Appendix A. Ambient Air Quality Data Ozone Plan

Similar documents
SJVUAPCD. Appendix A. Ambient Air Quality Data DRAFT 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Chapter 1. Progress and Current Air Quality Ozone Plan

SJVUAPCD. Chapter 2. Air Quality in the Valley: Challenges and Progress DRAFT 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Appendix A. Ambient 1-hour Ozone Data Analysis Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard SJVUAPCD

Appendix A: Ambient 1-Hour Ozone Data Analysis

Appendix A: Ambient 1-Hour Ozone Data Analysis

Appendix F Modeling Approach and Results

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2013

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Air Monitoring Network Plan

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Air Monitoring Network Plan

2017 Air Monitoring Network Plan

The Health and Related Economic Benefits of Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley

News Release For immediate release

Chapter 6. Attainment Demonstration, RACM, RFP, and Contingency 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Executive Summary PM2.5 Plan. SJVUAPCD Executive Summary. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

Chapter 5 FUTURE OZONE AIR QUALITY

Appendix G. Precursor Demonstration

DRAFT 2015 OZONE CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE 2019 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE 2018 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Health and Related Economic Benefits of Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley

APPENDIX C: Bakersfield-Golden AMS Closure and Replacement

APPENDIX VIII AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS

Executive Summary. TCAG 2014 Regional Transportation Plan

2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review

Photochemical Modeling Support Documents

Ozone in the Central Valley of California

State Implementation Plans for Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards San Joaquin Valley Eastern Kern County

APPENDIX C LANDFILL STATUS

AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS

Emissions Inventory Data

Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District State Implementation Plan PM10 Modeling Protocol

Appendix F. SJV PM2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol PM2.5 Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2003 PM10 PLAN. Plan Purpose

Chapter 2 Scientific Foundation, Trends, and Modeling Results

RECOMMENDED AREA DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PPM FEDERAL 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD STAFF REPORT

MODELING ANALYSIS 2003 PM10 PLAN INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 Introduction

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT THE OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

Attachment A. Exceptional Event Document

Spatial Distribution of Insecticide Use for California Red Scale Control in San Joaquin Valley Citrus

2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 020 COGENERATION - NG

Appendix I. Modeling Protocol 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Appendix F. Attainment Demonstration (Provided by ARB) SJVUAPCD. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

SJVUAPCD. Chapter 4. Scientific Foundation and Ozone Modeling Results PROPOSED 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT TRIENNIAL PROGRESS REPORT AND PLAN REVISION

Table 1- Residential CO2eq Baseline Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard SJVUAPCD

Central California. C enter yourself!

For Sale. Exclusively Presented By: PEARSON REALTY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 40 CFR Part 52. [EPA-R09-OAR ; FRL Region 9]

2.3 A PHOTOCHEMICAL MODEL COMPARISON STUDY: CAMx AND CMAQ PERFORMANCE IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

Appendix A. Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard SJVUAPCD

2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 670 NON-AGRICULTURAL OPEN BURNING

Air Quality Impact Assessment GOLDEN STATE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT

Clean Air Act History

Aspen Fire causing unhealthy air across SJ Valley Wildfire smoke spreads in Valley, sparks health concerns

Chapter 1. Introduction DRAFT 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Meeting PM2.5 Standards in the San Joaquin Valley. September 26, 2017

Fine Particulate Matter in the San Joaquin Valley: Introduction to Sources, Atmospheric Chemistry, and Transport

ANALYSIS OF PAMS DATA IN CALIFORNIA VOLUME III: TRENDS ANALYSES OF CALIFORNIA PAMS AND LONG-TERM TREND AIR QUALITY DATA ( )

Impacts of New Mobile Source Regulations on Emission Reductions from VMT-Based Transportation Control Strategies: Key

Twomile Ecological Restoration Project Air Quality Report Anna Payne, Mi-Wok District Fuels Specialists August 2011

2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 540 ASPHALT ROOFING

Chapter 7 RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

Proposed Repeal of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Regulations for Pulaski County

FOR SALE. Cottonwood Creek Ranch ± Acres Madera County, California. CA BRE #

Analysis performed for this EIR has identified five significant and unavoidable impacts, which are also cumulative impacts:

Chapter 7. Local, State, and Federal Controls PM2.5 Plan

Ozone 101. Maricopa County Air Quality Department. September 4, Tom Moore WRAP Air Quality Program Manager WESTAR Council

FOR SALE Temperance Ranch

State of the Valley Report

Update on Wildfires Impacting Valley Air Quality in San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Governing Board Meeting August 16, 2018

Measuring the gains from improved air quality in the San Joaquin Valley

Chapter 7 RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 120 LANDFILLS MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Annual Report. Indirect Source Review Program

SJVUAPCD Governing Board. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO Project Coordinator: Sheraz Gill

Appendix K. Modeling Attainment Demonstration

Ozone Concentrations In and Around the City of Arvin, California

Appendix 6-1 CO Screening Memorandum

Air Quality Conservation Management Practices Program for San Joaquin Valley

Delta Air Quality Monitoring Study June 2004 March 2006

Final Ozone NAAQS - PAMS and Enhanced Monitoring Plans- Ambient Air Monitoring in NESCAUM

DFW Conceptual Model Review

Maricopa Table Grapes & Open Ground Bakersfield, California

ON-GOING ACTIVITIES 2003 PM10 PLAN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS

NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan. December 2017 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting. Scoping Meeting


The proposed 2030 General Plan s air impacts were evaluated using significance criteria and analysis methodologies approved by the SJVAPCD.

UC MERCED DOWNTOWN CENTER PROJECT

SJVUAPCD. Chapter 4. Scientific Foundation and Ozone Modeling Results DRAFT 2016 PLAN FOR THE HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Appendix K Public Outreach

California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. Delivering Transportation Projects

Boundary Guidance on Air Quality Designations for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or Standard)

2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 052 AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION IC ENGINES- NG

Transcription:

Appendix A Ambient Air Quality Data

This page intentionally blank.

A.1 INTRODUCTION This Appendix includes more ambient air quality data and analysis for 8-hour ozone. A.2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA Table A-1 summarizes the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations for currently operating monitoring sites in the SJVAB for the years 1988-2005. The calculation of the 3 - year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is explained in Chapter 1. Table A-2 shows the 3 -year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration for each site within the SJVAB for the years 1990-2005. A dash (-) means that there is insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. Attainment status is determined for each site by analyzing 2003 through 2005 ozone measurements 1. If any monitoring site within the SJVAB has a design value that is greater than 0.08 ppm, then, by rules established by EPA, the entire air basin is nonattainment. Table A-3 summarizes the current attainment status on a site-by-site basis. Bold values indicate that one of the attainment tests is over the standard. Figure A-1 illustrates the San Joaquin Valley air basin map with 8-hour ozone design values on a site-by-site basis. Table A-3 shows that three of the 21 air monitoring sites 2 in the SJVAB currently meet the attainment test for eight hour ozone: Stockton, Modesto, and Madera. Turlock and Hanford are very close to meeting the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS attainment test. Eighteen (18) out of 21 sites are nonattainment for the 8-hour average ozone standard for the 2003-2005 time period. This is an improvement from 1999 to 2001 period where twenty (20) out of 21 sites were nonattainment. Figure A-1 shows the Valley-wide design values for 1990-2005. Figure A-2 shows 2005 design values plotted on a map. More air quality trend data can be found at <http://www.arb.ca.gov>. 1 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 50, Appendix I, Sections 2.2 and 2.3, require that attainment calculations be based on at least the most recent three complete years of quality reviewed data. Data for the year 2006 has not completed the required review. 2 A total of 22 ozone monitoring sites are currently operated in the SJVAB, but one of these (the Tracy Airport site) has not been operating long enough to yield a design value. Appendix A-1

Table A-1 Fourth Highest Eight Hour Average Ozone (ppm) 3 Name 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Stockton 0.090 0.077 0.083 0.082 0.083 0.078 0.085 0.090 0.080 0.071 0.086 0.085 0.076 0.076 0.073 0.075 0.073 0.073 Modesto 0.093 0.093 0.097 0.086 0.082 0.090 0.091 0.095 0.094 0.082 0.098 0.087 0.086 0.091 0.087 0.082 0.080 0.089 Turlock - - - - 0.095 0.096 0.088 0.103 0.098 0.089 0.107 0.090 0.091 0.094 0.102 0.093 0.087 0.079 Merced - - 0.097 0.102 0.096 0.097 0.107 0.102 0.074 0.112 0.105 0.103 0.096 0.105 0.107 0.096 0.083 Madera - - - - - - - - - - 0.093 0.088 0.088 0.090 0.096 0.093 0.078 0.076 Fresno-SSP 0.112 0.100 0.071 0.105 0.106 0.110 0.099 0.103 0.105 0.097 0.122 0.099 0.114 0.113 0.119 0.102 0.091 0.101 Clovis - - 0.095 0.093 0.108 0.105 0.099 0.108 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.104 0.104 0.110 0.104 0.097 0.085 0.093 Fresno-First - - 0.103 0.118 0.105 0.111 0.105 0.108 0.109 0.098 0.117 0.104 0.104 0.104 0.109 0.106 0.092 0.101 Fresno- Drummond 0.107 0.098 0.103 0.103 0.097 0.100 0.090 0.089 0.104 0.092 0.113 0.102 0.099 0.097 0.110 0.104 0.091 0.086 Parlier 0.115 0.113 0.103 0.108 0.108 0.103 0.089 0.106 0.110 0.106 0.108 0.105 0.108 0.109 0.115 0.111 0.087 0.091 Ash Mountain - - - - - - - - - - - 0.105 0.105 0.104 0.107 0.110 0.099 0.107 Lower Kaweah 0.094 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.102 0.106 0.106 0.095 0.105 0.097 0.094 0.097 0.090 0.096 0.108 0.100 0.095 0.097 Visalia 0.105 0.113 0.102 0.098 0.098 0.108 0.109 0.104 0.103 0.095 0.109 0.100 0.099 0.099 0.102 0.096 0.089 0.095 Hanford - - - - - - 0.093 0.080 0.116 0.097 0.104 0.098 0.105 0.093 0.101 0.092 0.088 0.085 Arvin - 0.120 0.118 0.117 0.110 0.111 0.112 0.115 0.126 0.105 0.114 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.118 0.119 0.112 0.108 Bakersfield- California - - - - - - 0.098 0.107 0.110 0.097 0.103 0.099 0.102 0.099 0.101 0.101 0.091 0.099 Bakersfield- Golden - - - - - - 0.095 0.096 0.108 0.090 0.105 0.096 0.099 0.095 0.101 0.098 0.085 0.088 Edison 0.120 0.110 0.108 0.110 0.093 0.117 0.118 0.123 0.118 0.105 0.124 0.105 0.105 0.104 0.109 0.100 0.095 0.097 Maricopa 0.111 0.106 0.098 0.097 0.100 0.101 0.093 0.109 0.111 0.097 0.123 0.089 0.093 0.098 0.106 0.095 0.088 0.090 Oildale 0.111 0.101 0.098 0.101 0.100 0.101 0.097 0.101 0.106 0.088 0.109 0.092 0.103 0.097 0.102 0.100 0.094 0.096 Shafter - 0.100 0.093 0.098 0.093 0.097 0.099 0.095 0.102 0.085 0.101 0.094 0.092 0.098 0.096 0.096 0.084 0.090 A dash (-) indicates that there is insufficient data available to determine the value. 3 A total of 22 ozone monitoring sites are currently operated in the SJVAB, but one of these (the Tracy Airport site) has not been operating long enough to yield a design value. Appendix A-2

