WESTERN REGIONAL AIR PARTERNERSHIP REGIONAL HAZE RULE REASONABLE PROGRESS SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared for:

Tom Moore Western Governors' Association WRAP Air Quality Program Manager tmoore@westgov.org

Prepared by:

June 28 , 2013TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

GLOSSARY OF TERMS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 2-1 2.1 Section 308 2-2 2.1.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements 2-2 2.1.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements 2-3 2.2 Section 309 2-5 2.2.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements 2-5 2.2.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements 2-5 2.3 2064 Natural Conditions 2-6 2.4 Tribal Considerations 2-7

3.0 DATA SOURCES 3-1 3.1 IMPROV E Monitoring Data 3-1 3.1.1 Data Completeness Requirements 3-4 3.1.2 RHR Progress Period Calculation Considerations 3-5 3.1.2.1 Identification of 20% Worst Days 3-6 3.1.2.2 Discreet 5

- Year Averages vs. Trends 3-8 3.1.2.3 Averaging Considerations for Deciview Calculations 3-9 3.2 Emissions Inventories 3-11 3.2.1 Inventory Descriptions 3-11 3.2.1.1 Contiguous WRAP States 3-13 3.2.1.2 Alaska 3-21 3.2.1.3 Hawa ii 3-21 3.3 The WRAP TSS 3-23 3.3.1 Data Updates 3-23 3.3.2 Cl ass I Area Summary Table 3-24 3.3.3 Monitoring 3-26 3.4 Emissions Summary Tools 3-28

4.0 WRAP REGIONAL SUMMARIES 4-1 4.1 Monitoring Data 4-2 4.1.1 Annual Trends 4-7 4.1.2 Regional Events 4-16 4.2 Emissions Data 4-23 4.2.1 EGU Summary 4-34

5.0 SECTION 309 REGIONAL SUMMARIES 5-1 5.1 Monitoring Data 5-3

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document i5.2 Emissions Data 5-12

6.0 STATE AND CLASS I AREA SUMMARIES 6-1 6.1 Alaska 6-2 6.1.1 Monitoring Data 6-4 6.1.1.1 Current Conditions 6-4 6.1.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-6 6.1.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-11 6.1.2 Emissions Data 6-12 6.1.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-14 6.2 Arizona 6-21 6.2.1 Monitoring Data 6-24 6.2.1.1 SIAN1 Data Substitutions 6-24 6.2.1.2 Current Conditions 6-28 6.2.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-31 6.2.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-37 6.2.2 Emissions Data 6-40 6.2.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-42 6.2.2.2 EGU Summary 6-52 6.3 California 6-53 6.3.1 Monito ring Data 6-56 6.3.1.1 Current Conditions 6-56 6.3.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-62 6.3.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-74 6.3.2 Emissions Data 6-78 6.3.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-80 6.3.2.2 EGU Summary 6-90 6.4 Co lorado 6-91 6.4.1 Monitoring Data 6-93 6.4.1.1 Current Conditions 6-93 6.4.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-96 6.4.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-101 6.4.2 Emissions Data 6-103 6.4.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-105 6.4.2.2 EGU Summary 6-115 6.5 Hawaii 6-116 6.5.1 Monitoring Data 6-117 6.5.1.1 Haleakala Baseline Estimate 6-118 6.5.1.2 Current Conditions 6-121 6.5.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-124 6.5.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-128 6.5.2 Emissions Data 6-130 6.5.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-132 6.6 Idaho 6-138 6.6.1 Monitoring Data 6-140 6.6.1.1 Current Conditions 6-140 6.6.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-142

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document ii6.6.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-147 6.6.2 Emissions Data 6-148 6.6.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-150 6.6.2.2 EGU Summary 6-160 6.7 Montana 6-161 6.7.1 Monitori ng Data 6-163 6.7.1.1 Current Conditions 6-163 6.7.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-166 6.7.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-171 6.7.2 Emissions Data 6-174 6.7.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-176 6.7.2.2 EGU Summary 6-186 6.8 Ne vada 6-187 6.8.1 Monitoring Data 6-188 6.8.1.1 Current Conditions 6-189 6.8.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-191 6.8.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-195 6.8.2 Emissions Data 6-196 6.8.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-198 6.8.2.2 EGU Summary 6-208 6.9 New Mexico 6-209 6.9.1 Monitoring Data 6-211 6.9.1.1 Current Conditions 6-211 6.9.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-214 6.9.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-219 6.9.2 Emissions Data 6-222 6.9.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-224 6.9.2.2 EGU Summary 6-234 6.10 North Dakota 6-235 6.10.1 Monitoring Data 6-236 6.10.1.1 Current Conditions 6-237 6.10.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-239 6.10.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-243 6.10.2 Emissions Data 6-244 6.10.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-246 6.10.2.2 EGU Summary 6-256 6.11 Oregon 6-257 6.11.1 Monitor ing Data 6-259 6.11.1.1 Current Conditions 6-259 6.11.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-263 6.11.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-268 6.11.2 Emissions Data 6-270 6.11.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-272 6.11.2.2 EGU Summary 6-282 6.12 South Dakota 6-283 6.12.1 Monitoring Data 6-284

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document iii6.12.1.1 Current Conditions 6-285 6.12.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-287 6.12.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-292 6.12.2 Emissions Data 6-293 6.12.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-295 6.12.2.2 EGU Summary 6-305 6.13 Utah 6-306 6.13.1 Monitoring Data 6-307 6.13.1.1 Zion Baseline Estimate 6-308 6.13.1.2 Current Conditions 6-314 6.13.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-316 6.13.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-321 6.13.2 Emissions Data 6-322 6.13.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-324 6.13.2.2 EGU Summary 6-334 6.14 Washington 6-335 6.14.1 Mon itoring Data 6-337 6.14.1.1 Current Conditions 6-337 6.14.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-340 6.14.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-345 6.14.2 Emissions Data 6-346 6.14.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-348 6.14.2.2 EGU Summary 6-358 6.15 Wyoming 6-359 6.15.1 Monitoring Data 6-361 6.15.1.1 Current Conditions 6-361 6.15.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-363 6.15.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-368 6.15.2 Emissions Data 6-369 6.15.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-371 6.15.2.2 EGU Summary 6-381

7.0 REFERENCES 1

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document ivGLOSSARY OF TERMS

Aerosols: Suspensions of tiny liquid and/or solid particles in the air.

Ammonium n itrate (NH 4 NO 3 ): Ammonium nitrate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involvin g nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) emissions , which are dominated by anthropogenic

sources . Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

Ammonium s ulfate ((NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ): Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involving sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. Anthropogenic sources include coal

burning power plants and other industrial sources, such as smelters, industrial boilers, and oil refineries , and to a lesser extent, gasoline and diesel combustion

. Anthropogenic: Produced by human activities.

Area s ources: Sources that are treated as being spread over a spatial extent (usually a county or air district) and that are not movable (as compared to non -road mobile and on

- road mobile sources). Because it is not possible to collect the emissions at each point of emission, they are estimated over larger regions. Examples of stationary area sources are residential heating and architectural coatings. Numerous sources, such as dry cleaning facilities, may be treated either as stationary area sources or as point sources.

BART: Best Available Retrofit Technology, a process under the CAA to evaluate the need and, if warranted, install the most effective pollution contr ols on an already existing air pollution source.

Baseline period : The b aseline period, or baseline conditions, are the basis against which improvements in worst day visibility, and lack of degradation for the best day visibility, are judged. For initial RH R implementation plan purposes, the baseline is the average visibility impairment as measured by IMPROVE monitors during the 2000

- 2004 5

- year period.

Biogenic e missions: Biogenic emissions are based on the activity fluxes modeled from b iogenic land use dat a , which characterize s the types of vegetation that exist in particular areas. Emissions are generally derived using modeled estimates of biogenic gas

- phase pollutants from land use information, emissions factors for different plant species, and meteorology data.

Class I area (CIA ): As defined in the Clean Air Act , areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977: national parks over 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres, and international parks.

Clea n Air Act (CAA): The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States, originally adopted in 1963, and amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The CAA was designed to “protect and enhance” air quality. S ection 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

e stablished in the 1977 Amendments, set forth a national goal for visibility which is the

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document v‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Federal Class I areas (CIAs) which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’

Coarse m ass (CM): Coarse mass refers to the mass of large particles greater than 2.5 and smaller than 10 μm in diameter

.

Colorado Plateau: A high, semi

- arid tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado.

Current c onditions: For purposes of this report, current conditions represent the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000

- 2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005 -2009 period.

Current progress period: For purposes of this report, the current prog ress period, also referred to as the first progress period, represents the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000-2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005-2009 period.

Deciview (dv): The deciview metric is used to track regional haze in the RHR. The Haze Index (measured in deciview s) was designed to be linear with respect to human perception of visibility. A one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction , whether visibility is good or poor. A one deciview change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the average person can detect.

Dust: Dust emissions may have a variety of sources that could include anthropogenic sources, natural sources, and natural sources that may be influenced by anthropogenic activity. Fugitive dust includes sources such as road dust, agricultural operations, construction and mining operations and windblown dust from vacant lands. W indblown dust includes

more of the natural influences such as wind erosion on natural lands.

Elemental c arbon (EC): Elemental carbon , also known as light absorbing carbon (LAC), is the primary light absorbing compound in the atmosphere. These particles are emitted directly into the air from virtually all combustion activities, but are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires

.

Environmental P rotection Agency ( EPA ): The EPA is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

Extinction (b ext ): Extinctio n is a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length along a sight path due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, expressed in inverse Megameters (Mm -1 ).

Fine soil: Particulate matter composed of p ollutants from the Earth’s soil that enters the air from dirt roads, fields, and other open spaces as a result of wind, traffic, and other surface mechanical disturbance activities . Fine soil includes soil particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document viFire: Fire sources may have a mix of natural and anthropogenic influences

. Natural sources include wildland fires, while anthropogenic sources can include ag ricultural and prescribed fires.

First p rogress p eriod: For purposes of this report, the first progress period, also referred to as the current progress period, represents the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000-2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005-2009 period.

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC): In 1990, amendments to the Clean Air Ac t established the Commission to advise the EPA on strategies for protecting visual air quality on the Colorado Plateau.

