Home Glossary Guest List Contact Us Log In    
 Data & Metadata
▪Dataset Index
▪Query Wizard
▪Metadata Browser
▪Site Browser
▪ASCII Files
 Annual Summary
▪Trends
▪Composition
▪Spatial Patterns
▪Back Trajectories
▪Visibility Grid
▪Summary Data
▪Archived Graphics
 Resources
▪Air Quality Catalog
▪Weather Catalog
▪Emissions Catalog
▪VIEWS Docs
▪RHR Planning Docs
▪CAPITA Tools
 Imagery
▪Visibility Photos
▪Class I Webcams
▪Forest Service
  Development
▪Metadata Browser
▪New Data Browser
For best results, please use:
  IE 5+
  Firefox 1+
  Netscape 7+
Site Statistics:
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) Planning Documents
 This page provides links to and discussion regarding documents that may be useful to States in various planning stages under the Regional Haze Rule.

  • EPA's Regional Haze Program
    		•   
  • Regional Haze Guidance Documents
    		•   
  • Data Completeness
    		•   
  • Natural Conditions
    		•   
  • Other WRAP Documents
    		•   
     
    http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/program.html

    Guidance on Implementing Regional Haze Program: Fact Sheet
    Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule: Guidance Document
    Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule: Guidance Document
    Final Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule Incorporating Provisions Related to Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes: Fact Sheet
    Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule Incorporating Provisions Related to Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes: Final Rule
    Revised IMPROVE Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm
    The proposed new algorithm described in this report was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.

    This document is a summary report by a subcommittee established by the IMPROVE Steering Committee at their July 2005 meeting to recommend a refined algorithm that would replace or be made available as an alternative to the current approach. The subcommittee included those who worked on the internal review as well as scientists who have been critical of the original IMPROVE algorithm. The primary purpose of this document is to describe the subcommittee’s recommended revised algorithm, characterize its performance, and summarize the rationale for each of the changes from the currently used algorithm.
    Preliminary_Reasonable_Progress_Estimates_June_2003.pdf.
      Ralph Morris and Tom Moore looked at sites which need to have analysis of the amount of reasonable progress needed, but not enough data for the 2000-04 baseline period.  This was applied to the 1997-2001 time frame - Here's what they did:
      Five-year rolling averages of IMPROVE monitor data for the Worst 20% and Best 20% visibility days were retrieved from the IMPROVE website: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/IMPLoctable_Data.aspx.  These data included the individual PM species components of extinction for the average of the Worst 20% and Best 20% days’ visibility values, as approximated by the 90th and 10th percentile values for each monitoring site’s distribution, calculated using the latest f(RH) factors (SAIC, 2003).  Available data (with at least 1 continuous year of data) from each site (or the geographically nearest site) has been applied to estimate preliminary baseline visibility conditions, whether or not the length of record meets the future 2000-2004 EPA data completeness requirements.  The intent of this preliminary visibility target values analysis is to display the available data, as it could be hypothesized that a nearby location of a monitoring site with a shorter record is more representative of an individual Class I area’s visibility, than is using more temporally complete data from a more distant monitoring site.
      Comments received indicate that most people are not altogether happy with the nearest site approach.  The site setting has a lot to do with the magnitude of the near-field contribution to the monitored data.  Several reviewers have noted that picking an IMPROVE site to "gap-fill" for an unmonitored Class I area without a site or with insufficient data for the baseline period should be based on choosing a similar Class I area (e.g., a high-elevation FS Class I area with sufficient monitoring data and roughly similar source types/strengths to represent a high-elevation FS Class I area without monitoring data, even if it is not the closest IMPROVE site).  The reasoning is that the "gap-fill" assignments are for planning purposes, and some more rigorous analysis beyond proximity should be done to before assigning monitor data to incomplete and/or unmonitored locations.

      Monitoring and Data analysis workgroup presentation on revised natural condition estimates using the new IMPROVE algorithm. Supporting tables New Algorithm Old and New Algorithm
      Ames and Malm (2001) Procedure for estimating default natural conditions presented at 2001 AWMA Meeting in Bend, Oregon.
    WRAP_RFP_for_Natural_Levels_Sensitivity Ivar Tombach is working on a project (Regional Haze Rule: Default Natural Haze Levels Sensitivity Assessment) for the 5 RPOs.  Results will be presented at a June 2005 workshop in Denver http://wrapair.org/cal/calendar.php?op=view&id=301

    http://wrapair.org/WRAP/meetings/031014board/Tab_4_Strategic_Plan_Final.pdf WRAP 2003-08 Strategic Plan has useful information about what needs to be in the state and tribal 2007 Regional Haze Plans.  See Section II, pages 10-14 of 39.   
      Preliminary_Reasonable_Progress_Estimates_June_2003.doc
      309_SIP_Template_July10.doc
      Memo-Natural Background Review Process July 04.doc