# California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report

ADOPTION DATE: May 22, 2014This page intentionally left blank.

### Table of Contents

Section Page

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

1. Background and Overview of Progress Report Requirements

......... 1

2. Control Strategy Status and Emissions

................................ ............. 6

3. Visibility Progress

................................ ................................ .............. 1 1

4. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

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

5. Assessment of Current Control Strategy

................................ ........ 18

6. Visibility M onitoring Strategy

................................ ........................... 18

7. Regional Haze Plan Commitments and Continued Consultation

.. 18

8. Conclusion: Statement of Adequacy of Regional Haze Plan

......... 19

**Appendix A: Western Regional Air**  **Partnershi p:** 

**“**

**Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report**  **”**

**Appendix B: Emission**  **Inventory**

**Appendix C: Supporting Deciview Record for California** 

**Appendix D :**  **Technical Analysis of Factors Impeding Progress** 

**Appendix E :**  **Federal Land Managers Review**This page intentionally left blank.i 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The landscapes of California include some of the most beautiful and dramatic national parks, forests, wilderness areas, mountains, deserts, and seashores in the United States. Twenty

- nine of these California locations were designated Class 1 Areas by those who manage them, to support national goals of improving visibility at these treasured public lands. California continues to reduce emissions of pollutants that result in regional haze, and visibility is improving at these unique places. State residents and visitors from all over the world have access to these special areas, making the short

and long

- term goals of visibility improvement a worthwhile effort for everyone’s benefit.

There are many ways to measure visib ility improvements; human visual perception is only one of them. Particles scatter and absorb light in the atmosphere, causing haze, which impairs the clarity of scenic vistas and views. The nationwide visibility monitoring program measures particles in the air as a way to track and compare variations in the amount of haze particles near the nation’s Class 1 Areas. Analyzing relative changes in concentrations of specific pollutant species over time help s identify potential sources, or causes of haze, at different times, seasons, and locations. These sources are both

natural and man

- made. The monitoring record in California now illustrates both short and long

- term trends for most areas of the State. Overall, the record shows visibility has improved.

Th e California Regional Haze Plan addresses visibility goals and describes a strategy for controlling air pollution from man

- made emission sources, including rigorous controls for stationary, area, and mobile sources. The State also supports initiatives to incentivize the development and use of innovative pollution control technology. The benefit of this concerted effort is more days of pristine air for viewing the magnificent landscapes of Class 1 Areas in California and in neighboring states. In fact, vi sibility at the Class 1 Areas in Southern California, nearest the most densely populated areas, has improved the most from emissions reductions.

This Progress Report examines the visibility data to show that reduct ions of precursor

emissions are on track for meeting our visibility goals . California strategies for reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) have lowered nitrate particle concentrations and reduced haze levels throughout the State. Average visibility on the worst haze days is improving, although natu ral wildfire smoke continues to be the strongest driver of reduced visibility on worst days, at areas where progress is slower.

The California Regional Haze Plan control strategy is working to reduce emissions to

reach short

- term goals for 2018, as requir ed. Reducing haze is a regional effort and

California continues to work with the other western states and the federal land managers to plan for the required 2018 revision of State Implementations Plans for Regional Haze. The states are focusing on strate gies for continued red uction of

controllable emissions. Quantification of the impacts of wildfire smoke and other sources beyond State regulatory jurisdiction will continue, for the purposes of defining the burden these sources place on achieving visibili ty goals.ii The long

- term trends for Worst Days averages show visibility improving at every monitoring site, in the absence of ver y high wildfire years. Current Best Days are all

bett er or the same as those of the b aseline period. As evidenced by reduction s in anthropogenic source emissions in California and the concurrent improvement in visibility at all of California’s Class 1 Area IMPROVE monitors, California determines the current RH plan strategies are sufficient for California and its neighboring stat es to meet

their 2018 RPGs . In accordance with the requirements of the RHR, California has

determined that no further subs tantive revision of the RH Plan is warranted at this time

in order to achieve the 2018 R PGs for visibility improvement.- 1

- 

### 1. Background and Overview of Progress Report Requirements

Congress recognized the importance of visibility in our national parks and wilderness

areas by amending the Clean Air Act ( Act) in 1977 to include a goal for “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility.” 1 In order to implement this provision of the Act, the U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) established the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 2 in 1999, spec ifying how states

must work towards this visibility improvement goal

. The RHR requires that states identify and implement pollution con trol strategies to make continu ous progress towards

a goal of “natural conditions” 3 state of visibility by 2064

.

P rogress towards natural conditions visibility is expected by reducing or eliminating

man

- made impairment of visibility at the 156 Class 1 Areas in the United States

. The se public areas are national parks, forests, monuments, seashores, and wilderness area s managed by federal land management agencies. The RHR requires that c ontinuous progress towards visibility improvement goals be evaluated at periodic checkpoints , with State Implementation Plans (SIP s ) required every 10 years

, and interim progress
reports every five years

.

