## State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch



# Comparison of Haleakala National Park HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 2008 Data Sets
Regional Haze Program Visibility Assessment

3/30/2012Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

2 Executive Summary

2007

- 2008 IMPROVE Data from the HACR1, HALE1, and HAVO1 monitoring sites were examined using the EPA Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 3.0 code. The monitoring data from each site was analyzed separately and eight PMF factors were presumed for all th ree data sets. The focus of this document is the correspondence between monitored values at the HACR1 and HALE1 site.

For the 7 visibility impacting mass concentrations (e.g. Ammonium Sulfa te), the mean HALE1 values are typically about a factor of two larger than for HACR1. The exception to this is Fine Soil, which is approximately equal. This approximate equivalence in Fine Soil measurements appears consistent with long range transport of d ust (e.g. Asian Dust). The most significant difference between mean data measured at the two sites appears to be that HALE1 is impacted more by organic and elemental carbon associated with the Positive Matrix Factorization Smoke factor. This appears to be consistent with the relatively close proximity and location of the HALE1 monitor with respect to agricultural burning in the Central Valley of Maui. For reference, figure C2a shows that the HALE1 monitoring site is located well outside of the Haleakala Nat ional Park, and much nearer to the Maui Central Valley, while HACR1 is at the park’s Western boundary; HALE1 elevation is approximately 3600 feet above sea level versus approximately 7000 feet for HACR1.

For HACR1, the largest organic carbon and elemental carbon IMPROVE measurements occurred in late January 2007. The character of the organic carbon and elemental carbon time histories for HACR1 appear significantly different than for those of HALE1. The HACR1 measurements show a few very large
mass concentra tions in January and April 2007 followed by much lower values throughout the rest of 2007 and 2008. The HALE1 measurements, while showing variability, do not have such large outliers. While the average HACR1 mass concentrations for organic carbon and eleme ntal carbon are approximately 50% of those for HALE1, the maximum HACR1 organic carbon mass concentration is approximately 600% the HALE1 value and the maximum HACR1 elemental carbon mass concentration is approximately 300% the HALE1.

The HACR1 IMPROVE mea surements appear consistent with a 2291 acre forest fire in Census Tract 303 that was also produced numerous MODIS detections. The second largest organic carbon and elemental carbon IMPROVE measurements at HACR1 occurred in early April 2007. These measurem ents appear consistent with a HC&S field burns that was also produced 2 MODIS detections. While the details of why HACR1 was impacted significantly more than HALE1 for these two isolated cases during 2007 and 2008 would require a more extensive examination of the winds patterns for those days, the available data seems sufficient to conclude that these few measurements are not representative of HACR1
measurements.
The remaining HACR1 and HALE1 monitoring measurements appear consistent with the general observation that HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring values are generally much lower than those at HALE1. The available data indicates that HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring data could be more representative of visibility conditions within the Haleakala National Park.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

3 2007

- 2008 IMPROVE Data from the HACR1, HALE1, and HAVO1 monitoring sites were examined using the EPA Pos itive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 3.0 code. The monitoring data from each site was analyzed separately and eight PMF factors were presumed for all three data sets. The focus of this document is the correspondence between monitored values at the HACR1 and HA LE1 site.

A. The “Factor

- matching

- HHH2007

- 8

- v3.xls” file includes the following spreadsheets: 1) Mean IMPROVE data: this page shows the mean IMPROVE data for the three monitoring sites for three key IMPROVE visibility Groups (e.g. “All”, “Worst 20% Days”, “Best 20% Days”); All days

are indicated by “All” in the second column from the left; “ Worst 20% D ays” are indicated by “90.00” in t he second column from the left; “ Best 20% Days ” are indicated by “10.00” in the second column from the left . These values were cal culated using input data prepared for the EPA PMF 3.0 code using Mathematica codes (“PMFoutputanalysis21

