Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp

Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 1

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

Preliminary Fire Modeling Results

Presented by:Ralph Morris

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)[email protected]

Presented at:Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting

San Francisco, CaliforniaJune 3, 2003


WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)• University of California at Riverside (UCR)

– Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Jung Chien, etc.– Host RMC, CMAQ Modeling, Analysis

• ENVIRON International Corporation– Ralph Morris, Gerry Mansell, Steve Lau, etc.– Interpretation of Results, MM5 & REMSAD Modeling

• UNC Carolina Environmental Program (MCNC)– SMOKE Emissions Modeling

• WRAP Modeling Forum Co-Chairs– John Vimont (NPS), Mary Uhl (NM), Kevin Briggs (CO)

• WRAP Technical Coordinators– Tom Moore and Lee Alter


Content of Today’s Talk• Overview of WRAP Objectives• Overview of Visibility Calculations• WRAP §309 SIP/TIP Modeling Approach• CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation• Use of Modeling Results to Project Future-Year Visibility• Fire Management Practice Modeling• Glide Path Slopes toward Natural Visibility Conditions• Estimated 2018 Visibility Progress for §309 Scenarios

– Scenario #1: P2 + Annex + BSM– Scenario #2: P2 + Annex + OSM


WRAP Visibility Objectives

• §309 SIP/TIP due 2003– 9 “Grand Canyon” states may opt-in (AZ, CA, CO,

ID, NV, NM. OR, UT, and WY).– Focus on 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau

• §308 SIP/TIP due 2008– 2000-2004 visibility baseline– 2018 end of first planning period– Show progress toward natural visibility conditions

by 2064


Section 309 SIP/TIP Modeling Requirements

• Demonstrate that SO2 Annex Milestone control strategy is better than BART with Uncertainty

• Analyze “significance” of Mobile Source and Road Dust at 16 Class I Areas

• Estimate visibility improvements in 2018 due to §309 All Control Strategy

• Evaluate PM/NOx point source controls• Evaluate alternative fire management practices


WRAP §309 Modeling Approach

• 1996 Baseline Modeling Period• 36-km Grid Covering Western US• SMOKE emissions modeling system using

emissions provided by WRAP and EPA• Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality

(CMAQ) modeling system• REMSAD model dropped from §309 modeling

due to time/resource constraints


WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains


Components of Light Extinction

• Light scattering and absorption– SO4 sulfate, ammonium sulfate SO4(NH4)2

– NO3 nitrate, ammonium nitrate NO3NH4

– OC organic compound/organic matter OC, OM, SOA

– EC elemental carbon Soot– PMF other fine particulates (<2.5) Soil– PMC coarse PM (2.5 - 10) PM2.5-10

• NO2 absorption considered a plume blight issue and not typically accounted for in regional haze assessments


Components of Light Extinction (continued)

• Associated with each species is an “extinction coefficient” that converts concentration (g/m3) to light extinction (Mm-1)

• Total visibility impairment is obtained as the sum of extinction

due to each species:

BRayleigh = 10BNO2 = 0.17 [NO2]Bsulfate = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4]Bnitrate = 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3]BEC = 10 [EC]BOC = 4 [OC]Bfine = 1 [PMfine]Bcoarse = 0.6 [PMcoarse]

Bext = BRayleigh + BNO2 + Bsulfate + Bnitrate + BEC + BOC + Bfine + Bcoarse


WRAP Visibility Modeling (continued)

• CMAQ 1996 Annual Runs– ~ 110 Gb of emission inputs– ~ 130 GB of other inputs– ~ 365 Gb of output

• Initially annual simulations required 2 weeks– Multiprocessing allows runs to be completed in as

little as 3 days• Challenge is processing 365 Gb of output into

regulatory relevant results


WRAP Visibility Modeling (continued)• SMOKE emissions modeling becomes

bottleneck– SMOKE QA/QC did not catch all errors in

processing• Errors in treating holidays as weekdays• Many 2018 scenarios errors in allocating elevated

sources dropped emissions• OSM vs BSM errors not caught

– Interpretation of results requires matching runs in a consistent fashion (i.e., with common errors)


WRAP CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation

• ~30 IMPROVE sites in western US• Issues in matching monitored species with

modeled species– Reconstructed Mass Equations– Actual Species

• How to display results to convey performance• WRAP RMC website has 100s of scatterplots and

time series plots by site, by day, by month:http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/rmc/models/index.shtml


