## State Implementation Plan Revision

Adoption of Regional Haze Strategies in Oregon



# Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40CFR 51.308) of the Regional Haze Rule

Proposed Rulemaking For Adoption by the Environmental Quality Comm ission

April 200 9



## State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204

- 1390Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan 

### Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ........... i

Acknowledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... i Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... i

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ............................... 7

1.1 Overview of Visibility and Regional Haze

................................ ................................ ........ 7 1.2 Oregon Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

1.3 Back ground on the Regional Haze Rule

................................ ................................ ............ 8 1.4 Summary of the Regional Haze Rule

................................ ................................ ................. 9 1.5 Other Programs to Address Visibility Impairment

................................ ........................... 10 1.5.1 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for New Sources

................................ ....... 10 1.5.2 Phase I Visibility Rules

– the Oregon Visibility Pr otection Plan

............................ 10 1.5.3 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

................................ .......................... 10 1.5.4 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

................................ ............. 11 1.5.5 The Western Regional Air Partnership

................................ ................................ .... 12 1.6 Purpose of this Document

................................ ................................ ................................ 13 1.6.1 Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in this SIP

................................ ......... 13 1.6.2 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

................................ ......................... 13

CHAPTER 2: OREGON REGIONAL HAZE SIP DEVELOPMENT AND

CONSULTATION PROCESS

................................ ................................ ....................... 15

2.1 Federal Land Manager Consultation

................................ ................................ ................ 15

2.2 State Consultation

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15

2.3 Tribal Consultation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15

CHAPTER 3: INTRODUCTION TO OREGON CLASS I AREAS

................................ ..... 16

3.1 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ............................... 17

3.2 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ......................... 18 3.3 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .................... 19

3.4 Three Sisters Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ......................... 20

3.5 Diamond Peak Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ....................... 21

3.6 Crater Lake National Park

................................ ................................ ................................ 22

3.7 Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .................... 23

3.8 Gearhart Mountain W ilderness Area

................................ ................................ ................ 24 3.9 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ............................ 25 3.10 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .......... 26 3.11 Eagle Cap Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ............................ 27 3.12 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ...................... 28

CHAPTER 4: TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND DATA RELIED UPON IN THIS

PLAN

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 29

4.1 The WRAP and Technical Support

................................ ................................ .................. 29Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

4.1.2 WRAP Committee’s and Workgroups

................................ ................................ ..... 29

4.1.2 WRAP TSS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32 4.2 IMPROVE Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 32 4.1.1 Background on IMPROVE Monitoring

................................ ................................ .. 32 4.1.2 Formula for Reconstructed Light Extinction

................................ ........................... 34 4.2 Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Network

................................ ................................ ......... 35

4.2.1 MOHO1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 36

4.2.2 THSI1

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 36

4.2.3 CRLA1

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36

4.2.4 KALM1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37

4.2.5 STAR1

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 37

4.2.6 HECA1

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 37 4.3 Oregon Regional Haze Monitoring Commitments

................................ ........................... 37

CHAPTER 5: BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS

................................ ................................ .............. 40

5.1 Natural Sou rces of Visibility Impairment

................................ ................................ ........ 40

5.2 Human

- Caused Sources of Visibility Impairment

................................ ........................... 40

5.3 Deciview Measurement

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40

5.4 Baseline and Current Conditions

................................ ................................ ...................... 41

5.5 Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 41

5.6 Reas onable Progress Goals

................................ ................................ ............................... 41 5.7 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ................................ . 42 5.8 Long

- Term Strategy

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43

5.9 BART

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 43

CHAPTER 6: BASELINE AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS, AND

UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS

................................ ................................ .............. 45

6.1 N orthern Cascades

- Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ............................. 46

6.2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48

6.3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, and Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

................................ ............................. 52 6.4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .... 56 6.5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

............ 58 6.6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon W ilderness Area

................................ .... 61

CHAPTER 7: POLLUTANTS CAUSING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN OREGON

CLASS I AREAS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 64

7.1 Northern Cascades

- Mt. H ood Wilderness Area

................................ ............................. 67

7.2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three

Sisters Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 69

7.3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, and

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ............... 71 7.4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .... 73 7.5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

............ 75 7.6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

................................ .... 77Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

CHAPTER 8: EMISSION SOURCE INVENTORY

................................ ............................... 80

8.1 Oregon Statewide Emissions

................................ ................................ ............................ 80

8.1.1 SO 2 Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 81

8.1.2 NO

x Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 82

8.1.3 VOC Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 83 8.1.4 Organic Carbon Emissions

................................ ................................ ...................... 84

8.1.5 Elemental Carbon Emissions

................................ ................................ ................... 84

8.1.6 PM Fine Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 85

8.1.7 Ammonia Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ 86 8.2 Regional Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 87 8.2.1 Reg ional Emissions Comparison to Neighboring States.

................................ ........ 87 8.2.2 Regional Off

- Shore Marine Emissions

................................ ................................ ... 92

8.2.3 Role of Ammonia Emissi ons in Visibility Impairment

................................ ........... 95

CHAPTER 9: SOURCE APPORTIONMENT AND REGIONAL HAZE MODELING

... 97

9.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 97 9.1.1 Source Apportionment Analysis

– PSAT and WEP

................................ ................ 97 9.1.2 Regional Haze Modeling

– CMAQ

................................ ................................ ......... 98 9.2 Major Source Categories Contributing to Haze in Oregon

................................ ............ 100 9.2.1 PSAT Regional Contribution to Sulfate on 20% Worst Days.

.............................. 101 9.2.2 PSAT Regional Contribution to Nitrate on 20% Worst Days.

.............................. 107 9.2.3 WEP Potential Contribution to OC on 20% Worst Days.

................................ ..... 113 9.2.4 WEP Potential Contribution to PM Fine on 20% Worst Days.

............................. 117 9.2.5 WEP Potential Contribution to PM Coarse on 20% Worst Days.

......................... 121 9.3 CAMQ 2018 Projected Visibility Conditions

................................ ................................ 124 9.3.1 CMAQ Modeling Breakdown by Pollutant for 20% Worst Days.

........................ 125

CHAPTER 10: BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART)

EVALUATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 133

10.1 Overview of BART Process in Oregon

................................ ................................ ........ 133 10.2 Determining Oregon’s BART

- eligible Sources

................................ ........................... 134

10.2.1 Extent of BART

- eligible Source Emissions

................................ ........................ 137 10.3 Summary of BART Modeling

................................ ................................ ...................... 138 10.3.1 Description of the Modeling Protocol

................................ ................................ . 139 10.3.2 Summary of Oregon BART Modeling Results

................................ ................... 142 10.3.3 Summary of Interstate Modeling Results from BART

- eligible sources

............. 145 10.3.4 BART Modeling in the Context of the Regional Ha ze Rule

................................ ..... 146 10.4 Summary of Oregon BART Control Determination Process

................................ ....... 147 10.4.1 Option to take a Federally Enforceable Permit Limit

................................ ......... 147 10.4.2 Summary of BART Control Determination for PGE Boardman plant

............... 148 10.5 Emission Reductions and Visibility Imp rovements Achieved from BART Process

... 155 10.5.1 PGE Boardman Phase 1 and 2 Visbility Improvements

................................ ...... 155

10.5.2 FEPL Source Visib ility Improvements

................................ ............................... 158 10.6 Oregon’s BART rule

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 158Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

CHAPTER 11: REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL DEMONSTRATION

..................... 159

11.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 159 11.2 Steps in Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

................................ .............................. 159

11.3 Summa ry of Four

- Factor Analysis

................................ ................................ ............... 161 11.3.1 Rationale and Scope of the Four

- Factor Analysis

................................ ............... 162

11.3.2 Identification of Point and A rea Sources for the Four

- Factor Analysis

.............. 163

11.3.3 The Four

- Factor Analysis

................................ ................................ .................... 165

11.3.4 Conclusions from the Four

- Factor Analy sis

................................ ........................ 171

11.3.5 Identification of Additional Emission Reductions

................................ .............. 172 11.4 Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals for Oregon ’s Class I Areas.

................. 172 11.4.1 Affirmative Demonstration the RPGs for 20% Worst Days

............................... 173

11.4.2 20% Reduction in Emissions from Anthropogenic Sources

............................... 175 11.4.3 Major Reductions in Mobile Source Emissions by 2018

................................ .... 178

11.4.4 Additional Emission Reductions Expected by 2018 due to the Long

- Term Strategy

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 180 11.4.5 Long

- Term Strategy “Next Steps” in Analyzing Major Source Categories

........ 180

CHAPTER 12: LONG

- TERM STRATEGY

................................ ................................ .......... 181

12.1 Overview of the LTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 181 12.2 Overview of the LTS Development Process

................................ ................................ 181 12.3 Summary of all Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment Considered in Developing the LTS.

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 182 12.3 Summary of Interstate T ransport and Contribution

................................ ...................... 183 12.3.1 Other State Class I Areas Affected by Oregon emissions

................................ ... 183 12.3.2 Oregon Class I Areas af fected by Other States

................................ ................... 184 12.3.3 Estimated International and Global Contribution to Oregon Class I Areas

........ 186 12.4 Summary of Interstate Consultation.

................................ ................................ ............ 186

12.5 Technical Documentation

................................ ................................ ............................. 187 12.5 Required Factors for the LTS

................................ ................................ ....................... 187 12.5.1 Emission Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs

.......................... 187 12.5.2 Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities

........................... 192 12.5.3 Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance

................................ ........ 192 12.5.4 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules

................................ ............... 192 12.5.6 Enforceability of Oregon’s Measures

................................ ................................ 199

12.6 Additional Measures in the LTS

................................ ................................ .................. 199

12.6.1 Evaluation of Non

- BART Sources and BART

- eligible Sources

...................... 199 12.6.2 Evaluation of Prescribed Burning Contribution to Haze and Possible

Controls

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 201 12.6.3 Evaluation of the Contribution from General Outdoor Open Burning

.............. 204 12.6.4 Evaluation of the Contribution from Rangeland Burning

................................ . 205 12.6.5 Efforts to Address Offshore Shipping

................................ ............................... 205 12.7 Projection of the Net Effect on Visibility

................................ ................................ .... 205

CHAPTER 13: CONSULTATION AND FUTURE COMMITMENTS

............................. 207

13.1 Federal Land Manager Consultation

................................ ................................ ........... 207Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

13.2 State Consultation and Coordination

................................ ................................ ........... 208 13.2.1 Summary of State Consultation Process

................................ ............................ 209

13.2.2 Consisten cy with Neighboring State SIPs

................................ ......................... 209 13.2.3 Oregon and Other State Emission Reductions Obligations

............................... 209

13.3 Tribal Consultati on

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 210

13.4 Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revisions

................................ ................................ . 210 13.4.1 Comprehensive 10

- Year Plan Revisions

................................ ........................... 210

13.4.2 5

- Year Progress Reports

................................ ................................ .................... 211 13.5 Determination of Plan Adequacy

................................ ................................ ................ 211



### Table of Figures

Figure 1.1

- 1 Class I Areas in Pacific Northwest

................................ ................................ .......... 7 Figure 3

- 1 Map of Oregon Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................... 16 Figure 3.1

- 1 Map of Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ....... 17 Figure 3.2

- 1 Map of Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .. 18 Figure 3 .3

- 1 Map of Mt. Washington Wilderness Area

................................ ............................. 19 Figure 3.4

- 1 Map of Three Sisters Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .. 20 Figure 3.5

- 1 Map of Diamond P eak Wilderness Area

................................ ............................... 21 Figure 3.6

- 1 Map of Crater Lake NP

................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Figure 3.7

- 1 Map of Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area

................................ ............................. 23 Figure 3.8

- 1 Map of Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area

................................ ........................ 24 Figure 3.9

- 1 Map of Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ..... 25 Figure 3.10

- 1 Map of Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area

................................ ................... 26 Figure 3.11

- 1 Map of Eagle Cap Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ .... 27 Figure 3.12

- 1 Map of Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

................................ ............................... 28 Figure 4.1.1

- 1 Picture of an IMPROVE Monitoring Site

................................ .......................... 33 Figure 4.1.1

- 2 IMPROVE Sampler Modules

................................ ................................ ............. 33 Figure 4.2

- 1 Map of Oregon IMPROVE sites

................................ ................................ ............ 36 Figure 5.7

- 1 Example of How Uniform Rate of Pro gress is Determined

................................ . 42 Figure 6.1

- 1 MOHO1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ....... 47 Figure 6.1

- 2 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area (Hickman Butte vista ) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 47 Figure 6.1

- 3 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area (Hickman Butte vista) Best Days Baseline Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Figure 6.2

- 1 THSI1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ .......... 49 Figure 6.2

- 2 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area (Three Fingered Jack vista) Worst Days Baseline

and Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 Figure 6.2

- 3 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area (Three Fingered Jack vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Figure 6.2

- 4 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area (Black Butte vista) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 50 Figure 6.2

- 5 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area (Black Butte vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 51 Figure 6.2

- 6 Three Sisters Wilderness Area Worst Days Baseline and Natural Conditions

..... 51 Figure 6.2

- 7 Three Sisters Wilderness Area Best Days Baseline C onditions

............................ 52Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

Figure 6.3

- 1 CRLA1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ........ 53 Figure 6.3

- 2 Crater Lake National Park Worst Days Baseline and Natur al Conditions

............ 53 Figure 6.3

- 3 Crater Lake National Park Best Days Baseline Conditions

................................ ... 54 Figure 6.3

- 4 Diamond Peak Wilderness Ar ea (Wolf Mountain Vista) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 54 Figure 6.3

- 5 Diamond Peak Wilderness Area (Wolf Mountain Vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 55 Figure 6.3

- 6 Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area Worst Days Baseline and Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 55 Figure 6.3

- 7 Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area Best Days Ba seline Conditions

.................. 56 Figure 6.4

- 1 KALM1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ....... 57 Figure 6.4

- 2 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area (Quail Prairie) Wors t Days Baseline and Natural

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 57 Figure 6.4

- 3 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area (Quail Prairie) Best Days Baseline Conditions

...... 58 Figure 6.5

- 1 STAR1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ......... 59 Figure 6.5

- 2 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area (Dixie Butte) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 59 Figure 6.5

- 3 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area (Dixie Butte) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 60 Figure 6.5

- 4 Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (Point Prominence) Worst D ays Baseline and Natural

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 60 Figure 6.5

- 5 Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (Point Prominence) Best Days Baseline Conditions 61 Figure 6.6

- 1 HECA1 Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ........ 61 Figure 6.6

- 2 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area (Mt. Howard) Worst Days Baseline and Natural

Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 62 Figure 6.6

- 3 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area (Mt. Howard) Best Days Baseline Conditions

.... 62 Figure 7

- 1 Map of Oregon IMPROVE sites

................................ ................................ ............... 64 Figure 7

- 2 Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Oregon Class I Areas 20% Best Days (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 65 Figure 7

- 3 Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Oregon Cla ss I Areas 20% Worst Days (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 66 Figure 7.1

- 1 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Average Pollutant Species Contribution to 20% Best and 20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ ...... 67 Figure 7.1

- 2 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................... 67 Figu re 7.1

- 3 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in

2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 68 Figure 7.1

- 4 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition Compared to Visibility Improvement Needed by 2018 & 2064

................................ .......................... 68 Figure 7.2

- 1 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and 20%Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ .............. 69 Figure 7.2

- 2 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ............. 69 Figure 7.2

- 3 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled

in 2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 70Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

Figure 7.2

- 4 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition Compared to Visibility Improvement Needed by 2018 & 2064

................................ ........ 70 Figure 7.3

- 1 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and 20%Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ .............. 71 Figure 7.3

- 2 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ............. 71 Figure 7.3

- 3 Cr ater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled

in 2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 Figure 7.3

- 4 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition Compared to Visibility Impro vement Needed by 2018 & 2064

................................ ........ 72 Figure 7.4

- 1 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and 20%Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ .............. 73 Figure 7.4

- 2 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ............. 73 Figure 7.4

- 3 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in

2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 74 Figure 7.4

- 4 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition Compared to Visibility Improvement Nee ded by 2018 & 2064

................................ ........ 74 Figure 7.5

- 1 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and 20%Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ .............. 75 Figure 7.5

- 2 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................... 76 Figure 7.5

- 3 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Pol lutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in

2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 76 Figure 7.5

- 4 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

................. 77 Compared to Visibility Improvement Needed by 2018 & 2064

................................ ................ 77 Figure 7.6

- 1 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Aerosol Composition 20% Best and 20%Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Figure 7.6

- 2 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for all days sampled During the Baseline Period (2000

- 2004)

................................ ................ 78 Figure 7.6

- 3 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled

in 2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 Figure 7.6

- 4 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

Com pared to Visibility Improvement Needed by 2018 & 2064

................................ ........ 79 Figure 8.2.1

- 1 SO 2 Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ ........ 88 Figu re 8.2.1

- 2 NO

x Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ ........ 89 Figure 8.2.1

- 3 VOC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ ...... 89 Figure 8.2.1

- 4 OC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ ......... 90 Figure 8.2.1

- 5 EC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ .......... 90 Figure 8.2.1

- 6 PM Fine Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

................................ . 91 Figure 8.2.1

- 7 Coarse PM Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

............................. 91 Figure 8.2.1

- 8 Ammonia Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

............................... 92 Figure 9.2.1

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area PSAT Sulfate

...................... 102 Figure 9.2.1

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas PSAT Sulfate

................................ ................................ . 103Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

Figure 9.2. 1

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness,

and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas PSAT Sulfate

................................ ................ 104 Figure 9.2.1

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area PS AT Sulfate

.............................. 105 Figure 9.2.1

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

PSAT Sulfate

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 106 Figure 9 .2.1

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area PSAT Sulfate

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 107 Figure 9.2.2

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area PSAT Nitrate

...................... 108 Figure 9.2.2

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas PSAT Nitrate

................................ ................................ . 109 Figure 9.2.2

- 3 South ern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness,

and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas PSAT Nitrate

................................ ................. 110 Figure 9.2.2

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area PSAT Nitrat e

.............................. 111 Figure 9.2.2

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Figure PSAT Nitrate

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 112 Figure 9.2 .2

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area PSAT Nitrate

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 113 Figure 9.2.3

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ............. 114 Figure 9.2.3

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ........................ 114 Figure 9.2.3

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake N ational Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness,

and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ....... 115 Figure 9.2.3

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ..................... 116 Figure 9.2.3

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 116 Figure 9.2.3

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

.................... 117 Figure 9.2.4

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ............. 118 Figure 9.2.4

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washi ngton Wilderness, and

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ........................ 118 Figure 9.2.4

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness,

and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ....... 119 Figure 9.2.4

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ..................... 119 Figure 9.2.4

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagl e Cap Wilderness

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 120 Figure 9.2.4

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

.................... 120 Figure 9.2.5

- 1 Northern Casc ades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

................................ ............. 121 Figure 9.2.5

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ........................ 122 Figure 9.2.5

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness,

and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

................................ ................................ ....... 122 Figure 9.2.5

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

................................ ..................... 123 Figure 9.2.5

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 123

Fi gure 9.2.5

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

.................... 124 Figure 9.3.1

- 1 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 127Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

Figure 9.3.1

- 2 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

.............. 128 Figure 9.3.1

- 3 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Southern Cascades Region

.. 129 Figure 9.3.1

- 4 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis

Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 130 Figure 9.3.1

- 5 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

................................ .................. 131 Figure 9.3.1

- 6 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ........................ 132 Figure 10.2

- 1 Map of Oregon BART

- eligible Sources

................................ ............................ 137 Figure 10.4.2

- 1 Map of 14 Class I Areas Impacted by PGE Boardman

................................ .. 150 Figure 10.5.1

- 1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Emission Reductions for PGE Boardman

..................... 156 Figure 12.5.5

- 1 Oregon Anthropogenic Fire Sources

................................ ............................. 194 Figure 12.6. 2

- 1 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 202



### Table of Tables

Table 1.2

- 1 Oregon Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ 8

Table 4.2

- 1 Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Network

................................ ............................... 35

Table 6

- 1 20% Best and Worst Days Baseline, Natural Conditions, and Uniform Rate of

Pr ogress Goal for Oregon Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ............. 46

Table 7

- 1 IMPROVE Monitor Aerosol Composition

................................ ............................... 65

Table 8.1.1

- 1 Oregon SO 2 Emission Inve ntory

– 2002 & 2018

................................ ................. 81

Table 8.1.2

- 1 Oregon NO

x Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

................................ ................ 82

Table 8.1.3

- 1 Oregon VOC Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

................................ ............... 83

Table 8.1.4

- 1 Oregon Organic Carbon Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

............................. 84

Table 8.1.5

- 1 Oregon Elemental Carbon ( EC) Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

................. 85

Table 8.1.6

- 1 Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

.................. 85

Table 8 .1.6

- 2 Oregon Coarse Particulate Matter Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

.............. 86

Table 8.1.7

- 1 Oregon Ammonia (NH 3 ) Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

............................ 87

Table 8.2.2

- 1 Commercial Marine Vessel Types and Uses

................................ ....................... 93

Table 8.2.2

- 2 2002 Emissions for Ocean

- going Shipping Emissions by State

.......................... 93

Table 8.2.2

- 3 2002 Emissions for Columbia River Ocean

- going Vessels by Port

.................... 94

Table 9.3

- 1 CMAQ Modeling Results for 20% Worst Days and 20% Best Days for Oregon

Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 125

Table 9.3.1

- 1 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 127

Table 9.3.1

- 2 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Central Cascades

–
................... 128 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas 128

Table 9.3.1

- 3 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Southern Cascades Region

....... 129

Table 9.3.1

- 4 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Coast Range

- Kalmio psis

Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 130

Table 9.3.1

- 5 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

................................ .................. 131Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan

Table 9.3.1

- 6 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

................................ ................................ ........................ 132

Table 10.2

- 1 List of 10 BART

- eligibl e Sources in Oregon

................................ ..................... 135

Table 10.2

- 2 List of Sources Determined not to be BART

- eligible

................................ ......... 136

Table 10.2.1

- 1 Oregon BART

- eligible Source Emissions (2005 actual, tons/year)

................ 138

Table 10.3.2

- 1 BART

- Eligible Source Modeling Results

................................ ........................ 143

Table 10.3.2

- 2 BART

- Eligi ble Sources with FEPLs

................................ ............................... 144

Table 10.3.3

- 1 BART source impacts in Oregon from other States

................................ ........ 145

Table 10.4.2

- 1 Overview of the PGE Boardman Plant

................................ ............................ 14 9

Table 10.4.2

- 2 Summary of Class I Area Visibility Impacts from PGE Boardman Plant

....... 151

Table 10.4.2

- 3 BART Pr oposal by PGE

................................ ................................ .................. 151

Table 10.4.2

- 4 Summary of Control Options Evaluated for PGE Boardman

.......................... 152

Table 10.4.2

- 4 DEQ BART Control Deter mination for PGE Boardman

................................ . 153

Table 10.5.1

- 1 Emission Reductions and Visibility Benefits from Phase 1 and Phase 2 Controls

for PGE Boardman

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 156

Table 10.5.1

- 2 Summary of Class I Area Visibility Improvements from Phase 1 and Phase 2

Controls for PGE Boardman

................................ ................................ ............................ 157

Table 11.3.2

- 1 Oregon Share of Modeled Sulfate and Nitrate in 2018

- 20% Worst Days

..... 164

Table 11.3.2

- 2 Oregon Largest Source Categories

................................ ................................ .. 165

Table 11.3.3

- 1 Summary of NO

x Control Options for External Combustion Boilers (Industrial Wood/Bark Waste)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 167

Table 11.3.3

- 2 Summary of NO

x Control Options for Cement Manufacturing

....................... 169

Table 11.4

- 1 Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days and 20% Best Days for Oregon

Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 173

Table 11.4.2

- 1 WEP Projected Emission Contributions of Individual Pollutant s by 2018 URP as an Indicator of “Reasonable” Progress.

................................ ................................ ....... 176

Table 11.4.2

- 2 CMAQ Projected Reduction in Ammonium Sulfate by 2018 URP as an Indicator of “Reasonable” Progress.

................................ ................................ ................. 177

Table 11.4.2

- 3 CMAQ Projected Reduction in Ammonium Nitrate by 2018 URP as an Indicator of “Reasonable” Progress.

................................ ................................ ................. 178

Table 11.4.3

- 1 Mobile So urce Emission Reductions in Oregon from 2002 to 2018

............... 178

Table 12.5.1

- 1 Proximity of Oregon Class I Areas to PM 10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 191Oregon 308 Regional Haze Plan 

### Appendic es

Appendix A: Oregon Emission Inventory by County Appendix B: Class I Area Visibility Impairment Supplemental Information Appendix C: WRAP Technical Support Summary Appendix D: Supplemental BART Information :

1. DEQ BART Report for the Boardman Pow er Plant

2. DEQ Modeling Analysis of Visibility and Acid Deposition Impacts and Benefits from DEQ’s Rule Concept for the PGE Boardman Power Plant

3. ERG Technical Memorandum #2

4. EPA’s BART Rule, Appendix Y

- Guidelines for BART Determinations

5. Oregon BART Modeling Protocol Appendix E: Oregon BART Rules Appendix F: Oregon Visibility Protection Plan and Oregon Smoke Management Plan Appendix G: Oregon Regional Haze SIP Consultation and Coordination Appendix H: State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan



## Oregon Regional Haze Plan Reference Materials

Oregon DEQ Information and Documents

Available at the DEQ Regional Haze website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/index.htm

See other docu mentation in the Appendices Section of this document



### Applicable Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Reports and

Documents

Available at the WRAP website: http://www.wrapair.org/

or at the WRAP TSS website: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/



### Other Reference

1. EPA’s Regional Haze R egulations (64 Federal Register 35714), July 1, 1999.

2. EPA’s Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofi t Technology (BART) Determinations: Final Rule (70 Federal Register 39104), July 6, 2005

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page i



### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND SUMMARY

Acknowledgements

Major assistance in preparing this implementation plan was provided by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) a nd its forums and committees, who provided Oregon and other western states with much of the policy and technical support information needed to meet the requirements of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. Special thanks to the following staff:

Pat Cumm ins, WRAP Co

- Director
Tom Moore, Air Quality Program Manager, Western Governor’s Association Lee Gribovicz, WRAP Air Quality Project Manager
Lee Alter, IOC Staff Support
Don Arkell, State Caucus Coordinator/Visibility Program Coordinator with

WESTAR

Bob Le bens, WESTAR

Principal Author: Brian Finneran, DEQ Air Quality Division

Principal Contributors: Mark Fisher, DEQ Eastern Region Phil Allen, DEQ Air Quality Division Jeffrey Stocum, DEQ Air Quality Division Chris Swab, DEQ Air Quality Division

C ontractor Assistance: Cassie Archuleta

Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc. Fort Collins, CO

Th is document comprises the State of Oregon 's State Implementation Plan submittal to EPA

under Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule ( 40 CFR 51.30 8 ). Adop tion of the Oregon

Section 308 Regional Haze Plan (herein referred to as the Oregon Regional Haze Plan) amends

the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan , OAR 340

- 200

- 0040. See Appendix H for the complete citation of this rule. Other appendice s at the end of this document provide additional information related to the strategies, including Oregon administrative rules associated with this plan, reference material (technical analysis and reports) prepared by the WRAP, and other documentation.



### Ex ecutive Summary

Regional haze is air pollution that travels long distances and reduces visibility in scenic areas. The haze that affects visibility in Oregon comes from motor vehicles, power plants, industrial and manufacturing processes, forestry, agric ultural and other open burning, as well as natural

sources such as wildfire and windblown dust. The federal Clean Air Act contains requirements to protect and improve visibility in national parks and wilderness area s in the country. In 19772008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page ii

Congress desig nated certain national parks and wilderness areas as "Class 1 areas," where visibility was identified as an important value. Currently there are 156 Class 1 areas in the country. Oregon has 12 Class 1 areas, including Crater Lake National Park and 11 wild erness

areas.

To address the problem of regional haze the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted

the Regional Haze Rule in 1999. This rule requires s tates to adopt regional haze plans to incrementally improve visibility in all Class 1 areas, includi ng Oregon, over the next 60 years. It focuses on improving Class 1 area visibility on the haziest days (the worst 20 percent ) and ensuring no degradation on the clearest days (the best 20 percent ). The first regional haze plan

must include “Reasonable Pro gress Goals” (RPG) for each Class I area, for the year 2018, also known as the “2018 milestone year”. RPGs are interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvements, based on a calculation of a “uniform rate of progress” (UR P ). The first regio nal haze plan describes the progress anticipated in reaching the 2018 URP milestone for each Class I area, for the 20 percent worst and best days, based o n projections of emission reductions and visibility improvements from regional haze control strategies during this first planning period.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) is a key part of the federal Regional Haze Rule, and the central focus of regional haze plans that states are developing. It applies to certain older

industrial facilities that began operating before 1977 when federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules were adopted to protect visibility in Class I areas when permitting

new industrial facilities. Under BART, t hese older facilities must now evaluate their visibili ty impact in Class I areas, and if found to be significant, conduct an evaluation of new pollution controls, and install them with in five years.

This document is Oregon’s Regional Haze Plan to meet this federal rule. The highlights of the plan are as f

ollows:

• History and regulatory background of the Regional Haze Rule, and geographical description of each of Oregon’s 12 Class I Areas. See Chapters 1 through 5.

• A comprehensive review and technical assessment of visibility conditions in each of Oregon ’s 12 Class I areas, showing major pollutants and source categories in Oregon and other states causing haze, and a projection of visibility by a required “milestone”

date of 2018

. See Chapters 6 through 9.

• DEQ’s evaluation of ten “BART

- eligible” sources, and proposal to require retrofit controls on the PGE Boardman power plant, and reduce emissions at four other

facilities to below the visibility impact level considered to be significant. See Chapter

10.

• “Reasonable Progress Goals” established by DEQ fo r Oregon’s 12 Class I area , which show improvements in visibility for the haziest or worst days ( but less than the first

URP milestone for 2018 ) and no visibility degradation for the clearest or best days. See Chapter 11.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page iii

• A “Lo ng

- Term Strategy” that desc ribes what actions DEQ will take to address major

sources of haze over the next 10 years, and commitments for future plan updates and

revisions.

• Summary of the efforts by DEQ to consult and coordinat e with other States, Tribes, and Federal Land Managers o n the regional haze strategies contained in this plan. See Chapter 13.

The major elements of this plan are the BART evaluation, Reasonable Progress Goals, and the Long

- Term Strategy.

B est Available Retrofit Technology evaluation

The primary outcome of the BART evaluation in Chapter 10 was a determination that the PGE Boardman power plant be required to install pollution controls

. DEQ evaluated 10 BART

eligible sources , and found that the PGE Boardman plant had by far the greatest visibility impact i n Or egon’s Class I areas , and in several of Washington’s Class I areas as well. DEQ

identified a two

- step process for installing controls at this facility. Phase one requires controls for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) that would reduce thes e emissions by about 66 percent by 2014, at a cost of about $2 8 0 million. Phase one meets the minimum requirements for BART. Phase two requires more advanced controls for NO

x that would reduce emissions by about 8 1 percent by 201 7 , at an additional cost of $1 91 million. Phase two goes “beyond BART” to achieve additional visibility improvement and to meet regional haze “reasonable progress” requirements (see below)

. The total emissions reduced from both phases is approximately 20,800 tons per year, which w ill provide significant visibility benefits in 14 Class I areas in Oregon and Washington, as well as the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area.

Also as part of the BART evaluation, DEQ found four other BART

- eligible sources that had visibility impacts that we just over the “significance” level used for the modeling protocol for

BART sources. DEQ determined these sources could take a federally enforceable permit limit to lower their emissions below the significance level. Sources that take an enforceable perm it limit are not subject to further evaluation for BART controls , ho wever as BART

- eligible sources, the y can be re

- evaluated as part of a more comprehensive review of industrial emissions under the reasonable progress requirements for making visibility imp rovements. This

re

- evaluation of all BART

- eligible sources is part of the Long

- Term Strategy described below.

Reasonable Progress Goals

In establishing RPGs for each Class I area , DEQ relied upon emission projections and regional modeling work conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). The WRAP Technical Support System or TSS website provided considerable technical information in determining the RPGs, and is referenced in the Appendices section of the plan. The RPGs described in Chapter 11 represent future visibility conditions in Oregon’s Class I areas in 2018

, based on the URP calculated for each Class I area (see Chapter 6) that represents a

“ presumptive goal ” for the first regional haze plan

. In cases where the RPGs do not meet the2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page iv

URP goal for 2018, States are required to explain the reasons for the slower progress

, additional controls that were considered for this first plan , and what future actions that will be

taken to ensure the 60

- year objective of the Regional Haze Rule will be me t.

While the RPGs for Oregon’s Class I areas meet the requirement for no degradation of the clearest or best days, they do show a slower rate of progress for the haziest or worst visibility days , and do not meet the 2018 URP milestones in most areas

. T he reasons for this, as described in Chapter 11, are summarized below :

• DEQ’s analysis of emissions data, source apportionment, and modeling results strongly supports the finding that the contribution of natural sources, such as wildfire and

windblown dust , is the primary reason for slower progress in achieving the 2018

milestone in Oregon’s Class I areas.

• Similar to the contribution of natural sources

, DEQ believes marine vessel emissions are

also affecting progress in making visibility improvements. The se emissions are estimated

to be currently half of the statewide SO 2 emissions and one

- third the statewide NO

x emissions. Th is contribution t o visibility impairment is significant, especially in Western Oregon Class I areas. Current DEQ authority to regula te offshore shipping emissions is limited. The plan identifies future work that is needed to address this significant source of

emissions.

• DEQ’s analysis of projected visibility improvements from sulfate and nitrate impacts in Oregon Class I areas show s a bout a 20 percent reduction in these pollutants by the 2018

milestone

. Given the strong association of these pollutant species to anthropogenic sources, DEQ believes th is is a more realistic indicator of reasonable progress

. I f natural

sources are excluded , th is 20 percent reduction in sulfates and nitrates c orresponds to the

same percent reduction that is re presented by the 2018 milestone.

• Mobile sources (mostly cars and trucks) are largest anthropogenic source of emissions in Oregon. By 2018 more than ha lf of these emissions are projected to decrease due to

numerous federal emission standards that are already “on the books”, as well as programs in Oregon that will reduce these emissions. DEQ believes this major reduction supports

the demonstration that RP Gs are reasonable based on the considerable progress being made reducing this large source of emissions.

• DEQ conducted a “Four

- Factor Analysis” as required under the Regional Haze rule to

evaluate other large sources of emissions that could be reduced o r controlled to improve visibility by 2018. Using this analysis DEQ did not find any controls that were reasonable to pursue at this time. However, additional NO

x controls required under the Phase 2 requirements for the PGE Boardman Power Plant will result in an additional reduction of approximately 4,000 tons NO

x , and significant visibility improvements, when installed in

2017. Also, DEQ has proposed in the Long

- Term Strategy of the plan to evaluate “non

BART” industrial sources for possible new control s in the next five years to make visibility improvements by 2018.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page v

Long

- Term Strategy

Chapter 12 of this plan is the Long

- Term Strategy, which describes on

- going rules and programs that are expected to provide visibility improvements, and identifies new m easures that DEQ has committed to evaluate by the next plan update in 2013. The two primary

commitments are to evaluate possible visibility improvements from non

- BART industrial

sources not included in the BART review, and Class I area smoke impacts from f orestry burning. These represent the two greatest areas where potentially significant visibility benefits

could be realized.

The evaluation of non

- BART sources will include a re

- evaluation of the BART

- eligible

sources. Starting in 2009, DEQ will develop a comprehensive guidance document through a stakeholder process for evaluating visibility impacts from non

- BART industrial sources. A DEQ report will be prepared by 2013 that summarizes (1) the development of th is guidance; (2)

results of applying the guid ance to non

- BART sources and BART

- eligible sources; (3) any

po tential new controls for sources, (4) proposed rulemaking needed and schedule for adopting new rules, (5) estimated timeline for installing any new controls ; and ( 6 ) estimate of the expected vis ibility benefits

.

The evaluation of f

orestry burning will consist of an analysis of smoke impacts from forestry burning on visibility

, for the haziest or worst days at each Class I area in Oregon

. Where this burning it is found to c ause significant visibi lity impacts, DEQ plans to work with state forestry and federal land managers to identify n ew smoke management controls to protect visibility

.

Other new measures in the Long

- Term Strategy included an evaluation of the contribution from residential open bu rning and rangeland burning, and further assessment on the contribution of marine vessels and possible regulatory actions that could be taken

.

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Visibility

The Columbia River Gorge is a n ational s cenic a rea by Cong ress in 1986. While it was not designated as a Class I area, it will receive some secondary visibility benefits under the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, due to its’ proximity to nearby Class I areas, such as Mt. Hood Wilderness in Oregon. The Gorge was inclu ded with other Class I areas in the visibility modeling analysis of BART sources, and the requirement for five

- year updates to Oregon Regional Haze Plan will include similar analysis and tracking of visibility improvements for the Gorge.

The National Sc enic Area Act of 1986 requires the protection and enhancement of the scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Gorge, while at the same time supporting the local economy. The Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) has responsibility to

a dminister the National Scenic Area Act. In 2001, the CRGC determined that in order to protect air quality in the Gorge, the CRGC would rely on Oregon DEQ and the Washington Southwest Clean Air Agency t o develop an air quality strategy for the Scenic Area. The state agencies studied air quality and visibility and the emission sources that contribute to haze in the Gorge. Because many of the same problems that affected haze in the Gorge are the same2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page vi

problems that affect haze across the western region, much o f the visibility efforts under the regional haze program will ultimately benefit the Gorge. Therefore, as part of the federally

mandated five

- year regional haze plan update, DEQ will track visibility conditions in the area and provide a separate follow up with the CRGC to provide a progress report on conditions in the Gorge. See Section 1.6.2 of this plan for more information.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 7



### CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 O verview of Visibility and Regional Haze

Good visibility is essential to the enjoyment of national p arks and scenic areas. Visibility impairment occurs as a result of the scattering and absorption of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere. This affects the clarity and color of what we see. Without the effects of air pollution, natural visual rang e is approximately 140 miles in the West and 90 miles in the East. However, over the years, air pollution in many parts of the United States has significantly reduced the range that people can see. In the West, the current range is 35

- 90 miles, and in the East, only 15

- 25 miles.

Regional haze is air pollution that is transported long distances and reduces visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The pollutants that create this haze are sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and so il dust. Human

- caused haze sources include industry, motor vehicles, agricultural and forestry burning, and windblown dust from roads and farming practices.

The federal R egional R aze R ule requires states to improve visibility over the next 60 years in

15 6 national parks and wilderness areas in the country. In 1977 , Congress designated all wilderness areas over 5,000 acres and all national parks over 6,000 acres as “ mandatory federal

Class I areas ” (or “Class I areas” for short). These Class I areas receiv e special visibility protection under the Clean Air Act. Figure 1.1

- 1 shows the Class I areas located in Oregon and

Northwest.

Figure 1.1

- 1 Class I Areas in Pacific Northw est2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 8



### 1.2 Oregon Class I Areas

Oregon has 12 specially designated Class I areas , including Crater Lake National Park and 11

wilderness areas. These areas are listed in Table 1.2

- 1, and are the focus of th is Regional Haze

Plan. A description of each Class I area is provided in Chapter 3 of this report.

Table 1.2

- 1 Oregon Class I Area s

Class I Area Acreage

Mt. Hood Wilderness 47,160

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness 107,008 Mt. Washington Wilderness 52,516

Three Sisters Wilderness 285,202

Diamond Peak Wilderness 52,337

Crater Lake 183,315

Mountain Lakes Wilderness 23,071

Gearhart Mtn. Wilderness 22,809 Kalmiopsis Wilderness 179,700 Strawberry Mtn. Wilderness 69,350 Eagle Cap Wilderness 360,275 Hells Canyon Wilderness 131, 1 33 * * Oregon portion only. Total acreage is 214,944



### 1.3 Background on the Regional Haze Rule

In 1977, Cong ress amended the Clean Air Act to include provisions to protect the scenic vistas of the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas. In these amendments, Congress declared as a national visibility goal:

The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from man

made air pollution. (Section 169A)

To address this goal, in 1980 EPA adopted regulations to address “reasonably attributable visibility impairment” , or visibility impairment caused by one or a small group of man

- made sources generally located in close proximity to a specific Class I area

. These became known as EPA’s “Phase I” visibility rules. At that time, EPA deferred adopting provisions to specifi cally address regional haze, because they lacked the needed s cientific information and research needed to understand the long

- range transport and formation of regional haze.

In response to EPA’s Phase I visibility rules, the Department adopted the Oregon Visibility

Protection Plan in October 1986 (see Section 1.5.2). The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act established requirements to study regional haze. They gave EPA the authority to establish visibility transport commissions and promulgate regulations to address regional haze. The 1990 amendments also established a visibility transport commission to investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park and nearby Class I2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 9

areas. A summary of the work of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission is provided in Section 1.5. 4

.



### 1.4 Summary of the Regional Haze Rule

To address the problem of long range transport of regional haze and to meet the national goal of reducing man

- made visibility impairment in all Class I areas, EPA adopted “Phase II” visibility rules in 1999 , to be known as the Regional Haze Rule s. The se rules can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 64, July 1, 1999, pages 35714

- 35774.

The objective of the rule s was to improve visi bility over the next 60 years ( by 2064) in all 156

Class I areas in the country

. The rules requir e States to adopt a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) that focuses on improving the haziest days (the worst 20%) and protecting the clearest days ( the best 20%). Each SIP will provide a comprehensive analysis of

natural and human

- caused sources of haze in each Class I area, and contain strategies to control

sources and reduce emissions that contribute to haze. The SIP must also address the transport of

haze across state boundaries.

The Regional Haze Rule provides two paths for adopting regional haze SIPs. The submittal of this regional haze SIP meets the “Section 308” requirements in 40 CFR 51.308. The other part
of the rule is “Section 309” ( 40 CFR 51.309), and is an option for nine western states

- Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

. These states

can choose to follow Section 309 and adopt specific regional haze strategies related for the 16

Class I ar eas of the Colorado Plateau, based on recommendations developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (see Section 1.5.4 below )

. Section 309 applies only

until 2018 , after which Section 308

. Since Oregon’s 12 Class I areas are not part of the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas, Oregon choose not submit a Section 309 plan for this SIP

submittal. 1

Two of the primary components of the Regional Haze Rule are requirements to address Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and demonstrate “ reaso nable progress ” in improving visibility by a 2018 milestone for each Class I area. The BART requirements address certain larger industrial sources that began operation before the adoption of the 1977 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules (see S ecti on 1.5.1). Chapter 10 of this Plan describes the BART

review and evaluation in detail. The demonstration of reasonable progress requires setting goals for the 20% worst and best days in each Class I area, based on an evaluation of how BART and other region al haze strategies will reduce emissions and improve or protect visibility. Chapter

1 1 of this Plan describes the Reasonable Progress Demonstration in detail.

1 In 2003, Oregon did submit to EPA a Section 309 Regional Haze Plan, to primarily address the contribution of Oregon emis sions to visibility impacts in the Colorado Plateau. This plan, along with other 4 other st a t e plans

submitted under Section 309, were disapproved by EPA due to a lawsuit regarding the BART requirements in Section 309. [ For more information see Center fo r Energy and Economic Development v. EPA , no. 03

- 1222, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)(“ CEED v. EPA”). ] The four states chose to resubmit their 309 plans. The Department decided not to resubmit the plan, due to the optional nature of Section 309, the fact that O regon is only a minor contributor to visibility impacts in the Colorado Plateau, and that a Section 308 plan is required in 2008 regardless under the Regional Haze Rule.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 10

The Regional Haze Rule is in addition to “Phase I” visibility rules adopted by EPA in 1980.

