Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendices: Title Page 

## SACRAMENTO REGIONAL

8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT AND

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS PLAN

APPENDICES

A. EMISSIONS INVENTORY

B. PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING

C. PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES

D. TRANSPORTAT ION CONTROL MEASURES

E. WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE ANALYSES

F. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

G. REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS

H. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) ANALYSIS

I. FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTSSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A: Emissions Inventory Page A-1 

### Appendix A: Emissions Inventory

The 2002, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018 emission inventories are presented in various formats and details in this appendix.

Appendix A1 contains the on-road motor vehi cle ROG and NOx emissions, vehicle population and activity Burden data generat ed using EMFAC2007 and February 2008 SACOG transportation activity data. It does not include CARB adjustments for recently adopted controls through Decem ber 31, 2006, and recently identified previously uninventoried categories.

Appendix A2 (available separately in electronic file format) contains the estimated VOC and NOx forecast summaries by EIC em ission categories for the Sacramento

Federal Nonattainment Area. It does not include CARB and distri ct adjustments for recently adopted controls through December 31, 2006, and recently identified previously uninventoried categories.

Appendix A3 (available separately in electronic file format) contains the stationary point and area-wide source VOC and NOx invent ories listed by EIC emission categories with growth and control factors and associated rules and growth parameters. It is based
on data from California Emission Forecast ing System (CEFS Ve rsion 1.06 Sacramento NAA (Rf#980) February 28, 2007) and it does not incl ude CARB and district adjustments for recently adopted controls through December 31, 2006, and recently identified previously un inventoried categories.

Appendix A4 (available separately in electronic file format) contains the summary of offroad equipment emissions, horsepower, population and activity data for the
Sacramento Federal Nonatta inment Area using data out puts from OFFROAD2007
model. It does not include CARB and district adjustments for recently adopted controls through December 31, 2006, and recently identi fied previously uninventoried categories.

Appendix A5 contains recent emission inventory adjustments by the air districts and
CARB. Unlike the VOC and NOx inventories presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, respectively, the inventories presented in Appendices A1 to A4 do not include CARB and district adj ustments for recently adopted controls through December 31, 2006, and recently identified previously uninventoried categories . District inventory adjustments for reductions from recent distri ct rules and for emission source additions
are shown in Table A5-1. CARB inventor y adjustments are presented in Table A5-2.

Appendix A6 contains a summary description and inventory of VOC and NOx emission reduction credits (ERCs) listed by the individua l air districts. Included are: 1) unused
ERCs issued for reductions that occurred prior to the 2002 base year, and 2) future bankable rice burning ERCs. The VOC and NOx ERC totals were added to the emission inventory forecast years in Chapter 5, Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, respectively.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A: Emissions Inventory Page A-2 

### Appendix A7 contains the calculation of the estimated 2019 VOC and NOx emissions by stationary, area-wide, on-road motor vehicl es and other mobile sources major source categories. It also contains 2 018 and 2019 VOC and NOx emissions inventory summary from CEFS (Version 1.06).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory Page A1-1 

### Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory

Appendix A1 contains t he 2002, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 20 18 on-road motor vehicle summer planning VOC and NOx inventories, v ehicle population, VMT and trips for each EMFAC vehicle class category for the Sacramento federal nona ttainment area. These updated motor vehicle emissions are bas ed on ARB’s EMFAC2007 emission factor model and the latest planning assumptions from SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP2035) with Blueprint. The followin g emissions tables are Sacramento

nonattainment area activities emissions summa rized using the motor vehicle data from the EMFAC Burden output runs for the individual Sa cramento nonattainment area

counties.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-2Appendix A1: 2002 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 1 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2002 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2002 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LDA-NCAT LDA-CAT LDA-DSL LDA-TOT LDT1-NCAT LDT1-CAT LDT1-DSL LDT1-TOT LDT2-NCAT LDT2-CAT LDT2-DSL LDT2-TOT MDV-NCAT MDV-CAT MDV-DSL MDV-TOT LHDT1-NCAT LHDT1-CATVehicles 30384 744205 5175 779767 18438 166699 20670 205809 8189 296208 2649 307045 4799 120074 826 125700 707 20870VMT/1000 476 26070 126 26669 312 6538 809 7660 148 11009 84 11243 114 4806 34 4954 16 788Trips 134335 4729711 30592 4894640 82284 1062558 131546 1276389 38223 1886616 16381 1941227 25192 766784 5264 797241 23400 690106Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 2.63 4.71 0.01 7.37 1.73 1.12 0.07 2.92 0.76 2.61 0.01 3.37 0.83 1.4 0 2.22 0.07 0.58Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02Start Ex 0.63 4.32 0 4.94 0.38 0.84 0 1.21 0.16 2.03 0 2.21 0.14 0.98 0 1.11 0.15 0.63------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 3.27 9.03 0.01 12.31 2.12 1.95 0.07 4.13 0.92 4.64 0.01 5.58 0.95 2.39 0 3.36 0.2 1.25Diurnal 0.55 2.31 0 2.86 0.32 0.43 0 0.74 0.14 0.89 0 1.03 0.01 0.36 0 0.39 0 0.01Hot Soak 0.53 1.9 0 2.43 0.33 0.37 0 0.69 0.16 0.71 0 0.86 0.03 0.28 0 0.31 0.01 0.12Running 2.7 5.2 0 7.91 1.17 1.17 0 2.35 0.43 2.37 0 2.8 0.05 0.92 0 0.99 0.14 0.8Resting 0.3 1.09 0 1.41 0.2 0.24 0 0.43 0.08 0.43 0 0.51 0.01 0.19 0 0.2 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 7.38 19.52 0.01 26.89 4.13 4.18 0.07 8.36 1.71 9.02 0.01 10.76 1.11 4.13 0 5.23 0.36 2.18Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 2.4 14.06 0.19 16.63 1.53 3.9 1.25 6.7 0.69 11.86 0.12 12.69 0.96 6.17 0.05 7.19 0.05 1.73Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Start Ex 0.2 3.02 0 3.21 0.12 0.62 0 0.75 0.05 2.12 0 2.16 0.06 0.9 0 0.97 0.01 1.42------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 2.57 17.07 0.19 19.85 1.65 4.52 1.25 7.43 0.75 13.98 0.12 14.85 1.01 7.05 0.05 8.13 0.06 3.15Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-3Appendix A1: 2002 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 2 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2002 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2002 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LHDT1-DSL LHDT1-TOT LHDT2-NCAT LHDT2-CAT LHDT2-DSL LHDT2-TOT MHDT-NCAT MHDT-CATMHDT-DSL MHDT-TOTHHDT-NCAT HHDT-CAT HHDT-DSL HHDT-TOTOBUS-NCATOBUS-CAT OBUS-DSLVehicles 545 22123 406 5501 5295 11204 1816 4045 14178 20039 594 940 8935 10468 119 557 534VMT/1000 19 825 9 210 206 423 16 162 805 981 8 111 1600 1719 1 27 25Trips 6854 720360 13479 181905 66609 261994 82910 184753 397554 665217 27152 42898 45215 115267 5450 25460 14960Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0 0.64 0.02 0.1 0.04 0.19 0.08 0.14 0.18 0.42 0.12 0.28 2.71 3.1 0 0.01 0.01Idle Exh 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.78 0.07 0.14 0 0.23 0.77 0.3 0 1.07 0.38 0.14 0 0.52 0.04 0.02 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0 1.46 0.12 0.25 0.04 0.41 0.84 0.46 0.2 1.5 0.51 0.44 3.01 3.94 0.04 0.04 0.01Diurnal 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hot Soak 0 0.14 0.01 0.01 0 0.04 0.04 0.01 0 0.07 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0 0Running 0 0.92 0.05 0.17 0 0.24 0.34 0.13 0 0.5 0.15 0.02 0 0.19 0.02 0.01 0Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0 2.53 0.18 0.46 0.04 0.7 1.25 0.62 0.2 2.07 0.69 0.47 3.01 4.16 0.08 0.05 0.01Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.14 1.91 0.01 0.36 1.63 2.02 0.06 0.69 12.06 12.81 0.2 1.31 38.8 40.3 0 0.1 0.39Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.12 0.12 0 0 1.59 1.59 0 0 0Start Ex 0 1.44 0.01 0.32 0 0.34 0.09 0.62 0 0.71 0.12 0.35 0 0.46 0 0.06 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.14 3.35 0.03 0.7 1.64 2.38 0.16 1.3 12.16 13.63 0.32 1.65 40.38 42.35 0.01 0.16 0.39Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-4Appendix A1: 2002 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 3 of3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2002 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2002 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************OBUS-TOTSBUS-NCATSBUS-CATSBUS-DSL SBUS-TOT UB-NCAT UB-CAT UB-DSL UB-TOT MH-NCAT MH-CAT MH-DSL MH-TOT MCY-NCAT MCY-CAT MCY-DSL MCY-TOT ALL-TOTVehicles 1211 61 269 1052 1385 6 139 281 427 2371 14150 1235 17758 39210 5448 0 44657 1547592VMT/1000 54 1 10 40 53 1 15 33 49 22 161 15 201 261 53 0 314 55142Trips 45871 246 1078 4214 5536 25 559 1130 1714 238 1415 123 1776 78412 10892 0 89305 10816540Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.1 0 0.22 1.05 0.12 0 1.16 21.74Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38Start Ex 0.08 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.01 0 0.25 12.4------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.06 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.1 0 0.22 1.25 0.13 0 1.4 34.53Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.24 0.09 0 0.31 5.38Hot Soak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.01 0 0.14 4.7Running 0.03 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.62 0.05 0 0.69 16.61Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.04 0 0.18 2.73------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.12 0 0.24 2.39 0.32 0 2.72 63.92Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.48 0 0.05 0.65 0.71 0 0.08 0.84 0.93 0.09 0.52 0.23 0.84 0.36 0.07 0 0.43 103.63Idle Exh 0 0 0 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.78Start Ex 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 10.14------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.57 0 0.05 0.68 0.77 0 0.08 0.84 0.94 0.09 0.53 0.23 0.84 0.39 0.08 0 0.47 115.54Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-5A1: 2011 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 1 of 3Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **2008/03/172011 -- All model years in the range 1967 to 2011 selectedSummeracramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]See county detailTons Per Day*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LDA-NCAT LDA-CAT LDA-DSL LDA-TOT LDT1-NCAT LDT1-CAT LDT1-DSL LDT1-TOT LDT2-NCAT LDT2-CAT LDT2-DSL LDT2-TOT MDV-NCAT MDV-CAT MDV-DSL MDV-TOT LHDT1-NCAT LHDT1-CAT8247 864379 2514 875140 5448 204634 16550 226634 2942 396298 1331 400571 1701 183086 772 185561 139 30594111 29065 56 29229 82 6996 458 7538 45 13751 32 13828 35 6774 24 6833 2 128132381 5439763 13868 5486009 21722 1280583 101018 1403326 11761 2494001 7733 2513494 7206 1157025 4768 1169000 4587 1011662rganic Gas Emissions0.67 1.46 0 2.16 0.5 0.48 0.02 1.02 0.27 1.01 0 1.29 0.29 0.68 0 0.97 0.01 0.210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.030.16 2 0 2.14 0.11 0.5 0 0.6 0.05 1.13 0 1.2 0.03 0.67 0 0.72 0.02 0.41------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------0.84 3.45 0 4.31 0.59 0.98 0.02 1.62 0.31 2.16 0 2.48 0.32 1.35 0 1.68 0.02 0.650.16 1.76 0 1.93 0.09 0.47 0 0.57 0.07 0.83 0 0.91 0.01 0.35 0 0.35 0 00.12 1.5 0 1.63 0.09 0.38 0 0.46 0.05 0.69 0 0.73 0.01 0.27 0 0.28 0 0.070.65 2.65 0 3.28 0.24 1.25 0 1.5 0.12 2.31 0 2.43 0.01 0.93 0 0.94 0.01 0.760.09 1.03 0 1.14 0.06 0.3 0 0.36 0.02 0.52 0 0.54 0 0.22 0 0.23 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------1.87 10.37 0 12.26 1.11 3.35 0.02 4.5 0.58 6.49 0 7.09 0.38 3.11 0 3.48 0.06 1.49Nitrogen Emissions0.55 5.48 0.08 6.1 0.39 1.79 0.71 2.89 0.2 5.32 0.03 5.58 0.26 3.33 0.02 3.62 0 0.730000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.04 1.85 0 1.9 0.03 0.47 0 0.49 0.01 1.55 0 1.57 0.01 0.81 0 0.85 0 1.74------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------0.6 7.33 0.08 8 0.42 2.26 0.71 3.37 0.21 6.88 0.03 7.14 0.28 4.15 0.02 4.48 0.01 2.45Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-6Appendix A1: 2011 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 2 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2011 -- All model years in the range 1967 to 2011 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LHDT1-DSL LHDT1-TOT LHDT2-NCAT LHDT2-CAT LHDT2-DSL LHDT2-TOT MHDT-NCAT MHDT-CATMHDT-DSL MHDT-TOTHHDT-NCAT HHDT-CAT HHDT-DSL HHDT-TOTOBUS-NCATOBUS-CAT OBUS-DSLVehicles 10553 41286 75 7943 7843 15860 684 4926 20046 25656 242 702 13040 13985 31 750 874VMT/1000 449 1732 1 305 292 598 3 198 1048 1252 2 55 2335 2395 0 32 43Trips 132728 1148974 2450 262609 98669 363724 31258 224951 562102 818308 11079 32088 65988 109155 1433 34215 24474Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.07 0.28 0 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.29 0.03 0.16 2.62 2.84 0 0.01 0.01Idle Exh 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0.27 0.27 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.43 0.01 0.12 0 0.13 0.25 0.25 0 0.5 0.13 0.13 0 0.25 0.01 0.02 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.07 0.78 0.01 0.17 0.07 0.26 0.3 0.32 0.2 0.81 0.17 0.28 2.9 3.36 0.01 0.04 0.01Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hot Soak 0 0.07 0 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0 0Running 0 0.78 0.01 0.22 0 0.23 0.12 0.16 0 0.29 0.06 0.02 0 0.09 0 0.01 0Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.07 1.62 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.52 0.44 0.52 0.2 1.17 0.26 0.31 2.9 3.46 0.01 0.06 0.01Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 2.01 2.74 0 0.2 1.54 1.76 0.01 0.43 8.41 8.89 0.04 0.63 35.46 36.14 0 0.1 0.31Idle Exh 0.02 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.16 0.16 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 0.01Start Ex 0 1.74 0 0.43 0 0.43 0.02 0.59 0 0.61 0.04 0.25 0 0.29 0 0.09 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 2.04 4.5 0 0.65 1.58 2.23 0.03 1.01 8.59 9.67 0.08 0.87 38.27 39.23 0 0.18 0.32Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-7Appendix A1: 2011 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 3 of3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2011 -- All model years in the range 1967 to 2011 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************OBUS-TOTSBUS-NCATSBUS-CATSBUS-DSL SBUS-TOT UB-NCAT UB-CAT UB-DSL UB-TOT MH-NCAT MH-CAT MH-DSL MH-TOT MCY-NCAT MCY-CAT MCY-DSL MCY-TOT ALL-TOTVehicles 1654 27 245 1391 1661 6 252 327 585 599 16234 2282 19115 50066 29987 0 80054 1887764VMT/1000 74 1 9 53 62 1 27 37 66 5 190 26 221 359 276 0 634 64462Trips 60124 107 978 5561 6645 25 1008 1307 2340 60 1624 229 1911 100120 59968 0 160090 13243094Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.06 0 0.1 1.37 0.58 0 1.93 11.09Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36Start Ex 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.12 0 0.34 6.4------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.09 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.06 0 0.1 1.59 0.7 0 2.28 17.82Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.07 0.37 0 0.45 4.22Hot Soak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.07 0 0.12 3.34Running 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.19 0 0.32 9.91Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.22 0 0.26 2.53------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.08 0 0.11 1.86 1.56 0 3.43 37.85Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.41 0 0.02 0.69 0.73 0 0.07 0.69 0.78 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.57 0.5 0.3 0 0.82 70.99Idle Exh 0.01 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1Start Ex 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.01 0 0.05 8.04------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.52 0 0.03 0.74 0.79 0 0.08 0.69 0.78 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.57 0.54 0.3 0 0.86 82.12Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-8Appendix A1: 2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 1 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2014 -- All model years in the range 1970 to 2014 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LDA-NCAT LDA-CAT LDA-DSL LDA-TOT LDT1-NCAT LDT1-CAT LDT1-DSL LDT1-TOT LDT2-NCAT LDT2-CAT LDT2-DSL LDT2-TOT MDV-NCAT MDV-CAT MDV-DSL MDV-TOT LHDT1-NCAT LHDT1-CATVehicles 3247 925263 1825 930337 2936 224024 13897 240857 1552 423718 1015 426283 1160 195637 682 197479 83 32997VMT/1000 42 31251 38 31332 43 7641 355 8041 21 14471 22 14515 23 7061 20 7106 1 1332Trips 12518 5805521 9808 5827839 11366 1394359 82713 1488438 6025 2650201 5748 2661971 4724 1227259 4116 1236099 2767 1091108Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.26 1.1 0 1.37 0.26 0.4 0.01 0.69 0.12 0.83 0 0.96 0.19 0.57 0 0.77 0 0.18Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03Start Ex 0.06 1.51 0 1.56 0.06 0.41 0 0.47 0.02 0.97 0 0.99 0.02 0.59 0 0.62 0.01 0.38------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.33 2.59 0 2.93 0.31 0.8 0.01 1.17 0.18 1.78 0 1.95 0.22 1.18 0 1.39 0.01 0.59Diurnal 0.06 1.52 0 1.6 0.06 0.44 0 0.5 0.02 0.82 0 0.85 0 0.33 0 0.35 0 0Hot Soak 0.05 1.38 0 1.44 0.04 0.39 0 0.44 0.01 0.72 0 0.73 0 0.28 0 0.29 0 0.07Running 0.22 2.34 0 2.57 0.1 1.25 0 1.33 0.05 2.3 0 2.34 0.01 0.95 0 0.97 0.01 0.76Resting 0.03 0.92 0 0.98 0.03 0.3 0 0.32 0.01 0.52 0 0.54 0 0.23 0 0.23 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.71 8.78 0 9.49 0.56 3.14 0.01 3.71 0.29 6.12 0 6.41 0.26 2.99 0 3.23 0.02 1.43Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.21 4.24 0.06 4.49 0.19 1.49 0.55 2.22 0.1 4.27 0.02 4.42 0.17 2.75 0.02 2.98 0 0.6Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Start Ex 0.01 1.44 0 1.45 0.01 0.39 0 0.42 0.01 1.3 0 1.3 0.01 0.74 0 0.75 0 1.79------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.22 5.67 0.06 5.96 0.21 1.87 0.55 2.64 0.1 5.6 0.02 5.74 0.19 3.48 0.02 3.7 0 2.39Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-9Appendix A1: 2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 2 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2014 -- All model years in the range 1970 to 2014 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LHDT1-DSL LHDT1-TOT LHDT2-NCAT LHDT2-CAT LHDT2-DSL LHDT2-TOT MHDT-NCAT MHDT-CATMHDT-DSL MHDT-TOTHHDT-NCAT HHDT-CAT HHDT-DSL HHDT-TOTOBUS-NCATOBUS-CAT OBUS-DSLVehicles 10831 43911 32 8711 8102 16846 398 5312 21458 27168 132 630 13349 14108 16 739 999VMT/1000 433 1765 0 333 298 631 2 217 1105 1325 1 47 2527 2573 0 29 50Trips 136227 1230105 1079 288000 101923 391004 18179 242532 601705 862416 6043 28759 67544 102346 710 33771 28022Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.06 0.23 0 0.03 0.06 0.1 0.01 0.05 0.18 0.24 0.02 0.12 2.09 2.24 0 0.01 0.01Idle Exh 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0.24 0.24 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.4 0 0.11 0 0.12 0.15 0.23 0 0.36 0.07 0.11 0 0.18 0 0.02 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.06 0.68 0 0.15 0.06 0.21 0.15 0.28 0.19 0.65 0.09 0.22 2.33 2.65 0 0.04 0.01Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hot Soak 0 0.07 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Running 0 0.76 0 0.21 0 0.22 0.07 0.15 0 0.22 0.03 0.02 0 0.05 0 0.01 0Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.06 1.52 0.01 0.4 0.06 0.47 0.23 0.46 0.19 0.89 0.12 0.25 2.33 2.72 0.01 0.06 0.01Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 1.68 2.28 0 0.15 1.27 1.43 0.01 0.32 6.43 6.78 0.02 0.48 26.33 26.83 0 0.08 0.24Idle Exh 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.18 0.18 0 0 2.97 2.97 0 0 0.01Start Ex 0 1.79 0 0.46 0 0.46 0.01 0.53 0 0.54 0.02 0.2 0 0.22 0 0.09 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 1.7 4.1 0 0.63 1.3 1.93 0.02 0.86 6.61 7.49 0.04 0.68 29.34 30.05 0 0.16 0.25Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-10Appendix A1: 2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 3 of3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2014 -- All model years in the range 1970 to 2014 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************OBUS-TOTSBUS-NCATSBUS-CATSBUS-DSL SBUS-TOT UB-NCAT UB-CAT UB-DSL UB-TOT MH-NCAT MH-CAT MH-DSL MH-TOT MCY-NCAT MCY-CAT MCY-DSL MCY-TOT ALL-TOTVehicles 1754 17 248 1493 1756 4 282 330 618 285 17511 2438 20234 44152 41033 0 85184 2006532VMT/1000 80 0 10 56 66 0 32 38 70 1 207 28 238 307 365 0 673 68414Trips 62503 63 987 5974 7026 17 1128 1323 2469 29 1752 243 2024 88294 82057 0 170351 14044593Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0 0.06 1.16 0.78 0 1.92 8.68Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.32Start Ex 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.15 0 0.34 5.1------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.06 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.03 0 0.06 1.36 0.93 0 2.28 14.12Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.44 0 0.47 3.78Hot Soak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.1 0 0.12 3.13Running 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.21 0 0.27 8.78Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.25 0 0.26 2.35------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.09 0 0.02 0.01 0.04 0 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.06 0 0.08 1.5 1.93 0 3.41 32.14Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.32 0 0.02 0.68 0.71 0 0.08 0.6 0.68 0 0.24 0.23 0.48 0.43 0.39 0 0.84 54.48Idle Exh 0.01 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29Start Ex 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.01 0 0.05 7.15------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.43 0 0.02 0.74 0.76 0 0.08 0.6 0.7 0 0.24 0.23 0.48 0.46 0.41 0 0.88 64.9Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-11Appendix A1: 2017 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 1 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2017 -- All model years in the range 1973 to 2017 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LDA-NCAT LDA-CAT LDA-DSL LDA-TOT LDT1-NCAT LDT1-CAT LDT1-DSL LDT1-TOT LDT2-NCAT LDT2-CAT LDT2-DSL LDT2-TOT MDV-NCAT MDV-CAT MDV-DSL MDV-TOT LHDT1-NCAT LHDT1-CATVehicles 929 986755 1292 988973 925 243905 11105 255935 534 452426 739 453700 777 208604 580 209958 47 35535VMT/1000 11 33143 26 33179 13 8295 262 8572 8 15213 16 15237 15 7391 16 7424 1 1388Trips 3514 6173793 6841 6184141 3508 1512287 64343 1580138 2033 2813086 4085 2819195 3033 1299270 3425 1305727 1582 1175022Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.07 0.87 0 0.94 0.08 0.32 0.01 0.41 0.03 0.7 0 0.73 0.13 0.48 0 0.61 0 0.13Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04Start Ex 0.01 1.14 0 1.15 0.01 0.35 0 0.36 0.01 0.79 0 0.8 0.01 0.51 0 0.53 0.01 0.35------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.08 1.99 0 2.09 0.1 0.66 0.01 0.77 0.07 1.49 0 1.56 0.14 0.99 0 1.16 0.01 0.54Diurnal 0.01 1.34 0 1.35 0.01 0.42 0 0.43 0.01 0.81 0 0.82 0 0.35 0 0.36 0 0Hot Soak 0.01 1.3 0 1.3 0.01 0.38 0 0.39 0 0.73 0 0.74 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.07Running 0.05 2.14 0 2.2 0.02 1.2 0 1.23 0.01 2.26 0 2.28 0 0.97 0 0.98 0 0.79Resting 0.01 0.87 0 0.87 0.01 0.29 0 0.3 0 0.54 0 0.54 0 0.24 0 0.24 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.18 7.61 0 7.81 0.16 2.91 0.01 3.1 0.09 5.82 0 5.91 0.15 2.87 0 3.05 0.01 1.42Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.05 3.37 0.03 3.46 0.06 1.21 0.4 1.68 0.02 3.5 0.01 3.56 0.12 2.29 0.01 2.43 0 0.51Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Start Ex 0 1.08 0 1.08 0 0.34 0 0.34 0 1.08 0 1.09 0 0.63 0 0.64 0 1.88------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.07 4.45 0.03 4.54 0.07 1.53 0.4 2.02 0.02 4.6 0.01 4.65 0.12 2.92 0.01 3.07 0 2.37Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-12Appendix A1: 2017 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 2 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2017 -- All model years in the range 1973 to 2017 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LHDT1-DSL LHDT1-TOT LHDT2-NCAT LHDT2-CAT LHDT2-DSL LHDT2-TOT MHDT-NCAT MHDT-CATMHDT-DSL MHDT-TOTHHDT-NCAT HHDT-CAT HHDT-DSL HHDT-TOTOBUS-NCATOBUS-CAT OBUS-DSLVehicles 11080 46664 13 9469 8410 17892 169 5740 22904 28813 59 564 13683 14308 7 715 1140VMT/1000 421 1810 0 359 304 663 1 235 1160 1399 1 41 2697 2739 0 26 59Trips 139379 1315983 459 313098 105785 419340 7645 262163 642262 912069 2644 25792 69247 97681 302 32669 31940Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.05 0.2 0 0.01 0.04 0.08 0 0.03 0.16 0.21 0.01 0.08 1.65 1.74 0 0 0.01Idle Exh 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.22 0.22 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.37 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.06 0.21 0 0.25 0.03 0.08 0 0.12 0 0.02 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.06 0.62 0 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.17 0.49 0.04 0.17 1.88 2.08 0 0.04 0.01Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hot Soak 0 0.07 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Running 0 0.8 0 0.19 0 0.19 0.02 0.15 0 0.17 0.01 0.02 0 0.03 0 0.01 0Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.06 1.49 0 0.36 0.05 0.42 0.1 0.42 0.17 0.69 0.05 0.19 1.88 2.14 0 0.06 0.01Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 1.43 1.93 0 0.12 1.06 1.17 0 0.25 4.89 5.12 0.01 0.36 19.48 19.85 0 0.06 0.19Idle Exh 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.18 0.18 0 0 3.13 3.13 0 0 0.01Start Ex 0 1.88 0 0.47 0 0.47 0 0.47 0 0.48 0.01 0.17 0 0.18 0 0.08 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 1.45 3.83 0 0.61 1.07 1.68 0.01 0.73 5.05 5.78 0.02 0.53 22.62 23.17 0 0.15 0.2Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-13Appendix A1: 2017 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 3 of3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2017 -- All model years in the range 1973 to 2017 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************OBUS-TOTSBUS-NCATSBUS-CATSBUS-DSL SBUS-TOT UB-NCAT UB-CAT UB-DSL UB-TOT MH-NCAT MH-CAT MH-DSL MH-TOT MCY-NCAT MCY-CAT MCY-DSL MCY-TOT ALL-TOTVehicles 1861 7 250 1593 1851 2 298 349 649 102 18754 2554 21409 40218 50240 0 90460 2132467VMT/1000 85 0 10 61 69 0 33 39 73 1 224 30 254 280 426 0 708 72212Trips 64911 28 1002 6368 7397 8 1187 1400 2597 10 1875 255 2142 80431 100471 0 180901 14892235Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.01 0.04 0 0.03 0 0.03 1.05 0.9 0 1.95 7.02Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31Start Ex 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.19 0 0.36 4.12------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.04 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.02 0.01 0.05 0 0.03 0 0.03 1.24 1.08 0 2.32 11.44Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.47 0 0.5 3.48Hot Soak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.12 2.96Running 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.22 0 0.25 8.19Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.26 0 0.29 2.23------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.06 0 0.02 0.01 0.04 0 0.02 0.01 0.05 0 0.05 0 0.06 1.3 2.19 0 3.49 28.3Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.24 0 0.02 0.67 0.69 0 0.08 0.6 0.68 0 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.41 0.46 0 0.86 42.07Idle Exh 0.01 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.47Start Ex 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.05 6.33------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.34 0 0.02 0.73 0.75 0 0.09 0.6 0.69 0 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.42 0.48 0 0.93 51.85Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-14Appendix A1: 2018 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 1 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2018 -- All model years in the range 1974 to 2018 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LDA-NCAT LDA-CAT LDA-DSL LDA-TOT LDT1-NCAT LDT1-CAT LDT1-DSL LDT1-TOT LDT2-NCAT LDT2-CAT LDT2-DSL LDT2-TOT MDV-NCAT MDV-CAT MDV-DSL MDV-TOT LHDT1-NCAT LHDT1-CATVehicles 421 1007100 1149 1008670 391 250421 10206 261019 288 461991 661 462940 671 212908 541 214121 39 36391VMT/1000 5 33728 23 33757 6 8500 237 8743 2 15464 13 15482 12 7507 14 7536 0 1408Trips 1598 6295316 6059 6302970 1491 1551087 58555 1611134 1097 2867239 3620 2871954 2589 1323168 3171 1328929 1254 1203365Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.03 0.8 0 0.85 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.65 0 0.68 0.12 0.46 0 0.58 0 0.12Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04Start Ex 0 1.03 0 1.04 0 0.32 0 0.32 0 0.76 0 0.76 0.01 0.48 0 0.5 0 0.35------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.03 1.85 0 1.88 0.02 0.62 0.01 0.66 0.01 1.38 0 1.45 0.13 0.95 0 1.08 0.01 0.52Diurnal 0.01 1.27 0 1.28 0 0.42 0 0.42 0 0.81 0 0.81 0 0.36 0 0.36 0 0Hot Soak 0 1.22 0 1.23 0 0.37 0 0.38 0 0.71 0 0.74 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.07Running 0.01 2.1 0 2.11 0 1.19 0 1.2 0 2.26 0 2.27 0 0.98 0 0.98 0 0.81Resting 0 0.81 0 0.81 0 0.28 0 0.29 0 0.54 0 0.54 0 0.24 0 0.25 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.09 7.27 0 7.35 0.07 2.84 0.01 2.92 0.04 5.72 0 5.78 0.14 2.84 0 3 0.01 1.41Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.01 3.13 0.02 3.19 0.01 1.14 0.37 1.53 0.01 3.29 0.01 3.34 0.11 2.16 0.01 2.28 0 0.48Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.99 0 0.99 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 1.02 0 1.03 0 0.59 0 0.61 0 1.88------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.01 4.13 0.02 4.2 0.02 1.44 0.37 1.82 0.01 4.31 0.01 4.36 0.11 2.75 0.01 2.89 0 2.36Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-15Appendix A1: 2018 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 2 of 3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2018 -- All model years in the range 1974 to 2018 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************LHDT1-DSL LHDT1-TOT LHDT2-NCAT LHDT2-CAT LHDT2-DSL LHDT2-TOT MHDT-NCAT MHDT-CATMHDT-DSL MHDT-TOTHHDT-NCAT HHDT-CAT HHDT-DSL HHDT-TOTOBUS-NCATOBUS-CAT OBUS-DSLVehicles 11152 47582 5 9745 8494 18245 103 5883 23384 29371 35 542 13811 14386 4 705 1186VMT/1000 419 1830 0 367 306 674 0 242 1181 1424 0 39 2739 2780 0 23 62Trips 140279 1344898 153 322248 106853 429255 4693 268732 655714 929139 1573 24760 69885 96218 207 32214 33278Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.05 0.2 0 0.01 0.04 0.07 0 0.03 0.16 0.2 0 0.07 1.54 1.61 0 0 0.01Idle Exh 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.22 0.22 0 0 0Start Ex 0 0.35 0 0.09 0 0.09 0.02 0.2 0 0.23 0.02 0.08 0 0.09 0 0.02 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.05 0.6 0 0.12 0.04 0.17 0.03 0.24 0.16 0.45 0.02 0.16 1.75 1.93 0 0.03 0.01Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hot Soak 0 0.07 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Running 0 0.82 0 0.19 0 0.19 0.01 0.15 0 0.16 0.01 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.05 1.48 0 0.35 0.04 0.4 0.06 0.4 0.16 0.63 0.03 0.18 1.75 1.97 0 0.06 0.01Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 1.34 1.84 0 0.11 0.98 1.09 0 0.22 4.44 4.65 0.01 0.32 17.73 18.04 0 0.06 0.18Idle Exh 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.19 0.19 0 0 3.19 3.19 0 0 0.01Start Ex 0 1.89 0 0.48 0 0.48 0 0.45 0 0.46 0 0.16 0 0.17 0 0.08 0------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 1.37 3.75 0 0.6 1.01 1.6 0 0.68 4.63 5.31 0.01 0.48 20.92 21.41 0 0.13 0.19Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A1: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions InventoryPage A1-16Appendix A1: 2018 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory - Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area SummaryPage 3 of3Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** WIS Enabled **Run Date : 2008/03/17Scen Year: 2018 -- All model years in the range 1974 to 2018 selectedSeason : SummerArea : Sacramento Nonattainment Area [El Dorado (MC)+ Placer (SV & MC) + Sacramento + S. Sutter + Yolo + Solano (SV)]I/M Stat : See county detailEmissions: Tons Per Day*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************OBUS-TOTSBUS-NCATSBUS-CATSBUS-DSL SBUS-TOT UB-NCAT UB-CAT UB-DSL UB-TOT MH-NCAT MH-CAT MH-DSL MH-TOT MCY-NCAT MCY-CAT MCY-DSL MCY-TOT ALL-TOTVehicles 1896 4 253 1621 1880 2 303 356 659 59 19156 2590 21804 39320 52888 0 92209 2174782VMT/1000 87 0 10 61 71 0 33 40 74 0 231 30 260 275 444 0 719 73434Trips 65699 16 1011 6487 7517 8 1206 1421 2636 5 1915 259 2179 78631 105766 0 184398 15176932Reactive Organic Gas EmissionsRun Exh 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.01 0.04 0 0.02 0 0.03 1.04 0.94 0 1.97 6.61Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31Start Ex 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.2 0 0.37 3.82------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.04 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.02 0.01 0.05 0 0.02 0 0.03 1.21 1.14 0 2.35 10.73Diurnal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.5 0 0.5 3.4Hot Soak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.12 2.89Running 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.22 0 0.25 8.04Resting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.29 2.2------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total 0.06 0 0.02 0.01 0.04 0 0.03 0.01 0.05 0 0.04 0 0.05 1.26 2.27 0 3.53 27.26Oxides of Nitrogen EmissionsRun Exh 0.22 0 0.02 0.66 0.69 0 0.08 0.59 0.67 0 0.16 0.19 0.37 0.4 0.46 0 0.87 38.82Idle Exh 0.01 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.52Start Ex 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.05 6.09------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------Total Ex 0.32 0 0.02 0.73 0.75 0 0.09 0.59 0.69 0 0.18 0.19 0.37 0.42 0.5 0 0.93 48.41Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A5: Recent Emission Inventory Adjustments Page A5-1 

### Appendix A5: Recent Emission Inventory Adjustments

Emission inventory adjustm ents presented in this appendix include recent changes by the air districts and CARB, and are not refl ected in Appendices A1 to A4. These emission changes are due to: 1) recently ad opted control measures through December 31, 2006, 2) corrections to emission cat egories, and 3) recent or previously

uninventoried sources. Tables A5-1 and A5 -2 contain a summary of the district and CARB emission inventory adj ustments, respectively.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A5: Recent Emission Inventory AdjustmentsPage A5-2Table A5-1. District Emission Inventory Adjustments inSacramento Nonattainment Area2002 2011 2014 2017 2018PCAPCD-216,240 Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning2003 2003-2004 -0.445 -0.475 -0.502 -0.511PCAPCD-239 Graphic Arts2004 2005 -0.122 -0.127 -0.136 -0.137SMAQMD-496 Livestock Waste (Option A)2006 2008 -0.018 -0.018 -0.018 -0.018PCAPCD-243 Polyester Resin/Plastic Product Manufacturing2003 2003 -0.194 -0.210 -0.222 -0.228FRAQMD-3.20 Wood Products Coating2005 2006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Correction to SMAQMD Oil&Gas Production Fugitive Emissions-0.304 -0.304 -0.304 -0.304 -0.304Correction to SMAQMD EIC 230-240-8300-0000 - Thinning &Cleanup Solvent Unspecified (Gun Cleaning)0.424 0.318 0.346 0.370 0.379Added Heritage Dairy (Yolo-Solano)0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105Added Cosumnes Power Plant (Sacramento)0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082Added Jepson Composting (Yolo-Solano)4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110Total District Adjustments4.230 3.533 3.510 3.486 3.4792002 2011 2014 2017 2018SMAQMD-411 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters2005 2007-2009 -0.095 -0.097 -0.098 -0.098FRAQMD-3.21 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters2006 2007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000PCAPCD-242 IC Engines2003 2003 -0.033 -0.029 -0.026 -0.025Added Cosumnes Power Plant (Sacramento)0.344 0.344 0.344 0.344Total District Adjustments0.000 0.216 0.218 0.220 0.221*These changes, which include recently adopted control measures upto 12/31/06, are included in Chapter 5, Table 5-2 and Table5-3.These changes are not included in the detailed inventories contained in Appendix A.VOC Emission Changes* (TPD)NOx Emission Changes* (TPD)District Rule/Category/SourceDistrict Rule/Category/SourceAdoptionYearImplementYearAdoptionYearImplementYearSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix A5: Recent Emission Inventory AdjustmentsPage A5-3Table A5-2. CARB Emission Inventory Adjustments in Sacramento Nonattainment Area2002 2011 2014 2017 2018Pesticides/Fertilizers Corr.-0.08 -0.66 -0.62 -0.58 -0.57Reflash0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Public Fleet0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01Idling0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AB 1493 (Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gases)0.00 -0.03 -0.10 -0.18 -0.21Moyer0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02Consumer Products0.00 -0.60 -0.62 -0.64 -0.65Off-road0.00 -0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0.09Ships0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Summary-0.08 -1.39 -1.47 -1.54 -1.562002 2011 2014 2017 2018Reflash-0.14 -1.70 -1.11 -0.63 -0.50Public Fleet0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02Idling0.00 -2.26 -2.42 -2.58 -2.63AB 1493 (Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gases)0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01Moyer-0.20 -0.26 -0.25 -0.17 -0.12Off-road0.00 -0.78 -0.78 -0.61 -0.57Ships0.00-0.01-0.01-0.01-0.01Summary-0.34-5.04-4.61-4.04-3.86*These changes, which include recently adopted control measures up to 12/31/06, are directly incorporatedin Chapter 5, Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. These changes are not included in the detailed inventoriescontained in Appendix A.VOC Emission Changes* (TPD)NOx Emission Changes* (TPD)CARB Rule/CategoryCARB Rule/CategorySacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A6: Emission Reduction Credits Page A6-1 

### Appendix A6: Emission Re duction Credits (ERCs)

Unused ERCs Issued for Reductions That Occurred Prior to 2002 Base Year

Certain pollutant emission reductions due to equipment shutdown or voluntary control may be converted to emission reduction cr edits (ERCs) and registered with the air districts. These ERCs may then be used as “offsets” to compensate for an increase in emissions from a new or modified major emissi on source regulated by the air districts.
Unused ERCs are considered as potential future emissions supplemental to the forecasted emissions inventory.

The amounts of unused ERCs fr om stationary sources that occurred prior to the 2002 base year are estimated at about 2.6 tons pe r day of VOC and 1.4 t ons per day of NOx and are summarized by air district in Table A6-1. They are included in the emissions forecasts to ensure the potential future us e of these credits does not interfere with reasonable further progre ss and attainment goals.

Future Bankable Rice Burning Emission Reduction Credits

Emission credits from reduc tion in burning may not be used to comply with offset requirements at a new major stationary source or a major modification, unless they are included in an approved atta inment demonstration plan. 1 

### Therefore, the impact of accounting for ERCs from reduction in rice straw burning and other agricultural burning credits are being included in this 8-hour oz one attainment and RFP demonstration plan.

California legislation in 1991 (known as the C onnelly bill) required rice farmers to phase down rice field burning on an annual basis, beginning in 1992. A burn cap of 125,000 acres in the Sacramento Valley Air Basi n was established, and growers with 400 acres or less were granted the option to burn thei r entire acreage once every four years. Since the rice burning reducti ons were mandated by state la w, they would ordinarily not be “surplus” and eligible for banking. Howeve r, the Connelly bill included a special provision declaring that the r eductions qualified for banking if they met the State and local banking rules.

Due to the special considerati on in the Connelly bill, potent ial future rice burning ERCs could be issued for previous reductions that are eligible for banki ng. The amounts of future bankable rice burning ERCs for the Sacramento nonattainment area are estimated at about 0.9 tons per day of VOC and 1.0 tons per day of NOx and are listed by air district in Table A6-2. They are in cluded in the emissions forecasts to ensure the potential future use of these credits does not interfere with reasonable further progress and attainment goals.

1 Pursuant to EPA correspondenc e letter dated October 30, 2003.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A6: Emission Reduction Credits Page A6-2 

### Table A6-1

Summary of Unused Banked Emission Reduction Credits In the
Sacramento Nonattainment Area for 2002 Baseline

Air District a 

### Avg. Summer Day
VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd)
Sacramento Metropolit an AQMD 2.075 1.141

Yolo-Solano AQMD 0.082 0.137
Placer County APCD 0.394 0.045
Feather River AQMD (South Sutter) 0 0

Total Unused Banked ERCs 2.551 1.323

a There are no ERCs for El Dorado County AQMD.



### Table A6-2

Summary of Future Bankable Rice Burning Emission Reduction Credits
In the Sacramento Nonattainment Area

Air District a 

### Avg. Summer Day
VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd)
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 0.12 0.13

Yolo-Solano AQMD 0.32 0.35
Placer County APCD 0.18 0.20
Feather River AQMD (South Sutter) 0.29 0.32

Total Future Rice Burning ERCs 0.91 1.00

a There are no future bankable rice burning ERCs for El Dorado County AQMD.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-1 

### Appendix A7: 2019 VOC and NO x Emissions Inventories

Appendix A7 contains the ca lculation for the estimat ed 2019 VOC and NOx planning

inventories. The 2019 inventories ar e forecasted from the 2018 SIP planning inventories using scaling factors derived from CEFS (Version 1.06) 2019 and 2018

inventories. Table A7-1 contains the calc ulation. Tables A7-2 and A7-3 contain 2018 and 2019 VOC and NOx planning inv entories from CEFS (Version1.06), respectively.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-2 

### Table A7-1: 2019 VOC and NOx Calculation

ROG From CEFS
v1.06 ROG ratio NOx From CEFS
v1.06 NOx ratio
Major Source Category 2018 2019 2019/2018 2018 2019 2019/2018

STATIONARY 21.6 21.9 1.0130 13.7 13.5 0.9827

AREAWIDE 32.1 32.4 1.0100 3.5 3.6 1.0048

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 25. 2 24.3 0.9646 43.9 40.9 0.9334

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 34. 3 34.2 0.9968 39.1 37.9 0.9701

113.2 112.8 0.9965 100.2 95.9 0.9570

2018 From SIP Plan Estimated 2019
Major Source Category ROG NOx ROG NOx

STATIONARY 25.0 13.9 25.3 13.7

AREAWIDE 31.0 3.5 31.3 3.6

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 27.0 45.2 26.0 42.1

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 34.2 38.5 34.1 37.3

117.1 101.1 116.7 96.7Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-3 

### Table A7-2: 2018 and 2019 VOC Inventory from CEFS v1.06

Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA (v1.06_RF980)

Reactive Organic Gases Projected Emission Inventory

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL NON-ATTAINMENT AREA

REPORT TYPE: GROWN AND CONTROLLED

SEASON: SUMMER

BASE YEAR: 2002

All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB
Download this data as a comma delimited file.
Download more detail data as a comma delimited file.

STATIONARY SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

FUEL COMBUSTION

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 0.261 0.261

COGENERATION 0.004 0.004 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (COMBUSTION) 0.188 0.188

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 0.086 0.087

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING 0.686 0.681

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 0.249 0.249 OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.056 0.053

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 1.531 1.524

WASTE DISPOSAL

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.04 0.041

LANDFILLS 0.419 0.425

INCINERATORS 0.006 0.006

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.111 0.112 OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.018 0.018

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 0.595 0.602

CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS

LAUNDERING 0.062 0.063

DEGREASING 2.084 2.103

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 4.158 4.223

PRINTING 1.465 1.487

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.756 0.751 OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS) 0.003 0.003

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 8.527 8.63

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 1.022 1.022

PETROLEUM MARKETING 5.177 5.269 OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING) 0 0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING 6.2 6.291

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

CHEMICAL 2.663 2.711Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-4 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 0.75 0.773

MINERAL PROCESSES 0.355 0.358

METAL PROCESSES 0 0

WOOD AND PAPER 0.939 0.952

ELECTRONICS 0.013 0.013 OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.003 0.003

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 4.723 4.809

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 21.575 21.857

AREAWIDE SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

SOLVENT EVAPORATION

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 15.704 15.909

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AN D RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 8.112 8.228

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 1.869 1.858

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0.872 0.875

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 26.556 26.869

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 1.315 1.325

FARMING OPERATIONS 2.815 2.815

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0 0

PAVED ROAD DUST 0 0

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0 0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0 0

FIRES 0.045 0.046

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 1.228 1.222

COOKING 0.144 0.146

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 5.546 5.554

** TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 32.102 32.424

MOBILE SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 6.696 6.329 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 2.626 2.504 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 5.25 5.123 MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 2.719 2.645 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1) 1.386 1.365 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2) 0.339 0.323 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.43 0.393

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GA S TRUCKS (HHDV) 0.194 0.17 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1) 0.079 0.077 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2) 0.061 0.059 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.168 0.163 HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) 1.656 1.548 MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 3.365 3.389 HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES (UB) 0.021 0.021 HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES (UB) 0.041 0.042 SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 0.053 0.052Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-5 OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.063 0.06 MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.052 0.046

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 25.198 24.305

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES

AIRCRAFT 0.609 0.616

TRAINS 0.619 0.622

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 0.135 0.132

RECREATIONAL BOATS 16.25 16.215

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 6.598 6.833
OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 7.721 7.522
FARM EQUIPMENT 0.986 0.9

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 1.372 1.337

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 34.289 34.178

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 59.487 58.483

GRAND TOTAL FOR SACRAMENTO RE GIONAL NON-ATTAINMENT AREA 113.165 112.764

* Emissions from natural sources are excluded.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-6 

### Table A7-3: 2018 and 2019 NOx Inventory from CEFS v1.06

Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA (v1.06_RF980)

Oxides of Nitrogen Projected Emission Inventory

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL NON-ATTAINMENT AREA

REPORT TYPE: GROWN AND CONTROLLED

SEASON: SUMMER

BASE YEAR: 2002

All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB
Download this data as a comma delimited file.
Download more detail data as a comma delimited file.

STATIONARY SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

FUEL COMBUSTION

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 1.512 1.513

COGENERATION 0.009 0.009 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (COMBUSTION) 0.309 0.309

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 3.217 3.239

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING 4.506 4.259

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 2.521 2.523 OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.607 0.585

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 12.681 12.436

WASTE DISPOSAL

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.013 0.013

LANDFILLS 0.041 0.041

INCINERATORS 0.022 0.022

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.004 0.004 OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0 0

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 0.079 0.079

CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS

LAUNDERING 0 0

DEGREASING 0 0

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.01 0.011

PRINTING 0.018 0.018

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0 0 OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS) 0 0

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 0.028 0.029

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 0.01 0.01

PETROLEUM MARKETING 0.031 0.032 OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING) 0 0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING 0.041 0.042

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

CHEMICAL 0.176 0.176Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-7 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 0.022 0.022

MINERAL PROCESSES 0.59 0.594

METAL PROCESSES 0 0

WOOD AND PAPER 0.076 0.077

ELECTRONICS 0 0 OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.003 0.003

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0.866 0.872

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 13.695 13.458

AREAWIDE SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

SOLVENT EVAPORATION

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 0 0

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AN D RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0 0

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 0 0

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0 0

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 0 0

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 3.15 3.17

FARMING OPERATIONS 0 0

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0 0

PAVED ROAD DUST 0 0

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0 0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0 0

FIRES 0.015 0.015

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 0.376 0.372

COOKING 0 0

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 3.54 3.557

** TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 3.54 3.557

MOBILE SOURCES

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2018 2019

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 3.862 3.553 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 1.698 1.557 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 4.005 3.741 MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 2.653 2.476 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1) 2.127 2.117 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2) 0.535 0.529 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.617 0.576

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GA S TRUCKS (HHDV) 0.449 0.408 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1) 1.248 1.181 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2) 0.912 0.849 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) 4.382 3.997 HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) 18.593 17.223 MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 0.858 0.865 HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES (UB) 0.519 0.515 HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES (UB) 0.084 0.085 SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 0.668 0.66Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix A7: 2019 Emissions Inventories Page A7-8 OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.298 0.278 MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.344 0.319

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 43.852 40.931

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES

AIRCRAFT 2.761 2.813

TRAINS 9.402 9.495

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 1.178 1.152

RECREATIONAL BOATS 5.933 5.954

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 0.147 0.152
OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 14.325 13.452
FARM EQUIPMENT 5.331 4.891

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 0 0

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 39.076 37.908

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 82.928 78.839

GRAND TOTAL FOR SACRAMENTO RE GIONAL NON-ATTAINMENT AREA 100.163 95.854

* Emissions from natural sources are excluded.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-1 Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling

This appendix contains summary information and documentation regarding the photochemical grid modeling performed by the California Air Resources Board in evaluating and supporting the attainment demonstration for the federal 8-hour ozone standard in the Sacramento region. Included in this appendix are the following specific modeling topics:

Selection and Characterization of Modeling Episodes.............................................................. B-2

Base Case Model Performance Evaluation .............................................................................. B-7

Air Quality Modeling Results................................................................................................... B-33

The following California Air Resource Board photochemical modeling documents for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area provide more complete information. These

documents are available at http://www.airquality.org/notices/CAPUpdate/8hrAPandEIRWorkshopsSept2008.shtml
for reference.

A. Volume 1: Model Performance B. Volume 2: Future Year Design Value and Carrying Capacity Calculations for the
Sacramento Non-Attainment Area C. Photochemical Modeling Protocol For Development Strategies to Attain The Federal 8- Hour Air Quality Standard in Central California D. Modeling Emission Inventory a. Appendix a: Gridded Inventory Coordination Group Minutes b. Appendix b: Development and Vertical Distributions for Modeling Large Wildfires
in the CCOS Domainc. Appendix c: Proposed Method to Improve Temporal Distribution Of Gridded Onroad Motor Vehicle Emissions d. Appendix d: Development Of Version Two Of the California Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) e. Appendix e: ARB Letter f. Appendix f: Draft EMFAC Modeling Change Technical Memo g. Appendix g: Development of a biogenic hydrocarbon emission inventory for the Central California Ozone Study domain. h. Appendix h: Surrogate Cross-Reference Tables i. Appendix i: Sacramento Non-Attainment Area Tabular Summaries

In addition, the California Air Resources Board has established a website for documenting the technical products used to develop the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This website includes SIP modeling tools and documentation, and is located at: http://eos.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-2 

### Selection and Characteriza tion of Modeling Episodes

Episode Selection 1



### The evaluation of the episode days select ed for air quality modeling included many local, state and federal governm ental agencies, consultants, and stakeholder interest groups that participated in the Central Ca lifornia Ozone Study ( CCOS) and other air quality technical committees formed in sup port of ozone SIP developments for Central California. A large body of work was produced by these study groups toward the goal of determining representative candidate episo de periods for use in 8-hour ozone SIP modeling for the region. From this collective body of work , the following four episodes were identified as having the greatest pot ential for SIP modelin g in the region:

• July 7-13, 1999 (captured with rout ine state and loca l measurements)

• July 29-August 2, 2000 (CCOS-studied episode)

• September 17-21, 2000 (CCOS-studied episode)

• August 8-17, 2002 (captures with rout ine state and local measurements)

Due to time constraints and based on model performance issues expressed by study efforts for the two later episodes, the first two episodes (July 7-13, 1999 and July 29- August 2, 2000) were determined to be the most adequate for the initial round of 8-hour ozone SIP attainment planning. Brief summaries of the two episodes selected for SIP modeling are included in the next section, Characterization of Selected Modeling Episodes.

With regard to the two potentia l episodes that were dropped from consideration, CCOS sponsored a project that was focused on de veloping the third episode (September 17- 21, 2000) while the Sacramento Metropol itan Air Quality Management District sponsored a project to develop the fourth episode (August 8-17, 2002). As indicated above, achieving adequate model perform ance for both of these periods was problematic.

Characterization of Modeling Episodes

The following meteorological ch aracterizations of large-scale synoptic weather patterns include two parameters which hi storically have correlated we ll with ozone formation in
California. The measurements of 500 mb hei ghts at a fixed location are a general indicator of behavior showing the sequence of pressure ridges and troughs. The 850 mb temperature is a measure of large-scale subsidence which produces stable layers in the atmosphere and limits vertical dispersion of air pollutants. As an example, at the Oakland NWS station during June-Sept ember 2000, the 500 mb heights ranged between 5,650 to 6,000 meters and the 850 mb temperatures ranged between 7 to

1 “Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing St rategies to Attain the Federal 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California” (Ca lifornia Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-3 

### 27°C. In general, a strong positive correla tion was evident between daily peak ozone
concentrations in Central California and 850 mb temperatures and 500 mb heights. 2



### September 17-21, 2000 Ozone Episode

The September 17-21, 2000 ozone episode was characterized by a high pressure ridge moving into the West Coast an d joining with the remnants of a persistent Four Corners high. The 500 mb height peaked at 5, 970 m on September 18, and the 850 mb temperature reached 26°C on September 19 at t he Oakland NWS station. 3 

### Peak 8-

hour ozone concentrations in the central and southern parts of th e San Joaquin Valley exceeded 100 ppb at many m onitoring sites and rose as high as 120 ppb during September 18-20. The Bay Area did not experience any ozone exceedances during this episode, and the Sa cramento region measured moderate 8-hour ozone exceedances on September 20 at mult iple sites with a high of 100 ppb.

This ozone episode was evaluated by a team of modeling consultants headed by Alpine Geophysics and funded as a CCOS project. They prepared refined emissions, meteorological, and photoc hemical model input file s and performed a base case simulation for the episode. There were su bstantial performance problems with the base case which included a system atic and large underprediction of ozone concentrations. Thus, the consultants were unsuccessful in developing a SIP-quality ozone modeling episode that met EPA performance goals. 4



### August 8-17, 2002 Ozone Episode

This episode is characteri zed by an Eastern Pacific high. The wind speeds and directions and surface temper atures at both Bethel Island and Sacramento are characteristic of more typical summer day values when an Eastern Pacific high is present. 5 

### The Bay Area experienced only lim ited ozone exceedances at Livermore during this episode. Ho wever, there were signifi cant widespread 8-hour ozone exceedances throughout the Sa cramento region and much of the San Joaquin Valley during most days of this episode. 8-hour ozone concentrations at Cool peaked at 137 ppb on August 14. San Joaquin Valley 8-hour ozone values were highest at Merced with 125 ppb on August 14 and at Arvin with 120 ppb on August 9.

The August 8-17, 2002 ozone episode was pur sued by the Sacramento Air District under independent contract with the Desert Resear ch Institute (DRI). 6 

### DRI conducted

2 “Characterization of the CCOS 2000 Measurement Period” (Lehrman, et al., 2003, p. 2-1 to 2-3).

3 “Characterization of the CCOS 2000 Measurement Period” (Lehrman, et al., 2001) Interim Report.

4 “Evaluation of the 16-20 September 2000 Ozone Episode for Use in 1-Hr SIP Development in the California Central Valley” (Alpine Geophy sics, Tesche et al., February 15, 2004).

5 “Data Analysis and Episode Selection for SIP Mode ling” (Desert Research Institute, September 9, 2003).

6 “Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing St rategies to Attain the Federal 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California” (Ca lifornia Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-4 

### meteorological analyses whic h indicated significant pote ntial transport from the Bay Area into the Sacramento region. 7 

### However, DRI was not able to achieve adequate model performance with th e episode, rendering it unu sable for attainment demonstration modeling. This episode was found not to be representative due to the large number of wildfires within the domain and an especially large wildfire in southern Oregon. The smoke and presumably ozone prec ursors flowed along the coast and some of the smoke plume penetrated into c entral California near the San Francisco Bay

Area. 8 

### Undoubtedly, emissions fr om the wildfire influenced ozone levels at many monitors, meaning that these days were not reflective of typical summertime high-ozone days, when precursor emissions ar e dominated by anthropogenic emissions. 9



### July 29-August 2, 2000 Ozone Modeling Episode

The summer 2000 ozone modeling episode includes 5 days from July 29 to August 2. The start of this episode was characterized by a typical high pressure system centered over the Four Corners area (U tah, Arizona, Color ado, and New Mexico). The relatively large high pressure ridge slowly migrat ed west and became centered near Reno, Nevada by July 31, creating meteorolog ical conditions conducive to high ozone
formation in Central California. The 850 mb temperature reached 27°C, and the 500 mb height peaked at 5,970 m at the Oakland NWS station. 10



### The high pressure system resulted in stable atmospheric layers with limited vertical mixing. Maximum mixing heig hts of 800-1100 meters were estimated from rawinsonde and ozonesonde data at Granite Bay. 11 

### Relatively calm to light surface daytime winds varying from the north, west, and southwes t were measured in t he lower Sacramento Valley region during the begi nning and middle of the episode. The surface daytime winds transitioned to mainly de lta breezes from the south a nd southwest near the end of the episode. 12 

### Maximum surface temperatures in Sacramento were hot throughout the episode and peaked at 40°C (or 104°F) on Ju ly 31 (see the following table).

7 “Data Analysis and Episode Selection for SIP Mode ling” (Desert Research Institute, September 9, 2003).

8 “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling” (Des ert Research Institute, November 15, 2004).

9 California Air Resources Board staff response regarding public comments on episode selection discussion. November 2008 correspondence to SMAQMD.

10 “Characterization of the CCOS 2000 Measurem ent Period” (Lehrman, et al., 2003, p. 2-6).

11 Ibid., p. 3-67.

12 Surface daytime wind descriptions based on observ ed wind measurements at Rocklin, Folsom, Auburn, Cool, Sacramento-Del Paso Manor, Roseville, Sloughhouse, and Placerville.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-5 

### Table B-1 Maximum Surface Temperatures in Sacramento During the Jul-Aug 2000 Modeling Episode

Max. Temperature July 29 July 30 July 31 August 1 August 2

Sac. Exec. Airport 37°C (98°F) 37°C (99°F) 40°C (104°F) 39°C (102°F) 38°C (100°F)



### Ozone-conducive conditions were prevalen t throughout the episode, but the highest ozone readings in the Sacrament o region occurred on the last two days of the episode. On August 1, 8-hour ozone concentrations peaked in the southern part of the nonattainment area at Sloughhouse (108 ppb). On August 2, the maximum 8-hour ozone readings were measured in the northeast part of the region at Auburn (107 ppb) and Grass Valley (113 ppb). See the following table of selected high ozone sites:

Table B-2 Maximum 8-Hour Ozone in the Sacrament Region During the Jul-Aug 2000 Modeling Episode

Max. 8-Hr Ozone (ppb) July 29 July 30 July 31 August 1 August 2

Auburn (Placer Co.) 86 80 81 95 107

Cool (El Dorado Co.) 94 87 89 99 103

Grass Valley (Nevada Co.) 86 86 73 94 113

Sac-Del Paso Manor (Sac. Co.) 92 93 74 100 79

Sloughhouse (Sac. Co.) 95 91 82 108 91

Federal 8-hour ozone exceedances (>84 ppb) in bold

.



### July 9-13, 1999 Ozone Modeling Episode

The July 1999 ozone modeling ep isode includes 5 days from July 9 to 13. This episode is characterized by a much broader high pressure system than the summer 2000 episode. The high pressure system encompa ssed the Four Corners area, the Pacific Northwest region, and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, causing meteorological conditions conducive to high ozone formation in Centra l and Northern California. The 850 mb temperature peaked at 27°C on July 12, a nd the 500 mb height reached 5,940-5,950 m on July 10 to 12 at the Oakland NWS station. 13



### Relatively calm to light surface daytime winds varying mainly from the west and
southwest were measured in the lower Sacr amento Valley region during the episode. Sometimes in the morning, the surface winds flowed from the northwest direction as

13 “Modeling Protocol - Development of a Photochem ical Modeling System to Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2004 State Implem entation Plan” (ENVIRON, et al., 2002, p. 2-48).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-6 

### well. 14 

### Maximum surface temperatures in Sa cramento rose steadily from July 9, peaking at 42°C (or 107°F) on July 12 (see the following table).

Table B-3 Maximum Surface Temperatures in Sacramento During the July 1999 Modeling Episode

Max. Temperature July 9 July 10 July 11 July 12 July 13

Sac. Exec. Airport 34°C (93°F) 36°C (97°F) 39°C (102°F) 42°C (107°F) 35°C (96°F)



### High surface 8-hour ozone readings were fairly widespread thr oughout the Sacramento region during the episode. On July 9, ma ximum 8-hour ozone occurred in the eastern portion of the nonattainment area at Cool (116 ppb), Placerville (110 ppb), and Folsom (109 ppb). On July 10, 8-hour ozone conc entrations were high in most of the Sacramento region at Folsom (129 ppb), Placerville ( 118 ppb), Cool (113 ppb),
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (110 ppb), and Sloughhouse ( 107 ppb). On July 11, the

same areas continued to m onitor 8-hour ozone exceedances with maximums at Folsom (123 ppb), Cool (117 ppb), Sloughhouse (113 ppb), and Rosevi lle (113). On July 12,

ozone declined in most of the nonattainm ent area, but still ex ceeded the 8-hour standard with maximum readings in the sout hern downwind areas at Jackson (105 ppb) and Sloughhouse (103 ppb) and in the western area at Vacavill e (106 ppb). On the last day of the episode, 8-hour ozone concentrations were recorded just above the federal standard with a high of 91 ppb at Auburn. See the followi ng table of selected high

ozone sites:

Table B-4 Maximum 8-Hour Ozone in the Sacramento Region During the July 1999 Modeling Episode

Max. 8-Hr Ozone (ppb) July 9 July 10 July 11 July 12 July 13

Auburn (Placer Co.) 104 102 106 90 91

Cool (El Dorado Co.) 116 113 117 98 83

Folsom (Sac. Co.) 109 129 123 101 85

Jackson (Amador Co.) 89 107 101 105 87

Placerville (El Dorado Co.) 110 118 104 96 81

Roseville (Placer Co.) 86 106 113 88 86

Sac-Del Paso Manor (Sac. Co.) 77 110 107 95 77
Sloughhouse (Sac. Co.) 86 107 113 103 81

Vacaville (Solano Co.) 69 81 102 106 59

Federal 8-hour ozone exceedances (>84 ppb) in bold

.

14 Surface daytime wind descriptions based on obse rved wind measurements at Rocklin, Folsom, Elk Grove, Roseville, Sloughhouse, and Placerville.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-7 

### Base Case Model Performance Evaluation

EPA modeling guidance 1 

### recommends the model perf ormance evaluation should compare hourly ozone observations and predict ions as well as 8-hour daily maxima observations and predictions over the epi sode days (excluding ramp-up days). The

ozone data should be evaluated for all data pairs in whic h the observed concentrations are above 60 ppb, and for all da ta pairs without any minimum threshold. At a minimum, statistical calculations should be performe d for: 1) mean normalized bias (MNB), 2) mean normalized gross error (MNGE), and 3) average peak prediction bias and error. The summary statistics should be calculated for individual days averaged over all sites and for individual sites averaged over a ll days, and then aggregat ed into meaningful subregions or subperiods.

EPA modeling guidance does not assign an accept ance criteria level that distinguishes between adequate and inadequate model perfo rmance. Instead, EPA recommends that a qualitative weight-of-evidenc e approach consisting of a va riety of performance tests be used to determine whether a particular mode ling application is valid for assessing
the future attainment status of an area.

CARB conducted a model perfo rmance analysis of the photoc hemical modeling used in support of the attainment demonstration for the federal 8-hour ozone air quality
standard SIP for Central California. Base d on the statistical comparisons between observed and predicted ozone data, the bas e case modeling scenarios were determined to be performing adequately ov erall in the Sacramento region.

Various summary base case model performance statistics tables, additional base case model performance evaluations , and modeling documentation are provided in this appendix.