- GALL.nb”, “PMFoutputanalysis21

- G90.nb”, and “PMFoutputanalysis21

- G10.nb”). The results present the mass concentrations associated with each of the IMPR OVE species (e.g. Alf, ASf, BRf) in the IMPROVE units (e.g. nanograms/meter^3 and micrograms/meter^3); See Figure A1.

a. Mean HALE1 values are typically greater than those for HACR1. b. For the 7 visibility impacting mass concentrations (e.g. Ammonium Sulfate), the mean HALE1 values are typically about a factor of two larger than for HACR1. The exception to this is Fine Soil, which is approximately equal. This approximate equivalence in Fine Soil measurements appears consistent with long range transport of dust ( e.g. Asian Dust). 2) PMF Results: this page provides an assessment of the quality of the PMF assessment for each IMPROVE site, IMPROVE visibility Group, and IMPROVE species. The Pearsons’ correlation value squared (identified as r^2) is used to quantify th e ability of the recombined PMF factors to reproduce the IMPROVE data sets over the 2007

- 2008 period. The table is color coded to highlight larger and smaller r^2 values; Green >= 0.95; Blue >=0.90; Yellow < 0.70. Generally, Fine soil (e.g. Alf, CAf, FEf, SIf, TIf), Chlorine (CLf, CHLf), Manganese (MNf), Nitrate (NO3f), Sulfur (Sf), Zinc (ZNf), Fine Mass (MF), Ammonium Sulfate Mass, Ammonium Nitrate Mass, Fine Soil Mass, and Sea Salt Mass have superior r^2 values. 3) Factor Type 2007

- 8: this page shows the Mas s Concentration values and percentages for the IMPROVE visibility impacting species (e.g. Sulfate representing Ammonium Sulfate, Nitrate representing Ammonium Nitrate) associated with each of the IMPROVE sites, fo r each PMF factor, for All days; see Figure A2. The bottom section also presents an optional consolidated

re presentation of the values. Note :

a. “Dust (Asian)”, “Shipping (Zinc)”, and “Volcano” PMF factors are taken as is. b. Total Natural Weather is taken to be all sea salt plus the Coarse material ass ociated with the “Sea Salt/Nitrate

- Rich

- Secondary” PMF factor and termed “Tot

- Nat Weather”; these are highlighted in Green in the Coarse and Sea Salt columns.

c. Hawaii local anthropogenic mass concentrations come from the remaining PMF species
concentrations and are termed “HI Local Man”. d. HALE1 and HACR1 tend to be similarly impacted by Volcano#1 (Metals with high Selenium) PMF factor mass concentrations.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

4

e. HALE1 and HACR 1 tend to be similarly impacted by the Oil Combustion (Nickel & Vanadium) PMF factor mass c oncentrations. f. HALE1 tends to be significantly more impacted by the Smoke (Bromine) PMF factor mass concentrations than does HACR1. This is believed due to the relatively close proximity of the HALE1 monitor to the Central Valley of Maui , Maui Vortex wind conditions, and the associated agricultural burning; HALE1 elevation is approximately 3600 feet above sea level versus approximately 7000 feet for HACR1.
g. HALE1 and HACR1 tend to be similarly impacted by Nitrate/Sulfate

- Rich

- Secondary PM F factor mass concentra tions except for Coarse mass where HALE1 has a value of 0.5 9 micrograms/m^3 compared to HACR1’s value of zero. However, the Course mass r^2 values for HALE1 is 0.80 compared to a value of 0.38 for HACR1. As such, there is significant uncertainty in the coarse mass PMF factor concentrations for HACR1. h. HALE1 tends to be more impacted by the Sea Salt/Nitrate

- Rich

- Secondary PMF mass concentrations than does HACR1.
i. HALE1 appears to be somewhat more impacted by the Dust (Asian) PMF mass concentrations than does HACR1. However, the Fine Soil mass concentrations for HALE1 and HACR1 (as well as HAVO1) are approximately equal. j. HALE1 and HACR1 tend to be similarly impacte d by the Shipping (Zinc) PMF factor mass
concentrations. k. The Hawaii local anthropogenic mass concentration percentages for HALE1 and HACR1 appear to match well. 4) PMF Factor information spreadsheets (“HALE1 2007