1996 CMAQ Model Performance Issues

• Nitrate overprediction bias especially in Winter and Spring/Fall– Ammonia emissions overstated under cold

conditions• 2003 project to improve ammonia emissions

– Deposition of ammonia and nitrate underestimated– June 2002 CMAQ release new heterogeneous

nitrate formation• Exacerbated nitrate overprediction bias


1996 CMAQ Model Performance Issues

• Some skill in sulfate estimates• EC, OC, and especially Soil highly scattered• Coarse Matter (CM) greatly underestimated

– Missing local (subgrid-scale) impacts– Missing wind blown fugitive dust– 2003 project to develop wind blown dust inventory

• Relatively better model performance is exhibited at sites on the Colorado Plateau and in the summer months when the Worst 20% days occur


Projecting Future-Year Visibility• Follow EPA draft guidance for projecting future-

year visibility (EPA, 2001a,b,c)• Use model in a relative fashion to scale the current

(1996) observed visibility for the Best 20% and Worst 20% days based on the ratio of the 2018 to 1996 modeling results– Relative Reductions Factors (RRFs)– Class I Area specific– Specific for each component of light extinction

(SO4, NO3, EC, OC, Soil, and CM)


Projecting Future-Year Visibility

• Accounting for missing fugitive dust emissions– No wind blown fugitive dust in inventory– Major component of observed Soil and CM– Model estimated RRFs for Soil and CM are in error

• Set RRFs for Soil and CM to unity• RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0• Assumes 2018 Soil and CM concentrations are the

same as 1996


Glide Path Slope Values to Natural Visibility Conditions (NVC)

• 2000-2004 Observed Baseline Visibility Conditions (Anchors Glide Path Slope)– Worst 20% Days: Progress toward Natural

Visibility Conditions in 2064 with Planning Periods ending at 2018, 2028, 2038, 2048, 2058, and 2064

– Best 20% Days: No Degradation in Visibility• Glide Path Slope Values assumes linear progress

to Natural Visibility Conditions in 2064


Preliminary Glide Path Slope Values to NVC• Use most current five-years of observed visibility

to anchor Glide Path 2004 starting point for Worst 20% average visibility– 1995-1999 used in preliminary analysis– Soon to be updated with 1997-2001 data

• Map Observed Visibility Conditions from Class I Areas with IMPROVE Monitoring to Nearby Similar Unmonitored Class I Areas

• Use current EPA draft guidance for natural visibility conditions (NVC) for worst days (EPA, 2001)


Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas

-1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

BADL01

BAND02

BIBE03

BOWA04

BRCA05

BRID06

CANY07

CHIR08

CRLA09

GICL10

GLAC11

GRBA12

GRCA13

GRSA14

GUMO15

JARB16LAVO17

MEVE18

MORA19

MOZI20

PEFO21

PINN22

PORE23

REDW24

ROMO25

SAGO26

SEQU27

SNPA28

THSI29

TONT30

UPBU31

WEMI32

YELL33

YOSE34

AGTI26

ALLA28

ANAC11

ARCH07

BADL01

BAND02

BIBE03

BLCA32

BODE10

BOMA11BOWA04

BRCA05

BRID06

CACR31

CAMO11

CANY07CARE07

CARI17

CAVE15CHIR08CHW I08

CRLA09

CRMO16

CUCA26

DESO34

DIPE29

DOLA27

EACA16

EANE25EMIG34

FITZ06

FLTO20

GALI08

GAOF11

GEMO09

GILA10

GLAC11

GLPE28

GORO19

GRCA13

GRSA14

GRTE33

GUMO15

HECA16

HERC31

HOOV34

ISRO04

JARB16

JOMU27

JOTR26

KAIS27

KALM24

KICA27

LABE17

LAGA14

LAVO17

LOST01

MABE32

MAMO24

MAZA30

MELA01

MEVE18

MIMO11

MINA34

MING31

MOAD19

MOBA21

MOHO29

MOJE29

MOKE34

MOLA09

MORA19

MOWA29

MOZI20

NOAB33

NOCA28

OLYM28

PASA28

PECO02

PEFO21

PIMO30

PINN22

PORE23RAWA25

REDW24

RERO33

ROMO25

SACR10

SAGA26SAGO26

SAGU08

SAJA26

SAPE02

SARA22

SAWT16

SCAP11

SELW16

SEQU27

SIAN30

SOWA17

STMO29

SUPE30

SYCA13

TETO33

THLA17

THRO01

THSI29

ULBE01

UPBU31

VENT22

VOYA04

WASH33

WEEL32

WEMI32

WHMO10

WHPE02

W ICA01

W IMO31

YELL33

YOBO17

YOSE34

ZION05

Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 20-1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400

