1. Attribution of Haze Project Update Stationary Sources Forum and Implementation Workgroup Meeting, Phoenix December 14, 2004 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

2. Outline Project Overview Project Overview Data Inputs Data Inputs Emissions Data Emissions Data Monitoring Data Monitoring Data Modeling Modeling Analysis and Results Analysis and Results Regional Extinction and Emissions Regional Extinction and Emissions Attribution Results Attribution Results Initial Groupings Initial Groupings State Impacts on Class I Areas State Impacts on Class I Areas Regional Assessment - Fire Regional Assessment - Fire Major Findings and Next Steps Major Findings and Next Steps

3. Introduction WRAP Strategic Plan (2003) WRAP Strategic Plan (2003) ARS contracted to integrate and synthesize available 2002 monitoring, modeling, and emissions data to identify: ARS contracted to integrate and synthesize available 2002 monitoring, modeling, and emissions data to identify: Geographic source areas of emissions that contribute to impairment at federal and tribal Class I areas Geographic source areas of emissions that contribute to impairment at federal and tribal Class I areas Mass and species distributions of emissions by source category within each geographic source area Mass and species distributions of emissions by source category within each geographic source area The amount of natural and anthropogenic emissions affecting, and the associated visibility impact at, each Class I area The amount of natural and anthropogenic emissions affecting, and the associated visibility impact at, each Class I area

4. 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.

5. AoH Phase I Report Structure Supporting Reports (Web-based) Summary Report (Hardcopy and Web-based) WRAP Data Centers

6. AoH Phase I Web Page http://wrapair.org/forums/aoh/ars1/AoH_Summary_Report_Draft.pdf

7. Deliverables Prepared 96 regional/state emissions maps Prepared 96 regional/state emissions maps Prepared data summaries for 85 sites Prepared data summaries for 85 sites Reviewed and analyzed 2002 attribution results for over 100 federal and tribal Class I areas Reviewed and analyzed 2002 attribution results for over 100 federal and tribal Class I areas Determined regional groupings of source impacts across the WRAP region Determined regional groupings of source impacts across the WRAP region Developed project web page to support findings Developed project web page to support findings Prepared draft summary report Prepared draft summary report

8. Primary Data Inputs Emissions Inventories (EI) Emissions Inventories (EI) Tracks pollution estimates of source categories and aerosol species Tracks pollution estimates of source categories and aerosol species Spatial variation and source strength in EIs affects monitoring data and model results Spatial variation and source strength in EIs affects monitoring data and model results Confidence in these data is medium Confidence in these data is medium Monitoring Data Monitoring Data Snapshot of aerosol pollution at a given location Snapshot of aerosol pollution at a given location Confidence in these data is high Confidence in these data is high Modeling Modeling Allows us to estimate the transformation and movement and fate of emissions in the atmosphere Allows us to estimate the transformation and movement and fate of emissions in the atmosphere Model performance is tested by comparisons to monitoring data Model performance is tested by comparisons to monitoring data

9. Emissions Data Set EPA 2002 NEI not useable for this purpose → WRAP facilitated development of “interim” 2002 emissions EPA 2002 NEI not useable for this purpose → WRAP facilitated development of “interim” 2002 emissions Point Point Area Area Mobile (On-Road & Non-Road) Mobile (On-Road & Non-Road) Road Dust (Paved & Unpaved) Road Dust (Paved & Unpaved) Fire Fire Windblown Dust Windblown Dust Biogenics Biogenics Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions AoH interim 2002 EI

10. Point and Area Sources Sector WRAP States CENRAP States Point Sources EGUs EGUs ETS/CEM data and EIA-767 based estimates for 2002 WRAP 1996 point source file Copper smelters Copper smelters SO 2 emissions provided by smelter companies Not applicable Non-utilities, non-smelter Non-utilities, non-smelter IAS model projections from 1996 to 2002 Year 2000 facility-level SO 2 emissions substituted for major 9- State emitters IAS model projection from 1996 to 2002 Area Sources Applied 1999-2002 growth factors to 1999 NEI area source emission estimates Geographic extent: US States, Canada and Mexico Geographic extent: US States, Canada and Mexico Emissions outside the WRAP and CENRAP regions are from the other RPOs and the EPA Emissions outside the WRAP and CENRAP regions are from the other RPOs and the EPA Prepared by E.H. Pechan and Associates Prepared by E.H. Pechan and Associates AoH interim 2002 EI

11. Mobile Sources Emissions were estimated for the 1996 base year and four future years – 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 Emissions were estimated for the 1996 base year and four future years – 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 Road Dust (2002 interpolated between 1996 and 2018) Road Dust (2002 interpolated between 1996 and 2018) 2003 Mobile Emissions used for “interim” 2002 2003 Mobile Emissions used for “interim” 2002 On-road (EPA MOBILE6 and PART5) On-road (EPA MOBILE6 and PART5) Off-road (EPA NONROAD2000) Off-road (EPA NONROAD2000) One known limitation: One known limitation: EPA has updated the NONROAD model twice in the last 3 years – NONROAD2000 emission estimates are noticeably higher than the NONROAD2004 estimates EPA has updated the NONROAD model twice in the last 3 years – NONROAD2000 emission estimates are noticeably higher than the NONROAD2004 estimates California provided mobile source emissions estimates California provided mobile source emissions estimates Geographic extent: US States, Canada and Mexico Geographic extent: US States, Canada and Mexico Emissions outside the WRAP region are from the other RPOs and the EPA Emissions outside the WRAP region are from the other RPOs and the EPA Prepared by ENVIRON Prepared by ENVIRON AoH interim 2002 EI

12. Fire Emissions Actual 2002 wildland fire and prescribed fire emission inventories Actual 2002 wildland fire and prescribed fire emission inventories Agricultural fire emissions estimates were from Section 309 work Agricultural fire emissions estimates were from Section 309 work Specific location, date, size and fuel loading for each fire event. Specific location, date, size and fuel loading for each fire event. Geographic extent: WRAP region Geographic extent: WRAP region Some emissions outside the WRAP region were included, but were incomplete Some emissions outside the WRAP region were included, but were incomplete Prepared by Air Sciences, Inc. Prepared by Air Sciences, Inc. AoH interim 2002 EI

13. Biogenics and Windblown Dust Data Inputs: Data Inputs: Land Use/Land Cover (BELD3, NALCC, NLCD) Land Use/Land Cover (BELD3, NALCC, NLCD) Windblown Dust Soil Characteristics (STATSGO; Soil Landscape of Canada; Intl. Soil Reference and Information Centre) Windblown Dust Soil Characteristics (STATSGO; Soil Landscape of Canada; Intl. Soil Reference and Information Centre) Meteorological Data (2002 36-km MM5 ) Meteorological Data (2002 36-km MM5 ) Agricultural Data (BELD3, RUSLE2, CTIC) Agricultural Data (BELD3, RUSLE2, CTIC) Emissions Estimation Models: Emissions Estimation Models: Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS3) Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS3) WRAP Windblown Dust Emissions Model WRAP Windblown Dust Emissions Model EI includes modeling domain EI includes modeling domain Prepared by the Regional Modeling Center Prepared by the Regional Modeling Center AoH interim 2002 EI

14. Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions derived from annual simulation of the GEOSCHEM global chemical-transport model. Boundary conditions derived from annual simulation of the GEOSCHEM global chemical-transport model. GEOSCHEM by Daniel Jacob at Harvard GEOSCHEM by Daniel Jacob at Harvard Key modeled species and grid information were mapped from “GEOSCHEM” to CMAQ species by Daewon Byun at University of Houston. Key modeled species and grid information were mapped from “GEOSCHEM” to CMAQ species by Daewon Byun at University of Houston. Earlier simulations used a seasonal average from GEOSCHEM. Earlier simulations used a seasonal average from GEOSCHEM. AoH final simulations use an annual 2002 simulation with 3- hour time steps. AoH final simulations use an annual 2002 simulation with 3- hour time steps. CMAQ initial conditions created by running a “spin-up” period from Dec 17-31, 2001. CMAQ initial conditions created by running a “spin-up” period from Dec 17-31, 2001. AoH interim 2002 EI