• Summary of Base Case Model Perfo rmance Evaluation for Sacramento Region - Table B-5: July 9 – July 13, 1999 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-6: July 9 – July 13, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-7: July 29 – August 2, 2000 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-8: July 29 – August 2, 2000 8-Hour Ozone

 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region - Table B-9: July 9, 1999 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-10: July 10, 1999 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-11: July 11, 1999 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-12: July 12, 1999 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-13: July 13, 1999 1-Hour Ozone

1 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS” (EPA, Oc tober 2005, p. 96).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-8 

### - Table B-14: July 9, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-15: July 10, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-16: July 11, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-17: July 12, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-18: July 13, 1999 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-19: July 9-13, 1999 8-Hour Ozone

- Table B-20: July 29, 2000 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-21: July 30, 2000 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-22: July 31, 2000 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-23: August 1, 2000 1-Hour Ozone - Table B-24: August 2, 2000 1-Hour Ozone

- Table B-25: July 29, 2000 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-26: July 30, 2000 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-27: July 31, 2000 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-28: August 1, 2000 8-Hour Ozone - Table B-29: August 2, 2000 8-Hour Ozone

- Table B-30: Jul 29-A ug 2, 2000 8-Hour OzoneSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-9 

### Table B-5
Base Case Model Performance E valuation for Sacramento Region Site Comparisons Between Observed and Modeled 1-Hour Ozone July 9 – July 13, 1999 Episode

Statistical Measure – All Sites Jul 9 Jul 10 Jul 11 Jul 12 Jul 13

60 ppb observed threshold Mean Bias (ppb) -3 -9 -10 -9 -5 Mean Gross Error (ppb) 10 15 12 12 13 Mean Normalized Bias (%) -3 -9 -11 -10 -6 Mean Normalized Gross Error (%) 12 16 14 14 17 Observed Peak Site Conc. (ppb) 127 147 137 140 103

Peak Site Prediction Ratio 0.99 0.84 1.01 0.85 1.00 Region Peak Prediction Ra tio 1.05 0.94 1.07 0.89 1.17 Number of Values Used (site-hrs) 157 199 224 218 160

Table B-6
Base Case Model Performance E valuation for Sacramento Region Site Comparisons Between Observed and Modeled 8-Hour Maximum Ozone July 9 – July 13, 1999 Episode

Statistical Measure – All Sites Jul 9 Jul 10 Jul 11 Jul 12 Jul 13

60 ppb observed threshold Mean Bias (ppb) 3 -6 -7 -10 3 Mean Gross Error (ppb) 8 13 10 11 11 Mean Normalized Bias (%) 5 -5 -7 -11 6 Mean Normalized Gross Error (%) 9 13 10 12 14 Observed Peak Site Conc. (ppb) 116 129 124 107 91

Peak Site Prediction Ratio 0.96 0.87 1.02 1.00 1.04 Region Peak Prediction Ra tio 1.02 0.93 1.06 1.03 1.12 Number of Values Used (sites) 16 17 17 16 14Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-10 

### Table B-7
Base Case Model Performance E valuation for Sacramento Region Site Comparisons Between Observed and Modeled 1-Hour Ozone July 29 – August 2, 2000 Episode

Statistical Measure – All Sites Jul 29 Jul 30 Jul 31 Aug 1 Aug 2

60 ppb observed threshold Mean Bias (ppb) -6 5 4 5 2 Mean Gross Error (ppb) 11 11 10 11 14 Mean Normalized Bias (%) -6 7 6 6 4 Mean Normalized Gross Error (%) 14 15 13 14 17 Observed Peak Site Conc. (ppb) 118 121 103 133 121

Peak Site Prediction Ratio 1.07 1.04 1.19 1.09 1.04 Region Peak Prediction Ra tio 1.11 1.09 1.41 1.15 1.07 Number of Values Used (site-hrs) 135 152 130 141 138

Table B-8
Base Case Model Performance E valuation for Sacramento Region Site Comparisons Between Observed and Modeled 8-Hour Maximum Ozone July 29 – August 2, 2000 Episode

Statistical Measure – All Sites Jul 29 Jul 30 Jul 31 Aug 1 Aug 2

60 ppb observed threshold Mean Bias (ppb) -3 8 7 8 9 Mean Gross Error (ppb) 10 10 9 9 12 Mean Normalized Bias (%) -2 12 10 10 13 Mean Normalized Gross Error (%) 11 13 12 11 17 Observed Peak Site Conc. (ppb) 97 93 89 109 107

Peak Site Prediction Ratio 1.03 1.15 1.13 1.05 0.98 Region Peak Prediction Ra tio 1.07 1.21 1.32 1.09 1.00 Number of Values Used (sites) 15 15 15 15 16Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-11**Table B-9 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 9, 1999 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 190 (07/09) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 157 12.7 19 12.5 16 -3 0.99 -0.3 1.0 -0.03 0.12 0.75Subregional Peak: 13.3 17 -2 1.05 (at 84 x120) NSte: 3187; NSPk: 12.42123 North Highlands-Blackf 1 6.6 16 10.1 16 0 1.53 3.5 3.5 0.53 0.53 -99.002143 Davis-UCD Campus 5 9.2 17 9.2 18 1 1.00 0.9 0.9 0.12 0.12 0.042731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 6 10.0 17 9.7 16 -1 0.97 0.1 1.2 0.03 0.16 0.182848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 6 9.6 16 9.3 17 1 0.97 0.7 0.8 0.10 0.11 0.822891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 20 11.1 19 9.4 18 -1 0.85 -1.6 1.6 -0.19 0.19 0.892956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 10 9.7 15 10.4 17 2 1.08 0.6 0.8 0.07 0.09 0.942977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 7 9.4 16 8.4 16 0 0.90 0.1 0.7 0.02 0.09 0.803002 Colfax-City Hall 16 10.0 19 8.6 18 -1 0.86 -0.4 0.5 -0.05 0.06 0.903008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 10 10.3 16 10.3 18 2 1.00 0.1 0.6 0.01 0.07 0.863011 Sacramento-T Street 4 8.5 16 8.0 15 -1 0.94 -0.7 0.7 -0.09 0.09 0.113017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 20 12.7 19 12.5 17 -2 0.98 -0.5 1.0 -0.06 0.11 0.873155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 8 7.6 18 8.9 17 -1 1.18 0.7 1.0 0.09 0.14 0.793187 Folsom-Natoma Street 9 12.7 16 12.5 16 0 0.99 -0.3 0.6 -0.03 0.06 0.933196 Cool-Highway 193 16 12.1 15 10.6 18 3 0.88 -1.6 1.6 -0.17 0.17 0.923209 Sloughhouse 8 10.0 17 9.2 15 -2 0.92 -0.2 0.9 -0.01 0.10 0.593223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 5 8.1 16 9.3 15 -1 1.15 1.2 1.2 0.17 0.17 0.503249 Woodland-Gibson Road 6 9.0 18 9.5 16 -2 1.07 0.3 0.8 0.04 0.11 0.48Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-12**Table B-10 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 10, 1999 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 191 (07/10) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 199 14.7 16 12.4 14 -2 0.84 -0.9 1.5 -0.09 0.16 0.56Subregional Peak: 13.9 15 -1 0.94 (at 83 x115) NSte: 3209; NSPk: 12.02123 North Highlands-Blackf 6 8.8 15 9.0 16 1 1.02 0.8 0.9 0.12 0.13 -0.332143 Davis-UCD Campus 8 10.1 15 10.0 15 0 0.99 0.4 0.5 0.05 0.06 0.862731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 10 13.1 14 10.7 17 3 0.81 -0.5 1.3 -0.03 0.12 0.742848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 7 9.8 14 10.1 18 4 1.03 0.5 1.3 0.09 0.17 -0.842891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 21 10.7 15 8.6 14 -1 0.81 -1.9 1.9 -0.22 0.22 0.792956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 11 11.7 17 9.1 19 2 0.78 -1.4 1.6 -0.13 0.15 0.452977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 8 11.8 16 10.0 17 1 0.85 -0.1 1.4 0.03 0.15 0.733002 Colfax-City Hall 13 9.7 19 7.8 14 -5 0.80 -0.7 0.8 -0.09 0.09 0.853008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 13 11.9 18 8.7 12 -6 0.73 -1.8 1.8 -0.19 0.19 0.823011 Sacramento-T Street 8 10.7 14 9.9 16 2 0.93 0.5 0.8 0.08 0.11 0.813017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 22 12.9 19 9.4 16 -3 0.73 -2.1 2.1 -0.20 0.20 0.783155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 9 9.3 15 9.4 14 -1 1.01 -0.4 1.1 -0.05 0.15 0.643187 Folsom-Natoma Street 13 14.7 16 10.6 13 -3 0.72 -2.0 2.2 -0.15 0.18 0.743196 Cool-Highway 193 22 12.4 19 8.8 14 -5 0.71 -2.4 2.4 -0.26 0.26 0.903209 Sloughhouse 12 12.8 14 12.4 14 0 0.97 0.5 0.8 0.07 0.09 0.903223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 8 10.0 14 10.6 16 2 1.06 1.3 1.4 0.18 0.19 0.613249 Woodland-Gibson Road 8 9.9 15 10.3 15 0 1.04 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.06 0.87Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-13**Table B-11 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 11, 1999 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 192 (07/11) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 224 13.7 16 13.9 16 0 1.01 -1.0 1.2 -0.11 0.14 0.78Subregional Peak: 14.7 15 -1 1.07 (at 80 x117) NSte: 3187; NSPk: 13.82123 North Highlands-Blackf 5 8.3 13 8.3 11 -2 1.00 0.4 0.5 0.06 0.07 0.792143 Davis-UCD Campus 10 9.7 14 9.1 16 2 0.94 -0.3 0.7 -0.02 0.09 0.862731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 12 12.1 14 11.3 13 -1 0.93 -0.4 0.5 -0.04 0.05 0.962848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 7 8.1 12 7.6 11 -1 0.93 0.0 0.5 0.01 0.08 -0.522891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 20 13.3 18 11.4 19 1 0.86 -1.5 1.5 -0.16 0.17 0.842956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 17 12.8 15 10.9 18 3 0.85 -1.8 1.9 -0.21 0.22 0.802977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 10 10.1 12 8.7 16 4 0.86 -1.0 1.1 -0.10 0.11 0.553002 Colfax-City Hall 12 10.5 20 9.8 20 0 0.94 -0.1 0.8 0.00 0.10 0.583008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 13 12.8 15 11.6 18 3 0.91 -1.3 1.5 -0.12 0.14 0.703011 Sacramento-T Street 10 9.6 13 8.9 12 -1 0.93 -0.4 0.7 -0.04 0.09 0.873017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 19 11.4 18 11.4 16 -2 1.00 -1.5 1.8 -0.16 0.20 0.593155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 12 12.1 16 9.7 17 1 0.79 -1.6 1.6 -0.16 0.17 0.873187 Folsom-Natoma Street 20 13.7 16 13.9 16 0 1.01 -0.7 1.1 -0.10 0.14 0.943196 Cool-Highway 193 20 13.5 18 11.4 18 0 0.85 -1.5 1.6 -0.15 0.16 0.903209 Sloughhouse 18 13.1 14 11.4 16 2 0.87 -1.2 1.4 -0.15 0.16 0.883223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 8 9.2 13 8.5 12 -1 0.92 -0.4 0.7 -0.04 0.08 0.143249 Woodland-Gibson Road 11 9.4 17 8.3 17 0 0.88 -0.6 0.6 -0.06 0.07 0.87Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-14**Table B-12 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 12, 1999 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 193 (07/12) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 218 14.0 15 11.9 13 -2 0.85 -0.9 1.2 -0.10 0.14 0.68Subregional Peak: 12.5 15 0 0.89 (at 67 x107) NSte: 3155; NSPk: 9.72123 North Highlands-Blackf 2 6.9 11 7.1 11 0 1.03 0.4 0.4 0.06 0.06 -99.002143 Davis-UCD Campus 9 11.7 17 7.9 18 1 0.68 -1.8 1.9 -0.18 0.19 -0.602731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 12 11.1 18 8.9 19 1 0.80 -1.2 1.3 -0.12 0.14 0.642848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 7 8.8 15 7.0 16 1 0.79 -1.0 1.1 -0.12 0.14 0.762891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 21 9.9 17 8.4 16 -1 0.84 -1.2 1.2 -0.15 0.15 0.812956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 14 10.8 19 7.8 20 1 0.72 -1.2 1.3 -0.14 0.15 0.692977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 11 10.8 17 10.9 17 0 1.01 0.2 1.0 0.04 0.12 0.483002 Colfax-City Hall 14 8.1 19 8.0 18 -1 0.99 -0.1 0.3 -0.02 0.05 0.893008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 16 10.4 19 8.1 14 -5 0.78 -1.3 1.3 -0.15 0.15 0.803011 Sacramento-T Street 10 9.7 18 8.4 18 0 0.86 -0.9 1.3 -0.10 0.16 0.173017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 18 10.3 16 9.6 17 1 0.93 -0.6 0.9 -0.07 0.11 0.823155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 11 14.0 15 9.8 17 2 0.70 -1.7 2.0 -0.14 0.19 0.663187 Folsom-Natoma Street 19 11.1 11 9.3 13 2 0.83 -1.1 1.3 -0.12 0.14 0.873196 Cool-Highway 193 21 10.5 11 8.9 13 2 0.85 -1.3 1.3 -0.16 0.16 0.913209 Sloughhouse 14 11.0 15 11.9 13 -2 1.08 0.2 0.7 0.02 0.08 0.893223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 10 9.5 18 8.7 19 1 0.91 -0.4 0.9 -0.04 0.12 0.143249 Woodland-Gibson Road 9 11.0 18 7.5 17 -1 0.68 -1.3 1.5 -0.12 0.17 0.73Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-15**Table B-13 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 13, 1999 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 194 (07/13) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 160 10.3 14 10.3 17 3 1.00 -0.5 1.3 -0.06 0.17 0.33Subregional Peak: 12.1 14 0 1.17 (at 86 x115) NSte: 3017; NSPk: 9.12143 Davis-UCD Campus 5 7.8 14 8.1 14 0 1.04 1.0 1.0 0.14 0.14 0.452731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 6 9.2 16 9.9 18 2 1.08 0.8 1.0 0.12 0.13 0.222848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 2 6.4 15 7.6 15 0 1.19 1.2 1.2 0.19 0.19 -99.002891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 20 9.6 16 7.9 14 -2 0.83 -1.6 1.6 -0.19 0.19 0.462956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 11 9.8 14 9.1 18 4 0.93 -1.0 1.4 -0.10 0.17 0.212977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 8 8.6 15 10.1 16 1 1.18 1.0 1.0 0.13 0.13 0.543002 Colfax-City Hall 12 7.3 15 7.7 16 1 1.05 0.1 0.3 0.02 0.05 0.743008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 13 10.3 14 8.6 18 4 0.84 -1.4 1.5 -0.16 0.17 0.613011 Sacramento-T Street 4 7.6 15 9.1 17 2 1.20 1.5 1.5 0.21 0.21 -0.373017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 23 8.9 1 9.1 13 12 1.03 -1.5 1.7 -0.20 0.22 0.643155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 4 7.1 15 9.2 13 -2 1.30 1.8 1.8 0.26 0.26 0.143187 Folsom-Natoma Street 15 9.2 17 9.7 12 -5 1.06 -0.5 1.2 -0.07 0.16 0.703196 Cool-Highway 193 18 8.9 15 8.0 15 0 0.90 -1.6 1.6 -0.20 0.20 0.433209 Sloughhouse 9 9.2 17 10.3 17 0 1.12 0.8 1.2 0.09 0.16 0.803223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 5 8.0 16 9.8 17 1 1.23 1.4 1.4 0.20 0.20 0.343249 Woodland-Gibson Road 5 8.9 15 7.8 17 2 0.88 -0.5 0.9 -0.06 0.11 -1.00Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-16**Table B-14 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 9, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 190 (07/09) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 16 11.6 12 11.2 13 1 0.96 0.3 0.8 0.05 0.09 -42.79Subregional Peak: 11.8 13 1 1.02 (at 85 x120) NSte: 3017; NSPk: 11.02143 Davis-UCD Campus 1 7.1 12 8.5 13 1 1.21 1.5 1.5 0.21 0.212731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 1 7.8 13 8.2 12 -1 1.05 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.052848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 1 7.3 12 8.5 12 0 1.16 1.2 1.2 0.16 0.162891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 10.5 14 9.0 12 -2 0.86 -1.4 1.4 -0.14 0.142956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 1 8.6 12 9.5 12 0 1.10 0.8 0.8 0.10 0.102977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 1 7.5 12 7.7 12 0 1.03 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.033002 Colfax-City Hall 1 8.9 13 8.3 13 0 0.93 -0.6 0.6 -0.07 0.073008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 1 9.4 13 9.5 12 -1 1.02 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.023011 Sacramento-T Street 1 6.7 13 7.1 12 -1 1.05 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.053017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 1 11.0 13 11.2 13 0 1.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.013155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 1 7.0 13 7.8 12 -1 1.12 0.8 0.8 0.12 0.123187 Folsom-Natoma Street 1 10.9 13 10.8 12 -1 0.99 -0.1 0.1 -0.01 0.013196 Cool-Highway 193 1 11.6 12 10.0 12 0 0.86 -1.6 1.6 -0.14 0.143209 Sloughhouse 1 8.7 13 8.5 12 -1 0.98 -0.1 0.1 -0.02 0.023223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 1 6.4 13 8.3 12 -1 1.28 1.8 1.8 0.28 0.283249 Woodland-Gibson Road 1 7.6 12 8.2 12 0 1.09 0.7 0.7 0.09 0.09Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-17**Table B-15 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 10, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 191 (07/10) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 17 12.9 11 11.2 12 1 0.87 -0.6 1.3 -0.05 0.13 -76.79Subregional Peak: 12.1 12 1 0.93 (at 82 x115) NSte: 3209; NSPk: 11.02123 North Highlands-Blackf 1 7.9 11 9.2 12 1 1.16 1.2 1.2 0.16 0.162143 Davis-UCD Campus 1 8.8 12 9.4 11 -1 1.08 0.7 0.7 0.08 0.082731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 1 11.1 12 10.2 12 0 0.92 -0.9 0.9 -0.08 0.082848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 1 8.1 11 9.0 12 1 1.11 0.9 0.9 0.11 0.112891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 10.3 14 8.3 12 -2 0.81 -2.0 2.0 -0.19 0.192956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 1 10.7 12 8.6 12 0 0.80 -2.1 2.1 -0.20 0.202977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 1 9.3 12 9.2 12 0 0.99 -0.1 0.1 -0.01 0.013002 Colfax-City Hall 1 8.6 13 7.7 12 -1 0.89 -0.9 0.9 -0.11 0.113008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 1 10.7 12 8.5 11 -1 0.79 -2.2 2.2 -0.21 0.213011 Sacramento-T Street 1 8.8 12 9.3 12 0 1.06 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.063017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 1 11.9 13 9.1 12 -1 0.77 -2.7 2.7 -0.23 0.233155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 1 8.2 12 8.4 10 -2 1.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.013187 Folsom-Natoma Street 1 12.9 11 9.8 12 1 0.76 -3.1 3.1 -0.24 0.243196 Cool-Highway 193 1 11.4 12 8.5 11 -1 0.75 -2.8 2.8 -0.25 0.253209 Sloughhouse 1 10.7 12 11.2 12 0 1.05 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.053223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 1 8.5 12 9.8 11 -1 1.16 1.4 1.4 0.16 0.163249 Woodland-Gibson Road 1 9.0 12 9.6 11 -1 1.07 0.7 0.7 0.07 0.07Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-18**Table B-16 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 11, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 192 (07/11) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 17 12.4 11 12.6 11 0 1.02 -0.7 1.0 -0.07 0.10 -47.81Subregional Peak: 13.1 11 0 1.06 (at 80 x117) NSte: 3187; NSPk: 12.72123 North Highlands-Blackf 1 6.9 8 8.2 12 4 1.20 1.4 1.4 0.20 0.202143 Davis-UCD Campus 1 9.2 11 8.6 11 0 0.94 -0.6 0.6 -0.06 0.062731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 1 10.7 11 10.3 11 0 0.96 -0.5 0.5 -0.04 0.042848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 1 7.2 10 7.5 11 1 1.04 0.3 0.3 0.04 0.042891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 10.6 14 9.0 13 -1 0.84 -1.7 1.7 -0.16 0.162956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 1 11.3 12 9.5 12 0 0.83 -1.9 1.9 -0.17 0.172977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 1 9.7 11 8.5 12 1 0.88 -1.1 1.1 -0.12 0.123002 Colfax-City Hall 1 8.7 13 8.6 16 3 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.003008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 1 11.2 12 9.6 12 0 0.86 -1.5 1.5 -0.14 0.143011 Sacramento-T Street 1 8.8 11 8.1 11 0 0.92 -0.7 0.7 -0.08 0.083017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 1 10.4 14 9.9 11 -3 0.95 -0.5 0.5 -0.05 0.053155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 1 10.2 11 8.2 12 1 0.80 -2.1 2.1 -0.20 0.203187 Folsom-Natoma Street 1 12.4 11 12.6 11 0 1.02 0.3 0.3 0.02 0.023196 Cool-Highway 193 1 11.8 12 9.8 13 1 0.83 -2.0 2.0 -0.17 0.173209 Sloughhouse 1 11.3 11 10.6 12 1 0.94 -0.7 0.7 -0.06 0.063223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 1 8.5 10 8.1 11 1 0.96 -0.4 0.4 -0.04 0.043249 Woodland-Gibson Road 1 8.7 11 7.9 11 0 0.91 -0.8 0.8 -0.09 0.09Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-19**Table B-17 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 12, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 193 (07/12) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 16 10.7 10 10.7 11 1 1.00 -1.0 1.1 -0.11 0.12 -89.01Subregional Peak: 11.0 12 2 1.03 (at 82 x112) NSte: 3209; NSPk: 10.72143 Davis-UCD Campus 1 9.2 11 7.3 12 1 0.79 -1.9 1.9 -0.21 0.212731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 1 9.5 12 8.0 12 0 0.84 -1.5 1.5 -0.16 0.162848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 1 7.6 10 7.1 13 3 0.95 -0.4 0.4 -0.05 0.052891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 9.1 11 7.9 11 0 0.87 -1.2 1.2 -0.13 0.132956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 1 8.8 12 7.4 13 1 0.84 -1.4 1.4 -0.16 0.162977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 1 9.5 10 9.4 11 1 0.99 -0.1 0.1 -0.01 0.013002 Colfax-City Hall 1 7.5 13 7.7 16 3 1.03 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.033008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 1 9.0 12 7.6 10 -2 0.85 -1.4 1.4 -0.15 0.153011 Sacramento-T Street 1 8.7 11 7.4 12 1 0.85 -1.3 1.3 -0.15 0.153017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 1 9.7 14 9.1 14 0 0.94 -0.6 0.6 -0.06 0.063155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 1 10.7 10 8.5 11 1 0.80 -2.2 2.2 -0.20 0.203187 Folsom-Natoma Street 1 10.2 10 8.8 10 0 0.86 -1.4 1.4 -0.14 0.143196 Cool-Highway 193 1 9.9 11 8.6 11 0 0.87 -1.3 1.3 -0.13 0.133209 Sloughhouse 1 10.4 11 10.7 11 0 1.03 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.033223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 1 8.3 11 7.6 12 1 0.92 -0.6 0.6 -0.08 0.083249 Woodland-Gibson Road 1 8.6 12 7.2 12 0 0.83 -1.5 1.5 -0.17 0.17Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-20**Table B-18 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 13, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 194 (07/13) 1999Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 14 9.1 12 9.5 11 -1 1.04 0.3 1.1 0.06 0.14 -94.41Subregional Peak: 10.2 10 -2 1.12 (at 82 x115) NSte: 3209; NSPk: 9.42143 Davis-UCD Campus 1 6.1 12 7.8 11 -1 1.27 1.6 1.6 0.27 0.272731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 1 7.7 12 8.6 11 -1 1.12 0.9 0.9 0.12 0.122891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 9.1 12 7.6 11 -1 0.83 -1.5 1.5 -0.17 0.172956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 1 8.6 12 7.5 11 -1 0.87 -1.1 1.1 -0.13 0.132977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 1 7.8 11 8.8 11 0 1.13 1.0 1.0 0.13 0.133002 Colfax-City Hall 1 6.9 11 7.0 10 -1 1.02 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.023008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 1 8.9 12 7.5 11 -1 0.84 -1.4 1.4 -0.16 0.163011 Sacramento-T Street 1 6.2 12 8.1 12 0 1.30 1.9 1.9 0.30 0.303017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 1 8.1 10 7.6 10 0 0.94 -0.5 0.5 -0.06 0.063187 Folsom-Natoma Street 1 8.6 12 8.8 11 -1 1.02 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.023196 Cool-Highway 193 1 8.3 14 7.9 10 -4 0.94 -0.5 0.5 -0.06 0.063209 Sloughhouse 1 8.1 12 9.5 11 -1 1.17 1.4 1.4 0.17 0.173223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 1 6.4 11 8.5 12 1 1.33 2.1 2.1 0.33 0.333249 Woodland-Gibson Road 1 7.0 11 7.4 11 0 1.05 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.05Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-21**Table B-19 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 9-13, 1999 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0799_99_camx Simulation ID: 050cSubregion 0006 Spatially Paired Average 8-Hour Concentrations above 6.0 pphm for DOY 190 through 194Unpaired Subregional Maximum of 10.6 at Cell 80 x 116 -- Nearest Site: 3209- - - - - - Observed - - - - - - - - - - - - Simulated - - - - - -Site Site Site DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY Site DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY Avg.ID Description Avg. 190 191 192 193 194 195 Avg. 190 191 192 193 194 195 Ratio---- ------------------------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----2123 North Highlands-Blackf 7.4 5.3 7.9 6.9 4.9 3.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 8.2 7.5 8.0 1.132143 Davis-UCD Campus 8.1 7.1 8.8 9.2 9.2 6.1 8.3 8.5 9.4 8.6 7.3 7.8 1.032731 Sacramento-Del Paso Ma 9.4 7.8 11.1 10.7 9.5 7.7 9.0 8.2 10.2 10.3 8.0 8.6 0.972848 Pleasant Grove-4 miles 7.6 7.3 8.1 7.2 7.6 5.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 7.5 7.1 7.8 1.062891 Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 9.9 10.5 10.3 10.6 9.1 9.1 8.4 9.0 8.3 9.0 7.9 7.6 0.842956 Roseville-N Sunrise Bl 9.6 8.6 10.7 11.3 8.8 8.6 8.5 9.5 8.6 9.5 7.4 7.5 0.882977 Elk Grove-Bruceville R 8.7 7.5 9.3 9.7 9.5 7.8 8.7 7.7 9.2 8.5 9.4 8.8 1.003002 Colfax-City Hall 8.1 8.9 8.6 8.7 7.5 6.9 7.9 8.3 7.7 8.6 7.7 7.0 0.973008 Rocklin-Rocklin Road 9.8 9.4 10.7 11.2 9.0 8.9 8.6 9.5 8.5 9.6 7.6 7.5 0.873011 Sacramento-T Street 7.8 6.7 8.8 8.8 8.7 6.2 8.0 7.1 9.3 8.1 7.4 8.1 1.023017 Placerville-Gold Nugge 10.2 11.0 11.9 10.4 9.7 8.1 9.4 11.2 9.1 9.9 9.1 7.6 0.923155 Vacaville-Elmira Road 9.0 7.0 8.2 10.2 10.7 6.0 8.2 7.8 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.0 0.903187 Folsom-Natoma Street 11.0 10.9 12.9 12.4 10.2 8.6 10.1 10.8 9.8 12.6 8.8 8.8 0.923196 Cool-Highway 193 10.6 11.6 11.4 11.8 9.9 8.3 9.0 10.0 8.5 9.8 8.6 7.9 0.853209 Sloughhouse 9.8 8.7 10.7 11.3 10.4 8.1 10.1 8.5 11.2 10.6 10.7 9.5 1.033223 Sacramento-3801 Airpor 7.6 6.4 8.5 8.5 8.3 6.4 8.5 8.3 9.8 8.1 7.6 8.5 1.113249 Woodland-Gibson Road 8.2 7.6 9.0 8.7 8.6 7.0 8.1 8.2 9.6 7.9 7.2 7.4 0.99Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-22**Table B-20 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 29, 2000 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 211 (07/29) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 135 11.8 14 12.6 14 0 1.07 -0.6 1.1 -0.06 0.14 0.56Subregional Peak: 13.2 15 1 1.11 (at 81 x115) NSte: SLU ; NSPk: 12.5CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 13 10.9 12 7.9 13 1 0.73 -1.3 1.3 -0.14 0.14 0.78DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 6 9.2 14 9.8 14 0 1.07 0.6 0.6 0.08 0.08 0.64ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 5 7.7 14 8.8 14 0 1.14 1.3 1.3 0.20 0.20 -0.26FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 7 8.4 17 10.2 17 0 1.22 1.9 1.9 0.26 0.26 0.97NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 7 9.5 15 8.5 17 2 0.90 0.0 0.7 0.01 0.08 0.65PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 17 10.5 18 8.7 18 0 0.83 -1.4 1.4 -0.16 0.16 0.88PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 8 8.7 15 8.6 17 2 0.98 -0.1 1.1 0.01 0.15 -0.32ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 11 9.7 18 8.0 17 -1 0.82 -1.2 1.2 -0.15 0.16 0.60ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 9 10.6 17 8.5 17 0 0.81 -1.4 1.4 -0.16 0.16 0.81S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 5 8.8 14 8.1 14 0 0.92 -0.5 0.6 -0.06 0.07 0.50SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 9 11.0 15 9.8 14 -1 0.89 -0.9 1.0 -0.10 0.11 0.92SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 10 11.8 14 12.6 14 0 1.07 0.3 0.5 0.02 0.06 0.98WLN Woodland Stn 7 10.0 14 9.1 16 2 0.91 -0.1 0.5 0.00 0.06 0.80GNBY Granite Bay Stn 11 11.5 17 9.0 17 0 0.78 -1.9 1.9 -0.22 0.22 0.86SNH Sacramento-North Highla 10 9.8 15 8.8 17 2 0.89 -0.9 0.9 -0.10 0.10 0.86Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-23**Table B-21 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 30, 2000 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 212 (07/30) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 152 12.1 15 12.5 16 1 1.04 0.5 1.1 0.07 0.15 0.38Subregional Peak: 13.2 16 1 1.09 (at 76 x116) NSte: SDP ; NSPk: 13.1AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 16 8.4 15 8.4 15 0 1.00 -0.4 0.5 -0.06 0.07 0.94CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 12 8.9 15 9.0 16 1 1.01 -0.2 0.3 -0.03 0.04 0.92DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 7 9.3 14 9.8 15 1 1.05 0.8 0.9 0.10 0.11 0.38ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 2 6.3 16 9.5 17 1 1.50 3.0 3.0 0.49 0.49 -99.00FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 8 7.4 13 10.7 15 2 1.45 3.4 3.4 0.53 0.53 -0.11NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 7 8.3 17 10.3 17 0 1.25 1.7 1.7 0.22 0.22 -0.24PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 19 9.4 17 9.3 16 -1 0.99 -0.4 1.0 -0.04 0.13 0.40PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 8 8.1 14 9.7 18 4 1.20 1.2 1.2 0.17 0.17 -0.03ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 11 8.6 12 8.6 16 4 1.00 0.2 0.9 0.03 0.12 0.44ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 9 9.2 12 9.0 18 6 0.97 -0.3 0.9 -0.04 0.11 -0.13S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 7 8.4 14 11.2 15 1 1.34 2.3 2.3 0.32 0.32 0.44SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 9 9.9 17 12.5 16 -1 1.27 1.2 1.5 0.13 0.16 0.84SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 7 12.1 15 10.5 16 1 0.87 -0.5 0.9 -0.04 0.08 0.81WLN Woodland Stn 7 8.0 14 9.2 16 2 1.15 0.9 0.9 0.12 0.12 0.87GNBY Granite Bay Stn 13 10.2 12 9.3 18 6 0.91 -0.5 1.0 -0.06 0.13 0.70SNH Sacramento-North Highla 10 8.4 16 10.1 18 2 1.20 0.3 0.9 0.04 0.11 0.78Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-24**Table B-22 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 31, 2000 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 213 (07/31) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 130 10.3 14 12.2 14 0 1.19 0.4 1.0 0.06 0.13 0.27Subregional Peak: 14.5 15 1 1.41 (at 79 x110) NSte: ELK ; NSPk: 11.4AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 12 8.9 17 8.1 15 -2 0.91 -0.9 0.9 -0.11 0.12 0.42CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 10 9.9 11 8.8 15 4 0.89 -1.2 1.3 -0.13 0.14 0.30DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 8 10.3 14 9.8 13 -1 0.95 -0.1 0.6 0.00 0.07 0.66ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 6 7.3 15 11.4 15 0 1.56 3.6 3.6 0.53 0.53 0.40NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 8 8.7 13 9.2 12 -1 1.05 0.7 0.7 0.10 0.11 0.47PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 14 8.7 13 9.2 17 4 1.05 -0.1 0.8 -0.02 0.10 0.78PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 8 7.8 15 8.2 15 0 1.05 0.6 0.6 0.08 0.08 0.58ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 8 7.8 13 8.7 15 2 1.12 1.0 1.0 0.13 0.13 0.51ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 8 8.0 13 8.6 16 3 1.07 1.2 1.2 0.17 0.17 0.21S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 7 8.5 14 9.7 13 -1 1.14 0.4 0.8 0.06 0.11 0.34SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 9 8.1 13 9.5 13 0 1.18 0.8 1.4 0.10 0.19 0.54SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 8 10.0 14 12.2 14 0 1.22 1.2 1.3 0.15 0.16 0.90WLN Woodland Stn 8 8.0 12 7.8 13 1 0.97 -0.2 0.6 -0.03 0.07 -0.09GNBY Granite Bay Stn 9 8.5 13 8.7 16 3 1.03 0.3 0.4 0.04 0.05 0.78SNH Sacramento-North Highla 7 8.1 12 8.6 16 4 1.06 0.6 0.7 0.09 0.09 -0.11Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-25**Table B-23 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **August 1, 2000 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 214 (08/01) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 141 13.3 15 14.5 15 0 1.09 0.5 1.1 0.06 0.14 0.68Subregional Peak: 15.3 16 1 1.15 (at 82 x114) NSte: SLU ; NSPk: 14.3AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 12 10.3 15 10.0 15 0 0.97 -0.1 0.4 0.00 0.05 0.91CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 12 12.0 16 10.0 14 -2 0.83 -0.6 1.1 -0.06 0.11 0.66DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 6 9.5 15 9.5 13 -2 1.01 0.7 0.8 0.09 0.11 0.41ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 6 7.8 17 10.8 17 0 1.39 3.1 3.1 0.45 0.45 0.50NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 7 9.9 16 10.4 13 -3 1.05 0.5 0.9 0.06 0.10 -0.23PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 14 10.2 18 9.5 18 0 0.93 -0.8 1.1 -0.10 0.14 0.58PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 9 10.1 15 10.3 15 0 1.02 0.2 0.8 0.03 0.09 0.69ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 9 10.3 15 11.8 15 0 1.15 1.7 1.7 0.21 0.21 0.96ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 9 11.5 15 12.3 14 -1 1.07 1.4 1.4 0.17 0.17 0.92S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 7 9.6 15 10.5 13 -2 1.10 1.8 1.8 0.25 0.25 0.51SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 10 11.5 15 13.0 14 -1 1.13 0.4 1.1 0.04 0.13 0.83SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 11 13.3 15 14.5 15 0 1.09 0.2 0.8 0.02 0.09 0.95WLN Woodland Stn 7 10.0 15 9.7 15 0 0.97 0.1 1.0 0.02 0.12 0.36GNBY Granite Bay Stn 12 11.5 16 12.3 15 -1 1.07 0.5 0.8 0.05 0.09 0.93SNH Sacramento-North Highla 10 12.0 15 12.0 13 -2 1.00 0.5 1.1 0.06 0.13 0.67Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-26**Table B-24 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **August 2, 2000 1-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 215 (08/02) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm)------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 138 12.1 15 12.6 16 1 1.04 0.2 1.4 0.04 0.17 0.58Subregional Peak: 13.0 14 -1 1.07 (at 78 x123) NSte: ROC ; NSPk: 11.9AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 13 11.5 18 12.6 16 -2 1.10 -0.6 1.1 -0.06 0.11 0.85CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 13 11.6 18 11.0 16 -2 0.95 -0.3 0.9 -0.03 0.10 0.77DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 5 8.2 13 10.7 15 2 1.31 2.2 2.2 0.31 0.31 0.36ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 4 7.2 14 11.3 15 1 1.56 3.3 3.3 0.48 0.48 -0.10FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 8 11.1 15 10.6 18 3 0.96 -0.8 1.5 -0.09 0.19 0.75NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 7 9.6 14 11.2 16 2 1.17 1.3 1.7 0.18 0.25 0.39PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 15 9.5 17 8.6 17 0 0.90 -0.5 0.8 -0.06 0.10 0.72PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 4 8.8 14 10.4 16 2 1.19 2.0 2.0 0.26 0.26 -0.86ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 10 11.0 16 11.6 14 -2 1.05 0.4 0.9 0.05 0.10 0.76ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 9 11.2 15 11.4 13 -2 1.02 0.3 1.1 0.04 0.12 0.57S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 4 8.0 14 9.4 15 1 1.17 1.0 1.0 0.15 0.15 0.71SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 8 10.2 14 10.6 17 3 1.04 0.3 1.9 0.04 0.27 0.46SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 11 10.3 16 11.0 17 1 1.07 -0.8 1.4 -0.10 0.18 0.75WLN Woodland Stn 6 9.0 14 9.9 16 2 1.10 1.5 1.5 0.21 0.21 0.51GNBY Granite Bay Stn 13 12.1 15 10.8 18 3 0.89 -0.8 1.3 -0.09 0.15 0.82SNH Sacramento-North Highla 8 10.8 15 11.7 13 -2 1.08 1.3 1.5 0.16 0.18 0.64Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-27**Table B-25 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 29, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 211 (07/29) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 15 9.7 12 10.0 11 -1 1.03 -0.3 1.0 -0.02 0.11 -101.56Subregional Peak: 10.4 12 0 1.07 (at 82 x114) NSte: SLU ; NSPk: 9.9CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 1 9.4 11 7.7 12 1 0.81 -1.8 1.8 -0.19 0.19DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 1 7.7 11 8.4 11 0 1.09 0.7 0.7 0.09 0.09ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 1 6.4 12 8.2 12 0 1.28 1.8 1.8 0.28 0.28FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 1 7.0 12 8.8 11 -1 1.26 1.8 1.8 0.26 0.26NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 1 8.0 12 8.2 12 0 1.02 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 1 9.7 12 8.2 12 0 0.84 -1.6 1.6 -0.16 0.16PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 1 7.7 11 7.7 12 1 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 1 8.5 12 7.5 11 -1 0.88 -1.0 1.0 -0.12 0.12ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 1 9.0 12 7.6 11 -1 0.84 -1.4 1.4 -0.16 0.16S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 1 7.2 12 7.1 12 0 0.98 -0.1 0.1 -0.02 0.02SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 1 9.2 12 8.4 11 -1 0.91 -0.8 0.8 -0.09 0.09SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 1 9.6 12 10.0 11 -1 1.05 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05WLN Woodland Stn 1 8.1 11 8.1 11 0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00GNBY Granite Bay Stn 1 9.7 12 8.0 11 -1 0.83 -1.7 1.7 -0.17 0.17SNH Sacramento-North Highla 1 8.9 11 7.9 12 1 0.89 -0.9 0.9 -0.11 0.11Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-28**Table B-26 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 30, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 212 (07/30) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 15 9.3 11 10.7 12 1 1.15 0.8 1.0 0.12 0.13 -139.05Subregional Peak: 11.3 12 1 1.21 (at 77 x117) NSte: SDP ; NSPk: 10.9AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 8.0 11 8.0 12 1 0.99 -0.1 0.1 -0.01 0.01CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 1 8.7 11 8.5 12 1 0.98 -0.2 0.2 -0.02 0.02DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 1 8.0 11 9.0 12 1 1.12 1.0 1.0 0.12 0.12FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 1 6.6 12 10.0 12 0 1.52 3.4 3.4 0.52 0.52NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 1 7.6 11 9.4 12 1 1.25 1.9 1.9 0.25 0.25PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 1 8.6 15 8.8 12 -3 1.02 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 1 7.4 12 8.7 13 1 1.18 1.3 1.3 0.18 0.18ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 1 7.9 11 8.3 12 1 1.05 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.05ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 1 8.5 10 8.5 12 2 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 1 7.2 11 9.4 12 1 1.30 2.2 2.2 0.30 0.30SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 1 9.3 11 10.7 12 1 1.15 1.4 1.4 0.15 0.15SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 1 9.1 12 8.8 12 0 0.97 -0.3 0.3 -0.03 0.03WLN Woodland Stn 1 7.3 11 8.3 12 1 1.15 1.1 1.1 0.15 0.15GNBY Granite Bay Stn 1 9.2 11 9.0 12 1 0.97 -0.2 0.2 -0.03 0.03SNH Sacramento-North Highla 1 8.1 12 8.8 12 0 1.09 0.7 0.7 0.09 0.09Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-29**Table B-27 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 31, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 213 (07/31) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 15 8.9 11 10.1 12 1 1.13 0.7 0.9 0.10 0.12 -128.73Subregional Peak: 11.8 12 1 1.32 (at 81 x108) NSte: ELK ; NSPk: 10.1AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 8.2 13 7.5 11 -2 0.91 -0.7 0.7 -0.09 0.09CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 1 8.9 11 7.9 11 0 0.88 -1.1 1.1 -0.12 0.12DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 1 8.9 11 9.0 12 1 1.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 1 6.4 12 10.1 12 0 1.57 3.7 3.7 0.57 0.57NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 1 7.6 11 8.3 11 0 1.09 0.7 0.7 0.09 0.09PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 1 8.1 13 8.5 12 -1 1.06 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.06PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 1 7.3 11 7.9 11 0 1.08 0.6 0.6 0.08 0.08ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 1 7.3 11 8.2 12 1 1.13 1.0 1.0 0.13 0.13ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 1 7.0 11 8.2 11 0 1.17 1.2 1.2 0.17 0.17S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 1 7.4 12 7.9 11 -1 1.07 0.5 0.5 0.07 0.07SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 1 7.4 12 8.6 11 -1 1.16 1.2 1.2 0.16 0.16SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 1 8.3 12 10.1 12 0 1.22 1.8 1.8 0.22 0.22WLN Woodland Stn 1 7.6 12 7.5 11 -1 0.98 -0.1 0.1 -0.02 0.02GNBY Granite Bay Stn 1 8.0 11 8.3 11 0 1.04 0.3 0.3 0.04 0.04SNH Sacramento-North Highla 1 7.7 10 8.2 11 1 1.06 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.06Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-30**Table B-28 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **August 1, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 214 (08/01) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 15 10.9 12 11.4 12 0 1.05 0.8 0.9 0.10 0.11 -105.27Subregional Peak: 11.8 12 0 1.09 (at 80 x116) NSte: SLU ; NSPk: 11.3AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 9.5 12 9.5 12 0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 1 9.9 13 9.3 12 -1 0.94 -0.6 0.6 -0.06 0.06DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 1 8.1 9 9.0 11 2 1.11 0.9 0.9 0.11 0.11ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 1 6.6 12 9.7 11 -1 1.48 3.2 3.2 0.48 0.48NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 1 9.0 11 9.7 11 0 1.08 0.7 0.7 0.08 0.08PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 1 8.9 14 8.6 13 -1 0.96 -0.3 0.3 -0.04 0.04PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 1 9.3 12 9.4 11 -1 1.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 1 8.9 11 10.5 11 0 1.19 1.7 1.7 0.19 0.19ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 1 9.3 11 10.7 11 0 1.16 1.5 1.5 0.16 0.16S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 1 7.6 12 9.5 11 -1 1.25 1.9 1.9 0.25 0.25SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 1 10.1 12 10.7 11 -1 1.07 0.7 0.7 0.07 0.07SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 1 10.9 12 11.4 12 0 1.05 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05WLN Woodland Stn 1 8.4 12 8.7 11 -1 1.03 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.03GNBY Granite Bay Stn 1 9.9 12 10.6 11 -1 1.07 0.7 0.7 0.07 0.07SNH Sacramento-North Highla 1 10.0 12 10.5 11 -1 1.05 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-31**Table B-29 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **August 2, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cStatistics were calculated for the 24-hour period of DOY 215 (08/02) 2000Included were data-pairs with observed concentrations above a threshold of 6.0 (pphm); Averaged over 8 hours------- Peak Concentrations -------- --- Comparisons with Observations ---Observed Predicted Time Peak Mean Mean NormalizedSite Description No Value Time Value Time Lag Ratio Bias Error Bias Error (r)---- ------------------------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------0006 SubRegion 16 10.7 12 10.5 12 0 0.98 0.9 1.2 0.13 0.17 -72.44Subregional Peak: 10.8 12 0 1.00 (at 79 x124) NSte: ROC ; NSPk: 10.3AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 1 10.7 12 10.5 12 0 0.98 -0.2 0.2 -0.02 0.02CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 1 10.4 13 10.0 12 -1 0.97 -0.3 0.3 -0.03 0.03DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 1 6.7 12 8.7 11 -1 1.30 2.0 2.0 0.30 0.30ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 1 6.3 12 8.7 11 -1 1.39 2.4 2.4 0.39 0.39FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 1 9.5 12 9.1 11 -1 0.96 -0.4 0.4 -0.04 0.04NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 1 7.5 12 9.2 11 -1 1.24 1.8 1.8 0.24 0.24PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 1 8.7 14 8.1 12 -2 0.92 -0.7 0.7 -0.08 0.08PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 1 6.6 11 9.8 11 0 1.48 3.2 3.2 0.48 0.48ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 1 9.8 11 10.2 11 0 1.04 0.4 0.4 0.04 0.04ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 1 9.7 11 10.1 11 0 1.04 0.4 0.4 0.04 0.04S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 1 6.3 13 8.4 11 -2 1.32 2.0 2.0 0.32 0.32SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 1 8.0 12 9.2 11 -1 1.16 1.3 1.3 0.16 0.16SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 1 9.1 12 8.8 11 -1 0.96 -0.4 0.4 -0.04 0.04WLN Woodland Stn 1 7.0 12 8.8 11 -1 1.26 1.8 1.8 0.26 0.26GNBY Granite Bay Stn 1 10.3 11 9.6 11 0 0.94 -0.6 0.6 -0.06 0.06SNH Sacramento-North Highla 1 8.7 10 10.4 11 1 1.19 1.7 1.7 0.19 0.19Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix B: Photochemical ModelingPage B-32**Table B-30 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation for Individual Sites in Sacramento Region** **July 29 - August 2, 2000 8-Hour Ozone*** * * Model Performance Evaluation * * *Pollutant: O3 (pphm) Project: arb_050c_0700_00_camx Simulation ID: 050cSubregion 0006 Spatially Paired Average 8-Hour Concentrations above 6.0 pphm for DOY 211 through 215Unpaired Subregional Maximum of 10.0 at Cell 78 x 117 -- Nearest Site: SDP- - - - - - Observed - - - - - - - - - - - - Simulated - - - - - -Site Site Site DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY Site DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY DOY Avg.ID Description Avg. 211 212 213 214 215 216 Avg. 211 212 213 214 215 216 Ratio---- ------------------------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----AUBD Auburn-Dewitt-C Avenue 9.1 -99.0 8.0 8.2 9.5 10.7 8.5 7.2 8.0 7.5 9.5 10.5 0.94CUS Cool Stn (1400 American 9.5 9.4 8.7 8.9 9.9 10.4 8.7 7.7 8.5 7.9 9.3 10.0 0.92DVS Davis/UCD Campus Stn 7.9 7.7 8.0 8.9 8.1 6.7 8.8 8.4 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 1.12ELK Elk Grove Stn (Brucevil 6.4 6.4 5.0 6.4 6.6 6.3 9.1 8.2 8.7 10.1 9.7 8.7 1.42FLN Folsom Stn (Natoma St.) 7.7 7.0 6.6 1.9-99.0 9.5 9.5 8.8 10.0 8.6 10.8 9.1 1.23NAT Sacramento/Natoma Stn ( 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.6 9.0 7.5 9.0 8.2 9.4 8.3 9.7 9.2 1.13PGN Placerville Stn (Gold N 8.8 9.7 8.6 8.1 8.9 8.7 8.4 8.2 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.1 0.96PGV Pleasant Grove Stn (4 S 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.3 9.3 6.6 8.7 7.7 8.7 7.9 9.4 9.8 1.13ROC Rocklin Stn (5000 Rockl 8.5 8.5 7.9 7.3 8.9 9.8 9.0 7.5 8.3 8.2 10.5 10.2 1.06ROS Roseville Stn (151 N Su 8.7 9.0 8.5 7.0 9.3 9.7 9.0 7.6 8.5 8.2 10.7 10.1 1.04S13 Sacramento Stn (1309 T 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.3 8.4 7.1 9.4 7.9 9.5 8.4 1.18SDP Sacramento Stn (Del Pas 8.8 9.2 9.3 7.4 10.1 8.0 9.5 8.4 10.7 8.6 10.7 9.2 1.08SLU Sloughouse Rd. Stn 9.4 9.6 9.1 8.3 10.9 9.1 9.8 10.0 8.8 10.1 11.4 8.8 1.05WLN Woodland Stn 7.7 8.1 7.3 7.6 8.4 7.0 8.3 8.1 8.3 7.5 8.7 8.8 1.08GNBY Granite Bay Stn 9.4 9.7 9.2 8.0 9.9 10.3 9.1 8.0 9.0 8.3 10.6 9.6 0.97SNH Sacramento-North Highla 8.7 8.9 8.1 7.7 10.0 8.7 9.1 7.9 8.8 8.2 10.5 10.4 1.05Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-33 

### Air Quality Modeling Results

This section of Appendix B provides a su mmary of the air quality modeling analysis process and includes additional informati on and graphs on the air quality modeling results described in Chapters 6 and 8 of the main report.

Air Quality Modeling Runs Performed

After the photochemical modeling base ca se episodes were shown to perform adequately, the modeling was used for assessi ng attainment of the federal ozone standard. First, the air quality model was run with 2002 baseline year emissions to provide baseline year ozone concentrations. Next, model runs with emissions forecasts (including ERCs and existing control strategies) for 2018 were conducted to estimate
the future ozone concentrations. The rela tive decline between modeled baseline and future year ozone concentrations at each ozone nonattainment monitoring site was
calculated. This relative reduction factor was applied to baseline ozone design values to predict a future ozone design value for each monitoring site and then compared to
the federal ozone standard. Based on the photochemical mode ling results, attainment was predicted at all ozone monitors in 2018 , except for two site s (Cool and Folsom) located in the eastern part of the Sacr amento region. Ther efore, supplemental modeling runs were done to estimate the additional emission reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Development of Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs

Systematic reductions in a ll anthropogenic VOC and/ or NOx emissions were simulated to characterize the change in the resulting ozone concentrations. For each individual modeling run, domain-wide (i ncluding areas outside of t he Sacramento nonattainment area) emissions for NOx-only, VOC-only, or both VOC and NOx are scaled by factors ranging from 100% to 80% in increments of 5%. As a result, forecasted ozone
concentrations were determined for 25 differ ent combinations of varying VOC and/or NOx emission reductions. For example, o ne modeling run scaled VOC emissions by 95% and NOx emissions by 85%, and then anot her run scaled VOC emissions by 85% and NOx emissions by 95%.

The forecasted ozone concentration data (in ppb) associated wit h each of the 25 emission reduction modeling scenarios were us ed to calculate the future ozone design values, which were plotted on a graph for an individual monitoring site. These diagrams show the pattern of ozone responses to varying combinations in VOC and NOx

emission reductions. This exercise wa s performed for the 2018 attainment demonstration year, and evaluated at each of t he nonattainment air monitoring sites.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-34 

### 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs for Peak Ozone Site and Other
Nonattainment Sites

The 2018 ozone/emission reduction graph for the peak ozone site at Cool is provided in Figure B-1. The 2018 ozone/emission reduction graphs for other nonattainment ozone monitoring sites (Auburn, Colfax, Folsom, Grass Valley, North Highlands, Placerville, Roseville, Sacramento-Del Pa so Manor, and Sloughhouse) in the Sacramento region are presented in Figures B-2 th rough B-10. See Figure B-11 for a map of the location of the ozone monitoring stations.

The graph for the peak ozone design value site in the Sacramento region will generally

determine the extent of addi tional emission reductions ne eded for attainment.

Some general conclusions can be drawn based on the 2018 modeling results of

forecasted emissions and the additional acro ss-the-board percent emission reduction scenarios. The air quality modeling analysis shows that attainment can be reached by
2018 with different combinatio ns of VOC and NOx control. The modeling results
indicate that both VOC and NOx reductions provide ozone benefits in the Sacramento region, but on a ton for ton basis NOx r eductions provide great er ozone benefits than
VOC reductions.

EPA modeling guidance states that the modeled attainment test is conducted using the predicted future ozone design value concent rations (truncated to whole ppb). All modeled ozone concentrations are truncated to integers for purposes of determining attainment. Following EPA guidance, for exam ple, and truncating all numbers to the whole number, 84.99 would be truncated to 84 ppb.

Figure B-1 contains the oz one and pollutant emission r eduction graph for the 2018 peak ozone design value site at Cool in the Sacr amento region. The x and y axes represent
fractional emissions reductions from the fo recasted 2018 planning emissions inventory (without new control measures): 121 tpd of ROG and 104 tpd of NOx. The whole numbers on the graph repres ent predicted ozone design value concentrations (truncated to whole ppb), based on modelin g results for fractional VOC and NOx

reductions at 5% increments. For example, the upper right corner truncated integer (88 ppb) represents the predicted 2018 ozone design value at Cool with existing control strategies and no additional frac tional emission reductions.

Because planning commitments to specific em issions reduction projections may not be
one of the exact modeled reduction scenarios reflected on the ozone/emission reduction graph, contours are drawn to estimate a co ntinuum of reductions between the modeled points with the same ozone concentration (calle d isopleths). Because of the truncation policy, these contours would be more accura tely characterized as bands, than lines. However, for simplicity the contours are drawn as lines.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-35 

### The CARB modeling results for predicted ozone design value concentrations were provided to the districts as truncated integer s at a resolution of 5% emission reduction increments. Therefore, in an effort to better characterize the ozone modeling results
and the relative benefits of VOC and NOx emi ssions reduction strategies, District staff obtained ozone modeling output files which pr ovided 5% increment modeled ozone
values rounded to the tenth of a ppb. Staff interpolated whole ppb results to establish

the ozone concentration contour lines in Figure B-1. T he 85 ppb ozone contour line lies just below the CARB truncat ed 85 ppb concentrations and has a slope that illustrates
the relative benefit of VOC strategies to NOx strategies . Looking at the relative ozone benefit from a 20 percent reduction in an thropogenic emissions of VOC and NOx suggests that overall a 1 ton per day reducti on in NOx is equivalent to a 7 ton per day
reduction in VOC.

Attainment Demonstration Evaluation

Attainment of the 8-hour oz one NAAQS is evaluated for a 2018 “severe” classification scenario, based on modeling results for the peak ozone site (Cool) in the Sacramento region. The 2018 ozone/emission reduction gr aph for the peak ozone site at Cool (Figure B-1) shows the various combinations of percent emission reduction attainment levels below the 85 ppb cont our line. There are any num ber of potential VOC and NOx reduction combinations that could provide fo r attainment. The combined reductions
from new state and federal co ntrol measures and from new regional and local proposed control measures contained in this plan ar e used to assess future 2018 attainment.
Attainment is evaluated for:

1) the 2018 emission reductions from all new local, regional, state and federal control
measure committals. The total benefits from all new measures are estimated to be 14 tpd of VOC and 18 t pd of NOx in 2018.

2) the 2018 emission reductions from only t he new local, regional , state and federal control measures adopted by the end of 2008. The benefit s from adopted new measures are estimated to be 4 tpd of VOC and 13 tpd of NOx in 2018.

The total emission reductions from new meas ures already adopted by the end of 2008 and expected future new measures are incl uded in the 2018 attainment demonstration
for the Sacramento area. These new c ontrol measures are included as a SIP
commitment to meet the Clean Air Act and EPA requirements 1 

### for nonattainment areas to adopt all reasonably available control measures (RACM) and to attain the 1997
federal 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as prac ticable. These measures will also provide a buffer in the event that CARB's estimate of emission reductions from the Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks, are reduced due to ch anges in the final rule

1 CAA Section 172(c)(1) and Section 181(a)(1), and 40 CFR 51.912(d)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-36 

### adopted December 11, 2008 2 

### . However, these additional emission reductions from new measures expected to be adopted after 2008 are less certain and may change during the rule development proce ss. Even though these future new committal measures are required for expeditious attainment, it is an ticipated that attainment would be achieved by the 2018 deadline even if there is a reduction in their emission benefits.

Attainment Demonstration Results

The combination of emission re ductions from new control m easures were converted to percent emission reductions of the fore casted 2018 planning emissions inventory (without new control measures): 121 tpd of ROG and 104 tpd of NOx. The combination of percent emission reductions was plotted on the graph in Figure B-1 to demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard (84 ppb). Attainment demonstration results are given for:

1) the 2018 emission reductions from all new local, regional, state and federal control measure committals (11.6% of VOC and 17.3% of NOx, designated at Point A). These reductions are more than the pe rcent reduction attainment targets for attaining the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2018, and so will provide reductions for accelerated progress.

2) the 2018 emission reductions from only t he new local, regional , state and federal control measures adopted by the end of 2008 (3.3% of VOC a nd 12.5% of NOx, designated at Point B). These levels also provide for attainment (just below the 85 ppb ozone contour line).

2 This is considered to be unlikely since on December 17, 2008 CARB staff informed district staff that it does not anticipate a decrease in emission redu ction estimates (personal communication Ravi Ramalingan to SIP working group.)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-37 

### Figure B-1 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graph for the Cool Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

With RRFs, Offset = 40 ppb Ozone Design Values (ppb)

0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00

ROG 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00NOx 88

87

85

84

82 88

86

85

84

82 88

86

85

83

82 87

86

85

83

82 87

86

85

83

82 *A *B

V OC

1. The upper right corner point designates the predicted 2018 peak ozone design value (88 ppb) based on the forecasted 2018 planning emissions inventory (without new control measures): 121 tpd of VOC and 104 tpd of NOx. 2. The x and y axes represent fractional emissi ons reductions from the forecasted 2018 planning emissions inventory. 3. The whole numbers on the graph represent predicted ozone design value concentrations (truncated to whole ppb), based on modeling results for fractional VOC and NOx reductions at 5% increments. Values below 85 ppb represent attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-38 4. The horizontal contour lines represent the Dist rict’s interpolated ppb 8-hour ozone concentrations

based on 5% increment modeled ozone val ues rounded to the tenth of a ppb. 5. Point A designates the 2018 emission reductions (11.6% VOC and 17.3% NOx) from all new local, regional, state and federal control measure committals, and provides for attainment. 6. Point B designates the 2018 emission reductions (3.3% VOC and 12.5% NOx) from only the new local, regional, state and federal control measures adopted by the end of 2008. These levels also provide
for attainment.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-39 

### Figure B-2 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Auburn Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-40 

### Figure B-3 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Colfax Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-41 

### Figure B-4 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Folsom Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-42 

### Figure B-5 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Grass Valley Monitoring Site* Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018

* Grass Valley monitoring site is outside the Sacramento nonattainment area, but is a nearby

downwind site.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-43 

### Figure B-6 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – North Highlands Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-44 

### Figure B-7 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Placerville Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-45 

### Figure B-8 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Roseville Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-46 

### Figure B-9 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Sacramento DPM Monitor Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-47 

### Figure B-10 2018 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graphs – Sloughhouse Monitoring Site Based on Photochemical Modeling Results

2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix B: Photochemical Modeling Page B-48 

### Figure B-11
Sacramento Nonattainment Area Ozone Monitoring Stations

2008 Ozone Monitoring Sites (County)

Sacramento Nonattainment Area Sites

1. Auburn (Placer Co.) 11. Sacramento – Airport Rd. (Sac. Co.)
2. Colfax (Placer Co.) 12. Sacramento – Del Paso Manor (Sac. Co.)
3. Cool (El Dorado Co.) 13. Sacramento – T Street (Sac. Co.)
4. Davis (Yolo Co.) 14. Sloughhouse (Sac. Co.) 5. Echo Summit (El Dorado Co.) 15. Vacaville (Solano Co.)
6. Elk Grove (Sac. Co.) 16. Woodland (Yolo Co.)
7. Folsom (Sac. Co.) 8. North Highlands (Sac. Co.) Other Sites

9. Placerville (El Dorado Co.) 17. Grass Valley* (Nevada Co.)
10. Roseville (Placer Co.) 18. Jackson** (Amador Co.)

*Grass Valley site: 2007 ozone design value = 95 ppb, and modeling analysis is applied for 2018. **Jackson site informational only: 2007 ozone design value = 81 ppb, and modeling analysis is not applied.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix C: Proposed Control Measures Page C-1 

### Appendix C: Proposed Control Measures

Appendix C contains the more detailed descriptions of the proposed regional and local control measures for the Sacramento nonattainment area and is compiled as a separate

document.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Table of Contents Page C-2 

### Appendix C: Proposed Control Measures

Appendix C contains a summary table of emission reductions by control measure and a summary table of emission reductions by air district. This appendix also includes more detailed information on the individual pro posed control measures. The non-regulatory
control measures are listed first and inclu de various regional measures (on-road and
off-road mobile incentive programs, and an emerging/ voluntary urban forest development program). These are followed by the regulatory control measures, which

include indirect source rules and a variet y of stationary and area- wide source control measures. The stationary and area-wide s ource measures include write-ups for

individual air districts in t he Sacramento nonattainment area . The final section includes a description of further study measures. In formation on transportation control measures is included in Appendix D.

