1. AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November 15 - 18, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

2. Overview WRAP Strategic Plan, Phases 1 & 2 Review of Phase I report structure Review of Phase I data sets Review of products generated to date

3. WRAP Strategic Plan Phase I 2003-05 Phase II 2005-07 Purpose: Dry run for Phase II. Refine and apply Phase I approaches for SIP/TIP purposes. Scale:Regional.Regional and subregional. Apportionment: 96/02 source contributions. Areas each plan to address. 2002 source contributions. Reduction obligations. Strategies:Identify options, screen.Cost/benefit, select, design. Communication:Public education.Public acceptance. Major State/Tribal submittals: 2002 emissions inventory.Modeling run specifications.

4. AoH Phase I Report Structure Supporting Reports (Web-based) Summary Report (Hardcopy and Web-based)

5. AoH Phase I Web Page http://wrapair.org/forums/aoh/ars1/index.html

6. AoH Phase I Data Sets Emissions Inventories –EPA 2002 NEI not available until 12/05; WRAP facilitated development of “interim” 2002 Emissions Modeling Data –RMC to present TSSA results Thursday (11/18) Monitoring Data –IMPROVE aerosol data available. DRI to present regression analysis results Wednesday (11/17)

7. 2002 Emissions Data Point and Area – includes U.S., Can., Mex. Mobile (On-Road & Non-Road) Road Dust (Paved & Unpaved) – U.S., Can., Mex. –2003 estimated emissions –VOC, NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 overestimated for off-road –CA provided estimates directly, so these errors don’t apply to CA Fire – WRAP states only –Actual 2002 wildland and prescribed fire emission inventories Windblown Dust – Modeling domain –Modeled emissions Biogenics – U.S. –Modeled emissions Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions

8. WRAP States NO X Emissions

9. WRAP States SO 2 Emissions

10. California Emissions Comparison EI comparison: WRAP interim 2002 and CA reported 2003 Differences in EI reporting: –Differences in point and area binning –CA reports reactive organic gases (ROG), WRAP reports volatile organic compounds (VOC) - specific pollutants differ in some cases –CA reports SOx, WRAP reports SO2 EI comparison reasonable, consistent with known differences

11. California Emissions Comparison

16. Redwood NP (CA) Spokane Indian Reservation (WA) Sequoia NP (CA)Sawtooth W (ID)

17. Rocky Mountain NP Haze Simulation Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

18. Yosemite NP Haze Simulation Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

19. Grand Canyon NP Haze Simulation Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

20. SulfateNitrate OrganicsCoarse Mass 2002 WRAP Species Extinction

21. Aerosol Extinction Deciviews 2002 WRAP Extinction and Deciviews Both maps based on the same data (deciview map includes Rayleigh scattering for deciview calculation) Same general patterns Different colors due to differences in scales

22. 1/R 2 Method Two Interpolation Methods Kriging Method The 1/R 2 method tends to generate islands around monitoring sites; probably more applicable to AoH needs The Kriging method generates patterns where there are no monitoring sites, inferring values that may not be real (northern WY, northern UT)

23. Sulfate Mass and SO 2 Emissions SO 2 Emissions Hot spots of SO 2 emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of sulfate mass Sulfate Mass

24. Nitrate Mass and NO X Emissions NO X Emissions Hot spots of NO X emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of nitrate mass Nitrate Mass

25. Coarse Mass and Coarse Mass Emissions Coarse Mass Emissions Hot spots of coarse mass emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of coarse mass Coarse Mass

26. Sample State Emissions Summary for NOx State map with 36 x 36 km gridded emissions Brief text description of NOx Breakdown of state- wide NOx emissions by source type

27. The following TSSA results do not represent a full year and should not be used to draw final conclusions!

28. Sample “Raw” TSSA and Trajectory Regression Results TSSA attributes to Point and Mobile, WRAP states, eastern U.S., others Trajectory Regression attributes to various states, quadrants, others (unique by site) Some grouping must be done to compare results Trajectory Regression Tagged Species Source Apportionment

29. Sample “Raw” TSSA and Trajectory Regression Results TSSA attributes to Point and Mobile, WRAP states, eastern U.S., others Trajectory Regression attributes to various states, quadrants, others (unique by site) Some grouping must be done to compare results

30. Sample Comparison for Rocky Mountain NP Review similarities and differences between regions CO indicated as major contributor in both methods Gray bars represent categories that do not correspond between methods

31. Sample Comparison for Mesa Verde NP NM indicated as major contributor by TSSA 4 states indicated as equal contributors by Trajectory Regression

32. Sample Regional Grouping of CIAs

33. Sample Regional Emissions, Mass, Extinction Summary Lower left map identifies CIAs and major NOx and SO2 source region Upper pie displays mass regional mass budget Lower right pie displays regional extinction budget (also expressed in deciviews)

34. Assessment of Class I Areas Affected by CO Emissions

35. Next Steps DRI and RMC to present results (Wed./Thu.) ARS to review report details with AoH (Thu.) Synthesize all Trajectory Regression and TSSA results Set schedule with AoH subcommittee to review report sections Draft report to AoH by mid-December