower than we're used to. And Chiwaki Prairie, those are kind of our notoriously elevated monitors and that one's lower than normal too. Thanks, Katie. So those design values that Katie mentioned, those kind of three-year values are what is compared to the standard. When EPA sets a new standard like they did in 2015, that begins kind of an opportunity to determine what areas are attaining or not attaining that meeting, that standard. So this is intended to show you some of the non-attainment areas across the country and then to show you the non-attainment areas, the current non-attainment areas here in the state. So you'll notice across the country, if you kind of look at that map of the nation there, you were used to seeing some of our, like California's in non-attainment for a number of different standards and works very hard to try to reach attainment. You also see the northeast part of the country, also at times struggling with non-attainment. They actually struggle with ozone non-attainment similar to how we do here with transported emissions in that case kind of sea breeze effects. So just interesting is something that we know that we have in common with them and we do work at times with folks there because they've done a lot of research to like some of the research that we're trying to do here with partners. So we do try to work with some of our friends across the country who are experiencing similar issues. Here in the state, you can see the map there to the right showing some of the non-attainment areas here. The pink, that's Sheboygan County or partial Sheboygan County non-attainment for the 2015 ozone standard. That larger green area just south of that is the five county or portions of counties in the Milwaukee area. And then that orange portion to the south, that's Kenosha County and that portion that's in non-attainment there is also tied to the Chicago non-attainment area with parts of counties in Illinois and Indiana as well. So it's interesting, we're really impacted here not only that Kenosha County portion of the Chicago non-attainment area but Sheboygan as well is also really heavily impacted the video says areas to our south. The Illinois and Indiana are actually two of the larger contributors to ozone concentrations here. They actually contribute more than Wisconsin sources do.  That was the piece I think in the video that Katie mentioned needs to be updated. Those areas are a little different due to a court case. I know the answer but can you just explain you said like that Kenosha part of the Chicago non-attainment area can you explain a little bit more in depth for other people I don't know that like it's multiple monitors. Yeah, so they and you just let me know if I'm not getting this quite right or not explaining this getting to what you wanted to make sure folks know about. Thanks for the question. Yeah, there are a number of different monitors in that Chicago non-attainment area. The couple in Kenosha County right the Chewockie Prairie on the Lakeshore and the Kenosha Water Tower which is a little further inland and then a number of monitors in the portions of Illinois and Indiana that make up that Chicago non-attainment area. And it really it takes one monitor in that area Chewockie Prairie has at times been the controlling monitor for that area it's not currently but it takes one monitor in that area violating the standard to keep that area in non-attainment. So that's interesting at times I mentioned Wisconsin or Chewockie Prairie has been sort of the controlling monitor there I think more currently it was a monitor in Illinois and that's just interesting too because we know that we're impacted by emissions from those areas as well in the state both right like I said in Kenosha at Chewockie Prairie and also going up the shoreline due to meteorology transported emissions etc even here in Sheboygan do they get it what you were hoping? Okay good I wanted to just talk about you know we're going to talk a little bit about enhanced ozone monitoring and some of the more research and research leading to policy decisions work that we're doing but a non-attainment area and really has a number of different requirements with it enhanced ozone monitoring is one so as you areas are kind of classified non-attainment areas are classified kind of by how much they violate a standard so you all are probably pretty aware of this that you kind of came in with the 2015 standard at a marginal level or kind of the lowest level of non-attainment the EPA and the Clean Air Act gives an area so much time to meet a standard when they do not then that area does what's called a bump up it bumps up and kind of its severity of non-attainment classification and as an area continues to you know maybe not achieve the standard not attain and continues to bump up there are a number of different requirements that go along with that non-attainment area the goal there is to try to reduce emissions and have to meet the standard so as an area does not do that the EPA and the Clean Air Act will add in other requirements those requirements may impact things like stationary sources or power plants paper melt you know things like that that you're used to factories etc manufacturing things that you're used to seeing as kind of a stationary source or pollution source facility it may I'm sorry those are not part of how we try to achieve non-attainment that's important though for other things maybe like climate change we also and I think the video actually noted this that one of the largest sources of emissions that leads to ozone non-attainment issues and PM25 issues too by the way are mobile sources so things like cars trucks on-road off-road you know all kinds of different mobile source equipment that's actually of what we control here in the state as far as emissions mobile sources is one of the biggest contributors and we don't regulate those so we have to work with the EPA and federal partners to make sure that you know where they set rules and laws to control those emissions that they're doing that so we're really vocal on mobile source emissions at DNR when we