- 8”, “HACR1 2007

- 8”, “HAVO1 2007

- 8”) describ e and name the eight factors associated with each site and include the annual mass percentages (for All days) associated with each factor. 5) Though somewhat different in magnitude , the IMPROVE mea surements at HALE1 and HACR1 appear relatively sim ilar; see Figures A3

- 1 to A3

- 14 for visibility impacting species time histories. The biggest difference is that the monitoring data and associated PMF analyses shows that HALE1 is impacted more by organic and elemental carbon associated with the PMF Smoke (Bromine) factor. This appears to be consistent with the relatively close proximity and location of the HALE1 monitor with respect to agricultural burning in the Central Valley of Maui.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

5 B. HACR1

- HALE1 Correlations 1) IMPROVE Visibility Impacting Mass Correla tions

Table 1: HACR1

- HALE1 IMPROVE Mass Correlations
This table shows the r^2 values calculated using HACR1 and HALE1 time histories for visibility impacting
mass concentrations . The results indicate that the Ammonium Sulfate and Fine Soil mass histories correlate best. These results are consistent with these two species being dominated by regional sources. In the case of Ammonium Sulfate, the Kilauea Volcano is a likely source. For Fine Soil, Dust from Asia is a likely source. The Sea Salt and Ammonium N itrate mass histories also correlate relatively well. Note that the color coding is associated with the absolute quantile values; thus HALE1

- Ammonium Sulfate/HACR1

- Ammonium Sulfate would have a quantile value of 1.00.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

6 2) IMPROVE Derived PMF Factor Correlations

Table 2. HACR1

- HALE1 PMF Factor Correlations
This table shows the r^2 values calculated using HACR1 and HALE1 time histories for PMF factors. The elemental compositions of the PMF factors resulted in HACR1 having 2 Oil Combustion factors and HALE1 having 2 Smoke factors. The results show the Volcano PMF factors correlate best, followed by Dust (Asian) and Sea Salt/Nitrate

- Rich

- Secondary. These results are consistent with the regional nature of the presumed sources. The HACR1 Factor#7 Oil Combustion (Ni & V) correlates best to the HALE1 Oil Combustion Factor. While it is noted that the HACR1 Smoke (Br) factor correlates equally well with HALE1 Sm oke (Br) and HALE1 Dust (Asian), and about as well with the second HALE1 Smoke (Br) factor, the absolute values associated with these correlations are not large.

3) IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations : HACR1

- HALE1

T able B1 shows the r^2 values calculate d using HACR1 and HALE1 time histories for all IMPROVE mass concentration species and PMF factors. The two tables that were discussed previously are shown in the two rightmost rectangular boxes along the diagonal; the colors are difference because the quan tiles are ba sed on all values in the table.

The table provides some additional insights into the dominance that some sources appear to have with respect to particular chemical species. For example, the HACR1 Volcano factor (“F#1: Volcano#1 (Metals w/high S e)#C1”) correlates very well with HALE1 hydrogen (Hf#C2), selenium (SEf#C2), and sulfurComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

7 (Sf#C2). Since these are all major constituents in the HALE1 Volcano PMF factor, this is not surprising. However, since these correlations are with respect to the direc t IMPROVE measurement values, the HACR1 Volcano PMF factor is seen to dominate the time histories of those three species. Similar cases can be seen for: HALE1 Dust (Asian) factor with HACR1 aluminum, calcium, iron, manganese, silicon, strontium, and titani um; HALE1 Volcano with HACR1 hydrogen, selenium, and sulfur.