The Department developed the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan in 1986, in response to EPA’s

Phase I rules , as described in Section 1.5.2 below.

Additional information on the Regional Haze Rule can be found on the Department’s website,

at http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/index.htm

.



### 1.5 Other Programs to Address Visibility Impairment

1.5.1 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for New Sources

The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established Pr event ion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, which protect air quality (and visibility) from air pollution from new major industrial sources, and major modifications of existing sources. In cluded in the PSD rules were requirements to protect v isibility in national parks, national wilderness areas,

national monuments and national seashores. The PSD program sets specific increments or limits on the maximum allowable increase in air pollut ion in certain airsheds, and a preconstruction permit revie w process for new or modifying major sources that allows for careful consideration of control technology, consultation with FLMs on visibility impacts and public participation in permitting decisions.

1.5.2 Phase I Visibility Rules

– the Oregon Visibilit y Protection Plan

In response to EPA’s Phase I visibility rules, the Department adopted the Oregon Visibility

Protection Plan in October 1986. This visibility plan contains short and long

- term strategies for making reasonable progress toward the national goal, related to addressing reasonably attributable impairment in the state’s Class I areas through visibility monitoring and control strategies

. This plan incorporates PSD requirements for visibility protection from new or modified major stationary source s, and if necessary, applying BART to existing stationary

sources if certified as causing reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Th e plan includes (a) the mitigation of visibility impairment within the Mt. Hood and Central Oregon Cascade

wilderness areas through short and long

- term control strategies for forest prescribed burning and Willamette Valley agricultural field burning

, and ( b ) mitigation of impairment in the Eagle Cap Wilderness and Central Oregon Cascades resulting from agricultural field burning.

1.5.3 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Under Section 169A(b) (A) of the Clean Air Act , Congress established Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for major stationary sources in operation within a 15

- year period befor e adoption of the 1977 PSD rules. Under EPA’s “Phase I” visibility rules, BART could be required for sources that were certified by the Federal Land Manager as causing reasonably attributable v is ibility impa irment in a Class I area. Under EPA’s “Phase II” regional haze rules, new BART rules were included that automatically triggered a review process for all

pre

- 1977 sources

. The review process included criteria for determine BART eligibility, modeling of visibility impacts, and evaluating the need for contr ols. ( Th e BART review process is described in detail in Chapter 10 of this Plan. ) In evaluating controls, the BART rules2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 11

require tak ing into consideration the costs of compliance, the energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any exis ting pollution control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

1.5.4 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments created the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). Th e GCVTC was given the charge to assess the currently available scientific information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility fr om potential growth in the region, identify clean air corridors, and recommend long

- range strategies for addressing regional haze for Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau

. The GCVTC completed significant technical analyses and developed recommendations to improve visibility in the 16 Class I areas

on the Colorado Plateau. These 16 Class I areas are as follows: Arches National Park, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, F lat Tops Wilderness, Grand Canyon National Park, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Mt. Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Zio n National Park.

The GCVTC found that visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau was caused by a wide variety of sources and pollutants. A comprehensive strategy was needed to address all of the causes of regional haze. The GCVTC submitted these recomm endations to EPA in a report dated June 1996 for consideration in rule development. These recommendations were:

Air Pollution Prevention

. Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita pollution was a high priority for the Commission. The Commission recommended policies based on energy conservation, increased energy efficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production.

Clean Air Corridors

. Clean air corridors are geographic areas that provide a source of clea n air

to the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. For these areas, t he Commission primarily recommended careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in these

corridors , and ultimately the 16 Class I areas

.

Stationary Sources

. For stationary s ources, the Commission recommended closely monitoring the impacts of current requirements under the Clean Air Act and ongoing studies. It also

recommended r egional targets for SO 2 emissions from stationary sources, starting in 2000. If these targets are ex ceeded, a regional cap and market

- based emission trading program should be implemented

.

Areas In and Near Parks

. The Commission's research and modeling showed that a host of sources adjacent to parks and wilderness areas, including large urban areas, hav e significant visibility impacts. However, the Commission lacked sufficient data regarding the visibility impacts of emissions from some areas in and near parks and wilderness areas. In general, the models used by the Commission were not readily applicable to such areas. Pending further2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 12

studies of these areas, the Commission recommended that local, state, tribal, federal, and private parties cooperatively develop strategies, expand data collection, and improve modeling for reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to parks and

wilderness areas.

Mobile Sources

. The Commission recognized that mobile source emissions are projected to decrease through about 2005 due to improved control technologies. The Commission recommended cap ping emissions at the lowest level achieved and establishing a regional emissions budget, and also endorsed national strategies aimed at further reducing tailpipe emissions, including the so

- called 49

- state low emission vehicle, or 49

- state LEV.

Road Dust

. The Commission's technical assessment indicated that road dust is a large contributor to visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau. As such, it requires urgent

attention. However, due to considerable skepticism regarding the modeled contribution of r oad dust to visibility impairment, the Commission recommended further study in order to resolve the uncertainties regarding both near

- field and distant effects of road dust, prior to taking

remedial action. Since this emissions source is potentially such a significant contributor, the Commission felt that it deserved high priority attention and, if warranted, additional emissions management actions.

Emissions from Mexico

. Mexican sources are also shown to be significant contributors, particularly of SO 2 e missions. However, data gaps and jurisdictional issues made this a difficult issue for the Commission to address directly. The Commission recommendations called for

continued bi

- national collaboration to work on this problem, as well as additional efforts to complete emissions inventories and increase monitoring capacities. These matters should receive high priority for regional and national action.

Fire

. The Commission recognized that fire plays a significant role in visibility on the Plateau. In fact, l and managers propose aggressive prescribed fire programs aimed at correcting the buildup of biomass due to decades of fire suppression. Therefore, prescribed fire and wildfire levels are projected to increase significantly during the studied period. The Co mmission recommended the implementation of programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts from prescribed fire, as well as to educate the public.

Future Regional Coordinating Entity

. Finally, the Commission believed there was a need for an entity like the Commission to oversee, promote, and support many of the recommendations in their report. To support that entity, the Commission developed a set of recommendations addressing the future administrative, technical and funding needs of the Commission or a new regional entity. The Commission strongly urged the EPA and Congress to provide funding for these vital functions and give them a priority reflective of the national importance of the Class I

areas on the Colorado Plateau.

1.5.5 The Western Regio nal Air Partnership

The GCVTC recognized the need for a long

- term organization to address the policy and technical studies needed to address regional haze. The Western Regional Air Partnership2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 13

(WRAP) was formed in September 1997 as the successor organizat ion to the GCVTC. The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes and federal agencies. The states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The WRAP is assisting these states by developing the policy and technical work products needed for their regional haze SIPs. The WRAP

established stakeholder

- based technical and policy oversight committees to assist in managing the development of regional haze work products. S ee Section 4.1 of this plan for more

information on the WRAP. See also WRAP web site at http://www.wrapair.org

.



### 1. 6 Purpose of this Document

Th e Oregon Regional Haze P lan has been prepared to meet the requiremen ts of the Federal Regional Haze Rule, Section 40 CFR, Part 51, Section 30 8. It contains strategies and elements

related to each requirement of this federal rule

. The appendices (citation) at the end of this document provide additional information related t o the strategies, including citations of new Oregon administrative rules associated with this plan, and the reference material (technical analysis and reports) prepared by the WRAP.

Relation to the WRAP’s Regional Technical Support System (TSS)

The WRAP’ s Technical Support System (TSS ) was the source for the majority of key technical information and data used in the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. The WRAP TSS can be found at http://vista.cira.colostate. edu/tss/. See Chapter 12, Section 12.2, for more information on specific WRAP reports and project. Appendix C has additional information on the WRAP

TSS.

1. 6 .1 Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in this SIP

The Regional Haze Rule under 40 CFR 51.308 requires states to address visibility protection for regional haze in Oregon’s Class I Areas. These areas are listed under Section 1.2, and as depicted in Figure 1.2

- 1.

1.6.2 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

As mentioned earlier, the Reg ional Haze Rule is applicable to federal Class I areas only. While the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is not a Class I area, it was designated a National Scenic Area by Congress in 1986. The National Scenic Area Act of 1986 requires the

protect ion and enhancement of the scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of th e Gorge, while at the same time supporting the local econom y.

The Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) has responsibility to administer the National

Scenic Area Act. As part of an amendment to the National Scenic Area Management Plan, the CRGC recognized that a Class I designation is not appropriate for the Gorge. However, the CRGC did recognize that air quality degradation can jeopardize those resources, and that in

o rder to protect air quality in the Gorge, the CRGC would rely on state air quality agencies to develop an air quality strategy for the Scenic Area.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 14

Oregon DEQ and the Washington Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) have been working

with the CRGC since 2001 to study air quality and visibility in the Gorge, and the emission sources that contribute to haze in the Gorge. The study also included a projection of future visibility conditions in the Scenic Area. The study results identified that haze in the Gorge w as caused by many different sources and haze reduction would need to result from the cumulative

effect of numerous emission reduction activities.

Because many of the same problems that affected haze in the Gorge are the same problems that

affect haze acr oss the western region, much of the visibility efforts under the regional haze program will ultimately benefit the Gorge. The Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area is situated between two Class I areas (Mt. Hood and Mt. Adams) and the Gorge will benefit from Or egon and Washington’s long term regional haze process. Although the Gorge is not a Class I area and will not be expected to be on the same reasonable progress glide path as the Class I areas, visibility in the Gorge can be measured against the nearby Class I areas. This comparison will allow DEQ to track the Gorge’s progress for continued visibility improvement.

Additionally, as part of the federally mandated five

- year regional haze plan update, DEQ will include in these updates a description of visibilit y benefits to the Gorge, as the result of the

effort to make reasonable progress in improving Class I area visibility over the next 60 years. Once this Regional Haze Plan SIP is submitted to EPA, DEQ will follow up with the CRGC to provide a progress repor t on conditions in the Gorge. DEQ will identify whether Gorge visibility conditions are showing continued improvement, similar to but not on the same glide path as conditions in the Class I areas. If visibility in the Gorge is not improving or showing a

do wnward trend, then DEQ will reassess its Gorge strategy and potentially identify new strategies to ensure continued visibility improvement in the Gorge.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 15



### CHAPTER 2: OREGON REGIONAL HAZE SIP DEVELOPMENT AND

CONSULTATION PROCESS

The Oregon Regional Haze Plan was developed through a process of consultation with other States, Tribes, state and federal natural resource agencies, EPA, and major stakeholders and the general public. The following is a brief summary of th e consultation requirements under the

Re gional Haze Rule. Chapters 1 3 and Appendix G contains a full description of the consultation process identified below, i n developing the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.



### 2.1 Federal Land Manager Consultation

The Regional Haze Rule requires consultation betwe en the State and FLMs related to development and implementation of regional haze plans

. States need to provide FLMs and opportunity to comment at least 60 days prior to holding a public hearing on a proposed plan or plan revision

. This includes commenting on the State’s assessment of visibility impairment in each Class I area; and providing recommendations on the reasonable progress goals and visibility control strategies the State has proposed

. States also need to provide the FLM an opportunity to comment on the five

- year progress reports and other developing programs that may contribute to Class I visibility impairment.



### 2.2 State Consultation

Also required under the Regional Haze Rule is state

- to

- state consultation to develop

coordinated regional haze strategies. Regional haze by definition is the long

- range transport of air pollution, and as such includes identifying interstate transport issues. This requirement

directs States to address emissions that are “ reasonably anticipated to contribute to visib ility impairment ” and any Class I area in another State or States.



### 2.3 Tribal Consultation

Although tribal consultation is not required under the Regional Haze Rule, the Department views this as an important part of the consultation process, and activel y pursued this during the development of th e regional haze plan. Like the State consultation process above, consultation

with Tribes involved reviewing major emission sources and regional haze strategies to address visibility issues.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 16



### CHAPTER 3: I NTRODUCTION TO OREGON CLASS I AREAS

This chapter provides a map and description of the size, elevation, location, and other features

of Oregon’s 12 Class I areas.

Figure 3

- 1 Map of Oregon Class I Areas2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 17



### 3.1 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

Figure 3.1

- 1 p resents a map of the Mt Hood Wilderness, which spans 47,1 6 0 acres on the slopes of Mt Hood in the northern Oregon Cascades. Wilderness elevations range from 3,426 m (11,237 ft) on the summit of Mt Hood down to almost 600 m (2,000 ft) at the western

boundar y. It is almost adjacent to the Portland Oregon metropolitan area; the westernmost boundary is about 20 km east of the Portland Oregon suburb of Sandy and 40 km from the heavily populated metropolitan center, elevation 100 m (300 ft). Visitation to the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area is approximately 5 0,000 visitors a year, primarily between May and October. Most visitors come from the Portland/Vancouver area that has a population of approximately 2

million.

Figure 3.1

- 1 Map of Mt. Hood Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 18



### 3.2 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area

Figure 3.2

- 1 presents a map of the Mt

. Jefferson Wilderness Area, which occupies 1 07

, 008 acres on the crest of the Cascade Range in central Oregon. Its southern boundary is a few km

north of the northe rn boundary of the Mt Washington Wilderness and it extends 40 to 50 km north along the Cascade crest. West of the crest, it consists primarily of the eastern side of the North Santiam River headwaters basin that connects to the Willamette Valley source reg ion near Salem Oregon, 100 km (60 mi) to the west. East of the crest it occupies the western slopes of the Metolius River drainage that connects eastern slopes with Deschutes River in eastern Oregon. The highest Wilderness elevation is 3,200 m (10,497 ft) at the summit of Mt Jefferson in the northern part of the Wilderness. Lowest Wilderness elevations are near 1,000 m (3,000 ft) along the western boundary in the North Santiam headwaters basin and along the eastern boundary in the Metolius River basin.

Fig ure 3.2

- 1 Map of Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 19



### 3.3 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area

Figure 3.3

- 1 presents a map of the Mt

. Washington Wilderness Area, which occupies 52,516 acres on the crest of the Cascade Range in central Orego n. Like the Three Sisters Wilderness that it borders to the south, it includes headwaters tributaries of the McKenzie River that flow west into the Willamette Valley near Eugene and connect the Wilderness with that source region. On the east side eastern s lopes of the Cascades descend to the Deschutes River near Bend. The highest Wilderness elevation is 2,376 m (7,794 ft) at the summit of Mt Washington. Lowest elevations are near 900 m (3,000 ft) in the upper headwaters basin of the McKenzie

River.

Figure 3.3

- 1 Map of Mt. Washington Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 20



### 3.4 Three Sisters Wilderness Area

Figure 3.4

- 1 presents a map of the Three Sisters Wilderness Area, which consists of 2 85

, 202 acres abreast the crest of the Cascade Range in central Oregon. It includes headwaters tributaries of the McKenzie River that flow west into the Willamette Valley near Eugene and connect the Wilderness with that source region. On the east side streams flow east to the Deschutes River near Bend. The highest cre st elevation is 3,158 m (10,358 ft) at the summit of the South Sister. Lowest elevations are near 600 m (2,000 ft) where the South Fork of the McKenzie River exits the Wilderness on the west boundary. This is about 500 m (1,600 ft)

above the Willamette Val ley at Eugene 70 km (40 mi) west.

Figure 3.4

- 1 Map of Three Sisters Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 21



### 3.5 Diamond Peak Wilderness Area

Figure 3.5

- 1 presents a map of the 52,337 acre Diamond Peak Wilderness Area , which straddles the Cascade Range 50 km (30 mi) north of Crater Lake National Park. The highest crest elevation in the Wilderness is 2,666 m (8,744 ft) at Diamond Peak, which is also the highest summit in this region of the Cascade Range. Lowest elevations are near 1,450 m (5,000 ft) where streams exit the W ilderness on the west side. On the east side the Wilderness is bordered by mountain lakes with elevations from 1,459 m to 1,693 m (4,786 to 5,553 ft). The

area includes headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River that flows to the

Willamette Vall ey near Eugene, elevation 100 m (300 ft) and 90 km (60 mi) distant. Wilderness elevations are thus some 1,400 m (4,600 ft) above the Willamette Valley floor. East

of the Cascade crest

, streams flow to the Deschutes River in eastern Oregon.

Figure 3.5

- 1 Ma p of Diamond Peak Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 22



### 3.6 Crater Lake National Park

Figure 3.6

- 1 presents a map of Crater Lake National Park, the only national park in Oregon. The park was established on May 22, 1902, and now consists of 183,315 acres. It is located in southwestern Oregon on the crest of the Cascade Mountain range, 100 miles east of the Pacific

Ocean. Rim elevations range from about 900 to 1,873 ft above lake level. The highest park

elevation is 8,929 ft at the peak of Mt. Scott, in the eastern Park are a. The National Park includes headwaters of the Rogue River that flows southwest towards the Medford/Grants Pass area, and Sun Creek/Wood River that flows southeast to the Klamath Falls area.

Figure 3.6

- 1 Map of Crater Lake NP2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 23



### 3.7 Mountain Lakes W ilderness Area

Figure 3.7

- 1 presents a map of the Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area , which is a relatively small Class 1 Area in southern Oregon of 23,071 acres , 50 km (30 mi) south of Crater Lake

National Park. It consists of several peaks with a highest el evation of 2,502 m (8,208 ft) at the crest of Aspen Butte. Lowest elevations are near 1,500 m (5,000 ft). Primary drainages are Varney Creek and Moss Creek that flow into the Upper Klamath Lake, 3 km northeast of the Wilderness boundary.

Figure 3.7

- 1 Map of Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 24



### 3.8 Gearhart Mountain Wild er ness Area

Figure 3.8

- 1 presents a map of the Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area, which comprises 22,809 acres on the flanks of Gearhart Mountain in south central Oregon, primarily the

nort hern slope and eastern drainages of Gearhart Mountain, the dominant topographic feature. Elevations range from near 5,900 ft at the North Fork of the Sprague River in the northern Wilderness to 8,364 ft at the summit of Gearhart Mountain.

Figure 3.8

- 1 Map of Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 25



### 3.9 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

Figure 3.9

- 1 presents a map of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, which currently spans a total of 179,7 00 acres and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Kalmiopsis Wilderness i s located in the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon, part of the coastal temperate rainforest zone that lies between the Pacific Ocean and the east side of the coast ranges in

northwestern U.S. and Canada. Its western boundary is 20 to 25 km (12 to 1 5 mi) from the coast. Its easternmost extent is about 40 km (25 mi) from the coast. Elevations range from about 300 m (900 ft) on the western boundary where the Chetco River exits the Wilderness towards the Pacific Ocean 25 to 30 miles further west, to 1,5 54 m (5,098 ft) on Pearsoll Peak on the eastern Wilderness boundary. Terrain is steep canyons and long broad ridges. The Wilderness is mostly west of the general crest of the coast range, thus exposed to precipitation caused by lifting of eastward moving m aritime air, primarily during the winter. Precipitation ranges from 150 to 350 cm (60 to 140 in) annually, depending on elevation.

Figure 3.9

- 1 Map of Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 26



### 3.10 S trawberry Mountain Wilderness Area

Figure 3.10

- 1 presents a map of the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, which consists of 69,350 acres in eastern Oregon, just east of John Day. The Wilderness comprises most of the Strawberry Mountain Range. Terrain is rugged, with elevations ranging from 1,220 m (4,000 ft) to 2,755 m (9,038 ft) at the summit of Strawberry Mountain. It borders the upper John Day River valley to the north.

Figure 3.10

- 1 Map of Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 27



### 3.11 Eagle Cap Wilderness Area

Figure 3.11

- 1 presents a map of t he Eagle Cap Wilde rness Area , which comprises 3 60

, 275 acres in northeastern Oregon. Terrain is characterized by bare peaks and ridges and U

- shaped glaciated valleys. Elevations range from 5,000 ft in lower valleys to near 10,000 ft at the highest mountain summits. The Losti ne and Minam Rivers flow north from the center of the Wilderness towards Pendleton and the Columbia, 130 km northwest.

Figure 3.11

- 1 Map of Eagle Cap Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 28



### 3.12 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

Figure 3.12

- 1 a presents a map of the Hells Cany on Wilderness Area, which consists o f 214,944 acres , and is located on the Oregon

- Idaho border

. The Snake River divides the wilderness, with 131,133 acres in Oregon, and 83,811 acres are in Idaho

. It is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Fore st Service. The Snake River canyon is the deepest river gorge in North America. The higher terrain is located on the Oregon side. Popular Oregon

- side viewpoints are McGraw, Hat Point, and Somers Point.

Figure 3.12

- 1 Map of Hells Canyon Wilderness Area2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 29



### CHAPTER 4: TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND DATA RELIED UPON

IN THIS PLAN

This chapter describes the information relied upon by the Department in developing this regional haze plan. The first part of this chapter describes the Western Air Regional Partnershi p (WRAP) organization and work products relied upon by the Department. The second part describes the IMPROVE monitoring data and network that is used throughout the country by states in measuring Class I area visibility.



### 4.1 The WRAP and Technical Suppo rt

As described in Section 1.5.5 of this plan, the WRAP is a voluntary organization of western states, tribes and federal agencies. It was formed in 1997 as the successor to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. It is a regional planning organ ization that provides assistance to western states like Oregon in the preparation of regional haze plans. The WRAP is also implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by providing the technical and policy too ls needed by states and tribes to implement the federal regional haze rule. The WRAP is administered jointly by the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC).

The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes an d federal agencies. The states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal board members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Ko otenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone

- Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Representatives of other tribes participate on WRAP forums and

committees. Participation is encouraged throughout the Western states and tribes. Federal participants are the Department of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service,) the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency.

4.1.2 WRAP Committee’s and Workgroups

1. Initiatives Oversight Committee The Initiatives Oversight Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the work of

forums that develop policies and programs to improve and protect our air quality. IOC forums

are:

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum is tasked with developing energy conservation

initiatives and programs to expand the use of renewab le energy sources. They are working to find, and encourage use of, energy sources that minimize air pollution.

The Economic Analysis Forum2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 30

This Forum assists with studies to evaluate the economic effects of air quality programs being developed by the WRAP to diminish haze throughout the West.

The Forum on Emissions In/Near Class 1 Areas This Forum is looking at pollution sources in and near federally mandated Class 1 areas to

determine their impact on visibility in those areas. The group also will address mitigation and outreach options.

The Mobile Sources Forum This Forum addresses the impact of motor vehicles and other mobile sources of pollution. For example, the Forum developed a plan presented to the WRAP, suggesting a revision of

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules regarding the production of low

- sulfur fuel by

small refineries. The Forum also recommended reforms for off

- road emissions and diesel

fuel.

2. Technical Oversight Committee The Technical Oversight Committee’s tasks are to identify and manage technical issues and to

establish and oversee the work of forums and work groups that are developing and analyzing, scientific information related to air quality planning in the West. TOC forums and work groups

include:

The Air Quality Modelin g Forum This Forum identifies, evaluates the performance of, and applies mathematical air quality models, which can be used to quantify the benefits of various air quality programs for reducing haze in the western United States.

The Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum This Forum oversees the collection, use, and reporting of ambient air quality and

m eteorological monitoring data as needed to further the WRAP’s overall goals.

The Emissions Forum This Forum is developing the first comprehensive inventory of haze

- causing air emissions in the West, including a comprehensive emissions tracking and forecasting system. The

forum also monitors trends in actual emissions and forecasts emissions reductions anticipated from current regulations and alternative cont rol strategies.

Attribution of Haze Work Group This Work Group is preparing guidance for states and tribes regarding both the types of pollution emitters and the regions in which pollutants contribute to visibility impairment in national parks and other C lass 1 wilderness areas. Three state and three tribal representatives form the work group along with all members of the Technical Oversight

Committee and one representative each from the Initiatives Oversight Committee, the technical and joint forums and t he Tribal Data Development Work Group.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 31

The Tribal Data Development Work Group This Work Group is identifying gaps in air quality data for tribal lands and working with

tribes to collect that data. While some tribes have adequate staff and equipment for such an undertaking, many lack the manpower and technical resources to accomplish the work on their own. This Work Group is providing help by both enhancing the tribes’ ability to collect the necessary data and establishing an organized way to standardize and catalogue

the information for subsequent analysis.

3. WRAP Working Committees and Forums

Implementation Work Group The purpose of this work group is to bring together state and tribal staff involved in the development of regional haze plans

, to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. This work group discuss es the major strategies associated with state and tribal regional haze plans, issues associated with plan development and rule interpretation, and coordination and

consultation between sta tes, tribes, EPA, and the FLMs on these topics. State representatives on this work group are the primary regional haze plan writers.

Joint Technical and Policy Forums Joint Forums address both technical issues and policy. Both the TOC and the IOC have

o versight.

The Dust Emissions Joint Forum This Forum is seeking first to improve the methods for estimating dust emissions and t heir inputs in air quality models. The Forum also is examining the extent of dust impacts and strategies to reduce dust emission s.

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) The Grand Canyon Commission confirmed that forest fires contribute significantly to visibility problems and that the use of prescribed fire is expected to increase as a forest management tool. The Fire Emissions Jo int Forum is developing measures to reduce the

effects of prescribed fires and is examining emissions from all kinds of fire, whether ignited naturally or by humans. The Forum is considering public health and nuisance effects as well as visibility impacts. It will develop a tracking system for fire emissions and

management techniques to minimize e missions. This Forum is working to coordinate with and gain the full cooperation of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies as well as private landowners, fores t managers, and the agriculture community.

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum The Stationary Sources Joint Forum, formerly the Market Trading Forum, developed the

details of an emissions trading program to achieve cost

- effective reductions from industrial

sources of sulfur dioxide. The Forum first set emission milestones for sulfur dioxide between now and 2018 and then designed a trading program to be triggered if these

emission targets are exceeded. The Forum is now examining other industrial source

emiss ions, such as oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, and is assisting WRAP members in compliance with the stationary source provisions of the regional haze rule.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 32

4.1.2 WRAP TSS

The primary purpose of the TSS is to provide key summary analytical resul ts and methods documentation for the required technical elements of the Regional Haze Rule, to support the preparation, completion, evaluation, and implementation of the regional haze implementation plans to improve visibility in Class I areas. The TSS pro vides technical results prepared using a regional approach, to include summaries and analysis of the comprehensive datasets used to identify the sources and regions contributing to regional haze in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) region

.

The secondary purpose of the TSS is to be the one

- stop

- shop for access, visualization, analysis, and retrieval of the technical data and regional analytical results prepared by WRAP Forums and Workgroups in support of regional haze planning in the West. The TS S specifically summarizes results and consolidates information about air quality monitoring, meteorological

and receptor modeling data analyses, emissions inventories and models, and gridded air quality/visibility regional modeling simulations. These copio us and diverse data are integrated for application to air quality planning purposes by prioritizing and refining key information and results into explanatory tools.

Additional information on the TSS is provided in Appendix C.



### 4. 2 IMPROVE Monitoring

4 .1.1 Background on IMPROVE M onitoring

In the mid

- 1980’s, the Inter a gency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program was established to measure visibility impairment in mandatory Class I

Federal areas throughout the United States. The m onitoring sites are operated and maintained through a formal cooperative relationship between the EPA, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service. In 1991, several additional organizations join ed the effort: State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Western States Air Resources Council, Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and Northeast States

for Coordin ated Air Use Management.

The objectives of the IMPROVE program include establishing the current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I federal areas; identifying the chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing human

- made visibility impairment; documenting long

- term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goals; and support the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule by providing regional haze monitoring representing all visibility

protected federal Cl ass I areas where practical.

Figure 4.1.1

- 1 shows a typical IMPROVE site, and Figure 4.1.1

- 2 shows the four separate modules used for sampling the different pollutant species.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 33 Figure 4.1.1

- 1 Picture of an IMPROVE M onitoring S ite

The IMPROVE sampler c onsists of four separate modules for measuring regional haze.

Figure 4.1.1

- 2 IMPROVE Sampler Modules

The data collected at the IMPROVE monitoring sites are used by land managers, industry planners, scientists, public interest groups, and air quality r egulators to better understand and protect the visual air quality resource in Class I areas. Most importantly, the IMPROVE Program scientifically documents the visual air quality of their wilderness areas and national parks.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 34

4.1.2 Formula for Reconstruct ed Light Extinction

The IMPROVE program has developed methods for estimating light extinction from speciated aerosol and relative humidity data. The three most common metrics used to describe visibility impairment are:

Extinction (b ext )

– Extinction is a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length along a sight path due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, expressed in inverse Megameters (Mm - 1 ). This metric is useful for representing the contribution of each aerosol species to vis ibility impairment and can be practically thought of as the units of light lost in a million meter distance.

Visual Range (VR)

– Visual range is the greatest distance a large black object can be seen on the horizon, expressed in kilometers (km) or miles (m i).

Deciview (dv)

– This is the metric used for tracking regional haze in the RHR. The deciview index, was designed to be linear with respect to human perception of visibility. A one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in

extinction , whether visibility is good or poor. A one deciview change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the average person can detect with the naked eye. See Section 5.3 for additional information.

The IMPROVE network estimates light ex tinction based upon the measured mass of various contributing aerosol species. EPA’s 2003 guidance for calculating light extinction is based on the original protocol defined by the IMPROVE program in 1988. (For further information, see http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GuidanceDocs/guidancedocs.htm .) In December 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee voted to adopt a revised algorithm for use by IMPROVE as an alternative to the original approach.

The revised algorithm for estimating light extinction is calculated as recommended for use by the IMPROVE steering committee using the following equations:

The revised algor ithm splits ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and POM concentrations into small and large size fractions as follows:2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 35



### 4.2 Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Network

In Oregon there are six IMPROVE monitors that are listed under the sit e name in Table 4

- 2

- 1

. Three are located in the Oregon Cascades, two in Eastern Oregon, and one in the Coast Range. Since there are 12 Class I areas in Oregon, some monitors serve multiple Class I areas. While it is desirable to have one monitor per Class I area, in some cases one monitor can be “representative” of haze conditions in nearby Class I areas. Figure 4

- 2

- 1 shows the location of the IMPROVE monitors and the Class I areas covered by each monitor, as indicated by the yellow circles.

Table 4. 2

- 1 Or egon IMPROVE Monitor ing Network

Site Code Class I Area Sponsor Elevation MSL Start Date

MOHO1 Mt. Hood Wilderness USFS 1531 m (5022 ft) 3/7/2000

THSI1 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness

Mt. Washington Wilderness

Three Sisters Wilderness USFS 885 m (2903 ft) 7/2 4/1993

CRLA1 Crater Lake National Park ;

Diamond Peak Wilderness

Mountain Lakes Wilderness

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness NPS 1996 m (6548 ft) 3/2/1988

KALM1 Kalmiopsis Wilderness USFS 80 m (262 ft) 3/7/2000

STAR1 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness

Eagle Cap Wilderness USFS 1259 m (4130 ft) 3/7/2000

HECA1 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area USFS 655 m (2148 ft) 8/1/20002008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 36 Figure 4.2

- 1 Map of Oregon IMPROVE S ites

4.2.1 MOHO1

The MOHO1 IMPROVE site is the monitor for the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. It is locate d just

south of the w ilderness boundary near Government Camp , at an elevation of 5

, 022 f ee t.

4.2.2 T HSI1

The THSI1 IMPROVE site is the monitor for the Mt Washington, Three Sisters , and Mt

Jefferson Wilderness Areas. It is located 5 miles to the west of Mt Washington, 12 miles southwest of Mt Jefferson, and 10 miles northwest of Three Sisters, at an elevation of 2,903

f ee t.

4.2.3 CRLA1

The CRLA1 IMPROVE site is the monitor for Crater Lake National Park, and is used as the representative site for Diamon d Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness

Areas. It is located at the Park Headquarters in the park, to the south of the crater rim, at an
elevation of 6,548 feet

. The CRLA1 site is located 40 miles to the south of Diamond Peak, 35

miles to the north of Mountain Lakes, and 70 miles to the northeast of Gearhart Mountain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 37

4.2.4 KALM1

The KALM1 IMPROVE site is the monitor for the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area. It is located 6

mi les north of the w ilderness boundary near where the Illinois River m erges with the Rogue

River , at an elevation of 262 feet

.

4.2.5 STAR1

The STAR1 IMPROVE site is the representative monitor ing site for the Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas. It is located 60 miles north of the Strawberry Mountain

Wilder ness, and 40 miles west of the Eagle Cap Wilderness, at an elevation of 4,1 30 f eet.

4.2.6 HECA1

The HECA1 IMPROVE site is the monitor for the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area. It is located 10 miles south of the wilderness boundary, at an elevation of 2,148 feet.



### 4. 3 Oregon Regional Haze Monitoring Commitments

Under Section 51.308(d) (4) of the Regional Haze Rule, the State must submit with the implementation plan a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibilit y impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in Section 51.305 for reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

The State of Oregon has commit ted to continue utilizing the IMPROVE monitoring program to track reasonable progress over time. Also, Oregon will continue to develop and update emission inventories sufficient to allow for the tracking of emission increases or decrea ses attributable to adopted strategies or other factors such as growth, economic downturn, or voluntary or permit related issues. These monitoring and emissions data will be available for electronic processing in future modeling or other emission tracking processes. Information collected from the monitoring system and emission inventory work will be made available to the public on a periodic basis.

Oregon will rely upon WRAP technical support to meet its commitment to conduct the analyses

necessary to mee t the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(4)

.

Oregon will rely on the IMPROVE program to collect and report aerosol monitoring data for long

- term reasonable progress tracking as specified in the Regional Haze Rule

. Since this rule

i s a long

- term tracking p rogram with an implementation period over 60 years, Oregon e xpects that the IMPROVE program will provide data based on the following goals:

1) Maintain a stable configuration of the individual monitors and sampling sites, and stability in network operations for the purpose of continuity in tracking reasonable progress trends; 2) Assure sufficient data capture at each site of all visibility

- impairing species;2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 38

3) Comply with EPA quality control and assurance requirements; and 4) Prepare and disseminate periodic reports on IMPROVE program operations.

Oregon is relying on the IMPROVE program to meet these monitoring operation and data collection goals, with the fundamental assumption that network data collection operations will not change, or if changed, will remain direc tly comparable to those operated by the IMPROVE program during the 2000

- 04 baseline period. Technical analyses and reasonable progress goals in this implementation plan for Regional Haze are based on data from these sites. As such, Oregon asks that the IMP ROVE program identify potential issues affecting regional haze rule implementation trends and notify the S tate before changes in the IMPROVE program affecting

a regional haze tracking site are made.

Further, Oregon notes that the human resources to operat e these monitors are provided by Federal Land Management agencies. Beyond that in

- kind contribution, resources for operation and sample analysis of a complete and representative monitoring network of these sites by the IMPROVE program in the WRAP region ar e a collaborative responsibility of members of the WRAP (EPA, states, tribes, and FLMs) and the IMPROVE program steering committee. Oregon will collaborate with the EPA, FLMs, other states, tribes, and the IMPROVE committee to assure adequate and represent ative data collection and reporting by the IMPROVE program.

Oregon depends on the following IMPROVE program

- operated monitors at the following sites for tracking RHR reasonable progress:

Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Sites: CRLA1, HECA1, KALM1, MOHO1, STAR1, THSI1

Oregon Class I Areas covered by

this network Crater Lake NP, OR: Diamond Peak W, OR: Gearhart Mountain W,

OR: Mountain Lakes W, OR; Class I Area

- Hells Canyon W, ID; Class

I Area

- Kalmiopsis W, OR; Class I Area

- Mount Hood W, OR; Class I

Areas

- Eagle Cap W, OR: Strawberry Mountain W, OR; Class I Areas

- Mount Jefferson W, OR: Mount Washington W, OR: Three Sisters W,

OR

Oregon will use data reported by the IMPROVE program as part of the regional technical support analysis tools found at the V isibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) and the Technical Support System (TSS), as well as other analysis tools and efforts sponsored by

the WRAP. Oregon will participate in the ongoing regional analysis activities of the WRAP to collectively ass ess and verify the progress toward reasonable progress goals, also supporting

interstate consultation as the rule is implemented, and collaborate with WRAP members (EPA, states, tribes, and FLMs) to ensure the continued operation of these technical support analysis tools and systems. Oregon may conduct additional analyses as needed.

Oregon will depend on the routine timely reporting of haze monitoring data by the IMPROVE program for the reasonable progress tracking sites to the EPA air quality data system, VIEWS,

and TSS. Oregon will collaborate with WRAP members (EPA, states, tribes, and FLMs) to ensure the continued operation of these technical support analysis tools and systems.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 39

Oregon has prepared a statewide inventory of emissions that can reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Federal Class I Areas. Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of this plan summarizes Oregon emissions by pollutant and source category.

Ore gon commits to updating statewide emissions periodically. The updat es will be used for state tracking of emission changes, trends, and input into the WRAP’s evaluation of whether reasonable progress goals are being achieved and other regional analyses. The inventories will be updated every three years on the same schedule as the every three

- year reporting required by EPA’s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule.

As a member of the WRAP, the state will continue to use the WRAP

- sponsored Emissions Data Management System (EDMS) and Fire Emissions Tracking System (FETS) to sto re and access emission inventory data for the region. Oregon will also depend upon and participate in additional periodic collective emissions inventory efforts by the WRAP. Further, Oregon will continue to depend on and use the capabilities of the WRAP sp onsored Regional Modeling Center (RMC) to simulate the air quality impacts of emissions for haze and other related air quality planning purposes. Oregon will collaborate with WRAP members (EPA, states, tribes, and FLMs) to ensure the continued operation of these technical support analysis tools and

systems.

Oregon will track data related to regional haze plan implementation for sources for which the state has regulatory authority, and will depend on the IMPROVE program and WRAP

sponsored collection and a nalysis efforts and data support systems for monitoring and emissions inventory data, respectively. To ensure the availability of data and analyses to report on visibility conditions and progress toward Class I area visibility goals, Oregon will

collaborat e with WRAP members (EPA, states, tribes, and FLMs) to ensure the continued operation of the IMPROVE program and the WRAP

- sponsored technical support analysis tools and systems.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 40



### CHAPTER 5: BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS

In order to better understand the info rmation presented in the document, this chapter describes the basic plan elements and key concepts contained in the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.



### 5.1 Natural Sources of Visibility Impairment

Natural sources of visibility impairment include anything not directly attributed to human

caused emissions of visibility

- impairing pollutants. Natural events (e.g. windblown dust, wildfire, volcanic activity, biogenic emissions) also introduce pollutants that contribute to haze in the atmosphere. Specific natural ev ents can lead to high short

- term concentrations of visibility

- impairing particulate matter and its precursors. Therefore, natural visibility conditions, for the purpose of the Oregon regional haze program, are represented by a long

term average of conditio ns expected to occur in the absence of emissions normally attributed to

human activities. Natural visibility conditions reflect contemporary vegetated landscape, land

use patterns, and meteorological/climatic conditions.

Natural sources , particularly wi ldfire and windblown dust, can be major contribut ors to visibility impairment

. However, these emissions cannot be realistically controlled or prevented by the states

, and therefore the focus of the regional haze strategies in this document are on human

- cau sed (anthropogenic) sources, as described below. While c urrent methods of analysis

of monitoring data do not provide a clear distinction between natural and anthropogenic

emissions , certain pollutant species , such as sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxide ( NO

x ) are more representative of anthropogenic sources , while organic carbon (OC) and coarse particulate matter ( PM 10 ) are more representative of natural sources such as wildfire and dust, respectively

.



### 5.2 Human

- Caused Sources of Visibility Impairment

Anthropogenic or human

- caused sources of visibility impairment include anything directly

attributable to human

- caused activities that produce emissions of visibility

- impairing pollutants. Some examples include industry, transportation, agriculture activi ties, home heating, and managed outdoor burning. Anthropogenic sources can be local, regional, or international. Efforts to regulate anthropogenic emissions are mostly limited to inside the United States

. E missions from Mexico & Canada, and off

- shore mari n e shipping emissions in the Pacific

Ocean , are examples of anthropogenic sources that contribute to visibility impairment in Oregon

, but like natural sources, beyond the scope of this planning document. 2



### 5.3 Deciview M easurement

Each IMPROVE monitor c ollects particulate concentration data which are converted into reconstructed light extinction through a complex calculation using the IMPROVE equation (see Technical Support Documents for any Class I area). Reconstructed light extinction (denoted as

2 As described in Chapter 9 and elsewhere in this document, international emissions from Canada, as well as offshore marine vessels, are major contributors to regional haze in Oregon.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 41

bext) is expressed in units of inverse megameters (1/Mm or Mm

- 1). The Regional Haze Rule requires the tracking of visibility conditions in terms of the Haze Index (HI) metric expressed in the deciview (dv) unit (40 CFR 51.308(d)(2) ) . Generally, a one deciview c hange in the haze

index is considered a humanly perceptible change under ideal conditions

, regardless of background visibility conditions. The relationship between extinction (Mm

- 1), haze index (dv) and visual range ( mi ) are indicat ed by the following scal e:



### 5. 4 Baseline and Current Conditions

The Regional Haze Rule requires the calculation of baseline conditions for each Class I area.

B aseline condition s are defined as the five year average (annual values for 2000

- 2004) of IMPROVE monitoring data (expressed in deciviews) for the most

- impaired (20% worst) days

and the least

- impaired (20% best) days. For this first regional haze plan submittal, the baseline conditions are the reference point against which visibility improvement is tracked. For future plan progress reports and updates, baseline conditions are used to calculate progress from the beginning of the regional haze program. Current conditions for the best and worst days are calculated from a multiyear average, based on the most recent 5

- years of monitored data available. This value will be revised at the time of each periodic plan revision, and will be used to illustrate: (1) The amount of progress made since the last plan revision, and (2) the amount of progress made from the baseline period of the program.



### 5. 5 Natural Conditions

The visibility that would exist under natural conditions (absent any man

- made impairment) would vary based on the contribution of natural sources and meteorological conditions on a given day. For that reason, n atu ral condition s, as defined in this document, consists of a level of visibility (in deciviews) for both the most

- impaired (20% worst) days and the least

- impaired (20 % best) days. Since no visibility monitoring data exists from the pre

- manmade impairment

pe riod, these estimates of natural conditions are based on E PA guidance on how to estimate natural conditions (EPA Document: Guidance for Estimate Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule ).



### 5. 6 Reasonable Progress Goal s

For each Class I area the S tate must establish goals ( measured in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals (RPG) are interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvement over time for

the most

- impaired (20% worst) days and no degradation in visibility for the least

- impaired (20% best) days. The first regional haze plan that States must submit to EPA needs to include RPGs for the year 2018, also known as the “2018 milestone ye ar”. The State has flexibility in2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 42

establishing different RPGs for each Class I area. In establishing the RPG , the State must consider four factors: the costs of compliance; the time necessary for compliance; the energy

and non

- air quality environmental i mpacts of compliance; and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources

. States must demonstrat e how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal for each Class I area

.



### 5. 7 Uniform Rate of Progress

The uniform rate o f progress ( URP ) is the calculation of the slope of the line between baseline visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions over the 60

- year period. For the first regional haze plan, the first benchmark is the deciview level that should be achie ved in 2018, as indicated in blue below as the first planning period (Figure 5.7

- 1). This is 2018 Milestone, and applies to both the 20% worst days and the 20% best days.

