### 6.0 STATE AND CLASS I AR EA SUMMARIES

As described in Section 2.0, each state is required to submit progress report s at interim points between submittals of Regional Haze Rule (RHR) State Implementation Plans (SIPs),

which assess progress toward s visibility improvement goals in each state’s mandatory Federal Class I areas ( CIA s)

. Data s ummaries for each CIA in each Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) state , which address Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) requirements for visibility

measurements and emissions inven tories are provided in this section. These summaries are intended to provide individual states wi th the technical information they need to determine if current RHR implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to meet all established

reasonabl e progress goals , as defined in their respective initial RHR implementation plans

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 1

### 6.13 UTAH

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days

continu es to improve at each Federal Class I a rea (CIA), and that visibilit y on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get worse, as measured at representative Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring sites. Utah has 5 mandatory Federal CIAs, which are depicted in Figure 6.13

- 1 and listed in Table 6.13

- 1 , along with the associated

IMPROVE monitor locations.

This section addresses differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and 2005

- 2009 period, for both monitored data and emission inventory estimates. Monitored data are presen ted for the 20% most impaired, or worst, days and for the 20% least impaired, or best, days, as per Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements. Annual average trend statistics for the 2000

- 2009

10

- year period are also presented here to support assessments of c hanges in each monitored species that contributes to visibility impairment . Some of the highlights regarding these comparisons are listed below, and more detailed state specific information is provided in monitoring and emissions sub

- sections that follow

.

• 

### For the best days, the 5

- year average deciview metric decreased at all Utah Federal

CIA IMPROVE sites.

• 

### For the worst days, 5

- year average deciview metric increased at the BRCA1 and CAPI1 sites, and decreased at the ZICA1 and CANY1 sites.

• 

### Changes in decivi ew averages for the worst days were driven by changes in particulate organic mass, which increased at the BRCA1 and CAPI1 sites and

decrease d at the ZICA1 and CANY1 sites.

• 

### Ammonium sulfate decreased at all except the ZICA1 site, but changes in 5

- year

avera ges at the ZICA1 site used estimates for baseline data that were based on changes measured in the broader Colorado Plateau region . Ammonium sulfate showed decreasing annual average trends at all sites, which was co nsistent with emissions inventory comparis on results that showed large decreases in point source

SO 2 

### emission inventories.

• 

### Ammonium nitrate decreased at all except the CANY1 site, and showed a statistically significant decreasing annual average trend at the CAPI1 site. Changes in emissions

invento ries showed a net reduction in anthropogenic sources

, with increases in area

sources and decrease s in mobile sources.

• 

### Coarse mass increased at the CAPI1 and CANY1 sites, but neither site show ed increasing trends

. Higher 5

- year averages for the current period were influenced by higher than average coarse mass events in late April 2008 at both sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 2

## Bryce Canyon NP **Arches NP**

**Canyonlands NP Capitol Reef NP** 

**Zion NP** BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1

ZICA1



### Figure 6.13

- 1. Map Depicting Federal CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in Utah

.

Table 6.13

- 1

Utah CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors

Class I A rea Representative

IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)

Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1 37.62

- 112.17 2481

Canyonlands NP CANY1 38.46

- 109.82 1798 Arches NP

Capitol Reef NP CAPI1 38.30

- 111.29 1896

Zion NP ZICA1 * 37.20

- 113.15 1215
*Replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003

.



### 6.13.1 Monitoring Data

This section addresses RHR regulatory requirements for monitored data as measured by IMPROVE monitors representing Federal CIAs in Utah , including estimates of baseline

concentrations for the Zion National Park ZICA1 site

. These summaries are supported by

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 3

### regiona l data presented in Section 4.0 and by more detailed site specific tables and charts in Appendix M

.

As described in Section 3.1, regional haze progre ss in Federal CIAs is tracked using calculations based on speciated aerosol mass as collected by IMPROVE monitors

. The RHR

calls for trackin g haze in units of deciviews (dv), where the deciview metric was designed to be linearly associated with human perce ption of visibility. In a pristine atmosphere, the deciview metric is near zero, and a one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in

cumulative species extinction. To better understand visibility conditions, summaries here include

both the deciview metric, and the apportionment of haze into extinction due to the various measured species in units of inverse megameters (Mm - 1 

### ).

6.13.1.1 Zion Baseline Estimate

In Utah , the ZION 1 IMPROVE monitor , which was originally intended to represent Zion National Park, began operation in 2000 at a site located on the northwest edge of the park, near

a n interstate highway . In 200 3 a second IMPROVE monitor, ZICA 1, was established approximately 19 miles from the original ZION1 along the southwest edge of the park . A map depicting both Zion National Park sites is presented in Figure 6. 13

- 2

.

Figure 6. 13

- 2. Map of ZION1 and ZICA1 Sites Representing Zion National Park.