-900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

BAND02

BRCA05

CANY07

CHIR08

GICL10

GRCA13

GRSA14

GUMO15

MEVE18

MOZI20

PEFO21

ROMO25

TONT30

WEMI32

ARCH07

BAND02

BLCA32

BODE10

BRCA05

CANY07CARE07

CAVE15CHIR08CHWI08

EANE25FLTO20

GALI08

GILA10

GRCA13

GRSA14

GUMO15

LAGA14

MABE32

MAZA30

MEVE18

MOBA21

MOZI20

PECO02

PEFO21

PIMO30

RAWA25

ROMO25

SAGU08

SAPE02

SIAN30SUPE30

SYCA13

WEEL32

WEMI32

WHMO10

WHPE02

ZION05


Preliminary Glide Path Estimates

• Using Preliminary 1995-1999 Observed Data– Will soon update to 1997-2001 observations

• Based on Current EPA Draft Guidance for Natural Visibility Conditions and f(RH) Values (EPA, 2001)– Revised Draft EPA Guidance expected soon

• New f(RH) values are generally slightly lower• Have updated Glide Path Slope Value plots with

new (2001) information


Projecting 2018 Visibility Improvements

• Use relative changes in modeling results between 1996 and 2018 for average of Worst 20% (Best 20%) days to scale visibility baseline (1995-1999 observed visibility)– Effects of changes in Soil and CM not accounted

for [RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0]• 2018 Projections for 2018 §309 All Control

Strategies Scenario


2018 §309 All Control Strategy Scenarios#1&#2• Area, Road Dust, Off-Road, On-Road Emissions

– 2018 Base Case Conditions• Biogenic Emissions

– 1996 Base Case Conditions• “Typical year” Wildfires Base Case• Point Sources

– SO2 Annex Milestones + Pollution Prevention)• Agricultural and Forest/Range Prescribed Fires

– Scenario#1: Base Smoke Management (BSM)– Scenario#2: Optimal Smoke Management (OSM)

• Example Emission Difference Plots for EC– Scenario#1 – Scenario#2 (BSM-OSM)


(BSM-OSM)


2018 Reasonable Progress Plots

• 2018 Reasonable Progress Target Based on Preliminary Information– 1994-1999 Observed Visibility– Preliminary f(RH) and Natural Conditions– Straight Line Projection from 2004 to 2064

• BSM Versus OSM Scenarios– Potential error in OSM scenario with daily

emissions sometimes higher than BSM


Utah/Neveda Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

0

5

10

15

20

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 12.94 12.96 12.83 13.00 12.89 15.17

309 Scenario 1 12.31 12.24 12.17 12.48 12.03 14.85

309 Scenario 2 12.40 12.09 12.21 12.59 12.12 14.80

2018 RP Estimates 11.17

Arches NP Bryce Canyon NP Canyonlands NP Capitol Reef NP Zion NP Jarbidge Wilderness


Arizona Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

0

5

10

15

20

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 13.47 13.45 13.12 12.23 14.89 12.70 12.65 14.95 12.92 14.96 14.89 12.64

309 Scenario 1 12.78 12.76 12.26 11.68 14.26 12.06 11.82 14.32 12.16 14.25 13.90 12.00

309 Scenario 2 12.78 12.76 12.28 11.73 14.19 12.36 11.87 14.24 12.17 14.23 13.90 12.06

2018 RP Estimates 12.12 12.12 12.11 13.04 13.04 12.10 13.04 13.04

Chiricahua NM

Chiricahua

Wilder

Galiuro

Wilder

Grand Canyon NP

Mazatzal

Wilder

Mount Baldy Wilder

Petrified

Forest

Pine Mount

ain

Saguaro NP

Wilder

Sierra Ancha Wilder

Superstition

Wilder

Sycamore

Canyo


Colorado Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 11.65 13.92 11.63 12.39 12.19 11.87 12.37 12.31 13.93 13.83 11.75 11.54

