Local EAC Plan Report Page 1 March 31, 2004 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background As a requirement of the Unifour Early Action Compact ( EAC), the Local Early Action Plan ( Local EAP) due March 31, 2004, must include measures that are specific, quantified, permanent and enforceable as part of the SIP or TIP once approved by EPA. The Local EAP also details specific implementation dates for adopted local controls. This report includes updated air quality emission inventories and modeling results for future year 2010 in Sections 4 and 6. Also included in this report is an overview of the air quality in the Unifour area, the health effects and sources of ozone, Federal and state control measures, and emissions modeling and results. The Unifour area includes Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties.

1.2 Modeling The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that begins by selection of the modeling system and selection of the meteorological episodes. North Carolina Division of Air Quality ( NCDAQ) decided to use the following modeling system:

  Meteorological Model: MM 5   This model generates hourly meteorological inputs for the emissions model and the air quality model, such as wind speed, wind direction, and surface temperature.

  Emissions Model: Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions ( SMOKE)  This model takes daily county level emissions and temporally allocates across the day, spatially locates the emissions within the county, and transfers the total emissions into the chemical species needed by the air quality model.

  Air Quality Model: MAQSIP ( Multi Scale Air Quality Simulation Platform)   This model takes the inputs from the emissions model and meteorological model and predicts ozone hour by hour across the modeling domain, both horizontally and vertically.

The modeling system being used for this demonstration and the episodes being modeled were discussed in detail in the June 30, 2003 progress report ( see Appendix B).

The following historical episodes were selected to model because they represent typical meteorological conditions in North Carolina when high ozone is observed throughout the State:

  July 10 15, 1995   June 20 24, 1996   June 25 30, 1996   July 10 15, 1997 The meteorological inputs were developed using MM5 and are discussed in detail in Appendix B. Local EAC Plan Report Page 2 March 31, 2004 The precursors to ozone, Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs), and Carbon Monoxide ( CO) were estimated for each source category. These estimates were then spatially allocated across the county, temporally adjusted to the day of the week and hour of the day and speciated into the chemical species that the air quality model needs to predict ozone. The emission inventories used for the current year and future year modeling are discussed in detail in Section 4.

The State, Federal and Local control measures currently in practice and those being implemented in the future to reduce point and mobile ( highway and non road) source emissions are discussed in Section 5.

The status of the modeling work is discussed in Section 6.

1.3 Stakeholder Involvement The Unifour Area has been concentrating on several avenues of protecting the quality of air that we breathe. Early on in studying air quality and ways to reduce the higher levels of pollution in the area we found out very quickly that the success of our efforts will lie in the hands of our stakeholders. Everyone knows that the more people involved in solving a problem the more solutions we can come up with. It is our intent to recruit as much assistance from as many people as possible to help us solve our air quality problems. Following are events and efforts that have been performed by our Unifour Air Quality Committee Members ( the stakeholders for the Unifour Area):

  The UAQC meets monthly often with press coverage, and the public is always welcome to attend and participate.

  Notice of meetings and Air Quality Coverage in the Regional and Local Papers ( Hickory Daily Record, The Taylorsville Times, Lenoir News Topic, Observer News Enterprise, Charlotte Observer, The Morganton News Herald, and the Catawba Valley Neighbors)

  EAC Members gave Air Quality Presentations at their regularly scheduled board meetings ( City Council and County Board Meetings).

  The chairman ( John Tippett) for the UAQC has been asked to speak to numerous groups and participate in several activities that promote air quality education.

  The members are actively participating in presentations and making themselves available to help educate the communities.

  Working with the local Radio and TV Stations to help with Alerts and Ozone Awareness during Weather Forecasts.

  Assist people daily with Ozone education ( brochures, color guides, and other educational materials provided to us by the NC Division of Air Quality).

  We offer presentations at all opportunities.

  Met with Unifour School Bus Fleet Managers to discuss the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel ( ULSD) earlier than 2006 and applied for a grant. Local EAC Plan Report Page 3 March 31, 2004   Signed up with " It All Adds up to Clean Air" Program   Caldwell County High Ozone Day Flag Program   Caldwell County presentation to EDC   Presentations on High Ozone to Caldwell County Fire Departments   Private Construction Company, ( Stakeholder Neill Grading), on Code Orange or higher days, does not allow company vehicles to be driven to lunch. Employees are requested to bring their lunch and eat onsite if possible. The employees call a voicemail each night that gives them the Code Alert for the next day so they can be prepared. The employer cannot require but does encourage the employees to drive the minimum amounts on high ozone alert days.

  Ed Neill also leads up a Volunteer Program for other construction companies to voluntarily not burn on High Ozone Days ( Pledge Program).

Catawba County Public Health Ozone Activities July Nov 2003 Provided ozone presentations and/ or information at:   County Dept Heads meeting on 7/ 7/ 03.   County Employee Committee meeting on 7/ 8/ 03.   Valley Hills Mall on 7/ 16/ 03 for their mall walkers group.   DSS on 7/ 23/ 03 for their staff.   Goody's Back to School Information Fair on 8/ 2/ 03.   Valley Hills Mall on 8/ 9/ 03 for their Kids Club.   St. Joseph's Catholic Church Health Fair on 9/ 6/ 03   County employee's asthma group on 9/ 19/ 03.   Wal Mart Health Fair on 9/ 19/ 03.   Alltel Safety Day on 10/ 3/ 03.   Asthma Walk during Hickory's October fest on 10/ 11/ 03.   Community Toolbox at Catawba Valley Community College on 11/ 1/ 03.   Catawba County continues to provide education to the schools and county employees.

  Several presentations to children at the Valley Hills Mall in Hickory for the Kid's Club.   Local Crawdad's Game with Ozone Awareness combined with Tobacco Free Night.

  The League of Women Voters and the CVHA held a joint forum for questions and answers on air quality issues. Two UAQC members participated on the panel.

  WHKY a local radio station had an hour long " Call In Radio Talk Show" for Question & Answers. Two UAQC members were featured.

The Catawba County Employee Ozone Committee developed an ozone action plan for all orange or red ozone alert days for Catawba County employees and/ or citizens including:   All 3 Catawba County school systems adopted as procedure a School Ozone Policy for ozone alert days similar to the daycare policy which means all children in congregate care from birth to age 18 are protected during the day during ozone season while in child care centers or public schools in Catawba County Local EAC Plan Report Page 4 March 31, 2004   The Catawba County Chamber of Commerce had a " Meet Your Government Series" event in August that featured John Tippett ( Air Quality Chairman) on the EAC and ozone non attainment, attended by 60 business and community leaders, and followed up with an article on Tippett's talk in our monthly newsletter, the Government Affairs Sentinel.   Buttons   all county employees would be asked to wear orange, red or purple buttons on ozone alert days   Banners   orange, red or purple banners could be placed on Fairgrove Church Road and Hwy 321 at the Government Center on ozone alert days   Flags   orange, red or purple flags could be flown at all county and municipal building on ozone alert days, municipalities could be asked to pay for their own   Completed and updated 3 more Air Quality Plans. Other plans are still in the process and plan to be complete by 2004 Ozone Season.   Continue to read & gather information on ways to help reduce OZONE   Scheduled to e mail out the ozone alerts on Alert Days.   Color Guides that explain the alert system available at the Catawba County Chamber's Visitor Information Center counter during the ozone season. We also distributed them to our Government Affairs Council members Caldwell County Activities Included:   Met with the County Health Department to plan for the overall operation of the notification process.   Compiled alert E Mail distribution list of all county employees, municipalities, schools, corporate partners and the chamber.   Distributed all ozone flags to all participating parties   Letter to editor about the meaning of ozone alert flags published in News Topic   Putting together systems to notify the public by flying high ozone flags   Local Television Broadcast to explain flying the alert flags   Compiled list of county vehicle information for submittal to the state.   Posted ozone alert information at the Health Department and the Planning Department.   Met with the Supervisor of Public Health Education, to plan for the process of educating the 5th grade classes   Hired a PE in August 2003 to oversee an environmental program, that includes the Ozone Action Plan   Caldwell County Today Cable TV had an hour long TV Show for Questions & Answers regarding air quality issues and the EAC.

City of Hickory noted a period of unprecedented growth in the 1990s was accompanied by an increased reliance on non public transportation. The increase in Vehicle Miles Travel ( VMT) that resulted, contributed to such challenges as congestion and air pollution. In addition, nonmobile source emissions are contributing factors in the region's violation of the Federal air quality standards. Thus, beginning in the summer of 1998, the City of Hickory has been in the forefront in the fight against air pollution in the Unifour Area. Some of Hickory's activities include the following: Local EAC Plan Report Page 5 March 31, 2004   City of Hickory has adopted an Air Quality Action Plan. Employees are notified via email of impending forecasts of high ozone and initiate steps necessary to implement the plan.   The City of Hickory has 7 alternative fuel vehicles ( CNG) and a compressed natural gas fueling station. Plans are to continue to expand the fleet of CNG vehicles as vehicles are replaced and CNG is a suitable alternative fuel.   The City of Hickory continues to educate its citizens through public information pieces contained in utility bills and other direct mailings to our citizens about the effects of ozone and the steps they can take to reduce the generation of ozone.   The City of Hickory continues to provide public transit services within the Newton, Conover and Hickory urban area thereby offering an alternative to the single occupancy vehicle.   The City of Hickory has adopted new Land Development Regulations that require connectivity between developments and encourage mixed use developments thereby reducing the length and number of vehicle trips necessary to meet daily needs.   The City of Hickory is using fiber optic cable telephone lines, close circuit television cameras installed along miles of freeways and roads, to relay information about traffic congestion ( and incidents) to a control center at the Public Services Department in Hickory.   Staff members from the City of Hickory Planning Department have periodically participated in workshops and meetings that were sponsored by the Department of Transportation in Raleigh and Asheville on alternate transportation issues.   City of Hickory Planning Department staff has met with some area Human Resources Directors, as a group and individually, to alert them to the importance of recognizing air quality issues and encouraging them to adopt policies and support actions that reduce ozone such as encouraging their employees to use alternative modes of transportation and discouraging the use of single occupancy vehicles.   The City fully supports Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) strategies as an important tool in reducing VMT. City staff continues to participate in seminars and forums on TDM sponsored by the NC Department of Transportation Public Transportation Division.   City of Hickory Planning Department staff continues to make themselves available to area private businesses and industries that are seeking information on how they can contribute to air quality improvements.   The City of Hickory has also sought to form partnerships with other local municipalities and the county, through the Piedmont Wagon Managers' Consortium, in providing public transit as an alternative means of transportation and as one of our key strategy for improving air quality.   Through its participation in Federal and State grant programs, the City has also sought to form partnerships with local organizations, such as the Boys' and Girls' Clubs and neighborhood associations to promote clean air and alternate modes of transportation by implementing greenway trails and extending bicycle routes. The City expects to begin the process of developing a comprehensive Greenways and Trails Master Plan in FY2004 2005.   The activities continue to increase and awareness is becoming more prevalent within the Unifour Area. We all continue to work towards cleaning our air. Local EAC Plan Report Page 6 March 31, 2004   EAC Members gave Air Quality Presentations at their regularly scheduled board meetings ( City Council and County Board Meetings).

  The chairman for the UAQC has been asked to speak to numerous groups and participate in several activities that promote air quality education.

  The members are actively participating in presentations and making themselves available to help educate our communities.

