# Western Regional Air Partnership

2007 Work Plan

September 5, 20061 

### Table of Contents

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2

II. Background .......................................................................................................... 6

III. Project Summ aries ............................................................................................... 9 Stationary Sources Joint Forum .......................................................................9

Fire Emissions Joint Forum ............................................................................ 10

Dust Emissions Joint Forum ................................................................ 11

Mobile Source Forum ................................................................................. 12 Air Quality Modeling Forum ........................................................................... 13

Emissions Forum ........................................................................................ 14 Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum .......................................................... 14 Attribution of Haze Work Group ...................................................................... 15 Air Managers Committee .............................................................................. 16

Communications Committee .......................................................................... 172 

### I. INTRODUCTION

This work plan was developed by the WRAP Pl anning Team (Oversight Committees and Forum Co-Chairs) and summarizes ongoing activities an d expenditures of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), including current project s and those planned for 2007 and 2008. This work is funded through existing EPA grants (F Y04-05) and through the WRAP’s FY06 regional haze grant from EPA.

The total amount of EPA’s FY06 funding for the WRAP’s regional haze work is $1,302,555. Of this amount, $787,095 will be awarded to WGA and $515,460 will be awarded to NTEC. This document will be submitted to EPA in support of WGA’s grant application. The NTEC work plan is a separate document that will be submitted to EPA by NTEC.

As shown in Table 1, as of June 30, 2006, $3,130,920 remains in WGA’s existing WRAP grant (FY04-05). Table 2 lists projec ts currently underway and funded through the existing grant. Table 3 lists pending projects, including current and future tribal data projects covered under NTEC’s grant. Table 3 also identifies those projects to be funded with FY06 grant funds.

For this work plan, NTEC and WGA staff worked together to present budgets for each organization that provide funding for staff, tr avel support, and project management through September 2007. The budgets reflect the fact that effective July 1, 2006 NTEC assumed administrative responsibility for c ontracts related to the work of the Tribal Data Work Group and for reimbursement of tribal travel and meeting expenses.

In developing this work plan, the WRAP Pla nning Team recognized that the FY06 grant funds covered by this work plan will be the last funds NTEC and WGA recei ve prior to the SIP deadline of December 2007. Also, the WRAP’s FY07 grant (funds available in late 2007) may be reduced from historical funding levels. Ther efore, all critical proj ects and contract work needed for the SIPs must be funded through this work plan.

In developing this work plan, WRAP forums a nd committees were asked to consider projects

that are essential to the needs of state and tribal implementation plans for regional haze, including the key technical support elements th at must be maintained through 2008 (after the SIPs are submitted).

It is important to note that the WRAP’s planning process must accommodate a unique landscape of environmental, social, economic, and politic al issues. The WRAP region includes 116 (or 75 percent) of the nation’s 156 mandatory federal Class I areas, half the land mass of the United States (not including Alaska), a very large portion of publicly-owned lands, and numerous tribal jurisdictions (many with large land areas). It also emits a minority of total U.S. emissions, borders both Canada and Mexico, and receives pollution from Asia. Air quality in Western Class I area is also greatly influenced by “natur al” emissions, such as those from wildfires and

wind-blown dust.

The WRAP region is also expe riencing rapid population grow th and other challenges to preventing deterioration of air quality, such as drought. This presents a unique and challenging3 environment for long-term planning which is be st addressed through a single, well-funded and well-organized institution at the appropriate pol itical level. The WRAP, with appropriate financial support from EPA, provides such an institution, especially given its management

structure shared between the Western Gover nors’ Association and the National Tribal

Environmental Council.

Finally, the WRAP’s long-term planning process must deal with relevant events beyond its control, such as federal initiatives and the ramifications of legal challenges to the RHR. One way the WRAP contends with these events is to have sufficient staffing to track the issues and to foster a constructive dialogue among its members.

