# Western Regional Air Partnership Policy

on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility

Approved by the Western Regional Air Partnership November 12, 2002

Prepared by: the Enhanced Smoke Manage ment Program Task Team

of the Fire Emissions Joint Forumi 

## WRAP Policy on

Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility

Executive Summary

The Western Regional Air Partne rship (WRAP) is charged w ith developing technical and policy tools to assist states (or the delega ted regulatory authorit y) and tribes with implementing the Regional Haze Rule (Rule).

The WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Manage ment Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP Policy) has been developed over aneleven-month period through a stakeholderbased consensus process to assist the WRAP region states and tribes in addressing

emissions from fire sources. In this Polic y, the WRAP seeks to provide a consistent

framework that states and tribes can use to efficiently develop their individual implementation plans. The WRAP recogni zes states’ and tribes’ authority and responsibility to develop, adopt and implement their regional haze implementation plans, and recognizes the Rule as the principal doc ument on which states and tribes should rely.

The Rule requires states to develop implementation plans (SIPs) for addressing regional haze in the Nation’s 156
mandatory Class I areas. 1 Additionally, the Rule requires effective management of fire sources. The Rule provide s two pathways for western states to follow as they implement the requirements of th e Rule: 1) develop their regional haze implementation plans per the nationally applicable provisi ons of Section 308, or 2) Transport Region states may choose to incorporate the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recomme ndations into their regional haze implementation plans under Section 309 of the Rule.

Enhanced smoke management programs are sp ecifically required in Section 309 of the Rule. However, if a state, under Section 308, has determined that fire emissions are contributing to visibility impairment and that smoke needs to be addressed in its SIP, then an enhanced smoke management program is a viable tool to accomplish this goal. Therefore, the WRAP is advancing the WRAP ESMP Policy for states under both Section 308 and 309 to meet the requirements of the Rule.

Tribes are not subject to the same requirements of the Rule as states, but tribes wishing to assume the regional haze requirements outlin ed in the Rule may, according to the CAA, seek approval to be treated in the same manne r as states, under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 40 CFR 49. The intent of this Policy is to assist both states and tribes with the

1 The Rule is only applicable to mandatory Class I areas (see Appendix A & Appendix B for additional information on mandatory Class I areas). States/tribes in the WRAP region may utilize the WRAP ESMP Policy to protect visibility in non-mandatory Class I areas.ii development of their regional haze implemen tation plans (SIPs/TIPs), and therefore,

tribes are included in all references to stat es, except where specific requirements and/or

deadlines of the Rule are cited.

The WRAP ESMP Policy defines the enhan ced smoke management program as smoke management efforts that specifically address visibility. It is the position of the WRAP ESMP Policy that there are nine elements of an enhanced smoke management program that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Rule. According to the Rule, enhanced smoke management programs are to be included in implementation plans based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emissions reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reductio n of visibility impacts.

Smoke management efforts/programs currently in place (sometimes referred to as “basic smoke management programs”) may not speci fically address visibility effects in mandatory Class I areas. The WRAP ESMP Polic y explicitly addresses visibility effects from fire that contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas. Fortunately, smoke management efforts/programs, re gardless of the purpose (e.g., visibility protection, avoidance of National Ambient Ai r Quality Standards [NAAQS] violations, or prevention of nuisance smoke impacts), ha ve many common elements . It is anticipated that the enhanced smoke management program elements outlined here will integrate well

with current and future smoke management efforts/programs.

The WRAP ESMP Policy document is comprised of four major secti ons. Section 1 is the eight WRAP ESMP Policy statements. S ection 2 provides overall background for the WRAP ESMP Policy, including a discussion of the regulatory environment, the current context of smoke management in the WRAP region, and details of the Rule that are germane to the WRAP ESMP Policy. Section 3 is an annotation of each of the eight policy statements, further explaining and de fining them, and includ ing a description of the nine enhanced smoke management program elements. Finally, Section 4, the Appendices, include (A) a glossary of term s, (B) a related documents listing, and (C) specific examples for states/tribes on the implementation of the nine enhanced smoke management program elements.iii 

## WRAP Policy

Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary i

1. The WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility: Policy Statements 1

2. Background 2

2.1 Clean Air Act and Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 2 2.2 Western Regional Air Partnership 3 2.3 Regional Haze Rule 3

2.4 Existing Guidance on Smoke Management 4

3. Annotated Policy 5

3.1 Introduction 5 3.2 Visibility Effects 6

3.3 All Fire Sources 7

3.4 Section 309 7

3.5 Section 308 8 3.6 Elements of an Enhanced Smoke Management Program 9

3.6.1 Element 1 Actions to Minimize Emissions from Fire 10 3.6.2 Element 2 Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 10

3.6.3 Element 3 Alternatives to Fire 10 3.6.4 Element 4 Public Notification of Burning 11 3.6.5 Element 5 Air Quality Monitoring 11

3.6.6 Element 6 Surveillance and Enforcement 11 3.6.7 Element 7 Program Evaluation 11

3.6.8 Element 8 Burn Authorization 11 3.6.9 Element 9 Regional Coordination 11

3.7 Criteria 12 3.8 Application 13 3.8.1 Source Sector Option 13 3.8.2 Situational Option 14 3.8.3 Impact Based Option 15 3.9 Collaborative Development 15iv 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

4. Appendices 17

Appendix A. Glossary 18

Appendix B. Related Documents Listing 25

Appendix C. Enhanced Smoke Management Program: Implementation Guidance 26

C.1 Regional Haze Rule Implementation Plan Process 26

C.2 Elements of an Enhanced Smoke Management Program 27

C.2.1 Element 1. Actions to Minimize Emissions from Fire 27 C.2.1.1 Emissions Reductions Techniques 27 C.2.1.2 Burn Manager Qualification 28

C.2.1.3 Incentives 29 C.2.1.4 Emissions Goal/Target 30 C.2.2 Element 2. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 30

C.2.3 Element 3. Alternatives to Fire 31

C.2.4 Element 4. Public Notif ication of Burning 32 C.2.5 Element 5. Air Quality Monitoring 33

C.2.6 Element 6. Surveillance and Enforcement 33 C.2.7 Element 7. Program Evaluation 35

C.2.8 Element 8. Burn Authorization 36 C.2.8.1 Permit by Rule 36 C.2.8.2 Burn Permitting System 37 C.2.8.3 Centralized Burn Authority 37 C.2.8.4 Regional Burn Authority 37 C.2.9 Element 9. Regional Coordination 37 C.2.9.1 Source Sector Authority Coordination 38 C.2.9.2 Centralized Authority Coordination 38 C.2.9.3 Regional (Multi-State/T ribe) Coordination 39

C.3 Responsibilities Under an Enha nced Smoke Management Program 39

C.4 Funding Mechanisms for Enhanced Smoke Management Programs 401 

## 1. The WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibilit y: Policy Statements

Policy Statement A. Enhanced smoke ma nagement programs under this Policy are defined as those smoke management efforts that specifically address visibility effects, and therefore, may need to be augmented to address public health and welfare issues.

Policy Statement B. Enhanced smoke management programs apply to all fire sources.

Policy Statement C. Enhanced smoke manageme nt programs are required for states under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. 2

Policy Statement D. Enhanced smoke manage ment programs are a viable tool for all

other states and tribes in the WRAP re gion to use in the development of their implementation plans.

Policy Statement E. Enhanced smoke manageme nt programs include nine elements that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, as follow:

Element 1. Actions to Minimize Emissions from Fire Any burning techniques that reduce th e actual amount of emissions produced.

Element 2. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion Using meteorological conditions to assess the ability to minimize smoke impacts.

Element 3. Alternatives to Fire Any method of removing or reducing fuels by mechanical, biological or chemical

treatments.

Element 4. Public Notification of Burning Any method that communicates burn info rmation to the burn community, to air regulators and to the general public. Al so includes public education and media

relations.

Element 5. Air Quality Monitoring Observations and/or equipment that enable an assessment of ai r quality impacts of

smoke from fires.

Element 6. Surveillance and Enforcement An oversight mechanism that assures adhe rence to smoke management efforts as defined by the regional haze implementation plan.

2 Published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999, 64 FR 35714.2 Element 7. Program Evaluation A mechanism to assess the adequacy of th e enhanced smoke management program in meeting the requirements of the Rule.

Element 8. Burn Authorization The management approach used to facilitate burn decision-making.

Element 9. Regional Coordination Communication and information sharing acr oss state/tribe jurisdictional lines.

Policy Statement F. Enhanced smoke manage ment programs will be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impact, 3 which will determine the rigor applied to

the nine elements.

Policy Statement G. Enhanced smoke manage ment programs may be applied uniformly to source sectors throughout a state’s or tribe’s jurisdiction or they may be tailored to source sectors and/or geographic areas to ad dress presumed or confirmed visibility impairment.

Policy Statement H. The development and a pplication of enhanced smoke management programs, including the considerat ion of the criteria (F), will be done collaboratively with state, tribal, local and federal agencies, and private parties.



## 2. Background

2.1 Clean Air Act and Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (C AA), and as part of these amendments created the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). 4 The GCVTC was charged with assessing the current scientific information on visibility impacts and making recommendations for addressing regional haze in the western United States. The GCVTC signed and submitted more than 70 recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a report dated J une 1996 that indicate d that visibility impairment was caused by a wide variety of sources and pollutants, and that a comprehensive strategy was need ed to remedy regional haze.

Fire sources were among those specifica lly acknowledged in the GCVTC Report as contributors to visibility impai rment on an episodic basis:

3 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (iv).

4 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) was composed of the governors of eight western states (AZ, CA, CO, NM, NV, OR, UT, WY), four tribes (Acoma Pueb lo, Hopi, Hualapai, and Navajo), four Federal land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Servi ce), the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency.3 All types of fire (prescribed fire and agricultural burning) must be addressed equitably as part of a visi bility protection strategy. 5

The GCVTC Report acknowledged federal a nd state land managers’ projection of significant increases in prescribed fire in or der to reduce the effect s of wildfire resulting from past decades of fire exclusion. 6 The GCVTC Report cited the need for minimizing

the increase in emissions from all fire programs to the maximum extent feasible. 7 One of the Report’s recommendations called for:

...the development and implementation of cr iteria and requirements for the use of enhanced smoke management programs (including alternative management practices) and emission reduction strategies. 8

2.2 Western Regional Air Partnership

The Western Regional Air Partne rship (WRAP) was establishe d in 1997 as the successor organization to the GCVTC. The WRAP is a voluntary organiza tion comprised of western governors, tribal l eaders and federal agencies, 9 and is charged “to identify regional or common air management issues, de velop and implement strategies to address these issues, and formulate and advance we stern regional policy positions on air quality.” 10 These policies and technical tools are developed thro ugh inclusive, stakeholder-based processes and approved by consensus of the WRAP.