  Assist people daily with Ozone education.

  We offer presentations upon request.

2003 Stakeholders UAQC Meeting Times and dates:

January 28th @ 3: 00PM February 25th @ 3: 00PM March 25th @ 1: 00PM Sub committee and 2: 00PM regular meeting April 22nd @ 2: 00PM May 20th @ 4: 00PM and Special Public Meeting 5: 00PM June 24th @ 2: 00PM July 22nd @ 2: 00PM August 26th @ 2: 00 PM September meeting canceled October 28th @ 3: 30PM November @ 9: 00AM December 9th @ 1: 00PM During the 2004 year the UAQC will meet on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 3: 30 PM.

All meetings are open to the public and the facility is handicap accessible.

Minutes to the meetings are kept at the WPCOG offices and are available for public review.

2 Overview of Air Quality In The Unifour Area The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), under the authority of the Federal Clean Air Act, regulates outdoor air pollution in the United States. The EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for six " criteria pollutants" that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. 1 These six pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Particulate matter is further classified into two categories: PM 10, or particles with diameters of 10 micrometers or less, and fine particulate ( PM 2.5), particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less. Levels of a pollutant above the health based standard pose a risk to human health. Local EAC Plan Report Page 7 March 31, 2004 The NCDAQ monitors levels of all six criteria pollutants in the Unifour area and reports these levels to the EPA. According to the most recent data, the Unifour area is meeting national ambient standards for four of the pollutants, but is not meeting the Federal 8 hour standard for ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. This report focuses on the 8 hour ground level ozone only.

Federal enforcement of the ozone NAAQS is based on a 3 year monitor " design value". The design value for each monitor is obtained by averaging the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8 hour ozone values over three consecutive years. If a monitor's design value exceeds the NAAQS, that monitor is in violation of the standard. The EPA may designate part or all of the metropolitan statistical area ( MSA) as non attainment even if only one monitor in the MSA violates the NAAQS.

There are two ozone monitors in Unifour EAC area. These monitors are: Lenoir, located in Caldwell County; and Taylorsville, Alexander County. The locations of these monitors are shown in Figure 2 1.

Figure 2 1: Unifour Area's Ozone Monitor For the 3 year period 2000   2002, both monitors were violating the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. However, the most recent 3 year period 2001   2003 shows the Lenoir monitor attaining the standard and the Taylorsville violating the 8 hour ground level ozone NAAQS, see Table 2 1. The historical ozone monitoring data, including the years, which the design values are based on, is listed in Table 2.2. Monitor design values are dependant on which three year period the 4th highest 8 Hour ozone concentrations are averaged.

Table 2 1: Ozone Monitor Design Values in parts per million ( ppm)

Monitor Name County 00 02 01 03 Lenoir Caldwell 0.086 0.084 Taylorsville Alexander 0.091 0.088 Local EAC Plan Report Page 8 March 31, 2004 Table 2.2 Historical 4th Highest 8 Hour ozone values ( 1994 2003) 4th Highest 8 Hour Ozone Values ( ppm) Monitor Site 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Taylorsville 0.075 0.078 0.080 0.096 0.082 0.091 0.088 0.095 0.081 Lenoir 0.079 0.079 0.098 0.094 0.085 0.082 0.092 0.079 Light Shading = No Data Available NCDAQ forecasts ozone levels on a daily basis from May 1   September 30 for Unifour EAC area. This forecast is issued to the public using EPA's Air Quality Index ( AQI) color code system. Table 2 2 lists the ozone regulatory standard and AQI breakpoints with their corresponding health risks.

Table 2 3: Air Quality Index Color Code System Pollutant concentration ( ppm) ranges for AQI color codes Pollutant/ Standard Standard Value Green AQI 0   50 Good Yellow AQI 51 100 Moderate Orange AQI 101 150 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Red AQI 151 200 Unhealthy Purple AQI 201 300 Very Unhealthy Ozone/ 8 hour average 0.08 ppm averaged over 8 hours 0 0.064 0.065 0.084 0.085 0.104 0.105 0.124 0.125 0.374 The AQI color codes standardize the reporting of different pollutants by classifying pollutant concentrations according to relative health risk, using colors and index numbers to describe pollutant levels. The AQI is also used to report the previous day's air quality to the public. In the Unifour area, the forecast and previous day air quality reports appear on the weather page of local newspapers and NCDAQ's website: http:// daq. state. nc. us/ airaware/ forecast. Additionally, the ozone forecast is broadcasted during the local news on television and radio. Local EAC Plan Report Page 9 March 31, 2004 3 Ozone And Its Health Effects And Sources 3.1 Overview of Ozone Ozone ( O3) is a tri atomic ion of oxygen. In the stratosphere or upper atmosphere, ozone occurs naturally and protects the Earth's surface from ultraviolet radiation. Ozone in the lower atmosphere is often called ground level ozone, tropospheric ozone, or ozone pollution to distinguish is from upper atmospheric or stratospheric ozone. Ozone does occur naturally in the lower atmosphere ( troposphere), but only in relatively low background concentrations of about 30 parts per billion ( ppb), well below the NAAQS. The term " smog" is also commonly used to refer to ozone pollution. Although ozone is a component of smog; smog is a combination of ozone and airborne particles having a brownish or dirty appearance. It is possible for ozone levels to be elevated even on clear days with no obvious " smog".

In the lower atmosphere, ozone is formed when airborne chemicals, primarily nitrogen oxides ( NOx) and volatile organic compounds ( VOCs), combine in a chemical reaction driven by heat and sunlight. These ozone forming chemicals are called precursors to ozone. Man made NOx and VOC precursors contribute to ozone concentrations above natural background levels. Since ozone formation is greatest on hot, sunny days with little wind, elevated ozone concentrations occur during the warm weather months, generally May through September. In agreement with EPA's guidance, North Carolina operates ozone monitors from April 1 through October 31 to be sure to capture all possible events of high ozone.

3.2 Ozone Health Effects The form of oxygen we need to breathe is O2. When we breathe ozone, it acts as an irritant to our lungs. Short term, infrequent exposure to ozone can result in throat and eye irritation, difficulty drawing a deep breath, and coughing. Long term and repeated exposure to ozone concentrations above the NAAQS can result in reduction of lung function as the cells lining the lungs are damaged. Repeated cycles of damage and healing may result in scarring of lung tissue and permanently reduced lung function. Health studies have indicated that high ambient ozone concentrations may impair lung function growth in children, resulting in reduced lung function in adulthood. In adults, ozone exposure may accelerate the natural decline in lung function that occurs as part of the normal aging process. Ozone may also aggravate chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis and reduce the immune system's ability to fight off bacterial infections in the respiratory system.

Asthmatics and other individuals with respiratory disease are especially at risk from elevated ozone concentrations. Ozone can aggravate asthma, increasing the risk of asthma attacks that require a doctor's attention or the use of additional medication. According to the EPA, one reason for this increased risk is that ozone increases susceptibility to allergens, which are the most common triggers for asthma attacks. In addition, asthmatics are more severely affected by the reduced lung function and irritation that ozone causes in the respiratory system. There is increasing evidence that ozone may trigger, not just exacerbate, asthma attacks in some individuals. Ozone may also contribute to the development of asthma. A recent study published Local EAC Plan Report Page 10 March 31, 2004 in the British medical journal The Lancet found a strong association between elevated ambient ozone levels and the development of asthma in physically active children. 2 All children are at risk from ozone exposure because they often spend a large part of the summer playing outdoors, their lungs are still developing, they breathe more air per pound of body weight, and they are less likely to notice symptoms. Children and adults who frequently exercise outdoors are particularly vulnerable to ozone's negative health effects, because they may be repeatedly exposed to elevated ozone concentrations while breathing at an increased respiratory rate. 3 3.3 Ozone Sources Ozone forming pollutants, or precursors, are nitrogen oxides ( NOx) and volatile organic compounds ( VOCs).

3.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) are a class of hydrocarbons, and therefore are sometimes referred to as hydrocarbons. However, it is important to note that hydrocarbons, as a class of chemical compounds, include less reactive compounds not considered VOCs. In other words, although all VOCs are hydrocarbons, not all hydrocarbons are VOCs.

In North Carolina, large portions of precursor VOCs are produced by natural, or biogenic, sources, which are primarily trees. Man made, or anthropogenic, VOCs also contribute to ozone production, particularly in urban areas. Sources of anthropogenic VOCs include unburned gasoline fumes evaporating from gas stations and cars, industrial emissions, and consumer products such as paints, solvents, and the fragrances in personal care products.

3.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen oxides ( NOx) are produced when fuels are burned, and result from the reaction of atmospheric nitrogen at the high temperatures produced by burning fuels. Power plants, highway motor vehicles, the major contributor in urban areas, and off road mobile source equipment, such as construction equipment, lawn care equipment, trains, boats, etc., are the major sources of NOx.

Other NOx sources include " area" sources ( small, widely distributed sources) such as fires ( forest fires, backyard burning, house fires, etc.), and natural gas hot water heaters. Other residential combustion sources such as oil and natural gas furnaces and wood burning also produce NOx, but these sources generally do not operate during warm weather months when ground level ozone is a problem. In general, area sources contribute only a very small portion of ozone forming NOx emissions.

Generally, North Carolina, including the Unifour area, is considered " NOx limited" because of the abundance of VOC emissions from biogenic sources. Therefore, current ozone strategies focus on reducing NOx. However, VOC reduction strategies, such as control of evaporative Local EAC Plan Report Page 11 March 31, 2004 emissions from gas stations and vehicles, could reduce ozone in urban areas where the biogenic VOC emissions are not as high.

3.3.3 Sources of NOx and VOCs The following lists the sources, by category, what contribute to NOx and VOC emissions.

Biogenic: Trees and other natural sources.

Mobile: Vehicles traveling on paved roads: cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, etc.

Non road: Vehicles not traveling on paved roads: construction, agricultural, and lawn care equipment, motorboats, locomotives, etc.

Point: " Smokestack" sources: industry and utilities.

Area: Sources not falling into above categories. For VOCs, includes gas stations, dry cleaners, print shops, consumer products, etc. For NOx, includes forest and residential fires, natural gas hot water heaters, etc. Local EAC Plan Report Page 12 March 31, 2004 4 Emissions Inventories 4.1 Introduction Emissions modeling performed by NCDAQ estimates NOx and VOC emissions for an average summer day, given specific meteorological and future year conditions and using emission inputs based on emission inventories that include anticipated control measures. The biogenic emissions are kept at the same level as the episodic biogenic emissions since these emissions are based on meteorology and the meteorological conditions in the future years are kept the same as the episodic meteorology.

There are various types of emission inventories. The first is the base year or episodic inventory. This inventory is based on the year of the episode being modeled and is used for validating the photochemical model performance.

The second inventory used in this project is the " current" year inventory. For this modeling project it will be the 2000 emission inventory, which is the most current. This inventory is processed using all of the different meteorological episodes being studied. The photochemical modeling is processed using the current year inventory and those results are used as a representation of current air quality conditions for the meteorological conditions modeled.

Next is the future base year inventory. For this type, an inventory is developed for some future year for which attainment of the ozone standard is needed. The future base year projections for 2007 take into account all State and Federal control measures expected to operate at that time, including Federal vehicle emissions controls, NOx SIP Call controls, and North Carolina Clean Smokestacks controls. For this modeling project the attainment year is 2007 and the additional years for which a showing of continued maintenance of the 8 hour ozone standard are 2012 and 2017. An additional year, 2010, was modeled since this is the year for which the Charlotte/ Gastonia and Raleigh/ Durham areas must demonstrate attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard. It is the future base year inventories that control strategies and sensitivities are applied to determine what controls, to which source classifications must be made in order to attain the ozone standard.