Table 1 - June 30, 2006 Financial Status Report

WGA FY04-05

Funds Remaining 2006
Grant

Funds -

WGA Total Budget –

WGA

Travel Reimbursements 34,832 225,532 260,363
Conference Calls 26,129 4,059 30,187 Meeting Expenses 9,268 76,951 86,218
Direct Salaries and Benefits 201,479 166,075 367,554
Overhead & Other Expenses 151,288 49,479 200,767

Travel and Project Management through 9/07 422,995 522,095 945,090

Contractor Assistance ($1,077,000 obligated) 2,707,925 265,000 2,972,925

Total 3,130,920 787,095 3,918,0154 Table 2: Projects Underway

Project Title Current Expenditures

Contract to Date

SSJF

Review 2018 Projections for Non-Utility Sour ces in 309 SO2 Prog ram (Pechan ) 23,300 5,963

Oil and Gas EI Improvements & Cont rol Strategy Evaluation 100,000 0

FIRE

2002 National Wildfire EI (inter -RPO project - Air Sciences) 133,779 120,252

Phase III & IV Inventories plus Addition al Tasks (Air Scie nces) 188,936 151,128

Evaluation of FTS (AS/ECR) 24,130 21,712

MOBILE SOURCES

Non-Road Retrofit Demonstration Projects - (Emissions Advantage) 244,540 223,384

MODELING

Regional Modeling Center (UCR) 3,567,421 3,311,100

EMISSIONS

EDMS (Pechan) 933,788 877,971

TRIBAL DATA

Tribal Inventory Gathering and Analysis (ITEP/NAU) - Phase III 442,000 352,439

DUST

Common Definition of Dust and Dust Emission Types (Environ) 86,953 69,316

Fine Fraction of Dust EFs (MRI) 130,436 124,278

Update Handbook (Countess) 30,000 18,931

Pilot Project -NM (106) 60,000 15,000

AMBIENT MONITORING AND REPORTING
Causes of Haze ($70 K for Dust Impacts, $85 K for Tribal Areas) (DRI) 1,020,000 916,600

Natural Haze Levels Analysis (from OAQPS, national project) (Tombach) 85,000 76,210

ATTRIBUTION OF HAZE

TSS Phase I & II (ARS) 250,948 181,652

TSS (CIRA) 71,000 0

AIR MANAGERS COMMITTEE

308 Implementation Work Group - State Support (WESTAR) 36,000 31,775

308 Implementation Work Group - Tribal Support (NM) (109) 60,000 40,000

State Caucus Staff Suppor t (WESTAR) 587,434 501,190

309 2004 Milestone Report (Perrin Quarles) 30,762 13,924

COMMUNICATIONS

Web Site Maintenance (B. Bissey) 151,500 128,086

Subtotal for Projects Underway 8,257,927 7,180,9115 Table 3: Pending Projects FY05 Grant FY06 Grant

2006-07 2007 2008

STATIONARY SOURCES

BART - Technical Assistance to States and Tribes 89,000

309 SO2 Program Revisions 90,000

FIRE

Fire Tracking System 204,000 50,000

Smoke Mgmt Technical and Policy Workshop 21,000

Section 308 Strategies for Fire 60,000

MODELING

Modeling Support for 308 and 309 SIPs 150,000 100,000

EMISSIONS

2006-2007 EDMS Hosting / Operation 320,000 40,000

DUST

Enhanced Data Analysis (Pilot Project or Other) 53,000

AMBIENT MONITORING AND REPORTING

Causes of Haze 50,000 50,000

ATTRIBUTION OF HAZE

TSS -2007 375,000

AIR MANAGERS COMMITTEE

Contractor Assistance 50,909

308 Implementation Work Group - State Support 18,000

Technical and Economic Analysis of Reasonable Progress 50,000

State Caucus Staff S upport (to Sept. 07) 55,000

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE

Public Outreach and Communication on WRAP Issues 20,000

Web Site Maintenance 25,000 25,000

Subtotal for Pending Projects – WGA 1,630,909 100,000 165,000

FY05 Grant FY06 Grant

TRIBAL DATA - NTEC Grant 2006-07 2007 2008
Analysis of SIPs for Tribal Issues 100,000 Tribal Data in Technical Support Document 50,000

TEISS 50,000 72,500 50,000
Analysis of Improve Network 30,000

Subtotal 200,000 102,500 50,0006 II. Background

The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act esta blished the GCVTC, which in June of 1996 completed its original mission to recommend stra tegies for improving visibility in the Grand Canyon and other Class I areas on the Colorado Plat eau. Recognizing the n eed for a process to monitor and coordinate the implementation of its final recommendations, the GCVTC members created the WRAP. The WRAP includes particip ants from industry, environmental groups, and other affected parties and operates in conjuncti on with regional organizat ions such as WESTAR, the Western Governors' Association, and the Na tional Tribal Environmental Council. The work products of the WRAP are used by states and tr ibes in the preparati on of their individual implementation plans to meet the requirements of the federal regional haze rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999.