The second site was installed in part because elevated ammonium nitrate at the original

sit e was influenced by mobile sources from the interstate highway that were not representative of park conditions

. Figure 6.13

- 3 presents a scatter plot of ammonium nitrate measurements for the period where both samplers ran concurrently between February 2, 2 003, when the ZICA1

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 4

### monitor was installed, and ending July 29, 2004, when monitoring at t he ZION1 site was discontinued. The comparison indicates that ammonium nitrate measurements were much higher

at the ZION1 site than the ZICA1 site

. Because of these di fferences, it was determined that

f uture RHR SIPs and progress updates should use the ZICA 1 data.

y = 0.30x + 0.15
R2 = 0.50

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10ZICA1 AmmNO3(μg/m3)

ZION1 AmmNO 3 (μg/m3) ZICA1 vs. ZION1
2/2/2003

- 7/29/2004



### Figure 6.13

- 3

. Correlation Plot for Ammonium Nitrate Depicting Mass Measured at the ZICA1 and ZION1 sites between February 2, 2003 and July 29, 2004.

RHR guidelines require that progress be measured again the 2000

- 2004 baseline period

, 1



### but baseline data are not available for the ZICA1 location. The RHR also states that approximations should be made for baseline conditions if these monitoring data are not

available

. 2 

### A methodology to estimate baseline conditions for the ZICA 1 site was developed in

consultation with the State of Utah

– Division of Air Quality and IMPROVE Steering Committee representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Servic e. This methodology involved applying an average of ratios between progress periods and baseline periods at nearby sites in the region to scale the ZICA1 progress period. Sites selected included those that represent

the 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau, whi ch have previously been treated regionally as the focus

of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) report 3 

### and subsequent Section

1 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e.

2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (see pag e 4

- 2 in the Guidance document)

2 Section 308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR states, “For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for

2000

- 2004, the State must establish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data f or 2000

- 2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee.”

3 The June 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report, Recommendations for Improving Western

Vistas Report is available at www.wrapair.org/WRAP/reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 5

### 309 requirements of the RHR. Table 6.13

- 2 list the Colorado Plateau CIA areas and representative IMPROVE site s that were used as the basis for the ZICA1 baseline estimate

.

Table 6.13

- 2

Colorado Plateau CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Sites

State Colorado Plateau

Class I Area IMPROVE

Site

AZ Mount Baldy WA BALD1
Grand Canyon NP GRCA2

Petrified Forest NP PEFO1
Sycamore Canyon WA SYCA1

CO Mesa Verde NP MEVE1
Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP WEMI1 Weminuche WA
Flat Tops WA

WHRI1 Maroon Bells

- Snowmass WA

West Elk WA

NM San Pedro Parks WA SAPE1

UT Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1

Arches NP CANY1 Canyonlands NP
Capitol Reef NP CAPI1

Zion NP ZICA1

To estimate baseline conditions at the ZICA1 site, ratios between the 2005

- 2009 progress period and the 2000

- 2004 baseline period were determined for each species, for both the 20% most impaired days and 20% least impaired data, for each site in the Colora do Plateau. The average of these ratios was then applied to the ZICA1 progress period measurement to estimate

the 2000

- 2004 baseline period for each species at the ZICA1 site, for both the most and least impaired days. Table 6. 13

- 3 lists the average progre ss to baseline period ratios for the Colorado Plateau sites for the 20% most impaired days, and Table 6.13

- 4 lists averages and ratios for the least impaired days. These average ratios were applied to the 2005

- 2009 progress period from

the ZICA1 site to ob tain species and group specific estimates, such that, for each species:

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 6

### Table 6.13

- 3

Colorado Plateau Sites 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days Species Averages and Ratios

20% Most Impaired DaysGRCA1BALD1PEFO1SYCA1WEMI1WHRI1MEVE1SAPE1CANY1BRCA1CAPI1 Average Progress/

Baseline

Ratio

Ammonium

Sulfate Baseline

Period 5.4 6.2 6.6 5.0 5.0 4.8 6.5 5.8 5.6 5.2 5.9

1.04 Progress

Period 5.8 6.5 7.2 5.7 5.1 5.1 6.3 6.8 5.3 5.0 5.7

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.09 1.04 1.08 1.14 1.02 1.07 0.97 1.17 0.95 0.96 0.97

Ammonium

Nitrate Baseline

Period 2.2 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.2 1.3 2.3 1.6 3.0 2.5 3.4

0.86 Progress

Period 1.8 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.2 3.3 2.2 2.7

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 0.81 0.87 0.83 0.67 0.83 1.02 0.86 0.73 1.10 0.89 0.80

Particulate

Organic

Carbon Baseline

Period 10.7 13.0 10.9 11.7 8.3 7.8 12.3 7.7 7.1 9.4 5.8

0.91 Progress

Period 10.7 10.9 9.5 11.2 6.9 5.6 6.5 6.3 6.2 11.8 7.6

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.01 0.84 0.87 0.96 0.84 0.71 0.53 0.82 0.87 1.27 1.30

Light Absorbing

Carbon Baseline

Period 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.0 1.8 2.4 1.6 1.7 2.4 1.6

0.98 Progress

Period 2.9 2.1 3.4 3.5 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.5 1.8

