Tribal Causes of Haze Representativeness Assessment Phase I Mark Green, Alissa Smiley, and Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Regional Air Quality Modeling Patrick Barickman, Air Quality Modeler Tyler Cruickshank, Meteorologist/Modeler Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Advertisements

Technical Support System Review / / RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Conference.
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
IMPROVE Network Assessment Plans. IMPROVE Network Assessment Motivation: –EPA’s air quality monitoring budget is not growing, but their requirements are.
Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.
Attribution of Haze Report Status Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting December 8, 2004 Tom Moore Marc Pitchford.
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 , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.
The Asian Dust Events of April 1998 Prepared by: R. B. Husar, D. Tratt, B. A. Schichtel, S. R. Falke, F. Li D. Jaffe, S. Gassó, T. Gill, N. S. Laulainen,
Linear Regression Least Squares Method: the Meaning of r 2.
Incorporating Monitoring, Modeling, and EI Data into AoH Analysis AoH Meeting, Salt Lake City September 21-22, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
COHA Update Jin Xu. Update 2003 and 2004 back-trajectories – done PMF modeling by groups using 2000 to 2004 IMPROVE data – done Analysis of PMF results.
Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.
Regional Air Pollution Study Alissa Dickerson, M.S. Environmental Specialist Enviroscientists, Inc. Alissa Dickerson, M.S. Environmental Specialist Enviroscientists,
Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
TSS Project Update and Demo of Selected Tools WRAP IWG Meeting Santa Fe, NM December 7, 2006.
Causes of Haze Assessment Update for Fire Emissions Joint Forum -12/9/04 Meeting Marc Pitchford.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
AoH Conference Call October 8, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Santa Fe December 2006 Update on Regional Haze 308 SIP Template.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,
AoH Phase 2 and TSS Project Update WRAP Technical Analysis Forum Las Vegas, NV February 6, 2007.
Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.
Technical Projects Update WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT November 10, 2004.
The Asian Dust Events of April 1998 Prepared by: R. B. Husar, D. Tratt, B. A. Schichtel, S. R. Falke, F. Li D. Jaffe, S. Gassó, T. Gill, N. S. Laulainen,
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction Draft Recommendations to the IMPROVE Steering Committee.
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
Update on Assessment of the Major Causes of Dust-Resultant Haze in the WRAP Vic Etyemezian, Jin Xu, Dave Dubois, and Mark Green.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.
Summary of WRAP Stationary Source (SS) NOx and PM Report Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT October 15, 2003.
1.Topography 2.Elevation 3.Relief 4.Plain 5.Mountain 6.Plateau 7.Map 8.Scale 9.Degree 10.Latitude 11.Longitude.
SO 2 Data Analysis The following 4 slides attempt to provide a context for a re-analysis of the model results using the milestone inventory. If model results.
Observations Complex mixture of contributors to 20% worst Many 20% worst extinction days at many sites Sulfate episodes in Midwest, SE and SW Soil.
Causes of Haze Assessment Update for the Haze Attribution Forum Meeting By Marc Pitchford 9/24/04.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update Jin Xu. Update Visibility trends analysis (under revision) Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002 (modeling.
Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring Data Summary: Dust WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Attribution of Haze Project Update Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting September 8-9, 2004 Worley, ID.
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,
CALIFORNIA Regional Haze SIP Development Progress Report IWG Meeting Portland, Oregon August 29-31, 2006.
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Phase I Attribution of Haze Overview (Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule) or (an experiment in weight-of evidence)
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Asian Dust Episode (4/26/2001)
The average PM2.5 mass concentration based on IMPROVE data available from September 2000 to December 2002 is 3.3 mg/m3 The highest occurrence of the 20%
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Reasonable Progress: Chiricahua NM & Wilderness Area
Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.
Asian Dust Episode (4/16/2001)
Least Squares Method: the Meaning of r2
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
Tribal Representativeness Analysis: Phase II
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.
Attribution of Haze Project Update
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Presentation transcript:

Tribal Causes of Haze Representativeness Assessment Phase I Mark Green, Alissa Smiley, and Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute

Overview Goals: 1) determine whether each tribal area in the western US is “represented” by an IMPROVE monitor; 2) which IMPROVE monitors, if any, represent each tribal area Use physiographic regions to group sites in similar areas Consider correlation coefficients by chemical species between sites in each region and how they decay with distance to establish “representative distances” Fit correlation versus distance curves for each region with at least 4 sites

Task 2 WRAP tribal areas in blue and IMPROVE sites as yellow dots

COHA Physiographic Regions

Zone of Representation For each major component (sulfate, nitrate, OC, EC, fine soil, CM) plot correlation versus distance between sites- define zone of representation as distance where correlation coefficient falls to 0.7 r=0.7 somewhat arbitrary, but gives r 2 of 0.49, so about one-half of variance at that distance can be explained by variation at IMPROVE site This gives a regionally representative distance for each aerosol component Each aerosol distance was then weighted by its contribution to light extinction on worst visibility days Weighted distances summed over all aerosol species to create a regional representative distance

Example fitted curve for sulfate, Cascade Region OC

Zone of Representation Cascade Range region example Average sulfate extinction on 20% worst days= Mm -1 Rep. Distance = = 139 km Sulfate contributed 37% to worst case extinction Sulfate distance when r 2 = 0.7

Zone of Representation Regional ZoR ranged from 91 km in Colorado Plateau to 210 km in Northern Great Plains For those regions with less than 4 aerosol monitoring sites, we used a regional ZoR of 150 km For each region, we calculated the distance from each tribe to each IMPROVE site If the distance to the nearest IMPROVE site was greater than the regional ZoR, then we colored the area red Portions of many tribes outside of regional ZoR Total of 11 tribes entirely outside of regional ZoR

Example: Central Rocky Mountains Region Red dots denote IMPROVE sites Blue circles-140 km aerosol zone of influence Purple circles around non-represented tribal area (Uintah & Ouray) 17 Class I Areas

11 Tribes totally outside of ZoR

Monitoring Recommendations For those 11 tribes not represented we did a regional scale examination to determine if a new aerosol sampling site is warranted We determined that 6 new monitoring sites would satisfy our criteria –Spirit Lake, ND –Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, ND/SD –NW Band of Shoshoni Nation, north of Salt Lake City –Pueblo of Acoma, NM –Quechuan and Cocopah near Yuma, AZ –Northern NV and SE Oregon

Tribal representative analysis Phase 1 summary Method gives a representative distance based on objective criteria that weights importance of each chemical compound to light extinction Representative distances ranged from km All but 11 tribal areas had representative IMPROVE monitors Several regions had fewer that 4 IMPROVE monitors and were assigned representative disance of 150 km Did not include effects of intervening terrain or emission sources (phase 2 did)