Summary Table of Emission Re ductions by Control Measure ............................. C-5

Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Air District ....................................... C-7

Summary Table of Emission Reductions for Adopted New Local Control

Measures ................................................................................................ C-8

NON-REGULATORY CONTROL MEASURES

Regional Mobile Measures

All Mobile Source In centive Prog rams............................................................ C-10

Regional Urban Forest Control Measures

SMAQMD-1 Urban Forest Air Q uality Development Program ........................ C-16

REGULATORY CONTROL MEASURES

Indirect Source Rules

IS-1: Constructi on Mitigati on .......................................................................... C-58

IS-2: Operational I ndirect Sour ce .................................................................. C-62Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Table of Contents Page C-3 

### Stationary and Area-wide Source Control Measures

VOC Control Measures

Architectural Coatings .................................................................................... C-68

SMAQMD-442
EDCAQMD-215
FRAQMD-3.15
PCAPCD-218
YSAQMD-2.14

Automotive Re finishin g................................................................................... C-92

SMAQMD-459
FRAQMD-3.19
PCAPCD-234
YSAQMD-2.26

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning ....................................................................... C-102

SMAQMD-454/466
EDCAQMD-225/235
FRAQMD-3.14
YSAQMD-2.24/2.31

Graphic Ar ts.................................................................................................. C-112

YSAQMD-2.29

Miscellaneous Metal Pa rts and Produc ts...................................................... C-115

EDCAQMD-246
PCAPCD-CM3

Natural Gas Production and Processi ng....................................................... C- 120

SMAQMD-461

NOx Control Measures

Asphalt Conc rete.......................................................................................... C-124

SMAQMD-471
PCAPCD-CM1

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process H eaters........................................ C-129

YSAQMD-2.27Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Table of Contents Page C-4 

### IC Engi nes.................................................................................................... C- 132

SMAQMD-412
FRAQMD-3.22
YSAQMD-2.32

Water Heat ers .............................................................................................. C-140

SMAQMD-414
EDCAQMD-239
FRAQMD-3.23
PCAPCD-CM2
YSAQMD-2.37

Further Study Measures

Urban Heat Is land......................................................................................... C-153

Alternative Energy ........................................................................................ C-155

Energy Effi cency........................................................................................... C-157

Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II 

### ............................................................................. C-158

Lubricants ..................................................................................................... C- 161

Episodic C ontrols.......................................................................................... C-163Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Control Measure Page C-5 

### Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Control Measure

Emission Reductions (TPD)

2018 Measure Name

VOC NO

x Non-regulatory Measures

Regional Mobile Incentive Program – On-road 0.060 0.910 Regional Mobile Incentive Program – Off-road 0.005 0.013 Spare The Air Program 0.059 0.046 SACOG Transportation Control Measures tbd tbd Urban Forest Development Program 0 - 0.18 -

Total Non-regulatory Measures 0.12 0.97

Regulatory Measures

Indirect Source Rule – C onstruction Mitigation - 0.136 Indirect Source Rule – Operational ISR 0–0.04 0-0.13

Stationary and Area-wide Source Measures

Architectural Coating
SMAQMD-442 0.913

- EDCAQMD-215 0.186

- FRAQMD-3.15 0.004

- PCAPCD-218 0.201

- YSAQMD-2.14 0.214

- Total Architectural Coating 1.52

Automotive Refinishing
SMAQMD-459 0.113

- FRAQMD-3.19 0.001

- PCAPCD-234 0.045

- YSAQMD-2.26 0.058

- Total Automotive Refinishing 0.22

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning
SMAQMD-454/466 0.593

- EDCAQMD-225/235 0.076

- FRAQMD-3.14 0.001

- YSAQMD-2.24/2.31 0.762

- Total Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning 1.43

Graphic Arts
YSAQMD-2.29

--- - Total Graphic Arts ---

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
EDCAQMD-246 0.002

- PCAPCD-CM3 0.014

-Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Control Measure Page C-6 Emission Reductions (TPD)

2018 Measure Name

VOC NO

x Total Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 0.02

Natural Gas Production and Processing
SMAQMD-461 0.116

- Total Natural Gas Production and Processing 0.12

-

Asphalt Concrete
SMAQMD-471

- 0.132

PCAPCD-CM1 - 0.036 Total Asphalt Concrete 0.17

Boilers, Steam Gen. and Process Heaters
YSAQMD-2.27

- 0.288 Total Boilers, Steam Gen. and Process Heaters 0.29

IC Engines
SMAQMD-412

- 0.013
FRAQMD-3.22 - 0.004
YSAQMD-2.32 - 0.118 Total IC Engines 0.14

Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers
SMAQMD-414

- 1.117
EDCAQMD-239 - 0.003
FRAQMD-3.23 - 0.000

PCAPCD-CM2 - 0.030
YSAQMD-2.37 - 0.240 Total Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers 1.39

Total Stationary and Area Source Measures 3.30 1.98

Total Regulatory Measures 3.30 2.12

Total Reductions 3.42 3.09

tbd = to be determinedSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Air District Page C-7 

### Summary Table of Emission Re ductions by Air District

Emission Reductions (TPD) Air District Control Measure Name (Rule No.) 2018
VOC NOx

Stationary and Area Source Measures

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Architectural Coating (SMAQMD-442) 0.913

- Automotive Refinishing (SMAQMD-459) 0.113

- Degreasing/Solvent Clean ing (SMAQMD-454/466) 0.593

- Natural Gas Production and Processing (SMAQMD-461) 0.116

- Asphalt Concrete (SMAQMD-471)

- 0.132
IC Engines (SMAQMD-412)

- 0.013
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (SMAQMD-414)

- 1.117 Total Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 1.74 1.26

El Dorado County AQMD
Architectural Coating (EDCAQMD-215) 0.186

- Degreasing/Solvent Clean ing (EDCAQMD-225/235) 0.076

- Misc. Metal Parts and Products (EDCAQMD-246) 0.002

- Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (EDCAQMD-239)

- 0.003 Total El Dorado County AQMD 0.26 0.00

Feather River AQMD
Architectural Coating (FRAQMD-3.15) 0.004

- Automotive Refinishing (FRAQMD-3.19) 0.001

- Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning (FRAQMD-3.14) 0.001

- IC Engines (FRAQMD-3.22)

- 0.004
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (FRAQMD-3.23)

- 0.000
Total Feather River AQMD 0.01 0.00

Placer County APCD
Architectural Coating (PCAPCD-218) 0.201

- Automotive Refinishing (PCAPCD-234) 0.045

- Misc. Metal Parts and Products (PCAPCD-CM3) 0.014

- Asphalt Concrete (PCAPCD-CM1)

- 0.036
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (PCAPCD-CM2)

- 0.030 Total Placer County APCD 0.26 0.07

Yolo-Solano AQMD

Architectural Coat ing (YSAQMD-2.14) 0.214

- Automotive Refinishing (YSAQMD-2.26) 0.058

- Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning (YSAQ MD-2.24/2.31) 0.762

- Graphic Arts (YSAQMD-2.29)

--- - Boilers, Steam Gen. & Proc ess Heaters (YSAQMD-2.27)

- 0.288
IC Engines (YSAQMD-2.32)

- 0.118
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (YSAQMD-2.37)

- 0.240
Total Yolo-Solano AQMD 1.03 0.65

Total Stationary and Area-wide Source Measures 3.30 1.98Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Summary Table of Emission Reductions by Air District Page C-8 Summary Table of Emission Reductions for Adopted New Local Control Measures

Emission Reductions (TPD) New Local Control Measures Adopted by End of 2008 2018
Control Measures (Air District-Rule No.) VOC NO

x

Automotive Refinishing (YSAQMD-2.26) 0.058 --
Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning (SMAQMD-454/466) 0.593 --
Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning (YSAQMD-2.24/2.31) 0.762 --
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (PCAPCD-CM3) 0.014 --

Total Adopted New Local Measures 1.43 --Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Non-regulatory Control Measures Page C-9 

# Non-regulatory Control MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-10 CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: Regional Mobile Measures

Control Measure Title: All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Evaluation Date: July 29, 2008

Control Measure Description



### Mobile sources such as trucks, automob iles, trains, boats, construction and farm equipment are by far the largest sources of ozone precursors in the Sacramento nonattainment area. Included under this majo r source category are all non-stationary sources from lawn mowers to jumbo jets . The air districts do not have authority to directly regulate mobile source emissions through emission standards; however, the air district incentive programs (and indirect source rules) may complement state and federal regulatory efforts in reducing mob ile source emissions. These regional mobile source incentive measures are implemen ted in all or parts of the Sacramento nonattainment area by the air districts.

The estimated emission reductions from t hese proposed regional mobile incentive
measures are summarized for all mobile source incentive programs and disaggregated by reductions for the on-road mobile and off-road mobile control measures.

Because many of the incentive measures in the categories below target the same vehicles or engines, it is difficult to predi ct in advance what po rtion of the benefits should be assigned to each of the individual st rategies. Therefore, the benefits from the collection of measures have been estimated, and all or any portion of the measures may be implemented to achiev e those benefits. Some meas ures noted may likewise not be implemented if cost effectiv e reductions are not available. However, for purposes of establishing motor vehicle emission budget s in each of the milestone years for transportation conformity, an explicit commitm ent is made to the reductions associated

with the on-road mobile s ource incentive program.

The incentive program measures noted below rely on funding provided according to existing laws and policies. The funding sources for 2008- 2018 include SECAT program ($38.4M), local district Department of Moto r Vehicle fees ($13.0M), and local district revenues for Mowdown ($0.35M).

Individual Measure Descriptions

Implement a variety of incentive programs for on-road vehicles and off-road equipment. The programs include:

ONMS-LD-1 (ONMS-LD-2). Light Duty Early Retirement - Implement an incentive based light-duty vehicle early retirement program. The pr ogram is focused on accelerating retirement
of non-OBD-II vehicles.

ONMS-HD-1 (ONMS-HD-5). SECAT-Like Program - The measure implements an incentive program for NOx reduction in heavy-duty vehicles similar to that created by the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) program.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-11 SMAQMD OFMS-SI-1. Zero Emission Lawn and Garden Incentive (Residential) - This measure implements a year-round continuous in centive program for the replacement of residential spark ignited gasoline-powered mowers with electric or zero emission alternatives in

2008-2018.

SMAQMD OFMS-HD-1. Off-road CI Incentive Program - This measure implements an incentive program for NOx reductions through afte rtreatment retrofits, engine replacement and fleet modernization in off-road heavy-duty compression ignition (CI) equipment.

Control Measure Funding and Sources

There are a number of funding sources available to the Sacramento region for reducing emissions. These funding sources include the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer), the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program (SECAT) and the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (GMERP). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop s guidelines and provides the funding for the Moyer and GMERP Programs 1 . The guidelines for the SECAT Program are developed by the Sacramento Air District (District) and approved by the boards of both the District and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SAC OG). The funding for the SECAT Program is provided by SACOG from federal transportation funds . The district also collects fees on vehicles registered in Sacramento County. Two dollars of that fee is used to fund local match for the Moyer Program and for funding school bus projects. The funding for the Electric Lawnmower Exchange Program (Mow Down Air Pollution) comes from fines collected from sources cited for permit violations. The table below summarizes these funding sources from 2008 to 2018.

Description Funding Sources

ONMS-LD-1

ONMS-HD-1 AB923 - $1,000,000 annually (’09-’14) SECAT - $3,200,000 annually (‘08-‘14); $4,000,000 annually (‘15-‘18)

OFMS-SI-1

OFMS-HD-1 DMV, AB923 – $1,000,000 annually (‘08-‘14)

District revenues for Mowdown - $50,000 annually (‘08-‘14)

Targeted EIC Categories and Planning Inventory

The emissions reductions and percentages were also broken out for the on-road and off-road segments. On-road segments in EIC codes 710, 722, and 723. Off-road segments include EIC codes 860 and 870. The impact on various part of the EIC categories differ based on difference between old and new vehicle emissions rates. Evaporative EIC categories will have different percent effectiveness than exhaust categories.

1 We have assumed that the ARB will take credit for all Moyer and GMERP emission reductions so no District Moyer or GMERP funding or emissions were included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-12 Nonattainment Planning Inventory

2011 2014 2017 2018 EIC
Code EIC Description
NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd)

710 LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 7.93 12.24 5.89 9.44 4.49 7.73 4.16 7.27

722 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 3.37 4.50 2.64 3.69 2.02 3.07 1.82 2.89

723 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 7.14 7.08 5.74 6.38 4.65 5.86 4.36 5.72

744 MEDIUM HEAVY
DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) 8.51 0.20 6.55 0.19 5.01 0.17 4.60 0.16

746 HEAVY HEAVY
DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) 34.28 2.86 25.77 2.29 19.38 1.86 17.77 1.73

860 OFF-ROAD
EQUIPMENT 21.43 10.17 18.53 8.94 15.28 7.98 14.33 7.74

870 AGRICULTURAL
EQUIPMENT 9.05 1.82 7.35 1.41 5.81 1.09 5.33 0.99

Total 91.71 38.86 72.47 32.34 56.65 27.75 52.36 26.49

Sacramento NAA Inventory with ARB’s Private Truck and Off-Road Fleet Rules

The targeted inventory baselines have been adjusted to reflect the impact of ARB’s On-road Private Truck and Off-Road Fleet Rules. Based on ARB’s State Implementation Plan Chapter 5 “Proposed New SIP Measures” reduction percentages were estimated using an average percentage reduction from the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley estimates and then applying these estimates to the targeted inventory. These reductions where assumed to be achieved through the new ARB regulations which included both Moyer and GMERP incentive funding.

Nonattainment Planning Inventory (Adjusted)

2011 2014 2017 2018 EIC
Code EIC Description
NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd)

710 LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 7.93 12.24 5.89 9.44 4.49 7.73 4.16 7.27

722 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 3.37 4.50 2.64 3.69 2.02 3.07 1.82 2.89

723 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 7.14 7.08 5.74 6.38 4.65 5.86 4.36 5.72

744 MEDIUM HEAVY
DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) 7.22 0.16 4.03 0.09 3.16 0.09 2.93 0.09

746 HEAVY HEAVY
DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) 29.09 2.25 15.84 1.14 12.24 1.03 11.34 1.00

860 OFF-ROAD
EQUIPMENT 21.04 10.06 16.98 8.49 13.13 7.52 11.96 7.28

870 AGRICULTURAL
EQUIPMENT 9.05 1.82 7.35 1.41 5.81 1.09 5.33 0.99

Total 84.83 38.10 58.46 30.65 45.50 26.39 41.91 25.23Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-13 Emission Reductions

The emission reductions are based on a variety of actions taken for all on- and off-road applications. The table below provides aggregate emission reductions and percentages for all milestone years and the compliance year 2018.

Total

NOx ROG Year Tpd % Tpd %

2011 0.940 1.11% 0.192 0.50%

2014 0.926 1.58% 0.192 0.63%

2017 0.931 2.05% 0.086 0.33%

2018 0.923 2.20% 0.066 0.26%

On-road Measures

NOx ROG Year Tpd % Tpd %

2011 0.726 1.33% 0.157 0.60%

2014 0.821 2.41% 0.151 0.73%

2017 0.900 3.39% 0.074 0.42%

2018 0.910 3.70% 0.060 0.36%

Off-road Measures

NOx ROG Year Tpd % Tpd %

2011 0.214 0.71% 0.035 0.29%

2014 0.105 0.43% 0.041 0.41%

2017 0.031 0.17% 0.012 0.14%

2018 0.013 0.07% 0.005 0.06%

Needed Resources and Authority:

Potential Implementing Agency Agency Type Authority Origin

Air Districts Regional All Air Districts: California Health and Safety Code 44299.50-

44299.55 SMAQMD Only: California Health and Safety Code 41014, 41062, 41081, 41082, Other Air Districts: California Health and Safety Code: 44220 et. seq.

References:

ONMS-LD-1: TIAX. “Revised Scrappage Memo.” Memo to SMAQMD staff. May 2005.

Bureau of Automotive Repair Website: www.smogcheck.ca.gov

.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Website: www.baaqmd.gov

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Vehi cle Buy Back Program Annual Report, July 1,

2004Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-14 Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) Background Information Fact Sheet (http://www.breatheeasier.ca.gov/be_capbackground.pdf)

Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) retirement application (http://smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfforms/cap_app.pdf)

Vanessa Mongeon, Vehicle Buy Back program manger, BAAQMD.

ONMS-HD-1: “Currently Verified Technologies”, California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verifiedtechnologies/cvt.htm , accessed on 6 July 2006.

Johnson-Matthey EGRT Data Sheet, accessed at http://ect.jmcatalysts.com/pdf/EGRT.pdf on 7 July 2006.

Cleaire website, accessed at http://www.cleaire.com/ on 7 July 2006.

Appendix C: Cost Effectiveness Methodology, Public Fleet Rule, ARB.

Bureau of Economic, Analysis, US Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/bea/an/0797fr/table3.htm

.

“SECAT Fast Track Request 6/28/06” (e-mail), Mike Neuenberg, 28 June 2006.

SCRT System Diesel Retrofit Emissions Cont rol Solutions, Johnson Matthey website, accessed 17 July 2007, www.jmcatalysts.com

“Proposed New SIP Measures – Descriptions” Chapter 5, 2007 State Implementation Plan, CARB, April 26, 2007 -- http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm

“The Carl Moyer Guidelines, Proposed 2008 Revisions “, adopted March 27, 2008 -- http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/2008guideline_updates.htm

OFMS-HD-1: “Currently Verified Technologies”, California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verifiedtechnologies/cvt.htm , accessed on 6 July 2006.

US EPA letter, 3 December 2004, http://enginecontrolsystems.com/pdf/verif_letter-ecs2.pdf

, accessed on 10 July 2006.

Bureau of Economic, Analysis, US Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/bea/an/0797fr/table3.htm

.

Electronic communication, Richard Carlson, 19 July 2006.

“Off-road Construction Equipment Diesel Emission Reduction Technologies, Tier 1-4 Implementation Schedule” TIAX. Presentation to CAPCOA Workshop, July 2004.

“Public Workshop to Discuss Diesel Off-Road E quipment Measure”, California Air Resources Board presentation, 24 January 2006.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

All Mobile Source Incentive Programs Page C-15 CARB's mail-out # 99-32, Appendix B.

“Rulemaking to Consider the Final Adoption of a Proposed Regulation For In-Use Off-road Diesel Vehicles”, CARB April 6, 2007 – http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm

“Proposed New SIP Measures – Descriptions” Chapter 5, 2007 State Implementation Plan, CARB, April 26, 2007 -- http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm

OFMS-SI-1: “Report to the Board on the Potential Electrific ation Programs for Small Off-Road Engines”, ARB Staff Report, 2 April 2004.

Lifetime considerations. Charlene McGhee, SMAQMD. (Mow Down Air Pollution Control Studies through 2007)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-16 Control Measure Number: SMAQMD-1

Control Measure Title: Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program

Control Measure Summary

The regional urban forest is populated by 7 million trees from over 100 different species. Each of these tree species can be categorized as low, medium, and high biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emitting trees. Currently, 61% of the trees are considered as low emitting trees, 28% as medium emitting trees, and 11% as high emitting trees. This control measure proposes a targeted urban forest management program to reduce total urban forest BVOC

emissions 1 by favoring the planting of low emitting trees rather than medium and high emitting trees in the next 10 years 2

Through a combination of community education and governmental policy change over the next 10 years, this control measure calls for a minimum 390,000 low emitting trees to be planted that otherwise would have been medium or high emi tting trees. This tree planting strategy change will reduce BVOC emissions by up to 0.84 tpd. The total estimated project cost is $1.71 million. Although the duration of the project is 10 years, t he actual benefit will last many years. To be conservative we assume a 25 years planning period and the cost effectiveness of the BVOC reduction is $1,291 per ton or $0.65 per pound.

Control Measure Description

Our region, which includes the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area, has succeeded in creating a renowned urban forest. Our forest evolved over many years, with each generation of our community adding trees that met the needs of their day. In earlier years, urban trees were planted for comfort cooling and public health benefits. More recently, the Sacramento MunicipalUtility District (SMUD) has invested millions of dollars in the strategic planting of an energysaving urban forest. Today we have a pressing need to improve the purity of the region’s air. While our urban trees make a major contribution to air quality, they were not planted with this in mind and so do not do as much as they could.

We enjoy the benefits of 7 million trees in the urban areas of our region. These trees shade between 12% and 14% of our urban area (McPherson 1998 and STF UFORE 2007). The variety of threats that urban trees confront (mortality, diseases, and natural disasters) reduces their average life to 40 years. Consequently, just to maintain our current canopy level, the region will collectively need to plant 1.75 million replacem ent trees over the next 10 years. To optimize the benefits of these trees for air quality, care must be taken to select trees that will not only grow well in Sacramento’s climate but that will also emit low levels of BVOCs.

1 BVOC emissions from trees largely consist of isoprene, monoterpenes, and methlybutenol (MBO) However a host of other compounds are emitted in smaller quantities, referr ed to here as other VOCs (OVOCs). No MBO emissions were assumed since t hey only occur only with a few species of pine not used. The approach are similar to that used by t he California Air Resources Board to account for OVOCs (Klaus Scott, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, per sonal communication, 7/ 28/2006), which is to
estimate OVOCs as 30% of the total emissions of isoprene + monoterpenes + MBO. More information in the Phase 1a report (Simpson 2007)

2 STF is currently working on providing tree lists for each emitter category for different jurisdictions and will be provided by SIP submittal date to EPA.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-17 Historically, the trees planted in our regi on have been 61% low-emitting and 39% high/mediumemitting trees (Simpson 2007). This traditional tree selection, defined as the ‘current mix,’ determines the emission profile for the current urban forest. By emphasizing low-emitter planting without considering the additional urban growth in the next 10 years, this control measure will at minimum change the future mix to be 66% low-emitting and 34% high/medium-emitting trees. To achieve this change, the control measure proposes an education program for community and landscape industry leaders in conjunction with local government policy changes. The planting assumptions are spelled out in the References of this measure (McPherson 1998, Simpson 2006, Simpson 2007).

Four groups within our region--local governm ents, community groups, property owners, and developers, either by themselves or through t heir landscapers—plant almost all trees. Local governments plant trees directly on land they c ontrol, such as parks or streets. Through the ordinances and policies that they create, local government also influence the planting of a great many more trees. The development community plant s a large number of trees for this reason. Six tree non-profits in our region are major tree planters and a large number of community service groups occasionally host tree-planting projects. Private property owners, apart from any activities of the not-for-profits or local governments, are significant tree planters.

One of the requirements of a SIP control measure is that the emission reductions be verified. This requirement presents a special challenge fo r a tree measure. Tree planting is broadly dispersed and undertaken by a large number of individuals and organizations. There are few reporting mechanisms and almost no tracking requirements. It is not possible today to predict who specifically will plant the millions of trees we will need or where they will be planted. It is infeasible to strictly account for each tree planted and then to verify the planting and survival of a statistically valid number of individual trees. These difficulties in quantification have historically kept trees out of air quality attainment plans.

In September 2004, USEPA issued guidance giving states the opportunity to include a small number of projects that do not have the same high level of certainty as traditional control measures (USEPA 2004). Tree planting measure is specifically included as an option under this policy. The policy guidance is clear that these non-traditional, voluntary measure, or emerging measures, as they have become known, still require verification and tracking with best information systems available. Th is is consistent with EPA policy 1 for incorporating emerging and voluntary measures in a SIP but limiting the amount of emission reductions allowed due to the uncertainty and untested nature of the control mechanisms. For total emerging and voluntary measures, EPA has adopted a presumptive limit 2,3 of 6 percent of the total amount of emission reductions necessary to demonstrate atta inment. For this region, the 6% level limits this measure to 0.18 tpd of VOC reductions. A detailed calculation of claimable emission reductions is described in Appendix 9.

To meet the verification requirement, the Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program will use a system of field surveys to measure actual planting activity, tree survival and growth. This survey system is named the Urban Forest E ffects model (UFORE) and was developed by the US Forest Service. When this survey system is employed, sample plots are established

1 “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementati on Plan (SIP)” (OAQPS, EPA, September 2004).

2 Ibid., p. 9.

3 The limit is presumptive in that the USEPA believes it may approve measure into a SIP in excess of the presumptive 6 percent where a clear and convincing ju stification is made by the State for a higher limit.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-18 throughout the urban forest and detailed information is collected that can be used to
characterize the entire forest. Periodic re-sam pling at milestone years will track urban forest changes during the life of the project and demonstrate that low emitting trees are planted at a higher rate. In addition to the UFORE system, the Urban Forest Air Quality Program will ask participating jurisdictions and retailers to keep a comprehensive database of any tree planting or tree sales through 2018. This will aid in quantifying and verifying planting efforts in the region and supplement the UFORE survey results. A more detailed description of the UFORE system and how the tree database will aid if jurisdictions meet planting goals is presented in Appendices 4, 5 and 6 of this measure.

At least one and perhaps several agencies and organizations will be responsible for the timely completion of the activities of the control m easure. In this measure, local governments will formally guarantee by resolution the tree species composition changes needed to complete this

measure.

Emissions estimating and validation

To calculate emissions reductions, forest canopy emissions were estimated in two ways. The first estimate is derived from the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. In the BAU scenario, we assumed that the current urban forest—its species and size distribution of trees--would be maintained and planted between now and 2018. The second estimate is the control measure scenario (CMS). To create the CMS, we changed the mix of tree species planted to favor lower emitting trees over higher emitting trees and re calculated emissions. The emission reduction
claim of the control measure is the difference between these two scenarios.

The reduction calculation requires much more detail, beginning with the business-as-usual scenario. We had to contend with a variety of issues. The existing forest continues to grow and expand. Trees are planted and die. Smaller trees have different effects than larger trees. Each species of tree has a different effect on air quality. The urbanized area of the region continues to expand into undeveloped areas. During this transfo rmation, pre-development trees are often replaced with very different urban trees. At first, the canopy cover of urbanizing areas often drops as land is cleared for development but soon young trees grow to create a much greater

cover.

To address these issues, the Sacramento Urban Forest Ecosystem Study (McPherson, 1998) and the Benefit Cost Analysis of Modesto’s Municipal Urban Forest (McPherson et al, 1999) were used to characterize current regional urban forest. These studies conclude that the regional canopy is 14% in developed areas and 5% in undeveloped areas slated for development. Tree species, size, age and health distributions documented in these studies were applied to the Sacramento region’s canopy coverage figures to characterize the current urban forest. To estimate the business-as-usual canopy of 2018, the same ratios were applied to the future forest. As the community expands, as trees are planted and as they grow, the BAU scenario assumes that emitter category distribution of the urban forest remains constant.

Calculating the actual BVOC emissions of the current and projected urban forests is not straightforward. Of the hundreds of species of trees that exist in the Sacramento region, only

handfuls have had their emissions measured. Bi ogenic VOC emissions are species-specific, and strongly dependent on the amount of leaf mass and environmental conditions such as available sunlight. Field sampling has found large variation in BVOC emissions for a particular species of tree from region-to-region, day-to-day and even hour-to-hour. To simplify the calculation and create a manageable data set for analysis, the 100+ tree species present in theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-19 Sacramento regional urban forest were consolidated into eleven categories or families that have reasonably well-known emission profiles. Total emissions were then calculated considering the number and size of these trees today and in 2018 (Simpson, McPherson, 2007).

The CMS was created using the same base studies and assumptions used in the BAU scenario with one key difference. Since there are 7 million trees in the urban forest (61% low emitters, 28% medium, and 11% high emitters), approximat ely 1.75 million trees will be planted to replace trees that die. The BAU scenario assumes that replacements trees will follow the current mix profile. The initial study (Simpson 2007) of the control measure estimated that 1.75 million trees will be needed to be replaced over the next 10 years to maintain the current tree canopy cover due to the natural death of trees, tree diseases, or natural disasters. Preliminary photochemical modeling indicated that a total of 12tpd of VOC emissions was needed to demonstrate attainment in 2018. This established the limit of claimable reductions of 0.84tpd 1

Therefore it was determined that the minimum number of trees needed to be diverted from the number of 1.75 million replacement trees would be 390,000. Any future trees planted in the region using the CMS tree species profile will secure the emission reductions claimed in this

control measure.

In addition to tree replacement, new trees wi ll be planted in the new developed areas to maintain the region’s traditional urban tree canopy cover in the urban area; these may include both suburbs and in-fills. However, there is a degree of uncertainty on the number of additional trees that will be planted in the Sacramento Region for the next 10 years, so the total number of trees in 2018 will be variable (n 2018 ). These figures are summarized in Table 2.

1 EPA has a presumptive limit of 6% of the total amo unt of emission reduction necessary to achieve the planning requirement for attainment demonstration purposes. The 0.84 was based on preliminary modeling results. Final modeling and claimable reduct ion calculation details are provided in Appendix 9.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-20 

### Table 1: 2018 Business-as-usual forest populations 2018 Business-as-usual forest canopy

Tree to maintain target urban tree canopy

Units: millions Low emitting trees Medi um Emitting trees High emitting trees Total

Trees

(1) 2008 trees remaining in

2018 3.20 1.47 0.58 5.25

(2) Replacement

Trees 1.07 0.48 0.20 1.75

(3) New Trees 0.61(n 2018 -7) 0.28(n 2018 -7) 0.11(n 2018 -7) N 2018 -7

(4) Resulting

Total 0.61n 2018 0.28n 2018 0.11n 2018 n 2018



### Table 2: Control measure results anticipated in 2018 1



### 2018 Control Measure Scenario
Trees to maintain target urban tree canopy

Units:

millions Low emitting trees Medium Emitting trees High emitting trees Total

Trees

(1) 2008

trees remaining in

2018 3.20 (61%) 1.47 (28%) 0.58 (11%) 5.25 (100%)

(2) Replacement

Trees 1.45 (83%) 0.21 (12%) 0.09 (5%) 1.75 (100%)

(3) New

Trees (n 2018 -7)×83% (83%) (n 2018 -7)×12% (12%) (n 2018 -7)×5% (5%) N 2018 -7

(4) Resulting

Total 0.83n 2018 -1.16 0.12n 2018 +0.84 0.05n 2018 +0.32 n 2018

(5) Emission category, all

2018 trees % 100

n 16

. 1 0.83n

2018 2018 × − % 100

n 84

. 0 0.12n

2018 2018 × + % 100

n 32

. 0 0.05n

2018 2018 × + 100%

For discussion purposes, these trees are moved fr om high and medium emitter category to a low emitter category and are defined as ‘diverted trees 2 .’ Table 3 summarizes this change.

1 n 2018 is the total number of trees in the Sacramento Region in 2018.

2 Diverted Trees are a subset of Replacement Trees. Trees that are moved from high and medium emitter category to a low emitter category.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-21 

### Table 3: Comparison of tree plant ing results in different scenarios

Units: millions Low emitting trees Medium Emitting

trees High emitting trees Total Trees

BAU tree plantings

(Minimum # of trees) 1.07 0.48 0.20 1.75

CMS tree plantings (Minimum # of trees) 1.45 0.21 0.09 1.75

Diverted trees 0.39 -0.28 -0.11 0.00

The emission reduction claim of this control measure is entirely the result of the lowered emission rates of 390,000 diverted trees. By 2018, the urban forest control measure is expected to reduce BVOC emissions by at least 0.84 tpd.



### Table 4: Summary of em ission reduction estimation

Emission Reduction Estimate

Units: millions Low emitting trees Medium Em itting trees High emitting trees Total Trees

Business As Usual (BAU) 0.61n 2018 0.28n 2018 0.11n 2018 n 2018

Control Measure Scenario (CMS) n 2018,low_emitter n 2018,medium_emitter n 2018,high_emitter n 2018

Difference in
number of trees

between BAU

and CMS Δ low_emitter =0.61n 2018 -

n 2018,low emitter Δ medium_emitter =0.28n 2018 -

n 2018,medium_emitter Δ high_emitter =0.11n 2018 -

n 2018,high_emitter

Emission factor 1
(grams/tree/day) 0.24 1.32 4.44

Emission changes (grams/day) Δ E 1 =0.24× Δ low_emitter Δ E 2 =1.32× Δ medium_emitter Δ E 3 =4.44× Δ high_emitter Δ E 1 + Δ E 2 + Δ E 3

Again, the actual number of trees in 2018 is assumed to be n 2018 . Emission per tree per day is the product of emission rate, leaf weight, and hours of emission per day. Conservative values assumed for the emission rates are 1, 6, and 19 fo r low, medium, high emitters respectively. These emission rates are the averages of the tr ees from the analysis performed by Simpson and McPherson 2006 and 2007. Low emitters are defined at 1 or less, medium 1-10, and high is anything over 10. The unit of the emission rate is micrograms per gram leaf per hour. The leaf

1 Emission rates of 1,6, and 19μg per gram dry leaf weight per hour for low, medium, and high emitters respectively were conservative estimates which us ed a weighted average based on the species present from the 2007 UFORE study, emissions for the specie s in the region, and a st udy by Benjamin 1995, Benjamin 1997, . These emission rates are then multiplied by the estimated 40kg of dry leaf weight and 6 hours per day of emissions.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-22 weight 1 is assumed to be on average 40 kg per tree and the hour of emission per day is 6 hours.

The net benefit of a tree moved to a lower emission category can be represented with the following equation:

] tree day tons [ Change Emission

⋅



### = ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

×

⋅ grams tons

185

, 907 1 ] tree day

grams [ Change Emission



### = ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

×

⋅ 

# ∑

= grams tons

185

, 907 1 ] tree day

grams [ Change Emission

emitter high emitter, medium emitter, low i i



### = 

## ( ) ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

× ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤

⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ×

− 

# ∑

= grams tons

185

, 907 1

day tree

grams Factor Emission CMS in trees of # BAU in trees of #

emitter high emitter, medium emitter, low i i i i

Table 4 is a representation of the modeling effort used to calculate the benefits of this control measure. It is presented as an aid to understanding the key changes that will be created by this control measure. The actual analysis supports the conclusions which also takes into account the air temperature relationships to BVOC performed by Jim Simpson and Greg McPherson of the US Forest Service Center for Urban Forest Research (CUFR)



### . For a detailed explanation of the development of these claims, please refer to Simpson and McPherson 2006 and 2007.

1 Leaf weight is used rather than the typical Leaf area index (LAI) used fo r emission from vegetation. The flux of a BVOC ( μ g hr -1 m -2 [land surface area]) from a vegetative c anopy is often expressed as a function of its emission factor ( μ g g -1 [dry leaf weight] hr -1 ) and foliar density (g [dry leaf weight] m -2 [land surface area]. Alternatively, foliar density can be replaced with the product of species specific leaf weight (SLW, g [dry leaf weight] m -2 leaf area) and LAI (m -2 leaf area/ m -2 land area) in the flux equation, as done in the Biogenic Emission Inventory GIS (BEIGIS) model dev eloped by the California Air Resources Board.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-23 Table 5: Planning Emission Inventory and Emission Reductions

2002 2007 2018

Planning emission inventory (tpd) for
BAU Case 69 75 83

Planning emission inventory (tpd) for
CMS Case 69 75 82

Emission Reduction (tpd) 0.00 0.00 0.84 1

Table 5 is the planning emission inventory and the emission reductions benefits from the tree program. The Business-As-Usual case would yield a VOC inventory of 83tpd, while the Control

Measure Scenario with the emission reductions of 0.84tpd from the tree program will result in 82tpd of VOC. Although it may seem as though BVOC emissions has increased from 2002 to 2018, the increase in emissions is due to the natural growth of the urban forest and the appropriate comparison is between the planning inventory between the BAU case and the CMS

case.

Other Air Quality Benefits

It is noteworthy that the benefits of trees planted under this control measure will not cease after the completion of the project. Trees will continue to grow and with each year create larger emission reductions. Also of note, this anal ysis only examines one aspect of trees, BVOC emissions, because the emissions are quantifiable by the most current science. Trees affect air chemistry in many direct and indirect ways: pollu tant absorption, temperature reduction, carbon sequestration, and particle scrubbing. These are significant benefits of the urban forest. Unfortunately, scientific understanding of these tree effects is not sufficient to include them in the air quality attainment plan at this time. As the science evolves, we can look forward to trees playing an increasingly vital part of our region’s air quality attainment plans. The current estimation of the NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) air quality benefits is 0.048 tpd, Ozone absorption is 0.2tpd, and Particulate Matter 2 (PM) emission reduction is 0.24 tpd, which does not currently include avoided evaporative emissions from cooling vehicles. Until the scientific understanding of the NOx, direct Ozone absorption and PM affects of trees becomes more complete, this control measure is only taking the BVOC reduction claim.

1 This control measure is considered as an emer ging and voluntary measure. The USEPA set a percent limitation of 6% for the emerging and voluntary m easure emission reduction claims. Therefore, the
maximum emissions reduction claim of the urban fo rest measure is 0.18 tpd. Appendix 9 shows the detailed calculation for the percentage limitation of this control measure. The range for emission reductions for this control measure is 0-0.18 tpd. Because the measure requires commitments that have not been secured the minimum benefit is 0 if no jurisdictions commit.

2 Particulate Matter, also known as particle polluti on or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic c hemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-24 Adoption year:

2009. This control measure relies on commitments from local jurisdictions. SMAQMD is working with the STF to identify the jurisdictions in the region that are interested in making this commitment and to secure their approval. The final plan will identify the jurisdictions and the adoption schedule. Currently STF anticipates several counties and cities in the region will adopt an air quality friendly tree list which should help the region achieve emission reductions from the tree measure. The minimum emission benefits are set at 0 if no jurisdictions approve a formal commitment as required by EPA guidance.

Implementation year:

Planting began in 2008 and will continue through 2018. The urban forest tree compositions and profile are presented in the Appendix 1 of this control measure as reference.

Cost Effectiveness

Based only on BVOC reductions, the cost effectiveness of the measure is $1,291 per ton or $0.65 per pound. The derivation of this value is explained in Appendix 2.

Authority

This project will rely on the general police power of cities and counties to adopt policies and ordinances that are not in conflict with general laws and that are for the protection of the general welfare (Cal. Const. art X1, section 7.) Under this measure, each jurisdiction will create a list of preferred low emitting trees and commit to a total number of trees by resolution and encourage tree planting by developers or municipalities to trees on that list to be diverted to the low emitting category. The sum of all diverted trees by all jurisdictions will total more than 390,000. A sample report and resolution are included in Appendix 3.

Funding

The Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF) will be the lead organization responsible for accomplishing the goals of this control measure. STF has been in the tree business for 26 years and has an annual budget of $2.7 million. The Sacramento Tree Foundation receives its funding from membership, partner agencies, grants and stipends, and private donations. STF efforts have grown steadily over the years and there is every expectation that it will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. STF intends to seek grant funding to complete this project but will use existing resources from its operations if no additional funding can be secured. The estimated budget for the project is $1.71 million during the next 10 years, about $171,000 per year. In STF current operations, they dedicate $475,000 per year to various education projects, $85,000 per year to advocacy and $700,000 per year to tree planting. A letter from STF to commit the necessary funds and resources from its operations can be found in Appendix 6.

Implementation

To achieve the objectives of this control m easure, STF will develop an education program for community organizations, local governments , tree not-for-profits, landscape industry professionals and retail tree distributors. The education program will continue for the life of the control measure and will result in a reduction in the planting rate of medium and high emitting

trees.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-25 District’s Role – Oversight Agency

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District will oversee and review milestone reports, emission reduction calculatio ns, conclusions and recommendations set forth by the Sacramento Tree Foundation to ensure that the tree program is making progress and will meet its emission reductions targets. STF will report to SMAQMD as information are collected and analyzed. SMAQMD is currently working to make available a program evaluation document that describes the administrative details associated with the process and informational requirements the district will use to assess the success of the control measure. The program
evaluation document will be included in the final Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan.

Verification and Tracking

There will be two methods used to demonstrate that this control measure has been successfully completed. The primary effort will utilize the ur ban forest assessment tool developed by the US Forest Service known as UFORE. This tool will follow changes in the forest population and will allow changes in emissions to be calculated. Additional steps will be taken to verify the results of the UFORE analysis. The most significant of these steps will be to use high-resolution aerial images to verify regional forest canopy coverage.

In conjunction with the education program, the STF will collect both historical and current planting and sales information from a variety of sources in the region. These will demonstrate that relative planting species distributions have changed from the pre-project species distributions, that the 390,000 diverted trees have been planted and that the BVOC reductions needed have been reached. The number of diverted trees will be calculated by applying the ratios of pre- and post-project planting rates of the three emission categories to the actual number of trees planted.

Although the measure only commits to achieve reductions by the attainment year, 2018, to monitor progress the STF established reasonable planting rates. To monitor progress and validate the emission reductions, the STF will conduct a UFORE analysis supplemented with the Tree Counting analysis for every milestone year and the attainment year, 2018. The results from the UFORE analysis in conjunction with methods used in CUFR’s Phase 1a report will be used to compare with emission reduction estimates. The details of the verification and tracking are described in Appendices 4, 5 and 6.

Enforcement

Local governments electing to participate in this measure will adopt binding commitments to reach planting goals within their jurisdictions and to specify a tree list that contains preponderance of low emitting trees. Field surveys will substantiate the accomplishments within the jurisdiction of participating agencies and the region as a whole. STF will notify jurisdictions if they are not meeting milestone targets. Jurisdictions are then responsible to committing to potentially take corrective actions, and use additional resources to reach their goals.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-26 

### Remedying Emission Credit Shortfall

Because of the uncertainties associated wi th implementation and validation of this urban forest measure, if this strategy falls short of its emission reduction target, the reductions will be backstopped and replaced by the other strategies that provide reductions surplus to those required to demonstrate attainment.

References:

Benjamin, Michael, Low-Emitting Urban Forests: A Taxonomic Methodology for Assigning Isoprene and Monoterpene Emission Rates, September 1995

Benjamin, Michael, Estimating the Ozone-Forming Potential of Urban Trees and Shrubs, Oct

1997

California Air Resources Board, Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects, May 2005

California Air Resources Board, California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality-2006 Edition, pg 479.

McPherson, Greg, Structure and Sustainability of Sacramento’s Urban Forest, Journal of Arboriculture, July 1998.

Mendes, Celso and Reed, Daniel, Monitoring Large Systems via Statistical Sampling, University of Illinois, September, 2002.

Sacramento Shade Program by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. http://www.smud.org/residential/saving/trees/index.html

Sacramento Tree Foundation, UFORE Field Collection Packet, June 2007.

Sacramento Tree Foundation, UFORE Random Plot Definitions, ftp://69.62.222.149/RandomPlot.kml , June 2007.

Simpson, Jim and McPherson, Greg, Air Quality Effects of a Regional Urban Tree Planting Program for use in an Urban Forestry-based SIP Measure. Center for Urban Forest Research, PSW, USDA Forest Service, October 2006. ftp://69.62.222.149/UFFCA Phase1A AQ Report SMAQMD,final,10-12-06.pdf

Simpson, Jim and McPherson, Greg, Preliminary evaluation of potential air quality benefits of trees within SIP guidelines: Revisions to Phase 1. Center for Urban Forest Research, PSW, USDA Forest Service, May 2007. ftp://69.62.222.149/2007-009Phase1aPrelimEval.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP), September 2004

US Forest Service UFORE Project. http://www.ufore.org/ , 2000Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-27 UFORE Report for Atlanta, Georgia, US Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Data/State/data_GA_atl_ufore.htm, 1997.

UFORE Report for Brooklyn, New York, US Forest Service, ftp://69.62.222.149/BrooklynUFOREReport,gtrne290.pdf, September, 2000.

UFORE Report for Houston, Texas, US Forest Service, ftp://69.62.222.149/HoustonTFSReport.pdf, September, 2005.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone AttainmentAppendix C - Proposed Control Measuresand Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008Urban Forest Air Quality Development ProgramPage C-28Appendix 1: Forest Composition and Tree ProfileThis table presents the minimum number of trees and tree compositions expected in theurban forest for the business as usual and control measure scenarios.The determination of growth, death, and expansion of the urban forest is a very complicated science. This table does not represent a SIP commitment. It shouldonly be used as a guide for planning purposes. We assume that aquarter of the trees in the current forest will be removed dueto mortality and/or other reasons.The numbers for the interim years are linearly interpolated between 2007 and 2018.ProgramYearYearBusiness-As-Usual MinimumTree PlantingControl Measure ProgramMinimum Tree PlantingUnits: million Low-E Medium-E High-E Low-E Medium-E High-E0 2007 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.27 1.96 0.771 2008 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.31 1.93 0.762 2009 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.34 1.91 0.753 2010 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.38 1.88 0.744 2011 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.41 1.86 0.735 2012 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.45 1.83 0.726 2013 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.48 1.81 0.717 2014 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.52 1.78 0.708 2015 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.55 1.76 0.699 2016 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.59 1.73 0.6810 2017 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.62 1.71 0.6711 2018 4.27 1.96 0.77 4.66 1.68 0.67ProgramYearYearBusiness-As-Usual MinimumTree PlantingControl Measure ProgramMinimum Tree PlantingUnits:% Low-E Medium-E High-E Low-E Medium-E High-E0 2007 61.0 28.0 11.0 61.0 28.0 11.01 2008 61.0 28.0 11.0 61.5 27.6 10.92 2009 61.0 28.0 11.0 62.0 27.3 10.73 2010 61.0 28.0 11.0 62.5 26.9 10.64 2011 61.0 28.0 11.0 63.0 26.5 10.55 2012 61.0 28.0 11.0 63.5 26.2 10.36 2013 61.0 28.0 11.0 64.0 25.8 10.27 2014 61.0 28.0 11.0 64.5 25.5 10.08 2015 61.0 28.0 11.0 65.0 25.1 9.99 2016 61.0 28.0 11.0 65.5 24.7 9.810 2017 61.0 28.0 11.0 66.0 24.4 9.611 2018 61.0 28.0 11.0 66.5 24.0 9.5Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-29 

## Appendix 2: Cost Effectiveness Estimates

As living organisms, the air quality effects of trees are always changing. Trees grow, air temperature varies, sunlight changes, and soil moisture fluctuates, leaves come and go with the seasons. Three quantities are necessary to calculate the cost effectiveness of a tree SIP measure. This Appendix examines the derivati on of values for annual emissions reduction, project cost and life of the improvements. These values are then used in the standard CARB mobile source equation to determine the cost effectiveness of the measure.

The following table presents four cases for consideration. In each case, controlling parameters for cost effectiveness are varied within a range of values deemed reasonable for this control

measure. Case 2 has been selected as the most reasonable.

Table 2.1 Cost Effectiveness Scenarios

Case 1234

Year of Evaluation 2018 2018 2028 2028

Conditions Control Measure, BVOC Only Control Measure, Criteria pollutants Control Measure, BVOC Only, Additional growth Control Measure, Criteria pollutants, Additional growth

Pollutants

BVOC 0.84 0.84 1.29 1.29

NOx 0.048 0.144

Particulates 0.244 0.728
Total 0.84 1.13 1.29 2.16 tons/day

Annualizing factor 37% 37% 37% 37%

Pollutant reduction 113 153 174 292 tons/year Annual pollutant reduction 226755 305580 348231 583625 lbs/year

Project recovery period 25 25 25 25 years

Discount rate 7% 7% 7% 7% Cost Recovery Factor 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086

Project Cost, unadjusted 1,706,000 $ 1,706,000 $ 1,706,000 $ 1,706,000 $

Cost Effectiveness 1,291 $ 958 $ 841 $ 502 $ $/ton-yr

Cost Effectiveness 0.65 $ 0.48 $ 0.42 $ 0.25 $ $/lb-yr 

### Cost Effectiveness Scenarios

Emissions Inventory for Cost Effectiveness

Emissions reductions, shown as Pollutants in the table, were developed by the Center for Urban Forest Research (Simpson and McPherson 2006, 2007) and are described in detail in the body of the control measure. These represent the peak values obtained during a year. To determine the cost effectiveness of the measure, we had to decide what pollutants to include in the total

reductions.

This control measure makes claims for BVOC reductions but the measure will also reduce NOx and particulate matter. Table 2.1 presents the full BVOC reduction estimated both with and without the addition of the other criteria pollutants.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-30 Annualizing Emissions Reductions

The cost effectiveness is based on the annual emission reduction. For a typical control measure, this is the daily emission reduction multiplied by the number of days of operation during a year. This straightforward approach does not properly characterize this control measure. Biogenic emission reductions are not the same all year. The reductions are related to photosynthesis, leaf area and ambient temperature. The reductions from this control measure peak during the summer ozone season and fall to near zero during the winter because many trees lose their leaves during the winter and due to higher temperatures during the summer ozone season the emission benefits are the greatest during this time. If we calculate the cost effectiveness using the strict annual sum, the effect of trees during summer ozone season is lost. On the other hand, if we apply the peak summer reduction across the entire year, the cost effectiveness is dramatically over-sta ted when compared to other measures.

The following chart is adapted from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. It represents the changes in statewide biogenic emissions during a typical year.



### Monthly Biogenic Emissions

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MonthFraction of Peak Reduction

Figure 2.1 Monthly Biogenic Emissions

To determine the cost effectiveness of a variable reduction, we assumed that emission reduction was proportional to emission generation as presented in this chart. From this, the average annual reduction would be 37% of the peak value. To incorporate the significance of ozone season reductions, we also examined t he average May through September reduction, which is 69% of the peak value. We decided that the most accurate comparison was to use the lower 37% figure to annualize the peak reductions. This percentage appears in the Cost Effectiveness Scenarios table as the Annualizing Factor. The annual tonnage used forSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-31 comparison purposes is the peak daily tonnage reduction multiplied by the annualizing factor and multiplied by 365.

Project Cost

Several aspects of the project cost are summarized in the following table.

Total Cost Community Group Outreach Program implementation 10,000 $ per year 110,000 $

Government Directed Planting Program implementation 21,000 $ per year 231,000 $

Tree Seller Outreach Program implementation 35,000 $ per year 385,000 $

Landscape Industy Outreach Program implementation 50,000 $ per year 550,000 $

Program management 25,000 $ per year 275,000 $

Education materials 10,000 $ per year 110,000 $ Field Survey 15,000 $ per survey 45,000 $

Total 1,706,000 $ 

### Project Cost

Table 2.2 Project cost

Table 2.2 estimates both the direct cost of the control measure. We assume that tree planting is not a project cost because this control measure is not committing to plant additional trees to expand the urban forest. Also, planting low emitters does not cost more than medium or high emitters. The total expenditures necessary to comple te this control measure are estimated to be $1.71 million. These costs include local government costs required to update current ordinances to specify low-emitting trees, the cost to secure commitments from tree retail sales outlets to emphasize the sale of low emitting trees, field survey inspections, an ex tensive community and landscape industry education program as well as general program management.

Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The formula provided by the California Air Resources Board for emission reduction cost effectiveness (CARB 2005) is:



### $/lb ear) PM10)(lb/y NOx Δ (ROG )($) Funding (CRF

ess Effectiven Cost Value Present



### = + + ×

=

CRF, the capital recovery factor, is used to annualize the cost of a long-term project. Longer lived projects have lower recovery factors. The capital recovery factor is calculated with this equation:Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-32 

## ( )

0.089 CRF 1 7%) (1 7%) 7%(1 CRF 1 i) (1 i 1 i CRF

25 25 n n



### = − + +

= − + +

=

where i is the discount rate and n is project life.

For this control measure, the discount rate, i, is 7% and improvement life, n, is the 25-year average tree life. The resulting value is $1,291 per ton or $0.65 per pound, assuming that NOx

and PM10 reductions are 0.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-33 

## Appendix 3: Sample Report and Resolution for Local Governments

November 2008

ADOPT REGIONAL AIR QUALITY CONT ROL MEASURE THAT INCLUDES URBAN
FORESTS TO ATTAIN AIR QUALITY GOALS

ISSUE: The regional air quality board has included trees in the State Implementation Plan control measure to improve air quality. The City/County of _______ is requested to adopt measures recommended by the Sacramento Tree Foundation to contribute to the overall improvement of the region’s air quality. By managing the number and types of trees planted in our jurisdiction,
we can reduce the formation of ozone and improve air quality. Minimum participation includes adopting a best tree list for our jurisdiction and agreeing to numerical tree planting goals.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution adopting the preferred air quality control measures that include planting an agreed upon number and type of trees and utilizing a tree list to guide species composition and diversity.

DISCUSSION: Our region is remarkably well suited to capture the benefits trees provide. Our hot summers and cool winters enable us to maximize the benefits of shade trees through energy savings, air quality improvement, storm water runoff retention, and community enhancement. In 2006, City/County of _______________ passed the resolution to adopt the regional Greenprint, a four decade program of incremental investments in our community trees, that will double the regional tree canopy and result in more livable communities through the best urban
forest. One key objective of the Greenprint is to reduce the costs and increase the benefits of tree ownership by strategically placing trees that are well-suited to our climate, soil and site conditions in locations where they can best reduce energy consumption, shade infrastructure, and improve water quality. Our region has the challenge of unhealthful levels of ozone pollution. The U.S. Forest Service Center of Urban Forest Research (CUFR) and Sacramento Tree Foundation (Tree Foundation) conducted a study about the effects of trees on ozone air pollution and found that urban forestry can be an important part of our air quality attainment strategy. This study was sponsored by the regional Air Quality Districts and funded with the grant from Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The scientific community generally agrees that tr ees improve air quality. It has been measured that some trees - because of leaf canopy size, pollen, amount of time leaves are present on the trees and levels of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC’s) - provide more benefits than others. The net effect depends on the species, location and ultimate size of the trees chosen. For this reason, our jurisdiction can encourage the planting of the best suited trees for our climate combined with the best air quality characteristics to improve local and regional air quality. In several important ways, air quality attainment plans are predictive. In adopting the plans, the air districts, and by extension the member jurisdictions, must estimate the air quality improvement steps that will be taken in the future. These estimates are then used to predict air quality progress. In areas where continued air quality improvement has been difficult, theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-34 estimates tend to evolve into goals and in situations with severe air quality, may evolve into

mandates. To know the net effect of the new trees on regional air quality, accurate estimates of number and type of trees planted in our jurisdiction must be known. Our jurisdiction is being asked to commit to the best tree profiles and a minimum number of trees that will be planted in the jurisdiction on both public and private property during the next decade. It is important to note that the best trees commitment includes both public and private tree planting. As this commitment will become part of a federally m andated regional air quality attainment plan, regional partners agreeing to the ratio are expected to be successful. To prepare for this planting program, council / board authorization is requested to participate with our regional partners and adopt the list of tree species that will grow well in our jurisdiction and be the most capable of air quality improvement. This list will serve as our recommended tree list to be used by staff for making decisions on species selection where trees within the City/County are specified.
Staff and the Tree Foundation have estimated that the managed planting of trees within the jurisdiction over the next ten years will allow us to meet the air quality control measure target. The best trees list may be amended as appropriate over time to include new species and research that enhances our choices for planting the best trees. Limited exposure is present as is the case with other Council/Board decisions. After adoption, potential enforcement may be initiated by citizens and or/EPA if project goals are not met pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42USCA Section 7413 and 7604). As we have the numbers of trees to plant (February 09?) : The Council/Board has adopted the regional Greenprint Initiative to double the regional tree canopy over the next four decades. The regional goal to meet this effort is to plant 5 million trees by 2025, increasing in our regional canopy from about 12% to 25%. The 2009 Tree Foundation study reveals that our jurisdiction has the capacity to plant ___ trees. Staff has concluded that the Council/Board can confidently commit to the planting of ___ trees (__ % of capacity) in our jurisdiction. Of the trees planted by the fall of 2018 the species composition will meet the list of best trees for air quality control measure compliance.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Action in adopting this resolution is exempt from CEQA as it does not specifically result in a project. This decision will be re-visited at such time as a project as defined by CEQA is

considered.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-35 RECOMMENDATION APPROVED BY:

Executive __________________________

Title _______________________________

Key Staff:___________________________Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-36 

### DRAFT SAMPLE RESOLUTION FOR AIR QUALITY CONTROL MEASURE



## RESOLUTION NO

.

_____ ADOPTED BY

________________

On Date of ________________

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL COMPONENT OF THE REGIONAL URBAN FOREST
TO ATTAIN REGIONAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AIR QUALITY CONTROL
MEASURES GOALS

WHEREAS , the City/County of __________ recognizes the importance of tree canopies and their contributions to clean air and water, stormwater runoff reduction, energy conservation, improved public health, and increased property values; and

WHEREAS , the City/County of ______ have adopted the regional Greenprint initiative to optimize the tree canopy and benefits of trees in our region; and

WHEREAS , current science concludes that our enhanced urban forest will improve both local and regional air quality; and

WHEREAS , the species composition and number of tr ees planted during the coming years will determine the net air quality improvement our region can expect; and

WHEREAS , a select group of tree species are best suited to the climate and soils of our jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS , a list has been created of the best trees for our climate and air quality for both public and private trees that will be planted in our jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, we recognize that by participating in the regional urban forest control measure through the fall of 2018 to attain air quality goals that we are expected to succeed and potential enforcement can be initiated by citizens and or/EPA if project goals are not met pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42USCA Section 7413 and 7604).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL/BOARD OF THE CITY/COUNTY

OF :

The Council/Board hereby authorizes the City Manager/County Executive to create a policy to regulate the planting of an agreed upon number of trees of certain species composition and use the preferred list of best trees suitable for climate and air quality to require specific tree planting associated with permitted projects on both public and private properties within our jurisdiction; and,

Hereby authorizes the City Manager/County Exec utive to implement the best tree list where appropriate within the operations of the jurisdiction; and,Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-37 Hereby expects all persons planting trees within the jurisdiction to choose an appropriate tree from this best tree list; and,

Hereby commits that the trees be planted within the jurisdiction prior to the fall of 2018 will be in accordance with the Urban Forest Air Quality Control Measure as part of our region’s federal air quality attainment plans. (; and,)

As the numbers of trees to plant by jurisdiction after February 09 – Hereby commits that ___ trees will be planted in within the jurisdiction by 2025 to meet the Greenprint goal of doubling the regional tree canopy.

Passed and Adopted by the Council/Board of the City/County of _________ at a regular meeting thereof held on the ___________ by the following roll call votes:

__________________________________

Presiding Officer

ATTEST:

__________________________________ Clerk______________________________Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-38 

## Agenda Notice:

Item # _______ - Local Component of the Regional Urban Forest Project to Attain Air Quality Conformity Authorize creation and implementation of a recommended list of tree speciesSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-39 

## Appendix 4: Verification and Tracking

This control measure proposes to gradually change the percentages of the different tree species that make up the urban forest of the Sacramento region. Consequently, to gauge the success of the control measure, an inventory of the urban forest needs to be created and maintained. Changes in the tree inventory over time will demonstrate the success of this control measure.

It is also important to track current conditions of the urban forest. To create this SIP measure, we based emissions calculations on the best information that we have today. This information is several years old and, in some cases, was derived for an urban forest of our neighboring region. To assure decision-makers that the estimates are reliable, an updated canopy inventory must

be created.

Counting tree plantings is a tempting short cut to estimating change in a forest canopy, but necessary to quantify jurisdictional efforts and private owner planting behaviors. Therefore counting trees will be used as a supplement to the UFORE Survey System to verify the order of magnitude of tree planting efforts. Unfortunately, planting rates are only one aspect of canopy change. Survival, maintenance and growth are also key factors that can often out-weigh the impact of young tree planting.

The urban forest has many parameters that need to be tracked. On a per tree basis, it is important to know tree species, size, location, and health. This information is used to predict the future growth rate, survival, and leaf area of the tree. By accumulating this information for all trees in the forest, the species distribution and average age, size, health, and total leaf area can be determined. This composite information can then be used to determine the air quality, energy reduction, water purification, and real estate value effects of the forest. This information needs to be regularly updated to understand how the forest is changing as a result of this measure.

UFORE Survey System

By current estimate, there are 7 million trees in the region’s urban forest. Measuring each of these trees would be a monumental undertaking. Rec ognizing this impracticality, the US Forest Service has developed an information system that accurately assesses an urban forest by sampling a limited number of locations throughout the forest. The system is named the Urban Forest Effects model (UFORE).

UFORE is a forest-modeling and inventory suite that allows users to calculate urban forest data, including estimates of the ecosystem services and emissions. The results are based on the tree and site information collected from 300 field survey plots selected randomly throughout the region. Each field survey plot is 1/10 acre in size. A detailed, structured data collection protocol is used to ensure the field information can be statistically employed to determine the make-up of the entire forest from this relatively small sample. UFORE calculates species and age

distribution of the urban forest and also estimates the monetized benefits of the forest. The species and forest structure information are used to calculate emissions changes. The additional information that UFORE produces will be used to calculate costs and benefits ofmaintaining the urban forest. UFORE is currently in use and has produced satisfactory peerreviewed results in several communities in North America including Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Calgary, Houston, Jersey City, New York City, Philadelphia, Syracuse, and Toronto. Links to online reports for Atlanta, New York City and Houston are listed in the References of this control

measure.

The survey area of the assessment is the urbanized area of each of the cities and counties in the non-attainment area with the addition of the respective spheres of influence. The spheresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-40 are included to allow changes to be tracked as urbanization grows. Sample plots are assigned within this large area using a random generator supp lied by the US Forest Service. It is critical to the accuracy of the results that the plot assignment be completely random. Any thoughtful relocation of the plots will invalidate the results of the assessment.

This randomness can be unsettling. The first UFORE assessment has been started and the plots have been located. Many plots are located in places that intuitively make sense, like front yards, parks and golf courses. Other plots have landed in areas that are very unlikely to have any trees ever, like freeways, runways or in Folsom Lake. Taken as a whole though, these plots average out the variety of land uses that comprise our region and will give an accurate assessment of the urban forest. A Keyhole Markup Language (KML) layer file is provided in the References so that reviewers can examine the plot locations using a geo-referenced imaging system, in this case, Google Earth.

It should be noted that UFORE algorithms used to estimate BVOC emissions are standard but estimates of biomass are based on leaf area and fresh weight to dry weight relationships may not be characteristic of trees in this region. Local tree biomass data will be used in conjunction with the UFORE survey system to provide the most accurate information and emission

reduction calculations.

UFORE results compared to previous SUFES results

An initial UFORE study was conducted in 2007 to define the initial conditions of the region’s urban forest. In comparison with the 1998 SUFES study, results are comparable. The SUFES (Sacramento Urban Forest Ecosystem Study) wa s the first attempt to understand and estimate the tree species distribution and canopy cover of the region. There are several minor differences between two studies but their results and conclusion are similar. The SUFES (1998) found that the urban area tree canopy cover was 13-15% and six million trees in the urban area of the Sacramento region. It also found that the leading two species are live oak and valley oak. These two species accounted for 8.2% and 7.2% of trees in the urban forest. The UFORE study (2007) found that tree canopy was 12.1% and seven million trees in the region, while valley oak (10%) and live oak (6.7%) were the leading species in the Sacramento urban forest.

Field Surveys

The Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF), working with the tree organizations throughout the region, will lead the regional UFORE assessment. Seventy-five volunteers have been recruited from the six-county region. Each volunteer has undergone five hours of training before starting field survey work. The training covers each of more than 40 parameters that are recorded at every plot during tree species identification and the plot assessment process.

The volunteers are organized into three member teams and then each team is assigned approximately 10 plots located close to each other. Teams find the plot locations using a combination of aerial photographs and GPS coordinates. Teams complete their plot
assessments over four weeks. All information is recorded on field data sheets that are collected by the STF.

Each plot measures 1/10 acre. A map of the UFORE study area is included in Appendix 10. Teams collect six separate types of information from each plot, including square footage of each ground cover type, buildings, impervious surfaces, shade, shrubs and the location information of reference objects so that re-sampling can be completed accurately. A drawing is created ofSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-41 each plot. Following this, each tree on the plot is located, measured and 10 data points of information are collected about the size, species, health, and leaf area.

Teams spend an average of 2 hours per plot measuring, drawing and recording the data. To complete a plot assessment, the team will first locate the center of the plot. The center is marked and then a scale drawing is made. The actual land use category of the site is recorded. Next the ground cover areas are drawn to scale. The angle and distance to reference objects are recorded on the drawing. Each tree on the site is then carefully located on the drawing. The next step is to record the various tree parameters on a tree data sheet. A separate tree data sheet is filled out for each tree. Once all the tree information is obtained, the areas of shade canopy are also recorded on the plot drawing. Finally, the actual areas of each classification are calculated and recorded on the data sheets. Field data sheets are presented in Appendices 5, 6

and 7.

The plot drawings are necessary so that the results can be verified. To ensure the accuracy of the field collection data, a limited number of re-s urveys are conducted by trained staff from STF. Each team will have at least one plot inspected. If the re-inspection finds that errors have been made, all of the team’s work will be re-inspected. Sample plot data collection forms are included with this proposal.

As the plot survey information is returned to th e STF, it is first reviewed for completeness and cross-checked to catch errors that may have been made. The data is then imported to an electronic database. Once all plot information has been entered, the data is presented to the US Forest Service who analyzes the information and creates the statistical report on forest composition and monetized benefits. The results will then be returned to the STF and used to calculate BVOC changes.

The STF completed the initial 300 plot survey during summer 2007. The entire survey will be repeated on the same 300 plots in 2011, 2014 and 2017. The data from subsequent surveys will be compared with earlier surveys to monitor progr ess of this control measure. The Sacramento Tree Foundation will report on progress and post the report on its Sacramento Tree Foundation website and air district websites. Information will be available to the public during milestone years and attainment year.

This control measure proposes additional inform ation collection and analysis as a cross check
of the UFORE results. Historical and future sales data from tree retailers and tree wholesalers will be collected. Local governments and tree planti ng groups will also be asked to report as much information as possible about historical and future tree species and planting locations.

STF will use this information to calculate changes in tree planting activities. Historical species and planting activities will establish the Business-as-usual case for each entity. As new data arrives, the calculations will be repeated based on the new information. A difference should slowly accumulate that demonstrates the succ essful implementation of the control measure education program.

County and State level agricultural agencies will also be polled for information. Individual property owners will be encouraged to record their tree planting activities on a website developed to encourage participation in the regi onal planting goal. While this expanded net of information collection is extensive, it will nev er, as a voluntary, convenience sample, have the statistical accuracy needed to demonstrate perform ance of the control measure. It will, however, be a meaningful way to double-check the accuracy of the field survey effort and should alert reviewers to problems with the effort in time to correct them prior to 2018.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-42 As a final step of data collection, high-resolution satellite imagery will also be employed to ensure the accuracy of the field sample information. The science of aerial tree sampling is rapidly evolving. It may be possible during the life of this control measure to replace some components of data collection with ae rial survey image processing.

Tree Counting

In addition to using UFORE as a tool to measure the change in the tree canopy, tree counting will be used to support and verify the results we obtain from the UFORE Survey Studies. Realizing that planting rates are only one aspect of tree canopy change, tree counting can support quantifying regional efforts. It will also aid participating jurisdictions in measuring and verifying their implementation strategies and planting activities through 2018.

Jurisdictions will keep an extensive database of their tree plantings which will include information such as the number of trees, species, location, age, and whether or not it is a new or a replacement tree.

Data collected from the tree retailers and nurseries in the region will provide information about private owner tree planting behaviors, such as t he number of trees planted by private owners and if a shift from historical planting rates occurred.

The information collected from jurisdictions, and retailers will be used to supplement the UFORE study, verifying tree planting rates and order of magnitudes of the tree species changes. Figure A-4a shows a sample flow chart to track planting efforts by participating jurisdictions and private owners. The control measure recognizes that there is uncertainty whether or not trees sold by the retailers were actually planted within the r egion or whether or not the trees were even sold by the retailers in the region, but since it is used only to verifying orders of magnitude to supplement the UFORE study, the assumption is that all of these trees will be planted within the region. Attempts will be made to verify and collec t information from private owner tree plantings by providing avenues to register the tree purchase with the Sacramento Tree Foundation.

Data Collection Budget

The budget for monitoring activity and for all remaining project management is $320,000 over the project life.

Application of Collected Information

The information collected during the UFORE effort will be used to create a profile of the urban forest. This snapshot will reveal the region’s canopy cover percentage, the number, size, and types of trees that make up the urban forest. This forest composition information will be analyzed using the models that were the basis of this control measure (Simpson & McPherson, 2006 and 2007). The models will yield an emission profile for this snapshot of the forest.

