1. Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

2. Outline Brief Overview of the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) Weight of evidence (WOE) checklist  Step through checklist with examples for Salt Creek  Step through checklist with examples for Badlands

3. WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) Project Goals Provide a single web-based location for:  Access and display of technical data  Display of analytical results  The reference location for related documentation to support the regional haze implementation plans Provide analysis tools to:  Directly support AoH Phase 2 analyses  Synthesize technical and contextual data and GIS layers  Conduct analyses, and store results for subregional, local, and Class I area-specific regional haze planning Provide technical support documentation for WRAP regional haze implementation plans

4. Regional Analysis Results Regional overview of monitoring, modeling, and emissions data Regional overview of attribution results http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

5. Class I Area Analysis Tools Metadata Browser provides site information/maps Analysis Browser (regional and Class I area “static”) Data Query Wizard supports user direct download of various data types Trends Tool Composition Tool Data Browser (graphical review of various data types) Offsite Resources http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

6. TSS Documentation Documentation of data and analyses types will be place in the Methods section, accessible from the left-hand navigation pane in the TSS This documentation will be accessible through hyperlinks elsewhere on the TSS http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

7. Review of WOE Checklist Steps 1)Assemble summary of available information 2)Review RHR analysis of visibility conditions 3)Review analysis of visibility conditions by individual species 4)Review monitoring uncertainties and model performance for each species 5)Integrate information about each species 6)Investigate specific questions that arise in steps 2 – 6 7)Repeat steps 2 – 6 for various control strategies 8)Review available attribution information and determine which states need to consult about which Class I areas

8. WOE Products for Salt Creek, NM

9. Baseline Conditions at Salt Creek, NM 20% Worst Vis. Days SpeciesContribution SulfateHigh NitrateHigh OrganicsMedium ECLow CMHigh SoilLow

10. Distribution of Fine Soil Mass: Salt Creek 2002 Low impact from Soil on most days

11. Distribution of Coarse Mass: Salt Creek 2002 15 of 23 worst days show CM >10 ug/m3

12. Regional Haze Rule Glide Path for Salt Creek Model results for the 2018 base case do not predict Salt Creek’s visibility (in terms of deciview) will be on or below the glide path

13. Species Glide Paths for Salt Creek symbol represents 2018 model prediction Sulfate and carbon generally follow the glide path; nitrate, soil and CM do not (CM prediction is shown for reference only)

14. IMPROVE (top) vs. Model (bottom) Model often under predicts measured extinction; largely due to poor performance of coarse mass

15. 2002 Model Performance, Worst Days Poor performance on some days Sulfate somewhat low on average Nitrate, carbon, and soil low CM shows very poor performance

16. Soil Glide Slope with Weighted Emissions

17. Coarse Mass Glide Slope with Weighted Em. The modeling center recommends that we do not use coarse mass modeling results

18. Calculating Weighted Emissions Potential for a Class I Area X= EmissionsResidence TimesWeighted Emissions Potential Use annual average emissions Use residence times based on 3 – 5 years of 8-day back trajectories (20% worst days or all days) Very low residence time values have been ignored Results do not take into account chemical reactions, dispersion or deposition – some correction required

19. Salt Creek: Soil Total soil emissions X residence time = weighted emissions potential Weighted emissions potential represents most probable source region emissions which contribute to soil at the selected monitoring site. These weighted emissions likely implicate too large an area of influence

20. Salt Creek: Coarse Mass Total CM emissions X residence time = weighted emissions potential Weighted emissions potential represents most probable source region emissions which contribute to CM at the selected monitoring site. These weighted emissions likely implicate too large an area of influence

21. WOE Products for Badlands, SD

22. Baseline Conditions at Badlands, SD 20% Worst Vis. Days SpeciesContribution SulfateHigh NitrateMedium OrganicsMedium ECLow CMMedium SoilLow

23. Distribution of Fine Soil Mass: Badlands 2002 Low impact from Soil on all days

24. Distribution of Coarse Mass: Badlands 2002 12 of 23 worst days show CM >10 ug/m3

25. Regional Haze Rule Glide Path for Badlands Model results for the 2018 base case do not predict Badlands’ visibility (in terms of deciview) will be on or below the glide path

26. Species Glide Paths for Badlands symbol represents 2018 model prediction POM, the second most significant contributor, does not follow the glide path (CM prediction is shown for reference only) (Is this nitrate real?)

27. IMPROVE (top) vs. Model (bottom) Seasonal variations in major species is reasonably similar

28. 2002 Model Performance, Worst Days Sulfate and carbon somewhat low Nitrate and soil somewhat high CM shows very poor performance

29. Soil Glide Slope with Weighted Emissions

30. Coarse Mass Glide Slope with Weighted Em. The modeling center recommends that we do not use coarse mass modeling results

31. Badlands: Soil Total soil emissions X residence time = weighted emissions potential Weighted emissions potential represents most probable source region emissions which contribute to soil at the selected monitoring site. These weighted emissions likely implicate too large an area of influence

32. Badlands: Coarse Mass Total CM emissions X residence time = weighted emissions potential Weighted emissions potential represents most probable source region emissions which contribute to CM at the selected monitoring site. These weighted emissions likely implicate too large an area of influence