Haze I ndex (HI): The Haze Index (measured in deciviews) is used to track regional haze in the RHR. It was designed to be linear with res pect to human perception of visibility, where a

one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction, whether visibility is good or poor. A one deciview change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the aver age person can detect.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE): A collaborative monitoring program governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal and regional

- state organizations to establish present vis ibility levels and trends, and to identify sources of man- made impairment

Inverse megameters (Mm -1 ): A measurement unit used for light extinction, the higher the value, the hazier the air is.

Least impaired days : The least impaired, or best , days refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Light extinction: A measure of how much light is absorbed or scattered as it passes thro ugh a medium, such as the atmosphere. Aerosol light extinction refers to the absorption and scattering by aerosols. Total light extinction refers to the sum of aerosol light extinction, the absorption by gases (such as NO 2 ), and the atmospheric light ex tin ction (Rayleigh scattering). Extinction is often expressed as a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length in units of inverse Megameters (Mm -1 ).

Mandatory Federal Class I areas: Certain national parks (over 6,000 acres), wilderness areas (over 5,000 acres), national memorial parks (over 5,000 acres), and international parks that were in existence as of August 1977.

Most impaired days: The most impaired, or worst, days refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the tw enty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural background condition: Naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document viiNatural conditions : Natural conditions include any naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in te rms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

Off -road m obile s ources: Off

- road mobile sources are vehicles and engines that encompass a wide variety of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Examples include agricultural equipment such as tractors or combines, aircraft, locomotives and oil field equipment such as mechanical drilling engines.

Off

- shore: Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and u ses. Emissions can be include deep draft vessels within shore and near port using port call data, and offshore emissions generated from ship location data.

Oil and g as s ources: Oil and gas sources consist of a number of different types of activities from e ngine sources for drill rigs and compressor engines, to sources such as condensate tanks and fugitive gas emissions. The variety of emissions types for sources specific to oil and gas activity can, in some cases, overlap with mobile, area or point sources, but these can also be extracted and treated separately.

On -road m obile s ources: Vehicular sources that travel on roadways. Emissions from these sources can be com puted either as being spread over a spatial extent or as being assigned to a line location (c alled a link). Emissions are estimated as the product of emissions factors and activity data ( vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) . Examples of on

- road mobile sources include light

- duty gasoline vehicles and heavy

- duty diesel vehicles.

Oxides of nitrogen (NO X ): A mixture of nitrogen dioxide and other nitrogen oxide gases. Nitrogen is the most common gas in the atmosphere. In high temperature and/or high pressure burning (as in an engine), the air's nitrogen is broken down and combined with oxygen, forming unstable or reactive NO X gases. Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is yellowish brown, and thus contributes directly to haze. All the NO X gases react in the air to form haze -causing aerosols and smog.

Particulate organic aerosol ( POA ): P articulate organic aerosol represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases.

Particulate organic m ass (POM): Particulate Organic Mass is also referred to as Particulate Organic Carbon and Organic Mass Carbon (OMC). Particulate organic mass can be emitted directly as particles, or formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Natural sources of organic carbon include wildfires and biogenic emissions. M an

- made sources can include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources.

Point s ources: These are sources that are identified by point locations, typically because they are regulated and their locations are available in regulatory reports. In addition, elevated point sources will have their emissions allocated vertically through the model layers, as opposed to being emitted into only the first model layer. Point sources can be further subdivided into electric generating unit (EGU) sources and non

- EGU sources,

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document viiiparticularly in criteria inventories in which EGUs are a primary source of NO X and SO 2
. Examples of non

- EGU point sources include chemical manufactu rers and furniture refinishers.

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A program established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 that limits the amount of additional air pollution that is allowed in Class I and Class II areas

. Rayleigh: Light scattering of the natural gases in the atmosphere. At an elevation of 1.8 kilometers, the light extinction from Rayleigh scattering is approximately 10 inverse megameters (Mm -1).

Reasonable progress: Reasonable progress refers to progress in reducing human

- caused haze in Class I areas under the national visibility goal. The Clean Air Act indicates that "reasonable" should consider the cost of reducing air pollution emissions, the time necessary, and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of reducing.

Reconstructed aerosol extinction: The percent of total atmospheric extinction attributed to each aerosol and gaseous component of the atmosphere.

Regional haze: Regional haze refers to visibi lity impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.

Regional Haze Rule (RHR): Federal rule that requires states to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the nat ional goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

Relative humidity: Partial pressure of water vapor at the atmospheric temperature divided by the vapor pressure of water at that t emperature, expressed as a percentage.

Scattering efficiency: The amount of light scattered relative to the particle’s size.

Sea s alt: Sea salt is a natural aerosol emitted in coastal areas. In practice, chloride ion measurements are used to represent sea salt in IMPROVE measurements, and measurements may sometimes show anthropogenic or crustal influences at inland monitors.

Sulfur d ioxide ( SO 2 ): SO 2 gas is associated with emissions from processes such as b urning fuels, manufacturing paper, or smelting rock . SO 2 is converted in the air to other sulfur oxides (SO X ) or haze- causing aerosols (sulfates).

State Implementation Plans (SIPs): A detailed description of the programs a state will use to carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. State impl ementation plans are collections of the regulations used by a state to reduce air pollution. P lans devised by states and tribes to carry out their responsibiliti es under the Clean Air Act. SIPs and TIP s must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and include public review.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document ixVisibility impairment: Any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.

Visibility: Refers to the visual qua lity of the view, or scene, in daylight with respect to color

ren dition and contrast definition.

Visual r ange (VR) : Visual range is the greatest distance a large black object can be seen on the horizon, expressed in kilometers (km) or miles (mi).

Volatile organic compound (VOC): A carbon

- containing material that evaporates, such as gasoline, some paints, solvents, dry cleaning fluids, and the like. VOC s contribute to the formation of particulate organic mass

. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP ): A partnership of state, tribal and federal land management agencies to help coordinate implementation of the GCTVC’s recommendation.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xE XECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United State s Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ’s ) 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 1 was designed to improve visibility conditions in the nation’s largest National Parks and Wilderness Areas. The goal of the RHR , as stated in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1977 Amendments, is the “ prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility .” 2 The RHR mandates that states identify and implement pollution control strategies to progress towards a “natural conditions” goal , or conditions without any ma nmade impairment, by the year 2064

. States were required to submit initial RHR i mplementation plans in 2007 which identified goals and strategies for visibility improvement . States are then required to revise implementation plan every 10

- years , and submit progress reports at interim points between implementation plan submittals

. This support document has been prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)

, on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP region, to provide technical basis for use by the western s tates to develop the first of their RHR progress reports , assessing progress towards goals as defined in their initial SIPs

. The visibility improvement goal, as stated in the RHR, is to ensure that visibility on the worst days improve s towards a natural conditions goal, and that visibility on the best days does not get worse. To measure progress towards natural conditions, the EPA provided the concept of

a linear , or uniform, rate of reasonable progress between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and a default natural conditions goal year of 2064. 3 The RHR specifies that progress is determined for “current conditions”, and RHR guidance released in 2003 specifies that progress be tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods ( i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. ). 4 More recent guidance, released in April, 2013, indicates that progress reports “should includ e the 5

- year average that includes the most recent quality assured public data avail able at the time the state submits its 5

- year progress report for public review ,” 5 and suggests assessing changes using a rolling 5

- year period average. Per original 2003 guidance, progress for this support document is reported as changes in monitored betw een baseline conditions and the first successive 5

- year progress period (2005-2009 ) data

. Additionally, for summaries here, annual average trend statistics as measured for each aerosol species during the 2000

- 2009 10

- year period are reported to support assessments of changing conditions.

This report includes regional, state

, and CIA specific summaries that characterize the difference between the baseline conditions and first successive progress period

. Assessments include changes in v isibility impairment as measured using aerosol data collected by the

1 See CFR 40 Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, July 1, 1999, available online at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/visibility/actions.html

. 2 See Section 169a of the 1977 CAA Am endments

. 3 Note that “default” natural conditions as defined by the EPA are subject to revisions, and that States can extend the period of time needed to achieve natural conditions, beyond the nominal 2064 in the RHR, defining and defending new interim re asonable progress rates, and adjusting the 2064 end year as needed (see CFR Section 51.308).
4 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 5 S ee page 9 in EPA’s April 2013 General Principals 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)

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiInteragency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network , and assessments of progress also include t he differences between emissions inventories for years that represent both the baseline and progress periods. Specific regulatory questions addressed in this report include:

• What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired (worst) and least impaired (best) days?

• What is the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days?

• What is the change in emissions that occurred between the baseline period and the progress period?

The RHR also requires states to evaluate the sufficiency of current implementati on plan elements and strategies to meet reasonable progress goals. Determining the status of emissions reductions and evaluation of state

- selected goals are beyond the scope of this report , and will be addressed separately by individual states . S pecific re gulatory questions that address evaluation requirements include:

• What is the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan?

• What emissions reductions have been achieved through implementation of these measures?

• What emission s from within or outside of the state have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emission and improving visibility?

• Are current implementation plan elements and strategies sufficient to enable the state or other states with mandatory f ederal CIAs affected by the s tate, to meet all established reasonable progress goals?

Visibility impairment is tracked using a Haze Index (HI) in units of deciview s (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol speci es as measured by monitors in the IMPROVE Network . Emissions which affect regional haze include a wide variety of natural (e.g.

, wildland fires) and anthropogenic, or man

- made, sources (e.g., industry sources and vehicles). Per regulatory requirements, dif ferences between emissions inventories representing both the baseline and progress periods are presented here. Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using the 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represent emissions for the initial implementation plans. Current emissions are represented here by leveraging recent work by the WRAP to develop an updated and comprehensive inventory for the year 2008 for use in modeling projects. Emissions inventor y comparisons in this report were complicated by the fact that a number of changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the baseline and current period inventories, such that some of the differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rather tha n changes in actual emissions. Characterizations here focus more on differences in the actual monitored data, which are th ought to be more reflective of

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiiprogress than differences between the emission inventories. Some notab le results were as follows:

• A nalysis of monitored data, in terms of comparisons between the 5

- year average deciview metrics, showed improved visibility conditions on the best days at nearly all of the WRAP CIAs . Most sites showed improved conditions on the worst days, but some sites showed a decline i n visibility conditions for the worst days.

• Looking at differences between 5

- year averages for individual measured species

, most sites that did not show improved deciview conditions on the worst days were affe cted by large particulate organic matter measurements related to wildland fire

.