Table A-2 3-year Average of the Annual Fourth-Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour Average Ozone Concentrations (ppm) Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Stockton 0.083 0.080 0.082 0.081 0.082 0.084 0.085 0.080 0.079 0.080 0.082 0.079 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.073 Modesto 0.094 0.092 0.088 0.086 0.087 0.092 0.093 0.090 0.091 0.089 0.090 0.088 0.088 0.086 0.083 0.083 Turlock - - - - 0.093 0.095 0.096 0.096 0.098 0.095 0.096 0.091 0.095 0.096 0.094 0.086 Merced - - - 0.098 0.098 0.100 0.102 0.094 0.096 0.097 0.106 0.101 0.101 0.102 0.102 0.095 Madera - - - - - - - - - - 0.089 0.088 0.091 0.093 0.089 0.082 Clovis - - 0.098 0.102 0.104 0.104 0.105 0.111 0.115 0.113 0.109 0.106 0.106 0.103 0.095 0.091 Fresno- Drummond 0.102 0.101 0.101 0.100 0.095 0.093 0.094 0.095 0.103 0.102 0.104 0.099 0.102 0.103 0.101 0.093 Fresno- First - - 0.108 0.111 0.107 0.108 0.107 0.105 0.108 0.106 0.108 0.104 0.105 0.106 0.102 0.099 Fresno- SSP 0.094 0.092 0.094 0.107 0.105 0.104 0.102 0.101 0.108 0.106 0.111 0.108 0.115 0.111 0.104 0.098 Parlier 0.110 0.108 0.106 0.106 0.100 0.099 0.101 0.107 0.108 0.106 0.107 0.107 0.110 0.111 0.104 0.096 Ash Mtn. - - - - - - - - - - - 0.104 0.105 0.107 0.105 0.105 Lower Kaweah 0.094 0.095 0.098 0.101 0.104 0.102 0.102 0.099 0.098 0.096 0.093 0.094 0.098 0.101 0.101 0.097 Visalia 0.106 0.104 0.099 0.101 0.105 0.107 0.105 0.100 0.102 0.101 0.102 0.099 0.100 0.099 0.095 0.093 Hanford - - - - - - 0.096 0.097 0.105 0.099 0.102 0.098 0.099 0.095 0.093 0.088 Arvin - 0.118 0.115 0.112 0.111 0.112 0.117 0.115 0.115 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.116 0.113 Bakersfield- California - - - - - - 0.105 0.104 0.103 0.099 0.101 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.097 0.097 Bakersfield- Golden - - - - - - 0.099 0.098 0.101 0.097 0.100 0.096 0.098 0.098 0.094 0.090 Edison 0.112 0.109 0.103 0.106 0.109 0.119 0.119 0.115 0.115 0.111 0.111 0.104 0.106 0.104 0.101 0.097 Maricopa 0.105 0.100 0.098 0.099 0.098 0.101 0.104 0.105 0.110 0.103 0.102 0.094 0.099 0.099 0.096 0.091 Oildale 0.103 0.100 0.099 0.100 0.099 0.099 0.101 0.098 0.101 0.096 0.101 0.097 0.100 0.099 0.098 0.096 Shafter - 0.097 0.094 0.096 0.096 0.097 0.098 0.094 0.096 0.093 0.095 0.094 0.095 0.096 0.092 0.090 A dash (-) indicates that there is insufficient data available to determine the value. Appendix A-3

PPM Table A-3 Current Ozone Air Quality Design Values and Attainment Status for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin County Site 8 hour Ozone Design Values (ppm)* Meets Attainment Test San Joaquin Stockton 0.07 yes Stanislaus Modesto 0.08 yes Stanislaus Turlock 0.09 no Merced Merced 0.10 no Madera Madera 0.08 yes Fresno Clovis 0.09 no Fresno Fresno - Drummond 0.09 no Fresno Fresno - Sierra Sky Park 0.10 no Fresno Fresno - 1st 0.10 no Fresno Parlier 0.10 no Kings Hanford 0.09 no Tulare Ash Mountain 0.11 no Tulare Lower Kaweah 0.10 no Tulare Visalia 0.09 no Kern Arvin 0.11 no Kern Bakersfield - Golden 0.09 no Kern Bakersfield - California 0.10 no Kern Edison 0.10 no Kern Maricopa 0.09 no Kern Oildale 0.10 no Kern Shafter 0.09 No SJVAB All Sites 0.11 No * Bold indicates that the site does not meet the attainment test. Figure A-1 Valley-wide 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 0.130 0.120 0.110 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Appendix A-4

Figure A-2 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (2005) Appendix A-5

A.3 TREND AND SPATIAL VARIATIONS A.3.1 Local Trends While the Valley-wide design values remain essentially consistent, some sites are improving. Despite the reduction of emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, one site s design value is increasing. All other SJVAB sites are showing either an improving or unchanged trend. Figure A-3 is an example of an improving trend. Seven of the 19 air monitoring sites in the SJVAB are showing an improving air quality trend: Stockton, Fresno-1 st, Visalia, Hanford, Bakersfield California, Bakersfield - Golden and Edison. Figure A-4 shows the trend of the only SJVAB site, Fresno Sierra Sky Park, where the 8-hour ozone air quality is getting worse despite emission reductions. Figure A-5 is an example of one of the eleven of the 19 monitoring sites, in the SJVAB with an unchanged trend. Modesto, Turlock, Merced, Clovis, Fresno-Drummond, Parlier, Lower Kaweah, Arvin, Maricopa, Oildale and Shafter are showing no improvement in 8-hour ozone air quality. Figure A-3 Visalia (one of seven improving sites in the SJVAB) 8-hour ozone 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, 1990-2005 0.130 0.120 0.110 PPM 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Appendix A-6

Figure A-4 Fresno Sierra Sky Park (the only site where 8-hour ozone air quality is getting worse) 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- hour average ozone concentrations, 1990-2005 0.130 0.120 0.110 PPM 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure A-5 Fresno Drummond (one of the eleven sites with no clear trend) 3- year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, 1990-2005 0.130 0.120 0.110 PPM 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Appendix A-7

A.3.2 Number of Days Above the Eight Hour Ozone NAAQS The regulatory 8-hour ozone attainment status for the SJVAB is based upon the design value being less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Previous figures (A-3, A-4, and A-5) demonstrate examples of trends using the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration vs. year for a particular site. Another way to examine the ozone air quality data is to determine the number of days where the 8- hour ozone concentration is greater than 0.08 ppm. (Note that the number of days greater than 0.08 ppm is not used in determining the attainment status of the SJVAB. It is solely used in determining the number of days of exposure to levels above the level of the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone.) Figure 1-5 (in Chapter 1) shows the number of days over the 8-hour numerical value by site for 2003, 2004, and 2005; it shows that all sites of the Valley are experiencing fewer days over the level of the standard than a couple of years ago. Figures A-6, A-7, and A- 8 show the number of days over the level of the 8-hour ozone standard for the Visalia, Fresno Sierra Sky Park, and Fresno Drummond air monitoring sites, respectively. On each of these figures, the number of days over of ozone standard for the entire basin is included to emphasize that the number of days at individual sites is generally much lower than the total number of days for the entire basin. Table A-3 summarizes the number of days above the 8-hour ozone standard for each air-monitoring site in the SJVAB and basin-wide from 1990-2005. On a site-by-site basis, a majority of the SJVAB residents are not being exposed to as many days over the level of the 8-hour standard as the Basin-wide total shows. Figure A-6 Number of Days Over the Level of the 8-hour Ozone Standard: Visalia 160 140 Visalia Basin-wide 120 Number of Days 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Appendix A-8

Figure A-7 Number of Days Over the Level of the 8-hour Ozone Standard: Fresno Sierra Sky Park 160 140 Fresno-SSP Basin-wide 120 Number of Days 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Figure A-8 Number of Days Over the Level of the 8-hour Ozone Standard: Fresno Drummond 160 Fresno-Drummond Basin-wide 140 120 Number of Days 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Appendix A-9

Table A-4 Number of Days Above the 8-Hour Ozone Standard of 0.08 ppm Site 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Stockton 3 3 2 1 4 4 2 0 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 Modesto 7 5 2 7 9 14 15 2 13 7 4 7 6 1 0 6 Turlock - - 11 11 10 18 19 8 29 9 10 7 25 18 4 0 Merced - - 40 19 26 36 44 1 35 40 37 29 56 54 15 3 Madera - - - - - - - - 12 10 9 13 18 14 0 0 Clovis 8 18 61 29 33 44 60 69 62 49 44 56 38 30 4 15 Fresno-Drummond 29 34 30 17 6 9 34 11 41 28 24 29 43 45 18 5 Fresno-First 31 72 42 54 51 53 49 23 44 45 41 40 41 47 18 27 Fresno-SSP - 32 44 25 32 39 36 15 52 30 70 83 78 32 12 12 Parlier 39 50 44 44 8 25 59 48 54 68 66 74 83 92 8 14 Ash Mtn. - - - - - - - - - 52 40 61 80 72 52 54 Lower Kaweah 27 34 50 48 58 18 50 26 27 39 8 27 73 42 24 32 Visalia 33 23 14 50 51 40 44 17 45 33 29 25 26 31 12 13 Hanford - - - - 12 1 81 26 31 25 51 18 27 15 9 4 Arvin 82 103 87 77 77 80 106 46 64 85 73 81 87 116 103 54 Bakersfield-California - - - - 33 57 67 23 38 47 40 47 35 48 13 33 Bakersfield-Golden - - - - - 25 47 11 33 26 30 27 29 40 5 6 Edison 66 76 17 87 89 88 78 30 61 55 58 54 51 50 28 26 Maricopa 30 45 36 29 23 67 78 36 66 14 15 46 53 29 9 15 Oildale 29 48 30 24 28 37 52 5 44 28 36 35 37 49 28 27 Shafter 16 31 12 24 24 26 49 4 27 25 25 30 25 15 3 15 Basin-Wide 104 121 119 104 108 109 114 95 84 117 103 109 125 134 109 72 A dash (-) indicates that there is insufficient data available to determine the value. Appendix A-10

A.3.3 Difference Between Urban and Rural Ozone Response Previous strategies have been directed at the one-hour ozone standard. Peak values of the one-hour ozone standard are associated with large urban areas and nearby downwind areas adjacent to the large urban areas. The one-hour ozone strategy was implemented to reduce maximum hourly values in the large urban and down-wind areas and was expected to similarly reduce peak one-hour ozone in the smaller urban and rural areas. The one-hour ozone strategy assumes a proportional effect for benefit of urban reductions on rural ozone levels, but this may not be an accurate assumption for the eight-hour ozone. Eight-hour ozone is much different in pattern and frequency of occurrences than onehour ozone due to technical factors that affect how ozone levels change over a period of several hours in urban and rural areas. Changes in ozone levels occur more rapidly in urban areas than in rural areas. The difference in response to emissions changes creates a difficult challenge for determining an optimum approach for achieving attainment of the eight-hour standard. During the night, in urban areas, fresh emissions of ozone precursors interact with and remove existing ozone (referred to as scavenging). This process causes a rapid change in the ozone concentrations and results in very low nighttime ozone concentrations. When focusing on the peak hour of ozone, this removal process is not a dominant technical issue; however, lowering the eight-hour concentration requires more attention on this issue. Rural areas with fewer sources emitting precursor emissions do not experience the same ozone removal process as the urban areas. When ozone is transported directly to a rural area, or is created there by transported precursors, there are not enough fresh (scavenging) emissions to remove the ozone quickly. In the rural areas, ozone may remain at high levels during extended periods during the entire 24-hour day. Figure A-9 provides an example of how urban and rural ozone levels vary due to the differences in local emissions during a day. Hourly averaged ozone at Ash Mountain and Bakersfield (Golden State Highway) monitoring stations on July 2, 2005 shows how urban levels change rapidly and rural ozone levels are less responsive. The urban mechanism described above is demonstrated in the plot of ozone data at Bakersfield, where there are significant hourly emissions of NO x and volatile organic compounds (VOC). After sunrise, there is a dramatic rise in ozone because sunlight is now available to drive the creation of ozone from the available NO x and VOC. After the sun sets, chemical reactions and deposition result in a drop in ozone concentrations, which typically continues its downward trend until dawn. The Ash Mountain monitoring station, which is located at the southern entrance of Sequoia National Park at 1500-foot elevation, demonstrates the hourly ozone response in a rural area. On summer days, ozone and precursors can be transported to Ash Mountain from other locations. At this location, there are significantly lower hourly Appendix A-11

emissions of NOx as compared to urban areas such as Bakersfield or Fresno. The amount of available NOx at Ash Mountain to scavenge the ozone is much lower. Because the ozone scavenging at Ash Mountain is much less than the ozone scavenging in urban areas, Ash Mountain can experience elevated ozone concentrations for a 24-hour period during ozone episodes. Since the ozone concentration is already fairly high at dawn, only a relatively small amount of additional ozone can cause levels in the atmosphere to exceed federal standards. All areas with a small population and low NOx emissions that are located in regions subject to ozone transport can experience a similar ozone pattern. This pattern can occur at Arvin and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi mountain ranges. This phenomenon is an important issue to be examined as part of the plan to reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Figure A-9 Ozone Concentrations (ppb) at Ash Mountain and Bakersfield - Golden on July 2, 2005 100 90 Ash Mountain Bakersfield - GS 80 70 Ozone (ppb) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour (PST) Trend analysis of air quality monitoring data has not indicated what changes in the current strategy designed to address the one-hour standard would be effective in enhancing ozone reduction efforts for the eight-hour standard. District staff and ARB continue to evaluate air quality data and trends to identify factors that will aid in the determination of a successful strategy for attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard. Trend evaluation will be compared to results of modeling and other corroborative analysis to provide support for the regulatory decision-making process. Appendix A-12