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.23 0.75 1.16 1.12 0.92 0.81 0.70 0.96 0.94 1.07 1.09

Soil Baseline

Period 1.3 1.1 2.0 6.8 1.3 1.2 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.3

1.07 Progress

Period 1.5 1.5 2.6 5.8 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.6

Ratio (p rogress/ baseline) 1.11 1.35 1.28 0.85 1.05 1.07 0.79 0.91 1.04 1.06 1.27

Coarse Mass Baseline

Period 3.5 2.8 7.3 9.4 3.0 2.8 6.5 2.7 3.8 4.0 3.4

1.00 Progress

Period 3.2 4.1 6.3 10.8 3.0 2.3 4.6 2.5 4.6 3.1 4.1

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 0.92 1.44 0.87 1.15 0.99 0.81 0.70 0.93 1.20 0.76 1.20

Sea Salt Baseline

Period 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

2.31 Progress

Period 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 0.80 2.36 5.36 0.93 0.37 3.05 1.42 0.57 1.80 1.31 7.46

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 7

### Table 6.13

- 4

Colorado Plateau Sites 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days Species Averages and Ratios

20% Least Impaired DaysGRCA1BALD1PEFO1SYCA1WEMI1WHRI1MEVE1SAPE1CANY1BRCA1CAPI1 Average Progress/

Baseline

Ratio

Ammonium

Sulfate (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.2 1.5 1.9

0.94 Progress

Period 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.0 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.6

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.08 0.96 0.95 1.03 0.91 0.96 0.87 0.94 0.84 0.92 0.84

Ammonium

Nitrate (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.0

0.78 Progress

Period 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.01 0.74 0.78 0.92 0.72 0.73 0.67 0.83 0.89 0.76 0.56

Particulate

Organic

Carbon (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.4 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.3

0.72 Progress

Period 0.5 1.2 1.5 1.8 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 0.80 0.94 0.78 0.75 0.70 0.51 0.68 0.78 0.59 0.71 0.65

Light Absorbing

Carbon (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.3 0.6 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6

0.75 Progress

Period 0.3 0.6 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 0.87 0.92 0.99 0.88 0.70 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.70 0.60 0.57

Soil (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3

0.90 Progress

Period 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.06 1.04 1.16 0.86 0.87 1.04 0.61 0.96 0.69 0.95 0.62

Coarse Mass (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0

0.91 Progress

Period 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.6

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.05 1.29 1.01 1.13 0.89 1.02 0.59 1.02 0.75 0.71 0.60

Sea Salt (Mm - 1 ) Baseline

Period 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

2.50 Progress

Period 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ratio (progress/ baseline) 1.53 8.34 4.45 2.42 1.24 1.25 1.03 1.02 1.51 3.92 0.78

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 8

### Because of the logarithmic nature of the dv calculation (i.e., dv = 10ln(b ext 

### /10)), average dv ratios were not applied. Instead, in a manner consistent with RHR calculations, ratios were applied to individual species and individual days, and 5

- year average decivi ew value was calculated from annual average deciviews, which w ere in turn calculated from daily average

deciview value. Table 6. 13

- 5 lists results for the ZICA1 site, where d eciview values for the baseline period are approximated as being slightly higher t han the measured progress period for both the 20% most impaired and least impaired days. These estimated baseline period averages are used to represent the ZICA1 for all summaries presented in this report. Note that similar

baseline estimates have also bee n applied to estimate baseline conditions for the HACR1 site in

Hawaii , as described in Section 6.5.1.1

.

Table 6.13

- 5 ZICA1 Progress Period and Baseline Estimates

20% Least Impaired Days ZICA1

2005

- 2009 Progress

Period Average of

Colorado Plateau Progress/Baseline

Ratios ZICA1

2000

- 2004

Baseline

Estimate

Ammonium

Sulfate (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 1.7 0.94 1.8

20% Worst Days 5.4 1.04 5.2

Ammonium

Nitrate (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 0.6 0.78 0.8

20% Worst Days 1.9 0.86 2.2

Particulate

Organic

Carbon (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 1.3 0.72 1.8

20% Worst Days 8.5 0.91 9.3

Light Absorbing

Carbon (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 0.6 0.75 0.8

20% Worst Days 2.4 0.98 2.4

Soil (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 0.3 0.90 0.3

20% Worst Days 1.8 1.07 1.7

Coarse Mass (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 1.0 0.91 1.1

20% Worst Days 5.6 1.00 5.6

Sea Salt (Mm - 1 ) 20% Best Days 0.0 2.50 0.0

20% Worst Days 0.1 2.31 0.1

Deciviews (dv) 20% Best Days 4.3 N/A 5.0*

20% Worst Days 12.3 N/A 12.5*

*Calculated from daily average b ext determined using species specific average ratios from all Colorado

Plateau sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 9

### 6.13.1.2 Current Conditions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, w hat are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days ( 40 CFR 51.30 9 ( d

)(

10 )(i) (C) )? RHR guidance specifies that 5

- year averages be calculated over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2000

- 2004,

2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. 4 

### Current visibility conditions are represented here as the most recent

successive 5

- year average period available, or the 2005

- 2009 period average, although the most

recent IMPROVE monitoring data currently available includes 2010 data.

Tables 6.13

- 6 and 6.13

- 7 present the calculated deciview values for current conditions at each site, along with the percent contribution to extinction from each aerosol species for the 20% most impaired, or worst, and 20% least impaired, or best, days for each of the Federa l CIA

IMPROVE monitors in Utah . Figure 6.13

- 4 presents 5

- year average extinction for the current progress period for both the 20% most impaired and 20% least impaired days

. Note that the percentages in the tables consider only the aerosol species which con tribute to extinction , while the charts also show Rayleigh , or scattering due to background gases in the atmosphere.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired days

are as follows:

• 

### The largest contributors to aerosol extinction at Utah sites were particulate organic

mass
, ammonium sulfate and coarse mass

.

• 

### The highest aerosol extinction (1 2

. 3 dv) was measured at the ZICA 1 site, where particulate organic mass was the largest contributo r to aerosol extinction, followed by coarse mass. The lowest aerosol extinction (11. 0 dv) was measured at the CANY 1

site.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired days

are as follows:

• 

### The aerosol contribution to total extinction on the best days was less than Rayleigh, or the background scattering that would occur in clear air. Average extinction (including Rayleigh) ranged from 2. 1 d v ( BRCA 2) to 4

. 3 d v ( ZICA 1).

• 

### For all sites, ammonium sulfate was the largest contributor to the non

- Rayleigh

aerosol species of extinction

4 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseli ne period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e.

2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (See page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document.)

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 10

### Table 6.13

- 6

Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions

2005

- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm - 1 ) and Rank *

Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea

Salt

BRCA1 11.9 19% (2) 9% (5) 45% (1) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

CANY1 11.0 23% (2) 14% (4) 27% (1) 7% (5) 7% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

CAPI1 11.3 24% (2) 12% (4) 32% (1) 8% (5) 7% (6) 17% (3) 0% (7)

ZICA1 12.3 21% (3) 7% (5) 33% (1) 9% (4) 7% (6) 22% (2) 0% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.



### Table 6.13

- 7

Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions

2005

- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm - 1 ) and Rank

Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea

Salt

BRCA1 2.1 40 % (1) 15% (3) 22% (2) 7% (5) 4% (6) 11% (4) 1% (7)

CANY1 2.8 43% (1) 12% (4) 15% (3) 7% (5) 5% (6) 17% (2) 1% (7)

CAPI1 2.7 38% (1) 13% (4) 21% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 14% (3) 1% (7)

ZICA1 4.3 30% (1) 11% (4) 23% (2) 10% (5) 6% (6) 18% (3) 1% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 1111.9 dv

2.1 11.0

2.8 11.3

2.7 12.3

4.3



### 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

W B W B W B W B

BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### First Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Average Extinction, 20% Worst (W) and Best (B) Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon

Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.13

- 4

. Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009) for the Worst (Most Impaired) and Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at Utah Class I Ar ea IMPROVE Sites.

6.13.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions

This section addresses the regulator y question, w hat is the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions ( 40 CFR 51.30 9 ( d

)(

10 )(i) (C) )? Included here are comparisons between the 5

- year average baseline conditions (2000

- 2004) and current progress period extinction (2005

- 2009).

Table 6.13

- 8 presents the differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period average

extinction and the 2005

- 2009 progress p eriod average for each site in Utah for the 20% most impaired days, and Table 6.13

- 9 presents similar data for the least impaired days. Averages that increased are depicted in red text and a verages that decreased in blue.

Figure 6.13

- 5 presents the 5

- year average extinction for the baseline and current progress period averages for the worst days and Figure 6.13

- 6 presents the differences in averages by aerosol species , with increases represented above the zero line and decreases below the zero line. Figure s 6.13

- 7 and 6.13

- 8 present similar plots for the best days.

For the 20% most impaired days , the 5

- year average RHR deciview metric increased

between the 2000

- 2004 and 2005

- 2009 periods at the BRCA1 and CAPI 1 sites and decreased at

the CANY1 and ZICA1 sites . Notable differences for individual species averages were as follows:

• 

### Increases in 5

- year average deciview s at the BRCA1 and CAPI1 site s were mostly

due to increases in particulate organic mass , with some increases also measured in

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 12

### elemental carbon and soil

. Coarse mass also contributed to increases at the CAPI1 site. Increases were offset by decreases in ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate

at both sites.

• 

### Ammonium sulfate decreased at all sites except ZICA1. Note that the ZICA1 site did

not measure during the baseline years, and changes reported here are proportional to average changes in extinction as measured at regional sites as discussed in Section

6.13.1.1.

For the 20% least impaired days , the 5

- year average deciview metric decreased at all

si tes. Notable differences for individual species averages on the 20% least impaired days were as

follows:

• 

### All species at all sites either decreased or stayed the same between the baseline and current progress period for the best days.

