MANE-VU Approach to the Development of “Consulting Groups”

On November 1, representatives from each RPO and th e FLMs began a dialogue aimed at identifying groups of Class I areas that might serv e to focus consultations for purposes of the regional haze rule. While it appears that cons ultations will be conducted state-tostate, the RPO representatives agreed that there ma y be a role for the RPO staff in identifying Class I areas with common visibility is sues where a joint consultation process might be more efficient. At this point, the focus of the RPO efforts is to help identify common Class I “consulting groups” and leave it to the states involved in any future joint consultation process to discuss details regarding t he nature and extent of state contributions to a common Class I group. Another role that the RPOs may play in the process is to assist with the scheduling of consult ations so as to ensure that RPOdeveloped technical products would be ready and ava ilable to facilitate state discussions.

The Class I states within the MANE-VU RPO have cons idered the question of how best to group common Class I areas from the perspective of forming consulting groups. After reviewing monitoring and modeling data related to t he sources of visibility impairment for each Class I site, they have proposed an approa ch that would create a single consulting group that encompasses all MANE-VU Class I sites. The “MANE-VU consulting group” would consist of the Acadia Natio nal Park, Maine; Brigantine Wilderness (within the Edwin B. Forsythe National W ildlife Refuge), New Jersey; Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire; Lye Brook Wildernes s, Vermont; Moosehorn Wilderness (within the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge), Maine; Presidential Range – Dry River Wilderness, New Hampshire; and Roosevel t Campobello International Park, New Brunswick.

The Class I states of MANE-VU recognize some differ ences between the Brigantine Wilderness and the northern tier of Class I sites i n Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. However, when viewed from the perspective of contri butions to sulfate pollution – which is still the dominant form of visibility impairment experienced on the twenty percent worst visibility days at all MANE-VU sites – the gr oup found more similarities than differences and felt that a single consulting group representing all MANE-VU sites offered the best opportunity to engage contributing states in a meaningful consultation

process.

MANE-VU, therefore, proposes the addition of the MA NE-VU consulting group to those already suggested by the Mid-West RPO in their Octo ber 19 memorandum. The revised “Table 1” on the next page reflects the proposed co mposition of the MANE-VU consulting group in a manner similar to that of the October 19 memo for three other proposed consulting groups. The MANE-VU Class I st ates are planning to contact those states listed in the proposed consulting group shor tly to initiate the consultation process.RPO State MI/MN AR/MO/KY VA/WV MANE-VU (BOWA, VOYA, ISRO, SEN) (UPBU, MINGO,

HG, MACA) (DOSO, SHEN, JRIV) (ACAD, MOOS,

GRGU, LYBR, BRIG) MANE-VU Connecticut x Delaware x Maine x Maryland x x Massachusetts x New Hampshire x New Jersey x New York x Pennsylvania x x Rhode Island x Vermont x

VISTAS Alabama Florida Georgia x Kentucky x x Mississippi North Carolina x South Carolina x Tennessee x x Virginia x x West Virginia x x

MRPO Illinois x x x Indiana ? x x Michigan x x Ohio x x Wisconsin x

CENRAP Arkansas x Iowa x Kansas Louisiana Minnesota x Missouri ? x Nebraska Oklahoma Texas

WRAP N. Dakota x S. Dakota Other Western

States

Canada Manitoba New Brunswick x Ontario x x Quebec x Other Provinces