Though the numerical values are unchanged from the “ IMPROVE Derived PMF Factor Correlations ” table, the different color highlights in this table point to the relatively poor correlation between the HALE1 and HACR1 smoke factors. In particular, it should be noted that the HALE1 PMF Factor #2 (Smoke (Bromine)), which is dominated by Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon mass concentrations, does not correlate well with the HACR1 IMPROVE species measu rements.
4) IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations: HALE1

- HALE1

Table B2 shows that HALE1 Factor#1 (Smoke(BR f ) ) does not correlate well with p otassium (Kf) ; r^2 = 0.06

. In contrast, HALE1 Factor#2 (S moke(BR f )) correlates well with p otassium (Kf) ; r^2=0.95

. Ho wever, both correlate similarly with bromine (Brf); r^2=0.30 for Factor#1 versus 0.36 for Factor 2. While the differences could be due to different emission sources, it is unclear at this time that they could not also be an artifact of the PMF analysis usi ng 8 factors. Particularly since Factor 1 does not have any strong correlations to the IMPROVE species, had the PMF analysis been performed with 7 factors, the two Smoke factors could well have been combined. Regardless, this issue is not believed to be of significance.

5) IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations: HACR1

– HACR1

Table B3 shows that HACR1 PMF factor #3 (Smoke) co rrelates well to Potassium (Kf); r^2=0.80. As with the two HALE1 Smoke factors, this table shows similar type differences between the two H ACR1 Oil Combustion factors. While HACR1 Factor#7 correlates well (r^2=0.78) with nitrate (NO3f), Factor #8 correlates poorly (r^2=0.04). As with the HALE1 Smoke factors, one of the two Oil Combustion factors (#8) doesn’t correlate well with any IMPROVE species. Similarly, the reason for this difference is unclear, but it is not believed to be of significance.

6) A Visual Examination of Key Smoke related HACR1 & HALE1 Mass Concentration Time Histories

IMPROVE average mass concentration measurements and correlations have indicated that, while the measurements at HALE1 and HACR1 are similar, HALE1 is impacted more by organic and elemental carbon associated with the PMF Smoke ( Bromine) factor. The mass concentration time histories associated with smoke related measurements (bromine, potassium, organic carbon, and elemental carbon) for HACR1 and HALE1 are presented in Figures 1 and 2 , respectively . The character of the bromine an d potassium time histories for HACR1 and HALE1 appear similar in the sense that both sets of plots have a few very large magnitude measurements.

The character of the organic carbon and elemental carbon time histories for HACR1 appear significantly differen t than for those of HALE1. The HACR1 measurements show a few very large mass concentrationsComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

8 in January and April 2007 followed by much lower values throughout the rest of 2007 and 2008. The HALE1 measurements, while showing variability, do not have such la rge outliers. While the average HACR1 mass concentrations for organic carbon and elemental carbon are approximately 50% of those for HALE1, the maximum HACR1 organic carbon mass concentration is approximately 600% the HALE1 value and the maximum HACR1 elem ental carbon mass concentration is approximately 300% the HALE1.

Since the IMPROVE measurements indicate that HACR1 generally has lower mass concentrations of the monitored species, and the HACR1 monitor is located within the Haleakala National Par k and away from the Maui Central Valley (vortex), it appears that HACR1 could be a superior monitoring site compared to the HALE1 location. To better make such a determination, it is desirable to examine and assess possible causes for the few HARC1 smoke r elated outlier measurements. This effort will be discussed in Section
C.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

9 Figure 1: HACR1 (2007

- 2008) Bromine, Potassium, Organic Carbon, Elemental Carbon Mass Concentration Time HistoriesComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

10 Figure 2: HALE1 (2007

- 2008) Bromine, Potassium, Organic Carbon, Elemental Carbon Mass Concentration Time HistoriesComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

11 C. MODIS Analysis: Examination of MODIS Satel lite fire monitoring , Maui County Hawaii Fire , HC&S Field Burn , IMPROVE , and PMF data

. 1. The primary objective of this analysis is to identify candidate sources for few discrete large smoke related IMPROVE mass concentration measurements at HACR1 in January and April 2007