• 

### The largest decreases on the best days were measured in particulate organic mass,

ammonium nitrate

, ammonium sulfate

, and coarse mass

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 13

### Table 6.13

- 8

Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species

2000

- 2004 Baseline Period to 2005

- 2009 Progress Period

20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 ) *

2000

- 04

Baseline

Period 2005

- 09 Progress

Period Change

in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea

Salt

BRCA1 11.6 11.9 +0.3

- 0.2

- 0.3 +2.5 +0.2 +0.1

- 0.9 0.0

CANY1 11.2 11.0

- 0.2

- 0.3 +0.3

- 0.9

- 0.1 +0.1 +0.8 0.0

CAPI1 10.9 11.3 +0.4

- 0.2

- 0.7 +1.8 +0.2 +0.3 +0.7 +0.1

ZICA1 12.5 12.3

- 0.2 +0.2

- 0.3

- 0.8

- 0.1 +0.1 0.0 +0.1

*Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in

extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.



### Table 6.13

- 9

Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species

2000

- 2004 Baseline Period to 2005

- 2009 Progress Period

20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 ) *

2000

- 04

Baseline

Period 2005

- 09 Progress

Period Change

in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea

Salt

BRCA1 2.8 2.1

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.3

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

CANY1 3.7 2.8

- 0.9

- 0.3

- 0.1

- 0.5

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2 0.0

CAPI1 4.1 2.7

- 1.4

- 0.3

- 0.4

- 0.5

- 0. 3

- 0.1

- 0.4 0.0

ZICA1 5.0 4.3

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.5

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

*Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in

extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 1411.6 dv 11.9

11.2 11.0 10.9 11.3 12.5 12.3



### 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

B P B P B P B P

BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### Baseline (B) and First Progress (P) Period Average Extinction, 20% Worst Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon

Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.13

- 5

. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst ( Most Impaired ) Days Measured at Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

Δ dv = +0.3

- 0.2 +0.4

- 0.2



### -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1Change in Extinction* (Mm-1) 

## First Progress Period

- Baseline Period Change in Extinction, 20% Worst Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon

Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

*Change in visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.13

- 6

. Difference between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009)

and Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) for the Worst ( Most Impaired ) Days Measured

at Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 152.8 dv 2.1 3.7
2.8 4.1

2.7 5.0 4.3



### 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

B P B P B P B P

BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### Baseline (B) and First Progress (P) Period Average Extinction, 20% Best Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon

Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.13

- 7

. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

Δ dv =

- 0.7

- 0.9

- 1.4

- 0.7



### -2.5

-2 -1.5

-1 -0.5 0 0.5

BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1Change in Extinction (Mm-1) 

## First Progress Period

- Baseline Period Change in Extinction, 20% Best Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon

Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

*Change in visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.13

- 8

. Difference between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009)

and Baseli ne Period (2000

- 2004) for the Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at
Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 16

### 6.13.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment

This section addresses the regulatory question

, w hat is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years ( 40 CFR

51.30 9 ( d

)(

10 )(i) (C) )? Included here are changes in visibility impairment as characterized by annual average trend statistics, and some general observations regarding local and regional

events and outliers o n a daily and annual basis that affected the current 5

- year progress period. The regulatory requirement asks for a description of changes over the past 5

- year period, but trend analysis is better suited to longer periods of time, so trends for the entire 1 0

- year planning period are presented here.

Trend statistics for the years 2000

- 2009 for each species at each site in Utah are summarized in Table 6.13

- 10

, and regional trends were presented earlier in Section 4.1.1. 5 

### Only trends for aerosol species trends with p

- value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the table here , with increasing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 6 

### In some cases, trends may show decreasing tendencies while the difference between the 5

- year averages do not (or vice versa), as discussed in Section 3.1.2.2. In these cases, the 5

- year average for the best and worst days is the important metric for RHR regulatory purposes, but trend statistics may

be of value to understand and address visibility impairment issues for planning purposes.

For each site, a more comprehensive list of all trends for all species, including the associated p

- values, is provided in Appendix M

. Additionally, the a ppendix includes plots depi cting 5

- year, annual, monthly and daily average extinction for each site. These plots are intended to provide a fairly comprehensive compilation of reference information for individual

states to investigate local and regional events and outliers that may h ave influenced changes in visibility impairment as tracked using the 5

- year deciview metrics. Note that similar summary products are also available from the WRAP TSS website ( http://vista.cira.colostate. edu/tss/ ). Some general observations regarding changes in visibility impairment at sites in Utah are as follows:

• 

### Particulate organic mass was the largest contributor to aerosol extinction at all sites in

Utah. The largest difference between the 5

- year average baseline and progress periods

was measured for particulate organic mass at the BRCA1 site. This difference average was influenced by a high particulate organic mass events in July and August,

2009.