Figure 5. 7

- 1 Example of How Uniform Rate of Progress is D etermined

Compare bas eline conditions to natural conditions. The difference between these two represents the amount of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions. In this example, the State has determined that the baseline for the 20 percent worst days for the

Clas s I area is 29 dv and estimated that natural background is 11 dv, a difference of 18 dv.

Calculate the annual average visibility improvement needed to reach natural conditions by 2064 by dividing the total amount of improvement needed by 60 years (the per iod between 2004 and 2064). In this example, this value is 0.3 dv/yr.

Multiply the annual average visibility improvement needed by the number of years in the first planning period (the period from 2004 until 2018). In this example, this value is 4.2 dv.

T his is the uniform rate of progress that would be needed during the first planning period to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 43

The URP is not a presumptive target. When establishing RPGs, the State may determine RPGs at greater, lesser or equi valent visibility improvement than the URP. In cases where the RPG results in less improvement in 2018 than the URP, the State must demonstrate why the URP is not achievable, and why the RPGs are “reasonable”.

For the 20% worst days, the URP is expressed in deciviews per year (i.e. slope of the glide path) is determined by the following equation:

U RP = [Baseline Condition

- Natural Condition] / 60 years

The 2018 Progress Goal (i.e. the amount of reduction necessary for the 1 st planning period) is

determi ned by multiplying the URP by the number of years in the 1 st planning period. 2018 Progress Goal = [Uniform ROP] x [14 years]

The 14 years comprising the 1 st planning period includes the 4 years between the baseline and the SIP submittal date plus the sta ndard 10

- year planning period.



### 5.8 Long

- Term Strategy

The Regional Haze Rule also requires States to submit a long

- term strategy that includes enforceable measures to achieve reasonable progress goals. The long

- term strategy must identify all anthropog enic sources inside the State that are affecting Class I areas both inside and outside the State. The first long

- term strategy will cover 10 to 15 years, with reassessment and revision of those goals and strategies in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter. At a minimum,

the following factors must be considered in developing the long

- term strategy:

Measures to mitigate the impact of construction activities; Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; Source retirement and replacement schedules; Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry burning, including plans to reduce smoke impacts; Enforceability of emission limitations and control measures; and The anticipated net affect on visibility due to projected changes in poi nt, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed of the long term strategy.



### 5.9 BART

The RPGs, the long

- term strategy, and BART are the three main elements of a Regional Haze

Plan. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements a pply to certain older industrial facilities that began operating before national rules were adopted in 1977 to prevent new facilities from causing visibility impairment. BART applies to facilities built between 1962 and 1977, have potential emissions great er than 250 tons per year, and which fall into one of 26 specific source categories. These facilities must be evaluated to see how much they contribute to regional haze and if retrofitting with controls is feasible and cost effective.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 44

The BART process con sists of three

- step s : (1) determining BART

- eligibility; (2) determining is a source is “subject to BART” by conducting modeling of Class I visibility impact s ; and (3) conducting an analysis of BART control s ( retrofitting) for those sources subject to BART that contribute to regional haze.

In determining BART controls , the State must take into account several factors, including the existing control technology in place at the source, the costs of compliance, energy and nonair environmental impacts of complia nce, remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of visibility improvement that is reasonably anticipated f rom the use of such technology.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 45



### CHAPTER 6: BASELINE AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS,

AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS

States and tribes are required to establish “reasonable progress goals” for each Class I area to improve visibility on the 20% haziest days and to prevent visibility degradation on the 20% clearest days. States are to evaluate their contributions to visibility impairment at Cla ss I areas both within and outside the State and to develop long

- term control strategies to reduce emissions of air pollutants that impair visibility. The national goal is to return visibility to natural background levels by 2064. Using the period 2000 to 2004 as the baseline period, the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) is a linear rate of progress or “glide path” towards natural

conditions in 2064. States are to evaluate progress in improving visibility to the 2018 URP planning goal, and every 10 years there after.

This chapter describes the URP for each of Oregon’s 12 Class I a reas. Chapter 7 provides information on monitoring data, sources of visibility impairment, and the emission reductions that will be needed to demonstrate reasonable progress for the 20 18 planning goals

. Chapter 8 provides information on state and regional emissions sources, and Chapter 9 presents an analysis of significant source contributions and improvements expected by 2018.

Table 6

- 1 below is a summary of the 20% worst and best da ys for Oregon’s 12 Class I areas, comparing baseline conditions (2000

- 04) to estimated natural conditions in 2064. For the 20% worst days, the 2018 URP is indicated, and the reduction needed (in deciview) to achieve the

URP. Class I a reas are grouped by th e IMPROVE monitoring site that represents each area.

Sections 6

- 1 through 6

- 6 show figures of the URP for each Class I a rea. Fo llowing these figures are photographs of haze conditions for each Class I a rea

. Each photograph lists the deciview level, light extinction measurement, and the viewing distance (standard visual range)

in kilometers/miles at the bottom. No images were available for Mountain Lakes Class I area

. T he photographs visually show the 20% worst and best days for baseline and natural

condit ions. Where available, these haze conditions were simulated using ARS’ WinHaze Visual Air Quality Modeler (Ver. 2.9.6). If images were not available in the WinHaze program, images were assembled using photographs and associated haze condition estimates fro m archives from the US Forest Service Air Monitoring Program.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 46

Table 6

- 1 20% Best and Worst Days Baseline , Natural Conditions , and Uniform Rate of Progress Goal for Oregon Class I Areas

Region Oregon

Class I Area 20% Worst Days 20% Best Days

2000

- 04

B aseline (dv) 2018

URP Goal (dv) 2018

Reduction

Needed (dv) 2064

Natural

Conditions (dv) 2000

- 04

Baseline (dv) 2064

Natural

Conditions (dv)

Northern

Cascades Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area 14.9 13.4 1.5 8.4 2.2 0.9

Central

Cascades Mt. Jefferson,

Mt. Washington

, and Three Sisters

Wilderness Areas 15.3 13.8 1.5 8.8 3.0 1.9

Southern

Cascades Crater Lake

National Park; Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart

Mountain

Wilderness Areas 13.7 12.3 1.4 7.6 1. 7 0.1

Coast Range Kalmiopsis

Wilderness Area 15.5 14.1 1.4 9.4 6.3 3.7

Eastern Oregon Strawberry Mountain

and Eagle Cap

Wilderness Areas 18.6 16.3 2.3 8.9 4.5 1.5

Eastern Oregon/

Western

Idaho Hells Canyon

Wilderness Area 18.6 16.2 2.4 8.3 5.5 2.5



### 6.1 Northern Cascades

- Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

The Mt. Hood (MOHO1) monitoring site represents the Mt. Hood Wilderness Class I Area in the northern cascades region of Oregon

. Figure 6.1

- 1 shows baseline visibility conditions , the uniform rate of progress

, the 2018 planning goal

, and estimated 2064 natural con ditions for the

MOHO1 site

.

Figure 6.1

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, and Figure 6.1

- 3 is an image representing the

current best

- day visibility conditions for Mt . Hood.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 47 Figure 6.1

- 1 MOHO1 Uniform Rate of Progress

Figure 6.1

- 2 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area (Hickman Butte vista) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline

Haze Index = 14.9 dV

b ext = 47.5 Mm - 1
SVR = 82 km/51 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 8.4 dV

b
ex t = 23.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 163 km/101 mi

Composite of U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image s2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 48

Figure 6.1

- 3 Mt. Hood Wilderness Area (Hickman Butte vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 2.2 dV

b ext = 12.5 Mm - 1
SVR = 313 km/194 mi

U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image



### 6.2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters

Wil derness Areas

The Three Sisters (THSI1) monitoring site represents three Class I areas in the Central Cascades, which include the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas. Figure 6.2

- 1 shows the baseline visibility conditions, the uniform rate of progress, the 2018 planning goal, and estimated 2064 natural conditions for the THSI1 site.

Figure 6.2

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, and F igure 6.2

- 3 is an image representing the

current best

- day visibility conditions for Mt. Jefferson. Figures 6.2

- 4 and 6.2

- 5 are similar images for the Mt. Washington Wilderness area, and Figures 6.2

- 6 and 6.2

- 7 are images from

the Three Sisters Wilderness A rea.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 49 Figure 6. 2

- 1 THSI1 Uniform Rate of Progress

F igure 6. 2

- 2 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area (Three Fingered Jack vista) Worst Days

Baseline and Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 15.3 dV

b ext = 49.4 Mm - 1 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Ind ex = 8.8 dV

b ext = 24.7 Mm - 1
SVR = 165 km/103 mi2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 50 SVR = 81 km/50 mi

Composite of U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image s

Figure 6. 2

- 3 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area (Three Fingered Jack vista) Best Days

B aseline Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 3 dV

b ext = 13.6 Mm - 1
SVR = 310 km/192 mi

U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image

F igure 6. 2

- 4 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area (Blac k Butte vista) Worst Days Baseline

and Natural Conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 51 2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 15.3 dV

b ext = 49.4 Mm - 1
SVR = 81 km/50 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 8.8 dV

b ext = 24.7 Mm - 1
SVR = 165 km/103 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

Figure 6. 2

- 5 Mt. Washington Wilderness Area (Black Butte vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 3 dV

b ext = 13.6 Mm - 1
SVR = 310 km/192 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

F igure 6. 2

- 6 Three Sisters Wilderness Area Worst Days Baseline and Natu ral Conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 52 2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 15.3 dV

b ext = 49.4 Mm - 1
SVR = 81 km/50 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 8.8 dV

b ext = 24.7 Mm - 1
SVR = 165 km/103 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

Figure 6. 2

- 7 Three Sisters Wilderness Area Best Days B aseline Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 3 dV

b ext = 13.6 Mm - 1
SVR = 310 km/192 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6



### 6.3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, and Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

The Crat er Lake (CRLA1) monitoring site represents four Class I areas in the southern part of Oregon, which include Crater Lake National Park, and Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas. Figure 6.3

- 1 shows the baseline visibility cond itions, the uniform rate of progress, the 2018 planning goal, and estimated 2064 natural conditions for the

CRLA1 site.

Figure 6.3

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for Crater Lake National Park, an d Figure 6.3

- 3 is an image representing the current

best

- day visibility conditions for Crater Lake. Figures 6.3

- 4 and 6.3

- 5 are similar images for the Diamond Peak Wilderness area, and Figures 6.3

- 6 and 6.3

- 7 are images from the Gearhart

Mountain Wildernes s Area. Images for the Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area were not

available.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 53 Figure 6. 3

- 1 CRLA1 Uniform Rate of Progress

F igure 6. 3

- 2 Crater Lake National Park Worst Days Baseline and Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 13.7 dV

b ext = 47.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 80 km/50 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index =7.6 dV

b ext = 23.3 Mm - 1
SVR = 161 km/100 mi

Composite of U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image s2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 54 Figure 6. 3

- 3 Crater Lake National Park Best Da ys Baseline Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline

Haze Index = 1.7 dV

b ext = 11.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 303 km/188 mi

U.S . Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image

F igure 6. 3

- 4 Diamond Peak Wilderness Area (Wolf Mountain Vista) Worst Days Baseline

and Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline

Haze Index = 13.7 dV

b ext = 47.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 80 km/50 mi 2064 Natural C onditions

Haze Index =7.6 dV

b ext = 23.3 Mm - 1
SVR = 161 km/100 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.62008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 55

Figure 6. 3

- 5 Diamond Peak Wilderness Area (Wolf Mountain Vista) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline

Haze Index = 1.7 dV

b ext = 11.9 Mm - 1

SVR = 303 km/188 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

F igure 6. 3

- 6 Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area Worst Days Baseline and N atural

Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline

Haze Index = 13.7 dV

b ext = 47.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 80 km/50 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index =7.6 dV

b ext = 23.3 Mm - 1
SVR = 161 km/100 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.62008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 56

Figure 6. 3

- 7 Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area Best Days Baseline Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline

Haze Index = 1.7 dV

b ext = 11.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 303 km/188 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6



### 6.4 Coast Range

- Kalmiops is Wilderness Area

The Kalmiopsis (KALM1) monitoring site represents the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Class I Area

in the coastal range of Oregon. Figure 6. 4

- 1 shows baseline visibility conditions, the uniform rate of progress, the 2018 planning goal, and estima ted 2064 natural cond i tions for the KALM 1

site.

Figure 6.4

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, and Figure 6.4

- 3 is an image representing the

current best

- day visibi lity conditions for Kalmiopsis.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 57 Figure 6. 4

- 1 KALM1 Uniform Rate of Progress

F igure 6. 4

- 2 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area (Quail Prairie) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 15.5 dV

b ext = 48.1 Mm - 1 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 9.4 dV

b ext = 26.0 Mm - 1
SVR = 163 km/101 mi2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 58 SVR = 85 km/53 mi

Composite of U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image s

Figure 6. 4

- 3 Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area (Quail Prairie) Best Days Baseline Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 6.3 dV

b ext = 18.8 Mm - 1
SVR = 232 km/144 mi

U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image



### 6.5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

The Starkey (STAR1) monitoring site represents two Class I areas in the eastern part of Oregon, which include the Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas. Figure 6.5

- 1

shows the baseline visibility conditions, the uniform rate o f progress, the 2018 planning goal,

and estimated 2064 natural conditions for the STAR1 site.

Figure 6.5

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, and Figure 6.5

- 3 is an image representing the current best

- day visibility conditions for Strawberry Mountain. Figures 6.5

- 4

and 6.5

- 5 are similar images for the Eagle Cap Wilderness area.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 59 Figure 6.5

- 1 STAR1 Uniform Rate of Progress

F igure 6. 5

- 2 Strawberry Mountai n Wilderness Area (Dixie Butte) Worst Days B aseline

and Natural Conditions

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 18.6 dV

b ext = 68.1 Mm - 1 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 8.9 dV

b ext = 24.8 Mm - 1
SVR = 158 km/98 mi2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 60 SVR = 57 km/36 mi

WinHAZE v2.9 .6

Figure 6. 5

- 3 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area (Dixie Butte) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 4.5 dV

b ext = 15.9 Mm - 1
SVR = 247 km/153 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

F igure 6. 5

- 4 Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (Point Prominen ce) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 61 2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline
Haze Index = 18.6 dV

b ext = 68.1 Mm - 1
SVR = 57 km/36 mi 2064 Natural Conditions

Haze Index = 8.9 dV

b ext = 24.8 Mm - 1
SVR = 158 km/98 mi

Composite of U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program images

Figure 6. 5

- 5 Eagl e Cap Wilderness Area (Point Prominence) Best Days Baseline

Conditions

2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline
Haze Index = 4.5 dV

b ext = 15.9 Mm - 1

SVR = 247 km/153 mi

U.S. Forest Service Air Monitoring Program image



### 6.6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- H ells Canyon Wilderness Area

The Hells Canyon (HECA1) monitoring site represents the Hells Canyon Wilderness Class I

Area. Figure 6.6

- 1 shows baseline visibi lity conditions, the uniform rate of progress, the 2018 planning goal, and estimated 2064 natural conditions for the MOHO1 site.

Figure 6.6

- 2 is a split image which represents the current worst

- day and estimated natural conditions for the Hells Canyon Wil derness Area, and Figure 6.6

- 3 is an image representing the

current best

- day visibility conditions for Mt. Hood.

Figure 6.6

- 1 HECA1 Uniform Rate of Progress2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 62

F igure 6. 6

- 2 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area (Mt. Howard) Worst Days Baseline and

Natural Conditi ons

2000

- 04 Worst Days
Baseline

Haze Index = 18.6 dV

b ext = 69.1 Mm - 1
SVR = 57 km/36 mi 2064 Natural Conditions
Haze Index = 8.3 dV

b ext = 23.2 Mm - 1
SVR = 176 km/109 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.6

Figure 6. 6

- 3 Hells Canyon Wilderness Area (Mt. Howard) Best Days B aseline Conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 63 2000

- 04 Best Days Baseline

Haze Index = 5.5 dV

b ext = 17.5 Mm - 1
SVR = 238 km/148 mi

WinHAZE v2.9.62008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 64



### CHAPTER 7: POLLUTANTS CAUSING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN

OREGON CLASS I AREAS

This chapter provides a summary of regional haze monit oring data from the IMPROVE monitoring sites in Oregon, and the pollutants that are causing visibility impairment in each of Oregon’s Class I Areas. Also provided is a summary of the visibility improvement needed from baseline (2000

- 2004) to the 2018 unifo rm rate of progress milestone, and to the 2064 natural condition goal.

Figure 7

- 1 shows Oregon IMPROVE monitoring sites that will be described in this chapter. This map and a description of the IMPROVE network was provided in Chapter 4.

Figure 7

- 1 Map of Oregon IMPROVE sites

Table 7

- 1 identifies the different pollutant species that contribute to haze, and their abbreviations, as they appear in the figures in this chapter. Refere nces to sulfate and nitrate in this chapter are intended to reflect amm onium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, respectively.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 65 Table 7

- 1 IMPROVE Monitor Aerosol Composition

Pollutant IMPROVE Abbreviation

Ammonium Nitrate ammno3f_bext

Ammonium Sulfate ammso4f_bext EC (Elemental Carbon) ecf_bext OMC (Organic Mass Carbon) omcf_bext CM (Coarse Mass) cm_bext Soil (fine Soil) soilf_bext

Sea Salt seasalt_bext

The figures which follow in this chapter provide information for each Class I area (based on representative IMPROVE monitoring site) for the 20% best and 20% wors t d ays during the baseline period, monthly averages of all monitored days, and the improvement needed by 2018

and 2064.

Figures 7

- 2 and 7

- 3 summarize the distribution of pollutant species in Oregon’s Class I areas, for the current (2000

- 04 baseline) 20% best and 20% worst days.

Figure 7

- 2 Light Extinction by Pollutant Speci es for Oregon Class I Area s 20% B est

D ays (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 66

Figure 7

- 3 Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Oregon Class I Areas 20% Worst Days (2000

- 2004)

As Figures 7

- 2 and 7

- 3 indicate, Oregon’s Class I areas are dominated by organic carbon and

sulfate on the 20% best days and worst days. On the 20% best days, organic carbon is significant in both the coast range (Kalmiopsis Wilderness) and Eastern Oregon Class I areas.

Much o f this can be attributed to fire sources. On the 20% worst days, nitrate is significant in Eastern Oregon Class I areas, which accounts for the total extinction levels being higher there

than the other Class I areas. Much of this can be attributed to indus trial sources, such as the PGE Boardman power plant, which is a major NO

x emissions source in Eastern Oregon

. See

Sections 7.5 and 7.6 below.

The following sections provide a n additional breakdown of the pollutant species that contribut e

to each Class I area. The first figure in each section shows a simple pie chart of the 20% best

and 20% worst days, similar to the bar chart figures above. The second figure in each section shows the pollutant species based on monthly averages for all days ( including be st or worst) during the baseline period , as an example of the seasonal variation in Class I area s

. The third figure in each section takes a closer look at the daily variation during a given year

- in this case

2004. The fourth figure in each section shows the improvement needed (shown by reduction in deciview) for each Class I area

, from the baseline year to the 2018 milestone, and to 2064

natural conditions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 67



### 7.1 Northern Cascades

- Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

As Figure 7.1

- 1 shows, Mt. Hood Wilderness, l ike other Class I areas in the Cascades, is dominated by sulfate on the best days, and mostly organic carbon on the worst days

. In looking

at the pollutant species variations, the sulfate levels fluctuate during the year, while the

contribution of nitrate is generally more consistent. The sources of sulfate and nitrate vary, and are described further in Chapters 8 and 9. Significant impacts or “spikes” can be seen during the year from organic carbon

. Th ese impacts are an indicator of fire sources. During th e summer, i t is likely these impacts are from wildfire , while d uring the spring and fall

, they are

most likely f

rom controlled (anthropogenic) burning. Figure 7.1

- 4 shows a 1.5 dv reduction is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 6.5 dv needed by 2064.

Figu re 7.1

- 1 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Average Pollutant Species Contribution to 20%

Best and 20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

Figure 7. 1

- 2 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for

All Days Sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 68

Figure 7. 1

- 3 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

Figure 7.1

- 4 Mt. Hood IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 20642008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 69



### 7.2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

As Figure 7.2

- 1 shows, th e three Class I areas in the Central Cascades

- Mt. Jefferson

, Mt. Washington

, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

- are dominated by sulfate on the best days, and organic carbon on the worst days , similar to other Cascade Oregon Class I areas

. In looking at the pollutant species variations, the sulfa te levels fluctuate during the year, while the contribution of nitrate is generally more consistent. The sources of sulfate and nitrate are described further in Chapters 8 and 9. Figure 7.2

- 2 shows major spikes or impacts in o rganic

carbon , particularly du ring the summer . These impacts are an indicator of fire sources. Figure

7.2

- 3 shows that during 2004, the largest impact from this pollutant species was during the spring, presumably from a controlled, single fire event. Figure 7. 2

- 4 shows a 1.5 dv reducti on is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 6.5 dv needed by 2064.

Figure 7. 2

- 1 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and

20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

Figure 7. 2

- 2 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation

for All Days Sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 70

Figure 7. 2

- 3 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

Figure 7. 2

- 4 Three Sisters IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 20642008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 71



### 7.3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilde rness Areas

As Figure 7.3

- 1 shows, the four Class I areas in the Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, and Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes , and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

- are dominated by sulfate on the best days, and organic carbon on the worst days , similar to other

Cascade Class I areas

– however organic carbon is highe r than other Cascade Class I areas

. This is an indicator of a higher contribution of fire sources. It should be noted that 2002 was one of the highest wildfire years in re cent history, as shown by the high impact i n Figure 7.3

- 2. Figure 7.3

- 3 also shows that for 2004, wildfires were a significant contributor

, and that impacts in spring and fall suggest anthropogenic burning

. In looking at other pollutants, sulfate levels

fl uctuate considerably during the year, while the contribution of nitrate is generally consistent. The sources of sulfate and nitrate are described further in Chapters 8 and 9. Figure 7. 3

- 4 shows

a 1. 4 dv reduction is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 6. 1 dv needed by 2064.

Figure 7. 3

- 1 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and

20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

Figur e 7. 3

- 2 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation

for All Days Sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 72

Fi gure 7. 3

- 3 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

Figure 7. 3

- 4 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Baseli ne Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 20642008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 73



### 7.4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

As Figure 7. 4

- 1 shows, the Kalmiopsis Wilderness is dominated by organic carbon on both the

best and worst days. S ulfate also is a significant contributor on both days. The organic carbon is

an indicator of fire sources. The extreme spike or impact shown in Figure 7.4

- 2 for 2002 reflects one of the worst wildfire years in recent history. Figure 7. 4

- 3 also shows impact s in organic carbon outside of the summer months in 2004, indicating that anthropogenic burning is

a contributor year

- round

. While sulfate is significant, nitrate levels are lower than other Oregon

Class I areas. The sources of sulfate and nitrate are desc ribed further in Chapters 8 and 9. Figure 7. 4

- 4 shows a 1.4 dv reduction is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 6.1 dv needed by

2064.

Figure 7. 4

- 1 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and

20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

Figure 7. 4

- 2 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation

for All Days Sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 74

Figure 7. 4

- 3 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

Figure 7. 4

- 4 Kalmiopsis IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 20642008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 75



### 7.5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilder ness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

As Figure 7.5

- 1 shows, two Class I areas in Eastern Oregon

– the Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

- are dominated by sulfate on the best days, and organic carbon on

the worst days

. However, on the best days, organic carbon is also significant, while on the worst days, the contribution of nitrate is much higher than Western Oregon Class I areas. In looking at the pollutant species variations, the organic carbon impacts during the year suggests the same pattern of summer wildfire and anthropogenic burning in spring and fall as other Oregon Class I areas. There is a lso a pattern of high nitrate impact s during the winter months, which is particularly evident in Figure 7.5

- 3

. Much of this can be attributed to indus trial sources, primarily the PGE Boardman power plant, which is a large NO

x emissions source, and has been identified through BART modeling to be a significant contributor to regional haze , as described in Chapter 10. 3 Since the se impacts occur in winterti me, this suggests that meteorological conditions play a major role

. Cold temperatures and low level inversions likely intensify these impacts, and account for the high impacts noted in early 2004. Figure 7. 5

- 4

shows a 2

. 3 dv reduction is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 9.7 dv needed by 2064. The

reductions needed here are notably greater than Western Oregon Class I areas.

Figure 7. 5

- 1 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Average Aerosol Composition 20% Best and

20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

3 Also described in Chapter 10 is a significant reduction in these nitrate impacts (and sulfate as well) that is expected from the installation of BART con trols for the PGE Boardman power plant. See Chapter 10, Section 10.4.2, for further details.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 76

Figure 7. 5

- 2 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for

All Days Sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)

Figure 7. 5

- 3 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled

in 20042008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 77

Figure 7. 5

- 4 Starkey IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 2064



### 7.6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- H ells Canyon Wilderness Area

As Fig ure 7. 6

- 1 shows, the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area in Eastern Oregon has a different mix of pollutant species than Western Oregon Class I areas. It is dominated by both organic

carbon and sulfate on the best days, and a significant contribution of nitrate ( rather than organic carbon) on the worst days

. This nitrate contribution is even more pronounced than at Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas. As Figure 7.6

- 3 and 7.6

- 4 show, most of the nitrate impacts appear during the winter months, sugges ting meteorological conditions

are play ing a major role here. It is likely that the topographic features of Hells Canyon, combined with cold temperatures and low level inversions, greatly intensify the se impact s during the winter. Again, the PGE Boardman p ower plant is believed to be the largest contributor, as indicated by the BART modeling and impacts described in Chapter 10

. 4 Figure

7. 6

- 4 shows a 2. 4 dv reduction is needed to meet the 2018 URP, and 10

. 3 dv needed by 2064.

The r eductions needed here are notably greater than Western Oregon Class I areas.

4 As noted above in Section 7.5, a significant reduction in these nitrate impacts is expected from the installation of BART controls on the PGE Boardman power p lant. See Chapter 10, Section 10.4.2, for further details.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 78

Figure 7. 6

- 1 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Aerosol Composition 20% Best and

20% Worst Days Baseline (2000

- 2004)

Figure 7. 6

- 2 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Monthly Average Pollutant Species Variation for all days sampled During the Base line Period (2000

- 2004)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 79

Figure 7. 6

- 3 Hells Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

Figure 7. 6

- 4 He lls Canyon IMPROVE Site

– Baseline Worst Day Aerosol Composition

C ompared to Visibility Improvement N eeded by 2018 & 20642008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 80



### CHAPTER 8: EMISSION SOURCE INVENTORY

Regional haze in Oregon’s Class I areas is caused by emission sources both inside and outsid e the state. Emission inventories are one part of the analysis to evaluate sources that impact visibility. This chapter identifies emission sources in Oregon, and regionally in neighboring States that could be affecting visibility in Oregon’s Class I areas

. This emissions information focuses on changes between the current 2002 baseline and projected 2018 emission scenarios. Chapter 9 provides a description of the significant emission sources that contribute to visibility impairment in Oregon, based on sourc e apportionment analysis.

Section 8.1 of this chapter describes in

- state emissions. Section 8.2 compar es Oregon

emissions to regional emissions. 5 Appendix A provides a breakdown of Oregon emissions by county. All emissions information is described by p ollutant, source category, and 2002 vs.

2018 scenarios.



### 8.1 Oregon Statewide Emission s

EPA’s Regional Haze rules (40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) ) requires a statewide emission inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute t o visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. The pollutants in this chapter are sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides ( NO

x ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine particulate ( PM 2.5 ), coarse particulat e ( PM 10 ), and ammonia ( NH 3 ).

It is important to note that each of these pollutants have characteristics that differ in terms of ability to affect visibility. Assuming “one emission unit” of fine particulate ( PM 2.5 ), for example, the same unit of SO 2 and NO

x (sulfate and nitrate particles) would be about 3 times

more effective at impairing visibility, while OC is about 4 times more effective, and EC about

10 times. Conversely, coarse particulate ( PM 10 ) is about half as effective as fine. Both VOC

and NH 3 a ffect visibility only after certain chemical reactions occur, and therefore cannot be compared in this manner.

This emissions inventory was obtained from the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx

. The TSS emission scenarios used in this chapter were the “plan 02d” and the “2018 PRP”. The plan 02d are emissions from an average of 2000

- 2004, and reflect the most recent invento ry of all the pollutants in the West. This inventory provides a basis for comparison with the future year 2018 projected emissions, as well as to gauge reasonable progress with respect to future year visibility. In the following tables, these emissions are referred to as 2002 emissions. The 2018 PRP represents projected emissions in the year 2018, taking into account growth, “on

- the

- books” controls and regulations, and the application of regional haze strategies. The year 2018 was selected as it

represents the first milestone date for demonstrating reasonable progress (see Chapter 11).

5 The county level emissions in Appendix A has been provided for reference purposes, as a further breakdown of

the in

- state emissions described in Section 8.1 of this chapter. However, no ana lysis of the county by county trend in emissions was conducted as part of this plan.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 81

The e mission tables show the primary source categories for each visibility impairing pollutant. The source categories vary by the type of pollutant. Categories include : poin t, area, on

- road mobile, off

- road mobile, oil and gas, anthropogenic fire, natural fire, biogenic, road dust, fugitive dust and windblown dust

. 6 Not included as an “in

- state” emission source category is
offshore marine vessel emissions, which are considere d “regional” emissions and discussed in

Section 8.2. It should also be noted the projected 2018 emissions f or natural fire (wildfires) is based on historical rates of burning and does not take into account increased burning that may

occur due to climate ch ange or natural causes.

8.1.1 SO 2 Emissions

The following table shows Oregon SO 2 emissions for baseline and future years.

Table 8.1.1

- 1 Oregon SO 2 Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide SO 2 Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp 18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 18,493 7,952

- 10,541 (

- 57% )

Area 9,932 8,422

- 1,510 (

- 15% )

On

- Road Mobile 3,446 461

- 2,985 (

- 87% )

Off

- Road Mobile 6,535 152

- 6,383 (

- 98% )

Anthro Fire 1,586 1,322

- 264 (

- 17% )

Natural Fire 7,328 7,329 0 ( 0% )

Total 47, 320 25,638

- 21,683 (

- 46%)

Sulfur emissions produce sulfate particles in the atmosphere. Ammonium sulfate particles have a significantly greater impact on visibility than other pollutants like dust from unpaved roads due to the physical characteristics ca using greater light scattering from the particles. SO 2

e missions come primarily from coal combustion at electrical generation facilities but smaller amounts come from natural gas combustion, mobile sources and even wood combustion. There are no biogenic SO 2 emissions of significance in Oregon . A 46 % statewide reduction in SO 2

6 The number and types of sources is identified by various methods. For example, major stationary sources report

actual annual emission rates to the EPA national emissions database. Oregon collects annual emission data from both major and minor sources and this information is used as input into the emissions inventory. In other cases, such as mobile sources, an EPA mobile source emissions model is used to develop e mission projections. Oregon vehicle registration, vehicle mile s traveled information and other vehicle data are used to tailor the mobile source data to best represent statewide and area specific emissions. Population, employment and household data are use d in other parts of the emissions modeling to characterize emissions from area sources such as home heating. Thus, for each source type, emissions are calculated based on an emission rate and the amount of time the source is operating. Emission rates can b e based on actual measurements from the source, or EPA emission factors based on data from tests of similar types of emission sources. In essence all sources go through the same process. The number of sources is identified, emission rates are determined by measurements of those types of sources and the time of operation is determined. By multiplying the emission rate times the hours of operation in a day, a daily

emission rate can be calculated.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 82

emissions are expected by 2018 due to planned controls on existing sources , especially on

- the

books rules for mobile sources (see Section 11.4.3) . This includes emission reductions of approximately 12,000 tons from the PGE Boardman plant are expected in the next 5 years from the installation of controls to meet the BART requirements (see Section 10.4.2)

. Area sources

of SO 2 are linked to population growth as the activity factor , which a ccounts for only a 15% reduction by 2018. A typical area source for SO 2 would be home heating.

8.1.2 NO

x Emissions

The following table shows Oregon NO

x emissions for 2002 and 2018.

Table 8.1.2

- 1 Oregon NO

x Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Sta tewide NO X Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 26,160 24,947

- 1,213 (

- 5% )

Area 14,740 16,979 2,238 ( 15% )

On

- Road Mobile 111,646 42,143

- 69,502 (

- 62% )

Off

- Road Mobile 53,896 32,418

- 21,478 (

- 40% )

Anthro F ire 6,292 5,150

- 1,142 (

- 18% )

Natural Fire 27,397 27,400 3 ( 0% )

Biogenic 16,527 16,527 0 ( 0% )

WRAP Area O&G 85 44

- 41 (

- 48% )

Total 256,744 165,609

- 91,134 (

- 35% )

Nitrogen oxides ( NO

x ) are generated during any combustion process where nitrogen and

oxy gen from the atmosphere combine together under high temperature to form nitric oxide, and to a lesser nitrogen dioxide and in much smaller amounts other odd oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides, like sulfur dioxide, react in the atmosphere to form nitrate p articles. These particles have a slightly greater impact on visibility than do sulfate particles and are four to eight times more effective at scattering light than mineral dust particles. NO

x emissions in Oregon are expected to decline 35% by 2018, primar ily due to significant improvements in

mobile sources. This includes emission reductions of 4,800 tons from the PGE Boardman plant are expected in the next 5 years from the installation of controls to meet the BART requirements (see Chapter 10)

. Off

- road a nd on

- road vehicles NO

x emissions are estimated to decline by more than 90 ,000 tons per year from the base case emissions total of 257 ,000 tons

per year. Increases in area sources are related to population growth

, with an expected 15% increase by 2018.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 83

8.1.3 VOC Emissions

The following table shows Oregon VOC emissions for 2002 and 2018.

Table 8.1.3

- 1 Oregon VOC Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide VOC Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 2 8,762 40,639 11,876 ( 41% )

Area 245,649 334,846 89,197 ( 36% )

On

- Road Mobile 88,784 36,395

- 52,389 (

- 59% )

Off

- Road Mobile 39,516 24,963

- 14,553 (

- 37% )

Anthro Fire 9,939 7,354

- 2,586 (

- 26% )

Natural Fire 60,336 60,344 7 ( 0% )

Biogenic 1,148,266 1,148,266 0 ( 0% )

WRAP Area O&G 34 14

- 20 (

- 59% )

Total 1,621,287 1,652,820 31,533 ( 2% )

The dominant source of VOC emissions is biogenic emissions. These emissions comprise 70% of total Oregon VOC emissions. These are natural emissions mostly from forests, but als o agricultural crops and urban vegetation. Biogenic emissions are the largest single source of VOCs in the country. Among other sources, automobiles, industrial and commercial facilities, solvent use, and refueling automobiles all contribute to VOC loading in the atmosphere. From a regional haze perspective, there is less concern with VOCs emitted directly to the atmosphere and more with the secondary organic aerosol that VOCs form after condensation and oxidation

. Of more significance is the role VOCs play in the photochemical production of ozone in the troposphere. Volatile organic compounds react with NO

x to produce nitrated organic particles that impact visibility in the same series of chemical events that lead to ozone. Thus, strategies

to reduce ozone in the atmosphere often lead to visibility improvements. Note that significant

VOC reductions from mobile sources are more than offset by increases in area sources , due to primarily population growth . Use of solvents such as in painting, dry cleaning fluid , charcoal lighter fuel, windshield washer fluids, and many home use products show up in the area source

category

, and are linked to population growth. Overall, total VOC emissions are estimated to increase by 2% in 2018.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 84

8.1.4 Organic Carbon Emissions

The following table shows Oregon Organic Carbon (OC) emissions for 2002 and 2018.

Table 8.1.4

- 1 Oregon Organic Carbon Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide Organic Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 20 02 2018

Point 1,445 283

- 1,163 (

- 80% )

Area 22,281 23,762 1,481 ( 7% )

On

- Road Mobile 1,009 967

- 42 (

- 4% )

Off

- Road Mobile 1,323 844

- 479 (

- 36% )

Anthro Fire 10,937 7,863

- 3,074 (

- 28% )

Natural Fire 81,047 81,054 7 ( 0% )

Road Dust 95 132 37 ( 38% )

Fugitiv e Dust 202 341 138 ( 68% )

Total 118,340 115,245

- 3,094 (

- 3% )

Organic carbon is primarily the end product of combustion of organic material. Most of these emissions in Oregon are from natural (nonanthropogenic) wildfire, which can fluctuate greatly from y ear to year. 2002 was an unusually high year for wildfires in Oregon. Another sizable source is anthropogenic fire (human

- caused), such as forestry prescribed burning, agricultural field burning, and outdoor residential burning. A variety of area sources c ontribute , although woodstoves are a significant source . Area sources increase slightly (7%) by 2018, due mostly to population increases. Overall, OC emissions are estimated to decline by 3% by 2018.

8.1.5 Elemental Carbon Emissions

The following table shows Oregon Elemental Carbon (EC) emissions for 2002 and 2018.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 85

Table 8.1.5

- 1 Oregon Elemental Carbon (EC) Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide Elemental Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 45 61 17 ( 38% )

Area 4,121 4,355 234 ( 6% )

On

- Road Mobile 1,166 320

- 846 (

- 73% )

Off

- Road Mobile 3,038 1,164

- 1,874 (

- 62% )

Anthro Fire 1,935 1,416

- 519 (

- 27% )

Natural Fire 16,403 16,403 0 ( 0% )

Road Dust 7 10 3 ( 38% )

Fugitive Dust 14 23 9 ( 68% )

Total 26,728 23,752

- 2,975 (

- 11% )

Elemental carbon is the carbon black, or soot, which is a byproduct of incomplete combustion.

It is similar to OC, but represents more combustion of fuel producing carbon particulate matter as the end product. Like OC, t he primary source is natural fire, and to a lesser degree, anthropogenic fire. Other emissions of note are area and mobile sources

. Area EC emissions are estimated to increase by 6% due mostly to population growth, while mobile is estimated to decrease sig nificantly (62

- 73%) by 2018, as new fe deral mobile source regulations are being implemented.

8.1.6 PM Fine Emissions

The following table shows Oregon PM fine emissions for 2002 and 2018.

Table 8.1.6

- 1 Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide Fine Particulate Matter Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 5,728 462

- 5,266 (

- 92% )

Area 15,295 17,082 1,787 ( 12% )

Anthro Fire 1,483 1,007

- 475 (

- 32% )

Natural Fire 6,090 6, 093 3 ( 0% )

Road Dust 1,379 1,909 530 ( 38% )

Fugitive Dust 3,642 6,157 2,515 ( 69% )

WB Dust 11,586 11,586 0 ( 0% )

Total 45,203 44,296

- 906 (

- 2% )

PM fine in the emissions inventory includes soil materials and other non

- carbon, non

- sulfate

and non

- nitrate particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size. The primary sources are area sources ( woodstoves ), and a variety of sources of dust ( agricultur e, mining , construction, and2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 86

u npaved and paved roads. ) Here again, like OC and EC, natural fire is a significan t source of

PM fine. In terms of mobile source s, direct PM tailpipe emissions are relatively small, and are

account for in the next table under PM coarse. Overall, PM fine shows a decrease of 2% by

2018. Monitoring at all sites in Oregon indicates PM fine is relatively small part of the visibility problem compared to other pollutants

.

Table 8.1.6

- 2 Oregon Coarse Particulate Matter Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide Coarse Particulate Matter Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Pr p18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 10,211 12,088 1,877 ( 18% )

Area 3,546 4,206 660 ( 19% )

On

- Road Mobile 618 692 74 ( 12% )

Anthro Fire 1,282 737

- 546 (

- 43% )

Natural Fire 17,036 17,036 0 ( 0% )

Road Dust 12,630 17,485 4,855 ( 38% )
Fugitive Dust 21,369 43,9 89 22,620 ( 106% )

WB Dust 104,272 104,272 0 ( 0% )

Total 170,964 200,505 29,541 (17%)

PM c oarse is particulate matter larger than PM fine, generally between 2.5

- 10 microns in size. Emission sources are similar to PM fine, but involve activities like rock crushing and processing, material transfer, open pit mining and unpaved road emissions. Windblown dust is

the dominant source of PM coarse emissions. Coarse mass particles travel shorter distances in the atmosphere than other smaller particles

, but can rem ain in the atmosphere long enough to

contribute to regional haze. PM coarse emissions are significantly greater than PM fine in Oregon . Substantial increases in PM coarse are seen in the fugitive dust category. This is due to

the fact that construction and emissions fro m paved and unpaved roads are tied to population growth and vehicle miles traveled. Overall, PM coarse emissions are estimated to increase by

17% in 2018.

8.1.7 Ammonia Emissions

The following table shows Oregon Ammonia ( NH 3 ) emissions fo r 2002 and 2018.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 87 Table 8.1.7

- 1 Oregon Ammonia ( NH 3 ) Emission Inventory

– 2002 & 2018

Oregon Statewide Coarse Particulate Matter Emissions (tons/year)

Source Category Plan02d Prp18a Net Change 2002 2018

Point 919 832

- 87 (

- 9% )

Area 45,591 45,614 23 ( 0% )

On

- Road Mobile 3,263 4,725 1,463 ( 45% )

Off

- Road Mobile 39 51 13 ( 33% )

Anthro Fire 1,211 849

- 361 (

- 30% )

Natural Fire 6,132 6,133 2 ( 0% )

Total 57,154 58,206 1,052 (2%)

Emission estimates for NH 3 have a high degree of uncertainty associated with them, based on a high variability in emission factors , wide range of activities, and lack of a uniform e mission methodology. 7 However, NH 3 emissions are important in that they react with SO 2 and NO

x to
form ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate particles

, which are very effective in impairing visibility. NH 3 emissions come from agricultural related activities, primarily l ivestock operations and farming fertilizer application s

. These fall under the category of area source emissions, which dominate NH 3 emiss ions in Oregon. Both area source and natural fire emissions are expected to be unchanged by 2018. As a result, total NH 3 emissions in Oregon are only projected to change by 2%. However, improvements in developing ammonia

inventor ies will be needed in the near future to develop more effective regional haze strategies. As described in Section 8.2.3, improved emission inventory and better understanding of the chemistry in forming ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate in areas such as Eastern Oregon is needed.



### 8.2 Regional Emissions

In order to better understand the relative contribution of in

- state vs. out

- of

- state emissions to regional haze, a comparison of Oregon emissions to regional emissions is provided in the following figures. Section 8.2.1 is a co mparison of Oregon to the neighboring states of Washington, Idaho, California and Nevada. Section 8.2.2 is a summary of off

- shore emissions from marine vessels, which have been separated from other source categories due to the unique

nature of these emissi ons , their magnitude , and the relatively recent effort to quantify these

emissions

.

8.2.1 R egional Emissions Comparison to Neighboring States.

The following figures show Oregon emissions in comparison the states which border Oregon. The figures compare baseline to future year emissions (2002 and 2018, respectively) in tons per

year. There are eight source categories for each visibility impairing pollutant: point, area, on

-

7 A separate 2005 NH 3 emission inventory prepared by the Dep artment showed a statewide total of approximately 39,000 tons per year. This highlights the uncertainty associated with estimating NH 3 emissions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 88

road mobile, off

- road mobile, oil and gas, anthropogenic fire, natural fire, bioge nic, road dust, fugitive dust and windblown dust. 8 These regional emissions can be found on the WRAP TSS

under Emissions Review Tool http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/H azePlanning.aspx

.