The base year inventories used for each source classifications are discussed in Appendix B. In the sections that follow, the inventories used for the current and the future years are discussed. Emission summaries by county for the entire State are in Appendix A.

4.2 Current Year Inventories For the large utility sources, year specific Continuous Emissions Monitoring ( CEM) data is used for base year episode specific modeling. However, it did not make sense to use 2000 CEM data for the current year inventory since the meteorology used for the current year modeling runs are the 1995, 1996, and 1997 episode specific meteorology. The concern is that the utility day specific emissions for 2000 would not correspond to the meteorology used in the modeling. After discussing this issue with EPA, the decision was made to continue to use the episodic CEM Local EAC Plan Report Page 13 March 31, 2004 data for the current year inventory. Since only CEM NOx emissions are reported to the EPA, Acid Rain Division ( ARD), the CO and VOC emissions are calculated from the NOx emissions using emission factor ratios ( CO/ NOx and VOC/ NOx) for the particular combustion processes at the utilities.

The inventory used to model the other point sources is the 1999 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) release version 2.0 obtained from the EPA's Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors ( CHIEF) website ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ net/ 1999inventory. html). In addition, North Carolina emissions for forest fires and prescribed burns are treated as point sources and are episode specific similar to CEM data. These emissions were kept the same as the episodic emissions.

Similar to the other point source emissions inventory, the inventory used to model the stationary area sources is the 1999 NEI release version 2.0 obtained from the EPA's CHIEF website. The exception to this is for North Carolina where a 2000 current year inventory was generated by NCDAQ following the current methodologies outlined in the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program ( EIIP) Area Source Development Documents, Volume III ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ eiip/ techreport/ volume03/ index. html).

For the non road mobile sources that are calculated within the NONROAD mobile model, a 2000 current year inventory was generated for the entire domain. The model version used is the Draft NONROAD2002 distributed for a limited, confidential, and secure review in November 2002. A newer draft version of this model ( NONROAD2002a) was released by the EPA in June 2003. A comparison was done between the results from the two models and the differences were not significant for NOx emissions, however they were large for CO. Since CO does not play a large role in ozone formation; it is not believed that these differences will impact the ozone concentrations in the air quality model. However, since there are differences, when the final State Implementation Plan ( SIP) modeling is carried out the updated emissions will be used.

The non road mobile sources not calculated within the NONROAD model include aircraft engines, railroad locomotives and commercial marine vessels. The 2000 current year inventory used for these sources is the 1999 NEI release version 2.0 obtained from the EPA's CHIEF website. The exception to this is for North Carolina where a 2000 current year inventory was generated by NCDAQ following the methodologies outlined in the EPA guidance document EPA 450/ 4 81 026d ( Revised), Procedures for Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources.

In order to accurately model the mobile source emissions in the EAC areas, the newest version of the MOBILE model, MOBILE6.2, was used. This model was released by EPA in 2002 and differs significantly from previous versions of the model. Key inputs for MOBILE include information on the age of vehicles on the roads, the speed of those vehicles, what types of road those vehicles are traveling on, any control technologies in place in an area to reduce emissions for motor vehicles ( e. g., emissions inspection programs), and temperature. The development of these inputs is discussed in Appendix B. Local EAC Plan Report Page 14 March 31, 2004 Biogenic emissions used in the 2000 current year modeling are the same as those used in the base year episodic modeling. This is due to the use of the same meteorology for the current year modeling runs. The development of this source category is discussed in Appendix B The emissions summary for the 2000 current year modeling inventories for the Unifour EAC area is listed in Table 4.2 1. These emissions represent typical weekday emissions and are reported in tons per day.

Table 4.2 1 2000 Current Year Modeling Emissions Source CO NOx VOC Point 8 98 47 Area 18 1 22 Non road Mobile 82 10 8 Highway Mobile 239 35 21 Biogenic 0 0.4 214 Total Emissions 347 144 312 4.3 Future Year Inventories The inventory used for the preliminary 2007 point source inventory is the EPA's May 1999 release of the NOx SIP call future year modeling foundation files, obtained from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS). This is a 2007 emissions inventory, projected from a 1995 base year inventory and controlled in accordance to the NOx SIP call rule. The decision to use this inventory for initial 2007 future year modeling runs was made since all of the point sources required to have controls due to the NOx SIP call rule making are reflected in this inventory. The exception to this is for North Carolina. For the major North Carolina utility sources, NCDAQ obtained estimated future year hour specific data for the two largest utility companies within North Carolina, Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Additionally, the day specific forest fires and prescribed fires inventory were the episodic emissions.

The final modeling run for the 2007 future year point source inventory uses the EPA's 1999 NEI inventory grown to 2007 using growth factors from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System ( EGAS) version 4.0. The exception to this is for North Carolina, where State specific growth factors, and where available source specific growth factors, were used to grow the North Carolina 1999 inventory. Additionally, NCDAQ created a new control file that reflect how the states surrounding North Carolina plan to implement the NOx SIP call rule as well as all other rules that are on the books. The 2012 future year point source inventory was generated using this same methodology.

The inventory used to model the stationary area sources for 2007 and 2012 is the 1999 NEI release version 2.0 obtained from the EPA's CHIEF website and were grown to 2007 using growth factors from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System ( EGAS) version 4.0. The exception to this is for North Carolina, where the 2000 current year inventory was grown using a mixture of EGAS growth factors and state specific growth factors for the furniture industry. Local EAC Plan Report Page 15 March 31, 2004 For the non road mobile sources that are calculated within the NONROAD mobile model, a 2007 and 2012 future years inventories were generated for the entire domain using the same model used to generate the current year inventory. In the final modeling, the NONROAD2002a model will be used to create the non road inventory. The remaining non road mobile source categories, the 1999 NEI release version 2.0 obtained from the EPA's CHIEF website and were grown to 2007 and 2012 using growth factors from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System ( EGAS) version 4.0. The exception to this is for North Carolina, where the 2000 current year inventory was grown with EGAS growth factors.

The same MOBILE model was used to create the 2007 and 2012 future years highway mobile source inventories. The vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) were projected using the methodologies prescribed by EPA. The exception to this was for North Carolina. In the urban areas of North Carolina VMT from travel demand models ( TDM) for future years was available. The future years VMT were estimated by interpolating between the TDM future year estimates. Additionally, estimated future year speeds were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT).

Biogenic emissions used in the future years modeling are the same as those used in the base year episodic modeling. This is due to the use of the same meteorology for the future year modeling runs. The development of this source category is discussed in Appendix B.

The emissions summary for the 2007 and 2012 future years modeling inventories for the Unifour EAC area is listed in Table 4.3 1. These emissions represent typical weekday emissions and are reported in tons per day.

Table 4.3 1 Future Year Modeling Emissions 2007 2012 Source CO NOX VOC CO NOX VOC Point 22 53 64 18 48 47 Area 18 1 22 19 1 22 Non road Mobile 93 10 8 99 10 6 Highway Mobile 140 23 13 89 12 8 Biogenic 0 0.4 214 0 0.4 214 Total Emissions 273 87 321 225 71 297 Note that in the maintenance year 2012 the emissions are expected to be lower than the attainment year 2007, therefore continued maintenance of the 8 hour ozone standard is expected.

4.4 Comparison of 2000 and 2007 Inventories The total predicted NOx emissions for the Unifour area decreased by 40%, from 144 tons per day ( TPD) in 2000 to 87 TPD in 2007. This data is tabulated in Table 4.4 1. This same data is displayed in Figures 4.4 1 and 4.4 2 as pie charts with the percent contribution by each source category. Local EAC Plan Report Page 16 March 31, 2004 Nonroad 7%

Area 1% Point 68% Biogenic 0% Mobile 24%

Nonroad 12%

Area 1% Point 61% Biogenic 0% Mobile 26%

Biogenic 68% Mobile 7% Nonroad 3% Area 7% Point 15%

Nonroad 2% Area 7% Point 20%

Biogenic 67% Mobile 4% Table 4.4 1: Estimated NOx and VOC emissions, in tons per day NOx Emissions VOC Emissions Source 2000 2007 2000 2007 Point 98 53 47 64 Area 1 1 22 22 Non road 10 10 8 8 Mobile 35 23 21 13 Biogenic 0.4 0.4 214 214 Total Emissions 144 87 312 321 Figure 4.4 1: 2000 Unifour Area Figure 4.4 2: 2007 Unifour Area NOx Emissions by Source NOx Emissions by Source The total predicted VOC emissions for the Unifour area increased by 3%, from 312 TPD in 2000 to 321 TPD in 2007. This data is also tabulated in Table 4.4 1. This same data is displayed in Figures 4.4 3 and 4.4 4 as pie charts with the percent contribution by each source category.

Figure 4.4 3: 2000 Unifour Area Figure 4.4 4: 2007 Unifour Area VOC Emissions by Source VOC Emissions by Source There are few VOC control measures expected for area and point sources in the Unifour area, Local EAC Plan Report Page 17 March 31, 2004 HDDV 55%

HDGV 7% LDGT1 13% LDGT2 5% LDGV 20% Other 0%

HDDV 55%

HDGV 7% LDGT1 16% LDGT2 7% LDGV 14% Other 1% resulting in an increase of emissions between the two years. However, the Unifour area contains a power plant, resulting in the point source NOx emissions decrease significantly due to the NOx SIP Call rule. Additionally, there are significant decreases in highway mobile source VOC and NOx emissions, however the decrease in highway mobile VOC was not enough to offset the point source increase. Thus the overall region has a decrease in NOx and a slight increase in VOC emissions.

For both, highway and non road mobile sources, diesel vehicles contribute the majority of NOx emissions. Figures 4.4 5 and 4.4 6 show the relative contributions of vehicle types for the highway mobile source category in 2000 and 2007 for the Unifour area. As shown in these figures, the relative contributions from vehicle types change slightly between 2000 and 2007, with heavy duty diesel vehicles still contributing more than 50% of the overall emissions. The estimated emission for each vehicle type is tabulated in Table 4.4 2.

Figure 4.4 5: 2000 Unifour Area Figure 4.4 6: 2007 Unifour Area Highway Mobile NOx Sources Highway Mobile NOx Sources HDDV = Heavy duty diesel vehicles ( trucks) HDGV = Heavy duty gasoline vehicles ( trucks) LDGT ( 1& 2) = Light duty gasoline trucks LDGV = Light duty gasoline vehicles Other = Motorcycles, light duty diesel vehicles & trucks Table 4.4 2: Estimated Highway NOx Emissions, by vehicle type NOx Emissions in TPD Source 2000 2007 Heavy duty diesel vehicles 19.2 12.5 Light duty gasoline vehicles 6.9 3.4 Light duty gasoline trucks ( 1) 4.4 3.8 Light duty gasoline trucks ( 2) 1.8 1.7 Heavy duty gasoline vehicles 2.4 1.8 Other 0.2 0.1 Total 34.9 23.3 Local EAC Plan Report Page 18 March 31, 2004 2 & 4 Stroke Engines 4%

Aircraft 0%

CNG Engines 3%

Diesel Agricultural 4%

Diesel Commercial 2%

Diesel Construction 31%

Diesel Industrial 13% LPG Engines 33% Railroad 9% Other Diesel 1%

2 & 4 Stroke Engines 4%

Aircraft 0%

CNG Engines 3%

Diesel Agricultural 3%

Diesel Commercial 3%

Diesel Construction 28%

Diesel Industrial 11% LPG Engines 41% Railroad 6% Other Diesel 1% Figures 4.4 7 and 4.4 8 show the relative contributions of equipment types for the non road mobile source category in 2000 and 2007 for the Unifour area. As can be seen in these figures, diesel construction equipment and liquid propane gas ( LPG) equipment contributes the majority of the non road mobile source NOx emissions for both years.

Figure 4.4 3: 2000 Unifour Area Non road Equipment NOx sources Figure 4.4 4: 2007 Unifour Area Non road Equipment NOx sources Local EAC Plan Report Page 19 March 31, 2004 4.5 Comparison of 2000 and 2010 Inventories North Carolina developed the 2010 future year emissions inventory as an intermediate year between 2007, where attainment of the 8 hr Ozone standard is to be demonstrated, and 2012 where continued maintenance of the standard is required. This year was chosen since it is the year that the Charlotte/ Gastonia and Raleigh/ Durham areas must show attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard.

The inventory used for the 2010 point source inventory is EPA's 2010 emission inventory used for their heavy duty diesel rule making. The decision to use this inventory for the 2010 future year modeling runs was made since all of the point sources required to have controls due to the NOx SIP call rule making are reflected in this inventory. The exception to this is for North Carolina. For the major North Carolina utility sources, NCDAQ obtained estimated future year hour specific data for the two largest utility companies within North Carolina, Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Additionally, the day specific forest fires and prescribed fires inventory were the episodic emissions.

The inventory used to model the stationary area sources is also the EPA's emission inventory used for the heavy duty diesel engine rule making. The exception to this is for North Carolina, where the 2000 current year inventory was grown using a mixture of EGAS growth factors and state specific growth factors for the furniture industry.

For the non road mobile sources that are calculated within the NONROAD mobile model, a 2010 future year inventory was generated for the entire domain using the same model used to generate the current year inventory. The remaining non road mobile source categories, EPA's 2010 emission inventory used for their heavy duty diesel engine rule making was used.

The same MOBILE model was used to create the 2010 future year highway mobile source inventory. The vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) were projected using the methodologies prescribed by EPA. The exception to this was for North Carolina. In the urban areas of North Carolina VMT from travel demand models ( TDM) for future years was available. The 2010 VMT was estimated by interpolating between the TDM future year estimates. Additionally, estimated future year speeds were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT).

Biogenic emissions used in the 2010 future year modeling are the same as those used in the base year episodic modeling. This is due to the use of the same meteorology for the future year modeling runs.

The emissions summary for the 2010 future year modeling inventories for the Unifour EAC area is listed in Table 4.5 1. These emissions represent typical weekday emissions and are reported in tons per day. Local EAC Plan Report Page 20 March 31, 2004 Table 4.5 1: Estimated NOx and VOC emissions, in tons per day NOx Emissions VOC Emissions Source 2000 2007 2010 2000 2007 2010 Point 98 53 43 47 64 49 Area 1 1 1 22 22 22 Non road 10 10 10 8 8 8 Mobile 35 23 16 21 13 10 Biogenic 0.4 0.4 0.4 214 214 214 Total Emissions 144 87 70 312 321 303 The total predicted NOx emissions for the Unifour area decreased by ~ 51%, from 144 tons per day ( TPD) in 2000 to 70 TPD in 2010. The total predicted VOC emissions for the Unifour area decreased by ~ 3%, from 312 TPD in 2000 to 303 TPD in 2010. The 2010 mobile emissions show a continuing decrease even from the 2007 emission levels for both NOx and VOC. The difference in the point source VOC emissions is believed to be an artifact of the differences between the EPA point source inventories used in the modeling. In future modeling runs a consistent North Carolina inventory will be used and grown using State specific growth factors instead of relying on EPA's future year inventories.

4.5 2017 Future Year Inventory The State is in the process of developing the 2017 future year emission inventories for purposes of showing continued maintenance of the 8 hour ozone standard. The air quality modeling runs will be completed in the next couple of months and will be part of the final State submittal in December 2004. Local EAC Plan Report Page 21 March 31, 2004 5 Control Measures Several control measures already in place or being implemented over the next few years, will reduce point, highway mobile, and non road mobile sources emissions. These control measures were modeled for 2007 and are discussed in the Sections below.

5.1 State Control Measures 5.1.1 Clean Air Bill The 1999 Clean Air Bill expanded the vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program from 9 counties to 48, phased in between July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2006. Vehicles will be tested using the onboard diagnostic system, an improved method of testing, which will indicate NOx emissions, among other pollutants. The previously used tailpipe test did not measure NOx. The inspection and maintenance program will be phased in from July 1, 2003 through July 1, 2005, in the Unifour area. Table 5.1.1 1 lists the phase in dates for the Unifour area.

Table 5.1.1 1 Phase In Dates for the Unifour Area County Phase In Date Burke July 1, 2005 Caldwell July 1, 2005 Catawba July 1, 2003 5.1.2 NOx SIP Call Rule North Carolina's NOx SIP Call rule will reduce summertime NOx emissions from power plants and other industries by 68% by 2006. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission adopted rules requiring the reductions in October 2000.

5.1.3 Clean Smokestacks Act In June 2002, the N. C. General Assembly enacted the Clean Smokestacks Act, requiring coalfired power plants to reduce annual NOx emissions by 78% by 2009. These power plants must also reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions by 49% by 2009 and by 74% in 2013. The Clean Smokestacks Act could potentially reduce NOx emissions beyond the requirements of the NOx SIP Call Rule. One of the first state laws of its kind in the nation, this legislation provides a model for other states in controlling multiple air pollutants from old coal fired power plants.

5.1.4 Open Burning Bans In June 2004, the Environmental Management Commission should approve a new rule that would ban open burning during the ozone season on code orange and code red ozone action days Local EAC Plan Report Page 22 March 31, 2004 for those counties that NCDAQ forecasts ozone. NCDAQ will determine what rule penetration and rule effectiveness would be most appropriate to use for this rule.

5.2 Federal Control Measures 5.2.1 Tier 2 Vehicle Standards Federal Tier 2 vehicle standards will require all passenger vehicles in a manufacturer's fleet, including light duty trucks and Sports Utility Vehicles ( SUVs), to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NOx per mile. Implementation will begin in 2004, and most vehicles will be phased in by 2007. Tier 2 standards will also cover passenger vehicles over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating ( the larger pickup trucks and SUVs), which are not covered by current Tier 1 regulations. For these vehicles, the standards will be phased in beginning in 2008, with full compliance in 2009. The new standards require vehicles to be 77% to 95% cleaner than those on the road today. Tier 2 rules will also reduce the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 ppm by 2006. Most gasoline currently sold in North Carolina has a sulfur content of about 300 ppm. Sulfur occurs naturally in gasoline but interferes with the operation of catalytic converters in vehicle engines resulting in higher NOx emissions. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to achieve Tier 2 vehicle emission standards.

5.2.2 Heavy Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicles Standards New EPA standards designed to reduce NOx and VOC emissions from heavy duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicles will begin to take effect in 2004. A second phase of standards and testing procedures, beginning in 2007, will reduce particulate matter from heavy duty highway engines, and will also reduce highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm since the sulfur damages emission control devices. The total program is expected to achieve a 90% reduction in PM emissions and a 95% reduction in NOx emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher content sulfur diesel.

5.2.3 Large Non road Diesel Engines Proposed Rule The EPA has proposed new rules for large non road diesel engines, such as those used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment, to be phased in between 2008 and 2014. The proposed rules would also reduce the allowable sulfur in non road diesel fuel by over 99%. Non road diesel fuel currently averages about 3, 400 ppm sulfur. The proposed rules limit nonroad diesel sulfur content to 500 ppm in 2007 and 15 ppm in 2010. The combined engine and fuel rules would reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions from large non road diesel engines by over 90 %, compared to current non road engines using higher content sulfur diesel.

5.2.4 Non road Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard The new standard, effective in July 2003, will regulate NOx, HC and CO for groups of previously unregulated non road engines. The new standard will apply to all new engines sold in the US and imported after these standards begin and large spark ignition engines ( forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles ( off highway motorcycles and all Local EAC Plan Report Page 23 March 31, 2004 terrain vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines. The regulation varies based upon the type of engine or vehicle.

The large spark ignition engines contribute to ozone formation and ambient CO and PM levels in urban areas. Tier 1 of this standard is scheduled for implementation in 2004 and Tier 2 is scheduled to start in 2007. Like the large spark ignition, recreational vehicles contribute to ozone formation and ambient CO and PM levels. They can also be a factor in regional haze and other visibility problems in both state and national parks. For the off highway motorcycles and all terrain vehicles, model year 2006, the new exhaust emissions standard will be phased in by 50% and for model years 2007 and later a 100%. Recreational marine diesel engines over 37 kW are used in yachts, cruisers, and other types of pleasure craft. Recreational marine engines contribute to ozone formation and PM levels, especially in marinas. Depending on the size of the engine, the standard for will begin phase in in 2006.

When all of the standards are fully implemented, an overall 72% reduction in HC, 80% reduction in NOx, and 56% reduction in CO emissions are expected by 2020. These controls will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, CO, and fine PM.

5.3 Local EAC Control Measures The Unifour Air Quality Committee adopted fourteen Emission Reduction Strategies as outlined in APPENDIX C of this Document. The following are the strategies and examples of what the Local Governments have already adopted or will be adopting to address the ozone pollution in the Unifour area:

1. Local Governments join and participate with the private sector in the NC Air Awareness Program. Currently, all stakeholders are using this strategy and the database of notified individuals increases every year. The Economic Directors in two of the four counties are notifying all businesses on Ozone Alert Days that are in their database. As awareness increases we anticipate this program being very beneficial.

2. Enhanced Ozone awareness ( Outreach Communication): assign local agency to develop and implement an aggressive program to educate and motivate individual and businesses/ organizations, to take action to minimize ozone pollution. Currently, the WPCOG and the NC DAQ work with the stakeholders in providing speakers, and informational booths whenever possible to achieve this goal. Numerous local TV interviews, newspaper write ups, and power point presentations are utilized on a regular bases. This strategy is working very well and we anticipate increased outreach every year.

3. Evaluate the benefits of participation in the Clean Cities Program. The WPCOG has been involved in meetings with Centralina COG and partnering with them in efforts to establish Clean Fuel Corridors that we share. Ongoing efforts are expected.

4. City and County Energy Plan. The cities and counties are reviewing the feasibility of this effort. Ongoing efforts are expected. Local EAC Plan Report Page 24 March 31, 2004 5. Assign staff to become Air Quality Contact. Currently, the UAQC members are the air quality contacts. The WPCOG also provides two people that can be contacted for Air Quality assistance. The NC DAQ serves as our Air Quality Experts.

6. Adopt a local clean air policy and appoint stakeholder group to identify and recommend locally feasible air improvement actions. The Unifour Air Quality Group serves this function and represents stakeholders for air quality in the region.