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board ) adopted the California Regional Haze Plan ( RH Plan) in January 2009 and transmitted it to U

. S

. EPA in March 2009. U

. S

. EPA approved the RH Plan in June 2011. The RH Plan describ ed visibility conditions for the

baseline years 2000

- 2004 and included the State strategy for reaching the first Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) in 2018 . The 2018 RPGs are interim visibility improvement benchmarks on a path to the ultimate, long

- t erm goal of natural background conditions . The 2018 RPGs were developed by ARB for each Class 1 Area in California, in consultation with other affected states and the f eder al land m anagers.

This first Progress Report (Report) evaluates progress made towards the 2018 RPGs

and address es the following:

• S tatus of RH Plan State s trategy ;

• E missions r ed uctions from RH Plan control s trategies ;

• V isibility p rogress ;

• Emission trends ;

• A ssessment of changes impeding visibility p rogress ;

• A ssessment of c urrent s trategy ;

• R eview of v isibility monitoring s trategy ;

• RH Plan adequacy determination ; an d

• Federal Land Manager comments

.

1 Section 169A of the C lean A ir A ct

. 2 CFR 40 Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, July 1, 1999

3 Note that “default” natural conditions as defined by the U.S. EPA are subject to revisions

. Stat es can extend the period of time needed to achieve natural conditions, beyond the nominal 2064 in the RHR, defining and defending new interim reasonable progress rates and adjusting the 2064 end year as needed (see CFR Section 51.308).- 2

- 1.1. C alifornia C lass 1 Areas

California has 29 Class 1 Areas , more than any other state. P rogress towards better visibility is calculated f rom data collected at the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network

. There are 17 IMPROVE monitors representing one or more of the Class 1 Areas in California. Class 1 Areas in California

with their respective IMPROVE monitor names and locations are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Map of Class 1 Areas and IMPROVE monitors

IMPROVE monitor WA = Wilderness Area NP = National Park NM = National Monument- 3

- 1.2. Measuring Visibility

Measuring visibility is complex. Particle and aerosol pollution in the air causes haze (light extinction) by extinguishing and absorbing light. The haze

- causing particles and aerosols in the air are ammonium nitrates (nitrates), ammonium sulfates (sulfates), organic carbon matter aerosol s (OMC), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil (FS), coarse mass (CM), and sea salt (SS) . There is also natural light scattering by gases

, Rayleigh scattering, with a constant light extinction value based on elevation. Reducing the concentrations of the pollu tant species means their contribution to light extinction lessens, and visibility improves.

T he IMPROVE monitors measure the concentration of each haze

- causing pollutant every three days

. Since each pollutant species has a different capacity to extinguis h light, a mathematical formula was created to add up the light extinction caused by constant Rayleigh scattering and the different concentrations of pollutants on each measurement day . This formula, called the Haze Algorithm, converts the total light

ext inction calculated for each day into units of visibility called “deciviews”. 4 One deciview (dv) unit corresponds with the minimum visibility change detectable to the human eye. As deciview levels decrease, visibility improves.

The RHR requires that assessments of visibility progress must be based on five

- year

average s of the deciview values for the annual haziest (Worst) and clearest (Best) days

at each IMPROVE monitor. The Worst Days measurement is the average of the

deciview levels for the 2 0 percent of the sampling days with th e highest visibility impairment each year. The Best Days measurement is the annual average of the

lowest 20 percent deciview days

.

The 2018 RPGs are the projected deciview level s for the Worst Days averages at each

monitor in 2018 , after im plementing the RH Plan’s State strategy. U.S. EPA approved the 2018 RPGs when they approved the RH Plan. Worst Days d eciview levels should be decreasing as they progress t owards the 2018 RPGs

. The RHR also specifies that

Best D ays averages should not degrade from the baseline period ( 2000

- 2004 )

.

1.3. Source Impacts on Visibility

A better understanding of visibility improvement emerges from relating reductions in precursor emi ssions in and near the Class 1 A reas to changes in concentrations of haze species meas ured at the monitors . Also important is the change in each haze species ’ contribution to light extinction, as the mix of precursor emissions change s

. Emissions

from bot h natural sources and from man

- made activities (ant hropogenic sources) affect visibility. These sources can be located within California, but long

- range transport also brings visibility

- impairing pollutants from out

- of

- State and international sources into

4 Appendix A of the initial RH Plan explains further how deciviews are calculated from measurements of

mass concentrations of haze species at each IMPROVE monitor.- 4

- California’s atmosphere. California’s emissions c ontrol strategy focus es on sources within the State’s regulatory jurisdiction.