While the initial focus of the WRAP was to implement the recommendations of the GCVTC in conjunction with federal visibility rules, the requirements of these rules also highlighted the need to implement other regional planning processes to improve visibility in al l western Class I areas. In March 1999, the WRAP expanded its charter to address all regional air quality issues.

A. Tribal Options for Implementation Plan Development

Under the regulatory framework provided by the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) (40 CFR 49.1– 49.11) and the regional haze rule, tribal implem entation of visibility programs through Tribal Implementation Plans (TIPs) is optional. The TAR authorizes but does not require tribes to receive delegation of authority to implement any program, or “reasonably severable elements” of a program, under the Clean Air Act. The preambl e to the regional haze rule explains that “a tribal visibility program is not dependent on strategies selected by the State or States in which the tribe is located.” (64 Fed. Reg. 35714, 35756, July 1, 1999) The net result is that any tribe in the GCVTC transport region may implemen t §308 or §309 in whole or in part.

The policy and technical work of the WRAP to assi st states is designed to simultaneously assist tribes in the same way. Tribal concerns are being addressed at every level within the WRAP. Tribal and state implementation plan needs may be different. As these diffe rences are identified, project tasks and work plans are updated to refl ect the improved understanding of tribal needs.

To ensure that tribal needs are addressed, the active participation of tribal representatives on all

forums has been and will continue to be sought and encouraged. The National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) is responsible for coordinating tribal par ticipation in the WRAP and receives funds from EPA for this purpose. Since some tribes do not have the resources or expertise to participate in the WR AP, NTEC provides tribes with analyses and synopses of issues emanating from the WRAP forums and work groups and from sources outside the WRAP. NTEC also facilitates consensus building within the WRAP tribal caucus. The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona University also provides assistance and staff through the Tr ibal Data Development Working Group to address a key tribal need – the acquisition of data necessary to make informed policy decisions.7 Finally, it should be noted that the WRAP orga nizational structure provides several checkpoints for tribal input. First and foremost, the WRAP has established equal representation for tribes and states within its management structure, including a tribal Co-Chair of the WRAP. Key positions

are also reserved for tribal re presentatives on all standing comm ittees, forums, and work groups. Public workshops for WRAP work products and tr avel support from the WRAP ensure that the broader tribal community has an opportunity to participat e in the WRAP process.

B. WRAP Organization and Structure In September 1997 the WRAP was formed with a membership including states and tribes both within and outside the GCVTC region. The WRAP established oversight committees and forums charged with developing work plans to implement the GCVTC recommendations and to facilitate development of impl ementation plans under the RHR.

1. Membership The WRAP membership currently includes the Gove rnor or his/her designee from 14 states and 12 tribes, two U.S. Cabinet Secretaries and the Administrator of the EPA or their designees:

States Tribes
Alaska Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Arizona Cortina Indian Rancheria California Hopi Tribe

Colorado

Hawaii Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Idaho Native Village of Shungnak

Montana Nez Perce Tribe New Mexico Northern Cheyenne Tribe

North Dakota Pueblo of Acoma Oregon Pueblo of San Felipe

South Dakota

Utah Washington Wyoming Confederated Tribes of Salish and Kootena

Pueblo of Zuni

Federal Agencies
Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture

EPA

2. Charter and Bylaws

The WRAP Charter and Bylaws set forth the or ganizations goals, principles, and operating procedures and are posted on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair.org/about/index.html

.8 3. WRAP Organization

The WRAP is composed of several forums, committees, and work groups. All these groups include participation from the WRAP membership (states, tribes, and federal agencies) and interested stakeholders (industr y, environmental groups, local governments, academia, etc.).

Committee and forum members are expected to re present and communicate with their agencies and constituents. Forum and committee members are responsible for establishing mechanisms

that will ensure this communication occurs. These mechanisms may involve working through trade groups, state and tribal organizations su ch as the Western States Air Resource Council (WESTAR Council), the National Tr ibal Environmental Council (N TEC), and intra- and interagency forums.