7. Landscaping Standards. Many of the local governments have adopted Landscaping Standards or are reviewing the benefits of adoption. Some examples are:

City of Conover: a. Landscape Parking Ordinance b. Adopted on Dec. 4, 1995 by Ordinance 22 95 c. Section 23.5 of the Zoning Ordinance d. Requires trees and shrubbery within the parking lots and in a 10' minimumplanting strip between any road and parking lot. This reduces the impact of a heat envelope created by large expanses of unbroken asphalt. e. Zoning Permit not approved unless part of plans. Any vegetation that dies is required to be replanted within the planting season. f. Zoning Ordinance Violations are enforceable. www. ci. conover. nc. us or www. municode. com Caldwell County adopted on March 15, 2004 a rewritten Zoning Ordinance, which includes buffer requirements that require planting of vegetation or utilize existing vegetation. Also includes landscaping requirement, which requires the breaking of parking lot expanse with vegetation. The rewrite of the Ordinance created new district that encourages / allows mixed use development.

County allows flex hours in department where it would benefit both the department and the employee. For example the Finance Department has utilized flex hours.

The Caldwell County Ordinances can be reviewed at the Counties website: http:// www. co. caldwell. nc. us/ depart/ planning/ proposedord. html Catawba County has adopted Small Area Plans that cover the majority of the county. Small area plans are designed to assess specific neighborhood area's current quality of life and sustainability on issues such as traffic congestion, residential development patterns, water quality, library service levels, utility capacities and school facilities. Upon reviewing these issues, committees will then recommend measures for improvement. Specifically, Small Area Planning Committees will discuss and develop goals and action statements for the following issues: 1) economic development; 2) natural resources; 3) cultural resources; 4) public services and community facilities; 5) housing; 6) land use and development; and 7) transportation. Plans will also include how the goals and action statements will be implemented, whether it is through ordinance or policy amendments, modified capital improvement plans, or coordination with other agencies to complete specific tasks. Small Area plans are Smart Growth that address Local EAC Plan Report Page 25 March 31, 2004 current land uses & residential density recommendations, future transportation recommendations, proposed Zoning Map amendments and natural and cultural resources.

Catawba County has adopted Landscaping Standards that can be reviewed in the Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE IX. Section 44 298.

The Small Area Plans and Ordinances can be reviewed at Catawba County's website:

http:// www. catawbacountync. gov/ depts/ planning/ index. html 8. Implement Smart Growth. The City of Hickory has adopted a Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan ( Hickory By Choice) which is a Smart Growth Plan. Catawba County has approved several Small Area Plans that are also Smart Growth activities in the area. Other counties and cities are reviewing the possibilities of these types of plans. Some examples are:

City of Hickory: In an effort to cope with issues associated with air quality standards the City of Hickory has implemented a number of strategies/ policies designed to improve and/ or mitigate such issues. The following bulleted list describes each of these strategies/ policies and offers an explanation of the mechanics of each.

  Hickory By Choice, Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan, Adopted August 1999. The document is available at the City of Hickory's website at http:// www. hickorygov. com.

Hickory By Choice ( HBC) is the City of Hickory's Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan and is designed to guide development activities within the City for the next twenty five ( 25) years. HBC outlines specific goals involving the development of its transportation network, the preservation of natural resources, the expansion of transit opportunities, and development of land uses.

HBC identifies an " Overriding Planning Principal" as being the foundation to which the bulk of the document revolves around. This principal indicates the importance of pedestrian oriented interconnectivity and the realization of traditional patterns of development. This verbatim text of this strategy is located below. The overriding planning principle is simply to create a network of neighborhoods of housing, parks, and schools placed within walking distance of shops, civic services, and employment. Hickory has grown as a regional provider of medical services, retail shopping, cultural activities, and employment. And this planning principle builds upon the traditional development patterns in Hickory with the intent of Reestablishing a community less reliant on automobiles and promotes a sustainable economy. New development patterns in the city should reinforce the connection between new mixed use/ multiple use and traditional residential neighborhoods and the elements of a sustainable community such as neighborhood shopping, open space and parks, employment, and services. These connections should be more pedestrian scale and safe while providing more options to reach one's desired destination. The new network of neighborhoods would be Local EAC Plan Report Page 26 March 31, 2004 centered on commercial core districts that provide shopping, offices, civic spaces, and services located along major thoroughfares to further enhance economic sustainability and provide opportunities for use of transit to travel from one neighborhood to another. Transit opportunities would also improve access to larger industrial, office, and commercial employment centers. Beyond the establishment of neighborhood focused commercial districts and mixed use neighborhoods will be a more traditional pattern of single family residential development.

Each of these established standards are outlined below.

o Provisions for Transit Accessibility, Article 3 The City of Hickory's Land Development Code places specific requirements for development activities within its non residential zones that stipulate requirements associated with the provision of adequate facilities designed to accommodate public transit vehicles.

o Mixed Use Development, Section 5.1 The LDC provides for the implementation of a Neighborhood Mixed Use Overlay District, which allows for the establishment of retail and office type uses intermingled within residential areas. The overlay's primary intent is to implement the neighborhood based planning polices outlined within Hickory By Choice.

o City Center Pedestrian Overlay District, Section 5.4 This overlay district promotes easy pedestrian access to buildings by prohibiting parking in front of buildings and allowing zero lot line setbacks to further facilitate a pedestrian friendly atmosphere.

o Traditional Development Patterns, Section 6.1 The promotion of traditional development patterns are highlighted within the LDC's Traditional Neighborhood Development ( TND) section. This concept employs the rational of master planned communities. The provisions allow for the development of higher density mixed use development that relies on the fundamentals of pre suburban development patterns.

o Higher Density Residential Development, Section 8.1 The LDC establishes minimum required lot sizes for each of its zoning districts. Within residential zoning districts provisions have been made for the creation of smaller lots, which in turn provide opportunity for higher density residential development patterns.

o Conservation Subdivisions, Section 8.5 Conservation subdivisions provide for the development of property into smaller more dense lots while preserving open space. Typically, the normal density of the tract being developed is still permitted, however the lots are compacted and the remainder of the tract is preserved as open space.

o Provision for Pedestrian Facilities, Section 9.8 The City of Hickory's LDC requires that sidewalks in relation to all development Local EAC Plan Report Page 27 March 31, 2004 activities be installed in conjunctions with the City's Sidewalk, Bikeway, Greenway, and Trail Master Plan. The LDC also stipulates the installation of sidewalks along all proposed roadways servicing residential properties.

o Landscaping and Screening, Section 10.11 The Landscaping and Screening section of the LDC places specific requirements upon new development activities and any alterations and/ or expansions of existing land uses. Specifically the section promotes the preservation of existing vegetation, and in instances where such preservation is not possible the LDC stipulates that required activities provide substantial plantings to provide aesthetically pleasing features that also work along with natural biological systems to promote a beautified and cleaner community.

o Enforcement of Violations, Article 16 Article 16 of the LDC outlines the steps and procedures for the resolution of any and all violations of the provisions contained within the LDC. Such measures include mechanisms to stop work of constructions projects, the revocation of permits, injunction procedures, court ordered abatements, and civil penalties.

City of Conover: a. 2003 Land Development Plan b. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance c. October 2003 d. May 3, 1999 by Ordinance 16 99 e. A 10 year growth and development strategy policy document f. Division 12, Section 312.1 g. Guides growth and development encouraging smart growth practices, infill development, mixed use and cluster developments, bikeways and pedestrian linkages, set policy for a growth area limited to public infrastructure placement. h. Development plans are not approved unless they follow the LDP. i. Development plans are not approved unless in compliance with development regulations. 9. Develop plans to encourage bicycle and pedestrian usage. Hickory has adopted a Sidewalk, Bikeway, Greenway, and Trail Master Plan.

Sidewalk, Bikeway, Greenway, and Trail Master Plan, Adopted September 2000.

This Master Plan establishes a specific set of strategies the City of Hickory is currently under Taking in an effort to expand and/ or develop non vehicular transportation corridors within the City of Hickory. The Master Plan identifies all existing pedestrian oriented facilities, and establishes goals and implementation strategies associated with the expansion of the network. In total the Master Plan identifies a network consisting of two hundred seventy eight ( 278) miles of pedestrian specific transportation corridors. Development proposals are reviewed Local EAC Plan Report Page 28 March 31, 2004 and compared to the Master Plan. If the Master Plan depicts a planned pedestrian facility, the development is required to install the facility during construction.

10. Discourage Open Burning on Ozone Action Days. This is a voluntary program that Local Contractors sign to " Not Burn on Ozone Action Days". This program has been in effect for two years and was considered a success.

11. Support Coordination of Metropolitan Planning Organization and Rural Planning Organization efforts. Support is ongoing.

12. Encourage the use of compressed work weeks or flexible hours. Currently, several of the stakeholders use this technique. As awareness increases we believe this will be used more.

13. Expand transit and ridesharing programs. Currently, the stakeholders are encouraging this type of activity. As awareness increases we believe this type of activity will be used more.

14. Improve traffic operational planning, engineering and maintenance. The City of Hickory currently uses signaling efforts to avoid idling problems and surrounding areas are investigating the possibilities of tying in with the Hickory system to have more efficient trafficking systems. This is believed to be an ongoing project. Local EAC Plan Report Page 29 March 31, 2004 6 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION 6.1 Status of Current Modeling Modeling completed to date include: the base case model evaluation/ validation runs, the current year modeling runs and the preliminary 2007 future year modeling runs. The results of these modeling runs can be viewed at the NCDAQ modeling website:

http:// www. cep. unc. edu/ empd/ projects2/ NCDAQ/ PGM/ results/

NCDAQ will complete the final 2007 future year modeling run with the updates described in the emissions inventory section. Additionally, the continued maintenance demonstration modeling runs for 2012 and 2017 will be completed in the following months. The results of these modeling runs will be part of the State's submittal in December 2004.

Some errors were found in the base year modeling inventories outside of North Carolina. The magnitude of the errors will be evaluated and, if warranted, the base year model evaluation/ validation runs may be re run.

6.2 Preliminary Modeling Results The base case model runs for all three episodes met the validation criteria set by the EPA. The model evaluation statistics can be viewed at the NCDAQ modeling website cited above.

Figures 6.2 1 and 6.2 2 display the modeling results for 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 2000 current year and the 2007 future year, respectively, for the 1996 modeling episode. One can see a significant decrease in the 8 hour ozone episode maximum between the current year and the future year. This is better visualized with Figure 6.2 3, the difference plot between the 2007 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode ( i. e., 2007 modeling result minus 2000 modeling results). In this figure cool colors, the blues and greens, represents decreases in the 8 hour ozone episodic maximum. These decreases were the results of the all of the State and Federal control measures listed in Section 5 that are expected to be in place by 2007.

The 1997 episode shows similar results. Figures 6.2 4 through 6.2 5 are the 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 2000 current year and the 2007 future year, respectively, for the 1997 episode and Figure 6.2 6 is the difference plot between the 2007 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode.

Although the modeling demonstrating continued maintenance of the 8 hour ozone standard into 2012 and 2017 has not been completed to date, modeling has been completed for future year 2010 for a project outside of the EAC modeling. These results can be used to show continued decrease in expected ozone formation beyond the 2007 attainment year.