see new rules coming out about that we want to make sure that EPA is kind of pulling their weight where they can where they need to and we know we're really heavily impacted by car, truck etc. construction equipment that kind of those kinds of emissions they're just a whole range I won't go through all the different kind of things that go into non-attainment area requirements as you go up in severity of classification but it's a lot it's more than further tightening down on a facility or inspection and maintenance programs for vehicles and things like that there's just a lot of requirements that go into trying to attain that standard so we wanted to give you a little bit of just a look at that going on here a little bit there is some upcoming action that we wanted to make you aware of and this is called the just going to talk about ozone transport that means federal implementation plan so transport you guys know this you're impacted by transported emissions and the EPA has been doing some work to try to address some of those transported emissions that impact kind of areas downwind so back in February last year EPA proposed a transport rule to address what's called good neighbor obligations or how one area impacts another area and they are working toward finalizing EPA is working toward actually finalizing that transport federal implementation plan so basically what they've said is states you guys have a good neighbor obligation you have to be good to one another and reduce emissions and work this out and what that's through a state implementation plan process and when EPA comes in with the fifth they're saying okay we didn't get there so now we're going to impose additional rulemaking at the federal level to try to address this issue and to try and make sure that we can see emissions reductions this rule in particular looks at and historically has looked at emissions reductions at power plants this time around they added a number of other industrial type sources mostly like manufacturers of cement pulp paper mills other facilities that might have really big boilers high temperature combustion and more NOx emissions so in this case EPA really looked at oxides of nitrogen and trying to further regulate those and bring emissions down of those we're expecting a finalization on that just coming right up March 15th actually EPA is under a consent decree deadline or legal deadline to finalize this sign off and basically finalize the FIP so we don't know what's in it we did comment on this you guys may have too we commented on the proposal we will find out soon how those comments were addressed and how EPA actually ends up finalizing this transport FIP this is important because in this case this kind of go around or with the proposal EPA did not actually address sources that are impacting Shboygan so we really commented heavily that this is a monitor that tends to be some of our highest ozone concentrations in the state it's really important that this monitor at Shboygan-Colar-Andre is analyzed and that downwind emissions are addressed so we'll see how that resolves we don't know but we commented heavily actually spoke to Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards who puts this rule together just with that point in mind that Shboygan is very important if we can resolve those issues at Shboygan we really feel that other areas will be resolved as well since this tends to be one of the highest monitor concentrations in the state so we really needed EPA to address this analyze it and address downwind emissions so that's just one of the things that we're trying to do you need to be very vocal and to communicate with EPA and make sure that we are seeing issues addressed here especially transported emissions the next slide there just gives you a little bit of an idea of what EPA is looking at in this transport rule it's a lot of different states basically what EPA says is if an area a state contributes 1% of emissions and monitored concentration to somebody downwind that's significant and they should be analyzing that and making sure that there are emissions reductions from those other states so a lot of areas are pulled into this transport federal implementation plan a lot of states that weren't necessarily part of it before and I mentioned some industry that wasn't necessarily part of prior transport rules so this one's been really interesting and we're really anxiously awaiting the finalization of this which we expect to see as I said around March 15th I'm going to pause, it's a lot let me just see if there are any questions on anything transport related yes please yeah in this case what wasn't included was actually the analysis for Sheboygan so any sources that are south of Sheboygan because that's typically where our transport emissions come that impact this area those sources like so there's power plants those maybe paper mills or other kind of manufacturing steel manufacturing as well which there's a lot of steel manufacturing south of us those weren't specifically analyzed relative to the monitored concentration here in Sheboygan so that's you know important for us to make a comment on and to try to see some resolution on does that help okay you just explained Texas for me right oh I got ya we're impacted by a lot of states I understand that Texas can you explain how we actually so we work with an organization a technical organization called Ladco or Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium they do a lot of our technical kind of modeling work and a lot of analysis of things like this is all based on scientific very detailed photochemical modeling so Ladco is a really great partner to us kind of looking at what's happening when they look at things like Texas it's a lot of like there's a lot of oil down there and a lot of processing of that we think that some of it is maybe coming from you know we may be really impacted by things like that so it's a lot more work that needs to be done for us to understand how much we're impacted by them but it's really important that if we are in Wisconsin that those emissions are being addressed