• 

### For ammonium sulfate, annual average trend statist ics for all measured days indicate d decreasing trends at all Utah sites. A slight increase in the 5

- year average ammonium

5 Annual trends were calculated for the years 2000

- 2009, with a trend defined as the slope derived using Theil

s tatistics. Trends derived from Theil statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measurements over long periods of time, while minimizing the effects of

year

- to

- year fluctuations which are common in air quality data. Theil statistics are also used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )

6 The significance of the trend is represented with p

- values calculated using Mann

- Kendall trend st atistics. Determining a significance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p

- values indicate higher confidence levels in the computed slopes.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 17

### sulfate was reported for the ZICA1 site, but this was based on a baseline average

estimate as described in Section 6.13.1.1

. Actual da ta measured between 2004 and 2009 at the ZICA1 site indicated a slightly decreasing annual average trend.

• 

### For ammonium nitrate, annual average trend statistics for all measured days indicate d

a decreasing trend at the CAPI1 site , and either no trend or insignificant trends at the

other Utah sites.

• 

### For soil, slightly increasing annual average trends were measured at the ZICA1 site

, and an increasing trend for the worst days was measured at the CAPI1 site.

• 

### Coarse mass increased at the CAPI1 and C ANY1 sites, but these sites did not show increasing trends. Higher 5

- year current period averages were influenced by higher than average coarse mass events in late April of 2008 at both sites.

Table 6.13

- 10

Utah Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Change in Aeroso l Extinction by Species

2000

- 2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm - 1 /year )

Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea

Salt

BRCA1 20% Best

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0

20% Worst

- 0.2

-- 0.5 0.1

-- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- -- -- --

CANY1 20% Best

- 0.1

-- - 0.1 0.0

-- - 0.1 0.0

20% Worst

- 0.1

-- -- -- -- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0

-- 0.0

CAPI1 20% Best

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1 0.0

-- - 0.1

-- 20% Worst

-- - 0.2

-- -- 0.1

-- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- 0.0

-- -- 0.0

ZICA1 20% Best 0.0

-- -- 0.0 0.0

-- 0.0

20% Worst

- 0.5

-- -- -- -- -- --

All Days

- 0.2

-- -- - 0.1 0.1

-- -- *(

-- ) Indicates statistically insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all significance levels are included for each site in Appendix M

.



### 6.13.2 Emissions Data

Included here are summaries depicting differences between two emission inventory years that are used to represent the 5

- year baseline and current progress periods. The baseline period is represented using a 2002 i nventory developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP state SIPs, and the progress period is represented by a 2008 inventory which leverages recent WRAP inventory work for mode ling efforts, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

. For reference, Table 6.13

- 7 lists the major emitted pollutants inventoried, the related aerosol species, some of the major sources for each pollutant

, and some notes regarding implications of these pollutants. Differences

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 18

### between these baseline and progress period inventories

, and a separate summary of annual emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs), are presented in this section

.

Table 6.13

- 11

Utah Pollutants, Aerosol Species

, and Major Sources

Emitted

Pollutant Related

Aerosol Major Sources Notes

Sulfur

Dioxide (SO 2 ) Ammonium

Sulfate Point Sources;

On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile

Sources SO 2 emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic

sources such as coal

- burning power plants, other industrial sources such and refineries and cement plants, and both on

- and

off

- road diesel engines.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) Ammonium

Nitrate On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile
Sources;

Point Sources;

Area Sources NO X emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic sources. Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

Ammonia (NH 3 ) Ammonium

Sulfate

and

Ammonium

Nitrate Area Sources;

On

- Road

Mobile Sources Gaseous NH 3 has implications in particle formation because it can form particulate ammonium. Ammonium is not directly measured by the IMPROVE program, but affects formation potential of ammonium sulfate and amm onium nitrate. All

measured nitrate and sulfate is assumed to be associated with ammonium for IMPROVE reporting purposes.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Particulate Organic

Mass (POM) Biogenic Emissions;

Vehicle Emissions;

Area Sources VOCs are gaseous emissions of carbon compounds, which are often converted to POM through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more

refle ctive of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions (see Section 3.2.1). Primary Organic

Aerosol (POA) POM Wildfires ; Area Sources POA represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases. Wildfires in the west generally dominate POA emissions, and large wildfire events are generally sporadic and highly variable from year

- to

- year.
Elemental

Carbon (EC) EC Wildfires ; On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile

Sources Large EC events are often associated with large POM events during wildfires. Other sources include both on

- and off

- road diesel engines.

Fine Soil Soil Windblown
Dust; Fugitive Dust;

Road Dust;

Area Sources Fine soil is reported here as the crustal or soil components of

PM 2.5

.

Coarse

Mass (PMC) Coarse

Mass Windblown
Dust; Fugitive Dust Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE Network as the

difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 mass measurements. Coarse mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM 2.5 is speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with crustal components. Similar to crustal PM 2.5 , natural windblown dust is often the larges t contributor to PMC.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 19

### 6.13.2.1 Changes in Emissions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, what is the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities

within the State ( 40 CFR 51.30 9 ( d

)(

10 )(i) (D) )? For these summaries, emissions during the

baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory, which was developed with suppor t from the WRAP for use in the original RHR SIP strategy development (termed plan02d). Differences between inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002 inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory development work perf ormed by the WRAP for the WestJumpAQMS a nd DEASCO 3 

### modeling projects (termed WestJump2008). Note that the comparisons of differences between inventories does not necessarily reflect a change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the individual inventories, as referenced in Section 3.2.1 . Inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants are presented for major source categories, and categorized as either anthrop ogenic or natural emissions. State

- wide inventories totals and differences are presented here, and inventory totals on a county level basis are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( htt p://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

Table 6.13

- 12 and Figure 6.13

- 9 present the differences between the 2002 and 2008

sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) inventories by source category. Tabl es 6.13

- 13 and Figure 6.13

- 10 present data for oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ), and sub sequent tables and figures (Tables 6.13

- 1 4 through

6.13

- 1 9 and Figures 6.13

- 10 through 6.13

- 1 6 ) present data for ammonia (NH 3 

### ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil

, and

coarse mass

. Inventory t otals on a county level basis will be made available on the WRAP TSS

website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ). General observations regarding emissions inventory comparisons are listed below.

• 

### Largest differences for p oint source inventories were a decrease in SO 2 

### emissions and

an increases in NO X



### .

• 

### Area source inventories showed decrease s in SO 2 

### and increases in NO X 

### , NH 3 

### , POA

, and VOCs. These changes may be due to a combination of population cha nges and differences in methodologies used to estimate these emissions, as referenced in

Section 3.2.1

. One methodology change was the reclassification of some off

- road mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) into the area

sou rce category in 2008, which may have contributed to increases in area source inventory totals, but decreases in off

- road mobile totals.

• 

### On

- road mobile source inventory comparisons showed decreases in most parameters, especially NO X 

### and VOCs, with increases in POA, EC

, and coarse mass. Reductions

in NO X 

### and VOC are likely influenced by federal and state emissions standards that have already been implemented. The increases in POA, EC

, and coarse mass occurred

in all of the WRAP states for on

- road mobile inventories, regardless of reductions in

NO X and VOCs, indicating that these increases were likely due use of different on

road models, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

.

• 

### Off

- road mobile source inventories showed decreases in NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOCs, and

increases in fine soil and coarse mass, which was consistent with most contiguous

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 20

### WRAP states. These differences were likely due to a combination of actual changes in source contributions and methodology differences, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

. As noted previou sly, one major methodology difference was the reclassification of

some off

- road mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to decreases in the

off

- road inventory t otals, but increases in area source totals.

• 

### Inventory comparison results for area oil and gas showed an increase in NO X 

### and a

decrease in VOCs . N ote that inventory methodologies for these sources may have evolved substantially between the baseline and 2008 inventories as referenced in

Section 3.2.1

. Also, WRAP Phase III oil and gas inventories are reported here for entire basins, and include oil and gas emissions within tribal boundaries.

• 

### For most parameters, especially POAs, VOCs

, and EC, fire emission inv entory
estimates decreased. Note that these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in monitored data, as the baseline period is represented by an average of

2000

- 2004 fire emissions, and the progress period is represented only by the fires t hat occurred in 2008, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

.

• 

### Comparisons between VOC inventories showed large decreases in biogenic emissions, which was consistent with other contiguous WRAP states . Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more reflective of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

.

• 

### Fine soil and coarse mass increa sed for the windblown dust inventory comparisons

and the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Large variability in changes in

wind blown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology, as referenced in Section

3.2.1 , rather than changes in actual emissions.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 21

### Table 6.13

- 12

Utah Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category

Source Category Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 41,863 28,206

- 13,658

Area 3,434 1,988

- 1,447

On

- Road Mobile 1,777 497

- 1,280

Off

- Road Mobile 4,504 286

- 4,218

Area Oil and Gas 17 114 98 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 70 8

- 62 Total Anthropogenic 51,665 31,099

- 20,566 (

- 40%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 2,418 92

- 2,326 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 2,418 92

- 2,326 (

- 96%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 54,083 31,190

- 22,892 (

- 42%)



### Figure 6.13

- 9

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 22

### Table 6.13

- 13

Utah

Oxide s of Nitrogen Emissions by Category

Source Category Oxides of Nitroge n Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 84,218 87,623 3,405

Area 6,146 17,269 11,124

On

- Road Mobile 77,381 64,186

- 13,195

Off

- Road Mobile 47,100 13,249

- 33,851

Area Oil and Gas 3,335 4,136 801 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 319 65

- 254 Total Anthropogenic 218,499 186,528

- 31,971 (

- 15%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 8,873 650

- 8,223 Biogenic 12,597 6,144

- 6,453

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 21,470 6,793

- 14,676 (

- 68%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 239,969 193,322

- 46,647 (

- 19%)



### Figure 6.13

- 10

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Oxides of nitrogen by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 23

### Table 6.13

- 1 4

Utah Ammonia Emissions by Category

Source Category Ammonia Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 1,905 556

- 1,349

Area 23,642 37,639 13,997

On

- Road Mobile 2,453 1,048

- 1,405

Off

- Road Mobile 32 16

- 16

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fir e 75 37

- 38 Total Anthropogenic 28,107 39, 295 11,1 89 (40%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 1,893 449

- 1,444 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 1,893 449

- 1,444 (

- 76%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 29,999 39, 744 9, 744 (3 2 %)



### Figure 6.13

- 11

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Ammonia by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 24

### Table 6.13

- 1 5

Utah Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Category

Source Category Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 7,367 9,285 1,919

Area 46,679 72,811 26,132

On

- Road Mobile 49,075 27,138

- 21,937

Off

- Road Mobile 26,933 23,213

- 3,720

Area Oil and Gas 35,961 25,358

- 10,603 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 536 126

- 410 Total Anthropogenic 166,550 157,931

- 8,619 (

- 5%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 19,484 720

- 18,764 Biogenic 641,481 237,799

- 403,682

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 660,965 238,518

- 422,446 (

- 64%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 827,515 3 96,449

- 4 31,065 (

- 5 2 %)



### Figure 6.13

- 1 2

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Volatile Organic Compounds by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 25

### Table 6.13

- 1 6

Utah Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions by Category

Source Category Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point * 392 75

- 317

Area 578 3,045 2,468

On

- Road Mobile 637 1,573 937

Off

- Road Mobile 965 666

- 299

Area Oil and Gas 0 28 28 Fugitive and Road Dust 141 886 745 Anthropogenic Fire 507 106

- 401 Total Anthropogenic 3,219 6,380 3,161 (98%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 26,187 1,167

- 25,020 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 26,187 1,167

- 25,020 (

- 96%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 29,407 7,547

- 21,859 (

- 74%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.13

- 1 3

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Primary Organic Aerosol by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 26

### Table 6.13

- 1 7

Utah Elemental Carbon Emissions by Category

Source Category Elemental Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point * 102 24

- 77

Area 12 513 500

On

- Road Mobile 663 2,593 1,930

Off

- Road Mobile 2,492 715

- 1,777

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 11 21 11 Anthropogenic Fire 85 23

- 62 Total Anthropogenic 3,364 3,889 525 (16%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 5,405 209

- 5,196 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 5,405 209

- 5,196 (

- 96%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 8,769 4,098

- 4,671 (

- 53%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.1 4

- 12

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Elementa l Carbon by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 27

### Table 6.13

- 1 8

Utah

Fine Soil Emissions by Category

Source Category Fine Soil Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point * 2,933 712

- 2,222

Area 160 1,595 1,435

On

- Road Mobile 426 257

- 170

Off

- Road Mobile 0 47 47

Area Oil and Gas 0 479 479 Fugitive and Road Dust 2,411 14,164 11,753 Anthropogenic Fire 81 43

- 38 Total Anthropogenic 6,011 17,296 11,285 (>100%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 1,719 429

- 1,290 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 7,573 10,810 3,237

Total Natural 9,292 11,239 1,948 (21%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 15,302 28,535 13,232 (86%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.13

- 1 5

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Fine Soil by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 28

### Table 6.13

- 1 9

Utah

Coarse Mass Emissions by Category

Source Category Coarse Mass Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point * 8,442 4,216

- 4,226

Area 2,387 2,017

- 371

On

- Road Mobile 414 2,801 2,387

Off

- Road Mobile 0 76 76

Area Oil and Gas 0 12 12 Fugitive and Road Dust 12,374 107,079 94,705 Anthropogenic Fire 59 20

- 39 Total Anthropogenic 23,677 116,221 92,544 (>100%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 5,671 224

- 5,448 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 68,153 97,289 29,136

Total Natural 73,824 97,513 23,689 (32%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 97,501 213,733 116,233 (>100%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.13

- 1 6

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals,

for Coarse Mass by Source Category for Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 29

### 6.13.2.2 EGU Summary

As described in previous sections, differences between the baseline and progress period inventories presented here do not necessarily represent changes in actual emissions because numerous updates in inventory methodologies have occurred between the develo pment of the separate inventories. Also, the 2002 baseline and 2008 progress period inventories represent only

annual snapshots of emissions estimates , which may not be representative of entire 5

- year monitoring periods compared. To better account for year

- to

- year changes in emissions, annual emission totals for Utah electrical generating units (EGU) are presented here. EGU emissions are some of the more consistently reported emissions , as tracked in EPA’s Air Markets Program

Database for permitted Titl e V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ) . RHR implementation plans are required to pay specific attention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977.

Figu re 6.1 3

- 17 presents a sum of annual NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions as reported for Utah

EGU sources between 1996 and 2010

. While these types of facilities are targeted for controls in state regional haze SIPs, it should be noted that many of the controls planned for EGUs in the

WRAP states had not taken place yet in 2010, while other controls separate from the RHR may have been implemented. The chart shows some periods of decline for both NO X 

### and SO 2 

### , with a sharp decline in SO 2 

### emissions between 2006 and 200 7

.

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

### Annual EGU Emissions

Utah 1996

- 2010

SO2 (TPY)

NOX (TPY)



### Figure 6.13

- 17

. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO 2 

### and NO X 

### reported between 1996 and 2010 for

Utah

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 30