Figure 8.2.1

- 1 SO 2 Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 1, Oregon SO 2 emissions are mostly from point sources, followed by area sources and natural fire. Projected emission levels for 2 01 8 show a lmost a 50% reduction in Oregon , due primarily to large point source and mobile source reductions

. Compared to neighboring states, Oregon total SO 2 emissions are considerably less than Washington, Nevada, and California, but more than Idaho.

8 The figures in this section are from the WRAP TSS, which include the source category of “Off

- Shore” emissi ons on the right margin. These emissions are not included here, but instead are described separately in Section 8. 2.2

. WRAP TSS combines all of the off

- shore emissions from marine vessels from the Pacific Ocean. Section 8. 2

. 2 provides a breakdown of the se off

- shore emissions by State (Oregon, Washington, and California). Included is a discussion of how these emissions are estimated, and a general assessment of their potential contribution to regional haze in Oregon Class I areas.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 89 Figure 8.2 .1

- 2 NO

x Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 2, Oregon NO

x emissions are primarily from mobile sources, which show about a 50% reduction by 2018. Compared to neighboring states, California NO

x emissions are conside rably greater than Oregon and the other state s

.

Figure 8.2.1

- 3 VOC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 3

, VOC emissions are largely from biogenic sources. California’s

total VOC emissions are about twice that of Oregon.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 90 Figure 8.2.1

- 4 OC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 4, Oregon OC emissions are primarily associated with fire sources. Oregon fire emissions are slightly lower than California’s fire emissions, but c onsiderably higher than neighboring states. 2002 was a much higher than normal year for wildfires in Oregon.

Figure 8.2.1

- 5 EC Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 5, Oregon EC emissions are mostly fire related, si milar to OC.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 91 Figure 8.2.1

- 6 PM Fine Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 6, Oregon PM Fine emissions are mostly dust and area sources, similar to Washington’s. California’s total Fine PM emissions are significan tly higher.

Figure 8.2.1

- 7 Coarse PM Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 7, Oregon PM coarse emissions are almost exclusively dust

related. Again, California’s emissions for this pollutant are significantly high er.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 92 Figure 8.2.1

- 8 Ammonia Emissions

– Oregon vs. Regional, 2002 & 2018

As indicated in Figure 8.2.1

- 8 , Oregon ammonia emissions are almost exclusively from area sources, such as agricultural related activities involving l ivestock operations and far ming fertilizer application s

. California ammonia emissions dominate the regional total.

8.2.2 Regional Off

- Shore Marine Emissions

Commercial marine shipping (tankers, container and cargo ships, bulk carriers , etc. ) is a large

source of emissions that is believed to have a significant contribution to regional haze in states like Oregon. 9 Until recently, emission estimates for marine vessels were limited. As part of the CMAQ r egional h aze modeling work conducted by the Regional Modeling Center (RMC) for

th e WRAP, efforts were made to update emission estimates for this source category. The RMC compiled information for this purpose through various means, including previous WRAP emission estimates, CARB estimates, EPA emission factors, and other sources. 10 2002 emissions were estimated for vessels near shore and near ports using port call data, and offshore emissions were generated from ship location data. For purposes of identifying state emissions for marine shipping, the states were defined using latitudes wh ere state borders meet

the shore. Table 8.3

- 1 shows the different types of commercial marine vessels and uses.

9 As stated in Sectio n 11.4.1, the contribution of this large emissions source to visibility impairment in Oregon Class I areas, particularly those located in Western Oregon, is believed to be a significant factor in affecting the ability to meet the 2018 URP goal.

10 See WRAP TSS website under “Resources”, “Emissions”, and “Offshore Emissions” for summary, or go to http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/docs/wrap/emissions/OffshoreEmissions.doc2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 93 Table 8.2.2

- 1 Commercial Marine Vessel Types and Uses

Type Purpose Activity Area

Deep draft Ocean

- going large vessels Ocean Traffic

Near port

Tow or Push Boats Barge Freight River Traffic

Ocean Traffic

Tugs Vessel assist and support

functions Near port

Ferries River or lake ferrying Regular routes

Other Commercial

Vessels Smaller support or excursion

boats Near dock

Dredges Dredgin g projects Varies Commercial Fishing Market fishing Ocean Military Coast Guard and Navy Ocean & Port

Emissions were estimated for each of these vessel types by the RMC, using methodology that included revising emission factors for different marine engi nes, updates on port activity, offshore traffic levels, and other factors. Table 8. 2.2

- 2 shows the 2002 emissions for large

ocean

- going shipping by State and pollutant. Table 8. 2.2

- 3 shows the 2002 emissions for Columbia River vessels, by port.

Table 8. 2.2

- 2 2002 Emissions for Ocean

- going Shipping Emissions by State

State VOC

(tons/year) NO

x

(tons/year) PM10

(tons/year) SO 2

(tons/year)

Oregon (offshore) 1,331 41,113 2,986 23,119

Oregon (near port) 22 736 72 532

Oregon (within shore) 23 1,415 42 212

Washington (offshore) 1,451 44,692 3,247 25,130

Washington (within shore) 277 10,764 763 5,352

Washington (near port) 103 3,467 335 2,483

California (offshore) 4,269 131,930 9,587 74,181

California (coastal zone) * 5,387 111,550 6,042 46,059

Total 12, 863 345,667 23,074 177,068 * includes near port2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 9 4

Table 8.2.2

- 3 2002 Emissions for Columbia River Ocean

- going Vessels by Port

Port VOC

(tons/year) NO

x

(tons/year) PM10

(tons/year) SO 2

(tons/year)
Port of Astoria, OR 3 146 7 44
Port of Kalama, WA 11 51 2 31 212 Port of Longview, WA 18 862 51 344
Port of Portland, OR 72 2935 209 1470
Port of Vancouver, WA 21 920 61 423

These emission estimates for both tables show that total emissions for Oregon are 79,955 tons/year, with the majority being NO

x at 48 ,639 tons/year (61%) and SO 2 emissions at 26,356 tons/year (33%).

Future increases in marine vessel emissions by 2018 are difficult to estimate. The RMC study

estimated a possible doubling in emissions by 2018. Other estimates of future growth suggest a

more modest 5

- 6% increase by 2020. 11

Chapter 9 PSAT and WEP results show offshore marine vessel emissions as a major contributor to Oregon Class I areas, especially for SO 2 and NO

x , in the Kalmiopsis Class I area in the Coast Range, and the seven Class I a reas located in the Cascade Mountains. The impact is less for Class I areas in eastern Oregon, based on distance from this source. If compared to emission inventory data in Chapter 8, marine vessel emissions are 56% for SO 2 and 31% for

NO

x of the total 200 2 statewide emission inventory for these pollutants.

The Department views these emission estimates as having a higher than average level of uncertainty, based on the description by the RMC of revisions made to emission factor s, estimates of traffic and a ctivity levels, and other aspects of methodology used for this

estimation. The Department expects that f urther refinement of marine vessel emissions will occur in the future, t hrough efforts by the WRAP , CARB, and other organizations.

Currently, t he Depa rtment has limited authority in Oregon to regulate offshore shipping

emissions. Current state regulations on shipping (340

- 208

- 0570) apply only to vessels on the

Willamette River and Columbia River in three counties

- Clackamas, Columbia, and

Multnomah. Th e rules require each ship meet “visib le emissions” standards for particulate
matter, and must minimize soot emissions.

On July 24, 2008, the State of California adopted new strict regulations for marine vessels

within 24 miles of shore. These regulations

, Adoption of a Proposed Regulation for Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean

- Going Vessels Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline (13 CCR, section 2299.1.) , will require the use of

low sulfur marine di stillate fuel in auxiliary diesel engines and diesel

- electric engines, for both

11 West coast growth rate for 2020, from “Regional Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories and Forecasts” presentation, made to California Air Resources Board, Sacramento CA, 26 July 2007, by James Corbett, University of Delaware, and Chengfeng Wang, Air Re sources Board.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 95

U.S. and foreign vessels. The regulation will be implemented in two steps. Starting in 2009 with low sulfur fuel, and then in 2012, ultra low sulfur fuel. Using the cleaner fue ls required in

2009 will result in immediate emission reductions from ocean

- going vessels. Reductions will increase as the fuel sulfur content is progressively lowered through the regulation's phase

- in. In 2009 about a 75% percent of the diesel PM, over 80 % of SO 2 , and 6% of NO

x will be eliminated. In 2012, when the very low sulfur fuel requirement will result in reductions of diesel PM of 15 tons daily, an 83% reduction compared to uncontrolled emissions. SO 2 will be reduced by 140 tons daily, or a 95% red uction, and NO

x will be reduced by 11 tons per day, a 6 percent reduction.

The Department expects that implementation of California’s new regulations for marine vessels will have benefits in Oregon, and will include in the next regional haze plan update i n 2013 any information on possible visibility benefits in Oregon Class I areas. See Section 12 .6.5 of the LTS for future efforts planned by the Department to address marine vessel emissions.

8.2.3 Role of Ammonia Emissions in Visibility Impairment

It is believed that in many areas of the country, ammonia plays a key role in the formation of

haze. NH 3 reacts chemically with SO 2 and NO

x to form ammonium sulfates and nitrates, which are very effective in impairing visibility. Sources typically associated with ammonia emissions include livestock farming, application of fertilizer, and the decomposition of manure. The contribution of ammonia to regional haze in Oregon is difficult to estimate. As pointed out in Section 8.1.7, NH 3 emission estimates have a h igh degree of uncertainty associated with them, based on high variability in emission factors and lack of a uniform emission methodology

.

A 2007 visibility study conducted on the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area by the Department and the Southwe st Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) evaluated several haze

- causing pollutants, including NH 3

. Th is study use d model ing to simulate the chemi cal formation and

transport , and evaluated a 2004 wintertime episode with some of the highest visibility impairment days. Th e NH 3 emissions included in the modeling w as limited to just regional

estimates from dairy farms in Oregon and Washington , as other NH 3 emission information was

not available. The study found that the contribution of NH 3 on some days was negligible, and

on other days contributed to a 12 %

- 30% reduction in visibility

. The study was the first to provide an indication of the role NH 3 can play in contributing to haze impacts in Oregon

. It also

illustrate d the current technical complexity and uncertainties of eva luating NH 3 , due in part to

limit ed NH 3 emission inventories

. Further information on this study can be found at http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/gorgeair/

.

As mentioned above, o ne of the sources of NH 3 is animal feeding operations. In January 2008, an Oregon Task Force on Dairies and Air Quality was convened to study emissions from dairy operations and explore options for reducing those emissions. Currently there are 370 permitted dairy operations in O regon . Of those

, 331 of them were milking operations with 116,335 milking cows. Of the 331 permitted dairy operations, 39 were registered as large federal concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), meaning that they had 700 or more dairy milking cows. The Task Force reviewed efforts in other parts of the West to improve NH 3 emission estimates, and reviewed best management practices (BMP) being used. In Idaho, for2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 96

example, some BMPs being employed include s olid separation of manure, corral harrowing,

lo w pressure irrigation, composting and rapid manure removal from outdoor lots. The Task Force concluded its work in July 2008, providing r ecommendations that included encouraging voluntary program s to reduce emissions from CAFO, and additional research to i dentify appropriate BMPs for Oregon. For additional information on the Oregon Dairy Task Force, see http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/dairy/index.htm

.

As described in Chapter 7, ammonium nitrate a nd ammonium sulfate are major contributors to regional haze throughout Oregon’s 12 Class I areas. In addition, Eastern Oregon Class I areas (Strawberry Mountain, Eagle Cap, a nd Hells Canyon) there is a noticeably high contribution of ammonium nitrate to visibility impairment during the winter months. Cold temperatures and low level inversions likely intensify these impacts. See Sections 7.5 and 7.6. Much of this can

be attribu ted to industrial sources, but primarily the PGE Boardman power plant, a large source

of NO

x , and identified through BART modeling as a significant contributor to regional haze.

The installation of BART controls for this plant (as described in Chapter 10) is expected to

reduce NO

x emissions by about 8,000 tons per year, and SO 2 by about 11,000 tons per year. This should result in significant visibility benefits, and reduce these wintertime nitrate levels

, as well as sulfate levels year

- round in Eastern Oreg on

.

T he Department recognizes that any reduction in NO

x and SO 2 also needs to i nclude reductions

in NH 3 , due to the role that chemistry plays in secondary aerosol formation. Any effective strategy in Eastern Oregon, or any region of the state, will need to address the chemical formation and transport, as noted in the 2007 Columbia Gorge study summarized above, and identify measures such as the BMPs for large NH 3 sources like CAFOs

, as noted in the work of the Oregon Dairy Task Force.

The Department in tends to continue to explore ways to improve NH 3 emission estimates

, and options for reducing these emissions in the future , as a part of Oregon’s on

- going participation in the WRAP, a nd state efforts such as the Oregon Dairy Task Force. As part of the nex t progress report in 2013, the Department will provide an update on any new information on NH 3 emissions, BMPs, and related programs.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 97



### CHAPTER 9: SOURCE APPORTIONMENT A ND REGIONAL HAZE

MODELING

9.1 Overview

Visibility impairment occurs when pollutant s emitted into the atmosphere scatter and absorb light, thereby creating haze. These pollutants can remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods and be transported long distances, thereby contributing to regional

- scale impacts on visibility in Class I areas. Air quality models offer the opportunity to better understand how these impacts occur, by identifying the sources that contribute to haze, and helping to select the most effective emissions reduction strategies to improve visibility.

Oregon Cla ss I area visibility is affected by a combination of local and regional transport of air pollutants. Chapter 8 provided information on emission inventories, as the first step in identifying significant source categories causing visibility impairment. This chapter describes the results of (1) source apportionment analysis showing the in

- state and regional contribution of haze sources, emphasizing the 20% worst visibility days, and (2) regional modeling projections of v isibility conditions by the 2018 benchma rk or milestone , based on application of the regional haze strategies outlined in this Plan, including BART

. The source apportionment information and regional modeling results are the basis for the demonstration of reasonable progress for the 20% worst and best days , d escribed in Chapter 11.

9.1.1 Source Apportionment Analysis

– PSAT and WEP

In order to determine the significant sources contributing to haze in Oregon’s Class I areas, the Department has relied upon source apportionment analysis techniqu es provided by the WRAP for this regional haze plan. This information can be found on the WRAP TSS website at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx . T he r e were two techniques used for source apportionment of regional haze. One was the PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool, used for the attribution of sulfate and nitrate sources only. The other was the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for attribution of sources of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine PM, and coarse PM.

PSAT uses the CAMx air quality model to show n itrate

- sulfate

- ammonia chemistry and apply this chemistry to a system of tracers or “tags” to track th e chemical transformations, transport

and removal of NO

x and SO 2

. Emissions scenarios used for PSAT analysis were the plan02c

and base18b. PSAT results were not regenerated for using the more recently updated plan02d and prp18a emissions scenarios because of the time and resources that would have been required. These two pollutants are important because they tend to originate from anthropogenic (human

- caused) sources. Therefore the results from this analysis can be useful in determining contributing sources that may be controllable, both in

- state and in neighboring states. The PSAT results show contributions or impacts in mass ( μg/m 3 ), but do not directly represent actual sulfate and nitrate measurements, nor can they accurately be transformed into extinctio n values.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 98

WEP is a screening tool that helps to identify source regions that have the potential to contribute to haze formation at specific Class I areas. Unlike PSAT, this method does not account for chemistry or deposition. The WEP combines emissions in ventories, wind patterns,

and residence time of air mass over each area where emission s occur, to estimate the percent contribution of different pollutants

. Like PSAT, the WEP tool compares baseline (2000

- 04) to 2018, to show the improvement expected by th e 2018 URP, for sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine PM, and coarse PM.

Appendix B of this plan provides additional WEP information in the form of maps which show the location and transport of each haze

- causing pollutant and its poten tial contribution to the 20% worst days at each Class I area. Each map shows a 100 km and 200 km radius circle around the Class I area, with shaded colors representing areas that potentially contribute to the Class I area. For the sake of brevity these m aps were made part of the appendix section.

As described in Section 9.2, the Department believes P SAT is a better tool than WEP for identifying the contribution of sulfates and nitrates to Oregon Class I areas

, because PSAT does account for chemistry and deposition, and is better at identifying regional contribution of

sources from outside the WRAP region (see discussion in Section 9.2). For these reasons, the Department has relied upon the PSAT results as the primary source apportionment tool for

sulf ates and nitrates, and thus the better tool for identifying anthropogenic sources. The results from the WEP analysis were used by the Department primarily to identify the pollutants more commonly associated with non

- anthropogenic (natural) sources. Even th ough these sources are mostly uncontrollable, it is still important to consider their relative contribution to haze.

As described in Section 9.2 below, the review of PSAT results in this chapter focus on the contribution on sulfates and nitrates, while the WEP results focus on the contribution of organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine PM, and coarse PM.

9.1.2 Regional Haze Modeling

– CMAQ

The primary tool relied upon by the Department for modeling regional haze improvements by 2018, and for deter mining Oregon’s R easonable Progress Goals (see Chapter 11), was the Community Multi

- Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. T he CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 visibility conditions in Oregon and all Western Class I areas, based on application of the regional haze strategies included in this plan , including assumptive controls on BART

sources

. 12 For a complete description on the CMAQ model operation and the emission inputs used to project 2018 visibility conditions, see Appendix C of this plan.

The modeling w as conducted by the Regional Modeling Center (RMC) at the University of

California Riverside

, under the oversight of the WRAP Modeling Forum

. R esults can be found

on the WRAP TSS website at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx

.

12 The CMAQ modeling was conducted by the WRAP prior to the completion of Oregon’s and other state BART
reviews. However, the modeling did include assumptions of BART controls for known BART sources across the

West. See Appendix C for more information.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 99

The CMAQ model was designed as a “one atmosphere” modeling system to encompass modeling of multiple pollutants and issues, including ozone, PM, visibility, and air toxics. This

i s in contrast to many earlier air quality models that focused on single

- pollutants. CMAQ takes into account emissions, advection and dispersion, photochemical transformation, aerosol thermodynamics and phase transfer, aqueous chemistry, and wet and dry dep osition of trace species. The model requires inputs of three

- dimensional gridded wind, temperature, humidity, cloud/precipitation, and boundary layer parameters. The current version of CMAQ can only utilize output fields from the MM5 meteorological model. MM5 is a state

- of

- the

- science atmosphere model that has proven useful for air quality applications and has been used extensively in past local, state, regional, and national modeling efforts. MM5 has undergone extensive peer

- review, with all of its compone nts continually undergoing development and scrutiny by the modeling community.

The RMC developed air quality modeling inputs including annual meteorology and emissions inventories for a 2002 actual emissions base case, a planning case to represent the 20 00

- 04 regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions categories, and a 2018 base case of projected emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005. All emission inventories were developed using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system. Each of these inventories underwent a number of revisions throughout the development process to arrive at the final versions used in CMAQ modeling. The development

of each of these emission scenarios is documented under t he emissions inventory sections of

the TSS.

The 2018 visibility projections were made using the Plan02c and Base18b CMAQ 36

- km modeling results. Projections were made using relative response factors (RRFs), which are

defined as the ratio of the future

- ye ar modeling results to the current

- year modeling results. The calculated RRFs are applied to the baseline observed visibility conditions to project future

- year observed visibility.

The CMAQ modeling included emission inputs f or t he following sources:

Sm oke Management Programs accounted for using Emissions Reduction Techniques applied to 2000

- 04 average Fire emissions New permits and state/EPA consent agreements since 2002 reviewed with each state

– through Spring 2007

Ozone and PM 10 SIPs in place in the WRAP region State Oil and Gas Emissions control programs

Mobile sources

o Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard

o Tier 2 Tailpipe

o Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule

o Nonroad Diesel Rule

Combustion Turbine and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater/ RICE MACT

Known BART controls in the WRAP region Presumptive SO 2 BART for EGU’s in the WRAP region2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 100

Generally, emissions inputs were prepared by individual states and tribes for point, area, and most dust emissions categories. The following WRAP Forums wer e relied upon to summarize this data and provide it to the RMC:

• Point Source emissions were obtained from projects commissioned by the Stationary

Sources Joint Forum and the Emissions Forum.

• Area Source emissions were obtained from projects commissioned b y the Stationary

Sources Joint Forum and the Emissions Forum.

• Mobile Source emissions were from project s commissioned by the Emissions Forum.

• Fire (natural and anthropogenic) emissions were from projects commissioned by the

Fire Emissions Joint Forum.

• Ammo nia, Dust, & Biogenic e missions were from projects were commissioned by the Dust Emissions Joint Forum and the Modeling Forum.

• Emissions from Pacific offshore shipping were from a project conducted by the RMC, as described in Section 8.2.2 of this plan.

• O ther emissions from North America were from projects commissioned by the Emissions Forum and the Modeling Forum. The Mexico emissions are from 1999, and

were held constant for 2018. Canada emissions are from for 2000 and were held

constant for 2018.

• Bound ary conditions reaching North America from the rest of the world were from a project commissioned by the VISTAS Regional Planning Organization, on behalf of the five regional planning organizations working on regional haze.

The re sults from the CMAQ regio nal modeling analysis is provided and discussed in Section

9.3 of this chapter , and are also discussed determination of Reasonable Progress Goals in

Section 11.4.



### 9. 2 Major Source Categories Contributing to Haze in Oregon

Figures in this section show profiles of the relative contribution of in

- state vs. out

- of

- state sources contributing to Oregon’s Class I areas, for the 20% worst days, for the baseline (2000

- 2004) and future year (2018) scenarios , using the PSAT and WEP techniques

. This chapter emphas izes the worst

- case days, since this is the primary focus and challenge for demonstrating reasonable progress by 2018. 13 The Oregon Class I areas are grouped by general location (based on representative IMPROVE monitoring sites), as in Chapter 6.

As descr ibed above, there are several differences between the PSAT and WEP techniques. PSAT focuses on sulfate and nitrate contribution only, taking into account chemistry and deposition. PSAT also estimates th e contribution from all regions

– the WRAP states,

C EN RAP states 14 , Canada, Mexico, Pacific o ffshore (shipping), and “outside the domain”

13 The reasonable progress requirement also requires setting goals for the 20% best days, which at a minimum, must show no degradation of visibility from baseline year (2000

- 2004). Further discussion of the 20% best days

is in the reasonab le progress demonstration in Chapter 11.

14 CENRAP is a regional planning organization similar to the WRAP that is comprised of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 101

( global transport )

. The WEP does not address sulfate and nitrate chemistry and deposition , and

while it does estimate the contribution from Canad a and Pacific o ffshore regi ons, it does not

include other regional contributions.

Based on these differences, the figures provided in this section focus on PSAT results for identifying the contribution of sulfates and nitrates (the primary anthropogenic source pollutants) and WE P results for identifying the contribution of organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine PM, and coarse PM (commonly associated with non

- anthropogenic sources).

Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 show 20% worst

- day PSAT profiles on the contribution of sulfate and

nitr ate at each IMPROVE monitoring site representing the Class I Areas in Oregon. The pie

charts display relative regional contributions to total annual modeled sulfate and nitrate mass at the respective sites

. The WRAP contribution is separated from the rest of the pie for easy

identification. The remaining pie slices are outside the Western US, for the regions described

above.

The PSAT bar chart s below the pie charts display source region and source category

contributio ns of sulfate and nitrate mass. There are five source categories listed

– point, area, mobile, anthropogenic fires (controlled burning), and natural and biogenic sources (wildfire and windblown dust, mostly). Also included are the estimated contributions outside the modeling domain “OD” , and Mexico, Canada, and Pacific offshore “PO” emissions.

Sections 9.2.3 through 9.2. 5 present WEP profiles for organic carbon, fine PM, and coarse PM

, at Class I Areas in Oregon. It should be noted that WEP information on elemental carbon were

not included he re , as the se profiles show no appreciable differences from organic carbon in terms of source category and general origin

. 15

Unlike the PSAT figures, the WEP figures are b ar charts only, and summarize weighted emissions by state and region for 12 source c ategories

– w indblown dust, fugitive dust, road dust, off

- road mobile, on

- road mobile, off

- shore, oil and gas, area, biogenic, natural fire, anthropogenic fire, and point. This analysis used more source categories than the PSAT analysis to account for the additional pollutants types, and the more natural origins contributing to these pollutants, including dust and fire sources.

9.2.1 PSAT Regional Contribution to Sulfate on 20% Worst Days.

Figures 9.2.1

- 1 through 9.2.1

- 6 in this section show the state a nd regional contribution of sulfate to the 20% worst days in Oregon Class I areas, for 2002 and 2018, based on PSAT profiles for each IMPROVE monitoring site representing the nearest Class I Areas. The figures below consist of a pie chart that shows the es timated contribution of the major regions

- WRAP states, Pacific Offshore, CENRAP, Eastern US, Canada, Mexico, and Outside Domain (global). The bar chart is the WRAP portion (in white), showing Oregon and other Western States.

15 Both organic and elemental carbon are a result of combustion, and therefore a strong indicator of fire, both wildfire and anthropogenic. To a lesser extent, area and mobile sources are also contributors. The WEP elemental carbon results for Oregon Class I areas were very similar to organic ca rbon, and thus not included in this analysis.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 102

It should be noted that in all the figures in this section, the majority of sulfate originates outside the WRAP region. (This is different than the nitrate contribution, which is much higher within the WRAP region

– as seen in Section 9.2.2 .) The WRAP sulfate contribution is in most cases about one

- third of the total. The largest contribut or is outside the domain, or “global”. Two

other sizable contribut ors of sulfate are Canada and Pacific offshore. Other regions, such as Mexico, Eastern US, and CENRAP states, are negligible.

Also indicated in these figures, the largest contributor of sulfate is generally from point sources.

The variation in sulfate contribution is based on the location in the state. For instance, in the most northern Class I area (Mt. Hood), the contribution of su lfate from Canada and Washington is the highest. Similarly, t he contribution of Pacific offshore shipping is much higher in Western Oregon than Eastern Oregon.

In terms of comparison of 2002 and 2018, it can be seen that the WRAP portion of the pie char t has a noticeable reduction by 2018. The source categories that account for this reduction are primarily point source and mobile. Implementation of BART requirements, ongoing and new industrial control requirements, source retirements and shutdowns, are all contributing factors

to this decrease. To a lesser extent, n umerous federal and state “on

- the

- books” requirements for

mobile sources also account for this decrease (see Section 11.4.3).

Figure 9

. 2.1

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area PSAT Sulfate2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 103

For the 20% of wors t days at Mt. Hood, it should be noted that point source sulfate contribution is higher from Washington than Oregon. This is likely due to the proximity of industrial

sources across the border in that state. There is also a noticeable contribution fr om poi nt sources in Canada, and a sizable contribution from Pacific offshore shipping. Area and mobile sources from Oregon and Washington are much less

. T he mobile source portion is projected to

decline significantly by 2018. Roughly one third of the s ulfate com es from the area outside the

domain.

Figure 9

. 2.1

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness,

and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas PSAT Sulfate

For the 20% of worst days in the Central Cascades, the re is a noticeable sulfate contr ibution from point source s in Oregon and Washington , but much less than Mt. Hood. There is also

smaller contribution fr om Canadian point, but a sizable contribution from Pacific offshore shipping. M obile sources from Oregon and Washington are smaller contributors

. Roughly one

half of the s ulfate comes from the area outside the domain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 104

Figure 9.2.1

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas PSAT Sulfate

For the 20% of worst days in the Southern Cascades, overall s ulfate levels are low er compared

to the northern Cascade Oregon Class I areas. Most of the sulfate is from point sources in Oregon, Washington, California, and Canad a

. Pacific offshore shipping is again a sizeable

contributor

. Are a and mobile sources in Oregon are a small cont ributor

. More than half of the

s ulfate comes from the area outside the domain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 105 Figure 9

. 2.1

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area PSAT Sulfate

For t he 20% of worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, the point source contribution that is evident in other Oregon Class I areas is much smaller here. T here a sizeable s ulfate

contribution from both natural fire and Pacific offshore shipping. R oughly one half of the

s ulfate comes from the area outside the domain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 106

Figure 9

. 2.1

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Ea gle Cap

Wilderness PSAT Sulfate

For the 20% of worst days in Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

, overall sulfate levels low

, with th e largest contribution being point sources from Canada, Washington, and Oregon. Mobile sources have a small impact , as do Pacific offshore shipping

. Roughly one half of the s ulfate comes from the are a outside the domain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 107

Figure 9

. 2.1

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area PSAT

Sulfate

For the 20% of worst days at Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

, overall s ulfate levels are very low, dominat ed primary from point source s in Oregon, Washington, I daho , and Canada

. More

than half of the s ulfate comes from the are a outside the domain.

9.2.2 PSAT Regional Contribution to Nitrate on 20% Worst Days.

Figures 9.2.2

- 1 through 9.2.2

- 6 in this section show the state and regional contribution of

n itrate to the 20% worst days in Oregon Class I areas, for 2002 and 2018, based on PSAT profiles for each IMPROVE monitoring site representing the nearest Class I Areas.

It should be noted that in all the figure s in this section, most of the nitrate comes from within the WRAP region. (This is different than the sulfate contribution, which originates outside the

WRAP

– as seen in Section 9.2.1.) The WRAP nitrate contribution ranges from half to two

thirds of the t otal. Similar to sulfate, sizable contributions of nitrate are from Pacific offshore (mostly Western Oregon), and to a lesser extent Canada and outside the domain

. Other regions, such as Mexico, Eastern US, and CENRAP states, are negligible.

As these fig ures show, the vast majority of nitrate comes from mobile sources. Unlike sulfate, the contribution from Washington and Canada is much less than the contribution from inside2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 108

Oregon

. Mobile emissions tend to be more urban

- based , and have less long

- range tra nsport than sulfate point source emissions

. Some contribution f rom California and Idaho is also evident in the figures below.

In terms of comparison of 2002 and 2018, it can be seen that the WRAP portion of the pie chart

has a significant drop in nitrate by 2018 (greater than the sulfate reduction by 2018)

. M ost of

this can be attributed to the n umerous federal and state “on

- the

- books” requirements for mobile sources (see the description in Section 11.4.3).

Figure 9

. 2.2

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wi lderness Area PSAT Nitrate

F or the 20% of worst days at Mt. Hood, there are sizable n itrate contributions from Oregon and Washington mobile sources. The extent of this contribution from Washington is higher at Mt. Hood than the other Oregon Class I areas. These contributions are proj ected to decline significantly by 2018. Small er contributions of nitrate come from Oregon and Washington point sources

, Canad ian mobile sources , and Pacific offshore emissions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 109

F igure 9

. 2.2

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington W ilderness,

and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas PSAT Nitrate

Similar to Mt. Hood, for the 20% of worst days

, there are sizable nitrate contributions from Oregon mobile sources

, with the Washington contribution much less here than at Mt. Hood.

Both of t hese contributions are projected to decline significantly by 2018. Much s maller nitrate

contributions come from Oregon and Washington point sources, Canad ian mobile sources, and

Pacific offshore emissions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 110

Figure 9

. 2.2

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes

W ilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas PSAT Nitrate

For the 20% of worst days in the Southern Cascades , there are si zable n itrate contributions from Oregon mobile sources, while even less from Washington

. However, a sizeable

contribution from C alifornia mobile source s can now be seen

. These contributions are all projected to decline significantly by 2018. Point source contributions from California and Washington are relatively small.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 111 Figure 9

. 2.2

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area PSAT Nitrate

For the 20% of worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wi lderness Area

, the vast majority of n itrate

comes from Oregon mobile sources

, and much less from Washington and California

. All are projected to decline significantly by 2018. The re is a sizable ni trate contribution from Pacific

offshore shipping

, due prim arily to the close proximity of the Kalmiopsis to the ocean. Other

contribution s from point sources are relatively small.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 112

Figure 9

. 2.2

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness Figure PSAT Nitrate

For the 20% of worst days in Strawberry Mountain Wi lderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness

, there are sizable n itrate contributions from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho mobile sources. All are projected to decline significantly by 2018. The Idaho area source contribution is sizeable. 16
Oregon point source contribu tion here is slight l y higher than other Oregon Class I areas. This may be due to the emissions from the PGE Boardman power plant. 17

16 The Department is unsure on the cause of this, and suspects this relatively high contribution may be due to emission inventory overestimation of area source emissions in Western Idaho.

17 The projection for 2108 does not reflect the application of BART controls for PGE Boardman. This information was not available at the time these projections were made.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 113

Figure 9

. 2.2

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area PSAT

Nitrate

For the 20% of worst days in Hells Canyon Wilderness , there are significant n itrate

contributions from Idaho mobile and area sources. 18 Oregon, Washington, and California mobile source contributions can be seen, and to a much smaller extent, Nevada

, Utah and

Canada

. All mobile sources emissions are projected to decline significantly by 2018.

9.2. 3 WEP Potential Contribution to OC on 20% Worst Days.

Figures 9.2. 3

- 1 through 9.2. 3

- 6 in this section show the contribution of organic carbon to the 20% worst days in Oregon Class I areas, for 2002 and 2018, based on WEP pro file for each IMPROVE monitoring site representing the nearest Class I Areas.

In general, the figures below primarily reflect the contribution of fire sources

– mostly natural fire ( wildfire ) and to a lesser degree, anthropogenic or controlled burning ( f orestry, agricultural, and residential burning )

. Area source organic carbon is from woodstoves and other u rban

18 On the area source contribution, as noted in the previous figure for Strawberry and Eagle Cap, the De partment suspects this may be attributable to emission inventory overestimation. Also, the exact cause of relatively high

mobile source contribution from Idaho is uncertain.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 114

related sources

. A rea source contributions of organic carbon are the highest at Mt. Hood Class I area, due to the proximity and size of the Portl and

- Vancouver urban area.

In terms of comparison of 2002 and 2018, the figure s do not show any reduction in future

years. For fire sources, future wildfire emissions are generally held constant. For area sources, this is primarily a function of populatio n growth.

Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days at Mt. Hood, there is a sizable organic carbon contribution from Oregon area sources, and to a smaller extent, fire sources. A much small contribution from these sources in Washington can be seen.

Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness,

and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 115

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Central Cascades , there are sizable organic carbon

contributi on s from Oregon area and fire sources. Washington is negligible.

Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes

Wilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Southern Cascades

, this figure shows a sizable organic carbon contribution from natural fire (see Figure 9.2.3

- 4 also)

. Although wildfire is a major contr ibutor in Southern Cascade Class I areas, the year 2002 w as an abnormally high wildfire year in this part of the state, and therefore an extreme case. 19

19 See Figure 9.2.3

- 4 description also, and footnote. Note that the projection for 2018 is shown as being equal to 2002. This is believed to be a function of the WEP forecasting technique of holding future wildfire levels constant. In this case it is very unlikely 2018 wildfire levels will be as high as 2002.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 116 Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness

, this figure is similar to the

Southern Cascades above in showing a major contribution from natural fire

. Although wildf ire is a major contributor in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness

, the year 2002 w as an abnormally high wildfire year in this part of the state, and is therefore an extreme case. 20

Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wildern ess

20 The p rimary contributor in 2002 was the Biscuit Fire, which was mostly centered in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area. This wildfire was the largest in Oregon history, and burned for many weeks. Note that th e projection for 2018 is shown as being equal to 2002. This is believed to be a function of the WEP forecasting technique of holding future wildfire levels constant. In this case it is very unlikely 2018 wildfire will be as high as 2002.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 117

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness , there is a large organic carbon con tribution from fire, and smaller amount from area sources, in Oregon

. Most of the fire contribution is from wildfire. To a much lesser extent,

there is a similar contribution from Washington fire and area sources

.

Figure 9

. 2. 3

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness , there is a sizable organic

carbon c ontribution from Idaho fire sources

, and to a lesser extent, Oregon. Most of this is

wildfire. The location of the Hells Canyon Wilderness on the Idaho

- Oregon border accounts for the high contribution from Idaho

, which can var y year to year from each state

.

9.2. 4 WEP Potential Contribution to PM Fine on 20% Worst Days.

Figures 9.2. 4

- 1 through 9.2. 4

- 6 in this section show the contribution of PM fine to the 20% worst days in Oregon Class I areas, for 2002 and 2018, based on WEP profile for each

IMPROVE mo nitoring site representing the nearest Class I Areas.

In general, the figures below primarily reflect the contribution of mostly area sources (woodstoves and other urban activities) and a variety of dust sources ( agricultur e, mining

, construction, and u np aved and paved roads. ) Like organic carbon , fire is a significant source of

PM fine. However, as noted in the prior section, the fire contribution in the Southern Cascade and the Kalmiopsis Class I areas is a result of abnormally high wildfire year in 2002

.

In terms of comparison of 2002 and 2018, the figures do not show any reduction in future years, and in some cases show an increase. For both area and dust sources, this is primarily a function of population growth and holding natural dust levels consta nt

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 118 Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days at Mt. Hood, there are sizable fine PM contribution s from

area and dust sources in Oregon , and to a lesser extent Washington

. There is also a noticeable

contribution from Washington point sources , however these are projected to decline significantly by 2018 due to on

- going implementation of industrial rules

.

Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 2 Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness,

and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Central Cascades, the contribution from fine PM is very similar to Mt. Hood Wilderness above, in terms of area sources and dust , but a much smaller contribution from Washington

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 119

Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 3 Southern Casc ades

- Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes

Wilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

For the 20% of worst visibility days in t he Southern Cascades, most of the fine PM contribution

i n Oregon is from area sources and fire, and to a lesser extent, dust. However, as noted previously, 2002 was an abnormally high wildfire year.

Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Are a

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Coast Range, the fine PM contribution is dominated by wildfire, which as noted previously, was abnormally high in 2002

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 120

Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

For the 20% of worst visib ility days in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

, there dominant fine PM contribution in Oregon from dust

- mostly windblown

dust

, and some fugitive and road dust A rea and fire sources are also evident in Oregon . The

contribution o f th is mix of source from Washington is about half of the Oregon level.

Figure 9

. 2. 4

- 6 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness , there is a large

contribution of fine PM from Idaho area and dust sources

, including some fire sources. This

mix of sources is evident in Oregon

, and to a lesser extent from W ash ington

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 121

9.2. 5 WEP Potential Contribution to PM Coarse on 20% Worst Days.

Figures 9.2. 5

- 1 through 9.2. 5

- 6 in this section show the contribution of PM coarse to the 20% worst days in Oregon Class I areas, for 2002 and 2018, based on WEP profiles for each IMPROVE monitoring site representing the nearest Class I Areas.

The figures below show that compared to PM fine, the profile for PM coarse is dominated by windblown and fugitive dust generated in Oregon

. These dust sources are a combination of

natural an d human activity, such as agricultur e, mining , construction, and u npaved and paved

roads. Fire is does appear in the figures for Southern Oregon and Kalmiopsis Class I areas, but

this is due to abnormally high wildfire for 2002. In terms of comparison of 2 002 and 2018, the figures generally s how an increase in fugitive dust, which is influence by population growth and holding natural dust levels constant.

Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 1 Northern Cascades

– Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days at Mt. Hood, there are sizable course PM contribution s from Oregon dust source, with considerable less from Washington.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 122

Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 2 Centra l Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness,

and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Central Cascades , there are sizable course PM

contribution s from Oregon dust sources, and including some small contribution from Oregon point sources. The contribution from Washington is minimal

.

Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 3 Southern Cascades

- Crater Lake Nation al Park, Mountain Lakes

Wilderness, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Southern Cascades , thi s profile is heavily influenced by Oregon wildfire in 2002, which was abnormally high. Typically dust would be the primary

contributor. This is some small contribution from Oregon point sources evident.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 123 Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 4 Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Coast Range

, this profile is heavily influenced by Oregon wildfire in 2002, which was abnorm ally high. Typically, dust would be the primary

contributor.

Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 5 Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap

Wilderness

, windblown dust in Oregon is the dominant contributor of PM coarse. Some dust contribution from Washington is evident.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 124

Figure 9

. 2. 5

- 6 Eastern O regon/Western Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

For the 20% of worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness

, there is a large

cont ribution of coarse PM from Idaho and dust sources

– windblown, fugitive, and road. The

co ntribution of windblown dust in Oregon is also considerable

. W ashington is a small

contributor of dust sources.



### 9.3 CAMQ 2018 Projected Visibility Conditions

This section summarizes the regional haze improvements projected using CMAQ model for Oregon’s Class I areas. T he CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 visibility conditions in Oregon and all Western Class I areas, based on emission inputs described in Section 9 .1.2 of this chapter. The Department relied upon the results of the CAMQ modeling in establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals described in Section 11.4.

These visibility projections were calculated from modeled results by multiplying a species

specif ic relative response factor (RRF) with the baseline monitored result, and then converting

to extinction and deciview. The RRF is defined as the ratio of future

- to

- current modeled mass. Chapter 11 details how the 2018 projected visibility conditions were us ed in selecting the Reasonable Progress Goals. Appendix C contains a detailed summary of the CMAQ modeling conducted by the Regional Modeling Center for the WRAP.

Table 9.3

- 1 shows the 2018 visibility projections for the 20% worst and best days , c ompared to the 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress (URP), for Oregon Class I areas ( grouped by IMPROVE

monitor ing site)

. These 2018 projections are shown in deciview, and in the percent of the URP achieved by 2018 for the 20% worst days (first shaded column). Also indi cated is whether the 20% best days for 2018 are projected to be under the 2000

- 04 baseline (second shaded column).

While the table shows none of Class I areas meet th e 2018 URP for the 20% worst days,

several are close to th is goal (range of 19% to 83%). Section 9.3.1 provides a breakdown by2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 125

pollutant species to analyze the cause of this. For the 20% best days, all Class I areas are under

the baseline

, and thus show no visibility degradation by 2018.

Table 9.3

- 1 CMAQ Modeling Results for 20% Worst Days and 20% Best Days for Oregon Class I Areas

Region Oregon Class I

Area 20% Worst Days 20% Best Days

2000

- 04

Baseline (dv) 2018

URP Goal (dv) 2018

Projected Visibility (dv) % of

2018

URP

Goal 2000

- 04

Baseline (dv) 2018

Projected Visibility (dv) 2018

Unde r Baseline?

Northern

Cascades Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area 14.9 13.4 13.8 74% 2.2 2.0 Yes

Central

Cascades Mt. Jefferson,

Mt. Washington, and

Three Sisters

Wilderness Areas 15.3 13.8 14.3 67% 3.0 2.9 Yes

Southern

Cascades Diamond Peak,

Mountain Lakes,

and G earhart

Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake

National Park 13.7 12.3 13.4 19% 1.8 1.5 Yes

Coast Range Kalmiospis

Wilderness Area 15.5 14.1 15.1 31% 6.3 6.1 Yes

Eastern Oregon Strawberry Mountain

and Eagle Cap

Wilderness Areas 18.6 16.3 17.5 50% 4.5 4.1 Yes

Eastern Oregon/

Western

Idaho Hells Canyon

Wilderness Area 18.6 16.2 16.6 83% 5.5 4.7 Yes

9.3.1 CMAQ Modeling Breakdown by Pollutant for 20% Worst Days.

As indicated by the 2018 visibility projections using CMAQ modeling, none of the Class I areas meet the URP goal for 2018 for the 20% worst days. In order to determine the cause it is necessary to breakdown these results to identify individual pollutants. The information provided below shows the contribution of each pollutant in extinction (Mm

- 1) to the deciview

level for each Class I areas. As pointed out earlier in this chapter on source apportionment, it is important to note whether the pollutants affecting the modeling are anthropogenic, such as sulfates or nitrates, or the other pollutants that are mostly non

- anthropogenic (natural) in origin (OC, EC, and PM). This assessment is important in the determination of reasonable progress, as

described in Section 11.4

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 126

Figures 9.3.1

- 1 to 9.3.1

- 6 provide a breakdown of individual pollutant contri bution (in extinction) by showing the glideslope of each pollutant in each Class I area

, from the baseline

to 2018

, and beyond, for the 20% worst days. Below each figure is a table that shows the 2018 projections for each pollutant , and whether the project ion is under the 2018 URP goal, and the percent improvement.