and that they're reducing those because that's you know you can't control what's happening in Texas right or for that matter any of these other states that are noted here so it's really important that EPA set a path for that so yeah go ahead so your information up there says contributes to and you just said maybe yeah they contribute 1% or more thank you for the question and so then that contribution is that like on a high ozone day or is that just like at any time you know like is it a high ozone day violation of the EPA standard or is it just adding yeah they do look during the ozone season and then look and study some of the high ozone days and kind of start from there so yeah I mean in order to really make sure that they're analyzing some of the highest episodes and kind of when you're seeing your highest concentrations they do focus there during the season on higher days really wins the big factor right yeah and you know what's interesting in the video I think does a nice job of highlighting this you know we see higher ozone concentrations during the summer months when you might see you know nice high pressure system to our south southerly winds bringing that that warm you know sunny wonderful temperatures and weather and that's that's really just a great catalyst for ozone formation right because it pulls up all of you to the south transported emissions puts them out over Lake Michigan right they cook on that in that hot sun a warm summer day and then with the lake breeze that those ozone concentrations actually make their way on shore and remember the video also does a nice job I think saying ozone isn't directly emitted it's formed through chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds or kind of like toxics so there's a lot of different pollutants that can go into making up ozone but yeah summer months southerly winds transported emissions from the south just as you see here all the right ingredients we're not doing a great job turning down that cooking heat it doesn't seem to be it's a gradual process as far as trying to control it but that's such a big factor in terms of yeah we do try to keep an eye on kind of how the summer is progressing and how hot it is and we have had a number of hotter summers especially in the last decade or so you're absolutely right yeah that's a good lead and Gail I've mentioned precursors and volatile organic compounds so enhanced ozone monitoring is designed to measure just that and kind of understand a little bit more specifics about the precursors that are impacting us on the highest reported days so we were required to have the enhanced ozone monitoring plan as Gail mentioned because of the moderate area not its human area so we've been kind of in and out of that moderate classification since 2000 so we've been at it for a few years with this we had the mobile air monitoring lab which you saw in the video located at the Huygens spaceport site for two years where we operated MET-CO NOx by caps ozone and PM 2.5 and we also did precursor sampling through VOC and carbonyl sampling so that was speciated VOCs so we could kind of break apart the different compounds that are affecting us on those days where we get higher concentrations we also did this at Chiwaki in an attempt so at Chiwaki's the purple one this was I took a screenshot this day because it was one of the highest days I'd ever seen so we were trying to kind of differentiate between those two sites and try to determine you know from based on monitoring data what we could we had any authority to control so we could impact those really high concentration days we do planning for this through the annual network plan process every year so we have I'll give a plug for what we're planning for next year Brad will be at the AM AG meeting on June 1st so Rebecca write it down so that's kind of our summary of ozone and if you have any questions we can go into that more but we did want to talk a little bit more about particulate matter kind of a hot topic right now with the PMNACS out there so we do have another video so Wisconsin's air quality continues to improve one example of this is the success story that is particulate matter particulate matter is made up of solid particles or liquid droplets and is grouped into two size categories PM10 and PM2.5 PM10 has a diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 has a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less compare particulate matter size with the diameters of a human hair or grain of sand and it's easy to see just how small particulate matter can be up to 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair and 40 times smaller than a grain of sand PM10 and PM2.5 originate from different sources PM10 can come for crushing or grinding operations as well as roadway dust and is mostly formed in the atmosphere from chemical reactions between other pollutants sources of PM2.5 primarily include motor vehicle engines, high temperature combustion and certain agricultural processes while all particulate matter can pose a health risk PM2.5 poses the greatest risk because of its ability to penetrate deep into the respiratory tract and into the bloodstream once in the bloodstream these particles can be pumped throughout the body and can cause health problems for individuals with heart and lung ailments the Wisconsin DNR monitors air quality in over 40 locations across the state about half of these monitoring stations monitor for either PM2.5 or PM10 the Wisconsin DNR has also worked with sources over the years to control and reduce emissions that contribute to particulate matter this photo for example shows a dust suppression process that is used to quarries cleaner burning fuels and more stringent standards have also dramatically reduced particulate matter emissions as a result, particulate matter has been decreasing across the state for years over the last decade PM2.5 concentrations have decreased by 30% and the entire state needs all state and federal air quality standards for particulate matter federal requirements, cleaner fuels and voluntary actions taken by Wisconsin citizens