Over the years, trees will be planted and removed. Mostly low emitting trees will be planted but some medium and high emitting trees will also be planted. If the control measure is being successfully implemented, each iteration of the UFORE analysis will show that low emitting trees are becoming a higher percentage of the forest population. Gridded emission inventory modeling of the air basin using the updated tree species information will at first show a slight change in BVOC emissions. With each new canopy assessment, a larger difference between the current forest and the unaltered forest will appear. This difference will be the measure of the

success of the control measure.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-43 Potential Issues

It usually takes time for the UFORE tracking system to make intuitive sense to reviewers, given the small sampling frequency of the survey. The area of the plots totals 30 acres and the urbanized area of the region totals more than 300,000 acres. This means that only 1/10,000 of the region is being sampled. Fortunately, in random sample statistical analysis, the error bounds of the result are a function of the deviation of the samples and the number of samples taken and not dependent on the size of population (Mendes 2002). For the UFORE analysis, the sampling fraction of 300 plots will provide an uncertainty in the results of 7.5% with a 99% confidence. This accuracy changes very little for a broad range of sampling fractions as shown on the following chart.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-44 Figure A-4a Tree Planting Verification Flow Chart



# Tree Planting Verification

Flow Chart

Data Collected

Category Determine total #

of LJ Trees

planted (Replacement & New) Local Jurisdiction (LJ)* (Local Jurisdiction or Private Planting) Private Planting (PP)** Determine total#

of PPTrees

planted

Determine Species

Distribution of r-----,

Trees from LJ

NO

What is the % difference between required and current tree planting

rates. (Find #of LJ Short Fall Trees) Does the YES

Find #of "Extra" Trees (if any) in LE or ME

category. *** (LJ Extra Trees) YES

Find# of "Extra"

Trees (if any) in LE

or ME category.*** (PP Extra Trees) Does the Species Distribution Meet

Minimum requirements?

83% LE, 12% ME, 5% H Determine Species

Distribution of

Trees from PP

0

What is the % difference

between required and current

tree planting rates. (Find # of

PP Short Fall Trees)

Determine if there are enough "Extra" Determine if there are "Extra" Trees

Trees from the PP category that can YES YES from the LJ category that can be
be substituted in for the LJ Short Fall.**r-------~** Recommend continuing current**~-----------1** substituted in for the PP Short Fall (Is PP Extra Trees>= LJ Short Fall Tree planting rates for future years. (Is LJ Extra Trees>= PP Short Fall
Trees?)  Trees?)** *

NO Find new minimum NO

'---------------------.! planting rate in order to**~--------------_J** meet goal by 2018

Implement Contingency Measures for

Tree measure Program Tree Planting Program Short

Falls NO (Tree Foundation)

s it still feasible to reach emission

reductions by 2018 attainment year?

(Considering contingency tree strategies*****)

* Local Jurisdictions Trees may include trees from Green print

, trees planted in new developments, and other planting efforts.

**Private Planting may include trees from retailers and nursery information in the area Go back to Jurisdictions and

recommend new planting rates,

and suggest contingency tree strategies to compensate for
temp. short fall (Repeat process
for every milestone year and at

the end of the project period)

***Any# of Trees over min requirement in that category is considered to be "Extra" Tree for that category. Calculated by subtracting Min Requirement Rate for each
category from Current Rate for each Category.

 Only a lower or equal BVOC tree can be used to substitute in and counted as an extra tree. For example, HE can not act as a substitute for a ME or aLE, but

LE can be a substituted in for a ME or HE, and ME can only act as a substitute for a HE.

** ***Suggested Contingency Tree Strategies can be found in Appendix 7.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-45 Samples vs Uncertainty

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

1 6 11 16 21 26 31

Uncertainty, % (99% confidence)Samples

This system will only produce this accuracy for the entire urban forest, taken as a whole. The results for smaller stratifications, or sub-areas within the larger sample area, can be extracted from the data, but the accuracy will be lower as there will be fewer plots in the subdivision. A sample size of 30 will produce results of 24% uncertainty, 100 samples yield 13% accuracy. From the data collected, stratified results will be used to inform each participating local governmental jurisdiction of its progress in reaching the canopy goals it has adopted.

A second concern is typically raised about the accu racy of the field measurements. We intend to minimize these errors through volunteer training and re-surveying a sample of each team’s work. The large number of people involved in the study also tends to reduce magnitude of systematic measurement errors. When a judgment is required, in the case of leaf area for example, a range of estimates always results. Each estimator will have a bias, sometimes higher and sometimes lower, than the actual value. Since many estimators are involved, the bias is averaged out of the final result. This is a practical application of the Law of Large

Numbers.

Tree species identification is difficult. As correct tree species identification is critical to the results of the study, teams are encouraged to colle ct leaf samples from any unknown trees for review by urban foresters. Tree datasheets will be amended based on the decision of the

forester.

The final major concern that needs to be addressed arises from use of defined, long-term reference plots. There are reasonable concerns that non-random changes will occur in reference plots because of the presence of t he sampling teams and the public information that is distributed. In other words, property owners may decide to plant or maintain trees just because they realize that their land is part of a reference plot. This activity would not be random and so the plot would no longer represent the entire region. We plan to examine this possibility during re-sampling. Testing will be completed to determine if new random plots need to be created or if the original plots continue to accurately reflect the regional value.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-46 

## Appendix 5: Tree Survey Sheet

Tree Information Sheet

Plot ID #___________

1. Tree Number ( Each tree has own number, start at North and move clockwise; please number each one on drawing)

2. Tree Species

3. Direction from Plot Center

4. Distance from Plot Center

5. Circumference @ 4.5 ft. (use tape)

6. Tree Height ( protractor angle)

7. Height to your eyes

7.a. Distance from tree to you

8. Protractor angle to live top ( only if dead branches form top of canopy) (maintain same distance and direction as tree height) 9. Ground to first branch (estimate)

10. Crown width (use rope)

11. % Missing (circle a percentage)

12. % Dieback (circle a percentage)

13. # squares impervious material under tree (use drawing)

14. # squares shrub under tree (use drawing)

15. Crown Light Exposure (1-5 sides)

16. Closest building distance and location (use drawing) Tr

u nk # 1 in c h es @ f t.

Tr

u nk # 2 in c h es @ f t.

Tr

u nk #3 in c h es @ f t.

de g rees

feet degrees Trunk-north end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% North-South feet inches

Eas t -West feet inches

Trun k -north end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Trun k -south end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Trun k -east end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Trun k -west end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % degrees

feet

Tr

u nk # 4 in c h es @ f t.

Tr

u nk #5 in c h es @ f t.

f ee t in c h es feet

Trunk-south end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Trunk-east end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Trunk-west end: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

feet degrees

feet degrees f ee t in c h esSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-47 

## Appendix 6: Funding Agreement Letter

TREE

I'OUf\IJATION**Pw..L"'Il)l~l** Eric F. Doug l a;**~E<-RET.\RY** Rick Lu\ lant:un

Tr-tEASl"RFR

Mat< McCauley

P."'**Pur"l>~** .. "'

John Webre

UoARD or DIRI c:TOH\

Su"m Bitar

l)clln Gilleran

Va lcrre llotfmnn

\XI illiam hhmacl

John Lane

Gene ,\hiler

Lynn Pomeroy

lun Raney

Scorr Rmc

,\1,Jrk Sct<cr

je<1n Shaw

1\ I ilcs J. ' li'ta"er

Jerry Way

ll nARI> I 'IIRITl'

Jane llagcdnrn

Ann Kohl

Ext.<.l'TIW Dr•r .mR

Raymond L.

' lrcrhcwa y I l l 12 November 2008

Mr. Larry Greene

Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Director

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814-1908

Dear Mr. Greene,

Please accept this letter as a statement of commitment by the Sacramento Tree Foundation

to achieve the 'urban forest for clean air ' contro l measure submitted as part of the Air

District's air q uality attainrnent State Implementation Plan (SIP).

In summary, the control measure increases the percentage oflower Biogenic Volatile Organic Compound (BVOC) emitting trees in the region by influencing the tree selection

choices of the majority of tree planters. This outcome will be achieved through a number

of

coordinate d efforts that can be grouped into three categories: community education

, local government action, and strategic tree planting.

The Sacramento Tree Foundation will commit the necessary funds and resources to

influence our partner cities and counties and local tree suppliers to reach the contro l

measure species composition goals. The estimated budget range for this project is up to $1.71 million during the next 10 years, or about $171

, 000 per year. In our current operations

, we dedicate $420,000 per year to various education projects and $880,000 per

year to planting trees. The Tree Foundation's urban forest efforts and influence have expanded steadily over the years, and we have every expectation that they will continue to

grow with the implementation of our Greenprint Initiative. E!lcompassing the Ajr

District ' s airshed, Greenprint is a regional initiative dedicated to building the best regional

urban forest in the nation. We will seek funding support for this SIP control measure
, and

if necessary, re-focus our current funding efforts to ensure its completion.

The Sacramento Tree Foundation has an annual budget of almost $3 million which has

allowed us to develop a staff of33 professionals dedicated to advancing the Sacramento
region's urban forest. We also lead the hard work of thousands of volunteers each year.

During 26 years of urban forest enhancement we have fostered good relationships with

local governments and communities in our region. Our work has included partnerships

with many grantors, including the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District. In the 1990s we led the planting of over one million trees in Sacramento County.

With this letter I commit the resources and goo d will of the Sacramento Tree Foundation to implement this urban forest SIP control measure. We look forward to partnering with you and your staff to clean the air in the Sacramento Region.

Sincer e ly

,

# ~c-~

Ray Tretheway

Executive Director

1 91 Lathrop Way, Su11e D Sacramento, CA 95815
(916) 924·T!U.Jo I ''"" (9 16) 924 J80JI '"""'"""ec.com

Our Ji'\tissio n : To bw/J tbe but r1dnm forur fo,-tbt**St~crtwulltD** rtgionSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-48 

## Appendix 7: Contingency Tree Measure Strategies

This control measure proposes, in a general sense, that participating groups can plant hundreds of thousands of trees during a few short years as a result improved community education and strategic changes to the policies of local governments. If a participating group is falling behind on its tree planting commitments, there are many additional tools and practices from the urban forest community that can be implemented to assi st in reaching the goals. A sampling of tools

includes: Tree planting contests with quality prizes for the most successful groups:

o Individuals

o Neighborhoods

o Business districts

o Organization

Sponsor tree plantings in communities and on public land:

o Parks, roadways and near building

o Homes of seniors

o Tree removal mitigation planting

Free or reduced cost trees:

o Partner with electric utilities for planting free energy saving trees: SMUD and now
PG&E

o Offer rebate coupons for purchasing low emitting trees

Reduce cost of tree establishment:

o Offer utility rebates for tree planting based on reducing long-term water consumption

o Host tree planting, pruning and maint enance clinics to im prove canopy health

Reduce demand for medium and high emitting trees:

o Work with the landscape design industry to change specifications

o Communicate with residents about the better trees

Restrict the availability of medium and high emitting trees:

o Work with local tree suppliers to reduce or eliminate stocking of medium and high emitting trees

o Work with the county agricultural commissioner to quarantine very high emitting species

o Seek State action to prohibit the sale of selected very high emitting tree species within the geographic areaSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-49 

## Appendix 8: Field Data Sheet

Section 1: Site and Team Info 1



### Location 2



### Plot ID 3



### Field Land Use 1 4



### Field Land Use 2 5 

### Group 6 

### :

Year 7 

### Date: 8



### FLU1 (Squares) 9



### FLU2 (Squares) 10



## Section 2: Plot/Contact Information 11



### Address: 12



### _______________ ___________

Resident: 13



### _______________ ___________ Phone: 14



### __________________ _________

Notes: 15



### __________________ __________ 

## Section 3: GPS Coordinates / Photograph 16



### GPS X: 17



### GPS Y: 18 

### GPS Z: 19



### Photo ID #: 20



## Section 4: Reference Object Design ation (skip if th ere are 3 trees/plot)

ID 21 

### Description 22 

### Direction from center (angle) 23 

### Distance from center (feet) 24 

### Notes and
Comments 25



### 1

2



## Section 5: Ground Covers (show abb reviations on drawing; count squares) 26

Building (B) 27 Concrete (C) 28 Asphalt (A) 29 (OI) Other Impervious 30 Maintained Grass (MG) 31 Unmaintained Grass (UG) 32 Water (W) 33

Duff & Mulch (M) 34 Bare Soil (BS) 35 Seedlings (S) 36 Herbs & Ivy (HI) 37 Agricultural Crops (AC) 38 Pervious Rock (PR) 39 Shrub

(SH) 40



## Section 6: Summary of Plot Areas (in Squares from drawing) 41



### Tree Cover 42 

### Shrub Area 43 

### Plantable Space 44Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-50 Below is a description of each of the terms used on the Field Data Collection sheet.

1 Site and Team Info: This section of the data describes where the pl ot site is located, how to find it again

later and who did the site review.

2 Location: The general area of the plot

3 Plot ID: The identification number assigned to the plot

4 Field Land Use 1: This is the land use that ex ists on the plot. It doesn’t always agree with the government database and so needs to be corrected in the field.



## Land Use Types Land Use Types

Residential Agriculture

Multi-Family Residential Vacant

Commercial/Industrial Institutional

Park Transportation

Cemetery Utility

Golf Course Water/Wetland

5 Field Land Use 2: If the plot falls on two substantia lly different land uses, indicate the second class of land use. An example is when plot falls on a house next to a supermarket. This is rarely a substantial issue. You should not count a backy ard garden as agricultural or the road in front of a home as transportation.

6 Group: Your group number.

7 Year: the year of the field survey

8 Date: the date the field survey is completed

9 FLU1 (Squares): In this box, record the Fi eld Land Use 1 area in squares on the plot drawing

10 FLU2 (Squares): In this box, record the Field Land Use 2 area in squares on the plot drawing

11 Plot/Contact Information: This is t he contact information for the plot owner

12 Address: the address of the plot, if available

13 Resident: the name of the person/s living on the plot

14 Phone: the phone number of the resident

15 Notes: general information about the plot location, owner or resident

16 GPS Coordinates / Photograph: this section has the precise location of the center point of the plot.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-51 17 GPS X: this is the GPS longitude of the plot location. The units are decimal degrees

18 GPS Y: this is the GPS latitude of the plot location. The units are decimal degrees

19 GPS Z: this is the altitude of the plot. The units are feet.

20 Photo ID #: If you take a picture of the site, enter the file name of the picture here.

21 ID: the number of the reference item. Also show on plot drawing.

22 Description: the name of the object, like “fire hydrant.”

23 Direction from center: this is the direction in degrees from the plot center. Use the markings on the center marker to figure out the angle. 0 degrees is North, 90 degrees is East.

24 Distance from center: this is the distance from the center of the plot to the nearest edge of the reference object

25 Note and Comments: anything noteworthy about the reference item.

26 Ground Covers (in squares): this section is used to describe all of the different ground covers that are on the plot. From the plot drawing that you make, roughly count the number of squares of each type. Enter the number in the adjacent box to the cover ty pe. Put an “R” for “Remainder” in the box of the most extensive cover. For example, if a plot falls in an asphalt parking lot, enter R under Asphalt and then the number of squares in each of the other types presen t. The abbreviations for the cover types are shown in parentheses with each type.

27 Building (B): this is for any structure. Only co unt the floor area of the building. Don’t include any awnings or gables or the like.

28 Concrete (C): The standard material for sidewalk s, curbs and gutters, the concrete designation also includes the colored, stamped driveways and walkways that are becoming more common.

29 Asphalt (A): this is for any tar covered surface except roofs. Roads, par king lots, most basketball
courts fit here.

30 Other Impervious (OI): Any surface that doesn’t al low water penetration. An example of this is brick.

31 Maintained Grass (MG): grass that is mowe d, lawns. Include here lawns that need mowing.

32 Unmaintained Grass (UG): natural grass areas. These could be natural areas of native grasses or pastures that don’t normally get mowed and irrigated

33 Water (W): Any area of water includ ing fountains, ponds, lakes and streams

34 Duff & Mulch (M): any ground cover composed of decaying plant materials

35 Bare Soil (BS): soil that has few or no plants growing in it.

36 Seedlings (S): areas with small trees too numerous to count.

3 7 Herbs & Ivy (HI): any low growing ground cover that can’t easily be distinguished as individual plants

38 Agricultural Crops (AC): Crops grown on commer cial farms. This doesn’t include backyard gardens

39 Pervious Rock (PR): gravel, cobbles, boulders th at generally allow water to reach the ground beneath rather than forcing it to run off the siteSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-52 40 Shrub (SH): leafy plant that does not count as a tree. Do not double count for ground cover under the

shrub.

41 Summary of Plot Areas (in Squares): this secti on is used to give an overall summary of the key coverage areas on the site. The units are squares taken from the plot drawing.

42 Tree Cover: the total area in squares that is ben eath all the trees on the plot. Take this number from the drawing and record in squares. Also include the shade canopy from branches that come from trees outside of the plot

43 Shrub Area: the total area in squares that is gener ally occupied by shrubs. Take this number from the drawing and record in squares.

44 Plantable Space: a rough approximation of the num ber of squares that c ould have a tree planted in
them. Don’t assume that c onstruction work will be done to create a planting area.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-53 

## Appendix 9: 6% Cap Calculations for Tree Measure Emission

Reductions

The methodology for calculating the estimated maximum limit on emission reductions from the Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program for the Sacramento region is summarized below. This is consistent with EPA policy 1 for incorporating emerging and voluntary measures in
a SIP that limits the amount of emission reduc tions allowed due to the uncertainty and untested nature of the control mechanisms. For total emerging and voluntary measures, EPA has a presumptive limit 2 of 6 percent of the total amount of emission reduction necessary to achieve the planning requirement for attainment demonstration purposes.

Methodology to Calculate VOC Reduction Limit for Tree Measure

Figure A9-1 contains the 2018 ozone/emission reduction graph for the peak ozone design value site at Cool in the Sacramento region. This diagram shows the pattern of ozone responses to varying combinations in domain-wide VOC and NOx emission reductions. The air quality modeling analysis for 2018 shows that attainment can be reached with different percent combinations of VOC and NOx control. Assuming the combination of percent reductions from only new VOC and NOx control measures adopted by the end of 2008, the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard could be attained by reducing 2018 modeled emissions by about 3.3% VOC and 12.5% NOx (shown as Point B on Figure A9-1) This emission reduction target represents the attainment shortfall).

The cap on eligible emission reductions from emer ging and voluntary measures is 6 percent of the VOC attainment shortfall. Since the 6 percent cap applies to all emerging and voluntary measures, the maximum reduction limit available for the Tree Measure needs to subtract out any reductions from other emerging or voluntary measures, such as “Spare The Air” Program 3

.

Six Percent Reduction Calculations

The 2002 base year emission level (planning inventory) of the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area is 160 tpd of VOC and 196 tpd of NOx. Without any new emission control measures, the 2018 emission inventory is forecasted to be 121 tpd of VOC and 104 tpd of NOx. Based on the 2018 attainment shortfall analysis, 3.3% of the VOC and 12.5% of NOx emissions
must be reduced to achieve the attainment standards. This means that VOC emissions must be reduced to 117 tpd and NOx emissions must be reduced to 91 tpd. The attainment shortfall for VOC is 4 tpd and NOx is 13 tpd. The Urban Forest for Clean Air Demonstration Program claims BVOC reductions only. By applying the 6 percent cap on the VOC shortfall, this measure and the Spare The Air Program have a limit of 0.24 tpd of VOC emission reductions. Since the Spare The Air Program will claim 0.06 tpd of VOC emission reduction credit, the tree program is capped at 0.18 tpd of BVOC reduction as an emerging and voluntary measure.

1 “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)” (OAQPS, EPA, September 2004).

2 Ibid., p. 9.

3 Spare The Air Program (TCM-ONMS-ED-1) is a voluntary measure to inform and encourage the public to reduce vehicle trips, especially during forecasted high ozone days.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-54 

### Figure A9-1 Ozone/Emission Reduction Graph 2018 Cool Peak Ozone Design Value Site

0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0. 90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00

ROG 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00NOx 88

87

85

84

82 88

86

85

84

82 88

86

85

83

82 87

86

85

83

82 87

86

85

83

82 

### *A *B

V OC

1. X and Y Axes: fractional emission reductions of VOC and NOx.

2. Whole (Red) Numbers: predicted ozone design value concentrations (truncated) based on modeling results for fractional VOC an d NOx reductions at 5% increments.
3. Horizontal Contour Lines : District interpolated whole ppb ozone contour lines based on 5% increment modeled ozone values rounded to the tenth of a ppb. 4. Point A designates the 2018 emission reduct ions (11.6% VOC and 17.3% NOx) from all new local, regional, state and federal control meas ure committals, and provides for attainment. 5. Point B designates the 2018 emission reductions (3.3% VOC and 12.5% NOx) from only the new local, regional, state and federal control measures adopted by the end of 2008. These levels represent percent emi ssion reduction targets for attainment (just below 85 ppb).

Using the combination of emission reduction levels from only new control measures adopted by the end of 2008, attainment of the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard (84 ppb) could be achieved by reducing 2018 modeled VOC and NOx emissions by about 3.3% for VOC and 12.5% for NOx (Point B). Since ozone design values are truncated to the whole ppb, ozone design values between 84 to <85 ppb are truncated to 84 ppb.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Page C-55 

## Appendix 10: UFORE Study Area

Placer County

El Dorado County

Yolo County Yuba County

Sutter County

Sacramento County Sacramento

Elk Grove Roseville

Folsom Lincoln

Rocklin

Rancho Cordova

Davis yuba City

Woodland

Galt Loomis

Citrus Heights Placerville

West Sacramento South Lake Tahoe

Auburn Marysville

Winters Live Oak

Colfax

Woodland

Galt Winters Wheatland

Auburn

Isleton Colfax

Isleton

0 61,000 122,000 30,500 Feet 

# 4 Legend

Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area

UFORE Study Area 

# UFORE Study Area

Prepared by: The Sacramento Tree Foundation, July 24th 2008

Data Sources: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet The UFORE study area was derived from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG's) most recent GIS layer of urbanized areas. This layer created in 2005 includes SACOG member cities, their spheres of influence, and the urban service areas of SACOG member counties. While Solano County jurisdictions are within the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area, they are outside of the SACOG and consequently are not part of the UFORE study area. All UFORE plots were randomly chosen within the bounds

of the 2005 urbanized areas data set.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Regulatory Control Measures Page C-56 

# Regulatory Control MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Indirect Source Rules Page C-57 

# Indirect Source RulesSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Construction Mitigation Rule Page C-58 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: IS-1

Control Measure Title: Construction Mitigation Rule

Date: May 22, 2008

Control Measure Description



### New land use and development proj ects are indirect sources of air pollutant emissions from construction equipment, worker and vendor vehicle trips, and construction materials (e.g., adhesives, sealants, and arch itectural coatings). Based on California storm water permit data (2004-2006) there are, on average, 245 new land use projects occurring in the Sacramento Federal Non- Attainment Area (SFNA) each year. Depending upon the size and type, the timeline for a construction project can vary from a few months to years.

This control measure will reduce NOx emi ssions from equipment associated with the construction phase of new land use projects . This control measure will not address operational emissions generated by the projects, which will be addressed by control measure IS-2. San Joaquin Valley Unified Ai r Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, cont ains requirements for the mitigation of
emissions from the construc tion of development projects . The requirements that are being considered for the control measure ar e based on the construction requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, which s pecifies that all applicable pr ojects mitigate their NOx emissions by 20% less than t he statewide average emissi on rates either by using cleaner construction equipment or modify ing the construction equipment (through retrofits, replacements, or pos t-combustion controls), or by paying a fee that will be used by the districts to obtain emission reductions. During the rule development process, staff will explore integration of this rule with CARB’s offroad engine rule to ensure that the 20% requirement is f easible and cost effective through 2018 and beyond.

The proposed control measure commits to a framework that includes quantification of emissions before and after mitigation measur es are applied, est ablishes appropriate levels to define who is subject to the rule and emission reduction requirements for affected sources. The proposed emission reduction requirements will include a fee option to achieve offsite reductions when onsite reductions are unavailable. The proposed control measure will be evaluated for adoption by districts noted in the following tables.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Construction Mitigation Rule Page C-59 

### Emission Inventory



### The SFNA planning emission in ventory is presented below for the category associated with construction equipment emissions of NOx. The emissions already account for
California Air Resources Board St ate Implementation Plan measures.

NOx Emission Inventory (tpd) District EIC
Code EIC Description 2018
SMAQMD 860-887 CONSTRUCTION A ND MINING EQUI PMENT 4.6081

PCAPCD 860-887 CONSTRUCTION AND MINING EQUIPMENT 0.9172
FRAQMD 860-887 CONSTRUCTION A ND MINING EQUI PMENT 0.0722

TOTAL 5.5975



### Emission Reductions



### Total NOx emissions from all phases of construction and all other associated emissions will be estimated using URBEMIS 2007, ve rsion 9.2 or another construction emission

estimation model that the Air Pollution Control Officer deems appropriate. Emission
reductions for this measure have been calc ulated assuming that new construction projects will be required to reduce total cons truction-related emissi ons of NOx by 20% below the statewide averages (as required by SJVUAPCD Rule 9510). Applicants will

be able to reduce these emissions through either onsite or offsite mitigation. Onsite mitigation will consist of applicants replac ing or retrofitting older, higher-emitting construction equipment. Offsite mitigation will allow applicants to pay a fee based on the cost effectiveness of the Carl Moyer, SEC AT, or other approved program. The District will secure mitigation for those applicant s by funding emissi on reduction projects elsewhere, following the guidelines of the approved funding program.

Construction projects will be r equired to comply with this rule if they equal or exceed any of the following thresholds (based on SJVUAPCD Rule 9510):

• 

### 50 residential units;

• 

### 2,000 sq. feet of commercial space;

• 

### 25,000 sq. feet of light industrial space;

• 

### 100,000 sq. feet of heavy industrial space;

• 

### 20,000 sq. feet of medical office space;

• 

### 39,000 sq. feet of general office space;

• 

### 9,000 sq. feet of educational space;

• 

### 10,000 sq. feet of government space;

• 

### 20,000 sq. feet of recreational space; or

• 

### 9,000 sq. feet of space not identified above

In order to estimate potentia l future emission reductions, District staff used the State
Water Resources Control Board storm water permit data and the default assumptions

built into the construction emissions model URBEMIS. The storm water data provided the acres and type (residential, commercial, i ndustrial) for all projects occurring in the
SFNA over two acres. In order to condense th is data, projects were categorized by their size and averaged over a three-year perio d (2004 through 2006). Because the stormSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Construction Mitigation Rule Page C-60 

### water database does not give project specif ics beyond the type and size, all projects

labeled residential were assumed to be ent irely residential and other projects not labeled residential were assumed to be entirely commercial.

Defaults from URBEMIS incl uding average residential and co mmercial density, the type and amount of construction equipment used for different sized projects, and the construction phase timelines were used to estimate calendar year 2008 emissions for the projects obtained from the storm wa ter database. The NOx emissions from all applicable project groups were totaled and reductions were assumed to be 20% of this total with an 80% compliance rate. The reductions were compared to the 2008 SFNA emission inventory to derive a percent reduc tion that could be app lied to the 2018 inventory.

Annual NOx emission reductions are summarized below for the districts planning to adopt this control measure in the SFNA.

District 2018 (tpd)


### SMAQMD 0.0905

PCAPCD 0.0462

TOTAL 0.1367



### There are no emission reductions estimated for the portion of FRAQMD in the SFNA

because there were no new land use projects shown for 2004 to 2006 in the California
storm water database for this area. It is assu med that new construc tion will occur and,
therefore this control measure will achi eve ozone precursor emission reductions from those future projects in the FRAQMD.

SMAQMD Adoption year: 2010 Implementation year: 2011

PCAPCD Adoption year: 2013 Implementation year: 2014

FRAQMD Adoption year: 2013 Implementation year: 2014

Cost Effectiveness



### It is anticipated that developers will not choose to perform onsite mitigation when the cost for doing so would exceed the cost of paying mitigati on fees. Therefore, the upper
bound of cost effectiveness for this measure is based on the mitigation fees. The fees
have been estimated based on the current Carl Moyer program cost effectiveness of $16,000 per ton of NOx reduced.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Construction Mitigation Rule Page C-61 

### Authority



### The districts are authorized to adopt and implement regulati ons to reduce or mitigate
emissions from indirect and areawide sources of air pollu tion by Health and Safety Code Section 40716. In addition, SMAQMD is specifically authorized to adopt regulations to limit or miti gate the impact on air quality of indirect or areawide sources by Health and Safety Code Section 41013.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implem ented by SMAQMD, PCAPCD, and FRAQMD.

References

CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (RF#980), February 28,

2007

SJVUAPCD “Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (ISR).” Adopted December 15, 2005

SJVUAPCD “Final Draft Staff Report – Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (ISR), Rule 3180, Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review.” December 15, 2005

State Water Resources Control Board “ 

### Statewide Construction Storm Water Database
Active Notice of Intents (NOIs).” http://www.swrcb.ca .gov/stormwtr/databases.html.

URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2, July 2007.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Operational Indirect Source Rule Page C-62 CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: IS-2



### Control Measure Title: Operatio nal Indirect Source Rule (ISR)

Date: June 10, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure will reduce emissi ons generated during the operational phase of
indirect sources. An indirect source is def ined as any facility, bui lding, structure or installation, or combination thereof, which gener ates or attracts mob ile source activity
that results in emissions of any pollutant for which there is a state ambi ent air quality standard. The rule will require indirect sources to mitigate a portion of their emissions through a combination of on-site mitigatio n measures and, if onsite measures are insufficient, a contribution to an off-site mitigation fund that will invest in emission reduction projects.

On-site mitigation could include strategies t hat reduce vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Other on-site mitigation m easures could be considered, such as improved energy efficiency resulting in fewe r power plant emissions or reductions in onsite combustion emissions. Off-site miti gation fees will be calculated based on the amount of required emission reductions t hat can not be achieved through on-site

measures. This control measure will in tegrate with SACOG’s Blueprint Metropolitan Transportation Plan 17 

### and look for synergistic opportu nities from AB 32 (Nunez) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 18 

### and SB 375 (Steinber g) – legislation to reduce greenhouse gases through land-use planning 19



### .

The proposed control measure commits to a framework that includes quantification of emissions before and after mitigation measur es are applied, est ablishes appropriate levels to define who is subject to the rule and emission reduction requirements for affected sources. The proposed emission reduction requirements will include a fee option to achieve offsite reductions when onsite reductions are insufficient. The proposed control measure will be evaluated for adoption by districts noted in the following tables.

The District will develop guidel ines that describe the quant ification methodology used to evaluate the emission reductions from pr oposed off-site mitigation projects. The guidelines will be made avai lable for public review th rough a public notice in a newspaper of general circul ation, followed by Distri ct Board adoption (including responses to comments), and a request for CARB/EPA approval. The District will

17 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035 (MTP2 035), approved by SACOG Board of Directors March 20, 2008

18 California Health and Safety Code, Section 38500-38599.

19 Signed by Governor 9-30-08, and amends California Government Code and Division 13 of the Public
Resources Code.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Operational Indirect Source Rule Page C-63 

### evaluate and select off-site mitigation projects for fundi ng with ISR revenue through a public process and ultimately District Board approval.

Emissions impacts of indirect sources are commonly modeled with the URBEMIS
emissions model. URBEMIS calculates emi ssions based on trip generation rates for user specified land uses along with EMFA C mobile emission factors. URBEMIS also

calculates area source emissi ons from sources such as on-site natural gas combustion, landscaping, and consumer products.

SACOG is currently developing a new modeli ng tool that integrates the iPLACES parcel-level land use scenario planning tool with the SACM ET travel model. The new model will provide the ability to evaluate regional changes in vehicle trips and VMT based on proposed land uses.

Emission Inventory – 2018



### The Operational ISR will apply to resident ial and non-residential development projects that generate indirect emissions from on-r oad mobile sources such as passenger cars, light trucks, and motorcycles. The table below presents the summer planning inventory for categories expected to be affected by the rule (note: other inventory categories may
be affected to the extent that the rule affe cts them, or as part of selected mitigation strategies).

2018 Inventory* (tpd) District EIC Code EIC Description NOx ROG

SMAQMD 710 LDA 2.53 4.90

722 LDT1 0.76 1.32

723 LDT2 2.60 3.75

724 MDV 1.74 1.92

732 LHDT1 2.08 0.99

733 LHDT2 0.90 0.26

734 MHDV 3.39 0.44

736 HHDV 6.76 0.65
750 Motorcycle 0.40 1.57

762 Urban Bus 0.42 0.03

770 School Bus 0.41 0.03

780 Motor Home 0.17 0.02

010-045-0110-0000 Electric Utilities –
Natural Gas Turbine 0.709 0.191

610-610-0110-0000 Residential Fuel
Combustion – Natural Gas Cooking 0.082 0.004

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Fuel
Combustion – Natural Gas Water Heating 1.585 0.079

SMAQMD Total 24.54 16.15Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Operational Indirect Source Rule Page C-64 2018 Inventory* (tpd) District EIC Code EIC Description NOx ROG

PCAPCD 710 LDA 0.53 0.93

722 LDT1 0.34 0.54

723 LDT2 0.59 0.80

724 MDV 0.38 0.41

732 LHDT1 0.63 0.17

733 LHDT2 0.25 0.05

734 MHDV 0.53 0.06

736 HHDV 6.48 0.52
750 Motorcycle 0.20 0.74

762 Urban Bus 0.11 0.01

770 School Bus 0.11 0.01

780 Motor Home 0.07 0.01

010-045-0110-0000 Electric Utilities –
Natural Gas Turbine 0.089 0.007

610-610-0110-0000 Residential Fuel
Combustion – Natural Gas Cooking 0.029 0.001

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Fuel
Combustion – Natural Gas Water Heating 0.263 0.013

PCAPCD Total 10.60 4.27

* all on-road emissions are based on EMFAC2007 wi th Feb. 08 SACOG activity data. Area source emissions are based on ARB CEFS_O3SIP data.



### Emission Reductions



### In 2006, the existing California Environmental Quality Act mitigation program achieved
0.033 TPD of NOx and 0.035 TPD of ROG in the Sacram ento district. These reductions represent 0.061% and 0.115 % of the Sacramento 2005 affected NOx and ROG inventory, respectively.

The South Coast AQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan proposes an indirect source rule (2007EGM-01) with a commitment to achieve 1.0 TPD and 0.5 TPD of NOx and ROG, respectively, in 2020. This r epresents 0.17% of the ROG inventory and
0.36% of the NOx inventor y. The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 2007 ozone plan

includes a commitment to achieve 0.2 TPD r eduction in on-road NOx in 2017 from their existing indirect source rule which represent s 0.12% of the NOx inventory. (Note: South Coast inventory is based on ARB CEFS_O3SIP data. San Joaquin inventory is based on 2007 Ozone Plan Appendix B.)

Sufficient data is not current ly available to precisely q uantify expected reductions. For example, the integrated iPlaces land use m odel and SACMET travel model expected to be used for emission reduction quant ification is not yet availabl e in final form. However, based on the ranges of reductions discussed above as applied to the affected inventory
for SMAQMD and PCAPCD in 2018 results in the following expected emission reduction

range:Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Operational Indirect Source Rule Page C-65 2018 Reduction (tpd)

District NOx ROG

SMAQMD 0 - 0.09 0 - 0.03

PCAPCD 0 - 0.04 0 - 0.01

Total 0 – 0.13 0 – 0.04



### Emission reductions from this rule will result from a combination of on-site mitigation implemented by project proponents and off-si te mitigation projects. Depending on the type of mitigation strategies funded through the off-site mitigation program, emission reductions could apply to mobile, stationary, or area-wide source inventory categories.

SMAQMD Adoption year: 2012 Implementation year: 2014

PCAPCD Adoption year: 2014 Implementation year: 2016

Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness of this rule is dependent on the type of on-site mitigation implemented by a developer, and whether or not the off-site mitigation fee option is chosen for some or all of the required emi ssion reductions. Some on-site mitigation may result in a cost savings.

Authority and Resources



### The districts are authorized to adopt and implement regulati ons to reduce or mitigate
emissions from indirect and area-wide sour ces of air pollution by Health and Safety
Code Section 40716. In addition, SMAQMD is specifically authorized to adopt indirect or area-wide source regulations by H ealth and Safety Code Section 41013.

Districts are authorized to recover costs a ssociated with regulation of area-wide and indirect sources by Health and Safety Code Section 42311(g).

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by SMAQMD and PCAPCD.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Stationary and Area Source Control Measures Page C-66 

# Stationary and Area-wide Source
Control MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

VOC Control Measures Page C-67 

# VOC
Control MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings Page C-68 

# Architectural CoatingsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings SMAQMD-442 Page C-69 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 442

Control Measure Title: Architectural Coatings

Date: May 8, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to stati onary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non-flats, and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof c oatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates the sale of coatings within th e district by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the strategy.

The SMAQMD’s architectural coating rule (Rule 442) was originally adopted in 1978

and has been amended seven times with the most recent amendment occurring in May 2001. The amendment in May 2001 adopted CARB ’s 2000 SCM for this category. On October 25, 2007, CARB adopted a new SC M for Architectural Coatings that
established lower VOC limits fo r some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between the VOC limits in t he current Rule 442 and the new SCM; coating categories that do not have lower VOC limits are not

included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings SMAQMD-442 Page C-70 SMAQMD Rule 442 CARB SCM Category (g/l) (g/l) Flat Coating 100 50 Nonflat Coating 150 100 Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150 Antenna Coating 530 250 Antifouling Coaings 400 250 Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)

Varnishes 550

550

350

350 275

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400

400 100

350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150 Fire Retardant Coatings:
Clear Opaque 650

350 350

Floor Coatings 250 100 Flow Coatings 420 250 Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 200 100 Quick Dry Enamels 250 150 Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 200 100 Roof Coatings 250 50 Rust Preventative Coatings 400 250 Specialty Primers, Seal ers, Undercoaters 350 100 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420 Traffic Marking Coatings 150 100



### Emission Inventory –2018

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description

2018

520-520-9100-0000 Oil-Based (Organic Solv ent Based) Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0850

520-520-9105-0000 Oil-Based Primer s, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.1614

520-520-9106-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0958

520-520-9108-0000 Oil-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0050

520-520-9109-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0160

520-520-9113-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0744
520-520-9118-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0525

520-520-9122-0000 Oil-Based Faux Finishing 0.0016

520-520-9124-0000 Oil-Based Mastic Texture 0.0232

520-520-9126-0000 Oil-Based Rust Preventative 0.0370

520-520-9131-0000 Oil-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.2948

520-520-9136-0000 Oil-Based Stains – Opaque 0.0278

520-520-9141-0000 Oil-Based Varnish - Clear/Semitransparent 0.1957

520-520-9153-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Enamel Coatings 0.0672

520-520-9157-0000 Oil-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0727

520-520-9159-0000 Oil-Based Flat Coatings 0.0026

520-520-9160-0000 Oil-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.1081
520-520-9161-0000 Oil-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.1171

520-520-9164-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.2206Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings SMAQMD-442 Page C-71 ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description

2018

520-520-9165-0000 Oil-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0042
520-520-9166-0000 Oil-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0437

520-520-9169-0000 Oil-Based Floor Coatings 0.0121

520-520-9170-0000 Oil-Based Form Release Coatings 0.0310

520-520-9172-0000 Oil-Based Industrial Maintenance Coatings 0.4144

520-520-9173-0000 Oil-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.1410
520-520-9174-0000 Oil-Based Roof Coatings 0.0107

520-520-9176-0000 Oil-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0383

520-520-9177-0000 Oil-Bas ed Wood Preservatives 0.0348

520-520-9200-0000 Water-Based Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0112

520-520-9205-0000 Water-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.1707

520-520-9206-0000 Water-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0135
520-520-9208-0000 Water-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0107

520-520-9209-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0027

520-520-9213-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0098

520-520-9218-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0141

520-520-9222-0000 Water-Based Faux Finishing 0.0094

520-520-9223-0000 Water-Based Form Release Compounds 0.0003

520-520-9224-0000 Water-Based Mastic Texture 0.0116

520-520-9226-0000 Water-Based Rust Preventative 0.0014

520-520-9231-0000 Water-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0167

520-520-9236-0000 Water-Based Stains - Opaque 0.0259

520-520-9241-0000 Water-Based Varn ishes - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0261
520-520-9257-0000 Water-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0051

520-520-9259-0000 Water-Based Flat Coatings 0.6747

520-520-9260-0000 Water-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.7753

520-520-9261-0000 Water-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0701

520-520-9264-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0013
520-520-9265-0000 Water-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0148

520-520-9266-0000 Water-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0126

520-520-9269-0000 Water-Based Floor Coatings 0.0325

520-520-9272-0000 Water-Based Indu strial Maintenance Coatings 0.0326

520-520-9273-0000 Water-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0033

520-520-9274-0000 Water-Based Roof Coatings 0.0185
520-520-9276-0000 Water-Based Traffic Coatings 0.117

520-520-9277-0000 Water-Based Wood Preservatives 0.0003

Total 4.4709



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption

date Implementation Date

2018

Architectural Coating Categories 2010 2011, except Rust Preventative and Specialty Primer, Sealer,

Undercoater in 2012 0.9138Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings SMAQMD-442 Page C-72 

### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness calculations were based upon economic analyses conducted by
the South Coast Air Qualit y Management District for am endments to Rule 1113. The specific economic analyses used are listed below:

• 

### December 6, 2002 Amendments (based on vacated May 14, 1999 Amendments) (1998 economic data) – indust rial maintenance coatings; rust preventative coatings; floor coatings; non-flats; primers, seal ers, and undercoaters; quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters; and quick-dry enamels.

• 

### December 5, 2003 Amendm ents (2003 economic data) – clear wood finishes (including sanding sealers and varnish); roof coatings; stai ns; and waterproofing sealers (including concrete and masonry s ealers). Range of cost effectiveness was $4,229 - $11,405/ton.

• 

### June 9, 2006 Amendments (2006 economic data) – c oncrete-curing compounds; dry-fog coatings; and traffic coatings. R ange of cost effectiveness was $4,882/ton.

It was assumed that the economic relations hips between Sacram ento and South Coast suppliers and users of architectural coatings do not differ signific antly. Therefore, the
estimated South Coast cost effectiveness va lues were assumed to be transferable to
Sacramento.

The cost effectiveness values calculated fr om the December 6, 2002 and December 5, 2003 amendments were adjusted to 2006 dollars (from 1998 and 2003 dollars, respectively) using the Bureau of Labor St atistics’ Consumer Price Index for West

Urban consumers. The estimated overall co st effectiveness for this proposed measure is estimated to be $10,485/ton

Authority



### Authority to implement this control measur e by the SMAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r Quality Management Distri ct is the implementing

agency.

References



### 1. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Mana gement District, Rule 442 (Architectural Coatings). Amended May 24, 2001. 2. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict, Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Amended June 9, 2006. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). May 14, 1999.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings SMAQMD-442 Page C-73 

### 4. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 6, 2002. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 5, 2003. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). June 9, 2006. 7. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index 1996-

2006. 8. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacr amento NAA (RF#980), November 16, 2006 9. California Air Resources Board Sugges ted Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, October 25, 2007 10. Control Measure, SMAQMD - 442, November 28, 2006
11. Control Measure 442 Calculatio n Spreadsheet, SMAQMD, May 14, 2008Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatin gs EDCAQMD-215 Page C-74 

### Control Measure Number: EDCAQMD - 215

Control Measure Title: Architectural Coatings

Date: May 12, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to stati onary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non-flats, and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof c oatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates the sale of coatings within th e district by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the strategy.

The existing Rule 215-Architectural Coat ings was adopted on September 8, 1994 and subsequently amended on September 27, 1994. In 2000, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Suggested Contro l Measures (SCM) for Architectural Coatings. This SCM established VOC limits that obtained about a 20% overall reduction for this category. On October 25, 2007, CARB adopted a new SCM for Architectural Coatings that established lower VOC limits for some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between t he VOC limits in the current rule and the limits in the new SCM; coat ing categories that do not hav e lower VOC limits are not

included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatin gs EDCAQMD-215 Page C-75 EDCAQMD Rule 215 CARB SCM Category (g/l) (g/l) Flat Coating Specialty Flat 100

400 50

Nonflat Coating 250 100 Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150 Antenna Coating 530 250 Antifouling Coaings 400 250 Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)

Varnishes 680

680

350

350 275

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400

400 100

350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150 Fire Retardant Coatings:
Clear Opaque 650

350 350

Floor Coatings 250 100 Flow Coatings 420 250

Industrial Maintenance High temp Antigraffiti 420

340 250

Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100

Multi-color 420 250

Pretreatment Wash Primers 675 420 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 350 100 Quick Dry Enamels 400 150 Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 350 100 Roof Coatings 300 50 Rust Preventative Coatings 420 250 Specialty Primers, Seal ers, Undercoaters 350 100

Stains 350 250 Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance 650 340 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420 Traffic Marking Coatings 250 100 Water proofing Sealers 400 250



### Emission Inventory –2018

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description

2018

520-520-9100-0000 Oil-Based (Organic Solvent Ba sed) Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0092

520-520-9105-0000 Oil-Based Primer s, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0278

520-520-9106-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0335

520-520-9108-0000 Oil-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0005

520-520-9109-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0016

520-520-9113-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0089

520-520-9118-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0055

520-520-9122-0000 Oil-Based Faux Finishing 0.0002

520-520-9124-0000 Oil-Based Mastic Texture 0.0024

520-520-9126-0000 Oil-Based Rust Preventative 0.0039Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatin gs EDCAQMD-215 Page C-76

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description

2018

520-520-9131-0000 Oil-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0402

520-520-9136-0000 Oil-Based Stains – Opaque 0.0045

520-520-9141-0000 Oil-Based Varnish - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0205

520-520-9153-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Enamel Coatings 0.0133

520-520-9157-0000 Oil-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0129

520-520-9159-0000 Oil-Based Flat Coatings 0.0003

520-520-9160-0000 Oil-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0119

520-520-9161-0000 Oil-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0123
520-520-9164-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0231

520-520-9165-0000 Oil-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0005

520-520-9166-0000 Oil-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0046

520-520-9169-0000 Oil-Based Floor Coatings 0.0013

520-520-9170-0000 Oil-Based Form Release Coatings 0.0033
520-520-9172-0000 Oil-Based Industrial Maintenance Coatings 0.0719

520-520-9173-0000 Oil-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0148

520-520-9174-0000 Oil-Based Roof Coatings 0.0012

520-520-9176-0000 Oil-Based Traffic Coatings 0.004

520-520-9177-0000 Oil-Bas ed Wood Preservatives 0.0037

520-520-9200-0000 Water-Based Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0012

520-520-9205-0000 Water-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0182

520-520-9206-0000 Water-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0014

520-520-9208-0000 Water-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0011

520-520-9209-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0003

520-520-9213-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0014
520-520-9218-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0015

520-520-9222-0000 Water-Based Faux Finishing 0.001

520-520-9223-0000 Water-Based Form Release Compounds 0

520-520-9224-0000 Water-Based Mastic Texture 0.0012

520-520-9226-0000 Water-Based Rust Preventative 0.0002

520-520-9231-0000 Water-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0021

520-520-9236-0000 Water-Based Stains - Opaque 0.0028

520-520-9241-0000 Water-Based Varn ishes - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0027

520-520-9257-0000 Water-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0005

520-520-9259-0000 Water-Based Flat Coatings 0.0895

520-520-9260-0000 Water-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0937
520-520-9261-0000 Water-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0074

520-520-9264-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9265-0000 Water-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0016

520-520-9266-0000 Water-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0013

520-520-9269-0000 Water-Based Floor Coatings 0.0034

520-520-9272-0000 Water-Based Indu strial Maintenance Coatings 0.0037
520-520-9273-0000 Water-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0003

520-520-9274-0000 Water-Based Roof Coatings 0.0019

520-520-9276-0000 Water-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0123

520-520-9277-0000 Water-Based Wood Preservatives 0

Total 0.5886Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatin gs EDCAQMD-215 Page C-77 

### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption

date Implementation

Date 2018

Architectural Coating Categories 2013 2015 0.1862



### Cost Effectiveness



### The proposed VOC limits from t he SCM are already in place in a number of air districts. When the SCM was adopted, the cost effe ctiveness was determined to be an average of $3.20 per pound ($6400 per t on) of ROG reduced. The proposed SCM VOC limits were identified by SCAQMD and are already in place in there. Based on the 1999 Socioeconomic impact assessm ent used in the socioeconomic analysis for the Rule 1113 amendments, the cost effectivene ss was estimated to be $8.50 per pound ($16,996 per ton) of ROG reduced. These co st-effectiveness estimates will be used as representative of the economic relationships of suppliers and users within El Dorado County.

Authority



### The above control measure will be implement ed by amendment to the existing Rule 215 Architectural Coatings. The El Dorado Air Q uality Management Distri ct has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC 40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the El Dorado Count y Air Quality Management District.

References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (RF#980 November 16, 2006)
2. California ARB Staff Report for the Proposed Sugges ted Control Measure for Architectural Coating, Released June 6, 2000 3. South Coast AQMD Staff Report fo r Proposed Amended Rule 1113-Architectural Coating, dated December 6, 2002 4. South Coast AQMD Preliminary Dra ft Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule
1113-Architectural Coati ng, dated April 1, 2001
5. Control Measure 215 Calculatio n Spreadsheet, SMAQMD, May 15, 2008
6. Control Measure EDCA QMD - 215, January 30, 2007 7. California Air Resources Board Sugges ted Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, October 25, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings FRAQMD-3.15 Page C-78 

### Control Measure Number: FRAQMD - 3.15

Control Measure Title: Architectural Coatings

Date: May 20, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to stati onary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non-flats, and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof c oatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates the sale of coatings within th e district by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the strategy.

The existing Rule 3.15-Architectural Coatings was adopted in June, 1991 and subsequently amended on May 6, 1996 and November 13, 2002. The amendment in November 2002 adopted CARB’s 2000 SCM for this category. On October 25, 2007, CARB adopted a new SCM for Architectural C oatings that established lower VOC limits for some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between the VOC limits in t he current Rule 3.15 and the new SCM; coating categories that do not have lower VOC limits are not

included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings FRAQMD-3.15 Page C-79 FRAQMD Rule 3.15 CARB SCM Category (g/l) (g/l) Flat Coating 100 50 Nonflat Coating 150 100 Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150 Antenna Coating 530 250 Antifouling Coaings 400 250 Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)

Varnishes 680

550

350

350 275

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400

400 100

350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150 Fire Retardant Coatings:
Clear Opaque 650

350 350

Floor Coatings 250 100 Flow Coatings 420 250 Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 200 100 Quick Dry Enamels 250 150 Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 200 100 Roof Coatings 250 50 Rust Preventative Coatings 400 250 Specialty Primers, Seal ers, Undercoaters 350 100 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420 Traffic Marking Coatings 150 100



### Emission Inventory – 2018

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description 2018

520-520-9100-0000 Oil-Based (Organic Solvent Ba sed) Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0004

520-520-9105-0000 Oil-Based Primer s, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0008

520-520-9106-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0005

520-520-9108-0000 Oil-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0

520-520-9109-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0001

520-520-9113-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0004
520-520-9118-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0003

520-520-9122-0000 Oil-Based Faux Finishing 0

520-520-9124-0000 Oil-Based Mastic Texture 0.0001

520-520-9126-0000 Oil-Based Rust Preventative 0.0002

520-520-9131-0000 Oil-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0013

520-520-9136-0000 Oil-Based Stains – Opaque 0.0001

520-520-9141-0000 Oil-Based Varnish - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0009

520-520-9153-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Enamel Coatings 0.0003

520-520-9157-0000 Oil-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0004

520-520-9159-0000 Oil-Based Flat Coatings 0

520-520-9160-0000 Oil-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0005

520-520-9161-0000 Oil-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0006
520-520-9164-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.001

520-520-9165-0000 Oil-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings FRAQMD-3.15 Page C-80 ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description 2018
520-520-9166-0000 Oil-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0002
520-520-9169-0000 Oil-Based Floor Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9170-0000 Oil-Based Form Release Coatings 0.0002

520-520-9172-0000 Oil-Based Industrial Maintenance Coatings 0.0016

520-520-9173-0000 Oil-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0007

520-520-9174-0000 Oil-Based Roof Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9176-0000 Oil-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0002

520-520-9177-0000 Oil-Bas ed Wood Preservatives 0.0002

520-520-9200-0000 Water-Based Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0001

520-520-9205-0000 Water-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0008

520-520-9206-0000 Water-Based Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, And

Undercoaters 0.0001

520-520-9208-0000 Water-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0

520-520-9209-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0
520-520-9213-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0

520-520-9218-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0001

520-520-9222-0000 Water-Based Faux Finishing 0

520-520-9223-0000 Water-Based Form Release Compounds 0

520-520-9224-0000 Water-Based Mastic Texture 0.0001

520-520-9226-0000 Water-Based Rust Preventative 0

520-520-9231-0000 Water-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0001

520-520-9236-0000 Water-Based Stains - Opaque 0.0001

520-520-9241-0000 Water-Based Varn ishes - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0001

520-520-9257-0000 Water-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0

520-520-9259-0000 Water-Based Flat Coatings 0.0028

520-520-9260-0000 Water-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0036

520-520-9261-0000 Water-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0003

520-520-9264-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Coatings 0

520-520-9265-0000 Water-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0001

520-520-9266-0000 Water-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9269-0000 Water-Based Floor Coatings 0.0002

520-520-9272-0000 Water-Based Indu strial Maintenance Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9273-0000 Water-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0

520-520-9274-0000 Water-Based Roof Coatings 0.0001

520-520-9276-0000 Water-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0005

520-520-9277-0000 Water-Based Wood Preservatives 0

Total 0.0205



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption

date Implementation

Date 2018

Architectural Coating Categories <2012 <2012, except Rust

Preventative and Specialty Primer, Sealer, Undercoater

in 2012 0.0044



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness calculations were based upon economic analyses conducted by
the South Coast Air Qualit y Management District for am endments to Rule 1113. The specific economic analyses used are listed below:Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings FRAQMD-3.15 Page C-81 

### • 

### December 6, 2002 Amendments (based on vacated May 14, 1999 Amendments) (1998 economic data) – indust rial maintenance coatings; rust preventative coatings; floor coatings; non-flats; primers, seal ers, and undercoaters; quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters; and quick-dry enamels.

• 

### December 5, 2003 Amendm ents (2003 economic data) – clear wood finishes (including sanding sealers and varnish); roof coatings; stai ns; and waterproofing sealers (including concrete and masonry s ealers). Range of cost effectiveness was $4,229 - $11,405/ton.

• 

### June 9, 2006 Amendments (2006 economic data) – c oncrete-curing compounds; dry-fog coatings; and traffic coatings. R ange of cost effectiveness was $4,882/ton.

It was assumed that the economic relations hips between Sacram ento and South Coast suppliers and users of architectural coatings do not differ signific antly. Therefore, the
estimated South Coast cost effectiveness va lues were assumed to be transferable to
Sacramento.

The cost effectiveness values calculated fr om the December 6, 2002 and December 5, 2003 amendments were adjusted to 2006 dollars (from 1998 and 2003 dollars, respectively) using the Bureau of Labor St atistics’ Consumer Price Index for West

Urban consumers. The estimated overall co st effectiveness for this proposed measure is $10,133/ton

Authority



### Authority to implement this control measur e by the FRAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The FRAQMD is the implementing agency.

References



### 1. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict, Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Amended June 9, 2006. 2. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). May 14, 1999. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 6, 2002. 4. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 5, 2003. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). June 9, 2006. 6. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index 1996-

2006.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings FRAQMD-3.15 Page C-82 

### 7. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacr amento NAA (RF#980), November 16, 2006
8. Control Measure 3.15 calculati on spreadsheet, SMAQMD, May 19, 2008 9. Control Measure, FRAQMD 3.15, dated February 1, 2007 10. California Air Resources Board Sugges ted Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, October 25, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings PCAPCD-218 Page C-83 

### Control Measure Number: PCAPCD - 218

Control Measure Title: Architectural Coating

Date: May 20, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to stati onary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non-flats, and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof c oatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates the sale of coatings within th e district by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the strategy.

The PCAPCD’s architectural coating rule (Rule 218) was originally adopted in 1983 and

has been amended several times with t he most recent amendment occurring in

December 2001. The amendmen t in December 2001 adopt ed CARB’s 2000 SCM for this category. On October 25, 2007, CA RB adopted a new SCM for Architectural Coatings that established lower VOC limits for some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between the VOC limits in t he current Rule 218 and the new SCM; coating categories that do not have lower VOC limits are not

included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings PCAPCD-218 Page C-84 PCAPCD Rule 218 CARB SCM Category (g/l) (g/l) Flat Coating 100 50 Nonflat Coating 150 100 Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150 Antenna Coating 530 250 Antifouling Coaings 400 250 Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)

Varnishes 550

550

350

350 275

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400

400 100

350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150 Fire Retardant Coatings:
Clear Opaque 650

350 350

Floor Coatings 250 100 Flow Coatings 420 250 Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 200 100 Quick Dry Enamels 250 150 Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 200 100 Roof Coatings 250 50 Rust Preventative Coatings 400 250 Specialty Primers, Seal ers, Undercoaters 350 100 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420 Traffic Marking Coatings 150 100



### Emission Inventory – 2018

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description 2018

520-520-9100-0000 Oil-Based (Organic Solvent Based) Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0192

520-520-9105-0000 Oil-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0364

520-520-9106-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0216
520-520-9108-0000 Oil-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0012

520-520-9109-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0037

520-520-9113-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0167

520-520-9118-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.012

520-520-9122-0000 Oil-Based Faux Finishing 0.0004

520-520-9124-0000 Oil-Based Mastic Texture 0.0052

520-520-9126-0000 Oil-Based Rust Preventative 0.0084

520-520-9131-0000 Oil-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0667

520-520-9136-0000 Oil-Based Stains – Opaque 0.0063

520-520-9141-0000 Oil-Based Varnish - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0442

520-520-9153-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Enamel Coatings 0.0152
520-520-9157-0000 Oil-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0164

520-520-9159-0000 Oil-Based Flat Coatings 0.0007

520-520-9160-0000 Oil-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0245

520-520-9161-0000 Oil-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0265

520-520-9164-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0498

520-520-9165-0000 Oil-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.001Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings PCAPCD-218 Page C-85 ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description 2018
520-520-9166-0000 Oil-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.01

520-520-9169-0000 Oil-Based Floor Coatings 0.0028
520-520-9170-0000 Oil-Based Form Release Coatings 0.0071

520-520-9172-0000 Oil-Based Industrial Maintenance Coatings 0.0847

520-520-9173-0000 Oil-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0319

520-520-9174-0000 Oil-Based Roof Coatings 0.0024

520-520-9176-0000 Oil-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0086

520-520-9177-0000 Oil-Bas ed Wood Preservatives 0.0079

520-520-9200-0000 Water-Based Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0025

520-520-9205-0000 Water-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0385

520-520-9206-0000 Water-Based Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, And

Undercoaters 0.0031

520-520-9208-0000 Water-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0024

520-520-9209-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0007

520-520-9213-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0022
520-520-9218-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0032

520-520-9222-0000 Water-Based Faux Finishing 0.0021

520-520-9223-0000 Water-Based Form Release Compounds 0.0001

520-520-9224-0000 Water-Based Mastic Texture 0.0026

520-520-9226-0000 Water-Based Rust Preventative 0.0003

520-520-9231-0000 Water-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0038

520-520-9236-0000 Water-Based Stains - Opaque 0.0058

520-520-9241-0000 Water-Based Varn ishes - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0059

520-520-9257-0000 Water-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0011

520-520-9259-0000 Water-Based Flat Coatings 0.1312

520-520-9260-0000 Water-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.1752
520-520-9261-0000 Water-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0159

520-520-9264-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0003

520-520-9265-0000 Water-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0033

520-520-9266-0000 Water-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0029

520-520-9269-0000 Water-Based Floor Coatings 0.0074

520-520-9272-0000 Water-Based Indu strial Maintenance Coatings 0.0068
520-520-9273-0000 Water-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0008

520-520-9274-0000 Water-Based Roof Coatings 0.0042

520-520-9276-0000 Water-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0265

520-520-9277-0000 Water-Based Wood Preservatives 0.0001

Total 0.9804



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption date Implementation

Date 2018 Architectural Coating Categories 2012 2013 0.2014



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness calculations were based upon economic analyses conducted by
the South Coast Air Qualit y Management District for am endments to Rule 1113. The specific economic analyses used are listed below:

• 

### December 6, 2002 Amendments (based on vacated May 14, 1999 Amendments) (1998 economic data) – indust rial maintenance coatings; rust preventative coatings;Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings PCAPCD-218 Page C-86 

### floor coatings; non-flats; primers, seal ers, and undercoaters; quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters; and quick-dry enamels.

• 

### December 5, 2003 Amendm ents (2003 economic data) – clear wood finishes (including sanding sealers and varnish); roof coatings; stai ns; and waterproofing sealers (including concrete and masonry s ealers). Range of cost effectiveness was $4,229 - $11,405/ton.

• 

### June 9, 2006 Amendments (2006 economic data) – c oncrete-curing compounds; dry-fog coatings; and traffic coatings. R ange of cost effectiveness was $4,882/ton.

It was assumed that the economic relati onships between Placer and South Coast suppliers and users of architectural coatings do not differ signific antly. Therefore, the
estimated South Coast cost effectiveness va lues were assumed to be transferable to
Sacramento.

The cost effectiveness values calculated fr om the December 6, 2002 and December 5, 2003 amendments were adjusted to 2006 dollars (from 1998 and 2003 dollars, respectively) using the Bureau of Labor St atistics’ Consumer Price Index for West

Urban consumers. The estimated overall co st effectiveness for this proposed measure is $10,119/ton.

Authority



### Authority to implement this control meas ure by the PCAPCD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The PCAPCD is the implementing agency.

References



### 1. South Coast AQMD Staff Report fo r Proposed Amended Rule 1113 - Architectural Coating, dated December6, 2002. 2. South Coast AQMD Preliminary Dra ft Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, dated August 15, 2003 3. Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Staff Report for Rule 442 – Architectural Coating, Dated April 21 st 

### , 2001 4. ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SIP Planning Projections v1.06 RF #980. November 16, 2006.
5. Control Measure 218 calculati on spreadsheet, SMAQMD, May 20, 2008 6. Control Measure, PC APCD 218, February 5, 2007 7. California Air Resources Board Sugges ted Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, October 25, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings YSAQMD-2.14 Page C-87 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.14

Control Measure Title: Architectural Coatings

Date: February 2, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to stati onary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non-flats, and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof c oatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates the sale of coatings within th e district by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the strategy.

The YSAQMD’s architectural coating rule (R ule 2.14) was originally adopted in 1979

and with the most recent amendment occu rring in November 200 1. The amendment in November 2001 adopted CARB’s 2000 SCM for this category. On October 25, 2007, CARB adopted a new SCM for Architectural C oatings that established lower VOC limits for some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between the VOC limits in t he current Rule 2.14 and the new SCM; coating categories that do not have lower VOC limits are not

included.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings YSAQMD-2.14 Page C-88 YSAQMD Rule 2.14 CARB SCM Category (g/l) (g/l) Flat Coating 100 50 Nonflat Coating 150 100 Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150 Antenna Coating 530 250 Antifouling Coaings 400 250 Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)

Varnishes 550

550

350

350 275

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400

400 100

350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150 Fire Retardant Coatings:
Clear Opaque 650

350 350

Floor Coatings 250 100 Flow Coatings 420 250 Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 200 100 Quick Dry Enamels 250 150 Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 200 100 Roof Coatings 250 50 Rust Preventative Coatings 400 250 Specialty Primers, Seal ers, Undercoaters 350 100 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420 Traffic Marking Coatings 150 100



### Emission Inventory – 2018

EIC Code EIC Description ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day

2018

520-520-9100-0000 Oil-Based (Organic Solvent Ba sed) Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0201

520-520-9105-0000 Oil-Based Primer s, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0382

520-520-9106-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Pr imers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0226

520-520-9108-0000 Oil-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0012

520-520-9109-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0037

520-520-9113-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0176

520-520-9118-0000 Oil-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0123

520-520-9122-0000 Oil-Based Faux Finishing 0.0004

520-520-9124-0000 Oil-Based Mastic Texture 0.0054

520-520-9126-0000 Oil-Based Rust Preventative 0.0088

520-520-9131-0000 Oil-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0696

520-520-9136-0000 Oil-Based Stains – Opaque 0.0066

520-520-9141-0000 Oil-Based Varnish - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0463

520-520-9153-0000 Oil-Based Quick Dry Enamel Coatings 0.0159

520-520-9157-0000 Oil-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0172
520-520-9159-0000 Oil-Based Flat Coatings 0.0006

520-520-9160-0000 Oil-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.0256

520-520-9161-0000 Oil-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0276

520-520-9164-0000 Oil-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0521

520-520-9165-0000 Oil-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0011
520-520-9166-0000 Oil-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.0103Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings YSAQMD-2.14 Page C-89 520-520-9169-0000 Oil-Based Floor Coatings 0.0029

520-520-9170-0000 Oil-Based Form Release Coatings 0.0073

520-520-9172-0000 Oil-Based Industrial Maintenance Coatings 0.1067
520-520-9173-0000 Oil-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0333

520-520-9174-0000 Oil-Based Roof Coatings 0.0025

520-520-9176-0000 Oil-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0091

520-520-9177-0000 Oil-Bas ed Wood Preservatives 0.0083

520-520-9200-0000 Water-Based Coatings (Unspecified) 0.0026

520-520-9205-0000 Water-Based Primers, Sealers, And Undercoaters 0.0403

520-520-9206-0000 Water-Based Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, And

Undercoaters 0.0031

520-520-9208-0000 Water-Based Specialty Primer, Sealer, And Undercoaters 0.0025

520-520-9209-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Roof Primer 0.0006

520-520-9213-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Sealers 0.0023

520-520-9218-0000 Water-Based Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 0.0033

520-520-9222-0000 Water-Based Faux Finishing 0.0022

520-520-9223-0000 Water-Based Form Release Compounds 0

520-520-9224-0000 Water-Based Mastic Texture 0.0028

520-520-9226-0000 Water-Based Rust Preventative 0.0003

520-520-9231-0000 Water-Based Stains - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0039

520-520-9236-0000 Water-Based Stains - Opaque 0.0061

520-520-9241-0000 Water-Based Varn ishes - Clear/Semitransparent 0.0062
520-520-9257-0000 Water-Based Lacquers (Unspecified) 0.0012

520-520-9259-0000 Water-Based Flat Coatings 0.1538

520-520-9260-0000 Water-Based Nonflat - Low Gloss/Medium Gloss 0.1832

520-520-9261-0000 Water-Based High Gloss Nonflat Coatings 0.0166

520-520-9264-0000 Water-Based Bituminous Coatings 0.0003
520-520-9265-0000 Water-Based Concrete Curing Compounds 0.0035

520-520-9266-0000 Water-Based Dry Fog Coatings 0.003

520-520-9269-0000 Water-Based Floor Coatings 0.0077

520-520-9272-0000 Water-Based Indu strial Maintenance Coatings 0.0087

520-520-9273-0000 Water-Based Metallic Pigmented Coatings 0.0008

520-520-9274-0000 Water-Based Roof Coatings 0.0044
520-520-9276-0000 Water-Based Traffic Coatings 0.0276

520-520-9277-0000 Water-Based Wood Preservatives 0

Total 1.0603



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018 Architectural Coating Categories 2010 2012 0.2144



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness calculations were based upon economic analyses conducted by
the South Coast Air Qualit y Management District for am endments to Rule 1113. The specific economic analyses used are listed below:

• 

### December 6, 2002 Amendments (based on vacated May 14, 1999 Amendments) (1998 economic data) – indust rial maintenance coatings; rust preventative coatings; floor coatings; non-flats; primers, seal ers, and undercoaters; quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters; and quick-dry enamels.

• 

### December 5, 2003 Amendm ents (2003 economic data) – clear wood finishes (including sanding sealers and varnish); roof coatings; stai ns; and waterproofingSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings YSAQMD-2.14 Page C-90 

### sealers (including concrete and masonry s ealers). Range of cost effectiveness was $4,229 - $11,405/ton.

• 

### June 9, 2006 Amendments (2006 economic data) – c oncrete-curing compounds; dry-fog coatings; and traffic coatings. R ange of cost effectiveness was $4,882/ton.

It was assumed that the economic relations hips between Yolo/S olano and South Coast suppliers and users of architectural coatings do not differ signific antly. Therefore, the
estimated South Coast cost effectiveness va lues were assumed to be transferable to
Sacramento.

The cost effectiveness values calculated fr om the December 6, 2002 and December 5, 2003 amendments were adjusted to 2006 dollars (from 1998 and 2003 dollars, respectively) using the Bureau of Labor St atistics’ Consumer Price Index for West

Urban consumers. The estimated overall co st effectiveness for this proposed measure is $10,387/ton.

Authority



### Authority to implement this control meas ure by the YSAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The YSAQMD is the implementing agency.

References



### 1. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Rule 2. 14, Architectural Coatings ; November 14, 2001.
2. California Environmental Protection Agency – Air Resources Board, Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings , June 22, 2000. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict, Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings ; June 9, 2006. 4. California Environmental Protection Ag ency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - V1.06 RF#980 ; Date Of Last Update: November 16, 2006.

5. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). May 14, 1999. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Repor t for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 6, 2002. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Repor t for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings). December 5, 2003. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, Staff Repor t for Proposed Amended Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). June 9, 2006. 9. U.S. Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index 1996-

2006.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Architectural Coatings YSAQMD-2.14 Page C-91 

### 10. Control Measure, YSAQM D – 2.14, February 2, 2007 11. California Air Resources Board Sug gested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, October 25, 2007
12. Control Measure 2.14 Calculatio n Spreadsheet, SMAQMD, May 20, 2008Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing Page C-92 

# Automotive RefinishingSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing SMAQMD-459 Page C-93 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 459

Control Measure Title: Automotive Coatings

Date: December 8, 2006

Control Measure Description



### Automotive refinishing coatings are used on motor vehicles and other mobile equipment, primarily by auto body repair and paint shops and autom otive dealerships.
VOC emissions from the surfac e coating operations result from the evaporation of the organic solvents used in the coatings. Thes e emissions occur in a number of places during the operation, includ ing surface preparation and cl eanup, application of the coating, drying of t he parts, and cleanup of t he application equipment.

On October 20, 2005, CARB adopted a S uggested Control Measure (SCM) for automotive coatings. The SCM would intr oduce several significant changes into SMAQMD Rule 459, Automotive, Truck, and Heavy Equipment Refinishing Operations,

such as:

• 

### Consolidation of limits fo r Group I and Group II vehicles

• 

### Consolidation of the prec oats, primers, primer seal ers, and primer surfacers categories

• 

### Deletion of the multi-stage topcoats ca tegory, and replacement with separate
limits for color coats and clear coats

• 

### Elimination of the specialty coatings cat egory, with specific limits for each type of coating, and a general limit applic able to all other coatings.

• 

### Lower VOC limits for mo st coating categories.

The proposed control measure will evaluate the information from CARB’s SCM and propose amendments to Rule 459.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing SMAQMD-459 Page C-94 

### Emission Inventory – 2018

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description

2018
230-218-9000-0000 Automobile Refinish Coatings, Unspecified 0.861

510-500-9021-0000 Aerosol Coatings, Auto Body Primers 0.0077

510-500-9082-0000 Aerosol Coatings, Auto Bumper and Trim Coatings 0.0068

510-500-9083-0000 Aerosol Coatings, Exact Match Engine Enamel 0.0065

510-500-9084-0000 Aerosol Coatings, Exact Match Automotive Coatings 0.0117

510-506-6558-0000 Consumer Products, Automotive Undercoating, Aerosol 0.0243

510-506-6559-0000 Consumer Products, Automotive Undercoating, Non-Aerosol 0.0018

Total 0.9198



### Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date 2018 Automotive Refinishing 2010 2011 0.1130



### Cost Effectiveness



### CARB estimated the overall, statewide cost effectiveness of the SCM to be $1.43 per pound of VOC reduced. However, this takes into account reductions in districts with a wide range of stringency in their existing rules. Statewide, CARB estimated a 65%
reduction in emissions from automotive refi nish coatings. Based on our existing rule limits, District staff has es timated that within the SMAQ MD, only a 16.4% reduction in VOC emissions will occur if the SCM is adopted in place of current lim its. A large portion of the costs for compliance is based on retr ofitting existing facilities to be compatible with water-borne coatings. Compliance cost s for the SMAQMD will be similar to the statewide estimates, but the emission reduc tions in SMAQMD are expected to be lower than the statewide average by a factor of 3.96. Therefore, the cost effectiveness for the
measure in the SMAQMD is estimated to be 3.96 times higher than the statewide average, or $5.66 per pound ($11,326 per ton) of VOC reduced.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implement ed by the SMAQMD through Rule 459.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing SMAQMD-459 Page C-95 

### References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006 2. Control Measure, SMAQMD - 459, December 8, 2006 3. CARB, Staff Report for the Proposed Su ggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings, October 2005.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing FRAQMD-3.19 Page C-96 

### Control Measure Number: FRAQMD - 3.19

Control Measure Title: Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

Date: February 2, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Automotive refinishing coatings are used on motor vehicles and other mobile equipment, primarily by auto body repair and paint shops and autom otive dealerships.
VOC emissions from the surfac e coating operations result from the evaporation of the organic solvents used in the coatings. Thes e emissions occur in a number of places during the operation, includ ing surface preparation and cl eanup, application of the coating, drying of t he parts, and cleanup of t he application equipment.

On October 20, 2005, CARB adopted a S uggested Control Measure (SCM) for automotive coatings. The SCM would intr oduce several significant changes into FRAQMD Rule 3.19, Vehicle and Motor Eq uipment Coating Operations, such as:

• 

### Consolidation of limits fo r Group I and Group II vehicles

• 

### Consolidation of the prim ers, primer sealers, and pr imer surfacer categories

• 

### Deletion of the multi-stage topcoats ca tegory, and replacement with separate
limits for color coats and clear coats

• 

### Elimination of the specialty coatings cat egory, with specific limits for each type of coating, and a general limit applic able to all other coatings.

• 

### Lower VOC limits for mo st coating categories.

The proposed control measure will evaluate the information from CARB’s SCM and propose amendments to Rule 3.19.

Emission Inventory – 2018



### The population growth rate in South Sutter is purely based on the cu rrent Sutter County population growth rate projected by SACOG. The potential growth of proposed South Sutter Specific Plan (now called Sutter Poin te Specific Plan) is not factored in.

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018

230-218-9000-0000 Automobile Refinish Coatings, Unspecified 0.0035

Total 0.0035Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing FRAQMD-3.19 Page C-97 

### Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018

Automotive Refinishing 2016 2017 0.0008



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness is expected to range between $5,560 an d $77,300 per ton of

ROG reduced.

Authority



### The Feather River Air Quality Management Dist rict has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC 40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this control meas ure does not involve any other agency other

than the Feather River Air Quality Management District.

References



### 1. El Dorado County AQMD Rule 230, Adopted September 27, 1994.
2. Feather River AQMD Rule 3.19, Adopted August 6, 1998. 3. Placer County APCD Rule 234, Revised April 9, 1998.
4. Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 459, Revised Oc tober 2, 1997. 5. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.26, Revised August 13, 1997. 6. Draft Staff Report, Rule 459, SMAQMD, August 2001. 7. Rule adoption file s, Rule 459, SMAQMD.

8. California Air Resources Board, Sta ff Report for The Proposed Suggested Control Measures Automotive Coatings, October 2005

9. California ARB Forecasted Emissi ons by Summary Category, Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA Projections (v1.06_RF980) www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ 03sip/fcemssumcat_03v1.06.php . November 16, 2006 10. Control Measure, FRAQ MD – 3.19, February 2, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing PCAPCD-234 Page C-98 

### Control Measure Number: PCAPCD - 234

Control Measure Title: Auto motive Refinishing Operations

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Automotive refinishing coatings are used on motor vehicles and other mobile equipment, primarily by auto body repair and paint shops and autom otive dealerships.
VOC emissions from the surfac e coating operations result from the evaporation of the organic solvents used in the coatings. Thes e emissions occur in a number of places during the operation, includ ing surface preparation and cl eanup, application of the coating, drying of t he parts, and cleanup of t he application equipment.

On October 20, 2005, CARB adopted a S uggested Control Measure (SCM) for automotive coatings. The SCM would intr oduce several significant changes into PCAPCD Rule 234, such as:

• 

### Consolidation of limits fo r Group I and Group II vehicles

• 

### Consolidation of the prec oats, primers, primer seal ers, and primer surfacers categories

• 

### Deletion of the multi-stage topcoats ca tegory, and replacement with separate
limits for color coats and clear coats

• 

### Elimination of the specialty coatings cat egory, with specific limits for each type of coating, and a general limit applic able to all other coatings.

• 

### Lower VOC limits for mo st coating categories.

The proposed control measure will evaluate the information from CARB’s SCM and propose amendments to Rule 234.

Emission Inventory – 2018

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018

230-218-9000-0000 Automobile Refi nish Coatings, Unspecified 0.1836



### Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

date 2018

Automobile Refinish Coatings 2015 2017 0.045Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing PCAPCD-234 Page C-99 

### Cost Effectiveness



### CARB estimated the overall, statewide cost effectiveness of the SCM to be $1.43 per pound of VOC reduced. The annual cost for th is measure is approx imately $57,229/yr.

Authority



### California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 40702

Implementation



### This control measure will be implement ed by the PCAPCD through Rule 234.

References



### 1. El Dorado County AQMD Rule 230, Adopted September 27, 1994.
2. Feather River AQMD Rule 3.19, Adopted August 6, 1998. 3. Placer County APCD Rule 234, Revised April 9, 1998.
4. Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 459, Revised Oc tober 2, 1997. 5. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.26, Revised August 13, 1997. 6. Draft Staff Report, Rule 459, SMAQMD, August 2001. 7. Rule adoption file s, Rule 459, SMAQMD. 8. Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested C ontrol Measure for Automotive Coating, CARB, October 2005. 9. “ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SIP Planning Projections v1.06 RF #980”. November 16, 2006. 10. Control Measure, PC APCD 234, February 5, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing YSAQMD-2.26 Page C-100 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.26

Control Measure Title: Automotive Refinishing

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Automotive refinishing coatings are used on motor vehicles and other mobile equipment, primarily by auto body repair and paint shops and autom otive dealerships.
VOC emissions from the surfac e coating operations result from the evaporation of the organic solvents used in the coatings. Thes e emissions occur in a number of places during the operation, includ ing surface preparation and cl eanup, application of the coating, drying of t he parts, and cleanup of t he application equipment.

On October 20, 2005, CARB adopted a S uggested Control Measure (SCM) for automotive coatings. The SCM would intr oduce several significant changes into YSAQMD Rule 2.26, Motor Vehicle and M obile Equipment Coating Operation:

• 

### Consolidation of limits fo r Group I and Group II vehicles

• 

### Consolidation of the prec oats, primers, primer seal ers, and primer surfacers categories

• 

### Deletion of the multi-stage topcoats ca tegory, and replacement with separate
limits for color coats and clear coats

• 

### Elimination of the specialty coatings cat egory, with specific limits for each type of coating, and a general limit applic able to all other coatings.

• 

### Lower VOC limits for mo st coating categories.

The proposed control measure will evaluate the information from CARB’s SCM and propose amendments to Rule 2.26.

Emission Inventory –2018

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018

230-218-9000-0000 Coatings 0.0907

230-218-9050-0000 Topcoats 0.0809

230-240-8300-0000 Thinning and Cleanup Solvents 0.0169

Total 0.1885



### Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018 Automotive Refinishing 2008 2009-2010 0.0581Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Automotive Refinishing YSAQMD-2.26 Page C-101 

### Cost Effectiveness



### The SCM staff report calculates that the annualized cost to for facilities with a single

booth with no heater and an annual revenue le ss than $1 million, to be $1,648 (Page C5). The cost includes upgrades to existing air moving/heating equi pment, the purchasing of new application equipment, and worker training. This co st has been annualized over 15 years for major non-recurring costs, over 5 years for all other costs, and then adjusted for capitol cost recovery. The SC M estimates the recurring costs of equipment operation and maintenance, and the increased coating cost s, to be $533 per year. Therefore, the total annual cost to facilitie s is estimated to be $2,181. Adjusting for inflation in 2008, the annual co st becomes $2,344.58. Current ly there are 80 permitted sources that will be affected by this pr oposed control measure. The annual ROG

emission reductions have been ca lculated using the emission inventory estimates over a 5 day per week and 52 weeks per year operational schedule.

Year 2018 Lifetime Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) ROG $11,643



### Total Cost: 

### $2,637,647 over 15 years (2008)

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the YSAQMD.

References



### 1. California Environmental Protection Agenc y – Air Resources Board, Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings ; October 2005. 2. Forecasted Emissions by Summary Ca tegory Ozone SIP Plan ning Projections -
v1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006. 3. Yolo-Solano Air Quality M anagement District, Rule 2.26, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operation ; August 13, 1997.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning Page C-102 

# Degreasing/ Solvent CleaningSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning SMAQMD-454/466 Page C-103 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 454/466

Control Measure Title: Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning

Date: December 8, 2006

Control Measure Description



### Degreasing and solvent cleaning operations are performed by many commercial and
industrial facilities. Solvents are used for su rface preparation for further processing and cleaning after manufacturing. Degreasing is widely used by automotive repair and maintenance facilities and by electr ic apparatus and electronic component manufacturing or repair, construction trades , printing shops, me tal parts and products, can coating, and other types of commercial and manufacturing faci lities. Solvents are also used by coating operations for cleaning of coating application equipment such as spray guns and brushes.

This measure will consider lowering VOC content limits in several SMAQMD rules. Staff

will consider lower limits that have been im plemented by the South Coast district. Any of the following SMAQMD rules may be affected by this proposed control measure if lower
limits are feasible and cost effective in Sacramento:

Cold Cleaning/Degreasing

• 

### Rule 454, Degreasing Operations

Handwiping

• 

### Rule 464, Organic Chemical s Manufacturing Operations

• 

### Rule 465, Polyester Resin Operations

• 

### Rule 466, Solvent Cleaning

Thinning/cleanup solvents

• 

### Rule 450, Graphic Arts Operations

• 

### Rule 451, Surface Coating Of Miscellaneous Metal Parts And Products

• 

### Rule 452, Can Coating

• 

### Rule 456, Aerospace Assembly And Component Coating Operations

• 

### Rule 463, Wood Products CoatingsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning SMAQMD-454/466 Page C-104 

### Emission Inventory – 2018

ROG Planning Inventory (Tons/day) EIC Code EIC Description

2018

220-204-0500-0000 Cold Cleaning – Petroleum Naptha 0.5219

220-204-3022-0000 Cold Cleaning – Alcohols (Unspecified) 0.0156

220-204-3083-0000 Cold Cleaning – Chlo rofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0035

220-204-3176-0000 Cold Cleaning – Glycol Ethers (Unspecified) 0.001

220-204-3202-0000 Cold Cleaning – Isopropanol 0.0011

220-204-3204-0000 Cold Cleaning – Ketones (Unspecified) 0.0006

220-204-3333-0000 Cold Cleaning – Terpenes (Unspecified) 0.0081

220-204-3339-0000 Cold Cleaning – Toluene/Xylene 0.0005

220-204-8104-0000 Cold Cleaning – Degreas ing Solvents – Pure (Unspecified) 0.0002

220-204-8106-0000 Cold Cleaning – Degreas ing Solvents – Blends (Unspecified) 0.071

220-206-3083-0000 Vapor Degreaser – Chlorofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0019

220-206-3107-0000 Vapor Degreaser – Dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141B) 0.0002

220-206-3301-0000 Vapor Degreaser – Perfluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0004

220-206-3346-0000 Vapor Degreaser – Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.0022

220-208-0500-0000 Handwiping – Petroleum Naphtha 0.0824

220-208-3022-0000 Handwiping – Alcohols (Unspecified) 0.0373

220-208-3083-0000 Handwiping – Chlorofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0004

220-208-3176-0000 Handwiping – Glycol Ethers (Unspecified) 0.0078

220-208-3204-0000 Handwiping – Ketones (Unspecified) 0.0283

220-208-3333-0000 Handwiping – Terpenes (Unspecified) 0.0002

220-208-3339-0000 Handwiping – Toluene/Xylene 0.0073

220-208-3346-0000 Handwiping – Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.0007

220-208-8104-0000 Handwiping – Degreasi ng Solvents- Pure (Unspecified) 0.0054

220-208-8106-0000 Handwiping – Degreasi ng Solvents –Blends (Unspecified) 0.0172

230-216-8350-0000 Coatings – Prep aration Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0035

230-240-8300-0000 Coatings – Thinni ng and Cleanup Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0042

230-240-8302-0000 Coatings – Thinning Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0007

230-240-8350-0000 Coatings – Cl eanup Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0039

240-240-3202-0000 Printing – Thinni ng and Cleanup Solvents – Isopropanol 0.0479

240-240-3314-0000 Printing – Thinning and Cleanup Solvents – N-Propanol 0.0035

240-240-8302-0000 Printing – Thi nning Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0028

240-995-8000-0000 Printing – Solvents (Unspecified) 0.8619

299-995-8000-0000 Coatings – Other Solvents (Unspecified) 0.0027

520-522-8300-0000 Architectural Coatings – Thinning and Cleanup Solvents 0.4651

Total 2.2114



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reductions (Tons/day) EIC Description Adoption date Implementation Date

2018

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning Ca tegories 2008 2010-2011 0.5937Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning SMAQMD-454/466 Page C-105 

### Cost Effectiveness



### The overall cost effectiveness estimates for th is control measure by individual rule are

shown in the table below.

Rule Cost Effectiveness 450 – Graphic Arts Operations $3.70 per lb. of VOC reduced 451 – Surface Coating of Misc. Metal

Parts and Products Cost savings

456 – Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations Cost savings

466 – Solvent Cleaning $3.70 per lb. of VOC reduced Other Degreasing/Solvent Rules No additional costs



### Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the SMAQMD.

References



### 1. Sacramento Area Regional 2002 Milestone Report, Contro l Profiles Appendix, May

2003. 2. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006.
3. Control Measure Calcul ation Spreadsheet, SMAQMD – 454/466, December 12,

2006.
4. SMAQMD Draft Staff R eport on Amendments to Degrea sing/Solvent Rules, March 28, 2008, posted on SMAQMD websit e under recently proposed rules and regulations: www.air quality.org/rules/Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning EDCAQMD-225/235 Page C-106 

### Control Measure Number: EDCAQMD – 225/235

Control Measure Title: Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning

Date: May 20, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the volati le organic compound (VOC) content in solvents used for degreasing and surface preparation in many commercial and industrial facilities. Solvents are used for surface prepar ation for further processing and cleaning after manufacturing. Degreasing is widel y used by automotive repair and maintenance facilities and by other types of co mmercial and manufacturing facilities.

The existing Rule 225-Solvent Cleaning Operations was adop ted on September 27,
1994 and Rule 235-Surface Preparation and Cleanup wa s adopted on June 27, 1995. Placer County Air Pollution Control Dist rict (PCAPCD) and Sacr amento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) have revised their degreasing rules and their solvent cleaning rules in re cent years to replace general solvent cleaning with aqueous cleaners or exempt solvent cleaners. This control measure would adopt similar measures in El Dorado County.

Emission Inventory –2018

ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Code EIC Description

2018

220-204-0500-0000 COLD CLEANING-PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 0.0770
220-204-3022-0000 COLD CLEANING-ALCOHOLS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0019

220-204-3083-0000 COLD CLEANING-CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0002

220-204-3333-0000 COLD CLEANING-TERPENES (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0010

220-204-8106-0000 COLD CLEANING-DEGREASING SOLVENTS-BLENDS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0076

Total Cold Cleaning 0.0877

220-208-0500-0000 WIPE-PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 0.0138

220-208-3022-0000 WIPE -ALCOHOLS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0062

220-208-3176-0000 WIPE –GLYCOL ETHERS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0010
220-208-3204-0000 WIPE - KETONES (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0041

220-208-3339-0000 WIPE –TOLUENE/XYLENE 0.0005

220-208-8104-0000 WIPE -DEGREASING SOLVENTS-PURE (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0005

220-208-8106-0000 WIPE -DEGREASING SOLVENTS-BLENDS (UNSPECIFIED) 0.0025 Total Wipe 0.0286

Total 0.1163



### Emission Reductions

EIC Description Adoption

date Implementation

Date ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day

2018 Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Categories 2013 2015 0.0764Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning EDCAQMD-225/235 Page C-107 

### Cost Effectiveness



### The proposed VOC limits are already in place in a number of air di stricts. Based on the PCAPCD staff reports for their rules, the cost impact of changing from solvent based cleaners to aqueous based cleaners is minimal. These cost-effectiveness estimates will be used as representative of t he economic relationships of s uppliers and users within El Dorado County.

Authority



### The above control measure will be implement ed by amendment to the existing Rule 225 and Rule 235. The El Dorado Air Quality Management District has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the Distri ct Board for adopti on under HSC 40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the El Dorado Count y Air Quality Management District.

References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (RF#980 November 16, 2006) 2. PCAPCD Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 240-Surf ace Cleaning and Degreasing, dated December 11, 2003 3. PCAPCD Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 216-Organi c Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations , dated December 11, 2003
4. Control Measure 215 Calculation Spreadsheet, SMAQMD, January 30, 2007
5. Control Measure EDCA QMD – 225, January 30, 2007
6. Control Measure EDCA QMD – 235, January 30, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning FRAQMD-3.14 Page C-108 

### Control Measure Number: FRAQMD - 3.14

Control Measure Title: Solvent Degreasing

Date: February 2, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Degreasing and solvent cleaning operations are performed by many commercial and
industrial facilities. Solvents are used for su rface preparation for further processing and cleaning after manufacturing. Degreasing is widely used by automotive repair and maintenance facilities and by electr ic apparatus and electronic component manufacturing or repair, construction trades , printing shops, me tal parts and products, can coating, and other types of commercial and manufacturing faci lities. Solvents are also used by coating operations for cleaning of coating application equipment such as spray guns and brushes.

The existing Rule 3.14- Solvent Degreasin g was adopted in June 1991. Both Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Sacram ento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) have revised their degreasing and surface preparation and cleanup rules in recent years to replace general solvent cleaning with aqueous cleaners or exempt solvent cleaners. This control measure will evaluate implementing similar limits in Sutter and Yuba Counties if they are feasible and cost
effective.

Emission Inventory –2018



### The population growth rate in South Sutter is purely based on the cu rrent Sutter County population growth rate projected by SACOG. The potential growth of proposed South Sutter Specific Plan (now called Sutter Poin te Specific Plan) is not factored in.

ROG Planning Inventory (Tons/day) EIC Code EIC Description 2018 220-204-0500-0000 Cold Cleaning – Petroleum Naptha 0.0069
220-208-0500-0000 Handwiping – Petroleum Naphtha 0.0007

Total 0.0076



### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission reductions (Tons/day) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018 Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning <2012 <2012 0.0006Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning FRAQMD-3.14 Page C-109 

### Cost Effectiveness



### Based on the Placer County Air Pollution C ontrol District staff report for Rule 216- Organic Solvent Cleaning and De greasing Operations, the cost impact of changing from solvent based cleaners to aqueous based cleaners is minimal.

Authority



### The above control measure will be implem ented by amendment to the existing Rule 3.14 Solvent Degreasing. The Feather Rive r Air Quality Management District has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC

40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the Feat her River Air Quality Management District.

References



### 1. California ARB Forecasted Emissi ons by Summary Category, Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA Projec tions (v1.06_RF980) www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ 03sip/fcemssumcat_03v1.06.php . November 16, 2006 2. Placer County Air Polluti on Control District Staff Repor t for Rule 216, December 11,

2003 3. Control Measure, FRAQ MD 3.14, February 2, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cl eaning YSAQMD-2.24/2.31 Page C-110 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.24/2.31

Control Measure Title: General Su rface Preparation/Cl eanup and Degreasing

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Degreasing and solvent cleaning operations are performed by many commercial and
industrial facilities. Solvents are used for su rface preparation for further processing and cleaning after manufacturing. Degreasing is widely used by automotive repair and maintenance facilities and by electr ic apparatus and electronic component manufacturing or repair, construction trades , printing shops, me tal parts and products, can coating, and other types of commercial and manufacturing faci lities. Solvents are also used by coating operations for cleaning of coating application equipment such as spray guns and brushes.

The proposed control measure c onsists of the District revising the ROG limits of Rule

2.13 1 

### (Organic Solvents), Rule 2.24 2 

### (Solvent Cleaning Operations - Degreasing), and

Rule 2.31 3 

### (Surface Preparation and Cleanup) to match t he ROG limits currently feasible and required by S outh Coast AQMD’s Rule 1122 4 

### (Solvent Degreasers) and

Rule 1171 5 

### (Solvent Cleaning Operations). It is expected that most of the ROG-content

limits will be reduced to 25 grams per liter (g/L).

Emission Inventory – 2018

ROG Planning Inventory (Tons/day) EIC Code EIC Description 2018

22020405000000 0500-Petroleum Naphtha 0.4243

22020430220000 3022-Alcohols (Unspecified) 0.0089

22020430830000 3083-Chlorofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0006

22020431760000 3176-Glycol Ethers (Unspecified) 0.0008

22020432040000 3204-Ketones (Unspecified) 0.0003

22020433330000 3333-Terpenes (Unspecified) 0.0035

22020481060000 8106-Degreasing Solvents - Blends (Unspecified) 0.0265

22020630830000 3083-Chlorofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0005

22020633460000 3346-Trichloroethylene (Tce) 0.0004

22020805000000 0500-Petroleum Naphtha 0.0359

22020830220000 3022-Alcohols (Unspecified) 0.0193

22020830830000 3083-Chlorofluorocarbons (Unspecified) 0.0000

22020831760000 3176-Glycol Ethers (Unspecified) 0.0039

22020832040000 3204-Ketones (Unspecified) 0.0145

22020833390000 3339-Toluene/xylene 0.0035

22020833460000 3346-Trichloroethylene (Tce) 0.0004

22020881040000 8104-Degreasing Solvents - Pure (Unspecifie d 0.0029

22020881060000 8106-Degreasing Solvents - Blends (Unspecified) 0.0087

Total 0.5549Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Degreasing/Solvent Cl eaning YSAQMD-2.24/2.31 Page C-111 

### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018
Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning 2008 2009 0.762



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness for this control me thod varies depending on the type of cleaning being performed. Cost analysis was performed for each solvent cleaning application (e.g., electrical parts, architectural coat ings application equipm ent). Switching to
cleaners with lower VOC content would result in either cost decreases or increases, depending on the particular appli cation. The costs are expe cted to range from a cost savings to $6.60/lb across the different applic ations. The overall cost effectiveness for this proposal is estimated at $2,398 per ton of VOC reduced.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the YSAQMD.

References



### 1. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Rule 2.13, Organic Solvents ; May 25,

1994. 2. ..., Rule 2.24, Solvent Cl eaning Operations (Degreasing) ; August 13, 1997. 3. ..., Rule 2.31, Surf ace Preparation and Cleanup ; August 13,1997. 4. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1122, Solvent Degreasers ; October 1, 2004. 5. ..., Rule 1171, Solv ent Cleaning Operations ; May 6, 2005. 6. California Environmental Protection Ag ency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - v1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Graphic Arts Page C-112 

# Graphic ArtsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Graphic Arts YSAQMD-2.29 Page C-113 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.29

Control Measure Title: Graphic Arts

Date: February 7, 2007

Control Measure Description



### VOC emissions from graphic art operations result from the evaporation of organic solvents in the inks, fountain solutions, and solvents used in the various types of printing processes. These operations produce a wide va riety of printed products that include books, magazines, newspapers, fliers, posters , and packaging materials. These various types of products require that facilities use very specific materials and printing methods. The different types of printing methods include lithography, flexography, gravure, and letterpress. Although the District’s graphic arts rule (Rule 2.29) contains specific screen printing requirements, for the purposes of t he SIP, the screen printi ng category will be grouped into the paper, fabric, and film coating category.

For certain lithographic and flexographic pr inting operations heatset inks are used. These viscous inks are cured using indirect hot air dryers that evaporate the ink solvents immediately after printing. In t he Yolo-Solano AQMD, smaller heatset presses are equipped with electric hot air or UV light dryers. However, the larger heatset presses are equipped with natur al gas fired dryers. Currently, only a single flexographic printing facility is permitted to use a Regener ative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) to control the ROG emissions from its operation. Becaus e no additional NOx controls are currently available for combustion devices being used as air pollution control equipment, NOx reductions associated with gr aphic arts operations will not be addressed in this control strategy.

The first proposed control measure in redu cing the ROG emissions would be to lower the District’s current rule exemption li mit from 400 pounds per month to 60 pounds per month. The second proposed co ntrol measure is to revise the Districts' various cleaning
solvent ROG limits to match the current Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD standards. The District’s ROG emission exemption is c ontained in Rule 2.29, Graphic Arts Printing Operations, while the allowa ble solvent limits are contai ned in District Rule 2.31, Solvent Preparation and Cleanup.

Emission Inventory –2018

ROG Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)

EIC Code EIC Description 2018

24099580000000 Solvent 0.125Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Graphic Arts YSAQMD-2.29 Page C-114 

### Emission Reductions

ROG Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018

Solvent 2010 2012 Not available Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District does not have enough data to quantify the

emission reduction.



### Cost Effectiveness



### Because of the various types of solvents cu rrently used in this wide source category and the unavailability of spec ific usage data, the Distri ct cannot perform a cost
effectiveness calculation for this control meas ure. However, it is expected that because of the availability of the compliant produc ts in the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the added costs associated with purc hasing and disposing of the ROG compliant materials will not greatly diffe r from the cost of t he currently compliant ROG products.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the YSAQMD.

References



### 1. California Environmental Protection Ag ency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - V1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006. 2. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality M anagement District, Rule 450, Graphic Arts Operations ; March 24, 2000. 3. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Rule 2. 29, Graphic Arts Printing Operations ; August 13, 1997. 4. Rule 2.31, Solvent Preparation and Cleanup ; August 13, 1997.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Page C-115 

# Miscellaneous Metal Parts and ProductsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products EDCAQMD-246 Page C-116 

### Control Measure Number: EDCAQMD - 246

Control Measure Title: Coatings of Miscellaneous Metal Parts

Date: May 20, 2008

Control Measure Description



### This control measure regulates the vola tile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied to metal parts and products . The control measure will have specific limits for coatings on metals which mirror th e Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG).

Emission Inventory – 2018

EIC Code ROG Planning Inventory Tons/day EIC Description

2018

230-230-9000-0000 METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS 0.0168

Total 0.0168



### Emission Reductions

EIC Description Adoption

date Implementation

Date ROG Emission Reduction Tons/day

2018 Metal Parts Coating Categories 2009 2009 0.0027



### Cost Effectiveness



### The proposed VOC limits are already in place in a number of air districts. Based on wide availability of compliant coatings, the cost impact of changing to lower VOC coatings is minimal. These cost-effectivene ss estimates will be used as representative of the economic relationships of supplie rs and users within El Dorado County.

Authority



### The above control measure will be implemen ted by adopting the new Rule 246 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Pa rts and Products. The El Do rado Air Quality Management District has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC 40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the El Dorado Count y Air Quality Management District.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products EDCAQMD-246 Page C-117 

### References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (RF#980 November 16, 2006)
2. Control Measure EDCA QMD - 246, January 30, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products PCAPCD-CM3 Page C-118 

### Control Measure Number: PCAPCD - CM3

Control Measure Title: Miscella neous Metal Parts and Products

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This category is comprised of VOC emissi ons from the coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products including si gns, storage and trash contai ners, door frames, window frames, panels, metal cabinets, caskets and various other metal coating operations.
VOC emissions from the surfac e coating operations result from the evaporation of the organic solvents used in the coatings. Thes e emissions occur in a number of places during the operation, includ ing surface preparation and cl eanup, application of the coating, drying of the par ts, and cleanup of the applicatio n equipment. This control measure will only address the VO C emissions from the coat ing process. The surface preparation and cleanup VOC emissions are addressed under other measures.

Staff evaluated the miscellaneous metal parts and products VOC limits that are included in EPA’s Control Technique Guide line for Metal Parts and Products.

Emission Inventory – 2018

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018

230-230-9000-0000 Metal Parts And Products Coating 0.0405



### Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018

Metal Parts And Products Coating 2009 2009 0.014



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness for this measure has not been determined. Other VOC rules

within the nonattainment ar ea have ranged in cost effect iveness from $110 - $8,330 per

ton of VOC reduced.

Authority



### The Placer County Air pollution Control Dist rict has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC 40001.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products PCAPCD-CM3 Page C-119 

### Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the Placer County Air pollution Control District.

References



### 1. California ARB Forecasted Emissi ons by Summary Category, Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA Projections (v1.06_RF980) www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ 03sip/fcemssumcat_03v1.06.php . November 16, 2006
2. CARB’s Areawide Source Methodologies, Industrial Coatings, Updated February 1990; Reissued October 1997 3. Control Measure, PC APCD CM3, February 5, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Natural Gas Production and Processing Page C-120 

# Natural Gas Production and ProcessingSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Natural Gas Production and Processing SMAQMD-461 Page C-121 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 461

Control Measure Title: Natural Gas Production and Processing

Date: December 8, 2006

Control Measure Description



### There are several natural gas production fi elds within Sacramento County. Fugitive
emissions of VOC from natur al gas production occur from equipment leaks in valves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, flanges, and threaded connections at gas

wells and associated trans mission systems. The proposed control measure would establish inspection and repair requi rements for leaking components or other requirements to achieve similar results.

Emission Inventory – 2018

VOC Planning Inventory (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018 310-302-1600-0000 Oil and Gas Production Fugitive Losses - Valves 0.3279 310-304-1600-0000 Oil and Gas Production Fugitive Losses - Fittings 0.1348 310-306-1600-0000 Oil and Gas Production Fugitive Losses - Pumps 0.0005 310-308-1600-0000 Oil and Gas Production Fugitive Losses - Compressors 0.0014

Total 0.4646



### Note: The inventory in the above table is based on the current CARB planning inventory. However, the Dist rict conducted a survey of natural gas producers in 2004 that produced an emission estimate of only 0.161 tons/day from fugitive components.

Emission Reductions

VOC Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018 Fugitive Emissions – Oil and Gas

Production 2011 2012 0.116-0.334



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness of the leak detec tions and repair program was estimated by
CARB in the 1993 RACT determination docu ment at $3.70 per pound in 1989 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, this is equiva lent to $11,900 per ton in 2006 dollars.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Natural Gas Production and Processing SMAQMD-461 Page C-122 

### Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the SMAQMD.

References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006 2. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissi on Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017, U.S. EPA,

November 1995.
3. Determination of Reasonab ly Available Control Tec hnology for the Control of Fugitive Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Oil and Gas Production and Processing Facilities, Refi neries, Chemical Plants, an d Pipeline Transfer Stations, California Air Resources Board, December 1993. 4. Control Measure, SMAQ MD – 461, December 8, 2006Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

NOx Control Measures Page C-123 

# NOx Control MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Asphalt Concrete Page C-124 

# Asphalt ConcreteSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Asphalt Concrete SMAQMD-471 Page C-125 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 471

Control Measure Title: Asphaltic Concrete

Date: December 11, 2006

Control Measure Description



### Asphaltic concrete, or hot-mix pavement material, is produced in both continuous and batch plants; some of the latter are portabl e. The process involv es heating aggregate in a rotary dryer to approximately 300 °F and mixing it with melted asphalt cement refined from petroleum. This measure targets NOx emissions from the burners used to heat the dryer. NOx emissions also come from heat ers used to melt asphalt cement, and from stationary internal combustion engines.

The control of dryer NOx emissions may be accomplished by controlling the burners used to heat the dryer. Nearly all plants in the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) are fired with natural gas . The concentration of NOx discharged from uncontrolled bur ners is typically over 100 part s per million, volumetric dry (ppmvd) @ 3% O2, or about 0.016 pounds per ton. This measure will consider the use of low NOx burners and flue gas recircul ation (FGR) to reduce these emissions. A similar control measure (Rule 4309 – Drye rs, Dehydrators, and Ovens) was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD and applies to dryers at asphaltic concrete plants.

Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measure (tpd)

EIC Code EIC Description 2018

430-424-7006-0000 Asphaltic Concrete Production 0.2087



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Asphaltic Concrete Production 2012 2014 0.1326



### Cost Effectiveness



### In the December 15, 2005 staff report for Rule 4309. San Joaquin dist rict staff estimated
the cost effectiveness of NOx controls fo r asphaltic concrete plants to range from $17,600 to $42,300 per ton of NO x reduced. Cost effectiveness in the SMAQMD is expected to be similar.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Asphalt Concrete SMAQMD-471 Page C-126 

### Authority



### Authority to implement this control measur e by the SMAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r Quality Management Distri ct is the implementing

agency.

References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.0, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006. 2. Control Measure, SMAQ MD 471, September 14, 2006.
3. Best Available Control Te chnology Guidelines, Part D: BACT Guidelines for NonMajor Polluting Facilities. South Coast Ai r Quality Management Di strict. October 20, 2000 (Revised July 9, 2004). 4. San Joaquin Valley Unifi ed Air Pollution Control Distric t. Final Draft Staff Report for Rule 4309 (Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens). December 15, 2005. 5. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. May 2006.
6. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Office of Air Q uality Planning and Standards. Control Cost Manual, Fourth Edition (EPA 450/3-90-006). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangl e Park, North Carolina. January 1990.

7. Emission Factor Docum entation for AP-42 Section 11 .1, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Final Report. RTI Internati onal. Prepare for: U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Pa rk, NC. February 2004. 8. Employer Costs for Employee Compensati on -- March 2006, Table 9, All workers in private industry, installation, maintenance, and repair. June 21, 2006 9. Average Retail Price of Electricity by End-Use Sector. Energy Information Administration. Washington, D.C. Accesse d August 16, 2006. Internet Address: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri city/epm/epmxlfile5_6_b.xls. 10. Natural Gas Prices. Energy Information Administration. Washington, D.C. Accessed August 16, 2006. Internet Address: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav /ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SCA_m.htm.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Asphalt Concrete PCAPCD-CM1 Page C-127 

### Control Measure Number: PCAPCD - CM1

Control Measure Title: Asphalt Concrete Production

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Asphaltic concrete, or hot-mix pavement material, is produced in both continuous and batch plants; some of the latter are portabl e. The process involv es heating aggregate in a rotary dryer to approximately 300 °F and mixing it with melted asphalt cement refined from petroleum. Most of the NOx emissions are from the bur ners used to heat the dryer,
and those are the NOx emissions targeted by this control m easure. Some ancillary NOx
emissions come from heaters used to melt asphalt cement, and from stationary internal combustion engines.

The control of dryer NOx emissions may be accomplished by controlling the burners used to heat the dryer. All the plants in t he Placer County are fired with natural gas. The concentration of NOx discharge d from uncontrolled burners is typically over 100 parts per million, volumetric dry (ppmvd), or about 0.016 pounds per t on. Use of low NOx burners and flue gas recirculation (FGR) is able to reduce these emissions to as low as 30 ppmvd. There is little to no fuel penalty as a result of these controls, but a reduction in burner capacity of up to 20 percent may be required to avoid fl ame impingement on the inner surfaces of the dryer. This could re sult in lost production for plants when they are producing at close to their rated capacit ies. In order to co ntrol NOx emissions, plants must be retrofitted wi th low NOx burners and FGR.

Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)

EIC Code EIC Description 2018

430-424-7006-0000 Asphaltic Concrete Production 0.0624



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction (tpd)
EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018 Asphaltic Concrete

Production 2013 2014 0.0364



### Cost Effectiveness



### It is assumed that the equipment has a 20 year life, an intere st rate of 3%, and the cost of running two plants in Placer County is $360,000. The estimated cost effectiveness is $5,675/ton of NOx reduced.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Asphalt Concrete PCAPCD-CM1 Page C-128 

### Authority



### California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 40702

Implementation



### The Placer County Air Poll ution Control District is the implementing agency.

References



### 1. References are shown in footnotes.
2. Draft Final Sacramento Off-road Meas ures, Control Measure SN-59, Asphalt
Concrete Production , Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, October 14, 2003. 3. “ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SIP Pl anning Projections
v1.06 RF #980”. www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv /0#sip/fcemssumcat_0#v106.php

. November 16, 2006. 4. Control Measure, PC APCD CM1, February 7, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters
Page C



### - 129 

# Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process HeatersSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters YSAQMD-2.27
Page C



### - 130 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.27

Control Measure Title: Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters/Space

Heaters

Date: February 6, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Boilers and steam generators ar e used to provide hot water and steam for a variety of industrial and commercial applications. These applications include space heating, food processing, garment launderin g, and equipment sterilization. Manufacturing operations use process heaters to heat materials or eq uipment during the manufacturing process. The equipment burners can be fired on solid, liquid or gas eous fuels. A unit’s maximum input rating can be calculated from the fuel heat input value over an hour’s time and is reported in British Thermal Un its per hour (MMBTU/hr). Pe r regulatory convention, the emissions from these types of units are re ported in parts per million (ppm) corrected to 3% oxygen (O 2 

### ).

The proposed control measure consists of t he District amending Ru le 2.27 (Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters) to incorporate a multi-tiered NOx emission limit.

Emission Inventory - 2018

EIC Code EIC Description NOx Planning Inventory (tpd)

2018

5000501100000 Manufacturing and Industrial Boilers, Natural Gas Fuel 0.0302

5001001100000 Manufacturing and Industrial Boilers, Propane Fuel 0.0068

5099501100000 Manufacturing and Industrial Process Heaters, Natural Gas

Fuel 0.8936

5200501100000 Manufacturing and Industrial Proc ess Heaters, Distillate Oil

Fuel 0.141

5201001100000 Manufacturing and Industrial Oven Heaters (Forced Drying Surface Coatings), Natural Gas Fuel 0.0217 6000501100000 Manufacturing and Industrial, Other, Natural Gas Fuel 0.1428 6001001100000 Manufacturing and Industrial, Other, LPG Fuel 0.0078 6099501100000 Food and Agricultural Process Boilers, Natural Gas Fuel 0.6945 31035601100000 Food and Agricultural Proc ess Heaters, Natural Gas Fuel 0.0099

Total 1.9483



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction Tons/day EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018

Boilers 2010 2012 0.2883Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters YSAQMD-2.27
Page C



### - 131 

### Cost Effectiveness



### From an analysis performed by the Sa cramento Metropolitan AQMD in 2003 2 

### , the cost for boiler retrofits will vary on the size, the type, and the age of an individual unit. It is expected that some of the ol der units that have reached the end of their service lives may be replaced instead of being retrofi tted with low-NOx equipment or postcombustion controls. Based on this analysi s, the cost of equipment modifications ranged from $12,664 - $23,359 per ton of NOx reduced. Ad justed for inflation, the expected cost in 2007 will be $13,934 - $25,718.

Total Cost: 

### $17,924,227 - $33,061,593 over a 15 y ear equipment useful life (2007).

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implement ed by the YSAQMD through Rule 2.27.

References



### 1. California Environmental Protection Ag ency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - v1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006. 2. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualit y Management District, Final Draft –
Sacramento Off-Road Measures: Boile rs, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters/Space Heaters , October 14, 2003.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines
Page C



### - 132 

# IC EnginesSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines SMAQMD-412
Page C



### - 133 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 412

Control Measure Title: IC Engines

Date: December 7, 2006

Control Measure Description



### Internal combustion (IC) engines are used at a wide variety of stationary sources including hospitals, farms, and natural gas fields. Approximatel y 93% of the engines currently permitted with the district are designated as em ergency standby engines that only operate for maintenance and emergency pur poses. These engines are in place to provide backup power or operate fire pum ps while prime power ed engines could be used continuously.

IC engines are typically classified by the method in which the fuel is ignited. Compression ignited engines are diesel fu eled and are typically used as emergency standby engines and in agricul tural operations. Spark igni ted engines can use natural gas, propane, gasoline, or other fuels as source of energy. Ty pically, natural gas is used in prime powered spark ignit ed engines where most of t he prime powered engines are used in the process of natural gas compre ssion. Spark ignited engines can be further classified as rich or lean burn depending upon t he amount of air that is mixed with the fuel before it is ignited.

The pollutants that are creat ed during the combustion proc ess that are of primary concern for the District are NOx, CO, and VOC. Some of the standard methods for controlling these pollutants fr om IC engines include selective and non-selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion tec hnologies, NOx absorbers, and engine replacement. Additionally, dies el particulate matter (PM), which has been identified as a carcinogen and an air toxic contaminant, is a large concern, but has primarily been
addressed in the State’s air toxic control measure for co mpression ignited engine PM.

The proposed control measure would estab lish emission standar ds for stationary engines.

This control measure will not be addressing engines used in agricultural processes. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) es tablished new standards in the diesel engine particulate air toxic control measure (ATCM) for engines used in agricultural processes. CARB has stated that the anticipated met hod of compliance to meet their newly proposed standards is replacem ent with EPA certified Ti er 3 or 4 engines. The proposed amendments to the AT CM will also require the replacement engine to
maintain the NOx standards fo r that particular Tier engine. Therefore, additional local control measures would likely duplicate the st ate measure.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines SMAQMD-412
Page C



### - 134 

### Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory
for Control Measures (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description

2018 010-040-0142-0000 IC Engines, Electric Utilities - Landfill Gas 0.1098 030-040-0100-0000 IC Engines, Oil and Gas Production – Gaseous Fuel (Unspecified) 0.0773 050-040-0110-0000 IC Engines, Mfg. and Industrial - Natural Gas 0.5616 050-040-0124-0000 IC Engines, Mfg. and Industrial – Propane 0 050-040-1200-0000 IC Engines, Mfg. and Industrial – Diesel 0.0443 052-042-0110-0000 IC Engines, Food and Ag Processing - Natural Gas 0.1119 052-042-1200-0000 IC Engines, Food and Ag Processing – Diesel 0.2313 060-040-0110-0000 IC Engines, Service and Commercial - Natural Gas 0.0114 060-040-1200-0000 IC Engines, Service and Commercial – Diesel 0.0179
099-040-1200-0000 IC Engines, Other – Diesel 0.3914

Total 1.5569



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

IC Engines 2011 2013 0.0131



### Cost Effectiveness



### In estimating cost effectiveness, staff assu med that all spark i gnited engines would either upgrade or insta ll new non-selective catalytic redu ction (NSCR) systems, which is the most cost effective option for meeting BARCT standards. Additionally, staff assumes that the method of compliance for prime power diesel engines is to electrify. Staff estimates that by electrifying this dies el engine there will be a cost savings of approximately $5,000 annually. Fo r all other engines affected by this rule, including capital, testing, and operatio nal costs, the total cost effectiveness of the control measure is approximately $11, 500 per ton of NOx reduced.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implemented by the SMAQMD.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines SMAQMD-412
Page C



### - 135 

### References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006
2. CARB November 2001 Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology

and Best Available Retr ofit Control Technology for Stat ionary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines 3. Section 93115, Title 17 of the California Code of Regu lations, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines
4. South Coast AQMD Rule 1110.2 5. San Joaquin Valley Un ified APCD Rule 4702 6. Ventura County APCD Rule 74.9 7. Control Measure, SMAQ MD 412, December 7, 2006Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines FRAQMD-3.22
Page C



### - 136 

### Control Measure Number: FRAQMD - 3.22

Control Measure Title: Stationary Intern al Combustion Engines (Non-Agricultural)

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Internal combustion (IC) engines are in plac e at a wide variety of stationary sources. Use times range from a few hours a month fo r emergency standby engines to full-time for engines that are used as prime pow er. Standby engines tend to have small horsepower ratings (under 300) and may be in pl ace to operate fire pumps or to provide backup power in case of an electrical outage, while engines that provide prime power are larger (often over 600 hp) and usage may be constant.

The most common fuel type for emergency standby engines is diesel, and for prime power engines, natural gas. Other fuels such as propane, gasoline, and landfill gas are also used occasionally, depending on the engine application. Many of the natural gas engines are in remote locations and used to compress natural gas from natural gas wells. These engines can be either lean burn or rich burn. The po llutants of primary
concern that result from the combusti on process are NOx and CO; however, recent rulemaking efforts at the statewide leve l have focused on diesel PM, which has been identified as a carcinogen an d a toxic air contaminant. SO x and ROG also result from the combustion process.

The proposed control measure would establis h emission standards for non-agricultural stationary IC engines.

EIC Emission Inventory:

The population growth rate in South Sutter is purely based on the cu rrent Sutter County population growth rate projected by SACOG. The potential growth of proposed South Sutter Specific Plan (now called Sutter Poin te Specific Plan) is not factored in.

Emission Inventory - 2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)

EIC Code EIC Description 2018

060-995-1220-0000 Service and Commercial, Other,

Distillate 0.002 099-995-0000-0000 Fuel Combustion (other) 0.018

Total 0.020Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines FRAQMD-3.22
Page C



### - 137 

### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reductions (tpd)
EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation

Date 2018
IC Engines 2010 2011 0.0045



### Cost Effectiveness



### The cost effectiveness is estimated to be $11,500 per ton of NOx reduced.

Implementation



### The Feather River Air Quality Management District proposes to implement this rule in

2011.

Authority



### Feather River Air Quality Mana gement District has the author ity to regulating stationary internal combustion engines is within provis ions of the California Health and Safety
Code.

References



### 1. Placer County Air Pollution Control Dist rict Rule 242 Internal Combustion Engines 2. South Coast AQMD Rule 1110.2, Em issions from Gaseous and Liquid-Fueled Engines 3. San Joaquin 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan
4. Draft Final Sacramento Of f-road Measures, Control M easure D-20, Cogeneration/IC Engines , Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, October 14, 2003. 5. “ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SIP Planning Projections
v1.06 RF #980”. www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv /0#sip/fcemssumcat_0#v106.php

. November 16, 2006. 6. Control Measure, FRAQ MD 3.22, February 2, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines YSAQMD-2.32
Page C



### - 138 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.32

Control Measure Title: Stationary Internal Combustion (IC) Engines

Date: February 1, 2007

Control Measure Description



### Internal combustion (IC) engines are used at a wide variety of stationary sources including hospitals, farms, and natural gas fi elds. IC engines are typically classified by
the method in which the fuel is ignited. Compression ignit ed engines are diesel fueled and are typically used as emergency standby engines and in agri cultural operations. Spark ignited engines can use natural gas, pr opane, gasoline, or other fuels as source of energy. Typically, natural gas is used in prime powered spark ignited engines where most of the prime powered engines are used in the process of natural gas compression. Spark ignited engines can be further classi fied as rich or lean burn depending upon the
amount of air that is mixed with the fuel before it is ignited.

The pollutants that are creat ed during the combustion proc ess that are of primary concern for the District are NOx, CO, and VOC. Some of the standard methods for controlling these pollutants fr om IC engines include selective and non-selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion tec hnologies, NOx absorbers, and engine replacement. Additionally, dies el particulate matter (PM), which has been identified as a carcinogen and an air toxic contaminant, is a large concern, but has primarily been
addressed in the State’s air toxic control measure for co mpression ignited engine PM.

The proposed control measure benefits were calculated assuming changed applicability of Rule 2.32 (Stationary IC Engines) to incorporate the reduced NO x emission limits for the spark ignited rich burn and lean burn gaseous fired engines.

This control measure will not be addressing engines used in agricultural processes. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) es tablished new standards in the diesel engine particulate air toxic control measure (ATCM) for engines used in agricultural processes. CARB has stated that the anticipated met hod of compliance to meet their newly proposed standards is replacem ent with EPA certified Ti er 3 or 4 engines. The proposed amendments to the AT CM will also require the replacement engine to
maintain the NOx standards fo r that particular Tier engine. Therefore, additional local control measures would likely duplicate the st ate measure.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

IC Engines YSAQMD-2.32
Page C



### - 139 

### Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)

EIC Code EIC Description 2018 020-040-0110-0000 Cogeneration - Natural Gas 0.0092

030-040-0110-0000 Oil and Gas Production - Natural
Gas 0.2318

Total 0.241



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction (tpd) EIC Description Adoption

Date Implementation

Date 2018
IC Engines 2010 2011 0.1187



### Cost Effectiveness



### In estimating cost effectiveness, staff assu med that all spark i gnited engines would either upgrade or insta ll new non-selective catalytic redu ction (NSCR) systems, which is the most cost effective option for meeting BARCT standards. Additionally, staff assumes that the method of compliance for prime power diesel engines is to electrify. Staff estimates that by electrifying this dies el engine there will be a cost savings of approximately $5,000 annually. Fo r all other engines affected by this rule, including capital, testing, and operatio nal costs, the total cost effectiveness of the control measure is approximately $11, 500 per ton of NOx reduced.

Authority



### The District is authorized to adopt and am end rules and regulations by Health and Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, and 41010.

Implementation



### This control measure will be implement ed by the YSAQMD through Rule 2.32.

References



### 1. California Environmental Protection Ag ency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - v1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006.

2. Determination of Reas onably Available Control Tec hnology and Best Available Retrofit Technology for Stationary S park-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines ; November 2001.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters Page C



### - 140 

# Water HeatersSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters SMAQMD-414
Page C



### - 141 

### Control Measure Number: SMAQMD - 414

Control Measure Title: Water Heaters

Date: February 7, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure would evaluate low NOx emission standards for new boilers and water heaters within the heat input range of 75,000 to 1,000,000 Btu/ hr. At the current time, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Rule 414 (Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters) sets NO x emission standards fo r water heaters with rated capacities of less t han 75,000 Btu/hr. Likewise, SM AQMD Rule 411 (NOx from Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam Generators) se ts NOx standards for boilers with a rated heat capacity of 1,000, 000 Btu/hr and higher. This control measure addresses

boilers and water heaters that fall between the heat capacity ranges of Rule 414 and Rule 411 (i.e., from 75, 000 to 1,000,000 Btu/hr).

The heat input range addressed by this cont rol measure generally applies to small
commercial/industrial boilers and hot water heaters that predominant ly burn natural gas

and are used to heat water and generate steam. These units are used in a variety of applications, including in rest aurants, retail stores, schools, hotels and office buildings. The smaller units in this heat input range (i .e., <300,000 Btu/hr) use the natural draft created by combustion of natur al gas and air to transfer heat to the confined water and do not rely on fans or blowers to transpor t either air or combustion gases. These combustion units are known as “atmospheric” and are rather simple in their operation. The larger units in this heat input range (i.e., >300,000 Btu/ hr) usually resemble small boilers because water circulates through a seri es of water tubes or water jackets close to the flow of hot gases and are heated as the gases flow arou nd them. Burners on these units can be either atmospheric or forced draft.

Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description 2018
060-030-0110-0000 Service and Commercial Natural Gas Water Heating 0.3105

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Natural Gas Water Heating 1.5852

Total 1.8957



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Water Heaters 2009 2010-2012 1.1173Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters SMAQMD-414
Page C



### - 142 

### Cost Effectiveness



### Cost effectiveness was estimated based upon economic analyses conducted by the
SCAQMD for a similar measure.

It was assumed that the economic conditi ons for equipment dealers in Sacramento County do not differ signific antly than the economic conditi ons for equipment dealers in the South Cost area; therefor e, the estimated South Coast cost effectiveness values were assumed to be appropriate for Sacramento. SCAQMD Rule 1121 and 1146.2

amendments are not consider ed to be technology forcing and compliant heaters are already being manufactured and sold in the current consumer market.

Based on cost effectiveness information from the SCAQMD rules, the overall cost effectiveness for the proposed measur e is estimated to be $9,903/ton.

Authority



### Authority to implement this control measur e by the SMAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r Quality Management Distri ct is the implementing

agency.

References



### 1. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.04, Sacramento NAA (Rf#976), September 14, 2006. 2. Control Measure, SMAQ MD 414, September 14, 2006. 3. Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r Quality Management Distri ct Rule 414 (Natural GasFired Water Heaters). 4. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Man agement District Rule 411 (NOx from Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam Generators (Amended October 27, 2005). 5. South Coast Air Quality M anagement District Ru le 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Pr ocess Heaters) (Amended May 5, 2006). 6. South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct Rule 1121 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential Type, Natural Gas-Fir ed Water Heaters) (Amended September 3, 2004). 7. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict - Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Ni trogen from Large Water Heaters and Small

Boilers and Process Heaters), April 2006. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict - Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1121 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential Type, Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters), November 1999.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters EDCAQMD-239
Page C



### - 143 

### Control Measure Number: EDCAQMD - 239

Control Measure Title: Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters

Date: January 31, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure will evaluate low NO x limits for all new boilers and water heaters within a heat input range of less than 1,000,000 Btu/hr. At the current time, El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (E DCAQMD) Rule 239 (Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters) sets NOx emission standards for water heaters with rated capacities of less than 75,000 Btu/hr.

The heat input range addressed by this cont rol measure generally applies to small
commercial/industrial boilers and hot water heaters that predominant ly burn natural gas

and are used to heat water and generate steam. These units are used in a variety of applications, including in rest aurants, retail stores, schools, hotels and office buildings. The smaller units in this heat input range (i .e., <300,000 Btu/hr) use the natural draft created by combustion of natur al gas and air to transfer heat to the confined water and do not rely on fans or blowers to transpor t either air or combustion gases. These combustion units are known as “atmospheric” and are rather simple in their operation. The larger units in this heat input range (i.e., >300,000 Btu/ hr) usually resemble small boilers because water circulates through a seri es of water tubes or water jackets close to the flow of hot gases and are heated as the gases flow arou nd them. Burners on these units can be either atmospheric or forced draft.

Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)
EIC Code EIC Description 2018

060-995-0110-0000 Service and Commercial (Other) 0.011

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Natural Gas Water Heating 0.017

Total 0.028



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Water Heaters 2015 2016 0.0035



### Cost Effectiveness



### Based on the May 5, 2006 South Coast Air Q uality Management District Staff Report for Rule 1146.2 Measures, the cost effe ctiveness ranges from $2400-$16,000/ton of NO

x 

### reduced.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters EDCAQMD-239
Page C



### - 144 

### Authority



### The above control measure will be implement ed by amendment to the existing Rule 239
Natural Gas-Fired Residentia l Water Heaters. The El Dorado Air Quality Management District has the authority to propose rules and regulations to the District Board for adoption under HSC 40001.

Implementation



### The implementation of this proposed cont rol measure does not involve any other agency other than the El Dorado Count y Air Quality Management District.

References



### 1. California ARB Forecasted Emissi ons by Summary Category, Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA Projections (v1.06_RF980) www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ 03sip/fcemssumcat_03v1.06.php . November 16, 2006 2. South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct Staff Report for Rule 1146.2, May 5,

2006 3. Control Measure, E DCAQMD 239, January 31, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters FRAQMD-3.23
Page C



### - 145 

### Control Measure Number: FRAQMD - 3.23

Control Measure Title: Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure will evaluate low NO x limits for all new boilers and water heaters within the heat input range of 75,000 to 1,000,000 Btu/hr. This category includes small
commercial/industrial boilers and hot water heaters that predominat ely burn natural gas and are used to heat water and generate steam. These units are used to heat water or create steam for a variety of purposes. Users of these units inclu de restaurants, retail stores, schools, hotels and o ffice buildings. The smaller units in this size range (<300,000 Btu/hr) use the natural draft created by combustion of natural gas and air to
transfer heat to the confined water and do not re ly on fans or blowers to transport either air or combustion gases. These combusti on units are known as “atmospheric” and are rather simple in their operation. Units with heat inputs larger t han 300,000 Btu/hr usually resemble small boilers because water circulates through a series of water tubes or water jackets close to the flow of hot gas es and are heated as the gases flow around

them. Burners on these units can be either atmospheric or forced draft. Currently Sacramento, Yolo/Solano, and El Dorado all have rule s for natural gas fired water heaters that apply to units with a heat input of less than 75,000 Btu/ hr but do not have a rule for larger units in the size range for this measure.

Emission Inventory –2018



### The population growth rate in south Sutter is purely based on the current Sutter County population growth rate projected by SACOG. The potential growth of proposed South Sutter Specific Plan (now called Sutter Poin te Specific Plan) is not factored in.

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)
EIC Code EIC Description 2018

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Natural Gas Water Heating 0.0041



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Water Heaters 2016 2017 0.0001



### Cost Effectiveness



### Cost effectiveness is expected to r ange between $9,000 and $21, 308 per ton of NOx

reduced.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters FRAQMD-3.23
Page C



### - 146 

### Authority



### Feather River Air Quality Mana gement District has the author ity to regulating stationary internal combustion engines is within provis ions of the California Health and Safety
Code.

References



### 1. Sonoma Technology Method Summary for Commercial Gas Fuel Usage and Emissions, September 16, 2002 2. California Energy Commission 2000 natu ral gas database by natural gas usage and number of accounts by county and SIC code. 3. Staff Report, Rule 1146.2, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers, South Coast Air Quality Management District, January 9, 1998 4. Staff Report, Rule 74.11.1, Large Water Heaters and Small Boil ers, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, August 31, 1999 5. Staff Report, Rule 360, Emissions of Ox ides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers, Santa Bar bara County Air Pollution Cont rol District, October 17,

2002.
6. California ARB Forecasted Emissi ons by Summary Category, Ozone SIP Sacramento NAA Projections (v1.06_RF980) www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ 03sip/fcemssumcat_03v1.06.php . November 16, 2006 7. Control Measure, FRAQ MD 3.23, February 5, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters PCAPCD-CM2
Page C



### - 147 

### Control Measure Number: PCAPCD - CM2

Control Measure Title: Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers

Date: February 5, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure will evaluate low NO x limits for all new boilers and water heaters within the heat input range of 75,000 to 1,000,000 Btu/hr. This category includes small
commercial/industrial boilers and hot water heaters that predominat ely burn natural gas and are used to heat water and generate steam. These units are used to heat water or create steam for a variety of purposes. Users of these units inclu de restaurants, retail stores, schools, hotels and o ffice buildings. The smaller units in this size range (<300,000 Btu/hr) use the natural draft created by combustion of natural gas and air to
transfer heat to the confined water and do not re ly on fans or blowers to transport either air or combustion gases. These combusti on units are known as “atmospheric” and are rather simple in their operation. Units with heat inputs larger t han 300,000 Btu/hr usually resemble small boilers because water circulates through a series of water tubes or water jackets close to the flow of hot gas es and are heated as the gases flow around

them. Burners on these units can be either atmospheric or forced draft. Currently Sacramento, Yolo/Solano, and El Dorado all have rule s for natural gas fired water heaters that apply to units with a heat input of less than 75,000 Btu/ hr but do not have a rule for larger units in the size range for this measure.