. The Figures and discussions presented below relate to the Figures in Appendix C.
2. Figure Descript ion: the figures in the Appendix C present the data listed in 9 sections that include both text and graphics. The sections are numbered below in their order of appearance in the figures, from top to bottow . The IMPROVE site for the desired data is selected at the beginning of the Mathematica programs execution . When setup calculations are completed, the IMPROVE data and associated PMF results for that site can be examined with respect to the MODIS, Hawaii Fire, and HC&S Field Burn data. The topmost section of the figure is used to select the data to be presented. These integer 5 values, along with the IMPROVE site used in the setup calculations, are the only controls for the Figure.
i. Data Selection: 5 slider bars allow for the selection of the data to be pr esented
1. “kjump”: the data to be examined is selected from temporal bins. For these calculations, the bin width was set to 30 days and the time jump between bins was set to 15 days. This allows for a 50% overlap between consecutive bins. “kjump” is the bin number.
2. “mpoint”: within each temporal bin, there are a given number of MODIS data sets. “mpoint” selects MODIS data sets within the bin consecutively in time. Note that the MODIS data sets include fire locations across all islands of Hawaii.
3. “itract”: M ODIS data sets identify fire detection locations based on Census Tract locations. The Census Tract area is highlighted in the MODIS Map Plot. “itract” selects the Census Tract to highlight. Note that the Census Tracts are for all islands of Hawaii.
4. “ mmspecies”: this variable selects the IMPROVE species to plot
5. “mmmfactors”: this variable selects the PMF factor to plot
ii. Key MODIS Info : this text section provides information about the temporal bin (“kjump”) and the MODIS data for the MODIS data set selected with “mpoint”.
iii. MODIS Map Plot : this Map presents MODIS fire locations during the temporal bin and highlights the selected Census Tract (more details below)
iv. “ Census Trac t Highlighted ”: this text section notes the census tracts selected

v. “ Hawaii Fire Data for Binned Period ”: this text section notes key fire data during the selected temporal bin. vi. “ HC&S Field Burn Data for Binned Period ”: this text section notes key HC&S field burn data during the selected temporal bin.
vii. IMPROVE/PMF Folder and Data : this text section notes key IMPROVE and PMF information pertaining to the “mmspecies” and “mmmfactors” values selected. Both the IMPROVE species and PMF factor names are listed.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

12

viii. IMPROVE data time history for selected species : this time history plot presents
IM PROVE data for the selected species for the entire two year period. The selected temporal bin (“kjump”) is indicated by the two blue vertical dotted lines. The time associated with the selected MODIS point (“mpoint”) is indicated by the red vertical dotted line. ix. PMF results time history for selected factor : this time history plot presents PMF results for the selected species for the entire two year period. The selected temporal bin (“kjump”) is indicated by the two blue vertical dotted lines. The
time asso ciated with the selected MODIS point (“mpoint”) is indicated by the red vertical dotted line.
3. MODIS Map Plot Description
i. National Park areas are indicated by green areas with dots showing computational receptor sites.
ii. IMPROVE monitors are indicated by fill ed golden circles

. iii. Key power generating plants are indicated by filled red squares

. iv. Hawaii Department of Health monitors on the Island of Hawaii are indicated by filled blue circles.

v. Circles around IMPROVE monitoring sites are 10 kilometers in radius

. vi. MOD IS fire detection points are indicated by small red dots.
vii. Census Track areas, used to identify Forest fire locations, are indicated by partially transparent red areas with blue numbers.
4. Examination Methodology
i. The Mathematica code provides a tool to examin e MODIS, Hawaii forest fire, HC&S field burns, and IMPROVE monitoring data (both species and PMF). While the primary objective was to explain the large HACR1 smoke related IMPROVE measurements in January and April 2007, additional HALE1 and HACR1 potassium (associated with Smoke PMF factors) peaks were also examined.
ii. The first set is to select a time period bin (“kjump”) that encompasses an IMPROVE monitoring event of interest. This sets the dotted blue vertical lines on the IMPROVE species and PMF plots. iii. The next step is to examine the text sections associated with Hawaii forest fire and HC&S field burns for possible date matches with IMPROVE/PMF events. The Census tract areas associated with Hawaii forest fires can be viewed by selecting the appropriate “itract” value. HC&S fields are located in the Central Maui Valley. Due to the transport induced by the Maui Vortex, generally the specific field location is not believed to be critical.
iv. If a match appears likely, “mpoint” can be stepped through to find a date close to the event of interest. In general, MODIS fire detections (associated with “mpoint”) throughout the islands of Hawaii are frequent enough that a MODIS detection date can be found near to a given IMPROVE mo nitoring
measurement