have helped reduce the overall level of particulate matter in our air here are some tips to consider on reducing your impact minimize fuel by reducing idling anticipating stops and using cruise control buy food grown in Wisconsin to reduce the number of miles your food travels turn off lights when leaving a room unplug electronics when not in use and purchase energy star appliances to reduce energy consumption you can view current air quality online anytime or sign up for air quality alerts email or text message to stay informed Wisconsin is committed to clean air for more information visit dnr.wi.gov and search air quality so a lot of the same themes on what you can do to reduce your impact but here's just an update on the PM2.5 NAACS the list shows that the PM2.5 and PM10 24 hour standards they're proposing to change through this recent action and then the PM2.5 annual standard which is typically the one that they look at for non-attainment decisions that they're proposing to reduce and taking comment on a range between 9 and 10 micrograms per cubic meter that's down from 12 micrograms per cubic meter which was last set in 2012 would you have anything to add to that one? Just that you know the common opportunity on this I believe is open through this month and not only is EPA proposing a range here on the annual standard of 9 to 10 but they're also taking comment from a range from 8 to 11 so even something that's a little bit lower than what they've proposed for the range so I do think that EPA you know they have to address all comments received and it is important that they hear from people on this so I always encourage folks to get involved and to make comment to EPA if this is something that you're interested in providing kind of your unique experience on so I just want to mention that yeah. I attended the informational meeting they had a couple weeks ago about that standard and one of the things that really impressed me about this and it also makes me think about our old zone problem it said that the advisory committee of scientists that we're looking at they're the ones that made the recommendations of the EPA they said they looked at studies from 2012 until now that thousands of new scientific studies they looked at as far as the health of citizens that could be impacted by this particular pollutant and the thing that really pleased me about that is that the president administration we have right now has directed the EPA to listen to these advisory committees and scientists recommendations and I'm wondering to take it over to ozone I'm wondering if that same kind of thing is happening as far as scientists looking at the health issues when we talk about ozone we talk about all those things we have to control those emissions and stuff to meet that standard but what's really happening to the health of our people do we really have a good handle on that for even special agents in Wagon County you talk about a unique situation you know what's going on with the health issues with our citizens are they getting worse is it because of ozone what do we need to do about that yeah that's a good question and I'm glad to hear that you were part of that meeting that public information session that's great to hear EPA does do those with a number of their rules especially standards just give that opportunity to provide feedback to them through that format standard setting is always supposed to be health based and it is supposed to involve the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee we sometimes let the acronym KSEC slip on that one so I'll use it here they are especially they're nominated and selected scientists and other air quality experts that are tasked with reviewing as you said just hundreds thousands of health related studies and making recommendations or proposing a standard based on those studies and based on health impacts so over time what you have experienced here with standards what we've experienced is as EPA learns more and that Clean Air Science Advisory Committee or KSEC learns more and has more health related information to look at what we've seen over time is really a lowering of standards or an understanding that these pollutants are impactful to people's health and they are impactful at lower levels right and so that's what we're seeing here with the PMNACS is a recommendation or new proposed range on the annual standard of something that's lower based on those health studies do they actually, for example one thing I was wondering would they, if they are going to take a serious look at what's happening as far as the health impact, are they communicating with all our medical facilities trying to get information from them about what might be going on, what they're seeing as far as lots of different kinds of health issues that are related to pollutants yeah they're looking at kind of the latest body of science based on studies primarily that have been peer reviewed and published I honestly don't know that they go kind of the step of contacting local health agencies I think that's a really good question and something that we could strive to understand a bit more about the process I know you're jumping ahead to I apologize but since you brought it up we've asked about this for Sheboygan County because I know we're a lower population so CDC doesn't look into that as much as we've been trying to work with some of the state health department though but I think I remember here in Katie that you got some money recently through the Insulation Reduction Act to do a study in Milwaukee and is that something we might and Sheboygan be able to piggyback off of or use when we're kind of advocating I think so that was the American Rescue Plan funding so yeah it's all kind of I'm losing track of it too but that one was specifically geared towards like in EPA's request for proposal that was specifically for PM 2.5 there are other opportunities though that I think I would encourage you to apply for through the IRA funding that I've seen and I've thought of you so I can send those to you and some of them are even geared towards smaller