C. Project Management

Members of committees and forums perform much of the work of the WRAP. The oversight committees monitor forum and work group activities to ensure that work products are developed in a timely manner and that stakeholder participa tion remains representative , balanced, and fair. Contractors hired with EPA grant funds are reli ed upon to expand the res ources of the WRAP.

Committees and forums direct the work of contractors.

Support services to the WRAP come from the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC)

and the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). The Communications Committee has developed a Communications Manual for the WRAP ’s internal and external communications and

assists committees and forums with outreach stra tegies for specific products and activities.

WGA and NTEC staff provide ove rall project management for the WRAP, including preparing and managing grant applications, funds, reque sts for proposals (RFPs), contracts, travel reimbursements, meetings, conference calls, pub lic and media inquiries, press releases, Web sites, requests to participate in the WRAP, and report publicati ons. Staff assistance includes providing a “sounding board” for st akeholders having concerns w ith the WRAP processes and relating concerns to forum co-chairs, oversight committees, committee co-chairs, facilitators, and

the WRAP co-chairs.

WGA and NTEC staff routinely attend the mee tings of the various committees and forums. WGA and NTEC jointly or separately perform tasks related to WRAP and serve as primary contact points by responding to media and public inquiries.

Under a separate EPA grant, NTEC assists trib al participation in the WRAP by arranging and facilitating Tribal Caucus meetings; providing coordination among tribal representatives of various committees and forums; performing lega l, policy and technical analyses on various WRAP issues; and securing contractor assistance for additional policy and technical analysis. This includes providing staff support to the Tribal Caucus within the WRAP.

Staff positions include the WRAP Co-Directors (WGA and NTEC) who oversee other staff, share general management respons ibilities, work with stakeholders to ensure the WRAP's processes are fair an equitable, and serve as th e primary points of contact for EPA, the media,9 and the general public. There ar e state and tribal caucus coordi nators hired with WRAP funds through WESTAR and NTEC, respectively.

WGA also employs a technical coordinator and policy analyst to support the oversight committees, forums, and work groups. NTEC em ploys a tribal communications specialist who works closely with the WRAP's Communications Committee and who is available to other

committees and forums to ensure that communicati ons with and for the trib es are properly being carried out. NTEC also employs a tribal policy analyst to address the unique circumstances of tribes with respect to the Clean Air Act and other related issues.

D. Contract Management

WRAP staff at NTEC and WGA work with the fo rums to manage WRAP contracts. WGA and NTEC, as the recipients of EPA grants, are resp onsible for executing and administering contracts and ensuring that work products are completed. These responsibilities are met with input from forums and work groups. Forums and work groups may create balanced subgroups for purposes of contract management.

It is the responsibility of the forums and work groups and their respective oversight committees to develop the scope of work for each contract. All contracts are to be developed in accordance with the work plans approved by the WRAP and submitted to EPA. Once the scope of work has been properly developed, it is transmitted to WG A or NTEC who are responsible for developing an RFP or sole source justification. All RFPs are sent to known contractors, posted on the WRAP Web site, and published in the Federal Business Opportuni ties publication as appropriate. Bidders are provided 30 days to respond.



### II. PROJECT SUMMARIES

The focus of the SSJF is on developing a stationa ry source control program to help meet the reasonable progress and BART requirements of th e Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule. This work plan assumes that Section 309 SIPs for SO 2 will be resubmitted by five states (OR, UT, NM, AZ, & WY) and that all other stationary sources/pollutants will be addressed through source-by-source BART approaches. The SSJF will also evaluate potential emission reduction strategies for non-BART sources.

The SSJF will conduct the analyses necessary to support the Section 309 market-based alternative, including identifying BART-eligible s ources and demonstrating that any alternatives demonstrate greater reasonable progress that BART . The SSJF will also help coordinate any plant-by-plant BART analyses the stat es or tribes may choose to pursue.

Other SSJF activities include tracking EPA’s BA RT rules and proposed guidelines. The SSJF will also work with the 309 Coordinating Committ ee to conduct any additional analyses that may be necessary to allow states and tribes to resubmit the SO2 milestone and backstop emissions trading program following the court’ s decision in CEED v. EPA. Stationar y Sources Joint Forum10 Finally, NOx and PM emissions must be addressed in such a way as to satisfy the SIP revision requirements under Section 309 of the Regional H aze Rule, as well as the Section 308 BART and reasonable progress requirements for all states.

Work will include emissions inventory analysis , improvements, and future year projections; examination of control technology capabilities; ma intenance of the list of BART-eligible sources in the WRAP region; and technical demonstrations that alternativ es developed for BART provide for greater reasonable progress than BART.

There are several uncertainties that must be factored into this work. As a result, there is a need to maintain flexibility in program design and to assess new information as it becomes available, including information from ongoing WRAP t echnical studies which will provide more

information on the contribution of various sources to regional haze in the West.

To the extent practical, and as requested by WRAP members, the forum will coordinate the implementation of BART and address trading pr ogram design issues, such as 2018 and interim milestones; geographic, new source, and trib al considerations; m onitoring and reporting requirements; enforcement provisions; economic impact assessments; and a general method for

allowance allocation.

The FEJF projects identified fall into two main categories:

1) The first grouping includes Planning projects to directly support the development of policy and technical tools for SI P/TIP development under §308. 2) The second grouping includes Implementation projects to direc tly support the existing fire policies and programs applicable to the implementation needs for §309 and §308.

PLANNING
Smoke Management Technical and Policy Workshop - Work on the Smoke Management Technical and Policy Workshop will be star ted in 2006. A three-day workshop will be held in late 2006/early 2007 to assess tech nical work to date, §309 policy and SIP implementation, and refinement of policy options under §308. This effort will build on the two FEJF workshops held in 2004 to ensure that the needed technical and policy tools are in place for SIP/TIP development under §308.

Section 308 Strategies for Fire – This project will be started in 2006. As states and tribes further develop their strategies for addressi ng fire impacts and c ontribution to regional haze for their §308 plans, new policies and stra tegies may need to be developed, their

effects on the emission inventories determined and their visibility effects assessed. This task will ensure that the needed technical and policy tools are in place for SIP/TIP development under §308. Fire Emissions Joint Forum11 IMPLEMENTATION
Fire Emissions Tracking System – The project to Evaluate Existing Fire Tracking Systems was started in 2005 and will be comple ted in Fall 2006. Evaluation of existing fire emissions inventory systems was a prudent step to develop a Fire Emissions Tracking System (FETS) as identified in the WRAP FTS Policy to calculate emissions from fire activity data. Based on the results of the ev aluation project, the FEJF will proceed with the development of a WRAP FETS in 2006. Implementation of the WRAP FETS will

continue into the future. The WRAP FETS w ill incorporate a specific format, parameters, defaults, structure and methods of emissi on calculation for required and optional FTS elements per the WRAP FTS Policy such as the tracking of ERTs and the calculation of

emissions averted. The WRAP FETS will also incorporate certain SMP elements critical to the interjurisdictional exchange of inform ation describing charac teristics of planned burns per the Guidance for Coordinating Smoke Management Programs under development through in-kind s upport by the FEJF. These tasks directly support the implementation of the FTS, AEG, and ESMP requirements in §309 as well as similar implementation issues for §308. The FEJF plans to fund the FETS primarily from its 2006 budget with FY05$, but also requests $50,000 for 2008 FETS operations from the FY06 WRAP grant. Those monies would cove r operations of the FETS only for the first half of 2008, an additional $50,000 (currently unfunded) is needed to cover FETS operations for the second half of 2008.

Funding Project Title

2006 (FY05 $) 2007 (FY05 $) 2008 (FY06 $) Planning Smoke Management Technical and Policy Workshop 21,000 Section 308 Strategies for Fire 30,000 30,000 Implementation Fire Tracking System – Ev aluation of Existing FTS 24,130

Fire Emissions Tracking System – Development & Implementation 204,000 50,000 (50,000 for 2 nd 1⁄2 of

2008 unfunded)

T he Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF) has made significant progress on several fronts, including: completion and evalua tion of a regional windblown dust inventory, analysis of

ambient dust data at Class I areas and its attribu tion to various sources, quality assurance of dust emissions data provided by ju risdictions across the WRAP re gion, experimentally-based improvements to PM 2.5 emission factors for fugitive dust, completion and revisions to the WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, development and demons tration of a definition of natural and anthropogenic dust, and development of a template for the dust portion of a regional haze SIP using Salt Creek, NM as a test case. Dust Emissions Joint Forum12 Although much progress has been made in advanci ng the technical and polic y tools available to address dust in Class I areas, there is still signifi cant uncertainty regarding the sources of dust at many Class I areas on the 20% worst visibility da ys. The DEJF has identified a few areas where its remaining funds can be used to address th is uncertainty. The work would build upon and enhance the current body of work described above. Some exam ples are provided below. The precise application of DEJF funds will depend on the final outcome of its current projects and on the interest expressed by DEJF members, partic ularly on the project described below regarding

enhancement of local windblown dust emission factors.

The remaining funds will be used to conduct additio nal analysis of the ambient dust data at Class I areas and/or to develop empirically-based wi ndblown dust emission factors for a subset of Class I areas. The original analysis of ambi ent dust data was limited to 3 of the 5 years comprising the regional haze visibility baseline. Additional data are now available for the 5th year and could be added to the analysis. Alternatively, an enhanced analysis method using wind back trajectories, landuse data, and wind erodability indices has b een demonstrated by the Desert Research Institute using data from the Salt Cr eek Class I area in New Mexico. This method could be applied to other high- dust areas to further identify the causes of dust. Finally, empirically-based windblown dust emission factor s could be developed for one or two Class I areas using sand traps designed and built by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control

District in eastern CA. The Di strict has offered in-kind techni cal support and sand traps to other areas which may benefit from having more accurate emission factors. To the extent these areas are representative of other Class I areas, this approach may improve local windblown dust

emissions for several Class I areas. The current factors are based on a limited set of wind tunnel studies and 4 km-resolution data regarding land use and soil types. Although they provide meaningful regional and qualitative emissions data, they do not significantly improve the performance of gridded air quality simulati on models with respect to dust.

Diesel retrofits are a growing national priority and increases are expected in federal funds to support specific retrofit proposals. Regional organi zations can enhance the success of this broad initiative by providing cost-effective options for government and stakeholder outreach, training, sharing information and lessons l earned, inter-project coordination, administrative and technical support, and effective communications between fede ral grantors and local project implementers. The value of regional organizations in a national retrofit intiative is recognized in the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's April 10, 2006 recommendations to EPA, and is also evident in the number of regional diesel collaboratives recently formed. However, it is not clear that sufficient resources will be provided to capitalize on the advantages of these regional organizations.

For the past two years the WRAP has used some of its funds to promote diesel retrofits through the oversight and leadership of the Mobile S ources Forum (MSF). MSF products have incluced written guidance on diesel retr ofits, technology updates, summa ries and updates of available funding sources, ad hoc support to WRAP members for individual projects and grant proposals, and a series of comprehensive diesel retrofit boot camps intended to spur the development and enhancement of diesel retrofit projects and programs. Mobile Sources Forum13 Due to increasing budget constraints on the WRAP, no new projects or funding are being proposed for the MSF. The MSF will continue its focus on diesel retrofits and convene on a regular basis to share information on diesel retrof it projects, trends, and opportunities. It will also advocate for sufficient regional funding and be prepared to make the best use of such funding in the event the WRAP acquires additional funds through restoration of its regional haze grant or through other means.

The Modeling Forum will complete the work de fined in the 2006 Regional Modeling Center (RMC) contract ( http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/do cs/2006/memo_RMC_2006_c ontract_mods.doc )

, and complete the associated documentation. While completing this work, the Modeling Forum proposes to then address the following strate gic goals with their Regional Modeling Center project during 2007-08: 1) Provide states and tribes continuing a nd expanded support for and access to RMC information for data mining and technology transfer; 2) Provide stable storage media and support services for long-term archiving, data transfer, and ongoing website support as needed by the WRAP; 3) Define and implement a revised, scaled-back fo rm of the RMC to be implemented by the end of 2006; and 4) Move to a “work assignment” format for 2007- 08 regional modeling simulations in support

of the haze SIPs:

a. Plan for 3 or 4 control strategy and/or se nsitivity regional modeling simulations to support haze SIP preparation during 2007; and

b. An approximately equal number of regional si mulations in 2008 to answer or clarify questions about the haze SIPs submitted in December 2007.

The preferred approach will be to modify and s cale back the existing RMC structure. Computer upgrades/purchases will need to be made becau se existing RMC equipment is getting old and

unreliable.

The Forum also proposes that a policy support approach to defining the scope, scale, and questions to be answered by each simulation be implemented; these decisions should be coordinated by an oversight group of key techni cal and planning/policy representatives across the WRAP region. This new or existing group mi ght include and/or consolidate members from the TOC, the AoH Workgroup, the IWG, and dr aw upon the expertise of each individual Forum or Workgroup as needed. The AoH Workgroup is currently closest in composition to the group proposed by the Modeling Forum. The Modeling Forum specifical ly proposes that they not decide “what to model”, instead focusing on addressing the strategi c goals listed above. Discussions with the TOC, AMC, IWG, and Ao H Workgroup are planned over the next several

months. Air Q ualit y Modelin g Forum14 Modeling Forum Budget Summary for 2006-08:

FY05 Grant FY06 Grant Request Currently Unfunded

2006-2007 2007 to mid-2008 July-December 2008 Modeling Support

for 308 & 309 SIPs 150,000 100,000 50,000

The Emissions Forum intends to focus on maintena nce and operation of the Emissions Database Management System (EDMS) for the foreseeable future, at this point, through 2008. The EDMS is operational, although some func tions are currently being improve d in response to deficiencies identified by third party testing. The system must be maintained to provide states and tribes the means to prepare regional haze plans, assess control strategies, conduct additional modeling analyses, house updates to existi ng inventories, address new inve ntory needs for pollutants of regional concern, and assess emission reduction efforts.

The operation and maintenance budget includes the annual cost for a contracted database administrator to operate the EDMS, provide data analysis products, us er assistance, quality assure new data, update database versions, resolv e data overlaps between state and tribal data, and prepare standard reports. In addition, a host site is employed to provide the necessary hardware, including servers, and to en sure data security and archiving.

Budget Summary for 2006-08: 2006 (remainder) EDMS maintenance and ope ration, including host site $ 90,000 2007 EDMS maintenance and operation, including host site $160,000 2008 EDMS maintenance and operation, including host site $150,000 Total $400,000

Existing FY05 Emissions Forum EDMS funding $320,000 New FY06 Funds requested to cover through mid-2008 $ 40,000 Additional funding needed to cover thr ough 12/08, but currently unfunded $ 40,000 Total $400,000

The Causes of Haze Study is a complex, 4-year data analysis project totaling approximately $1,000,000. The study draws on the IMPROVE regi onal haze monitoring network data. This project will be complete at the end of 2006. The results are posted to the Causes of Haze

Assessment web site at: http://coha.dri.edu/index.html

.

The data and results from this project need to be maintained and updated to a limited degree. As such, the AMRF proposes to use $50,000 of FY 05 funds for CoHA website support and data update needs for 2007. The AMRF requests $50, 000 from FY06 funds to cover limited support and maintenance for 2008. If the WRAP region st ates and tribes need to restore CoHA to a Ambient Monitorin g and Re p ortin g Forum Emissions Forum15 higher level of effort than maintenance and lim ited updates, the existing data and results will be available, but additional funding will be required.

AMRF Budget Summary for 2007-08: 2007 (from FY05 funds) 2008 (from FY06 funds)

Maintenance of the CoHA Website 50,000 50,000

The AoH Workgroup has worked during 2005-06 to complete the delivery of the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS); the TSS will be released in October 2006 for use in regional haze planning by states and tribes in the WR AP region. The design, development, and implementation of the TSS has been directed by AoH Workgroup in close consultation with other Forums, Workgroups, the Technical Over sight Committee, and in particular, the Implementation Workgroup. AoH plans to operat e the TSS using the same contractor team on an ongoing basis, to fully support the development and implementation of the December 2007 haze plans. AoH uses a pair of parallel contract s to fund the contractor te am as shown in the two tasks below. The full work plan for the la te 2006 through 2007 time period can be found at: http://wrapair.org/forums/aoh/meetings/060726den/Workplan_2007_072706.doc

.