• Ammonium nitrate

, in most cases

, showed the largest decreases in 5

- year averages and the largest decreasing annual trends . This was consistent with mobile source inventory comp arisons which showed large decreases in oxides of nitrogen ( NO X ), which are among the precursors for ammonium nitrate particulate formation. Decreasing emissions were due in large part to federal and state emissions standards that have already been impleme nted for mobile sources.

• In many of the plains states, the 5

- year average of ammonium sulfate increased, but annual average s showed decreas ing trends

. Sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) emissions , which are precursors for ammonium sulfate particle formation, showed decreases in most cases, especially from EGUs and other point sources . Many of the highest ammonium sulfate measurements spanned large regions . P ossible contributions to measured visibility impairment from international sources were not quantified here

.

• In southern Oregon and northern California , increasing ammonium sulfate trends were evident at s everal coastal sites. State emissions inventor y comparisons did not reflect these increases, but marine vessel emissions were not quantified for summaries here.

• A lso, in northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota, increasing ammonium sulfate trends were evident at several sites. State emissions inventor y comparisons did not reflect these increases, but these sites are along the Canadian border, and possible influences from nearby international sources were not quantified here

.

• In Hawaii, dramatic increases in ammonium sulfate were related to natural emissions, with increased volcanic emissions accounting for most of the SO 2 emissions inventoried

.

• Coarse mass extinction trends were variable and not statistically significant in most cases, but an area represented by several IMPROVE sites in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico did show increasing coarse mass trends. Emission inventories indicate d that natural windblown dust is the largest contributor to coarse mass measurements in this area, but significant changes in the development of the windblown dust inventories did not allow for definitive comparisons between 2002 and 2008 inventories for these emissions

.

More detailed summaries are provided in this report on a regional, state and CIA specific basis . These summaries are also supported by interactive tools available from the online WRAP

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiiiTechnical Support System (TSS). 6 Summaries presented here were develo ped cooperatively with representatives from each state in the WRAP region

. Th is report and accompanying data analysis results were developed to support state development of RHR progress reports , the first of which are due in 2013, but should also serve as an important interim step in forming the next round of full implementation plan revisions which come due in 2018.

6 The WRAP TSS, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ , is an online tool developed to support the air quality planning needs of western state and tribes, which has been recently updated with summaries of current IMPROVE monitoring data, and recent emissions to support development of RHR progress reports.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiv1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ’s ) 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 7 was designed to address vis ibility impairment in Class I areas (CIAs), where CIAs include many of the nation’s largest National Parks and Wilderness Areas. The RHR mandates that each CIA progress towards a natural condition s goal, or conditions without any man

- made influences, by the year 2064. Each s tate is required to periodically assess the rate of progress towards visibility improvement goals for each CIA in that state, and for CIAs affected by transport from that state.

The RHR requires states to develop state implementation pl ans (SIP s ) every 10 years which identify strategies designed to meet a series of interim goals over the long term regional haze planning period . The first of these SIP s were due in 2007 and were required to identify a baseline starting point using the average of monitoring data for the 2 000-2004 5- year period, and demonstrate progress towards visibility improvement that is expected to occur by the first interim goal in 2018. In addition to SIPs , the RHR requires each state to assess progress towards interim visibility improvement goals between each 10

- year SIP submittal , w here the first progress report addressing changes between the 2000

- 2004 baseline conditions and current conditions. The individual

, state

- submitted

, progress reports for the western states are due at various times between 2013 and 2017, depending on respective approval dates for each state’s initial implementation plan.

This progress report support document has been prepared by the Western Regional A ir Partnership (WRAP) 8 , on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP region, to provide the technical basis for use by States to develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal CIAs located in the western stat es. Data are presented in this report on a regional, state, and CIA specific basis that characterize the difference between 2000- 2004 baseline conditions and current conditions , represented here by the most recent successive 5- year average, or the 2005-200 9 period. C hanges in visibility impairment are characterized using aerosol measurements from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, and the differences between emissions inventor y years represent ing both the baseline and current progress period

. Analysis and summaries provided in this report were developed cooperatively with representatives from each state in the WRAP region, and were designed to provide western states with the technical basis necessary to support th eir evaluation of the current or proposed elements and strategies as outlined in their initial RHR implementation plans. Summaries here are also

7 See CFR 40 Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, July 1, 1999, available online at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/visibility/actions.html

. 8 The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments and various federal agencies representing the western states that provides technical and policy tools for the western states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s RHR regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP website ( www.wrapair2.org ) and data summary descriptions and tools specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 1-1supported by interactive tools available from the online WRAP Technical Support System (TSS). 9 Any questions regarding the content of this report should be addressed to:

Tom Moore, WRAP Air Quality Program Manager Western Governors' Association tmoore@westgov.org 970-491-8837

or

Cassie Archuleta , Primary Author Emily Vanden Hoek, Emissions Data Analyst Air Resource Specialists, Inc. carchuleta@air

- resource.com evandenhoek@air- resource.com 970-484-7941

9 The WRAP TSS, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ , is an online tool developed to support the air quality planning needs of western state s and tribes; it has been recently updated with summaries of current IMPROVE monitoring data, and recent emissions to support deve lopment of RHR progress reports.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 1-22.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

In regulatory context, S ection 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established in the 1977 Amendments, set forth a national goal for visibility which is the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in C lass I area s which impairment results from manmade air pollution. ” 10 In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency’s ( EPA ) promulgated regulations that provided the requirements for states to develop and submit s tate implementation p lans (SIPs) to address regional haze in Federal CIAs (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 ), where SIPs address each state ’ s strategy to progress towards meeting the long term natural condi tion visibility im pairment goal by the year 2064.

The first of these SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, and were required to address a uniform rate of reasonable progress towards an interim 2018 goal

. Each state is required to submit a revised implementa tion plan by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years thereafter ( 51.308(f )). Additionally, at 5

- year intervals between SIP revisions, states are required to submit p eriodic
progress reports evaluating progress towar ds the reasonable progress goals defined the SIP s . The first progress report is due 5 years from the approval of the initial implementation plan (51.308(g)) , or, for states who submitted a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, by December 31, 2013

. To support development of Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) SIPs, the EPA has released several guidance documents, including:

• EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

• EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

• EPA’s April 2013 General Principals 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)

EPA’s September 2003 g uidance 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. 11 EPA’s more recent guidance, released in April 2013, indicates that progress reports “shou ld includ e the 5

- year average that includes the most recent quality assured public data available at the time the state submits its 5

- year progress report for public review ,” 12 and suggests assessing changes using a rolling 5

- year period average. The new EP A guidance was released as this report and analysis were finalized and, p er the original 2003 guidance, progress for this support document is reported as changes in monitored between baseline conditions and the most recent successive 5

- year progress period, or the 2005

- 2009 period

. Figure 2.0

- 1 below presents an idealized glide slope indicating linear progress in successive 5

- year increments for

10 See section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1977 Amendments.
11 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 12 S ee page 9 in EPA’s April 2013 General Principals 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)

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-1improvement on the worst days towards a 2064 natural conditions goal. Specific r eferences for RHR Section 308 and 309 regulatory requirements are provided in this section.

Figure 1.0- 1. Idealized RHR Glide Slope Representing Linear Progress from a 2000 -2004 Baseline Average to a 2064 Natural Conditions End Goal. Also Represented Ar e the 2018 Interim Goal and Successive 5- Year Progress Periods.

2.1 SECTION 308

Section 51.308(g) of the RHR contains the requ irements for periodic progress reports. Each s tate is required to submit a report evaluating progress towards the reasonable progr ess goals outline d in it s regional haze state, or in some cases federal, implementation plan (SIP or FIP ). 13 These s tate progress reports are required to summarize recent changes in monitoring and emissions data, and evaluate the adequacy of the current SIP to meet interim progress goals. Specific regulatory text related to Section 308 progress report requirements is summarized here.

2.1.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements

Sections 51.308(g)(3) and 51.308(g)(4) of the RHR contain the monitoring and emissions data summary requirements for RHR progress reports. These requirements are addressed in this report on a regional, state and Class I Area specific basis. M onitoring and emissions summary requirements for progress reports include the following:

• How has visibility changed at the CIAs i n the state in the last 5 years (51.308(g)(3)) ? Specifically listed under this requirement are the following elements:

13 Note that implementation plan references to SIPs in this report are also intended to include any full or partial FIPs.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-2- What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.308(g)(3)(i))?

- What is the difference between baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.308(g)(3)(ii))?

- What is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(3)(iii))?

• For pollutants that affect visibility at CIAs , how have total emissions in the state changed over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(4))?

Monitoring data summaries presented in this report include data co llected by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network

. 14 For monitoring data summaries, baseline visibility conditions a re defined as the average deciview values for the 20% most impaired , or worst, and 20% leas t impaired , or best, days averaged over the 2000

- 2004 5

- year period. Current visib ility conditions are represented here per EPA’s 2003 guidance as the most recent successive 5

- year average period available, or the 2005-2009 period. 15

Per regulatory requir ements, differences between emissions inventories representing both the baseline and progress are presented here. Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using a 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represen t emissions for the initial implementation plans. Changes in emissions are represented using differences between the baseline inventory, and more recent inventory development work sponsored by the WRAP for the year 2008. 16

2.1.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements

The RHR progress report stipulations require individual states to determine if the current visibility monitoring strategy and existing implementation plans are sufficient, or if modifications are necessary. Evaluation of current SIP s is not within the scope of this support document, but monitoring and emissions data summaries presented here have been designed to provide the western states with the technical basis to assist with their evaluation of current or proposed implementation plan elements and strategies. S pecific regulatory questions relating to SIP evaluations are listed below.

• What is the status of implementation of all measures included in each state’s regional haze SIP (51.308(g)(1))?

- Note that, for most states, 2018 projections provided by the WRAP for use in the initial SIPs were conservative estimates that did not include best available retrofit technology ( BART ) controls.

14 Descriptions of IMPROVE Network monitoring data and visibility calculations are provided in Section 3.1 of this report.
15 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 16 See emission inventory descriptions in Section 3.2 of this report.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-3• What emission reductions have been achieved through implementation of regional haze SIP measurers (51.308(g)(2))?

- Note that e missions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period , but a determination of what reductions may be r elated to implementation of SIP measures will be made by individual states

.