Emission Inventory –2018

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd)
EIC Code EIC Description 2018

060-995-0110-0000 Service and Commercial (Other) 0.7827

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Natural Gas Water Heating 0.2055

Total 0.9882



### Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Residential Natural Gas Water Heating 2015 2017 0.030



### Cost Effectiveness



### The estimated cost effectiveness of th is measure is $2,300 - $21,309/ton of NOx

reduced.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters PCAPCD-CM2
Page C



### - 148 

### Authority



### California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 40702

Implementation



### The Placer County Air Poll ution Control District is the implementing agency.

References



### 1. SMAQMD Method Summary for natural gas consumption by commercial gas combustion categories by H ao Quinn, November 12, 2002. 2. Sonoma Technology Method Summary for Commercial Gas Fuel Usage and Emissions, September 16, 2002 3. California Energy Commission 2000 natu ral gas database by natural gas usage and number of accounts by county and SIC code. 4. Database query of stati onary fuel combustion and re sidential combustion from 7- 15-03 CEFS forecast output (provi ded by Larry Hunsaker, CARB).
5. Communication with Ali Mohamad of t he SMAQMD on July 24, 2003 to discuss SMAQMD staff report on Ru le 411, Boiler NOx.
6. Communication with Hao Quinn of t he SMAQMD on July 29, 2003 to determine
estimated fuel use and number of source s for large water heaters and small boilers. 7. Staff Report, Rule 1146.2, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers, South Coast Air Quality Management District, January 9, 1998 8. Staff Report, Rule 74.11.1, Large Water Heaters and Small Boil ers, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, August 31, 1999 9. Staff Report, Rule 360, Emissions of Ox ides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers, Santa Bar bara County Air Pollution Cont rol District, October 17,

2002. 10. Staff Report, Rule 411, NOx from Boile rs, Process Heaters and Steam Generators, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District, October 27, 2005. 11. CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), November 16, 2006. 12. Control Measure, PC APCD CM2, February 5, 2007Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters YSAQMD-2.37
Page C



### - 149 

### Control Measure Number: YSAQMD – 2.37

Control Measure Title: Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers

Date: February 1, 2007

Control Measure Description



### This control measure will evaluate low NO x limits for all new boilers and water heaters within the heat input range of 75,000 to 1, 000,000 Btu/hr. At the current time, YoloSolano Air Quality Management District ( YSAQMD) Rule 2.37 (Natural Gas Fired Residential Water Heaters) sets NOx emi ssion standards for water heaters with rated capacities of less than 75,000 Bt u/hr. This control measur e addresses boilers and water heaters that fall between the heat capacit y ranges of 75,000 to 1,000,000 Btu/hr.

The heat input range addressed by this cont rol measure generally applies to small
commercial/industrial boilers and hot water heaters that predominant ly burn natural gas

and are used to heat water and generate steam. These units are used in a variety of applications, including in rest aurants, retail stores, schools, hotels and office buildings. The smaller units in this heat input range (i .e., <300,000 Btu/hr) use the natural draft created by combustion of natur al gas and air to transfer heat to the confined water and do not rely on fans or blowers to transpor t either air or combustion gases. These combustion units are known as “atmospheric” and are rather simple in their operation. The larger units in this heat input range (i.e., >300,000 Btu/ hr) usually resemble small boilers because water circulates through a seri es of water tubes or water jackets close to the flow of hot gases and are heated as the gases flow arou nd them. Burners on these units can be either atmospheric or forced draft.

Emission Inventory –2018



### The Yolo-Solano planning emission inventory for water heaters is presented below for NOx and VOC, although this control meas ure pertains to NOx emissions, only.

NOx Inventory for Control Measures (tpd) EIC Code EIC Description

2018

052-005-0110-0000 Food and Agricultural Processing - Boilers 0.141

052-010-0110-0000 Food and Agricultural Processing - Process

Heaters 0.0217

060-005-0110-0000 Service and Commercial - Boilers 0.1428

060-010-0110-0000 Service and Commercial - Process Heaters 0.0078

060-995-0110-0000 Service and Commercial - Other 0.6945

310-356-0110-0000 Oil and Gas Production - Natural Gas Production 0.0099

610-608-0110-0000 Residential Fuel Combustion - Fuel Combustion - Water Heating 0.2322

610-995-0110-0000 Residential Fuel Combustion - Other 0.0419

Total 1.2918



### Emission ReductionsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Water Heaters YSAQMD-2.37
Page C



### - 150 NOx Emission Reductions (tpd) EIC Description Adoption Date Implementation Date

2018

Water Heaters 2009 2010 0.2403



### Cost Effectiveness



### Cost effectiveness was estimated based upon economic analyses conducted by the
SCAQMD for a similar measure.

It was assumed that the economic conditions for equipment dealers in the Yolo-Solano area do not differ significantly than the econom ic conditions for equipment dealers in the South Cost area; therefore, the estimated South Coast cost effectiveness values were assumed to be appropriate for Yolo -Solano. SCAQMD Rule 1121 and 1146.2

amendments are not consider ed to be technology forcing and compliant heaters are already being manufactured and sold in the current consumer market.

Based on cost effectiveness information from the SCAQMD rules, the overall cost effectiveness for the proposed measur e is estimated to be $9,903/ton.

Authority



### Authority to implement this control measur e by the SMAQMD is in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, and 41010.

Implementation



### The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District is the implementing agency.
References



### 1. California Environmental Protection A gency – Air Resources Board, Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category Ozone SI P Planning Projections - v1.06 RF#980 ; Date of Last Update: November 16, 2006.
2. Yolo-Solano Air Qualit y Management District, Rule 2.37, Natural Gas-Fired

Residential Water Heaters , November 9, 1994. 3. South Coast Air Quality M anagement District; Ru le 1146.2, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters , Mat 5,

2006. 4. Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r Quality Management District , Final Draft – Sacramento Off-Road Measures: Large Wate r Heaters and Small Boilers , October 14, 2003.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Further Study Measures
Page C



### - 151 

# Further Study MeasuresSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Further Study Measures
Page C



### - 152 Further Study Measures

Further study measures are measures for which insufficient information was available during the development of the control strategy to allow the region to commit to them as control measures. The adoption of further study measures requires full evaluations of emission data, cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, and authori ty for implementation. If the evaluations show that the measures are viable control measures, they will be considered for adoption and implementation.

This section includes the description of six further study measures. These measures are evaluated qualitatively for environmental impacts in this State Implementation Plan and will be evaluated quantitatively for the actual emission benefits and feasibility in the future. These further study measures are: 1) Heat Island Mi tigation, 2) Alternative Energy, 3) Energy efficiency, 4) Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II, 5) Lubricants, and 6) Episodic Controls.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Heat Island Page C



### - 153 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 1

Control Measure Title: Urban Heat Island

Control Measure Description:

The purpose of this control measure is to encourage activities that would lower ambient temperatures in urban areas. This control meas ure focuses on encouraging activities such as using lighter, more reflective surface materials and increased tree planting.

This further study measure will evaluate the potent ial to develop programs that promote the use of light colored roofing and pavement materials, solar roofing membranes, and increased tree planting. Also programs to promote use of more reflective pavement and tree planting could be a required element for new sources, or could be included as recommendations through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. Sources such as builders, utilities, cities and local government agencies, and pr ivate citizens, etc. that promote the use of lighter colored materials and increased tree planting could be eligible for an emission credit. Emission credits could be issued based on types of surface materials used or numbers of trees per unit or area that meet or exceed a specified benchmark.

There are a variety of potential techniques that can be implemented to reduce urban temperatures and increase the albedo of roofs, pavements, and building surfaces. Most of these techniques can be implemented during the maintenance or modification of existing structures or during the building stages of new structures.

Emission Inventory - 2018

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the inventory for this potential

control measure at this time.

Emissions Reductions

The air districts are not able to calculate the potential emission reductions from this control measure because the emission inventory is unknown. The amount of emission reductions will be determined during implementation of this control measure.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the cost effectiveness of this

control measure. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on a similar control measure for urban heat islands proposed in both the SJVUAPCD 2007 Ozone Plan and
SCAQMD Final 2007 AQMP and determine at a later date if the control measure is feasible and

cost effective.

Authority

The implementing agencies could include the air districts and local governments.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Urban Heat Island Page C



### - 154 Recommendation

This control measure requires additional inform ation and further study and is not recommended at this time. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on the control measure for urban heat islands proposed in SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD.

References

2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 8: Innovative Strategies and Programs: 8.2.4, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 2007.

Final 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-A: CM#2007MCS-03, South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Alternative Energy Page C



### - 155 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 2

Control Measure Title: Alternative Energy

Control Measure Description:

The use of alternative energy sources either in transportation or stationary applications can reduce ozone precursors. This further study measure looks at reductions possible in the stationary sector of the Sacramento region. This source category includes facilities or operations that have VOC-containing byproducts t hat can be converted to electric energy by utilizing currently available technology or other byproducts such as biomass waste, from which energy could also be derived. The electricity produc ed may be used for internal facility needs or metered back and sold to utility companies.

This further study measure will evaluate potenti al opportunities to convert green waste, dairy manure, and other forms of biomass into usable ener gy for electricity generation. The convertedfuel depending on the type could be used in fuel cells, internal combustion (IC) engines or miniturbines.

The San Joaquin APCD proposed in their 2007 Ozone Plan a measure very similar to this one and has also committed to study this measure further.

Emission Inventory - 2018

There is no specific inventory attributable to this source category, since it can include any application for which there is technology that can produce energy without using fossil-based

materials.

Emissions Reductions

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the potential emission reductions
from this control measure.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the cost effectiveness of this

control measure. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on a similar control measure for alternative energy proposed in SJVUAPCD and determine at a later date if the
control measure is feasible and cost effective.

Authority

The implementing agencies still need to be determined.

Recommendation

This control measure requires additional information and further studies and is not recommended at this time. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on the control measure for alternative energy proposed in the SJVUAPCD.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Alternative Energy Page C



### - 156 References

2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 8: Innovative Strategies and Programs: 8.2.5, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 2007.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Energy Efficiency
Page C



### - 157 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 3

Control Measure Title: Energy Efficiency

Control Measure Description:

The purpose of this further study measure is to look at possible sources of emissions in the region that could reduce ozone precursors by reducing energy consumption.

This future study measure will evaluate energy e fficiency projects and practices that have a demonstrable benefit to air quality, such as energy efficient water pumps, solar water heaters, reduced agricultural field passes, use of GPS in agricultural operations, and other conservation management practices that simultaneously reduce PM and ozone precursors. In addition, this further study measure will examine green certific ation of energy efficient homes, offices, and commercial and industrial facilities that utilized green building practices.

Emission Inventory - 2018

There is inadequate information to calculate the emission inventory from these projects at this

time.

Emissions Reductions

There is inadequate information to calculate the potential emission reductions. The air districts will monitor the development of a similar cont rol measure in the SC AQMD and SJVUAPCD and determine the potential emission reductions once more information becomes available.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the cost effectiveness of this

control measure. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on a similar control measure for alternative energy proposed in SCAQMD and determine at a later date if the control
measure is feasible and cost effective.

Authority

The implementing agencies could include the air districts and local governments.

Recommendation

This control measure requires additional information and further studies and is not recommended at this time. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on the control measure for energy efficiency proposed in the SCAQMD.

References Final 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-A: CM#2007MCS-03, South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007.

2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 8: Innovative Strategies and Programs: 8.2.4, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 2007.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II
Page C



### - 158 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 4

Control Measure Title: Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II

Control Measure Description

The purpose of this control measure is to reduce VOC and toxic emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) by improving im plementation of the Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) Regulation.

The EVR includes testing and certification procedures to improve the performance and specification of both Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery systems. The EVR for Phase I includes the improvements of the spill containment and cover, rotatable product and vapor adaptors, overfill prevention device, and pressure vacuum vent gauges. The EVR for Phase II includes, but is not limited to, the onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) and the in-station diagnostic (ISD). The ORVR routes gasoline vapor displaced during vehicle fueling to the onboard canister on the vehicle. The ISD is designed to provide continuous real-time monitoring of vapor collection and containm ent efficiencies, alert the GDF operator when a failure mode is detected so that corrective action can be taken, shut down the dispensers if repairs are ignored and provide compliance records.

Currently, emissions from GDFs are regulated by the EVR regulation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air district rules.

This control measure will evaluate methods to improve the functions of the ISD. Some improvements may include providing earlier warning signal, changing both the warning and gross failure alerting ranges, disallowing the use of the reset button, or installing a “shut down” sensor or mechanism on the dispenser to stop fueling if the fuel filters are blocked and the fueling flow rate drops below the system certification standards.

In addition, this control measure will explore the option to require controls for mobile refuelers if a district rule has not established such requirements.

Emission Inventory

SMAQMD – 2002 Baseline Emission Inventory (Summer)

EIC Code EIC Description VOC/ROG (tpd)

330-374-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS - WORKING
LOSSES 0.1404

330-376-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS -
BREATHING LOSSES 0.1072

330-378-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING - VAPOR
DISPLACEMENT LOSSES 0.8888

330-380-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING - SPILLAGE 0.1473

Total 1.2837Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II
Page C



### - 159 PCAPCD – 2002 Baseline Emission Inventory (Summer)

EIC Code EIC Description VOC/ROG (tpd)

330-374-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS - WORKING
LOSSES 0.0518

330-376-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS -
BREATHING LOSSES 0.0251

330-378-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING – VAPOR
DISPLACEMENT LOSSES 0.21

330-380-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING - SPILLAGE 0.035

Total 0.3219

YSAQMD – 2002 Baseline Emission Inventory (Summer)

EIC Code EIC Description VOC/ROG (tpd)

330-374-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS - WORKING
LOSSES 0.2431

330-376-1100-0000 FUEL DISPENSING TANKS -
BREATHING LOSSES 0.1657

330-378-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING – VAPOR
DISPLACEMENT LOSSES 1.3848

330-380-1100-0000 VEHICLE REFUELING - SPILLAGE 0.2293

Total 2.0229

Emission Reductions

There is inadequate information to calculate the potential emission reductions. The air districts will monitor the development of a similar co ntrol measure in SCAQMD and determine the potential emission reductions once more information becomes available.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on the similar control measure proposed in SCAQMD and determine at a later date if the control measure is feasible and cost

effective.

Authority

The air districts are authorized to adopt and amend rules and regulations by Health and Safety
Code Sections 40001and 40702.

Recommendation

This control measure requires additional information and further studies, and is not recommended at this time. The air districts will continue to monitor the developments of the enhanced detection warnings by SCAQMD and determine the feasibility of this control measure
once more information becomes available.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Gasoline Transfer Phase I/II
Page C



### - 160 References

Final 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-A: CM#2007FUG-02, South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007.

2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix I: Candidate Control Measures, S-PET-2. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 2007.

CARB Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06, Sacramento NAA (Rf#980), August 26,

2008Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Lubricants Page C



### - 161 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 5

Control Measure Title: Lubricants

Control Measure Description

The proposed control measure seeks to reduce VOC emissions from the use of lubricants that are utilized by a variety of different industries and new facility processes. Lubricants include product such as coolants in manufacturing processes, stamping fluids, vanishing oils, and cutting, forming, and honing oils, and are used by various companies in the region including, but not limited to machine shops, auto rebuilders, and auto part manufacturers. Many lubricants and their additives, such as rust and corrosive inhibitors, are at least 50 percent VOC solvents and are believed to emit a significant amount of VOCs. In addition, mineral spirits and kerosene used to dilute lubricants contain traces of benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are all classified as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) by the EPA and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) by the
state of California.

Currently, there are no regulations or emission rest rictions specifically concerned with industrial lubricants in place at the local, state or federal levels. However, South Coast proposed in their Final 2007 AQMP to refine the emission inventory for this category and seek alternatives to high-VOC lubricants. SCAQMD also proposes to develop rules to further seek emission reductions. This control measure proposes to look at further reducing source emissions by either placing an overall emissi on limit by source, or by limiting VOC content in lubricant formulations at the point of sale and/or use.

Emission Inventory -2018

The emission inventory for this source categor y is unknown because this source category does not have a specific Emission Inventory Code. Lubricants may be categorized under coating and/or solvent operations.

Emission Reductions

The air districts are not able to calculate the potential emission reductions from this control measure because the emission inventory is unknown.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the cost effectiveness of this

control measure. The District will continue to monitor the progress made on a similar control measure for lubricants proposed in SCAQMD and determine at a later date if the control
measure is feasible and cost effective.

Authority

The air districts have the authority to regulate VOC emissions from industrial coatings and solvent operations, under which industrial lubricants are categorized.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Lubricants Page C



### - 162 Recommendation

This control measure requires additional information and further studies and is not recommended at this time. The air districts will continue to monitor the progress made on the control measure for lubricants proposed in SCAQMD.

References

Final 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-A: CM#2007CTS-01, South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Appendix C - Proposed Control Measures and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Episodic Controls
Page C



### - 163 Control Measure Number: Further Study – 6

Control Measure Title: Episodic Controls (Combination of OFMS-8, OFMS13, OFMS16, OFMS19, OFMS20, OFMS21, OFMS24, OFMS42)

Control Measure Description:

There are various emission reduction strategies that could potentially be implemented on an episodic basis when meteorological conditions would normally result in ozone exceedances. This further study measure will evaluate the feasibility of banning or reducing the use of a variety of types of equipment on high ozone days such as construction equipment, pleasure craft or other recreational vehicles; and la wn and landscaping equipment. As part of this evaluation the potential emission reductions, cost effectiveness, technical feasibility and the authority to implement these measures would be analyzed.

SJVUAPCD has a similar control measure inclu ded in their Innovative Technologies section of their plan, but has not ascribed any specific emission reduction commitments to this innovative

measure.

Emission Inventory - 2018

Each of these different approaches would affect a different inventory category or different categories.

Emissions Reductions

The air districts are not able to calculate the po tential emission reductions from these potential control measures because the mechanisms for achieving the banning or reductions in use have
not been identified.

Cost Effectiveness

The air districts do not have sufficient information to calculate the cost effectiveness of any of these potential control measures.

Authority

The implementing agencies would need to be determined for each of the potential control

measures.

Recommendation

This control measure requires additional information and further studies and is not

recommended at this time. The air districts wi ll continue to monitor the progress made by SJVUAPCD on similar episodic controls that are included in their plan and determine at a later
date if this control measure is feasible and cost effective.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Transportation Control Measures Page D-1 

### Appendix D: Transportation Control Measures

The following section outlines the development process, selection criteria, and analysis procedures used by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in identifying potential transportati on control measures (TCMs). Based on this analysis, measures were either: i) included in the 8- hour ozone attainment plan, ii) rejected as infeasible, or iii) rejected and referred to the air district for its determination on whether the measures, as well as al l other feasible rejected m easures, would advance the attainment date by one or more years. The pur pose of this analysis is to ensure that the Sacramento Region is implement ing all reasonably available control measures (RACM), as required to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-2 

### Regional Transportation Control Measures

Background

Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are defined as strategies that adjust trip patterns or otherwise modify vehicle use in ways that reduce air pollutant emissions, and which are specifica lly identified and committ ed to in the most recently approved Air Quality Management Plan or State Implementation Plan (AQMP/SIP). TCMs are included in the SIP as part of the overall control strategy to demonstrate the region’s ability to come into attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Historically, the majority of emi ssion reductions from mobile sources have come from technological impr ovements in vehicle engines and fuel, which are stipulated by U.S. EPA and CARB. However, by law, and according to the Transportation Conformity Rule, vehicle technology- based, fuel chemistry-based and fleet

maintenance-based measures c annot be considered as TCMs for timely implementation

purposes.

A definition of TCMs is pr ovided in EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule - 40 CFR

Parts 51 and 93:

Transportation control measure (T CM) is any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in the applicable implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in §108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transpo rtation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion condit ions. Notwithstanding the above, vehicle technology-based, fuel-based, and maintenanc e-based measures which control the
emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs for the purposes of this subpart.

The Rule also defines the criteria and proced ures for timely implementation of TCMs as

follows:

§93.113 Criteria and procedures: Time ly Implementation of TCMs (c) For TIPs, this criterion is satisfi ed if the following conditions are met:

(1) An examination of the specific steps and funding source(s) needed to fully implement each TCM indicates that TCMs whic h are eligible for f unding under title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Trans it Laws are on or ahead of the schedule established in the applicable implementation plan, or, if such TC Ms are behind the schedule established in the applicable implementati on plan, the MPO and DOT hav e determined that past obstacles to implementation of the TCMs have been identifi ed and have been or are being overcome, and that all State and local agencies with influence over approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maxi mum priority to approval or funding of TCMs over other projects within their control, including projects in locations outside the nonattainment or

maintenance area.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-3 

### (2) If TCMs in the applicable implementatio n plan have previously been programmed for Federal funding but the funds have not been obligated and the TCMs are behind the schedule in the implementation plan, then the TIP cannot be found to conform if the
funds intended for those TCMs are reallocated to projects in the TIP other than TCMs,

or if there are no other TCMs in the TIP, if the funds ar e reallocated to projects in the TIP other than projects which are eligible for Federal fundi ng intended for air quality improvement projects, e.g. the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.

(3) Nothing in the TIP may interfere wit h the implementation of any TCM in the applicable implementation plan.

CAA Section 108(f)(1)(A)6 lists the following si xteen categories as illustrative of TCMs.

i. Programs for improved use of public transit;
ii. Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles; iii. Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives; iv. Trip-reduction ordinances; v. Traffic flow improvem ent programs that achiev e emission reductions; vi. Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities, serving multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit service; vii. Programs to limit or re strict vehicle use in downtow n areas or other areas of emission concentration, particularly during periods of peak use; viii. Programs for the provisi on of all forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services, such as the pooled use of vans; ix. Programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan
area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place; x. Programs for secure bicycle storage fa cilities and other fac ilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and prot ection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas; xi. Programs to control ex tended idling of vehicles; xii. Programs to reduce motor vehicle emissi ons, consistent with Title II of the Clean Air Act, which are caused by extreme cold start conditions; xiii. Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules; xiv. Programs and ordinances to facilitat e non-automobile trav el, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportati on planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity; xv. Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation, when economically feasible and in the public interest; andSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-4 

### xvi. Programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre- 1980 model year light duty vehicles and pre-1980 model light duty trucks.

In addition to the measures listed above, othe r measures may be considered as TCMs if they reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from trans portation sources by modifying vehicle use, changing traffic flow , or mitigating traffi c congestion conditions. TCMs may be voluntary programs, incentiv e-based programs, regul atory programs, as well as market- or pricing-based programs.

Based on suggestions received from inter agency consultation and discussions with transportation and air quality stakeholders vi a the Regional Planni ng Partnership (RPP), SACOG formally refines the types of projects to be included as TCMs as appropriate during the SIP and/or Metropolitan Transport ation Improvement Program (MTIP) and MTIP Guidelines development process. Duri ng the regular update cycle for each of the listed documents, SACOG, in c oordination with the RPP, wil l refine and revise TCM descriptions and definitions in order to clarify the general TCM process as well as resolve specific implementation issues. It is SACOG’s aim to wo rk with the project implementing agencies, air qu ality stakeholders, and any other interested parties, primarily through the RPP, to facilitat e the TCM process a nd implement TCMs appropriately.

It is SACOG’s responsibility to ensure t hat TCM strategies ar e funded in a manner consistent with the implement ation schedule established in the MTIP at the time a project is identified as a committed TCM. The transportation conformity process is designed to ensure timely impl ementation of TCM strategies . If the implementation of a TCM strategy is delayed, or if a TCM st rategy is only partia lly implemented, the emission reduction shortfall must be made up by either substituting a new TCM strategy or by enhancing other control measures th rough the substitution process described in this Appendix.

TCM Enforceability and Monitoring

The TCM strategies contained in the SIP are expected to be real, quantifiable, and enforceable. The region’s l ong-range transportation plan (the previously triennial and now quadrennial Metropolitan Transportation Plan, or MTP) and the shorter-term programming used to fund the improvement s (the MTIP) together form the foundation and the keystone for improving transportation system performance while at the same time assuring the timely attainment of air quality goals within the region.

Assessing the consistency of em issions deriving from these mobility strategies against the corresponding mobile source emission budgets contained in the applicable SIP serves as the basis for determining conformi ty to the SIP. The MTIP provides the information needed in assuring the timely im plementation of TCM strategies described in this document. The projects and program s that make up the MTP and MTIP form the basis for assuring an enforceable commitment for each TCM. Federal law requires thatSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-5 

### funding priority be given to TCMs in develop ing the MTIP. Therefore, the report on the timely implementation of TCMs will conti nue to serve as one of the methods of monitoring the air quality impacts of transportation system improvements.

Developing a List of Potential Transportation Control Measures Assumptions and Approach

SACOG is now working with the region’s air districts on the development of a new SIP designed to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The inclus ion of TCMs in the SIP sends a clear signal that SACOG is serious about doing its part in helping to attain the federal air quality standards.

The Clean Air Act defines a list of sixt een potential TCM categor ies (see previous section). Essentially a TCM can be any meas ure that is focused on reducing vehicle use or traffic/congestion.

Risks There are some risks with desig nating projects as transporta tion control measures, and they are significant. Every time SAC OG makes a conformity determination to accompany a new Metropolitan Transpor tation Plan (MTP), a new Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) or an amendment to either document, we
must demonstrate that all TCMs are still on tr ack to be implemented in a timely fashion.

Implications If a TCM does not stay on schedule or exper iences a funding shortfall, SACOG must
show that “all State and loca l agencies with influence over approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to approval or funding of TCMs over other projects within their control...” (40CFR 93.113 (c) 1). If the TCMs are shown to be falling behind

the schedule shown in the SIP or are not fully funded, “then the TIP cannot be found to conform.” In other words, SACOG may not be able to demonstrate conformity on a new
or amended MTP or MTIP if a TCM is fa iling. SACOG and any other responsible agencies would have to either ensure that th e TCM is able to get back on schedule and demonstrate that it is fully-funde d, or begin the TCM substituti on process if that is not
feasible.

Specific Situations:

Example: Regional Rideshare Program Several years ago, the State cut funding fo r ridesharing programs. The SACOG Board

wanted to eliminate t he program. However, since the Regional Rideshare Program is a TCM, it could not be eliminated.

Example: The Bay Area’s Transit Ridership Increase TCM The San Francisco Bay Area adopted a TCM that called for an increase in transit ridership of 15% over five y ears. When the region failed to meet that benchmark, theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-6 

### MPO was sued and the region went into a conf ormity lapse. Eventually a substitute TCM was adopted, a settlement was reached and the region came out of the lapse.

Substitution Process

A standardized TCM substitution process wa s established as part of the Federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU (Section 6011(d)) 19 

### . The TCM substitution process will
allow SACOG and the Air District to substitu te TCMs that either are unable to be delivered, are no longer feasib le or otherwise are no longer desired as TCMs. Prior to the changes implemented as part of SAFET EA-LU, a SIP revision and a conformity determination were required. These actions ar e no longer required. The following is an outline of the general requirements:

For a TCM in an approved SIP to be remo ved and replaced with an alternate TCM, SAFETEA-LU requires that:

• 

### the substitute TCM(s) must achieve equal or greater emission reductions;

• 

### the substitute TCM(s) must be implement ed on a schedule that is consistent with the schedule for the TCM(s) being re moved from the SIP; or, if the implementation date has pa ssed for the TCM(s) being replaced, the replacement TCM must be implemented as soon as prac ticable but not later than the date on which emission reductions from the TCM(s )are necessary to achieve the purpose of the implementation plan;

• 

### the substitute TCM(s) must be accompanied by evidence of adequate personnel, and funding and authority under state or local law to implement, monitor and enforce the TCM(s);

• 

### the substitute TCM(s) must be develo ped through a collaborat ive process that includes participation by all affected ju risdictions (state and local air pollution control agencies and state and local transportation agencies such as the MPO, state and city DOTs, and transit prov iders); consultati on with EPA; and reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment; and

• 

### the equivalency of the substitute TCM(s ) must be concurred on by the MPO, the state air pollution control agency and EPA.

A full description of this process is out lined in Attachment A-1 for information.

Preliminary Analysis of the Projects

The projects selected for inclusion in this list of potential TCMs was based on several criteria. TCMs chosen were to provide ai r quality benefits, while at the same time leaving as much flexibility as possible for im plementation. Projects likely to experience delays or cost overruns were avoided. Nearly all the TCMs have the following

19 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transporta tion Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Section 6011(d)) amended Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S. C. 7506(c)) by adding Substitution of Transportation Control Measures as paragraph (8).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-7 

### characteristics: early completion dates (most are almost done or will be soon), reasonable costs, fully committ ed funding, and projects of small or moderate-sized scope. Big projects were seen to represent too big a cost commitment and also likely to experience overruns and delays. SACOG also avoided projects such as HOV lanes where the science for estimating the air qualit y benefits is uncertain at best. For some categories, we grouped in dividual projects altogether. This has the benefit of a smaller number of projects to track and more flexibility of selecting the ‘right project at the right time.’ In all cases, funding levels have been kept at a reasona ble and conservative level in the event that future funding sour ces are reduced or unavailable. Emissions

reduction calculations are incl uded for projects where that data exists. Most of the emission reduction figures were produced us ing the California Air Resources Board

“ Automated Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiv eness of Funding Air Quality Projects". These are provided only as information and would be used if a TCM substitution were required. All of the TCMs we re included in the travel mode ling that was used to prepare the motor vehicle emissions inventory. Therefore, the emissi ons benefits from the
TCMs are included in this SIP emissions inventory projections and motor vehicle emissions budgets.

New and Continuing Projects

All of the projects chosen we re selected because they had early completion dates, costs were reasonable, funding was already co mmitted and delivery appeared to be likely. Given the serious consequences with TCM failure s, these projects were specifically chosen to maximize the potential for timely TCM implementation.

Individual Projects

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects

ITS projects use advanced technology to he lp improve the operating efficiency of the existing infrastructure by increasing traffic flow, providing real-time information on traffic conditions, and coordinating oper ations at local traffic c enters. Examples of ITS technology and tools are freeway ramp meters, dynamic message signs, and traffic signal timing.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-8 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: ITS-1

TCM ID: ITS-1 Control Measure Title: Arden Way “Smart Corridor”

Control Measure Description

Construct improvements on Arden Way from Del Paso Boulevard to Watt Avenue. Project includes the following intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements:

 A fiber optic trunk line

 Closed circuit television cameras

 Transit signal priority

 Changeable message signs, and

 Count stations

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $2,627,794

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Sacramento Depar tment of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-9 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: ITS-2

TCM ID: ITS-2
Control Measure Title: Sacramen to Traffic Operations Center

Control Measure Description

This project will evaluate and implement on downtown and other major corridors, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) elem ents and infrastructure necessary to provide traffic responsive/coordinated signal timing and communications to the Traffic Operation Center.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,130,000

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Sacramento Depar tment of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-10 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: ITS-3

TCM ID: ITS-3
Control Measure Title: Watt Avenue Phase 3 Smart Corridor

Control Measure Description

In Sacramento County, Watt Avenue Corridor, implement phase 3 priority and mobility enhancement demonstration project. This project includes deployment of ITS components within the Watt Avenue corridor to improve the efficiency of transit in the corridor. The objectives of the project are to improve traffic safety, pedestrian safety, transit efficiency and the overa ll aesthetics of the intersecti on. The improvements will

include:

 Construct a queue jump for buses appr oaching the southeast corner of Watt
Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard

 ADA improvements at all four corners of the intersection with audible signals, push buttons, sidewalk ramps and re-striping

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $2,200,000

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento County Departm ent of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-11 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: ITS-4

TCM ID: ITS-4 Control Measure Title: STARNET Implementation

Control Measure Description

The Sacramento Transportation Area Network, or STARNET, is an information exchange network and operations coordination framework that will be used by the operators of transportation facilities and emergency responders in the Sacramento region of California. STARNET will enable the real-time shari ng of data and live video, and refinement of joint procedures pertaini ng to the operation of roadways and public transit, and public safety activities. It will also provide more information for travelers via the region’s 511 web site and interactive telephone service (dial 511). The goals of STARNET are:

 Make travel easier and safer

 Gather and disseminate more and be tter real-time travel information

 Better travel decisions – time, mode, route

 Provide transportation system manager s and emergency re sponders with more
and better real-time information

 Including information from other agencies

 Better operational decisions and actions

 Allow shared use of field devices when appropriate

 Better use of resources and better operation

STARNET will build upon the previous In telligent Transportation System (ITS) investments by using, with little to no modi fications, the existing field infrastructure (cameras, changeable message signs, traffic si gnals, vehicle locati on systems, etc) and central systems (freeway management system s, traffic signal systems, transit management systems, computer aided dispatch systems, etc) already operated by each agency. As part of the STARNET implementation, interfaces will be developed to these existing systems to enable them to share da ta and video with each other, provide data and video to the public via the 511 regional travel in formation system, and provide operations and emergency response perso nnel with a map-based regional transportation management display.

STARNET was identified as a high priority project for the Sacramento area in the region’s Intelligent Transportation S ystems Strategic Deployment Plan.

During 2006, the involved agencies are pr eparing a concept of operations, system requirements, and a request for proposals fo r system integration. The system is expected to be operational in 2008.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-12 

### Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $3,260,000

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-13 

### Park and Ride Lots / Transit Centers

CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TF-1

TCM ID: TF-1
Control Measure Title: El Dorado Central Park and Ride Facility

Control Measure Description

In Diamond Springs, on Commerce Way at St ate Route 49: Construct Central Transfer Facility and Park & Ride with capacity for 95 spaces. This property is adjacent to El Dorado Transit’s office and maintenance facility. The location of this facility is approxim ately 42 miles from dow ntown Sacramento, and thus has the potential of reducing passenger vehicle travel by 2,000,000 miles per year.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $550,574.

Needed Resources and Authority

El Dorado County Tr ansit Authority

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (vi)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-14 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TF-2

TCM ID: TF-2 Control Measure Title: Improvemen ts to Loomis Multimodal Center

Control Measure Description

Design and construct pedestrian and landsc aping improvements at the multimodal center including a Class I bike facility adjac ent to Taylor Rd. from downtown Loomis to Sierra College Blvd. Specific improvements include:

 Construct pedestrian walkways up to Taylor Road and around the depot

 Install bike parking equipment

 Install landscaping and other transit and pedestrian amenities

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $659,225

Needed Resources and Authority

Town of Loomis Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-15 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TF-3

TCM ID: TF-3
Control Measure Title: 13 th 

### and 16 th 

### Street Light Rail Station Improvements

Control Measure Description

RT, in partnership with the C apitol Area Development Author ity (CADA) and the City of Sacramento, is improving the 13 th & 16th Street light rail st ations. This project is to renovate and improve connectivity to the 13th St reet and 16th Street light rail stations,

which are within the R Street Corridor redevelopment area. The total project cost is estimated at $1,883,000. The project will be implemented by RT (for the portion comprising the light rail stations and bus stops) and the City of Sacramento (for the portions within City rights-of-way). RT's port ion of the project cost is estimated at $988,000.

RT, in partnership with the C apitol Area Development Author ity (CADA) and the City of Sacramento, has applied fo r and received a grant of $1,693,000 from the SACOG Community Development Grants program. The grant is administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Calif ornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Of the $190,000 local match, $90,000 is coming from CADA tax increment revenues, and $100,000 is being contributed by RT from Measure A funds.

Scope of Work (revised 7/30/07)

13th Street Station:

 Mini-high shelters on ramps

 Cosmetic improvements to existing shelter

 Cosmetic improvements to existing walls

 Additional light poles

 New seating

 Miscellaneous plant replacements

 Miscellaneous tree and shrub pruning

 Repainting

16th Street Station:

 New mini-high ramp and remova l of existing vertical lift

 Mini-high Shelters on ramps

 Replace existing shelter canopy

 Additional light poles

 New seating

 Cosmetic improvements to walls on north side

 Increase sitting/standing pavement area on south sideSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-16 

###  Planting screen on garage face

 Miscellaneous plant replacements

 Miscellaneous tree and shrub pruning

 Repainting

Both stations will also receive sidewalk im provements and directional signage within a 1-block radius, as well as other impr ovements to be constr ucted by the City.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $988,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Regional Transit District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-17 

### Funding Programs

Transit Service

Investment in transit is one of the cor nerstones of the MTP for 2035. The overall philosophy followed in the MTP for 2035 seeks to increase transit service significantly,

aimed at:

• improving service for the transit dependent,

• attracting riders who could otherwise choose to drive,

• extending rail wher e it can be cost effective considering surrounding housing and employment densities, and

• setting up new bus or rail services on corridors connecting suburban activity centers.

In that context, SACOG through the MTP gives pr imary priority to tran sit expansion, with the objective of an effective transit system that both serves those who rely on transit

and attracts riders who also have the choice to drive. The MTP proposes to invest the
maximum feasible share of the region’s flexible capital fund ing into transit expansion, commensurate with funding to op erate and need for road capacity for transit to run on. This investment approximately triples the am ount of transit availa ble in 2035 compared to today. There are no funds available to o perate more service beyond that level, and a
modest amount of flexible funds must be inve sted in road improvements so that transit can move effectively through areas of congested traffic.

Travel by transit is of great interest in the Sacramento region for several reasons. First, transit provides an opportunity for substantially reducing VM T, through shifts from lowoccupancy modes like driving alone to a very high occupancy mode of travel. Second, for commute trips, which t end to occur at peak periods of travel demand when congestion is highest, transit can provide s ubstantial congestion relief. Finally, high quality transit service can provide necessary mobility to residents and employees in higher density, mixed-use areas, where auto travel can be impractical. For these reasons, SACOG proposes making a commitment to maintain existing levels of transit service through the following TCMs:Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-18 

### Transit Vehicle Ac quisitions (TR-1)

List of bus replacem ent projects include:

TCM
ID SACOG ID Measure Title Cost

TR-1 PLA25223 Auburn Trans it Bus Replacement $225,000 PLA25371 Roseville Transit Bus Purchase $2,300,000

PLA25322 Roseville Trans it Bus Replacement $375,000 SAC24365 Replacement Ne ighborhood Ride Buses $255,000 SAC24418 E-Tran Replac ement Buses $1,400,000

REG17924 SRTD Neighborhood Ride Vehicle Replacement $3,600,000

YST10418 Yuba Sutter Transit Bus Expansion $1,500,000 YCT18176 YCTD Bus Replacement $1,700,000Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-19 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1A

TCM ID: TR-1A Control Measure Title: Auburn Transit Bus Replacement

Control Measure Description

Replacement of 1 CNG bus for Auburn Transit.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $225,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Auburn Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-20 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1B

TCM ID: TR-1B
Control Measure Title: Ro seville Transit Bus Purchase

Control Measure Description

Purchase 3 30' replacement fixed route buses, 3 30' expansion fixed route buses, and 1 40' replacement commuter bus

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $2,300,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Roseville Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-21 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1C

TCM ID: TR-1C
Control Measure Title: Rosev ille Transit Bus Replacement

Control Measure Description

Replace five (5) cutaway buses.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $375,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Roseville Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-22 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1D

TCM ID: TR-1D
Control Measure Title: Re placement Neighborhood Ride Buses

Control Measure Description

Replace three diesel cutaways that ar e used for neighborhood ride routes and paratransit service.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $255,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Elk Grove

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-23 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1E

TCM ID: TR-1E
Control Measure Title: E-Tran Replacement Buses

Control Measure Description

Purchase six CNG replacement buses for the City of Elk Grove's E-Tran bus transit buses. The CNG buses replace six CNG and di esel buses that are beyond their useful life. Later, programming team mov ed $1,070,000 from 2010 back to 2009.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,400,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Elk Grove

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-24 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1F

TCM ID: TR-1F
Control Measure Title: SRTD Ne ighborhood Ride Vehicle Replacement

Control Measure Description

Purchase 14 Neighborhood Ride Vehicles to r eplace vehicles which have surpassed
their useful lives. 17 are neede d, but 3 will be funded from an alternate source. RT assumes $110,000 per vehicle and a 5-year life.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $3,600,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Regional Transit District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-25 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1G

TCM ID: TR-1G
Control Measure Title: Yuba Sutter Transit Bus Expansion

Control Measure Description

Purchase three specially equipped, heavy-dut y clean diesel commuter buses with a seating capacity of 45 or more to expand the current fleet of commuter buses from 11 to 14. These three commuter buses will be 40' to 45' in length.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,500,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Yuba Sutter Transit

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-26 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-1H

TCM ID: TR-1H Control Measure Title: YCTD Bus Replacement

Control Measure Description

This project will replace 4 40-ft 1993 CNG transit buses.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,700,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Yolo County Transportation District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-27 

### Transit Operations (TR-2)

For these control measures, transit operations consists of ‘transit operating assistance’ for public transit operators. The operating assistance funds the di fference between the costs of operating an eligib le public transportation service and the revenues derived from system operations. Operating assist ance funds can be used by public transit operators for any transit service that is open to the general public (i.e. it cannot be used for school bus or charter services). Thes e funds can be used for fixed route transit service as well as for dial-a-ride or paratrans it service. Some transit operators also use these funds for preventive maint enance of their transit vehicles.

List of funded transit operations include:

TCM
ID SACOG ID Measure Title Cost

TR-2 ELD19267 El Dorado Trans it Operating Assistance $580,000

PLA25215 Roseville O perating Assistance $145,000 SAC24060 Elk Grove Operating Assistance $1,800,000 SAC24061 Folsom Oper ating Assistance $745,000

PAR10002 Paratransit O perating Assistance $350,000

SAC24173 Sacramento County Operating Assistance $59,000 REG16670 Regional Transit O perating Assistance $364,000,000 YCT18094 YCTD Operat ing Assistance $1,100,000Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-28 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2A

TCM ID: TR-2A
Control Measure Title: El Do rado Transit Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

Operating Assistance (FTA 5311 Cycle 26)

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $580,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

El Dorado County Transit

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-29 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2B

TCM ID: TR-2B
Control Measure Title: Ro seville Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

The City of Roseville Transit is applying fo r $71,514 in JARC funds in order to extend their weekday revenue hours on co re fixed routes, as well as an extension of the hours on their Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services ( and operate DAR on 3 current non-service holidays) to provide transportation to employ ees getting off work in the evening. The

additional hours will also allo w employees to connect with Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Tr ansit in the evening.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $145,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Roseville Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-30 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2C

TCM ID: TR-2C
Control Measure Title: Elk Grove Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

In Elk Grove, preventive maintenance for Elk Grove transit operations.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,800,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Elk Grove

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-31 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2D

TCM ID: TR-2D
Control Measure Title: Folsom Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

In Folsom, provide operating a ssistance for Folsom Stage Lines.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $745,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Folsom Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-32 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2E

TCM ID: TR-2E
Control Measure Title: Para transit Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

Paratransit, Inc. is asking for FFY 2006 JARC funds to continue to provide much needed and currently lim ited transportation options between low-income residential areas, and employment & job trai ning centers, especially in the Point West area, in the

retail areas around Arden Fa ir Mall, as well as other parts of Sacramento County. [Contains FFY 06 and 07 operating funds]

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $350,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Paratransit, Inc.

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-33 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2F

TCM ID: TR-2F
Control Measure Title: Sacramen to County Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

Expand the South County Transit/Link Highway 99 bus services between the City of Lodi in San Joaquin County, Ga lt, Elk Grove, and the Region al Transit Transfer Center

at Florin Mall. This route provides connections to the South County Transit Galt and Delta routes, Elk Grove Transit (e-TRAN), Sacramento Regional Transit, Lodi Grapeline transit service, and the San J oaquin Regional Transit District.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $59,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento County Departm ent of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-34 

### C ONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2G

TCM ID: TR-2G Control Measure Title: Regiona l Transit Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

Continued operation and mainte nance of bus, light rail, and paratransit services.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $364,000,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Regional Transit District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-35 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TR-2H

TCM ID: TR-2H
Control Measure Title: YCTD Operating Assistance

Control Measure Description

YCTD FY 08 Operating Assistance for ADA Paratransit Service

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure will be in effect through 2008.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,100,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Yolo County Transportation District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (i)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-36 

### Air Quality Programs

CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: AQ-1

TCM ID: AQ-1
Control Measure Title: Freeway Service Patrol

Control Measure Description

The Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) is a pr ogram which reduces freeway congestion by quickly finding and removing minor incidents from the freeway. Minor incidents include
stalled cars and "fender-bender" a ccidents which, in total, a ccount for more than half of all non-recurrent freeway congestion.

FSP's special team of tow truck drivers pat rol the Sacramento free ways during the times when they are the busiest (the two peak commu te periods, one in the morning and the other in the late afternoon) . FSP drivers assist stranded motorists by helping them change a flat tire, providing a gallon of fuel, jump-starting their car, or making other minor repairs as needed. If FSP cannot quickly get the vehicle running, it is towed to a CHP-approved location off the freeway away from the fast -moving traffic and where the motorist can arrange for towing and/or repair.

The efforts of FSP to quickly remove mi nor freeway incidents during peak commute periods saves Sacramento motorists ov er 2 million wasted hours every year. The Freeway Service Patrol program operat es on the following Sa cramento Freeways:

 Highway 99 - Grant Line Road to the Hwy 99/50 Interchange

 Capital City Freeway (Business 80) - Hwy 99/50 Interchange to the I-80 Interchange

 Interstate 5 - Elk Grove Bl vd to the Highway 99 Interchange

 Highway 50 - Inters tate 5 to Scott Road

 Interstate 80 - Interstate 5 to the Placer County Line; in Yolo County from Mace
Blvd. to Jefferson Blvd.

The Freeway Service Patrol oper ates from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Fri day (except holidays).

FSP is coordinated by the STA, California Highway Patrol, and Ca ltrans. Major funding is provided by the State of California and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). There is absolutely no char ge to motorists for FSP services.

Most of the funding for our FSP Program come s from the State of California through the State Highway Account and from the Sa cramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) which staffs and manages the Capi tol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE). The SAF E monies from SACOG serves as theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-37 

### required by the local match obligation attac hed to the State monies. STA administration funds are also used to supplement funding.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This measure is implement ed continuously through 2018.

Cost

The annual budget for this measure is $1,400,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Transportation Authority

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-38 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: AQ-2

TCM ID: AQ-2
Control Measure Title: SECAT

Control Measure Description

The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air & Tr ansportation (SECAT) Program is a partnership between the Sacr amento Metropolitan Air Qua lity Management District (SMAQMD) and the Sacramento Area C ouncil of Governments (SACOG). The Program's goal is to reduce harmful em issions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles operating in the Sacramento r egion. This program was orig inally created by California Assembly Bill (AB) 2511 to help assure that the Sacrament o region meet its commitments under the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality attainment. The goal of the program is to r educe the nitrogen oxide emissions in our air from heavy-duty

vehicles to meet the 2018 federal 8-hour ozone standard.

Emission Reductions

Total emission reductions taken for this measure will be: NOx: 0.91 tons per day ROG: 0.06 tons per day

Note: The reductions noted here include benefits from other funding streams.

Timeframe

This measure is implement ed continuously through 2018.

Cost

The annual budget for this measure is $3,000,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q uality Management District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xvi)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-39 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: TCM-ONMS-ED-1 (AQ-3)

Control Measure Title: Notifi cation for Spare the Air Days

Control Measure Description

The “Spare the Air” program is a year-round public education program with an episodic ozone reduction element during the summe r ozone season, plus general awareness throughout the rest of the year. It is designed to inform people when air quality is unhealthy and achieve voluntary emission reduc tions by encouraging them to reduce vehicle trips. The Spare the Air program has operated in the Sacramento region since 1995 and has been funded largely by Congesti on Mitigation and Air Quality funds.

The program includes but is not limited to a Web site ( www.SpareTheAir.com ), daily regional air quality forecasting, mapping of real time air quality data, production and airing of television and radio commercials, free Air Alert notifications, brochures and other printed materials distributed to t he public & business community, elementary school assemblies, participation in comm unity events throughout the region. This measure also commits to perform an annual awareness survey to judge the program's
effectiveness.

This control measure seeks to reduce vehi cle activity. The cu rrent Spare the Air program is included in the most recent ap proved MTP. This program currently costs approximately $600,000 per year and will require adjustments to account for inflationary

cost increases. This measure is to continue the program funding and achieve at least the same effectiveness as today's program.

This is a transportation control measure (T CM) measure with its pr imary goal being to reduce passenger car VMT, trips, or both.

Targeted EIC Categories and Planning Inventory

This measure discourages vehicle use for li ght-duty vehicles. These 10-digit codes have been summarized into 3-digit EIC su mmary codes where most sub-codes are equally affected by the measure. The re sting and diurnal evaporative emissions categories are not affected by the measure to the same degree. However, due to the small size of this portion of the inventory, the inclusion of EICs from the third column (reflecting resting and diurnal evaporative emissions) is unlikely to reduce the accuracy
of the emission reduction results.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-40 

### 3-digit

EIC 10-digit EICs equally affected by the measure 10-digit
EICs

excluded

710 7107011100, 7107061100, 7107081100, 7107121100, 7107141100, 7107180248, 7107205410, 7107311100, 7107341100, 7107361100, 7107401100, 7107421100, 7107440248, 7107465410, 7107611210, 7107641210, 7107660248, 7107685410 7107101100,

7107381100

722 7227011100, 7227061100, 7227081100, 7227121100, 7227141100, 7227180248, 7227205410, 7227311100, 7227341100, 7227361100, 7227401100, 7227421100, 7227440248, 7227465410, 7227611210, 7227641210, 7227660248, 7227685410 7227101100,

7227381100

723 7237011100, 7237061100, 7237081100, 7237121100, 7237141100, 7237180248, 7237205410, 7237311100, 7237341100, 7237361100, 7237401100, 7237421100, 7237440248, 7237465410, 7237611210, 7237641210, 7237660248, 7237685410 7237101100,

7237381100

750 7507011100, 7507061100, 7507081100, 7507121100, 7507141100, 7507180248, 7507205410, 7507311100, 7507341100, 7507361100, 7507401100, 7507421100, 7507440248, 7507465410, 7507611210, 7507641210, 7507660248, 7507685410 7507101100,

7507381100

2018

Nonattainment Planning Inventory EIC Code EIC Description Fuel NOx (tpd) ROG (tpd)

710 Light Duty Passenger All 4.16 7.27 722 Light Duty Truck 1 All 1.82 2.89 723 Light Duty Truck 2 All 4.36 5.72 750 Motorcycle All 0.93 3.53

Total 11.27 19.40

Emission Reductions

The current program (as surveyed in 2005) re sulted in 1% of drivers decreasing their activity by 3.0 trips each due to outreach. The assessment of the benefits is made using the quantification methodology developed in consultation with the California Air Resources Board. This analysis uses public opinion surveys to estimate the number of drivers who purposefully reduced driving as a result of th is program. The reductions here use survey results from 2005. We expect that the program will generate the same level of activity reduction in the future as the effectiveness noted above is consistent
with the effectiveness in the 6 years prior to 2005. A forma l methodology for conductingSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-41 

### the surveys and quantifying the emission benef its is expected to be subject to public review in 2009 and submitted as part of the State Impl ementation Plan.

From the California Highway Patrol w ebsite and the census bureau, the number of
licensed drivers in the SFNA counties a nd partial counties was determined. The
number of licensed drivers in SFNA is approximately 1,400,000 in 2004 based on CHP county estimates and apportioned counties in SFNA. Knowing the number of trips avoided, percent of drivers par ticipating, and total number of drivers in the SFNA, we

can calculate the number of trips avoided under the current program.

Year Number of Licensed
Drivers in SFNA Avoided Trips
under Current Program 2018 1,847,503 55,425

The emissions benefits are es timated based on the program's total avoided trips compared to total trips in each year and applyi ng this ratio to the appropriate emission events (such as hot starts). Emission reduc tions are shown below for 2018 for light duty passenger vehicles, light duty trucks 1, light duty trucks 2, and motorcycles.

2018

NOx ROG
EIC Code Tpd % Tpd %

710 0.017 0.40% 0.021 0.29%

722 0.007 0.40% 0.009 0.31%

723 0.018 0.40% 0.018 0.31%

750 0.004 0.40% 0.011 0.31%

TOTAL 0.046 0.40% 0.059 0.30%

Timeframe

Measure is impl emented 2008-2018.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-42 

### Cost and Cost Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness of the current pr ogram was estimated based on the 2006 budget of approximately $600,000.

2018

X

Pollutant Lifetime Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

NO
x 

### $ 1,293,071

ROG $ 1,007,279

NOx + ROG $ 566,211

Note that this cost effectiveness is much higher than wo uld generally be acceptable. This measure provides other valuable benefits including; 1) education to motivate behavio r changes which result in lo nger term benefits that aren't quantified here 2) protection of public he alth by providing tools to media, businesses, and individuals to take action during high pollution episodes, and 3) building and maintaini ng public support for other emission-reducing measures such as Blueprint, rules and ordinances that air district Boards, the SACOG Board, and local jurisdictions will consider to fulfill their SIP obligations.



### Needed Resources and Authority

Potential Implementing Agency Agency Type Authority Origin

SMAQMD Local Coordinates the program on behalf of the air
districts in the SFNA.

§ 41014. Programs or projects to control transportation emission The Sacramento district may conduct public education, marketing, demonstration, monitoring, research, and evaluation programs or projects with respect to transportation

emission control measures.

www.arb.ca.gov/bluebook/bb06/hea41014/he a_41014.htm

All SFNA districts and
SACOG Local/Regio

nal These agencies provide funding for the program. SACOG is the regional agency that coordinates flow of federal transportation funding (currently Congestion Management and Air Quality) that s upports this program. Air districts provide the local match funding required by the funding source.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-43 

### References

Lori Kobza, SMAQMD staff. August 2006.

CA CHP. 2004 Annual Report of Fatal and In jury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/#se ction3. Viewed July 2006.

"Sacramento Region Air Qualit y Basin: "Spare the Air" Campaign 2005 Evaluation Final Research Report", Aurora Research Group 2006.

U.S. Census Bureau Data.

Sacramento MTP 2006 List of Projects.

Cleaner Air Partnership letter, "Test Comparison of ARB and CAP Method for Quantifying Emission Reducti ons from Spare the Air Program, Jude Lamare, February 5, 2003.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-44 

### Regional Funding Programs

In July 2002, SACOG adopted the Metropolit an Transportation Plan for 2025 (MTP 2025). This 23-year, $22 billion plan for t he region included f our federally funded programs to be used for regional transportation and related priorities that implement the goals of the MTP. The four progra ms, with 23-year f unding amounts are:

• Air Quality $180 million

• Bicycle and Pedestrian $350 million

• Transportation Demand Management $ 44 million

• Community Design $500 million

When the MTP 2025 was ad opted, it was the intent of SACOG to continue these four regional funding programs into the foreseeabl e future in each successive MTP. Since the adoption of the MTP 2025 , SACOG has adopted several other MTPs, and the funding programs have been continued.

Air Quality Funding Program (FP-1)

The SACOG region is within a non-attainment area for ozone under federal air quality laws. Because the region must meet stri ngent federal air quality requirements in the Rate of Progress SIP, SACOG will place high est priority on the selection of costeffective transportation projects that c ontribute the most to reaching attainment.

This air quality funding progr am includes funding air quality programs: Freeway Service Patrol, SECAT, and Spare The Air.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-45 

### Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Program (FP-2)

The purpose of this funding program is to prov ide facilities for walking and biking in the cities and towns of the region, or to pr ovide connections betwe en them. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities in new deve lopments are expected to be paid for by developers in cooperation with cities and counties. Facilities that serve strictly recreational trips or equestrians are also expected to obtain other funding.

List of projects include:

TCM

ID SACOG
ID Measure Title Cost

FP-2 Adopted Projects from SACOG's Regional Bike/Pedestrian Funding Program

6 City of Sacramento: I-80 Bike/Ped Bridge at the West Canal $6,600,000

12 City of Folsom Bikestation and "Bikelink" On-Demand Long-Term Class I Bike Parking at Transit Stations $178,000

14 City of Elk Grove: Elk Grove Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Crossing at SR 99 $5,600,000

13 Retrofit Yolobus bus fleet with higher capacity bike racks $67,500Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-46 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-2A

TCM ID: FP-2A
Control Measure Title: I-80 Bike/ Ped Bridge at the West Canal

Control Measure Description

Construct bike/pedestrian bridge across I-80 at the West Canal, as well as across the
West Canal.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $6,600,000

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Sacramento Depar tment of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-47 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-2B

TCM ID: FP-2B Control Measure Title: City of Folso m Bikestation and “Bikelink” On-Demand Long-Term Class I Bike Parking at Transit Stations

Control Measure Description

To retrofit and install on-demand long-term bike parking at Folsom Light Rail stations and new parking garage.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2010.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $178,000

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Folsom Department of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-48 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-2C

TCM ID: FP-2C Control Measure Title: City of Elk Gr ove: Elk Grove Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Crossing at SR 99

Control Measure Description

Extend the existing Class I bikeway from Laguna Springs Dr cross over W. Stockton
Blvd/SR-99 and E Stockt on Blvd and connect to Emerald Park Drive. Project includes a bike/pedestrian overcrossi ng at State Route 99.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $5,600,000

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Elk Grove

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-49 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-2D

TCM ID: FP-2D
Control Measure Title: Retrofit Yol obus bus fleet with higher capacity bike

racks.

Control Measure Description

Replace bike racks with higher capacity (3 bi cycle) bike racks on 40-45 buses; plus a slide out double bike rack on up to two over-the-road coaches.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $67,500

Needed Resources and Authority

Yolo County Transportation District

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-50 

### Transportation Demand Management Funding Program (FP-3)

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is composed of strategies that can lower the demands made on the road and highway system and improve air quality by encouraging the use of carpoo ling, vanpooling, pub lic transit, bicycling and walking. SACOG currently operates the regional ridesharing databas e and performs a number of marketing activities that publicize TDM stra tegies to the general public. SACOG also sponsors the TDM Task Force, a group of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) and other organizations that perform or promote TDM services for employers and residents of the region.

The goal of this funding program is to r educe single-occupant vehicle trips in the Sacramento region using TDM strategies and measure the effects of these strategies.

List of projects include:

TCM

ID SACOG
ID Measure Title Cost

FP-3 VAR56025 SACOG Region al Rideshare Program $1,200,000 annually through 2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-51 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-3

TCM ID: FP-3 Control Measure Title: SACOG Regional Rideshare Program

Control Measure Description

Provide ride matching services for the Sacramento metropolitan area; cooperate with local agencies in El Dor ado and Placer counties on outr each efforts; manage regional programs supporting alternatives to driving alone; provide funding for 12 Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs) in region through grants.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe This measure is implement ed continuously through 2018.

Cost

$1,200,000 per y ear through 2018.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (vii & xiv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-52 

### Community Design Funding Programs (FP-4)

The overall purpose of the Community Design program is to provide support for planning and capital developmen t projects that promote the Blueprint Project principles.

The Community Design Program supports impl ementation of the Bl ueprint Project with financial incentives to local governments. Grants are awarded to projects sponsored by qualified public agencies in the SACOG region. These projects mu st support specific development or planning projects that conf orm to the seven Bl ueprint Principles:

• Transportation choices;

• Housing diversity;

• Compact development;

• Mixed land uses;

• Use of existing assets;

• Natural resource protection; and

• Quality design.

The MTP for 2025 authorized the program through 2025. The intent of the Community Design program is to use regional transporta tion funding to promote the construction of land use developments (or land use and proj ects) that lead to fewer vehicle miles traveled and more walking, biking and transit usage. The program results from the recognition that land use in fluences travel behavior and can be a powerful tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of t he regional transportation system. If it is convenient for people to travel to common des tinations by walking, biking, or public transit, we can reap air quality and congestion-relief benefits at the local and regional

scale.

List of projects include:

TCM
ID SACOG ID Measure Title Cost FP-4 Adopted Projects from SACOG's Regional Community Design Funding Program

5 City of Marysville: East 10th Street and Ramirez Street Intersection Improvement $510,000

6 City of Rancho Cordova: Folsom Boulevard Complete Streets $12,200,000

11 Sacramento County: Complete Streets for

Freedom Park Drive and North Watt

Avenue $6,400,000

16 City of Woodland: Lemen, North, East Streets Intersection Realignment $2,600,000Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-53 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-4A

TCM ID: FP-4A Control Measure Title: City of Marysville: East 10 th 

### Street and Ramirez Street Intersection Improvement

Control Measure Description

Install a new traffic signal, complete pedestrian improvements and landscaping improvements (community desi gn portion), complete a r oad rehabilitation in and adjacent to the intersection and complete channelization changes to the East 10th and Ramirez Intersection in Marysville.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $510,000

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Marysville Depart ment of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-54 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-4B

TCM ID: FP-4B Control Measure Title: City of Rancho Cordova: Folsom Blvd. Enhancements &
SR2S Phase 2

Control Measure Description

Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Install l andscaping and streetsc aping on Folsom Blvd., between Rod Beaudry Dr. and Sunrise Blvd.: to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian
access to transit from Bradshaw Road to Rio Del Oro Parkway. The CMAQ and RSTP funding in 2009/10 is to provi de complete street improv ements at the east end of

Folsom Blvd accommodati ng Kinney High School and t he light rail station. Improvements include bicycle la nes and pedestrian facilities.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $12,200,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Rancho Cordova

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-55 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-4C

TCM ID: FP-4C
Control Measure Title: Sacramento Count y: Complete Streets for Freedom Park

Drive and North Watt Avenue

Control Measure Description

In Sacramento County, Freedom Park Drive, from 32nd St. to Wa tt Ave and Watt Ave,
from Don Julio Blvd to Karl Dr on the west si de of the roadway in the community of North Highlands. Construct pedes trian and streetscape improvements to serve as a gateway into adjacent McClellan Park.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $6,400,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento County Departm ent of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-56 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: FP-4D

TCM ID: FP-4D Control Measure Title: City of Woodl and: Lemen, North, East Streets Intersection Realignment

Control Measure Description

In Woodland, Lemen Avenue and North Street at East Street: realign Lemen Avenue to
connect with North Street at East Street (Phase 1).

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

The total budget for this project is $2,600,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

City of Woodland Departm ent of Public Works

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x & xv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-57 

### Miscellaneous

CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: M-2

TCM ID: M-2 Control Measure Title: Light Rail Grad e Separation at Watt Avenue and Folsom

Boulevard

Control Measure Description

In Sacramento County, Regional Transit Light Rail tracks south of Folsom Blvd on Watt Ave, grade separate the rail tracks over Watt Ave.

Emissions Reductions

ROG: 8,203 lbs per year NOx: 2,958 lbs per year Cost Effectiveness: $12 per lb

Timeframe

This project is expected to be completed in 2009.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $25,149,715.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento County Departm ent of Transportation

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (v)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-58 

### Research and Policy Development Further Study Measures

These studies are included as TCMs because t hey are expected to eventually result in policies that are likely to hel p improve the region’s air qua lity. Exactly what those policies will be or to what extent they will lead to improved air quality is unknown at this time. Because of this, and since these ar e included as studies only, no associated
emissions reduction benefits are included as part of this SIP. Emissions reductions for future adopted policies would be accounted for in future SIPs. The only Research and Policy Development TCMs intended to be im plemented as policies for the purposes of
the SIP are those that identify “adopting” a policy. The following are the recommended research and policy development TCMs:

• Blueprint Implementation & Pl anning Technical Assistance

• Develop Rural-Urban Connections Stra tegy & Best Practices Toolkit

• Research a Transportation Pricing Policy

• Research a Regional Parki ng Regulation Policy to Prov ide Incentives for Use of

Alternative Modes

• Adopt a Complete Streets Policy

• Initiate a Complete Streets Technical Assistance Program

• Adopt a Safe Routes to School Policy and Implement Pilot ProgramSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-59 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-1

TCM ID: RP-1 Control Measure Title: Blueprint Implementation & Planning Technical
Assistance

Control Measure Description

SACOG has no land use authority and cannot directly affect the pattern that future land uses will take. However, it can strive to im plement the Blueprint Vi sion through existing and new programs. SACOG wil l continue to fund the regional Community Design Grant Program which funds transportation proj ects that are part of mixed-use, higher density developments. The Community De sign component of the MTP for 2035 could encourage growth patterns that promote alternatives to t he automobile by creating mixed-use developments that would incl ude residences, shops, parks, and civic institutions linked to pedestr ian-and-bicycle friendly publ ic transportation centers. Projects would be awarded a Community De sign grant if they incorporate design features such as improved st reet connectivity, public amenities, and a concentration of residences and jobs in proximity to transit rout es. Implementation of this strategy could

result in more balanced land use condit ions throughout the region and less land converted to urban uses due to the higher-density, infill focus of the grant program.

SACOG’s other Blueprint Im plementation Programs incl ude development of a FormBased Code handbook, Blueprint Development Reviews, and Technical Assistance to
Local Governments.

 Form-Based Code Handbook. Form-based zoning codes are an approach to regulate development through the use of graphics and standards to define the form and scale of new development, while at the same time making the uses allowed in any given area much more flexible than a typical zoning code. This is in contrast to conventional development regulations, which primarily utilize only narrative descriptions. Form-based codes (F BCs) typically provide for significant public input during their creation. The handbook will assist local jurisdictions in implementing form-based codes in areas where they are trying to encourage Smart Growth development (mixed-use, compact development with high street connectivity).

 Blueprint Development Review. At the request of a local government SACOG will evaluate a proposed development pr oject for its consistency with the Blueprint Principles and Vision Map.

 Technical Assistance to Local Governments. At the request of a local government, SACOG will provide techni cal planning assistance in the development or update of general plans, co mmunity plans, specific plans, etc.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-60 

### This assistance can include analysis of t he Blueprint Vision map or training in use of modeling tools.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $450,000

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xiv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-61 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-2

TCM ID: RP-2
Control Measure Title: Rural Urban C onnections Strategy & Best Practices

Toolkit

Control Measure Description

Within 3 years of adoption of the MT P 2035, SACOG will develop a Rural-Urban Connections Strategy, to ex pand on and help to suppor t implementation of, the Blueprint growth strategy and the MTP. The Rural-Urban Connections Strategy will utilize state-of-the-practice data collection, modeling, re search and participation practices to develop a toolkit of best practi ces to promote land us e practices in rural areas that are economically viable for land owners and local governments and environmentally sustainable. Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited, to: agricultural practices, natural resource pr otection, development practices that support agricultural and natural resource values, infr astructure needs in rural areas, energy production, and methods to promote jobs-hous ing balance (with a specific emphasis on effective jobs-generating practi ces in appropriate areas.) T he toolkit of best practices
will include assessment of vehicle miles traveled and air emissions, including greenhouse gases. Building on local conserva tion efforts, the strategy will identify areas where mitigation for dev elopment should be directed to maximize the benefit of such acquisitions. It is also expected that this project will result in programs that will help reduce the need for single-occupant vehi cle travel, relative to commuting in particular. Another import ant outcome will be the identif ication of environmental services, such as flood control, groundwater recharge, and carbon sequestration, which are enhanced through a compr ehensive approach to urban and rural planning. It is anticipated that the Rural- Urban Connections Strategy effo rt will be completed within 3

years.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed by 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $1,000,000Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-62 

### Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xiv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-63 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-3

TCM ID: RP-3 Control Measure Title: Research a Transportation Pricing Policy

Control Measure Description

SACOG will prepare an anal ysis on the impacts and viability of using pricing policies with the transit system and selected portions of the road network to encourage people to drive less and use transit, walking and bicyc ling modes more. This study will identify strategies to reduce emissions that will incl ude, but are not limit ed to, free or reduced transit fares during “spare the air” days; fa re-free zones on the transit system; transit vouchers; days on which transit is free; co ngestion pricing options for portions of the road system, such as tolls on freeways and highways; and congestion-pricing to enter certain high-traffic areas served by pub lic transit (e.g., downtown Sacramento).

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed by 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $300,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (vii)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-64 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-4

TCM ID: RP-4
Control Measure Title: Research a Re gional Parking Regulation Policy to
Provide Incentives for Use of Alternative Modes

Control Measure Description

SACOG will prepare an analysis and perform trav el modeling and air emissions analysis to identify a range of alternativ es for local governments to use to modify current parking regulations to create incentives for people to use available transit, walking and biking options and neighborhood electric vehicles . The analysis will address impacts of parking maximum and minimum requirements, shared parking systems, and parking pricing on travel behavior and air emissions. T he study will also include the potential for application of alternative energy technol ogies, such as solar shading and power generation, at both structured and surfac e parking facilities. The I-PLACE 3 

### S energy module will be used to support this re search. This study will be conducted cooperatively with key partners such as th e air districts and local governments within the region.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $350,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (vi)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-65 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-5

TCM ID: RP-5 Control Measure Title: Adopt a “Complete Streets” Policy

Control Measure Description

SACOG will adopt a “Complete St reets” policy to require that applicants for SACOG regional funding programs dem onstrate that the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and transit facilitie s include the needs of all transportation users – pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, transit users, and moto rists. Examples include facilities (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. ) that allow for safe walking, biking and wheelchair access along roadwa ys. Through its Complete Streets policy, SACOG will require that applicants for local funding programs administered by SACOG demonstrate that their project is mult i-modal and will consi der the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and disabled travelers. SACOG’s policy will be consistent with current, adopted regional and local plans, and in accordance with locally adopted policies such as Sacramento County’s Measur e A program that earmar ks funds for multi-modal improvements (highway, str eet, and road construction; hi ghway, street, and road maintenance; bus and light rail capital and operations; improved transportation services for elderly and handicapped persons; and transpor tation-related air quality programs). In the absence of such plans, federal, stat e, and local standards an d guidelines should be used to determine appropriate accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and

disabled travelers.

The policy will also require applicants for State funding programs to ensure that projects

are consistent with Caltrans Directive 64 , which states that the California Department of Transportation, "fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disa bilities) in all pr ogramming, planning, maintenance, construction, operat ions and project development activities and products." The policy will also require that applicants for federal f unding programs ensure that projects are consistent wit h the United States Departm ent of Transportation Policy Statement on “Accommodating Bicyc lists and Pedestrians in Transportation Projects”.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2012.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-66 

### Cost

The total budget for this measure is $50,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-67 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-6

TCM ID: RP-6
Control Measure Title: Initiate a “Com plete Streets” Technical Assistance Program

Control Measure Description To implement the Complete Streets policy, SACOG will review and analyze the practices of local governments within the SACOG region and around the nation to identify appropriate “Best Practices” for complete street des ign within the SACOG region. “Complete Streets” means design of the right-of-way for all relevant modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicyclists and tr ansit as well as automobiles. The best practices will address the functional needs of different types of streets, including arterials, major and minor collectors, and local streets. SACOG will develop a curriculum, conduct educationa l seminars/workshops to disse minate the best practices information and provide technical assistance for local governments (public works and planning staff, planning commissioners and el ected officials) and members of the private land use development, planning, engineer ing and design communities to assist the design and construction of “Complete Streets” throughout the MTP Plan Area. SACOG will also provide technical assistance to local governments on a case-by-case basis, as requested, to help them to successfully implement this concept.

Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $100,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (x)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-68 

### CONTROL MEASURE NUMBER: RP-7

TCM ID: RP-7 Control Measure Title: Adopt a “Safe Routes to School” Policy and Implement a Pilot Program

Control Measure Description

Within 3 years from the adopt ion of the MTP 2035, SACOG will adopt a Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) policy to promote the practice of safe bicycling a nd walking to and from schools throughout the MTP Plan Area in order to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and enhance neighborh ood safety. There are both federal and state funding programs for SRTS. As a regional agen cy, SACOG is an eligible applicant under the Federal program for both infras tructure and non-infrastructure projects. Under the state program, only cities and countie s are eligible applicants fo r infrastructure projects (Caltrans, 2007). With the passage of the Safe Routes to School bill (AB 1475), a “onethird” distribution formula for federal safety funds to be allocated in equal amounts to: state highways, local roads, an d Safe Routes to School (S RTS) construction program

was established.

SACOG will also join the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of more than 300 nonprofit or ganizations, government age ncies, schools, and professionals working together to advance the Safe Routes to School movement in the
United States.

In addition, SACOG will host a regional workshop for all cities, counties, school districts and transit operators within th e region to identify other potential opportunities for

collaboration that would r educe greenhouse gas impacts. At a minimum, the issues discussed will include the finding s from the Safe Routes to School activities described above, opportunities to increas e the number of student s with bus or other transit options to get to and from school, and integrating school siting practi ces with goals of promoting walkable neighborhoods with a wide range of easily accessible services. This workshop will be patterned after the “Stretching Co mmunity Dollars Guidebook” and workshop
series that the SACOG Executive Director wr ote for the California City, County, Schools (CCS) Partnership (a non-profit organiza tion of the League of California Cities,
California State Association of Counties a nd California School Boards Association). That workshop series is specifically des igned to help these three local government entities to take maximum advantage of opport unities for collaboration. SACOG will ask the CCS Partnership to co-host the event, and offer to make the ma terials prepared for

the event available to the CCS Partnership for use in its on-going workshop series

around the state.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-69 

### Emission Reductions

No emission reductions are being clai med for this measure in the SIP.

Timeframe

This project is estimated to be completed in 2012.

Cost

The total budget for this measure is $200,000.

Needed Resources and Authority

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

The federal Safe Routes to School program (SRTS) was authorized by Section 1404 of

the SAFETEA-LU (the Safe, Accountable, Flexib le, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ). SACOG will also obtain federal funds from the Federal Highway Administration through Caltrans to implem ent at least one SRTS pilot program within

the MTP Plan Area.

The State-legislated Safe Routes to School program (SR2S) is c ontained in Streets & Highways Code Section 2330-2334. SAC OG will encourage its member agencies to apply for funds available through the Stat e Highway Safety Improvement fund for eligible infrastructure projects in order to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety for

schoolchildren.

Eligible per the Clean Air Act as Amended, Section 108 (f) (xiv)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-70 

### Attachment A

Potential Transportation Control Measures Clean Air Act, Section 108 (f)

i) Programs for improved public transit;

ii) Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high-occupancy vehicles (HOV); iii) Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives; iv) Trip-reduction ordinances; v) Traffic flow improvement program s that achieve emissions reductions; vi) Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple- occupancy vehicle programs or transit service; vii) Programs to limit or restrict vehicl e use in downtown areas or other areas of emissions concentration particularly during periods of peak use; viii) Programs for the provision of all forms of high-occupancy, shared-rides; ix) Programs to limit portions of road su rfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place; x) Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas; xi) Programs to control extended idling of vehicles; xii) Reducing emissions from extreme cold-start conditions; xiii) Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules; xiv) Programs and ordinances to facilit ate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single- occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity; xv) Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks, or areas solely for use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest. For purposes of this clause, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary of the Interior; and xvi) Programs to encourage removal of pre-1980 vehicles.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-71 

### Attachment A-1

Substitution of Transportation Control Measures

SAFETEA-LU section 6011(d) reads as follows:

(d) Substitution of Transportation Control M easures.--Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) (as amended by subs ection (c)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

"(8) Substitution of transpor tation control measures.—

• "(A) In general.--Transportation contro l measures that are specified in an implementation plan may be replaced or added to the implementation plan with

alternate or additional trans portation control measureso "(i) if the substitute measures ac hieve equivalent or greater emissions

reductions than the contro l measure to be replaced, as demonstrated with an emissions impact analysis that is consistent with the current methodology used for evaluating the replaced control measure in the implementation plan; "(ii) if the substitute contro l measures are implemented-

 "(I) in accordance with a sched ule that is consistent with the schedule provided for control meas ures in the implementation plan; or "(II) if the implement ation plan date for im plementation of the control measure to be replaced has passed, as soon as practicable after the implementati on plan date but not later than the date on which emission reductions are necessary to achieve the purpose of the im plementation plan;

"(iii) if the substitute and additional control measures are accompanied with evidence of adequate personnel and funding and authority under State or local law to implement, monitor, and enforce the control

measures; "(iv) if the substitute and additional control measures were developed through a collaborative process that included-

 "(I) participation by representativ es of all affected jurisdictions (including local air pollution c ontrol agencies, the State air pollution control agency, and St ate and local transportation agencies); "(II) consultation with the Administrator; and "(III) reasonable public notic e and opportunity for comment; andSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-72 

### "(v) if the metropolitan planning organization, Stat e air pollution control agency, and the Administrator concur with the equivalency of the

substitute or additional control measures.

• "(B) Adoption.-

o "(i) Concurrence by the metropo litan planning organization, State air pollution control agency and the Ad ministrator as required by subparagraph (A)(v) shall constitute adoptio n of the substitute or additional control measures so long as the r equirements of subparagraphs (A)(i), (A)(ii), (A)(iii) and (A)(iv) are met. "(ii) Once adopted, the substitute or additional control measures become, by operation of law, part of the state implementati on plan and become federally enforceable. "(iii) Within 90 days of its concu rrence under subparagraph (A)(v), the State air pollution control agency shall s ubmit the substitute or additional
control measure to the Administrator for incorporation in the codification of the applicable implementation plan. No twithstanding any other provision of this Act, no additional State process shall be necessary to support such revision to the applicable plan.

• "(C) No requirement for express permi ssion.--The substitution or addition of a transportation control measure in accor dance with this par agraph and the funding or approval of such a control measure s hall not be contingent on the existence of any provision in the applic able implementation plan that expressly permits such a

substitution or addition.

• "(D) No requirement for new conformity determination.--The subs titution or addition of a transportation control measure in ac cordance with this paragraph shall notrequireo "(i) a new conformity determinati on for the transportation plan; or "(ii) a revision of the implementation plan.

• "(E) Continuation of cont rol measure being replaced.--A control measure that is being replaced by a substitute control m easure under this paragraph shall remain
in effect until the substitute control m easure is adopted by the State pursuant to subparagraph (B).

• "(F) Effect of adoption.--Adopt ion of a substitute contro l measure shall constitute rescission of the previously app licable control measure."Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-73 

### Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

Background

The Sacramento region has been designated by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) as a non-attainment area under the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The region is currently in the process of prepar ing a new state implem entation plan (SIP) to

demonstrate how it will reac h attainment of the 8-hou r ozone standard. Section 172 (c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that stat e implementations plans include an analysis
of what are known as reasonabl y available control measures (RACM). The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that the Sacr amento Region is implementing all reasonably available control measures, as required to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicabl e. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) conducted this RA CM analysis in conjunction with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualit y Management District (SMAQMD). 20



### RACM Analysis Overview and Criteria

In its 1992 General Preamble for impl ementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA explains that it interprets Section 172 (c)(1) as a requirement that states incorporate in a SI P all reasonably ava ilable control measures that would advance a region’s attainment date. Howeve r, regions are obligated to adopt only those

measures that are reasonab ly available for implement ation in light of local

circumstances. In the Preambl e, EPA laid out guidelines to help states determine which

measures should be consid ered reasonably available. These guidelines are
summarized in the sections that follow.

Implementation Date

Implementation of a measure or a group of measures is typically expected to assist the region in advancing the date of attainment at least one year. With the current attainment demonstration year set at 2018, this would require a reduction in ozone levels by 2017.

Enforceability

Once a transportation control measure is added to a SIP, it becomes legally binding. If the state or local government does not have the authority necessary to implement or enforce a measure, the measure is not cr editable in the SIP and therefore cannot be
declared a RACM. A measure is consi dered enforceable when all state or local government agencies responsible for funding, implementati on and enforcement of the measure have committed in writing to its implementation and enforcement.

20 Yolo-Solano AQMD staff consulted with the Asso ciation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to identify any TCMs that might be implemented in the YSAQ MD portion of Solano County, and determined that ABAG is not committing to any TCMs in that area. (YSAQMD, Matt Jones e-mail 12-10-08)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-74 

### Technological Feasibility

All technology-based control measures mu st include technolog ies that have been verified by EPA. The region cannot take SI P credit for technologies that do not produce
EPA-verifiable results.

Economic Feasibility and Cost Effectiveness

Another key RACM test is whet her or not the measures are ec onomically feasible. This test analyzes both the cost-effectiveness of the proposed measure, as well as the overall availability of funding to fully im plement the measure as proposed. In many cases, a finding of “not economically feasible” is a result of insufficient resources to fully implement the measure as pr oposed. The Transportation Re search Board in recent research set a range of $10,000- $20,000 per ton of pollution reduced (in 2000 dollars), below which measures can be considered to be economically feasible. 21 

### The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area set a th reshold of $3,500-$5,000 per ton as part of their 2007 RACM analysis. The Sacramento Area Metropolit an Air Quality Management District has imposed a variety of rule s whose cost-effectiveness has ranged from $2,000-$34,000 per ton. For the purposes of this RACM analysis, $34,000 per ton will

be used as the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Substantial and Widespread Adverse Impacts

The potential exists for some candidate control measures to cause substantial and widespread adverse impacts to a particular social group or sector of the economy. From an environmental justice standpoint, any measures that are found to cause substantial or widespread adverse im pacts will not be considered RACM.

Advancing the Attainment Date

Another test is whether or not the collective total of available regional and local control measures that are considered but not pro posed to be adopted (including stationary, area, land use, and mobile source meas ures) would be sufficient to advance the attainment date by one year (one full oz one season earlier than expected). This analysis was conducted by the air districts usi ng information supplied by SACOG staff.

If the test results would not advance the attainment date, then the measures not being proposed for adoption would not be considered RACM.

21 Transportation Research Board: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Assessing 10 Years of Experience, Special Report 264. TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.c., 2002.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-75 

### Intensive and Costly Effort

Considered altogether, the co st of implementing the propos ed measures cannot exceed

the resources availa ble to the region. 22



### Analysis Methodology

SACOG and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) have jointly compiled a list of potential cont rol measures from t he following sources:

 Clean Air Act Section 108(f) measures

 Measures considered in the San Francisco Bay Ar ea, San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Quality Management District RACM analyses

 Air District Workshop

 The MTP 2035 Draft Project List

TCM Development Process

The first step was to develop a list of tr ansportation control measures for possible

consideration. This list was developed from a variety of sources: prior Sacramento Area RACM processes, TCM-elig ible projects from the draft MTP for 2035, other regions’ SIPs and measures suggested by partner agencies and the public through the interagency consultation process. SACOG staff reviewed over 1,400 projects from the draft MTP 2035 project list and considered t hose that met the CA A TCM eligibility requirements as part of the potential list of TCMs.

In addition, other area’s 8-hour ozone SIPs were reviewed and cross-referenced against measures already on the list. The other 8-hour ozone SIPs reviewed includes the following:

2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy
2007 South Coast 8-Hour Ozone Plan 2007 San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Plan 2007 San Diego County 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 2007 Metropolitan Washington 8-Hour Ozone SIP 2007 Cecil County MD 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The TCM development process and draft lists of potential TCMs were presented at public meetings on ten different dates fr om September 10, 2007 – March 6, 2008. These included discussions at SACOG’s Regi onal Planning Partnership (RPP), Land Use, Housing and Air Quality Committee (s ubsequently the Climate and Air Quality Committee), the Transportation Committee, the Flood Management Committee and the
Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee, as well as the SACOG Board of

22 RACM Analysis for Four Serious Areas Designat ed Nonattainment for 1-hr Ozone NAAQS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor. October 12, 2000.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-76 

### Directors. This process resulted in a thorough list of control measures for consideration as potential TCMs, which could be consider ed as a Reasonably Available Control
Measure or RACM.

These measures were evaluated using the cr iteria noted above, and are documented in

Attachment A-2.

RACM Determination and Analysis Results

Attachment A-2 lists the pot ential control measures, organized by category, and notes whether they are considered RACM, and if not, the reasons they were not found to be
RACM. The measures that have been determined to be RACM will be included in the
SIP as TCMs.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-77 

### Attachment A-2

Control Measure

Number Control Measure Title and Strategy Type Conclusions, Comments,
and Status

Recommended and Proposed Transportation Control Measures

ITS-1 Arden Way “Smart Corridor” from Del

Paso to Watt Expected to be completed in

2008

ITS-2 Sacramento Traffic Operations Center Expected to be completed in

2009

ITS-3 Watt Avenue Phase 3 Smart Corridor Expected to be completed in

2009

ITS-4 Sacramento Transportation Area Network (STARNET) Implementation Expected to be operational in 2008 and be completed in 2009

TF-1 El Dorado Central Park and Ride Facility Expected to be completed in

2009

TF-2 Improvements to Loomis Multimodal
Center Expected to be completed in

2010

TF-3 13 th and 16 th Light Rail Station Improvements Expected to be completed in

2009

TR-1 Transit Vehicle Acquisitions – Bus Replacement This task divided into 8 components. See below.

TR-1A Auburn Transit Bus Replacement Expected to be completed in

2008

TR-1B Roseville Transit Bus Purchase Expected to be completed in

2009

TR-1C Roseville Transit Bus Replacement Expected to be completed in

2008

TR-1D Replacement Neighborhood Ride Buses Expected to be completed in

2012

TR-1E E-Tran Replacement Buses Expected to be completed in

2010

TR-1F SRTD Neighborhood Ride Vehicle Replacement Expected to be completed in

2010

TR-1G Yuba Sutter Transit Bus Expansion Expected to be completed in

2010

TR-1H YCTD Bus Replacement Expected to be completed in

2010

TR-2 Transit Operations – Fund Transit operators This task divided into 8 components. See below.

TR-2A El Dorado Transit Operating Assistance Expected to be completed in

2009 TR-2B Roseville Operating Assistance Implemented in 2008 TR-2C Elk Grove Operating Assistance Implemented in 2011 TR-2D Folsom Operating Assistance Implemented in 2011 TR-2E Paratransit Operating Assistance Implemented in 2008

TR-2F Sacramento County Operating

Assistance Implemented in 2008

TR-2G Regional Transit Operating Assistance Implemented in 2010 TR-2H YCTD Operating Assistance Implemented in 2008

AQ-1 Freeway Service Patrol – provide motorist assistance and towing for disable vehicles during peak hours Implemented in 2008 to 2018Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-78 AQ-2 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air & Transportation (SECAT) Program Implemented in 2008 to 2018

TCM-ONMS-ED-1 (AQ-3) Notification of Spare The Air Implemented in 2008 to 2108

FP-1 Air Quality Funding Program Fund AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3

FP-2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Program This task divided into 4 components. See below.

FP-2A I-80 Bike/Ped Bridge at the West Canal Expected to be completed in

2012

FP-2B City of Folsom Bikestation and “Bikelink” On-Demand Long-Term Class I Bike Parking at Transit Stations Expected to be completed in

2010

FP-2C City of Elk Grove: Elk Grove Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Expected to be completed in

2011

FP-2D Retrofit Yolobus bus fleet with higher capacity bike racks Expected to be completed in

2011

FP-3 Transportation Demand Management Funding Program Implemented in 2008 to 2018

FP-4 Community Design Funding Program This task divided into 4 components. See below.

FP-4A City of Marysville: East 10 th Street and
Ramirez Street Intersection Improvement Expected to be completed in

2011

FP-4B City of Rancho Cordova: Folsom Blvd.
Enhancements & SR2S Phase 2 Expected to be completed in

2012

FP-4C Sacramento County: Complete Streets

for Freedom Park Drive and North Watt

Avenue Expected to be completed in

2011

FP-4D City of Woodland: Lemen, North, East Streets Intersection Realignment Expected to be completed in

2011

M-2 Light Rail Grade Separation at Watt and

Folsom Boulevard Expected to be completed in

2009

RP-1 Blueprint implementation and Planning

Technical Assistance Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-2 Development Rural-Urban Connections Strategy and Create Best Practices

Toolkit Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-3 Research a Transportation Pricing Policy Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-4 Research a Regional Parking Regulation to Provide Incentives for Use
of Alternative Modes Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-5 Adopt “Complete Streets” Policy Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-6 Initiate a “Complete Streets” Technical Assistance Program Expected to be completed in

2012

RP-7 Adopt a Safe Routes to School Policy and Implement Pilot Program Expected to be completed in

2012Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-79 Other Control Measures Considered – Bike/Walk Communities Control Measure

TCM-201 Increase Bike/Walk Trips Not Recommended – Not economically feasible; some implementation will occur through TCM FP-2 and TCMs RP-5, RP-6

and RP-7.
TCM-15 Increased Walk-to-School Programs Subset of TCM-201 TCM-177 Bicycle stations Subset of TCM-201

TCM-217 Expanded Pedestrian and Bicycle
Infrastructure Subset of TCM-201

TCM-22 Bike Access at Transit Stations Subset of TCM-201 TCM-276 More Bike Parking Subset of TCM-201

TCM-277 Wide Road Shoulders and Narrow
Gutters Subset of TCM-201

TCM-284 Minimize Bollards Use Subset of TCM-201

TCM-286 Debris-free Roads – swept bikeway frequently Subset of TCM-201

TCM-292 Underground Utilizes – Place utilities

close to street centerline Subset of TCM-201

TCM-315 Require More Bike Trips Subset of TCM-201

TCM-318 Showers and Lockers at Work Subset of TCM-201 TCM-319 More River and Railroad Crossings Subset of TCM-201

TCM-320 More Freeway Crossings and Modified Interchange Subset of TCM-201

TCM-323 Bicycle-friendly Streets Subset of TCM-201 TCM-324 Increase Funding of Cycl ing Programs Subset of TCM-201 TCM-327 Treatment of Cyclists wi th Respect Subset of TCM-201

TCM-280 Police Enforcement of Bike Law Subset of TCM-201

TCM-283 Motorists Share Roads Subset of TCM-201 TCM-285 Promote Cycling Subset of TCM-201

TCM-288 Universal Bike Educ ation Subset of TCM-201

TCM-289 Minimize Traffic Lanes Subset of TCM-201

TCM-296 Cycling Incentives like for Carpoolers or

Transit Users Subset of TCM-201

TCM-298 Increase Bike Deliveries Subset of TCM-201

TCM-301 Bike Cars on Train Subset of TCM-201

TCM-317 Info on Bike Access Subset of TCM-201 TCM-330 Bike Use by Government Employees Subset of TCM-201 TCM-88 Walking and Bicycling Events Subset of TCM-201

TCM-329 Education of Road Users Subset of TCM-201

TCM-314 Subsidize Purchase of Bike Accessories Subset of TCM-201 Other Control Measures Considered – Educational/Voluntary Control Measures

TCM-113 Displaying air quality data on billboards Not Recommended – Minimal

Emissions Reductions

TCM-145 Public Education on NOx and ROG
sources in Schools and Small

Businesses Not Recommended – Minimal

Emissions Reductions

TCM-153 Public Education to School Subset of TCM-145

TCM-166 Increase outreach efforts to small

businesses Subset of TCM-145

TCM-195 Public Information about the total costs of gasoline use Not Recommended – Minimal

Emissions ReductionsSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-80 Other Control Measures Considered – Episodic Control Measures

TCM-104 Reduce Work-Related Trips Not Recommended – No authority to implement; not economically feasible. TCM-205 More Episodic Controls Subset of TCM-104

TCM-97 Increase fees for parking garages and meters during episodes Not Recommended – No authority to implement; not economically feasible. Some
elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-86 Provide free public transit during episodes Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.
Other Control Measures Consider ed – HOV Lane Control Measures

TCM-107 Dedicated Bus Lanes Not Recommended – Not economically feasible. Other Control Measures Considered – Work Related Trip Reduction Control Measures

TCM-123 Work-Related Trip Reduction Program Partially Implemented (See below)

TCM-184 Regional Guaranteed Ride Home Subset of TCM-123; to be implemented through TCM FP-3.

TCM-297 Bike Use at Businesses Subset of TCM-123

Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-302 Government Staff Dedicate to Cycling Subset of TCM-123

Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-373 Carpool program Subset of TCM-123; to be implemented through TCM FP-3.

TCM-124 Telework/Alternative Work Schedule Subset of TCM-123

Not Recommended – Not
Enforceable

TCM-186 Increase telecommuting Subset of TCM-123

Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-229 Various Traffic Reduction Strategies – Address the transportation to the public
and reduce emissions from automobile by encouraging and supporting carpool and use of public transportation Subset of TCMs-123 and 174; to be partially implemented through
TCM FP-3.

TCM-100 Reduce business/government hours of operation Subset of TCM-123; no authority to implement.

TCM-94 Close Government on Pollution Days Subset of TCMs-100 and 123; no authority to implement. TCM-174 Regional Rideshare Program Implemented as TCM FP-3.

TCM-208 Regional alternatives work schedules Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-143 Stagger work schedules Not Recommended – No authority to implement.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-81 Other Control Measures Considered – Traffic Information Control Measure

TCM-179 Enhance real time traffic information to

allow drivers to make better decisions

about when and where to travel Not Recommended – Not economically feasible; to be partially implemented through TCMs ITS-1 through 4.

TCM-273 Road Hazard Reporting Subset of TCM-179; not economically feasible.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-82 Other Control Measures Considered – Parking Control Measures

TCM-199 Reduce the number of public parking spaces in the City of Sacramento by

25% Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some

elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-306 Parking Cash Out Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some
elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-310 Charge City-owned parking garage pass-holders a fee for more than one entrance and exit each day Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some

elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-311 Refunds to Parking Garage PassHolders Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some

elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-316 Eliminate Timed Parking Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some

elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4.

TCM-76 Extended the Parking Cash-Out law to employer-owned parking spaces Not Recommended – No authority to implement and not economically feasible. Some
elements of this considered measure will be analyzed as part
of TCM RP-4. Other Control Measures Considered – Pay to Pollute Control Measures

TCM-57 Require passenger vehicles not meeting the standards of passenger cars to pay an annual fee and/or a fee upon purchase Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-247 Tax on Inefficient Vehicles Subset of TCM-57

TCM-261 Tax SUVs Subset of TCM-57

TCM-359 Pricing strategies to affect Consumer

Demand Subset of TCM-57

TCM-118 Increase Vehicle Registration Fee and Traffic and Parking Violation Fines Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-196 Ticket Surcharges Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-157 Require a surcharge to be paid by drivers during the summer season based on the number of driving miles Not Recommended – No authority to implement.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-83 TCM-78 Emission-based registration fees Not Recommended – No authority to implement. TCM-192 Tailpipe emissions Subset of TCM-78 TCM-36 Vehicle Smog Impact Fee Subset of TCM-78

TCM-56 Increase gasoline sales tax in the
Sacramento Federal Nonattainment

Area Not Recommended – No authority to implement.

TCM-200 Increase Gasoline Subset of TCM-56 TCM-241 Fuel Tax During Summer Months Subset of TCM-56

TCM-304 Increase the price of gasoline to pay for damage of pollutions, cost of global warming, and cost of petroleum dependency Not Recommended – No authority to implement; not economically feasible.

TCM-39 Sell Clean Air License Plates to fund air quality programs Not Recommended – No authority to implement. Other Control Measures Considered – Traffic Calming Control Measures

TCM-294 Implement traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed and encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TCM-169 Install traffic circles at intersections Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

SACOG Transportation Control Measures Page D-84 Other Control Measures Considered – Traffic Expansion Control Measures

TCM-111 Improve safety and security on public

transit Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TM-154 Implement public transit discounts and incentives for employees Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TCM-185 Community-based shuttle system Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TCM-187 Bus Traffic-Signal Pre-emption Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TCM-368 Light Rail Access to Airport Not Recommended – Not economically feasible.

TCM-84 Provide free public transit Not Recommended – Not economically feasible. TCM-146 Special RT fares for certain groups Subset of TCM-84

TCM-89 Employers provide free transit passes to all employees Subset of TCM-84

Other Control Measures Considered – Airport Control Measures

TCM-83 Eliminate government employee airport parking reimbursement Not Recommended – No authority to implement; not economically feasible; Regional Parking Regulation and incentives will be further analyzed through implementation of TCM

RP-4.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-1 

### Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses

Attainment demonstrations based on phot ochemical modeling can be strengthened by supplemental evidence fr om additional modeling anal yses and from considering modeling outputs other than the attainment test results. More diverse non-modeling and observational methods analyzing air qualit y, meteorological, and emissions data

can also be used to corroborate t he modeling predictions. EPA guidance 23 

### specifies that a comprehensive weight-of-evidence a pproach should be undertaken to support the

modeled attainment demonstration.

The following information for the weight-o f-evidence analyses in this appendix was provided by CARB and was summarized in Chapter 10 – Weight-of-Evidence

Determination.

SACRAMENTO METRO AREA: OZONE

Introduction

The Sacramento Metro Area 24 

### is currently classified as a Serious nonattainment area
for the federal 8-hour ozone standard and has a nominal attainment date of June 15, 2013. ARB staff comple ted photochemical mode ling indicating the area will not attain the standard by the 2013 deadli ne. However, results show the area could reach

attainment in 2018 wit h additional NOx emissions reductions resulting from State and

local measures. Therefore, on Februar y 14, 2008, ARB forwarded to U.S. EPA a request to reclassify the area from Seriou s to Severe-15, with an attainment date of June 15, 2019, as allowed by U.S. EPA. This action was approved by the governing boards of the five air districts, and U.S. EPA is expected to approve the request. The following sections contain the suppleme ntal air quality and emissions analyses supporting the overall conclusion that Sacramento will attain the federal 8-hour standard by the 2019 deadline for Severe-15 ozone nonattainment areas.

U.S. EPA Attainment Demonstration Requirements

The attainment demonstration portion of a SIP consists of the analyses used to determine whether a proposed cont rol strategy provides the reductions necessary to meet the federal standard by the attainment year. Th is attainment demonstration includes photochemical modelin g, which predicts that projec ted new controls will result in an 8-hour ozone design value of less than 0.085 parts per million (ppm) for the
Sacramento Metro Area in 2018 . (note: because the des ign value is based on a

23 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze” (EPA, April 2007, p. 98-109).

24 Sacramento Metro Area is the same region as the Sacramento federal nonattainment area as shown in Figure 1.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-2 

### three-year average, an area mu st have a design value that meets the standard at the end of the year prior to the attainment year; for example, if an area has an attainment date of June 15, 2019, it must have a design val ue that meets the standard at the end of 2018). Because of the uncertainties inherent in photochemical m odeling, the U.S. EPA allows states to supplement the modeling results with a “Weight of Evidence” (WOE) demonstration if the model predicts ozone levels of 0.082 ppm to 0.087 ppm.

The WOE assessment provides a set of co mplementary analyses that supplement the SIP-required modeling. These analyses can include considerati on of measured air quality, emissions, and meteor ological data, evaluation of other air quality indicators, and additional air quality modeling. Bec ause all analysis methods have inherent strengths and weaknesses, exam ining an air quality problem in a variety of ways helps
offset the limitations and uncertainties t hat are inherent in any particular method.

The scope of the WOE analysis is different for each nonattainment area. The level of detail appropriate for each area depends upon the complexity of the air quality problem,
how far into the future the attainment deadl ine is, and the amount of data and modeling

available. This document summarize s the analyses that comprise the WOE
assessment for the Sa cramento Metro Area.

Physical Context

The Sacramento Metro Area comprises all of Sacramento and Yolo counties, the eastern portion of Solano County, the southern portion of Sutter County, and the portions of El Dorado and Placer counties that are not part of the Lake Tahoe Air Basin. Geographically, the area occupi es the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley, extending from the foothills of the Coast Ran ges in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the
east and from the Sacramento Riv er delta in the south to the northern borders of Yolo

and Placer counties.

There are no large emissions sources in the Sacramento Metro Area. Instead, the region is characterized by a number of sm aller emissions sources that are widespread throughout the area. On-road mo tor vehicles and other mobile sources account for the majority of the area’s ozone precursor em issions. To simplify the following analyses and better characterize ozone air quality, t he Sacramento Metro Ar ea is divided into three subregions: the “western” subregion, the “central” subregion, and the “eastern” subregion. Each subregion shares sim ilar ozone air quality, source-receptor relationships, and geography (refer to Figure 1)

.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-3 

### Figure 1: Sacramento Metro Area Subregions

As shown in Figure 1, the we stern subregion includes Yolo and Solano counties and the
downtown Sacramento area. While ozone concentrations are low in the western subregion, prevailing winds dur ing the summer ozone season generally flow from the
south/southwest to the north/northeast. As a result, ozone and ozone precursor emissions from the western subregion can be transported to the other two subregions, contributing to problems in these areas.

The central subregion includes the suburban areas of Sacram ento County that are east of downtown Sacramento, as well as the ur banized portions of Plac er County. This area has experienced rapid growth over the last decade. In the central subregion, local emissions combine with emissions and pol lutants transported from the western subregion to produce higher ozone concentrations.

Finally, the eastern subregion comprises t he eastern portion of the Sacramento Metro

Area and the areas to the nor th and south of the centra l subregion. The eastern subregion includes the Placer and El Dorado county foothill communities of Auburn, Cool, and Placerville, as well as t he area around Sloughous e in southeastern Sacramento County. While not urban in nature, these communi ties are closely linked to downtown Sacramento by employment, housing, and travel patterns. In addition, theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-4 

### eastern subregion is impacted by pollutant s and emissions from both the western and central subregions. As a result, sites in th is area generally have more severe ozone problems.

Historical Perspective

Ozone concentrations in the Sacramento Metr o Area have posed a persistent problem over the years. However, evaluating histor ical progress is difficu lt, because long-term monitoring data are not available for severa l high sites. While long-term data for the high sites are not available, there are long-term data available for other sites representing the different s ubregions of the Sacramento Me tro Area. Figures 2 and 3 show exceedance days and design values fo r four sites with long-term data: Sacramento-Del Paso Manor, Sacramento-T Street , and Folsom in Sacramento County, as well as Placerville in El Dorado County. The T Street site is located in downtown Sacramento, while the other three sites are lo cated east of downtown (in the central and eastern subregions) where higher ozone concentrations typically occur.

The graphs in Figures 2 and 3 show three- year averages, because the annual values are quite variable, making it difficult to det ermine the general overall trends. Like many other areas of the State, the number of exceedance days at sites in the Sacramento Metro Area has decreased more rapidly than t he design value. Overall, since the early 1990s, the number of exceedance days decr eased about 60 percent at Del Paso Manor, 35 percent at Folsom, and 30 percent at Placerville (since 1994). The decrease at T Street, a site that m eets the federal 8-hour standard, was much smaller (about 10 percent). In contrast, the decreases in design value have been more modest, between about 2 and 12 percent at a ll four sites. It is import ant to note that sites in the western subregion of the Sa cramento Metro Area now m eet the federal 8-hour standard, while sites in the central and eastern subregions still pose air quality challenges.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-5 

### Figure 2: Federal 8-Hour Ozone Ex ceedance Days for Selected Long-Term
Sacramento Metro Area Sites 1990 to 2006

Federal 8-Hour Ozone Exceedance Days 3-Year Averages -- 1990 to 2006

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearNumber of Days

Folsom-3yr Avg Placerville-3yr Avg Del Paso Manor-3yr Avg T Street-3yr Avg



### Figure 3: Federal 8-Hour Ozone De sign Values for Selected Long-Term
Sacramento Me tro Area Sites 1990 to 2006

Federal 8-Hour Ozone Design Values

3-Year Averages -- 1990 to 2006

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearOzone Concentration (ppm)

Folsom-3yr Avg Placerville-3yr Avg Del Paso Manor-3yr Avg T Street-3yr AvgSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-6 

### Assessment of Recent Air Quality Trends

General Areawide Perspective

Although a number of sites in the Sacram ento Metro Area show long-term progress, many sites show progress over the more re cent years, as well. When assessing air quality trends, it is important to include data for the high sites in an area. Until recently (2005 through 2007), the Cool site in El Do rado County had the highest design value in
the Sacramento Metro Area. Therefore, it is important to include th is site in any trends evaluation. Ozone monitoring began at Cool in 1996, and the site had its first valid design value in 1998, after three years of operation. Given this, as well as consideration of the completeness of data re cords for other sites in the Sacramento Metro Area, ARB staff selected 1999 as the start year for t he evaluation of recent air quality trends.

Figure 4 shows ozone trends for the Sacr amento Metro Area for 1999 through 2006. The graph includes four air quality indicators: maximum 8-hour concentration, federal 8-hour design value, mean of the Top 30 concentrations each year, and number of federal 8-hour exceedance days. Over the last eight year s, the decrease in the number of exceedance days has been similar to the decrease in the maximum concentration (a little more than 10 percent reduction in each) . Because these two statistics reflect values for individual years, the trend lines are variable, re flecting year-to-year changes in meteorology. In contrast , the other two indicators, t he mean of the Top 30 and the design value, are less variabl e because they are more robust. These more stable indicators show less change ov er the eight-year period, al though they reflect modest reductions of about 3 to 6 percent from 1999 to 2006.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-7 

### Figure 4: Sacramento Metro Area Ozone Indicators 1999 to 2006

Sacramento Metro Area Ozone Indicators

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearOzone (ppm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Number of Days

Maximum Concentration Design Value Mean Top 30 Concentrations Exceedance Days



### The trend lines in Figure 4 all show some improvem ent. Another measure of improvement is that although a number of sites still exceed the standard in the central and eastern areas, more than 50 percent of t he region’s population liv es in areas that have design values meeting the standard. This compares fa vorably to 1990, when only 35 percent of the pe ople lived in clean areas. Howeve r, despite this progress in reducing population expos ure, the overall rate of progr ess in reducing the design value

has been modest. The current (2007) design value of 0.098 ppm is still about 15 percent above the level of the federal standard.

Ozone air quality during 2007 showed some improvement over 2006. Although the maximum concentration was slightly hi gher (0.122 ppm in 2007 compared with 0.115 ppm in 2006), the design value is co mparable during both years (0.098 ppm in 2007 compared with 0.097 ppm in 2006). The largest change was in the number of exceedance days. During 2006, there were 42 areawide exceedance days, but only 16 during 2007. Despite the small increase in maximum concentration and design value, ozone indicator values for 2007 were still lower than during the early 2000s. While some portions of the Sacramento Metro Area already attain the standard,

additional emissions reducti ons will be needed to attain the federal 8-hour ozone standard throughout the area.

Spatial Ozone Trends

The trends described above represent an areawide perspective, and they generally
reflect the worst sites in the Sacramento Metro Area. As a result, they do not show how air quality varies throughout the region. One way to assess the spatial change in ozoneSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-8 

### air quality is to look at the change in the sp atial extent of the ozone problem. The maps in Figure 5 provide an estimate of the number of exceedance days, based on available monitoring data. They show contour maps of federal 8-hour exceedance days in the Sacramento Metro Area during two different y ears -- 1999 and 2005. During this time period, the spatial extent of the “clean” areas increased subs tantially, while the size of

the areas with the wors t air quality decreased.

During 1999, about a third of the Sacrament o Metro Area had five or fewer federal 8-hour exceedance days. These relatively cl ean areas were generally restricted to the northern portion of the west ern subregion (Yolo and s outhern Sutter counties and the
central Sacramento downtown area), along with the mountaino us portion of the eastern subregion that extends to the Lake Tahoe Air Basin. About half of the Sacramento Metro Area had at least 11 exceedance days. Fi nally, less than a four th of the area had more than 21 exceedance days, wit h 35 days at Cool, the worst site in the region. The areas with the highest counts were loca ted in the eastern subregion of the
Sacramento Metro Area.

In contrast to the 1999 map, the 2005 map shows a fair am ount of improvement. While most areas show improvement, the rate of im provement differs. T he clean areas (those with five or fewer days) now cover a much la rger extent. Although the clean area in the far eastern portion of the region is not much di fferent in size, the clean area to the west
now covers all of the wester n subregion, including Solano County. The maps show that the number of exceedance days in the central and eastern subregions also decreased, and the areas with the highest number of exceedance days now fall in the range of 11 to 20 days per year, compared with 21 to 50 days in 1999.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-9 

### Figure 5: Sacramento Metro Area Change in Federal Exceedance Days 1999 to 2005

Regional Analysis

As described previously, the Sacramento Metro Area can be divided into three subregions: the western s ubegion, the central subregion, and the eastern subregion (refer to Figure 1). The wester n subregion includes sites in Vacaville, Davis, Woodland, Elk Grove, and downtown Sacr amento. Ozone air quality at all of these sites is relatively clean, and 2006 design val ues are below the federal standard

. A diurnal plot of hourly ozone concentrations at the Sacr amento-T Street site shows a typical bell-shaped pattern, with concentrations peaking in the early afternoon (refer to Figure 6). This type of pattern is typical of sites in urban areas that are located close

to emissions sources.

The central subregion lies to the east of downtown Sacramento and generally includes the suburban portions of Sacramento C ounty and the urbanized portions of Placer County. Sites in this area include Del Paso Manor, North Highlands, Roseville,Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-10 

### and Folsom. 2006 design values for sites in this area were genera lly above the federal 8-hour standard, and the num ber of exceedance days ranged from 9 to 25, with an average of 14 days. Much of this subregion has seen substantial growth over the last decade, especially the Roseville/Rocklin and Folsom areas. Similar to the western subregion, hourly ozone concentrations fo r the central subregion show a bell-shaped diurnal pattern, but with a slightly longer dur ation of the peaks (refe r to Figure 6).

Figure 6: Diurnal Plot of Hourly Ozone Concentrations

The eastern subregion of the Sacramento Metro Area includes sites in the foothill communities of Auburn, Colfax, Cool, Pl acerville, and Sloughouse, along with the Echo Summit site, which is located on the crest of the mountains separating the
Sacramento Metro Area and the Lake Tahoe Air Ba sin. Ozone design values at all sites in the eastern subregion except Echo Summi t are above the federal 8-hour standard. As shown in Figure 6, the hourly ozone conc entrations in this subregion have a diurnal pattern that is characteristic of transport- impacted sites. Compared with the other two subregions, the 24-hour profile for the eastern subregion si te (Placerville) shows a longer duration of high concentrations with t he peak occurring later in the day. In addition, the overnight ozone concentrations remain elevated.

Figure 7 shows the number of federal 8-hour ozone exceedance days for each of the three subregions in the Sacramento Metro Area during 1999 and 2006. The graph is based on exceedance days during the May th rough October ozone season and uses three-year averages to help even out some of the year-to-year variation caused by meteorology. The high sites of Folsom and Cool are plotted separately, and values for these sites are not included in the subregional totals, which represent a composite of all Diurnal Plot of Hourly Ozone Concentrations Averaged Over Top 30 Days During 2003 to 2005

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HourOzone Concentration (ppm)

Placerville (Eastern) Sacramento- Del Paso (Central) Sacramento-T St (Western)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-11 

### other sites in the respective areas. Alt hough ozone data for the Sacramento Metro Area generally show considerable ye ar-to-year variability, t he area has made progress in reducing the number of exceedance days.

The greatest amount of progress occurred in the western subregi on, where the number of exceedance days decreased 25 percent between 1999 and 2006. Sites in this subregion were relatively clean during 199 9 and are even cleaner now. During 2006 and 2007, all sites in the western subregion had design values that met the standard.

Figure 7: Sacramento Metro Area Chan ge in Number of Federal 8-Hour

Exceedance Da ys by Subregion 1999 to 2006

There was also moderate improvement in the central region, with sites other than Folsom showing an overall decr ease of 10 percent. In contrast, sites other than Cool in the eastern subregion show ed little change, with about 30 exc eedances during both years. Looking at the two high sites in t he central and eastern subregions shows some
difference between values for 1999 and 2006. Folsom, located at the eastern edge of the central subregion, continues to be the high site in that subregion and shows only a slight improvement when comparing 1999 and 2006. Given its location and growth rates in the central subregion over the last decade, the Folsom site is likely the most impacted by emissions within the central subregion, as well as by emissions and pollutants transported fr om the western subregion. The improvement at Cool was more substantial, with a 15 percent decreas e in exceedance days from 1999 to 2006.

Like exceedance days, other ozone air qualit y indicators such as the mean of the Top 30, the 4 th 

### high concentration, and the design val ue show generally similar trends. Sacramento Metro Area Change in Federal 8-Hour Ozone Exceedance Days by Subregion (May-October)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Western Region Central Region Eastern Region Folsom CoolNumber of Days

1997-1999 2004-2006Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-12 

### Between 1999 and 2006, ozone air quality improv ed in the western subregion, although there is some year-to-year variability in th e indicator values. As mentioned previously, design values for sites in this subregion c ontinue to be lower than the federal standard. In contrast, ozone indicators for the cent ral subregion, including Folsom, have been relatively flat or show a slight increase since 1999. The eastern subregion, including Cool, still presents a substant ial challenge, despite some im provement since 1999. At
almost all sites in the Sacr amento Metro Area, ozone indi cators increased in 2005, following unusually low values in 2004. Many showed additi onal increases in 2006 and 2007. However, values for the last two y ears are still below leve ls during the early 2000s. Without additional analyses related to the amounts, as well as the spatial and temporal patterns of emissions, the mi x of available precursor emissions, and meteorological conditions, it is difficult to evaluate the di rection of the overall trend during the last several years. However, on a regional level, t here has been progress.

In general, the modest improvem ent in ozone air quality in the Sacrament o Metro Area since 1999 is accompanied by large year-to-year variations which reflect fluctuations in meteorological conditions. Most of the improvement in the ozone indicators has

occurred since 2002. The ar eawide trend lines wo uld appear to suggest that ozone has gotten worse over the last couple of years, but it is important to recognize that concentrations were uncharacteristically lo w during 2004. Although values for some indicators for 2005, 2006, and 2007 are hi gher when compared with the 2004 values, they are still generally lower than val ues for 2002 and 2003. Because ozone
concentrations in the Sacrament o Metro Area are much closer to the level of the federal
standard than in other areas of the State such as the South Coast or San Joaquin Valley air basins, small change s in meteorology can result in substantial year-to-year changes in the air quality indicators. The nex t section examines tr ends after accounting for meteorological variability.

Meteorology and Air Quality Trends

Ozone in the ambient air is the result of several factors, tw o of the most important being pollutant emissions and meteorology. The meteorological and photochemical processes leading to ozone formation are comple x, involving interactions both at the surface and in the upper air. Ho wever, they can be characterized in very general terms. In general, strong sunlig ht and weak dispersion generate relatively high ozone levels, while weak sunlight and strong dispersion generate relatively low ozone levels. Meteorology, or weather conditions, can va ry widely, and these day-to-day conditions strongly influence ambient ozone concentrations.

The previous trends discussion looked at air quality as measured at ambient monitoring sites, without any consideratio n of or adjustment for meteor ological variability. The following discussions consider trends that account in varying degrees for the meteorological conditions affecting ozone c oncentrations. These analyses advance our understanding of the impact of meteorology on ozone air qualit y and our ability to trackSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-13 

### ozone improvements attributable to emissions reductions. Another goal of these analyses is to determine the role meteorol ogy has played in the Sacramento Metro Area, where ozone improvement has been more modest than in other areas of the State. The following analyses s how that after accounting for meteorological variability, real progress has occurred.

The analyses described below are based on air quality and meteorological data for 1996 through 2005. The meteorological data were drawn from the same statewide dataset used in the WOE analyses for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins. Although it would have been desir able to include data fo r 2006 and 2007, these data are still preliminar y, and therefore not ava ilable for the analysis.

High Ozone Forming Potential

As one approach to help underst and the types of meteorologica l conditions leading to high ozone concentrations, ARB staff comple ted an analysis of ozone and meteorology using Classification and R egression Tree (CART) techni ques. The CART analysis determined rules that separated days into 14 groups with varyi ng degrees of ozone forming potential (OFP), or the degree to which weather conditions favor ozone
formation in the Sacramento Me tro Area. The CART rules used daily data for surface air temperature, air temperature at 1500 meters 25 

### , the speed and direction of surface winds, and other factors relat ed to daily maximum 8-hour oz one concentrations. Three years, 2000 through 2002, were us ed to prepare the classifica tion rules and determine the rate (percent) of exce edance days within each of the 14 groups. For the group with the lowest ozone forming potential (OFP), t he rate of exceedance days was 0 percent. For the group with the highest OFP, the rate was 100 percent. On that basis, ARB staff calculated the expected number of days exce eding the federal 8- hour ozone standard for each year from 1996 through 2005. While this method is somewhat different from that used in the WOE analyses for the Sout h Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, ARB staff believes it improv es on the previous method.

The Sacramento Metro Area analysis, pres ented in Figure 8, shows the expected

number and the observed number of days exceeding the f ederal 8-hour ozone standard each year (three-year moving averages). T he changes in exceedance days relative to changes in high OFP days helps distinguish the changes due to meteorology from changes due to other factors, such as emi ssions reductions. Progress is shown when the number of exceedance days decreases in relation to the number of high OFP days.

25 Above sea levelSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-14 

### Figure 8: Sacramento Metro Area A nalysis of Observed and Expected* Exceedance Days (moving three-year means)

Sacramento Metro Area Ozone Trends (Federal 8-Hour Exceedance Days and "High OPF" Days)*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

YearNumber of Days (3-year moving averages)

Expected Observed

* "Expected" counts based on meteorology for the year and emissions at 2000-2002 levels



### The two lines in Figure 8 generally track each other, indicating that year-to-year changes in exceedance days have been largely a ttributable to year-t o-year changes in weather, rather than changes in emission s. The observed mean for 1996 to 1998 includes an extremely low value for 1997, es pecially with respect to the expected value -- 19 observed compared with 34 expected (refe r to the annual values plotted in Figure 9). As a result, the beginning point on Figure 8 is questionable. It is important to note that Sloughouse, one of the high exce edance day sites in the Sacramento Metro Area, operated only during a portion of 1997, and this may explain, in part, the low 1997 value. Another possi ble reason for the low 1997 value is that it was an El Niño year, with likely greater than norma l cloud cover and thus less solar radiation and solar heating, resulting in lower ozone concentr ations. Regardless of the reason, because the 1997 observed value is questionable, we wil l focus our evaluation of trends on the 1998 through 2004 timeframe.

Although the subsequent change s (from 1998 through 2004) are not large, two patterns shown in Figure 8 are wort h noting. From 1998 through 2002, observed exceedances increased by 10 (from 33 to 43), while ex pected exceedances increased by 8 (from 32 to 40). During these years, the obser ved increase generally coincides with the expected increase. However, from 2002 to 2004, observed exceedances decreased by 9 (from 43 to 34), while expecte d exceedances decreased by only 3 (from 40 to 37). During these years, the decrease in the observed exceedances is greater than the improved meteorology would lead one to ex pect, suggesting the improvement in ozone

is attributable to emissions reductions. Ho wever, the difference is modest (only 6 days, 9 expected days versus 3 observed days).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-15 

### Figure 9 shows the same trends as Figure 8, graphed as annual va lues, rather than three-year moving averages. It is interest ing to note that the observed exceedances average 1.7 days more than expected from 1996 to 2003, but average 10.1 days less than expected for 2004 and 2005. Although ARB staff has not yet formally integrated 2006 and 2007 ozone and meteorologic al data, preliminary resu lts indicate that the

observed exceedances increased to 42 in 2006 before dropping to a new low of 16 in 2007. If these two years continue the rec ent trend of observed exceedances being lower than expected exceedances , it would more firmly est ablish a pattern of progress
in the Sacramento Metro Area.

Figure 9: Sacramento Metro Area A nalysis of Observed and Expected* Exceedance Days (annual values)

Sacramento Metro Area Ozone Trends (Federal 8-Hour Exceedance Days and "High OPF" Days)*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearNumber of Days (annual values)

Expected Observed

* "Expected" counts based on meteorology for the year and emissions at 2000-2002 levels



### Meteorologically Adjusted Trends

As discussed above, meteorol ogical parameters such as temperature and wind speed are correlated with sunlight and dispersion, which play a large role in determining daily

ozone levels. As a second method to address the effects of meteor ology on ozone, a statistical model that predict s daily maximum ozone on the basis of daily meteorological data was used to adjust daily ozone observations . Specifically, the model was used to predict daily maximum 8-hour ozone conc entrations and then adjust the observed ozone concentrations to compensate for differences between the predicted values and a standard baseline for expected ozone levels throughout the ozone season.

First, a clustering procedure was used to assign days from the May through October ozone season for the years 1996 to 2005 to separate groups based on the daily speed
and direction of surface winds at 14 stations in and around the Sacramento Metro Area.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-16 

### Three groups of days were created. These th ree groups accounted for all but two of the 1840 days in the trend period. Fi gure 10 shows that the first group of days (Cluster #1) was weighted toward the months of September and October . The second group (Cluster #2) was weighted towards May and J une. The third group (Cluster #4) was the most common throughout the ozone season, but was most prevalent for July and August (note that Cluster #3, which is not shown in Figure 10, accounted only 2 of the 1840 days, and therefore, was not significant to the analysis). Each of the clusters shown in Figure 10 represent s different general source-receptor scenarios, based on

wind summaries. 26



### Figure 10: Sacramento Metro Area Analysis of Clusters by M onth (1996 to 2005)

Analysis of Clusters by Month (Clusters based on surface wind patterns for May-Oct 1996 to 2005)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

5 6 7 8 9 10

MonthCount of Days

Cluster#1 Cluster#2 Cluster#4



### For each of the three clusters, ARB staff used data from 2000 through 2002 to calibrate a within-group model to predict daily maximum 8-hour ozone from daily weather data. A limited span of years was used for calibration so that when the model was applied to the meteorological data for all days from 1996 th rough 2005, it would provide a level playing field for meteorological effect s, apart from the influence of changes in emissions.

Figure 11 shows observed and met-adjust ed trends for the annual mean of the 30 highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone values (Top30; the top 16 percent). 27


### Figure 12 shows the same trends as Figure 11, smoothed using a three-year moving average because the process of met-adjustment does not remove all meteorological effects perfectly, and other factors may affect the year-to-year change s. Similar to the

26 North and east components of daily surface wi nds were averaged by subregion in and around the
Sacramento Metro Area. The wind summaries show that the three different clusters shown in Figure 10 represent differences in generalized source-receptor scenarios.

27 The May – October ozone season has 184 days, of which 30 is 16%.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-17 

### air quality trends discussed previously, the me t-adjusted trend is downward since 2002. Although maximum concentrations and design values generally increased in 2007, compared with 2006, the mean of the Top 30, as well as the number of exceedance days, decreased. With respect to the met-adjusted analysis, which is based on the mean of the Top 30 ozone concentrations, the combined response for 2006 and 2007

would seem to be a net downtur n in ozone concentrations. T herefore, results of these analyses suggest that the Sacramento Metro Area has made a mode rate amount of progress over the last several years, and th is progress should continue, given continued

emissions reductions.

Figure 11: Sacramento Metro Area Analys is of Observed and Met-Adjusted Trends for the Mean of the Top 30 Conc entrations (annual values)*

Sacramento Metro Area Trends for Top 30 Areawide Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone With and Without Adjustment for Meteorological Conditions

0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearMean Ozone (ppm) Annual Values

Observed Top30 Adjusted Top30 Calibration years = 2000 - 2002

First principles modeling

* see footnote under Figure 12.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-18 

### Figure 12: Sacramento Metro Area Analysis of Observed and Met-Adjusted Trends for the Mean of the Top 30 Concentr ations (3-year moving averages)*

Sacramento Metro Area Trends for Top 30 Areawide Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone With and Without Adjustment for Meteorological Conditions

0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearMean Ozone (ppm) 3-Year Moving Average

Observed Top30 Adjusted Top30 Calibration years = 2000 - 2002

First principles modeling

*As indicated on the graphs, Figures 11 and 12 are based on “first principles mode ling” of the relationship between ozone and meteorology. A common alternative is to use stepwise model building methods in which the data during the calibration period determine which parameters are included and which are excluded. The ARB staff chose to work with 18 models, one for each combination of cluster and month (May-Oct). Each model was based on scientific first principles to determine its content. Theref ore, temperatures at the surface and aloft were represented by linear and qu adratic terms, with the inverse of the wind speed included as a linear term. When a cluster-month combination lacked sufficient data to fit a model reliably, a generic model for the ozone season was applied. In addition, additive offsets for Saturday and Sunday were included to account for potential “ozone weekend e ffects.” The overall performance of this approach

achieved an R 2 value greater than 80 percent.



### Emissions and Precursor Trends

Reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) ar e precursors to ozone. Emissions controls have substantially reduc ed the amounts of these precursors in the ambient air, despite increas es in population and t he number of vehicle miles traveled each year. These reductions have resulted in improved ozone air qual ity. The following
sections describe the ROG and NOx emissions trends in the Sacramento Metro Area since 1994, as well as the am ounts of these precursors m easured in the ambient air.

Emissions Trends

Population numbers have been increasing steadily in every county of the Sacramento Metro Area. With the excepti on of Placer County, the percent growth in each individual county ranges from 20 to 30 percent betwe en 1994 and 2006. For example, the total population in Sacramento County increased fr om about 1.1 million in 1994 to about 1.4 million in 2006 (a 25 percent increase over the 13 years). The growth rate in Placer County was about twice the general rate – a 60 percent increase between 1994 andSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-19 

### 2006. Furthermore, close to 95 percent of t hat growth occurred in the western portion of Placer County (in the central subregion), wh ich is east of the Sa cramento urban area.

Despite the rapid growth in population, ozone precursor em issions in the Sacramento
Metro Area decreased from 1994 to 2006. Figure 13 shows the estimated areawide precursor emissions for an average summer day from 1994 to 2006. It is important to
note that the ROG estimates include bot h anthropogenic (man-made) and biogenic emissions. While the anthropogenic portion c hanges from year-to- year, the biogenic portion is constant over the entire time peri od (194 tons/day during each year). On a percentage basis, biogenic emissions acc ount for about 45 percent of the ROG emissions during 1994, increas ing to about 60 percent in 2006. Based on the estimates in Figure 13, ROG emissions from anthr opogenic and biogenic sources decreased 20 percent between 1994 and 2006 (for comparison, t he reduction in only the anthropogenic portion of the R OG emissions was 40 percent). During the same time period, NOx emissions decreas ed about 25 percent. These ROG and NOx reductions

occurred in all counties of the Sacramento Metro Area exce pt Placer County, where ROG decreased over the time period, but ther e was little change in NOx. The ratio of total ROG to NOx is relatively constant over the entire time period, varying between 1.8
and 1.9. While ROG and NOx reductions are generally distributed throughout the Sacramento Metro Area, the anthropogenic emissions are dominated by sources in Sacramento County.

Figure 13: Sacramento Metro Area ROG and NOx Emissions Estimates 1994 to 2006

Sacramento Metro Area ROG and NOx Emissions 1994 to 2006

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearEmissions (Tons/Day)

ROG NOxSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-20 

### Precursor Trends

The decreases seen in the es timated emissions trends ar e supported by the ambient trends, as well. Figure 14 shows average levels of ROG and NOx measured in the
ambient air at Sacramento-Del Paso Manor and Folsom-Natoma St reet, two sites with relatively complete long-term measuremen t records for both precursors. The data plotted were collected from the Photoche mical Assessment Monito ring Stations or PAMS sites, and they reflect measurements coll ected from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. during July and August. The trend lines for both sites show overall reductions of about 40 percent,

consistent with the decrease in estimated anthropogenic ROG emissions. Although not plotted, ROG reactivity also dropped over t he time period, with a 50 percent decrease at
each site. Ambient NOx at Folsom-Natoma Street also decreased 50 percent. In contrast, ambient NOx concentrations at Sacramento-Del Paso Manor show little change. Because the spatial and temporal scale s of the trends are very dissimilar, it is
difficult to resolve the differences between the emissions estimates and the ambient
PAMS measurements. The im portant point is that th e emissions trends and the ambient trends generally indi cate that ROG and NOx precursors have decreased over time, and these decreases have resulted in improved ozone air quality.

Figure 14: Summer Morning Aver age ROG and NOx Measurements from
Sacramento Metro Area PAMS Network Stations

July-August Average Ambient PAMS ROG and NOx at Sacramento Metro Area PAMS Stations (5-8am)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearppbC or ppbN

Folsom-ROG Sacramento-ROG Folsom-NOx Sacramento-NOx



### Modeling Results

The ozone modeling domain for the Sacramento Metro Area is the same as that used for the San Joaquin Valley and is based on the domain defined for the year 2000 Central California Ozone Study or CCOS. This domain in cludes not only the Central Valley, but the San Francisco Bay area, as well. It compri ses a grid measuring 185 by 185 cells, with a horizontal resolu tion of four kilometers. The required meteorologicalSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-21 

### fields were generated using the MM5 prognosti c meteorological model , and the required emissions inventories were developed by AR B staff. The ozone air quality modeling utilized the Comprehensive Air Quality Model wi th Extensions (CAMx) air quality model, with initial and boundary conditions based on esti mates of clean-air concentrations.

To support modeling for the Sacramento Me tro Area and the San Joaquin Valley, ARB staff completed ozone modeling for two epi sode periods: one during July 1999 and the other during July/August 2000. During thes e episodes, 8-hour ozone concentrations exceeding the federal standard occurred throughout the regi on. Analysis of the model outputs included the estimation of 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations for each ozone monitoring site within the domain, as well as statistical measures comparing

observed and simulated ozone concentrations. These analyses were used to evaluate model performance by subregion within the domain.

As required by U.S. EPA guidance, a relative reduction factor (RRF) approach was used in projecting future year design values . The RRF reflects the ratio between the future year model prediction (in this case the end of 2018) and the reference year model prediction (in this case 2002). A reference year design value is then multiplied by the RRF to project a future year design value.

Results of the modeling analyses indicate t hat NOx reductions will be more effective than ROG reductions in reducing ozone concent rations in the Sacramento Metro Area. Because the magnitude of the ozone proble m varies throughout the Sacramento Metro Area, the amounts of emissions reductions needed to reach attainment also vary. Overall, the attainment strategy relies on a 10 percent or more r eduction in NOx that will bring the worst-case site, Cool, down to a level of less than 0.085 ppm at the end of 2018. Modeling results show Folsom, which had the highest design value in 2007, at a
level of less than 0.083 ppm at the end of 2018, with the same level of control.

Summary

As allowed by U.S. EPA guidance, this wei ght of evidence (WOE) package comprises a set of complementary analyses that supplem ent the SIP-required modeling, thereby providing additional support for the attainment demonstration. Currently, the
Sacramento Metro Area is classified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area with an attainment date of June 15, 2013. Photoc hemical modeling results indicate that reducing NOx emissions will be the most effect ive strategy for bringing the Sacramento

Metro Area into attainment. These reductions will not be in place by the 2013 deadline. However, they should be impl emented by 2018. Th erefore, districts in the Sacramento Metro Area have approved reclassificati on, and ARB has requested that U.S. EPA reclassify the Sacramento Metro Area as Seve re-15, with a required attainment date of June 15, 2019.

The ARB staff’s modeling results indicate that NOx emissions reductions will be critical for bringing sites in the Sacramento Metro Area into attainment. Given the timeframeSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-22 

### over which these reductions are expected to occur, the Sa cramento Metro Area should be attainment by June 15, 2019, with a 10 perc ent or more reduction in NOx emissions. Based on modeling, as well as supporting analyses included in this WOE evaluation, attainment by 2019 is anticipated because of the following factors:

 Since 1999, the number of areawid e exceedance days decreased a little more than 10 percent. The maximum concentration and design

value show more modest reductions , with decreases of about 10 and 5 percent, respectively, from 19 99 to 2006. Because these are areawide numbers, they reflect the “w orst case” sites. Although 2007 data show a slightly higher maximum concentration and a design value comparable with 2006, they show the number of areawide exceedance days at an all-time low of 16 days for the entire year.