309 Scenario 1 10.81 12.59 10.78 11.73 11.62 11.07 11.84 11.61 13.01 13.01 10.92 10.82

309 Scenario 2 10.76 12.95 10.90 11.73 11.55 11.00 11.82 11.59 13.27 13.11 10.84 10.70

2018 RP Estimates 11.62 11.17 11.15 10.39 11.62 11.61

Black Canyon of Gunnison

Eagles Nest Wilderness

Flat Tops Wilderness

Great Sand Dunes NM

La Garita Wilderness

Maroon Bells-

Snowmass

Mesa Verde NP

Mount Zirkel

Wilderness

Rawah Wilderness

Rocky Mountain

NP

West Elk Wilderness

Weminuche Wilderness


Idaho Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

02468

1012141618

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 15.03 15.10 14.95 15.39

309 Scenario 1 14.65 14.81 14.40 15.05

309 Scenario 2 14.42 14.72 14.22 14.86

2018 RP Estimates 11.18 11.21 11.18 11.21

Craters of The Moon Wilderness

Hells Canyon Wilderness Sawtooth Wilderness Selway-Bitterroot

Wilderness


Montana Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

02468

101214161820

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 17.85 18.20 18.39 17.50 18.73 18.44 18.19 15.15 17.81 17.69

309 Scenario 1 17.45 17.69 17.73 16.90 18.38 18.11 17.55 14.81 17.23 17.22

309 Scenario 2 17.16 17.44 17.47 16.65 18.17 18.05 17.31 14.37 16.97 17.20

2018 RP Estimates 16.04 16.07 16.08 16.03 16.11 15.13 16.07 11.56 16.04 15.10

Anaconda-Pintler

Wildernes

Bob Marshall Wildernes

Cabinet Mountain

s

Gates of the

Mountain

Glacier NP

Medicine Lake

Wildernes

Mission Mountain Wildernes

Red Rock Lakes

Wildernes

Scapegoat Wildernes

s

UL Bend Wildernes

s


New Mexico Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

02468

1012141618

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 12.73 14.84 15.19 15.40 12.78 15.12 12.72 14.99 12.95

309 Scenario 1 12.14 14.19 14.39 14.82 12.20 14.52 12.11 14.37 12.28

309 Scenario 2 11.79 14.23 14.38 14.56 11.90 14.52 11.81 14.37 12.26

2018 RP Estimates 11.76 13.51 14.59 13.51 11.76 13.51 13.51 11.77

Bandelier NM

Bosque del Apache

Wilderness

Carlsbad Caverns NP

Gila Wilderness

Pecos Wilderness

Salt Creek Wilderness

San Pedro Parks

Wilderness

White Mountain

Wilderness

Wheeler Peak

Wilderness


Oregon Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 15.77 16.08 15.11 15.37 16.30 15.14 16.06 15.52 15.43

309 Scenario 1 15.36 15.58 14.78 15.02 15.71 14.77 15.32 15.14 14.84

309 Scenario 2 15.27 15.58 14.80 14.84 15.52 14.74 15.01 15.00 14.96

2018 RP Estimates 12.23 14.61 11.20 12.17 15.99 14.61 14.61 12.20 14.61

Crater Lake NP

Diamond Peak

Wilderness

Eagle Cap Wilderness

Gearhart Mountain

Wilderness

Kalmiopsis Wilderness

Mount Hood Wilderness

Mount Jefferson

Wilderness

Mountain Lakes

Wilderness

Three Sisters Wilderness


Washington Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

02468

101214161820

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 16.26 16.24 18.33 18.43 18.67 16.33 16.65 16.23

309 Scenario 1 15.02 15.05 16.90 17.00 17.31 15.19 15.68 15.14

309 Scenario 2 14.98 14.95 16.78 16.86 17.24 15.07 15.45 15.08

2018 RP Estimates 15.76 15.75 16.60 16.61 16.63 15.76 15.79 15.75

Alpine Lakes Wilderness

Glacier Peak Wilderness

Goat Rocks Wilderness

Mount Adams

Wilderness

Mount Rainier NP

North Cascades NP Olympic NP Pasayten

Wilderness


Wyoming Section 309 Modeling Results Preliminary 2018 Reasonable Progress Estimates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Haz

e In

dex

(dec

ivie

ws)

1996 Modeled Base 12.36 12.51 15.05 15.16 15.12 15.08 15.18

309 Scenario 1 11.53 11.87 14.61 14.76 14.68 14.68 14.82

309 Scenario 2 11.58 11.82 14.38 14.44 14.45 14.38 14.35

2018 RP Estimates 10.17 10.16 11.55 11.55 11.55 11.55 11.55

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Grand Teton NP

North Absaroka

Wilderness

Teton Wilderness

Washakie Wilderness

Yellowstone NP


BSM Versus OSM Results

• OSM Emissions Sometimes Higher Than BSM– Results in worsening in visibility if occurs during a

day from the Worst 20% days• Need to Develop New OSM Emissions Inventory?

– UNC/CEP emissions development delayed by lack of 2003 contract

• Additional Fire Management Scenarios to be Modeled?

Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp

Documents

Transcript of Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp