TemplateTemplate

BLM National and State Offices Meeting on WestJumpAQMS

Ralph Morris, ENVIRON International CorporationTom Moore, Western Regional Air Partnership

Millennium Harvest House HotelBoulder, Colorado

9:30-11:30 -- July 8, 2013

2

Background• Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) initiated the

West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) to:– Initiate next generation of regional technical analysis for ozone

planning in the western U.S. Develop next generation modeling platforms to address BLM NEPA oil

and gas development and other activities for EISs/RMPs– Continue work conducted at the WRAP Regional Modeling

Center (RMC) and leverage recent air modeling studies– Provide a preliminary assessment of the role of ozone transport

to elevated ozone concentrations across the West As well as PM2.5, visibility and deposition

3

Background• WestJumpAQMS Website with products to date

– http://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx

4

Ozone Planning for Oil and Gas Development

• Prior to ~2007 ozone assessments in O&G EISs were based on qualitative analysis and the 1988 Scheffe Point Source Screening Table– Scheffe Tables denounced by Dr. Scheffe in 2006

• Measured ozone exceedances in the Jonah Pinedale Anticline Development (JPAD) O&G area in 2005/2006

• SEIS for Pinedale Anticline O&G Exploration and Development Project first to address ozone using a Photochemical Grid Model (PGM) (final Dec 2007)– Leveraged off of the WRAP Regional Model Center (RMC) 2002

database to perform CAMx 2002 4 km ozone modeling

5

Continental Divide-Creston (CD-C) EIS

• April 2007 CD-C Air Kickoff meeting in Cheyenne with WDEQ, EPA R8, BLM, FLMs, Environmentalists, etc.– Unanimous agreement to use CAMx PGM for ozone and far-

field air quality and AQRV CALPUFF not needed

– Use existing 2005 (FCAQTF) and 2006 36/12/4 km MM5 meteorological data

– Draft EIS released December 2012• Since then numerous other BLM EISs and RMPs have

adopted using CAMx PGM ozone and far-field AQ/AQRV– Moxa Arch, Hiawatha, White River, Colorado River Valley, etc.

6

BLM EISs/RMPs using PGMs• Problems with sharing PGM modeling files among

EISs/RMPs– Difficult to share information in a NEPA study that is pre-

decisional across different groups– Large size of and no central storage location for databases– Databases poorly documented

• WRAP RMC 2002 PGM platform leveraged by early EISs• WestJumpAQMS developed 2008 modeling database

– Developed outside of NEPA so able to share with all– Reusable modeling framework– Distributed via Three State Data Warehouse (3SDW)

7

WestJumpAQMS PGM Inputs for 3 Domains

36 km CONUS12 km WESTUS4 km IMWD

8

WRAP RMC vs. WestJumpAQMSParameter WRAP

RMC WestJump

AQMS Modeling Year 2002 2008 Met Model MM5 WRF 36 km CONUS 165 x 129 165 x 129 12 km WESTUS Not Used 235 x 240 4 km IMWD NA 325 x 525 Vertical 34 37 Total Grids 723,690 9,187,470

(13x grids) (81x resolution)

AQ Model CMAQ CAMx & CMAQ 36 km 148 x 112 148 x112 12 km NA 227 x 230 4 km NA 164 x 218 Layers 19 25 Total Grids 314,944 2,,613,450

(8x grids)

9

WestJumpAQMS Completed Tasks• WRF Application/Evaluation

– Evaluation report on WRAP website• 2008 Oil and Gas Emissions Update

– WRAP Phase III plus Permian Basins• 16 Emissions Summary Memorandums

– Detailed documentation of emissions• SMOKE Emissions Modeling

– QA/QC following WRAP Protocol• CAMx Model Input Development

– 36 km CONUS BCs from MOZART global model• MOZART vs. GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity Analysis

10

WestJumpAQMS Completed Tasks• CAMx 2008 36/12 km Base Case

– Model Performance Evaluation– Results on WRAP website and presented in June 20, 2013

progress webinar• CAMx 2008 State-Specific Ozone Source Apportionment

Modeling– Preliminary results presented in June 20, 2013 webinar– CSAPR-type upwind state contribution to downwind state ozone

nonattainment analysis– State ozone footprint spatial maps– Contributions of Natural, Anthropogenic and Stratospheric

Ozone/International Transport to ozone concentrations

11

WestJumpAQMS Tasks In-Progress

• State-Specific PM Source Apportionment Modeling– CAPR-type and state footprint for annual and 24-hour PM2.5

– Also used for visibility and deposition• Source Category-Specific Ozone and PM Source

Apportionment– Separate contributions by: (1) Natural; (2) Oil and Gas

Development; (3) Fires; (4) Point Sources; (5) Mobile Sources (on- and non-road); and (6) Area Sources Full-fills a common FLM request at EISs/RMPs Interagency Meetings to

obtain the cumulative impacts due to all oil and gas development, only outside of NEPA

12

WestJumpAQMS Tasks In-Progress• Develop Basin-average 2011 emission factors for oil and

gas sources for WRAP Phase III Basins– Used by EPA for developing oil and gas emissions for the 2011

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) to obtain much more accurate O&G emissions for Rocky Mountain states

• Transfer WestJumpAQMS database and results to Three State Data Warehouse (3SDW)– 3SDW to develop web-based visualization tool for

WestJumpAQMS Source Apportionment results– 3SDW developing procedures for transfer of data to others on

request• Draft final report in August 2013

13

WestJumpAQMS Tasks In-Progress

• Development of stand-alone 2008 4 km Impact Assessment Domain (IAD) CAMx Databases

• Original plan was to develop four 2008 4 km IAD PGM databases– MT-ND: turns out BLM Montana/Dakotas

is pursuing a 2013 modeling year– WY: many EISs in progress using

2005/2006– UT-CO: UT BLM ARMS addressing 2010– San_Juan: more linked with western

Colorado– BLM COSO needs 2008 IAD 4 km PGM

database so that was focus of IAD development

14

West-CARMMS• Western Colorado Air Resource Management Modeling

Study (West-CARMMS)– Initiated by BLM COSO to address the individual and cumulative

AQ and AQRV impacts due to several RMPs/EISs in western CO: Jan 2013 Draft RMP for Grand Junction FO May 2013 Draft RMP for Dominguez-Escalante NCA Uncompahgre FO RMP in preparation

– Rather than deal with each RMP AQ/AQRV impacts individually as in the past, develop unified consistent approach Leverage off of WestJumpAQMS 2008 CAMx model database

development Initial West-CARMMS 4 km IAD developed to completely include all Class

I areas that are within 200 km of a western Colorado BLM planning area

15

Mancos Shale Oil Development

• Planned development of the Mancos Shale Oil region in the NM BLM Farmington FO needs AQ/AQRV analysis– 400 wells/year in oil prone area in south starting in 2015– Development of gas prone area in north to occur later

• BLM NMSO intends to fund the addition of the Mancos Shale Oil development to West-CARMMS– Cost-effective

leveraging of West-CARMMS and WestJumpAQMS

16

West-CARMMS 4 km Modeling Domain

• 4 km Domain to include all Class I areas within 200 km of the Western Colorado and Mancos Shale Oil development areas

• WestJumpAQMS will set-up CAMx for 2008 base case on 4 km West-CARMMS IAD and conduct 2008 base case simulation– Model performance evaluation– Transfer PGM database to West-

CARMMS modelers

17

West-CARMMS Tasks

• 2011 Baseline and future year (2021) emissions development

• AQ/AQRV impacts of each Western Colorado BLM FO and NM FFO planning area as well as cumulative AQ/AQRV impacts– Task 1: Emissions Calculators– Task 2: 2011 and 2021 Emissions– Task 3: Model Setup– Task 4: Baseline/FY CAMx Modeling

Source apportionment used to obtain individual FO AQ/AQRV impacts– Task 5: Reporting and Meetings

18

Example WestJumpAQMS Completed Products• On WRAP website (wrapair2.org):

– Modeling Protocol Details on how 2008 modeling will be conducted

– WRF meteorological application/evaluation report– 16 Technical Memorandums on the 2008 emissions

and emissions modeling Full documentation of emission sources, procedures and

limitations review by technical team– June 20, 2013 interim progress report

Ozone and PM model performance evaluation Preliminary State-Specific Ozone Source Apportionment

modeling results

19

Summary of CAMx 2008 36/12 km Inputs

• WRF 2008 36/12 km Meteorology• MOZART Global Model Boundary Conditions• 2008 Base Case Emissions

– WRAP Phase III 2008 Oil and Gas Emissions 2008 NEI O&G outside of WRAP Basins

– MEGAN Biogenic Emissions– Hourly CEM for Electrical Generating Units (EGUs)– 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEIv2)– Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN) [Base08a&b]– DEASCO3 Fire Emissions (Base08c)

Ozone Model Performance

• Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone (DMAX8)• Matched by day and location (grid cell)• Scatter Plots of Predicted and Observed DMAX8 with

Model Performance Statistics:– Performance Goals

Bias ≤±15% and Error ≤35% – Fractional Bias (FB) and Error (FE)– Normalized Mean Bias (NMB) and Error (NME)– Correlation Coefficient (R2) and Regression Equation

• By western state for:– AQS monitors (urban) and CASTNet monitors (rural)

20

Arizona 36 km (red) and 12 km (blue) DMAX8

• AQS Monitors – NMB = 6% & FB = 7%– NME = 13% & FE = 14%

• CASTNet Monitors– NMB = 2% & FB = 2%– NME = 10% & FE = 10%

21

22

Colorado 36 km (red) and 12 km (blue) DMAX8

• AQS Monitors – NMB = 9% & FB = 10%– NME = 16% & FE = 17%

• CASTNet Monitors– NMB = 9% & FB = 9%– NME = 14% & FE = 14%

22

CASTNet DMAX8 overestimations due to modeled stratospheric ozone intrusions when none occurred [Apr 11 (102), May 8 (129) and Jun 13 (165) – (JDay)]

23

Utah 36 km (red) and 12 km (blue) DMAX8 • AQS Monitors

– NMB = 7% & FB = 10%– NME = 15 & FE = 17%

• CASTNet Monitors– NMB = 1% & FB = 1%– NME = 9% & FE = 9%

AQS overestimation at low end due to urban monitoring sites and coarse grid. Very good ozone performance at CASTNet (Canyonlands).

Wyoming 36 km (red) & 12 km (blue) DMAX8 • AQS Monitors

– NMB = 4% & FB = 5%– NME = 14% & FE = 13%

• CASTNet Monitors– NMB = 3% & FB = 3%– NME = 11% & FE = 10%

Model not configured to simulate high winter DMAX8 ozone in JPAD (e.g., 122 ppb at Boulder on Feb 21, 2008). CASTNet likely modeled strat ozone in Apr (PND & YEL)

25

Summary Base08c DMAX8 Ozone Performance

• Mostly reasonable performance with low bias and error (some positive bias tendency)– Larger overestimation bias in WA, NM, OR and MT

MT traced to questionable observed ozone at Glacier CASTNet site going to zero at night

– Some occurrences of modeled stratospheric ozone intrusion when none observed (and vice versa)

• Underestimation of JPAD winter high ozone and highest ozone in California– Model not configured for simulating cold pooling– Coarse (12 km) grid limits urban ozone simulation, especially in

marine environment

26

State-Specific Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling

• 2008 36/12 km Base08c (DEASCO3 fires) scenario• Source Regions: Western States etc.• Source Categories: (1) Natural (Biogenic, Lightning, Sea

Salt and WBD); (2) Fire (separately for WF, Rx, AG); and (3) Anthropogenic– CSAPR-type transport analysis

Examine upwind state anthropogenic (Anthro+Rx+Ag) contribution to downwind state ozone and PM2.5 Design Values (DV)

– Spatial extent of contributions to high ozone/PM2.5

Maximum ozone contribution to daily maximum 8-hour ozone ≥ 76, 70, 65, 60 and 0 ppb

– Role of Stratospheric Ozone, International Transport, Natural Emissions, Fires and Anthropogenic Emissions

State-Specific Source Apportionment21 Source Regions (17 “western” states)

28

CSAPR-type Analysis• State-Specific Anthropogenic (Anthro+Rx+Ag)

contributions to 8-hour ozone Design Value (DVs)• Model Attainment Test Software (MATS) to project

current DVs without a selected state’s contribution– Use relative change in model results to scale observed current

year DV (DVC) in absence of a state’s anthropogenic emissions– Difference is state’s ozone contribution at each ozone

monitoring site• As in CSAPR, use two sets of DVCs

– AvgDVC = Average of 2006-2008, 2007-2009 & 2008-2010 DVs– MaxDVC = Maximum of 2006-08, 2007-09 & 2008-10 DVs

• CSAPR used significant contribution threshold of 1% of the NAAQS

29

MATS Unmonitored Area Analysis (UAA)

• Default MATS calculates current year Design Value (DVC) using an average of three Design Values– Design Value (DV) is defined as the three year average of the

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone (DMAX8)– MATS DVC defined as avg of 2006-8, 2007-9 & 2008-10 DVs

• MATS UAA interpolates DVCs across domain

• Since low ozone in 2009, ozone has been increasing in west

Denver DVs2001-2012

30

MATS UAA: Areas with DVC ≥ 76 ppb NAAQS

31

MATS UAA: Areas DVC ≥ 70 ppb

32

MATS UAA: Areas DVC ≥ 65 ppb

33

MATS UAA: Areas DVC ≥ 60 ppb

34

2008 36/12 km State-Specific Analysis

• Example CSAPR-type Analysis using current (March 2008) 0.075 ppm ozone NAAQS– Also looking at 70, 65 and 60 ppb potential future NAAQS

• 136 ozone monitors in 12 km WESTUS domain with AvgDVC exceeding NAAQS (76 ppb or higher) [86 sites (63%) in CA]

• For 17 upwind western states examine 2008 contribution to ozone Design Values at ozone monitoring sites in downwind states:– Number of downwind state monitoring sites with contribution to ozone

Design Value greater than 1 % of the NAAQS (# Sites ≥ 0.76 ppb)– Maximum contribution to a downwind state 8-hour ozone Design Value

35

CSAPR-type Analysis for 0.075 ppm NAAQSNumber of sites with State contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

State

# Sites

Max O3

(ppb)

AZ 24 1.23

CA 18 16.65

CO 0 0.51

KS 4 8.95

ID 2 1.02

MT 0 18

OK 18 6.52

OR 25 1.13

WA 1 1.03

State

# Sites

Max O3

(ppb)

WY 5 1.53

ND 0 0.12

SD 0 0.13

NE 0 0.36

NV 20 1.28

UT 5 2.53

TX 6 10.17

NM 2 0.82

36

Arizona• Highest monitor in five

states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and AZ contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• AZ AvgDV

Contribution– 2.35 ppb TX El Paso – 1.32 ppb NM Dona Ana– 1.23 ppb UT Weber– 1.15 ppb CO Jefferson– 1.13 ppb NV Clark

37

California• Highest monitor in five

states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and CA contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• CA AvgDV

Contribution– 16.9 ppb NV Clark– 5.3 ppb AZ Pinal– 2.16 ppb UT SLC– 1.89 ppb CO Jefferson– 1.19 ppb TX El Paso

37

38

Idaho• Highest monitor in

two states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and ID contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• ID AvgDV Contribution

– 1.37 ppb UT Box Elder– 1.02 ppb WY Sublette

3939

Nevada• Highest monitor in

four states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and NV contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• NV AvgDV

Contribution– 1.27 ppb CA Inyo– 1.12 ppb UT SLC– 0.99 ppb AZ Maricopa– 0.77 ppb CO Jefferson

404040

New Mexico• Highest monitor in

three states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and NM contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• NM AvgDV

Contribution– 2.69 ppb TX El Paso– 1.05 ppb AZ Maricopa– 0.73 ppb CO Douglas

41414141

Utah• Highest monitor in

one state with DV ≥ 76 ppb and UT contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• UT AvgDV

Contribution– 2.53 CO Jefferson

4242424242

Washington• Highest monitor in

one states with DV ≥ 76 ppb and WA contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• WA AvgDV

Contribution– 1.03 WY Sublette

• Issues with applying MATS approach for DVs based on winter ozone

434343434343

Wyoming• Highest monitor in

one state with DV ≥ 76 ppb and WY contribution to DV ≥ 0.76 ppb

• AvgDV and MaxDV• WY AvgDV

Contribution– 1.53 CO Larimer

44

State-Specific Ozone Foot Prints

• Examine spatial distribution of state’s highest contribution to modeled daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for total modeled ozone greater than or equal to several thresholds:– 76 ppb (current NAAQS); 70 ppb; 65 ppb; 60 ppb; and

0 ppb (highest contribution in year)• Results follow for 0 ppb and 76 ppb

– Arizona, California and Colorado presented– Remainder states on WestJumpAQMS website from June 20,

2013 status conference call http://www.wrapair2.org/pdf/

WestJumpAQMS_Progress_Jun20_2013_Draft2.pdf

45

Arizona Highest 8-Hour Ozone Contribution

O3 ≥ 0 ppb O3 ≥ 76 ppb

46

California Highest 8-Hour Ozone Contribution

O3 ≥ 0 ppb O3 ≥ 76 ppb

47

Colorado Highest 8-Hour Ozone Contribution

O3 ≥ 0 ppb O3 ≥ 0 ppb

48

WestJumpAQMS Next Steps• Finish West-CARMMS database development• Complete State-Specific PM Source Apportionment

– Displays of annual and 24-hour PM2.5 (CSAPR-type)– Visibility and Sulfur/Nitrogen Deposition– Discuss on July 17, 2013 status call

• Complete Source Category-Specific Ozone and PM Source Apportionment Modeling– Contributions of Natural, Fires, Oil and Gas, Point, Mobile, and

Other Sources to O3, PM2.5 and AQRVs– Discuss on August 2013 status call

• Final Report and Documentation– Finish in August 2013

49

Life After WestJumpAQMS

• Three State Data Warehouse (3SDW) and Air Quality Study (3SAQS):– CO, UT, WY, EPA, NPS, USFS, FWS, BLM– Grant funding from NPS to:

Tom Moore, 3SDW Technical Coordinator CSU/CIRA develop 3SDW website UNC/IE perform modeling and analysis and develop 2011 modeling

platform

• 3SDW to archive WestJumpAQMS 2008 modeling databases and results– Repository for emissions, AQ observations and modeling– Already tested data retrieval and ability to duplicate results

50

3SAQS 2013 Scope of Work

• 2008 modeling and analysis• 2011 WRF meteorological modeling• 2011 emissions development and modeling• Oil and Gas (O&G) emissions updates

– 2011 baseline O&G following WRAP Phase III– Future year O&G emission projections 2012-2030

• Other Future Year emissions projections• Air quality monitoring network assessment• Development of on-line Source Apportionment tool• Development of on-line modeling spatial display tool

51

Relationship Between WestJumpAQMS and Other Studies

• Pre-WestJumpAQMS– WRAP RMC Visibility SIP

Modeling– 2008 Denver Ozone SIP– WRAP Phase III Oil and Gas– Denver Post SIP MM5/WRF

Ozone Sensitivity Modeling– WDEQ WRF Modeling– WRAP MEGAN

Enhancements

• Post-WestJumpAQMS– West-CARMS– 3SAQS– 3SDW– CO FJFO RMP– NM Carlsbad FO RMP– …– …