15. WRAP Annual 2002 Emissions NOx SO2 AoH interim 2002 EI NH3PM2.5PMC

16. Monitoring Data Set IMPROVE – National program to monitor atmospheric aerosols in mandatory federal and tribal class I areas (CIAs) IMPROVE – National program to monitor atmospheric aerosols in mandatory federal and tribal class I areas (CIAs) Speciated aerosol samples collected every 3 days Speciated aerosol samples collected every 3 days Data are used to calculate visibility impairment expressed as extinction, deciviews, or visual range: Data are used to calculate visibility impairment expressed as extinction, deciviews, or visual range: Tied to Regional Haze Rule requirements Tied to Regional Haze Rule requirements Some sites have > 15 year history Some sites have > 15 year history

17. IMPROVE Aerosol Sampler Systems Sulfur>>Sulfate Fine Soil Nitrate Sulfate (backup) Organic Carbon Elem. Carbon Coarse Mass

18. WRAP includes 116 (of 156) Mandatory Federal Class I Areas WRAP Tribal Class I Areas: Spokane Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe Fort Peck Tribes Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Yavapai-Apache Nation Hualapai Tribe (pending)

20. Sample IMPROVE Data Timeline Plot

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

22. AoH Modeling Regional dispersion modeling Regional dispersion modeling Trajectory modeling Trajectory modeling

23. Regional Scale Modeling WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Modeling Center http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/ http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/ http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/ CMAQ model runs using 2002 “interim” EIs and MM5 data CMAQ model runs using 2002 “interim” EIs and MM5 data CMAQ – EPA-developed model for regional analysis CMAQ – EPA-developed model for regional analysis Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) Use “Tagged Species” tracers to track chemical transformations and deposition across domain Use “Tagged Species” tracers to track chemical transformations and deposition across domain Add source type tracers for key species and for defined regions and source categories Add source type tracers for key species and for defined regions and source categories Contribution results at each receptor site – no need for aerosol samplers to be present Contribution results at each receptor site – no need for aerosol samplers to be present

24. Traced Area: WRAP Modeling Domain Each state is distinguished by a unique number in the source area mapping file

25. Types Source Category Notes ICONICON Initial Concentration BCONBCON Boundary Concentration EmissionsMV_* Mobile sources from any state (on-road) BG_* Biogenic sources from any state RD_* Paved + unpaved road dust from any state NR_* Non-road sources from any state PN_* Point sources from any state AR_* Area sources from any state WF_* Wildland fire from any state AG_* Agricultural fire from any state RX_* Prescribed fire from any state ET_* Total emissions from any state *_WRAP Any type of source category emissions from WRAP domain OthersOTHERS Any sources other than all of the above Traced Source Tags

26. Trajectory Regression Analysis (TRA) Desert Research Institute Desert Research Institute Part of WRAP Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Part of WRAP Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) http://coha.dri.edu/index.html http://coha.dri.edu/index.html http://coha.dri.edu/index.html Meteorological back trajectories run for 2000 – 2002 to determine flow patterns for each IMPROVE site Meteorological back trajectories run for 2000 – 2002 to determine flow patterns for each IMPROVE site TRA finds the best fit between the time air spends over a defined area (source region) and the air quality parameter measured at an IMPROVE site TRA finds the best fit between the time air spends over a defined area (source region) and the air quality parameter measured at an IMPROVE site Contribution results at each IMPROVE site Contribution results at each IMPROVE site No results for unmonitored CIAs No results for unmonitored CIAs Monitored locations must have sufficient data Monitored locations must have sufficient data

27. Back Trajectory Residence Time Summaries 20% worst sulfate days (2000 – 2002) 20% worst sulfate days (2000 – 2002) W, SW, SE show highest residence times at Great Sand Dunes W, SW, SE show highest residence times at Great Sand Dunes NW, W, S show highest residence times at Craters of the Moon NW, W, S show highest residence times at Craters of the Moon Great Sand Dunes, Colorado Craters of the Moon, Idaho

28. TRA Source Regions - Example

29. Used for comparison of TSSA and TRA results Used for comparison of TSSA and TRA results Boundary states (inner circle) Boundary states (inner circle) U.S. regions (outer circle) U.S. regions (outer circle) International (Can., Mex.) International (Can., Mex.) Other (ocean, gulf, boundary conditions, unknown or not able to attribute) Other (ocean, gulf, boundary conditions, unknown or not able to attribute) Source Region Grouping - Example

30. TSSA TSSA Errors and uncertainties in gridded meteorological data Errors and uncertainties in gridded meteorological data Emissions inventories uncertain and in some cases incomplete Emissions inventories uncertain and in some cases incomplete TSSA – new application in CMAQ TSSA – new application in CMAQ 36 km grid resolution is too coarse to resolve near field effects 36 km grid resolution is too coarse to resolve near field effects TRA TRA Statistical technique – has associated uncertainty limits Statistical technique – has associated uncertainty limits Based on EDAS back trajectories – uncertainty increases as you move away from the end time and date Based on EDAS back trajectories – uncertainty increases as you move away from the end time and date “Edge effect” for CIAs or source regions near the boundary of a state “Edge effect” for CIAs or source regions near the boundary of a state Modeling Uncertainties

31. Integrated Analysis and Results Weight of evidence approach: Weight of evidence approach: Less confident in any single analysis Less confident in any single analysis Multiple, independent analyses are necessary to gain more confidence in findings Multiple, independent analyses are necessary to gain more confidence in findings Integrated analysis looked at: Integrated analysis looked at: Accuracy and reliability of EIs, monitoring data, model results Accuracy and reliability of EIs, monitoring data, model results Geographic source regions for SO4 and NO3 Geographic source regions for SO4 and NO3 TSSA – Point and Mobile emissions TSSA – Point and Mobile emissions TRA – Did not distinguish between source categories TRA – Did not distinguish between source categories Logical groupings of CIAs exist based on attribution of these pollutants Logical groupings of CIAs exist based on attribution of these pollutants

32. Weight of Evidence Approach – Considerations TSSA Results TSSA Results Supported by other analyses? Supported by other analyses? What if contradicted by other analyses? What if contradicted by other analyses? TRA Results TRA Results Noisy data – statistical interpretation required Noisy data – statistical interpretation required Farther source regions must be larger to compensate for increasing uncertainties in longer trajectories Farther source regions must be larger to compensate for increasing uncertainties in longer trajectories Do we see possible “edge effects”? Do we see possible “edge effects”? Monitoring Data Monitoring Data Reasonably accurate and certain measurements Reasonably accurate and certain measurements As a snap shot, can’t demonstrate cause and effect As a snap shot, can’t demonstrate cause and effect Emissions Emissions EI are estimates, not directly measured EI are estimates, not directly measured Do EI inputs support attribution results? Do EI inputs support attribution results?

33. Aerosol Extinction Sulfate Extinction Nitrate Extinction Organics Extinction 2002 WRAP Aerosol/Species Extinction

34. SO 2 Emissions (WRAP 2002 Interim EI)

35. NO X Emissions (WRAP 2002 Interim EI)

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

37. Rocky Mountain NP – TSSA Sulfate Results

38. Rocky Mountain NP – TRA Sulfate Results

39. Rocky Mountain NP – TSSA Nitrate Results

40. Colorado emissions are a major contributor in both methods Colorado emissions are a major contributor in both methods Border states impact ROMO in both methods (49-67%) Border states impact ROMO in both methods (49-67%) Other US regions also contribute in both methods (16-27%) Other US regions also contribute in both methods (16-27%) Largest differences between TSSA and TRA seen in attribution from Colorado and Wyoming Largest differences between TSSA and TRA seen in attribution from Colorado and Wyoming Attribution Summary for Rocky Mountain NP

41. New Mexico emissions are the major contributor in both methods New Mexico emissions are the major contributor in both methods Border states impact MEVE in both methods (57-80%) Border states impact MEVE in both methods (57-80%) Other US regions also contribute in both methods (6-16%) Other US regions also contribute in both methods (6-16%) Largest differences between TSSA and TRA seen in attribution from New Mexico and Arizona – May be “edge effect” Largest differences between TSSA and TRA seen in attribution from New Mexico and Arizona – May be “edge effect” Attribution Summary for Mesa Verde NP

42. “Edge Effect” Explanation for Sulfate TRA Results Trajectory points every 3 hours may not accurately represent high emission source regions near the edges of states Trajectory points every 3 hours may not accurately represent high emission source regions near the edges of states Therefore, TRA results may miss or underestimate the impact from these regions Therefore, TRA results may miss or underestimate the impact from these regions

43. 24 groupings 24 groupings Based on source region attribution and species signal strength and similarity Based on source region attribution and species signal strength and similarity Groupings similar for SO4 and NO3 Groupings similar for SO4 and NO3 Initial Grouping of CIAs by Sulfate and Nitrate Source Attribution

44. Available Attribution Information More information for some species than others More information for some species than others Credibility of results depend on how well all categories of information agree Credibility of results depend on how well all categories of information agree

45. Colorado’s Contribution to Sulfate

46. Colorado’s Contribution to Nitrate

47. Attribution Matrix >>>> Contributions (%) to CIAs by Source Regions:   Which source regions affect CIAs?   Which CIAs do source regions affect?

48. Regional Assessment - Fire A.The difference between the CMAQ-modeled visibility impacts with and without all fire emissions. This model run is designed to isolate the effect of fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model. This model run is designed to isolate the effect of fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model. B.The difference between the CMAQ-modeled visibility impacts with “natural” fire emissions, and all fire emissions. This model run is designed to isolate the effect of “anthropogenic” fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model, including “natural” fire. This model run is designed to isolate the effect of “anthropogenic” fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model, including “natural” fire. C.The difference between the CMAQ-modeled visibility impacts with all fire emissions, and without anthropogenic fire emissions. This model run is designed to isolate effects of “natural” fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model, including “anthropogenic” fire. This model run is designed to isolate effects of “natural” fire emissions on visibility from the effect of all other emissions sources in the model, including “anthropogenic” fire.

49. A. Fire Assessment – Visibility Impact of All Fire Emissions

50. B. Fire Assessment – Visibility Impact of Anthropogenic Fires

51. C. Fire Assessment – Visibility Impact of Natural Fires

52. Major Findings Compiled attributions for 125 Class I areas Compiled attributions for 125 Class I areas Independent apportionment methods generally consistent in identifying source regions Independent apportionment methods generally consistent in identifying source regions AoH weight of evidence method generally applicable to haze attribution AoH weight of evidence method generally applicable to haze attribution Emissions from mobile and point source categories: Emissions from mobile and point source categories: SO 2 and NO x are regional pollutants, comprising a significant percentage of each state’s emissions SO 2 and NO x are regional pollutants, comprising a significant percentage of each state’s emissions Both are important contributors to light extinction Both are important contributors to light extinction Modeled emissions from each WRAP region state impact Class I areas of one or more other states and tribes Modeled emissions from each WRAP region state impact Class I areas of one or more other states and tribes

53. Next Steps Draft report to be released 12/17/04 on the WRAP AoH web site: Draft report to be released 12/17/04 on the WRAP AoH web site: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aoh/ars1/documents/AoH_ Summary_Report_Draft.pdf http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aoh/ars1/documents/AoH_ Summary_Report_Draft.pdf Review comments need to be directed to ARS by 1/20/05 – use “AoH Draft Review” as the e-mail subject. E-mail to: jadlhoch@air-resource.com Review comments need to be directed to ARS by 1/20/05 – use “AoH Draft Review” as the e-mail subject. E-mail to: jadlhoch@air-resource.comjadlhoch@air-resource.com AoH Workgroup to review compiled comments and complete report by end of January, 2005 AoH Workgroup to review compiled comments and complete report by end of January, 2005 Results and recommendations to help preparation for AoH Phase II project (starts mid-2005) Results and recommendations to help preparation for AoH Phase II project (starts mid-2005)