Western Regional Air Partnership Work Plan Update (2005-07) May 5, 2005 Table of Contents



Download 209.88 Kb.
Page1/3
Date conversion10.07.2018
Size209.88 Kb.
  1   2   3


Western Regional Air Partnership

Work Plan Update

(2005-07)

May 5, 2005

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .....................................................................….........…………………….. 1

II. Project Summaries ...........................................…..........………………………………… 7

Initiatives Oversight Committee ............................................………………………. 7

Stationary Sources Joint Forum ............................................……………………… 7

Fire Emissions Joint Forum ......................…....................…………………………. 8

Dust Emissions Joint Forum …………………………………………………….... 12

Mobile Source Forum ................................…..........……………………………… 14

Sources In and Near Class I Areas Forum ….............................……………………. 14

Economic Analysis Forum ..……..........................…..................…………………… 15

Air Quality Modeling Forum ....................…......................………………………… 17

Emissions Forum ........................................…...…………………………………… 22

Tribal Data Development Work Group .....…....................................…………….. 26

Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum ….............................................………. 28

Technical Oversight Committee …………………………………………………… 29

Attribution of Haze Work Group …………….............................................………. 30

309 Coordinating Committee ………………............................................…………. 31

Air Managers Committee ............................................……………………………. 31

Communications Committee ............................................………………………… 35

Figure 1. Strategic Plan Timeline (Updated October 13, 2004) ……………………………….. 4

Figure 2. Summary of 2018 Regional Haze Control Strategy Evaluations (March 2005) ……... 6




I. INTRODUCTION
This work plan summarizes activities and expenditures planned by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for calendar years 2005-2007, including activities initiated in earlier years and new activities. The WRAP is funded through annual grants from the U.S. EPA. This work plan will be submitted to EPA in support of the WRAP’s grant application for the federal FY05 funds awarded ($2,936,826) to the WRAP to support ongoing technical and policy work related to the development of state and tribal regional haze plans for the West.
The most recent WRAP work plan (calendar year 2005 work plan funded with the WRAP’s federal FY04 grant) was finalized on December 7, 2004. Recently, the EPA has accelerated its grant award process such that the FY05 grant is available to the WRAP and other regional haze planning organizations approximately six months sooner than in years past. Since the latest WRAP work plan is only a few months old, the WRAP is responding to the early availability of EPA funds by providing an update to the December 7, 2004 work plan. Background information about the WRAP, its management process, and stakeholder involvement are not repeated here, but can be found in the December 7, 2004 version of the work plan, available at http://www.wrapair.org/WRAP/docs.html.

In addition to including new and expanded tasks, this work plan update covers an expanded period of 2005 through 2007. This is a critical time period since most of the WRAP’s technical and policy work must be completed by the end of 2006 so that states can incorporate the WRAP’s products in their implementation plans which are due to the EPA by December 2007 (tribes are not subject to this deadline).

In developing this work plan, WRAP forums and committees were asked to consider the essential needs of state and tribal implementation plans and to ensure they could be met in this time frame and with the available resources. This work plan update assumes that the vast majority of technical and policy endeavors should be completed with the funds available as of this grant and by the end of 2006.
This work plan follows the direction set in the WRAP’s long-term strategic plan, which was adopted in 2003.1 Figure 1 shows the strategic plan time line and major project milestones. The time line and major milestones from the strategic plan provide the overall schedule and objectives for this work plan. The Strategic Plan also serves as an instrument of coordination and provides the direction and transparency needed to foster stakeholder participation and consensus-based decision making, which are key features of the WRAP process. The strategic plan also provides guidance to the individual plans of WRAP forums and committees which are included in this work plan.
On a more general level, the WRAP’s planning process must accommodate a unique landscape of environmental, social, economic, and political issues. The WRAP region includes 116 (or 75 percent) of the nation’s 156 mandatory federal Class I areas, half the land mass of the United States (not including Alaska), a very large portion of publicly-owned lands, and numerous tribal jurisdictions (many with large land areas). It also emits a minority of total U.S. emissions, borders both Canada and Mexico, and receives pollution from Asia.

Most WRAP members will not have to contend with ongoing ozone and particulate matter nonattainment issues, which simplifies air quality planning to some extent, but many WRAP members are faced with rapid population growth and other challenges to preventing deterioration of air quality. Moreover, the WRAP must be sensitive to other regionally-important environmental issues, such as fire and drought. This presents a unique and challenging environment for long-term planning which is best addressed through a single, well-funded and well-organized institution at the appropriate political level. The WRAP, with the appropriate EPA financial support, provides such an institution, especially given its co-management structure shared between the Western Governors’ Association and the National Tribal Environmental Council.

