AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November 15 - 18, 2004

1. AoH Report UpdateJoint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las VegasNovember 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

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

9. WRAP States SO2 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. Spokane Indian Reservation (WA) Redwood NP (CA) Sequoia NP (CA) Sawtooth W (ID)

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

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

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

20. 2002 WRAP Species Extinction Sulfate Nitrate Organics Coarse Mass

21. 2002 WRAP Extinction and Deciviews Aerosol Extinction 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. Two Interpolation Methods 1/R2 Method Kriging Method • The 1/R2 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 SO2 Emissions Sulfate Mass SO2 Emissions • Hot spots of SO2 emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of sulfate mass

24. Nitrate Mass and NOX Emissions Nitrate Mass NOX Emissions • Hot spots of NOX emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of nitrate mass

25. Coarse Mass and Coarse Mass Emissions Coarse Mass Coarse Mass Emissions • Hot spots of coarse mass emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of 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 Tagged Species Source Apportionment • 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

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 forRocky 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 forMesa 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 AreasAffected 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