San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan 2012 PM2.5 Plan

SJVUAPCD 

# Appendix A

Ambient PM2.5 Data AnalysisSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

### Contents

A.1 PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

— MEASUREMENT AND INFLUENCES

............... A

- 1

A.1.1 PM2.5 Monitor Types

................................ ................................ .............. A

- 2

A. 1.2 Meteorological Influences on PM2.5 Concentrations

.............................. A

- 2

A.1.3 Exceptional Events Influences on PM2.5 Concentrations

....................... A

- 5

A.1.3.1 PM2.5 Exceptional Event Documentation Submitted to EPA

..... A

- 5

A.1.3.2 High

- Wind Events Effects on PM2.5 Data

................................ .. A

- 7

A.2 ATTAINME NT DEMONSTRATION

— DESIGN VALUES

................................ .... A

- 8

A.3 AMBIENT PM2.5 CONCENTRATION DATA TRENDS

................................ .... A

- 17

A.3.1 Days Over the 24

- Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

................................ ................ A

- 17

A.3.2 Seasonal Trends

— First

- and Fourth

- Quarter Averages

....................... A

- 19

A.3.3 Annual Trends of Diurnal PM2.5 Concentration Profiles

....................... A

- 28

A.3.4 PM2.5 Driven Air Quality Index Analysis

................................ ............... A

- 33

A.3.5 PM2.5 Concentration Frequency Distributions

................................ ...... A

- 38

A.3.6 PM2.5 Concentration Distributions

................................ ....................... A

- 41

A.3.7 PM2.5 Concentration by Day of Week

................................ .................. A

- 46

A.4 METEOROLOGY, PM2.5 SPECIATION, AND RULE EFFECTIVENESS

........ A

- 49

A.4.1 Meteorologically Adjusted Trends

................................ ......................... A

- 49

A.4.2 Trends in PM2.5 Species

................................ ................................ ...... A

- 51

A.4.3 Effectiveness of District Rule 4901

................................ ....................... A

- 55San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 1 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

### Appendix A : Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

The concentration of ambient PM2.5 at any given location in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is a function of meteorology, the natural environment, atmospheric chemistry, and PM2.5 emissions from regulated and unregulated sources. The San Joaquin Valley

Air Pollution Control District ( District )

, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) , and other agencies 1 monitor PM2.5 concentrations throughout the Valley, as detailed in the 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan

, 2 using filter

- based monitoring (starting in 1999) and

real

- time concentration monitoring (starting in 2002). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the official repository of ambient PM2.5 data and analysis. 3

The District uses the collected data to show air quality improvement through the standardized design value calculations , using EPA protocols to document basin

- wide improvement and attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As shown in this appendix, the design value data show steady, long

- term air quality imp rovement that will lead to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

The District also uses the data to evaluate the impact of changing daily, quarterly, and annual PM2.5 concentrations on public health. These trend analyses provide the

D istrict with crit ical information about how to develop control measures and incentive programs that provide the most impact to public health improvements.

This appendix provides the technical details used to evaluate and analyze the District’s

PM2.5 concentration data as summarized in Chapters 3 and 4 of the 201 2 PM2.5 Plan

. It also shows the multiple factors that affect ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the Valley (e.g. meteorology, exceptional events) and the evidence for air quality improvement through District regulatory actions, including the District ’s highly successful Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters).

A.1 PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

— MEASUREMENT AND INFLUENCES

The District

, ARB , and other agencies manage an extensive air monitoring network throughout the Valley. The information obtained from the PM2.5 monitors within this network provide the District with necessary information for demonstrating attainment of
the NAAQS and valuable i nformation for protecting public health throughout the year. The monitoring network captures the spa t i a l, seasonal, daily, weekly, and annual

variations in PM2.5 concentration s throughout the Valley that result from changing meteorology, the occurrence of exceptional events (e.g. high winds and wild fires), and PM2.5 emissions from regulated and unregulated sources.

1 Other agencies include the Tachi Yokut Tribe and the National Park Service.

2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD]. (2011). 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan. Fresno, CA:
June 30, 2011 submittal to EPA. Available at http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/Docs/2011/1_2011AirMonitoringNetworkPlanandAppendixA_Final2.pdf

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency : Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Air Quality System (AQS) : AQS Web Application. (2010) . Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 2 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A.1. 1 PM2.5 Monitor Types

The District and ARB use three types of PM2.5 monitors in the Valley:

 Filter

- based Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors , defined as the standard for data collection;

 Real

- time b eta

- attenuation method (BAM) monitors designated as federal equivalent method (FEM) monitors, and hereafter referred to as BAM/FEM

monitors ;

 Ordinary BAMs, not designated FEM , and hereaft er referred to as BAM ; and

 Filter

- based speciation monitors, similar to FRM monitors

.

Only FRM and BAM/FEM monitors produce data that is suitable for comparison with the

NAAQS , and are therefore used for design value calculations . Real

- time monitors (BAM /FEM and BAM) produce hourly measurements that the District uses every day to produ ce daily air quality forecasts , wood burning declarations , public health notifications, and Real

- time Air Advisory Network (RAAN) notifications for schools.

The filter

- based speciation monitors operate similarly to the standard FRM monitors; however, because of the specific analysis requirements for the different PM2.5 species (e.g. metals, silicon, chlorine, organics) multiple filter media are required, hence a multi

filter collection system. The evaluation and analysis of multiple PM2.5 species is critical to the development of an e ffective attainment strategy.

A.1. 2 Meteorological Influences on PM2.5 Concentrations

Particulates in the atmosphere are dispe rsed by horizontal and vertical mixing within an

air mass. Wind flow (horizontal mixing) and temperature instability (decreasing temperature with height leading to vertical mixing) provides the strongest mechanisms for dispersing pollutants. Wind speed c an greatly influence the pollutant concentrations by horizontally mixing and dispersing pollutants over a large area

. Generally, t he higher

the wind speed the lower the PM2.5 c oncentrations ; h owever, in some cases, excessive winds may cause elevated PM2.5 levels as high winds entrain PM10 as well as PM2.5

.

Vertical mixing of the air mass can result from a tmospheric in stability. A temperature inversion, or increasing temperature with increasing height, can shut down the vertical mixing of an air mass, thu s creating a situation in which pollutants are trapped near the

surface. Prolonged periods of high pressure and stable conditions with low

- wind speeds can cause stagnant conditions that trap pollutants near the surface. PM2.5

concentrations increase durin g these poor dispersion periods. During low

- pressure events, unstable conditions and stronger wind speeds occur. PM2.5 concentrations can decrease or increase depending on the strength and characteristics of the low pressure
system.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 3 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Hemispheric weather patterns affect Valley meteorology and PM2.5 concentrations. As an example, during the 2011

– 12 wood

- burning season (November 2011 through February 2012), the Valley experienced a strong stagnation episode from December 2011 to January 2012 that resulted in many days above the PM2.5 24

- hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3

. Unusual climate conditions caused by the La Niña weather pattern resulted in historically dry and poor air quality conditions in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout the state of California. During this even t the District issued an unprecedented number of wood

- burning prohibitions.