. As different “m point” values are selected, the detection location is highlighted with a black circle. If the MODIS location matches the HawaiiComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

13

forest fire Census tract, then there is evidence that the MODIS detection is associated with a forest fire. If the MODIS locatio n is in the Maui Central Valley, the detection point is visually compared to a HC&S field location map to check for consistency with a field burn versus a forest fire.

5. Summary of Results
i. Background information: The mean IMPROVE monitoring measurements at HACR1 related to smoke (e.g. bromine, potassium, organic carbon, elemental carbon) are approximately half those for HALE1. In addition, the character of the
measurement time

- histories for the visibility impacting organic carbon and elemental carbon spec ies appear different in character. In addition to being overall "cleaner" with respect to smoke related species, HACR1 organic carbon and elemental carbon measurements have large measurement peaks in January and April 2007 that are not seen in the HALE1 da ta sets. ii. Figures C1a

- C1f (24

- Jan

- 07): The 2291 acre forest fire South

- West of the HACR1 and HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring likely produced the large potassium (Kf) and maximum organic (OC) and maximum elemental carbon peaks (EC) at HACR1. MODIS detections are co nsistent with the reported fire locations. No significant Kf/OC/EC impact to HALE1.
iii. Figures C2a

- C2f & C3 (2

- Apr

- 07) : M ODIS detections of HC&S burns appear to be very rare. These 2 MODIS detections are consistent with the Maui Central Valley field locatio ns, and HACR1 shows a maximum impact for Kf. OC and EC levels are not as pronounced.
iv. Figures C4a

- C4c (18

- Apr

- 07): Possible HC&S MODIS detection but does not significantly impact visibility.

v. Figure C5 (30

- Apr

- 07): There are no significant HACR1 Organic Carb on or Elemental Carbon peaks after early April 2007. However, the potassium peak is possibly due to HC&S burns or Maui forest fire; no MODIS detection.
vi. Figures C6a

- C6d (19

- Oct

- 07): While neither HACR1 nor HALE1 experience significant visibility impairment during this period, the HALE1 monitor measured a relatively significant concentration of potassium. While a moderate sized (50 acre) forest fire occurred in West Maui (Census tract 315), more agricultural burning occured in the Central Valley of Maui.
vii. Figu re C7 (4

- Aug

- 08): Though detected by MODIS, this small forest fire did not appear to impact HALE1. viii. Figure C8 (12

- Aug

- 08): HALE1 impacts during this period are consistent with HC&S burns. ix. Figure C9 (28

- Aug

- 08): 300 acre forest fire detected by MODIS, but t oo late for large Kf peak.

x. Figure C10a

- C10b (19

- Nov

- 08): 1000 acre forest fire detected by MODIS on Lanai, but may also have been due to HC&S burns. Even though the HACR1 monitor detects a relatively large Kf mass concentration, the organic andComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