Modeling results for the 1996 and 1997 episodes using the 2010 future year inventory does continue to show attainment and further reduction in ozone levels compared to the 2007 Local EAC Plan Report Page 30 March 31, 2004 modeling. Figure 6.2 7 and 6.2 8 display the modeling results for the 1996 episode using the 2010 emissions inventory, showing the 8 hour ozone episodic maximum and the difference plot between 2010 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum, respectively. In the 2010 difference plots, cool colors of blue and green represent decreases in the 8 hour ozone episodic maximum. Figures 6.2 9 and 6.2 10 display the 8 hour ozone episodic maximum and difference plot, respectively, for the 1997 episode as modeled for future year 2010 ( compared to current year 2000). These results are consistent with the 1996 episode results.

Figure 6.2 1 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode. Local EAC Plan Report Page 31 March 31, 2004 Figure 6.2 2 2007 future year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode.

Figure 6.2 3 Difference plot between the 2007 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode. Local EAC Plan Report Page 32 March 31, 2004 Figure 6.2 4 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode.

Figure 6.2 5 2007 future year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode. Local EAC Plan Report Page 33 March 31, 2004 Figure 6.2 6 Difference plot between the 2007 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode.

Figure 6.2 7 2010 future year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode. Local EAC Plan Report Page 34 March 31, 2004 Figure 6.2 8 Difference plot between the 2010 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1996 episode.

Figure 6.2 9 2010 future year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode Local EAC Plan Report Page 35 March 31, 2004 Figure 6.2 10 Difference plot between the 2010 future year and the 2000 current year 8 hour ozone episodic maximum for the 1997 episode 6.3 Geographic Area Needing Further Controls The current draft version of EPA's attainment test was applied to the modeling results. In very basic and general language the attainment guidance states if the future year design value for a given monitor is below 0.085 parts per million ( ppm) then the monitor passes the attainment test. The future year design value of a monitor is calculated by multiplying the current year design value of a monitor by a relative reduction factor ( Equation 6.3 1).

DVF = DVC x RRF Equation 6.3 1 Where DVF is the Future year Design Value, DVC is the Current year Design Value, and RRF is the relative reduction factor.

The Current year Design Value ( DVC) in the attainment test framework is defined as the higher of: ( a) the average 4th highest value for the 3 yr period used to designate an area " nonattainment and ( b) the average 4th highest value for the 3 yr period straddling the year represented by the most recent available emissions inventory. In this exercise, the DVC used to designate an area non attainment will be 2001 2003 and the DVC straddling the year represented by the most recent available emissions inventory is 1999 2001. The higher of those two values is shown in Table 6.3 1 as the DVC. Local EAC Plan Report Page 36 March 31, 2004 The relative reduction factor ( RRF) is calculated by taking the ratio of the future year modeling 8 hour ozone daily maximum to the current year modeling 8 hour ozone daily maximum " near" the monitor averaged over all of the episode days ( Equations 6.3 2).

RRF = mean future yr. 8 hr daily max " near" monitor " x" Equation 6.3 2 mean current yr. 8 hr daily max " near" monitor " x"

The results of applying the attainment test showed all monitors in the Unifour EAC area in attainment of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS in 2007. These results are displayed in Table 6.3 1 below.

Table 6.3 1: 2007 Attainment Test Results for the Unifour EAC Area Monitor Name DVC ( ppm) RRF DVF ( ppm) Lenoir 0.088 0.88 0.077 Taylorsville 0.087 0.89 0.077 Table 6.3 2 shows the results of applying the attainment test for the EAC monitors in 2010. These preliminary results indicate that the expected State and Federal control measures already in place by 2010 results in all monitors in the Unifour EAC area attaining the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. In fact, all of the expected future year design values dropped between the 2007 and 2010 modeling runs, indicating that continued maintenance of the standard in 2012 would be expected.

Table 6.3 2: 2010 Attainment Test Results for the Unifour EAC Area Monitor Name DVC ( ppm) RRF DVF ( ppm) Lenoir 0.088 0.82 0.071 Taylorsville 0.087 0.82 0.072 6.4 Anticipated Resource Constraints The resource constraint of most concern is the funding needed to implement some of the local control measures. NCDAQ and the local EAC areas are both looking for grant opportunities to help fund EAC initiatives. Local EAC Plan Report Page 37 March 31, 2004 References:

1. U. S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http:// www. epa. gov/ airs/ criteria. html.

2. McConnell et al. 2002. Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study. Lancet 359: 386 391.

3. U. S. EPA. " Smog   Who Does It Hurt? What You Need to Know about Ozone and Your Health" http:// www. epa. gov/ airnow/ health/ index. html. Local EAC Plan Report Page 38 March 31, 2004 APPENDIX A Stationary Point Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Alamance 0.68 0.66 1.60 0.07 0.76 1.03 Alexander 0.03 0.04 1.38 0.02 0.00 1.66 Alleghany 0.00 0.01 0.03 Anson 0.13 0.46 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ashe 0.23 0.16 0.34 0.03 0.01 1.23 Avery 0.00 0.01 0.00 Beaufort 0.04 0.20 0.30 1.48 2.48 0.34 Bertie 0.69 0.36 0.57 0.18 0.27 1.04 Bladen 0.40 1.19 0.49 0.23 2.33 0.58 Brunswick 14.55 6.64 3.87 4.78 9.81 2.79 Buncombe 1.25 53.32 3.60 13.78 13.79 3.10 Burke 2.55 0.84 5.18 7.87 0.61 13.73 Cabarrus 0.82 3.03 4.06 0.18 2.10 3.60 Caldwell 1.35 1.19 21.88 0.51 0.16 28.09 Camden 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carteret 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.01 0.11 0.00 Caswell Catawba 4.16 96.23 18.81 13.14 51.84 20.46 Chatham 4.51 21.19 2.21 7.90 4.72 2.16 Cherokee 0.02 0.02 0.22 Chowan 0.03 0.21 0.37 0.03 0.15 0.01 Clay Cleveland 0.82 1.70 1.04 0.80 4.46 1.62 Columbus 20.82 15.41 6.93 15.75 9.05 2.53 Craven 4.94 4.21 3.73 4.54 4.94 1.85 Cumberland 1.22 3.16 4.08 0.51 3.76 6.86 Currituck 0.08 0.01 0.00 Dare 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.00 Davidson 3.31 12.16 15.05 3.02 6.34 20.47 Davie 0.17 0.20 1.98 0.09 0.04 3.79 Duplin 0.24 1.10 0.14 1.11 2.41 0.02 Durham 1.00 1.58 1.19 0.30 1.03 5.73 Edgecombe 0.49 5.95 0.90 0.43 7.29 0.02 Forsyth 2.09 6.15 9.76 1.96 6.78 19.96 Franklin 0.28 0.21 1.71 0.01 0.13 0.12 Gaston 3.67 86.48 5.40 21.44 38.21 7.51 Gates 0.08 0.03 0.10 Graham 0.09 0.08 1.29 0.02 0.02 1.38 Granville 0.34 0.36 1.79 0.37 0.13 1.92 Local EAC Plan Report Page 39 March 31, 2004 Stationary Point Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Greene 0.00 0.07 0.00 Guilford 1.59 1.83 18.13 0.17 0.88 39.44 Halifax 6.22 10.72 1.71 17.11 12.80 0.41 Harnett 0.20 0.33 1.12 0.23 0.63 0.62 Haywood 7.85 12.48 5.00 9.26 16.05 2.44 Henderson 0.25 0.31 3.79 0.03 0.43 4.53 Hertford 1.33 0.47 1.13 0.02 0.17 0.24 Hoke 0.08 0.25 0.40 34.24 1.00 10.35 Hyde 0.00 0.04 0.00 Iredell 3.58 9.98 20.42 3.63 11.15 4.37 Jackson 0.60 0.52 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.00 Johnston 0.80 0.46 1.80 0.02 0.15 2.46 Jones Lee 1.37 0.42 1.27 1.14 0.28 0.75 Lenoir 0.63 2.27 1.30 0.14 3.10 0.23 Lincoln 0.76 5.82 2.73 8.90 14.26 2.18 McDowell 2.12 1.04 3.87 0.78 0.71 1.33 Macon 0.11 0.08 0.05 Madison 0.02 0.07 0.00 Martin 10.72 10.38 3.24 31.74 9.97 3.18 Mecklenburg 5.49 2.30 11.99 3.32 3.73 23.26 Mitchell 0.41 0.50 2.49 0.13 0.02 2.09 Montgomery 0.24 0.32 1.99 0.05 0.01 0.02 Moore 0.17 0.14 2.29 0.02 0.00 1.74 Nash 9.02 0.97 2.67 0.50 1.06 0.56 New Hanover 35.65 31.96 6.52 46.31 49.30 6.49 Northampton 1.10 0.30 0.86 0.14 0.30 0.10 Onslow 0.34 1.77 0.16 0.09 1.22 0.02 Orange 2.86 1.80 0.37 3.37 0.78 0.01 Pamlico Pasquotank 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 Pender 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 Perquimans Person 5.79 205.34 1.36 13.83 32.70 1.22 Pitt 1.06 0.88 1.95 0.37 0.75 1.11 Polk 0.02 0.03 0.00 Randolph 0.53 0.38 4.01 0.02 0.07 2.33 Richmond 0.33 0.26 0.17 323.38 11.45 10.71 Robeson 0.92 17.43 1.12 1.64 13.56 2.28 Rockingham 5.60 34.09 16.65 17.02 16.47 8.01 Rowan 2.28 37.52 8.27 15.19 19.17 11.65 Rutherford 3.24 49.60 2.56 4.66 13.67 3.45 Sampson 0.24 0.23 0.22 Local EAC Plan Report Page 40 March 31, 2004 Stationary Point Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Scotland 0.38 6.14 3.60 0.57 8.50 7.33 Stanly 26.81 1.15 1.79 17.59 1.36 1.94 Stokes 8.15 324.10 1.01 5.16 22.79 0.62 Surry 3.28 1.09 6.10 6.10 1.06 4.12 Swain 0.00 0.00 0.12 Transylvania 0.21 5.00 2.83 0.25 7.01 2.55 Tyrrell Union 0.81 0.68 1.81 0.03 0.17 2.54 Vance 0.34 1.52 1.16 0.04 1.45 0.00 Wake 1.59 1.49 4.24 0.27 0.94 10.08 Warren 0.18 0.08 0.07 Washington 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Watauga 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.00 Wayne 5.08 19.84 3.38 24.50 27.43 1.85 Wilkes 1.88 0.97 5.69 3.68 0.83 6.11 Wilson 0.51 1.48 3.74 0.22 2.51 1.99 Yadkin 0.01 0.03 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.03 Yancey Stationary Area Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Alamance 6.21 0.47 5.78 6.65 0.50 6.17 Alexander 3.26 0.20 2.96 3.42 0.21 2.93 Alleghany 1.00 0.08 0.79 1.03 0.08 0.81 Anson 3.83 0.16 1.40 4.14 0.17 1.47 Ashe 2.29 0.17 1.42 2.36 0.17 1.50 Avery 1.61 0.12 0.85 1.66 0.13 0.90 Beaufort 22.68 0.30 5.75 25.28 0.31 5.93 Bertie 6.46 0.16 3.25 7.09 0.17 3.20 Bladen 5.37 0.25 3.08 5.79 0.25 3.13 Brunswick 5.25 0.39 3.12 5.47 0.40 3.26 Buncombe 5.74 0.55 8.11 5.91 0.58 8.66 Burke 4.02 0.32 3.48 4.15 0.33 3.64 Cabarrus 5.81 0.38 5.88 6.26 0.41 6.52 Caldwell 3.19 0.25 3.91 3.32 0.25 4.05 Camden 7.54 0.05 1.35 8.43 0.05 1.40 Carteret 5.22 0.20 2.96 5.67 0.20 3.10 Caswell 3.96 0.18 1.69 4.24 0.19 1.71 Catawba 7.04 0.43 11.22 7.48 0.44 11.37 Chatham 4.82 0.34 2.46 5.18 0.36 2.58 Cherokee 2.29 0.19 1.15 2.35 0.20 1.19 Local EAC Plan Report Page 41 March 31, 2004 Stationary Area Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Chowan 2.70 0.09 1.61 2.96 0.09 1.65 Clay 0.83 0.08 0.46 0.85 0.08 0.51 Cleveland 8.89 0.43 4.45 9.53 0.45 4.70 Columbus 10.62 0.41 5.37 11.52 0.42 5.36 Craven 6.34 0.28 4.92 6.87 0.29 5.06 Cumberland 6.32 0.51 11.54 6.76 0.54 12.12 Currituck 8.37 0.14 1.61 9.27 0.14 1.71 Dare 0.86 0.08 1.21 0.89 0.08 1.30 Davidson 9.36 0.65 7.74 9.81 0.67 7.96 Davie 4.37 0.19 1.76 4.69 0.20 1.87 Duplin 17.79 0.37 5.91 19.65 0.38 5.95 Durham 2.25 0.35 7.67 2.42 0.39 8.18 Edgecombe 4.60 0.25 5.60 4.96 0.26 5.50 Forsyth 3.94 0.40 11.46 4.18 0.44 12.21 Franklin 7.51 0.36 3.18 8.19 0.37 3.25 Gaston 5.05 0.52 6.85 5.35 0.56 7.35 Gates 1.82 0.08 1.14 1.95 0.09 1.12 Graham 0.75 0.06 0.35 0.77 0.06 0.37 Granville 7.05 0.27 3.27 7.65 0.28 3.34 Greene 5.83 0.15 2.95 6.40 0.16 2.88 Guilford 10.99 0.95 19.33 11.77 1.04 20.36 Halifax 9.79 0.30 5.16 10.73 0.31 5.19 Harnett 8.91 0.51 5.74 9.49 0.52 5.80 Haywood 2.44 0.21 2.08 2.51 0.21 2.18 Henderson 4.02 0.37 3.51 4.14 0.38 3.72 Hertford 5.54 0.13 2.34 6.11 0.13 2.38 Hoke 3.54 0.16 1.85 3.82 0.16 1.88 Hyde 4.91 0.05 1.45 5.48 0.05 1.45 Iredell 9.47 0.51 6.14 10.19 0.54 6.46 Jackson 2.45 0.21 1.23 2.52 0.21 1.30 Johnston 12.71 0.73 9.46 13.78 0.76 9.42 Jones 4.70 0.08 1.81 5.20 0.09 1.78 Lee 4.54 0.21 2.57 4.90 0.22 2.68 Lenoir 8.28 0.26 5.44 9.09 0.27 5.45 Lincoln 6.50 0.30 2.82 7.01 0.31 3.04 McDowell 2.28 0.20 1.30 2.35 0.21 1.37 Macon 1.85 0.14 0.98 1.90 0.14 1.02 Madison 1.87 0.18 1.41 1.93 0.18 1.42 Martin 5.52 0.23 3.59 5.93 0.24 3.54 Mecklenburg 4.61 0.99 25.87 4.97 1.12 28.14 Mitchell 1.47 0.11 0.91 1.52 0.11 0.93 Montgomery 2.44 0.18 1.81 2.53 0.19 1.83 Moore 4.97 0.35 3.49 5.20 0.37 3.66 Local EAC Plan Report Page 42 March 31, 2004 Stationary Area Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Nash 9.24 0.42 7.76 10.02 0.44 7.75 NewHanover 0.77 0.12 6.04 0.79 0.13 6.51 Northampton 5.09 0.16 2.65 5.55 0.17 2.60 Onslow 6.21 0.34 5.99 6.59 0.35 6.29 Orange 5.03 0.40 4.54 5.42 0.43 4.79 Pamlico 6.27 0.10 1.38 6.95 0.11 1.44 Pasquotank 12.97 0.14 3.18 14.47 0.14 3.37 Pender 5.90 0.28 2.47 6.30 0.29 2.61 Perquimans 6.91 0.09 1.76 7.68 0.09 1.79 Person 6.29 0.23 2.42 6.85 0.24 2.49 Pitt 9.95 0.46 9.13 10.78 0.47 9.36 Polk 1.57 0.13 0.70 1.61 0.13 0.74 Randolph 10.44 0.66 9.38 11.07 0.68 9.47 Richmond 2.58 0.20 2.01 2.71 0.21 2.11 Robeson 28.32 0.70 9.95 31.17 0.72 10.19 Rockingham 8.86 0.46 4.47 9.48 0.48 4.64 Rowan 9.50 0.46 5.66 10.28 0.49 6.08 Rutherford 4.44 0.31 2.68 4.64 0.33 2.96 Sampson 17.24 0.43 7.57 18.96 0.44 7.53 Scotland 7.55 0.17 2.36 8.33 0.17 2.47 Stanly 8.31 0.32 3.28 9.01 0.33 3.42 Stokes 4.56 0.26 2.42 4.82 0.27 2.45 Surry 6.15 0.37 4.01 6.47 0.38 4.16 Swain 1.22 0.10 0.50 1.26 0.10 0.52 Transylvania 1.75 0.16 1.08 1.80 0.17 1.14 Tyrrell 10.04 0.03 1.72 11.27 0.04 1.79 Union 23.79 0.55 7.20 26.31 0.58 7.68 Vance 4.19 0.19 2.43 4.52 0.19 2.51 Wake 10.49 1.24 24.71 11.31 1.35 26.08 Warren 4.18 0.16 1.44 4.52 0.16 1.47 Washington 12.80 0.08 2.51 14.34 0.09 2.60 Watauga 2.41 0.20 1.82 2.48 0.20 1.91 Wayne 16.32 0.48 7.91 17.91 0.49 8.07 Wilkes 4.79 0.37 3.35 4.95 0.38 3.49 Wilson 5.47 0.29 6.51 5.92 0.30 6.46 Yadkin 6.30 0.23 2.77 6.82 0.23 2.85 Yancey 1.67 0.12 0.90 1.72 0.13 0.92 Non road Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day County 2000 2007 Local EAC Plan Report Page 43 March 31, 2004 CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Alamance 29.54 2.98 2.37 33.64 2.91 2.04 Alexander 4.00 0.51 0.37 4.36 0.53 0.33 Alleghany 2.49 0.36 0.18 2.78 0.33 0.14 Anson 4.19 1.13 0.50 4.55 0.95 0.39 Ashe 3.91 0.44 0.41 4.54 0.43 0.44 Avery 5.37 0.52 0.59 6.39 0.47 0.65 Beaufort 13.85 2.81 2.74 15.07 2.51 2.30 Bertie 6.43 1.66 1.12 6.78 1.48 0.88 Bladen 8.96 1.81 1.44 10.50 1.59 1.66 Brunswick 27.00 2.10 4.70 30.90 1.88 4.16 Buncombe 48.93 4.51 4.43 57.45 4.28 4.27 Burke 14.79 2.10 1.51 16.50 2.05 1.51 Cabarrus 44.68 4.19 3.28 51.35 3.78 2.38 Caldwell 16.55 2.38 1.77 18.65 2.34 1.89 Camden 2.84 0.41 0.99 2.90 0.39 0.80 Carteret 49.17 1.82 14.18 54.95 1.90 12.43 Caswell 2.26 1.07 0.23 2.51 0.85 0.17 Catawba 47.03 5.15 4.20 53.29 5.17 3.95 Chatham 12.91 1.83 1.40 14.40 1.68 1.09 Cherokee 3.99 0.40 0.56 4.58 0.40 0.57 Chowan 4.05 0.47 1.14 4.45 0.46 1.03 Clay 2.19 0.15 0.43 2.72 0.14 0.54 Cleveland 21.51 2.13 1.75 24.58 2.08 1.52 Columbus 9.85 2.12 1.11 11.13 1.89 1.00 Craven 24.08 2.20 2.66 27.45 1.94 1.98 Cumberland 59.31 6.51 4.85 68.38 5.86 3.84 Currituck 15.63 0.77 4.69 17.55 0.77 