A La Niña is caused by a buildup of cooler

- than

- normal subsurface waters in the tropical

Pacific. Eastward

- moving atmospheric and oceanic waves help bring the cold water to

the surface result ing in drier

- than

- normal precipitation and stagnant weather conditions not only in the Valley, but throughout most of California. December 2011 tied December 1989 ( another strong La Niña year) as the driest December on rec ord for the Valley. For the Valley, unusually cold overnight temperatures and warm air aloft during

the 2011

– 2012 wood

- burning season created strong surface

- based temperature inversions (ranging from 500 feet to 2,500 feet) that trapped particulate polluti on within a very small volume of air. Because of the La Niña weather pattern, the Valley experienced four times as many days a t or below freezing during the 2011

– 20 12 winter season compared to the previous winter

. Combined with clear skies and afternoon sunlight, secondary particulate aerosol formation occurred, contributing to higher PM2.5

levels.

Such extreme, prolonged poor dispersion conditions ha ve not occurred since the 1999

– 2000 and 2000

– 2001 La Niña years

. Figure s A

- 1 and A

- 2 show the PM2.5 concentration comparison between the three La Niña years for the Fresno

- First and

Bakersfield

- California air monitoring site s , respectively. 4 The 1999

– 2000 and 2000

– 2001 PM2.5 concentrations reflect filter

- based data , whereas, 2011

– 2012 PM2.5 (preliminary ) concentrations reflect measurements from real

- time monitors. The duration of the PM2.5 events were similar amongst the three seasons , however PM2.5

concentration s were lower during the 2011

– 2012 season. This reduction in PM2.5 concentrations under very similar stagnant weather patterns suggests that efforts related to District Rule 4901 ( Wood Burning Fire places and Wood Burning Heaters ) and other controls that have been implemented have resulted in a reduction in winter

- time

emissions

.

4 Note: I n 2012, the Fresno

- First site was moved from the cross streets of First and Shields to First and Garland. The data from both Fresno site locations are shown together in Figure A

- 1

.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 4 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 1 Stagnation Episodes Comparison at Fresno

- First

Figure A

- 2 Stagnation Episodes Comparison at Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 5 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A.1. 3 Exceptional Events Influence s on PM2.5 Concentrations

In addition to local, regional, and hemispheric weather patterns, Valley PM2.5 concentrations are also affected by exceptional events such as wildfires, high winds events, and fireworks. These unforeseen events (with the exception of fireworks), can

resul t in PM2.5 concentration peaks or even extended high

- concentration episodes (in the case of summertime wildfires).

With proper documentation and EPA concurrence, data influenced by exceptional

events can be excluded from official attainment demonstration calculations. Such documentation is extensive and requires significant District resources. 5 But since exceptional events are not reasonably preventable or controllable, it is inappropriate to use data influenced by these events without recognition of the se circumstances.

EPA generally reviews only those requests that will directly affect an area’s attainment status. Although not every event results in a formal submittal to EPA, the District tracks these events and their impact on attainment as part of i ts ongoing air quality analysis. These ongoing efforts help the District to more accurately characterize ambient PM2.5

concentrations and attainment progress.

A. 1. 3 .1 PM2.5 Exceptional Event Documentation Submitted to EPA

The District submitted documen tation for the July 4 and 5, 2007 fireworks exceptional

event and ARB submitted documentation for the summer 2008 wildfires exceptional event. If EPA approves this documentation, data from these events will be excluded

from official attainment demonstrati on calculations.

On July 4th and 5th, 2007, elevated hourly PM2.5 concentrations at Fresno

- First and

Bakersfield

- California coincided with fireworks activity. Table A

- 1 summarizes the effects of removing this data from the annual mean and 24

- hour mean concentration

calculations . The main effect of removing the data was lowering the PM2.5 annual

mean values at Fresno

- First and Bakersfield

- California by 0.4 and 0.2 μg/m3, respectively.

In the summer of 2008, just months after adoption of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , California experienced a record number of wildfires, burning more than one million acres. The resulting emissions, most ly from outside of the Valley, caused serious public health impacts and unprecedented levels of summertime PM2.5 and ozone in the Valley and throughout the state. Valley PM2.5 and ozone concentrations were elevated for a number of days during this period.

These exceptional events caused the Valley’s PM2.5 design values to be higher than

normal. Table A

- 1 also summarizes the effects of removing this data from official

attainment demonstration calculations . The prolonged 2008 wildfire event had a

5 Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, 72 Fed. Reg. 55, pp. 13560

– 13581. (2007, March 22). (to be codified in 40 C.F.R. pts. 50 and 51)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 6 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan noticeable impact, especially for monitoring sites closest to the wildfire s in the northern portion of the Valley. Th e largest difference occurred at the Stockton air monitoring site,

where the 24

- hour value was 61.6 μg/m3

, with the exceptional event data included, and 48.2 μg/m3

, with that data removed. Excluding days that were impacted by smoke

reduces the PM2.5 annua l mean value by 1.5 μg/m3.

The EPA has a policy of acting only upon those exceptional event documents that have a direct impact on an area’s attainment status. As such, the EPA reviews and makes

decisions on the concurrence or non

- concurrence of the Di strict’s PM10 exceptional event documents, but has not yet made a decision on the submitted PM2.5 documents mentioned above since that decision would not change the District’s attainment status

of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

Since the timeframe discussed in the abov e analysis is outside of the 2009

– 2011 period, these exceptional events would not affect the 2011 attainment demonstration

calculations . However, this analysis is illustrative of how these events can influence

such calculations , and possibly whether an ar ea is able to achieve attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subsequent firework s and wild l and fire use exceptional events have occurred since the

2007 and 2008 documentation that was submitted to EPA. On July 4th, 2010, elevated

PM2.5 concentrations at Bakersfi eld

- Planz, Fresno

- First

, and Bakersfield

- California coincided with fireworks activity. On September 25

– 30, 2010, Corcoran and Madera

City experienced smoke impacts and elevated PM2.5 levels from a wildland fire in the

Sierra Nevada s . Since the District h as not submitted official documentation of these events to EPA, the impact on the 24

- hour and a nnual m ean PM2.5 values are not

shown.

Table A

- 1 2007 and 2008 Exceptional Event s Impact on 24

- hour and Annual PM2.5

Values

Year Site Annual Mean

Before EE

C oncurrence Annual Mean

with EPA EE

Concurrence Difference

μg/m 3 24

- hour Mean

Before EE

Concurrence 24

- hour Mean

with EPA EE

Concurrence Difference

μg/m 3

2008 Stockton 14.4 12.9

- 1.5 61.6 48.2

- 13.4

Modesto 16.0 14.7

- 1.3 53.3 49.5

- 3.8

Merced 14.9 13.9

- 1.0 51.1 45.2

- 5.9

Clovis 16.0 14.8

- 1.2 49.0 49.0 0.0

Fresno

First 17.4 16.1

- 1.3 57.4 54.4

- 3.0

Fresno

Winery 16.5 15.6

- 0.9 44.5 44.5 0.0

Visalia 21.0 19.5

- 1.5 62.1 55.5

- 6.6

BAK

- CA 21.9 20.0

- 1.9 64.5 63.4

- 1.1

BAK

- Planz 23.5 22.8

- 0.7 72.3 72.3 0.0

2007 Fresno

-

First 18.8 18.4

- 0.4 67.0 66.0

- 1.0

BAK

- CA 22.0 21.8

- 0.2 73.0 73.0 0.0San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 7 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 1. 3 .2 High

- Wind Events Effects on PM2.5 Data

Valley high

- wind events can result in significant increases in PM10 concentrations. Geologic particulates are the primary component of PM10 measured during these events. The District routinely submits formal PM10 exceptional event documentation for

such events.