14

elemental c arbon mass concentrations are seen to be relatively small (see Figure C 1b and C 1c)
6. Discussion & Conclusion
i. For HACR1, the largest organic carbon and elemental carbon IMPROVE
measurements occurred in late January 2007. These measurements appear consistent w ith a 2291 acre forest fire in Census Tract 303 that was also produced numerous MODIS detections. The second largest organic carbon and elemental carbon IMPROVE measurements at HACR1 occurred in early April 2007. These measurements appear consistent with a HC&S field burns that was also produced 2 MODIS detections. While the details of why HACR1 was impacted significantly more than HALE1 for these two isolated cases during 2007 and 2008 would require a more extensive examination of the winds patterns for th ose days, the available data seems sufficient to conclude that these few measurements are not representative of HACR1 measurements.
ii. The remaining HACR1 and HALE1 monitoring measurements appear consistent with the general observation that HACR1 IMPROVE mon itoring values are generally much lower than those at HALE1. Figure C2a shows that the HALE1 monitoring site is located well outside of the Haleakala National Park, and much nearer to the Maui Central Valley, while HACR1 is at the park’s Western boundary.
iii. The avai lable data indicates that HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring data could be more representative of visibility conditions within the Haleakala National Park.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

-

200 8 Data Sets

15 APPENDICESComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

16

Appendix A

Figure A1: Mean IMPROVE mass concentrationsComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

17

Figure A2: PMF Factor Calculated Mass ConcentrationsComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

18 Figure A3

- 1: HACR1 Ammonium Sulfate Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 2 : HA LE 1 Ammonium Sulfate Mass Concentration

Figure A3

- 3 : HACR1 Ammonium Nitrate Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 4 : HA LE 1 Ammonium Nitrate Mass Concentration

Figure A3

- 5 : HACR1 Organic Carbon Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 6 : HA LE 1 Organic Carbon Mass Concentration

Figure A3

- 7 : HACR1 Elementa l Carbon Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 8 : HA LE 1 Elemental Carbon Mass ConcentrationComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

19 Figure A3

- 9 : HACR1 Fine Soil Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 10 : HA LE 1 Fine Soil Mass Concentration

Figure A3

- 1 1 : HACR1 Coarse Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 1 2 : HA LE 1 Coarse Mass Concentration

Figure A3

- 1 3 : HACR1 Sea Salt Mass Concentration Figure A3

- 1 4 : HA LE 1 Sea Salt Mass ConcentrationComparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

20

Appendix B

Figure B 1: IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations: HACR1

- HALE1Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

21

Figure B 2: IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations: HALE1

- HALE1Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

22

Figure B 3: IMPROVE species and PMF Correlations: HACR1

– HACR1Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

23

Appendix C

Table C1: MODIS & IMPROVE Data sets examined in Figures C1a

– C10b.Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

24 Figure C1a : HACR1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

25 Figure C1b: HACR1 OC & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

26 Figure C1c: HACR1 EC & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

27 Figure C1d: HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor#2; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

28 Figure C1e: HALE1 OC & PMF Smoke Factor#2; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

29 Figure C1f: HALE1 EC & PMF Smoke Factor#2; 24

- Jan

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

30 Figure C2a HACR1 Kf and PMF Smoke Factor #3; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

31 Figure C2b HACR1 OC and PMF Smoke Factor #3; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

32 Figure C2c HACR1 EC and PMF Smoke Factor #3; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

33 Figure C2d HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Fac tor #2; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

34 Figure C2e HALE1 OC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

35 Figure C2f HALE1 EC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

36 Figure C3 HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 2

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

37 Figure C4a HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 18

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

38 Figure C4b HALE1 OC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 18

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

39 Figure C4c HALE1 EC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 18

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

40 Figure C5 HACR1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 30

- Apr

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

41 Figure C6a HACR1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 19

- Oct

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

42 Figure C6b HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 19

- Oct

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

43 Figure C6c HALE1 OC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 19

- Oct

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

44 Figure C6d HALE1 EC & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 19

- Oct

- 07Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

45 Figure C7 HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 4

- Aug

- 08Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

46 Figure C8 HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 12

- Aug

- 08Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

47 Figure C9 HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 28

- Aug

- 08Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

48 Figure C10a HACR1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #3; 19

- Nov

- 08Comparison of Haleakala National Park IMPROVE HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007

- 200 8 Data Sets

49 Figure C10b HALE1 Kf & PMF Smoke Factor #2; 19

- Nov

- 08