The results of this breakdown by pollutant for each Class I area shows that in general there is much greater improvement in n itrate and sulfate (the more anthropogenic pollutants) than the

oth er pollutants. In all Class I areas except Hells Canyon, nitrate meets or exceeds the 2018 URP goal (Hells Canyon is 90% of the URP). For sulfate, while none of the Class I areas show the 2018 URP being met for this pollutant, the improvement is as high as 74% in the Mt. Hood Class I area, and significant in other Class I areas as well. Conversely, these figures show that organic carbon is the highest contributor to extinction , and projection for 2018 show very little improvement. Much of th e organic carbon can be attributed to fire , of which the majority is wildfire, and thus non

- anthropogenic in origin. Fine soil and coarse mass are also mostly natural origin (dust), and although relatively small contributors at each Class I area, the 2018 projections for these pollutants also shows little improvement. Overall, the combination of OC, EC, and PM play a significant role in offsetting the improvements from nitrate and sulfate. Further discussion of this is provided in Chapter 11 related to Reasonable Progress Goal

demonstration.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 127

Figure 9

. 3.1

- 1 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Northern Cascades

– Mt.

Hood Wilderness Area

Table 9.3 .1

- 1 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Northern Cascades

– Mt.

Hood Wilderness Area

Pollutant Northern Cascades

- Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 11.3 8.6 9.3 1.9 No 74%

Nitrate 5.5 4.7 3.6 2.3 Yes >100%

Organic

Carbon 14. 6 12. 1 14.4 5.6 No 6%

Elemental

Carbon 2. 9 2. 3 2.1 0. 5 Yes >100%

Fine Soil 0.7 0.7 0. 9 0. 8 No None**

Coarse

Material 2. 5 2.5 N/ A * 2. 7 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 0. 1 0.1 N/A * 0.2 N/A N/A

* Visibility projections are not available due to poor model performance for coarse material and sea salt

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 128

Figure 9.3 .1

- 2 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas

Table 9.3.1

- 2 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Central Cascades

– Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas

Pollutant Central Cascades

- Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Thr ee Sisters Wilderness Area s

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 11.8 9.0 10.1 2.0 No 60%

Nitrate 2.7 2.6 1.6 2.3 Yes >100%

Organic

Carb on 17.1 13.6 15.8 5.0 No 38%

Elemental

Carbon 3.2 2.5 2.3 0.4 Yes >100%

Fine Soil 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 No None**

Coarse

Material 2.7 2.8 N/A* 2.8 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 0.2 0.3 N/A* 0.5 N/A N/A

* Visibility projections are not available due to poor model performa nce for coarse material and sea salt

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 129

Figure 9

. 3.1

- 3 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Southern Cascades Region

Table 9.3.1

- 3 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Southern Cascades Region

Pollutant Southern Cascades

– Crater Lake National Park

and Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes a nd Gearhart Mountain

Wilderness Areas

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 7.3 5.9 7.0 1.9 No 20%

Nitrate 2.6 2.5 1.1 2.3 Yes >100%

Orga nic

Carbon 21.4 16.9 21.2 6.2 No 5%

Elemental

Carbon 4.3 3.3 4.9 0.5 No None**

Fine Soil 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.9 No None**

Coarse

Material 2.3 2.4 N/A* 2.5 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 N/A* 0.2 N/A N/A

* Visibility projections are not available due to poor model p erformance for coarse material and sea salt

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 130

Figure 9

. 3.1

- 4 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis

Wilderness Area

Table 9.3.1

- 4 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis

Wilderness Area

Pollutant Coast Range

- Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 10.3 7.9 9.7 1.6 No 25%

Nitrate 3.2 2.9 2.1 1.9 Yes >100%

Organic

Carbon 14.6 11.2 14.2 2.9 No 11%

Elemental

Carbon 2.5 1.9 2.5 0.2 No 9%

Fine Soil 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Yes 100%

Coarse

Material 2.1 2.2 N/A* 2.2 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 2.9 3.3 N/A* 4.7 N/A N/A

* Visibility projections are not available due to poor model performance for coarse material and sea sal t

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 131

Figure 9

. 3.1

- 5 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

Table 9.3.1

- 5 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry

Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

Pollutant Eastern Oregon

– Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap

Wilderness Areas

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 7.8 6.0 7.0 1.3 No 40%

Nitrate 15.8 12.0 11.5 2.9 Yes >100%

Organic

Carbon 24.1 17.7 22.6 4.0 No 25%

Elemental

Carbon 4.2 3.2 3.1 0.4 Yes >100%

Fine Soil 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 Yes 100%

Coarse

Material 4.8 4.7 N/A* 4.3 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 0.1 0.3 N/A* 0.7 N/A N/A

* Visibility projections are not avai lable due to poor model performance for coarse material and sea salt

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 132

Figure 9

. 3.1

- 6 Glideslope by Pollutant on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon/Western

Id aho

- Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

Table 9.3.1

- 6 Pollutant Breakdown on 20% Worst Days for Eastern Oregon/Western

Idaho

- Hells Canyon Wilder ness Area

Pollutant Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho

– Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018

URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) 2064

Natural

Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2018

Under

URP

Goal ? % of

URP

Goal

Sulfate 8.4 6.4 7.4 1.1 No 4 8%

Nitrate 28.5 19.7 20.6 2.7 No 90%

Organic

Carbon 15.6 12.1 11.6 3.7 Yes >100%

Elemental

Carbon 3.1 2.4 2.7 0.4 No 54%

Fine Soil 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 No None**

Coarse

Material 1.9 2.3 N/A* 3.4 N/A N/A

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 N/A* 0.1 N/A N/A

* Visibility proje ctions are not available due to poor model performance for coarse material and sea salt

. **No progress towards URP goal because projected 2018 values are higher than baseline conditions2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 133



### CHAPTER 10 : BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) EVALUATION

1 0 .1 Overview of BART P rocess in Oregon

O ne of the pri mary requirements of the Regional Haze rule is Section 308(e) on the installation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The federal definition of BART in 40 CFR

51.301 is as follows:

“ Best Ava ilable Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing stationary facility. T he emission limitation must be established, on a case

- by

- case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or i n existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. ”

The BART requirements apply to certain older industrial sources that began operating before federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules were adopted in 1977 to protect visibility in Class I areas. Both the PSD and BART and rules represent the two primary regulatory tools for protecting visibility and a ddressing regional haze from industrial sources. The PSD rules apply to new sources and major modifications of existing sources, and require visibility in Class I areas to be protected. 21 The BART rules are essentially a retroactive version of PSD (prior to 1977) for visibility purposes. Under BART, the following sources are subject to review and potential controls if they meet the following criteria: (1) built between 1962 and

1977 ; (2) have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year, and (3) fall in to one of 26 specific source categories. These sources must be evaluated to see how much they contribute to regional haze and if retrofitting with controls is feasible and cost effective.

The BART process consists of three

- step s : (1) determining BART

- eli gibility; (2) determining is a source is “subject to BART” by conducting modeling of Class I visibility impact s ; and (3) conducting an analysis of BART controls ( retrofitting) for those sources subject to BART that contribute to regional haze.

21 The PSD rules are part of the New Source Review rules

, which apply to major new sources and major modifications to existing sources , to protect both visibility and air quality in general. See further description in Section 12.5.1. Both PSD and BART rules require modeling to determine visibility impact, and u se similar modeling techniques and a similar threshold for what constitutes is a “significant” visibility impact. Since BART addresses existing sources, the evaluation of controls considers the effectiveness and remaining life of the existing controls, an d the cost of replacing them. While both rules may end up evaluating similar types of controls, the criteria and selection of controls for BART is different due to the retrofit factors and visibility improvement that

would result.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 134



### 10 .2 D etermining Oregon ’s BART

- eligible S ources

In determining BART

- eligible sources, Oregon followed Appendix Y of EPA’s BART rule

, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to Identify

BART

- Eligible Sources (70 FR 39158 to 39161)

. This guidance consisted of the following

criteria:

1. Does t he facility contain emissions units 22 which fall into one or more of 26 source categories :

• Fossil

- fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units (BTU) per hou r heat input

• Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers)

• Kraft pulp mills

• Portland cement plants

• Primary zinc smelters

• Iron and steel mill plants

• Primary aluminum ore reduction plants

• Primary copper smelters

• Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 2 50 tons of refuse per day

• Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants

• Petroleum refineries

• Lime plants

• Phosphate rock processing plants

• Coke oven batteries

• Sulfur recovery plants

• Carbon black plants (furnace process)

• Primary lead smelters

• Fuel conversio n plants

• Sintering plants

• Secondary metal production facilities

• Chemical process plants

• Fossil

- fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTUs per hour heat input.

• Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels

• Taconite ore processing facilities

• Glass fiber processing plants

• Charcoal production facilities

2. Did t he units “began operation” after August 7, 1962 (defined as “engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the facility”).

3. Were t he units “in existence ” on August 7, 1977 (defined as “the owner or operator has obtained all necessary pre

- construction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or

caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on

- site construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program o f construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time”).

22 EPA rules (40 CFR 51.166) define emissions unit as “any part of a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant”.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 135

[Note: Sources that were in operation before August 7, 1962, but were reconstructed during the August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1977 time period are also subject to BART if “the fixed capita l cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new source”. ]

4. Are the potential emissions from these units 250 tons per year or more for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides ( NO

x ), particulate matter ( PM 1 0 ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH 4 )

. 23

The identification of Oregon BART

- eligible sources was initiated by a comprehensive study conducted by the WRAP in 2005. This study, called “ Identification of BART

- Eligible Sources in the WRAP Reg ion ”, identified 101 Oregon sources with actual emissions over 100 tpy of any visibility

- impairing pollutant, which could be potential BART sources. 24 In this study the WRAP worked with Oregon DEQ staff familiar with Oregon’s sources, to review them for the

three BART

- eligibility criteria, by categorizing as “likely”, “potentially” eligible, or “do not

know.” All of these sources were reviewed by each permit engineer to confirm BART

eligibility. Out of this review 26 sources were identified as needing more i n

- depth review to

determine BART

- eligibil i ty. Out of the 26, a total of 10 were found to be eligible. These

sources are listed below in Table 10.2

- 1

. The 16 sources found not to be eligible are described

in Table 10.2

- 2.

Table 10.2

- 1 List of 10 BART

- eligi ble S ources in Oregon

BART

- eligible

Source Location BART Source Category Nearest Class I Area

1. Amalgamated Sugar Nyssa, eastern

Oregon SC 22

- fossil fuel boilers >250

MMBtu/hr heat input. Eagle Cap 80 mi

2. PGE

Boardman Boardman,

eastern Oregon SC 1

- fossil fuel steam fired electric

plants. Mt. Hood 90 mi.

3. Boise Paper

Solutions St. Helens, NW

Oregon SC 3

- kraft pulp mills & 22 ff boilers

>250 MMBtu/hr. Mt. Hood 55 mi.

4. Georgia Pacific, Wauna Clatskanie, NW

Oregon SC 3

- kraft pulp mi lls. Mt. Hood 80 mi.

5. PGE Beaver Clatskanie, NW

Oregon SC 1

- fossil fuel steam fired electric

plants. Mt. Hood 80 mi.

6. Georgia

Pacific, Toledo Toledo, western

Oregon SC 3

- kraft pulp mills. Three Sisters 90 mi.

7. Pope & Talbot Halsey, western

Oregon SC 3

- kraft pulp mills. Three Sisters 50 mi.

23 EPA’s Guidance for Determining BART Eligibility allows states the option of excluding VOC and NH4 emissions from the BART process, d ue to the inability to model these pollutants. Oregon did identify sources for these pollutants, and found one source that did exceed 250 tons for VOC. This source , SFPP Terminals in Eugene,

was evaluated

, as described in Table 1 0.3

- 2, #16, below.

24 This study can be found on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bartsources.html

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 136

8. SP Newsprint Newberg, NW

Oregon SC 22

- fossil fuel boilers >250

MMBtu/hr heat input. Mt. Hood 50 mi.

9. International Paper (formally Weyerhaeuser ) Springfield,

western Oregon SC 3

- kraft pulp m ills & 22 ff boilers

>250 MMBtu/hr. Three Sisters 40 mi.

10. Kingsford Springfield,

western Oregon SC 26

- charcoal production facility Three Sisters 40 mi.

Table 10.2

- 2 List of Sources Determined not to be BART

- eligible

Source Reasons not BART

- eligi ble

1. Collins Products,

Klamath Falls. Initially thought to have three fossil

- fuel boilers. Upon further review found

all boilers had been dismantled and scrapped.

2. Northwest Aluminum,

The Dalles. I nitial analysis found a pplicable emission units went int o operation prior to August 7, 1962. There was a reconstruction of these units, but this came after 1977, and went through PSD review. The primary aluminum production plant has been permanently shutdown.

3. ESCO, Portland. S ource d id not fall under any of t he 26 source categories list by EPA for

BART. Additionally, no pollutant > 250 tpy.

4. Chevron, Portland. Source thought to meet two of 26 source categories. One category applies

to fossil

- fuel boilers > 250 million BTUs/hr. The other applies to petroleum

sto rage facilities over 300,000 barrels. Upon further review found boilers and storage facilities were far below the applicable capacity. Additionally, no pollutant > 250 tpy.

5. Kinder Morgan, Portland. This source similar to Chevron Portland. H ad boilers and storage facilities far below the applicable capacity, and no pollutant > 250 tpy.

6. Shore Terminals LLC (Mobil Oil), Portland.

. Upon further review found began operation before 1962, and PTE well below 250 tpy

. 7. Oregon Steel Mills,

Portland. Source met so urce category for I ron and S teel mills. L argest emission unit in existence prior to 1977, but reconstructed after this date. Under EPA guidance on BART

- eligibility, a “reconstructed source” after 1977 is not subject to BART if “the fixed capital cost of th e new component exceeds 50% of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new source

. ” DEQ review

determined t he reconstruction of the emission unit exceeded the 50%

criteria. Other emission units at the source well under 250 tpy

. 8. Wah Chang, Albany. Primary production activity at this facility did not fall under any of the 26 source categories for BART. Other production activity under 250 tpy.

9. Weyerhaeuser, Albany Paper Mill. Most of the emission units at this facility started up after 1977. Two

emission u nits that started between 1962

- 1977 were determined to have

emissions under 250 tpy.

10. Roseburg Forest Products, Roseburg. Source met source category for fossil

- fuel boilers. Two boilers had been “derated” to address other regulatory requirements, which reduced boiler capacity to under 250 million BTUs/hr through a federally enforceable permit limit. Source requested si milar permit condition for a third boiler.

Permit was modified August 8, 2006. S ource no longer BART

- eligible.

11. Bear Mountain Forest

Pro ducts, Cascade Locks. Source d oes not fall under any of the 26 source categories for BART. Additionally, emissions under 250 tpy

. 12. City of Eugene Water

Pollution Control Facility. B oiler under 250 million BTUs/hr, and emissions under 250 tpy.

13. Universi ty of Oregon Central Power Station, B oiler under 250 million BTUs/hr, and emissions under 250 tpy.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 137

Eugene.

14. International Paper,

Gardiner. This facility is shutdown and permit is no longer active.

15. Reynolds Metals, The

Dalles. This facility is shutdow n and permit is no longer active.

16. SFPP Eugene Gasoline

Bulk Terminal. Source met source category for petroleum storage facilities and had

emissions > 250 tpy for one pollutant

- VOC. Other pollutants were well under 250 tpy. EPA’s guidance allows VOC emi ssions to be excluded from BART due to the difficulty to model visibility impacts from VOCs. DEQ

used screening model that conservatively assumed that 50% of the VOC emissions were greater than six carbon atoms and equivalent to organic carbon (OC) for vis ibility modeling purposes. Results showed visibility impact well under 0.5 deciview

. F acility removed from the BART

- eligible

list.

Figure 10.2

- 1 below is a map showing the location of the 10 BART

- eligible sources in Oregon

, indicated in red. The visibil ity impacts of Oregon’s BART

- eligible sources and those in neighboring States are described in Section 10.3 below.

Figure 10.2

- 1 Map of Oregon BART

- eligible S ources

10.2.1 Extent of BART

- eligible Source Emissions

The first step in the BART process was the identification of the BART

- eligible sources. Table

10.2.1

- 1 shows the actual emissions of these sources compared to all other non

- BART sources, and compared to total emissions in Oregon (for SO 2 , NO

x , and PM 2.5 , which are the primary

haze

- causing pollutants of concern). The 10 BART

- eligible sources represent about 56 % of the industrial emissions, and 4% of all sources in the state (200 5 actual emissions)

. If the PGE Boardman plant is removed from this total, the remaining BART sources represent 18% of the2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 138

industr y , and 1.3% of the statewide total. The significance of the comparison of BART vs. non

BART source emissions is discussed further in Chapter 12, as part of the Long

- Term Strategy

to evaluate non

- BART sources to identify additional emission r eductions from these sources in

the future.

Table 10.2 .1

- 1 Oregon BART

- eligible Source Emissions ( 2005 actual
, tons/year)

Pollutant 10 BART

eligible sources 9 BART eligible

sources, w/o

PGE Boardman Total

Industry (non

- BART) Total

Statewide (all so urces)

SO 2 16,223 4,206 3,054 47,447

NO

x 12,287 3,974 13,358 233,633

PM 10 2,339 1,643 7,639 455,666

PM2.5* 878 697 1,264 166,593

* PM2.5 is included in PM10



### 10.3 Summary of BART Modeling

The next step after determining BART eligibility was to condu ct modeling of the 10 Oregon BART sources in order to evaluate Class I area visibility impacts. The results are given in Section 10.3.2, which describes source impacts on Class I areas in Oregon and neighboring

States. Section 10.3.3 describes the impacts on Oregon Class I areas from BART sources located outside of Oregon.

Ideally, a full assessment of visibility impacts on Class I areas from any source would show its contribution to total impacts from all sources, and on all days, including the 20% best and worst days as described in the Regional Haze Rule. However, such modeling would be extremely complex, in terms separating out each individual source from the hundreds of emission sources affecting each Class I area at a given time. In constructing the BART program, the Rule and EPA guidance simplified the evaluation of visibility impairment from BART

- eligible sources by patterning it after New Source Review, where source impacts are modeled individually

relative to a n estimated natural background on the 20% best days. Consequently, the BART modeling o f the 20% best days is very different from, and serves a different purpose than, the use of monitoring data to determine the 20% best and worst days under the Regional Haze

Rule

. As a result, the BART modeli ng is based on individual BART source impacts in order to identify the greatest potential for making visibility improvements. This is consistent with EPA BART modeling guidance and BART modeling conducted by all other states in the country

.

The B ART modeling was conducted for all BART

- eligible emission units, collectively, at each facility. Although EPA’s BART guidance does not require the inclusion of non

- BART emissions in the BART modeling

, for most facilities in Oregon the BART emission units

r epresent most of the plant emissions.

As mentioned above, the visibility impacts identified in the modeling are estimates of the highest impacts from each BART source. This is similar to the approach used for new and2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 139

major modified sources under the PSD New Source Review rules, in which the maximum impacts of new major sources are modeled for affected Class I areas. As noted in the description of the regional BART Modeling Protocol below, the Department used the highest plant

- wide daily emissions from all BART emission units for each source for the modeling period of 2003

- 2005.

10.3.1 Description of the Modeling Protocol

The visibility impacts described in the modeling results section use the same deciview (dv)

metric as used elsewhere in this plan . Th e deciview is a measure of vis ibility, and is equivalent on a logarithmic scale to light extinction. For the BART analysis, sources are evaluated on their contribution to increases in impairment at Class I areas above an estimated natural backg round

. This increase in impairment, or delta dv, can also be expressed as a change in light extinction. For example, a delta dv of 0.5 is equivalent to a 5% increase in light extinction. For the sake of brevity, only “dv” is used here

.

As stated in Chapter 5, a 1 dv change is equal to a generally perceptible change in visibility to most people

. In EPA’s BART modeling guidance , they note that “ changes in light extinction of 5 percent [0

. 5 dv] will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes.” As a result, EPA

identif ied two thresholds for evaluating individual BART sources : (1) 0.5 dv, which is the limit

of percept i b le change

, and wh at EPA suggests States can use to identify sources that

“contribut e ” to visibility impairment ; and (2) 1 .0 dv, which is a percepti ble change to most people

, and wh at EPA suggests be used to identify sources that “cause” visibility impairment (see EPA’s BART rule

, page s 70 FR 391 20

- 21 ).

For the BART modeling conducted in Oregon , the Department chose 0.5 dv as the visibility

thresho ld. Th is decision was based on several factors : (1) it equate s to the 5% extinction

threshold for new sources under the PSD New Source Review rules , (2) it is consistent with the threshold selected by other States in the West (all selected 0.5 dv), (3) it represents the limit of perceptible change, and (4) there was no clear rationale or justification for selecting a lower

level. 25

1. Cumulative Impact Modeling

As suggested by EPA’s BART guidance, if multiple BART

- eligible sources impact a given

Class I area on the same day, then a lower, individual, contribution threshold could be

considered. Oregon, in concert with Washington and Idaho, could make an evaluation of multiple

- source or cumulative impacts on Class I areas of BART

- eligible sources in three

s tates. After a multi

- source evaluation, a determination would be made as to which sources, if

25 The Department considered lower levels but concluded there was not sufficient justification for selecting a lower level than 0.5 dv. Using a similar threshold to the NSR rules was a significant factor. Also, a s a participant in the WRAP, it was important that Oregon use an approach consistent with the other Western states, especially neighborin g states of Washington and Idaho, with whom Oregon developed the regional three

- state BART Modeling Protocol. Western states (as compared to the Midwest and East) have a similar mix of contributing pollutant species, contributing source categories, BART s ources, worst

- case days and natural background conditions, and other factors, which support using the same threshold level.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 140

any, are considered to contribute to visibility impairment and subject to BART , and if a lower visibility threshold than 0.5 dv is warranted.

While consideratio n was given to the option of evaluating cumulative impacts from multiple

BART sources , the Department decided not to pursue this path

. The Department conferred with other WRAP states to determine if any were considering cumulative impacts for BART

purposes , and found no state pursuing this option at the present time. This included the neighboring states of Washington, Idaho, Nevada and California. Not only was consistency with other states a major consideration for the Department, but the lack of any defini tive guidance for addressing cumulative impacts from multiple BART sources was also a factor. The Department believes the WRAP regional planning process is the appropriate vehicle for developing the necessary policy and technical guidance for t his type of analysis. The Department will continue its participation in the WRAP , and as part of the next Regional Haze Plan update in 2013 , will report on any efforts to study and evaluate cumulative impacts

, as it

relates to BART

- eligible sources, and the LTS commit ment to evaluate non

- BART sources for additional emission reductions and visibility improvements by the 2018 milestone.

2. Oregon

- Washington

- Idaho BART Modeling Protocol

The modeling conducted was based on the BART Modeling Protocol developed jointly b y Oregon DEQ, Idaho DEQ, and Washington Department of Ecology, F ederal L and M anagers (National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service), and EPA Region 10. It was based on EPA Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (Appendix Y). 26 The CALPUFF model was used to estimate daily visibility impacts above estimated natural

conditions at each Class I area from the BART

- eligible emission units at each source, based on actual emission over a three year period (2003

- 2005). This evaluation looked at both the 98 th
percentile of the three

- year period (which is the 22 nd highest day), and the 98 th percentile of each individual year (which is the 8 th highest day). The highest of these 98 th percentile values was then compared to the visibility threshold of 0.5 deciview.

The 98th percentile is a frequently used cutoff in modeling where there are measurement limitations, and certain model assumptions and uncertainties involved. The use of the 98 th
percentile follows EPA’s recommended approach for modeling BART sources (see EPA’s BART rule, page 70 FR 39121). 27 According to EPA, the use of the 98 th percentile is “a more robust approach that does not give undue weight to the extreme tail of the distribution” , and

that “will effectively capture the sources tha t contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, while minimizing the likelihood that the highest modeled visibility impacts might be caused by unusual meteorology or conservative assumptions in the model”. EPA concludes th at

" i f the 98th percentil e value from your modeling is less than your contribution threshold, then you may conclude that the source does not contribute to visibility impairment and is not subject

to BART."

26 See Appendix D

- 4 for this guidance.

27 It should also be noted that Federal Land Managers requested that the 98 th percentile be used and incorporated

into the three

- state regional BART protocol.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 141

The BART Modeling P rotocol incorporated the use of the 98th percentile, as did the modeling protocols for other states conducting BART modeling across the country. It is important that the same metrics be used for the BART analysis over a wide area, especially for Class I impacts that cross state and regional boundaries.

The e missions used in the modeling reflected the highest emitting day for each facility within the modeling period (2003

- 2005). They also reflected the facility’s steady

- state operating conditions during periods of high capacity utilization, which d id not inclu de start

- up, shutdown,

or malfunction emissions.

A copy of the BART Modeling Protocol is provided in Appendix D

- 5

.

Oregon DEQ contacted each BART

- eligible source directly to obtain actual emission s and stack parameter information on each BART

- eligible e mission unit for the modeling

. This

information was obtained with the assistance of the DEQ permit engineer already assigned to the particular facility. The following is a list of information obtained:

1. Emission Unit Name

2. Geo

- location of the Emissions Unit (Latitude

- Longitude, or UTM with Zone and Datum)

3. Emission rate

- highest 24

- hour average actual emissions in the years 2003

- 2005 (lbs/hour)

4. Stack Base Elevation (meters)

5. Stack Height (meters)

6. Stack Inside Diameter (meters)

7. Exit Velocity (meters/second)

8. Stack Gas Temperature (degrees F, C, or K)

9. Emissions should be quantified for:

 SO 2

 H2SO 4 (sulfuric acid mist) if available

 NO

x

 PM 10

 VOC

10. Speciated PM10 (where available):

Filterable fraction

 Elemental carbon (EC)

 PM Fine (PM 2.5 )

 PM Course

Condensable fracti on

 Secondary Organic Aerosol (OC)

 Inorganic Aerosol (SO 4 )

 Non

- SO 4 Inorganic Aerosol

Modeling was conducted for SO 2 , NO

x , an d PM emissions ( PM 2.5 and/or PM 10 ). EPA guidance

allow s states the option of excluding VOC emissions from the BART process, due to t he inability to easily model this pollutant

. 28

28 The Department found a single source that met the BART eligibility criteria for VOC emissions, as indicated in

Table 10.2

- 2. This source (#16 SFPP) was evaluated using a screening mo del, and found to have impacts well

under the 0.5 dv threshold.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 142

Oregon provided each source the opportunity, including the participation in two workshops, to provide feedback on the modeling protocol, participate in the modeling effort, and discuss the

results. For some facilities, multiple model runs were conducted either by DEQ or by the consultant to the facility using refined emission rates and stack parameters, and other data, These refined model inputs were based on the availability of recent source test results,

co ntinuous emission monitoring (CEMs) data, and other information.

10.3.2 Summary of Oregon BART Modeling Results

Table 10.3 .2

- 1 below shows the results of the CALPUFF modeling conducted on the 10

BART

- eligible sources. The far left column of the tab le shows the Class I areas that were

modeled. 29 These are Class I areas in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho that are within 300 kilometers of the individual 10 Oregon BART

- eligible sources, in accordance with the distance criteria specified in the BART Modelin g Protocol

.

The table shows that out of 10 sources that were modeled, five ha d impacts below the 0.5 dv

threshold , and f

ive were over the threshold

. The visibility impacts from PGE Boardman facility were considerably higher than any of the other four BAR T sources over the 0.5 dv threshold.

The extent of the se impacts is described further in Section 10.4.2, along with the BART control

determination for PGE Boardman

.

As indicated in Table 10.3.2

- 1, t he five sources under the 0.5 dv threshold are listed as “Exempt”, and are shown in the first group. In the next group are four sources listed as “Exempt with FEPL ”. These are sources that were over the threshold that chose the option of a federally enforceable permit condition ( FEPL )

, as described in Section 1 0.4.1 below. The last

column shows PGE Boardman that was far over the threshold and un derwent a BART control

determination

. The impacts for PGE Boardman in the table reflect the BART controls that have been identified for this facility in Section 10.4.2

.

Table 10.3.2

- 2 shows the mo deled impacts for the four BART sources before and after the

FEPL. A description of emissions reductions and the FEPL at each source is provided below in

Section 10.4.1.

29 Note the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is listed, however it is not a Class I area. It was added to the modeling runs as a receptor point, for information purposes only, based on current interest in visibility conditions in the Gorge. Non

- Class I areas are not part of BART process, as they are not addressed under EPA's Regional Haze Rule. However, it should be noted that on non

- Class I areas like the Gorge that are in close

pr oximity to Class I areas (such as Mt. Hood) receive visibility benefits from the strategies adopted for Class I

areas.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 143 Table 10.3 .2

- 1 BART

- Eligible Source Modeling Results

A summary of the results of the BART

- eligible source m odeling is provided below.

1. Exempt Oregon BART

- eligible s ources based on 2003

- 2005 Actual Emissions:

• Boise Paper Solutions, St. Helens OR

• Georgia Pacific

, Toledo Pulp & Paper Operations, Toledo O R

• Kingsford Manufacturing, Springfield OR

• Pope and Talbot , Halsey OR

• SP Newsprint , Newberg OR

For these sources, the BART modeling showed impacts at all Class I areas less than 0.5 dv, and

the facilities are not s ubject to further BART review

. However, as BART

- eligible sources, they

will be included in the evaluation of non

- BART sources described in Section 12.6.1 of the Long

- Term Strategy.

2. Exempt BART

- eligible sources based on emissions reduced through an FEPL

• Portland General Electric, Beaver Power Plant, Clatskanie OR2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 144

• International Paper (formally Weyerhaeuser), Springfield OR

• Georgia Pacific, Wauna Mill, Clatskanie OR

• Amalgamated Sugar, Nyssa OR

BART modeling showed these four sources had impacts over 0.5 dv in at least one Class I area.

Tabl e 10.3.2

- 2 below shows the initial modeling results. By accepting a FEPL , these sources have reduced their visibility impact to below 0.5 dv. See Section 10.4.1 for more details.

Table 10.3.2

- 2 BART

- Eligible Sources with FEPLs

3. BART

- eligible s ourc e s s ubject to BART

• PGE Boardman Power Plant, Boardman OR

BART modeling showed that impacts from th is facility were well above 0.5 dv, and the Boardman is considered Subject to BART. This source underwent a BART control determination, which is described S ection 10.4.2.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 145

10.3.3 Summary of Interstate Modeling R esults from BART

- eligible source s

As shown in Table 10.3 .2

- 1, PGE Boardman showed impacts in s ix Class I areas in Washington ( Alpine, Glacier Peak, Goat Rocks, Mt. Adams, Mt. Ranier, and North Casca des ),

and one in the portion of the Hells Canyon Class I area in Western Idaho. Although PGE

Beaver and GP Wauna did showed impacts over 0.5 dv in two Washington Class I areas (Olympic and Mt. Ranier), those impacts ended up being under 0.5 dv with the F EP L

.

Table 10.3.3

- 1 below shows the visibility impacts over 0.5 dv in Oregon Class I areas from out

of

- s tate BART

- eligible sources

. Three BART sources in Washington and one in Idaho had impacts in six Oregon Class I areas (Mt. Hood, Mt. Washington, Mt Jef ferson, Three Sisters, Strawberry Mountain, Eagle Cap, and Hells Canyon) . The largest impact was from the Trans

Al ta power plant in Centralia Washington. There were no interstate impacts from BART

sources in the states of California and Nevada.

• Washingto n BART sources impacting Oregon:

1. Weyerhaeuser plant, Longview. This facility is a k raft pulp and paper mill located on the

banks of the Columbia River in Longview , Washington. The current mill was constructed

in 1948 and expanded in 1956

- 1957 , but it has had many mod erniza tions and upgrades

since then. This facility is undergoing a BART control evaluation. As indicated in Table

10.3.3

- 1, this facility impacts the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area.

2. La Farge, Seattle. This is a cement plant located in the Duwamish V alley in Seattle Washington. The plant produces portland cement using the wet process. 16 of the 18 emission units at the plant are subject to BART. This facility is undergoing a BART control

evaluation. As indicated in Table 10.3.3

- 1, this facility impact s the Mt. Hood Wilderness

Area.

3. Trans Alta

, Centralia. Th is is a 702 MW coal

- fired power plant located near Centralia Washington

. It has 2 tangentially fired pulverized coal units using Powder River sub

bituminous coal for fuel. Controls for SO 2 and PM w ere recently installed in 2003 , and have been determined by EPA to represent a BART level of control. As a result, it is currently undergoing a BART control evaluation only for the NOx emissions from the plant. As indicated in Table 10.3.3

- 1, this facility impacts four Oregon Class I areas

– Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson. Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters.

• Idaho BART sources impacting Oregon:

1. Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa

. Th is is a s ugar p lant located in S W Idaho. It consists of a

boiler r ated at 350 million BTUs per hour, c lassified as a fossil

- fuel boiler of more than 250 million BTUs per hour heat input

. It was installed in 1969, and was put into service between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977. As indicated in Table 10.3.3

- 1, this facility impacts three Oregon Class I areas

– Hells Canyon, Eagle Cap, and Strawberry Mtn.

Table 10.3 .3

- 1 BART source impacts in Oregon from other States2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 146 State BART source impacting

Oregon Oregon Class I Area

highest impacted deciview* Washington Weyerhaeuser

, Longview Mt. Hoo d Wilderness 0. 6 7

La Farge Mt. Hood Wilderness 0.62

Trans Alta , Centralia Mt. Hood Wilderness

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Mt Washington Wilderness

Three Sisters Wilderness 2.83

1.8 8

1.41

1.53

Idaho Amalgamated Sugar,

Nampa Hells Canyon Wilderness Eagle Cap Wilderness Strawberry Mtn Wilderness 0. 79

1. 08

0.94

California None

Nevada None

*98 th percentile of 3

- year baseline (2003

- 05)

Under BART and Regional Haze Rule, the State where the BART source is located has the responsibility for eval uating BART that source. For this section of the plan, the Department is only providing the preliminary modeling results of neighboring state BART sources. Results of

the BART evaluation for the BART sources in Table 10.3.3

- 1 are not available at this time , but can be obtained by contacting the Washington Department of Ecology and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

10.3.4 BART Modeling in the Context of the Regional Haze Rule

The visibility modeling in the BART program is patterned after the type of analysis required of a new or major modified source subject to NSR rules, and following EPA modeling guidelines and FLM FLAG guidance. This analysis is prescriptive on methods, standards, and baseline data, including the definition and determination of natural background. In this context, natural background is defined as the 20% best days as described in “Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule” (EPA 2003). This natural background is a

calculation based on rela tive humidity and presumed concentration and speciation of particulate

at each Class I area. It is not a measured value of visibility impairment as used to determine Reasonable Further Progress. As a result, the BART modeling results cannot be compared

dir ectly to visibility conditions on the 20% worst days or 20% best days, as typically used when describing visibility under the Regional Haze Rule.

Also, BART modeling is carried out individually for each source. Including all other contributing sources in the modeling (i.e., non

- BART permitted industrial sources, mobile sources (such as motor vehicles, rail, boat traffic), area sources (non

- permitted small sources including outdoor burning, etc.) would mask the contribution to visibility impairment from a

s ingle BART source. The primary purpose of BART in its regulatory context is to assess the individual contribution, and to determine the level of emission controls that may be necessary to reduce impacts. Although the broad goal is to reduce haze, the end r esult of BART is a

source

- specific analysis with possible source

- specific permit conditions and controls to reduce

emissions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 147

This means that the visibility improvements from the BART process, as described in Section 10.5, are based on the improvement fro m an individual BART source. However, the results of the CMAQ modeling undertaken by WRAP, as discussed in Chapter 9, provides a regional picture that incorporates not only the estimated emissions reductions from BART sources in Oregon, and regionally acro ss the West, but also includes emissions from non

- BART permitted sources, mobile sources, and area sources including fires.



### 10

. 4 Summary of Oregon BART Control Determination Process

10.4.1 Option to take a Federally Enforceable Permit Limit

EPA guidance allows BART

- eligible sources to adopt a federally enforceable permit limit (FEPL) to permanently lower emissions to below the 0.5 dv threshold level

. 30 A modeling analysis is needed to demonstrate that the permit limit will achieve this level. Sour ces that take

a FEPL remain BART

- eligible, but are no longer “subject to BART”, which removes the source from having to conduct a BART control determination.

Sources that pursue this option tend to be sources which modeled just over the 0.5 dv threshold, and are willing to make a permanent reduction to lower their visibility impact to under this

level. There are several advantages to the FEPL option, when compared to the BART control

determination. First, this option requires making actual emission reduct ions to lower visibility impacts below the 0.5 dv threshold. The BART determination process does not guarantee emission reductions, as it is possible the determination could result in no controls (for technical or economic reasons). Second, by reducing vis ibility impairment below the 0.5 dv threshold, the impact is below the human “perceptibility” level. The BART determination process has no requirement to achieve this level (although greater reductions and more visibility improvement could be an outcome). Third, this option in most cases will result in visibility improvement in a shorter period of time than the 5 years allowed under BART.

Th e FEPL applies to the BART

- eligible emission units, and must be quantifiable and enforceable, such that compliance c an be determined by the State in the same manner as any other enforceable permit condition. BART

- eligible sources that take a FEPL must have their air quality permit modified by the time the regional haze SIP is submitted to EPA.

In Oregon there were fo ur BART

- eligible sources that chose to adopt a FEPL. Table 10.3.2

- 2 shows the visibility impacts of these sources with and without the FEPL

. As explained above, each of these sources will be undergoing a permit modification to include the conditions of t he FEPL. These permit modifications go through a separate public review and adoption process, and will completed prior to submittal of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan to EPA in 2009.

The following is a summary of each source FEPL:

30 EPA Guidance document entitled “BART Exemption Q&A” from August 24, 2006.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 148

1. PGE Beaver Power Pl ant

This is a 558 megawatt electrical generating plant located in Clatskanie Oregon. The BART visibility modeling conducted for this facility showed an impact on three Class I areas over the

0.5 dv contribution threshold, with the highest impact 0.68 dv a t Olympic National Park in Washington. As a result of this FEPL, t h e facility will reduce its emissions by using u ltra

- l ow

s ulfur d iesel fuel blend to fuel is steam turbine. DEQ will also impose a limit i n the quantity of

diesel fuel that can be burned in any given day. The result will ensure the visibility impact

remains under the 0.5 dv level.

2. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill

This is a pulp and paper manufacturing plant located in Clatskanie Oregon

. The BART visibility modeling conducted for this facilit y showed an impact at one Class I area over the 0.5

dv contribution threshold , Olympic National Park in Washington, at 0.57 dv. As a result of this
FEPL, t h e mill will reduce its emissions by using a low sulfur fuel to meet a lower emission

limit for SO2 w hen operating its power boiler, which will ensure the visibility impact remains

under the 0.5 dv level.

3. International Paper (formally Weyerhaeuser ) Plant

This is a containerboard plant located in Springfield Oregon. The BART visibility modeling

cond ucted for this facility showed an impact on nine Class I areas over the 0.5 dv contribution threshold, with the highest impact 1.45 dv at the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. As a result of this FEPL, the plant will reduce its emissions by accepting limits o n fuel usage and operation, and meeting a combined SO2 and NOx emission limit formula

. The plant is also making repairs

to one of its’ BART units that will result in e ven lower emission levels and thus ensure the visibility impact is well under the 0.5 dv level.

4. Amalgamated Sugar Plant

This is a sugar beet processing plant located in Nyssa, in eastern Oregon, near the Idaho border. This plant is currently shutdown, a nd has no identified date to resume operations. However, since their air quality per mit is still valid, BART modeling was conducted for the plant , and an impact of 0.514 dv was identified at one Class I area , the Eagle Cap Wilderness ( based on single year, 8 th highest day, as indicated in Table 10.3.2

- 2)

. The facility is taking an FEPL in

the event it resume s operation in the future. The FEPL will consist of an emission limit on a boiler , which will ensure this visibility impact is under the 0.5 dv level.

1 0

. 4

. 2 Summary of BART Control Determination for PGE Boardman plant

Under EPA’s BART rules and guidance, BART

- eligible sources that are determined to contribute to visibility impairment, and do not take the FEPL option, mu st undergo a BART control determination analysis. In conducting this analysis , Oregon followed Appendix Y of EPA’s BART rule, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule

- Part

IV. The BART Determination: Analysis of BART Options ( 70 FR 39164 to 39172)

. This2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 149

guidance can be found in Appendix D

- 4

. Th e guidance describes a five

- step process for determining the appropriate control technology for BART

- eligible sources. The five criteria are

as follows:

Cost of compliance; Energy and non

- a ir quality environmental impacts of compliance; Any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; The remaining useful life of the source, and The degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result

from the use of such technology

Upon completion of this evaluation, the controls determined to represent BART must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 5 years after EPA approval of the State’s regional haze plan.

The summary below is from the report DEQ ’s BART R eport for the Boardman Power Plant

, which can be found in Appendix D

- 1 of this plan. Additional information on the visibility improvements from BART is from the report DEQ Modeling Analysis of Visibility and Acid Depos ition Impacts and Benefits

– PGE Boardman , also provided in Appendix D

- 2

.

1. PGE Boardman BART Background

As a result of the BART process conducted by Oregon, one BART

- eligible source was found to be subject to the BART control determination process. Thi s facility is the PGE Boardman electric generating plant located in northeastern Oregon, about 150 miles east of Portland.

Table 10.4.2

- 1 provides an overview of this facility. This facility is Oregon’s largest electrical generating facility that serves ap proximately 814 ,000 industrial, commercial and residential customers in 52 Oregon cities.

Table 10

. 4.2

- 1 Overview of the PGE Boardman Plant

Item Description Plant description Permitted in 1977, began operation 1980, 617 M egawatt electric steam plant, co al burning, Foster

- Wheeler dry bottom, opposed

- wall firing boiler

Emissions (tons per year) Permitted

- SO 2 : 30,450, NO

x : 1 2

, 687 , PM: 1,056 Actual (2007)

- SO 2 : 14, 037, NO

x : 10, 656 , PM: 853

BART

- eligibility SC1 fossil fuel steam electric plant >250 M MBtu/hr, went into operation 1962

- 1977, emissions over 250 tpy, Existing Emission

Controls SO 2 : low

- sulfur, sub

- bituminous coal (~0.3% by weight)

NO

x : Low NO

x burner, overfire air (1 st generation)

PM: cold

- side electrostatic precipitator

. BART Modeling

summary Highest impact 4

. 60 dv (22 nd highest day). A total of 14 Class I areas impacted over 0.5 dv threshold.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 150

2. PGE Boardman BART Modeling Summary

As shown in Table 10.3.2

- 1 above, the PGE Boardman power plant had considerably higher visibility imp acts than any other BART

- eligible source, impacting 14 Class I areas over the 0.5 dv threshold, with the highest impact of 4.6 dv at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. Compared to the other four sources that initially modeled over the threshold, PGE Boardman ac counted for 52% of the Class I impacts over 0.5 dv, with an average impact of 2.2 dv, compared to the combined average of the other four sources of 0.78 dv.