• Have there been significant changes in emissions over the past 5 years from within or outside the state that have impeded progress in improving visibility at each state ’ s Federal C IAs (51.308(g)(5))?

- As noted previously, e missions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period , but a determination of whether specific emissions have limited or imp eded progress will be made by individual states

.

• Is the state’s SIP sufficient to enable the state, and other states with CIAs affected by emissions from your state, to meet their reasonable progress goals (51.308(g)(6))?

• Based on these assessments, are an y changes in the state’s visibility monitoring plan necessary (51.308(g)(7))?

• Based on the s tate’s assessment of the adequacy of the existing monitoring plan, the State is also required to take one of the following actions (51.308(h)):

- Submit a declaration that the plan is adequate and further revisions are not necessary ((51.308(h)(1)); or

- If the implementation plan is determined to be inadequate, the s tate must take steps to develop additional strategies to address the plans deficiencies ((51.308(h)(2), (3) and (4)).

The Regional Haze Rule also includes requirements for each state to coordinate and consult with f ederal land m anagers (FLMs) when assessing progress for current visibility conditions and SIP strategies. Specific requirements related to consultation with FLMs include:

• Has the state provided FLMs an opportunity for consultation in person 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a regional haze SIP revision? (51.308(i)(2))

• Has the state included a description in your SIP revision on how the state addressed FLM comments? (51.308(i)(3))

• Has the state provided procedures for continuing consultation with FLMs in the regional haze SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports? (51.308(i)(4))

Development of this progress report has included regional coordination, offering opportunities for consultation with surrounding states. Also, this project has facilitated some opportunities for feedback from FLMs through summary calls and meetings.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-42.2 SECTION 309

Under Section 309 of the RHR, 9 western states and tribes within those states had the option of submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau. Five states, including Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, initially exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010. As used in this document, Section 309 states refer to the states of New Mexic o, Utah

, and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

Section 309 of the RHR specifically requires participating states to submit progress evaluations in 2013 (51.309(d)(10)), as opposed to the more general requirement of 5

- years from initia l SIP approvals, as referenced in Section 308

. Specific regulatory text related to Section 309 progress report requirements is summarized here.

2.2.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements

Section 51.309(d)(10) contains the monitoring and emissions data summary requirements for progress reports for Section 309 states. These requirements address the 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau (Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest Nation al Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands Nati onal Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park). Specific monitoring and emissions summary requirements are listed below, and are addressed in this progress report support document on a regional, state, and CIA ba sis.

• How has visibility changed at the CIAs i n the state in the last 5 years (51.309(d )(3)) ? Specifically listed under this requirement are the following elements:

- What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

- What is the difference between baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

- What is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired an d least impaired days over the past 5 years (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

• For pollutants that affect visibility at CIAs , how have total emissions in the state changed over the past 5 years (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(D))?

2.2.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements

Section 309 of the RH R requires that progress report s include a determin ation of whether the current visibility monitoring strategy and existing implementation plans are sufficient, or if modifications are necessary. Evaluation of current SIPs is not within the scope of this s upport document, but monitoring and emissions data summaries presented here have been designed to help s tates with the ir evaluation of current or proposed implementation plan elements and

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-5strategies. S pecific regulatory requirements relating to Section 309 SIP evaluations are listed below.

• What is the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals (51.309(d)(10)(i)(A))? Note that there are also some specific interim report requirements r eferenced separately in the RHR:

- What is the status of mobile source emissions (51.309(d)(5)(ii))?

- What is the status of progress towards renewable energy goals (51.309(d)(8)(vi))?

• What emission reductions have been achieved through implementation of regional haze SIP measure s (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(B))?

- Note that emissions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period, but a determination of what reductions may be rela ted to implementation of SIP measures will be made by individual states.

• Have there been significant changes in emissions over the past 5 years from within or outside the state that have impeded progress in improving visibility at your states Federal CIAs (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(E) )?

- As noted previously, emissions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current periods , but a determination of whether specific emissions have limited or impeded progress will be made by individual states.

• Is your state’s SIP sufficient to enable your state, and other states with CIAs affected by emissions from your state, to meet their reasonable progress goals (51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)?

- Specifically noted is a requirement to assess whether annual SO 2 emissions milestones have been met (51.309(d)(4)(i)). Note that the WRAP has supported work addressing the SO 2 mileston e requirements for 309 states. These annual

r egional SO 2 e missions and m ilestone reports are l ocated on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx

.

• Based on the s tate’s assessment of the adequacy of the existing monitoring plan, the state is also required to take one of the following actions (51.30 9(d)(10)(ii)):

- Submit a declaration that the plan is adequate and further revisions are not
necessary (51.309 (d)(10)(ii)(A) ); or

- If the implementation plan is determined to be inadequate, the s tate must take steps to develop additional strategies to address the plans deficiencies ((51.30 9(d)(10)(ii)(B), (C) and (D )).

2.3 2064 NATURAL CONDITIONS

The concept of “natural conditions” in regional haze represents the long term goal of improving visual conditions in our national parks and wilderness areas. EPA provided the

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-6concept of a linear, or uniform, rate of reasonable progress between the 2000

- 200 4 baseline period and the nominal natural conditions goal year in 2064. 17 With e ach 10

- year SIP revision The States have the opportunity to further refine natural conditions estimates. Separate from this report, the WRAP has prepared summaries of the progression and current status of natural condition estimates, including the original EPA default estimates 18 and the revised n atural conditions II estimates. 19 Also included in the WRAP report are considerations and recommendations for future natural condition refinements, and some recommended adjustments to regional haze management strategies. 20

As of 2013, the initial SIPs/FIPs have not been approved for all WRAP states, and as such, not all reasonable progress goals have been defined and/or approved at the time this support document was prepared. Through consultation with state representatives, it was determined that this progress report support document would not address state specific reasonable progress goals or natural conditions. Only summaries of the d iffe rence s between baseline and current progress period aerosol measurements and emissions inventories are provided here as the technical basis for use by s tates to determine if they are on track to meet or exceed the ir individual reasonable progress goal s tow ards natural conditions.

2.4 TRIBAL CONSIDERATION S

Under the Tribal Air Rule, Tribal governments may elect to implement air programs in much the same way as States, including development of Tribal implementation p lans (TIPs)

. Also, a s sovereign nations , Indi an tribe s have the right under the Clean Air Act to have the EPA classify their lands as CIAs , but this does not provide for the inclusion of the Tribal CIAs as Federal CIAs mandated for protection under the RHR.

Even if a T ribe does not seek authority to implement an RHR TIP, it may be desirable for

a T ribe to participate in the regional planning efforts to address visibility and to consult with neighboring s tates as they develop their regional haze SIPs. Tri bes, along with states and federal agencies, are full partners in the WRAP, having equal representation on the WRAP Board as
states. Several T ribal nations in the United States have been classified as CIAs , and IMPROVE visibility monitors are located in 4 tribal CIAs in t he WRAP . B ecause these IMPROVE monitors do not represent federally mandated CIAs , summaries for these monitors are not included in this progress report support document.

17 Note that s tates can extend the period of time needed to achieve natural conditions, beyond the nominal 2064 in the RHR, defining and defending new interim amounts of reasonable progress, and adjusting the 2064 end year as needed (see Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and 501.308(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the RHR).
18 Default natural conditions estimates are described in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Estimating Natural Vi sibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 19 See Copeland ’s 2008 Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm , available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/graylit/ 032_NaturalCondIIpaper/Copeland_etal_Natura lConditionsII_Description.pdf

. 20 WRAP’s archived repository of natural conditions information, projects and references is available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aamrf/projects/NCB/index.html

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-73.0 DATA SOURCES

This report includes summaries of monitoring and emissions data designed to support the first regional haze progress reports for the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) member
states. Monitoring data described here includes data collected by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, with the addition of some data substitution and baseline estimates. Emissions data summaries use inventor ies previously developed by the WRAP to represent base line conditions for the initial Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) implementation plans , and a more current inventory that leverages emissions estimates that have been recently collected and enhanced to support modeling work currently in progress by the WRAP. Detail ed descriptions and references for these data sources as used in this report are described in this section. Also described here are recent changes to dynamic data summary tools available from the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) website ( www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ), which has been updated to support development of RHR progress reports.

3.1 IMPROVE MONITORING DATA

Visibility is reduced by the absorption and scattering of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere. Light extinction, or the fraction of light lost due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, can be estimated from measurements of speciated aerosol mass. The IMPROVE Network is a multi

- agency, nation

- wide visibility monitoring network which began in 1988, and expanded significantly in 2000 in support of the EPA’s RHR. Each Federal Class I

area (CIA) is represented by at least one IMPROVE monitor

, as depicted for the WRAP region in Figure 3.1 -1.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-1WRAP Federal CIAs and IMPROVE Sites

Federal CIA

IMPROVE Monitor

Figure 3.1- 1. Map of Federal CIA IMPROVE Monitors in the WRAP Region.

IMPROVE aerosol samplers collect 24

- hour integrated filter samples every third day. Each monitoring location operates four samplers (designated Module A through D) designed to quantify aeroso l species that are related to visibility impairment . The aerosol species collected for regional haze purposes include:

• Ammonium Sulf ate : Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involving sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. Anthropogenic s ources include coal

burning power plants and other industrial sources, such as smelters, industrial boilers, and oil refineries , and to a lesser extent, gasoline and diesel combustion.

• Ammonium Nitrate: Ammonium nitrate is formed in the atmosphere from rea ctions involving nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) emissions , which are dominated by anthropogenic

sources . Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

• Particulate Organic Mass (POM): Particulate organic mass can be emitted directly as particles, or formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Natural sources of organic carbon include wildfires and biogenic emissions. M an

- made sources can

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-2include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources.

• Elemental Carbon (EC): Elemental carbon is the primary light absorbing compound in the atmosphere. These particles are emitted directly into the air from virtually all combustion activities, but are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.

• Fine Soil : Soil , as reported by the IMPROVE Network, refers to fin e soil (less than 2.5 μm in diameter) that enters the air from dirt roads, fields, and other open spaces as a result of wind, traffic, and other surface mechanical disturbance activities.

• Coarse Mass (CM): Coarse mass refers to large particles (larger tha n 2.5 and smaller than 10 μm in diameter), and generally includes similar sources as fine soil, but can also include coarse fraction ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate at some sites. Speciated coarse mass is not routinely analyzed by the IMPROVE N etwork

.