WRAP participants include state air quality agencies, tribes, federal/state/private land managers, the EPA, environmental groups, industry, academia and other interested parties. There are over 400 trib es within the WRAP region. The large number of tribes limits the participation of a ll of them in WRAP activit ies, and accordingly, in the development of this Policy. Therefore, th e tribal representativ es involved in the development of this Policy may not represent all tribal concerns.

2.3 Regional Haze Rule

Following the issuance of the GCVTC Report, the EPA issued the Regional Haze Rule (Rule) in July 1999 to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas across the country. The Rule outlines the requi rements for states and tribes to address

5 GCVTC Report, p. 47.

6 GCVTC Report, p. 23.

7 GCVTC Report, Recommendation 7, p. 50.

8 GCVTC Report, Recommendation 4, p. 49.

9 The WRAP members include the g overnors of thirteen western stat es (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA, and WY). Trib al nations selected as WRAP me mbers include Pueblo of Acoma, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Nez Perce Tribe, No rthern Cheyenne Tribe, Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Federal WRAP members are the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

10 WRAP Charter, Purpose, p. 1.4 regional haze in these mandatory Class I ar eas. EPA incorporated all of the GCVTC

recommendations into Section 309 of the Rule, which may be used by some of the WRAP states/tribes. The remaining WRAP states must, and tribes may, utilize the nationally applicable Secti on 308 provisions of the Rule.

Tribes are not subject to the same requirements of the Rule as states, but tribes wishing to assume the regional haze requirements outlin ed in the Rule may, according to the CAA, seek approval to be treated in the same manne r as states, under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 40 CFR 49. In these cases, EPA still rec ognizes that “unlike States, tribes are not required by the TAR to adopt and implement C AA plans or programs, thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines for submittal of implementation plans.” 11 Although provision for flexibility in the submission of programs and implementation plans for tribes is made under TAR, EPA does “en courage tribes choosing to develop implementation plans to make every effort to submit by the deadlines to ensure that the plans [TIPs] are integrated with and coordinated with regional planning efforts.” 12

EPA recognizes the WRAP as the Regional Pl anning Organization that is developing the necessary policy and technical tools to im plement the Rule in the WRAP region. A WRAP policy, once approved, represents the WRAP's consensus position on the best means for states and tribes to implemen t the portion of the Rule at issue. The WRAP recognizes states’ and tribes ’ authority and responsibil ity to develop, adopt and implement their regional haze state and trib al implementation plans, and the seminal guidance to do this is the Rule. 13

2.4 Existing Guidance on Smoke Management

The elements of an enhanced smoke management program as outlined in this Policy are based upon careful review and consideration of the Rule and the existing guidance on smoke management: the EPA’s Interim Air Qu ality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (EPA Interim Policy) 14 and the Agricultural Air Qu ality Task Force’s (AAQTF) Recommendation on Air Quality Policy on Agricultural Burning (AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy). 15 However, these documents do not specifically provide guidance for smoke management program s that address visibility effects. The WRAP ESMP Policy goes beyond the EPA Interim Policy and the AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy to addre ss visibility effects and regional haze, as required by the Rule.

11 64 FR 35758.

12 64 FR 35759.

13 WRAP Charter, p.1.

14 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, April 23, 1998 (hereafter referred to as “EPA Interim Policy”).

15 Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Air Quality Policy on Agricultural Burning, Recommendation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 10, 1999 (hereafter referred to as “AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy”).5 

## 3. Annotated Policy

3.1 Introduction

The WRAP ESMP Policy is the result of the WRAP region-wide multi-state/tribe stakeholder planning and coor dination effort focused on a ddressing the development of enhanced smoke management programs that addr ess visibility effects. The intent of the WRAP ESMP Policy is to assist states (or the delegated authority) and tribes to address visibility effects associated with fire in a way that is adequate for SIP/TIP implementation.

The WRAP ESMP Policy identifies for states/tr ibes in the WRAP region the elements of an enhanced smoke management program to ad dress visibility effects from all types of fire that contribute to visibility impairme nt in mandatory Class I areas. Although the Rule is only applicable to mandatory Class I areas, state/tribes in the WRAP region may utilize the WRAP ESMP Policy to protect visi bility in non-mandatory Class I areas. 16

Most states/tribes in the WRAP region addres s fire source sectors differently, as does EPA in its guidance documents. Consequent ly, fire sources in the WRAP region are currently regulated at various and incons istent levels, from rigorous regulation to regulation with exemption appl ied, to no regulation. This va riability emphasizes the need for the development and application of an enhanced smoke management program framework that is predictable and flexible while meeting the requirements of the Rule.

The WRAP ESMP Policy has been develope d to embody appropria te regulatory and policy requirements and to provide a pr edictable framework for enhanced smoke management programs that can be reasonabl y implemented by states and tribes. The WRAP believes that states, tribes, or EPA on behalf of the tribes maintain the ultimate responsibility for the implem entation of the enhanced smoke management program.

The WRAP recognizes states/t ribes authority and responsib ility to develop, adopt and implement their regional haze state and tribal implementation plans. The WRAP further recognizes that the implementation plans will be revisited and revised, per the schedule specified in the Rule, giving opportunities to refine individual enhanced smoke management programs to reflect tech nical advances and policy updates.

3.2 Visibility Effects Policy Statement A. Enhanced smoke m anagement programs under this Policy are defined as those smoke management effo rts that specifically address visibility effects, and therefore, may need to be augmented to address public health and welfare issues.

Most current smoke management efforts and programs to date in the WRAP region have been developed to address public health and/or nuisance concerns, and do not have

16 See Appendix B for the referen ce to a map of Class I areas.6 procedures to address visibility effect s that contribute to regional haze. The enhanced smoke management program adds visibility impairment/regional haze considerations to existing smoke management efforts.

States/tribes are currently addressing NAAQS and/or nuisance to the extent they deem appropriate through existing smoke management efforts. Some states/tribes have certified their smoke management programs under EPA’ s Interim Policy, both inside and outside the SIP/TIP process. 17 The EPA certified programs include those mandated by rule, state statute, and programs based on voluntary measures. 18 However, few, if any, states/tribes have smoke management programs that addres s all fire sources, (e.g., prescribed fire on wildlands, wildland fire use, wildfire and ag ricultural burning), in one unified program.

The WRAP ESMP Policy assume s that states/tribes will maintain their current smoke management efforts and/or smoke manage ment programs for NAAQS and/or nuisance. The WRAP ESMP Policy can be used to establish new programs to address visibility

concerns even if there are no other smoke ma nagement efforts curren tly in place. While the WRAP ESMP Policy provides a framework for visibility/r egional haze, states/tribes may choose to do more in their smoke management programs to protect NAAQS, prevent nuisance and/or address visibility.

The WRAP ESMP Policy facilita tes the integration of visi bility protection with NAAQS and nuisance protection, in accordance with the Rule:

The regional haze program is being promulgated in a manner that facilitates
integration of emission management strategi es for regional haze with the implementation of programs for new NAAQS for Ozone and PM. 19

The elements included in the enhanced smoke management program as outlined by this Policy have been selected in an attempt to address direct visibili ty effects and regional haze in mandatory Class I areas. It is possibl e that states/tribes may encounter conflicts between managing smoke for visibility consider ations and smoke management efforts for NAAQS and/or nuisance. It is therefore recommended that st ates/tribes coordinate their efforts to protect visibility with existing or future efforts to address NAAQS and/or

nuisance smoke.

3.3 All Fire Sources Policy Statement B: Enhanced smoke manage ment programs will apply to all fire

sources.

The WRAP ESMP Policy applies to all fire, and maintains the previously established

definitions:

17 A state/tribe certifies “to EPA that they have adopted and are implementing a smoke management program that includes the basic components identified in this policy.” EPA Interim Policy, p. 7.

18 WRAP states implementing smoke management programs using voluntary measures include NM and ID.

19 64 FR 35719, emphasis added.7 This Policy applies to both wildland a nd agricultural lands regardless of ownership (i.e., Federal, state, tribal, public, private), cause of ignition (e.g., lightning, arson, accidental human, land management practices) or purpose of the fire (e.g., vegetative residue disposal , hazard reduction, maintain ecosystem health). It is the intent that this Poli cy be applied equitably across all land types

and sources. 20

All fire source sectors are included in the WR AP ESMP Policy because it is recognized by EPA that “fire of all kinds (wildfire, pres cribed fire, etc.) contributes to regional

haze.” 21 This Policy needs to be applied to all sources addressed by the WRAP Fire Categorization Policy. In accordance with Section 118(a) of the CAA requires that all entities, federal and non-federal, be subjec t to the same requirements, authorities and

processes, 22 the WRAP ESMP Policy will be applied equitably to all fire sources.

The WRAP ESMP Policy spec ifically does not apply to Native American cultural nonvegetative burning for tradi tional, religious, or ceremoni al purposes (e.g., cremation, sweat lodge fires). 23 Nor does it apply to open burni ng activities on residential, commercial, or industrial property (e.g., backyard burning, garbage incineration,

residential wood combusti on, construction debris). 24 However, states/tribes may choose to consider the impacts of these fire s ources when developing their regional haze implementation plans.

The WRAP ESMP Policy applies to smoke impa cts in mandatory Cla ss I areas from fire anywhere in the WRAP region. Each stat e has an obligation to account for those emissions it produces that have impact s in its own mandatory Class I areas. Accountability also extends to states and tribes that have smoke impacts outside their jurisdictions.

3.4 Section 309 Policy Statement C: Enhanced smoke management programs are required for states under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.

The EPA incorporated all of the GCVTC reco mmendations into Section 309 of the Rule, which specifically calls for “[e]nhanced sm oke management progr ams for fire that consider visibility effects, not onlyhealth [NAAQS] a nd nuisance objectives....” 25 Under Section 309, states must incorporate an enha nced smoke management program into their SIPs, which will give them the demonstrat ion of reasonable further progress through

2018. 26 The ability of a state/tribe to impl ement the enhanced smoke management

20 WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions, November 15, 2001 (hereafter referred to as “WRAP Fire Categorization Policy”), p 7.

21 64 FR 35735.

22 Clean Air Act §118(a).

23 WRAP Fire Categorization Policy, p. 24.

24 Ibid, however “industrial property” would not include land such as industrial forestland.

25 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (iv).

26 64 FR 35769, §51.309 (a).8 program may require legislative changes to existing rules or removal of exemptions from regulation for specific fire sources.

The tracking of emissions from all fire (i .e., wildland and agri cultural land) is a requirement of the Rule for states under Section 309, including the development of an emissions inventory for VOCs, NOx, elementa l and organic carbon, and fine particulate

matter. 27 States/tribes under Section 309 will need to address pr ojected fire emissions in order to facilitate regional haze planning and operational smoke management. 28 The tracking of emissions could allow for thes e projections to be developed. Emissions tracking will also provide information critic al to implementing several of the necessary elements of an enhanced smoke manage ment program. The Rule under Section 309

further calls for the establishment of annual emission goals for fire that will minimize

emissions increases from fire to the maximum extent feasible. 29 The WRAP is currently developing policy on both emissions trackin g and on the establishment of annual emissions goals that will work in concert with the WRAP ESMP Policy.

3.5 Section 308 Policy Statement D. Enhanced smoke m anagement programs are a viable tool for all other states and tribes in the WRAP region to use in the development of their implementation plans.

The Rule requires states/tribes to address visibility impairme nt in mandatory Class I areas

due to emissions from all sources includi ng fire activities. The Preamble to the Rule emphasizes smoke management programs as effective tools to accomplish this:

Where smoke impacts from fire are iden tified as an important contributor to regional haze, smoke management progr ams should be a key component of regional and State regional haze planni ng efforts and long-term strategies. 30

Under Section 308, a state must consider smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry lands in its long-term strate gy for regional haze. Section 308 of the Rule

states:

The State must identify all anthropogeni c sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its long-term strategy [for regional haze]. The State should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources,

and area sources. 31

and: (v) The State must consider, at a minimu m, the following factors in developing its long-term strategy [for regional haze]:

27 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (ii)

28 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (i).

29 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (v).

30 64 FR 35736.

31 64 FR 35767, §51.308 (d) (3) (iv).9 (E) Smoke management techniques for ag ricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the States for these purposes. 32

If a state’s visibility impairment analysis 33 shows that fire sources contribute to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I area and the state determines that fire sources need to be addressed in its SIP, then the enhanced smoke management program will be a viable

tool to do so. A statewid e inventory of emissions of polluta nts that contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas is a requirement of the Rule for states choosing to implement the Rule under Section 308. Further, these states will al so be required to account for future projected emissions. 34

3.6 Elements of an Enhanced Smoke Management Program Policy Statement E: Enhanced smoke management programs include nine elements that are necessary to meet th e requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.

The elements included in the enhanced smoke management program as outlined by this Policy have been selected in an attempt to address direct visibili ty effects and regional haze in mandatory Class I areas to improve vi sibility on the worst days and maintain visibility on best days. 35 The first seven enhanced smoke management program elements come directly from Section 309 of th e Rule that states that SIPs “ must include smoke management programs that include all necessary components including, but not limited

to , actions to minimize emissions, evaluation of smoke dispersion, alternatives to fire, public notification, air quality monitoring, surveillance and enfor cement, and program

evaluation.” 36 These same smoke management components are also found in the EPA Interim Policy and the AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy. 37

The EPA Interim Policy and the AAQTF R ecommendation on Air Quality Policy also

advocate a burn authorization component (i.e., Element #8). 38 Without a central burn authority considering the cumulative smoke imp acts, it will be difficult on a daily basis for individual land managers/owners to assess their relative contribu tion to regional haze.

Regional coordination (i.e., Element #9) is central to burn au thorization, and will facilitate coordinated decision-making. It is a necessary mechanism to address transport issues and cumulative effects, especially wh en considering impacts of a source that may be large, or many sources that cumulatively are large, but a long distance from a Class I

32 64 FR 35767, §51.308 (d) (3) (v) (E).

33 As outlined in the Rule under Section 308, this pr ocess includes calculating the baseline of all sources; comparing the baseline visib ility conditions with natural conditions; asse ssing the contribution to this of the different sources (of which smoke is one); then considering in the development of long term strategies: smoke management techniques, including current sm oke management programs that exist; and if not adequate, considering enforceable emissions limitations and compliance schedules and other measures as necessary. 64 FR 35765 §51.308.

34 64 FR 35767, §51.308 (d) (4) (v) and 35769, §51.308 (g) (4).

35 64 FR 35764, §51.301.

36 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (i), emphasis added.

37 EPA Interim Policy, p. 17-23, and AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy, p. 2.

38 EPA Interim Policy, p. 18, and AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy, p.12.10 area (i.e., greater than 100 km ). Regional coordination is em phasized in the Rule as key to reaching the national visibility goal . In the preamble, the Rule states:

Therefore, States will need to develop stra tegies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one ju risdiction to air quality in

another. 39

And in the preamble to Section 308, the Rule states:

In developing each reasonable progress goa l, the State must consult with those States which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area. 40

The WRAP ESMP Policy elements include meas ures to control and/or reduce emissions from fire (Elements 1, 3, and 8); tools to as sess and manage the pot ential impacts from fire (Elements 2 and 5); and operational co mponents of a successful smoke management program (Elements 4, 6, 7, and 9). In addition to the elements descriptions that follow, suggestions for implementation of the ni ne enhanced smoke management program

elements are included in A ppendix C of this document.

3.6.1. Element 1. Actions to Minimize Emissions from Fire A wide range of opportunities to minimi ze emissions exists depending upon the fire source and management objectives. Four potential actions that may be used are: emission reduction techniques, establishing burn manager qualification programs, 41 developing incentive programs, and establishing emissions goals.

3.6.2. Element 2. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion A variety of tools and met hods exist by which a land mana ger/owner could reduce smoke impacts over periods ranging from several hours to several days. States/tribes may focus on the use of specific weather information, fuels information, modeling or a burner qualification and certification program to assist in the evaluation of dispersion conditions.

3.6.3. Element 3. Alternatives to Fire Alternatives to fire (as distinguished from alternative methods of burning) include any method of removing or reducing fuels by mechan ical, biological or chemical treatments. States/tribes may assist land managers/owners to develop and implement alternatives to fire. Land managers/owners may be required to assess the feasibility of using alternatives to fire where there are many competing so urces or large amounts of burning occurring that could lead to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas. Regulatory authorities may want to consider incentives to encourag e the use of alternatives to burning where appropriate. The WRAP through its FEJF ha s commissioned two reports on alternatives to burning that will aid stat es and tribes in addressing this element of the ESMP.

39 64 FR 35728.

40 64 FR 35766, §51.308 (d) (1) (B) (iv).

41 States/tribes could consider adopting existing burn qualification programs sanctioned by land management agencies.11 3.6.4. Element 4. Public Notification of Burning Public notification is a significant part of th e CAA, and is inherent in the Rule. Public

notification under an enhanced smoke management program should be at least what is required by EPA for a certifiabl e smoke management program, 42 and may include extra activities, depending on location. Genera lly, regardless of what kind of smoke management program is in place, significant effort should be made to educate and notify the public about burning, its imp acts, as well as its benefits.

3.6.5. Element 5. Air Quality Monitoring Monitoring of smoke impacts may be a very sophisticated effort using EPA reference method sampling equipment or it may be as simple as creating a hand-written log of smoke behavior as assessed visually. Minima l procedures would be most likely in areas of little burn activity or when farther away from Class I areas.

3.6.6. Element 6. Surveillance and Enforcement Good communication between regulators and land managers/owners can significantly reduce the need for surveillance and enforcement. An atmosphere of trust and cooperation between regulators and land manage rs/owners can help facilitate emissions reductions and compliance with air quality regulations. Performance and compliance standards may be established under various methods of operations.

3.6.7. Element 7. Program Evaluation Enhanced smoke management programs need to be reviewed on a periodic basis for their effectiveness by the regulatory authority a nd affected stakeholders. Formal periodic progress reports could coincide with time inte rvals used to evaluate reasonable progress. The Rule requires progress reports every five years. 43 However, shorter review and evaluation time periods woul d better determine if enhanced smoke management programs are effective.

3.6.8. Element 8. Burn Authorization Burn authorization requirements are exp ected to vary depending upon the amount of burning that is occurring, the fire source types that are conducting the burning, and the degree of impairment that exis ts or may be expected to occur as a result of the burning. The proximity of mandatory Class I and non-a ttainment areas may also have a bearing on the complexity of the burn authorizati on procedure that should be implemented.

3.6.9. Element 9. Regional Coordination Coordination of burning activity is critical to avoiding cumulative smoke impacts within and across source types in mandatory Cla ss I areas. Coordination may range from a passive mode of information sharing between land managers/owners and/or the public to a more complex, active coordination in wh ich burn decisions are altered based on jurisdictional authority and other activities that are occurring or have recently occurred. Methods for this inter-jurisdictional and regi onal coordination will need to be developed.

42 EPA Interim Policy, p.17-23.

43 64 FR 35768, § 1.308 (g) and 35772, §51.309 (d) (10).12 The development process should be a collabor ative one involving stat e, tribal, local and federal agencies, and private parties.

3.7 Criteria Policy Statement F: Enhanced smoke m anagement programs will be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reducti on of visibility impact, 44 which will determine the rigor applied to the nine elements.

According to the Rule, enhanced smoke mana gement programs are to be included in implementation plans based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emissions reduction opportunities, land management objectiv es, and reduction of visibility impacts.

These criteria will influence the extent to which individual elements of the enhanced smoke management program are applied or th e level of effort that is possible. For example, legal barriers may need to be remo ved and/or infrastructure may need to be developed to implement the enhanced smoke management program. The level of effort each state/tribe will apply to the nine el ements of the enhanced smoke management program needs to be based on a pre-determined process or metric established by the regulatory authority that considers the public as well as stakeholders.

Additional examples of how states/tribe s might consider the enhanced smoke management program criteria are listed below.

Efficiency : What are the resources, infrastr ucture, networking, workforce and information necessary to reduce visibility im pairment in mandatory Class I areas? Is it

feasible to share these items with another group in order to reduce redundancy or build on existing expertise?

Economics : What are the costs and incentives of the items listed under Efficiency? Are there ways to economically quantify improvements to regional haze in a local area? What is the economic trade-off of moving fuels o ff-site to be converted to another use or

burned elsewhere? What are the economic co sts to a landowner to look for emission

reduction alternatives? What are the economic gains from improved habitats, functioning watersheds, species diversity and healthy eco systems? What are the economic losses to a community associated with impairment, (e.g., property values, tourism, etc.)?

Law : Are there federal, state, tribal ordinances, local rules or statutes that prohibit mechanical treatments or prohibit the regula tion of burning? Are there conflicts with management or law pertaining to the Threat ened and Endangered Species Act and/or the

Wilderness Act?

Emission Reduction Opportunities : Where are the opportunities to consider reducing emissions through mechanical, biological, or chemical means? Where are the places where reducing emissions will be best done through smoke management techniques

44 64 FR 35771, §51.309 (d) (6) (iv).13 rather than moving fuels off-site or mani pulating fuels through chemicals or biological decomposition or a combination of mechan ical treatments and maintenance burning?

Land Management Objectives : Are there places where manipulating fuels is not an option because of land management objectives, e.g., tr ibal cultural values, wildlife habitat, crop requirements, residue removal constraints, or inaccessible terrain? Are there places where manipulating fuels is more conducive to the land management objective, e.g., areas targeted for commodity production, watershed protections or tribal cultural activities sites? Are there places that restoration of ecosystem function may have a high priority?

Reduction of Visibility Impacts : Using the current information and science available to a state/tribe, how will an enhanced smoke management program decrease impacts to visibility?

3.8 Application Policy Statement G: Enhanced smoke management programs may be applied uniformly to source secto rs throughout a state’s juri sdiction or they may be tailored to source sectors and/or geogr aphic areas to address presumed or confirmed visibility impairment.

Since emissions from fire sources contribute di fferently to visibility impairment in Class I areas and/or may be from di fferent geographical areas, ta iloring of an enhanced smoke management program to a fire source sector and/or a geographic area may be appropriate. This section presents options for states/tribes to consider in tailoring such a program. The first two options are built upon a presumption th at certain sources or situations contribute to visibility impairment. The third option relies upon c onfirmation of impairment attributed to a source sector. The opti ons described below may be implemented independently or in any combination, as deemed appropriate by the state/tribe.

The options explored here are not exhaustiv e or definitive in structure or design. However, any selected option must still consider the nine elements as well as the criteria as specified in the Rule. Application of thes e or any other options can be considered at the source sector level, but should also be sensitive to the potential for cumulative impacts of all fire source sectors. Additionally , state/tribal authorities will want to be mindful of equitable treatment of sources in the implementation of their enhanced smoke

management programs.

3.8.1 Source Sector Option

Under this option, there is a presumption that certain so urce sectors are reasonably expected to contribute to visibility impairmen t based on historical data and/or projected future burning. Where this presumption exists , states/tribes could choose to apply the nine enhanced smoke management program el ements to those source sectors with a greater level of effort.14 3.8.2 Situational Option

This option describes certain situations that, if true, would indicate to the state/tribe the need for a greater level of e ffort of implementation of the enhanced smoke management program elements. The scenarios below can be used by states/tribes in the development of area and/or source sector-specific enha nced smoke management programs. Each

scenario describes a combination of emi ssion levels, NAAQS status (e.g., non-attainment area status) and proximity to Class I areas th at may indicate the level of enhanced smoke management program needed.

The following is an example of how this si tuational option could be applied, and is

modeled after the Prevention of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements 45 for major stationary sources (see table in footnote below). 46 In this example, the emissions are the annual totals that would be produced by a fire source

sector. The attainment status accounts for existing non-attainment area (NAA) issues that a state/tribe may need to address. 47 The proximity parameter addresses how close a fire source sector is to a Class I area. This exampl e is predicated on all three factors applying simultaneously.

a) Emissions levels: Gr eater than 50 tons/yr of PM 10 (total/year) within state/tribe for all anthropogenic fire sources

Attainment status: No PM 10 or Ozone NAAs Proximity: Within and near (i.e., <50 km) a Class I area

b) Emissions levels: Great er than 250 tons/yr of PM 10 (total/year) within state/tribe for all anthropogenic fire sources

Attainment status: No PM 10 or Ozone NAAs Proximity: Within 100 km of Class I area

c) Emissions levels: Greater than 100 tons/yr PM 10 (total/year) within state/tribe for all anthropogenic fire sources

45 40 CFR § 52.21.

46 This table provides estimates of acres burned to give an idea of approximate fi re size using the available emission factors for the source type indicated. These numbers are not an exact representation of acreages, emission factor, and fuel loading of all fires for eac h type. Note: Agriculture and Rangeland numbers are

the same.

Tons (PM 10 ) Acres Burned (Annual Total)

Wildland (Forest: 20 tons/acre consumed) Agriculture (4 tons/acre consumed) Rangeland (2 tons/acre consumed)

250 833 12,500 12,500

100 333 5,000 5,000

70 233 3,500 3,500

50 167 2,500 2,500

47 When PM 2.5 NAAs are identified, then PM 2.5 could also be used in assessing the level of enhanced smoke management program needed.15 Attainment status: Moderate PM 10 or Ozone NAA or Maintenance Area Proximity: Within 100 km of Class I area

d) Emissions levels: Greater than 70 tons/yr PM 10 (total/year) within state/tribe for all anthropogenic fire sources

Attainment status: Serious PM 10 or Ozone NAA Proximity: Within 100 km of Class I area

e) Emissions levels: Greater than 250 tons/yr of PM 10 (total/year) within state/tribe for all anthropogenic fire sources Attainment status: Any level of Attainment/NAA Proximity: Distances farther than 100 km

3.8.3 Impact Based Option

A state/tribe can determine the level of e ffort of an enhanced smoke management program based on the relative contribution (i.e., impact) of each of its fire source sectors and cumulatively all fire source sectors’ impacts to visibility impairment in Class I areas.

One possible approach that could be used is related to deciview, the metric commonly associated with visibility analyses and al so used within the PSD permitting process. Under this scenario, states/tribes woul d determine the frequency, magnitude (in deciview), and duration of a source sector's c ontribution to visibility impairment (on the 20 percent “worst” visibility da ys in a calendar year). To pr event degradation of the 20 percent “best” visibility days in a calendar ye ar, the state/tribe may want to increase the rigor of its enhanced smoke management program if emissions from fire sources correspond with declining visibility.

In order to determine these components, a vi sibility impairment assessment could be conducted using Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data, emissions data derived from fire ac tivity data, contemporary visibility modeling techniques, or other availabl e information. Note that currently, final analysis of IMPROVE data sometimes lags as much as a y ear from when data were collected. This situation may also be true of visibility im pairment assessments. Therefore, there may be lag time between when impacts were me asured and how soon enhanced smoke management programs could be implemented or revised.

Based on the results of the visi bility assessment, the states/tribes could determine what level of effort of enhanced smoke manage ment program corresponds to the degree of impact.16 3.9 Collaborative Development Policy Statement H: The development and application of enhanced smoke management programs, including the consid eration of the criteria (F), will be done collaboratively with state, tribal, local and federal agencies and private
parties.

The GCVTC Report cites the importance of a colla borative process in a number of places with regard to fire. 48 EPA’s Interim Policy also suppor ts collaborative efforts and specifies roles for the stakeholders in th e process. The underlying tenet of the WRAP process further conveys the importance of a pproaching visibility and the Rule with stakeholder input and use of collaborative processes.

Utilizing land managers and aff ected publics as well as th e responsible air regulatory entity can result in an enhanced smoke management program that will meet the expectations of EPA for SI P submittal under Section 309 , and may reduce localized controversy. There are certain steps in the enhanced smoke management program development process that will need cooperative efforts, such as the establishment of the criteria to be used by the regulatory entity to determine the level of effort needed for the enhanced smoke management program. The criteri a for determining the level of effort is a significant issue as there is a paucity of data on emissions and visibility impairment

from fire sources. This level of effort asse ssment is also tied to developing funding mechanisms for the enhanced smoke manage ment program, which the GCVTC urged be developed cooperatively.

The SIP/TIP development process will be initiated by the respective regulatory entity, which is the responsible party for initiating the collaborative efforts. The earlier in the SIP development process that a collaborative e ffort could be initiated would likely result

in a more valuable result. It is envisioned that, through a collaborati ve effort, a schedule and process for implementing the enhanced smoke management program will be created that is acceptable to both EPA and affected stakeholders. Using a collaborative process will facilitate the needed equity am ong fire source sectors as well.

48 GCVTC Report, p. 49-50.17 

# APPENDICES18 

### Appendix A Glossary

This glossary is intended to facilitate readers’ consistent review of this Policy. This glossary is not intended to be a complete lis t of all terms and acronyms. An asterisk (*)

indicates a definition from Section 1.1 of th e WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) Workplan, February 25, 1999. A number sign (#) indicates a definition from the WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions, November 15, 2001.

Agricultural Fire/Burning * - Any fire ignited by manage ment actions to meet specific objectives (i.e., managed to achieve re source benefits) on agricultural land.

Agricultural Land * - Agricultural land includes cropla nds, pasture, and other lands on which crops or livestock are produced (PL 104-127, Section 1240A). Rangeland will be included with wildland for the purposes of the FEJF work.

Alternatives to Burning - Land management practices that tr eat fuel without using fire.

Anthropogenic - Produced by human activities.

Anthropogenic Emissions Source Cl assification (“an thropogenic”) # - A categorization that designates which fire emi ssions contribute to visibility impairment in a Federal Class I area. “Anthropogenic” emissions must be co ntrolled to achieve progress toward the 2064 natural conditions goal [i.e., natural visibi lity goal] for each Federal Class I area in the WRAP region. This classification incl udes natural and human-caused ignitions.

Area Source - A source category of air pollution that generally extends over a large area. Prescribed burning, field burning, home hea ting, and open burning ar e examples of area

sources.

Attainment Area - An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than the national, state/tribe or local ambient air quality standards. Note that an area may be in attainment for one or more pollutants but be a non-attainment area for one or more other pollutants.

Best Available Control Measures (BACM) - A term used to refer to the most effective measures (according to EPA guidance) for cont rolling small or dispersed particulates and

other emissions from sources such as road way dust, soot and ash from woodstoves and open burning of rush, timber, grasslands, or trash.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - A term applied collectively to any administrative or on-the-ground procedure th at reduces the negative impacts of some action. An example of a Best Management Practice with respect to air qualit y would be conducting a prescribed burn when atmospheric ventilation is good, which in turn promotes smoke dispersal.19 Class I Area - See Mandatory Class I Area and Non-Mandatory Class I Area.

Control of Fire Emissions # - Actions may be taken to control fire emissions by utilizing best management practices such as the use of alternatives, biomass utilization, and other emission reduction techniques.

Criteria Pollutants - The 1970 amendments to the CAA required EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ce rtain pollutants known to be hazardous to

human health. EPA has identified and set stan dards to protect human health and welfare for pollutants : ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5), sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide. The term, "criteria pollutants" derives from the requirement that EPA must describe the char acteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these pollutants. It is on the basis of these criteria that standards are set or

revised.

Cumulative Effects - The effect on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past , present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency, entity or person undertakes such action. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Deciview - A unit of visibility proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction. Under many circumstan ces a change in one deciview will be perceived to be the same on clear and hazy days.

Ecosystem Maintenance Burning # - A prescribed fire or wildfire managed for resource benefits, in an ecosystem that is currently in an ecologically functi onal and fire resilient condition, that is utilized to mi mic the natural role of fire.

Ecosystem Restoration Burning # - The re-establishment of na tural vegetation that may be accomplished through the reduction of unwanted and/or unnatural levels of biomass, which may have accumulated due to manageme nt action. Prescribed fires, wildfires managed for resource benefits and mechanical treatments may be utilized to restore an ecosystem to an ecologically functional and fire resilient condition.

Emission - Pollution discharged into the atmosphe re. Examples of emissions sources are smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of commercial or industr ial facilities; from residential chimneys; and from motor vehicl e, locomotive, aircraft, or other non-road engines.

Emission Inventory - A listing, by source, of the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere.

Emission Cap - An enforceable limit on the amount of specific air pollu tants that can be released or on the amount of a specific polluta nt that is allowed to be in the air in a20 defined geographic area, and th at has regulatory consequen ces. See also Emission Goal and Emission Target.

Emission Goal - A desired future outcome that may be represented by a numeric indicator, but without regulatory consequen ces, and as distinguished from a limit (i.e., target or cap). See also Emi ssion Cap and Emission Target.

Emission Reduction - A strategy for controlling smoke from prescribed fires that minimize the amount of smoke output per unit of area treated or othe r objective unit of accomplishment.

Emission Target - A firm limit on the amount of sp ecific air pollutants that can be released or on the amount of a specific polluta nt that is allowed to be in the air in a defined geographic area, but without regulator y consequences (as distinguished from a cap). See also Emission Cap and Emission Goal.

Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) - A program for fire emissions that considers visibility effects, in addition to health and nuisance objectives, and is based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, management objectives, and reduction of visibility impact.

Federal Class I area - see Class I Area.

Fire * - When this term appears, it refers in clusively to wildfire, prescribed natural fire/wildland fire managed for resource bene fits, prescribed fire, rangeland fire, and agricultural fire.

Fire Source Sector - A segment of fire attributed to a particular management or ownership, e.g., wildland prescrib ed fire, agricultural prescribed fire, wildfire, and

wildland fire use. Also known as a fire source.

Fire Use - A term utilized in federal land management that includes both prescribed fire

and wildland fire use.

Fuel Moisture Content - The quantity of moisture in fuel expressed as a percentage of the weight when thoroughly dried at 212 degrees F.

Fuel Reduction - The manipulation, includ ing combustion, or remova l of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen pot ential damage and resistance to control.

Fuel Treatment - Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and re sistance to control (e .g., lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning).21 Implementation Plan - Plans devised by states and/or tribes to carry out their responsibilities under th e CAA. SIPs/TIPs must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and include public review.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) - A cooperative visibility monitoring effort, using a common set of standards across the United States, between the EPA, federal land management agencies, and state air agencies.

Jurisdiction - A geographic area of authority.

Land Managers * - When this term appears, it refers inclusively to federal, state, tribal, and private land managers.

Manage Fire Emissions # - Actions may be taken to manage fire emissions to minimize impacts on visibility, public health, and nu isance concerns. Some management actions include concepts such as the timing of ignitions for better dispersion and consideration of downwind air quality and visibil ity. It may also include consid eration of factors related to

the area to be burned such as the fuel mo isture condition and other physical parameters. Manage fire emissions is an alogous to smoke management.

Mandatory Class I Area - An area set aside under the C AA to receive the most stringent protection from air quality degradation. Mandatory Class I Federal Areas are (1) international parks, (2) nati onal wilderness areas and memori al parks larger than 5,000 acres in size, (3) national parks that exceed 6,000 acres in size and which were in

existence when the 1977 CAA amendments we re enacted. The extent of a mandatory Class I Federal area includes subsequent cha nges in boundaries, such as park expansions.

Modeling - The artificial simulation of some event or action th at has quantifiable results. Mathematical expressions and computer s are frequently used in modeling.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - See Criteria Pollutants.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
- Establishes procedur es that federal agencies must follow in making decisions on federal actions that may impact the

environment.

National Visibility Goal - Section 169A of the CAA sets forth a national goal for visibility which is the “pre vention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”

Natural Background Condition # - An estimate of the visibility conditions at each Federal Class I area that would exist in the absence of human-caused impairment.

Natural Emissions Source Cl assification (“natural”) # - A categorization that designates

which fire emissions can result in a natural re duction of visibility for each Federal Class I22 area in the WRAP region. This classifi cation includes natural and human-caused ignitions.

Natural Ignition # - Fire/burn ignited due to a natural (i.e., non-human-caused) event, e.g., fire ignited by lightni ng or volcanic eruption.

Natural Visibility Goal - The ultimate goal of the region al haze program is the absence of visibility impairment due to human-caused emissions.

Non-Attainment Area (NAA) - An area identified by an air quality regulatory agency through ambient air monitoring (and designa ted by the EPA) that presently exceeds federal, state/tribe or local ambient air qua lity standards. See Attainment Area above.

Non-Mandatory Class I Areas - Class I areas designated by states or tribes, but are not deemed mandatory by the CAA. As of Ja nuary 2002, Class I areas designated by tribes include: Fort Peck Reservation in MT, Northe rn Cheyenne Reservation in MT, Flathead Reservation in MT, Yavapai-Apache Reservatio n in AZ (Class I status under litigation), and Spokane Reservation in WA.

Nuisance Smoke
- Unwanted smoke that does not exceed NAAQS primarily for particulate matter.

Particulate Matter - Any liquid or solid particles. "T otal suspended particulates" as used in air quality are those particles suspended in or falling through the atmosphere. They generally range in size from 0.1 to 100 microns.

Plume Blight - Visual impairment of air quality that manifests itself as a coherent plume.

PM 10 - Particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers.

Emissions of PM 10 are significant from fugitive dust, power plants, commercial boilers, metallurgical industries, mineral industries, forest and residential fires, and motor

vehicles.

PM 2.5

- Particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. A measure of fine particles of particulate matter that comes from fuel combustion, agricultural burning, woodstoves, etc.

Point Source - A fixed source of pollution. An exam ple is the smoke stack of a coal-fired power plant or smelter.

Prescribed Fire * - Any fire ignited by management ac tions to meet specific objectives, i.e., managed to achieve resource benefits.

Rangeland # - Land on which the historic climax plant community is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shr ubs. Includes lands re-vegetated naturally or artificially when routine mana gement of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through23 manipulation of ecological principles. Rangela nd includes natural grasslands, savannas, shrub lands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes and wet meadows (Natural Resources Conservation Servi ce National Range and Pasture Handbook, 1997).

Regional Haze - Visibility impairment caused by the cumulative air pollutant emissions

from numerous sources ove r a wide geographic area.

Smoke Effects * - The effects on visibility (both plume blight and regional haze), public nuisance, and the health-based NAA QS due to emissions from fire.

Smoke Intrusion - Smoke from prescribed fire ente ring a designated area at unacceptable

levels.

Smoke Management Efforts - Programs, practices and te chniques to minimize and/or reduce smoke emissions or impacts from fire.

State Implementation Plan (SIP) # - See Implementation Plan.

Suppression
- A management action intended to prot ect identified values from a fire, extinguish a fire, or alter a fire’s direction of spread.

Transport Region State - One of nine states that ma ke up the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region: Arizona, California, Co lorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) # - See Implementation Plan.

Visibility Impairment - Any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, colo ration) from that which would have existed under natural

conditions.

Wildfire * - Any unwanted, non-structural fire.

Wildfire Managed for Resource Objectives # - The management of naturally ignited fires, regardless of land type or ownership, to accomplish specific, pre-stated resource management objectives in predefined geographi c areas with or without a plan in place. This term is considered to be analogous with the terms Wildland Fire Managed for

Resource Benefits and Prescribed Natural Fire that are used in regulations and policies regarding federal wildlands.

Wildland *- An area where development is generally limited to roads, railroads, power lines, and widely scattered struct ures. The land is not cultivated (i.e., the soil is disturbed less frequently than once in 10 years), is not fallow, and is not in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The land may be ne glected altogether or managed for such purposes as wood or forage production, wildli fe, recreation, wetlands, or protective plant cover (EPA Interim Air Quality Policy). The land is not “agricultural land” as24 operationally defined above. Silvicultural land and rangelands (per the FEJF charge), woodlots, and private timberlands will be includ ed with wildlands for the purposes of the

FEJF work.

Wildland Fire # - All types of fire (see definition of fire above), except fire on agricultural

land.

Wildland Fire Managed for Resource Benefits/Prescribed Natural Fire * - These terms both have current use in regul ations and policies. They ar e considered to be synonymous and are used interchangeably in this work pl an. These terms refer to the management of naturally ignited fires to accomplish specific, pre-stated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in the fire management plan. Also referred to as

Wildland Fire Use.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 25 

### Appendix B Related Documents Listing

Regional Haze Rule Published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999, 64 FR 35714. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report to the U.S. EPA, June 10, 1996. http://www.wrapair.org Go to the GCVTC link.

EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and St andards, Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, April 23, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf

AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Air Qu ality Policy on Agricultural Burning, Recommendation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 10, 1999. http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/faca/Arch ives/2000/Policy/Burning%20Policy.htm

Tribal Authority Rule Published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1998, 63 FR 7253. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR /1998/February/Day-12/a3451.htm

WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions Approved by the Western Regional Air Partnership, November 15, 2001. http://www.wrapair.org/commindex.htm Go to the FEJF Task Teams, then Natural Background.

Wildland Fire: Elements of a Basic Sm oke Management Program Draft Report Completed for the FEJF on July 10, 2001. http://www.wrapair.org/commindex.htm Go to the FEJF Task Teams, then Basic Smoke Management.

Smoke Management Program Surveys http://www.wrapair.org/commindex.htm Go to the FEJF, then Basic Smoke Management. 1) Wildland Smoke Management Pr ogram Survey, January 26, 2001 2) Boulder Wildland Smoke Management Program Survey, February 2, 2001 3) Agricultural Burning Smoke Management Program Survey, March 30, 2001 4) An Assessment of Tribal Air Quality Data and Programs in the Western United States, The

Institute for Tribal Environmenta l Professionals (ITEP), September 2001

Class I Area Map http://www.wrapair.org Go to About WRAP, then WRAP Boundaries and Regional Visibility Planning in the West.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 26 

### Appendix C Enhanced Smoke Management Program: Implementation Guidance

C. 1 Regional Haze Rule Im plementation Plan Process

The Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for addressing regional haze in the Nation’s
156 mandatory Class I areas. 49 Additionally, the Rule requires effective management of fire sources.

In general, the SIP/TIP process includes the fo llowing steps: state/tribal agency technical analyses; identification of necessary emission reductions; identification of control strategies to achieve emissi on reductions; demonstration of reasonable further progress; submittal of SIP/TIP to EPA for consideration/approval; public review/comment; EPA approval of SIP/TIP; five-year state/tribe review for reasonable progress and SIP/TIP resubmittal.

Under Section 309, states are required t o, and tribes may, have a regional haze implementation plan that addresses the Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau (the 16 Class I areas specified by the GCVTC) 50 submitted by December 31, 2003. The Rule stipulates that states must commit to impl ement all SIP measures from December 31, 2003 through December 31, 2018. 51 Further, all mandatory Class I areas in the GCVTC Transport Region, other than the Colorado Pl ateau 16, may be addressed in SIPs/TIPs by

the 2008 Section 309 deadline. 52

Under Section 308 states must, and tribes may, incorporate the requir ements of the Rule into their implementation plans with in 12 months of designation as PM 2.5 attainment, or within three years after designation as PM 2.5 non-attainment, but no later than December 31, 2008. Under Section 308, all mandatory Class I areas, except those addressed under Section 309, will be addressed in th e SIP/TIP submittal tied to the PM 2.5 designation. 53

49 The Rule is only applicable to mandatory Class I areas (see Appendix A & Appendix B for additional information on mandatory Class I areas). States/trib es in the WRAP region may utilize the WRAP ESMP Policy to protect visibility in non-mandatory Class I areas.

50 The GCVTC Report specified 16 mandatory federal Class I areas on the Colora do Plateau that were adopted into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. These 16 Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuc he Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Pa rk, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park. 64 FR 35770, §51.309 (b) (1).

51 64 FR 35770, §51.309. EPA Region 9 has determined that implementation schedules may be negotiated as part of the SIP/TIP process an d has previously accepted up to one year for implementation of SIP/TIP

programs.

52 64 FR 35773, §51.309.

53 64 FR 35765, §51.308 (b) (1), (2).WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 27 It is anticipated that the establishment of enhanced smoke management programs will be incorporated into the SIPs/TIPs submitted to EPA in order to meet the requirements of the Rule. Within the context of smoke manage ment, it is recommended that states/tribes integrate their NAAQS and visibi lity SIP/TIP requirements.

Under the WRAP ESMP Policy there are ni ne elements of an enhanced smoke management program that meet the requirements of the Rule. For each of the enhanced smoke management program elements, there ar e implementation examples listed to assist states/tribes in developing their enhanced smoke management programs. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, and states/t ribes may also want to review the Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) draft repor t on Wildland Basic Smoke Management Program Elements as well as the EPA In terim Policy and the AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy for additional suggestions. 54 The level of effort each state/tribe would apply to the nine elements of the e nhanced smoke management program needs to be based on a pre-determined process or metric developed collaboratively.

C. 2 Elements of an Enhanced Smoke Management Program

C.2.1. Element 1. Actions to Minimize Emissions from Fire

A wide range of opportunities to minimi ze emissions exists depending upon the fire source. Emission reduction techniques may be as simple as changing ignition timing to

allow for more efficient combustion. Other te chniques may include th e use of mechanical means. Options to provide incentives and emi ssion goals may also serve this purpose.

C.2.1.1 Emission Reductions Techniques

Under an enhanced smoke management pr ogram, provisions are made to account for emission reduction techniques that are utilized when burning. Documentation of emission reduction practices that were considered in the planning or implementation of burns also support annual emission goals and associated emissions tracking requirements. This documentation may be part of a burn plan or other data collecti on or reporting system that is used to meet annual emission goa ls and associated emissions tracking requirements as developed by the FEJF.

• Reducing the fuel load to be burned can reduce emissions. This can be accomplished on forestland by not treating (no burning) portions of the unit, yarding, consolidating, or isolating non-me rchantable material ; providing public firewood access before the burn; finding off-s ite use for more of the wood before the burn; using chemicals; burning when non-target fuels have a high fuel moisture; using alternative mechan ical treatments, and rapid mop-up.

• In agriculture, emissions can be redu ced by baling and removing some of the residue, spot burning only needed areas of the field, strip burning and backing fires. Emissions can also be reduced by moving the burning season into a different

54 See Appendix B, Related Documents Listing.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 28 time of the year if changes in fuel c onsumption or emissions factors can be

achieved.

• Land managers/owners should strive for th e most efficient combustion possible. Vegetation should be dry and in a cond ition that will minimize the smoke emitted during combustion. When pile burning, mate rial should be burned in dirt-free, not overly compressed, cured, and dry piles. Piled material should be covered if possible. Fires should be i gnited so as to burn as rapidl y as possible, in ways that shift the proportion of the burn from th e smoldering phase to the flaming phase. Minimizing duff consumption and smoldering through fuel moisture considerations will reduce emissions as well. Land managers/owners should only

burn those fuels essential to meet resour ce management objectives and burn piles

when other burns are not feasible , such as in snow or rain.

Regulatory authorities and other interest groups may also use WRAP guidance information, such as its Alternatives to Burning document that is currently under development by the FEJF, as a reference for sp ecific alternatives. Another resource is the Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 Edition (in press). 55

C.2.1.2 Burn Manager Qualification

Another manner in which to reduce emissions is a burn manager qualification program that certifies the land manage r/owner is knowledgeable of a lternative burning practices and emission reduction techniqu es, and is capable of implementing them. Burn manager qualification programs already exist in most federal, state and tr ibal land management agencies.

A certification and qualification process could be established by prescribing what training meets requirements, such as training provi ded by the National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG), and by implementing traini ng seminars and other institutional opportunities for land managers/owners to gain the necessary ski lls and knowledge to implement proper smoke management techniques. Land manager/owner certification/qualification programs may be similar to those required by federal land management agencies like those offere d by the NWCG. For non-federal land managers/owners that cannot participate in fe deral sponsored traini ng, states/tribes could develop their own certification processes and host training course s such as a “State Forestry Prescribed Fire Co rrespondence Course” or an “Int eragency Basic Prescribed

Fire Course”.

In an enhanced smoke management program, burner qualifications might be required on permit applications and tracked by the regulato ry agency. Burn size or emission output might be limited depending on the level of bur ner qualification. For example, a Level I qualified burner can burn up to abc acres/tons while a Level II qualified burner can burn

up to cde acres/tons, and so on.

55 Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 Edition (in press), produced by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Fire Use Working Team.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 29 As examples, a few types of burner qualifications are listed below:

• Satisfactory completion of the “State Fo restry Prescribed Fire Correspondence Course” and direct experience in three prescribed burns pr ior to taking the course, or satisfactory completion of th e “Interagency Basic Prescribed Fire Course” and direct experience in three prescribed burns be fore or after the

course.

• Completion of a NWCG or federal/state/t ribe land manager equivalent course dedicated to smoke management or attendance at a state approved smoke management workshop.

• Successful completion of a training pr ogram (which includes home study, 8-hour classroom session, and a written exam), documented practical experience in prescribed burning, and a signed agreem ent to conduct all burns in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances,

• Land management agencies and the state/ tribe develop and pr esent interagency training to promote understanding of the regulatory context an d affects of air pollution, fire ecology, and smoke management.

C.2.1.3 Incentives

Providing incentives to landowners and land managers for practicing emission reduction techniques and utilizing alternatives to burni ng is yet another option for states/tribes to include in enhanced smoke management progr ams. This approach could be seen as addressing equity issues in th at those who make efforts to reduce emissions are rewarded

for their efforts. The reward to the landowner/land manager could be seen in terms of environmental gains as well as financial gai n. The reward to communities could be seen in retaining property values, and maintaini ng economic development and tourist-related

industries.

Environmental win-win options may be that by decreasing em issions, a burner is given a higher priority when allocating burn days. Or , by utilizing alternatives, a higher priority is given to a burner when attempting to burn. Similarly, financial win-win options may be to decrease any assessed fees or burn costs when alternatives are used before burning. The system rewards those that take the extra time, effort and money to utilize emission

reductions and alternatives. Those who eith er choose not to, or for land management constraints, cannot utilize emission reduc tions/alternatives, would pay more.

Landowners/land managers could be afforded th e opportunity to deal with other sources to negotiate emissions management strategies fo r financial gain that would result in a net emissions decrease. In January 2001, the EP A issued a policy document that provides information on discretionary economic incentive programs. 56 In May 2002, the EPA provided additional guidance on voluntary and backstop approaches to emissions reduction in its Section 309 Annex to the Regi onal Haze Rule for stationary sources of

sulfur dioxide. 57 In an enhanced smoke manageme nt program, an incentive may be

56 EPA Improving Air Quality with Economic In centive Programs (EIP Guidance), January 2001.

57 67 FR 30418.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 30 available if a landowner/land manager can reduc e his/her emissions and gain financially from not only supplying a marketplace with raw materials, but also receiving payment for emissions not generated.

C.2.1.4 Emissions Goal/Limit

Another action that could be taken by regulator y authorities to minimize emissions is to establish an emissions goal or limit within portions of a state/tribe, th e entire state/tribe or over a multi-state/tribe region. How to meet the goal or limit woul d be left to the discretion of the land managers/owners. Establishing such a goal or limit would encourage land managers/owners to seek alte rnative methods of burning and alternatives to burning so as to retain the ability to burn where no alternatives are available.

C. 2.2 Element 2. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

A variety of tools and met hods exist by which a land mana ger/owner could reduce smoke impacts over periods ranging from several hours to several days. Enhanced smoke management programs could contain the foll owing criteria to support the dispersion estimation process.

• States/tribes may provide or find ways to provide webs ites of current weather and fuels information (i.e., fuel moisture) specific to meet the needs of land managers/owners. Land managers/owners w ould utilize this information to time ignitions during periods of e xpected good smoke dispersion.

• Acceptable weather and climatic conditions can be prescribed for burning in specific areas so as to avoid impacting Class I area s. A predefined set of weather elements would provide a degree of cer tainty as to when burning opportunities would be most likely to occur. Burning should be banne d during periods when air stagnation advisories or air pollution alerts are in effect.

• As described previously, a burner qualific ation and certification program could be

established that includes a dvanced training on unders tanding the relationships between weather and smoke dispersion. I ndividuals who have greater knowledge and understanding of the factors affecting smoke behavior may make better decisions on

when and when not to burn.

• A more sophisticated and more comprehens ive effort to evaluate smoke behavior would be to conduct smoke dispersion mode ling in the planning and implementation process for burning. Dispersion modeling ma y be conducted by a state/tribal agency or other delegated regulator y authority. Such modeling re sults could be used as a screening approach to determine if there should be ex tra reason for concern about the proposed burn(s). This appr oach may assist in determin ing cumulative effects of multiple burns.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 31 • Centralized decision-making of burn d ecisions with coor dination among land managers/owners (either by source type or between sources) would require a more

intensive effort of involvement by groups involved in burning. Land managers/owners would check-in with a ce ntralized burn authority to receive

information about other source ac tivity prior to conducting a burn.

• A rigorous, timely, centralized decision-making system established with the intent of providing "go/no-go" decisions a ffords a greater level of c oordination that would rely on greater infrastructure and resources for support. Meteor ologists and other specialists with knowle dge of air quality, fire, weathe r and fuels interaction would provide services that direct wh ere and when burning could occur.

C. 2. 3 Element 3. Alternatives to Fire

The WRAP through its FEJF ha s commissioned two reports on alternatives to burning

that will aid states and tribes in addres sing this element of the enhanced smoke management program. These reports show poten tial methodologies for regulatory entities

and their affected stakeholders to assess the potential for alternative use on both wildlands and agricultural lands in their respective jurisdiction. These reports also provide information on barriers to the use of alternatives, which is a requirement of

section 309 of the Rule. States/tribes could esta blish websites with in formation describing

the alternatives.

Land managers/owners may be required to assess the feasibility of using alternatives to fire where there are many competing source s or large amounts of burning occurring.

This assessment could be based on established cr iteria, such as sustainability or potential fuel reduction. Burn plans and data systems c ould contain information that helps track the practice of using alternatives to fire. Emissions tracking systems 58 and reasonable further progress assessments could use this inform ation to validate landowner/land manager's implementation of alternative practices as an emissions reduction technique.

Sources of smoke from geographic areas that continue to adversely affect a mandatory Class I area's 20 percent “worst” and “best” days, according to the Rule, may be required to implement measures that utilize alternatives to burning to the maximum extent feasible

as a condition of further burni ng. Incentives could be identi fied wherein land owners/land managers have the opportunity to substitute emissions not produced in one area for emissions produced in another geographic area not affecting a Class I area's visibility as long as there is a net emissions decrease as a result of using the alternatives.

Geographic areas with sustained sources of adverse smoke impacts in mandatory Class I areas may consider burn curtailments if programs to minimize emissions, impacts and

alternatives to fire use do not provide the necessary tools to meet reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal. Such actions could be considered on a fire source basis so as to not impair one source's ability to use fire because of the failure of another source type to take needed actions to meet the natural visibility goal.

58 The WRAP’s FEJF is currently preparing a policy on emissions tracking systems to assist states/tribes.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 32 C. 2. 4 Element 4. Public Notification of Burning

Public notification is a significant part of th e CAA, and is inherent in the Rule. Public

notification under an enhanced smoke management program should be at least what is required by EPA for a certifiabl e smoke management program, 59 and may include extra activities, depending on location. Genera lly, regardless of what kind of smoke management program is in place, significant effort should be made to educate and notify the public about burning, its impacts on visibility as well as its benefits.

Public notification in cludes public education and medi a relations, and consists of

activities such as i ssuing notices through the local news media including name and phone number of person/agency, fuel type, expected time and date of burn, location of burn, and the expected plume direction, extent, and duration. Public notification of non-burning

alternatives that have been considered for a project could al so be included.

Other means of notification may include th e use of a website, public open houses or meetings, signs at burn sites, distribution of fact sheets that include information on smoke impacts, brochures, posters, notices, person al contact by phone or visit, or legal advertisements. It is a good pract ice to maintain a contact list of interested and affected publics, and make sure that notification of pl anned burns gets to everyone on that list. A plan for notifying the public coul d be part of the burn plan.

Effective public involvement, notification, a nd education can decrease complaints and resistance to burning projects, as well as prepare the public to manage their activities

around scheduled burns. Public notification and education activities can also increase the public’s faith in the different agencies a nd landowners, knowing th at their health and welfare is being carefully considered inboth planning and implementation. A welldeveloped public education and awareness program would not only serve the public but

also fulfills a recommen dation from the GCVTC.

Public awareness and educat ion activities may be conduct ed by states/tribes, land managers/owners, or in cooperation by all. Training and guidance in public notification techniques could be provided to land managers/owners not accustomed to conducting such work, i.e., non-federal land managers /owners. Program administrators might consider developing an in-state /tribe public notification proce ss to assist the non-federal land managers/owners. Programs could strive to enhance non-federal land managers’/owners’ ability to involve public in planning by providing training and guidance, or open forums for disseminating information on planned burning activities that may affect visibility. If the public is involved in the planning of such activities regarding potential affects to them, there is less chance of resistance to the burn while it is in progress.

59 See Appendix B Related Documents Listing, EPA Interim Policy.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 33 Finally, developing involvement by the community and participation by land managers/owners in the SIP/TIP and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning processes may be beneficial in developing co mmon expectations.

C. 2. 5 Element 5. Air Quality Monitoring

Monitoring of smoke impacts may be a ve ry sophisticated effort using sampling equipment and extensive modeling or it may be as simple as creating a log of smoke

behavior.

Minimal procedures would be most likely in areas of little burn activity or when farther away from Class I areas. On-site record keeping with subsequent submittal to the state/tribe regulatory authorit y should be substantive eno ugh for use in analysis of reasonable further progress tracki ng or emission reduction programs.

As burning activity increases, states/tribes and land owners /managers could consider conducting a more widespread and comprehe nsive monitoring program. The use of cameras, satellite imagery and aerial monito ring to track and document smoke movement

could be considered. The use of IMPROVE mo nitored data may have to be supplemented by air quality monitoring outside of Cla ss I areas to track smoke movement.

Also, using visitor surveys in Class I areas regarding visibility impairment perceived during their stay may be a way of generating subjective assessments of smoke impacts. Such information would only be used to provide further valida tion of impacts, as relying on surveys alone would be too subjective for st ates/tribes to admini ster reasonable smoke

management programs.

C. 2. 6 Element 6. Surveillance and Enforcement

Good communication between regulators, la nd managers/owners and the public can significantly reduce the need for surveillance and enforcement. An atmosphere of trust and cooperation between regulat ors and land managers/owners can go a long way toward facilitating emissions reductions and comp liance with air quality regulations.

Four primary methods under which surveill ance and enforcement activities may occur

are:

• Voluntary (Land manager/owner self-enforcement)

• Source sector regulator (e .g., Agricultural Burn Manager, Smoke Management Meteorologist)

• State/tribe oversight

• Centralized regulatory aut hority (state or tribe)

Criteria and activities described below may be applicable for use in any of the four

methods. Some of the criter ia can, obviously, only be enfo rced by a body that has legal standing to do so. Whichever of the four meth ods a state/tribe may choose to implement would be dependent upon the severity of the visibility impacts that are being addressed.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 34 If states/tribes have regulations in place th at govern smoke impacts, public complaints can serve to monitor compliance. Such regulat ions should define criteria for establishing these smoke impacts. The number and locatio n of public complaints may be used to monitor air quality impacts of fires. The numb er of complaints may not necessarily be a trigger, rather the nature of the complaints and external verification of circumstances leading to the complaints. In some cases , smoke regulations ma y apply only to noncertified burning. In such cases certified bur ners cannot be shut down for complaints related to visibility, but can be shut down for a threat to health or safety.

Some criteria for taking action on sm oke impacting visibility include:

• Is the visibility impact occasional or constant?

• Is the use of pr operty affected?

• What are the economic impacts of both burning and not burning?

• Is the location of the impact with in or outside of a Class I area?

• What is the duration of the impairment?

• What is the number of people affected?

• How many complaints have been received?

• Was the burn conducted in complian ce with applicable regulations?

• Has the visibility impact been m itigated to the extent practicable?

• Is the public health threatened?

• Is the impact a result of poor planni ng or of something that could not be anticipated?

Criteria of performance standards in an e nhanced smoke management program must be stated clearly. Methods for detecting non-co mpliance could also be defined. Some criteria or standards might include:

• Numerical standards for optic al data at specific Cla ss I areas (e.g., deciviews)

• NAAQS

• Comparison with photos taken of certain pre-determined visibility conditions (most impaired, least impaired days)

Accordingly, some methods for de tecting compliance might include:

• IMPROVE sites

• Photo points

• NAAQS ambient air monitors

If performance standards are established in code, random audits and inspections can provide assistance with compliance. Un announced burn inspections and burn report audits, including smoke dispersion informa tion, are means of ensuring compliance with air quality regulations. Aerial observations are a nother surveillance method.

If no visibility impact-related regulations ar e in place, violation of NAAQS or violation of other codified permit conditions or author izations might trigger enforcement actions.

Enforcement actions must be based on establ ished statute and regul ation, and must be applied equitably to all land managers/o wners. Depending on state/tribe needs andWRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 35 compliance history, a written report or warni ng may be issued on the first instance of violation, while subsequent observed violations result in appropriate legal action.

Example enforcement actions may include:

• 5-day moratorium on ignitions

• Civil/criminal penalties, depending on how regulations are written

• Burn shutdown/mop-up

• Notice of violation/compliance order

• Liability for cost of suppression or damages

• Revocation of permit

• Felony punishment for willful or intentional violation

• Misdemeanor for careless violation

C. 2. 7 Element 7. Program Evaluation

Enhanced smoke management programs need to be reviewed on a periodic basis for their effectiveness by the regulatory authority and a ffected stakeholders. It is incumbent upon the state/tribe to submit progress reports to EPA describing how we ll the enhanced smoke management program is being implemented as part of meeting reasonable further progress requirements. Formal periodic progre ss report intervals could coincide with time intervals used to evaluate reasonable progre ss. The Rule requires progress reports every five years. 60 However, shorter review and evaluati on time periods would better determine if enhanced smoke management programs are effective.

Generally, daily interaction between land ma nagers/owners and program administrators can provide a continuous means of program ev aluation, but a formal method could be in place to document periodic evaluations. A nnual evaluations of the overall smoke management program will provide the inform ation needed for periodic reports. Each element of the enhanced smoke manageme nt program should consider evaluating:

• Implementation

• Compliance and enforcement

• Sections needing clarification or improvement

• Progress towards goals

• Recommendation for revisions

• Scientific advancements (modeling or other technological needs)

These annual evaluations could include, but not be limited to:

• An accounting of progress toward defined visibility improvement/impact reduction goals

• An accounting of progress toward emission reduction goals

• Review of project burning for the next year, as well as additional out-year planning

• Regional information, considering visibi lity impacts to a nd from adjoining

states/tribes

60 64 FR 35768, §51.308 (g) and 35772, §51.309 (d) (10).WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 36 • Burn activity summaries

• Burning restrictions or air quality alerts

• Significant smoke intrusions or visibility impacts

• Summaries of IMPROVE and othe r monitored air quality data

• Emission inventory summaries

• Information tracking summaries

• Smoke complaint summaries

• Discussion of alternatives to burning

In an enhanced smoke management program , federal land managers responsible for protecting air quality related values in Class I areas should be give n the opportunity to provide input to annual program evaluations.

Where MOUs or other agreements govern smoke management programs, an annual meeting should be held where members share successes and failures, data is summarized and the program is evaluated. In cases where review criteria are established in state code, performance can be compared against standards. Permit files may be kept for a period of time, including complaint files, and statistics ge nerated to evaluate trends in the program.

C. 2. 8 Element 8. Burn Authorization

Burn authorization requirements are exp ected to vary depending upon the amount of burning that is occurring, the fire source types that are conducting the burning, and the degree of impairment that exists or may be expected to occur as a result of the burning. The proximity of non-attainment areas may also have a bearing on the complexity of the burn authorization procedure that should be im plemented. Four broad levels of stringency may be considered in the development and adoption of an enhanced smoke management

program.

• Establish a permit-by-rule system

• Establish a burn permitting system by sour ce sector or a coalition of source

sectors

• Establish a centralized burn authority

• Establish a regional burn authority

Establishment of any of these authorization situations would also entail the development of coordination procedures described in (9) below.

C.2.8.1 Permit by Rule

The AAQTF Recommendation on Ai r Quality Policy describes a process in which a set of requirements are established under which burning may take place. These requirements may include acreage, time of year, tim e of day and meteorological factors. 61 A written permit may or may not be required. As long as the conditions are met, then burning may occur. There is no daily decision-making by a coordinating authority in this scenario.

61 AAQTF Recommendation on Air Quality Policy, p.9.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 37 Such a system may be applicable for any fire source type in geographic areas of low fire use. This system should, however, still allo w for the collection of enough information by an appropriate regulato ry authority so that source activ ity and emissions may be tracked.

C.2.8.2 Burn Permitting System

A burn permitting system that is established by fire source type would include a local burn manager and/or state, tribe, local agen cy, whose responsibility is to develop the conditions under which burning ma y occur and then ensure that burning occurs within the requirements that are established. The elemen ts described in this WRAP ESMP Policy would be implemented by the burn manager to en sure that visibility in Class I areas is protected.

C.2.8.3 Centralized Burn Authority

A more intensive level of smoke management would involve the creati on of a centralized authority at the state, tribal or local level that provides daily coor dination and approval of burns if significant state/tr ibe-wide burning is occurring. The centralized authority may be responsible for activities of one particular source type or a combination of sources. This type of program could include the deta iled use of meteorol ogical information, burn information and a permitting system to avoid cumulative impacts of smoke from a variety

of burns.

C.2.8.4 Regional Burn Authority

Establishment of a regional burn authority ma y be required if there are continued and extensive inter-state impacts from burning. Stat es/tribes would agree to have oversight of burning by an authority that equitably consid ers burning opportunities for all source types while addressing the Class I area impacts ove r broad areas. A regional burn authority would likely, in most cases, be working with the most severe and pe rsistent problems.

C. 2. 9 Element 9. Regional Coordination

Coordination of burning activity is critical to avoiding cumulative visibility impacts within and across source types. Coordinati on may range from a passive mode of information sharing between land managers/own ers and/or the public to a more complex,

active coordination in which burn decisions ar e altered based on othe r activities that are occurring or have recently occurred.

Coordination can occur at locat ions that reflect the affected level of concern. When burns

are located near Class I areas or non-attainment areas, coordina tion will be carried out at a level that is appropriate. If burns are located adj acent to state/tribe boundaries, coordination will occur appropriate to the sm oke transport/emission path and quantity.WRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 38 A common mode of coordination regardless of the complexity and magnitude of burning would be information sharing via use of the web. Operationally, certain information needs to be established and update d as needed. This would include:

• Burn information (size, lo cation, ignition date, etc.)

• Names and locations of sensitive recepto rs and/or special protection zones; sensitive receptors should include sensitive populations

• Locations of monitors (state, tribe, EPA or local)

• Database of known significant user s of fire (name, phone number)

• Identification of airsheds or air administered units

• Possible identification of Clean Air Corridors

• Updateable database of non-attainment and maintenance areas for criteria pollutants of concern

• Identification of the centralized burn authority that maintains oversight

A minimal level of coordination would include the use of websit es to post burn activity. This passive mode of coordination would be used regardless of the burn authorization method that is in place in a particular geographic area. Land managers/owners and regulators could use this information to encourage and promote voluntary coordination among land managers/owners. Burn locations and weather conditions may be posted or linked at a common webpage or seri es of webpages.

C.2.9.1 Source Sector Authority Coordination

A more advanced coordination concept is that of using burn managers or smoke

coordination centers to activ ely time burning to avoid cumulative smoke impacts from

burns within a source sector. In addition to creating awareness of ot her sectors' burning via tracking information on the web, radio or phone communications would be used to distribute that burning information to land managers/owners.

A step further in this process is activ e management of burning with coordination occurring between burn managers of different source types. Considerations that would be taken into account by the burn managers are parameters such as special weather conditions needed for a particular burn, fi re safety considerations, etc. These

considerations can be identifie d in the early periods of burn planning so that all parties

are aware of the rationale behind burn decisions.

C.2.9.2 Centralized Authority Coordination

A centralized coordination authority within a state/tribe provides for a greater level of control of smoke production and reduction of impacts. In this scenario, potential state/tribe-wide impacts may be better mana ged and problems avoided than is the case with more fragmented coordi nation points. Central author ities for each source type

would coordinate activities or one central authority would coor dinate activities across all source types. In most cases this coordination woul d occur through a statewide coordination center that has access to information from all burning sources. Such a

coordination center would also be more likel y to have sophisticat ed meteorological, airWRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 39 quality, modeling and fire behavior and eff ects expertise upon which decisions would be

made.

C.2.9.3 Regional (Multi-State /Tribe) Coordination

Burning that creates inter-jurisdictional imp acts may require the establishment and use of multi-state/tribal coordination information pro cedures. If states’/tribes’ Class I areas are consistently and measurably being impact ed by smoke from outside of their own boundaries, then more information sharing may be needed on day-to-day burning

activities. State/tribe centralized coordi nation centers would share information and resources to limit cumulative impacts from exte rnal sources as well as from those within

its own boundaries.

Each state’s/tribe’s central c oordination center would prioritiz e burns in areas that would be most likely to create cross-jurisdicti onal impacts. On a regional basis, acres or emissions may be limited by each state’s/trib e’s burn authority to minimize air quality impacts in neighboring areas. Regional mete orological and air quality information would be shared by coordination centers, with the result being regional approval and real-time tracking of burns and their smoke impacts.

A segment of fires that are considered to be natural under the WRAP Fire Categorization Policy may best be suited for regional coor dination opportunities. Such fires are more likely to be of longer duration and have the gr eater potential for gene rating regional haze. Coordination in this case may range fr om monitoring smoke from such fires and reporting impacts to nearby states/tribes, to limiting other burning until the smoke from

the natural fires has abated.

Methods for this inter-jurisdiction and regiona l coordination will need to be developed. The development process should be a collaborat ive one, involving state, tribal, local and federal agencies, and private parties. Entities to be involved in this process could include WRAP, the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR), the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), the Wildfire Leadership C ouncil, the Western States Fire Managers, and national/reg ional agricultural organizations.

C. 3 Responsibilities Under an En hanced Smoke Management Program

Throughout all the enhanced smoke manageme nt program elements outlined in this Policy, it is assumed that the regulatory authority (i.e., state, tribe, or EPA on behalf of the tribe) has the ove rsight for the enhanced smoke management program through its implementation plan, although it may choose to delegate implem entation to another entity, e.g., county, municipality, fire so urce sector represen tative or other nongovernmental organization.

It is the regulatory authority’s responsibil ity to ensure that the mechanisms and infrastructure are in place to implement the enhanced smoke management program. The state/tribe is responsible to track emissions and determine the amount of the contributionWRAP ESMP Policy 10/15/02 40 to visibility impairment in Class I areas . It is also incumb ent upon the regulatory authority to develop a SIP/TIP that is consistent with Sect ion 118 of the CAA pertaining to equitable treatment of federal activities. 62 Finally, failure of the regulatory authority to develop appropriate and necessary oversight and responsibilities may result in EPA's disapproval of the regional haze SIP/TIP.

It is the land manager’s/owner’s responsibil ity to meet the enhanced smoke management program requirements. The land manager/ow ner needs to ensure that data and information submitted to the regulatory authority are accurate, timely, and complete. In some instances this may be no more onerous than a form faxed by the land manager/owner to the regulator y authority at the end of th e year; in others, extensive information on a daily basis regarding planned and accomplished burning will be required.

C.4 Funding Mechanisms for Enhan ced Smoke Management Programs

Funding for enhanced smoke management programs can come from many possible sources. Further, funding mechanisms will depend on the magnitude or complexity of the enhanced smoke management program need ed. The following is a list of possible methods for funding enhanced smoke management programs:

A. Funds obtained from users of prescribed fire.

a. Memorandum of Understanding (M OU)/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Consortium Funds

• Each member/signatory pays an annua l membership fee and there is an additional per acre fee for accomplished burns.

b. Fees

• Permit Fees

• Emissions-based Fees

• Acreage-based Fees

B. Funds Obtained from Users of Class I Areas C. Grants and/or Appropriated Funding

• A combination of many sources including EPA grants, state/tribe, city and county governments, fire protecti on assessments, property taxes.

• General revenue program/appropriated funds received from a legislative body.

D. Provision of Resources

• Fire source sector provides personnel or other resources to aid or manage the enhanced smoke management program in lieu of direct permit payments to defray overall costs of the enhanced smoke management

program.

62 Clean Air Act §118 (a).