 While the amount of progress vari es on a subregional basis, there

has been a substantial reduction in the number of exceedance days in the western subregion. Si nce 1999, exceedance days decreased 25 percent, and all sites in this subregion now attain the federal

8-hour ozone standard.

 Between 1999 and 2006, the central subregion shows a 10 percent decrease in the three-year average of exceedance days at all sites but Folsom, which shows only a sli ght reduction in days. Although progress at Folsom appears to have slowed over the last several years, the central subregion has demonstrated long-term progress. Sites with long-term data, including Fo lsom, show a 35 to 50 percent decrease in exceedance days si nce 1990, based on three-year averages. The decrease in desi gn values has been more modest, averaging about 5 percent since 1990.

 Although sites in the eastern subr egion still have some of the highest ozone concentrations, the three-y ear average of exceedance days at Cool, the worst site in this area, decreased about 15 percent between
1999 and 2006. Other sites in the subregion showed little change in the average number of exceedance days between 1999 and 2006.

 During the late-1990s, the oz one problem was more widespread throughout the Sacramento Metro Area. Since then, all areas have improved, although at differing rates. All of the western subregion and the easternmost portion of t he eastern region now meet the federal standard. The ozone problem is now confined to the central subregion and the more urbanized portions of th e eastern subregion. However, even at the worst sites in these subregions (Cool and Folsom), 60 to 65 percent of t he days during the 2006 ozone season were below the more stringent State 8-hour ozone standard.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix E: Weight-of-Evidence Analyses Page E-23 

###  Ozone indicator values for many sites in the Sacramento Metro Area were higher for 2005, 2006, and 2007 than for 2004. However, the

2004 values were uncharacteristic ally low. When compared with values for 2002 and 2003, the va lues for 2005 through 2007 are generally lower, indicating progress. The Sacramento Metro Area is

much closer to attainment than other areas of the State, such as the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins. Because the
Sacramento Metro Area values are closer to the standard, small variations in meteorology can result in relatively large year-to-year changes in the trends. These variat ions can make it difficult to interpret the trends. However, in the Sacramento Metro Area, it appears there has been overall improvemen t, despite this variability.

 Analyses suggest that recent ozone improvements are linked to

emissions reductions. The declin e in the number of exceedance days relative to the number of days with a high potential for ozone
formation indicates that the modest improvements in ozone over the last few years were related to emissions reductions rather than favorable meteorological conditions. A more detailed adjustment of
ozone trends for the annual mean of the Top 30 produced similar results. Results of these analyses also indicate that increasingly adverse meteorological conditions are now needed to create ozone levels exceeding the feder al 8-hour standard.

• Estimated ROG and NOx emissions trends, as well as ambient measurements, indicate reductions in both precursors since the

mid-1990s. These reductions hav e resulted in modest ozone improvements. Emissions estimates indicate a continuing decline in ROG and NOx emissions. However, photochemical modeling results
show that NOx reductions will be critical to attainment. As a result, a control strategy relying on a 10 per cent or more reduction in NOx emissions is proposed as the most efficient path to attainment by June 15, 2019.

 Photochemical modeling results show a design value of less than 0.085 ppm with proposed new contro ls for the Sacramento Metro Area by the end of 2018. Many sites will reach attainment before this date. Coupled with the analyses completed for the WOE, it is

reasonable to conclude that the entire Sacramento Metro Area will

reach attainment within this ti meframe, consistent with the June 15, 2019, attainment deadline.

Taken together, all of these factors indicate that the Sa cramento Metro Area can expect
to attain the federal 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2019, the required attainment
date for a Severe-15 oz one nonattainment area.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix F: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Page F-1 

### Appendix F: Motor Vehi cle Emissions Budgets

The motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for VOC and NOx were calculated for reasonable further progress (RFP) milest one years (2011, 2014, and 2017) and the 2018 attainment demonstration year. The M VEB were estimated by first applying SACOG VMT (MTP2035) to the CEFS v1.06 on-r oad motor vehicle emission forecasts to derive EMFAC2007 adjusted baseline foreca sts. Then, the latest adjustments for

recent ARB baseline controls were subtract ed from the EMFAC2007 emissions. Finally, reductions from proposed new r egional incentive measures (f or all years) and state SIP control measures (for only 2018) affecti ng on-road motor vehicle emissions were subtracted. The resulting SIP control fore casted motor vehicle emissions were rounded up to whole numbers to get the MVEB.

Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 document the MVEB calculat ions for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Table F-5 contains the SACOG and Bay Area’s Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropol itan Transportation Commission (MTC) planning assumptions for human population fo recasts and vehicle miles traveled by county areas that were used to derive motor vehicle emissions.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix F: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Page F-2 

### Table F-1

Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
Transportation Conformity Budgets for 8-hour Ozone
Summer Planning Emissions in Tons per Day

2011

ROG NOx

On-Road Emissions from EMFAC2007 37.9 82.1

Adjustments to Baseline* -0.1 -4.1
Regional Strategy Reductions -0.1 -0.7

Net Inventory 37.7 77.3

Conformity Budget** 38 78

* Reductions from adopted rules not reflected in EMFAC.
** Budget is obtained by rounding up to the nearest ton.



### Table F-2

Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
Transportation Conformity Budgets for 8-hour Ozone
Summer Planning Emissions in Tons per Day

2014

ROG NOx

On-Road Emissions from EMFAC2007 32.1 64.9

Adjustments to Baseline* -0.2 -3.7
Regional Strategy Reductions -0.1 -0.8

Net Inventory 31.8 60.4

Conformity Budget** 32 61

* Reductions from adopted rules not reflected in EMFAC.
** Budget is obtained by rounding up to the nearest ton.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix F: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Page F-3 

### Table F-3

Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
Transportation Conformity Budgets for 8-hour Ozone
Summer Planning Emissions in Tons per Day

2017

ROG NOx

On-Road Emissions from EMFAC2007 28.3 51.9

Adjustments to Baseline* -0.2 -3.3
Regional Strategy Reductions -<0.1 -0.9

Net Inventory 28.1 47.7

Conformity Budget** 29 48

* Reductions from adopted rules not reflected in EMFAC.
** Budget is obtained by rounding up to the nearest ton.



### Table F-4

Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
Transportation Conformity Budgets for 8-hour Ozone
Summer Planning Emissions in Tons per Day

2018

ROG NOx

On-Road Emissions from EMFAC2007 27.3 48.4

Adjustments to Baseline* -0.2 -3.2
Regional Strategy Reductions -<0.1 -0.9
State Strategy Reductions -3.4 -11.2

Net Inventory 23.7 33.1

Conformity Budget** 24 34

* Reductions from adopted rules not reflected in EMFAC.
** Budget is obtained by rounding up to the nearest ton.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix F: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Page F-4 Table F-5 Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Forecasts Sacramento Region

Population (Household only) 2005 2013 2018 2035

El Dorado County (MC) 154,428 182,087 194,832 225,032 Placer County (SV and MC) 298,147 393,043 424,439 570,599 Sacramento County 1,283,402 1,481,163 1,589,285 1,983,967

South Sutter 4,341 5,560 9,484 15,530 Yolo County 172,900 204,132 220,070 279,172 Solano (SV) 119,659 135,993 145,036 175,778 Regional Total 2,032,877 2 ,401,978 2,583,146 3,250,078

Sutter County 81,223 100,837 110,136 135,562 Solano County 389,896 443,122 472,584 572,754

Notes: 1. SACOG household population forecasts are from SACOG's Tina Glover 7-3-08 email. Data are

derived from the December 2007 SACSIM travel model. 2. The population, dwelling unit and employment forecasts used in SACSIM travel model are based on SACOG's September 13, 2007 Board Acti on which adopted DOF July 2007 population projections for MTP interim-year projections (2013 and 2018). Note: SACOG's population is about 5% lower than DOF for 2005 and 3% higher than DOF for 2035. 3. El Dorado County and Placer County population data exclude the Tahoe Basin. 4. Solano County population is determined from ABAG Projection 2005 forecast series (email from MTC's Harold Brazil 8-21-07) using EXC EL Forecast function and assuming 92% is household population. (MTC's Solano population forecast: 2000 = 394542, 2005 = 423800, 2010 = 466100, 2015 = 504500, 2020 = 532400, 2025 = 558100, 2030 = 581800) 5. SV = Sacramento Valley portion, MC = Mountain Counties portion

6. Sacramento Nonattainment Area fraction for S outh Sutter is estimated at 6% of Sutter County. 7. Sacramento Valley fraction for North East Solano is estimated at 30.69% of Solano County. 8. Regional Total represents the Sacramento Nonattainment Area.

Daily VMT (1000) 2002 2011 2014 2017 2018 2035

El Dorado (MC) 3,976 4,546 4,754 4,971 5,046 5,820 Placer (MC) 1,547 1,713 1,772 1,833 1,854 2,306 Placer (SV) 6,956 8,735 9,424 10,167 10,427 13,668 Sacramento County 31,826 36,709 38,498 40,374 41,019 49,398

South Sutter 462 607 665 729 751 1,113 Yolo County 5,182 5,934 6,208 6,495 6,593 7,907 Solano (SV) 5,193 6,218 7,093 7,643 7,744 12,912 Regional Total 55,142 64,462 68,414 72,212 73,434 93,124

Notes: 1. VMT data (except Solano) are based on SACOG's MTP2035 submittal to ARB Feb 2008. 2. Solano VMT data are based on Bay Area MTC submittal to ARB Aug 2006. 3. SV = Sacramento Valley portion, MC = Mountain Counties portion 4. Regional Total represents the Sacramento Nonattainment Area.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix G: Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations Page G-1 

### Appendix G: Reasonable Furth er Progress Demonstrations

Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Cont rol Program Adjustments

Section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Clea n Air Act stipulates that em ission reductions stemming
from the federal on-road motor vehicle control program as it existed in 1990 may not be used to help meet minimum emission redu ction requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) purposes. The Clean Air Act al so prohibits states from taking credit for emission reductions resulting from using gas oline with a Reid vapor pressure limit specified by 1990. This precludes states from demonstrating satisfactory progress for ozone simply on the merit of the federal mo tor vehicle and fuels programs as they
existed in 1990. States ar e required to adjust for the benef its of these f ederal programs

in RFP calculations.

Over the years, various methods have been used to estimate the benefits of the pre1990 federal motor vehicle program. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released guidance on this s ubject in Appendix A to the preamble to
Phase 2 of the 8-hour ozone im plementation rule. Appendix A was written for all 50 states and explains how to calculate t he benefits of the 49-st ate pre-1990 program.

The one-size-fits-all approach found in Appendix A is problematic for California. California’s pioneering efforts to set emission standards from motor ve hicles resulted in

nationwide emission standards adopted by U.S. EPA. In general, California’s auto emission standards have been, and still are, more stringent than federal standards, particularly for passenger vehicles. Californi a Air Resources Board (ARB) staff has held ongoing discussions with U. S. EPA staff about the most appr opriate way to calculate
the benefits of the motor vehicle and fuels contro l program as it existed in 1990. It was
clear to ARB staff that U.S. EPA guidance in Ap pendix A did not recognize the maturity of California’s program in 1990 or provide California a work able means to estimate the benefits of the pre-1990 mo tor vehicle program.

In September 2007, in response to issues raised by ARB staff, U.S. EPA staff proposed an alternative calculation methodology specifica lly for use in California. This alternative would allow calculating the benefits from the pre-1990 Cali fornia program in lieu of those from the pre-1990 49-state federal program . By ARB staff’s accounting, using the
alternative U.S. EPA method would still resu lt in an underestimation of the progress produced by California’s program, although to a lesser extent than would Appendix A.
This is due to an overestimation of the re sidual benefits of the pre-1990 California motor vehicle program. Nevertheless, ARB staff ha s estimated the benefits of California’s pre1990 motor vehicle program for the Sacrament o Metro nonattainment area according to the U.S. EPA-approved alternative methodology (see Table G-1).

X:\2007-2008 SIPs\Reasonable Further Progress\Key RFP docum ents\SCFNAA Correspondence\CaMVCP writeup for Sac.docSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix G: Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations Page G-2 

### Table G-1

Summary of Inventory Adjustments for Statewide (TPD) – Using Statewide Muriel Ratios

1990 Technology Fractions

1990 I/M 2002 Population by Vehicle Class 7.8 psi Fuel RVP 1990 Fuels (gasoline + diesel)

Federal/State Emission Standards with 2002 Vehicle Class Distributions

Subregional EMFAC - Calculated FMVAC Using USEPA Methodology

ROG Statewide Sac FNAA 2002 Actual Baseline MV Inventory 993.06 63.89

CAMVCP for 2002 0.00 0.00

CAMVCP for 2008 135.69 8.73

CAMVCP for 2013 217.47 13.99

CAMVCP for 2018 253.33 16.30

CAMVCP for 2023 267.97 17.24

CAMVCP for 2011 184.76 11.89

CAMVCP for 2014 224.64 14.45

CAMVCP for 2017 246.16 15.84

CAMVCP for 2020 259.19 16.68

NOx Statewide Sac FNAA 2002 Actual Baseline MV Inventory 1869.57 115.27

CAMVCP for 2002 0.00 0.00

CAMVCP for 2008 169.34 10.44

CAMVCP for 2013 238.23 14.69

CAMVCP for 2018 266.78 16.45

CAMVCP for 2023 282.18 17.40

CAMVCP for 2011 210.67 12.99

CAMVCP for 2014 243.94 15.04

CAMVCP for 2017 261.07 16.10

CAMVCP for 2020 272.94 16.83

Data source: Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Cont rol Program Adjustments provided by CARB.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-1 

### Appendix H – Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis

RACM requirements

Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires a nonattainment plan to:

“provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shal l provide for attainm ent of the national primary ambient air qu ality standards.”

In addition, EPA’s final 8-hour ozone implement ation rule in 40 CFR 51.912(d) pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires the attainment SIP submittal to include “a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopt ed all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practic able and to meet any RFP requirements.”

EPA’s RACM policy 28,29 

### indicates that areas should co nsider all candidate measures that are potentially r easonably available. Sources of potentially reasonable measures include measures adopted in other nonattain ment areas, measures that the EPA has identified in guidelines or other docum ents, and any measures that have been suggested for the particular nonattainment area during a public comment period.

Areas should consider all reasonably availabl e measures for implementation in light of local circumstances. However, areas need only to adopt measures if they are both economically and technologically feasible and cumulatively will advance the attainment date (by one year or more) or are necessa ry for RFP. “EPA does not believe that Congress intended the RACM requirement to co mpel the adoption of measures that are absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable.” 30



### Process of identifying RACM

To identify all RACM, district staff conducted internal revi ews, consulted with California Air Resources Board staff, solicited ideas from technical consultants and, attended a technology forum summit at the South C oast Air Quality Management District. In addition, district staff revi ewed the following documents:

• "Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan", South Coas t Air Quality Management District, June 2007

28 “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard – Phase 2” (Federal Register, November 29, 2005, p. 71659-71661).

29 “Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control M easures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas” (EPA, December 1999).

30 ”General Preamble for the Implementation of Titl e I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-2 

### • "2007 Ozone Plan", San Joaquin Valley Air Po llution control District, April 30, 2007

• "Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy - Appendix C, Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measure Descriptions", Bay Area Air Qua lity Management District, January 4, 2006

District staff compared adopted rules in the following air districts to requirements in place in the Sacramento r egion; South Coast Air Qualit y Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management Distric t, Ventura County Air Polluti on Control District, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution contro l District. Each of the five air districts was responsible for preparing the RACM analysis for the stat ionary measures in its jurisdiction. The regional mobile source and land use measures were evaluated by technical consultants for the Sacramento Air District on behalf of the region.

From these analyses, staff compiled the proposed control measures, "Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan - Cont rol Measures:, Draft, October 2006. District staff conducted public workshops at four locations throughout the Sacramento region. The purposes of the workshops were:

1. 

### to solicit comments on the proposed control measures, and

2. 

### to solicit ideas for additional cont rol measures to be considered.

Feather River Air Qualit y Management District Yuba City, CA - October 31, 2006

Sacramento Metropolitan and Yolo Sola no Air Quality Management Districts West Sacramento, CA - October 31, 2006

Placer County Air Pollution Control District Auburn, CA - November 1, 2006

El Dorado County Air Qualit y Management District Placerville, CA - November 1, 2006

Following the public works hops, staff evaluated public comments and suggestions, reviewed the final plan documents noted abov e, and compiled the proposed control measures included in this plan.

Conclusion

The following is a summary of the districts staff's findings:

1. 

### District staff has evaluated and analyzed a ll reasonable control measures that were currently available for inclusion in this plan.

2. 

### District staff has identified new or amended stat ionary control measures, and mobile

source and land use control measures that are included in this plan.

3. 

### This plan includes all RACM prov ided by the public and experts.

4. 

### The available control measures that are not included collectively would not advance

the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the Sacramento region because of theSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-3 

### insignificant or non-quantifia ble amount of emissions reductions that they may potentially generate. Tables H-1 through H-6 contain a lis t of the measures and a
brief discussion of the conclusions.

5. 

### The RACM demonstration for transportation control measures was prepared by the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and is discussed separately in Appendix D – Transportati on Control Measures.Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-4 

### Regional

Mobile/Land Use Source Cont rol Measure RACM AnalysisSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-5 Table H-1
Mobile and Land Use Control Measures Considered

Control Measure

Number Control Measure Title and Strategy Type Conclusion

IS-1 Construction Mitigation Control Measure - Also see conclusions
for each district in Tables H-2 – H-6

IS-2 Operational Indirect Source Control Measure - Also see conclusions
for each district in Tables H-2 – H-6

MISC-31 Use emulsified diesel fuel in all dieselburning heavy duty vehicles Not Recommended – Technology is no longer available

MISC-51 Education to Improve Fueling Practices Not Recommended – High cost

M-TRAN-1 Employer Based Trip Reduction Not Recommended – No authority and high cost

OFMS12 Preconditioning of diesel engines to eliminate engine cold start emissions Not Recommended – Evaluated for

Attainment Advancement

OFMS13 Limiting pleasure watercraft and off-road vehicle use during spare the air days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS16 Restricted use of diesel agricultural water pumps to nighttime on Spare The Air Days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS19 Restrict Use of HD Off-Road Construction Equipment -- > 50hp to 4 hours per day Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS20 Restrict use of portable engines on Spare The Air Days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS21 Ban or restrict use of recreational vehicles on Spare The Air Days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS24 Limiting pleasure craft/vehicle use on days where the temperature is above

100°F Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS32 Reduced idling for Locomotive Emission

Reductions Not Recommended – No Authority, Federally Regulated Source. Implemented as incentive and ARB
MOU.

OFMS39 Prohibit 2-stroke off-road engines Not Recommended – High Cost

OFMS42 Lawn and garden care restrictions – ban commercial mowing on Spare The Air days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS45 Identify and offer incentives for applications where on-road engines can be used in place of off-road certified engines Not Recommended – No enforceable
reductions due to differences in certification procedures

OFMS48 Raise fuel prices Not Recommended – High Cost, No AuthoritySacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-6 Table H-1
Mobile and Land Use Control Measures Considered

Control Measure

Number Control Measure Title and Strategy Type Conclusion

OFMS66 Encourage faster turnover of locomotive engines to lower emitting engines under
new US Tier 0 standards Control Measure - part of SMAQMD
OFMS-HD-1 and State SIP

OFMS68 Require retrofits – NOx Control Technologies – Locomotives Not Recommended – No Authority

OFMS8 Ban all off-road construction equipment on spare the air days Further Study – Combined in Episodic Controls Further Study Measure

OFMS-92 Change existing landscaping to xeriscaping and promotes the installation of xeriscaping in new developments Not Recommended – High cost

ONMS-176 Develop a station car/low emission vehicle share program. Not Recommended – High Cost

ONMS-181 Develop and fund a program for neighborhood electric vehicle Not Recommended – High Cost

ONMS-38 Use remote sensors and license plate photos to identify smoking vehicles Not Recommended – Evaluated for

Attainment Advancement

ONMS-69 Provide free replacement caps to light and medium duty vehicle owners at special events, county fairs, etc. Not Recommended - Already required as part of SMOG Check program

SMAQMD OFMS-HD-1 Off-road CI In centive Program Control Measure

SMAQMD OFMS-SI-1 Zero Emission Lawn and Garden Incentive (Residential) Control Measure

SMAQMD ONMS-HD-1 SECAT Like Program Control Measure

SMAQMD ONMS-LD-1 Light Duty Early Retirement Control Measure

SMAQMD-1 Urban Forest Air Quality Development Program Control Measure

State SOON Program Retrofits, repowers, and fleet modernization for off road equipment Not Recommended – Equivalent or better requirements in place

TCM-ONMS-ED-1 Spare The Air Program – Notification for Spare The Air Days Control Measure

Further Study-1 Urban Heat Is land Mitigation Further Study

Further Study-2 Alternativ e Energy Further Study

Further Study-3 Energy Co nservation Further StudySacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-7 Table H-1
Mobile and Land Use Control Measures Considered

Control Measure

Number Control Measure Title and Strategy Type Conclusion

Further Study-6 Episodic Controls (Combination of OFMS8, OFMS13, OFMS16, OFMS19, OFMS20, OFMS21, OFMS24, OFMS42) Further StudySacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-8 

### Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q uality Management District

Stationary/Area Source Control Meas ure Control Measures ConsideredSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-9 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

460 Adhesives and
Sealants VOC limits on adhesives and

sealants Reduce VOC limits on

adhesives and sealants

to limits used in
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

442 Architectural Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

454/466 Degreasing/
Solvent Cleaning VOC limits on solvents Reduce the VOC limits

on the solvents to limits adopted by SCAQMD. Including all coating rules

with solvent limits. Control Measure

440 Unspecified Coatings None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

459 Automotive Refinishing VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

Paper, Fabric,

and Film Coating None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

411 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBtu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm, 5-20 mmBTU/hr 15 ppm, >20 mmBTU/hr 9 ppm Already adopted Control Measure

411 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBtu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm, 5-20 mmBTU/hr 15 ppm, >20 9 ppm Reduce Nox limit to 6 ppm for >20 mmBTU/hr Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

412 IC Engines NOx limits on IC Engines located at major stationary source Require NOx limits all IC Engines, not just those at major stationary sources
of NOx. Control Measure

446 Storage Tanks Requires use of a pressure tank or use of tank with vapor loss control

device Lower applicability threshold; additional
control on fixed roof tank Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Cap and Trade None Establish CAP and Trade

Emission Reduction Program similar to
SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

418 Commercial Cooking None Establish standards to
control VOC emissions for Commercial Cooking (i.e. char boilers) Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

496 Livestock

Waste Implement several practice from a

list Lower applicability threshold; Increase number of practices and control efficiency Control Measure

496 Livestock

Waste Implement several practices from

a list Lower applicability threshold; Increase Not Recommended
- Evaluated forSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-10 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion number of practices and control efficiency Attainment

Advancement

Wineries None Establish standards to reduce evaporative VOC

emissions from the fermentation process at

wineries Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

463 Wood Products Coatings VOC limits on coatings and strippers Reduce VOC limits for high solid stains, sealers, strippers and lower the applicability limit to 20 gal/year Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

461 Natural Gas

Production and Processing None Establish requirements to inspect and maintain equipment to reduce fugitive VOC emissions Control Measure

471 Asphalted
Concrete None Require limits for NOx

emissions similar to a control measure adopted by SJVUAPCD Control Measure

Dryers and
Ovens None Require limits for NOx

emissions that achieve

50 - 75% reduction similar to proposed
measure in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

465 Polyester
Resin/Plastic

Product Manufacturing Limits monomer content and use of vapor suppressants Reduce monomer limits to standards adopted by
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

485 Landfills Collect and control ROG emissions from landfills containing approximately 4 million tons of

waste or more Lower applicability
threshold to landfills containing approximately
0.5 million tons of waste

or more Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

414 Water Heaters NOx limits on water heaters with rated heat input capacity less than 75,000 Btu/hr Require NOx limits on
water heaters/boilers with rated heat input capacity between 75,000 Btu/hr and 1,000,000 Btu/hr, and reduce
current NOx limits from 55 ppm to 15 ppm. Control Measure

Roofing Kettles None Establish VOC limits from roofing kettles Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Reactivity

Based
Standards None Require VOC limit of coatings to be based on a reactivity limit instead
of a mass-balance limit Not Recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure

442

Using Greener
Consumer

Products None Promote the use of LowVOC Consumer Productespecially on Spare-theAir Day Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-11 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Semiconductor Manufacturing None Establish VOC limits for

semiconductor manufacturing Not Recommended

- No sources

452 Can Coating VOC limits on coatings Reduce VOC limits to be as stringent as
SJVUAPCD Not Recommended - Equivalent or better requirements in place

456 Aerospace Assembly and Component VOC limits on coatings Require VOC limits on additional coating categories associated with Aerospace Coating Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

444 Petroleum Dry Cleaning VOC limits on solvents used or
use of emission control device Remove applicability

threshold to include all dry cleaning solvents except for perchloroethylene and ban the use of open transfer systems Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

451 Metal Parts and

Products Coating VOC limits on coatings, strippers

and solvent cleaner Reduce VOC limits for coatings used in some "baked" applications and coatings considered "specialty coatings" Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

450 Graphic Arts VOC limits on inks, coatings,

adhesives or use of emission control system Reduce VOC limits for ink categories in flexographic for porous substrate, extreme performance, and

metallic ink to be as stringent as SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

413 Gas Turbines NOx limits on stationary gas turbines; 0.3 - 2.9 MW 42 ppmv, >= 2.9 and <877 hours 42 ppmv, 2.9 - 10 MW and >= 877 hours, 25 ppmv, >=10 MW with no SCR and >= 877 hours 15 ppmv, >=10
MW with SCR and >= hours 9

ppmv Reduce NOx limits to be as stringent as SCAQMD; 0.3-2.9 MW 25 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW 9 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW with no scar 15 ppmv, 10 MW and over 9 ppmv , 10

MW and over with no SCR 12 ppmv Not Recommended - Equivalent or better requirements in place

408 Incinerators Multiple-chamber incinerator or APCO-approved equipment Require all incinerators
demonstrate NOx
emissions of less than 60
lb/mmscf Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Food and Ag Processing None Require VOC limits to be as stringent as a rule adopted in SCAQMD which required the use of low-VOC sterilizing products or controlled by

an emission control

device Not Recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure
454/466

458 Bakeries Control efficiency of at least 95% Lower applicability

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-12 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

447 Organic Liquid Loading VOC limits from loading of organic liquids Require VOC limits to be as stringent as BAAQMD; require leak inspection requirement and repair time requirement similar to the requirements adopted in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

448/449 Gasoline
Transfer -
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems, pressure relief valve. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic self maintenance, periodic inspection Evaluate SJV proposal Not Recommended - Already implemented

Further Study - 4 Gasoline

Transfer Phase
I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems, pressure relief valve. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic self maintenance, periodic inspection Improve compliance rates by requiring ISD to provide earlier warning signal at lower degradation rate; change ISD warning and gross failure rates; disallow
ISD reset button until fixed; require installation
of shut down sensor Further Study
Needed - Current info inadequate

Storage Tank Degassing Maintenance/replacement not allowed May - October Reduce emissions by requiring enhanced control technology,

increased control efficiency, establishing

concentration limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Aviation Fuel
Transfer None Reduce VOC from spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through
relief valves Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Marine Coatings None Establish VOC limits for marine coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

Enhanced Compliance None Evaluate permit program change to assess opportunities for further emission reductions; include adjusting permit exemption level, conduct additional inspections and survey to identify potential sources, adding

conditions to non-Title V Sources and improving accuracy and enforceability of existing permit Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Flares None Establish standard of
NOx emissions for flares Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-13 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Polystyrene/ Poly Foam Blowing/Other None Require reduction of
VOC emission from EPS molding by vented the

emissions to an emission

control device such as a

thermal oxidizer Not Recommended

- No sources

Production of Wood/paper products None Require VOC limits for manufacturing wood/paper products. Not Recommended

- No sources

Industrial

Wastewater None Require VOC limits and control system from wastewater system Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wastewater at Sewage

Treatment

Plants None Require VOC limits and control system for wastewater sewage treatment plant Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

201 Lower permit exemption Permit exemptions and thresholds Lower permit threshold to bring more sources and equipment under permit program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Green Waste Composting None Establish VOC limits

similar to the rule adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Co-Composting

and Biosolids None Establish VOC reducing requirements equivalent
to SJVUAPCD/SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glass Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for glass furnaces Not Recommended

- No sources

Central

Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for

central furnaces Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction
NOx emissions

associated with new land use development Control Measure

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction
VOC emissions

associated with new land use development Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-2 ISR Operational None Mitigate increased

emissions associated

with new land use/development projects Control Measure

501 Agricultural Burning/Open Burning Conditions under which burning must be conducted, when allowed, to minimize smoke; Burning is not allowed on days declared No-Burn Day Prohibit burning of waste Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-14 Table H-2 SMAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Glycol Dehydration Systems None Control VOC emissions from glycol regenerator vents used in natural gas production to remove water vapor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Further Study - 5 Lubricants None Establish VOC limits for

lubricant formulations Further Study
Needed - Current info inadequate

Facility

Modernization None - new equipment with PTE greater than 10 lbs/day install
BACT Establish a predetermined life span of when equipment would need to be replaced and would then trigger BACT

limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-15 

### El Dorado County Air Q uality Management District

Stationary/Area Source Cont rol Measures ConsideredSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-16 Table H-3 EDCAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

236 Adhesives and
Sealants VOC limits on coatings Reduce VOC limits on

adhesives and sealants

to limits used in
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

215 Architectural Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control measure

225/235 Degreasing/
Solvent Cleaning VOC limits on solvents Reduce the VOC limits

on the solvents Control measure

Unspecified Coatings None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

230 Automotive Refinishing VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement Paper, Fabric,

and Film Coating None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

229 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 5,000, 000 Btu/hr or greater; 30 ppm, Lower NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1,000,000 Btu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm, 5-20 mmBTU/hr 15 ppm, >20 mmBTU/hr 9 ppm Not Recommended - High Cost

231, 232, 233, 241 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 5,000, 000 Btu/hr or greater; 30 ppm, Reduce NOx limit to 6-8 ppm for >20 mmBTU/hr Not Recommended - High Cost

233 IC Engines NOx limits on internal combustion engines Reduce NOx limit Not Recommended - High Cost

244 Storage Tanks Work practices Lower applicability

threshold: additional
control on fixed roof tank Not Recommended

- No sources

Cap and Trade None Establish CAP and Trade

Emission Reduction Program similar to
SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Commercial Cooking None Establish standards to
control VOC emissions for Commercial Cooking (i.e. char boilers) Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Livestock

Waste None Lower applicability

threshold: increase number of practices and control efficiency Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wineries None Establish standards to reduce evaporative VOC

emissions from the fermentation process at

wineries Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-17 Table H-3 EDCAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

237 Wood Products Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce VOC limits for high solid stains, sealers, strippers and lower the applicability limit to 20 gal/year Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Natural Gas

Production and Processing None Establish requirements to inspect and maintain equipment to reduce fugitive VOC emissions Not Recommended

- No sources

Asphaltic
Concrete None Require limits for NOx

emissions similar to a control measure adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended

- No sources

Other Dryers
and Ovens None Require limits for NOx

emissions that achieve

50 - 75% reduction similar to proposed
measure in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Polyester
Resin/Plastic

Product Manufacturing None Reduce monomer limits to standards adopted by
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Landfills None Establish rule for landfills Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

239 Water Heaters NOx limits on water heaters with rated heat input capacity less than 75,000 Btu/hr Require NOx limits on
water heaters/boilers with rated heat input capacity between 75,000 Btu/hr and 1,000,000 Btu/hr, and reduce
current NOx limits from 55 ppm to 15 ppm. Control measure

Roofing Kettles None Establish VOC limits from roofing kettles Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Reactivity

Based
Standards None Require VOC limit of coatings to be based on a reactivity limit instead
of a mass-balance limit Not Recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure

218

Using Greener
Consumer

Products None Promote the use of LowVOC Consumer Productespecially on Spare-theAir Day Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Semiconductor Manufacturing None Establish VOC limits for

semiconductor manufacturing. Not Recommended

- No sources

Can Coating None Establish VOC limits Not Recommended

- No sources Aerospace Coating None Establish VOC limits Not Recommended

- No sources

Petroleum Dry Cleaning None Establish VOC limits on solvents used or require
use of an emission

control device Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-18 Table H-3 EDCAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

246 Metal Parts and

Products None Establish VOC limits Control measure

231 Graphic Arts VOC limits on graphic arts

materials Require VOC limits for ink products in flexographic for porous substrate, extreme performance, and

metallic ink to be as stringent as SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Gas Turbines None Reduce NOx limits to be as stringent as SCAQMD; 0.3-2.9 MW 25 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW 9 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW with no scar 15 ppmv, 10 MW and over 9 ppmv , 10

MW and over with no SCR 12 ppmv Not Recommended

- No sources

Incinerators None Require all incinerators
demonstrate NOx
emissions of less than 60
lb/mmscf Not Recommended

- No sources

Food and Ag Processing None Require VOC limits to be as stringent as a rule adopted in SCAQMD which required the use of low-VOC sterilizing products or controlled by

an emission control

device Not Recommended

- No sources

Bakeries None Establish VOC limits for

bakeries Not Recommended

- No sources

Terminal/Bulk

Plants VOC limits from loading of organic liquids Require VOC limits to be as stringent as BAAQMD; require leak inspection requirement and repair time requirement similar to the requirements adopted in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

238/244 Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems, pressure relief valve. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic self maintenance, periodic inspection Evaluate SJV proposal to include mobile fuelers, increase inspection frequency, lower allowable vapor leak

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

238/244 Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems, pressure relief valve. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic self maintenance, periodic inspection Improve compliance rates by requiring ISD to provide earlier warning signal at lower degradation rate; change ISD warning and gross failure rates; disallow
ISD reset button until fixed; require installation
of shut down sensor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-19 Table H-3 EDCAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Storage Tank Degassing None Reduce emissions by requiring enhanced control technology,

increased control efficiency, establishing

concentration limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Aviation Fuel
Transfer None Reduce VOC from spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through
relief valves Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Marine Coatings None Establish VOC limits for marine coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

Enhanced Compliance None Evaluate permit program change to assess opportunities for further emission reductions; include adjusting permit exemption level, conduct additional inspections and survey to identify potential sources, adding

conditions to non-Title V Sources and improving accuracy and enforceability of existing permit Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Flares None Establish standard of
NOx emissions for flares Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Polystyrene/ Poly Foam Blowing/Other None Require reduction of
VOC emission from EPS molding by vented the

emissions to an emission

control device such as a

thermal oxidizer Not Recommended

- No sources

Production of Wood/paper products None Require VOC limits for manufacturing wood/paper products. Not Recommended

- No sources

Industrial

Wastewater None Require VOC limits and control system from wastewater system Not Recommended

- No sources

Wastewater Sewage

Treatment None Require VOC limits and control system for wastewater sewage treatment plant Not Recommended

- No sources

Lower permit exemption None Lower permit threshold to bring more sources and equipment under permit program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Composting
Green Waste None Establish VOC limits

similar to the rule adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-20 Table H-3 EDCAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Composting

and Biosolids None Establish VOC reducing requirements equivalent
to SJVUAPCD/SCAQMD Not Recommended

- No sources

Glass Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for glass furnaces Not Recommended

- No sources

Central

Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for
central furnaces Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction

emissions associated

with new land use development Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-2 ISR Operational None Mitigate increased

emissions associated

with new land use/development projects Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

300 Agricultural Burning/Open Burning Conditions under which burning must be conducted, when allowed, to minimize smoke; Burning is not allowed on days declared No-Burn Day Prohibit burning of waste Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glycol Dehydration Systems None Control VOC emissions from glycol regenerator vents used in natural gas production to remove water vapor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Lubricants None Establish VOC limits for
lubricant formulations Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Facility

Modernization None Establish a predetermined life span of when equipment would need to be replaced and would then trigger BACT

limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-21 

### Feather River Air Qua lity Management District

Stationary/Area Source Cont rol Measures ConsideredSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-22 Table H-4 FRAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

1 Adhesives and
Sealants None Establish VOC limits on

adhesives and sealants

similar to limits used in
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

3.15 Architectural Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

3.14 Degreasing/
Solvent Cleaning Keep lid close on tanks greater than 55 gallons. Require VOC limits on degreasing/solvent cleaning process. Control Measure

2 Unspecified Coatings None Establish VOC limits on coatings that have not

been established in

another rule. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

3.19 Automotive Refinishing VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

Paper, Fabric,

and Film Coating None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

3.21 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBtu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr Annual Tune Up, >5 mmBTU/hr using gaseous fuel30 ppm, >5 mmBTU/hr using nongaseous fuel 40 ppm Require Nox limits for

boiler between 1-5 mmBtu/hr, and reduce
Nox limit for boiler >5
mmBtu/hr Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

3.21 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBtu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr Annual Tune Up, >5 mmBTU/hr using gaseous fuel30 ppm, >5 mmBTU/hr using nongaseous fuel 40 ppm Reduce Nox limit to 6 ppm for >20 mmBTU/hr Not Recommended
– No Sources

3.22 IC Engines None Establish Nox limits on engines. Control Measure

3.8/3.9 Storage Tanks Requires use of a floating roof or vapor loss control device Lower applicability

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Cap and Trade None Establish CAP and Trade

Emission Reduction Program similar to
SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Commercial Cooking None Establish standards to
control VOC emissions for Commercial Cooking (i.e. char boilers) Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Livestock

Waste None Lower applicability

threshold Not Recommended
– No Sources

Wineries None Establish standards to reduce evaporative VOC

emissions from the fermentation process at

wineries Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-23 Table H-4 FRAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

3.20 Wood Products Coatings VOC limits on coatings and strippers Reduce VOC limits for high solid stains, sealers, strippers and lower the applicability limit to 20 gal/year Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Natural Gas

Production and Processing None Establish requirements to inspect and maintain equipment to reduce fugitive VOC emissions Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement Asphaltic
Concrete None Require limits for NOx

emissions Not Recommended

- No sources

Other Dryers
and Ovens None Require limits for NOx

emissions that achieve

50 - 75% reduction similar to proposed
measure in SCAQMD Not Recommended
– No Sources

Polyester
Resin/Plastic

Product Manufacturing None Require monomer
content limit and use of vapor suppressant Not Recommended

- No sources

3.18 Landfills Collect and control ROG
emissions from landfills Lower applicability
threshold to landfills containing approximately
0.5 million tons of waste

or more Not Recommended

- No sources

3.23 Water Heaters None Require limits for Nox
emissions for water
heaters < 1 mmBtu/hr Control Measure

Roofing Kettles None Establish VOC limits from roofing kettles Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Reactivity

Based
Standards None Require VOC limit of coatings to be based on a reactivity limit instead
of a mass-balance limit Not Recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure

3.15

Using Greener
Consumer

Products None Promote the use of LowVOC Consumer Productespecially on Spare-theAir Day Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Semiconductor Manufacturing None Establish VOC limits for

semiconductor manufacturing Not Recommended

- No sources

Can Coating None Establish VOC limits for can coating Not Recommended

- No sources Aerospace Coating None Establish VOC limits for aerospace coating Not Recommended

- No sources

Petroleum Dry Cleaning None Establish VOC limits on
solvents used or use of

control device Not Recommended

- No sources

Metal Parts and

Products None Require VOC limits on coatings for metal parts and products Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-24 Table H-4 FRAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Graphic Arts None Require VOC limits on inks, coatings, adhesives
or use of emission control system Not Recommended

- No sources

Gas Turbines None Establish Nox limits on stationary gas turbines Not Recommended

- No sources

Incinerators None Establish Nox limits on

incinerators Not Recommended

- No sources

Food and Ag Processing None Require VOC limits to be as stringent as a rule adopted in SCAQMD which required the use of low-VOC sterilizing products or controlled by

an emission control

device Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Bakeries None Require control device with efficiency of at least

95% Not Recommended

- No sources

Terminal/Bulk

Plants None Require VOC limits from loading of organic liquids Not Recommended

- No sources

3.8/3.12 Gasoline
Transfer -
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic se lf maintenance, periodic inspection Evaluate SJV proposal to include mobile fuelers, increase inspection frequency, lower allowable vapor leak

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

3.8/3.12 Gasoline

Transfer -
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe & ARB certified systems. Phase II requires ARB certified system, periodic se lf maintenance, periodic inspection Improve compliance rates by requiring ISD to provide earlier warning signal at lower degradation rate; change ISD warning and gross failure rates; disallow
ISD reset button until fixed; require installation
of shut down sensor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Storage Tank Degassing None Reduce emissions by requiring enhanced control technology,

increased control efficiency, establishing

concentration limits Not Recommended

- No sources

Aviation Fuel
Transfer None Reduce VOC from spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through
relief valves Not Recommended

- No sources

Marine Coatings None Establish VOC limits for marine coatings. Not Recommended

- No sourcesSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-25 Table H-4 FRAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Enhanced Compliance None Evaluate permit program change to assess opportunities for further emission reductions; include adjusting permit exemption level, conduct additional inspections and survey to identify potential sources, adding

conditions to non-Title V Sources and improving accuracy and enforceability of existing permit Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Flares None Establish standard of
NOx emissions for flares Not Recommended

- No sources

Polystyrene/ Poly Foam Blowing/Other None Require reduction of
VOC emission from EPS molding by vented the

emissions to an emission

control device such as a

thermal oxidizer Not Recommended

- No sources

Production of Wood/paper products None Require VOC limits for manufacturing wood/paper products. Not Recommended

- No sources

Industrial

Wastewater None Require VOC limits and control system from wastewater system Not Recommended

- No sources

Wastewater Sewage

Treatment None Require VOC limits and control system for wastewater sewage treatment plant Not Recommended

- No sources

4.3 Lower permit exemption Permit exemptions and thresholds Lower permit threshold to bring more sources and equipment under permit program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement Composting
Green Waste None Establish VOC limits Not Recommended

- No sources

Composting

and Biosolids None Establish VOC reducing requirements equivalent
to SJVUAPCD/SCAQMD Not Recommended

- No sources

Glass Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for glass furnaces Not Recommended

- No sources

Central

Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for
central furnaces Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction
NOx emissions

associated with new land use development Control measureSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-26 Table H-4 FRAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction
VOC emissions

associated with new land use development Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-2 ISR Operational None Mitigate increased

emissions associated

with new land use/development projects Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

2.0 Agricultural Burning/Open Burning Conditions under which burning must be conducted, when allowed, to minimize smoke; Burning is not allowed on days declared No-Burn Day Prohibit burning of waste Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glycol Dehydration Systems None Control VOC emissions from glycol regenerator vents used in natural gas production to remove water vapor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Lubricants None Establish VOC limits for

lubricant formulations Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Facility

Modernization None - new equipment with PTE greater than 10 lbs/day install
BACT Establish a predetermined life span of when equipment would need to be replaced and would then trigger BACT

limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-27 

### Placer County Air Pollution Control District

Stationary/Area Source Cont rol Measures ConsideredSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-28 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

235 Adhesives and
Sealants VOC limits on adhesives and

sealants Reduce VOC limits on

adhesives and sealants

to limits used in
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

218 Architectural Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

216, 240 Degreasing/
Solvent Cleaning VOC limits on solvent Reduce the VOC limits

on the solvents to limits adopted by SCAQMD. Including all coating rules

with solvent limits. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Unspecified Coatings None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

234 Automotive Refinishing VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

Paper, Fabric,

and Film Coating None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

231, 232, 233, 241 Boilers and
Steam
Generators Required NOx limits 30 ppm on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 5MMBtu/hr or greater; Lower NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1,000,000 Btu/hr or greater; 1-5 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm, 5-20 mmBTU/hr 15 ppm, >20 mmBTU/hr 9 ppm Not Recommended - High Cost due to the portion of

boilers >5
mmBtu/hr in the county

231, 232, 233, 241 Boilers and
Steam
Generators Required NOx limits 30 ppm on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 5,000,000 Btu/hr or greater; Reduce Nox limit to 6-8 ppm for >20 mmBTU/hr Not Recommended - High cost due to the portion of

boilers > 5
mmBtu/hr in the county

242 IC Engines NOx limits on IC Engines located at stationary sources Lower NOx limits on all non-ag stationary engines 25 ppm for rich burn, 65 ppm for lean burn, 80 ppm for diesel Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

212 Storage Tanks Requires use of a pressure tank or use of tank with vapor loss control

device Lower applicability threshold; additional
control on fixed roof tank Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Cap and Trade None Establish CAP and Trade

Emission Reduction Program similar to
SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Commercial Cooking None Establish standards to
control VOC emissions for Commercial Cooking (i.e. char boilers) Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-29 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Livestock

Waste None Lower applicability threshold; Increase number of practices and control efficiency Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wineries None Establish standards to reduce evaporative VOC

emissions from the fermentation process at

wineries Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

236 Wood Products Coatings VOC limits on coatings and strippers Reduce VOC limits for high solid stains, sealers, strippers and lower the applicability limit to 20 gal/year Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Natural Gas

Production and Processing None Establish requirements to inspect and maintain equipment to reduce fugitive VOC emissions Not Recommended

- No sources

CM1 Asphaltic
Concrete None Require limits for NOx

emissions similar to a control measure adopted by SJVUAPCD Control Measure

Other Dryers
and Ovens None Require limits for NOx

emissions that achieve

50 - 75% reduction similar to proposed
measure in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

243 Polyester
Resin/Plastic

Product Manufacturing Limits monomer content and use of vapor suppressants Reduce monomer limits to standards adopted by
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

237 Landfills Collect and control ROG emissions from landfills containing approximately 2.75 million tons of

waste or more Lower applicability
threshold to landfills containing approximately
0.5 million tons of waste

or more Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

CM2/246 Water Heaters NOx limits on water heaters with rated heat input capacity less than 75,000 Btu/hr Require NOx limits on
water heaters/boilers with rated heat input capacity between 75,000 Btu/hr and 1,000,000 Btu/hr, and reduce
current NOx limits from 55 ppm to 15 ppm. Control Measure

Roofing Kettles None Establish VOC limits from roofing kettles Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Reactivity

Based
Standards None Require VOC limit of coatings to be based on a reactivity limit instead
of a mass-balance limit Not Recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure

218

Using Greener
Consumer

Products None Promote the use of LowVOC Consumer Productespecially on Spare-theAir Day Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-30 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

244 Semiconductor Manufacturing Limit VOC emissions from negative photoresist operations and solvent cleaning processes Establish VOC limits for

semiconductor manufacturing Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

233 Can Coating Limit VOC emissions form coating Reduce VOC limits to be as stringent as
SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement Aerospace Coating None Establish VOC limits Not Recommended

- No sources

227 Petroleum Dry Cleaning VOC limits on solvents used or

use of emission control device Remove applicability

threshold to include all dry cleaning solvents except for perchloroethylene and ban the use of open transfer systems Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

CM3/245 Metal Parts and

Products None Establish VOC limits Control Measure

239 Graphic Arts VOC limits on inks, coatings,

adhesives or use of emission control system Reduce VOC limits for ink categories in flexographic for porous substrate, extreme performance, and

metallic ink to be as stringent as SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

250 Gas Turbines NOx limits on stationary gas turbines; 0.3 - 2.9 MW 42 ppmv, >= 2.9 and <877 hours 42 ppmv, 2.9 - 10 MW and >= 877 hours, 25 ppmv, >=10 MW with no SCR and >= 877 hours 15 ppmv, >=10
MW with SCR and >= hours 9

ppmv Reduce NOx limits to be as stringent as SCAQMD; 0.3-2.9 MW 25 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW 9 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW with no scar 15 ppmv, 10 MW and over 9 ppmv , 10

MW and over with no SCR 12 ppmv Not Recommended - Already implemented

206 Incinerators Limit NOx, SO2, CO, PM, THC,
and HCL emissions from an

incinerator Require all incinerators
demonstrate NOx
emissions of less than 60
lb/mmscf Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Food and Ag Processing None Require VOC limits to be as stringent as a rule adopted in SCAQMD which required the use of low-VOC sterilizing products or controlled by

an emission control

device Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Bakeries None Lower applicability

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-31 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

213, 215 Terminal/Bulk

Plants VOC limits from loading of organic liquids Require VOC limits to be as stringent as BAAQMD; require leak inspection requirement and repair time requirement similar to the requirements adopted in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Further Study – 4 Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Require new and existing retail service stations being in compliance with State ATCM by

its deadline Evaluate SJV proposal to include mobile fuelers, increase inspection frequency, lower allowable vapor leak

threshold Further Study -
Current information inadequate to quality benefits and
cost effectiveness

Further Study – 4 Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Require new and existing retail service stations being in compliance with State ATCM by

its deadline Improve compliance rates by requiring ISD to provide earlier warning signal at lower degradation rate; change ISD warning and gross failure rates; disallow
ISD reset button until fixed; require installation
of shut down sensor Further Study -
Current information inadequate to quality benefits and
cost effectiveness

Storage Tank Degassing None Reduce emissions by requiring enhanced control technology,

increased control efficiency, establishing

concentration limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Aviation Fuel
Transfer None Reduce VOC from spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through
relief valves Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Marine Coatings None Establish VOC limits for marine coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

Enhanced Compliance None Evaluate permit program change to assess opportunities for further emission reductions; include adjusting permit exemption level, conduct additional inspections and survey to identify potential sources, adding

conditions to non-Title V Sources and improving accuracy and enforceability of existing permit Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Flares None Establish standard of
NOx emissions for flares Not Recommended

- No sourcesSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-32 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Polystyrene/ Poly Foam Blowing/Other None Require reduction of
VOC emission from EPS molding by vented the

emissions to an emission

control device such as a

thermal oxidizer Not Recommended

- No sources

229, 238 Production of Wood/paper products Limit coatings and inks which contain 250 grams or less of VOC per liter Require VOC limits for manufacturing wood/paper products. Not recommended - already implemented

Industrial

Wastewater None Require VOC limits and control system from wastewater system Not Recommended

- No sources

Wastewater Sewage

Treatment None Require VOC limits and control system for wastewater sewage treatment plant Not Recommended

- No sources

Lower permit exemption Permit exemptions and thresholds Lower permit threshold to bring more sources and equipment under permit program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Composting
Green Waste None Establish VOC limits

similar to the rule adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Composting

and Biosolids None Establish VOC reducing requirements equivalent
to SJVUAPCD/SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glass Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for glass furnaces Not Recommended

- No sources

Central

Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for
central furnaces Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction Nox

emissions associated

with new land use development Control Measure

IS-1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction

emissions associated

with new land use development Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS-2 ISR Operational None Mitigate increased

emissions associated

with new land use/development projects Control measureSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-33 Table H-5 PCAPCD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Agricultural Burning/Open Burning Conditions under which burning must be conducted, when allowed, to minimize smoke; Burning is not allowed on days declared No-Burn Day, Areas may have more

restricted controls based on its Municipal Advisory Councils

decision Prohibit burning of waste Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glycol Dehydration Systems None Control VOC emissions from glycol regenerator vents used in natural gas production to remove water vapor Not Recommended

- No sources

Further Study – 5 Lubricants None Establish VOC limits for
lubricant formulations Further Study -
Current information incomplete to quantify benefits

and cost
effectiveness

Facility

Modernization None Establish a predetermined life span of when equipment would need to be replaced and would then trigger BACT

limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-34 

### Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

Stationary/Area Source Cont rol Measures ConsideredSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-35 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Adhesives and
Sealants VOC limits on adhesives and

sealants Reduce VOC limits on

adhesives and sealants

to limits used in
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

2.14 Architectural Coatings VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control Measure

2.24/2.31 Degreasing/
Solvent Cleaning VOC limits on solvents Reduce the VOC limits

on the solvents to limits adopted by SCAQMD. Control measure

Unspecified Coatings None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

2.26 Automotive Refinishing VOC limits on coatings Reduce the VOC limits on the coatings
consistent with the SCM Control measure

Paper, Fabric,

and Film Coating None Establish VOC limits on coatings. Not Recommended

- No sources

Boilers and
Steam Generators,
<5.0 mmBTU/hr NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm Establish Nox limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1-5 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm Not Recommended - High cost

2.27 Boilers and
Steam Generators,
>4.9 mmBTU/hr NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm Lower NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 5-20
mmBTU/hr and >20
mmBTU/hr Control Measure

231, 232, 233, 241 Boilers and
Steam
Generators NOx limits on boiler/steam generators with rated heat input capacity of 1 mmBTU/hr 30 ppm Reduce NOx limit to 6-8 ppm for >20 mmBTU/hr Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

2.32 IC Engines Rich burn Nox limit at 90 ppm. Lean burn Nox limit for engines > 100 BHP at 150 ppm and Nox limit for engines > 100 BHP at 300 ppm Reduce NOx emission limit for rich burn, lean burn > 100 BHP, and lean burn engines < 100

BHP. Control measure

2.21 Storage Tanks Requires use of a pressure tank or use of tank with vapor loss control

device Lower applicability threshold; additional
control on fixed roof tank Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Cap and Trade None Establish CAP and Trade

Emission Reduction Program similar to
SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Commercial Cooking None Establish standards to
control VOC emissions for Commercial Cooking (i.e. char boilers) Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-36 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Livestock

Waste Best Available Control Technology Lower applicability threshold; Increase number of practices to

control emissions and improve control efficiency Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wineries None Establish standards to reduce evaporative VOC

emissions from the fermentation process at

wineries Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wood Products Coatings VOC limits on wood coatings, application equipment requirements Reduce VOC limits for high solid stains, sealers, strippers and lower the applicability limit to 20 gal/year Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Natural Gas

Production and Processing Inspections of seals and pressure relief devices, control of fugitive

emissions Establish requirements to inspect and maintain equipment to reduce fugitive VOC emissions Not recommended - Already implemented

Asphaltic
Concrete None Require limits for NOx

emissions similar to a control measure adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Other Dryers
and Ovens None Require limits for NOx

emissions that achieve

50 - 75% reduction similar to proposed
measure in SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Polyester
Resin/Plastic

Product Manufacturing VOC limits on polyester resin materials, requirements for application equipment Reduce monomer limits to standards adopted by
SCAQMD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Landfills Compliance with EPA requirements Lower applicability
threshold to landfills containing approximately
0.5 million tons of waste

or more Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

2.37 Water Heaters 40 nanogram Nox limit for natural gas-fired water heaters Require rating specific

Nox limits on water
heaters/boilers with rated heat input capacity between 75,000 BTU/hr and 1,000,000 BTU/hr Control measure

Roofing Kettles None Establish VOC limits from roofing kettles Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Reactivity

Based
Standards None Require VOC limit of coatings to be based on a reactivity limit instead
of a mass-balance limit Not recommended - Overlaps with
Control Measure

2.14

Using Greener
Consumer

Products None Promote the use of LowVOC Consumer Productespecially on Spare-theAir Day Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-37 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Semiconductor Manufacturing None Establish VOC limits for

semiconductor manufacturing Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Can Coating None Reduce VOC limits to be as stringent as
SJVUAPCD Not Recommended

- No sources

Aerospace Coating None Establish VOC limits Not Recommended

- No sources

Petroleum Dry Cleaning VOC limits on solvents used or
use of emission control device Remove applicability

threshold to include all dry cleaning solvents except for perchloroethylene and ban the use of open transfer systems Not Recommended

- No sources

Metal Parts and

Products VOC limits on metal parts coatings, application methods Reduce VOC limits for coatings used in some "baked" applications and coatings considered "specialty coatings" Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

2.29 Graphic Arts VOC limits on graphic arts products Lower rule exemption limit to 60 pounds per month. Revise cleaning
solvent ROG limits to
match current SMAQMD

standards. Control Measure

Gas Turbines Nox limits on gas turbines Reduce NOx limits to be as stringent as SCAQMD; 0.3-2.9 MW 25 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW 9 ppmv, 2.9-10 MW with no scar 15 ppmv, 10 MW and over 9 ppmv , 10

MW and over with no SCR 12 ppmv Not Recommended - Already implemented

Incinerators Require all incinerators
demonstrate NOx
emissions of less than 60
lb/mmscf Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Food and Ag Processing None Require VOC limits to be as stringent as a rule adopted in SCAQMD which required the use of low-VOC sterilizing products or controlled by

an emission control

device Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Bakeries None Lower applicability

threshold Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-38 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Terminal/Bulk

Plants Pressure tank or vapor-loss control device required Require VOC limits to be as stringent as BAAQMD; require leak inspection requirement and repair time requirement similar to the requirements adopted in SCAQMD Not Recommended - Already implemented

Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe and ARB certified systems. Phase II requires ARB certifiedsystem, replacement of balancesystem nozzle boots once per

year Evaluate SJV proposal to include mobile fuelers, increase inspection frequency, lower allowable vapor leak

threshold Not recommended - Already implemented

Further Study – 4 Gasoline Dispensing
Phase I/II Phase I requires submerged fill pipe and ARB certified systems. Phase II requires ARB certifiedsystem, replacement of balancesystem nozzle boots once per

year Improve compliance rates by requiring ISD to provide earlier warning signal at lower degradation rate; change ISD warning and gross failure rates; disallow
ISD reset button until fixed; require installation
of shut down sensor Further Study
Needed - Current
information inadequate to quantify benefits or

assess cost/feasibility

Storage Tank Degassing Reduce emissions by requiring enhanced control technology,

increased control efficiency, establishing

concentration limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Aviation Fuel
Transfer None Reduce VOC from spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through
relief valves Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Marine Coatings None Establish VOC limits for marine coatings. Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Enhanced Compliance None Evaluate permit program change to assess opportunities for further emission reductions; include adjusting permit exemption level, conduct additional inspections and survey to identify potential sources, adding

conditions to non-Title V Sources and improving accuracy and enforceability of existing permit Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Flares None Establish standard of
NOx emissions for flares Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-39 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Polystyrene/ Poly Foam Blowing/Other None Require reduction of
VOC emission from EPS molding by vented the

emissions to an emission

control device such as a

thermal oxidizer Not Recommended - Equivalent or better requirements in place

Production of Wood/paper products None Require VOC limits for manufacturing of wood/paper products Not Recommended

- No sources

Industrial

Wastewater None Require VOC limits and control system from wastewater system Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Wastewater Sewage

Treatment None Require VOC limits and control system for wastewater sewage treatment plant Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Lower permit exemption None Lower permit threshold to bring more sources and equipment under permit program Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Composting
Green Waste None Establish VOC limits

similar to the rule adopted by SJVUAPCD Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Composting

and Biosolids None Establish VOC reducing requirements equivalent
to SJVUAPCD/SCAQMD Not Recommended

- No sources

Glass Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for glass furnaces Not Recommended

- No sources

Central

Furnaces None Establish NOx limits for
central furnaces Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS – 1 ISR
Construction None Implement construction mitigation rule to reduce
off-road construction

emissions associated

with new land use development Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

IS – 2 ISR Operational None Mitigate increased

emissions associated

with new land use/development projects Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Agricultural Burning/Open Burning Burning dependent of meteorology, no burning allowed on no-burn days Prohibit burning of waste Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

Advancement

Glycol Dehydration Systems None Control VOC emissions from glycol regenerator vents used in natural gas production to remove water vapor Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan December 19, 2008

Appendix H: Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis Page H-40 Table H-6 YSAQMD Stationary/Area Source Control Measures Considered

Measure No. Title Current Requirements Opportunity for Strengthening Conclusion

Further Study – 5 Lubricants None Establish VOC limits for
lubricant formulations Further Study
Needed - Current

information inadequate to quantify benefits or

assess cost/feasibility

Facility

Modernization New equipment with PTE > 10 lbs/day install BACT Establish a predetermined life span of when equipment would need to be replaced and would then trigger BACT

limits Not Recommended
- Evaluated for

Attainment

AdvancementSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix I: Federal Clean Air Act RequirementsPage I-1Appendix I: Federal Clean Air Act RequirementsTable I-1General Nonattainment Plan RequirementsRequired Plan Element Description Location in PlanReasonably Available ControlMeasures (RACM)[Section 172(c)(1)The plan should provide for the implementation of allreasonably available control measures as expeditiously aspracticable, including reduction in emissions from existingsources through the adoption of reasonably available controltechnology.Chapter 7 (proposed controlmeasures)Appendix H (RACM analysis)Reasonable Further Progress[Section 172(c)(2)]The plan requires reasonable further progress in emissionreduction.Chapter 13 (RFP demonstration)Inventory[Section 172(c)(3)]The plan should include a comprehensive, accurate, currentinventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevantpollutant or pollutants in such area, including periodicrevisions as the Administrator may determine necessary toassure that the requirements of this part are met.Chapter 5 (emissions inventory)Appendix A (emissions inventory)Identification and Quantification[Section 172(c)(4)]The plan should identify and quantify the emissions, if any,of any such pollutant or pollutants, which will be allowed, inaccordance with section 173(a)(1)(B), from the constructionand operation of major new or modified stationary sources ineach such area. The plan shall demonstrate to thesatisfaction of the EPA that the emissions quantified for thispurpose will be consistent with the achievement ofreasonable further progress and will not interfere withattainment of the applicable national ambient air qualitystandard by the applicable attainment date.Chapter 5, Sections 5.5 and 5.6(emissions forecasts)Chapter 8 (attainment demonstration)Chapter13 (RFP demonstration)Permits for new and modifiedstationary sources[Section 172(c)(5)]Such plan provisions shall require permits for theconstruction and operation of new or modified majorstationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, inaccordance with section 173.Chapter 3, Section 3.3 (NSRpermitting requirements)Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix I: Federal Clean Air Act RequirementsPage I-2Table I-1 (cont.)General Nonattainment Plan RequirementsRequired Plan Element Description Location in PlanOther Measures[Section 172(c)(6)]Such plan provisions shall include enforceable emissionlimitations, and such other control measures, means ortechniques (including economic incentives such as fees,marketable permits, and auctionsof emission rights), as wellas schedules and timetables for compliance, as may benecessary or appropriate to provide for attainment by theapplicable date.Chapter 7 (proposed controlmeasures)Compliance with Section 110(a)(2)[Section 172(c)(7)]Compliance with section 110(a)(2).- Such plan provisionsshall also meet the applicable provisions of section110(a)(2). Section110(a)(2) – includes reasonable noticeand public hearing requirements for plan adoptions.Chapters 2, 4, 6, 7, 8Equivalent Techniques[Section 172(c)(8)]Upon application by any State, the EPA may allow the use ofequivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planningprocedures, unless the EPA determines that the proposedtechniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than themethods specified by the EPA.Chapter 5 (emissions inventory)Chapter 6 (air quality modeling)Contingency Measures[Section 172(c)(9)]The plan should include specific measures to be undertakenif the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or toattain the national primary ambient air quality standard bythe applicable attainment. Such measures shall be includedin the plan revision as contingency measures to take effectin any such case without further action by the State or theEPAChapter 7, Section 7.20 (contingencymeasures)Chapter 8, Section 8.4Chapter 13, Section 13.3Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainmentand Reasonable Further Progress PlanDecember 19, 2008Appendix I: Federal Clean Air Act RequirementsPage I-3Table I-2Severe Area Plan Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment AreasRequired Plan ElementDescriptionLocation in PlanInventory[Section 182(a)(1)]Submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sourcesChapter 5 (emissions inventory)Appendix A (emissions inventory)General Offset requirements[Section 182(d)(2)]The ratio of total emission reductions of volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) to total increased emissions of such airpollutant shall be at least 1.3 to1, except that if the Stateplan requires all existing major sources in a nonattainmentarea to use best available control technology for the controlof VOCs, the ratio shall be at least 1.2 to 1.Chapter 3, Section 3.3 (NSRpermitting requirements)Reasonably available controltechnology [Section 182(b)(2)]Implementation of control technologies for VOC sourcescovered by control technique guidelines (CTG) documentsand all other major stationary sources of VOCs that arelocated in the areaChapter 3, Section 3.4 (RACTrequirements)Attainment demonstration [Section172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A)]A demonstration that the plan will provide for attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standard as expeditiously aspracticable by the applicable attainment date. Thedemonstration must be based on photochemical gridmodeling.Chapter 6 (air quality modeling)Chapter 8 (attainment demonstration)Appendix B (photochemical modeling)Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)demonstration [Section 182(c)(2)(B)and (C)]A demonstration that the plan will result in VOC emissions(and/or NOx emissions) reductions from the baselineemissions of an average of atleast three percent each year.Chapter 13 (RFP demonstration)Enhanced vehicle inspection andmaintenance program [Section182(c)(3)]The State shall provide for an enhanced program to reducehydrocarbon emissions and NOx emissions from in-usemotor vehicles registered in each urbanized areaChapter 5, Section 5.3.3 (on-roadmotor vehicle emissions EMFAC2007)Contingency Provisions [Section182(c)(9)]The plan shall provide for the implementation of specificmeasures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet anyapplicable milestone. Such measures shall take effectwithout further action by theState or the EPA upon a failureto meet the applicable milestone.Chapter 7, Section 7.20 (contingencymeasures)Chapter 8, Section 8.4Chapter 13, Section 13.3Vehicle Miles Traveled [Section182(d)(1)]Transportation control strategies/Transportation controlmeasuresChapter 7, Section 7.9 (TCMs)Appendix D (TCMs)Milestones [Section 182(g)]Provide a report every three years after the designation todetermine whether the nonattainment area has achieved areduction in emissions during the preceding intervalequivalent to the total emission reductions required to beachieved by the attainment date given in the plan.Chapter 14, Section 14.13 (milestonereports)