4.24 Dare 46.18 1.33 18.14 49.76 1.54 15.68 Davidson 30.96 4.24 2.64 35.03 3.90 2.24 Davie 6.77 0.61 0.88 8.20 0.61 1.12 Duplin 10.19 2.36 0.97 11.18 2.13 0.73 Durham 70.50 9.63 6.04 79.17 9.06 5.09 Edgecombe 11.11 2.57 0.97 12.27 2.28 0.78 Forsyth 91.57 6.94 6.70 105.60 6.76 5.27 Franklin 8.37 1.05 0.78 9.71 0.93 0.70 Gaston 54.10 4.77 3.98 61.82 4.70 3.33 Gates 1.58 0.50 0.21 1.69 0.45 0.16 Graham 1.40 0.13 0.25 1.55 0.12 0.20 Granville 13.73 1.39 1.23 15.64 1.32 1.03 Greene 2.31 0.70 0.21 2.52 0.64 0.16 Guilford 194.02 14.69 14.06 226.39 13.97 10.89 Halifax 8.68 2.13 0.92 9.77 1.86 0.83 Harnett 22.07 1.84 1.65 25.33 1.72 1.21 Haywood 11.35 1.08 1.15 13.38 1.00 1.19 Henderson 31.53 2.07 3.82 38.22 1.95 4.41 Local EAC Plan Report Page 44 March 31, 2004 Non road Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Hertford 4.08 0.54 0.48 4.74 0.50 0.48 Hoke 3.35 0.64 0.28 3.61 0.62 0.24 Hyde 25.38 1.93 11.68 25.59 1.94 9.56 Iredell 21.67 2.88 2.10 24.69 2.78 1.97 Jackson 6.55 0.51 0.75 7.75 0.46 0.76 Johnston 35.04 3.41 2.84 40.55 3.09 2.26 Jones 1.83 0.46 0.15 2.05 0.41 0.12 Lee 16.81 2.46 1.35 18.80 2.29 1.07 Lenoir 16.43 2.14 1.31 18.63 2.00 1.01 Lincoln 14.00 1.49 1.27 16.03 1.38 1.10 McDowell 7.93 1.84 1.14 9.18 1.61 1.36 Macon 10.89 0.53 0.97 12.89 0.50 0.91 Madison 1.73 0.56 0.17 1.96 0.45 0.13 Martin 4.71 1.32 0.51 5.37 1.16 0.51 Mecklenburg 351.64 23.31 24.93 298.78 21.99 18.42 Mitchell 3.61 1.02 0.51 4.27 0.85 0.61 Montgomery 4.89 0.71 0.58 5.34 0.66 0.48 Moore 27.52 1.89 1.95 31.86 1.73 1.41 Nash 21.77 2.69 1.71 24.83 2.47 1.32 NewHanover 58.02 4.59 5.80 67.25 4.20 4.55 Northampton 4.56 0.97 0.71 5.20 0.86 0.65 Onslow 26.34 3.52 3.92 29.60 3.21 3.31 Orange 31.55 3.66 3.18 37.13 3.19 3.09 Pamlico 9.11 0.88 3.58 9.63 0.85 3.09 Pasquotank 9.56 0.93 1.42 10.86 0.88 1.12 Pender 13.17 1.02 1.77 15.00 0.95 1.44 Perquimans 3.95 0.65 1.27 4.10 0.60 1.02 Person 8.34 0.85 0.80 9.41 0.82 0.64 Pitt 25.16 4.26 1.98 28.79 3.78 1.53 Polk 2.69 0.46 0.22 3.03 0.39 0.17 Randolph 27.23 2.82 2.20 30.77 2.85 1.94 Richmond 14.38 4.66 1.43 15.38 4.02 1.05 Robeson 19.63 5.97 1.91 21.45 5.21 1.62 Rockingham 15.35 2.44 1.55 17.39 2.26 1.63 Rowan 28.37 5.47 2.59 31.85 4.75 2.11 Rutherford 13.10 2.19 1.27 14.86 2.00 1.27 Sampson 10.67 2.15 0.92 11.89 1.96 0.70 Scotland 8.59 1.82 0.75 9.46 1.64 0.63 Stanly 16.77 2.09 1.54 19.02 1.96 1.29 Stokes 8.18 0.68 0.72 9.54 0.61 0.64 Surry 30.76 1.96 2.43 35.44 1.98 2.05 Swain 4.84 0.35 1.35 6.47 0.32 1.88 Transylvania 15.89 0.68 2.79 20.28 0.67 3.77 Local EAC Plan Report Page 45 March 31, 2004 Non road Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Tyrrell 6.72 0.61 2.94 6.76 0.61 2.38 Union 47.65 3.89 3.56 55.34 3.56 2.71 Vance 6.24 1.24 0.75 6.84 1.14 0.62 Wake 242.05 18.83 17.61 281.90 17.33 12.59 Warren 3.51 0.70 0.58 3.85 0.56 0.43 Washington 5.43 1.03 1.44 5.68 0.95 1.16 Watauga 9.79 0.50 1.19 12.02 0.48 1.41 Wayne 26.05 3.51 2.10 29.98 3.27 1.71 Wilkes 16.62 1.37 1.38 19.09 1.32 1.17 Wilson 23.57 2.99 1.95 27.15 2.67 1.56 Yadkin 6.59 0.89 0.52 7.45 0.83 0.40 Yancey 7.75 0.37 0.87 9.32 0.34 0.94 Highway Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Alamance 93.84 13.48 8.34 54.81 9.52 5.01 Alexander 15.87 1.75 1.41 10.67 1.27 1.02 Alleghany 6.87 0.74 0.61 3.84 0.45 0.37 Anson 22.65 2.93 1.90 14.23 2.00 1.25 Ashe 15.28 1.61 1.36 8.98 1.03 0.86 Avery 13.78 1.66 1.18 7.98 1.05 0.73 Beaufort 31.89 3.55 2.81 19.36 2.35 1.81 Bertie 19.81 2.38 1.70 12.41 1.61 1.14 Bladen 29.89 3.22 2.65 18.60 2.18 1.78 Brunswick 67.90 8.19 5.82 39.68 5.53 3.69 Buncombe 149.98 23.51 13.10 87.96 16.25 7.83 Burke 65.51 12.34 5.64 36.98 7.79 3.38 Cabarrus 69.09 12.04 6.19 50.62 8.59 4.20 Caldwell 44.10 5.01 3.89 25.98 3.41 2.48 Camden 7.47 0.90 0.64 4.68 0.61 0.43 Carteret 43.77 5.41 3.74 22.53 3.19 2.10 Caswell 16.69 2.00 1.44 10.41 1.34 0.95 Catawba 113.03 15.57 10.08 66.68 10.71 6.25 Chatham 45.51 5.79 3.85 27.65 4.01 2.55 Cherokee 17.05 2.25 1.42 12.85 1.73 1.15 Chowan 8.16 0.92 0.72 4.87 0.60 0.45 Clay 6.05 0.68 0.53 3.81 0.46 0.36 Cleveland 68.95 10.19 5.97 37.44 6.17 3.49 Columbus 43.72 5.12 3.80 27.16 3.52 2.47 Craven 57.77 6.75 5.06 34.07 4.53 3.19 Cumberland 197.16 28.43 17.85 108.27 18.56 10.31 Local EAC Plan Report Page 46 March 31, 2004 Highway Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Currituck 21.48 2.50 1.86 14.09 1.77 1.33 Dare 37.56 4.27 3.27 20.22 2.55 1.89 Davidson 105.57 17.25 9.73 61.60 11.04 6.06 Davie 32.17 7.98 2.67 20.32 5.05 1.78 Duplin 46.97 8.80 4.00 32.00 6.34 2.86 Durham 130.59 24.00 11.93 90.71 14.51 7.74 Edgecombe 41.11 4.72 3.61 23.96 3.17 2.28 Forsyth 188.14 33.73 18.97 125.17 19.34 12.44 Franklin 32.41 3.79 2.81 19.70 2.63 1.89 Gaston 87.61 16.61 8.66 56.34 9.20 5.28 Gates 8.85 1.12 0.75 5.30 0.73 0.47 Graham 4.84 0.50 0.43 3.31 0.39 0.32 Granville 48.49 9.82 5.02 27.96 5.43 3.29 Greene 14.77 1.63 1.30 9.41 1.14 0.89 Guilford 274.08 47.66 27.88 179.81 26.94 18.09 Halifax 48.63 11.44 4.09 31.41 7.19 2.75 Harnett 58.38 9.34 5.01 34.75 6.19 3.25 Haywood 58.30 14.16 4.81 33.85 8.92 2.99 Henderson 59.39 10.05 5.15 34.27 6.56 3.17 Hertford 15.08 1.71 1.32 9.26 1.14 0.87 Hoke 18.56 2.22 1.60 12.36 1.62 1.13 Hyde 4.39 0.48 0.39 2.61 0.32 0.25 Iredell 119.96 29.26 10.08 71.75 18.66 6.42 Jackson 36.42 4.77 3.04 23.49 3.29 2.08 Johnston 123.04 28.31 10.21 81.29 19.92 7.25 Jones 14.67 1.89 1.23 8.62 1.19 0.76 Lee 39.67 4.49 3.51 23.25 3.03 2.21 Lenoir 44.38 4.70 4.04 23.50 2.85 2.31 Lincoln 37.27 4.27 3.28 21.48 2.82 2.08 McDowell 42.05 9.85 3.48 26.32 3.48 2.37 Macon 24.61 3.09 2.08 15.13 2.02 1.37 Madison 13.33 1.64 1.14 8.25 1.10 0.75 Martin 25.08 3.06 2.15 15.47 3.65 1.34 Mecklenburg 341.23 67.76 34.75 222.60 36.34 21.26 Mitchell 9.55 1.09 0.83 5.95 0.75 0.55 Montgomery 26.55 3.60 2.27 18.18 2.61 1.66 Moore 53.39 5.90 4.73 29.76 3.77 2.87 Nash 93.59 17.62 7.97 53.90 10.92 4.94 NewHanover 81.67 9.12 7.49 48.41 6.14 4.72 Northampton 23.32 4.79 1.95 13.92 2.79 1.24 Onslow 67.91 7.55 6.03 35.66 4.56 3.41 Orange 62.40 18.80 5.30 44.95 11.91 3.63 Pamlico 9.21 0.93 0.83 5.79 0.64 0.56 Local EAC Plan Report Page 47 March 31, 2004 Highway Mobile Sources Emissions in tons/ day 2000 2007 County CO NOx VOC CO NOx VOC Pasquotank 17.53 1.94 1.57 11.15 1.36 1.03 Pender 40.59 8.15 3.41 28.50 5.88 2.53 Perquimans 9.69 1.24 0.82 6.19 0.86 0.54 Person 21.02 2.25 1.89 12.96 1.51 1.23 Pitt 78.82 8.47 7.05 43.54 5.36 4.24 Polk 19.00 4.60 1.56 13.94 3.39 1.19 Randolph 97.79 13.69 8.46 57.60 9.14 5.31 Richmond 40.70 4.98 3.52 24.96 3.35 2.22 Robeson 107.26 20.38 9.20 61.34 12.86 5.62 Rockingham 66.14 7.51 5.82 37.21 4.86 3.57 Rowan 89.79 17.34 7.75 53.43 11.46 4.96 Rutherford 40.07 4.52 3.53 20.79 2.69 2.01 Sampson 51.06 8.35 4.42 32.73 5.69 2.97 Scotland 29.90 3.44 2.64 18.93 2.37 1.73 Stanly 37.66 4.01 3.39 20.69 2.53 2.03 Stokes 24.78 2.82 2.17 13.71 1.79 1.32 Surry 64.94 12.67 5.54 37.68 7.79 3.49 Swain 13.82 1.69 1.18 7.71 1.01 0.70 Transylvania 22.41 2.47 1.99 14.04 1.68 1.33 Tyrrell 3.78 0.49 0.32 2.31 0.33 0.20 Union 56.79 7.70 5.15 39.75 5.00 3.48 Vance 33.57 6.29 2.89 22.07 4.29 1.95 Wake 306.82 59.29 27.61 224.96 39.69 18.67 Warren 15.84 3.56 1.32 10.53 2.39 0.92 Washington 11.19 1.43 0.94 6.82 0.95 0.60 Watauga 25.14 3.08 2.17 15.08 2.02 1.34 Wayne 68.83 7.28 6.20 39.66 4.84 3.87 Wilkes 47.93 5.55 4.18 25.57 3.39 2.45 Wilson 61.49 10.12 5.37 35.49 6.44 3.32 Yadkin 34.98 7.13 2.92 21.93 4.42 1.92 Yancey 11.33 1.45 0.96 6.74 0.93 0.60 Bladen 0.40 1.19 0.49 0.23 2.33 0.58 Brunswick 14.55 6.64 3.87 4.78 9.81 2.79 Local EAC Plan Report Page 48 March 31, 2004 June 30, 2003 Progress Report APPENDIX B Local EAC Plan Report Page 49 March 31, 2004 Tool Box for Local Control Strategies APPENDIX C Local EAC Plan Report Page 50 March 31, 2004 Resolutions Adopted by EAC Local Governments Adopting Local Control Measures APPENDIX D


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43998]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-112]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0012]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0022; Community Rating System
(CRS) Program--Application Worksheets and Commentary

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0022; FEMA Form
FEMA Form 086-0-23, Community Rating System Application Form and
Manual; 086-0-23A, Community Rating System Annual Recertification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Rating System (CRS) Program--Application
Worksheets and Commentary.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0022.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form FEMA Form 086-0-23, Community
Rating System Application Form and Manual; 086-0-23A, Community Rating
System Annual Recertification.
    Abstract: The CRS Application Worksheet and Commentary are used by
communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to document the activities that
communities have undertaken to mitigate against future flood losses.
The CRS application and activity worksheets provide a step-by-step
process for communities to follow in their effort to achieve the
maximum amount of discount on flood insurance premiums. CRS is a
voluntary program where flood insurance costs are reduced in
communities that implement practices, such as building codes and public
education activities, which are considered to reduce risks of flooding
and promote purchase of flood insurance.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,100.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 7.6818 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,450 Hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no estimated operational, maintenance,
capital or start-up costs associated with this collection.

    Dated: July 16, 2010.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-18335 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P