The District has observed similarities in hourly increases in PM10 and PM2.5 during certain high

- wind events. High

- wind events were recorded at the Bakerfield

- Planz monitoring site on January 4, 2008 and October 13, 2009, and corresponding PM2.5 measurements were unusually high

— 100.3 μg/m 3 and 167.7 μg/m 3 , respectively. Table

A

- 2 summarizes an example of the impact of the 2008 and 2009 high

- wind events on

B akersfield

- Planz attainment calculations (design values represent a three

- year average of mean 24

- hour and annual pollutant concentrations and are discussed fully in Section A.2)

. The District has not submitted PM2.5 exceptional event documentation for

either of these events.

Although not included in Table A

- 2 , a nother high

- wind event occurr ed on April 11, 2010.

The Bakersfield Planz monitor recorded a PM2.5 concentration of 107.8 μg/m 3

. Similarly, the District submitted documentation to EPA in regards to a PM10 exceptional event affecting Bakersfield

- Planz that occurred on April 11, 2010

, but has not submitted

PM2.5 documentation

Table A

- 2 Example of High

- Wind Event Influence on Bakersfield

– Planz Design Value

High

- Wind Events

24

- hour Design Values (μg/m 3 ) Annual Design Values (μg/m 3 )

Year Included Excluded Included Excluded

2007* 72.2 72.2 21.8 21.8

2008 72.3 61.0 23.5 22.6

2009 65.5 65.4 22.5 21.4

2007

- 09 DV 70 66 22.6 21.9

Difference 4 0.7

*

- No high

- wind events were captured in the 2007 data set.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 8 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 2 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

— DESIGN VALUE S

Design values represent the official metric for assessing air quality improvements and attainment of the NAAQS per the F ederal Clean Air Act and EPA regulations . Design

value calculations are three

- year averages that follow EPA protocols for rounding, averaging convent ions, data completeness, sampling frequency, data substitutions, and data validity. The results provide consistency and transparency to determine basin

wide attainment for both components of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS , including the 24

- hour

PM2.5 standard of 3 5 μg/m3 and the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 .0 μg/m3. If any monitoring site within the air basin has either a 24

- hour or annual PM2.5 design value higher than the respective standard, then the entire air basin is designated

nonattainment.

Table A

- 3 provid es the general ized description s of how the 24

- hour average and annual average design values are calculated for PM2.5. EPA provides detailed guidelines and

standards for the calculation 6 and data handling 7 methodologies.

Table A

- 3 General PM2.5 Design Value Calculation Methods

Averaging Period Level Calculation Method

24

- hour 35 μg/m3 Step 1: Determine the 98th percentile value for each year over a consecutive three year period

. Step 2: Average the three 98th percentile values. Step 3: Round the resulting value to the nearest 1.0 μg/m3. Step 4: Compare the result to the standard.

Annual 15 .0 μg/m3 Step 1: Calculate the average of each quarter of each year over a three year period. Step 2: Average the four quarters in a calendar year to determine the average for each year. Step 3: Average the three annual values. Step 4: Round the resulting value to the nearest 0.1 μg/m3. Step 5: Compare the result to the standard.

Tables A

- 4 through A

- 7 show the trend of the 24

- hour average and annual average

values for each PM2.5 monitoring site in the Valley by year as well as the three

- year average design values for these metrics through the year 201 1

.

Table A

- 4 shows 24

- hour single

- year 98 th

- percentile averages, which are used to generate the three

- year average 24

- hour design values in T able A

- 5

. Table A

- 6 shows single

- year average PM2.5 concentrations, which are used to generate the three

- year average annual design values in T able A

- 7

. Thes e data are also shown graphically in Figures A

- 3 .1 through A

- 3 .20 for a number of monitoring sites in the Valley. Monitoring

6 Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 50 Appendix N (2012).

Available at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=9bdb7a34dcb75892aef9ee60b74da642&rgn=div9&view=text&node=40:2.0.1.1.1.0.1.18.15&idno=40

7 Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (1999, April). Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS (EPA

- 454/R

- 99

- 008). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdfSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 9 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan s ites with a brief PM2.5 monitoring history do not have line charts displayed. Note that the sites at Manteca, Madera

- City, Tranquillity, and Hanford have limited PM2.5 data

available ; t herefore , there is no three

- year average. Design values for these sites will

be able to be calculated in the future as their PM2.5 data records continue. The

Bakersfield

- Golden site was close d in early 2010, and the Corcoran site has been

unavailable since the middle of 2011.

Average ambient PM2.5 concentrations vary by monitoring site within the Valley. In general, monitoring sites in the northern part of the Valley record the lowest ambient

PM2.5 concentrations. Currently more Valley air monitoring sites meet the 1997 24

- hour average standard of 65 μg/m 3 than the annual average standard of 15 .0 μg/m 3

. Although the single

- year 98 th

- percentile and annual average values were higher in 2011

co mpared to the last few years, the 2009

– 20 11 design values for some of the sites are showing a downward trend

, including the peak Valley design value, while other s have

shown an increase

. A downward trend will need to occur for all of the sites in the region as the Valley progresses towards attainment of the federal standard.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 10 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Table A

- 4 Single Y ear 24

- hour Average PM2.5 98 th P ercentile V alues ( μ g/m 3 )

SJV Monitoring Site 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Stockton 79.0 55.0 58.0 50.0 41.0 36.0 44.0 42.0 48.0 61.6 40.4 29.7 44.8

Manteca 38.9

Modesto 100.0 71.0 69.0 69.0 47.0 45.0 55.0 52.0 57.4 53.9 54.5 37.3 54.7

Turlock 53.1 43.5 57.4

Merced

- Coffee 39.9 47.4

Merced

- M 91.9 60.0 49.3 55.1 44.2 43.0 48.3 43.8 52.7 54.0 45.2 35.5 35.4

Madera

- City 59.1

Fresno

- 1st 120.0 90.0 75.0 75.0 56.0 52.0 71.0 51.0 67.0 57.4 55.8 48.8 69.5

Fresno

- Winery 64.8 61.5 71.9 49.7 49.4 71.2 55.0 57.4 44.5 48.2 37.0 59.6

Clovis 59.2 72.5 71.5 53.2 48.1 52.4 63.0 51.3 60.9 49.0 49.0 44.3 68.5 Tranquillity 27.7 27.5

Corcoran 53.0 55.1 89.5 65.1 42.2 49.4 74.5 50.1 57.9 47.9 53.4 46.8

Hanford 64.6

Visalia 114.0 103.0 96.0 70.0 47.0 54.0 65.0 50.0 59.7 62.1 53.9 36.3 50.7

Bakersfield

- Golden 95.3 93.9 95.9 80.4 51.9 53.9 74.9 64.4 67.7 60.8 68.6

Bakersfield

- California 97.4 92.7 94.9 73.0 48.3 61.5 63.2 60.5 73.0 64.5 66.7 53.3 65.5

Bakersfield

- Planz 76.5 90.6 66.8 47.5 47.6 66.4 64.7 72.2 72.3 65.5 56.2 43.2

Table A

- 5 24

- hour Average PM2.5 Design V alues ( T hree

- Y ear A verages, μ g/ m 3 )

SJV Monitoring Site 1999

- 2001 2000

-

2002 2001

-

2003 2002

-

2004 2003

-

2005 2004

-

2006 2005

-

2007 2006

-

2008 2007

-

2009 2008

-

2010 2009

-

2011

Stockton 64 54 50 42 40 41 45 51 50 44 38

Manteca ^

Modesto 80 70 62 54 49 51 55 54 55 49 49

Turlock 53 48 51

Merced

- Coffee 44**

Merced

- M 67 55 50 47 45 45 48 50 51 45 39

Madera

- City ^

Fresno

- 1st 95 80 69 61 60 58 63 58 60 54 58

Fresno

- Winery 63 66 61 57 57 59 61 52 50 43 48

Clovis 68 66 58 51 55 56 58 54 53 47 54 Tranquillity 28**

Corcoran 66 70 66 52 55 58 61 52 53 49

Hanford ^

Visalia 104 90 71 57 55 56 58 57 59 51 47

Bakersfield

- Golden 95 90 76 62 60 64 69 64 66

Bakersfield

- California 95 87 72 61 58 62 66 66 68 62 62

Bakersfield

- Planz 84 78 68 54 54 60 68 70 70 65 55

Notes for Tables A

- 2 and A

- 3

 Empty cell: No data or insufficient data

 Asterisk (*): Values do not meet completeness criteria

 Double asterisk (**): Value based on 2

- year average of 2010

- 2011, 2009 had minimal sampling

 ^ : Site does not have enough data to calculate a 3

- year average , see text for details.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 11 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Table A

- 6 Single Year Annual M ean PM2.5 C oncentrations ( μ g/m 3 )

SJV Monitoring Site 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Stockton 19.7 15.5 13.9 16.7 13.6 13.2 12.5 13.1 12.9 14.4 11.3 10.6 11.3

Manteca 10.7

Modesto 24.9 18.7 15.6 18.7 14.5 13.6 13.9 14.8 15.0 16.0 13.0 12.1 14.7

Turlock 16.1 12. 7^^ 17.1

Merced

- Coffee 16.3 15.6

Merced

- M 22.6 16.7 14.5* 18.7 15.7 15.2 14.1 14.8 15.2 14.9* 13.6 11.2 10.4

Madera

- City 20.4

Fresno

- 1st 27.6 24.5 19.8 21.5 17.8 16.3 16.7 16.8 18.8 17.4 15.1 13.0 15. 5

Fresno

- Winery 18.4 18.6 21.3 17.8 17.0 16.9 17.6 16.8 16.5 14.6 13.4 15.4

Clovis 19.8 16.3 18.0 16.2 18.5* 16.4 16.3 16.4 16.4 16.2 18.3 14.7 17.9 Tranquillity 8.8 8.2

Corcoran 14.3* 16.4 19.2 21.5 16.2 17.4 17.5 16.9 18.4 15.8 17.7 17.9

Hanford 18.0

Visalia 27.6 23.9 22.5 23.2 18.2 17.0 18.8 18.8 20.4 19.8 16.0 13.6 16.1

Bakersfield

- Golden 26.2 22.6 21.8 24.1 19.6 18.2 19.1 18.6 19.9 17.9 20.0

Bakersfield

- California 23.8 22.5 21.2 22.7 17.1 18.9 18.0 18.7 22.0 21.9 19.0 14.2 16.2

Bakersfield

- Planz 20.3 20.8 23.5 17.8 17.4 19.8 19.3 21.8 23.5 22.5 17.6 14.5

Table A

- 7 Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( Three

- Year Averages

, μ g/m 3 )

SJV Monitoring Site 1999

- 2001 2000

-

2002 2001

-

2003 2002

-

2004 2003

-

2005 2004

-

2006 2005

-

2007 2006

-

2008 2007

-

2009 2008

-

2010 2009

-

2011

Stockton 16.4 15.3 14.7 14.5 13.1 12.9 12.8 13.5 12.9 12. 1 11.1

Manteca ^

Modesto 19.7 17.7 16.2 15.6 14.0 14.1 14.6 15.3 14.7 13. 7 13.3

Turlock 15.3^^

Merced

- Coffee 16.0**

Merced

- M 17.9 16.6 16.3 16.5 15.0 14.7 14.7 15.0 14. 6 13.2 11.7

Madera

- City ^

Fresno

- 1st 24.0 21.9 19.7 18.6 16.9 16.6 17.4 17.7 17.1 15.2 14.5

Fresno

- Winery 18.5 19.4 19.2 18.7 17.2 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.0 14. 8 14.5

Clovis 18.0 16.8 17.6 17.0 17.1 16.4 16.4 16.3 17.0 16.4 17.0 Tranquillity 8.5**

Corcoran 19.0 19.0 18.4 17.0 17.2 17.6 17.0 17.3 17.1

Hanford ^

Visalia 24.7 23.2 21.3 19.5 18.0 18.2 19.3 19.7 18.8 16.5 15.2

Bakersfield

- Golden 23.6 22.8 21.8 20.6 19.0 18.6 19.2 18.8 19.3

Bakersfield

- California 22.5 22.1 20.3 19.6 18.0 18.5 19.6 20.9 21.0 18.4 16.5

Bakersfield

- Planz 21.5 20.7 19.6 18.4 18.9 20.3 21.5 22.6 21.2 18.2

Notes for Tables A

- 4 and A

- 5

 Empty cell: No data or insufficient data

 Asterisk (*): Values do not meet completeness criteria

 Double asterisk (**): Value based on 2

- year average of 2010

- 2011, 2009 had minimal sampling  ^ : Site does not have enou gh data to calculate a 3

- year average , see text for details.

 ^^ : Data incomplete in 2010, however high PM2.5 season was still captured.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 12 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 3 .1 through A

- 3 .4 24

- hour and Annual Design Value Trends at Stockton

- Hazelton and ModestoSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 13 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 3

. 5 through A

- 3

. 8 24

- hour and Annual Design Value Trends at Merced

- M and ClovisSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 14 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 3

. 9 through A

- 3

. 12 24

- hour and Annual Design Value Trends at Fresno

- First and Fresno

- WinerySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 15 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 3

. 13 through A

- 3

. 16 24

- hour and Annual Design Value Trends at Corcoran and VisaliaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 16 Appe ndix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 3

. 17 through A

- 3

. 20 24

- hour and Annual Design Value Trends at Bakersfield

- CA and Bakersfield

- PlanzSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 17 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3 AMBIENT PM2.5 CONCENTRATION DATA TRENDS

Design values summarize data from a monitoring site with just two concentration values representing a three

- year time period : an annual average and a value representing 24

- hour peaks. These parameters are required for attainment demonstrations , but design

values alone do not reveal the hourly, daily, weekly, seasonal, and regional PM2.5

effects on public health , nor do they track air quality improvements within such
parameters

. The District uses data from air monitoring sites to analyze air quality trend s

to provide a deeper understanding of changes in ambient PM2.5 concentrations as they relate to the implementation of District programs and to inform the attainment planning

proc ess and Risk

- based Strategy.

A. 3 .1 Days Over the 24

- Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

The number of days over the PM2.5 NAAQS is another indicator of air quality progress. Focusing on historical air monitoring sites from the northern, central, and southern portions of t he Valley, F igure s A

- 4 and A

- 5 show the trend of the number of days above

both the 1997 and 2006 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS (65 μg/m3 and 35 μg/m3, respectively)
at the Modesto, Fresno

- First, and Bakersfield

- California monitoring sites . These counts

have been estimated and normalized to account for the varying sampling schedules of the Valley’s 1

- in

- 6

- day, 1

- in

- 3

- day, and daily PM2.5 monitors. Design value calculations

for the 24

- hour NAAQS use the 98 th

- percentile concentration value from each monitoring site (higher values in the 99 th and 100 th percentiles are not used to account for extreme outliers). Because of this, a region may experience a limited number of days over the standard, but still be considered in attainment.

Figure A

- 4 Trend in Days over the 1997 24

- Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

Note: Years and sites with no data (colored bars) represent zero exceedances

.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 18 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 5 Trend in Days over the 2006 24

- Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

As shown in F igure A

- 4 , the District has experienced a significant drop in the number of

exceedances of the 65 μg/m3 standard. In 1999, approximately 103 exceedances of this standard occurred between the sites of Modesto, Fresno

- First, and Bakersfield

California. Comparing th is to the 17 exceedances that occurred in 2011, this represents an 83% decrease in the number of violations among these sites.

Figure A

- 5 shows that significant progress has been made towards the 35 μg/m3

standard despite the fact that sites recorded 35 t o 40 exceedances in 2011

. The

number of exceedances of the 200 6 PM2.5 NAAQS has decreased by 46%. The District’s emissions reduction strategy, the investment from the regulated industry in control technology, and the public’s willingness to make a change for cleaner air have all played key roles in the reduction of concentrations over this time period.

Despite this notable progress, the Valley still experiences many exceedance days over

the 200 6 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3 ) during the winter months. During the winter, with unfavorable meteorology, as experienced during the 2011

– 2012 winter

season, the number of exceedances spiked relative to seasons with favorable meteorology under identical regulatory controls. The values for 2011 in F igure A

- 5 show this resulting spike as compared to the years 2009 and 2010, when meteorology was

more favorable. Similar p oor dispersion conditions were experienced during the winter

of 1999

– 2000 ; however, under those similar conditions , the number of exceedances in 2011 was markedly less than the number of exceedances in 1999, which strongly suggest a real reduction in emissions

.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 19 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3 .2 Seasonal Trends

— First

- and Fourth

- Quarter Averages

The Valley experiences the highest PM2.5 concentrations during the f all and w inter

month s , when residential wood burning is at its highest . The District evaluates ambient concentration trends during this time period (October through March) to document changes and patterns in seasonal PM2.5 peak concentrations.

A r eview of historical 24

- hour PM2.5 filter data shows a general trend of ambie nt

concentration reductions in both the average concentration and the magnitude of the

concentration

. Specifically, the District looked at PM2.5 filter data from 1999 through

2011

, focusing on the first and fourth quarters at six sites in the Valley that tend to have the highest concentrations , including Clovis, Fresno

- First, Corcoran, Visalia,

Bake rsfield

- California, and B akersfield

- Planz

.

The Bakersfield

- California site is typical of the trend in improvement for these six sites : first quarter (January t hrough March) ambient PM2.5 concentrations show greater reduction rates than fourth quarter (October through December) measurements

. At the

Bakersfield

- California site the average PM2.5 concentration showed a downward trend

of 0. 74 μg/m3 per year for the first quarter and 1.15 μg/m3 per year for the fourth quarter,

as shown in F igure s A

- 6 and A

- 7 , respectively

.

Figure A

- 6 1 st Quarter Average Trend at Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 20 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Fi gure A

- 7 4 th Quarter Average Trend at Bakersfield

- California

Using the same data, but focusing only on the five worst days of each quarter, the District was able to determine that not only are the average concentrations decreasing in each quarter, but the severity of the worst days (highest concentrations) are

decre asing at a more rapid rate. Using the five worst days from the Visalia air monitoring site data (Figures A

- 9 .13 through A

- 9 .16) , over the same time period as above, shows a 3.30 μg/m3 per year reduction rate for the first quarter compared to a 1.22 μg/m3 per year reduction rate for the same quarter when consideri ng the average

of all the first

- quarter data. This data gives indication that the severity of PM2.5 episodes is decreasing over time, and supports the effectiveness of District wood

burning contro ls, controls that reduce public exposure to extremely high concentrations

of PM2.5.

While most Valley air monitoring site s showed a similar pattern of peak reductions as

with the Visalia site , evaluation of the Clovis site did not show the same pattern. As shown in Figure A

- 8 , evaluation of the five worst days indicates a slight increase in the peak ambient concentration. However, such an increase may reflect random variation in the data and does not conclusively indicate an overall increase in the avera ge PM2.5 concentration. While this anomaly occurs in the first

- quarter data for the Clovis site, the

fourth

- quarter data is consistent with the overall decreasing trend in ambient PM2.5

concentrations.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 21 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 8 1 st Quarter Average Trend at Clovis

The following graphs , F igures A

- 9 .1 through A

- 9 .24

, show the first

- and fourth

- quarter

24

- hour PM2.5 averages, along with the average of the top five values within each of these quarters for the six monitoring sites included in this analysis.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 22 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .1 through A

- 9 .4 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at ClovisSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 23 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .5 through A

- 9 .8 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at Fresno

- FirstSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 24 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .9 through A

- 9 .12 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at CorcoranSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 25 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .13 through A

- 9 .1 6 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at VisaliaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 26 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .17 through A

- 9 .20 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 27 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 9 .21 through A

- 9 .24 1 st and 4 th Quarter PM2.5 Average Trends at Bakersfield

- PlanzSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 28 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3 .3 Annual Trends of Diurnal PM2.5 Concentration Profiles

The District collects hourly PM2.5 concentration data from 17 of the 34 air monitoring stations in the Valley using real

- time PM2.5 monitors. The District uses this data every day to produce daily air quality forecasting, wood burning declarations , public health notifications, and Real

- time Air Advisory Network (RAAN) notifications for schools. Based on historical hourly data, the District has compiled long

- term diurnal profiles to evaluate how PM2.5 concentration vary throughout the day at each of the Valley monitoring sites that measure such data. An understanding of such profiles help s to develop control strategies and programs that target a ctivities during times of peak

concentrations.

C alculating and comparing annual and 24

- hour averages for PM2.5 ca n be helpful in their own right; however, these metrics can often mask the trend in hourly concentrations throughout the day. An hourly analysis of PM2.5 measurements can show what portions of the day tend to have the highest concentrations and which portions of the day have the lowest. Comparing the diurnal (or daily) profiles over time

show s how this curve has changed from year to year.

The District compares relative changes in hourly PM2.5 concentration s from year to year at each monitoring site to better understand the implications and effectiveness of PM2.5 control measures, especially the use of wood

- burning prohibitions. Such proh ibitions became mandatory prior to the 2003

– 2004 winter season and were strengthened prior to the 2008

– 2009 winter season.

F igures A

- 1 0 .1 through A

- 1 0 .14 show the yearly average diurnal profiles of most of the

real

- time monitoring sites in the Valley . Si tes profiled here are those with the most complete data record, in which a comparison could be made with previous years.

As shown in the se profiles , the year 2011 (represented by triangles in all of the charts) tended to experience higher hourly PM2.5 con centrations when compared to 2010. In the larger metropolitan areas like Bakersfield and Fresno, this difference between 2011 and 2010 was more pronounced. Although concentrations were higher in 2011, partly

because of unfavorable meteorology, the evenin g peaks were “flatter” (less pronounced) than in years past. Focusing on the Bakersfield

- California and Fresno

First sites, the higher evening peaks in the year 2002 can be observed. Comparing this to the evening peaks in recent years, including 2011, on e can see that the peak is not as pronounced . This could be attributable to more wood

- burning prohibitions, which became mandatory during the winter of 2003

- 04.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 29 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 1 0 .1 through A

- 1 0 .4 PM2.5 Diurnal Profiles : Stockton

- Hazelton, Tracy, Modesto, TurlockSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 30 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 10 .5 through A

- 10 .8 PM2.5 Diurnal Profiles: Merced

- Coffee, Clovis, Fresno

- First, TranquillitySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 31 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 10 .9 through A

- 10 .12 PM2.5 Diurnal Profiles: Hanford, Corcoran, Visalia, PortervilleSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 32 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 10 .13 through A

- 10 .14 PM2.5 Diurnal Profiles: Ash Mountain, Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 33 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3

. 4 PM2.5 Driven Air Quality Index Analysis

The EPA and the District use the Air Quality Index (AQI) to provide daily information about the Valley's air quality, to inform the public about how unhealthy air may affect

the m , and educate t he public about how they can protect their health. AQI scales exist for all of the criteria pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act, including PM2.5. The

current 24

- hour average PM2.5 AQI scale is defined in T able A

- 8

.

Table A

- 8 24

- H our PM2.5 AQI Scale

Concent ration (μg/m 3 ) AQI Category AQI Color AQI Range

0

- 15.4 Good Green 0

- 50

15.5

- 40.4 Moderate Yellow 51

- 100

40.5

- 65.4 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Orange 101

- 150

65.5

- 150.4 Unhealthy Red 151

- 200

150.5

- 250.4 Very Unhealthy Purple 201

- 300

250.5+ Hazardous Maroon 301+

The District analyzed the trends in the PM2.5 data from the sites with at least two years of daily AQI observations based on real

- time data. For this analysis, the AQI reflects only PM2.5 data and not ozone or PM10. By excl uding other pollutants, the District is

able to isolate the change in air quality related to PM2.5 only

.

For the majority of the Valley sites, the observed AQI data for the 2008

– 2010 timeframe

shows an improvement in PM2.5 air quality. Over these three years, the frequency of Good AQI days increased sharply , coupled with a decrease in the frequency of the Moderate and Unhealthy

- for

- Sensitive

- Groups (USG) categories. For example, at the

Fresno

- First si te, the number of Good days increased from 155 in 2008, to 205 in 2009,

and t o 227 in 2010. At the same time , the USG days at the Bakersfield

- California site decreased from 61 in 2008, to 34 in 2009, and to 16 in 2010. This trend shows a progressive “shi ft in improvement” of the AQI and air quality

— as air quality improves there will more AQI days falling within the Good and Moderate categories and fewer in the USG category

.

Although t he improvement over the 2008

– 2010 timeframe is partly attributabl e to favorable meteorology, emissions reductions were also occurring over these three years. The District’s Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) was strengthened just before the 2008

– 2009 winter season, lowering the curtailment

thresho ld from 65 μg/m 3 to 30 μg/m 3

. T he sharp improvement in PM2.5 air quality began as the amended wood

- burning rule took effect, which supports the effectiveness

of Rule 4901

.

In 2011, the PM2.5 air quality declined throughout the majority of the District as compared to previous years. Abnormally stagnant meteorology during the 2011

– 20 12

winter season contributed greatly to this deterioration

. Despite the overall air qualitySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 34 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan decline there were still more Good AQI days and fewer USG AQI days than in previous

years . For example, in 2011 the Modesto site observed 252 Good AQI days and 16 USG AQI days, compared to 2006 with 233 Good AQI days and 22 USG days

. Although the air quality for t he year 2011 did not continue the favorable trend from

2008

– 2010, it was still not as severe as in years prior to 2008.

F igure A

- 1 1 is shown as a reference for interpreting F igures A

- 1 2 .1 through A

- 1 2 .12

. T he stacked bars represent the number of days within each year that fell within each of the AQI categories (totaling 365 days 8 ) . Within each stacked bar, the categories are ordered as Good, Moderate, etc. from the bottom up.

Figure A

- 1 1 A ir Q uality I ndex (AQI) Categories

8 Note: Because of regular maintenance or repairs, monitors may be non

- operational for a day or longer. For years with “missing” days, proportional adjustments are made to estimate the missing day s so as to provide a full year’s data to display.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 35 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure s A

- 1 2 .1 through A

- 1 2 .4 Number of Days per AQI Category per Year : Stockton

- Hazelton, Tracy, Modesto, and TurlockSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 36 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 1 2 .5 through A

- 1 2 .8 Number of Days per AQI Category per Year; Merced, Clovis, Fresno

- First, and HanfordSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 37 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 1 2 .9 through A

- 1 2 .12 Number of Days per AQI Category per Year; Corcoran, Visalia, Ash Mountain, and

Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 38 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3

. 5 PM2.5 Concentration Frequency Distributions

The District analyzed filter

- based PM2.5 data from various sites throughout the Valley to form histograms based on the distribution of concentrations over the time periods of

1999

– 2003 and 2008

– 2011. In this analysis, the concentrations were separated into

th e concentration categories of 0

– 9.9 μg/m 3 , 10

– 19.9 μg/m 3 , 20

– 35.4 μg/m 3 , 35.5

– 65.4 μg/m 3 , and greater than 65.4 μg/m 3

. For each air monitoring site, the observations for each time period were grouped into the appropriate categories depending upon their

co ncentration. The frequency of the observations within each category were converted to a percentage of the total time period and displayed as a bar chart compari ng the

distribution of 1999

– 2002 with 2008

– 2011. The air monitoring sites included in this analysis were Modesto, Fresno

- First, Corcoran, Visalia, and Bakersfield

- Planz because

of these sites had a robust set of measurements beginning in 1999

, except Bakersfield

Planz , which began operation in 2000

.

The data , as represented in Figure A

- 1 3 for th e Fresno

- First site, shows that in the most

recent four years (2008

– 2011) there has been a significant increase in the percentage of days with low PM2.5 concentrations ( under 10 μg/m 3 ) when compared to 1999

– 2002

. This increase is observed among all of the sites in this analysis, as seen in F igure s A

- 1 4 through A

- 17

. Data from all the sites reveals a dramatic decrease in the percentage of days that exceed the 1997 24

- hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m 3

.

Figure A

- 1 3 Histogram Comparison for Fresno

- First

While the Corcoran, Visalia, and Bakersfield

- Planz sites show an increase in the frequency of measurements in the 20

– 35.4 μg/m 3 category, a s progress continues to be made in reducing PM2.5, the curve of the overall distribution will become more sharplySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 39 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan pu shed to the left as higher concentrations become less frequent and lower concentrations become more frequent.

Figure A

- 1 4 Histogram Comparison for Modesto

Figure A

- 15 Histogram Comparison for Corcoran 9

9 The Corcoran site was non

- operational during 2011, thus data is only represented through 2010San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 40 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 16 Histogram Comparison for Visalia

Figure A

- 17 Histogram Comparison for Bakersfield

- PlanzSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 41 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3

. 6 PM2.5 Concentration Distributions

While evaluating changes in peak PM2.5 concentrations increases our understanding of air quality and informs the attainment planning proces s, evaluation of non

- peak concentrations can also be useful in providing a wider perspective on the progress of air quality improvement.

To accomplish such an evaluation, the District constructed box

- and

- whisker plots for a

number of air monitoring sites in Valley using data collect ed from filter

- based PM2.5

monitors

. Figure A

- 18 diagrams the use of the box

- and

- whisker plots as follows: the

box

- and

- whisker diagram for each year is a representation of the 25th (Q1) , 50th (Q2)

, and 75t h (Q3) percentile values in the PM2.5 concentration dataset. The “ whiskers ” extending from each end of the box represent the outer ends of the dataset ( approximately the top and bottom 25% of the values) , where any point outside of these

boundaries is con sidered an outlier for this analysis method

. The difference between Q3 and Q1 is called the interquartile range (IQR). For ease of viewing, the outlier

values are not displayed in these plots.

Figure A

- 18 Box

- and

- Whisker Plot InterpretationSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 42 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Focusing on the Fresno

- First plot in F igure A

- 19

, air quality improvement is evident when comparing the 1999 and 2000 box

- and

- whisker diagrams to those of recent years. Not only has the IQR been reduced, but the top 25% of the values has decreased sharply . This shows that the entire dataset of PM2.5 concentrations has been shifting downward in addition to the reduction of peak values. Since the winter of 2011

– 20 12 experienced meteorology conducive to the formation of high PM2.5 concentrations, an

increas e in the IQR, Q3, and top 25% values is evident when comparing 2011 to 2010. This increase in 2011 is observed among most of the sites in the Valley

.

Figure A

- 19 Box

- and

- Whisker Plot of PM2.5 at Fresno

- First

An exception to the increase in 2011 was at the Bakersfield

- Planz air monitoring site, where a steady downward slope among most of the components of the plot has occurred from 2008 through 2011 , as seen in F igure A

- 20

. Since Bakersfield

- Planz has

historic ally been one of the highest PM2.5 sites in the Valley, this improvement is important and needs to continue to occur not only at this site but all other sites in order for the region to attain current and future PM2.5 standards.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 43 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 20 Box

- and

- Whisk er Plot of PM2.5 at Bakersfield

- Planz

T he northern most air monitoring sites (Stockton

- Hazelton and Modesto) tend to have smaller IQRs than the sites in the central and southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley. This shows that PM2.5 in the northern part of the Valley tends to have a tighter dataset, where less variance occurs. Since the highest concentrations of PM2.5 usually occur in the central and southern portions of the Valley, the IQR values for the sites in

th ese regions are higher, showing greater variance.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 44 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 2 1 .1 through A

- 2 1 .4 PM2.5 Distributions for Stockton

- Hazelton, Modesto, Merced

- M, and Clovis

PM2.5 filter sampling ended in mid

2010.

PM2.5 filter sampling ended in late

2009

.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 45 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figures A

- 2 1 .5 through A

- 2 1 .8 PM2.5 Distributions for Fresno

- Winery, Corcoran, Visalia, and Bakersfield

- California

Station temporarily unavailable since mid

2011.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 46 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan A. 3

. 7 P M2.5 Concentration by Day of Week

Just as public activity varies throughout the week, so do the daily average PM2.5

concentrations. The District evaluated real

- time 24

- hour average concentrations from a number of monitoring sites in the Valley to quantify such variance from three wood

burning seasons (November through February): 2008

– 2009, 2009

– 2 010, and 2010

– 2011. The air monitoring sites included in this analysis were Modesto, Fresno

- First, Corcoran, Visalia, and Bakersfield

- California.

Figures A

- 2 2 through A

- 26 show the results of the District’s analysis for the five air monitoring sites. In g eneral, Thursday and Friday recorded the highest 24

- hour average

PM2.5 concentrations over the seven

- day week. This suggests a build

- up of emission beginning on Monday and progressing toward the end of the work week. This pattern would be more pronounced during stagnation episodes, where emissions would not have a chance to disperse.

Figure A

- 2 2 Day of Week PM2.5 Concentrations at ModestoSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 47 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 2 3 Day of Week PM2.5 Concentrations at Fresno

- First

Figure A

- 2 4 Day of Week PM2.5 Concentrations at CorcoranSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 48 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 25 Day of Week PM2.5 Concentrations at Visalia

Figure A

- 26 Day of Week PM2.5 Concentrations at Bakersfield

- CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 49 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan The analysis also shows a declining average PM2.5 concentration from Saturday into Monday, perhaps as a r esult of the variation in vehicle activity when comparing the weekend to the weekday. The typical weekday will have significant vehicle emissions in the morning as people commute to work and school, followed by lighter traffic during the day, and heavy ac tivity again at the end of the day for the commute home. Contrastingly, the weekend activity is spread more uniformly throughout the day. This temporal difference in emissions activity may contribute to lower PM2.5 emissions, which tend to carry over int o the early days of the next week before the next build

- up begins.

Comparing the trends between the air monitoring sites included in this analysis reveals

that the Fresno

- First and Bakersfield

- California sites (the largest urban centers in the

central and southern valley) tend to have the highest PM2.5 concentrations on Thursday and Friday, ranging from 30 to 35 μg/m3. The difference between the highest concentration and the lowest concentration among the days of the week is about 5 μg/m3 for most of the sites; however this difference at Bakersfield

- California is more pronounced.

As the San Joaquin Valley faces the challenges of future PM2.5 standards, having this understanding of what days of the week tend to have the highest concentrations may

aid in de veloping a successful attainment strategy. Targeting emissions that contribute

to the build

- up as the week progresses may help in reducing the peaks at the end of the

week.

A.4 METEOROLOGY, PM2.5 SPECIATION, AND RULE EFFECTIVENESS

The District takes full advantage of the robust data set produced by the extensive air monitoring network in the Valley , as seen in the previous sections of this appendix. However, there is other information that adds to the comprehensive understanding of

PM2.5 concentratio ns and is critical in all aspects of developing and implementing a successful attainment plan, including meteorology, PM2.5 speciation, and the overall effectiveness of previous control measures.

A.4.1 Meteorologically Adjusted Trends

In order to understand the effectiveness of emission control strategies and regulations on ambient air pollution levels, it is important to first understand and be able to delineate the effect of meteorology versus changes in emissions as a response to con trol

measures. The strong linkage between meteorological conditions and air pollutant levels can obscure the effects of the change of emission levels over time resulting from a regulatory program. Therefore, the meteorological effects need to be removed so that

the emissions

- related trends may be studied more effectively.

The District used the Classification and Regression Trees (CART) method to define the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and meteorological conditions in both theSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 50 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Bakersfield and Fresno areas of the Valley. Three years (2004

– 2006) were selected as base years to define these relationships. The CART model was able to explain approximately 75

– 80% of the variation in daily PM2.5 concentrations during these years

based on the local m eteorological conditions. Based on the CART

- defined relationships, daily PM2.5 concentrations were predicted for all the other years using the observed meteorological data and assuming the emissions stayed constant (i.e. the predicted concentrations only represent the PM2.5 conduciveness of meteorology).