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


Figure 1. Strategic Plan Timeline (Updated October 13, 2004).


Figure 2. Summary of 2018 Regional Haze Control Strategy Evaluations (March 2005).



2018 Base Case Control Programs





  • Federal on-road and non-road mobile emissions

  • §309 SIPs (5-state SO2 Annex)

  • Controllable fire emissions (use 2000-04 baseline for 2018)

  • Point and area sources:

  1. Statutes and rules “on the books” as of 12/2004 to be implemented before 2018

  2. Sources to be operational before 2018 (permitted and under construction as of 12/2004)

  3. Includes quantified SIP measures, NEAPs, EACs, MACT, etc.

  4. Accounts for economic and demographic factors

2018 Regional Control Options




  • California PM2.5 and ozone SIP measures

  • BART- individual eligible sources added up for regional analysis

  • Point Source backstop cap and trade for BART + other point sources, options for:

  • Regional NOx

  • Regional SO2

  • Nested §309 SO2

  • Others?

  • Fire - greater application of Emissions Reduction Techniques for fire emissions to meet definition of regionally consistent enhanced smoke management programs – sensitivity evaluation

  • Dust - greater control levels and/or spatial extent of existing Dust Control programs – sensitivity evaluation

  • Area sources in general

  • Dust sources in general

2018 Base Case Definition


  • Known control programs, i.e., what emissions will be in 2018 if no additional controls are adopted

  • Projected from 2002 emissions (2000-04 in the case of fire emissions)

June through September 2005

October 2005 through March 2006

Not for regional analysis

II. PROJECT SUMMARIES

Initiatives Oversight Committee

The IOC provides overall direction and review to the forums evaluating potential emissions control strategies for regional haze in the West. The IOC has identified two general areas of investigation related to how the work of the individual forums might be aggregated into regional haze plans.

IO1: Reasonable Progress Criteria
The regional haze rule requires states, when establishing reasonable progress goals, to consider the following statutory factors: the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected source. Furthermore, states must include a demonstration in their SIPs showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting each goal. The purpose of this task is to explore these factors (e.g., how they have been used or interpreted in other environmental programs) and to provide further definition and guidance with respect to using them in a regional haze SIP demonstration.

IO2: Process for Identifying Control Strategies
The WRAP strategic plan identifies a “navigational challenge” identifying and selecting emission control strategies among the large number of those potentially available. It also provides some general ideas on how to “narrow the field.” The purpose of this task is to develop a process by which the most effective control strategies will be identified and refined.


Stationary Sources Joint Forum



The focus of the SSJF is on developing a stationary source control program to help meet the reasonable progress and BART requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule. The WRAP approach focuses on market-based alternatives to a plant-by-plant approach, with a particular emphasis on SO2 and NOx. This work plan assumes that source-by-source BART approaches will be undertaken by those jurisdictions which choose to implement BART under Section 308(e)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule.

The SSJF will conduct the analyses necessary to support market-based alternatives, such as identifying BART-eligible sources and demonstrating that any alternatives demonstrate greater reasonable progress that BART per Section 308(e)(2). The SSJF will also help coordinate any plant-by-plant BART analyses the states or tribes may choose to pursue.

Other activities by the SSJF will include tracking EPA’s BART rules and proposed guidelines. The SSJF will also work with the 309 Coordinating Committee to conduct any additional analyses that may be necessary to allow states and tribes to resubmit the SO2 milestone and backstop emissions trading program following the court’s decision in CEED v. EPA.
Finally, NOx and PM emissions must be addressed in such a way as to satisfy the SIP revision requirements under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule, as well as the Section 308 BART requirements for all states.
Work will include emissions inventory analysis, improvements, and future year projections; examination of control technology capabilities; maintenance of the list of BART-eligible sources in the WRAP region; and technical demonstrations that alternatives developed for BART provide for greater reasonable progress than BART.
There are several uncertainties that must be factored into this work. These include the final federal rules for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) which are scheduled to come out June (308(e)(1)) and November (308(e)(2)) 2005, and the extent to which WRAP states and tribes choose to implement source-specific BART rather than an alternative emissions trading program. As a result, there is a need to maintain flexibility in program design and to assess new information as it becomes available, including information from ongoing WRAP technical studies which will provide more information on the contribution of various sources to regional haze in the West. A single contractor or team of contractors will be sought for consistency over the course of the project, as developing a point and area source program will be an iterative process and may require revisiting analyses as assumptions change or new data become available.

