presented by: ralph morris wrap regional modeling center (rmc ) rmorris@environcorp
DESCRIPTION
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, California June 3, 2003. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 2
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 3
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 4
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 5
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 6
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 7
WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 8
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 9
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 10
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 11
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)
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 12
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 13
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 14
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 15
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)
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 16
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 17
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 18
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)
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 19
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 21
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 22
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 23
2018 §309 All Control Strategy Scenarios#1• 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)
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 24
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 25
(BSM-OSM)
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 26
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 27
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 28
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 29
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 30
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 31
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 32
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 33
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 34
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 35
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
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 36
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?