Figure 10.4.2

- 1 shows a map of the 14 Class I areas impacted by PGE Boardman, within the

300 km r adius used in the modeling, in accordance with the BART Modeling Protocol

described in 10.3.1.

Figure 10.4.2

- 1 Map of 14 Class I Areas I mpacted by PGE Boardman

Table 10.4.2

- 2 identifies each of the 14 Class I areas impacted in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the highest impact (in deciview) based on the 98 th percentile during the 2003

- 05 baseline. Included in the modeling was the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and Crater Lake National Park. The Columbia Gorge was added to the modeling as a receptor point, for information purposes only, based on current interest in visibility conditions in the Gorge. Crater Lake National Park was outside the 300 km radius identified in the modeling protocol, but was also included for information purposes.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 151

Table 10

. 4.2

- 2 Summary of Class I A rea Visibility Impacts from PGE Boardman Plant

Class I Areas Affected Highest Impact (dv)*
Oregon Class I Area

Mt. Hood Wilderness 4.60

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness 3.12

Three Sisters Wilderness 2.29 Mt. Washingt on Wilderness 2.33 Eagle Cap Wilderness 2.23 Hells Canyon Wilderness 1.95 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 1.72

Diamond Peak Wilderness 1.03

Washington Class I Area

Mt. Adams Wilderness 2.68

Goat Rocks Wilderness 2.42 Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2.24

M t. Rainer National Park 2.02

Glacier Peak Wilderness 1.40

North Cascades National Park 1.06

Idaho Class I Area Hells Canyon (Idaho portion) 1.95

National Scenic Areas (non

- Class I) Columbia River Gorge (NSA) 3.71

Beyond 300 km (outside blue circle)

Crater Lake National Park 1.06

* in deciview, 98 th percentile of 3

- year baseline (2003

- 05)

3. PGE Boardman’s BART Analysis Report

After completion of the modeling results, DEQ informed PGE Boardman that the facility was “subject to BART”. As required under the BART rule, PGE Boardman prepared a BART control analysis report which was submitted to DEQ o n November 2, 2007 , and identified the

controls in Table 10.4.2

- 3 below as BART. 31

Table 10

. 4.2

- 3 BART Proposal by PGE

Pollutant Control Technology Emiss ion Rate

Sulfur dioxide Semi

- dry flue gas desulfurization 0.12 lb/mmBtu Nitrogen oxides New low

- NO

x burners with modified overfire

air system and selective non

- catalytic reduction 0.23 lb/mmBtu

Particulate matter Pulse jet fabric filter 0.012 lb/mmBtu

31 “ Portland General Electric Boardman Plant, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Analysis, November 2, 2007”. See DEQ Regional Haze website at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/docs/pgeAnalysisReport.pdf2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 152

4. DEQ’s BART Control Determination for PGE Boardman

DEQ followed EPA’s Appendix Y guidance for BART control determinations , in selecting BART on a pollutant by pollutant basis, taking into consideration the cost, the energy and non

air environmental imp acts, the remaining useful life, and the modeled visibility impacts. Table

10.4. 2

- 4 shows the range of controls that were evaluated for the PGE Boardman plant.

Table 10

. 4.2

- 4 Summary of Control Options Evaluated for PGE Boardman

Pollutant Controls Evalu ated

SO 2 • Semi

- dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD)

• Wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD)

NO

x • Overfire a ir system operation

• Upgraded low NO

x burners

• S elective N on

- C atalytic R eduction ( SNCR ) • Upgraded L ow NO

x Burners (L NB ) with Overfire Air ( OFA ) • Upgraded LNB with OFA and SNCR

• New LNB with Modified O FA • SNCR/SCR hybrid (cascade)

• S elective Catalytic Reduction (S CR )

PM (co

- benefit of SO 2 controls):

• Pulse jet fabric filter (PJFF)

• Wet ESP

To assist in the review of these control options, t he Department engaged an independent

contractor, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) . ERG conduct ed an independent feasibility and cost assessment of select options , primarily focusing on NO

x controls. ERG evaluated control options and performance informat ion from power plants like PGE Boardman from around the

count r y. ERG employed several methods to estimate the likely costs of different control options, including using industry

- standard cost estimation models, literature searches of costs

incurred in simi lar projects across the count r y, and discussions with PGE’s contractor ( Black &

Veatch ) to explore “real

- world” costs for these types of projects. ERG prepared a report for the Department , which is included as Appendix D

- 3 of this plan.

Based on a review of the above costs and control options, the Department decided to require a

two

- phased approach to reduce haze pollution from PGE Boardman. Phase 1 would require the

installation of new low NO

x burners with modified over fire air system for NO

x controls, semi

dry gas flue gas desulfurization for SO 2 controls , and pulse jet fabric filter for PM controls

. Phase 2 would add more stringent controls for NO

x by requiring selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Table 10.4.2

- 4 summarizes the Phase 1 and Phase 2 contr ols. Phase 1 is the Department’s case

- by

- case determination of BART for the Boardman Power Plant; whereas,

Phase 2 is in addition to BART, to provide greater visibility improvements and address reasonable progress in Oregon’s Class I areas, and address vi sibility and acid deposition

concerns in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (not a Class I area)

. Table 10.4.2

- 4 and the following summary describe the Phase 1 and Phase 2 control requirements for PGE

Boardman.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 153 Table 10.4.2

- 4 DEQ BART Control De termination for PGE Boardman

Pollutant Control

Technology Emission

Limit Averaging

Time Installation

Date Compliance

Date

Phase 1 Controls Nitrogen

oxides (NO

x ) New low NO

x

burners with

modified overfire air system (NLNB/MOFA) 0.28

lb/mmBtu heat input 3 0

- day

rolling

average 7/1/11 1/1/12

0.23

lb/mmBtu heat input 12

- month

rolling

average 7/1/11 7/1/12

Selective Non

Catalytic

Reduction (SNCR) contingency * 0.23

lb/mmBtu heat input 30

- day

rolling

average 7/1/14 1/1/15

Sulfur

dioxide (SO 2 ) Semi

- dry flue gas

desulfurization (SDFGD) 0.12

lb/mmBtu heat input 30

- day

rolling

average 7/1/14 1/1/15

Particulate

Matter (PM) Pulse jet fabric

filter (PJFF) as part of the SDFGD system

and in addition to the existing

electrostatic precipitator 0.012

lb/mmBtu

heat in put 3

- hour

average based

on the results

of compliance source testing 7/1/14 1/1/15

Phase 2 Controls Nitrogen

oxides (NO

x ) Selective

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07

lb/mmBtu heat input 30

- day

rolling

average 7/1/17 1/1/18

* SNCR is included as a continge ncy, in the event that new low NO

x burners with modified overfire air cannot achieve 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input.

Phase 1 Controls (2011

- 2014) :

NO

x Control : New Low NO

x Burners, with modified over fire air control system. This

level of control meets minimu m federal requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for NO

x . This level of control would reduce NO

x emissions about

46%.

SO 2 Control : Semi

- dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD). This level of control meets federal requirements for Best Ava ilable Retrofit Technology (BART). This control technology is also most compatible with mercury reduction controls previously required by DEQ, and would reduce SO 2 emissions by about 80%. SDFGD was selected as2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 154

BART because it provides slightly more visib ility improvement than wet flue gas desulfurization, and the cost is $135 million dollars less.

Particulate Matter (PM) Control . Particulate emissions from the Boardman Plant do not have a significant impact on visibility in Class I areas 32 . Therefore, a rigorous analysis of BART for particulate matter was not conducted. . However, particulate matter emissions will be reduced about 29% as a side benefit of installing BART

emission controls for SO 2 that include a pulse jet fabric filter. In addition, no o ther

controls were identified that would achieve a lower emission rate than the fabric filter.

Phase 2 Additional NO

x Controls (201 7 ) :

Phase1 NO

x controls would only reduce NO

x emissions from the Boardman facility by about 46%, as compared to about 80% f or SO 2 . Therefore, DEQ has proposed a second

tier of NO

x controls in order to minimize the Boardman facility’s air quality impacts in the affected wilderness areas as well as in the Columbia River Gorge. The Phase 2 NO

x controls would reduce NO

x emissions from the Boardman power plant by about 84%.

The Department believes Phase 2 SCR is necessary for the following reasons:

Nitrates contribute significantly to haze in the Class I areas, especially at Strawberry Mountain, Eagle Cap, and Hells Canyon. Unde r Phase 1, the Boardman plant would still be a significant source of NO

x . The modeling conducted for BART shows that

further reductions of NO

x will reduce the impacts of the Boardman plant below 1.0 dv for all Class I areas, and less than 0.5 dv for the ma jority of them. This improvement will help demonstrate reasonable progress by 2018 and beyond.

In addition to providing more visibility improvement and addressing reasonable progress for Oregon Class I areas , Phase 2 will help improve the air quality in t he Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and reduce risks to ecosystems and Native American cultural resources. Modeling results show that controls put in place by 2014 will reduce the visibility impacts from 3.7 to 2.8 dv and the addition of SCR by

2 01 7 will reduce the impacts from the Boardman Plant to 0.8 dv.

SCR will reduce or eliminate the yellow or brown plume that is currently present during some meteorological conditions. This plume is caused when nitrogen oxide (NO) is converted to nitrogen d ioxide (NO 2 ) in the presence of free oxygen.

The Department established an installation date of 2017 for Phase 2 SCR for the following

reasons:

Significant modifications to the boiler will be required to reduce the exhaust temperature to the level requir ed for an SCR system. As a result, more time is required for project engineering and planning.

32 Or in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 155

A longer than normal outage will be necessary to complete the boiler modifications. The extended schedule will allow more time to plan the project to ensure that the modifications are completed as quickly as possible and that electricity will be available from other sources during the outage.

An extended schedule will also allow PGE to evaluate innovative control technologies that may be superior to SCR in that t hey don’t require ammonia or generate hazardous

waste.

It typically takes 3 to 5 years to design and install an SCR system. The Department believes that it will take twice as long for the Boardman plant due the complexity of the project and competition w ith current projects throughout the country.

It is estimated that the capital cost of Phase 1 will be 280 million dollars with an annualized cost of 40.3 million dollars per year (2007 dollars). Phase 2 for NO

x will add an additional capital cost of 191 million dollars with an annualized cost of 23.1 million dollars (2007 dollars).

The Phase 1 controls are timed to align with the installation of mercury controls previously required by the Department for the Boardman power plant in 2007.



### 10.5 Emission Reductions and Visibility Improvements A chieved from

BART Process

As described in Section 10.3.4, the modeling conducted for BART sources cannot be compared directly to visibility conditions on the 20% worst days or 20% best days, as contained in this

r egional h aze plan

. The visibility improvements from the BART process can only be shown by each individual source. The CMAQ modeling, described in Section 9.3.1

, is a large regional scale model for showing visibility improvements expected under this regiona l haze plan. This modeling included assumptions of BART reductions for known BART sources across the West. However, it does not contain the results of the BART process, due to this modeling work being conducted prior to the completion of Oregon’s and othe r state s’ BART review s

.

The visibility improvements described below reflect the controls identified for PGE Boardman

in Section 1 0

. 4

. 2

. For further information, see the report DEQ Modeling Analysis of Visibility and Acid Deposition Impacts and Benefits

– PGE Boardman, provided in Appendix D

- 2.

10.5.1 PGE Boardman Phase 1 and 2 V isbility Improvements

Figure 10.5.1

- 1 s hows the emission reductions from Phase 1 and Phase 2 controls at PGE Boardman, described in the previous section. Overall, the total e mission reduction s of SO 2 , NO

x , and PM will be about 17,000 tons/year under Phase 1, and result in an overall total of 21,000 tons/year under Phase 2

. This represents a 66 percent reduction in Boardman’s emissions by

2011

- 2014 , and an 81 percent by 2017

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 156

Figure 10.5.1

- 1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Emission Reductions for PGE Boardman

Table 10.5.1

- 1 Emission Reductions and Visibility Benefits from Phase 1 and Phase 2

Controls for PGE Boardman

Reduction/Improvement

Measure Phase 1 Phase 2

7/1/2014 1/1/201 7

Total emission reductions (NO

x , SO 2 , PM tons/yr) 33 16,900 (66% reduction) 20,800

(81% reduction) Mt. Hood visibility impact 34 35 2.5 dv (45% improvement) 1.0 dv

(78% improvement)

Number Class I Areas >1.0 dv 36 6 0 Average Cla ss I Area visibility impact 1.1 dv 0.4 dv Total visibility impacts (sum of 98 th
percentile for all Class I areas) 56% improvement 82%

improvement Columbia River Gorge visibility impact 2.1 dv (44% improvement) 0.8 dv

(78% improvement)

Columbia River Go rge days/year >1.0 dv impact 37 34 (41% improvement) 3

(94% improvement)

33 Rounded to the nearest 100 tons . Current PGE Boardman total emissions 25,700 tons/yr

34 98 th percentile , which is the 22 nd highest daily value for the 2003

- 05 modeling period

. 35 Current impact equals 4.6 d v
36 Current C lass I areas >1 dv is 14 (within 300 km modeling distance).

37 Current impact is 63 days/year over 1 dv. Total Emission Reductions & Percent Reduction

5,000 10 ,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Current Emissions 66%

81%

Phase 2

2017 Phase 1

2011

- 2014 Phase 2 (add’l

NOx Controls ) Phase 1 ( NOx, SO 2 , PM Controls ) Tons/year2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 157

Table 10.5.1

- 1 summarizes both the emission reductions and visib ility benefits from Phase 1 and

2 controls. T he highest impacted Class I area (Mt. Hood) would see a 45% and 78% improve ment under Phase 1 and Phase 2 controls, respectively. This table shows that there is a significant decrease in the number of days of visibility impact and the magnitude of those impacts , in all 14 Class I wilderness affected by the Boardman power plant, a s well as the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Of note is the reduction in the number of Class I areas with impacts over 1 dv. Of the 14 Class I areas with impacts over 1 dv, only five would be

over this level under Phase 1 and none would be ove r under Phase 2. Other visibility benefits would be achieved in the Columbia River Gorge, as noted in the table.

Table 10.5.1

- 2 shows the individual visibility improvement at each of the 14 Class I areas under

Phase 1 and Phase 2 controls. As noted in t he previous table on the Class I area impacts over 1 dv, there are only 4 Class I areas with impacts over 0.5 dv under Phase 2 controls. This is significant in terms of 0.5 dv being the visibility impact threshold, and the level that BART

eligible sources taking a FEPL need to be under (see Section 10.4.1).

Table 10.5.1

- 2 Summary of Class I Area Visibility Improvements from Phase 1 and Phase

2 Controls for PGE Boardman

Class I Areas Affected Highest Impact (dv)* Phase 1

NO

x , SO 2 , PM (dv)* Phase 2

N O

x (dv)* Oregon Class I Area

Mt. Hood Wilderness 4.60 2.51 0.99

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness 3.1 2 1.50 0.59

Three Sisters Wilderness 2. 29 0.96 0.40 Mt. Washington Wilderness 2.3 3 1.01 0.40 Eagle Cap Wilderness 2.2 3 0.95 0.36 Hells Canyon Wilderness 1.9 5 0.80 0.33 Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 1.7 2 0.66 0.28

Diamond Peak Wilderness 1.0 3 0.38 0.15 Washington Class I Area

Mt. Adams Wilderness 2.68 1.29 0.52

Goat Rocks Wilderness 2.4 2 1.00 0.44 Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2.2 4 0.91 0.36

Mt. Rainer Natio nal Park 2.0 2 0.88 0.35

Glacier Peak Wilderness 1.4 0 0.57 0.21

North Cascades National Park 1.06 0.42 0.16

Idaho Class I Area Hells Canyon (Idaho portion) 1.9 5 0.80 0.33

National Scenic Areas (non

- Class I) Columbia River Gorge (NSA) 3.7 1 2.09 0.81

B eyond 300 km (outside blue circle)

Crater Lake National Park 1. 06 0.30 n/a

* in deciview, 98 th percentile of 3

- year baseline (2003

- 05)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 158

10.5.2 FEPL Source Visibility Improvements

The four BART

- eligible sources described in Section 10.4.1 are taking a federally enforceable permit limit to reduce their visibility impact to below the 0.5 dv level that represents a significant visibility impact. Most of the FEPL sources had modeled impacts just over the 0.5

dv contribution threshold, and therefore needed relatively small reductions to get under th at
threshold. While modeling was used to determine the emission level needed to get under the threshold, no additional modeling was conducted to estimate the total visibility improvement

from the FEPL sources. Ov erall, it is believed to be very small.



### 10.6 Oregon’s BART rule

Included in the adoption of this Regional Haze Plan is Oregon’s BART rule, OAR 340

- 223

- 0010 through 340

- 223

- 0 060. This rule is based largely on EPA’s BART rule and related Appendix Y, which includes requirements for BART

- eligible sources in the state , including

PGE Boardman , and FEPL sources

. In addition to BART rules, OAR 340

- 223

- 0100 through

340

- 223

- 0130 address Reasonable Progress requirements, which includes Phase 2 controls fo r PGE Boardman. The Oregon BART and Reasonable Progress rule s can be found in Appendix

E.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 159



### CHAPTER 11: REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL DEMONSTRATION

11.1 O verview

The Regional Haze Rule sets a 60 year timeline for states to improve visibility within Class I areas from the baseline (2000

- 2004) conditions to natural conditions (2064). Additionally, States are required to show “reasonable progress” over this time period in making incremental improvements , with 2018 as the first benchmark or milestone year

.

Th e rule requires the State establish a Reasonable Progress Goal ( RPG ) for each Class I area

that identifies the visibility improvement for the most

- impaired (20% worst) days

, and ensure s no degradation in visibility for the least

- impaired (20% best) days. T he State has flexibility in establishing different RPG s for each Class I area.

As described in Chapter 5, in order to set the RPG, the State first calculates the Uniform Rate of Progress ( URP ) for each Class I area. The URP is simply a straight line (als o known as the “glide slope”) between current ( baseline ) conditions and natural conditions over the 60

- year period

. Along the glide slope, the URP for 2018 needs to be identified, as this is the first planning period (2018 milestone year) that needs to be met when establishing the RPG. The URP for each Oregon Class I area is shown in Chapter 6.

In selecting RPGs

, t he State must consider the 2018 URP and the emission reductions projected from all regional haze control strategies

. The 2018 URP is not a pr esumptive target. When establishing RPGs, the State may determine RPGs at greater, lesser or equivalent visibility improvement than the URP. In cases where the RPG results in less improvement in 2018 than the URP, the State must demonstrate why the URP is not achievable, and why the RPGs are

“reasonable”.

A key step in establishing the RPGs is the four

- factor analysis : the costs of compliance; the time necessary for compliance; the energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and the re maining useful life of any potentially affected sources

. States must

demonstrat e how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal for each Class

I area

. 38 In cases where the RPGs show a slower rate of visibility improvement than the 201 8

URP milestone, the State can still demonstrate reasonable progress, by showing it evaluated additional measures using the four

- factor analysis, and other justification and documentation.



### 11.2 Steps in Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

The following s teps were followed in setting the RPGs for each of Oregon’s Class I areas :

38 In addition to these four factors, other factors can be used, as appropriate, to evaluate the need to control source categories which are not well cha racterized by the four factors.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 160

1. Compare Baseline to Natural conditions

For each Class I area, identify baseline (2000

- 2004) visibility and natural conditions in 2064, for the 20% worst and best days. See Ch apter 6.

2. Identify the U niform R ate of P rogress (URP)

For each Class I area, calculate the URP glide path from baseline to 2064, including the 2018 planning milestone, for the 20% worst days

. Show the URP glide path in both total deciview and by pollut ant in deciview. Next, identify the improvement needed by 2018 and 2064, respectively. See Chapter 6

.

3. Identify contributing pollutant species

For each Class I area, identify the pollutant species that are contributing to visibility impairment on the current (baseline) 20% worst and 20% best days. See Chapter 7

.

4. Identify major emission sources within the State and trends

Using the WRAP Emission Inventory for 2002 and 2018, describe statewide emissions by source category and pollutant, and identify projected emission trends from current (2002) to the 2018 planning milestone. See Chapter 8.

5. Analyze the larger source categories contributing to impairment

For each Class I area, determine the relative contribution of anthropogenic and nonanthropoge nic sources in Oregon and neighboring states to the 20% worst and best days, using monitoring data, source apportionment and modeling results, comparing baseline (2000

- 04) to 2018 “on

- the

- books” emissions reductions expected. Review these results by pollut ant. See Chapter 9

.

6. Document the emission reductions from BART

Describe the results of the BART process, and identify the emission reductions that will be

achieved from BART and other mechanisms

. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.

7. Identify projected vi sibility change in 2018 from “on

- the

- books” controls and BART

For each Class I area, determine the visibility improvement expected in 2018 from on

- the

books controls and BART, using the WRAP CMAQ modeling results, for the 20% worst and best days. Identif

y the extent of visibility improvement related to the 2018 URP milestone, in

total d eciview and in extinction by pollutant. See Chapter 9

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 161

8. Identify sources or source categories that are major contributors and apply the 4

- statutory factor analysis

As a result of the analysis under step 5 above, for each Class I area, determine key pollutant species and source categories that have the greatest impact on visibility in Oregon Class I areas

, to be analyzed using the 4

- factor analysis. See Section 11.3 belo w.

9. Describe the results of the 4

- factor analysis.

Section 11.3 below d escribes the results of the 4

- factor analysis.

10. Set the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPG) based on steps 7, 8, and 9

Set the RPG for each Class I area in deciview, based on the improvement in 2018 for the 20% worst and best days, from on

- the

- books controls, BART, and the results of the 4

- factor analysis

on major source categories. See Section 11.4 below.

11. Compare RPG to the 2018 URP milestone. Provide an affirmative demonst ration that reasonable progress is being made based on pollutant trends, emission reductions, and improvements expected under the Long

- Term Strategy.

For each Class I area, compare the RPG developed in step 10 to the 2018 URP milestone.

Provide an affirm ative demonstration that reasonable progress is being made based on pollutant trends, emission reductions from major anthropogenic source categories

, and on

- the

- books

controls. Describe the results of the 4

- factor analysis in step 9 above, and how future a ctions identified in the Long

- Term Strategy are expected to improve visibility in the next 10 years to the 2018 milestone, and beyond.



### 11.3 Summary of Four

- Factor Analysis

Section 308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the Regional Haze Rule requires that states consider the following factors and demonstrate how they were taken into consideration in selecting the reasonable progress goal s :

• costs of compliance

• time necessary for compliance

• energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and

• r emaining useful life of any potentially affected sources.

In conducting this four

- factor analysis, EPA guidance indicates that States have “considerable flexibility ” in how these factors are taken into consideration, in terms of what sources or source categories should be included in the analysis, and what additional control measures are

reasonable. 39

39 EPA “Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program”, June 2007.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 162

11.3.1 Rationale and Scope of the Four

- Factor Analysis

The Department looked at key pollutants and certain source categories and the magnitude of their emissions in ap plying the four factors. Based on the flexibility in how to apply the statutory factors, the following rationale was used in defining the scope of this analysis :

1. Focus on 20% worst days

Since the Regional Haze rule primarily focuses on demonstrating r easonable progress for the 20% worst days, the four

- factor analysis in this section addresses only the worst days. It is a reasonable assumption that emission reductions benefiting the worst days also benefits the best days. Moreover, the CMAQ modeling pr ojections in Chapter 9 and reasonable progress demonstration in this chapter both indicate that the 20% best days are maintained for all Oregon Class I areas, and in most cases are under the 2018 URP (see Table 9.3

- 1 and 11.4

- 1).

2. Focus on a nthropogenic s ources

Since the purpose of th is analysis is to evaluate certain sources or source categories for potential controls, the four

- factor analysis in this section addresses only anthropogenic sources, on the assumption that the focus should be on sources t hat are “controllable”

. Although

no nanthropogenic sources such as wildfire and dust are major contributors to regional haze

, the Department does not believe this analysis is applicable to these sources

. 40 In considering which anthropogenic sources or source categories to apply the statutory factors, Department

considered point, area, mobile, and fire (controlled burning).

For mobile sources

, there are major emissions reductions projected by 2018, based on

numerous “on

- the

- books” federal and state regulatio ns , as described in detail in Section 11.4.3

, and in Section 12.5.1 as part of on

- going implementation under the LTS

. There are also significant visibility improvements projected by 2018 due to these reductions, as Chapter 9

PSAT results indicate. Based on the above findings, the Department did not believe applying

the four

- factor analysis to mobile sources was needed. 41

For fire sources, forestry and agricultural burning are large anthropogenic sources

. As

described in detail in Section 12.5. 5 , both of these activities are controlled under state

- run smoke management programs which meet most of th e Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) requirements, and as such represent an advanced level of smoke management. Both of

these activities are also addressed under the Oregon Phase I Visibility program. In Section

12.6.2 of the LTS

, the Department has identified future efforts to evaluate new methods of protecting Class I areas from forestry burning. Based on current controls and future efforts, the

40 This reference to dust is to “natural” sources of dust, and not road dust, agricultural farming practices, and other

anthro pogenic activities.

41 As noted in Section 12.5.1, Oregon has adopted state programs to reduce mobile source emissions, in addition to the federal regulations, and will be implementing these programs in upcoming years. It is possible new programs may be ad opted as well. Given this state level effort, the Department did not believe applying the four statutory factors would be productive or necessary.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 163

Department did not believe applying the four

- factor analysis to forestry and agricultural burning was needed. 42

As a result of the above consideration, the Department elected to focus the four

- factor analysis on point and area sources only. Further refinement of t his approach is provided below.

3. Focus on SO 2 and NO

x pollutants

Although there are six visibility

- impairing pollutants, SO 2 and NO

x (i.e., sulfate and nitrate) are typically associated with anthropogenic sources. As noted in Chapter 8, sulfates and n itrates are about three times more effective at impairing visibility than PM 2.5

. Since a large component of particulate (both fine and course) is associated with nonanthropogenic sources , such as wildfire

and natural windblown dust, this pollutant was not included in the analysis

. 43

11.3

. 2 Identification of Point and Area Sources for the Four

- Factor Analysis

Th e Department believes th e focus on point and area sources of SO 2 and NO

x for applying the

four

- factor analysis is con sistent with EPA guidance, i n terms of flexibility to consider which major source categories are “reasonable” to evaluate for the first planning period of th e regional

haze plan

.

As described in Chapter 8 and 9, it is important to note that there are significant reductions projecte d in 2018 in SO 2 and NO

x emissions and impacts from point and area sources. This

trend was a consideration in the four

- factor analysis, in terms of what source categories the Department considered for this analysis. Large reductions in SO 2 and NO

x emission s were also used as supporting evidence in the demonstration that the reasonable progress goals selected for Oregon were “reasonable”, as described in Section 11.4.2.

The first step in the four

- factor analysis is to identify the sulfate and nitrate contr ibution within Oregon. Table 11.3 .2

- 1 below shows the modeled sulfate and nitrate impacts on the 20% worst days in 2018, based on PSAT modeling results, at each Oregon Class I area

. This table shows that the range of the Oregon portion on the worst days is from 4

- 20% for sulfate, and 10

- 30% for nitrate, which is relatively small compared to sources outside the state. The year 2018 is used here to show projected contribution, in order to assess what further emission reductions

would be beneficial in achievin g reasonable progress.

42 The Department also questioned the appropriateness or usefulness of applying the four

- factor analysis t o sources such as prescribed burning, as the factors do not lend themselves well to this type of source.

43 The Department recognizes that by focusing on source categories of SO 2 and NOx, this is excluding some point and area sources of PM. The Departme nt does not intend to evaluate all pollutants and all anthropogenic sources in this first Regional Haze Plan. However, i t should be noted that under the evaluation of non

- BART sources in the LTS of this plan, PM point sources will be included, along with SO 2 and NOx.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 164

Table 11.3 .2

- 1 Oregon Share of M odeled Sulfate and Nitrate in 2018

- 20% Worst Days

Region Oregon Class I

Area Sulfate Nitrate

2018

Total

Sulfate (μg/m3) 2018

Oregon

Sulfate (μg/m3) 2018

Oregon

Sulfate

Share (%) 2018

Total

Nit rate (μg/m3) 2018

Oregon

Nitrate (μg/m3) 2018

Oregon

Nitrate Share (%)

Northern

Cascades Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area 1.02 0.16 16% 0.83 0.30 30%

Central

Cascades Mt. Jefferson,

Mt. Washington,

and

Three Sisters

Wilderness Areas 0.75 0.12 12% 0.66 0.25 25%

Southern

Cascades Diamond Peak,

Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart

Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake

National Park 0.53 0.07 7% 0.51 0.13 13%

Coast Range Kalmiospis

Wilderness Area 0.84 0.20 20% 0.81 0.22 22%

Eastern Oregon Strawberry

Mountain and Eagl e Cap

Wilderness Areas 0.68 0.06 6% 0.88 0.21 21%

Eastern Oregon/

Western

Idaho Hells Canyon

Wilderness Area 0.53 0.04 4% 0.88 0.10 10%

The next step in the analysis is to identify the larger point and area source categories in Oregon

. Table 11.3.2

- 2 be low identifies SO 2 and NO

x point and area source categories in Oregon, based

on their projected emissions in 2018, as identified in Chapter 8 (the PRP18a emission inventory )

. These categories are External Combustion Boilers, Industrial Processes, Internal Combustion Engines, Stationary Fuel Combustion, and Waste Disposal . The table shows the

tons per year of each, as the extent of the contribution. Excluded from these sources categories are Oregon sources already evaluated under BART (see Chapter 10).2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 165 Table 11.3

. 2

- 2 Oregon Large st Source Categories

Pollutant Type Source Category Extent of

Contribution

SO 2 Point External Combustion Boilers 858 tons/year

Point Industrial Processes 377 tons/year

Area Stationary Source Fuel Combustion 5,699 to ns/year

Area Misc. (Agriculture Orchard Heaters) 2,243 tons/year

NO

x Point External Combustion Boilers 4,995 tons/year

Point Industrial Processes 3,639 tons/year

Point Internal Combustion Engines 3,688 tons/year

Area Stationary Source Fuel Com bustio n 13,454 tons/year

Area Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recover y 2,881 tons/year

11.3. 3 The Four

- Factor Analysis

Starting with t he larger source categories (SSC1), t he Department identified the applicable subcategories (SCC3 and SCC6), and the list of individual sources (SCC8) that fall under these categories

. The Department included a ll sources over 50 tons per year

. BART

- eligible sources were not included. The individual sources listed are only for illustrative purposes, and do not

represent sources determined to be “significant” contributors to Class I visibility impairment. Only the source categories (SCC1) are being evaluated here. 44

In conducting the four

- factor analysis, the Department relied on information from EPA’s

AirControlNET websit e, which is a control technology analysis tool EPA developed to support its analyses of air pollution policies and regulations. The tool provides data on emission sources, potential pollution control measures and emission reductions, and the costs of imple menting those controls. AirControlNET is a relational database system in which control technologies are linked to sources in EPA’s emissions inventories. 45 The system contains a database of control measure applicability, efficiency, and cost information for reducing the emissions contributing to ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO

x , as well as visibility impairment (regional haze) from point, area, and mobile sources.

Following the discussion below are conclusions from the four

- factor ana lysis in Section 11.3.4.

1. External Combustion Boilers

This source category consists of point sources with emissions totaling 858 tpy of SO 2 and 4,995

of NO

x . Included here are mostly industrial boilers that burn wood waste, oil, and natural gas. The larg est subcategory of sources is industrial boilers burning wood/bark waste (SCC6). The

44 It should also be noted that the individual sources listed do not necessary represent those which will be part of

the non

- BART source evaluation described in the LTS section. The official list of non

- BART sources will be

identified at a f

uture time, after a review and updated inventory of these sources and their emissions is completed.

45 For the purpose of this four

- factor analysis, the Department relied upon the accuracy of EPA’s emission inventory in AirControlNET, and did not compa re it to our own emissions inventory.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 166

two tables below list the individual SO 2 and NO

x sources that comprise this category, and are provided for illustrative purposes, and is not intended to identify sources s ubject to additional

controls.

Based on the review of the above SO 2 and NO

x subcategories, the Department is focusing the

four

- factor analysis on the NO

x industrial boilers of wood waste, as this represents the majority of sources (16), and a total 3,672 tpy, or 63% of the External Combustion Boiler source category for both pollutants.

Cost of Compliance

NO

x controls for industrial boilers of wood or bark waste consist of the following. Over

- fire Air Systems involve air that is introduced high in the boiler in order to achieve staged combustion.

Se lective Non

- Catalytic Reduction is an add

- on control technology that allows ammonia to

react with NO

x without the need for a catalyst to form water and molecular hydrogen. Selective Catalytic Reduction i s similar an add

- on control technology that allows ammonia to react with

NO

x and form N2 and water. The SCR catalyst enables this reaction to occur at lower temperatures than SNCR. However, SCR controls for wood burning can be problematic, as

trace element s such as Na and K in the wood has been shown to foul catalysts. So this option is likely infeasible. The cost and other information on these control options are listed below.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 167

Table 11.3 .3

- 1 Summary of NO

x Control Options for External Combustion Boilers (Industrial W ood/

B ark W aste)

Control Option Control Efficiency Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)
Overfire Air (OFA) Systems 30% or more $500

- $1,500

Selective Non

- catalytic reduction (SNCR) 20

- 30% $1,500

- $10,000 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 80

- 90% not cost effective*

* based on information above of catalyst failure from wood combustion

Time Necessary for Compliance

Overall time for compliance is expected to be 4

- 5 years. Up to 2 years would be required to develop and adopt rules necessary to req uire these controls. Typical timeframe for installing

these NO

x controls would be 2

- 3 years after rule adoption.

Energy and Non

- Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance

These controls do not have significant energy impacts. There are environmenta l impacts

associated with SN CR and SCR in terms of ammonia emissions , also known as “ammonia slip”. Ammonia slip can be greater with SNCR than SCR, due to the former being less efficient in removing NO

x . With SCR there is the need for disposal of spent cat alyst. The catalysts used in SCR must be replaced every 2

- 5 years. Catalysts contain heavy metals that are hazardous

wastes.

Remaining Useful Life of Affected Source s

It is difficult to estimate the remaining life of any potentially affected sources. Remaining useful life is specific to the facility for which controls are considered.

2. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion

This source category consists of area sources, with emissions totaling 5,699 tpy of SO 2 and 13,354 tpy of NO

x . Included here are ind ustrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn distillate and residual oil, natural gas, and other fuels. The two tables below list the SO 2 and

NO

x emissions.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 168

The largest subcategory listed above is residential wood and natural gas combust ion (6,642 tpy

of NO

x , combined). These represent the woodstoves and home heating devices found throughout Oregon. The Department’s residential woodheating rules in OAR 340, Division 262, require that only certified woodstoves can be sold in the state. Ce rtified woodstoves can reduce emissions by 70%. These rules also authorize woodstove curtailment programs in any city that is designated in nonattainment with the PM national ambient air quality standard. The woodstove curtailment programs in these communi ties have been very effective in reducing pollution levels during the winter months. As a result of current state requirements and programs for residential wood heating, the Department is not including this subcategory in the

four

- factor analysis. Similarl y, the low emissions generated by natural gas home heating

devices do not warrant this analysis either.

The remaining sizeable subcategories above are industrial and commercial/institutional combustion, involving mostly natural gas and distillate oil. The se emissions are believed to come from smaller generators and engines. As such, these emission estimates are somewhat

uncertain. The control options available for those burning natural gas are very limited, since this fuel already produces very low emissio ns, and any post

- combustion controls are not realistic from a cost standpoint. For those burning distillate oil, fuel switching to lower sulfur fuel (<1%) is an option, but not likely to produce any significant reduction in emissions, and

any post

- combusti on controls are not cost realistic.

As a result of close review of this source category, the Department does not believe the four

factor analysis is appropriate, and would not yield any useful results.

3. Industrial Processes

This source category consists of SO 2 and NO

x point sources, with emissions totaling 377 tpy of

SO 2 and 3,639 tpy of NO

x . Included here are kraft pulping, glass and cement plants, and steel manufacturing sources. The two tables below list the individual SO 2 and NO

x sources that compris e this category, and are provided for illustrative purposes, and is not intended to identify sources subject to additional controls.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 169

The only sizable subcategory above is SCC6 for cement manufacturing, which represents 2,290 tpy of NO

x , or 57% of t he Industrial Processes category. These emissions will be focus of the

four

- factor analysis for this source category. The SO 2 emissions from cement manufacturing

are low (63 tpy) and therefore not included in the analysis.

Cost of Compliance

There are s everal options for NO

x controls for dry process cement manufacturing plants. Low

NO

x Burners reduce the amount of NO

x formed in the flame. Mid

- Kiln Firing is a form of secondary combustion where a portion of the fuel is fired in a location other than the b urning

zone. This reduces thermal NO

x generation because the temperature in the secondary

combustion zone is lower. Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction is an add

- on control technology

that allows ammonia to react with NO

x without the need for a catalyst to f orm water and molecular hydrogen. Selective Catalytic Reduction is an add

- on control technology that allows

ammonia to react with NO

x and form N2 and water. The SCR catalyst enables this reaction to occur at lower temperatures than SNCR. Cost and other inf ormation on these control options

are listed below.

Table 11.3 .3

- 2 Summary of NO

x Control Options for Cement Manufacturing

Control Option Control Efficiency Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

Mid

- Kiln Firing 25% $500

- $750

Low NO

x Burners 25% $300

- $600

Se lective Non

- Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) 50% $700

- $1,000

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 80% $2,000

- $5,000

Time Necessary for Compliance

Overall time for compliance is expected to be 4

- 5 years. Up to 2 years would be required to develop and adopt r ules necessary to require these controls. Typical timeframe for installing

these NO

x controls would be 2

- 3 years after the rule was adopted.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 170

Energy and Non

- Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance

These controls do not have significant energy im pacts. There are environmental impacts

associated with SN CR and SCR in terms of ammonia emissions , also known as “ammonia slip”. Ammonia slip can be greater with SNCR than SCR, due to the former being less efficient in removing NO

x . With SCR there is the n eed for disposal of spent catalyst. The catalysts used in SCR must be replaced every 2

- 5 years. Catalysts contain heavy metals that are hazardous

wastes.

Remaining Useful Life of the Source

It is difficult to estimate the remaining life of any potentia lly affected sources. Remaining useful life is specific to the facility for which controls are considered.

4. Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery

This source category consists of NO

x area sources with emissions totaling 2,881 tpy. Included

here are resi dential open burning, municipal landfills, and on

- site incineration at commercial

and industrial facilities.

The largest source within this category is residential open burning, which like agricultural and forestry burning, is not suitable for applyin g the four

- factor analysis. Instead, as described in Chapter 12, Section 12.6.3 , the Department will conduct an e valuation of r esidential o pen b urning to determine the extent of the contribution to visibility impairment, and the need for

emission reduction s, as part of the LTS of this plan. For the remainder of the emissions in this source category, the Department does not consider them to be sizeable enough to warrant the

four

- factor analysis.

5. Misc. (Agriculture Orchard Heaters)

This source category consists of SO 2 area sources with emissions totaling 2,243 tpy. This category represents agricultural orchard heaters, burning diesel fuel.

While the emissions in this source category (2,243 of SO 2 ) are not insignificant, the Department does not beli eve this type of source

– orchard heaters

– is appropriate for a four

factor analysis for several reasons. First, the Department’s confidence in the emissions estimate2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 171

from orchard heaters is very low. Second, these heaters are used intermittently, during period of cold temperatures, to prevent frost damage, and for selected crops in diverse regions of the

state. The probability that the intermittent use and spatial distribution of this source is a sizeable contributor to Class I area impairment is extremel y low. Third, few control options are available. The Department was unable to find any information from EPA’s AirControlNET nor other sources that could provide relevant information for completing a four

- factor analysis.

6. Internal Combustion Engines

This source category consists of NO

x point sources with emissions totaling 3,688 tpy. Included here are electric generation and industrial engines burning natural gas. The table below lists the

individual NO

x sources that comprise this category, and is provide d for illustrative purposes, and is not intended to identify sources subject to additional controls.

This source category consists of two types of engines: 1) natural gas fired reciprocating internal combustion engines, and 2) natural gas fires turbi nes that are either compressor, combustor, or power turbine. Emissions vary from engine to engine, model to model, and mode of operation. EPA’s AirControlNET had no information on controls for this source category. Other information on this source category could not be found that would allow a four

- factor analysis without a major investment of resources, and an exhaustive facility by facility review to evaluate each unit, which is beyond the scope and effort required in this first Regional Haze

SIP. Given t he relative low emissions represented by this source category, and the unknown level of contribution to visibility impairment, no further analysis was conducted.

11.3.4 Conclusions from the Four

- Factor Analysis

Based on the four

- factor analysis ab ove
, the Department concluded it is not reasonable to require controls for these source categories at this time. This analysis did provide useful

information on possible control options and general costs

, which will be included in a more in

depth analysis of a dditional control measures as described in Section 12.6.1 for the LTS

. Th e Department will be developing guidance for c onduct ing a comprehensive review of individual

non

- BART stationary sources over the next five years, to identify any additional emission

reductions that could improve Class I area visibility by the 2018 milestone

. Included in this

review will be possible controls identified for non

- BART sources, and schedule for implementation.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 172

11.3.5 Identif

ication of Additional Emission Reductions

Al though the Department is not requiring any additional emission reductions based on the four

factor analysis, it should be noted that the additional NO

x controls required under the Phase 2 requirements for the PGE Boardman Power Plant, as described in Secti on 10.4.2, will result in an additional reduction of approximately 4,000 tons NO

x , and significant visibility improvements, when installed in 2017. The extent of the visibility improvements from Phase 2 controls in Oregon Class I areas impacted by PGE Boa rdman are described in Section 10.5.1.



### 11.4 Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals for Oregon’s Class I

Areas.

Under Section 308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule , States must “establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable pro gress towards achieving natural visibility conditions”

for each Class I area of the State. These RPGs are interim goals that must provide for

incremental visibility improvement for the most impaired visibility days, and ensure no degradation for the least impaired visibility days. The RPGs for the first planning period are goals for the year 2018. Based on the steps outlined in Section 11.2, the Department has

established RPGs for each of Oregon ’s 12 Class I areas, as described below

.

The RPGs identified in Table 11.4

- 1 are based on the Department ’s evaluation and

consideration of: (1) the results of the CMAQ modeling described in Section 9.3, which

include s on

- the

- books controls and other emission i n puts ( s ee Appendix C for list o f CMAQ

model emission in puts ), (2) the results of the 4

- factor analysis described in Section 11.3.3 , (3) the BART review described in Chapter 10, and (4) the additional emission reductions from the “beyond BART” Phase 2 NO

x controls for PGE Boardman.

As shown in Table 11.4

- 1 , th e RPGs for the 20% best days not only show no degradation of visibility, but in all cases show a slight improvement over baseline conditions by 2018. The Department attributes this to a combination of factors: (1) the numerous “on

- the

- books”

controls acc ounted for in the CMAQ modeling, (2) significant reductions in mobile sources emissions, as described in Section 11.4.3, and (3) the “beyond BART” Phase 2 controls for

PGE Boardman. The Department believes the list of measures it has included in the Long

Term Strategy of this plan will continue to ensure no degradation is achieved in the future.