community organizations like this so I think that'd be a good thing that we should kind of continue to explore I'm not scientifically minded but that information just seems to me to be out of whack with all the scientific information, research and whatever are you talking about is this saying and maybe I'm just not understanding that the PM 1024 standard that was set 35 years ago is staying the same even with all the scientific information and that the PM 2.5 24-hour set let's say even 15 years ago that makes no sense to me yeah there's been a lot of studies especially a shorter term the one that's proposed here has a proposed range for vision as you pointed out is the annual standard and there has been some study about shorter term impacts being meaningful when it comes to health and people's health EPA is actually taking comment down to 25 micrograms per cubic meter on the 24-hour standard and I think what that reflects is that there are a lot of different health studies and there are a number of folks who are on that case act committee and a range of different opinions and so some of that identification that shorter term standards are meaningful as well is reflected in some of the opinion of some of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee folks so EPA has put out with this that they will take comment down to lower levels and I'm sure that they will get comment for lower levels as far as the PM 10 standard you're right that has been proposed to change and I think what this is reflecting here is that the PM 2.5 is really the significant health risk standard so I think that was where EPA's focus was with this but again encourage you I would encourage that comment and look at the process here because as you said this was set in the 80s that the PM standard and we always want to make sure that EPA was following the appropriate process that's actually why they looked at re-looked at the PM standard it had actually been proposed for no revision not long ago and when the new administration came in they looked at that and asked for different consideration just making sure that that scientific process was being followed here and so that was the result of that work thanks for the question alright so kind of moving on this just gives our most recent design values for the 24 hour PM 2.5 standard so you can see we're pretty well below the previous standard but if they do drop it the annual standard we'll have a graph in the next year's trends report for that but we didn't have it this year we'll be a little bit closer to that new standard at many of the sites depending on where they set it so kind of that I thought was a good lead in to air quality sensors because many of the air quality sensors that are available do monitor for PM 2.5 so it's kind of a way for citizen scientists to really contribute to the body of science that's available for monitoring data and it's unique to ozone in that these sensors are actually they're pretty precise but they're not necessarily accurate so they can track our regulatory monitors really well but they're oftentimes bias pretty high especially when the concentrations are elevated due to fire so you may be alarmed when you don't need to be but they are we did develop a correction factor for Wisconsin and they've been developed in different areas we did a year long study with sites where we co-located a purple air sensor with our regulatory monitors and then did a data analysis where we were able to develop an algorithm that people can apply their raw purple air data to and then get kind of more accurate data overall we worked with EPA on this so this was a national project and I'll just say before we get to that work sensors they can't be used for purposes and I think I kind of explained why that is it's because of the really strict Cleaner Act requirements that are associated with regulatory monitoring but they can be used for gaining qualitative health information making decisions on a daily basis they're real time they're at your home so you can make a decision on if you have a child with asthma whether or not to send them out to play that day and we're going to continue to build our body of knowledge at the DNR in sensor work so we've been kind of working with EPA to test sensors at libraries and things like that and we have a few projects related to air quality sensor work but this is kind of the pride and joy of the federal and state collaboration with sensors so EPA's fire and smoke map incorporates regulatory monitoring data along with purple air sensors right now they're thinking about bringing in more sensors and also satellite data and this is for initially it was built for first responders to be able to make decisions about responding to wildfires and being protective of their health and like what type of respirator they may need to go into a fire situation so this has been useful for communicating this data to the public and I think it's a really great collaborative tool that's been developed from feds and states the correction factor is applied regionally for this so the Wisconsin one is reflected for the Midwest and then I think there were some all around the United States that were also applied and this just gives like a really high level overview of kind of all of the information that we're trying to gather and determine and I think one of the buzz words or buzz phrases that has been said a lot lately is like what is fit for the purposes of your data needs so like which type of monitoring technology is fit for what you need the data for so that's what you always have to keep in mind when you're thinking about different data sources because it's kind of all over the board right now so the government operated monitors they're appropriate for making these really important decisions at a federal level that can be impactful on an economic scale for a state for a business for the public health in that area so that's why they have all those QA requirements and why you know it's so costly to operate them and then the mobile low cost sensors you know take that data with a grain of salt doesn't have a lot