The fact that “ uncontrollable” natural and anthropogenic sources affect visibility is n ot neglected in this analysis . For example, visibility progress in western states is slowed by the increase d frequency and intensity in wildfire s during the summer. Smoke originating from wildfire s within and outside California generate s enormous

concentr ations of organic carbon aerosols that form far

- reaching plumes impacting many vis ibility monitors before dissipating. Depending on the wildfire location

, smoke impacts different monitors from year

- to

- year. Another annual event occurring beyond California’s borders are spring windstorms in the Gobi Desert, which have detectable

but mi nor haze consequences in California at this time. Every year these seasonal windstorms send natural geologic material, coated with industrial emissions from Asia,

into t he jet stream which deposits dust at IMPROVE monitors in California and other

western states. 5

U ncontrollable emissions sources add to the atmospheric mix of visibility

- impairing pollutants produced by anthropogenic sources in California

, all detected but not differentiated by the IMPROVE monitors

. Seasonal inversions, sea breezes, and humidity enhance the impact of these varia ble emissions. California’s coastal location

, complicated topography, and complex meteorology, may result in somewhat uneven

year

- to

- year deciview progress at some sites , despite st eady reductions of emissions.

T h e Progress Report appendices describe localized and regional situations where

uncontrollable emissions intensify the impacts on visibility progress

.

1.4. Initial Reporting Requirements

In this first Progress Report, the RHR requires all states to report on the implementation

status for emission control measures implemented within the s tate for achieving reasonable progress towards the 2018 goals for Class I A reas within and outside the

state. California’s first Progress Report is due to U.S. EPA in the Spri ng of 2014. In April 2 013, U.S. EPA issued Guidance 6 that s tates evaluate visibility improvement using

the most recent monitoring data available for th e initial Progress R eports

. At the time of preparation of th is Progress Report for the required review by the Federal Land Managers, the most recent monitoring data was available through 2011 at all but one of

the seventeen IMPROVE monitors. 7

5 VanCuren, R., and T. Cahill (2002), Asian aerosols in North America: Frequency and concentration of

fine dust, J.Geophys. Res., 107(D24), 4804 , doi:10.1029/2002JD002204

. 6 “General Principles for the 5

- Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State

Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports)” , U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, April 2013.

7 The IMPROVE monitor SAGA, serving the San Gabriel Wilderness and the Cucamonga Wilderness,

was destroyed in the summer wildfire called the Station Fire of 2009. SAGA was reestablished at the same location in the fall of 2011. Therefore data from the years 2005

- 2008 comprise the “current period” evaluated for SAGA in this Progress Report. The years 2009

- 2011 have incomplete deciview day data at SAGA so that Worst and Best Days annual deci view averages for those years do not exist.- 5

- In this Progress Report , “c urrent ” conditions are the five

- year averages of 2007

- 2011

visib ility data, which is compared with “b aseline ” conditions, 2000

- 2004 , from the initial California Regional Haze Plan. While some years may not have enough deciview days statistically to calculate the annua l Worst and Best Days values , good information is s till available for extensive parts of the year. Analyzing all the data gives a better understanding of seasonal patterns and long

- term trends in visibility improvement.

For further analysis on a regional scale , California joined with fourteen other state s to prepare the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Summary Re port included in Appendix A. Th e WRAP Summary Report was released in June 2013 and

includes a comprehensive analysis of both measured visibility change s at the IMPROVE

monitors and changes in emissions inventories between the baseline period and the five following years (2005

- 2009) to meet some of the RHR reporting requirements.

California’s Progress Report goes further to update the Regional Summary Report with

the 2007

- 2011 Ca lifornia

- specific data.

T he 2012 visibility data became available at the end of February 2014, during the Federal Land Managers review period . The timing of the data does not allow for an extensive analysis to be done in this Progress Report

. However, t he 2 01 2 data is provided in Appendi x C in summary format and mentioned in the Appendix D Case

Studies

. T he 2012 summary data continues to illustrate progress in visibility improvement and does not change the conclusion s of this Progr e ss Re port

.- 6

- 

### 2. Control Strategy Status and Emission s

In California, nitrate and organic carbon aerosols are the primary drivers of poor visibility on Worst Days. Sulfates can also play a role. Therefore, r eductions in the precursors for these pollutants , NOx, ROG and SOx

, along with directly

- emitted PM2.5 support improvements in visibility throughout the State

. In the RH Plan Control Strategy

, California addressed all t hree precursors along with directly

- emitted PM2.5

.

Mobile Sources are the primary contributor to NOx emiss ions, a precursor to nitrate. They also contribute SOx emissions, a precursor to sulfates; ROG emissions, a

precu rsor to organic carbon aerosols; and PM2.5, a direct

- emitter of organic carbon

aerosols . Statewide control measures have been effective in driving all three of these types of emissions downward . Light

- duty passenger vehicles, heavy

- duty diesel

powered trucks, and off

- road equipment were the three largest sub

- category sources of

a ll NOx emi ssions in 2000.