The measured PM2.5 concentrations were then corrected for the influences of meteorology to estimate the meteorologically adjusted trends. For example, in a year with meteorology conditions that were more conducive to PM2.5 formation, PM2.5 concentrations were adjusted downward. Conversely, PM2.5 concentrations were adjusted upward in years with meteorological conditions that were less conducive.

As shown in Figures A

- 27 and A

- 28 , the meteorologically ad justed trend at Bakersfield indicates a greater decline than the unadjusted trend, while the two trends are generally

similar at F resno. Overall, the meteorologically adjusted trends indicate that the PM2.5 annual averages decreased about 40

– 50% in both t he Bakersfield and Fresno areas from 1999 to 2010, with an average rate of decrease of approximately 0.8 μg/m3 per year. These meteorologically adjusted trends provide a more robust indicator of the impacts of emission reductions from on

- going control pro grams.

Figures A

- 27 and A

- 28 show the trend of observed PM2.5 represented as a solid line, and the trend of meteorologically adjusted PM2.5 is represented by a dashed line.

Figure A

- 27 Meteorologically A djusted PM2.5 Trend for BakersfieldSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 51 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 28 Meteorologically Adjusted PM2.5 Trend for Fresno

A. 4

. 2 Trends in PM2.5 Species

Analyzing the trends among the species of PM2.5 is often more telling than focusing on the PM2.5 mass alone. Valley PM2.5 concentrations have been decreasing over time,

but some components, or species, of PM2.5 may be decreasing more rapidly than

others. The results of a speciation analysis can show which species of PM2.5 are most dominant for an area, and therefore guide a more targeted control strategy for reducing

th e overall mass concentration. The following analysis shows the relative contribution and temporal change in the key species of PM2.5 at a number of sites in the Valley.

Figures A

- 29 and A

- 3 0 shows the contribution of various species to the overall PM2.5 mass concentration in the Fresno and Bakersfield areas, respectively. Figure A

- 29

, for

Fresno

, shows that on a peak PM2.5 day the concentration consists of about 51% ammonium nitrate and 33% organic carbon. In comparison, a peak PM2.5 day in

Bakersfield (Figure A

- 30 ) is comprised of 67% ammonium nitrate and 16% organic carbon. The understanding of this difference can help reveal what sources of pollution are contributing to PM2.5 in each area of Valley, which will ultimately aid in developing

an effectiv e control strategy.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 52 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 29 Species Contribution to PM2.5 Mass in Fresno

Figure A

- 30 Species Contribution to PM2.5 Mass in BakersfieldSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 53 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Chemical speciation data is regularly collected at four sites in the Valley : Modesto,

Fresno

- First, Visalia, and Bakersfield

- California. As previously mentioned, a mmonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and carbon compounds are the major constituents of PM2.5.

In the following trend analysis, concentrations at each site from each of t he PM2.5 species were averaged over each year from 2002

– 2010. On an annual average, concentrations of these key constituents have all shown significant decreases.

Ammonium nitrate concentrations in the basin declined about 50% between 2002 and

2010. Dur ing the same time frame, concentrations of ammonium sulfate and carbon compounds declined about 30%. The most significant declines occurred between 2002 and 2003, and again between 2007 and 2010.

The decline in ammonium nitrate provides evidence of a suc cessful NOx control strategy in the Valley, which in turn has been effective in reducing PM2.5 mass. As ammonium nitrate concentrations further decline into the future, and as more stringent federal PM2.5 health standards are established, the results of s pecies trends analyses will grow in importance as targeted control strategies will need to be developed.

Note that b etween 2007 and 2009, the carbon collection and analysis method was changed to improve comparability with rural Interagency Monitoring of P rotected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) PM2.5 carbon data. Since the change was implemented

mid

- year, there are gaps in the carbon data for years with partial data from the old and

new method.

F igures A

- 31 through A

- 34 display the species trends for the f our speciation sites in the Valley.

Figure A

- 31 PM2.5 Species Trends at ModestoSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 54 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 3 2 PM2.5 Species Trends at Fresno

- First

Figure A

- 3 3 PM2.5 Species Trends at VisaliaSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 55 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Figure A

- 3 4 PM2.5 Species Trends at Bakersfield

- California

A. 4

. 3 Effectiveness of District Rule 4901

Emissions from residential wood

- burning have historically been one of the greatest sources of directly emitted PM2.5 in the Valley. Before residential wood

- burning curtailments became mandatory during episodes of hi gh PM2.5 concentrations, the air quality during the wintertime was often unhealthy in large part du e to extensive wood

burning. Through the establishment of District Rule 4901, residential wood

- burning is not allowed on days when high concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted. This reduction

in wood

- burning emissions through the rule has greatly reduced t he potential for high PM2.5 concentrations. The following analysis displays the effect that Rule 4901 has

had on PM2.5 in the Fresno area.

To conduct this analysis, a statistical model was developed to quantify PM2.5 reductions and evaluate air quality i mprovements attributable to the 2003 and 2008

amendments to Rule 4901. This statistical model was developed through generalized linear model techniques with logarithmic transformations based on the relationships between meteorology and PM2.5 concentration s that existed prior to the 2003 Rule 4901 amendments. Daily and hourly observed PM2.5 concentrations served as dependent variables with meteorological parameters such as wind speed, temperature, and stability serving as indep endent variables.

Since this model was developed with data before wood

- burning curtailments came into effect, its output shows a prediction of what PM2.5 concentrations would be like if Rule 4901 were not in place. Comparing these predicted concentrations against what wasSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 56 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan observed, a difference can be calculated that represents the emissions reductions that

have occurred since wood

- burning curtailments began. As shown in F igure A

- 35 , a consistent pattern of model

- predicted values being higher than what was actually observed provides compelling statistical evidence that a control measure, i.e., wood

burning curtailments, was responsible for the discrepancy. Reductions in emissions from other sources may have also attributed to the differences, but these reductions

would be minor when compared to the reductions from residential wood

- burning.

Note that t he 2003 amendment to the rule established a curtailment threshold at 65 μg/m 3 of PM2.5, and the 2008 amendment lowered this threshold to 30 μ g/m 3 of PM2.5

or 135 μg/m 3 of PM10

. This mo deling indicates that as of the 2011

– 2012 wood

- burning season, there has been a 41 % (21 μg/m3) improvement in the 24

- hour average PM2.5 in Fresno since the 2003 and 2008 amendments to Rule 4901. This improvement is exemplified in PM2.5 concentrations meas ured during the evening hours of 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. The average evening PM2.5 concentrations have improved by 50 percent (42 μg/m3) over the same time period. As shown in th is analysis, the 2008 amendment

to Rule 4901 has approximately doubled the seasonal improvements att ributable to the

2003 amendment

.

Figure A

- 35 Effect of Rule 4901 on Winter (November through February) PM2.5

Concentrations in FresnoSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 57 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan Overall, the Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations have dramatically d ecreased since the 2003 and 2008 Rule 4901 amendments. Without this further analysis, it would have been

unclear if decreases in PM2.5 concentrations could be attributed to reductions in

residential wood

- burning or changes in seasonal weather patterns. R ule 4901 will continue to play an important role in reducing PM2.5 concentrations throughout the San Joaquin Valley both within and beyond the timeframe of this plan.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Dec ember 20 , 2012

A

- 58 Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis

2012 PM2.5 Plan This page intentionally blank.