of quality assurance but it does give you kind of a good idea of where highs and lows are and then your stationary low cost sensors do the same which is really valuable especially for people with conditions relative especially to PM2.5 that can be a real asthma trigger for people and then the satellite based remote sensors that this is kind of a cool thing that we've been working with UW on they're working with NASA recently launched a couple of additional satellites and our enhanced ozone monitoring efforts are actually the ground base the ground truth for those satellite deployments so that's been kind of a cool use of our enhanced ozone monitoring network so I think we are at the question Q&A but we have had a lot of great questions and we appreciate that some questions with the with the study with the mammal with the mobile air monitoring lamp and I'm sure you don't have the last years done already but what have been your kind of major surprises or takeaways I mean everyone's trying to blame our power plants but because these labs can kind of go down to those sources what's been really interesting for you? Yeah so the there are two parts of the mammal like there's the continuous monitoring and I've discovered kind of more recently that that data has been really useful to the researchers and ground truthing that satellite data and in for our partners at Lagco or like Michigan like Michigan air directors they use it for improving their models which is great because a lot of times the national models they'll say that Shabuigan for example will attain in a certain amount of time but that's inaccurate so it makes the grid smaller to allow for more accurate modeling so that's what the mammal continuous parameters do and then the carbonyl VOC those volatile organic compounds the data set was a little bit limited so we learned a lot about data sets and how to get better data but the data that we did glean and I think we looked specifically at June 3rd and August 5th of 2021 we found that there were significant differences between Shabuigan and Chiwaki on those days there were exceedances generally we found that mobile sources as we confirm that mobile sources were the largest contributor Chiwaki being positioned in a prairie we were kind of like contaminating the samples with biogenic emissions which we wouldn't expect so biogenic is like what trees and plants kind of off gas and so we were collecting that which was a little bit of a contamination factor but so it showed different speciated samples than the Shabuigan sample which was located in a parking lot we learned that about how to do sighting better or the limitations of that type of monitoring yeah interesting so it really is those mobile on-road kind of sources that which is in a way kind of good news because that's something we can hopefully legislatively or personally do something about what happens with the manual data is there somewhere that we can see that or yep that's on Wyden so I can send you the link after this it's kind of hard to find and we have to quality assure it so it takes us a bit to get it quality assured and uploaded to Wyden and will the enhanced those in study continue then? I don't know if Shabuigan will get the manual back next year we're trying to understand a little bit it's Milwaukee so we're in an effort to understand the speciation of those mobile sources we're deploying it next year and to help support that ARP funded grant we're deploying it at the Milwaukee office the new Milwaukee office is located right on a major rail artery coming right out of the port of Milwaukee now I'm a cruise ship yeah right so a really busy port that's always expanding so right out of the port of Milwaukee and then right below the freeway interchange there so we're trying to just kind of understand the mobile sources even better too and so Rebekah I know you want to ask us about IRA funding yeah and there is part of what this ARP project or the American Rescue Plan funded project in Milwaukee can do is to help us understand some of the sources of emissions in and coming out of the port and that's important our timing is all right on this because there is funding through IRA this is the inflation reduction act there is funding that's specifically set aside for ports in non-attainment areas so we want to set ourselves up to be able to try to get some of that funding so that we can really address not just what may or may not be happening in the port but also ports means goods transport it means things like the trucks and what's coming out of there rail lines etc so we want to be able to set ourselves up really well to understand how we can make use of some of that funding that's going to be available for non-attainment areas because we know you know those mobile source emissions whether truck ships out in the lake you know cars rail all of that is contributing to air quality issues even here in Sheboygan we also are working with lago on the use of that IRA money because we know that we're really impacted by what's happening like in the Chicago area and there are ports and goods transport and heavy duty truck corridors there as well so we really want to continue to expand what we know about mobile sources and continue to push for appropriate regulation, federal regulation there as well I do want to let you know about too this is not IRA related but EPA sets compliance priorities things that they're really going to focus on for a couple of years and they give us the opportunity to see those in advance and to comment on those and one of their compliance priorities for the last couple of years had been looking at heavy duty trucks and instances of tampering which we understand to be a really big contributor to pollution issues so that's when trucks are their emissions control system is adjusted to it's adjusted and for a range of reasons that can lead to more emissions than should be coming from that truck and one of EPA's compliance priorities as I said had been to really focus on tampering heavy duty truck tampering and they had proposed to kind of deprioritize that and make that core work and that's another place where we've been vocal like we've got to continue to have we don't again we don't control, we don't regulate mobile source emissions, we don't regulate the trucks so where EPA can do that we really, really need their help especially in this part of the country so we're really focusing on continuing to be vocal, continuing to engage on mobile source emissions and to ask EPA to do what they can do where it's their role to do so which is really interesting because I've always and I know I've probably talked to you all about this before but our airport here is going to be expanding and we're even looking at federal earmarks to help with some of that expansion and if that is something that we should be looking at and adding to our, the inventory for Shoeikin County I know we've heard a lot like you could turn out on every bus and light and everything in Shoeikin I need to have that ozone but my concern is like there might be some things we could do to address here so maybe we aren't impacting Gore County and also with the good neighbor policy I think Wisconsin we're going to have to do something like you have to say you guys do that but what do you think about the airport is that something we should be looking at or is there a threshold for when those become part of your there's so again those are emissions that we don't regulate that said we do emissions inventory work and do look at sources like airports we actually have somebody that works in our program that's really I would say an expert on how to understand emissions from things like that so I think that it's something to be aware of for sure and I think there's probably some information out there already on some of the emissions we could take that back and see what exists and connect with you so at least kind of have a starting point so I do think it's important to understand what your emissions sources are just know that you know aircraft the focus there especially small aircraft and forgive me I'm not familiar with Sheboygan airport and kind of what goes in and out of there but smaller aircraft still use you know leaded aviation fuel and so that that's yeah absolutely so that tends to be the focus when we talk about airports right now some of those smaller airports and aviation gas or aviation fuel that's leaded but yeah we let us take that back and see what we know exists from an emissions inventory perspective I don't want to be fogging this anyone else have a question alright I have another one oh go ahead so I know you were saying that like Wisconsin doesn't regulate local sources and that's because the Clean Air Act only made the exception for California to be able to set their own mobile emissions that's um yeah you're referring to I think it's section 177 of the Clean Air Act that it's a waiver process that allows other allow states to adopt more stringent standards like California that's a process that other states have been attempting to go through as well I guess what I mean more when I say that we don't regulate mobile source emissions we don't really have the ability to kind of set our own standards and then sort of regulate what the cars and trucks on the road are doing that's not the some of the onboard diagnostics and things like that the tampering and things of that nature that's something that our DOT gets a little more involved in we're certainly involved with them but it's not something specifically that we do to manage emissions or emission reductions so then I think Minnesota was recently adopting California standards so would that be something that the DNR here would initiate or would that be a different agency that's a process where that's something where if you're interested in that those are things that start with the state legislature so yeah so you know I always try to with you guys or with other groups citizen groups especially who are interested always do say get involved, talk to your legislator make sure that they understand that this is an issue that's very important to you there are plenty of legislators who we do talk with on a periodic basis or regular basis as well about the concerns here in Sheboygan County and other parts of the state and that's just something I definitely want to leave you with, make sure your legislator is here from you and understand your unique position, you are in a unique situation here being along the lake shore and it's something that I always encourage and as a plug our legislators will be here Monday at 9 o'clock in this room it's not the most convenient time for folks who are working they're going on a little budget for and I think to make a plug for to support natural resources and our natural resources staff and scientists and play nice with your neighbors down the lake is really important and speaking of which, have you found it more difficult now to do the implementation plans since the county has been split? Is that double work or is that there's nothing that the lake shore can do? Yeah, it's not double work the complication is when we're doing planning like when we're doing like an attainment plan to say here's how we're going to work towards attaining a standard we are responsible for doing emissions inventories as part of those plans and when you have kind of those tend to be on a county basis so that's the more complicating part besides just keeping track of which road is which road exactly it becomes only over here but not over there and that's not how there works yeah the emissions inventories are really the most difficult part of that and I think you have like a regional planning commission here, Bay Area and that's something that we work with them on and it has become more complicated with the split but we do think that that better reflects the parts of the county that are actually experiencing those elevated ozone levels and with the permitting process thinking about something like you just had the Ryder Club here, lots and lots of people and now we're going to have what is it, motor boat power boat is that something that this region should get like a permit for or some kind of offset I'm not a huge fan of offsets, I don't really know how they work but is that something that is like, wow, interesting they are probably permitted for a number of different purposes but not for air quality bring on boats now correct me if I'm wrong but I've been to these kind of meetings in the past and read things from the city and is this totally wrong people in this group I'm assuming all of us we're concerned about where the pollution is coming from how we can make it better for health reasons but I've always gotten the impression that the city and county administration who are looking at tax base are more concerned that we're being we are non it's the word, non attainment and they're mostly concerned because they can't have certain manufacturers and companies come in because they're going to they pollute a little bit and then will be even more in non attainment isn't there a am I wrong about that the difference between how the city administration feels about our non attainment and why we have it and doesn't want it and how we feel about that and certainly economy is an important part of a county and a city and administration and you know the Cleaner Act was designed to recognize that and to note that a healthy economy is important as well but health of our citizens is important I think the video mentioned there that the majority of Wisconsin's population lives in an area attaining standards those smaller attainment areas that's the correction we need to make it's actually 33% of the state lives in an area that's not attaining right now the ozone standard the 2015 ozone standard so health of people are both supposed to be considered in the Cleaner Act and I think you mentioned offsets and things like that in your previous answer that's some of the ways that the area is designed to be able to grow when in non attainment any time a source here the facilities that do want to come in here and build, expand, etc they're subject to different requirements relative to air quality they do have to do especially for a larger source of emissions if they're trying to come in to say Sheboygan County the portion of Sheboygan that's not attaining they have to offset their emissions so they have to find ways to reduce emissions elsewhere in that non attainment area it's kind of like carbon credits but in this case they have to get reductions of the components that make ozone so oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds have a program where sources can kind of trade back and forth they do have monetary value things like that so the idea is that if you're going to put pollution in an area that's not attaining you've got to take out more than that before you're allowed to be able to do that so some of the ways that the act tries to recognize that economy is important too so just mention that there's a number of different requirements that they're subject to and I think a facility that's coming into an area that's not attaining a standard they know they're subject to more stringent requirements and if you're looking at it an area that's not attaining versus an area that is attaining that has less requirements chances are good that the source is going to go with less requirements so I think city and county administrators kind of get concerned about economy and jobs and things like that in those cases I'm just going to follow up on that and I'm going to give a cynical view of what I think about the standards you know I think any standards we talked about today ideally they should be lower for the health of our citizens but I think any standards that are made because of the input that we give I'm sure you get tons of input from business and manufacturers and our policy makers are very influential in terms of making sure that things aren't done too strictly so I look at standards as a compromise it's a compromise and it's healthy I say it's healthy for the economy for businesses, for manufacturers and then when you look at the other part the actual health of citizens I think those standards we can live with as long as you're in between the age group of being a child and an old mother like me with underlying health conditions you can live with that and stay fairly healthy but we have to worry about our children because they're more susceptible to the kind of things that happen with their quality and older people and I've experienced some of those things when I moved here 16 years ago when my doctor told me after I complained about things after a bike ride and stuff he said you live in Sheboygan colony that's what he told me why I was having those problems so I guess what really happens is that those of us that don't have health issues are in between the two groups I mentioned you can live with those standards if you're an older person if you've got underlying conditions if you're a child you need to be vigilant you have to pay attention to air quality readings and alert and all that kind of stuff and stay inside or not be too active when you're outside to protect yourself when you look at the whole thing it's kind of a compromise when you look at those standards I really want to thank you both for coming this is very important to me as someone that used to work with kids and the outdoors it's getting a little bit better but I want more sense of urgency I am loving the alerts they are better night before and so keep that up I think you added a climate person to kind of help we've got a cloud, we've got a bloom looking at some stuff and I really appreciate all you do they're very easy to work with they're very responsive so God bless the DNR we're glad to be here thanks for having us thank you


Authorities have ruled the death of a man who was found at a campsite at Brainerd International Raceway early Saturday morning as a suicide. The Kirlin County Sheriff's Department was called to the raceway at 2.30 a.m. Saturday to investigate the death the man's body was taken to the Ramsey County Medical Examiner's office. BRR hosted its biggest event of the season, the Lucas Oil NHRA Nationals this past weekend. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.