• Sea Salt: Sea salt is a natural aerosol emitted in coastal areas. In practice, chloride ion measurements are used to represent sea salt in IMPROVE measurements, and
measurements may sometimes show anthropogenic or crustal influences at inland monitors.

The se different particle species scatter and absorb light in the atmosphere with different efficiencies. For example, the elemental carbon fraction of particle pollution is about ten times more efficient at absorbing light than the soil fraction is at scat tering light . Some particle species

, including ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, will absorb water as relative humidity increase s , which effectively increases the size and the light scattering efficiencies of these particle s. In addition to aerosol scattering, light extinction due to natural background gases in a clean atmosphere, or Rayleigh scattering, will contribute to total light extinction. Aerosol extinction from each of these species is additive, so the sum of the individual aerosol extinctio n species , plus Rayleigh scattering, represents total extinction

. The IMPROVE program has developed an algorithm for estimating light extinction from speciated aerosol and relative humidity data. The original algorithm, as cited in RHR guid ance, was revis ed in 2005

. 21 IMPROVE data are available from the IMPROVE Network through the Federal Land Manager Database online repository ( http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ ) and are also reported along with data s ummary charts and tables specifically designed to address RHR planning efforts on the WRAP TSS ( www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

Once extinction has been calculated from speciated aerosol mass, i t can be converted to other metrics that describe visibility impairment. Figure 3.1

- 2 presents a comparison of the most commonly used metrics , which are described below :

21 The revised IMPROVE algorithm is de scribed in detail in Hand’s 2006 Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients - Final Report available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-3• Extinction (b ext ) – Extinction is a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length along a sight path due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, expressed in inverse Megameters (Mm -1 ).

• Deciview (d v ) – This is the metric used for tracking regional haze in the RHR. The Haze Index (measured in deciview s) was designed to be linear with respect to human perception of visibility. A one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction, whether visibility is good or poor. A one decivie w change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the average person can detect.

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

Figure 3.1- 2. Comparison of Extinction (Mm -1 ), Deciview (dv) and Visual Range (km) units.

3.1.1 Data Completeness Requirements

As described in Section 2 .0 , progress for the RHR is determined using 5

- year average visibility conditions. EPA’s 2003 Guidance fo r Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule 22 includes data completeness requirements designed to ensure that calculated averages include sufficient data to represent each daily, annual and 5

- year period. EPA’s 2003 Guidance specifies that the 2000 -20 04 baseline period, and each subsequent 5- year average progress period, meet the following conditions:

• Individual samples must contain all species required for the calculation of light extinction ( amm onium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, POM

, EC , soil, coarse mass, and sea salt)

• Calendar seasons must contain at least 50% of all possible daily samples

• Calendar years must contain at least 75% of all possible daily samples

• Calendar years must not contain more than 10 consecutive missing daily samples

• The 5

- year ba seline and each 5

- year progress period averages must contain at least 3 complete years of data

22 Data completeness requirements are listed in Section 2.2 (step 7) of EPA’s September 2003 Gui dance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-4RHR guidance specifies that if a 5

- year period has less than three complete years of data, then estimates should be prepared for the missing data

. 23 In the WRAP states, two data completeness issues were addressed to support progress summaries in document:

• Incomplete Progress Period Data : The 2005

- 2009 progress period did not have complete data available for one site in the WRAP. The SIAN1 site, representing the S ierra Ancha Wilderness Area in Arizona, did not meet RHR data completeness criteria for the years 2006, 2007

, and 2008, which did not leave the 3 complete years required for a 5

- year average. Data substitutions for these years were performed in a manner si milar to that previously performed by the WRAP for incomplete 2000 -2004 baseline years at 10 IMPROVE sites in the WRAP. Detailed methods are summarized in the Arizona state monitoring section (Section 6.2 .1 ).

• Monitor Relocation : For two CIAs, Zion National Park in U tah a nd Haleakala National Park in Hawaii, it was determined that the original IMPROVE monitors sited to represent the parks did not adequately represent the CIAs. New sites were installed to better represent the parks, but be cause these sites were installed later, 2000- 2004 baseline data averages are not available for the new locations. The RHR requires that the state establish baseline values using the most representative monitoring data for 2000 -2004. 24 Detailed methodologies used to approximate baseline averages for these sites are summarized in the Hawaii and Utah monitoring sections (Sections 6.5 and 6.12 , respectively).

All regional and state summaries presented in this report include the SIAN1 substituted data, and basel ine estimates calculated for the ZICA1 and HACR1 sites.

3.1.2 RHR Progress Period Calculation Considerations

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continu es to improve, and that visibility on the 20% least im paired, or best, days does not get worse, as measured in units of deciview s, calculated using data measured at IMPROVE monitoring sites. As described previously, p rogress for this re port is measured for discreet 5- year average increments

, beginning with the 2000

- 20 04 baseline average, and proceeding with the most recently available subsequent 5

- year average (2005-2009). 25 Some of the more subtle, but important, considerations for RHR calculations using IMPROVE data measurements are described below.

23 Section 2.2 (step 7) of the September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule states “If 3 years with complete data are not available, estimates for baseline of current co nditions should be prepared in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (EPA/OAQPS).”
24 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 for 2000

- 2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee.”
25 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 page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-53.1.2.1 Identification of 20% Worst Days

As described in S ection 3.1, visibility impairment is the result of the cumulative effect of several different particle pollutant types. Many of these pollutants have individually consistent seasonal patterns. For example, ammonium nitrate is temperature sensitive, and formation often favored during colder winter months, while ammonium sulfate formation may be favored during warmer summer months. Other pollutants, such as particulate organic mass, may be impacted by large a nd variable episodic events such as wildland fires , which generally occur during the

summer

.

To determine the 5

- year average of the 20% best and worst days, the highest and lowest 20% of days for each complete year are first selected and averaged on an an nual basis, with a 5- year average calculated from these annual averages. The timing for identification of the 20% best and worst days may be significantly influenced by large episodic events (e.g. , wildland fires) which may occur at different time during different years

. As a result, t he identification of

more best or worst days during different seasons of different years may affect the averages for individual species in ways that are independent from actual increases or decreases of individual pollutants from one 5-year period to the next.

As an illustration of the effect of large episodic events on worst day averages, consider daily average aerosol extinction calculated from IMPROVE data at the CHIR1 site in Arizona. Figures 3.1 -3 and 3.1 -4 present daily aerosol extinction measurements for 2002 and 2008 at CHIR1, with the 20% worst days represented by an orange box with an “x” below the day. Similar daily aerosol charts depicting the 20% worst days are included for each Class I area in state specific Appe ndices. For 2002, large wildfire events in June and July contributed to high particulate organic mass ( POM ) measurements, resulting in more worst days selected during this period. In 2008, more of the worst days were selected in August and October.

As an illustration of the seasonal patterns of individual compounds, consider the monthly averages of aerosol extinction calculated from IMPROVE data at the CHIR1 site. Figure 3.1 -5 presents monthly average aerosol pollution for CHIR1 measured during 2002, and Figure 3.1 -6 presents monthly averages in 2008. State specific appendices included with this document present similar monthly average plots for each year at each site. T he seasonal patterns for both years indicated that ammonium sulfate was generally higher between May and July than in October.

Because of the seasonal ammonium sulfate patterns, the identification of more worst days between May and July (e.g. , 2002 at CHIR1 ) will show a higher ammonium sulfate average than a year with mo re worst days in October (e.g. , 2008 at CHIR1 ), even though annual ammonium sulfate levels may not have increased. For this case, Table 3.1

- 1 presents the annual averages of ammonium sulfate for both the 20% worst days and all measured days. For these year s, the annual average of ammonium sulfate extinction for all measured days decreases, while the 20% worst day average actually increased.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-6Figure 3.1- 3. Daily Aerosol Extinction measured by the Chiricahua CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor during 2002.

Figure 3.1- 4. Daily Aerosol Extinction measured by the Chiricahua CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor during 2008.

Figure 3.1-5. Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction measured by the CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor in 2002.

Figure 3.1-6. Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction measured by the CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor in 2008.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-7Table 3.1-1 CHIR IMPROVE Site Comparison of Ammonium Sulfate Average All Days and 20% Worst Days

Year All Days Amm. Sulfate Average (Mm -1 ) 20% Worst Days Amm. Sulfate Average (Mm -1 )

2002 5.3 7.8

2008 4.9 9.0

Difference -0.4 Mm -1 +2.2 Mm -1

3.1.2.2 Discreet 5 -Y ear Averages vs. Trends

The 2003 RHR Guidance prescribes that progress be measured using discreet 5

- year average increments

, 26 but states that determining trends for all the individual species that contribute to haze is especially helpful in tracking progress. Individual high or low years can affect the 5- year averages, while trend statistics are more resistant to extreme events and may better represent the effects of emissions controls

. 27 For this reason, looking at annual trends in addition to the differences between 5

- year averages can also be instructive in determining the long term behavior of pollutant measurements

.

Generall y, the 10

- year trends are consistent with the 5

- year average differences, but in

some cases annual trends and differences between 5

- year averages may show different characteristics. Trends for annual averages of each species at each site are presented in t his report as calculated using Kendall

- Theil statistics, which are often used in environmental applications because these statistics are resistant to outliers. 28 Figure 3.1-7 shows an example of an increase in the 5- year average deciview metric for ammonium sulfate measured on the 20% most impaired days at the Salt Creek Wilderness Area ( SACR 1) IMPROVE site ( 16.7 Mm -1 to 1 8.9 Mm -1 ), but a decreasing annual deciview trend (-0.5 Mm -1 /year). The increase in the 5

- year average was driven by uncharacteristically high average ammonium sulfate measured in 2005

. For all sites included in this report, both 5

- year average differences and trends is reported, and any differing characteristic s are noted and described.

26 As noted previously, 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 page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document).
27 Section 4.7 of EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule states that “In the long

- term, tracking trends of species contributions to haze provides information that can be useful in determining whether implemented emissions controls are having the expected effects.”
28 Trend statistics used in this report 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 )

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-8Figure 3.1-7. Annua l Averages, Period Averages and Trend Statistics for Ammonium Sulfate Measured at the S ACR 1 IMPROVE Site in New Mexico

.

