Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) February 25, 2015

2 Summary 3SAQS Base 2011 version A (Base11a) MPE Recap Additions to the Base11a evaluation suite GEOS-Chem BC sensitivity Platform release Status and Next Steps

3 3SAQS Pilot Project Timeline OCT 2012 Pilot Project Start JAN 2013 EI Improvement Meetings With CO, UT, WY NOV-DEC 2012 CO, UT, WY 2008 EI Analysis and Evaluation FEB SAQS Monitoring Network Report OCT 2013 WRF 2011 Sensitivities AUG 2014 CAMx 2008b, WRF 2011, 2011 Oil & Gas EI, 2011a Emissions JUL 2014 Final 2008 Emissions OCT 2014 CAMx 2011a MPE SEP 2014 SMOKE 2011a NOV APR 2015 CAMx 2011 Sensitivities AUG 2012 CAMx 2008a JUN 2012 Emissions VOC Reactivity Analysis FEB-MAY EI Modeling MAR-JUN EI Modeling

4 3SAQS Pilot Project Timeline OCT 2012 Pilot Project Start JAN 2013 EI Improvement Meetings With CO, UT, WY NOV-DEC 2012 CO, UT, WY 2008 EI Analysis and Evaluation FEB SAQS Monitoring Network Report OCT 2013 WRF 2011 Sensitivities AUG 2014 CAMx 2008b, WRF 2011, 2011 Oil & Gas EI, 2011a Emissions JUL 2014 Final 2008 Emissions OCT 2014 CAMx 2011a MPE SEP 2014 SMOKE 2011a NOV APR 2015 CAMx 2011 Sensitivities AUG 2012 CAMx 2008a JUN 2012 Emissions VOC Reactivity Analysis FEB-MAY EI Modeling MAR-JUN EI Modeling Dec 2015 – Mar 2015 Additional MPE for Simulation Base11a

5 3SAQS Base 2011a MPE Draft 1 of the 2011a MPE report released November 2014 Comments received through mid-December – Style and grammar comments – QC of observational data – Include additional observational networks – Include analyses of VOCs, CH 4, NH 3, dry deposition, visibility, and meteorology inputs – Time-series at all monitors – Hourly spatial plots – Summary of “next steps” or “to be investigated” items – Stand-alone diagnostic modeling protocol – Stand-alone emission report

6 3SAQS Base 2011a MPE Draft 1 of the 2011a MPE report released November 2014 Comments received through mid-December Style and grammar comments – QC of observational data Include additional observational networks Include analyses of VOCs, CH 4, NH 3, dry deposition, visibility, and meteorology inputs Time-series at all monitors Hourly spatial plots Summary of “next steps” or “to be investigated” items – Stand-alone diagnostic modeling protocol Stand-alone emission report

7 3SAQS Base 2011a MPE 2-slide summary of 2011a MPE Summer O 3 OK Too little winter O 3 Too much NO 2 All AQS and CASTNet sites 4-km domain Myton, UT MDA8 Colorado AQS NO 2

8 3SAQS Base 2011a MPE High seasonal PM 2.5 bias PM performance issues with all species Wet deposition too low IMPROVE Total PM 2.5 CSN Total PM 2.5

9 3SAQS Base 2011a MPE December – February Progress – January call for additional observational data 3SAQS Monitoring Wiki (link)link – GEOS-Chem boundary condition sensitivity – VOC evaluation – Ammonia evaluation against AMoN – Additional PM evaluation metrics – Evaluation with O&G production monitors UGWOS, Uintah Basin, Garfield County – Emissions modeling report

10 GEOS-Chem (GC) BC Sensitivity Moderate impacts on ozone performance – In general, GC < MOZART (MZ) for most species All AQS and CASTNet sites 4-km domain

11 GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity GC BCs have major impact on PM performance at rural monitors IMPROVE Total PM km UT CO WY

12 GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity GC BCs have a smaller impact at urban monitors CSN Total PM km UT CO WY

13 GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity GC BCs also produce less organic aerosol at rural sites IMPROVE OC 4-km UT CO WY

14 GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity Persistent urban organic aerosol performance deficits CSN OC 4-km UT CO WY

15 GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity 3SAQS Base2011a2 – We recommend replacing the 2011 base case (Base2011a) with the GCBC sensitivity simulation – Small changes to ozone and NO2 – Improvements to total PM 2.5 (other PM)

16 Garfield County, CO VOCs 4 Locations in Garfield County with speciated VOC measurements in 2011 (monitor map)monitor map – Parachute (PACO) – small urban location, close to O&G development/production; transportation hub – Rifle (RICO) – urban center, close to O&G development/production; industrial hub – Bell-Melton (BRCO) – rural site, near O&G development locations – Battlement Mesa (BMCO) – rural site, near large natural gas development locations