Major strategic goals of the work plan include:

• Ongoing TSS web site hardware and software maintenance;

• Database and analysis tool archiving for future reference and access by WRAP participants, stakeholders, and the EPA;

• Formal training and general web si te support for WRAP participants;

• Analytical tool enhancements for access to m onitoring, modeling, and emissions data as required by WRAP participants; and

• Performance of additional regional or local analyses required for SIP preparation, as requested by WRAP participants.

All work performed for this effort will be coor dinated and prioritized by the AoH Workgroup. The training and analytical task s will be performed in close co nsultation with the Implementation Work Group (IWG) and other Forums and Workgroups as appropriate.

AoH Budget Summary for 2007-08: 2007 through mid-08 (from FY05 funds) July to December 2008 (not currently funded) Operations, Maintenance, & TSS Development 225,000 75,000

User Support for Regional Haze Planning & Ongoing TSS Development 150,000 50,000

Existing FY05 AoH Workgroup TSS funding for 2007 through mid-2008 $375,000 Additional funding needed to cover remainde r of 2008, but currently unfunded $125,000 Total $500,000 Attribution of Haze Work g rou p ( AoH )16 The Air Managers’ Committee provides project revi ew and tracking from the perspective of state and tribal air managers with primary responsibil ity for the development and tracking of regional haze plans. The state and tribal caucus coordi nators at WESTAR and NTEC will continue to

assist the committee in 2007. In addition to the staff support discussed below, there are two additional line items in the AMC budget. They are:

Contractor Assistance ($50,000) : These funds are earmarked for project needs not anticipated in the current work plan. When a forum identifie s a new project or supplemental funding for an existing project, they can apply to the AMC fo r use of these contra ctor assistance funds.

Technical and Economic Analysis of Reasonable Progress ($50,000): As the deadline for regional haze plans approaches, th e Air Managers anticipate addi tional analyses will be needed

to evaluate the technical and economic factor s that go into determin ing whether the plans demonstrate reasonable progress for each Class I area. This work is expected to begin in mid2007, once the majority of emission reduction strategi es have been identified and modeled. It is also likely that some of this wo rk will occur in 2008 in order to answer questions that arise from

EPA and others once the SIPs have been submitted.

The AMC’s Implementation Work Group (IWG) is co mprised of state and tribal staff (SIP/TIP writers). This group began its work in earnest in 2004. The IWG will continue through 2007 to:

• Help guide and assess project output from the other WRAP forums and workgroups;

• Develop a roadmap or template/framework that states and tribes may use to construct their individual SIPs and TIPs;

• Compile information on supplemental benefits of regional haze contro l strategies, and;

• Facilitate the essential understandings be tween states and tribes to develop and implement their SIPs and TIPs.

Staff Support for the State and Tribal Caucuses

The State and Tribal Caucus Coordinators assist the tribal and state air directors with continual tracking and reporting of WRAP activities, is sue identification and communication among the WRAP partners, recruitment of WRAP participants from states and trib es, and facilitation of

issue resolution. The State Caucus Coordinato r position is filled through a contract between

WGA and WESTAR. The Tribal Caucus Coor dinator is funded through the NTEC budget.

Implementation Work Group (IWG) The IWG got up and running in 2004, and will con tinue its work in two principle areas through 2006. First, IWG is on track to develop one or more “templates,” or “roadmaps,” to assist states and tribes in writing their 308 and 309(g) pl ans. In addition the IWG will maintain ongoing

communication with the other forums and overs ight committees as needed, prompting timely information from states and tribes, and in turn providing feedback to the forums to ensure they are focused on the critical planning questions. WESTAR provides direct staff assistance under a

services contract with WGA. The State of New Mexico provides additi onal part-time contract staff to address the specific planning needs of tribes. Air Mana g ers Committee17 Web Site Maintenance

The WRAP’s website is one of its primary communications tools. The budgeted funds will be used to continue the contract with the WRAP’s webmaster through 2008.

Public Outreach and Co mmunication on WRAP Issues These funds will be used to produce written materi als, visual presentati ons, and other outreach material that describe the work of the WRAP to external audiences. This effort will begin in

mid-2007 and continue into 2008 as the SIPs are finalized and need to be communicated to governmental entities and the public at large. Communications Committee