3.1.2.3 Averaging Considerations for Deciview Calculations

The RHR haze index , as defined using deciviews (dv) , does not provide information regarding the relative contributions of individual species to overall visibility. The deciview metric for extinction is logarithmically related to total extinction (b ext ), e.g. dv =10ln(b ext /10), where b ext is the sum of extinction as calculated from individual species mass measurements

. Looking at individual species extinction is necessary for RHR considerations because each species that contribute s to regional haze can have different sources and control op tions. For example, some species (e.g. sulfate and nitrate species) originate from largely anthropogenic sources, while others (e.g. organic species) from a mixture of both anthropogenic and natural

sources. Because of the logarithmic nature of deciviews, it is not possible to separate this metric into individual species, so a representation of total extinction in units of inverse megameters (Mm -1 ) is useful.

EPA’s Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule ( EPA 2003) specifies that the 5

- year average deciview value is calculated as an average of annual values, which are in turn calculated as averages of daily values

. 29 In most cases, an increase/decrease in the deciview metric corresponds to an increase/decrease in total extinction . In some cases, because the 5

- year deciview value is effectively the average of logarithmic values, the average deciviews may change in a different direction than the average of total extinction . As an

29 Calculation of the 5

- year average deciview metric is described in Section 4.3 of EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-9example, consider the following extinction measurements presen ted in Table 3. 1- 1 for a contrived dataset of 2 days for each of 2 periods. The table shows both daily and period average extinction, and corresponding deciview calculations. Note that the average total extinction decreases (70 to 55 Mm -1 ), while the average deciview value increases (15.9 to 17.0 dv).

Table 3.1-1 Example Calculation Decreasing b ext Averages With Increasing deciview Averages

Averaging Periods Extinction (Mm -1 ) Deciviews (dv) 10×ln(b ext /10)

Period 1 Day 1 20 6.9 Day 2 120 24.8 Period 1 Average 70 15.9

Period 2 Day 1 50 16.1 Day 2 60 17.9 Period 2 Average 55 17.0 Difference

- 15 Mm - 1 +1.1 dv

For comparisons between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 progress period, decreasing 5

- year average deciview metrics, but increasing extinction for the 20% most impaired

, or worst
, days was observed at 9 WRAP Federal CIA sites, and slightly increasing deciview associated with decreasing average extinction was observed at 1 site , as listed in Table 3. 1-2.

Table 3.1-2 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days Total Extinction and D eciview Average Differences

State Site Extinction (Mm -1 ) Deciviews (dv)

Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Difference Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Difference

AZ SYCA1 47.2 47.4 + 0.2 15.3 15.2

- 0.1

CA DOME1 71.7 76.7 +5 .0 19.4 19.2

- 0.2
PINN1 65.1 65.7 + 0.6 18.5 18.4

- 0.1
TRIN1 68.0 91.8 + 23.8 17.3 17.3 0.0

OR CRLA1 47.9 47.7

- 0.2 13.7 13.8 + 0.1
HECA1 69.1 71.9 + 2.8 18.6 18.1

- 0.5

MT GAMO1 31.8 32.9 + 1.1 11.3 11.2

- 0.1
WA WHPA1 37.1 37.9 + 0.8 12.8 12.7

- 0.1

WY BRID1 31.6 31.7 + 0.1 11.1 10.7

- 0.4
YELL2 34.5 36.1 + 1.6 11.8 11.5

- 0.3

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 103.2 EMISSIONS INVENTORIE S

To demonstrate RHR progress, s tates are required to report how total emissions in the state have changed over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(4)), and to determine if there have been significant changes in emissions from the state or from other state s affecting visibility at each Federal C IA which has impeded progress in improving visibility (51.308(g)(5)). Comparisons between emissions inventories in this report use the inventories that represent both baseline and
current c onditions . Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using t he 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represent emissions for the initial implementation plans. Current emissions are represented here by leveraging recent work by the WRAP to develop an updated and comprehensive inventory for the year 2008 for use in modeling projects. For non

- contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii), alternate inventories representing the progress periods were obtained in consultation with the states.

Emissions inventories in this report were compli cated by the fact that a number of changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the baseline and current period inventories, such that many of the differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rat her that changes in actual emissions. Differences in emissions are presented for all categories in this report, but summaries focus on aspects of source categories that have been more consistently inventoried over time, while noting any changes in methodol ogies that may affect differences in other categories. Detailed references regarding emissions inventories are presented in this section.

3.2.1 Inventory Descriptions

Emissions related to the different particle species that affect regional haze are varied and complex, including a number of both anthropogenic and natural source possibilities. Emissions estimates vary by source category according to the different characteristics and attributes of each category, and how the emissions are modeled. A number of anthropogenic, or man

- made, sources such as motor vehicles and electric generating units (EGUs) are reported by states and may be subject to controls. Natural emissions, such as fires, biogenic emissions and some categories of dust can have large regional haze impacts, but are not subject to control strategies. Source categories for both anthropogenic and natural sources are listed and described briefly below , followed by information related to inventory development and comparisons for the contiguous states, Alaska, and Hawaii.

• Point Sources: These are sources that are identified by point locations, typically because they are regulated and their locations are available in regulatory reports. In addition, elevated point sources will have their emissions allocated vertically through the model layers, as opposed to being emitted into only the first model layer. Point sources can be further subdivided into EGU sources and non

- EGU sources, particularly in criteria inventories in which EGUs are a primary source of NO X and SO 2 . Examples of non

- EGU poi nt sources include chemical manufacturers and furniture refinishers.

• Area Sources: Sources that are treated as being spread over a spatial extent (usually a county or air district) and that are not movable (as compared to non

- road mobile and

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 11on- road mobile sources). Because it is not possible to collect the emissions at each point of emission, they are estimated over larger regions. Examples of stationary area sources are residential heating and architectural coatings. Numerous sources, such as dry cleaning facilities, may be treated either as stationary area sources or as point

sources.

• On -Road Mobile Sources: These include v ehicular sources that travel on roa dways. Emissions from these sources can be computed either as being spread over a spatial
extent or as being assigned to a line location (called a link). Emissions are estimated as the product of emis sions factors and activity data, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) . Examples of on

- road mobile sources include light

- duty gasoline vehicles and heavy-du ty diesel vehicles.

• Off -Road Mobile Sources: Off

- road mobile sources are vehicles and engine s that

encom pass a wide variety of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Examples include agricultural equipment such as tractors or combines, aircraft , locomotives and oil field equipment such as mechanical drilling engines. Emissions from marine vessels are included here separately as offshore emissions.

• Off -shore: Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and uses. Emissions can be estimated for deep draft vessels within shore and near port using port call data, and offshore emissions generated from ship location data.

• Oil and Gas Sources: Oil and gas sources consist of a number of different types of activities from engine sources for drill rigs and compressor engines, to sources such as condensate tanks and fugitive gas emissions. The variety of emissions types for sources specific to oil and gas activity can, in some cases, overlap with mobile, area or point sources, but these can also be extracted and treated separately.

• Biogenic Emissions: Biogenic emissions are based on the activity fluxes modeled from b iogenic land use data, which characterize s the types of veget ation that exist in particular areas. Emissions are generally derived using modeled estimates of biogenic
gas- phase pollutants from land use information, emissions factors for different plant species, and meteorology data.

• Dust: Dust emissions may have a v ariety of sources that could include anthropogenic sources, natural sources, and natural sources that may be influenced by anthropogenic activity. In order to better distinguish between the natural and anthropogenic sources, the WRAP undertook a Definitions of Dust project , with a final report available here: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/documents/defdust/index.html . For emissions summary purposes, dust is classified here as fugitive dust and windblown dust. Fugitive dust includes sources such as road dust, agricultural operations, construction and mining operations and windblown dust from vacant lands. The w indblown dust category includes more of the natural influences such as wind erosion on natural lands.

• Fire: Fire sources are difficult to predict and control, and may have a mix of natural and anthropogenic influences. Natural sources include wildland fires, while anthropogenic sources can include ag ricultural and prescribed fires. In order to better

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 12distinguish between natural and anthropogenic fires, the WRAP has created an operational policy level definition of fire activity as discretely natural or anthropogenic, which included allowing certain types of prescribed fires to be treated as natural. 30

3.2.1.1 Contiguous WRAP States

As noted previously, baseline and current period emissions are summarized here using two discreet years, where one year is used to represent baseline emissions, and other is used to represent the cur rent progress period. For contiguous states, the baseline period inventories summarized here for comparison to current conditions is the 2002 inventory that was developed for WRAP states in support of the original SIPs, termed “plan02d ” (or “plan02c” in Ca lifornia). Development of the plan02 inventor ies w ere a cooperative effort sponsored by the WRAP in
coop eration with WRAP states. This effort built upon 2002 emissions reported by states , and included work with contractors and WRAP workgroups, in consultat ion with states, to enhance specific categories (e.g.

, point, area, on - and off

- road mobile, oil and gas, fire, and dust) to better characterize regional haze implications. Detailed d escriptions of inventory development are available from the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx ).

The WRAP has continued to support emissions data tracking and related technical analyses focu sed on understanding current and evolving regional air quality issues in the w es tern states . M ethods for estimating emissions of many of the source categories that affect regional haze have continued to evolve and be refined over time. This is especially true for inventories of natural emissions categories including windblown dust and biogenic emissions, and also for rapidly evolving industries such as oil and gas exploration. To represent current conditions, this progress report support document leverages 2008 emissions data inventories which have been recently developed as part of the WRAP’s West

- wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJump AQMS ) and Deterministic and Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO 3 ) study, which are de scribed briefly below:

• The WestJumpAQMS project ( http://wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx ) sponsored by the WRAP includes coordination and harmonization with the EPA 2008 National Emissions Inventory (2008 NEI v2). Among other goals, this project is intended to provide technical updates and improvements for multiple air quality issues, including regional haze, ozone, particulate pollution and nitrogen deposition.

• The DEASCO 3 study ( http://www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm ) is a project sponsored by the Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSP) that looks at impact of weather and fires on ozone formation. This project has included the development of a detailed and comprehensive 2008 fire emissions inventory, which will eventually be incorporated into the WestJumpAQMS project.

30 The WRAP Policy for characterizing fire emissions is available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/nbtt/firepolicy.pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 13Because these inventories have been refined over time, there is not necessarily continuity between the 2002 and 2008 inventories, which affec ts data comparisons for particular source categories. Detailed references and major methodology differences for the emissions inventories compared here are summarized in Table 3.2

- 1. In addition to comparing baseline and progress period inventories, region al and state summary sections in this report include annual average s tracking changes in regional and state totals for SO 2 and NO X emissions for EGU as tracked in the EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ).

T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Point Sources Most WRAP states used the Plan02d point source inventories, while California used the Plan02c inventory for the ir initial SIP

.

These i nventories were generated using hourly EPA CAMD CEM data for EGUs. Other point were developed in consultati on with states by the ERG contractor.

Note that t he WRAP also generated point source inventories for both actual reported 2002 (Base02b) EGU and all other point source data, and for a 2000

- 2004 average of EGU point sources (Plan02 c and Plan02 d). Plan02 emissions are summarize d in this report because they are consistent with what was reported as baseline conditions for most initial WRAP region SIPs. The WRAP WestJump 2008 inventories were generated using hourly EPA CAMD CEM data for EGUs. Other
po int sources are from the 2008 NEI v2

.
Note that p oint source oil and gas inventories were inventoried separately for WestJump08, but included in the point source totals here for comparisons with 2002 inventories. Because point source definitions vary by state , any changes or additions for an individual state will affect comparisons of 2002 and 2008

.

N ote that baseline conditions presented here represent a 5

- year average for EGUs, while progress period conditions are represented with 2008 data.

In additi on to inventory changes for these two years

, y ear

- to

- year variations are also presented separately for Title V Major Sources on a regional and state basis. 33

31 Detailed inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP Base02b, plan02c and plan02d inventories are available on the WRAP TSS website http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx and archived on the original WRAP website http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

. 32 Detailed inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP WestJump08 inventory are available on the WRAP project page http://wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx

. 33 Annual EGU emissions for each state were obtained from EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 14T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Area Sources Most WRAP states used the Plan02d point source inventories, while California used th e Plan02c inventory for their initial SIP.

These inventories were developed by the ERG
contractor in consultation with
states

. The WRAP WestJump 2008 used state reported area source inventories from the 2008 NEI v2

. 34

Note that, beginning in 2008, some source categories such as Class I and II commercial marine vessels, Class III vessels on in

- land waterways and in

- transit locomotive emissions, were defined as area sources (moved from off

road inventory). To reflect these changes, EPA now refers
to t he area source category as the “non

- point” emissions. Note that area oil and gas sources are reported separately in this report

.

Area source estimates represent broad areas, and include calculations which are, in part, based on population estimates and activity data. Because of this, changes in are source definitions and changes in calculation methods (which can be different from state to state and year to year), as well

as changes in inputs such as population can affect differences between these inventories.

One important example of methodology differences is the addition of some sources previously considered “off

road” into the area (also referenced as non

- point) source category.

34 EPA’s 2008 NEI inventory estimates are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2 008inventory.html

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 15T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Area Oil and Gas These inventories were developed for specific oil and gas basins using WRAP Phase II emissions methodologies

. 35 Where WRAP Phase II emissions were not available, area source oil and gas emissions as reported by the state were used. Phase II

e missions process estimated for 2002 included :

• Drill Rigs

• Wellhead Compressor

Engines

• CBM Pump Engines

• Heaters

• Pneumatic Devices

• Condensate and oil tanks

• Dehydrators

• Completion Venting These inventories were developed for specific oil and gas basins using WRAP Phase II I emissions methodologies

. Where WRAP Phase III emissions were not available, area source oil and gas emissions as reported by the state were used. Phase II I

e missions process estimated for 2008 included :

These inventories us ed 2008 production data , which was updated with State

- reported data in so me cases. The following additional categories were included in addition to those listed for 2002:

• Lateral compressor engines

• Workover rigs

• Salt

- water disposal engines

• Artificial lift engines

• Vapor recovery units

(VRUs)

• Miscellaneous or exempt

engines

• Fla ring

• Fugitive emissions

• Well blowdowns

• Truck loading

• Amine units (and gas

removal)

• Water tanks Oil and gas development is a rapidly evolving industry, and significant efforts to better characterize emissions have occurred between development of the 2002 and 2008 inventories. In addition to expanded development, some notable emission inventory difference include:

• R egulatory changes specific

to each state may have required more sources to be reported in 2008 than were
repor ted in 2002.

• N ew and/or revised

estimation methodologies

, especially for VOC emissions rates, were used for more source categories in Phase III

.

• P hase III estimates included

surveys which provided detailed information about specific sources (e.g. counts by device type such as low

bleed vs. high

- bleed) among other improvements to activity data. These s ources included small area source equipment typically not inventories by the states. Phase II did not have that information available, since no surveys were made in Phase II.

• Phase III used the high

quality and complete IHS commercial database of O&G production data by well by basin. For Phase II, the state O&G Commission databases , which have been improved quite a bit over time, were used.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 16T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

On

- Road Mobile The 2002 inventory for most WRAP state s used the EPA MOBILE6 model as applied by ENVIRON using inputs from states.

California provided emissions separately using the ir EMFAC2002 model. The 2008 on

- road mobile inventory used the EPA MOVES2010 model applied to state inputs in inventory mode

.

The California EMFAC2011 data were downloaded in 2012 from the California ARB website. Differences in models contribute to some differences in emissions reported, but other differences are due to a combination of VMT differences and new controls on vehicles.

Off

- Road Mobile The 2002 inventory for most WRAP states used the draft NONROAD2004 model as applied by E NVIRON using inputs from states.

Californi a provided emissions separately

. The 2008 o ff

- road mobile inventory was obtained from the NE I v2.0 using the NONROAD model estimates within the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM)

. Note that, beginning in 2008, some source categories were removed from the off

- road mobile category to the area/non

- point category. These emissions included Class I and II commercial marine vessels, Class III vessels on in

- land waterways and in

- transit locomotive emissions.

Cali fornia supplied non

- road emissions calculations using a California state

- specific off

road model. The off

- road models include both emission factors and default county

- level population and activity data.

One important methodology change was the re

classification of some sources previously labeled off

- road as

non

- point (area) sources in 2008.

35 Additional P hase II oil and gas inventory descriptions are archived on the original WRAP website http://www.wrapair.org/ forums/ogwg/documents/2007

- 10_Phase_II_O&G_Final)Report(v10

- 07%20rev.s).pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 17T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Offshore For the baseline inventories

, o ff

- Shore emissions were treated as a region rather than a source category

. For the 2008 inventories,

s pecific SCCs d o not distinguish between regions (e.g. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf), so these are presented as

a sum of all offshore emissions. Note that while offshore emissions are available from both datasets, comparisons are not presented in this report. These emiss ions were not comparable, as b aseline emissions were presented as a region, and not explicitly associated with any of the

co astal states for summaries here, and progress period summaries totaled all offshore emissions for the US (e.g. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf )

Fugitive Dust and Road Dust The WRAP 2002 inventory by ENVIRON began with inputs from states.

For 2002, note that v egetative scavenging factors were applied pre

- processing at the county level , as opposed to grid

- level for 2008 data. These emissions were

e xtracted from state reported area source emissions for 2008 (NEI08v2).

For the NEI08v2 inventories

, the State of California notes that they have changed the way they calcu late and report paved road dust.

For 2008, n ote that v egetative scavenging factors were applied post

- processing at a higher resolution grid cell level

, as compared to 2002 data. Note that fugitive dust and road dust categories were available separately in the WRAP P lan02d inventories, but are combined for s u mmary purposes here. For the 2008 inventory, vegetative scavenging factors were applied to the combined sources; thus these source categories were not easily separated.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 18T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Windblown Dust Generated using WRAP Windblown Dust Model and 2002 MM5 meteorology , a t 36km grid cell resolution.

Vegetative scavenging factors

were applied pre

- processing at the county level

. Generated using WRAP Windblown Dust Model and 2008 WRF meteorology , at 4km and 12km grid cell resolution for the WRAP region.

Vegetative scavenging factors applied post

- processing at the grid cell level

. Significant updates to enhance the accuracy of the WRAP Windblown Dust Model will affect comparisons between the 2002 and 2008 inventories. Specific d ifferences between the inventories include :

• Dif ferent meteorological models; MM5 (2002) vs. WRF (2008) met models

• Higher resolution of grid

cells in 2008 , which led to higher average wind speed s in individual cells, and increased windblown dust emissions aggregated at the county level.

• MM5 Layer 1 used 36 meter

height winds vs. WRF average winds across lowest 3 layers spanning ~40 meter height.

• An e rror in 2002 WBD

model was corrected where rainfall in c entimeters was treated as inches. Biogenic The 2002 biogenic inventory used the BEIS3.12 model with BELD3 landuse and 2002 MM5 meteorology data, at 36km grid cell resolution

. The 2008 biogenic inventory used the MEGAN2.10 with 2008 WRF meteorology data, at 4 and 12 km grid cell resolution

. Significant model changes designed to enhance the accuracy of the biogenic emissions estimates will affect comparisons between the 2002 and 2008 inventories. Specific differences between the BEIS3.12 and MEGAN2.10 model outputs include:

• Different meteorol ogical

years and models (2002 MM5 vs. 2008 WRF).

• Higher temporal and spa t ial

variability of land cover and other environmental input factors.

• Improved emissions factors

based on better sources of data (e.g.

, satellites and field studies).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 19T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Fires (Natural and Anthro

pogenic) Baseline estimates used the WRAP Phase III fire inventory , which represent a 2000

- 2004 5

- year average of fire activity. Inventories include d both anthropogenic and natural emissions. 2008 e stimates use DEASCO 3 fire summaries

, which account for fires in 2008, and include separate reporting of anthropogenic and natural fires. 36 Baseline conditions are represented with a 5

- year average of fire, while progress period conditions are represented with 2008 data.

Comparisons between these inventories are complicated by the variable and sporadic nature of wildfires. Also, differen ces between methodologies will affect comparisons of inventories used for 2002 and 2008 estimates.

36 Additional details regarding fire inventory descriptions for development of the DEASCO 3 inventory are available on the WRAP project page at http://www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 203.2.1.2 Alaska

Current emissions summaries for the contiguous states use inventories developed for modeling purposes, but the States of Alaska (and Hawaii) were not included in the modeling effort, so these current year inventories were not available. Baseline conditions were represented with data originally used to represent baseline emissions in the initial Alaska implementation plan . For current progress period summaries

, inventories were assembled through consultation with the Alaska Department of Environmental Contro l (DEC). Table 3.2

- 2 presents data references for source categories used to represent emissions in Alaska.

Table 3.2-2 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Alaska

Source Categories 2002 Inventory 2008 Inventory

Point WRAP 2002 point source i nventory 37 Provided by Alaska DEC

Area 2002 emissions from the Alaska DEC “Big 3” 38 Criteria Inventories and
2005 emission from the Alaska DEC Rural Inventory 39 2008 WestJump 40

On

- Road and
Off

- Road Mobile
NEI2008v3 41 Aviation WRAP 2002 Aviation Report 42

Commercial Marine Pechan Report 43

Fire WRAP 2003 Phase III Inventory 44 Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Incident Support Website 45

3.2.1.3 Hawaii

Current emissions summaries for the contiguous states use inventories developed for modeling purposes, but the States of Hawaii (and Alaska) were not included in the modeling

37 The WRAP 2002 point source inventory is available from http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

. 38 Alaska “Big 3” inventories include Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks.
39 Alaska “rural” inventories refers to remaining boroughs and census areas outside of Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks. The 2005 Alaska rural inventory is available at http://www.epa.gov/re gion10/pdf/tribal/wrap_alaska_communities_final_report.pdf

. 40 WRAP 2008 WestJump inventories are available on the WRAP project page http:// www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm
41 EPA’s 2008 NEI inventory estimates are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html . Note that only lead (Pb) emissions totals were available from the NEI2008v3 data set, so 2008 emissions are not included from this source for comparison purposes.
42 Avia tion inventories are available from the 2005 WRAP report, Alaska Aviation Emissions Inventory Report

, developed by Sierra Research, available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ef/inventories/akai/

. 43 Commercial marine inventories are available from the 2005 Pechan report, Commercial marine inventories for select Alaskan ports : final report

. 44 The WRAP Phase III fire inventory is available at http://wrapair.org/forums/fejf/tasks/FEJFtask7Phase3

- 4.html

. 45 Alaska wildland fire data are available from the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Incident support website at http://fire.ak.blm.gov/administration/awfcg_committees.php

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 21effort, so these current year inventories were not available. Baseline conditions were represented the data that were used to represent baseline emissions in the initial Hawaii implementation plan. For current progress period summaries, alternate inventories were obtained through consultation with Hawaii Department of Health (DOH).

Fo r Hawaii, summaries for the baseline period are represented with a 2005 inventory, and the current progress period is represented with a 2008 inventory. The year 2005 was selected, with EPA approval, as the baseline inventory because it was the most complete inventory available at the time technical work commenced. Categories summarized for Hawaii are listed below:

• Point

• Area

• On -road Mobile

• Off -road Mobile

• Marine

• Fire

• Biogenic

• Volcano

• Sea Spray

• Wind Blown Dust

Data summaries for both 2005 and 2008 presented in this report were obtained from the Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii , developed by EPA Region 9

, 46 ex cept for

a rea source SO 2 inventories, which were provided separately by the Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Air Branch (HIDOCAB). The EPA inventories were largely compiled by ENVIRON under direction from DOH. Hawaii DOH further refined the mobile inventories in conjunction with ICF International to incorporate the latest release of the MOVES model.

46 The May 2012 Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii developed by the EPA Region 9 Air Quality Division is available at www.epa.gov/ region 9/air/actions/pdf/hi/hi

- haze

- tsd.pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 223.3 THE WRAP TSS

The WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ) is a n online, dynamic tool designed to provide a single portal to technical data and analytical results coordinated by the WRAP. The data, results, and methods displayed on the TSS are intended to support the air quality planning needs of western state and tribes, and were designed to be maintained and updated to support the development of RHR SIPs, progress reports, and other

w estern air quality analysis and management needs. The TSS has recently been updated to support the first RHR progress reports, providin g access, visualization, analysis, and retrieval of technical data and regional analytical results that complement the RHR progress analysis provided in this report.

The TSS integrates a number of different information resources and incorporates applicabl e data sets, analysis results, and documentation under one web

- based umbrella. Full documentation, including tutorials and detailed descriptions of TSS tools are available directly from the website. Figure 3.3

- 1 shows the interactive menu options available from the “Haze Planning” section on the TSS, where each of these selection option interfaces with a variety of summary options. This section briefly describes some of these summary options that have been updated to support the development of RHR progress reports for western states.

Figure 3.3- 1. The WRAP TSS Summary Tools Interface.

3.3.1 Data Updates

IMPROVE data were updated through 2011, using IMPROVE data downloaded from the FED 47 database, and emissions data were updated with county and state level emi ssion from the W est J umpAQMS 2008 inventory. 48 In addition to data updates, some of the averaging conventions were changed on the TSS, which affected some of the data summaries that may have previously been obtained from the TSS for initial SIP development. Specifically, the TSS originally reported data first rounded to 2 decimals, which were then rounded to 1 decimal. In this update, changes were made to round directly from full decimal resolution to 1 decimal.

47 IMPROVE data are available from the IMPROVE Network through the Federal Land Manager Database online repository ( http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ )
48 See Emissions Inventory descriptions in Section 3.2.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 23While this was a small change, it did have the effect of changing the reported deciview average for the 2000

- 2004 progress period at a few sites by no more than 0.1 dv , which is much less than the 1 deciview change which is considered perceptible to the human eye. Figure 3.3

- 1 below presents a list of sites where the 5

- year 2000

- 2004 deciview average has changed since originally published for use in initial SIPs, as reported by the TSS.

Table 3.3-1 Changes in TSS Reported Deciview Averages 2000-2004 Baseline Period

State Class I area(s) Site Group Deciview Average 2000

- 2004 Baseline Period

Extended Decimal Resolution Previous Rounding Convention Current Rounding Convention

AZ Mount Baldy WA BALD1 Worst 11.847 11.85→11.9 11.8

Mazatzal WA Pine Mountain WA IKBA1 Worst 13.345 13.35→12.5 12.4

CA Lassen Volcanic NP
Thousand Lakes WA Caribou WA LAVO1 Worst 14.146 14.15→14.2 14.1

Marble Mountain WA Yolla

- Bolly

- Middle

- Eel WA TRIN1 Worst 17.349 17.35→17.4 17.3

HI Haleakala NP HALE1 Best 4.547 4.55→4.6 4.5

MT U L Bend WA ULBE1 Best 4.749 4.75→4.8 4.7

NM Guadalupe Mountains NP Carlsbad Caverns NP GUMO1 Best 5.945 5.95→6.0 5.9

UT Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1 Worst 11.649 11.65→11.7 11.6

Arches NP Canyonlands NP CANY1 Best 3.746 3.75→3.8 3.7

3.3.2 Class I Area Summary Table

The Class I Area Summary Table calculates metrics to support regional haze analysis by species, total light extinction, and deciview, and presents a tabular display of associated values. To support progress reports, a new selection option, “Table Type: Reasonable Progress”, was added as the default summary option

. Original table summary options developed to support the initial RHR SIPS are available under “Table Type: Baseline to 2018 Projections”.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 24The new Reasonable Progress Table presents monitoring data averages for each measured species extinction value, for total extinction and for deciview extinction. Periods represented include the 2000

- 2004 baseline period, the 2005

- 2009 next successive 5

- year period, and the 2006

- 2010 and 2007

- 2011 rolling period averages. Table 3.2

- 2 presents an example Table for Rocky Mountain National Park (the ROMO1 IMPROVE monitor) in Colorado.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 25Table 3.3-1 WRAP Technical Support System Product Example of a Class I Area Summary Table

3.3.3 Monitoring

For the “Monitoring” summary option, IMPROVE data were updated through 2011, and options were added to represent current 5

- year averages. From the “Monitoring” options, two types of plots are available; “Time Series” plots and “Glide Slope” plots. For the “Time Series” plots, 5

- year periods were added to the “averaging” option. The tool enables a comparison of either the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 most recent successive 5

- year period, or the 2000

- 2004 period and the most recently available 2007

- 2011 5

- year period. Options are available to display deciview averages, or any combination of species extinction and mass. Figure 3.3

- 2 presents an example display of 5

- year period averages for the Rocky Mountain National Park ROMO1 site. The “Show Data” link below the display provides the data shown in the display in a table (this functionality is available on all TSS tools).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 26Figure 3.3- 2. Example TSS Comparison of 2000-2004 and 2005-2009 period averages for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

For the “Glide Slope” plots, options were added to display 5

- year period averages for both “successive” and “rolling” period average. As noted in Section 2.0, EPA’s September 2003 guidance specifies that p rogress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, et cetera

, 49 but EPA’s more recent guidance principals, released in April 2013, suggest that progress be tracked using rolling 5

- year period averages. This support document assessed change using the successive periods, but rolling period averages have been made available through the TSS. Options are available to display either successive or rolling averages, with or without 2064 Natural Conditions estimates, for deciview averages and any combination of species extinction. Figure 3.3

- 3 presents an example of successive 5

- year period averages, plotted along with annual averages, for the Rocky Mountain National Park ROMO1 site, and Figure 3.3

- 4 presents an example of rolling period averages.

49 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. ( http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf )

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 27Figure 3.3- 3. Example TSS Plot of 5 -Year Successive Averages, Showing the 2000-2004 Baseline Average and 2005 -2009 Period Averages for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

Figure 3.3- 4. Example TSS Plot of 5 -Year Rolling Averages, Showing the 2000-2004 Baseline Average and Rolling Averages Beginning With 2001-2005 through 2007-2011, for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

3.4 EMISSIONS SUMMARY TO OLS

For the “Emissions” summary option, the WestJumpAQMS 2008 emissions dataset was added . For display purposes, source categories were aligned with those used in the baseline planning period and display options were added for the 2008 data, including side -by- side comparisons of 2008 an d 2002 data under the “Emissions Review Tool” link. O nly state level summaries have been presented in this report, but county level summaries are available through the TSS. Figure 3.3

- 5 presents an example of a side -by- side comparison of 2002 and 2008 emis sions for counties in Arizona. Note that these summaries are not available from the TSS for Alaska and Hawaii.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 28Figure 3.3- 4. Example TSS Plot Showing Side-by-Side Comparisons of 2002 and 2008 Emission Inventories for Counties in Arizona.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 29