1. Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area Arizona Regional Haze Stakeholder Meeting January 22, 2007

2. Saguaro Wilderness Area Source: WRAP Causes of Haze Website (http://coha.dri.edu)http://coha.dri.edu Saguaro West (SAWE) Saguaro NM (SAGU) Source: VIEWS website http://vista.cira.colostate.edu

3. SAGU Baseline Extinction Budget Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

4. SAWE Baseline Extinction Budget Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

5. 20% Best Day Composition at SAWE and SAGU Source: Chart made from two spreadsheets posted at: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

6. 20% Worst Day Composition at SAWE and SAGU Source: Chart made from two spreadsheets posted at: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

7. Reasonable Progress Under the Federal Regional Haze Rule States set reasonable progress goals based on: –Consideration of 4 statutory factors Costs Time necessary for compliance Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts Remaining useful life of potentially affected sources –The uniform rate of progress (measured in deciviews) necessary to attain natural conditions by 2064 States adopt long-term strategies to achieve these goals States implement BART

8. Uniform Rate of Progress (worst days) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Trends

9. Uniform Rate of Progress (worst days) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Trends

10. Uniform Rate of Progress Essentially a 20% reduction in manmade haze (dv) per planning period (10 years) Heavily dependent on: –Assumptions regarding future natural conditions –Contribution of non-WRAP sources to baseline –Representativeness of 2000-04 baseline 24 of the 77 Class I sites have no more than 3 years of data in baseline period –These issues more accute in the West Haze rule promulgated in 1999

11. A Species-Based Approach to RP Isolate some of the URP issues previously noted Species differ significantly from one another in their: –Contribution to visibility impairment –Spatial and seasonal distributions –Source types –Contribution from natrual and international sources –Emissions data quality –Atmospheric science quality –Tools available for assessment and projection

12. SO2NOxOCCM Emission Sources Almost entirely anthro. Mostly point sources. Mostly anthro. Mix of combustion sources. Diverse. Mix of anthro, fire, and biogenic VOCs. Diverse. Very difficult to partition wb dust into nat/anthro. Emissions Data Quality Very good overall. Activity data less good for area sources. Good. Activity data less good, some coding concerns w/ smaller point, area, and O&G sources. Fair. Good activity data & conf. in PM 2.5 emissions, but uncertain spec. of PM 2.5 & bio. VOCs. Poor, except for some locales. Categorically complete but accuracy very uncertain. Emission Projections Very good. Uncertain about area sources. Good. Uncertain about offshore and O&G. Fair. What to expect from fire? Fair. What to expect from wb dust? Atmospheric Science Quality Very good. Meteorology probably largest uncertainty. Fair. Chemistry more complex, but meteorology too. Fair. Most complex, least understood, but model perf. OK. Fair. No major chemistry, but model resolution, met. insufficient. WRAP ToolsEmission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PSAT Apport. Emission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PSAT Apport. Emission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PMF, WEP. Emission Inv. Causes of Dust. WEP.

13. Draft WRAP Protocol for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress For each site and species … Estimate progress expected from Base Case + BART in 2018 Determine any other LTSs which may be reasonable for that pollutant and recalculate 2018 species concentration Add up improvements from all species into dv This becomes the RPG for the 20% worst days Explain why this is less than URP –Large international and natural contributions, large uncertainties in dust inventory preclude action, etc.

14. Determine URP for a species Is Base+BART projection better than URP? Is WRAP Anthro reduction > 20%? Are there any important uncontrolled sources? Are there any important uncontrolled or undercontrolled sources? Repeat for other species. Evaluate emission & air quality trends more closely Identify LTSs for these sources considering the 4 RPG and other factors identified in the RHR. Adopt, commit to adopt, or commit to further evaluation. Determine reductions at C1A. Add up all species reductions to get a RPG for worst days. Eplain why it’s less than default URP but still reasonable. Set goal for best days. Y Y Y N*N* N N N Y * Note, if no LTS beyond BART is developed, then the 4 RPG factors are inherently taken into account via BART. Interstate coop key.

15. SAGU Species Trends and URP Glidepaths (Worst Days) Peak day for OC on 10/30/03. Peak day for CM on May 31, 2003.

16. SAWE Species Trends and URP Glidepaths (Worst Days) Peak day for OC on 10/30/03. Peak day for CM on May 31, 2003.

17. SAGU Upwind Residence Time On 20% Wost Visibility Days (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potential

18. Ammonium Nitrate (NO3)

19. NO3 Is the Base+BART projection better than URP? –Yes: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show a 20% reduction in extinction due to NO3. Results do not yet include BART Results not yet available on TSS –Precise projection method not yet finalized WRAP anthro reduction is 28% –See PSAT results on next slide

20. NO3 Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind PSAT results PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

21. SAGU NO3 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

22. SAWE NO3 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

23. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

24. SAGU NO3 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

25. SAWE NO3 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

27. Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html Major NOx Sources in the 2018 Arizona Point Source Pivot Table

28. Source CategoryPSATWEPNotes Boundary conditions Outside state authority. High uncertainty. CA mobile sources Note large reductions (51% in PSAT). AZ mobile sources Note large reductions (55% in PSAT). AZ point sources BART not yet included. Cement plants second to EGUs. Most Likely NOx Sources Significantly Contributing to NO3 at SAGU On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

29. Ammonium Sulfate (SO4)

30. SO4 Is the Base+BART projection better than URP? –No: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show only a 6% reduction in extinction due to SO4. Sources outside the WRAP have a large influence Results not yet available on TSS Is WRAP anthro reduction > 20%? –No: PSAT apportionment shows only a 9% reduction from WRAP anthro SO2 sources BART not fully included yet Need to correct (reduce) 2018 Hayden emissions

31. SO4 Are there any important uncontrolled or undercontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind PSAT results PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

32. SAGU SO4 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

33. SAWE SO4 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

34. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

35. SAGU SO4 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

36. SAWE SO4 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

38. Changes In Point and Area Source SO2 Emissions In AZ Area Source Changes

40. Most Likely SO2 Sources Significantly Contributing to SO4 at SAGU On the 20% Worst Visibility Days Source CategoryPSATWEPNotes Boundary Conditions Outside state authority. High uncertainty. Pacific Ocean Outside state authority. Mexico point & area Outside state authority. Check coastal point sources. CENRAP point CAIR yields 23% reduction. East U.S. point CAIR yields 56% reduction. AZ point Contribution increases 32%. Some BART not yet included. Error at Hayden. Note broad trends. AZ area Contribution increases 27%. Should check area source oil & coal use.

41. Organic Carbon (OC)

42. Source: WRAP Technical Support System AORGA Change = +6% (secondary anthropogenic OC) AORGB Change = +1% (secondary biogenic OC, inc. smoke) AORGPA Change = -1% (primary OC, inc. smoke) SAGU OC CMAQ Results 2002 and 2018 base cases

43. SAWE OC CMAQ Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Organic Aerosol Tracer AORGA Change = 0% (secondary anthropogenic OC) AORGB Change = +2% (secondary biogenic OC, inc. smoke) AORGPA Change = -1% (primary OC, inc. smoke)

44. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

45. SAGU OC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

46. SAWE OC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

48. Dust

49. SAGU CM WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

50. SAWE CM WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

51. 3-Day Back Trajectories for May 31, 2003 Source: Causes of Haze website dust analysis page: http://coha.dri.edu/dust/index.html

53. The high peaks occur in the spring and summer and may be wind-driven. Fine soil concentrations seem elevated at SAWE1 relative to SAGU1 in the Oct – Dec time frame. Is this the result of agricultural activity in the area?

54. Extra Slides (2018 WEP Results)

55. SAGU NO3 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

56. SAWE NO3 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

57. SAGU SO4 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

58. SAWE SO4 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

59. SAGU CM WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

60. SAWE CM WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital