WRAP Attribution of Haze Workgroup

Final Meeting Minutes WRAP Attribution of Haze Workgroup March 29-30, 2004 @ San Diego, California

The WRAP Attribution of Haze Workgroup Meeting convened at the Westin Hotel in San Diego, California at 1:00 PM March 29th and met through 3:00 PM on March 30th, 2004. Attendees included:

Name Affiliation Lee Gribovicz, TOC Co-Chair Wyoming DEQ, Air Quality Division Dolly Potter, TOC Member Solvay Minerals Wayne Leipold, TOC Member Phelps Dodge Copper Company Steve Arnold, TOC Member Colorado Health Dept, Air Quality Division Bob Palzer, TOC Member Sierra Club Ernie Wessman, IOC Member Pacificorp Lori Campbell, State Caucus Representative Nevada DEQ, Air Quality Division Bob Habeck, State Caucus Representative Montana DEQ, Air Quality Division Cara Casten, State Caucus Representative Wyoming DEQ, Air Quality Division Cathy Messerschmitt, Tribal Caucus Representative National Tribal Environmental Council Bob Gruenig, Tribal Caucus Representative National Tribal Environmental Council Marc Pitchford, Monitoring Forum Representative National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Jeffrey Stocum, Emission Forum Representative Oregon DEQ, Air Quality Division Mark Fitch, Fire Forum Representative Arizona DEQ, Air Quality Division Bob Kotchenruther, Modeling Forum Representative EPA Region X Rory MacArthur, Modeling Forum Representative Chevron-Texaco Jason Walker, Tribal Data Workgroup Representative NW Band-Shoshone Nation Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Support Staff. Western Governor's Association Don Arkell, WRAP Stakeholder WESTAR Mark Green, WRAP COHA Contractor Desert Research Institute Terry Ross, WRAP Stakeholder CEED

And the following participants joined by telephone:

Tina Suarez-Murias, State Caucus Representative California Air Resources Board Lee Alter, WRAP Policy Support Staff Western Governor's Association

Meeting Summary

This was the initial face-to-face meeting of the Attribution of Haze (AoH) Workgroup. One purpose of the session was to familiarize participants with the goal of the AoH project; that being to produce a report describing the emissions source categories and geographic source regions presently contributing to visibility impairment at each mandatory federal and tribal Class I area in the WRAP region.

To accomplish this task, the AoH Workgroup will be evaluating analytical results and data from IMPROVE and other Ambient Monitoring, from Regional Haze Impact Modeling, and from Emission

of 12 Inventory compilations, to synthesize that information into a coherent determination of the Causes of Regional Haze in the West.

The meeting began with a request for each participant to describe their perspective on what they expected out of the AoH effort. Then Tom Moore provided an Overview of the March 28th Project Plan and Schedule. This was followed by reports from the main WRAP Technical Forums on the status of their activities and anticipated products.

The Regional Modeling Center is turning to model preparation for the §308 SIP impact demonstrations, and of particular interest to this group was the development of a Source Apportionment capability called the Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) tool.

Another major WRAP product is the "Causes of Haze" project being undertaken by Desert Research Institute (DRI) under the auspices of the Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum. This effort seeks to answer questions such as:

-what aerosol components are responsible for haze? -what is meteorology’s role in the causes of haze? -what are the emission sources responsible for haze? -& are there detectable and/or statistically significant multi-year trends?

Representatives of the WRAP Emission Forum and the Fire Forum gave details of the type of emission inventory information they are compiling, details about how the data is produced, and schedules for completing these emission inventory products.

Then Policy Oriented personnel gave their perspective as to what type of information Planners and SIP Writers will need out of the Attribution studies in order to effectively design Control Strategies under §308 of the Regional Haze Rule.

A draft Scope of Work for contractor assistance was discussed and the participants developed a Framework of the Report that they would like to see addressed by any consultant contract. A Workgroup Subcommittee was identified and was charged with drafting the contract Scope of Work by April 9th. That Draft will be circulated to the Workgroup for comments and a conference call will be held April 12th to allow the full AoH WG to act on the Subcommittee’s recommendation. It was targeted for the SOW to be published by April 13th, 2004.

To steer this project to completion Steve Arnold and Bob Kotchenruther volunteered and were accepted as the Co-Chairs for the Attribution of Haze Workgroup.

All presentations made at this AoH Workgroup meeting can be found on the WRAP website, on the Attribution of Haze Workgroup page under the "Prior Meetings & Calls" link.

of 12 Meeting Details  Membership 

According to the AoH Project Plan, all the WRAP Technical Forums and Workgroups were to supply one member to participate in this Attribution of Haze effort. In addition to this pool of Technical personnel, the WRAP State and Tribal Caucuses were to be represented by personnel involved in Planning and SIP writing, and the IOC was to provide a representative for Policy perspective. And since the project is designed for the TOC to oversee the progress of the AoH Workgroup, all TOC members were automatically included as Workgroup members. Thus the Attribution Work Group is composed of:

Emission Forum Jeff Stocum (Oregon DEQ) Ambient Monitoring Forum Marc Pitchford (NOAA) Dust Emissions Joint Forum Duane Ono (Great Basin Air District) Fire Emissions Joint Forum Mark Fitch (Arizona DEQ) Stationary Sources Joint Forum (not yet assigned) Tribal Data Development WG Jason Walker (NW Band-Shoshone Nation) Modeling Forum Bob Kotchenruther (EPA) State Caucus Representatives Bob Habeck (Montana DEQ) Jean-Paul Huys (Nevada DEQ) Cara Casten (Wyoming DEQ) TOC Members; Lee Gribovicz, Steve Arnold & Steve Peplau Tribal Caucus Representatives TOC Members; Lewis McLeod, Ben Wear & Jiri Doskocil IOC Ernie Wessman (Pacificorp) Environmental Representatives TOC Members; Bob Palzer & John Veranth Federal Government Representatives TOC Members; Rich Fisher & Mark Komp Industrial Representatives TOC Members; Wayne Leipold & Dolly Potter

 WG Member Perspective 

To begin this meeting, participants were asked to describe their perspective and what they expect out of this AoH effort.

Lee Gribovicz began by explaining that we need a clear conclusion of what the monitoring data, modeling results and emission inventories tell us about the geographic area and source types that affect each Class I area in the west. He noted that the States/Tribes will have to use this information to determine the proportion of control requirements that they will have to apply to their jurisdictions under §308 SIP’s & TIP’s.

Cathy Messerschmitt was new to the RH effort, but she wanted to assure that the tribes are considered in the outcomes of any determinations.

of 12 Tom Moore noted that he will serve as staff to support this investigation with whatever information and expertise that the WRAP can provide. Wayne Leipold explained that his expectation of this venture is to figure out who impacts whom, and clarify what source categories are responsible for RH.

Bob Kotchenruther noted that he is participating to get a better handle on what the WRAP is doing, and to aid in the group’s understanding of modeling limitations.

Cara Casten is also new to RH work, but as a Wyoming State representative, she wanted to assure that the §309 control plans are carried through to the §308 planning process.

Terry Ross noted that CEED has watched the GCVTC work and the §309 Annex Trading Program development. He noted that these efforts focused on stationary sources, and the power industry in particular. He wants to assure that other source categories are considered fully considered in developing control strategies for RH.

As a Tribal Representative, Bob Gruenig wanted to make sure that we get a "snapshot" of where tribal lands stand in the RH picture.

Jason Walker, drafted as the Tribal Data Development Workgroup Representative, noted he too was relatively new to RH issues, but he expressed similar sentiments to Mr. Gruenig about looking at sources of RH impact on tribal lands.

Bob Habeck is a SIP writer for Montana, and he wants to know how the data is compiled to come to conclusions regarding RH impact. And he emphasized that he wants to make the conclusions clear, in plain English (so that Bob’s Mom can understand it), such that states can readily utilize the information in compiling their SIP’s.

As an Environmental Representative on many WRAP forums, Bob Palzer noted that the WRAP is sometimes fragmented, and he sees this WG as a real opportunity to link the elements of the WRAP structure towards a common goal.

Dolly Potter wants a good solid and defensible tool to base emission control requirements on.

Don Arkell noted that policy conclusions will come as the next step in the §308 process, but he wanted to assure that this group maintained a technical focus to the activity.

As Nevada’s representative, Lori Campbell noted that she just has the Jarbidge Wilderness area to manage in state, but she knows that Nevada affects other areas outside the state. She wanted to assure that we have good scientific knowledge before that impact is quantified.

Mark Fitch noted that this group’s function was to review the data from technical forums & synthesize that information into a good single Technical Support Document for defining source impacts.

of 12 Steve Arnold explained that Colorado’s perspective is that they have to put together a legal and technically defensible RH SIP, and he wants to assure that the information is coordinated with the other states so that contradictory messages are not presented to the public.

Jeff Stocum felt that the products out of the Emission Forum will be key to identifying RH impacts, and he wanted to assure that the information is properly used in definition of the proposed control strategies.

Marc Pitchford explained that he has gone through the similar efforts like the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), the Grand Canyon Commission, the Mojave Project and etc. He knows the limitations of the data and warned that it is difficult to pin down RH causes. He felt that some of the other efforts were undertaken too late to produce a good technical product and he was glad that the WRAP is getting started on obtaining this knowledge reasonably in advance of decision making.

Mark Green is the monitoring contractor for WRAP Causes of Haze Analysis (COHA), and he wanted to assure that monitoring data was fully explored in the search for source attribution.

Ernie Wessman noted that when the IOC discussed this project, they felt the effort certainly needs to be done to clarify individual impacts on each Class I area. He felt that deliverable report needs to provide understanding of RH to a level of credibility so that the problem will be realistically addressed. Having gone through the §309 Annex development he wants to assure that the WRAP looks at all the contributors to haze impacts this time, rather than just stationary sources.

Rory MacArthur noted that he is an oil representative and he has concerns dealing with fuels and mobile sources. He felt that his primary responsibility is to promote sound science, and he felt that his expertise in such areas as modeling sensitivity and source apportionment techniques can provide a solid base for this effort.

Tina Suarez-Murias noted that California is so immersed in ozone and PM2.5 issues, that they feel they will satisfy RH requirements through control strategies for these NAAQS.

Lee Alter sees clarity as being a major objective. He felt that the report from this group ought to be readily understood by lawyers, engineers, scientists, planners and etc. He felt that the Workgroup needs to identify a specific list of the Class I areas that each state will have to address in their SIP’s. He agreed with Terry Ross that we need to look closely at other pollutants such as organics and nitrates.

 AoH Project Overview 

Tom Moore then provided a Project Overview with a "conceptual model" of perception of Regional Haze causes. This model runs from the Darkness of pure Idle Speculation; through apportionment using EI’s, modeling & monitoring tools; up through the facts of the Attribution of Haze Project; and finally reaching the Light of Day as Reality.

The presentation listed the sources of data to be used (modeling, monitoring, EI’s, special purpose studies, EPA guidance & contemporary publications/ research), and listed the Project Deliverables (identify the geographic source areas of emissions, mass and species of pollutants and the natural vs.

of 12 anthropogenic split of pollutants). The AoH WG must also provide clean documentation of all assumptions, methods & uncertainties in the analysis; and must produce a "succinct, clear summary report" for policy makers.

The Schedule leads from organization and developing a contractor support Scope of Work in the first quarter of ‘04, to reviewing data and attribution studies in the middle of the year, to providing a Draft AoH Report by the end of 2004. It is expected that the WG will publish the final AoH Report by January 2005.

 Regional Modeling Center Report 

One of the objectives of this meeting was to bring all WG Members up-to-date with the status of WRAP Technical Products. We began with a report on the modeling activities of the UC-Riverside Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Bob Kotchenruther is a member of the Modeling Forum and he gave the presentation on this subject. He covered 1) the work completed by the RMC in 2003, 2) the performance results of the CMAQ air quality and the MM5 meteorological models, 3) the 2004 RMC workplan and 4) the RMC recommendations for additional technical work.

In 2003 the RMC began shifting focus away from §309 work and towards evaluating modeling performance and science in preparation for §308 modeling requirements. They did complete CMAQ §309 modeling for 1996 Base and 2018 Control Scenarios in 2003. And of particular interest to this group was the development of a Source Apportionment capability called the Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) tool.

Other improvements in 2003 included work on NH3 inventories, atmospheric chemistry mechanisms, and model evaluation software. For §308 the RMC began development of a 2002 Base Year inventory with emission files at a 12 (WRAP Region) & 36 KM (majority of the North American continent) grid resolution.

Regarding Model performance, Mr. Kotchenruther noted that the Mean Normalized Bias of the CMAQ model was improved dramatically (especially for NO3) with the latest V43 version of the model. He noted that nitrate predictions are better in summer than in the winter, but getting NO3 right has been a problem, partly due to problems with the ammonia inventory. He also noted that CMAQ drastically under-predicts the number of particles, but generally gets total mass about right (therefore it is suspected that the model might be missing small particles).

Regarding the MM5 meteorological model however, there is a positive wind direction bias ranging around 30-50 off, and the model show a significant cold temperature bias in summer for the western region of the country. There was discussion as to the need to make it clear what the significance of the errors is (ie/ wind bias may be significant, but temperature & particulate count may not be as meaningful).

In the 2004 Workplan, the RMC will deliver a per reviewed met data set at both 12 & 36 KM, and will model the "interim 2002 EI" for initial analysis of the §308 baseline. They also plan on running the source apportionment tool w/ 2002 data and will deliver a report in July ‘04. The initial run on

of 12 "natural vs anthropogenic emissions" will be delivered in November, and the RMC is working with other RPO’s on running global scale modeling to determine boundary conditions. Improvements in the windblown dust model are to be worked on, and there will be sensitivity testing on fire, sea salt and ammonia in 2004. Regarding recommendations, the RMC suggests making comparisons of different apportionment methods including: the UCR TSSA algorithm, the CAMx PM source apportionment tool, HYSPLIT back trajectories, CMB and/or PMF analyses, DRI "Causes of Haze" approaches, and "brute force" CMAQ sensitivity runs.

During the discussion, it was pointed out that modeling will have some errors, and can’t be relied upon to absolutely identify sources of haze impact. This point was acknowledged, but it was also mentioned that the whole idea of this project was to use the monitoring & emission inventory data to help resolve those type of errors, and obtain a realistic picture of the sources causing the problems.

 "Causes of Haze" Report 

Marc Pitchford & Mark Green then gave a presentation on the "Causes of Haze" Analysis - COHA that the Desert Research Institute (DRI) is completing for the Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum (AMRF). Dr. Green started off by describing things that we might expect from this project. He noted that it is a data analysis study of ambient monitoring data. It involves IMPROVE monitoring for all WRAP & CENRAP Class I areas, selected CENRAP IMPROVE Protocol sites and 5 tribal Class I areas. The questions the work might answer include:

-what aerosol components are responsible for haze? -what is meteorology’s role in the causes of haze? -what are the emission sources responsible for haze? -& are there detectable and/or statistically significant multi-year trends?

The study will use multiple techniques (back trajectory & episode analysis looking at emissions, land use, local wind patterns, etc) to get a "weight of evidence" approach for drawing conclusions. The Causes of Haze are likely to be segregated by compound of interest (ie/ sulfate), by geographic area, and also by source type, if possible.

Rory MacArthur asked whether the COHA would be using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analytic technique. Dr. Green explained that they would be working on the simpler analyses first, and then proceed to more difficult or complex analysis.

The analysis results will be posted at the following website, as they are completed: http://www.coha.dri.edu

Dr. Green then walked attendees through the type of information that is available on this site. He noted that completed Products include:

-aerosol analysis for 1997-2002 -back-trajectory analysis off 2000-2002 data -"hazagon" animation maps for 1997-2002

of 12 He then listed projects that were started & described future work planned under the COHA contract. He noted that the contract has been expanded to include a full COHA for 5 tribal Class I areas and a large number of sites on remaining tribal lands. And he noted that the DEJF had contracted with DRI to analyze data specifically on days when dust was the major contributor to Regional Haze.

 Fire Emissions Report 

Mark Fitch then gave a presentation on the activities of the Fire Emissions Joint Forum. He reported that there were four primary emission related tasks for the FEJF. They included:

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

Due Date 4/04 8/04 1/05 5/05 Purpose 1) Model Evaluation WRAP Strategic Plan Baseline Planning 2018 Planning 2) Test Apportionment Phase I Apportionment Apportionment Apportionment Product Prelim 2002 Wx Final 2002 Wx 2000-04 2018 Representative Prelim 2002 Rx Final 2002 Rx EIRepresentative for all fire types EI(s) for all fire types Prelim 2018 Ag BSM Final 2002 Ag

Then Mark went through each task and explained the sources of data for those emission inventories.

 Miscellaneous Emissions Report 

Tom Moore then gave a presentation on Windblown Dust, Biogenics, Ammonia & International Emissions.

He noted that the RMC will develop the information on windblown dust (DEJF Model) & biogenics (BEIS 3). They will use the 2002 MM5 meteorological data, and will utilize 1x1 km land use data for inputs. Emissions will be summed to 12x12 or 36x36 KM grid cells. The Dust, Biogenics & Ammonia grid cell results can then be then mapped to county/reservation boundaries.

Regarding International Emissions he pointed out that there currently is a Year 2000 Canadian inventory available, containing point/area/mobile emissions. Because of confidentiality provisions however, the point source data is grid based, without normal point source locations or stack parameters (this confidentiality question is eliminated in future Canadian inventories). There is also a question about whether fire is included in this Canadian inventory.

Regarding Mexico, the first comprehensive nationwide Emission Inventory for all source sectors (point, mobile, area, biogenics) will be completed for the 1999 calendar year, by this Fall. Currently available is the completed inventory for the six Northern Mexico states bordering the US.

Regarding off shore emissions, Tom noted that the RPO’s National 36 KM grid covers the Carribean, thus including such things as ocean based oil/gas production and shipping port traffic.

of 12 And for Boundary Conditions, the five RPO’s have an agreement to run the global GEOS-Chem model for to define the conditions at the edges of the National RPO 36 KM grid.

 Point, Area & Mobile Source Emissions Report 

Jeff Stocum represents the Emission Forum on the AoH WG, and he gave a presentation on the status of Stationary Point Source, Area, On & Non-Road Mobile Sector Emission Inventories being prepared by that forum.

He explained that the "Interim 2002 EI" will be completed shortly for the first round of §308 modeling, while the Final 2002 inventory is scheduled for completion by the end of 2004. His presentation contains details of where the data came from for the various components of these inventories.

 Emission Inventory Discussions 

Mark Pitchford wanted to know whether we’d use emissions data outside of the modeling effort, to help define sources of haze. He talked about such things as emission density maps, and the group generally agreed that we must look at such information independently. Lee Gribovicz noted that if modeling showed some geographic area to be the source of a visibility impact, but the emission inventories didn’t show any large sources in that area, such a condition would certainly raise a "red flag" that required further investigation into the inconsistency. And the discussion proceeded to the idea that all forms of data have their flaws. Monitoring should represent the "real world", but monitoring sites don’t cover all areas (ie/ there’s no monitoring in the center of the wilderness area). And the possible errors in modeling results and emission inventory compilation have been well documented. It was generally acknowledged the necessity of fully using all types of data in all available forms to develop a complete picture of Regional Haze sources. Tom Moore noted that all the emission data will be available in map or table form, or graphs and other visual displays. etc and

Marc Pitchford then brought up several points about emission inventories. He wondered whether the Stationary Point source information included CEM data. He pointed out that it seems foolish to take temporally specific CEM data from point sources, average it and process it through SMOKE, only to spit it back out in some "artificial" temporal distribution. Dr. Pitchford also noted that commercial marine projections will show a sharp increase in the future due to the North American trend of outsourcing production to the Asian Pacific Rim area. Everyone agreed that these were very good points and we need to explore these questions in more detail.

Marc also wondered whether we could display the data by grid, rather than by county, because there may be large differences across sprawling western counties. But the point was made that most surrogate data is county based, and thus area and mobile source data generally had to be calculated based on these county surrogates. The point was made that any emission displays have to include tribal boundaries as well as other political jurisdictions.

Steve Arnold brought the group back to the point that we are not trying to improve any of the data, but simply to use the data that is out there to its fullest to enable a clear picture of Regional Haze sources to be drawn.

of 12  Emission Planner/SIP Writers Perspective 

Bob Habeck of the Montana DEQ then gave a presentation from the perspective of a planner from a rural western state. As listed below, he noted that he really had four goals for attribution of haze: goal #1 - achieve equatability among sources of haze impact goal #2 - accommodate sources to the greatest extent possible goal #3 - provide cost effective implementation & tracking goal #4 - keep it simple

He explained that for §308 planning, he wants to walk away with a list of sources and areas that he needs to deal with for Montana. He wants to be as specific and "surgical" as he can, and he wants PERMANENT & ENFORCEABLE visibility control strategies so he doesn’t have to return to the issue again and again. He expects to do that through rules & permits (permit requirements would require quarterly monitoring at the most strict level, while rules have to go before a Board, therefore they are harder to implement), through smoke management plans, and possibly through interstate compacts/programs (this option is harder still to get approved and implemented).

He explained that he needs spatial & temporal products at small grids, along with source trajectories, to address the question of causes vs attribution.

To keep it simple, he needs easily explained charts, clear definitions of natural background, and an assessment of international sources which Montana can’t control. He wants the products to be produced at a level that "his Mom can understand".

Bob then went on to present examples of WRAP products that he likes, including slides from Bill Malm’s "Introduction to Visibility", an assessment of atmospheric particulate from the EPA’s PM2.5 Inventory course and the Causes of Haze "hazagon" displays.

He made the point about the necessity of "political will" to go after certain sources, and felt that it would be politically infeasible to look for controls in sources like road dust or agriculture diesel emissions. That led to a discussion about how to present the data, so that state/tribal regulators can actually use it to implement control strategies within the context of political reality.

Lee Gribovicz pointed out that conversation seemed to be focusing on stationary point sources, but we need to keep a broad perspective in looking at other source categories for potential control options.

Bob was followed by Cara Casten from Wyoming. She noted that the SIP time frame required submittals due in January ‘08. Thus Wyoming felt that these SIP’s actually need to be completed a year earlier. As a §309 state, she noted that Wyoming wanted any control strategies to completely protect §309 SIP commitments for SO2 control under the Annex. Wyoming wants to curb or control the "blame game", so we can effectively engage in cooperative planning.

of 12 Wyoming felt that helpful deliverables would:

-group Class I areas for similar results, to require similar strategies -provide clear discussion on inventories, improvements, remaining deficiencies, etc. -provide impact analyses segregated by compound -provide a tracer so that contributors can be identified by jurisdiction such as tribal, state or international emissions

Lee Gribovicz re-emphasized that a critical consideration for Wyoming was the permanence of the §309 commitments. We agree that stationary sources of NOx/PM must be examined for additional controls of those pollutants, but we feel that the SO2 Annex is sacrosanct.

 Report Requirements & SOW for Contractor RFP 

Tom Moore then noted that the TOC had authorized $50K for this project to be used for contractor support. Tom proposed that we want the contractor to:

-support coordination of the collection, compilation review & formatting of data -subcontract with external expert reviewers on specific analysis topics -support in person and conference call meetings of the AoH WG -Prepare a Draft & Final AoH report.

There was discussion on whether the report should be paper, or simply electronic. Some felt that a certain number of hard copies needed to be produced for supporting states/tribes, but that this was a simple matter to assemble such a document. It was noted that we need to give contractor direction on what type of presentation we want.

It was pointed out that the size of the report should be reasonably small (maybe 100 pages), but the point was made that this was less than one page per Class I area. The idea was raised that there would be details of each state in an Appendix of some type.

Don Arkell summed up what the report should contain:

-give states a preliminary look at what Class I areas they impact -what sources impact their Class I areas from outside their jurisdiction -what type of source categories planners may want to consider controlling

There was a general consensus that we want to summarize this report down to something around 50-100 pages.

Ernie Wessman thought that the report may be presented to different audiences in different ways. He felt that we need a "gateway" report. Ernie also pointed out that the mandate of the AoH WG was to "assess impact in each Class I Area", therefore he was convinced that the "gateway document alone wont satisfy that requirement. He suggested that we would then move into a series of more specific information contained in a document library specific to SIP writer requirements. And then we would

of 12 have additional information down to the source or category level for additional detail. The group liked that type of multi-leveled approach.

One of the first tasks for the contractor is to have them produce a "mock up" or draft of the report format. But it was generally concluded that the WG has to give the contractor some strong direction on what should be included in the report.

Ernie Wessman put constructed a diagram of the Model Framework for the Attribution of Haze Report. That would include the "Gateway Report" with the following elements:

-problem statement - process followed -description of accomplishments -level of confidence -summary by state/tribe of what was found -summary of all regional issues found

A SOW Subcommittee was identified, consisting of Bob Habeck, Ernie Wessman, Marc Pitchford, Tom Moore, Steve Arnold, Cathy Messerschmitt and Lori Campbell. It was noted that we really have to move quickly to meet our deadlines, and as the group agreed with the general format, it was felt that they could complete the SOW without too much difficulty. The Subcommittee was charged with drafting the contract Scope of Work by April 9th. That Draft would be circulated to the Workgroup and a conference call was then scheduled for April 12th (2:30 PM MDT) to allow the full AoH WG to review and act on the Subcommittee’s recommendation. Thus it was felt that the SOW could be sent to Rich Halvey for publication on April 13th.

 Workgroup Co-Chairs 

For this meeting, Lee Gribovicz had acted as "interim Chair", but the Workgroup needed permanent Co- Chairs to usher the project through to completion. This date Steve Arnold and Bob Kotchenruther volunteered and were accepted as the Co-Chairs for the Attribution of Haze Workgroup.

 Next Call/Meeting 

It was decided that after the SOW Call in April, that the WG should have some sort of call in May to look at the progress of selecting a contractor. And the next face to face meeting was tentatively planned for the week of July 19th, at a location to be determined. The Agenda for this meeting would:

-inform the WG with reports on the progress of RMC modeling & Causes of Haze -provide a status report of contractor activities -provide a preliminary look at data products for source attribution