Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.

Published byCharles Garrett Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp.com Presented at: Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Francisco, California June 3, 2003

2 2 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

3 3 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

4 4 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

5 5 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Section 309 SIP/TIP Modeling Requirements Demonstrate that SO 2 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

6 6 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

7 7 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains

8 8 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Components of Light Extinction Light scattering and absorption – SO4 sulfate, ammonium sulfate SO 4 (NH 4 ) 2 – NO3nitrate, ammonium nitrate NO 3 NH 4 – OC organic compound/organic matter OC, OM, SOA – EC elemental carbon Soot – PMFother fine particulates (<2.5  )Soil – PMCcoarse PM (2.5 - 10  )PM 2.5-10 NO2 absorption considered a plume blight issue and not typically accounted for in regional haze assessments

9 9 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Components of Light Extinction (continued) Associated with each species is an “extinction coefficient” that converts concentration (  g/m 3 ) to light extinction (Mm -1 ) Total visibility impairment is obtained as the sum of extinction due to each species:

10 10 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

11 11 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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)

12 12 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

13 13 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

14 14 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

15 15 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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)

16 16 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

17 17 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

18 18 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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)

19 19 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas

20 20 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

21 21 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

22 22 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

23 23 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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 – SO 2 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)

24 24 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

25 25 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt (BSM-OSM)

26 26 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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

27 27 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

28 28 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

29 29 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

30 30 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

31 31 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

32 32 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

33 33 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

34 34 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

35 35 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

36 36 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 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?

Download ppt "1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results."

Similar presentations

Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.

Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.

Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Technical Review Workshop Report Technical Oversight Committee for the WRAP Board Meeting – July 24, 2002.

Technical Review Workshop Report Technical Oversight Committee for the WRAP Board Meeting – July 24, 2002.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,

NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.

2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.

Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.
AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November 15 - 18, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
Fire Emissions Joint Forum –Section 308 Strategies for Fire Coordinating efforts of states changing or developing smoke management strategies for regional.

Fire Emissions Joint Forum –Section 308 Strategies for Fire Coordinating efforts of states changing or developing smoke management strategies for regional.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.

TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
CMAQ Evaluation Preliminary 2002 version C WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Annual CMAQ Performance Evaluation using Preliminary 2002 version C Emissions.

CMAQ Evaluation Preliminary 2002 version C WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Annual CMAQ Performance Evaluation using Preliminary 2002 version C Emissions.
2004 Workplan WRAP Regional Modeling Center Prepared by: Gail Tonnesen, University of California Riverside Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Zac Adelman,

2004 Workplan WRAP Regional Modeling Center Prepared by: Gail Tonnesen, University of California Riverside Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Zac Adelman,
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.

PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
UC Riverside FEJF Meeting, Las Vegas, NV Dec 8, 2004 UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. WRAP/RMC Fire Sensitivity Modeling Project Mohammad Omary, Gail Tonnesen WRAP.

UC Riverside FEJF Meeting, Las Vegas, NV Dec 8, 2004 UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. WRAP/RMC Fire Sensitivity Modeling Project Mohammad Omary, Gail Tonnesen WRAP.
Update on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural Conditions Estimates Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Coordinator May 23, 2006.

Update on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural Conditions Estimates Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Coordinator May 23, 2006.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.

Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.

Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,

WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) 2000-2010 IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.

MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google