2.1. Status of Control Strategies in the RH Plan

The RH Plan Control S trategy relied upon already adopted ARB control measures for mobile sources and consumer products that reduce precursors of haze pollutants: NOx, SOx, ROG, and PM 2.5

. Cali fornia’s aggressive and i nnovative control measures go beyond the federal requirements and defined a comprehensive and l ong

- term basis for setting the 2018 RPGs

. By regulating fuel and product formulations as well as mobile

source equipment and pollution control technology, California’s control measures
continue to provide significant emission reductions through 2018 . Integrated programs addressing Diesel Risk Reduction, Goods Movement, and Smoke Manageme nt are designed to cover multiple source categories. California’s Smoke Management Program, certified by U

. S

. EPA in August 2003, continues to manage the occurren ce of prescribed fires and smaller agricultural burns, b y coordinating private, local, S tate, a nd

federal actions. The Smoke Management Program requires that Class 1 Areas be

i dentified as sensitive receptors. California also continues to supplement regulatory programs with financial incentives to accelerate early emission reductions and promote

n ew technologi e s

.

2.2. BART Requirement

In the RH Plan, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) was requi red for one source

, the Main Stack at the Valer o refinery in Benicia, Cali f ornia . The new c ontrol equipment was installed and operating by February 2011, prior to the 2013 compliance deadline. The BART determination concluded that the Main Stack and its contributing sources

would be rebuilt to reduce emi ssions of SO2, NOx, and PM10. A fluidize d coker, a

fluidized catalytic cracker unit

, and two CO b oilers feed to the Main Stack.

The RH Plan BART determination described a technically feasible control system for the components that also produced a beneficial reduction in deciview levels modeled at the nearest Class 1 Area, Point Reyes National Seashore. A regenerative amine scrubbe r- 7

- and a pre

- scrubber were used for SO2 removal . The pre

- scrubber also remove s PM10.

NOx is removed by sele ctive catalytic reduction. Low NOx

- burners are used for th e CO

boilers. With the installation of the improvements to the Main Stack as summarized in

the RH Plan, reductions of 0.65 tpd NOx, 15.7 tpd SOx, and 0.06 tpd PM10 were

achieved

.

Point Reyes National Seashore is the primary Class 1 Area affected by emiss ions from the Valero Refinery. Deciview and light extinction data from 2010 and 2011 are available for comparison prior to and after installation of the retrofit equipment. Figure 2 shows the drop in light extinction, especially from nitrates and sulfate s, at the PORE

IMPROVE monitor. The corresponding deciview level for t he Worst Days annual average went from 22 dv in 2010 to 20.2 dv in 2011.

Figure 2 Comparison of Light Extinction at the PORE Monitor

2.3. New Control Strategies

In the RH Plan, California committed to give an update on new control strategies not

included in the RH Plan. Due to the nonattainment challenges in California, ARB and

local districts are regularly rev ising rules to account for new technologies . ARB

r es earch

, coupled with incentives

, provides the bridge to develop these new innovative technologies. The RH Plan reflected emissions from strategies adopted through 2004. Since the RH Plan was developed, ARB has adopted additional control measures.

T able 1 includes a list of these control measures and appropriate implementation dates

that were adopte d by ARB and not reflected in the RH Plan Control Strategy . These

control measures further reduced forecasted emissions in 2018 beyond what was in the

RH Plan

. Since these control measures were not used to set the 2018 RPGs, they will provide additional emission reduction benefits to help California reach the 2018 RPGs

.- 8

- T able 1

Control Strategies

Category Program Actions Implementation

Passenger Vehicles

Transit Bus Rule Additions 2005 2010

Zero Emission Bus Rule Amendments 2006 2010 Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 2009 2008

- 2010; 2013 Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) 2007 2009 Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 2010

Trucks

Heavy

- Duty Sleeper Truck Idling Technology 2005 2010 Public and Utility Diesel Truck Fleet Rule 2005 2010 Border Truck Inspection Program Protocol Improvements 2006 2006

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010 2011

- 2015

Goods Movement Sources

Diesel Cargo Handling Equipment Rule 2005 2010 Ship Auxiliary Engine Cleaner Fuel Requirements 2005 2010 Auxiliary Ship Engine Cold Ironing & Other Clean Technologies 2007, 2008 20 10

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel 2008

- 2011 2009

- 2015

Port Truck Modernization 2007,2008, 2010 2008

- 2020

Accelerated Intro duction of Cleaner Line

- Haul

Locomotives 2008 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 2007, 2010 2009

- 2018

Off

- Road Equipment

Forklifts and Other Spark

- Ignition Equipment Regulation 2006 2010

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicle Regulation

Amendments 2006 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007, 2010 2009

Other Off

- Road Sources

In

- Use Diesel Agricultural Engine Requirements 2006 2012 Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above

- Ground Storage Tanks 2008 2009

- 2016

Additional Evaporative Emission Standards 2009 2010

- 2012

Areawide Sources

Portable Fuel Container Requirements 2005 2015

Consumer Product Lower Emission Limits 2006 2010 Consumer Products Program 2008

- 2011 2010, 2013

- 2014

In California, local air districts implement stationary source and indirec t source control programs. This also inc lude s the New Source Review and Prevention of Significant

Deterioration permit programs . The Districts also utilize local and pass

- through f unds to

incent ivize reductions. Some local air districts encourage residential improvements that- 9

- reduce emissions, such as swap

- outs, to battery

- powered lawnmowers or to U.S. EPA

certified wood

- pellet stoves. These programs have localized benefits for meeting the federal and State criteria pollutant standards. They also decrease emissions transported from populated areas to the more remote Class 1 Areas

.

2.4. Emission Inventory

California’s control measures discussed above are reflected in the Statewide emission inventories shown in Table 2. This inventory is ARB’s latest inventory used for the 2013

Almanac and is based on information developed for the daily PM2.5 standard SIPs recently sent to U.S. EPA . The tab le in cludes both past and forecasted invento ry years in five

- year increments and includes years, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015

, and 2020. The ARB inventory is different from that of the WRAP Summary Report in Appendix A since

ARB has more r ecently updated the inventory to reflect revised emission factors a nd new assumptions for growth along with the units

. ARB reflects the inventory in an annual tons per day unit which can be multiplied by 365 in order to get the WRAP tons per year unit. A ppendix B includes additional information on the ARB emission inventory.

Table 2 California Statewide Inventory Summary (Tons Per Day)

POLLUTANT CATEGORY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NOx STATIONARY SOURCES 584 402 313 288 291

NOx AREAWIDE SOURCES 96 85 75 74 74

NOx MOBILE SOURCES 3,103 2,727 1,935 1,525 1,188

NOx GRAND TOTAL STATEWIDE 3,782 3,214 2,324 1,887 1,553

ROG STATIONARY SOURCES 564 416 417 401 425

ROG AREAWIDE SOURCES 783 713 655 611 630

ROG MOBILE SOURCES 1,555 1,133 871 613 506

ROG GRAND TOTAL STATEWIDE 2,902 2,261 1,943 1,624 1,561

SOx STATIONARY SOURCES 132 97 64 54 55

SOx AREAWIDE SOURCES 9 7 7 6 6

SOx MOBILE SOURCES 148 182 52 18 21

SOx GRAND TOTAL STATEWIDE 289 287 123 78 82

PM2.5 STATIONARY SOURCES 92 91 82 65 69

PM2.5 AREAWIDE SOURCES 445 309 275 277 281

PM2.5 MOBILE SOURCES 123 124 90 68 64

PM2.5 GRAND TOTAL STATEWIDE 661 524 447 410 414

2013 Almanac

SOURCE: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/chap313.htm- 10

- 2.5. Control Measure Emission Reductions

California emis sions have declined for all precursors since 2000 as shown in Figure 3. Between 2000 and 2020, mobile source NOx , ROG

, and PM2.5 emissions are projected to be reduced by about 60 , 65, and 50 percent , respectively

. Stationary sources are also project ed to decline for all pr ecursors . Area wide sources also decline but not at the rate of mobile and stationary sources. Overall, between 2000 and 2020, NOx, ROG, SOx, and PM2.5 emissions decline almost 40 percent. The se emission reductions reflect the maturity of California’s em ission control program.

Figure 3 California Statewide Inventory Trends

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Tons Per Day NOx

ROG

SOx

PM2.5- 11

- 

### 3. Visibility Progress

T he RHR requires each s tate to asses s visibility conditions and changes, using the Worst Days and Best Days metrics

. T he RHR requires states to assess current visibility, the change compared to baseline

, and change over the past five years for both Worst Days and Best Days. For th is initial P rogress R eport, the current conditions are

the 2007

- 2011 period ; the baseline period and past five year s are the same, 2000

- 2004

.

Table 3 compares Current and Baseline Worst Days and Best D ays including the visibility change s as required by the RHR

. Table 3 also compares Worst Days current

c onditions with the U.S. EPA approved 2018 RPG at each monitoring site, to show the
percent progress achieved since the baseline, using the 2007

- 2011 five

- year average

. V isibility is improving on the Best Days at all monitoring sites meeting the RHR requirement that Best Days should not degrade

. At nin e monitoring sites, the current conditions already meet the 2018 RPGs. Visibility improvement at all b ut three of the monitoring sites indicate s that by the end of 2011, progress exceeds 50 percent of that

needed to reach the 2018 goal s

. Appendix C conta ins the Worst Day record since the baseline period . Looking at just 2011, all sites recorded values below the 2018 RPGs.

The three monitoring sites with the least progress , using the 2007

- 2011 five

- year

averages, are the LAVO, BLIS

, and REDW IMPROVE monitors. Further a nalysi s of

trends in haze

- causing pollutant concentrations and their contributions to light extinction

at these three monitors reveals the cause of the limited progress. In the we st ern U .S.

,
w ildfire smoke can elevate Worst Day s values at particular monitors in a single year, as
well as skew subsequent five

- year averages

. In 2008 and 2009

, wildfire smoke cause d

un usually high deciview Worst Day values with the fir st and third highest Worst Day

value in 23 years of monitoring at the LAVO monitoring site

. Wildfire smoke also impacted t he BLIS monitor ing site in 2007 and 2008 and caused the highest and second highest Worst Day s annual averages in 16 years of deciview calculations at that

location. In 2008, w ildfire s moke also impacted the REDW monitoring site

. As

mentioned later

, in Section 4, wildfire smoke can significantly impac t visibility and mask improvements from emission controls

. Appendix D examines the composit ion and timing of the Worst Day values in detail for the se three monitoring sites.

Offshore emissions from ocean

- going vessels (OGV) contribute to sulfate formation

, impacting visibility at monitoring sites closest to the coast. California has near

- shore

controls on OGV SOx emissions, howeve r, sulfates are long

- lasting once formed in the atmosphere. The coastal REDW, PINN, and RAFA monitoring sites may also be

affected more by off shore sources

, because they are located in remote areas with few other large SOx

- emitting sources nearby. The current visibility at PINN and RAFA

, while over 50 percent towards the 2018 RPG since the baseline period , are not improving as quickly as some of the other sites in California. No further analysis is

included for RAFA and PINN because their c urrent c ondi tions year s also include Worst Day values with high wildfire contributions in 2007 and 2008. In contrast, visibility improvement at PORE is progressing more quickly, because it is much closer to emissions reductions in a highly urbanized area.- 12

- Table 3 Statewide 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal Summary

IMPROVE

Monitor California Class I Area(s) Best Days

Baseline (dv) Best Days (2007

- 2011) (dv) Visibility Change

(dv) Worst Days Baseline (dv) Worst Days (2007

- 2011) (dv) Visibility Change

(dv) 2018

RPG (dv) Progress to

2018 RPG

by 2011

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

TRIN Marble Mountain W. Yolla Bolly

- Middle Eel W. 3.4 3.2 0.2 17.4 15.2 2.1 16.4 210%

LABE Lava Beds N .M.

South Warner W. 3.2 2.8 0.4 15.1 13.0 2.1 14.4 300%

LAVO Lassen Volcanic N .P.

Caribou W

. Thousand Lakes W. 2.7 2.5 0.2 14.1 15.6

- 1.5 13.3

- 188%

SIERRA CALIFORNIA

BLIS Desolation W

. Mokelumne W

. 2.5 2.2 0.3 12.6 13.0

- 0.4 12.3

- 133%

HOOV Hoover W

. 1.4 1.3 0.1 12.9 11.5 1.4 12.5 350%

YOSE Yosemite N

. P

. Emigrant W

. 3.4 2.9 0.5 17.6 16.0 1.6 16.7 178%

KAIS Ansel Adams W

. Kaiser W

. John Muir W

. 2.3 1.6 0.2 15.5 14.9 0.6 14.9 100%

SEQU Sequoia N.P. Kings Canyon N .P. 8.8 7.9 0.9 25.4 22.3 3.1 22.7 115%

DOME Dome Lands W

. 5.1 5.1 0 19.4 18.3 1.1 18.1 85%

COASTAL CALIFORNIA

REDW Redwood N .P. 6.1 5.6 0.5 18.5 18.5 0 17.8 0%

PORE Point Reyes N .S. 10.5 9.1 1.4 22.8 21.6 1.2 21.3 80%

PINN Pinnacles W

. Ventana W. 8.9 8.0 0.9 18.5 17.5 1.0 16.7 56%

RAFA San Rafael W

. 6.4 5.5 0.9 18.8 18.0 0.8 17.3 53%

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

SAGA San Gabriel W

. Cucamonga W

. 4.8 4.5 0.3 19.9 18.0
**(2005**

**- 2008)**  1.9 17.4 76% by

2008

SAGO San Gorgonio W

. San Jacinto W

. 5.4 4.5 0.9 22.2 18.7 3.5 19.9 152%

AGTI Agua Tibia W

. 9.6 7.4 2.2 23.5 19.8 3.7 21.6 195%

JOSH Joshua Tree N .P. 6.1 5.3 0.8 19.6 16.1 3.5 17.9 206%
W = Wilderness N.M. = National Monument N.P. = National Park N.S. = National Seashore- 13

- 

### 4. Assessment of Cha nges Impeding Visibility Progress

As discussed in the RH Plan, i n California, the re are three factors, largely beyond State

control

, that can interfere with progress towards improved visibility in Class 1 Areas : wildfire smoke, offshore shipping emissions, and Asian dust. These factors are either from natural sources (wildfire smoke ), uncontrollable sources (shipping emissions beyond California’s jurisdiction), or both (Asian dust, a combination of anthropogenic and natural sources beyond California’s control.)

Each factor can produce a spike in the sampling record measuring concent rations of

each haze species. Whether wildfire smoke originates in California or is transported

from out of state , the signature appears as elevated organic carbon concentrations that

can last for several consec u tive sampling days or weeks, depe nding on t he size of the

fire.

P acific offshore shipping emissions from vessels burning sulfur

- containing fuels , ha ve increased dramatically in the last decade due to shifts in the global economy . These

SOx emissions form sulfates , with higher levels near the Cali fornia coastline

, likely due to the higher humidity along the shoreline enhancing sulfate formation. S ulfates are normally elevated during th e summer at all California monitors. They can be the secondary driver of haze at some monitors on Worst Days when elevated organic

carbon is the primary driver

. California has controlled both in

- port and near

- port shipping emissions with recently ado pted measures. These controls have dampened the impact of shipping emissions, but cannot offset the changes beyo nd the State’s jurisdiction

. The R H Plan estimated that more than 50 percent of the sulfate measured

at th e C alifornia co astal m onitors was beyond the State’s control.

A sian dust, which has been identified by small amounts of marker soil elements at high

elevation IMPROVE monitors , has the most visible influence in the spring . At that time

, seasonal windstorms in the Asian deserts load the at mosphere with geologic dust . As these strong winds move across eastern Asia, the natural dust c ombines with, and is coated by, industrial pollution . These pollution

- laden winds enter the jet stream crossing the Pacific Ocean and their plumes are visible in satellite photos

. Asian dust is

detected a t the IMPROVE monitors a s episodes of coarse mass and fine soils on single days , March through May, when these two haze species spike at the same time at many monitors in a region. Depending on other sources affecting a particular m onitor, Asian dust events may elevate normal measurements sufficiently to cause occasional Worst Days in California. The WRAP Summary Report has more information about these regional transported dust episodes.

Wildfires are occurring more frequently. The largest wildfires in California

, measured in acreage burned since 1950, occurred in the first decade of the 21 st century. Figure 4

illustrates th is increase

. 8

, 9

8 http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsReport2013.pdf , p. 137.

9 http://frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment/assessment2010/document.html , 2010 graph.- 14

- Figure 4 Wildfire Acreage Burned in California

Wildfires cause organic carbon concentrations to i ncrease significantly on days when

wildfire smoke reaches a Class 1 Area

, often remaining high f or several consecutive days or even weeks

. Organic carbon is the largest contribu t ion to light extinction on

tho se days, sometimes making the deciview level high enough to skew the annual Worst Days average. Further analysis of whic h haze species cause the Worst Days, and their timing, clearly implicates wil dfire smoke as a challenge that impacts California on a regular basis.

In 2008, Northern, Sierra, and Coastal California were particularly affected by a la rge number of wildfires known collectively as the 2008 Lightning Strike Complex. Wildfire

smoke began June 22 and did not die out until after the last ignition in August

. Figure 5

shows the name, location, and size of these fires, many of which bur ned and smoldered beyond thei r containment date. This smoke d irectly impacted the Class 1 Areas and had an overwhelming impact on visibility progress at many monitoring sites throughout

California and the west

.- 15

- Figure 5 The 2008 “Lightning Strike Complex”- 16

- The satellite image in Figure 6 shows the extent of smoke plumes during the summer of
2008, almost three weeks after lightning strikes first ignite d the dozens of wildfires throughout the State. The image shows how wildfire smoke can be transported far

be yond its origin. The image also shows the w ildfire smoke proximity to the REDW, BLIS, and LAVO monitoring sites . These were the only monito rs in California, based on

2007

- 2011 data , where current visibility progress was less than halfway towards reaching the 2018 RPGs . The technical analysis of long

- term deciview trends, monitoring data not impacted by wildfires, and anthropogeni c emissions, found in Appendix D , demonstrates that visibility is otherwise improving at these locations.

Figure 6

NASA Satell ite Photo : July 9, 2008

● REDW

● LAVO

● BLIS- 17

- The California Department of Forestr y and Fire Protection (CalFire) estimates that

80 percent of the State is considered wildlands, with a range of fire frequency a nd severity as shown in Figure 7

. 10 California’s Class 1 Areas are all susceptible to

wildfires . Even Joshua Tree National Park

, the only Class 1 Area partially within an area which infrequently burns , is directly downwind of smoke plumes from frequent and

severe fi res burning in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains

. Depending on when and where they occur, wildfires will continue to be an impediment to reaching

natural conditions in the future.

Figure 7 Wildfire Frequency and Intensity

10 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , Draft Vegetation Treatment Program

Environme ntal Impact Report, October 30, 2012, Chapter 4 and Figure 4.2.1.- 18

- 

### 5. Assessment of Current Control Strategy

The RH Plan Control S trategy is sufficient for meeting California’s 2018 RP Gs. The

recent IMPROVE data year , 2011, show s that all sites for the year 2011 are below the

2018 RP Gs. In addition, California continues to strengthen e xisting control measures due to the severity of the air quality problem. California is currently developing SIPs for the 75 ppb 8

- hour ozone standard and the 12 ug/m3 annual PM2.5 standard which are

due in the 2016 timeframe. This provides strong evidenc e that California is on track to meeting the 2018 RP Gs throughout the State.

The RH Plan control strategy is also sufficient to lessen California’s impact on neighboring states. In the RH Plan, California determined that the State contributed about three percent or less nitrate on Worst Days at Jarbridge Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis Wil derness Area, Crater Lake National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area, and Grand Canyon National Park . In the RH Plan, the NOx emissions were

fore cast to decrease about 40 percent in California by 2018 . Now, California NOx emissions are decreasing by almost 60 percent between 200 0 and 2020, exceeding

what was in the RH Plan

.



### 6. Visibility Monitoring Strategy

California will continue to rely on the I MPROVE network to collect and analyze the visibility data. During the current reporting period, the SAGA monitor was destroyed by

the Station Fire in A ugust of 2009

. The site was re

- established in O ctober of 2011

. T he U.S. Forest Service ( USFS) and their contractors were able to collect data and calculate light e xtinction for parts of 2009 and 2011. There was sufficient data for averaging four years, 2005

- 2008, used as the current reporting period for SAGA without data

substitution. There are no current recommendations for changing the monitoring

locations.



### 7. RH Plan Commitment s and Continued Consultation

I n the RH Plan

, California committed to update the 2018 RPGs with the latest WRAP modeling if appropriate . Since submission of the RH Plan, WRAP has not updated the modeling for the California 2018 RPGs. California will continue to examine refinements to the Natural Conditions targets, given the incr eases in wildfire s in California

.

ARB staff regularly confers with other western states to discuss mutual concerns and strategies for reducing haze, throu gh the WRAP and the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR.) ARB staff participated in the WESTAR Regional Haze Subcommittee, which developed recomme ndations regarding continued implementation of the Region al Haze Rule. These recommendations were presented to the U.S. EPA in August of 2013. ARB staff also consulted with the other western states, regarding whether anthropogenic sources or controllable activities in California affected the progress towards 2018 RPGs of these s tates. There is general agreement that smoke emissions from wildfires, especially in 2007, 2008, and 2009, did impact other States.- 19

- In turn, smoke emissions from Oregon wildfires sometimes impact ed California Class 1

Area monitors. California has dete rmined that absent these natural wildfire smoke impacts, visibility is improving sufficiently due to reduction of anthropogenic emissions,

in

- state and out

- of

- state.

ARB staff also meets routinely with the Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMs)

with Class 1 Areas in California to review visibility progress, to share technical and research information, and to discuss policies leading to air quality improvement. This

o ccurs at the staff level throughout the year at Interage ncy Air and Smoke Council meetings and through senior management meetings of ARB, air districts, CalFire, and

FLM r epresentatives in the State at the A ir and Land Managers meetin gs. California provid e d the draft Progress Report to the FLMs sixty days in advance of the public notice of the hearing on the Progress Report, for their review and comments. Appendix

E includes the ir written c omments and the response s from ARB staff.



### 8. Adequacy of Regional Haze Plan

California is making adequate progress overall in improving visibility due to reductions in

emissions from RH Plan control strategy. The trends for Worst Days averages show visibility improving at every monitoring site, in the absence of ver y h igh wildfire years.

Current Best Days are all better or the same as th ose of the b aseline period. As evidenced by reductions in anthropogenic sou rce emissions in California and the concurrent improvement in visibility at all of California’s Class 1 Area IMPROVE

monitors , California determines the current RH plan strategies are sufficient for California and its neighboring s tates to meet their 2018 RPGs

. In accordance with the requirements of the RHR, C alifornia has determined that no further subs tantive revision

of the RH Plan is warranted at this time in order to achieve the 2018 RPGs for visibility improvement

.This page intentionally left blank.