For the 20% worst days, Table 11.4

- 1 shows that the RPGs are short of the 2018 URP goal for each Class I area (grouped according to region). Section 11.4.1 provi des an affirmative demonstration why the RPGs for the 20% worst days is justified

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 173

Table 11.4

- 1 Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days and 20% Best Days for Oregon Class I Areas

Region Oregon Class I Area 20% Worst Days 20% Best Days

Baseline

Condition (dv) 2018

Uniform Progress Goal (dv) 2018

Reasonable Progress Goal (dv) Baseline

Condition (dv) 2018

Reasonable Progress Goal (dv)

Northern

Cascades Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area 14.9 13.4 13.8 2.2 2.0

Central

Cascades Mt. Jefferson,

Mt. Washington

, and

Three Sisters

Wilderness Areas 15.3 13.8 14.3 3.0 2.9

Southern

Cascades Diamond Peak,

Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart

Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake

National Park 13.7 12.3 13.4 1.8 1.5

Coast Range Kalmiospis

Wilderness Area 15.5 14.1 15.1 6.3 6.1

Eastern Oregon Strawberry

Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness

Areas 18.6 16.3 17.5 4.5 4.1

Eastern Oregon/

Western

Idaho Hells Canyon

Wilderness Area 18.6 16.2 16.6 5.5 4.7

11.4.1 Affirmative Demonstration t he RPGs for 20% Worst Days

EPA guidan ce indicates that “States may establish a RPG that provides for greater, lesser, or equivalent visibility improvement as that described by the glidepath”. 46 T he 2018 RPGs

identified in Table 11.4

- 1 for 20% worst days show an improvement in visibility, alth ough less

than the 2018 URP goal

. However, under the Regional Haze Rule, a State can still demonstrate reasonable progress, using the four

- factor analysis in Section 11.3, and other evidence and

documentation. As a result, the Department believes the RPGs are justified and “reasonable”, based on the following factors that support of this demonstration:

1. Findings from the four

- factor analysis

. This analysis was conducted as required under Section 308 (d)(1)(i)(A). Based on the general level of this review of major source categories, the Department determined it was not reasonable to control additional source categories and has identified a schedule for a more in

- depth evaluation of individual sources and additional control measures as part of the LTS of this plan. This evaluation

46 EPA “Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program”, June 2007.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 174

will be completed by the next SIP submittal in 2013, and will contain a timetable for installation of controls for subject sources. See Chapter 12.

2. Additional emissions reductions from Phase 2 controls for PGE Boardman . While the

fo ur

- factor analysis did not identify any additional emission reductions for this first plan, DEQ is requiring additional NO

x controls under the Phase 2 “beyond BART” requirements for the PGE Boardman Power Plant

, which will result in an additional 4,000 ton reduction of NO

x . There are significant visibility benefits expected from th is

reduction , as described in Section 10.5.1.

3. Evidence that natural sources affect ability to meet the 2018 URP goal

. The analysis in Chapters 8 and 9 of this plan of emissions d ata, source apportionment, and modeling

results strongly supports the finding that the contribution of natural or nonanthropogenic sources, such as natural wildfire and windblown dust, and the pollutants associated with these sources (OC, EC, PM 2.5 , Coarse PM and Soil) is the primary reason for not achieving the 2018 URP for Oregon’s Class I areas. The CMAQ modeling results in Chapter 9 show considerably less reduction by 2018 in the se pollutants, in contrast to significant reductions in SO 2 and NO

x , common ly associated with anthropogenic sources.

4. Evidence that offshore m arine s hipping e missions affect ability to meet the 2018 URP goal

. Similar to natural sources of wildfire and dust mentioned above, marine vessel emissions are likely a significant f actor affecting the ability to meet the 2018 URP goal. Chapter 9 PSAT and WEP results show this source category (offshore emissions) as a major contributor to Oregon Class I areas , especially f or SO 2 and NO

x , in the Kalmiopsis Class I area in the Coast Ran ge, and the seven Class I areas located in the

Cascade Mountains. If compared to emission inventory data in Chapter 8, marine vessel

emissions are 56% for SO 2 and 31% for NO

x of the total 2002 statewide emission inventory for these pollutants. ( It should b e no te d that in Tables 11.4 .2

- 2 and 11.4 .2

- 3 below, this contribution of SO 2 and NO

x from marine vessels was included in the CMAQ modeling project ions for 2018. The higher contribution of SO 2 from marine

vessels is what likely accounts for the smaller impr ovement in SO 2 than in NO

x by 2018, as indicated in these tables. Otherwise, both SO 2 and NO

x improvements would

be even greater. ) See Section 12 .6.5 of the LTS for future efforts planned by the Department to address marine vessel emissions.

5. R eductions in anthropogenic sources equal to or greater than 2018 URP goals as a

means of showing “reasonable progress”

. Given the strong correlation of SO 2 and NO

x emissions to anthropogenic sources, trends in these pollutants by 2018 can be factored

into the determin ation of reasonable progress, in contrast to the contribution of nonanthropogenic sources. The analysis in Section 11.4

- 2 below shows the significant

reductions in SO 2 and NO

x by 2018. As shown in Chapter 6 related 2018 URP “glideslope” for each Class I ar ea, the total reduction in deciview from baseline to the 2018 URP is approximately 20%. The tables in Section 11.4.2 show that 2018 WEP emission projections for NO

x and SO 2 far exceed a 20 % reduction, while projected CMAQ modeling far exceed s 20% for NO

x , and up to 16% for SO 2 by 2018. The2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 175

combination of these improvements due to emission reductions from anthropogenic

source s adds to the demonstration of reasonable progress. See Section 11.4

- 2 below.

6. Major reductions in mobile source emissions

. As the larg est anthropogenic source category for SO 2 and NO

x , mobile sources show a considerable reduction in emissions by 2018. Although these reductions are primarily achieved through federal regulations already “on the books”, the Department believes this further supports the demonstration of reasonable progress. See Section 11.4.3 below.

Th e Department expects that there will be a dditional visibility improvements by 2018 based on new strategies identified in the Long

- Term Strategy. As described in Chapter 12, th e LTS will

evaluate emission reductions from non

- BART sources, possible new smoke management

controls for prescribed burning , and other measures

. See Section 11.4.4 below.

11.4.2 20% Reduction in Emissions from Anthropogenic Sources

Chapter 6 shows the URP glideslope for each Oregon Class I area

. In general, the improvement needed from the 2000

- 04 baseline to the 2018 URP for the worst case days is approximately 20 percent i n total deciview

. A lthough Oregon ’s Class I areas are not projected

to meet th e 2018 URP, most of this can be attributed to nonanthropogenic sources, such as

natural wildfire and windblown dust. The Department believes that in determining “reasonable” progress, it is important to distinguish between anthropogenic (controllable) vers us nonanthropogenic (uncontrollable) emission sources. The results of the WEP apportionment and the CMAQ regional modeling in Chapter 9 show that in looking at individual pollutants, there are significant projected reductions in SO 2 and NO

x by 2018, which represent mostly

a nthropogenic sources.

Table 11.4

. 2

- 1 below summarize s the projected emission reductions in SO 2 and NO

x , in comparison to the other pollutants, based on the W EP results described in Chapter 9. 47 Th is

table show s the projected reduction s in 2018 for SO 2 and NO

x a verage 39 % and 40 %

, respectively. This is considerably greater than the 20% reduction represented by the 2018 URP.

This is one factor that supports the demonstration that the 2018 RPGs are “reasonable”.

Most of these reductions c an be attributed to considerable mobile source reductions described in Section 11.4.3, emissions reduction from BART in Oregon and neighboring states in the next five years, and the SO 2 regional milestones and backstop trading program under Section 309 of

the R egional H aze R ule

. 48 The numerous ongoing Oregon air pollution control programs and regulations listed in the LTS in Chapter are expected to contribute to this reduction, although this cannot be quantified at this time.

47 The WEP results were used instead of PSAT in order to compare the results of all pollutants. While WEP does

not take into account chemical reactions of SO 2 and NOx, it is still a valuable screening tool for identifying the potential contribution of pollutant species to haze formation in Class I areas.

48 This program involves four Western States (Arizona, New Mex ico, Utah and Wyoming) and requires SO 2 regional milestones be met out to the year 2018. These milestones require significant reductions in SO 2 be achieved by 2018 that are “better than BART”. Meeting the milestones is determined by annual emissions

repo rting by major industrial SO 2 sources in the four states. If the milestones are exceeded, a backstop trading program would then require emission allocations for these sources in the four states involved.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 176

Table 11.4

. 2

- 1 WEP Projected Emission Contributions of Individual Pollutants by 2018

URP as an I ndicat or of “ R easonable” P rogress.

Region Oregon Class I Area 20% Worst Days

Baseline to 2018 Change in Anthropogenic* Upwind Weighted

Emission (WEP Analysis )

SO 2 NO

x OC EC PM

Fine PM

C oarse

Northern

Cascades Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area - 46%

- 48% 4%

- 26% 11% 91%

Central

Cascades Mt. Jefferson,

Mt. Washington, and

Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas - 44%

- 46% 1%

- 28% 24% 88%

Southern

Cascades Diamond Peak,

Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake National

Park - 33%

- 41%

- 2%

- 24% 15% 46%

Coast Range Kalmio p s is

Wilderness Area - 33%

- 40%

- 6%

- 24% 14% 38%

Eastern Oregon Strawberry Mountain and

Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas - 39%

- 38%

- 19%

- 37% 2% 19%

Eastern Oregon/

Wes tern

Idaho Hells Canyon Wilderness

Area - 37%

- 28%

- 30%

- 42% 16% 27%

*Anthropogenic emissions exclud e natural fires, biogenic emissions and windblown dust.

Table 11.4.2

- 2 shows sulfate a nd Table 11.4 .2

- 3 shows nitrate projected reductions for the 20%

wor st days based on CMAQ modeling

. The se tables were taken from Section 9.3.1 C MAQ projections for 2018 and discussion of the b reakdown by pollutant for each Class I area, as identified in Tables 9.3.1

- 1 to 9.3.1

- 6.

The visibility improvement (i.e., reducti on in extinction) for SO 2 ranges from 4% to 16%, wh ile

for NO

x ranges from 28% to 58%

. 49 If th is reduction in SO 2 and NO

x were combined, the

overall imp rovement would exceed 20%.

49 The Department believes the lower reduction in SO 2 is likely the result of the contribution of offshore marine vessel emissions, which is slightly greater for SO 2 than NOx, as discussed above in Section 11.4.1.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 177

Table 11.4 .2

- 2 CMAQ Projected Reduction in Ammonium Sulfate by 2018 URP as an I ndicat or of “ R easonable” P rogress.

Oregon Class I Area 20% Worst Days

2018 Reduction in Ammonium Sulfate Extinction

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018 URP

Goal (Mm

- 1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) % of URP

Goal Total %

Change by 2018

Mt. Hood

Wild erness Area 11.3 8.6 9.3 74%

- 18%

Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and

Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas 11.8 9.0 10.1 60%

- 14%

Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake National

Park 7.3 5.9 7.0 20%

- 4%

Kalmiospis

Wilderness Area 10.3 7.9 9.7 25%

- 6%

Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness

Areas 7.8 6.0 7.0 40%

- 9%

Hells Canyon Wilderness

Area 8.4 6.4 7.4 48%

- 11%2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 178

Table 11.4 .2

- 3 CMAQ Projected Reduction in Ammonium Nitrate by 2018 URP as an

I ndicat or of “ R easonable” P rogress.

Oregon Class I Area 20% Worst Days

2018 Reduction in Ammonium Nitrate Extinction

2000

- 04

Baseline (Mm

- 1) 2018 URP

Goal (Mm

1) 2018

Projected Visibility (Mm

- 1) % of URP

Goal Total %

Change by 2018

Mt. Hood

Wilderness Area 5.5 4.7 3. 6 >100%

- 34%

Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and

Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas 2.7 2.6 1.6 >100%

- 40%

Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,

and Gearhart Mountain

Wilderness Areas

and Crater Lake National

Park 2.6 2.5 1.1 >100%

- 58%

Kalmiospis

Wilderness Area 3. 2 2.9 2.1 >100%

- 33%

Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness

Areas 15.8 12.0 11.5 >100%

- 27%

Hells Canyon Wilderness

Area 28.5 19.7 20.6 90%

- 28%

11.4.3 Major Reductions in Mobile Source Emissions by 2018

As the largest anthropogenic source cate gory, the Department believes that the trend in mobile source emission reductions from 2002 to 2018 is another factor in support the demonstration of reasonable progress. As shown by the emission inventory information in Chapter 8, mobile

source annual emi ssions show a considerable decrease in Oregon from 2002 (plan02d) to 2018 (prp18a), and represent the greatest emission reductions of any single source category. This can

be seen in the statewide emissions in Section 8.1, and the regional level emissions i n Section

8.2. The greatest reduction is in NO

x emissions, followed by VOC, and to a lesser extent SO 2

. Table 11.4 .3

- 1 shows this reduction in tons per year and percent reduction at the statewide level, from the baseline of 2002 to projected level in 2018.

Table 11.4 .3

- 1 Mobile Source Emission Reductions in Oregon from 2002 to 2018

Source Category SO 2 NO

x VOC

On

- Road Mobile

- 2985 tons (87%)

- 69,502 tons (62%)

- 52,389 tons (59%)

Non

- Road Mobile

- 6383 tons (98%)

- 21,478 tons (40%)

- 14,553 tons (3 7%)2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 179

The mobile source emission inventory was based on the WRAP Mobile Source Emission Inventories Update. This report e stimate d all on

- road and off

- road mobile source emissions for the WRAP region for the 2002 base year, and projections to 2008, 2013, an d 2018. It also

included e missions from aircraft, locomotives, marine shipping

, and road dust. T he contractor who conducted the project surveyed state and local air quality planning agencies to obtain the

most up

- to

- date mobile source activity data and con trol program information. On

- road mobile

source emissions were estimated with EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model. Emissions for most off

- road

mobile sources were estimated with EPA’s Draft NONROAD2004 model. Locomotive

emissions were estimated based on locomotive fuel consumption; aircraft emissions were based on aircraft landing and takeoffs and FAA EDMS emission factors; and commercial marine emissions were estimated using a variety of activity data sources and EPA emission factors . For further information, see http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ef/UMSI/index.html

The mobile source emission reductions are based on numerous “on the books” federal mobile source regulations that include the following:

For on

- road mobile sources:

• Tier 1 light

- duty vehicle standards

• National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) standards

• Tier 2 light

- duty vehicle standards, with low sulfur gasoline

• Heavy

- duty vehicle standards, with low sulfur diesel

For non

- road mobile sources and e quipment:

• Emission standards for new nonroad spark

- ignition engine below 25 hp

• Phase 2 emission standards for new spark

- ignition hand

- held engine below 25 hp

• Phase 2 emission standards for new spark

- ignition nonhand

- held engine below 25 hp

• Emission standar ds for new gasoline spark

- ignition marine engines

• Tier 1 and 2 emission standards for new nonroad compression

- ignition engines below 50 hp including recreational marine engines

• Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for new nonroad compression

- ignition engines of 50 hp and greater not including recreational marine engines greater than 50 hp

• Tier 4 emission standards for new nonroad compression

- ignition engines above 50 hp and

reduced nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels

For example, i n 2004 EPA adopted rules the Tier 4 rules for Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel,

which t ook effect in 2008. These rules alone are expected to have major visibility benefits in Oregon. Nationally, these rules are estimated to reduce emissions in 3030 from nonroad engines, locomotive engines, an d marine engines by 95% for PM2.5

, 90 % for NO

x , and 99%

for SO 2

.

The visibility benefits that are projected by 2018 from these reductions can be seen in Chapter 9, in Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2, under the PSAT source apportionment results for sulfate and

ni trate, on the 20% worst days.

The extent of the mobile source emissions reductions and the visibility improvements that are projected are significant factors in determining that the RPGs identified in this section represent2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 180

reasonable progress. It shoul d also be noted that this trend in emission reductions will likely be even greater than expected, due to increasing gasoline prices that are already having the effect of reducing annual vehicle miles traveled across the West, and beyond what was estimated for the emissions inventory cited in this report.

11.4.4 Additional Emission Reductions Expected by 2018 due to the Long

- Term Strategy

Under the Long

- Term Strategy (LTS) described in Chapter 12, additional emission reductions are expected by 2018 tha t will result in visibility improvements. Although these new strategies have yet to be implemented, it is reasonable to expect that these visibility improvements will occur and provide greater progress toward the 2018 milestone than the RPGs estimated in t his first plan submittal. The key elements of the LTS include an evaluation and possible controls

for non

- BART sources, new smoke management improvements for prescribed burning, review and possible revision of state open burning regulations, and expected b enefits associated with

the revised PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

11.4.5 Long

- Term Strategy “Next Steps” in Analyzing Major Source Categories

As described in the Long

- Term Strategy in Chapter 12, the Department will take the results of

this four

- factor analys e s for source categories, and b eginning in 200 9

, conduct further evaluation of these source categories to determine what additional controls are appropriate to achieve further reasonable progress. It is expected this evaluation will be incorporated into the work described in Section 12.6.1 of the LTS that will develop criteria and guidance for evaluating all non

- BART sources. Results from this evaluation will be reported in the required 2013 plan update.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 18 1



### CHAPTER 1 2 : LONG

- TERM S TRATEGY

12.1 Overview of the LTS

The Regional Haze Rule requires States to submit a 10

- 15 year long

- term strategy (LTS) to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I areas in the State, and for each Class

I area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from the State. The LTS must

include enforceable measures necessary to achieve reasonable progress goals , and identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing the long

term stra tegy. Where the State contributes to Class I visibility impairment in other States it must consult with those States and develop coordinated emission management strategies, and demonstrate it has included all measures necessary to obtain its share of the e mission

reductions. If the State has participated in a regional planning process, the State must include measures needed to achieve its obligations agreed upon through that process.

As required in Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) of the Regional Haze Rule , the St ate must consider , at a minimum, the following factors: (1) e mission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs; (2) m easures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities ; (3) emission limitations and schedules for compliance; (4) s ourc e retirement and replacement schedules; (5)

s moke management techniques for agricultural and forestry burning; (6) the enforceability of

emission limitations and control measures ; and (7) th e anticipated net effect on visibility over the period of the long

- term strategy.



### 12.2 Overview of the LTS Development Process

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1, Oregon is a participant in the WRAP, which was a major source of technical and policy assistance for western States in developing regional strategies fo r reducing haze. The following is a partial list of the primary WRAP products relied upon by Oregon and other western States in developing the LTS. For a complete list, see

the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair.org/ :

Technical Support System (TSS)

- http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/wraptss/

- this is a project that provides a single, one

- stop shop for access, visualiz ation, analysis, and retrieval of the technical data and regional analytical results prepared by WRAP Forums and Workgroups in support of regional haze planning in the West. The TSS specifically summarizes results and consolidates information about air qua lity monitoring, meteorological and receptor modeling data analyses, emissions inventories and models, and gridded air quality/visibility regional modeling simulations. For more information on the WRAP TSS, see Appendix C

.

Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

- http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/

- this modeling project conducted by the RMC provides regional scale, three

- dimensional regulatory air quality models that simulate the emissions, chemical transformations, and transport of criteria pollutants and fine PM and consequent effects on visibility in Class I areas in the WRAP region and across North America.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 182

Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS)

- http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/

- this system provides ongoing access to IMPROVE and other visibility monitoring data, research results, and special studies related to the Regional Haze Rule. Downloads of the IMPROVE data, custom displays of spatia l, chemical, and temporal patterns, as well as information about applying monitoring data for regional haze planning are available.

Causes of Haze Assessment project (CoHA)

- http://coha.dri.edu/index.html

- this project provides detailed analyses of IMPROVE and meteorological monitoring data in the WRAP region. Includes multi

- year back trajectory wind plots for each monitored Class I area, trajectory regression analyses’ results used in the Phase I AoH projec t, and extensive descriptive information about the monitoring data and each Class I area.

Emissions Data Management System (EDMS)

- http://wrapedms.org/default_login.asp

- this project entails an emiss ion inventory and web

- based GIS application that provides a consistent, complete, and regional approach to emissions data tracking to meet the requirements for SIP and TIP development, periodic progress reviews, and data updates.

The EDMS serves as a centr al regional emissions inventory database for all types of emissions, and uses associated software to facilitate the data collection efforts for regional modeling, emissions tracking and associated data analyses.



### 12.3 Summary of all Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment

C onsidered in D eveloping the LTS.

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) of the Regional Haze Rule requires the identification of “ all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State when developing its long

- term strateg y .” Chapter 8 of this Plan describes state and regional emissions, including projections of emission reductions from anthropogenic sources from 2002 to 2018. Chapter 9 of this Plan provides source apportionment results, including projected reductions from anthropogenic sources during the same period. Together, these two chapters show the major anthropogenic sources affecting regional haze in Oregon and in the West. Section 11.3 in Chapter 11 describes the major anthropogenic source categories evaluated thro ugh the four

factor analysis

.

Based on the analysis in these previous chapters, the anthropogenic sources considered by the Department in developing the LTS are identified in Section 12.5 and Section 12.6 below. Section 12.5 reflects the requirements in Section 308(d)(3)(v) of the Regional Haze Rule that lists specific factors the State must consider. Section 12.6 are major anthropogenic sources that the Department identified in Chapter 11, and will be evaluated by 2013 as possible additional

new control measures, as part of the LTS in meeting the reasonable progress goals for Oregon’s

Class I areas. The “new” sources included in the LTS are as follows:

1. Evaluation of contribution and controls for non

- BART sources, and BART update, as

described below in Section 12.6.1

2. Evaluation of new smoke management controls for forestry prescribed burning, as

described below in Section 12.6.2.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 183

3. Evaluation of emission reductions from residential open burning, as described below in

Section 12.6.3.

4. Evaluation of the ext ent and contribution from Rangeland Burning in SE Oregon, as

described in 12.6.4.



### 12.3 Summary of Interstate Transport and Contribution

Section s 51.308(d)(3)(i ) and (ii) of the Regional Haze Rule requires that the LTS address the

contribution of inters tate transport of haze pollutants between States. Chapter 8 of this plan showed regional emissions by State, while Chapter 9 identified interstate transport of pollutants and larger source categories based on source apportionment results. The Department ha s analyzed the PSAT and WEP source apportionment findings, focusing on the 20% worst days for primarily impacts from SO 2 and NO

x , typically associated with point, area, and mobile anthropogenic sources. Other pollutants such as OC, EC, PM fine and coarse, were reviewed as well, however, these were assumed to be associated with natural fire and dust sources, and not evaluated any further. 50

The Department consulted with neighboring States as part of this review, and discussed the

need for coordinated strate gies to address interstate transport. Based on this consultation, no significant contributions were identified that supported developing new interstate strategies. Both Oregon and neighboring states agreed that the implementation of BART and other existing measures in state regional haze plans were sufficient to address the relatively minor

contributions discussed below. This interstate consultation is an on

- going process and

commitment between States. See Chapter 13 for further information.

12.3.1 Othe r State Class I Areas A ffected by Oregon emissions

The Department reviewed PSAT and WEP source apportionment information on the WRAP TSS website, focusing on the 20% worst day impacts in Class I areas in neighboring States that were the closest to Oregon. The closest Class I areas were as follows: 1) Mt. Ranier National Park and Goat Rocks Wilderness in Washington; 2) Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho, 3) Jarbridge Wilderness in Nevada, and 4) Lava Beds National Monument and Redwood National Park in

California. In none of these examples did the Department find a sizable contribution from Oregon sources. The following summarizes the Department’s findings by State. Note all references to PSAT results are based on 20% worst days, and contribution percentages are fr om WEP results.

Washington

Both Mt. Ranier and Goat Rocks Class I areas were heavily dominated by Washington sources. Contribution from Canadian point sources and Offshore Pacific shipping emissions were

sizable for some pollutants, such as SO 2

. Based on PSAT results, the Oregon contribution was

50 In order to determine the extent of interstate contribution of fire and dust sources tha t is from anthropogenic sources such as prescribed burning and road dust, an exhaustive study would be required of each of the state Class I areas listed below. Therefore, for the purpose of this review, the Department primarily focused on SO 2 and NOx

em ission sources.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 184

extremely low for SO 2 and NO

x , in the range of 0.05

- 0.08 μg/m 3

. The highest impact from any source category from Oregon was SO 2 point sources, which was approximately 8%. Under the WEP projection for 2018, this c ontribution is expected to drop to about 4%. Additional reductions may occur as the result of BART, as described in Chapter 10, and from evaluation of

non

- BART industrial sources, described in Section 12.6.1 of the LTS. For all other pollutants, the Oregon contribution was also extremely low.

Idaho

Impacts in the Sawtooth Class I area was dominated by Idaho sources. The Oregon contribution

of SO 2 and NO

x was very low, from 0.02

- 0.05 μg/m 3 , based on PSAT. The largest impact from Oregon was SO 2 point source s, which was less than 10%. Much of this impact can be attributed

to the PGE Boardman coal

- fired power plant in NE Oregon. As described in Chapter 10, this source will be installing BART controls, which will significantly reduce its emissions, and have

corresponding visibility benefits to the Sawtooth Class I area. Other Oregon emissions such as

fire and dust were between 10

- 20%, but these are believed to be mostly natural sources. (Note, the portion of the Hells Canyon Class I area located in Idaho is not addressed here, as the majority of this area is located in Oregon and being addressed under the Oregon Regional Haze

Plan. The interstate transport of emissions to Hells Canyon is discussed below in the review of Oregon Class I areas.)

Nevada

Overall t he Jarbridge Class I area has very low concentrations of any pollutant. The

contribution of SO 2 and NO

x from Oregon is extremely low, from 0.02

- 0.03 μg/m 3 , based on

PSAT. In general, the interstate contribution from Idaho, California, and Pacific Offshore is greater than Oregon. Of SO 2 and NO

x , the highest impact from Oregon is about 5% of all SO 2 point sources. As described above for Sawtooth, this contribution is likely from the PGE Boardman plant, which is installing BART controls and making significant reductions. Like Sawtooth, there is similar contribution of fire and dust sources from Oregon, but these are likely again to be mostly natural sources.

California

The Oregon contribution to Lava Beds and Redwoods Class I areas was very low. For Lava

Bed s, both SO 2 and NO

x concentrations were low, at 0.03

- 0.05 μg/m 3 , based on PSAT. About 5% of the impact was from SO 2 point sources. This may be reduced under the evaluation of

non

- BART industrial sources, described in Section 12.6.1. For Redwoods, the highe st contributing sources are fire and Pacific Offshore emissions. However, the Oregon contribution

of NO

x mobile source emissions is about 0.22 μg/m 3

. The reason for this is uncertain. By 2018, this is projected to drop to under 0.10 μg/m 3

.

12.3.2 Ore gon Class I Areas affected by Other States

The contribution of neighboring States of Washington, Idaho, Nevada and California to Oregon

Class I areas is s imilar in most respects, however, the contribution from Washington and Idaho2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 185

into Oregon Class I area s is generally higher as a whole. This may be attributable to the proximity of several of Oregon Class I areas to the state boundary, meteorological factors, and location of certain types of sources. The following summarizes the Department’s findings by

Or egon Class I area. Note all references to PSAT results are based on 20% worst days, and contribution percentages are from WEP results.

Mt. Hood Class I area.

Mt. Hood is approximately 20 miles from Washington. Based on PSAT results, the contribution

of W ashington SO 2 and NO

x emissions to Mt. Hood ranges from 0.25

- 0.40 μg/m 3

. The SO 2 is mostly from point sources (about 20%), and the NO

x is mostly from mobile sources (about 15%). Future projections show a 50% reduction in both of these source impacts at Mt . Hood by

2018. Chapter 10 identified 3 BART sources from Washington that impacted Mt. Hood over the 0.5 dv threshold. These sources will be subject to BART controls. A major reduction in mobile source emissions, as described in Chapter 11, is expected by 2018 from “on

- the

- books” federal mobile source regulations. This may be augmented by additional mobile source regulations in Washington, similar to those being adopted in Oregon. Also, the LTS section of the Washington regional haze plan is expected to hav e a similar measure as Oregon’s to

evaluate non

- BART sources in the next 5

- 10 years to identify additional emission reductions that could benefit visibility at Mt. Hood.

Eagle Cap, Strawberry Mountain, and Hells Canyon Class I areas.

These Class I area s in Eastern Oregon are similar in terms of the contribution from Idaho and Washington sources. Washington contributes more to Eagle Cap and Strawberry Mountain, while Idaho contributes more to Hells Canyon (50% of the contribution to Hells Canyon is

from Idaho, and 25

- 30% is from Oregon). PSAT results show a significantly higher NO

x contribution than SO 2

. Idaho SO 2 contribution ranges from 0.03

- 0.05 μg/m 3 , whereas NO

x is

0.23

- 0.38 μg/m 3

. For Washington, SO 2 ranges from 0.03

- 0.10 μg/m 3 , and 0.08

- 0.22 μg/m 3 for

NO

x . The SO 2 is mostly from point sources, while the NO

x is mostly from mobile and area

sources. In both Idaho and Washington, the BART process is expected to lower the SO 2 point source impacts. For the NO

x contribution that is mobile sources, these e missions are projected to decrease significantly by 2018. The area source NO

x is not projected to change much by

2018. The source of these emissions may be farming related. However, these relatively small

NO

x emissions will more than be offset by significa nt NO

x emission reductions from PGE Boardman due to BART controls, as described in Chapter 10. Other emissions, such as from fire and dust sources, are primarily contributed by Idaho and Oregon.

Central and Southern Cascade Class I areas (Mt. Washington , Mt. Jefferson, Three Sisters, Diamond Peak, Crater Lake, Mountain Lakes and Gearhart Mountain).

This grouping of Oregon Class I areas in the central and southern Cascades have a similar pattern of interstate contribution. For SO 2 , Washington contributi on ranges from 0.05

- 0.12 μg/m 3 , mostly point sources (about 13%). For NO

x , both Washington and California show a contribution, from 0.08

- 0.22 μg/m 3

. As with the other NO

x emission sources, th ese are mostly2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 186

mobile source emissions (about 10%), which by 201 8 are projected to be reduced by more than

half. Fire emissions are almost entirely Oregon based, as are dust emissions.

Kalmiop s is Class I area.

The interstate contribution in this Class I area is very similar to Redwoods in California, as

described ab ove. These Class I areas are 30

- 40 miles apart. The highest contributing sources at

both areas are fire and Pacific Offshore emissions. However, mobile source emissions are notable, with the majority originating from Oregon, while California and Washington

contribute about 10 μg/m 3

. The reason for this is uncertain. By 2018, this is projected to drop

to under 0.05 μg/m 3

.

12.3.3 Estimated International and Global Contribution to Oregon Class I Areas

Although not specifically addressed under the Regiona l Haze Rule in terms of interstate transport, it is important to identify the contribution to visibility impairment in Oregon from international sources, such as Canada and Mexico, offshore marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean, and “global” sources of haze

. As described in Chapter 9, both the PSAT and WEP results show the contribution from both Canada and the Pacific Ocean marine shipping are

sizable

. Chapter 8 provides an emission inventory for offshore marine emissions. The

contribution from Mexico is no t significant, based on PSAT and WEP information. Global transport can be assumed to be most of the “outside domain” category identified in the PSAT

results for SO 2 and NO

x . However, the extent of the contribution and understanding of global transport is d ifficult to assess, and will not be addressed in this plan.

In terms of addressing Canadian and Pacific offshore shipping emissions under this LTS, the Department does not have any authority over Canadian sources, and is therefore is not pursuing

any new strategy for haze. However, for offshore shipping emissions, the Department believes this could be a possible future strategy, and will conduct further study on the transport and contribution of these sources, through its on

- going participation in the WR AP, and in cooperation with the states of California and Washington, which are also impacted by the same

offshore sources. The Department will prepare a report for the next Regional Haze Plan submittal in 2013 that addresses this topic, including an assess ment of whether regulatory actions are likely in the future to meet other Clean Air Act requirements. This report will include recommendations on what actions Oregon and neighboring states could pursue that could benefit regional haze.



### 12.4 Summary of Interstate Consultation.

In addition to evaluating interstate transport, the affected States are required to consult with each other under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), in order to develop coordinated emission management strategies. See Section 13.2 for i nformation on the state

- to

- state consultation

process.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 187



### 12.5 Technical Documentation

Section 51. 308(d)(3)(iii) of the Regional Haze rule requires document ation of the technical

basis , including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which t he State relied upon to determine apportionment of emission reductions needed to achieve progress goals in

each C lass I area it affects. The State of Oregon relied on exclusively on the technical information and analysis provided by the WRAP, through vario us projects and studies conducted by contractors, WRAP staff, and incorporated into the WRAP’s TSS website. The following references the Chapters in this Plan which describes the technical information and

documentation in more detail. Additional informati on on the TSS can be found in Appendix C of this plan.

Emissions Data

Chapter 8 describes the emission inventory information for state and regional emissions. Section 8.1 summarizes the Oregon statewide emissions, and Section 8.2 regional emissions for

other states in the West.

Modeling Techniques

The modeling techniques used are described in Chapter 9. Section 9.1.1 describes on source apportionment analysis using the PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool, for the

attribution of sulfate and nitrate sources, and the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, for

the a ttribution of sources of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine PM, and

coarse PM. Section 9.1.2 describes the regional haze modeling using the Community Multi

Sc ale Air Quality (CMAQ) model.

Monitoring Data

Chapter 4 describes the IMPROVE monitoring network and monitoring sites in Oregon. Chapters 6 and 7 provide a summary of monitoring data, trends, and breakdown by pollutant

for each of the site locations in Oregon.



### 12.5 Required F actors for the LTS

Under Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) of the Regional Haze rule, the factors listed below represent the minimum that must be considered by a State in developing the LTS. Section 12.6 identifies

additional measures and controls being proposed by Oregon beyond those required for the LTS.

12

. 5 .1 Emission Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs

The following summary describes ongoing programs and regulations in Oregon that directly protect visibility, or can be expected to improve visibility in Oregon Class I areas, by reducing emissions in general. This summary does not attempt to estimate the actual improvements in visibility that will occur, as many of the benefits are secondary to the primary air pollution2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 188

objective of these programs/rules, and consequently would extremely difficult to quantify, due to the technical complexity and limitations in current assessment techniques.

1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review Rules

As describ ed in Section 10.1, the two primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility impairment from industrial sources are BART and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) New Source Review rules. The PSD rules protect visibility in Class I areas from new industrial sources and major changes to existing sources. Oregon ’s Air Quality Analysis rules (OAR 340 , Division 225) contain requirements for visibility impact assessment and mitigation associated with emissions from new and modified major stationary sources. Specifically, OAR

340

- 225

- 0070 references the need for protection of “Air Quality Related Values” (AQRV), which are specific scenic and environmentally related resources that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. One of these AQRV s is visibility. The primary responsibility of the Department under these rules is visibility protection. Protection of all AQRVs (including visibility) is the primary responsibility of the Federal Land Manager. OAR 340

- 225

- 0070

describes mechanisms for vi sibility impact assessment and review by the Department, as well as impact modeling methods and requirements, the result of which is a demonstration of “no significant impairment of visibility in any Class I area”. This modeling is conducted for sources

ty pically out to 3 00 kilometers from a Class I area. Any new major source or major

modification within this distance that is found through modeling to cause significant visibility impairment will not be issued an air quality permit by the Department unless t he impact is mitigated. The definition of “significant” impairment for PSD is very similar to the significance level used for BART modeling (see BART Modeling Protocol in Section 10.3.1). For PSD, the significance level is an increase in visibility impairm ent above natural background of 5% (expressed as visibility extinction). For BART, the significance level is 0.5 deciview

. Both represent essentially the same degree of impairment.

2. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment BART

In 1986, the Dep artment adopted Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI)

BART requirements as part of the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan (see below). These BART requirements are different from the BART requirements under EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, as

describ ed in Chapter 10. While both apply to existing industrial sources, the RAVI BART requirements are triggered by a “certification” by the Federal Land Manager that visibility impairment exists in a federal Class I area. Upon such a certification, the Departm ent would be required to identify and analyze BART for any contributing industrial source

. Since the adoption of RAVI BART the re has been no formal certification made in Oregon for reasonably attributable impairment.

3. Oregon ’s Phase I Visibility Prote ction Program

As described in Section 1.5.2 of this document, EPA’s visibility regulations consist of two

distinct rules. Phase I rules were adopted in 1980, and address visibility impairment that is “reasonably attributable” to one or small group of sour ces, in relatively close proximity to a

Class I area

. Phase II rules were adopted in 1999 to address regional haze visibility impairment2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 189

from multiple sources across a broad geographic area. In 1986 the Department adopted the Oregon Visibility Protection P lan (OAR 340

- 200

- 0040, Section 5.2) to address EPA’s Phase I visibility rules

. The Plan c ontains short and long

- term strategies related to addressing reasonably attributable impairment. This includes the RAVI BART requirements and PSD New

Source Review rul es discussed above for industrial sources, as well as seasonal protection of visibility during the summer months from prescribed forestry burning and agricultural field burning.

The seasonal strategy was developed in order to protect visibility during t he summer months, July 1

– September 15, known as the visibility protection period, when approximately 80 percent of the visitation occurs in Oregon’s Class I areas. Visibility monitoring at that time focused on visibility conditions in Class I Areas in th e Oregon Cascade Mountains. This monitoring showed that during the summer months in the northern and central Cascades, visibility was frequently impaired by smoke or “plume blight” from Willamette Valley agricultural open field burning, forest prescribed b urning, and wildfire activity. The Department also determined that there was summer visibility impairment in the Eagle Cap Class I area caused by Union County agricultural open field burning, and that field burning in Jefferson County was contributing to s ummer visibility impairment in the central Oregon

Cascade Class I areas as well.

As a result of this effort the Department adopted into the original plan specific visibility control strategies for these areas. This included smoke management requirements t o avoid Class I visibility impacts from Willamette Valley, Jefferson County and Union County open field burning, and from forest prescribed burning in parts of Western Oregon. Special “weekend” restrictions on Willamette Valley field burning were added to prohibit burning activity during

most summer weekends. The Jefferson and Union County smoke management programs adopted provisions to avoid any burning upwind of nearby Class I areas. The Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program was revised t o shift prescribed burning in Western Oregon from the summer to the spring and fall, as part of an effort to eliminate burning during the summer. Both the forestry and Willamette Valley smoke management programs have commitments to pursue alternatives to b urning through on

- going research and development projects, and both use numerous emission reduction techniques when conducting burning during the year. Finally, between 1991 and 1998, Willamette Valley open field burning

was reduced under a new state law f rom 180,000 acres to 40,000, which has resulted in significant visibility benefits, and led to increases in the use of non

- burning alternatives, such as straw marketing and less

- than

- annual burning.

In 2002 the Department made minor revisions to the Visi bility Protection Plan that contained several improvements. These improvements and an assessment of the effectiveness of the plan are described in the Department’s report “ Oregon Visibility Protection Plan Reasonable Progress Report, March 5, 2002. ”

The O regon Visibility Protection Plan is can be found in Appendix F

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 190

4. On

- going I mplementation of State and Fe deral Mobile Source regulations

As described in Section 11.4.3, mobile source annual emissions show a major decrease in NO

x , SO 2 , and VOCs in Orego n from 2002 to 2018, and represent the greatest emission reductions of any single source category. This is from numerous “on the books” federal mobile source regulations (see list in Section 11.4.3). This trend is expected to provide significant visibility

benefits. As noted, these emission reductions will likely be even greater than expected, due to increasing gasoline prices that are already reducing annual vehicle miles traveled across the

West.

Beginning in 2006, EPA mandated new standards for on

- roa d (highway) diesel fuel, known as

ultra

- low sulfur diesel (ULSD). This regulation dropped the sulfur content of diesel fuel from 500 ppm to 15 ppm. ULSD fuel enables the use of cleaner technology diesel engines and

vehicles with advanced emissions control devices, resulting in significantly lower emissions. Diesel fuel intended for locomotive, marine and non

- road (farming and construction) engines and equipment is required to meet the low sulfur diesel fuel maximum specification of 500 ppm sulfur in 2007 (d own from 5000 ppm). By 2010, the ULSD fuel standard of 15

- ppm sulfur will apply to all non

- road diesel fuel. Locomotive and marine diesel fuel will be required to meet the ULSD standard beginning in 2012, resulting in further reductions of diesel emissions

. These rules not only reduce SO 2 emissions, but also NO

x and PM

.

In 2005, Oregon adopted California’s emissions standards for light and medium duty vehicles. The new requirements were adopted as the Oregon Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program, and

will ta ke effect beginning with 2009 model year vehicles. Although the primary purpose was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these rules will also decrease NO

x and PM emissions.

The 2007 the Oregon L egislature authorized a clean diesel program that included fu nding for a grant/loan program to retrofit existing engines with exhaust controls, repowering nonroad diesels and scrapping older engines. Tax credits were also authorized for retrofitting, repowering and the purchase of 2007 and newer trucks. The Departme nt projects that with no other intervention and relying on normal turnover bringing cleaner engines into the fleet, a 60 %

reduction in diesel PM 2.5 by 201 8

.

The Department operates two motor vehicle inspection /maintenance programs in Oregon. The first pr ogram began in the Portland area in 1975. The second program began in the Medford

area in 1986. By inspecting exhaust emissions, DEQ identifies high

- emitting vehicles that are producing more air pollution than expected. The result of these programs has bee n significant

reductions in a ir pollution in the both areas, including NO

x and VOCs which contribute to regional haze.

5. On

- going Implementation of Programs to meet PM 10 NAAQS

In Oregon there are seven communities that are either currently or formerly nonattainment

areas under the PM 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The following lists these communities by population size (largest first) and their current PM 10 designation:2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 191

• Eugene

- Springfield

– Nonattainment Area

• Medford

- Ashland

– Main tenance Area

• Grants Pass

– Maintenance Area

• Klamath Falls

– Maintenance Area

• La Grande

– Maintenance Area

• Oakridge

– Nonattainment Area

• Lakeview

– Maintenance Area

The significance of these PM 10 nonattainment and maintenance areas in terms of regional h aze is that e ach of these areas ha ve made significant reductions in PM 10 emissions in the last 10 years, by adopting similar strategies to address the primary emission sources in the community. The major contributing sources causing nonattainment in these communities are residential woodstoves, industry, mobile sources, road dust, and outdoor burning. These are the same sources which contribute to visibility impairment in Oregon. As Table xxx shows below, many of these communities are in close proximity to Oregon Class I areas.

Table 12.5.1

- 1 Proximity of Oregon Class I Areas to PM 10 Nonattainment/Maintenance

Areas

Community Population Distance to nearby Class I areas Eugene

Springfield 205,660 Three Sisters

– 35 mi, Mt. Washington and

Diamond Peak

– 50 mi.

Medford

- Ashland 95,390 Mountain Lakes

– 30 mi, Crater Lake

– 40 mi, Kalmiopsis

– 45 mi.

Grants Pass 30,930 Kalmiopsis

– 25 mi

Klamath Falls 20,720 Mountain Lakes

– 15 mi, Crater Lake

– 40 mi,

Gearhart Mtn

– 45 mi.

La Grande 12,540 Eagl e Cap

– 20 mi, Hells Canyon

– 50 mi. Oakridge 3,700 Three Sisters and Diamond Peak

– 20 mi.+

Lakeview 2,655 Gearhart Mtn

– 30 mi.

The Department believes the ongoing PM 10 reductions in these communities may provide significant benefits to visibility and regional haze. 51 The two most effective emission reduction strategies in these communities are the Department’s residential woodheating rules (OAR 340, Division 262) and Major New Source Review (NSR) rules (OAR 340, Division 224). The Department’s w oodheating rules require woodstove curtailment programs in each of these communities. While some are voluntary and some are mandatory, these programs have been very effective in reducing PM 10 levels during the heating months. The woodheating rules also

sp ecify that only certified woodstoves be sold in the state. These woodstoves can reduce emissions by 70%. The Department’s NSR rules apply to new major industrial sources and major modifications, and require the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) in

51 Quantifying the total emission reductions achieved by the PM10 emission reduction strategies in these communities, as a means to demonstrate actual visibility benefits in nearby Class I areas, is beyond the scope of

this document. This would be a difficult and complex undertaking. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the significant PM10 emissions reductions in the larger of these communities has clear secondary benefits in nearby Class I areas in terms of visibility improvements

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 192

n onattainment areas (most stringent controls), and Best Available Control Technology (BACT)

controls in maintenance areas.

In addition to the ongoing emission reductions in PM 10 nonattainment and maintenance areas, the Department will be designating new PM 2.5 nonattainment areas , which will require adoption

of new measures to reduce PM 2.5 emissions in these communities. These designations have not been made yet, so the communities are not listed.

12

. 5 .2 Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Constructi on Activities

In developing this LTS, the Department has considered the impact of construction activities, as a factor in improving visibility in Oregon. Based on general knowledge of construction activity in the state, and without conducting extensive r esearch on the contribution of emissions from construction activities to visibility impairment in Oregon Class I area, the Department believes current state regulations adequately address this topic.

Current rules addressing impacts from construction ac tivities in Oregon are primarily found in the OAR 340, Division 208. OAR 340

- 208

- 0110 includes general requirements that set opacity limits for “visible emissions” from any air contaminant source. OAR 340

- 208

- 0210 addresses “fugitive emissions” from a va riety of sources, and would be the more applicable regulation to construction activities. This regulation requires “reasonable precautions” be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne from activities such as construction projects. Types of actions to be taken include the use of water or chemicals for control of dust from demolition, construction operations, unpaved roads at construction sites, material stockpiles, and containment of sandblasting or other similar operations. In addition to these rules, the Department’s regulations on “Indirect Sources” in OAR 340 Division 254 address minimizing emissions (including visibility impairing pollutants such as NO

x and VOCs) from mobile sources associated with construction of buildings and parki ng structures.

12

. 5

. 3 Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance

The implementation of BART, as described in Chapter 10, will contain emission limits and schedules of compliance for those sources either installing BART controls or taking federally enforceable permit limitations. As noted in the Chapter 11, the four

- factor analysis did not identify any additional measures that were appropriate for this first Regional Haze plan. As a result, no other emission limitations or schedules of co mpliance are included in this plan. The

evaluation of non

- BART sources as part of the LTS is expected to identify additional emission reductions and improve visibility by 2018. To the extent this effort identifies any emission

limitations and schedules o f compliance, these will be included in the next periodic plan update

in 2013.

12

. 5

. 4 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules

Part of this LTS contains an evaluation of non

- BART sources, described below in Section

12.6.1. This evaluation will include a review of all existing industrial sources to identify scheduled shutdowns, retirements in upcoming years, or replacement schedules, such as2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 193

planned installation of new control equipment to meet other regulations or routine equipment replacement or modernization.

12.5.5 Agricultural and Forestry S moke M anagement T echniques

Section 308(d)(3)(i v ) (E) of the Regional Haze rule requires the LTS to address smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry burning. These two sources of air pollut ion are significant in Oregon. Smoke from agricultural and forestry burning are major contributors to Class I area visibility and regional haze in Oregon and the West. The pollutant species contribution identified in Chapter 7 shows that a significant po rtion of the 20% worst days in all of Oregon’s Class I areas is from organic and elemental carbon, an indicator of fire emissions. Much of this contribution is from wildfires, which fluctuates significantly from year to year. However, there is also a siz able contribution from controlled burning, which is dominated by agricultural and forestry burning.

This section describes current smoke management programs for these sources, and how the advanced techniques used in these programs are expected to provid e significant visibility benefits during the period of this LTS. Section 12.6.2 identifies a new LTS measure to evaluate if additional smoke management techniques can be developed for improving Class I area visibility from forestry prescribed burning.

Major Anthropogenic Fire Sources in Oregon

Figure 12.5.5

- 1 shows the major anthropogenic fire sources in the state. Prescribed forestry burning represents the largest source, at approximately 58% of the total burning in the state. Agricultural burni ng (including open field burning) is approximately 11%. General Outdoor Open Burning is 16%, and Rangeland Burning is 15%. 52 Since these two fire sources are not specifically mentioned in the Regional Haze Rule , they are not evaluated in this section.

In stead, the Department has chosen to address both as additional measures in the LTS, in Section 12.6.3 and 12.6.4, respectively.

52 The emissions for rangeland burning are based on rough estimates of acres burned each year. These emissions are 2002 estimates obtained from the WRAP EDMS. The LTS of this plan identifies an evaluation that will be made of rangeland burning to improv e emission estimates, track burning, and consider the need for voluntary smoke management controls to protect visibility

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 194 Figure 12.5.5

- 1 Oregon Anthropogenic Fire Sources

Fire Source Statewide PM 10 Emissions tpy (2005) Forestry Prescribe d Burning (public & private lands) 18,518 Open Field Burning & General Agricultural Burning 3,568

General Outdoor Open Burning (residential, construction, demolition, land clearing, etc.) 5,154 Rangeland Burning* 4,654

* 2002 estimate from WRAP EDMS

Forestry Prescribed Burning

As shown above, forestry prescribed burning is the largest anthropogenic fire source in Oregon, at an estimated 18,500 tons per year of PM 10 , based on 2005 emissions. This burning occurs in most areas of the state, except fo r the remote desert region of southern Oregon, and is controlled under a mandatory smoke management program operated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). Under state statute ORS 477.013, the State Forester and the Department of Environmental Qualit y are required to protect air quality through a smoke management plan, which is included in the SIP. ODF smoke management rules are listed in OAR 629

- 048

- 0001

to 629

- 048

- 0 5 0 0 , 629

- 043

- 0043 and 629

- 043

- 0041.

On November 2, 2007, ODF adopted revisions to O regon Smoke Management P lan , as part of a periodic plan review requirement. Numerous changes were made to plan related to protection of air quality. New visibility protection provisions were adopted (629

- 048

- 0130) that incorporated references to the Oreg on Regional Haze Plan , included the Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) criteria in Section 309 of the federal Regional Haze Rule, and voluntary measures to protect visibility when burning inside and upwind of any Oregon Class I area, by using best pr actices, minimizing residual smoke, and avoid significant ground level smoke impacts. The Oregon Smoke Management Rules (OAR 629

- 048

- 0001 through 629

- 048

- 0500) can be found in Appendix F.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 195

Agricultural Open Field Burning

The majority of agricultural b urning in Oregon falls under the category of open field burning. This is burning is associated with mostly grass seed and wheat burning. As shown above, total open field burning estimated emissions in 2005 were 3,500 tons/year of PM 10 . This burning is

c oncentrated in specific locations during the summer months, with the majority in the Willamette Valley (about 50,000 acres) and smaller amounts in central and eastern Oregon in Jefferson and Union counties (about 10,000 acres combined).

The Willamette V alley burning is controlled under a smoke management program operated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Under state statute ORS 468A.590, ODA is required to conduct a smoke management program for the Willamette Valley. ODA field burning rules are listed in OAR Chapter 603, Division 77, OAR Chapter 837 Division 110, and OAR Chapter 340, Division 264. The rules apply to areas lying between the crest of the Coastal Range and the crest of the Cascade Range ( in the counties Benton, Clackamas, Lane

, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill )

.

Jefferson and Union county field burning is controlled through smoke management programs established by county ordinance and operated at that level. As described in Section 12.5.1,

these countr y programs have requirements to avoid burning upwind of nearby Class I areas when smoke would impair visibility.

Other agricultural burning takes place in rural areas around the state, although the amount of this burning is not well documented. It is l ikely that estimates of general outdoor burning, as noted above in Figure 12.5.5

- 1, may include general agricultural burning as well. Improving estimates of agricultural burning is difficult due to lack of any reliable information on daily burning activit y in most areas of the state.

1. Current Phase I Visibility Protection

The primary objective of the smoke management programs mentioned above has been to avoid smoke intrusions into urban areas, and minimize smoke exposure to the public for healt h reasons. Some protection of visibility from agricultural and forestry burning in Class I areas has been achieved as a result of efforts to conduct burning only under optimum ventilation conditions that achieve maximum smoke dispersion and by the use of emission reduction techniques. There is also some visibility protection provided under the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan, described above in Section 12.5.1. The plan was adopted by the Department to meet EPA Phase I visibility rules, primarily to pro tect Class I area visibility from nearby burning sources that can cause “plume blight”. One of the provisions in the plan prohibits Willamette Valley field burning on weekends between July 1 and September 15, known as the visibility protection period, whi ch is the highest visitation period for Oregon Cascade Class I areas. The plan also incorporates the visibility protection provided by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration rules that apply to new and modified industrial sources. See Section

12.5.1 for further information on current visibility protection measures in the Oregon Visibility

Protection Plan.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 196

2. Current Phase II Regional Haze Protection, Section 309 ESMP requirements

Section 309 of the Regional Haze rule contains a requirement to i nclude “Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Fire”. Although this plan addresses Section 308 of the Regional Haze rule, the Department believes the current smoke management programs operated by ODA and ODF meet the Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESM P) requirements, and therefore represent an advanced level of smoke management. The ESMP elements include: (1) actions to minimize emissions; (2) evaluation of smoke dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4) surveillance and enforcement; and (5) burn aut horization. There are 4 additional ESMP elements, however the Department believes these five are the most applicable to regional haze, and highlights these below.

ODF rule 629

- 048

- 0130 states that the intent of ODF smoke management program is to “opera te in a manner consistent with the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, including the Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) criteria”. The following summarizes how the five ESMP elements listed above met under the ODF and ODA smoke management programs.

(1) Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program:

The policy the State Forester is to “minimize emissions from prescribed burning, where appropriate, by encouraging: cost effective utilization of forest residue; alternatives to burning; and alternative burning practices " . ODF smoke management rules 629

- 048

- 0210 require the use of best burn practices and emission reduction techniques to minimize fire

emissions.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Field Burning Pr ogram:

Under this program, growers utilize many different techniques which minimize emissions from field burning. Rapid ignition for open burning requires all sides of the field to be ignited as rapidly as practicable in order to maximize plume rise , whi ch shortens burn time and significant ly reduces emissions (compared to traditional, slower, headfire burning). Growers must ensure field residue is dry and in good burning condition. Growers may sanitize fields by propane flaming which also significantly reduces emissions

. Prior to propane flaming, loose straw is removed from the field and the stubble cut close to the ground to prevent sustained open fire and reduce emissions.

(2) Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Ma nagement Program:

The ODF program determines appropriate conditions for prescribed burning throughout the state in order to avoid smoke impacts in urban areas identified as Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA). In addition to SSRA protection, burning is conducted in a manner to avoid2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 197

or minimize smoke impacts in any populated area. Appropriate conditions are determined based on evaluation of daily weather forecasts and existing air quality. ODF develop forecasts, burning instructions and advisories usi ng n ational, regional and local weather

forecast models and data t o determine dispersion conditions. Smoke dispersal conditions are determined for each area of the state, considering factors such as wind direction, wind speed, mixing height, and dispersio n index. ODF rule 629

- 048

- 0220 describes forecast procedures and smoke dispersion.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Field Burning Program:

This program uses a variety of meteorological tools to evaluate atmospheric conditions.

Conventional surface wea ther reports and rawinsonde observations are used to assess atmospheric conditions. In addition , the program utilizes pilot reports, a vertical sounder

, and information from d oppler radar. These data are supplemented with strategically located

wind monit oring sites

. At periodic intervals, program personnel release pilot balloons at
different locations in the Willamette Valley which are optically tracked to measure wind speed and direction from the surface to approximately 6000 feet above ground. A vari ety of computer models or simulations of the atmosphere are used as well.

(3) Alternatives to Fire

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program:

ODF smoke management rule 629

- 048

- 0200 “Alternatives to Burning” encourages “practices that w ill eliminate or significantly reduce the volume of prescribed burning necessary”. In this rule forestland managers are encouraged to consult the WRAP

document “ Non

- burning Alternatives to Prescribed Fire on Wildlands in the Western

United States ”. This document is a comprehensive reference manual of alternatives to prescribed fire, that contains an evaluation of non

- burning vegetative management options, including a “decision

- tree” for considering treatment options, and potential markets and funding sour ces for utilizing forest materials. It also describes how to develop a successful strategy for vegetation and fuel load management. This document is designed to provide forest landowners and land managers with a comprehensive list of viable options, and decision makers with the tools necessary to develop realistic non

- burning strategies.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Field Burning Program:

For agricultural field burning in the Willamette Valley, state law (ORS 468A.555)

mandates a research and develo pment program to seek, develop and promote viable alternatives to agricultural field burning. To date these programs have made major strides in finding viable alternatives, such as straw marketing to Japan and other countries, minimum tillage, and less

- th an

- annual burning. A major reduction of 180,000 to 40,000 in the number of acres that can be burned under state law occurred in the 1990’s. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the use of alternatives, both in the Willamette Valley

and o ther areas of the state. This high use of alternatives is expected to continue into the

future.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 198

(4) Surveillance and Enforcement

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program:

ORS 477.515 requires that burning permits be obtained prior to bu rning. Violation of this statute by any individual may result in a legal citation and fine. Also, it is the policy of the

State Forester to " a chieve strict compliance with the smoke management plan, directive and

instructions" , as stated in the Operation al Guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program, Directive 1

- 4

- 1

- 601. ODF rules 629

- 048

- 0500 address e nforcement.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Field Burning Program:

The program is built on a foundation of cooperative compliance with rules gov erning open field burning. This compliance is supported by ODA enforcement rules OAR 603

- 077

- 0175. Direct observation by ODA field personnel and others provide information of possible rule violations. ODA staff and director evaluate the factors involved in each case and may assess warnings, notices of noncompliance, and civil penalties.

(5) Burn Authorization

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program:

Under the program, t he burn authorization process involves the i ssuance of smoke

manag ement forecasts and burning instructions. Burning instructions must be strictly complied with, as described above . Local field personnel then evaluate the burning instructions in coordination with landowners who have burn units that may be in prescriptio n and are ready for burning. A burn might not occur if the local field administrator determines that a burn may not be advisable because of local factors, such as nearby burns being conducted, p otential local smoke impacts, or adverse fire conditions.

OD F rules 629

- 048

- 0230 address burn procedures and authorization.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Field Burning Program:

As previously described, ODA only allows field burning if weather conditions are favorable for avoiding smoke impacts in populated are as. Farmers obtain burn permits in their local fire protection district, and must monitor ODA radio broadcasts and pay close adherence to the burning authorized in these broadcasts. Meteorology varies in the Willamette Valley

, and burning is authorized i n s pecific areas as conditions are appropriate. Special field burning zones have been established throughout the Valley. Burning is authorized based on

an evaluation of the number of acres that can be burned in a certain zone within an allotted time peri od. Farmers must burn in accordance with the location, time, and acreage limit specified by ODA. Failure to adhere to this authorization is subject to enforcement action,

as described above. ODA rules for burn authorization are addressed in 603

- 077

- 0115 and

other rule sections.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 199

12

. 5

. 6 Enforceability of Oregon’s Measures

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the Regional Haze Rule requires States to ensure that emission limitations and control measures used to meet reasonable progress goals are enforceable

.

Oregon has ensured that all emission limitations and control measures used to meet reasonable progress goals are enforceable by embodying these in Oregon A dministrative Rules, in accordance with Oregon state law, and under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040 State of Oreg on Clean Air Act Implementation Plan (see Appendix H of this document ). The Department has adopted the Oregon R egional Haze Plan into the SIP which ensures that all elements in the plan are enforceable. Oregon BART rules developed for this plan are found in Appendix E

.



### 12.6 Additional Measures in the LTS

This section of the LTS identifies new measures being proposed by the Department for achieving reasonable progress. The sources identified below will be evaluated and fully discussed in the next pl an update in 2013. This evaluation will take into account any new

relevant monitoring and modeling information related to the contribution of Oregon anthropogenic sources to Class I impairment, new regulations that may benefit regional haze, and any new g uidance related to the identifying additional control measures consistent with reasonable progress requirement of the regional haze rule. If additional controls are identified as a result of these evaluations, the 2013 plan update will include an implemen tation schedule for controls, necessary rulemaking, projected visibility improvements, and revised RPGs for 2018 (if applicable).

12

. 6

. 1 Evaluation of Non

- BART Sources and BART

- eligible S ources

The four

- factor analysis in Section 11.3 of the previous chapter evaluated certain non

- BART source categories for additional controls. This evaluation was limited to some degree by the lack of any specific guidance for identifying “significant” sources and a process for their
evaluation, short of the four stat utory factors. However, the four

- factor analysis is only the first step in identifying various control options for anthropogenic sources. As described in this section of the LTS, a more comprehensive evaluation will be made of both non

- BART sources and l arge fire sources such as forestry burning, in order to make additional emission reductions by the 2018 and beyond, for achieving reasonable progress.

In order to effectively evaluate non

- BART sources for possible controls, an analysis similar to that app lied to BART sources is needed. Outside of the four

- factor analysis for evaluating controls for “significant” sources, EPA’s Regional Haze Rule provides no guidance for addressing non

- BART sources, in terms of identifying eligible sources, contribution th reshold to visibility impairment, and a process for evaluating the need for controls (retrofitting). Although the Department recognizes that the BART requirements were specifically designed to address stationary sources built before federal PSD rules wer e adopted, and thus avoiding Class I visibility requirements, the process for evaluating non

- BART sources must take into account that these sources did address visibility impacts when permitted, so any re

- evaluation of visibility for these sources should, at a minimum, be no a less rigorous a technical evaluation2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 200

than for BART sources. For example, using a simple formula like “Quantity over distance” (Q/d) is an example of a less rigorous approach that would not be appropriate as the sole

criteria for dete rmining whether a non

- BART source, which may have conducted full PSD CALPUFF visibility modeling only a few years earlier, should be evaluated for costly retrofitting. 53

As such, the first element of this LTS will be the development of guidance for evaluating non

BART sources in Oregon. The Department will develop this guidance through a stakeholder process that includes review by EPA and FLMs. The following factors will be considered in developing this guidance:

1. Date of PSD permit issuance. A l ist of non

- BART sources will be prepared based on the date of the original PSD review. Newer sources are likely to have newer, more

state

- of

- the

- art controls and technology. Older sources are more likely candidates for retrofitting with newer controls or other upgrades.

2. Quantity of emissions. A list of non

- BART sources emitting SO 2 , NO

x , and PM will be prepared and ranked by current emission levels. Both actual and permitted emissions

will be identified.

3. Distance to nearby Class I areas. Non

- B ART sources will be identified by their proximity to nearby Class I areas. Geographic features, such as mountain ranges, will be noted as factors that should be considered along with distance.

4. Cumulative impacts. Consideration will be given to whether th e guidance should address cumulative impacts, with preference given to any EPA or WRAP policy or technical assistance in identifying criteria that could be incorporated into the guidance.

5. Option for modeling. Included in this guidance will be the o ption for any non

- BART source to conduct modeling, either screening modeling or advanced modeling. A modeling protocol and visibility threshold value will be developed for this guidance, similar to the BART Modeling Protocol developed for BART sources.

6. Control evaluation similar to BART. This guidance will identify a process for evaluating retrofitting similar to EPA’s BART Control Determination Guidance. Included in this approach will be the factors listed above.

7. Planned shutdowns, retirements, and r eplacement schedules. In clude d will be a review of all existing industrial sources to identify scheduled shutdowns, retirements in upcoming years, or replacement schedules, such as planned installation of new control equipment to meet other regulations , c ompliance obligations, or routine equipment replacement

/ modernization.

Included in this evaluat ion of non

- BART sources will be a review of sources that were

identified as BART

- eligible (see Chapter 10) and modeled below the visibility impact threshol d

of 0.5 dv. For those BART

- eligible sources which modeled below the threshold and were not “subject to BART”, they are still BART

- eligible sources. As such under Section 308(e)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule, they are subject to the same reasonable progre ss requirements in Section 308(d) as other sources. However, given that there is no specific guidance to how to

53 The Q/D formula divides the quantity or size of the source (emissions) by the distance, in this case miles to the

nearest Class I area, as a means of determining if a source is contributing to visibility in that area. This simplistic approach has been suggested by EPA in lieu of actual modeling for estimating source contribution.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 201

address t hese sources after the initial BART modeling phase , the Department is proposing to develop such guidance or policy at the same time it will develop similar guidance for evaluating non

- BART sources. This guidance will be developed concurrently, and through the same stakeholder process, as that developed for non

- BART sources, as described above.

Schedule for Completion and Implementa tion

Following the completion of guidance for evaluating non

- BART and reviewing BART

- eligible sources, the Department will use the guidance to conduct the evaluation and review, to be completed by the next scheduled plan update in 2013, in accordance with Section 13.4.2 of this plan. A final report will be included in this update that describes the following:

(1) identify the process used for developing the guidance, and summary of the guidance document; (2) summary of the results of evaluation of non

- BART s ources and BART

- eligible

sources; (3) summary of how the four

- factor analysis in Section 11.4.3 was used as part of

the evaluation of non

- BART sources; (4) identification of any controls to be installed, description of any proposed rulemaking needed and schedule f or adopting new rules, and estimated implementation of any new controls (5) estimate of the expected visibility benefits from this LTS element, as part of the overall plan update to report on progress being made towards the 2018 RPGs.

12

. 6

. 2 Eval uation of Prescribed Burning Contribution to Haze and Possible Controls

As described in Section 12.5.5, the current Oregon smoke management programs meet the ESMP requirements in Section 309 of the Regional Haze rule. However, there are also other provis ions in Section 309 that address the need for state smoke management programs to “evaluate and address the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application”. Although this plan addresses Section 308, the Department believes the se Section 309 requirements for fire and smoke management programs are relevant to this plan, due to the

sizable contribution of smoke sources to Oregon’s Class I areas. As described in Section 12.5.5, the current smoke management programs for agriculture and forestry burning are advanced programs, a play an important role minimizing visibility impacts from these activities. However, in order to make further achievements in reasonable progress, the Department believes greater efforts are need through smok e management.

Current Oregon smoke management programs have some provisions to “evaluate and address the degree of visibility impairment from smoke”. The ODA Willamette Field Burning Program has provisions which prohibit weekend burning upwind of Casc ade Class I areas. The Jefferson and Union County field burning programs evaluate conditions on a daily basis upwind of nearby Class I areas to avoid transporting smoke into those areas. The ODF Smoke Management Plan has “visibility objectives” in OAR 62 9

- 048

- 0130 that include voluntary measures to minimize smoke impacts in Class I area during the summer protection period, and2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 202

use caution when burning upwind to avoid ground level plume impacts, outside of the summer protection period.

In order to deter mine if any additional smoke management improvements could be made to improve visibility as part of the LTS, one approach would be to look at IMPROVE monitoring data and pollutant species composition on 20% worst days , and in particular the contribution of

OC and EC

, as an indicator of vegetative burning. The information provided in Chapter 7 shows the average pollutant species contribution over the 2000

- 04 baseline period, as well as the annual variation in one year (2004), as an example of the different pollutant species typically found at Oregon Class I area. Table 12

. 6.2

- 1 be low is an example from the Crater Lake IMPROVE site for 2004, showing the daily variations in pollutant species. The green represents OC, and the black EC. The peaks with a “W” r epresent the 20% worst case days. Those with a circle around the W are days in the spring and fall months.

Figure 12

. 6.2

- 1 Crater Lake IMPROVE Site

– Pollutant Species Variation for All Days Sampled in 2004

In many ways this is typical of the impacts and variations in Oregon’s Class I areas. Many of

the 20% worst

- case days (W) show a sizable contribution of OC and EC, which has a strong correlation to fire sources. The impacts in the summer months show an even greater

c ontribution of these pollutant species, which is a likely indicator of wildfire. In this case, there could be some smoke contribution from Willamette Valley field burning, although the distance from the Valley to Crater Lake makes it unlikely any contribu tion would result in a worst day impact. Under the ODF smoke management program, there is little to no burning during the

summer months.

However, during the spring and fall months, there is significant forestry burning which occurs

in the state. Some of the peaks during these months show a distinct pattern of OC and EC contribution. Given the proximity of forested land around Crater Lake, this is an indication that forestry burning may be a major contributor to these spring and fall worst days. The

D epartment believes further evaluation is needed to determine the extent of this contribution, and if additional smoke management controls could reduce the impacts on these worst

- case days, and provide any substantial improvement in visibility.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 203

The follow ing summarizes the evaluation the Department will conduct to make this assessment of forestry smoke contribution, the type of smoke management controls that would be considered to reduce these impacts, and the schedule for completing these two evaluations by the next regional haze plan update in 2013.

Evaluation Method

As part of this LTS, the Department will evaluate monitoring data at all six IMPROVE sites for

2000

- 04, identifying the 20% worst

- case day impacts in the spring and fall months, as in the example above in Figure 12

. 6.2

- 1 , that have significant contributions of OC and EC. The general evaluation method will be as follows:

1. Compile a list of worst

- case days over this 4 year period, and review ODF accomplished burn records to identify an y recorded or observed smoke impacts in the Class I area or areas represented by the IMPROVE site.

2. Review burn records to identify corresponding days when prescribed burning activity was occurring, within a 50 mile radius of each IMPROVE site.

3. On da ys that impacts and burning match, review meteorological records to identify mixing height, transport wind direction, and other related data, on those days.

4. Compile a list of accomplished burns that correspond to the prevailing winds and mixing height, w ith a summary of the location, distance to impacted Class I area, estimated tons burned, and times of ignition and completion, if known. (Note

- modeling may be included in this step.)

5. Provide a final assessment as to the probably each accomplished burn contributed to the impact, and an estimate of the extent of that impact.

A final report will be prepared that summarizes the overall contribution of prescribed burning

to worst

- case day impacts at each IMPROVE site. Included in this report will be the Class I area or areas represented by the site, the extent of the contribution from prescribed burning, any

recommendation s for additional smoke management protection s, and the criteria or threshold

level used as the basis for the recommendation . This repo rt will be provided to ODF and federal land managers for review and comment.

Additional Smoke Management Protection Assessment

Additional smoke management protection will only be considered based on an affirmative finding from the evaluation described ab ove, and on a case

- by

- case basis for each Class I area. The purpose of this additional protection would require more intensive management of prescribed burning within a certain distance upwind of an Oregon Class I area, with the objective of avoid any bur ning that would cause a prolonged smoke intrusion and heavy smoke concentrations, resulting in a 20% worst day impact. This additional protection would rely upon “basic” smoke management techniques, as opposed to adopting more advanced techniques. Pre

- id entification of burn units subject to this requirement would be necessary. Other specific provisions may be developed as needed.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 204

The ODF smoke management program currently provides smoke protection for designated urban areas, or SSRAs. This effort requ ires more intensive smoke management when burning upwind of SSRAs, in order to avoid any smoke intrusion into the SSRA. The additional smoke management protection for Class I areas would be much less restrictive, as the primary objective is not to prevent any smoke, but to avoid major smoke impacts, that could result in a 20% worst day impact.

Identification of the “basic” smoke management techniques to be used for specific Class I areas would need to be determined by the Department in consultation with ODF and federal land managers. One possible approach would be to establish special protection zones of 50 miles around each Class I area. Burning within these zones would be managed to meet to visibility protection objective outlined here. Although thi s objective reflects the “plume blight” requirements of the Phase I visibility rules, the fact that this protection is directed at reducing the number of 20% worst day impacts is more related to Phase II regional haze, and therefore is being proposed as pa rt of the LTS.

Schedule for Completion and Implementation

The evaluation of forestry burning contribution to Oregon Class I areas and the need for additional smoke management protection, will be conducted in consultation with ODF, federal land manag ers, and other forest stakeholders. The 2013 update of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan will contain a final report on the results of this effort, and identify a schedule for revisions

to the ODF Smoke Management Plan , if additional visibility protection is determined.

12

. 6

. 3 Evaluation of the Contribution from General Outdoor Open Burning

As described in Section 12.5.5, general outdoor open burning represents 16% of annual PM 10 emissions from anthropogenic fire sources, based on 2005 estimates. The D epartment’s Open Burning Rules in OAR Division 264 contain requirements for numerous types outdoor burning, such as domestic, land clearing, construction, demolition, and industrial. This burning occurs mostly year

- round, although heaviest in the spring a nd fall. Each of these types of burning have different regulations to address them in various parts of the State, based primarily on the proximity population centers. These rules were adopted 20

- 30 years ago, mostly to address nuisance concerns, and have been revised intermittently. To date there has been no evaluation of the extent that general outdoor burning contributes to Class I visibility impairment. Unlike other types of burning, there are many different types of burning that make up this source category, and wide ranges emissions due to fuel type, fuel loading, combustion characteristics, which make difficult to obtain good emission estimates, and ultimately difficult to determine contribution to visibility impairment. However, the Department be lieves that an evaluation of this source is needed to determine if better emission estimations are possible, and methods for predicting how these emissions are contributing to nearby Class I areas. For the 2013 update to the Regional Haze Plan, the Depart ment will conduct this evaluation and prepare a report with recommendations on the potential benefits to visibility by revising current open burning rules to minimize impacts on visibility, and a proposed schedule for rule revisions, if supported by

the re commendations.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 205

12

. 6

. 4 Evaluation of the Contribution from Rangeland Burning

As described in Section 12.5.5, rangeland burning represents 15% of annual PM 10 emissions from anthropogenic fire sources, and is based on rough estimates. The majority o f this burning occurs in the high desert regions in southeastern Oregon, with lesser amounts in Central Oregon. Much of the burning activity is on lands under the authority of the federal Bureau of Land Management. Due to the remote locations and lack of population in the areas where burning historically occurs, there has been little to no regulation of this activity. Information on acres burned is limited, and no smoke management controls have been considered necessary do to the infrequency of reported smoke problems. However, some estimates on the amount of rangeland burning in SE Oregon indicate 200,000

- 300,000 acres may be burned each year. This raises the possibility that nearby Class I areas are being impacted by this burning during

certain times of year. During the 2007 review of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s smoke management program, the Department discussed with ODF the need for obtaining better information on the extent of rangeland burning, and smoke management coverage should be

extend ed to that part of the state. F or the 2013 update to the Regional Haze Plan, the Department will conduct evaluation on the extent and possible contribution of rangeland burning to Class I visibility impairment, and prepare a report with recommendations fo r next steps, that may include tracking acres burned and voluntary smoke management measures.

12

. 6

. 5 Efforts to A ddress Offshore Shipping

As described in Chapter 9, both the PSAT and WEP results show offshore marine vessel

emissions as a major contributor to Oregon Class I areas, especially in Western Oregon. If compared to emission inventory data in Chapter 8, marine vessel emissions are 56% for SO 2 and 31% for NO

x of the total 2002 statewide emission inventory for these pollutants.

Current ly, the Department has limited authority in Oregon to regulate offshore shipping emissions. State regulations on shipping apply only to vessels on the Willamette and Columbia

r iver s. On July 24, 2008, the State of California adopted new strict regulation s for marine vessels within 24 miles of shore. The Department expects that implementation of these new regulations for marine vessels will have benefits in Oregon.

The Department will prepare a report for the next plan update in 2013 , that includes an y estimates on visibility improvements in Oregon from the California regulations, any new information or studies on the transport and contribution of offshore shipping, any new regulatory actions expected to meet other Clean Air Act requirements , and r ecomme ndations

on what regulatory actions Oregon could pursue to address this source.



### 12

. 7 Projection of the Net Effect on Visibility

The anticipate net effect on visibility from emission reductions by point, area, and mobile sources during the period of th e LTS has been estimated by the WRAP, based on monitoring, emission inventory, and modeling projections. The results of the CMAQ modeling described in Section 9.3 show anthropogenic emission sources declining significantly across the West and in Oregon th rough 2018. However, overall visibility benefits of these reductions are somewhat2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 206

offset by emissions from natural sources such as wildfire and dust, and other uncontrollable sources. This includes international sources in Canada and Mexico, global trans port of emissions, and offshore shipping in the Pacific Ocean. Despite this, it is clear that visibility improvements will be made due to the control of BART sources, numerous on

- the

- books regulations such as state and federal mobile source rules, and ele ments contained in the LTS to

address non

- BART sources and fire emissions over the next 5

- 10 years that may provide additional improvements by 2018. The WRAP has also committed to conducting final reasonable progress modeling when all BART results are com plete, which will likely reveal additional progress toward the 2018 URP.

As part of the requirement to submit 5

- year progress reports in Section 13.4.3 of this plan, the Department will include in the 2013 update any additional visibility improvements expected due to updated modeling information from the WRAP, or other pertinent new information

related to the demonstration of reasonable progress in Chapter 11 of this plan.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 207



### CHAPTER 13: CONSULTATION AND FUTURE COMMITMENTS

1 3

. 1 Federal Land Mana ger Consultation

Section 308(i) of the Regional Haze Rule requires consultation between the State and FLMs related to development and implementation of regional haze plans

. States need to provide FLMs and opportunity to comment at least 60 days prior to holding a public hearing on a proposed plan or plan revision . This includes commenting on the State’s assessment of visibility impairment in each Class I area

, and providing recommendations on the reasonable progress goals and visibility control strategi es the State has proposed

. States also need to provide the FLM an opportunity to comment on the five

- year progress reports and other developing programs that may contribute to Class I visibility impairment.

Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze Rule re quires States to submit a plan revision by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.

Oregon has provided agency contacts to the FLMs as required. In the development of this plan, the FLMs were consulted in accordance with the provisions of 51.308(i)( 2). Oregon has provided the FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the plan

. The first public hearing on the plan is January 6, 2009.

Th e Oregon Regional Haze Plan was made available to the FLMs for review and comment via the Department’s regional haze website on November 11, 2008. The FLMs were notified by email and a letter on that date. A copy of the letters is in Appendix G.

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), Oregon has re ceived comments regarding the plan

from the FLMs. These comments on the p lan were addressed by the Department

. See

A ppendix G of this plan.

Section 51.308(i)(4) requires procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs on the implemen tation of the visibility protection program. Oregon will consult with the Federal Land manager(s) on the status of the following implementation items:

1. Implementation of emissions strategies identified in the plan as contributing to achieving improvemen t in the worst

- day visibility

. 2. Summary of major new source permits issued

. 3. Status of State/Tribe actions to meet commitments for completing any future assessments or rulemakings on sources identified as likely contributors to visibility impairment, but not directly addressed in the most recent plan revision

. 4. Any changes to the monitoring strategy or monitoring stations status that may affect tracking of reasonable progress

. 5. Work underway for preparing the 5

- year review and 10

- year revision

. 6. Items for FLMs to consider or provide support for in preparation for any visibility plan revisions (based on a 5

- year review or the 10

- year revision schedule under EPA’s RHR)

.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 208

7. Summary of topics discussion (meetings, emails, other records) covered in ongoing

communicat ions between the State/Tribe and FLMs regarding implementation of the visibility program.

The consultation will be coordinated with the designated visibility protection program coordinators for the National Park Service, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest

Service.

Section 51.308(g) requires States to submit a progress report to EPA every 5 years evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal established for each Class I area. The first progress report is due 5 years from s ubmittal of th is plan, and must be in the form of a SIP

revision.

In accordance with Section 51.308(h), at the time of the report submission, Oregon will also submit a determination of the adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP revision.

Oregon will continue to coordinate and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I are as.



### 1 3

. 2 State Consultation and Coordination

Section 5 1.308(d)(3)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule requires States to consult with neighboring

States to develop coordinated emission strategies. This requirement applies both where

emissions from a State is reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I

areas outside the State, and whe re emissions from other States are reasonably anticipated to

contribute to Class I visibility impairment in side the State

.

As described in Section 12 .3 the Long

- term Strategy, Oregon reviewed interstate transport of haze pollutants with neighboring States, focusing on source apportionment information to identify visibility impacts in Oregon and neighboring state Class I areas. The states consulted by Oregon were Washington, Idaho, California and Nevada. Section 13.2

- 1 reviews the consultation process with these States. Additional consultation with these States was through Oregon’s participation in the WRAP , and the numerous committees and workgroups described in Section 4.1.2 of this plan.

Of particular note wa s the WRAP Implementation Work Group (IWG), which consists of state and tribal staff involved in the development of regional haze plans. The state representatives on this work group were th e primary regional haze plan writers from the 14 WRAP states. This work group reviewed the major strategies associated with state and tribal regional haze plans,

and addressed the issues associated with plan development and rule interpretation, including

t he primary coordination and consultation that took place between states, tribes, EPA, and the

FLMs during the development of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. The attached link identifies

the IWG members http://www.wrapair.org/forums/iwg/members.html . Additional information on IWG work products, projects, and documents, can be found on that website as well.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 209

1 3

. 2 .1 Summary of State Consultation Process

As described above, the WRAP IWG was o ne of the primary mechanisms for state

- to

- state consultation. In addition, the Oregon IWG member and primary author of this plan, Brian

Finneran

, consulted directly with IWG members from the following neighboring states :

1. Washington

– Doug Schneider, Wash ington Department of Ecology

2. Idaho

– Mike Edwards, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

3. California

– Tina Suarez

- Murias, California Air Resources Board

4. Nevada

– Frank Forsgren, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection *

( * Nevada is not an official member of the WRAP, but did prepare a regional haze plan.)

Discussions with neighboring States included the review of major contributing sources of air pollution, as documented in numerous WRAP reports and projects, and described in Chapters

7

- 9, and 12, of this plan. The focus of this review process was interstate transport of emissions, major sources believed to be contributing, and whether any mitigation measures were needed. 54
All the states relied upon similar emission inventories, results from sourc e apportionment studies and BART modeling, review of IMPROVE monitoring data, and existing state smoke management programs, and other information in assessing the extent to which each state contributes to visibility impairment in the other state Class I ar eas.

Oregon DEQ will continue to coordinate and consult with other States as part of the implementation of the strategies contained in th e Oregon Regional Haze Plan , and for future progress reports and plan revisions, as required under the federal Regiona l Haze Rule.

1 3

. 2 .2 Consistency with Neighboring State SIPs

As described above, the Oregon Regional Haze Plan was developed with emphasis on consistency with other State plans, through consultation directly with neighboring states and in the WRAP, and the technical tools, policy documents, and other products that were used to develop all of the regional haze plans by Western States.

1 3

. 2

. 3 Oregon and Other State Emission Reductions Obligations

Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires States to demo nstrate that its regional haze plan includes all measures necessary to obtain its fair share of emission reductions needed to meet reasonable progress goals. Based on the consultation described above, no major contributions were identified that supported developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures, or emission reduction obligations. Both Oregon and neighboring states agreed that the implementation of BART and other existing measures in state regional haze plans were sufficient, and that futu re consultation would address any new strategies or measures needed.

54 Significant contributions to haze from intern ational transport (Canada, Mexico, and global) is not addressed here, but is summarized in Chapters 7 and 8.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 210



### 1 3

. 3 Tribal Consultation

Although not required under EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, the Department consulted with Tribes in Oregon during the development of this plan. Like the State c onsultation process above, consultation with Tribes involved reviewing major emission sources and regional haze strategies, both through WRAP activities and direct outreach to Tribes within Oregon.

A letter was sent on March 31, 2008, to Ken Cronin the WRAP Tribal Caucus Coordinator with

the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), describing Oregon’s interest in obtaining participation from tribes in the development of Oregon’s haze plan, and seeking assistance from NTEC contacting Tribes on this m atter. A copy of this letter is in Appendix G.

The Department contacted the f ollowing tribes to solicit further input on the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, prior to the start of the public comment period : list

T he Department held regional haze meetings at t he following locations in Oregon to describe the draft plan and seek input from Tribes:

list

See Appendix G for additional information on Tribal consultation.



### 13.4 Commitment to F uture 30 8 Plan R evisions

1 3

. 4

. 1 Comprehensive 10

- Year Plan Revisio ns

Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze Rule requires States to revise their regional haze plan s and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018

, and every ten years thereafter. In accordance with the requirements listed in Section 51.308(f) of the federal rule for regional haze, Oregon commits to revising and submitting this regional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.

The se plan revisions must evaluate and reassess elements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)

, taking into account improvements in monitoring data collection and analysis, and control technologies. Elements of the future plans are summarized below.

1) Current Visibility Conditions . Determine current visibility (most recent five year period preceding the requ ired date of the PLAN submittal for which data is available) conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and determine the actual progress made towards natural conditions. 2) Long Term Strategies . Determine the effectiveness of the long

- term strategy for achieving the presumptive goal for the prior SIP period. If the long

- term strategy or prior presumptive goal was insufficient to attain natural conditions by 2064, the State/Tribe must look at additional or new control measures that may be a dopted considering compliance cost, compliance time, compliance energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts, and the affected source remaining useful life.2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 211

3) Reasonable Progress Goals . Affirm or revise the current reasonable progress goal

based on assessment of new or updated information, improved technologies, and on

going legislation. 4) Monitoring Strategy . Re

- evaluate the adequacy of the existing monitoring strategy. Provide updated information and changes to the monitoring strategy, as well as an updated State/Tribe emissions inventory.

1 3

. 4

. 2 5

- Year Progress Reports

In addition, Section 51.308(g) requires periodic reports evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goals established for each mandatory Class I area. In accordan ce with the requirements listed in Section 51.308(g) of the federal rule for regional haze, Oregon commits to submitting a report on reasonable progress to EPA every five years following the initial

submittal of the SIP . The report will be in the form of a PLAN revision submitted by

December 2013. The reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I area in Oregon. All requirements listed in 51.308(g) shall be addressed in the SIP revision for reasonable progress. At a minimum, the progress reports must contain the following elements :

1. Implementation status of the current SIP measures;

2. Summary of emissions reductions;

3. Assessment of most/least impaired days;

4. Analysis of emission red uctions by pollutant;

5. Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;

6. Assessment of the current SIP sufficiency to meet reasonable progress goals; and

7. Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.

Section (d)(4)(v) requires periodic updates of the emissio n inventory. Oregon commits to update the inventory by the next SIP update in 2013.



### 13.5 Determination of Plan Adequacy

As required by Section 51.308(h) of the Regional Haze Rule, depending on the findings of the

five

- year progress report required desc ribed above in Section 13.4.2, Oregon commits to taking one of the following actions at the same time Oregon submits the 5

- year progress report:

1) If Oregon finds that no substantive SIP revisions are required to meet established visibility goals, Oreg on shall provide EPA a negative declaration saying that no plan revision is needed;

2) If Oregon finds that the plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the State, Oregon s hall notify EPA and the other cont ributing

S tate(s)

, and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to develop additional strategies in addressing the SIP deficiency;2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Page 212

3) If Oregon finds that the plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to

emis sions from ano ther country, Oregon shall notify EPA and provide the available supporting information; or

4) If Oregon finds that the plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within the State, Oregon shall develop additional s trategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the plan within one year from the date that the progress report

was due.