17 Garfield County, CO VOCs Weekly 24-hour average speciated VOCs and carbonyls Similar data available for Grand Junction- Pitkin in Mesa County, CO Preprocess observations for model comparison – Convert to CB6 speciation – Set obs floor at 0.5*Min. Detection Limit

18 Total VOC

19 Total VOC

20 Ethane Paraffin Group

21 Formaldehyde Olefin Group

22 Isoprene Toluene

23 Formaldehyde

24 Formaldehyde

25 Formaldehyde

26 Ethane

27 Ethane

28 VOC Evaluation – Next Steps Complete analysis with the Grand Junction- Pitkin (speciated VOC), UGWOS (total VOC), WY DEQ (total VOC), and BOA tower (speciated VOC) Include a recommendation for additional analyses and sensitivity modeling to address the VOC performance in the MPE report

29 AMoN Ammonia ~2 week averages at 13 monitors in the 4-km domain – 9 of the monitors have data in 2011 – 4 monitors cover 2011 in its entirety Averaged CAMx output across the observation periods (i.e. 2 week averages) To address the scarcity in 2011 observations we tried averaging all of the data at each monitor

30 AMoN Ammonia – CO Sites Ft. Collins, CO RMNP, Longs Peak, CO RMNP, Loch Vale, CO

31 AMoN Ammonia – UT & WY Sites Logan, UT Salt Lake City, UT Grand Teton NP, WY

32 AMoN Ammonia – ID & NM Sites Craters of the Moon NM, ID Navajo Lake, NM Farmington, NM

33 AMoN Ammonia – Logan, UT Logan, UT started reporting measurements in November 2011 Plot above shows averaged obs from Interesting trend at this site is that the model is predicting relatively high NH 3 concentrations

34 Ammonia Evaluation – Next Steps Multi-year averages of the AMoN observations is not a good idea The averages tend to be higher than the 2011 data Comparing the model to the averages will increase the model bias Evaluate against the Summer 2011 Front Range NH 3 measurements from Li & Collett Look at Logan, UT relative to the other sites in 3- state region

35 PM Evaluation 2011a MPE used seasonal, monthly, and urban/rural PM evaluation metrics Spring 2011 PM2.5 Fractional Bias 4-km domain seasonal PM2.5 Winter 4-km domain monthly IMPROVE PM2.5 Utah winter CSN PM2.5 species

36 PM Evaluation Requests to see higher temporal (daily timeseries) and spatial (site-specific) analyses Level plots show the monthly average NMB at each site Colorado IMPROVE SO 4 plot shows that White River NF and Mt. Zirkel Wilderness tend to have the highest biases

37 PM Evaluation Mount Zirkel timeseries shows model over estimates SO 4 in winter months Model captures some of the observed trends but misses magnitudes

38 PM Evaluation – Next Steps Analyze level and timeseries plots for monitors in the three states to investigate PM performance issues – Source of large positive biases in winter OC at urban sites – Negative summer NO3 biases Provide recommendations for sensitivity modeling to diagnose PM performance issues – Investigate partitioning coefficients and vapor pressure for organic PM – Source apportionment modeling

39 O&G Monitoring Sites Observations – Uintah Basin: O 3 and NO 2 – Upper Green River Basin: O 3, NO 2, HONO, VOCs – Garfield and Mesa County: O 3, NO 2, VOCs Timeseries Indicator Ratios: O 3 /NO x, O 3 /VOC, NO x /VOC, ethane/VOC, PAR/VOC, OLE/VOC, etc. Myton, UT Hourly O3

40 Emissions Modeling Report Detailed description of 3SAQS 2008 and 2011 emissions modeling platforms – Data sources – Data preparation – Modeling Summaries by state (and county for 2011) Inventory comparisons – 2008 vs 2011 – Base vs future Analysis of the inventory changes from 2008 to 2011 Available on the Data Warehouse

41 Next Steps Complete 2011 MPE report – Dry deposition evaluation – Ammonia – VOC – PM site-specific analysis Post all 2011 MPE products to data warehouse Release Base2011a2 Start 2020_11 simulation with GC BCs

42 Next Steps Complete CMAQ 2011a2 4-km simulation Winter O 3 sensitivity with 2011 winter WRF configuration Other sensitivity simulations?

Platform Recommendation 3SAQS Base11a2 Platform Release – GEOS-Chem BCs to replace MOZART BCs – Supported by detailed WRF MPE, emissions report, and CAMx MPE Caveats – Winter ozone, winter urban PM, NH 3, wet deposition