The forum will also conduct activities needed to address sources and/or pollutants which are not included in the alternative programs.

In summary, to the extent practical, and as requested by WRAP members, the forum will coordinate the implementation of BART and address trading program design issues, such as 2018 and interim milestones; geographic, new source, and tribal considerations; monitoring and reporting requirements; enforcement provisions; economic impact assessments; and a general method for allowance allocation.

Fire Emissions Joint Forum


The FEJF projects identified in the existing 2005 WRAP Workplan, and the proposed FEJF projects for the 2006 WRAP Workplan, fall into two main categories:




  1. The first grouping includes Planning projects to directly support the development of policy and technical tools for SIP/TIP development under §308.

  2. The second grouping includes Implementation projects to directly support the existing fire policies and programs applicable to the implementation needs for §309 and §308.

The allocation of funding for the ongoing and planned 2005 and proposed 2006 FEJF projects is presented below at the end of the FEJF workplan. In addition to reprogramming funds allocated to FEJF in the 2005 WRAP Workplan, additional 2006 Workplan funding in the amount of $115,000 is identified.



PLANNING
FF“C”: 2002 Inventory of Wildfire and Prescribed Fire: Phase I & Phase II

This project was funded and started in 2003 and will continue into early 2005. The 2002 base year inventories will be prepared for the contiguous WRAP region for wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use on wildland and rangeland. Agricultural burning is also included. Phase I developed an initial emission inventory to allow the RMC to initialize the 2002 modeling efforts. Phase II involves further refinement of the Phase I inventory with greater QA/QC and state/tribal review of the fire activity estimates. Data collection to support estimates of private rangeland burning and augmentation of agricultural burning will occur in Phase II. The 2002 emission inventory will include “anthropogenic” / “natural” apportionment to support the Attribution of Haze reports. These projects directly support the modeling for the §308 SIPs/TIPs.

At the request of WRAP states, statewide CERR Reports for US EPA will be developed for the Phase II inventory for all fire sources. This will allow WRAP states to submit to US EPA reports, which will partially fulfill the states’ emissions inventory reporting requirements.
The task of generating QC wildfire and prescribed fire notebooks specifically for Federal Land Managers was not included in the original Phase II scope of work. This task was requested by the FEJF in the fall of 2004. This portion of the project was funded by reprogramming 2005 funding.
FF6/3: Phase III and Phase IV Inventories & Assessment of Apportionment Methods
This project was funded in 2004 and will be started in early 2005. Phase III is for the Baseline Planning Apportionment and create a 2000-2004 representative emissions inventory. Phase IV is for the 2018 Planning Apportionment and will be a 2018 representative inventory. The 2018 inventory may include a range of potential control scenarios and possible ranges of emissions to reflect the high degree of uncertainty in this type of forecast. The inventories will be prepared for the WRAP region for wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use on wildland and rangeland as well as agricultural burning. This effort also includes development of technical approaches to apportion the impact of fire emissions between “natural” and “anthropogenic” source categories. These projects directly support the modeling for the §308 SIPs/TIPs.

This second portion of the project was funded by reprogramming 2005 funding and will be started after completion of the Phase III and Phase IV inventories. The additional assessment of apportionment methods is necessary to assess the impact of the various fire emissions inventories and apportionment methods. This project directly supports the model assessment for the §308 SIPs/TIPs.

FF7: 2002 National Wildfire Emissions Inventory
This project was funded and started in 2004. The 2002 National emissions inventory for wildfire will be developed through an inter-RPO effort funded by EPA, based on a scope of work discussed amongst the RPOs. The FEJF has lead RPO responsibilities for this project. These projects directly support the modeling for the §308 SIPs/TIPs.
The 2002 National inventory is of the most benefit to the WRAP in performing a comparative analysis to the WRAP 2002 Phase II wildfire inventory. This comparative analysis would identify the specific changes and improvements between the two wildfire inventories. The implementation of FCCS for fuel loading for the WRAP region in the National inventory is being evaluated on its technical merits by the FEJF. The National inventory paired with a comparative analysis would also be beneficial to the WRAP for the 2018 inventory to reflect sensitivity to the specific changes and improvements between the two inventories. Upon further evaluation, this task may be requested by the FEJF in early 2005 with 2005 funding. This task directly supports the modeling needs for the §308 SIPs/TIPs.
FF12: Smoke Management Technical and Policy Workshop
This project was funded in 2005 and will be started in 2005. A three-day workshop in late 2005 is planned to assess technical work to date, §309 policy and SIP implementation and refinement of policy options under §308. This effort will build on the two FEJF workshops held in 2004 to ensure that the needed technical and policy tools are in place for SIP/TIP development under §308.

IMPLEMENTATION

FF9: Regional Coordination of Smoke Management Programs

This project was funded in 2003 and was started with in-kind support in early 2005. Regional Coordination is a required element within the ESMP Policy as coordination of burning activity (ranging from passive to active) is critical to avoiding cumulative smoke impacts within and across source types in mandatory Class I areas. Avoiding cumulative smoke impacts to cultural resources is also critical. Methods for this inter-jurisdictional and regional coordination will need to be developed for wildland and agricultural prescribed fire smoke management programs, information sharing, and public notification. Proposed options will be developed, and then presented and reviewed at a facilitated conference, to be held in 2005. The task of developing proposed options may require a facilitated process. Upon further evaluation, the need for a facilitated process may be identified by the FEJF in early 2005 with reprogrammed 2005 funding. This project directly supports the implementation of the ESMP requirement in §309 as well as similar implementation issues for §308.
FF5/8: Fire Tracking System

Portions of this project were funded prior to 2002 as well as in 2004, 2005, and 2006 and will start in 2005 and continue into 2006/2007. Evaluation of existing fire emissions inventory systems to develop a Fire Tracking System as identified in the Fire Tracking System policy to calculate emissions from fire activity data. Develop user guidance to support the FTS Policy identifying a specific format, parameters, defaults, structure and methods of emission calculation for required and optional FTS elements. Develop user guidance to support the tracking of ERTs and the calculation of emissions averted, which is an optional FTS Policy element. This project directly supports the implementation of the FTS and AEG requirements in §309 as well as similar implementation issues for §308.

In support of the AEG Policy, an annotated bibliography on ERTs was completed in the spring of 2004. Through the use of in-kind support, work was initiated in the fall of 2004 to develop technical guidance on ERTs applicable for wildland, rangeland, and agricultural burning for use in the establishment and support of AEGs. Upon completion of the technical guidance, it will become integral to the method to calculate the emission benefits of ERTs within the FTS.
FF“D”: Sensitivity Runs Phase II: Regional & Mesoscale
This project was funded in 2003 and, now that the initial Model Assessment/Sensitivity Runs are complete, will be started in 2005. Conduct an air quality source/impact analysis with two scales of modeling: regional and mesoscale. The regional-scale modeling features chemistry capacity with regional and longer temporal scales. The mesoscale modeling features complex terrain capacity with smaller geographic and temporal scales. Together, these two approaches will provide a comprehensive analysis of potential de minimus levels to assist states and tribes with maximizing efficiency for fire tracking, public notification and regional coordination. This project directly supports the implementation of the FTS and ESMP requirements in §309 as well as similar implementation issues for §308.
FF2: User Guidance and Review of Feasibility Criteria for WRAP Fire Policies

This project was funded by reprogramming 2005 funding and will be started in 2006. Feasibility criteria for the implementation of smoke management policies and programs were identified in the RHR as efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives and reduction of visibility impact. Furthermore, as described in the IOC transmittal letter regarding the 2001 Fire Categorization Policy, implications to cultural resources will also be examined. Feasibility criteria were adopted into the WRAP Fire Policies which in addition to the RHR criteria include safety, technical and environmental concerns. As States and Tribes assess their program options for addressing smoke from fire under §308, additional guidance will be needed as to the application of these criteria for feasibility determinations. The WRAP called for further user guidance to be developed to support the existing WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions. This project directly supports the implementation of the requirements in §309 as well as similar implementation issues for §308.



Code

Project Title

Funding*

2005

2006

Planning

FF”C”

2002 Inventory of Wildfire and Prescribed Fire: Phase I & Phase II

25,000




FF6/3

Phase III & Phase IV Inventories &

Assessment of Apportionment Methods



163,224

25,000





FF7

2002 National Wildfire Emissions Inventory (Inter-RPO)

26,500




FF12

Smoke Management Technical and Policy Workshop

25,000



Implementation


FF9

Regional Coordination of Smoke Management Programs

50,000




FF5/8

Fire Tracking System

85,000

100,000**

FF”D”

Sensitivity Runs Phase II: Regional & Mesoscale (RMC)

45,000




FF2

User Guidance and Review of Feasibility Criteria for WRAP Fire Policies

60,000






Dust Emissions Joint Forum




DF1: Establish a Common Definition of Dust and Dust Emission Types
This project is described in previous WRAP work plans. During the initial contractor bidding process, it was determined that the scope of work and budget should be increased from $45,000 to $65,000. Hence, $20,000 in additional funds is requested for this project.
DF3: Determination of Fugitive Dust PM2.5 to PM10 Ratios

This project is described in previous WRAP work plans. An additional $30,000 is requested to ensure project completion, collection of additional samples (for a total greater than five), and/or integration of results into AP-42 and WRAP emissions and air quality modeling efforts.

DF6: Analysis of Sources and Control Options in High-Dust Areas
This project was described in previous WRAP work plans, but was not funded at the time. Hence, a revised, more detailed description is provided here. This project is a pilot study to test and demonstrate how various WRAP technical and policy products can be integrated to address the contribution of dust to regional haze at Class I areas in the WRAP region. Strengths and weaknesses of the WRAP products will be identified so that they may be improved before state and tribal implementation plans are finalized. Results will be shared with other WRAP members to inform their planning and assessment processes.
The NM Environment Department Air Quality Bureau (AQB) will take the lead in this effort and provide project results. The Class I area(s) selected in NM for the pilot project will have many of its 20% worst visibility days dominated by dust and will be representative of other dust-impacted Class I areas in the Southwest. The WRAP products to be used in the study, to the extent available, will include the Desert Research Institute’s analysis of ambient data; ENVIRON’s fugitive dust emissions inventory and modeling procedure for wind erosion; Countess Environmental’s Fugitive Dust Handbook; the dust definition under development; and the Attribution of Haze results. To the extent possible, the role of dust transport from Mexico will also be examined (e.g., by examining various transboundary studies and coordinating efforts with DF2, Enhanced Ambient Data Analysis).

The duration of the study is expected to be nine months. The study will include the development of a general emissions inventory of all sources associated with dust-related haze within the selected Class I Area. The emission inventory will likely be subcontracted, and the AQB would act as project manager to ensure completion of the project in a timely and costly manner. The AQB will use the emission inventory and the tools provided by the WRAP to develop a SIP-quality analysis for dust-related haze in Class I areas.

Inter-Relationship of Dust Emission Joint Forum Projects

frame5
The MSF work plan is a continuation of the prior work plan. No new projects or funding are being added. Below are summaries of the existing projects.
MS1: WRAP Offroad Retrofit Program
Initiated in the summer of 2004, the goal of the retrofit program is to promote voluntary emission reductions from existing offroad vehicles and equipment in the WRAP region. In 2005-06, the MSF, with contractor support, will continue to provide WRAP members and vehicle/equipment owners with written guidance, technical support, outreach services, identification of incentives and public policy options, and examples of successful efforts and reduction opportunities.
MS2: Offroad Retrofit Credits
The MSF will work with the EPA and other stakeholders to develop and implement, if appropriate, a program that uses retrofits of existing offroad sources to generate credits for compliance with new engine emission standards under the Tier IV nonroad diesel regulations. EPA has indicated an interest in working with stakeholders during 2004 – 2005 to examine the feasibility of this compliance option and implement it if appropriate. Other uses of offroad retrofit credits (e.g., for use in SIPs and TIPs) will be addressed by the Forum as needed.
MS3: Review of EPA Analyses and Proposals

The MSF will review and where appropriate recommend WRAP comments on EPA technical analyses (e.g., for small nonroad diesel engines) and regulatory proposals (e.g., for ocean-going vessels and locomotives).



Sources In and Near Class I Areas Forum




IN1: Update Near Inventory and Displays
The goal of this project is to replace the 1996 maps and data currently on the In/Near website with 2002 maps and data, and to add some additional features. The 2002 products will likely be developed by the WIGIMS / Technical Data Portal project. The Forum will cooperate in this project, and as necessary ENVIRON (the developer of the 1996 maps and data), to transfer the emission estimation procedures and display methods carefully developed for the 1996 data into the new system.
IN2: In/Near Strategies for Reasonable Progress

This project will identify which control strategies may be most effective at addressing local sources of visibility impairment. As a first step, the Forum will hire a contractor to identify all the PM10 SIPs, maintenance plans, and natural events action plans in the West focused primarily on local, primary sources of PM. Many of the existing plans rely on one or two control strategies for the bulk of emission reductions. A subset of these plans will be selected for further review. The plans selected, in total, will cover a variety of control strategy types. They will also be selected on the basis of their historical record – that is, they should provide a sufficient history of ambient data and implementation and enforcement experience to offer lessons and insights to groups involved in Class I area visibility protection (federal land managers, state and local officials, environmental groups, etc.). The result of this project will be a report summarizing the approach, success, and limitations of the most common PM10 control measures; their applicability and transferability to Class I areas; and a list of contacts for more information. It will include ambient PM10 data for the areas studied and summaries of interviews with officials who implemented and enforce the strategies. This project is underway and should be completed in the summer of 2005.

frame7
EA2: Development of Baseline Economic Data for States and Tribes
Baseline economic and demographic data (2002 and 2018) are required to assess the potential economic impacts of proposed haze reduction strategies. A particular challenge within this task will be the continued collection and development of tribal baseline data. This portion of the effort will be closely coordinated with the Tribal Data Development Work Group (TDWG) and with the ongoing joint RPO effort to define appropriate tribal economic data requirements and templates. The overall data collection effort is being coordinated with the Emissions and Stationary Source Joint Forums (ERG contract) because many baseline emissions are based on the same types of economic and demographic data used in economic assessments. To date, baseline data has been collected for three states in the WRAP region at both the state and sub-state level as part of the recently-completed Framework Test Application. These data were collected from IMPLAN and the states themselves. EAF will participate in the overall effort to compile baseline data for the remaining WRAP states.

An RFP has been written to compile comprehensive baseline data for the remaining WRAP states. The RFP is undergoing final modifications before issuance. The final baseline data product is expected to be delivered late summer 2005. Development of the baseline economic and demographic data includes careful documentation of both the process and sources employed. In addition, that documentation will include easily applied rule sets for both modifications (if needed) and deconfliction as new information becomes available over next 2-3 years. The EAF and its contractor will provide assistance to WRAP and its respective stakeholders in generating those required baseline data and projection updates as part of the overall analyses processes as spelled out in the 2003-2008 strategic plan. In concert with the Emissions and Stationary Source Joint Forums, the EAF and its support contractor would work to ensure consistency is maintained between the baseline projections and their subsequent use by the Air Quality Modeling Forum in the conduct of its model runs of the alternative broad strategy formulations.

The TDDWG, in concert with the joint-RPO sponsored contractor are working toward a standard data “template” which is designed to formally and effectively develop the needed demographic and economic data and data sets required to support consistent economic impact and tradeoff analysis by all. The tribal baseline work will implement that template as it works toward a complete picture of tribal conditions, and forecasts, in the WRAP region. The EAF will delay development and collection of tribal baseline data until summer 2005, when the template is to be completed.
EA3: Enhancement of Cost and Benefit Unit Values Used in WRAP Economic Analysis
The net benefit calculated for any haze reduction strategy will depend heavily on both the unit cost values (e.g., $/ton pollutant reduced) and the unit benefit values (e.g., $/deciview improvement and $/statistical life saved). These values are available from only a limited number of studies. The EAF will actively seek partners to complete the effort of improving existing air quality unit cost and benefit values. It will also tack ongoing efforts, such as the National Park Service’s effort to improve benefit values for visibility improvements in national parks. As unit values are improved for costs and benefits, care will be taken as to whether and how the data may be tailored to suit western visibility assessment purposes.
EA4: Screening Tool
The screening tool will be based on the WRAP Economic Analysis Framework but allow more routine, rapid, and cost-effective applications for assessing and ranking a variety and number of individual possible control measures. The WRAP Framework, in turn, would be used more occasionally to assess “packages” of control strategies that have either been well defined and/or are nearing serious consideration by WRAP stakeholders.

Before proceeding with development of the screening tool, the EAF will explore opportunities to collaborate with other RPOs and with EPA, which has already developed many components of a screening tool and integrated them into a program called ASAP. Depending on the status and plans of ASAP, it is possible that no new tool would be needed, but rather a tailoring of existing tool(s).

EA5: Coordination and Outreach
This is an ongoing and inherent task of the Forum. As noted above, the Emissions Forum and Economic Analysis Forum will co-develop and share a common set of economic and demographic baseline data. In addition, because economic analysis is dependent upon results from air quality modeling, the EAF will work closely with the Air Quality Modeling Forum. A critical area of coordination will be with tribal issues (e.g., baseline data, distributional impacts, and alternative cost/benefit unit values). Finally, outreach to other WRAP Forums and stakeholders is important to ensure proper use and understanding of economic principles and analytical results, especially since formal, comprehensive economic analysis is not typically a part of state, local, and tribal air quality analysis efforts. To improve coordination and outreach, the EAF will take advantage of WRAP-wide meetings to host periodic workshops on the application of the tools and interpretation of results of the Forum’s analyses framework and supporting data sets.

EA6: Economic Assessment Capability
The EAF and its supporting contractor(s) will provide WRAP and its stakeholders with some level of on-going economic assessment capability. This may include consultation, guidance on the use of various economic data and models, and economic analysis.

Air Quality Modeling Forum



The Air Quality Modeling Forum has two major areas of activity planned for April 2005 through September 2006. The Regional Modeling Center will continue operation, to apply the tools and improvements developed in 2003-04, using the same team of contractors. A list of tasks is provided below, with a final RMC work plan completed, as described below and in a larger separate document, for 2005-06. The final RMC work plan is in the process of being amended into the existing RMC contract. The second major area of activity is to review meteorological modeling results for Class I areas in Alaska, and perform necessary and useful Alaska air quality modeling.

MF1: Regional Modeling Center
The Modeling Forum plans to continue operation of the Regional Modeling Center (RMC) with the same team of contractors as their single major project, including modeling of Alaska regional haze. The RMC will continue to provide documentation of their ongoing analysis work (including support of the Attribution of Haze Workgroup and Fire Emissions Joint Forum sensitivity analyses), protocols and technical support documents for the various analyses and work products, and disseminating this information through monthly Modeling Forum conference calls, the RMC E-Mail listserv, and periodic meetings.
The proposed 2005-06 work plan for the RMC will primarily focus on completing emissions processing and air quality modeling evaluations of revised and final 2002 emissions and 2018 emissions projections. The RMC has prepared a specific 2005-06 cost proposal and work plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Modeling Forum, and the RMC contract is now being amended to reflect this work plan. Below is a list of RMC activities for 2005-06. These tasks continue work from earlier RMC work plans as identified in the WRAP Strategic Plan.


  • Process revised 2002 emissions and 2018 emissions projections

  • Update new model codes for SMOKE, MCIP, and CMAQ as needed

  • Continue to update post-production displays

  • Run CMAQ and CAMx models with 2002 and 2018 inputs

  • Conduct source apportionment/sensitivity model runs

  • QA/QC:

    • Implement version control mechanism

    • EI data file to SMOKE outputs analysis & reports

    • Model performance evaluation
  • Summer 2005 - 2002 final base case modeling results report


  • Fall 2005

    • 2018 final base case modeling results report, followed by:

    • 2018 base case final source apportionment modeling results report

  • Late 2005/mid-2006 - Three to five [3-5] 2018 control strategy sensitivity modeling results reports


MF2: Alaska Region Modeling
This portion of the RMC work is aimed at providing a credible evaluation of the potential contributions to regional haze in the Class I areas of Alaska that are more likely to be affected by in-state emissions, namely Tuxedni and Denali. During 2004, the RMC completed two tasks: 1) Develop appropriate methods for running MM5 over central Alaska, including Cook Inlet, the Alaska Range, to north of Fairbanks, and 2) Run MM5 for this region for several time periods representing different seasonal and meteorological conditions and evaluate the meteorological model results. During Spring 2005, RMC staff will present the results of their work to date at a technical meeting in Alaska. Pending more specific direction after that meeting, the 2005 Alaska modeling tasks will focus on:


  • Assuming the MM5 model test period runs are credible, run the MM5 model for all of 2002.

  • Then run a LaGrangian model, such as CALPUFF, for the largest point sources in the region (up to about 10, addressing BART) - provide a modeling results report.

  • Run the LaGrangian model [chosen previously] to evaluate the potential for impacts from the urban areas of Anchorage and Fairbanks - provide a modeling results report.




  1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page