-- Appendix D10-4 


Modeling and Maintenance Demonstration 


Historical and Future Ozone Simulations Using the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System 


in the Portland-Vancouver Area 


WSU Modeling Study 

The Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, Washington Dept. of Ecology (Ecology), Southwest 

Clean Air Agency (SWCAA), Washington State University (WSU) and EPA Region 10 teamed 

together to perform photochemical modeling for the Portland-Vancouver Air Quality 

Maintenance Area to improve our understanding of the potential for ozone exceedances in the 

future. The modeling work involved simulation of a July 1998 episode meteorology that had the 

highest ozone levels observed in recent years. The model results were compared to available 

observed data, and the 1998 episode was used as a basis for evaluation of future year (2015) 

growth projections. 

The agencies contracted with WSU to use the CMAQ dispersion model to help assess the 

status of the Portland-Vancouver airshed with respect to the national ambient air quality 

standard for tropospheric ozone. The Turner monitoring site is included within the modeling 

domain and allowed DEQ to asses the status of the Salem-Keizer airshed at the same time. 

The modeling effort is documented in the report, "Historical and Future Ozone Simulations 

Using the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System in the Portland-Vancouver Area" (WSU, December 31, 

2005), in this Appendix. Although most of the modeling effort has been performed by WSU, 

DEQ recently developed the technical capability to run the SMOKE and CMAQ simulations inr'- house. 

2015 Projection 

The "managed growth projection simulation" in the WSU modeling report is the modeling results 

described as the "2015 Projection" in the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. The emission inventory that was used in that modeling simulation is detailed 

in an appendix to the WSU report. 

2015 Maintenance Demonstration 

The "2015 Maintenance Demonstration" in the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer Ozone 

Maintenance Plan uses the same emission inventory as the "2015 Projection," except for point 

sources. Point sources within Oregon were based on the maximum allowable permitted 

emission limits (Plant Site Emission LimitS), and within Washington were based on proportional 

growth. A point source growth allowance was added to both inventories: 5,000 tons VOC and 

5,000 tons NOx were added to areas zoned for industrial growth in the Oregon portion of the 

Portland-Vancouver AQMA, and a proportional amount of 411 tons of VOC and 1,313 tons of 

NOx was added to areas zoned for industrial growth in the Washington portion of the PortlandVancouver AQMA. The results of the modeled attainment test are described in Appendix D10­

6. 

Please contact DEQ for a copy of this appendix 

Marianne Fitzgerald 

Air Quality Division 

(503) 229-5946 

fitzgerald.marianne@deq.state.or.us 

Adopted bythe EQC 02122/07 49 
-


-, 

Historical and Future Ozone Simulations 

using the MMS/SMOKE/CMAQ System 

in the PortlandIV ancouver Area 

Prepared by 


Ying Xie and Brian Lamb 


Laboratory for Atmospheric Research 


Department ofCivil & Environmental Engineering 


Washington State University 


Prepared for 


Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 


Southwest Clean Air Agency 


Washington State Department ofEcology 


December 31, 2005 


1 
Table of contents 

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 
 - 2 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 5 


3 Ozone Modeling Study Goal and Design .................................................................................... 5 


3.1 Previous Ozone Modeling Work ...........................................................................................5 


3.1.1 Maintenance Plan EKMA modeling .............................................................................. 6 


3.1.2 Southwest Washington Ozone Study ............................................................................. 6 


3.1.3 NW Regional Technical Center Demonstration Project.. .............................................. 6 


4 Episode Selection ......................................................................................................................... 7 


5 Meteorological modeling ............................................................................................................. 9 


5.1 Modeling methods .................................................................................................................9 


5.2 Meteorological modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) .................................12 


5.2.1 Surface Temperature .................................................................................................... 12 


5.2.2 Sl.,lrface winds ............................................................................................................... 16 


5.2.3 Soil moisture ................................................................................................................ 19 


5.2.4 PBL height and vertical profile .................................................................................... 21 


5.2.5 MM5 statistical evaluation ........................................................................................... 27 


5.2.6 LSM run compared with simple soil model run .......................................................... 28 


5.3 Modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) ......................................................... .29 


5.4 Back trajectory analysis .......................................................................................................35 


6 Photochemical air quality modeling .......................................................................................... 37 


6.1 Modeling methods ............................................................................................................... 3 7 


6.2 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) .............................................39 


6.2.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation ......................................................................................... 47 


6.2.2 Comparisons with NOxJVOC monitoring data ............................................................ 52 
 - 6.3 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) .............................................58 


6.3.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation ......................................................................................... 64 


6.3.2 Comparisons with NOx monitoring data ..................................................................... 69 


6.4 Conclusion for July 1998 and 1997 CMAQ simulation ......................................................76 


7 Future episode modeling (2015) ................................................................................................ 76 


7.1 Future year base case ........................................................................................................... 7 6 


7.1.1 CMAQ mod~ling results .............................................................................................. 76 


7.1.2 VOC/NOx ratios and regional increase of ozone ........................................................ 83 


7.2 What if scenario - No lower Columbia River point sources ................................................86 


Reference ...................................................................................................................................... 93 


Appendix A. Emission Inventory Documentation ........................................................................ 95 


Appendix B: Area Source Category Emission Calculation Methodologies ............................... 108 


Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 input files for the 1997 and 1998 episodes ...................................... 111 


Appendix D: Acronyms ............................................................................................................. 125 


-


2 

1 Executive Summary 

In order to develop quantitative estimates of ozone levels in future years, a modeling study was 

completed for the Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA urban region. This work was conducted as 

part ofthe State Implementation Plan development for this area. Two historical episodes (July 

17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998) were simulated using the Mesoscale Meteorological model 

version 51 Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System I Community Multi-scale 

Air Quality Modeling System (MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ). These two episodes were selected for 

this modeling work because the July 1998 episode had the highest ozone levels observed in 

recent years for the airshed and the July 1997 episode had slightly different meteorological 

patterns compared to the 1998 case. In addition to the normal ozone observations, VOCINOx 

monitoring data were also available for the July 1997 episode for comparison to the modeled 

results. 

As part ofthe base simulation for the July 1998 episode, tests were conducted to investigate the 

effects of using a more complex land-surface modeling option-the Noah Land Surface Model, 

LSM-within the MM5 meteorological model. In these tests, using the LSM in MM5 produced 

a better simulation ofsurface temperatures and generally lower and more accurate planetary 

boundary layer (PBL) heights along the west side ofthe Cascades compared to using the 

traditional simple soil model. As a result, air quality modeling results for ozone were also 

improved using MM5 with the LSM option. For the CMAQ simulation, model performance 

statistics for most monitoring sites were within United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EP A) suggested I-hr and 8-hr ozone modeling guidelines. Time series plots, scatter plots, and 

Quantile-Quantile plots also showed generally good agreement between model simulations and 

observations..While model performance was acceptable for both episodes, the July 1998 episode 

was selected as the base for evaluation offuture year (2015) managed growth maintenance 

projection simulations because observed ozone concentrations were much higher in 1998. 

Two 2015 managed growth maintenance projection simulations were modeled. The first 

simulation analyzed changes in ozone formation with the emissions inventory changes in the 

future. The second simulation was a modification ofthe first designed to examine the influence 

ofthe industrial sources located along the lower Columbia River on the ozone formation in the 

PortlandIV ancouver urban area. 

The future year (2015) emission inventory was developed using growth factors depending on the 

surrogates for each source category. Federally mandated control strategies and foreseeable 

changes were also taken into account. Total emissions for all pollutants were projected to 

decrease in the 2015 emissions inventory compared to the 1998 emissions inventory. 

Furthermore, NOx emissions were projected to have a greater reduction than VOC emissions 

which resulted in an increase ofthe VOCINOx emission ratio. For 1998, the entire Portland 

urban area and 1-5 corridor appeared to be in the VOC-sensitive region, based upon predicted 

03INOx concentration ratios. For 2015, the VOC-sensitive areas were much smaller, which is 

consistent with the increased VOCfNOx ratio. A large reduction in ozone was predicted to occur 

downwind ofurban Portland in 2015 CMAQ simulation results compared to the 1998 modeling 

results. The reduction of ozone levels within the urban core was less significant than at the 

downwind sites. The second projected 2015 simulation which assumed no large industrial 

activity along the lower Columbia River showed reductions up to 12 ppb at the southwestern 

3 
Washington observation sites when compared to the first 2015 managed growth maintenance 

projection; sites in Oregon showed small or no differences associated with this simulation. 

Further analysis of other potential control strategies, based upon modifications to the 2015 

managed growth maintenance projection, will be conducted by ODEQ and SWCAA as part of 

the overall maintenance plan development. 

-


-


4 

2 Introduction 

The current I-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plans for the PortlandIV ancouver airshed were adopted 

as part ofthe Oregon and Washington State Implementation Plans in 1997. The control 

measures in those plans have helped the region maintain the now-revoked I-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The region is also in attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the current ozone standard. 

However, due to exceedances ofthe I-hour ozone standard in the recent past, the unique 

meteorological influences from the Columbia River Gorge, and the potential for ozone precursor 

transport in the region, regional air regulatory agencies proposed performance ofphotochemical 

modeling for the area as a basis for improving our understanding ofthe potential for ozone 

exceedances in the future. This report presents the results ofthis modeling study. The modeling 

system used for this work was the MMS/SMOKE/CMAQ system; it was applied to a domain 

consisting of 4 km x 4 km horizontal grid cells covering an area that extended from north of 

Puget Sound to south of Salem, OR and from the Pacific coast on the west to beyond the 

Cascade Mountain range on the east. The modeling work involved simulation oftwo historical 

episodes, July 17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998. The model results were compared to available 

observations, and then the 1998 episode was used as a basis for evaluation offuture year (20 IS) 

managed growth projections. An important aspect ofthe modeling study was the evaluation of 

model sensitivity to use of different land/surface models within the MMS meteorological model. 

,- Results from these sensitivity studies are also described in this report. 

3 Ozone Modeling Study Q>al and Design 

The overall goal for this work was to improve understanding of ozone behavior in the 

PortlandNancouver airshed and to obtain model results to help evaluate future year conditions 

and the effectiveness ofpotential control strategies. The approach involved the following steps: 

1) selection ofsuitable ozone episodes that represented worst-case or typical ozone conditions, 2) 

development ofthe necessary meteorological, emissions, and air quality observations data sets, 

3) optimization ofthe modeling system to yield acceptable model performance for these 

episodes, and 4) use ofthe meteorological simulation from one ofthese episodes as a basis for 

evaluation offuture year conditions and control strategy effectiveness. This work was guided by 

the PortlandIV ancouver ozone modeling technical committee consisting ofrepresentatives from 

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ), Southwest Clean Air Agency 

(SWCAA), Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology), the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and Washington State University (WSU). 

3.1 Previous Ozone Modeling Work 

There have been only limited ozoI\e modeling efforts for the PortlandNancouver area. The 1990 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments classified the PortlandNancouver airshed as a marginal 

ozone nonattainment area. There is no CAA requirement for a marginal ozone nonattainment 

area to perform photochemical modeling or any other attainment demonstration. Furthermore, 

S 

there have not been other federal requirements for air regulatory agencies to perform ozone air 

quality modeling in the PortlandNancouver airshed. The only ozone modeling work that has - been performed has been a result of special project work or large-scale regional modeling efforts 

that included the PortlandN ancouver airshed in the overall domain. 

3.1.1 Maintenance Plan EKMA modeling 

The redesignation request/ozone maintenance plans that were submitted to the Oregon and 

Washington SIPs in 1996 relied on historical ozone monitoring data, future control measures, 

and emission inventory projections to demonstrate future attainment with the I-hour ozone 

standard. The ozone modeling work for that submittal was limited to a determination of 

emission levels necessary to prevent future exceedances using the Empirical Kinetics Modeling 

Approach (EKMA). This work utilized the Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package with Optional 

Mechanisms (OSIPM-4) to conduct the EKMA analysis. 

3.1.2 Southwest Washington Ozone Study 

Following EPA's approval ofthe Portland and Vancouver ozone SIP submittals, WSU was 

contracted by Ecology and SWCAA to conduct a photochemical modeling study of the area to 

determine the potential effects ofpoint sources upwind of the Portland/Vancouver maintenance 

area on the area's monitored ozone values. The main purpose ofthe study was to address the 

question ofthe impact ofthe emissions from the major industrial point sources in Cowlitz 

County, W A on ozone levels in the PortlandNancouver maintenance area. This study also had 

an objective to help develop the regional photochemical modeling system. This included 

running the MM5 prognostic weather model and the CALGRID/CALMET suite of models with ­ a fine resolution grid (5 km). The study focused on an ozone episode during July 11-14, 1996. 

The final report for this study was published in January of 1999 and is available for review on 

the Ecology website. 

3.1.3 NW Regional Technical Center Demonstration Project 

This work was the result of a multi-agency collaborative effort to develop regional air quality 

modeling capabilities. The contributing agencies for this work were EPA Region 10, Ecology, 

ODEQ, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Environment Canada. The main goal 

of this project was to establish a virtual technical center and to demonstrate the use ofthe EPA 

CMAQ regional modeling system. The agencies contracted with WSU to run several CMAQ 

and CALGRID runs with varying chemical mechanisms and MM5 grid scales. This has been the 

most extensive modeling exercise that has encompassed the PortlandNancouver region to date. 

Several modeling runs were completed to look at ozone and visibility at a 12 km grid scale. The 

model runs focused on two events, July 2-14,1996 and July 23-30,1996. The work was 

conducted from early 2000 to June 2002. Further details are in O'Neill and Lamb (2004); 

O'Neill et al. (2005); and Chen (2002). 

These ozone modeling studies provided the basis for the design of the current modeling project. 


In particular, the demonstration and evaluation of CMAQ in these previous studies were very 


valuable for the current study. Details describing the episode selection and modeling methods 


are given in the following sections. 


6 

4 Episode Selection 

The PortlandlV ancouver Maintenance Area has had relatively mild ozone seasons during the 

summers of 1999, 2000, ,2001, and 2002. There were monitored exceedances ofthe I-hour 

ozone standard in 1996 and 1998. There were also times of elevated ozone levels during most 

years when the standard was not exceeded. 

General EPA guidance for episode selection recommends analyzing observed meteorological 

patterns to determine which have caused violations for the area in the past. The 

PortlandlVancouver ozone modeling technical committee recommended modeling one scenario 

of each ofthe major meteorological situations that cause exceedances. 

The following episodes were suggested as potential episodes to model. 

• 	 July 11-14, 1996 (Same episode used for the NWRTC Demonstration Project and the 

Southwest Ozone Study, one I-hour ozone exceedance in the Portland area) 

• 	 July 22-31, 1998 (Series of 3 exceedances in the Portland area during the 25th through 

the 28th) 

• 	 July 17-22, 1997 (Episode with moderate monitored values under the 8-hour standard 

at the PortlandlV ancouver monitors but well monitored) 

• 	 July 22-26, 1996 (Episode with the highest ozone measurements in the area for 1996, 

1997, and 1998) 

• 	 August 7-10, 1996 (Episode with Sauvie Island monitor reaching its highest value for 

1996) 

The PortlandlV ancouver ozone modeling technical committee considered several factors during 

selection ofthe episodes to be modeled, including: 

• 	 Ozone episodes selected for modeling should be selected from the most frequent, 

typical, and representative patterns associated with high ozone in the region. 

• 	 Recent episodes are preferred over older episodes because recent episodes represent 

the current emissions inventory, including mobile and point configurations. Recent 

episodes can also be more representative of current reduction strategies. 

• 	 Well-monitored episodes (with more meteorology, VOC, and NOx data) are 

preferred over data poor episodes. Additional data allow for more thorough model 

evaluation and provide information necessary to understand the processes leading to 

high ozone. 

• 	 Ozone episodes should be selected with high monitored values to represent the 

meteorology that results in severe ozone. Furthermore, episodes should have high 

ozone in the geographical areas where high values typically occur. Such selection 

will allow modeling potential control strategies with representative ozone 

concentrations in the areas where the strategies must work. 

• 	 Multi-day episodes are the most efficient way to model both long range transport of 

ozone and the accumulation of local emissions that are associated with ozone. 

7 
• 	 Multi-day episodes also allow the possibility oftesting model responsiveness. Ifthe 

model can reproduce both the high and low ozone days within a period, there will 

be more confidence in the model and its ability to replicate and forecast events. 

The PortlandiVancouver ozone modeling technical committee screened the suggested episodes 

based on the considerations listed above and recommended two episodes. The recommended 

episodes are as follows: 

July 22-31, 1998 was selected to be the first episode modeled. The July 1998 episode accounted 

for 3 exceedances ofboth the I-hour and 8-hour ozone standards at the Carns monitor in the 

Portland area within a short period oftime. There was also a near exceedance ofthe I-hour 

standard and an exceedance ofthe 8-hour standard at the Milwaukie monitor. There were 

elevated temperatures over the series of days and light NW winds. The 1998 episode was chosen 

instead ofthe July 11-14, 1996 episode because considerable analysis has already been done for 

the 1996 episode, and there would be more benefit from analyzing a new episode. Table 1 

shows some select data from the 1998 episode. 

T a e bl 1 Sit e ec e 	d peak ozone concen t ral'IOns d . unng the July 22-31, 1998 episode (ppb) 

Milwaukie Cams 

Date I-hour 8-hour I-hour I 8-hour 

July 26 124 100 136 I 117 

July 27 133 I 86 

July 28 I 137 J 98 

July 17-22, 1997 was selected to be the second episode modeled. This episode did not coincide 

with any ozone standard exceedances; however there were moderately high ozone levels 

recorded at the Milwaukie monitor. This episode also seemed to show a slightly different 

meteorological pattern than the 1998 episode as indicated by moderate values at both the 

Vancouver and Carns sites. The modeling technical committee compared this episode with the 

July 11-14, 1996 episode and decided that it would be more beneficial to focus the efforts on an 

event that has not previously been analyzed with a model in this area. Another reason for the 

selection ofthis episode (as opposed to 1996) is that there are additional monitoring data for 

southwest Washington obtained during an Ecology study conducted in the summer of 1997, 

1998, and part of 1999. In addition to the meteorological and ozone data on the Oregon side, in 

both 1998 and 1997, Southwest W A had four ozone sites in the domain (Woodland, Mt. View, 

Castle Rock, and Hockinson), and three NOx sites (Castle Rock, Mt.View and Woodland). 

Additionally, in 1997 HC and carbonyl measurements were taken at Castle Rock and Mt.View 

and there was one additional met site at a Bonneville Power Administration site. This additional 

monitoring in 1997 contrasts with the usual situation in southwest Washington where there is a 

lack ofNOx and VOC sites and only a single ozone site. Table 2 shows some select data from 

the 1997 episode. 

8 
Table 2: Summary ofthe July 17-22, 1997 episode ozon~ values (Ppb) 

I I Mt. View I Milwaukie I Carus i Sauvie Island . 

• i (Vancouver) . ! . I 

~J~u=ly~1-9~~59~--~53~+-~6~5~--~5~5=-~~7~7=---~675~--~59~ 

Date I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour I-hour ~ 

52 

Jul 20 77 62 101 73 73 68 48 

5 Meteorological modeling 

5.1 Modeling methods 

The Mesoscale Meteorological model Version 5 (MM5, Grell et aI., 1994) was used to provide 

the 3-D meteorological field for air quality modeling. Three one-way nested domains with grid 

cell horizontal sizes of 36 km, 12 km, and 4 km were applied. The two outer domains consisted 

of98x95 and 133x151 grid cells, respectively. The innermost domain consisted of 112x112 grid 

cells which extended from north ofPuget Sound in Washington to south of Salem, OR and from 

the Pacific coast on the west to beyond the Cascade Mountain range on the east. This domain 

was larger than the immediate area ofPortlandlVancouver and was selected to minimize the 

influence of boundary conditions. Vertically, 38 sigma layers were specified. The 12 km and 4 

km MM5 domains are shown in Figure 1. 

To obtain meteorological fields that produced acceptable results with CMAQ in terms of ozone 

performance, several MM5 runs with different physics configurations were conducted as shown 

in Table 3. 

Table 3. MM5 configuration used for different model runs 

Runs I 5-layer soil model 1 5-layer soil mode 2 LSM 1 LSM 2 ! 

Label " 0" "base sen" "sen ini LSM" "sen ini LSM ns" 

Initialization NCEPGDAS ETA212 ETA212 ETA212 

Radiation Cloud-radiation CCM2 Radiation Cloud-radiation Cloud-radiation 

Moisture Simple ice Reisner 2 Simple ice Simple ice 

Surface scheme 5-layer soil model 5-layer soil model Noah LSM Noah LSM 

i Cumulus scheme KF Cumulus KF Cumulus KF Cumulus KF Cumulus 

PBL scheme MRF MRF MRF MRF 

! I 

Analysis nudging ofT.rc and. 


winds within boundary la:rer i Not tumed on I Not turned on i Not tumed on Turned on I 


As described later, the "LSM_I" run produced the best overall results for air quality modeling. 

In this report, this run is evaluated and compared with the original run ("5-layer soil modeC1 "). 

The original 5-layer soil model run was initialized using NCEP Global Data Assimilation System 

(GDAS) analysis archived on a 2.5x2.5 degree latllong grid at every 12 hours. All other runs 

were initialized using NCEP Eta model analysis archived on a 40 km grid at every 3hrs. 

Analysis nudging was applied in the coarse domains (36 km, 12 km) and observational nudging 

was applied in the inner 4km domain. For analysis nudging, 3D nudging was employed for 

9 
winds, temperature, and moisture above the PBL. Surface nudging was applied for winds and 

moisture, but not temperature. In some sensitivity runs, boundary layer 3D nUdging was turned 

on for winds and surface nudging was also turned on for temperature. See Table 3 for 

configuration details. Wind speed and direction observations from about 20 surface stations 

were used for observational nudging ofthe winds in the inner 4 km domain. A map of these 

stations is shown in Figure 2. Data from four surface stations (Ecology sites as shown in Figure 

2) were withheld from the nudging analysis so that an independent evaluation could be 

conducted at these sites. For all runs, land use data were derived from 1 km USGS global terrain 

and land use database. 

The MM5 physics options used in the LSM run included use of the Kain-Fritsch cumulus 

parameterization scheme (Kain and Fritsch, 1993), the MRF PBL scheme (Hong and Pan, 1996), 

simple ice moisture, cloud-radiation, and Noah Land Surface Model (Chen and Dudhia, 2001). 

In some sensitivity runs, CCM2 radiation, Reisner2 moisture, and the 5-layer soil model were 

employed as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that the current configuration used in the 

University ofWashington MM5 forecast system matches the configuration ofthe soil model run 

with the CCM2 radiation and Reisner2 moisture treatment. 

10 
Figure 1. 12 and 4 km MM5 domain (D03 and D04) 

- Pacijtt 

(}f(11I! 

ecology (porU~na area) 

+ 

ffxeJ b'Jo'i 

• 

\ ~lTf \ '.~.... ~c~'~ .. _.~ _____ ._~~___..~:~~~ ___.. _~~~~~~. 

-"~C<llit(Jml~ 

>,P,I.M-.j 

.­ i~~ \

+.:..:::.:':--------------\ 

'''"\, 

( 

-', 

j .~" 

i 

"f:. i 

i • __ ___ ~_. ___________ > • _____l~ __ .. _~ __ ~._ .. __ 

t-levooa 

Figure2. Surface stations used in MM5 observational nudging. The stations within the box 

outlined in blue were used in nudging (expect for four ecology sites which were withheld). The 

sites within the inner box outlined in green were used in model evaluation. 

11 
It has been shown that soil moisture has a significant impact on PBL parameters such as surface -


temperature and PBL height (Zhang and Anthes, 1982). These processes as well as cloud 

coverage, profiles of humidity, temperature and wind are all related to surface wetness and 

vegetation cover (Xiu and Pleim, 2001). In the traditional MM5 approach (5-layer soil model), 

soil moisture is set to constant seasonal values depending on land use type. Therefore, the 

effects of precipitation and evaporation are not treated explicitly. In contrast, the Noah LSM has 

four soil layers with the thickness of 0 . 1, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0 m. It employs one canopy layer and 

prognostically solves for soil moisture and temperatures in each soil layer. As a result, the LSM 

has the ability to account for temporal and spatial changes in soil moisture due to precipitation 

and evapo-transpiration effects. 

5.2 Meteorological modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) 

5.2.1 Surface Temperature 

Surface temperature contours from the simple soil-1 and LSM-1 runs are shown in Figure 3a and 

3b at 17 PDT on July 28, 1998. For western Washington and Oregon, the LSM run predicted 

cooler surface temperatures than the simple soil model, with only a small area around Portland 

above 35°C. In the simple soil model, the warm areas were much more extensive around the 

Puget Sound area and from Portland to Salem. In eastern Washington, the temperature patterns 

were opposite, where LSM-l simulated warmer conditions than the simple soil modeL 

Predicted surface temperature and cloud coverage were compared with observations as shown in 

Figure 4a-c. It appears that on the high ozone days (July 26 to July 28), the daily maximum 

temperatures predicted by both the LSM-l and simple soil-1 models were fairly close to the 

observations at Portland and Salem. On the low ozone days (July 23 to July 25), LSM-1 showed 

better agreement with the observations which might be related to improved simulation of clouds 

on these days. However, in the northwestern part ofthe domain, such as at Castle Rock(Figure 

4c), diurnal variations of surface temperature in LSM-l were too small compared to the daily 

variations in the observations. Similar patterns could also be found at some southwest sites such 

as VAO and HIO (not shown). A scatter plot (Figure 5) showed that both model runs tended to 

overestimate low temperatures and underestimate high temperatures. However, LSM-1 had 

slightly better agreement with the observations especially for the peak temperatures. 

12 

Layer 1 TEMPIPSb-273.15 

ilO 99 

38 

35 

3Z 

30 

Z8 

ZS 

ZZ 

ZO 

18 

lS 

12 

10 

8 

S 

K 

p;sUE 

b" 

Me"" Min= 

July 29.1998 0:00:00 

lS at (45.67). Max­ 39 at (B6.63) 

Figure 2a. 

Figure 3a. Surface temperature pattern from simple soil model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 

1998. 

Layer 1 TEMPIOe-273.15 

lSM run 

simple soil run 

99 

ilO 99 

38 

35 

3Z 

30 

28 

25 

ZZ 

20 

18 

lS 

1Z 

10 

8 

S 

K 

PALIE 

b" 

IIICI<C MlnJuly 29.1998 0:00:00 

13 at (45.67). Max= ilO at (89.56) 

Figure 3b .. Surface temperature pattern from LSM model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998. 

99 

13 
POX 

40.0 r----r----,----------,-----..,..----,-----,----...,----, 

~ 10.0 r_----+~. ----}----+-----+----'----------j-----+----+----I 

35.0 r---j-----j-----t----+--iIi11t+--li~+--~r.+---+--___1 4.5 

3.5 

3 

~ 

~ 15.0 r_---+__ 

11 

g, . 1.5 

0.5 

71221980:00 7/23198 0:00 7124100 0:00 7125198 0:00 7/26/1l80:oo 71271980:00 7/2811l80:oo 7/291980:00 7130198 0:00 7131/98 0:00 

Figure 4a. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Portland. 

9 35.0 ~r_---t_.--...........~ 

i 15.0 ht----l-t;,.. --~w'---_+_v--_+---+---_+_---....,...·-···---ftitU'--__i 

i! 

t 3 

21 10.0 +----t_ 

5.0 +---~----....: =-------f----t-.---~---.._+---_+=------1 

oo~..==~...._==*~~~~..~====='........~~=_....='__-=~..~-__·~_o - 7/22/96 0:00 71231980:00 7/24/96 0:00 71251980:00 71261980:00 7127/96 0:00 7128/96 0:00 7129198 0:00 71301960:00 7/31/96 0:00 

Figure 4b. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Salem. 

SLE 

40.0,-----,-------,---,-----,-----,-----_----,···-----,-----,10 

-

-. 


14 

,---~---------------...---...---------- ._ •.._._---, 

Castlerock 

40.0,.----,.----.,----,----,----,----..,----...,-----,----, 5 

4.5 35.0+----~---+_---+_---+_---.-4--~~~-~".~- --~~--~ 

4 

~30.0+--~~+_---+----+_-~~~-~~_*._-·~_f~-t..~~--~~~---~ 

~ 3.5

.e 

~ 25.0 +--f~-I--+_____,/_F'I;\__+_-+_\__r_-H._'\ct_'_-Jf----\___-l----I.---Ih.-----'l.t---J'---+-~-+----J 3 


~ 20.0 ft-+----1~-H_._\1__f___J-P'__\1'_f__lf-I--__Yt__lt--~~----L..o~'---_t_\.t"_--1ri~\i_____,/---_+ 2.5 


." "

" 

§: 

j 15.0+----+_~~--1~~~-~~~-~---~---~····---~r..~-

I::: 10.0 +-----'-------.-------j-----j-----+------+------+----+----___J 

1.5 

5.0 I 0.5 

O.O~~ 

7/22198 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 71241960;00 7/251960:00 71261980:00 7/27198 0;00 7126198 0:00 71291980:00 7/301980;00 7131/980;00 

Figure 4c. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Castle Rock. 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 ;; 

! 25 

;. 20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

y = 0.B242X + 5.6587 

R' 0.7636 

y =07917xR' 0.7583 

oils (degree C) 

Figure 5. Scatter plot ofpredicted surface temperature (LSM and simple soil) and observations 

from all available surface stations 

15 
5.2.2 Surface winds 

Surface wind patterns are shown in Figure 6a, and 6b for 17 PDT on July 28. The LSM-l run 

predicted northerly winds along the 1-5 corridor in western Washington, which veered to 

northwesterly and moved through the Portland area. As the flow went further south, there was 

some apparent convergence with the strong southwesterly onshore flow along the Oregon coast. 

In contrast, the winds from tht! simple soil model run showed very consistent northwesterly 

winds along the 1-5 corridor. The onshore winds along the Oregon coast flowed northwesterly 

instead of southwesterly as in the LSM-1 run. Similar southwesterly onshore flows were also 

seen in other runs initialized using the Eta analysis, so this might be more related to the 

difference in initialization than in the surface scheme. 

The MM5 first layer (38 m) winds were extrapolated to 10m using the neutral logarithmic wind 

speed profile and compared with 10m surface station observations as shown in Figure 7. 

Predicted wind speed and direction showed reasonable agreement with the observations. Both 

runs tended to underestimate the daytime surface winds (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). This problem is 

well known for the MRF PBL scheme (Liu et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2004.) and was related either 

to the underestimation ofdownward momentum flux or to the overestimation offriction velocity 

according to these researchers. 

Layer 1 Vector Plot 

simple soil run 

100 

PAVE July 29.1998 0:00:00 by 5.0MIS hlCNC 

Figure 6a. Surface wind pattern from simple soil model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998. 

16 
Layer 1 Vector Plot 

LSM run 

1 100 

PAVE ------io July 29.19980:00:00 bv S.OM/S b1CNC 

Figure 6b. Surface wind pattern from LSM run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998. 

POX 

, . • i* • 

• 

__1 •

• • •

•

•

.. • 

I 180 t----t----j-----'­

i 

• 

• 90~'---~---r---~-~--t~-t-~ 

• 

0~__--t-_1~~~~--+___~r4 

35,0 

• 

30,0 

25,0 

20,0 ;;­

!

.. 

!I: 

15,0 

10,0 

5,0 

7122/980;00 7/23/980;00 71241980;00 7/251980;00 7126198 0;00 7127/980;00 71281980;00 7/291980;00 7130/980;00 7/311980;00 

Figure 7a. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Portland 

17 
-, SLE 

360~'. .' 

•• 270 

• 1

• • 180 

I 20.0 .. 

I • ! 

i • :il 90 ' 15.0 

• 

• ·1 10.0

• . 0 

Figure 7b. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Salem. 

C3stlerock 

Figure 7c. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM and simple soil 

model compared with observations at Castle Rock. 

18 
-


5.2.3 Soil moisture 

In the simple soil model, soil moisture has constant seasonal values (summer or winter) defined 

as a function ofland use type. Consequently, in summer most areas on the west side ofthe 

domain had volumetric soil moisture values of 0.3, except for urban areas where the soil 

moisture equaled 0.1. On the east side ofthe Cascades, most areas were much drier with soil 

moisture of0.1 except for the irrigated land (shown in Figure 8) where soil moistures were equal 

to 0.5. 

In the LSM-l run, soil moisture was initialized using analysis fields from the Eta model and 

solved prognostically. Figure 8 shows the predicted values from LSM-l at 17 PDT on July 27. 

Soil moisture for each layer (0.1,0.3,0.6, and 1 m) is shown. It appears that soil was driest at 

the surface layer, and had more water in the deeper layers. On the west side ofthe Cascades, soil 

moisture varied from 0.25 at the surface to 0.3 in the deeper layers. The difference was more 

substantial on the east side ofthe Cascades where the water content varied from about 0.1 in the 

first layer to about 0.3 at 1 m deep. Some wet areas in the shallow soil layer are obvious in the 

lower right comer ofthe domain; these were the result of convective rain storms simulated in this 

run. 

Modeled soil moisture was also compared with the observations at the Wind River Canopy 

Crane research site located north ofStevenson, WA approximately 30 km from the Columbia 

River. As described on the research site web page (http://cdiac.oml.gov/ftp/amerifluxJdataJussites/preliminary-datafWind-River/1998/WRCCRF_ met_meta _ data.html), the observed values 

were measured at 30 em using Campbell Scientific CS-615 probes. The station is located in an 

old growth forest canopy where soil moisture can be highly heterogeneous (personal 

communication, Timothy Link). However, the LSM-1 captured the drying trend in the 

observations fairly well (Figure 9). Note that this is consistent with the fact that there was little 

rainfall during the episode for most ofthe domain, and therefore, soil moisture was mainly 

controlled by evapotranspiration. 

19 
Figure 8. Volumetric soil moisture defined in the simple soil model and values calculated 

in the LSM for different layers. 

LSM layer3 (0.6 m) 

Simple soil 

LSM -layer4 (1 m) 

LSM -layer 1 (0.1 m) 

LSM layer 2 (0.3 m) 

20 
0.4 

0.35 

f

I 0.3 

~ - 10.25 

- J 

... 0.2 

lI( lI( 

:c 

0.15 

\I( 

""---..._.. 

1II 

""­

--: 

-

r -­

~::~I "1"...-layer1 ; 

" • abo I 

Wind River 

0;00 71271980;00 

Date 

Figure 9. Predicted and observed soil moisture at Wind River Crane site. 

5.2.4 PBL height and vertical profile 

PBL heights on the three peak ozone days are plotted in Figure 10 for the time when daily peak 

values were reached. The LSM-l run generally predicted lower PBL heights along the west side 

ofthe Cascades, especially in western Washington. For this part ofthe domain, the peak PBL 

heights from the LSM-l run were around 800 to 1000 m. In contrast, the simple soil-l run 

predicted average peak heights around 1200 m in this area for all three days. Different patterns 

showed up for the east side ofthe Cascades where the LSM-l generally predicted higher PBL 

heights, except for the very low heights in the lower right comer of the domain associated with 

areas of convective rainfall. 

Mixing heights estimated from upper air soundings at Salem, OR were compared to simulations 

from two models as shown in Figure 11. The LSM-l run predicted lower PBL heights on July 

24, 25 and 27 than the simple soil-l run. On July 26 and 28, the pattern was opposite. Compared 

to observed values (only available on July 26 to 28), both models tended to overestimate mixing 

heights by 200 to 300 m on these peak ozone days. 

21 
Figure 10. Predicted PBL heights by LSM and simple soil model for July 1998 episode 

- Layer 1 PBLv 

3SOO !IS 


3150 


2800 


2450 


2100 


1750 


1400 


10SO 


700 


350 


o 

!l!l 

July 26.1998 23:00:00 

Mln- 99 at (31.117). Max- 3<122 at (76.13) 

Layer 1 PBLv 

v-MEfCR02D_sip98_base_2O<1-210 


3SOO 99 


3150 


2800 


2450 


2100 


1750 


1400 


1050 


700 


3SO 

o 

99 


July 27,1998 22:00:00 

Mln- 76 at (26.90). Max- 3624 at (39,6) 

Layer 1 PBLv 

3SOO 99 ===""",,:r:::== 

31SO 


2800 


2450 


2100 


1750 


1400 


1050 


700 


350 


o M 99 


July 29,1998 22:00:00 

Min- 75 at (26.90). Max- 3803 at (611,13) 

Layer 1 PBLe 

3S0099=== 

99 


July 26.1998 23:00:00 !:15 lit(42,S). Max- 3873 lit (54,12) 

Layer 1 PBLe 

3150 


2BOO 


2450 


2100 


17SO 


1400 


1050 


700 


3SO 


o 


Min3500 99 


3150 


2800 


2450 


2100 


1750 
 - 1400 


1050 


700 


3SO 

o M 

Mln99 


JUIy27.1998 22:00:00 

19 at{10.so). Max- 4290 lit(55.4) 

Layer 1 PBLe 

99 


July 29,191l8 22:00:00 

G2 at (25,99)' Max= 4164 at (RS,s) 

3S00 99 


3150 


2800 


2450 


2100 


1750 


1400 


1050 


700 


350 


0 


M 

tlAI,I[ 

":'Me Min~ '" 

22 

--

paL height ·salem 

3000 ,..-----r-I-----,--~-,_____I--.~----,-I--------,I 

2500 +-----t--...-- +-~····~·--i-----·-···---··---+-----+----·--I 

I 

E 2000 +-----+---···~····--I····--·--I--~--.... I .; 

:e'" 15001~....--...-.­I . I ; h~ I l1. .th • (~~ ~'11 

1000 ;-17 I ~.- ... r~..·.·· ... !j\ fT.. \---~1\ -p I 

500 ~t~I~· I ~~J~ifl 712319817:00 712419817:00 7125/9817:00 7/26/9817:00 7/27/9817:00 7/28/98 17:00 7129/96 17.00 

Figure 11. PBL predicted by simple soil and LSM compared with observed values for July 1998 

episode. 

Vertical profiles of temperature, wind speed, and wind direction were also compared with the 

upper air soundings at Salem at 17PDT on July 25 and July 26 as shown in Figure 12. The 

LSM-l run captured the vertical temperature profile fairly well on July 25, whereas the simple 

soil-l run appeared to overestimate the temperature and predicted a deeper mixed layer than the 

soundings. On July 26, both models matched the temperature profile well up to 700 m but 

predicted a deeper mixed layer than the observations. For wind speed, the LSM-l run 

underestimated wind speeds up to 600 m and the simple soil-l run showed some overestimation 

up to 1500 m on July 25. On July 26, both models underestimated wind speed. For wind 

direction, both models had very good performance on July 25. On July 26, ·the LSM-I run 

showed better agreement with the observations below the boundary layer. 

23 
Figure 12. Observed and predicted vertical profiles oftemperature, wind speed and wind 

direction from the simple soil-l and LSM-l runs. ("old_run" refers to the simple soil-l run, and 

"rerun" refers to the LSM-l run) 

Salem July 25,199817:00 PDT 

4500 

"!t. 4000 

I ~. 3500 

3000 ~ 

2500 ~ E 

.~ 2000 ."

::c 1500 ~.

') 1000 ~ .

500 

o ~.

o 	 10 20 30 40 

Terrp (degree C) 

Salem July 25, 199817:00 PDT 

4500~-----------~----------~ 

4000+-----------f------------~ 

3500 +---------"--------'------' 

3000+--·~---------~-----+_~ 

g 2500+----------/-~~~--­ E 

.~ 2000 +------~~----........~----' 

::c 1500 +-<..".,..__. ___.. _______-j 

1000 -t------r--====:_----....... -----I 


500 +--- .......---,L=--~----------1 

0+--=-.......~---.,--------,-------4 

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 

Ws (rris) 

-


-


24 

Salem July 25, 1998 17:00 POT 

4500 


4000 


3500 


3000 


§: 2500 


::<: 

.~ 2000 


I
 :c 1500 


1000 


500 


o 

o 	 90 180 270 360 


Wd (degree) 


t--

~ 

\. 

\, 

,\

))

I ( 

..... /) 

~ 

=+=obs 

--rerun 

Salem July 26, 199817:00 POT 

4500 


4000 


3500 


~ 3000 


~ '." 

o 	

.~.-~

• ._M_ 

'-.. 

.

"'.\ a 

""t ~ 

E -+=obs

':;:; 2500 
 .c --rerun .~ 2000 


old_run I 	 1500 


1000 


500 


o 

10 20 30 40 


Telll> (degree C) 


25 
-


Salem July 26, 1998 17:00 POT 

4500 ,------,--"\--~~--.--~-~ 

4000 r------+---·····----"..--··--___i 

3000~-----/~-····c~-----~ 

3000+------/----~~---___i 

2000r·····~-/~~--~~-,~--------~

:c 

.~ 2000 


:c 1500 


1000 -+--',=--------.... ------1 


500 +-+--l-.-----------~ 

5 10 15 


Ws (m's) 


Salem July 26,199817:00 POT 

4500 


4000 


_ ... 

.::::: 

F' 

..J 

o 

... 

,\ 

• \ t 

\\ 

I\, 

A·~~~ 

...- ~ ~-

') , 

90 180 270 360 

Wd (degree) 

==+o=obs 

rerun 

- 3500 


~ 3000 


S- 2500 
 .c: 


.~ 2000 


:c 1500 


1000 


500 


o 

26 

____ 

S.2.S MMS statistical evaluation 

The meteorological simulations were also evaluated using the mean bias and mean error for wind 

speed, direction, and temperature (Table 4). Four Ecology network sites (Castle Rock, 

Woodland, BPA, and Mt.Zion) were selected as independent sites and withheld from 

observational nudging for surface winds. The mean bias oftemperature from the LSM-1 run was 

l.4°C, about 1°C smaller than the bias from the simple soil-1 run. The mean error of 

temperature was also smaller in the LSM-1 run compared to the simple soil-1 run (2.9°C versus 

3.2°C). The mean bias and mean error ofwind speed and wind direction from the LSM-1 run 

(ME 1.S mls for WS; ME = 50° for WD) were both larger than those from the simple soil-1 run 

(ME =: 1.2 mls for WS; ME = 40° for WD). This could be related to the underestimation of 

daytime surface winds and resulting error in the wind direction. The statistics for wind direction 

and wind speed were calculated separately for stations used for observational nudging and those 

withheld from observational nudging; these results show that model performance was similar for 

these two groups ofstations. This might due to the relative low density ofthe surface stations 

available for observational nudging in the region. Nevertheless, for the simple soil-l run, the 

results for obs nUdging stations had slightly smaller error (38°) in wind direction compared with 

the results for withheld stations (47°). 

Table4.MMS erformance statistics for Jul 

1998 Run T_bias T_error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error 

i °C °c mls mls 

rTOO LSM-1 0.75 2.83 6.5 45.4 -0.90 1.57 I 

simQle soil 1 2.28 3.05 -1.5 28.9 -0.50 1.19 

r-castle Rock LSM-1 1.33 2.88 -2.3 58.3 0.63 1.56 

sim Ie soil 1 2.85 3.37 -12.1 63.1 1.01 1.27 

KLS LSM-1 1.26 2.89 -9.1 34.3 0.07 1.32 

sim Ie soil 1 2.85 3.22 -9.4 25.4 0.37 1.16 

Woodland LSM-1 1.89 3.20 -8.5 20.2 -1.60 1.88 

L-. simple soil 1 2.49 3.23 -0.2 15.6 -1.00 1.46 

SPA LSM-1 2.08 3.10 -9.2 42.8 0.62 1.48 

I VUO 

simple soil 

LSM-1 

1 2.95 

1.64 

3.39 

2.86 

-3.3 

2.1 

36.8 

52.9 

1.02 

-0.36 

1.29 

1.28 

simple soil 1 2.50 2.96 3.4 46.9 0.10 1.00 

POX LSM-1 0.83 2.63 -3.6 46.8 -0.55 1.63 

simple soil 1 1.92 2.64 5.7 36.0 -0.46 1.25 

Mt. Zion LSM-1 0.97 2.62 6.8 67.7 -0.36 1.18 

simple soil 1 2.45 3.16 10.7 74.0 0.13 0.97 

HIO LSM-1 1.57 3.25 -18.9 52.3 -0.87 1.40 

simple soil 1 2.97 3.58 -26.6 39.0 -0.76 

TID LSM-1 1.46 2.71 7.3 75.1 -0.74 

I 1.01 

1.36 

I simple soil 1 2.98 3.27 25.1 54.6 -0.56 1.15 

,~1 UAO ~SM-1 1.27 2.66 0.8 58.9 -0.44 1.62 I sim_le soil 1 2.85 3.22 -7.8 36.9 -0.23 1.09

27 
Table 4. Cont. 

SLE LSM-1 1.65 2.88 1.7 47.6 0.04 1.77 

simple soil 1 3.00 3.37 5.4 35.2 0.24 1.15 

average Run T_bias T_error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error 

°C °C 0 0 mfs m/s 

all stations LSM-1 1.39 2.88 -2.19 50.18 -0.37 1.50 

simple soil 1 2.68 3.21 -0.90 41.03 -0.05 1.17 i 

Withheld stations LSM-1 1.57 2.95 -3.31 47.23 -0.18 1.53 

simple soil 1 2.68 3.29 -1.23 47.37 0.29 1.25 

i 

Nudged stations LSM-1 1.31 2.84 -1.63 51.66 -0.47 1.49 

simple soil 1 2.67 3.16 -0.73 37.86 -0.23 1.13 

5.2.6 LSM run compared with simple soil model run 


The differences from LSM-l and simple _ soil_l runs are summarized below: 


1) LSM showed better simulation of surface temperatures. 

2) LSM predicted generally lower PBL heights along the west side of the Cascades on the 

peak ozone days. 

3) LSM was able to predict temporally and spatially varied soil moisture field in response to 

precipitation and evapo-transpiration. 

4) The performance for winds were slightly degraded in the LSM run compared to the 

simple soil model run due to well known problem of the MRF PBL scheme. 

5) Ozone simulation was also improved with MM5 including the Noah LSM as shown in 

the CMAQ modeling section. 

Therefore, LSM-l run was selected for the MM5 simulation due its overall improved 

meteorological simulation and better ozone predictions. 

-.. 


28 

· 5.3 Modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) 

Surface temperature contours from MM5/MCIP are shown in Figure 13. Compared to the July 

1998 episode in which extensive high temperatures existed, the surface temperatures in 1997 

episode were considerably lower and in the range of 12-35°C. There was generally good 

agreement between the predicted and observed surface temperatures and cloud coverage at 

Portland and Salem as shown in Figure 15a and b. At the KLS site (Figure 15c) located along 

the I-5 corridor in southwestern Washington, the LSM-l run under-estimated daytime 

temperatures on most days. Nevertheless, there was a fairly large over-estimation ofthe daytime 

temperatures on July 20. The model also missed the overcast condition in that morning, which 

might explain the overestimate oftemperature as well as ozone (shown in the ozone modeling 

section) around the area. Overall, however, the LSM-1 performance appears to be better for the 

1997 episode compared to 1998, especially for nighttime temperatures. 

The surface wind patterns in the afternoon ofJuly 20 are shown in Figure 14. There were 

consistent northwesterly/westerly flows across western Washington and Oregon. Some 

convergence close to Milwaukie was apparent between the northwesterly and southwesterly 

winds in the simulation, which might contribute to the high ozone levels there. Surface time 

series ofwind speed and wind direction are shown in Figure 16a-c. The LSM-1 run performed 

relatively well for wind direction. Similar to the 1998 episode, underestimation ofdaytime wind 

speeds were also the case for 1997 . 

...- Modeled PBL heights were compared with observations at Salem as shown in Figure 17. On 

three ofthe four days when data were available (July 15, 17, and 22), the LSM-l run predicted 

PBL heights were very close to the observations. On July 21, the PBL heights were 

overestimated by about 200 m. 

The LSM-l performance statistics for the July 1997 episode are summarized in Table 5. Similar 

to the 1998 case, Ecology meteorological sites (Castle Rock, BPA, and Mt. Zion) were withheld 

from observational nudging ofsurface winds. Compared with the withheld stations, the stations 

used for observational nudging had a smaller mean error in wind direction (37° versus 49°), but 

slightly larger mean bias and error in wind speed. Overall, the statistics for the 1997 episode 

were better than for 1998, with smaller mean error in temperature (2.1 °C versus 2.9°C) and wind 

direction (40° versus 50°). It is also worth noting that in 1997 there was a negative temperature 

bias and positive temperature bias in 1998; this which might be due to the better simulations of 

nighttime temperature in the 1997 episode. 

29 
Layer 1 TEMPIP5x-273.15 ­ 35.0 99 

32.3 

29.6 

26.9 

24.2 

21.5 

18.8 


162 


13.5 

10.8 

8.1 

5.4 

2.7 

0.0 

K 

PAVE 

by July 21-19970:00:00 

IIICNC Min= 11.5 at(4S.67~ Max= 34.8 at (71.32) 

Figure 13. Surface temperature pattern from MM5 for 17:00 PDT on July 20, 1997. 

Layer 1 Vector Plot ­

99 

100 PAVE ~ 

b~ July 21.1997 0:00:00 5.0 IIICNC 

Figure 14. Surface wind pattern from MM5 for 17:00 PDT on July 20, 1997. 

-


30 

---~ --~ --~

- ---~~~....--... -~~-...--..------------ ... ... ... 

POX 

40.00 ,---~-----,-----r----~----r------'-----'-----~-"-------r 

4.5 35.00 f-····~-··-~1-~··~-···--+-----t-~···--···~t_·--····~--r-----t-----t_~""--~l 

4 

i 30.00 f-----,--....~-_t_~...----!-----t_--,..r-+--_t_."r_t_--~--t_--:---__j 

I u ~ 

~ 25.00 +----=--i--~!:-'-.....,..-­

."" 

::l 

~ 20.00 f-~"""'--1t.r~"--cI__--\~-"~~fb.'+---.J'--_\._r----/"-----'r'!; •......p"----\:.I--- HL-\4IIt--+---f 2.5 	~ 

"9 g: 5 2 l3 

1.5 I 

~ 

i 

• ':: \~ .~,. • - I ;-;;.·;"",-:1:-:-. II···~.-~·· I·-L:-:·.-'~I:~~Ij_. 0.5 

••;' '.~ i :- .~,,~~It·...... 'I' • 

0.00 _ ~-.- ) ~-:.::.::. ' • _--v l... "'I- ~-____._. .~.-- · · 0 

71151970:00 7/16/970:00 71171970:00 71181970:00 71191970:00 71201970:00 71211970:00 71221970:00 71231970:00 

Date (PSTI 

15.00 t-'>.J----\t-...c+---t.;:ft--_+~~_f_--~,.,. ~~~~--V~~--4

I -L 

Figure 15a. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at Portland. 

SLE 

40.00 

25.00 f----j,-...-+- -H-:-'-----+-~....~,..,-'­

,-----__:_-----r-~----r------.-----,-----.-----.. ~---. 

35.00 f------l--..----l-----_t_----+----_t_----f---- _...,-_____j 4.5 

i 30.00 f-..-----i.--~...--t-----+--...~-_t_--_..!'_t--_!t'__+----+_---__j :;; 3.5 2­

~ 3

." " 

::l 

o

Q20.00 f--f--~-___,I__......,.#---J......+_-__#-++_-l~-__':l:,.-fL-_+t+_-+_._\._+_-~-__+ 2.5 

~ 15.00 ~."...----!"4t-7- --~-7---_'l~+--~~I__--_i__~---~tE--_',l~f__--_i. 2 

~ 

~ 1.5 

~ 10.oot_----,-··---~r-----~·····~-~_t_~-~·_+----_t_----t_- ~-..~ 

• .,\1 .J.,;~ - 1··­ ....:: J... 5.00 t-~--t--+--- ·'-'-"-'1I~,==----c--­ ·I·~II-/~L-'·: • . .-Ii·e .•... \ 0.5 _" • Ifw ,•• --_r1i-~___________.....____ -...:.~.__ •_r--=••=--+

71151970:00 71161970:00 71171970:00 7/181970:00 71191970:00 71201970:00 71211970:00 7122197 0:00 7123197 0:00 

Date (PST) 

0.00 _r--:...-;_......_______ 

Figure I5b. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at Salem. 

31 
KLS 

40.00 ,------,----,..------r---------;-------;----.,.-----r 5 

4.5 

3.5 

3 

1::: 1'l"'r::J"""''----... ...;:i\+__~~~~~~~~~~_~~-----+~~::+...:-------4-~+-~...J-c.._-_-_-_-+-.~....._1It--- --.~.;I......~_~~~.~~+....-rI-IIII.....1J_'----1 :.5 

'00 I ~q i'~.. :t-:,I. I--"---T--~~:·(":' 0.' 

000 r • _ • _.. r== ___ •• __ • .... 0 

71151970;00 7/161970;00 7/17/970:00 71181970:00 7119/97 0:00 7/201970:00 71211970:00 71221970:00 71231970;00 

35.00 t--.----t-....~---'------i-.---__t----_t_----_+------+_----I 

+..q.:-t---+':f'--+ 2.5 

Date (PST) 

Figure 15c. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at KLS. 

POX - 35.00 

30.00 

25.00 

I 20.00 .. 

!

.. , ! 100 +-----.-1+*---­ - .. -----..­

i i: I 

. 15.00 

10.00 

-*-. 

_.... _..J.. I"~ 5.00 

•••.• .. ""..-. "'. J . .... 

...;.•..:...__ ____ __~~.;...:.........:..~'--..:..r-·._-+ 0.00 

71151970:00 71161970;00 71171970:00 71181970;00 7119/970:00 71201970;00 71211970:00 71221970:00 7123/970;00 

DaleIPDT) 

Figure 16a. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at Portland. 

32 

• • 

• • 

.­ SLE 

.-_.-._--._---=---,..-:-.-~_._._~~-C7~.---------·___.__·· 

• 

~n • 

• • 

35.00 • 

30.00 

270 

25.00 

• 

• f 20.00 <ii ! '" 180 ! 3: 

3:" 15.00 

10.00 

• • 5,00 .r!. ... • "If • 

...... . . ..,.", -··W· ..........
 o +-----'"--'----"r-~\__'.----'---.----_r=--A_---"'- .".. ' · ___.JII.-___

.''''-_'_____._-----.-___._--.J_.-.~ -... ..., ,." ... --+ 0.00 

7/151970:00 71161970:00 71171970:00 7/181970:00 7/191970:00 7/201970:00 7121/970:00 7122/97 0:00 71231970:00 

Date (POrI 

Figure 16b. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at Salem. 

KLS 

270 

i 180 +-tt-------...----_~---- -1-+----.,-~-..--,-.------'--~..--H+__Il+--___j 

~ 

90 

.r.

-. ."'-' .~~...~ 

7/15197 0:00 7116197 0:00 71171970:00 7118/970:00 7119197 0:00 71201970:00 7/21197 0:00 71221970:00 71231970:00 

Date (POT) 

Figure 16c. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM compared with 

observations at KLS. 

-


33 
PBL height· Salem 

2500r-~~-~~~-'~~~~~~'-~---T----~~------~~---~__ 

1500i------r----~---_rrt----~~----_+----_4~---···~+_~--_r--~~r~~--~ 

! 

t 

1000 +t------+--t-!-~-JH 

711419717:00 711519717:00 7/1619717:00 7117/9717:00 7118/9717:00 7119/9717:00 712019717:00 712119717:00 712219717:00 712319717:00 

Dale (PDn 

Figure 17. PBL predicted by LSM compared with observed values for July 1997 episode. 

Table 5. MM5IMCIP 

I 

1997 Run T_bias T _error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error 

°C °C m/s m/s 

TDO LSM-1 ·0.63 1.74 -9.1 36.1 -1.37 1.74 

Castle Rock LSM-1 -0.16 1.93 2.4 54.4 0.15 1.25 

KLS LSM-1 -1.02 1.82 -20.6 36.4 -0.37 1.42 

BPA LSM-1 0.32 2.04 -3.3 29.7 0.36 1.35 

POX LSM-1 -1.49 2.14 -4.7 29.8 -1.26 1.71 

Mt. Zion LSM-1 N/A N/A -2.5 63.1 -0.11 1.24 

OLS LSM-1 -3.50 3.67 -1.7 35.2 -0.99 2.16 

HIO LSM-1 -1.42 1.96 ·22.4 32.2 -0.29 1.50 

TTO LSM-1 -1.44 2.33 29.1 41.3 -0.93 1.48 

UAO LSM-1 -0.39 1.56 -1.4 42.3 -0.82 1.51 

SLE LSM-1 -0.32 1.74 6.3 44.7 -0.87 1.66 

average Run T_bias T _error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error 

°C °C m/s m/s 

all stations LSM-1 -1.01 2.09 -2.54 40.49 -0.59 1.55 

withheld stations LSM-1 0.08 1.98 -1.15 49.09 0.13 1.28 

nudged stations LSM-1 -1.28 2.12 -3.06 37.26 -0.86 1.65 

34 
5.4 Back trajectory analysis 

An analysis ofback trajectories for the Portland urban area was conducted by Ecology using the 

MM5 wind fields (Bowman, personal communication) and the Vis5D software package. This 

analysis was done at an early stage of the modeling work, and therefore, the simple soil-l runs 

were used for both episodes. On each day from July 26 to 29 in 1998 and July 18 to 21 in 1997, 

two 12-hr back trajectories starting 13 PDT and 17 PDT were produced for each monitoring site. 

The trajectories terminated at 150 meters above the surface to avoid being kept in the surface 

layer. The length of time a parcel spends along the path was accumulated if the parcel was 

within 500 meters of the surface. This height was selected to accommodate seasonal and diurnal 

variations in the mixed layer. 

Two summary plots with all available back trajectories for 1998 and 1997 are shown in Figure 

18a and b. The plots show that for both years the air parcels spent a relatively long time in the 

immediate area due to the low wind speeds that existed. In 1998, most back trajectories 

originated from the north and northwest with a few exceptions coming from the southwest. It 

appeared that there was no direct impact from the Puget Sound area in that year. Compared to 

1998, winds in 1997 were more varied. In addition to trajectories from northwest/north and 

southwest, there were also trajectories that originated from the northeast in the Puget Sound 

region. 

/ 

18a. Summary plots ofback trajectories during July 26 to 29, 1998. 

35 
-. 

1 ( 

t __ j 

18b. Summary plots ofback trajectories during July 18 to 21, 1997. 

36 

6 Photochemical air quality modeling 

6.1 Modeling methods 

EP A Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System (Byun and 

Ching, 1999) version 4.3 was used for photochemical air quality modeling. Based on state-ofscience techniques, CMAQ is a multi-scale, multi-pollutant air quality model that simulates the 

transportation, transfonnation, and deposition of atmospheric pollutants including as 

photochemical precursors and oxidants, particulate matter, and airborne toxics. It incorporates 

the output fields from the MMSIMCIP meteorological simulations and emissions derived from 

the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE) 

(http://cf.unc.edulcep/empd/products/smoke/index.cfm), and then simulates the chemical 

transport using the CMAQ Chemical Transport Model (CCTM). 

Initial and boundary conditions were primarily derived from GEOS-CHEM global model 

simulations (personal communication, Rob Elleman). However, vertical ozone ICIBC 

concentrations were derived from a combination ofdata sources. For the western boundary, 

ozone levels were based on Trinidad Head ozonesondes data collected during July 98 (personal 

communication, Dan Jaffe). For the other three sides (north, east, and south), ozone 

concentrations were derived from ICTC global model simulations (personal communication, 

y ouhua Tang). The concentrations of each model species were height dependent. The 

concentrations in the first model layer are shown in Table 6. The CMAQ modeling domain is 

slightly smaller than the MMS innennost domain with 99x99 horizontal grid cells at 4 km x 4 km 

spacing and with 22 layers in the vertical. The SAPRC99 photochemical mechanism including 

aqueous chemistry but no aerosol dynamics was employed. The aerosol module was not 

employed because ofthe lack of emission inventory data for key aerosol precursors. The 

chemical speciation ofthe emission inventory was perfonned by SMOKE according to the 

SAPRC99 mechanism. The Modified Euler Backward Interactive (MEBI) solver was used to 

solve the chemical kinetic equations. The first two days of each episode were run twice as model 

spinup to minimize the effects ofinitial conditions. 

37 . 

T a e bi 6 I . m 'f Ia 1 an db oun d lary con 1 IOns £ or CMAQ run (fi Irst I
ayer) 

Species Description East North South West I 

(ppbV) (ppbV) (ppbV) . (ppbV) I 

HCHO Formaldehyde 1.9SE+OO 9.21E·01 1.11E+OO 2.01E.Q1 

Acetaldehyde and higher i 

AlD aldehydes 1.39E+OO 5.03E·Oi 7.S0E·01 3.30E·02 

OPi Methyl hydrogen peroxide 6.03E·Oi 5.45E-01 7.43E-Oi S.22E-Oi 

KET Ketones 7.51E+OO 4.52E+OO 4.69E+OO 1.92E+OO 

ON IT Organic nitrate 2.69E-02 1.96E-02 1.23E-02 2.07E-03 

I ETH Ethane 1.46E+OO 1.25E+OO ! 1.27E+OO 1.03E+OO i 

I Alkanesw/2.7x10-13> I 

HC3 . kOH <: 3.4x10-i2 3.35E-Oi 2.10E-Oi 2.06E-Oi 6.26E-02 

Alkanes w/3.4xi0·i2 > 

HC5 kOH <: 6.Sx10-i2 2.70E+OO 2.70E+OO 2.70E+OO 1.39E+OO 

Alkanes wI kOH > 

HCS 6.8xi0·i2 5.00E-01 5.00E-01 5.00E-01 i.29E-01 

Ol2 Ethene 5.00E-01 5.00E-01 5.00E-Oi 1.50E-01 

I OlT Terminaloletins 2.00E-01 2.00E-Oi 2.00E-01 8.71E-02 

OLI Internaloletins 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-Oi 4.30E-02 

I 

Toluene and less reactive I I TOl aromatics 4.00E-01 4.00E-Oi 4.00E-01 2.i4E-Oi 

I 'Xylene and more reactive 

XYl aromatics 5.00E-Oi 5.00E-Oi 5.00E-Oi 3.70E-01 

Peroxyacetyl nitrate and 

PAN higher PANs 1.55E-01 1.20E-01 5.89E-02 3.24E-03 

ISO Isoprene 4.00E+OO i.46E+OO 3.08E+OO 2.06E-02 

MACR Methacrolein 3.30E-01 1.23E-Oi 2.12E-01 i.03E-03 I 

MVK Methyl Vinyl Ketone 3.S2E-01 1.61E-Oi 2.31E-Oi i.3SE-03 

PAN analogue formed 

MPAN I from Methacrolein 5.S3E-02 3.7iE-02 2.67E-02 2.67E-04 

N02 Nitrollen dioxide 5.67E-Oi 5.09E.Qi 1.90E-01 i 1.17E-02 

NO Nitric oxide 8.69E-02 5.92E-02 2.29E-02 i.17E-03 

03 Ozone 4.00E+01 4.00E+01 4.00E+01 2.34E+Oi 

HN03 Nitric acid 8.30E-Oi 3.38E-01 3.42E.Qi 1.37E-02 

HN04 Peroxynitric acid i.S6E-03 i.91E.Q3 5.50E-04 5.01E-05 

N03 Nitrogen trioxide i.00E-01 1.00E-01 1.00E-01 i.00E-01 

H202 HydroQen peroxide 2.35E+OO 1.26E+OO i.55E+OO 9.37E-Oi 

CO Carbon monoxide i.45E+02 i.21E+02 1.17E+02 S.64E+01 I 

N205 Nitrogen pentoxide 1.47E-03 1.82E-03 1.87E-04 2.28E-05 

S02 Sulfur dioxide 5.00E-02 5.00E-02 5.00E-02 3.00E-02 

SUlF Sulfuric acid 3.00E-01 3.00E-01 3.00E-Oi 2.99E-Oi 

-. 

38 

6.2 CMAO modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) 

The local ozone monitoring sites are shown in Figure 19. Simulated surface ozone contours 

from the LSM-l run for July 28 are shown in Figure 20 at hour 6, 10, 14, and 18 PDT. At 6 

PDT, nitric oxide (NO) titration effects were obvious within the urban core and along the 1-5 

corridor with ozone concentrations below 20 ppb. At 10 PDT, ozone increases were evident 

south of Seattle with values above 60 ppb. However, there was no evident ozone production 

downwind ofPortland at that hour. At 14 PDT, ozone values above 100 ppb were simulated 

immediately north and south ofthe Portland urban core. Maximum ozone concentrations were 

simulated at 18 PDT, with the maximum predicted ozone concentration reaching 149 ppb south 

of Portland. 

Ozone Monitoring Site Map - Southwest Washington & Oregon 

... Monitoring !>ites - Oates of Operafion 

Figure 19. Ozone monitoring site map for Southwest Washington and Oregon. 

39 
Figure 20. Simulated surface ozone contour on July 28, 1998 at 6, 10, 14, and 18 PDT. 

0.149 99 

0.130 

0.112 

0.093 

0.075 

0.056 

0.037 

0,019 

0.000 

ppmV 99 

PAVE 

bv July 28.199813:00:00 

M!:N!: Min= 0.000 at(35.8B~ Max= 0.060 at (7.3) 

0.149 99 === 

0.130 

0.112 

0.093 

0.075 

0.056 

0.037 

0.019 

0.000 1 

ppmV 1 99 

PAVE 

bv July2B,199817:00:00 

hI!:NC Min= 0.008 at (36.82). Max= 0.063 at (0::)8,36) 

40 
0.1"19 99 === 

0.130 

0.112 

0.093 

0.075 

0.056 

0.037 

0.019 

0.000 1 

ppmV 99 

PAVE 

by July 28,199821 :00:00 

MCNC Min= 0.022 at(3.77~ Max- 0.108 at (24.74)

0.1"19 99 

0.130 

0.112 

0.093 

0.075 

0.056 

0.037 

0.019 

0.000 1 

ppmV 

PAVE July 29.19981 :00:00 by 

MCNC Min= 0.014 at (36.82).. Max- 0.1"19 at (30,22) 

1 99 

-


41 
Observed and simulated I-hr surface ozone concentration time series are shown in Figure 21. 

Note that the first two days (July 24 and 25) were used as model spinup, so the results are not 

included in the statistical evaluation. All monitoring sites except Hockinson and Wishram are 

located along the 1-5 corridor. Extending from North to South, Castle Rock, Woodland, and 

Sauvie Island are rural sites situated north of Portland; Mt View and Milwaukie are two 

suburban sites, close to Vancouver and slightly southeast of downtown Portland respectively; 

Carus, another rural site, is located about 30 miles south of Portland at the foot ofthe mountains; 

and Turner, the most southern site within the domain, is close to Salem, OR. Hockinson and 

Wishram are the two sites that are further away from 1-5 and influenced heavily by complex 

terrain close to the west slope of the Cascade Mountains and along the east edge ofthe Columbia 

River Gorge, respectively. 

At Castle Rock, Woodland, Sauvie Island, and Mt View, the maximum observed ozone 

concentrations were close to 100 ppb during July 26 to 28. Nighttime ozone titration was 

obvious at Sauvie Island and Mt View with concentrations decreasing to near zero. At these four 

sites, the model simulated the ozone peaks reasonably well, although sometimes the duration of 

elevated ozone in the simulations was longer than in the observations. 

At Milwaukie, observation data were missing on July 27 and part of July 26 and 28. The 

available data show an exceedance ofthe I-hr standard on July 26 with maximum value of 124 

ppb. (NAAQS I-hr ozone = 120 ppb, 8-hr ozone = 80 ppb). The LSM-l run underestimated the 

peak ozone on July 26 and slightly overestimated it on July 28. At Carus, a series ofthree 

exceedances of the I-hr and 8-hr ozone standards occurred on July 26 through 28, with I-hr peak _ 

values of 136, 133, and 137 ppb, respectively. Nighttime ozone at Carus remained about 20 ppb 

because it was not affected by local NOx sources. Compared to the observations, the LSM-l run 

missed the maximum ozone on the July 26 but captured the peaks fairly well on the following 

two days. The nighttime values were also well simulated, but the timing ofthe daytime peaks 

were slightly delayed in the simulations. At Turner, there was very good agreement between the 

observed and simulated ozone concentrations although nighttime ozone was overestimated. 

The model performance was different at the complex terrain sites of Wishram and Hockinson. 

At Wishram, ozone values were moderate throughout the episode with maximum value of77 

ppb on July 27. The LSM-l run performed reasonably well at this site. At Hockinson, 

moderately high ozone values (close to 100 ppb) were observed. However, the LSM-l run 

seemed unable to capture the ozone peaks from July 26 to 28. 

-


42 

0,1 

0,08 

0,08 

0,04 

0,02 

Figure 21. Observed and simulated I-hr surface ozone concentrations for July 1998 episode 

Castlerock 

0,12 

E 

a. 

.!!: 

I! 

0 

N 

0 

...­

7124198 0:00 712419812:00 7125198 0:00 712519812:00 71261980:00 712619812:00 71271980:00 712719812:00 7128/98 0:00 712819812:00 7129198 0:00 

Date (PDT) 

Woodland 

E 

<L 

.e 

§ 

g 

0,12 

0,1 

0,08 

0,06 

0.04 

0~~----+~----~--~--~-----4~~--~~--~~----__--~--~~----4-------

7124198 0:00 7124198 12:00 7125198 0:00 712519812:00 7126/98 0:00 712619812:00 71271980:00 712719812:00 7/28/980:00 7128/98 12:00 7129/980:00 

Date (PDT) 

43 
Sauvle Island 

0.12 ~-------_----:-----,----,----,.----..,....-__..,....___-,-___..., 

E

.".2: 

! 

N 

0 

0.1 

0.08 

0,06 

Q.04 

0.02 

0~------------~------__-----4~~--~------~~---+------~------~----~ 

7124198 0;00 712419812:00 7125198 0:00 7125198 12;00 7126198 0:00 7126198 12;00 7127198 0;00 7/2719812:00 7128198 0:00 7/2819812:00 7129/98 0.00 

Date (PDT) 

Mt. View 

E 

.2:" 

.. 

! 


0.12 

0.1 

0,08 

0.06 

0.04 

° I' 0.02 

°00 

T 

O+----+-------+-.--~---~------+_~---+~--··----~·------~------~_U~--~------

7124198 0:00 712419812:00 7125198 0:00 712519812:00 7/26198 0:00 712619812:00 71271980:00 712719812:00 7128/98 0:00 712819812:00 71291980:00 

Date (PDT) 

-

44 
Milwaukie 

0,14 

0,12 

0,1 

I 0,08 

" 

~ 0,06 


.0,04 


0,02 


o~~--+---~~~--~--~~rooc~-+----~--~~------~----~--~ 

7/24/980:00 712419812:00 71251980:00 712519812:00 71261980:00 7/2619812:00 7127/980:00 712719812:00 71281980:00 712819812:00 71291980:00 

Oat. (POT) 

Carus 

0,16 

0,14 

0,12 

0.1 

e 

! 0,08 !! 

0 

IS 0.06 

0.04 


0,02 


71241980:00 7124198 12:00 71251980:00 712519812:00 71281980:00 7126/9812:00 7/27/980:00 7/27/9812:00 7/281980:00 7128198 12:00 71291980:00 

Date (POT) 

45 
Turner 

0.14 

0.12 

0.1 

I 0,08 

II 

S 0,06 

0,04 

0+-~---~------~------~·-----4~~·--4-----~~~L-·-+------+-~~-4------~ 

7124/980:00 7124/98 12:00 7125/980:00 7/2519812:00 7128/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 71271980:00 712719812:00 71281980:00 7128198 12:00 7/291980:00 

Date (PDT) 

Hockinson 

0,12~--------------'-------~-------'--------r-------'-------'-'-------r-----"---'--, 

O,I+.-----~-------I------·--+_-·----,·-------+---·---_+·-------+O----~-------~-----'--1 

- O,08t----··--~-··-----··L-------~------~------~-·----~-----,·-~~----~·----·~)-f~---,rl 

I! 0,06 f-----.---t---.--- -t------t--.-----+------:::!(:)------,f\iB 

O·t--------+-------+-WL----+------+-------+--------r------~-----_+.-----_+----~ 

7124/980:00 7124/9812:00 7125/980:00 7/25198 12:00 7126/980:00 712819812:00 7/271980:00 7127198 12:00 7128198 0:00 7128/98 12:00 7129/980:00 

Date (PDT) 

46 

0.06 

Wishram 

0.09.,---r------,.---,----,---,---..,-----,---,-----,-----_ 

!! 

I 0.05 \---I-----+---!.",:u:,r-\-i-----.fr-t--~FE--\-__I+d~-+_-__f_+____\;;rr_l 

S 0.04 ++---II------l"j~-.--H-----\!r-_+-+---...---+-o__\~-+---'~+_-+t_-__t"_i!l 

0.03 +---+-----I-t-------'f~.........q'-+-.---+--_t---

0.02 d.-oo--o-t-------i---C;p.···-----"--··--+-"'----+-----+----l--·---··~-·-.\-----I 

0.01 +---I------+---+----+-·--I----+------!---+--..·--+-----I 

O+-----t----~--_+---+--~--~---~--~--.\___-~ 

7124/980:00 7124/9812:00 71251980;00 7125/9812;00 71261980;00 7126/9612:00 7127/960;00 7127/9812:00 7128196 0:00 7128/9612:00 7129/980:00 

6.2.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation 

CMAQ model performance was evaluated by the following set of ozone statistics based on the 

simulations from July 26 to 28. 

1) Normalized bias and normalized gross error between observed and predicted l-hr/8-hr 

ozone concentrations. Data within a selected time window were used in evaluation (10­

19 PDT for I-hr and 14-23 PDT for 8-hr ozone; shown in Table 7). These time windows 

were selected to encompass periods of elevated ozone. 

2) 	 Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially 

paired means. (Shown in Table 8) 

3) Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs. 

(Shown in Table 9) 

4) Correlation coefficients and scatter plots ofobserved and predicted 8-hr daily maxima 

using spatially paired means. (Shown in Figure 22) 

5) Quantile-quantile plots of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using (a) all data 

pairs (b) spatially paired means. (Shown in Figure 23a and 23b) 

The normalized gross error is defined as: 

NE=2..i'~ -0; I 

N i=1 0i 

and the normalized bias is defined as: 

47 
-. 


At Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island, located upwind ofPortland, the LSM-I run had a 

positive bias especially at Woodland and Sauvie Island (l-hr NB of 24% and 28%, respectively). 

This could be related to the fact that simulated ozone peaks are slightly broader than the 

observed ones. For spatially paired means, the normalized bias between observed and predicted 

8-hr daily maxima are all below 20% at these sites, which meets EPA suggested guidelines 

(EPA, 1999). Nevertheless, if evaluated on a daily basis (as shown in Table 9), there was a 

larger positive bias especially on July 28. 

Mt. View and Milwaukie are two urban sites within the PortlandN ancouver airshed. At Mt. 

View, the normalized bias and gross error were reasonable (I-hr NB 2%, 8-hr NB = 3%, I-hr 

NE 34%, 8-hrNE 26%). For 8-hr daily maxima, the bias between the observed and 

predicted is generally negative when evaluated at the exact grid point of the monitoring site. 

However, when evaluated using the surrounding 5x5 matrix of grid cells, the bias becomes 

positive as a result of steep horizontal ozone gradients around the site. Due to missing data at 

Milwaukie, no statistics were calculated for this site. 

At Carns and Turner, downwind ofPortland, observed ozone peaks were generally well 

simulated as shown in the bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima. However, 

the timing of the ozone peaks were slightly shifted at Carns, and consequently, the gross error 

was moderately high (I-hr NE 36% and 8-hr NE = 27%). 

Hockinson and Wishram are two sites further away from the 1-5 corridor and influenced heavily 

by complex terrain. The performance statistics were fairly good at Wishram. At Hockinson, 

performance was poor with large underprediction. Nevertheless, there were also steep horizontal 

ozone gradients around Hockinson so that the predicted 8-hr maxima are considerably higher 

when evaluated with the surrounding 5x5 grids. 

Table 7. Normalized bias and normalized gross error between observed and predicted I-hr/8-hr 

ozone concentrations. (l-hr statistics are calculated within 10-19 PDT, and 8-hr statistics are 

calculated within 14-23 PDT on July 26,27, and 28, 1998.) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-. 


Site 

Castle Rock 

Woodland 

Sauvie Island 

Mt. View 

Milwaukie 

Carus 

Turner 

Wishram 

Hockinson 

1-hr NB 

12% 

24% 

28% 

2% 

N/A 

4% 

10% 

-6% 

-17% 

1-hr NE 

24% 

31% 

36% 

34% 

N/A 

36% 

29% 

13% 

36% 

8-hr NB 

9% 

23% 

24% 

3% 

N/A 

2% 

5% 

-6% 

-15% 

8-hr NE 

16% 

26% 

27% 

26% 

N/A 

27% 

16% 

9% 

28% 

i 

i 

J 

Note: Values higher than EPA suggested model performance goal are highhghted ill red. 

48 
Table 8. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially 

IPaired means. (based on 5x5 and Ixl grids) 

Ave obs 

8-hr daily max Ave pre 8-hr daily max Ave pre 8-hr daily I

site (ppm) 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) max 5x5 (ppm) • NB (5x5)

I Castle Rock 0.075 0.079 4% 0.081 8% 

I Woodland I 0.071 0.080 13% 0.082 16~ 

I 

Sauvie Island I 0.071 0.081 14% I 0.083 16% 

I Mt. View I 0.075 0.066 -12% 0.083 11% I 

I I Milwaukie I N/A 0.085 N/A 0.092 N/A r--~---

I I I Carus 0.101 0.096 -5% I 0.098 -3% 

I 

Turner 0.084 0.085 0% 0.088 5% 

I Wishram 0.061 0.056 -9% 0.057 -7% 

Uockinson 0.078 I 0.059 -24% 0.069 -12% 

Note: 	 "IxI" - data extracted from the exact grids. 

"5x5" - data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids. 

Table 9. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs. 

(based on 5x5 and Ix! _'cisL-)___..--____,-___~----___;_--___, 

Obs 8-hr daily max I Pre 8-hr daily max I Pre 8-hr daily max: 

'1x1 I 5x5 I 

Castle Rock 0.075 

r-=C:.=a::.;st::..::leC'-R.:=o:.::;ck"--t_--=J:.=.ulL-:.'----'-~_..:::.0.:.:::0..:...77'____ _+_----'0:.::.0::..::8:.::8--+_-1 .~4°,-",¥o_-+__ 0.091_--j_-=-:...:.::.----l 

Site 

I Castle~R~o~c:.::k-+_~J~ul~~-+~_~0.~0~72~_ _r--~0~.0~7~5--~--~5o~¥o~~__~0.~0~79~__-r_~~~ 

I Woodland July 26 I 0.069 0.071 ! 2% 0.073 5% ! 

~oodland July 27 0.089 0.091 2% I 0.091 I 2% 

I Woodland July 28 0.054 0.079 47% 0.083 55% I 

I Sauvie Island I July 26 0.074 0.069 -7% 0.070 -4% 

I Sauvie Island July 27 0.078 0.090 15% 0.090 16% r---­

I Sauvie Island July 28 0.063 0.086 37% 0.087 39~,~ 

IMt View July 26 0.071 0.060 -15% 0.076 7% I~ 

Mt View July 27 0.Q78 0.064 -17% 0.086 10% I 

Mt View Jul~28 0.076 0.072 -5% 0.088 J6% 

Milwaukie July 26 N/A 0.082 N/A 0.086 N/A 

Milwaukie July 27 N/A 0.085 N/A 0.091 N/A -~ 

! 

Milwaukie July 28 N/A 0.087 N/A 0.098 N/A 

Carus July 26 0.117 0.088 -25% 0.090 -23% 

Carus July 27 0.088 0.093 5% 0.097 10% I 

LCarus July 28 0.098 0.107 9% 0.107 9% 

~ner July 26 0.076 0.070 -8% 0.074 -3% 

Turner July 27 0.098 0.095 -3% 0.101 3% 

Turner July 28 0.078 0.089 13% 0.089 14% 

Wishram July 26 I 0.060 0.054 -10% 0.055 -8% 

Wishram July 27 0.063 0.054 -14% 0.056 -11% 

Wishram July 28 0.061 0.058 -4% 0.059 -2% 

49 
I 

Table 9. cont. 

Hockinson I July 26 0.070 0.054 -23% 0.062 -12% 

Hockinson July 27 0.083 0.058 -30% 0.069 -16% 

Hockinson July 28 0.082 0.066 -19% 0.075 -8% 

I 

I 

Note: 	 "lxl" data extracted from the exact grids. 

"5x5" - data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids. 

A scatter diagram of average observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima (paired in space) is 

shown in Figure 22. When plotted with the surrounding 5x5 grid points, the LSM-I run 

predicted the peak: and the lowest concentrations fairly well with R2 of 0.63, but there was some 

overprediction ofthe moderate values (70-80 ppb). When looking at the exact grid cell, there 

was more scatter around the moderate ozone concentrations. 

Quantile-Quantile plots (Figure 23a and 23b) are also plotted for the observed and simulated 8-hr 

daily maxima which compares the frequency distributions ofthe observed and predicted ozone 

concentrations. The plots show generally good agreement between the observed and predicted 

concentration distributions, but there was some underperdiction of the peak ozone and 

overprediction ofmoderate ozone (80-90 ppb) when evaluated using the range of concentrations 

within the 5x5 surrounding grid points. When looking the exact grid point, the bias was similar 

except for some additional underprediction for the moderate concentrations (around 70 ppb). 

-

average predicted and obsvered 8-hr dally maxima 


y ~ 0.8381. + 0.0155 


0.140,----------·----·----------, R' 0.6279 


0.120 +----·---..------·---·----------1 Y" gJIJIlI~ *O.OH)~ 

Ri~M112 

0.100 +-----·----------..-----.. ---:.c-·.. --·---.. ---, 

eo. 

.2: I • 1x1 I ~ 0.080 +-----.--..--....---t~c:~'--..----.-------; ' • 5x5 

o 1:1 ~ 1-Unear (5x5) I 

"~ 0.000 +-------·--..-----"'----.-----·~----I ·~::.:_Lirlfl<l'l1~ 

i 

a. 0.040 -+-------------------..---..---·------1 

0.020 +---------.---..---..---..---.. -------: 

0.000 <----,----,----.---..,-----,----,----1 

0.000 	 0.020 0.040 0.000 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 

obsel'lled ozone (ppm) 

Figure 22. Scatter plot ofthe average observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima for 5x5 and Ixi 

grids for July 1998 episode 

50 
Q.Q: B·hr daily maxima (a. all data pairs) 

0.140 .---------------------------'1 

0.100 +------.---.-----..--.--....--.---& ..--.-.---- ­..---..--1 

t I ,. · (t1x11

! 0.080 +--.. ---.--.--....--.---.-';-,;-----..----..--..---..-----1 . _ 5X5[ 

1_1:.1_ ~ I 0.060 +----..--------..-!-.--.-------..-------II .­ , i· !

1 

0.040 +-----·----------·-----..---·---------1 

0.020 +----------..-------------·-----·--..·---i 

0.000 _l___--,-___,·___--,-· ___-r·___--,-___-.--__--'i 

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 

observed ozone (ppm) 

Figure 23a. Quantile-Quantile plot of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data 

pairs for 5x5 and lxl grids for July 1998 episode. 

Q.Q: B-hr daily maxima (b: spatially paired mean) 

0.140 

0.120 : 

i 

I 

0.100 , I 

~ 0.080 

~ ,. 

• . ., • .. , 

i 

I 

~ 0.060 

, 'S 

e 

0. 

0.040 

I 

0.020 

[ 

0.000 

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 

observed ozone (ppm) 

Figure 23b. Quantile-Quantile plot ofobserved and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially 

paired means for 5x5 and lxl grids for July 1998 episode. 

51 
6.2.2 Comparisons with NOxIVOC monitoring data 

In 1998, there were four NOx monitoring sites in southwest Washington and Oregon: Lafayette, 

Castle Rock, Woodland, and Mt. View. In addition to the three sites mentioned previously, 

Lafayette is a suburban site very close to the Milwaukie ozone monitoring site. A major 

roadway (US-26) is located about 100 m north ofthe Lafayette site. Predicted and observed 

NOIN02from 6 to 21 PDT on each day (July 26-28) are shown in Figure 24 for each monitoring 

site. 

At Lafayette, there were NO peaks in the morning associated with early morning emissions into 

a shallow mixed layer and lower NO concentrations during the remainder ofthe daylight hours. 

The LSM-l run appeared to underestimate the early morning peaks and slightly overestimated 

observed levels from noon into the afternoon. N02 concentrations were also generally high in 

the morning, and lower in the afternoon. The model captured the trend ofN02 well at most 

times, especially on July 27. At Woodland, early morning NO peaks were underestimated and 

predicted N02 concentrations were also generally lower than the observed ortes. At Castle Rock, 

both NO and N02were quite low and there was a lack of a distinct diurnal pattern due to its rural 

location. The LSM-l run predicted NO well and also captured the range ofN02values. At Mt. 

View, another urban/suburban site, the LSM-1 run underpredicted morning peaks ofNO on the 

first two days, and overpredicted on the last day. Concentrations ofN02were also overestimated 

at this site, especially for the afternoon hours. One thing worth noticing is that, the grid points of 

Mt. View and Lafayette both have fairly large NO emissions related to mobile sources, which 

might have a large impact on the predicted NOIN02 concentrations. 

VOC measurements were also collected at Lafayette on selected days in 1998. The simulated 

and observed VOC concentrations are shown at Figure 25. The VOC data were canister 

measurements with sampling time from 5-8 and 8-11 PDT on selected days. The model values 

were converted from CMAQ output by summing ofselected species (alkanes, aromatics, 

alkenes, terpenes, and isoprene). The observed NMOC was mostly within 150-200 ppbC except 

for July 28 when value of740 ppbC was reported. The LSM-l run simulated VOC levels 

perfectly on July 27. There was a slight underestimation on July 26. On July 28, the LSM-l run 

missed the elevated level in the early morning and then slightly overestimated the total VOC 

concentration at 8-11 PDT. 

.­

52 
Figure 24. Observed and simulated NOIN02 concentrations at Lafayette, Woodland, 

Castle Rock, and Mt. View from July 26 to 28, 1998. 

Lafayette July 26, 1998 

0.04 

E 	0.03 0­

S: 	0.02 

o 

z 	 0.01 

o 

~. 

-

! 

I 

I 

! I ..... I -i 

... -.. ....... 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Lafayette July 27,1998 

0.04 .,----,------,--..,.--., 

0.035 +-.-~.--+----;-----+

0.03 +-7"<--..+--.--+----I--___+----i I 0.025 +'--.-'--+-~....~I-_ _+-_+--.J 

S: 0.02 +-#~-t----+-- +--+-­

~ 0.015 -#---~---+----+-

0.01 4---~~ -i--;-----+_ 

o.oo~ t==~~:sa~~;;.u 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

Lafayette July 28,1998 

0.1 

0.08 

E 

0-	 0.06 

E:­

O 	 0.04 

z 

0.02 

o 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

I ! 

i 

..... 

~ 

..-,;;

•• .r­ ... ..... ,..."""W' 

Lafayette July 26,1998 

Ji~r o 0.02 .-~ i 

. 

i I : I~I - ~ 

z o.o~ F·! · -j5--f5 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Lafayette .Iuly 27, 1998 

0.06 .,----,--.----:----,----~.----, 

0.05 +---..~-+--.--_;--...+_-.-_+-__I 

I 0.04 +~.---L-___+~...~--_i---_+.----.!. 

0­

~ 0.03 Iir..~~~::___---+--___+-.--;_---J 

~ 0.02 +-.__..J __ -"IL;:-----+_-~"'..+~...cl 

0.01 +------+-_+-.....II:.~--- ..- .... -1 

o .J-----l------+--___+--!-----1 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Lafayette July 28, 1998 

0.06 .,-----;---...,-..--,----,..-­

0.05 .,-----f-----'f---..--+---+----.......1 

E 0.04 +--..---r----,---+..-+--.-~\_..--..­

0­

N . S: 	003~::---~~..---~---~---+---~

~ 0.02 +----..----~F---~~---1----.:. 

0.01 	+---!--..---1,-.....::..+----"':-"~.~-..1 

O+----r--+---r---~--~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

53 
-


Woodland July 26,1998 

Woodland July 26,1998 

0.03 'r--T--"---'---r--~ 

0.025 t-----I----..--r---+----+-~ 

E 0.02 -1---1-----'--­ 0­

S 0.015 +----1---....: 

o

Z 0.01 h • .-+----I---I-.--.+---1 

0.005 +-___+_---J___-lO~~~~~~~~..~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Woodland July 27,1998 

0.03 

0.025 

E 0.02 0­

S 0.015 

o 

Z 0.01 

0.005 

o 

! 

• 1

F--. , 

, 

.-r. I 

", ........ ............... 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Woodland July 28,1998 

0.03 

0.025 

'[ 0.02 

S 0.015 

o 

Z 0.01 

0.005 

o 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

i 

: I 

1 

?\•

• i 

V ... ... ... 

l 

i 

I 

~ 

-::t

~002 -j-

:! 

I i 

! 

:~ ZO.O~l~~~~ 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

[- • .. N02 obs -::-- N02-.pre[ 

Woodland July 27,1998 

0.04 E1­ E 0.03· -+I;--~'----J­

~ 0.02.. I _ i . 

~ T-'.' .~... 00: c±-;-t;~~ 

~oo 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00

Hour 

Woodland July 28,1998 

0.04 r--,----,-----;---..----­

0.035 1---+-----'--..---+--.1----' 

E 0.03 1----,--·-+·~······---···--~1--~ --1 

8: 0.025 t---'-----t--+---+--I 

~ 0.02 1-;;--:;;:+-...----'----+---.....-:....--1 

o 0.015 r-····-,...-:~,--+-...·-t----·l----tl·­

z 0.01 i-=~=.-j----"~--.--+-==--.-::t=---" 

0.005 t--+---f':::=:tTK--:::,1 

O+--~-~~~~~==~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

54 

Castlerock July 26,1998 	 Castlerock July 26.1998 

_Oo~ ++.__+_ ~.. 
 ~ o~~~! r=--t= t q-"; 

~ O:S r tI ! -l ok!!h·i·· ..... +.A 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

~ 0.025 0.03 .. 	 I ~: ~. j ...

~ O:a: - !-]~ z OOO~f4~-"r hd

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Casterock July 27,1998 

Castlerock July 27,1998 

0.03 

0.025 

E 0.02 Co

-e: 0.015 

~ 0.01 

- 0.005 

o 

I 

! 

: I 

: ........ 1 ..... 

0.03 : I 

0.025 1! I I I 

[ 

~ 0.02 : 0.015 .r--J--4-..... f 

I 

~ o 0.01 I .: ~~..-4 Z ~.I_ l/I_;;--r o.oo~ r--'r:: i ~ t?f..~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 28.1998 

I o~~F I LJ- }-j 


~o:~:f±_I~ I_II, t~4• 

0.005 r---'!: 

o . 

6:00 9:00 

__ 

:"I~'~: . , 

12:00 15:00 18:00 

. 

21:00 

Hour 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 28.1998 

0.03 

0.025 

. E 0.02 Co

-e: 0.015 

o 

Z 0.01 

0.005 


o 


6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 

Hour 

I I 

i 

i ~ 

i 

"..."... I 

/ .... .. ' 

, ... ~ 

18:00 21:00 

55 
-. Mt. View July 26.1998 	 Mt. View July 26.1998 

0.06 ,--.---,----''.,---;-----,-----, 

~ 0.05 t-----j------l----.----1---,..-----t

K 0.04 +-----·-t,,---+--i·-,,--~,,--_I c.

;::; 0.03 +-----,----+-__-----1____..1-___ ._-1 

~ 0.02 +-- __--.:..-_,,----L-.-~ ----+~ 

0.01 	 'I'--~..."'-_.-_-~I---=_..........--. 

O-l-----'----+------j--+---I 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour E. N02_obs ..----.... N02~ 

Mt. View July 27.1998 

0.06 ,---,-------;---:-----, 

~ 0.05 -j-----t---j-------j--".--'-----------j 

K 0.04 -j----,---j-------j---f--------I 

-9:: 003 C\I • 

~ 0.02 1-'-+-""".. ---.-.•-,--+-II~ 

0.01 

O+--+---+---i---+-_ 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Mt. View July 28.1998 

~ ~:: ] i l=i :~.. K0.04~----t----- ! 

~ 0.03 h-,~- '-+-'. ~ 0.02 F· X·X.·','-1-.--I--~ 0.01 ,.,.:=,.L.r! 

O. 

__ 

. --+­ ~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

r-.- ""Nb2~--N02j)fel '-----...--...-=-"'--...--...~ 

0.04 

E 0.03 c. 

-9:: 0.02 

o 

Z 	 0.01 

o 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

i 

I I I I 

I 

•• 1 

~ ...L...... ~, - ~ ~ 

Hour 

C----.-:-N5=:otlS---t-Jo-pre 

Mt. View July 27.1998 

I 	 I 


I 
 i . ,

~. I ~ ~ 

~ -..­ 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

0.06 

0.05 

'[ 0.04 

-9:: 0.03 

~ 0.02 

0.01 

o 

Mt. View July 28,1998 

0.1 .---,----,--~---_ 

0.075 i 

-9:: 0.05 -1I--+---+---+---,I--+---i 

o 

z 0.025 Y----=-~.----"-__+--i--_r-,,,---,,--I 

0~-4~~~~~~~ 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

-. 


56 

0.2 

Lafayette 

0,8 

0,7 

0.6 

0.5 

I 0.4 

g 

0,3 

: 

I 


I 

: I 

I 

: 

I 

I I 

I 

I 

I : ... 1'\ 1\ 

I 

!~f\ \ f~\ A 0,1 r-.. ~ rvr 

i\0 , "--' V V \)iV V 1'-/ '-Y 

1\ 

7/24198 0:00 7/25198 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7127/98 0:00 7128198 0:00 7129/980:00 7130198 0:00 

Hour 

Figure 25. Simulated and observed VOC (ppmC) at Lafayette during the July 1998 episode. 

57 
6.3 CMAO modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) 

Surface ozone contours from the LSM -1 run are shown in Figure 26a and 26b for the afternoon. 

ofJuly 19 and 20. On July 19, elevated ozone concentrations were simulated downwind of 

Portland with maximum slightly above 100 ppb. On the next day, high level ozone was 

simulated right around the Portland urban area with maximum close to 130 ppb. 

0.128 99 

0.112 

0.096 

0.080 

0.064 

0.048 

0.032 


0.Q16 


0.000 1 

ppmV 

PAVE 


by 


hlCNC ­ Figure 26a. Simulated surface ozone contour on July 19, 1997 at 17PDT. 

99 

July 20,1997 0:00:00 

Min= 0.021 at(4,76). Max= 0.105 at (27,25) 

0.128 99 

0.112 

0.096 

0.080 

0.064 

0.0t18 

0.032 

0.016 

0.000 1 

ppmV 1 99 

PAVE July 21,1997 0:00:00 b~ 

hlCNC Min= 0.015 at (18.24), Max=- 0.128 at (30.all 

Figure 26b. Simulated surface ozone contour on July 20, 1997 at 17PDT. .­

58 

Predicted and observed surface ozone time series were plotted in Figure 27 for each monitoring 

site. At Castle Rock, Woodland, and Mt. View, ozone concentrations were quite low on most 

days except July 19 when moderate concentrations (around 60 ppb) occurred. The LSM-1 run 

slightly overestimated ozone levels on July 19 and simulated most low ozone days well. 

Nevertheless, there was significant overestimation on July 20 at all three sites. As mentioned in 

the meteorological modeling section, there were also underestimation of cloud cover and 

overestimation of surface temperatures on that day around these sites, which might explain the 

large overestimation of ozone. 

At Mt. View and Milwaukie, moderate values occurred on July 19 at both sites and on July 20 at 

Mt. View. The peak I-hr average ozone reached 101 ppb at Milwaukie on July 20, which was 

the maximum observed in this episode. The LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well on low 

ozone days, and slightly overestimated on moderate and high days. There also appeared to be 

some time delay ofthe ozone peaks at these two sites. 

At Carus and Turner, ozone concentrations were around 80 ppb on July 19 and 2{), and quite low 

on rest ofthe days. The LSM-1 run showed some overestimation but captured the overall trend 

quite well on July 19 and 20. On the low ozone days, both sites showed very good agreement 

between observations and simulations. 

At Hockinson and Wishram, ozone levels were low to moderate throughout the episode. The 

LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well at Wishram. At Hockinson, where simulation was poor 

in the 1998 episode, model performance was better. It simulated the right level of ozone on July 

20, although the timing ofthe peak was shifted. 

59 
--

--

-. Figure 27. Observed and simulated I-hr surface ozone concentrations for July 1997 episode. 

CASTLEROCK 

0.060 

0.050 +--··-~~~"+····--~----r----t--···---\-+·--+--+·---+--~--~-j------ -----1 

i

i 0.040 +---.. --~-+---~+----4...----+--....J-;:;t--.-/-----jc--+------..--t----------I 

d 0.030 i----cf"=---·...-'---·--'b.,...·-',---1---f-.--···--+-t=---f=:-+-.....,..-···-----,··------···­...1 

0.010 

0.000 +--..------+-------'---4-----~.. ------+-------+-----...----, 71171970:00 71181970:00 7/19/97 0:00 7120/97 0:00 7/21/970:00 7/22/970:00 71231970:00 

Date/PDT) 

Woodland 

0.070 +--------I----~----'f__-.--_+_\-.+---..-...-­...--,-.---.....----:---..--­...--! 

0.060 j--------+-·---··---y--··----f-,:r-\-··-+---+-""---'-...·-------·---,f-------I 

I 0.050 1--... -.-----,--.-.-.-·-+------J-"---+-+·--+---j·-+-·-------y---·--···--I 

.!!: 

Ii! II 0.040 +--------+-·-~----,---+---...+_+_··---i"'·-+---;---·-·---I-····---··---1 o 

0.010 :!:---..---+-------1f----..--~_,f'_-----+--o:>'c··------'r:_-'\+-----1 

0.000 +------4---------4--....----+-------+-------i---------' 7/17/970:00 7/18197 0:00 7119/970:00 7120197 0:00 7121197 0:00 71221970:00 7123197 0:00 

0.090 .,--------y--------,-------;--------,---..-----,--------, 

Date (PDT) 

60 

0.090 

0.080 

0.070 

0.000 


I 0.050 


.!!: 


! 


! 0.040 

0.030 

0.020 

0.010 

0.000~----------~----·---------+------------~------------4-------------+-----------~ 

71171970:00 7/18/970:00 7119197 0:00 7120/970:00 7121197 0:00 7122/970:00 7123197 0:00 

DateIPDT) 

MCVlew 

0.120 ,---------------.----------,-------------,------------,-------------,------------, 

-

0.080t-~~------···~~·~,--·~~~···------~--··~·~-~····--·~-+----·---r_~~--------------r-------------i 

I 

iO.OOO+-------····~~~~_+------------~··--··~--~~---,----_,~_T·--r~~·-~···--·.--~...~.------------: 

a 

0.000 	

7117197 

+---'v-L-----'"----+---".,.L--------t".·L-----~----__r--'----------__1---''''---------.f..

0:00 7118/97 0:00 7119/970:00 71201970:00 7/21/970:00 7/22/970:00 

..-''''''='------­7/231970:00 

Date (PDT) 

61 
Milwaukie 

0.120T-------------~~······------ ---~----------~--_r.------.------_y~-------...---.--_r-­ --- ...~-----

0.100 t----------" ---···-----···--i---------~----+_---'lb-I---:____----------_f_--~--·------__i 

0.080 -;---...-----..-----t--...-------+----""A"---r-----::I--\---f--------~---------- 1 

i 

10.060 

0.040 t---~··-------t---·--""A"---+-----1>··--·ot_+-......Jf------···~::_t~-~···---------+--~---~-----i 

0.020 4----.<"J-,"'-----f.------/-----=+-+.. ---./L--... -----,3, 

0.000 +n""".-L-··----"-"I·--O""''-----··------'I<J+----OJ:------a=r:m----~-I___-01:\;.L.--__''<I4_O::~'''---____4 

7117/970:00 7118/970:00 71191970:00 7120/970:00 71211970:00 7/221970:00 71231970:00 

Data (POT) 

Carus 

0.120 -.,--~....----.. ,--------,-----.---,___---... --___r-----...--_r-..-------, 

i 

0.100+------------+------------4-------­ -----r----------~---------~·----------I 

i 0.060 L·---------l----------+------+~-!--_,__··---+~··--1---+-----___1,____-----1 

~ 

0.020 

0.000+------~J_-----------=+~-----+-------+------+---------

71171970:00 71181970:00 7119/970:00 71201970:00 7/211970:00 7122197 0:00 71231970:00 

Date (POT) 

-

62 
Turner 

0.100r-------------r-----------~---------------_r------------,,-------------,_-----------, 

O_O~~-------------------+-------------~--------~+__+---------------~.--------------------+---------------1 

0.070 +---------------f-------------+------~/r_+__+----- "'-------+--------------j,--------------I 

O.OOO+-----------~r------------+-------~-----¥~<---------~~~--------~~--------~ 

71171970:00 71181970:00 71191970:00 71201970:00 71211970:00 71221970:00 7/231970:00 

Date (PDT) 

Hockinson 

0.090 

o.o~ 

0.070 

O.O~ 

I O.O~ a

.. 

c 

§ 0.040 

0.030 

0.020 

0.010 

0.000 

7/17/970:00 71181970:00 7/19/970:00 7/201970:00 7121/970:00 7122/970:00 7123197 0:00

Date (PDT) 

----~'E 

-


63 
Wishram 

0.080 ~--------...---;-------:-----'--------r-----, 

0.070 t----·······-----'-------r----+_----~-----+-----i 

o 

0.060 t--------'- --~-_+---·····~+_--___:?__4.f.L..--~--__+--······---1 

0.050 t-·------+---·····~_+--.:::...···~;:!_+_----"J_.;O\_-·····---_+-----i 

i

i 0.040 O-\----.tt)-=---t---:::--f--+----r--I--~o_L_.__-.,--··--+__\---A--"-___r---··· --I 

~ 0.030 

o 

0.000 +----.----+------+------+------+-------f-----' 

71171970:00 7/18197 0:00 7/191970:00 7/20/970:00 71211970:00 7122197 0:00 7/231970:00 

Date (PDT) 

6.3.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation 

Model perfonnance was evaluated using the perfonnance measures based on the simulations ­ from July 17 to 21. Nonnalized bias and nonnalized gross error between observed and predicted 


I-hr and 8-hr ozone concentrations are shown in Table 10. Nonnalized bias between observed 


and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means and all data pairs are shown in 


Table 11 and 12, respectively. 


The three upwind sites, Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island, all showed positive 


nonnalized bias around 20% due to the large overestimation ofozone on July 20. Nonnalized 


bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means was around 


20% if evaluated at the exact grid, and 30% using the maxima from the 5x5 grids as shown in 


Table 11. 


Mt. View and Milwaukie, the two urban sites, had a negative (lhr NB -21%) and positive bias 


(lhr NB = 15 %), respectively. The negative bias at Mt. View was mostly due to 


underprediction on low ozone days. The two sites both had relatively large nonnalized errors, 


partly due to the timing shift ofpeaks. On July 19 and 20, the nonnalized bias between the 


observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima was about 20% if evaluated at the exact grid as shown . 


in Table 12. 


The run showed fairly good statistical perfonnance at the Cams and Turner downwind sites (l-hr 


NB = 0% and -7%; I-hr NE = 22% and 17%, respectively). Nonnalized bias between observed 


and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means or all data pairs was also mostly 


below 20%. Reasonably good perfonnance was found at the Wishram and Hockinson sites. ­

64 
I 

Table 10. Nonnalized bias and nonnalized gross error between observed and predicted I-br/8-br 

ozone concentrations. (l-br statistics are calculated within 10-19 PDT, and 8-br statistics are 

calculated within 14-23 PDT from July 17 to 21, 1997) 

__~S~jt~e____ ____~1~-h~r~N=B____J-__~1~-h~r~N~E____4-__~8~-hr~N=B____4-__~8~-h~r~N~E~__~ 

Castle Rock 22% 37% 18% 32% 

r-__W~o~~la~n~d__ ____~1~70~~~__ ____~3~1~%~__ ____~1~6~%,~__-+____~2~7~o/t~O____4 

Sauvie Island 22% 31 % 20% 27% 

, Mt. View ~21 % 43% -23% 36%~_.....,i 

r---Milwaukie 15% 46% 5% 27% ~ 

Carus i 0% i 22% -3% 14% 

r-___T~u~m=e~r____+!--.~--~7~o/t~o----_+-----1~7~o/t~o----_T----~-8~o/t~o----~____~12~o~~~__~ 

Wishram -5% 12% -5% 9% 

Hockinson -3% 25% -1 % 19% i ~--~----~~~--~ 

Note: Values higher than EPA suggested model performance goal are highlighted in red. 

Table 11. Nonnalized bias between observed and predicted 8-br daily maxima using spatially 

paired means. based on 5x5 and Ix1 grids) 

Aveobs 

8-hr daily max I Ave pre 8-hr daily I Ave pre 8-hr daily 

! Site (ppm) i max 1x1 (j:>pm) NB (1x11. • max 5x5 (ppm)' NB (5x5) 

Castle Rock 0.034 0.040 19% 0.044 32% 

Woodland 0.036 0.043 20% 0.045 27% 

Sau\lie Island 0.036 0.044 24% I 0.046 29% 

I Mt. View 0.040 0.036 -10% 0.050 26% 

Milwaukie 0.038 0.044 15% 0.050 29% 

Carus 0.045 0.048 6% 0.054 21% 

I Turner 0.047 0.045 -4% 0.050 7% 

i Wishram 0.046 0.043 -6% 0.045 -1% 

Hockinson 0.042 0.040 -6% 0.045 i 6% 

Note: 	 "Ixl" data extracted from the exact gnds. 

"5x5" - data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids 

Table 12. Nonnalized bias between observed and predicted 8-br daily maxima using all data 

pairs. (based on 5x5 and Ixi grids) I ! ! lObS 8-hr daily I max 	 i Pre 8-hr daily Pre 8-hr daily 

Site Date ' (ppm) ~ max 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5) 

Castle Rock July 17 0.028 0.021 -26% 0.023 -16% 

~tleRock July 18 0.032 0.036 11% 0.044 35%

, castle Rock July 19 0.058 0.064 12% 0.066 15% 

Castle Rock July 20 0.028 0.056 99% 0.061 114% 

Castle Rock July 21 0.022 0.024 7% 0.028 25% 

I 

I 

65 
Table 12. Cont. 

Woodland July 17 0.033 0.025 -24% 0.026 -20% i - I Woodland July 18 0.034 0.033 -4% 0.037 6% 

Woodland July 19 0.053 0.069 29% 0.069 29% 

Woodland July 20 0.032 0.060 85% 0.067 107°1< 

i Woodland July 21 0.026 0.027 5% 0.028 10% 

Sauvie Island July 17 0.029 0.024 -18% 0.026 -12% 

Sauvie Island July 18 0.033 0.036 6% 0.038 14% 

Sauvie Island July 19 0.052 0.069 32°/0 0.069 32% 

Sauvie Island July 20 0.038 0.065 71% 0.070 83% 

Sauvie Island July 21 0.025 0.027 8% 0.028 10% I 

Mt View July 17 0.028 0.009 -68% 0.023 -17% i 

Mt View July 18 0.035 0.032 -9% 0.041 18% I 

Mt View July 19 0.053 0.052 -1% 0.070 33% 

Mt View July 20 0.062 0.075 21% 0.091 47% 

Mt View July 21 0.023 0.012 -48% 0.026 17% 

I Milwaukie July 17 0.022 0.014 -37% 0.019 -10% i 

Milwaukie July 18 0.028 0.034 22% 0.038 34% 

Milwaukie July 19 0.055 0.068 25% 0.075 38% 

Milwaukie July 20 0.073 0.089 23% 0.096 33% 

i Milwaukie July 21 0.016 0.017 7% 0.020 30% 

Carus July 17 0.030 0.026 -15% 0.027 -10% 

Carus July 18 0.037 0.037 0% 0.043 16% 

Carus July 19 0.065 0.071 10% 0.080 24% 

Carus July 20 0.068 0.080 16% 0.087 27% 

Carus July 21 0.026 0.026 4% 0.035 37% 

Turner July 17 0.028 0.023 -18% 0.028 0% 

Turner July 18 0.047 0.045 -5% 0.049 3% 

Turner July 19 0.067 0.072 7% 0.Q75 12% 

Turner July 20 0.061 0.058 -4% 0.067 10% 

Turner July 21 0.032 0.027 -15% 0.032 2% 

Wishram July 17 0.040 0.038 -5% 0.039 -1% 

Wishram July 18 0.039 0.040 5% 0.041 i 7% 

i Wishram July 19 0.054 0.048 -11% 0.050 -7% 

Wishram July 20 0.061 0.052 -14% 0.056 -8% 

Wishram July 21 0.037 0.038 5% 0.040 9% 

Hockinson July 17 0.035 0.027 -21% 0.029 -17% 

i Hockinson July 18 0.036 0.041 15% 0.047 30% 

Hockinson July 19 0.056 0.044 -21% 0.052 -7% 

Hockinson July 20 0.057 0.054 -5% 0.062 10% 

Hockinson July 21 0.028 0.031 14% 0.033 21% 

Note: "Ix!" data extracted from the exact grids. 

"5x5" data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids. 

-


66 

A scatter diagram of average observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima (paired in space) are 

shown in Figure 28. Unlike the July 1998 episode in which only three peak ozone days were 

used in averaging, both low and high ozone days were included in the 1997 case. Therefore, all 

spatially paired means were within the 30-50 ppb range. When plotted using the exact grid cell, 

there was some slight overprediction. When looking at the 5x5 grid cells, ozone at most sites 

was overestimated. 

Quantile-Quantile plots (Figure 29a and 29b) are plotted for the observed and simulated 8-hr 

daily maxima using all data pairs and spatially paired means. When using all data pairs, it 

appears that the LSM-l run tended to overpredict for moderate and high ozone levels, and 

performed better at low concentrations. When using spatially paired means, the model 

overpredicted at both the exact grid and the 5x5 grids. 

average predicted and observed 8-hr daily maxima 

y =0.2432x + 0,0327 0,120 

R2 0,1137 I 

0,100 I y 0,3808x + °

0325 

R2 =0,2971

- e 0.080 Q. 

S: 

11/

.:: 

0

::I 0,060 'a 

!!! • ... 

'6 a0.040 ~ .

• 

• 5)(5 

• 1)(1 

1:1 

I 0,020 

I 0.000 

0.000 0,020 0.040 0.060 0,080 0,100 0.120 

observed ozone (ppm) 

Figure 28. Scatter plot of the average observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima for 5x5 and lxl 

grids for July 1997 episode. 

67 
0·0: 8-hr daily maxima (a. all data pairs) 

0.120,---------------------, 

0,100 +--~---~---~--------.-~----~-·---I; 

: . E O.OBO _ 

~ .. w .,. 

6 !. d 0.060 +---------~ ·--~ ..------~...--~.. -II ... • ! 

i I ;. .• 

£0.040,--'- -1------­

0.020 I • d----..----~ •

I

• 

I 0.000 -!,-,-------,-------_,__--___,----, 

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 O.OBO 0.100 0.120 

Observed Ozone (ppm) 

Figure 29a. Quantile-Quantile plot ofobserved and predicted 8-br daily maxima using all data 

pairs for 5x5 and Ixl grids for July 1997 episode. 

- 0-0: 8-hr daily maxima (b: spatially paired mean) 

0.080 

0.070 

0.060 

E 

~ 0.050 

i 

• .. ••••• rI' •• 

•

• 

I • 5x5 w • lxl 5 d 0.040 1:1

... 

~ 11 0.030 t----~··---··---·----------···------I .. 

II. 

0.000 ~~-_--__,_---,---_--.,__-__:---,----J 

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 

Observed Ozone (ppm) 

0.020 +-------~--·---··---··---···---------i 

Figure 29b. Quantile-Quantile plot ofobserved and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially 

paired means for 5x5 and lxl grids for July 1997 episode. 

- 68 

6.3.2 Comparisons with NOx monitoring data 

NOx data were available at Castle Rock, Mt. View, and Lafayette for the July 1997 ozone 

episode. Predicted and observed NO and N02concentrations from 6 to 21 PDT are shown for 

each site in Figure 30 for July 17-21, 1997. 

The observed NOx peaks in the 1997 episode were lower than those in the 1998 episode at Mt. 

View and Lafayette. The LSM-I run showed a large overestimation ofNO on the non-episode 

days (July 17, 18, and 21) at all three sites. In contrast, the agreement was much better for NO 

during days with elevated ozone (July 19 and 20). Note, that these were weekend days with 

smaller NO emissions from mobile sources. For N02, the LSM-1 run showed some 

overprediction at Mt. View and Lafayette, but matched the general trend at most times. At 

Castle Rock, there was a large overestimation ofN02 on the non-episode days. 

The VOC data collected at the southwest Washington sites in 1997 were reported to have 

abnormally high levels of aromatics due to contamination issues (Westberg et aI, 1998), 

therefore no comparisons were made for this episode. 

69 
•• 

Figure 30. Observed and simulated NOIN02 concentrations at Lafayette, Castle Rock, 

and Mt. View from July 17 to 21, 1997. -

Lafayette July 17, 1997 Lafayette July 17, 1997 

0.2 

E 0.15 0­

I i I 

! 

i i 

i 

i

11""­~ 7.\ 

... .... 

-e 0.1 IgEH-J :j I-+- i 

o N 0.03 _-. I ~.::sr==J. Z 0.05 ~ ~.~~ f_~~._~ o oT--1 .~ •• ~.; ,

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

!-bur !-bur 

LAfAVP.ItP, .llllv 1ft 1997 Lafavette Julv 18. 1997 

0.2 


~ 0.15 


! I i 

f\ I 

II \ i 

~ .. ~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

!-bur 

Lafayette July 19, 1997 

E 0­

0­ S: 0.03 +-:=-~~--___+_-----,____~....-+---~ -e 0.1 N 

o ~ 0.02 .:.-"'L-~-....-__+---'-... --+_--_c.l" 

Z 0.05 0.01 +-~±-..:==:r_:::::::+--.........::~~_.!. 

O~~--~~__+~--~·~-_+_--

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

• 

I .... & ...... _,,"'_ 1•• f. ... n ,of nn-, 

0.06 ..~-~..--_r_-...,--......,-_ 

0.2 

o 

I i i 

i 

i i I 

I ! 

t-' ..... I 

-- 1 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

!-bur 

E ~ 0.15 0­

E 

0­ -e N . 003~~--~~--_+_~---+----+---~

-e 0.1 ~ 0.02 +-~~'"+~-.::+---t----+---~ o 

0.01 ...... , __··-.:.-;I ...... ~....,;..~~::::".jjI-• ...:r Z 0.05 

O·~-~--+----+---+_--~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

!-bur 

0.06 .,---,-----,---,---_---, 

E nn4.~-~---+---~I----J---~ 

0.05 +-----+--~--+---_+----·c 

-

70 

-


0.2 

--. 0.15 

~ ..e 0.1 

o 

Z 0.05 

0.2 

~ 0.15 

~ ..e 0.1 

o 

z 0.05 

a 

! I I ! i 

I I 

I 

I 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Lafayette July 20, 1997 	 Lafayette July 20, 1997 

I ~:~.:. i ..e 003 I !. ···~-L.i;-- '~.--1 

~ ·'4 

I • N . I I .' 

o.o~ ~.-. ~ .~ r·. ! · · 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 	 Hour 

LafayetteJuly 21, 1997 	 LafayetteJuly 21, 1997 

o 

I I 

(---. 

V .. .. ~ .. ~ ~~.... 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

!-bur 

Z 

!~EEf±+J1d 0.01 EIt-'--~~~~-~~j o . ! 	 I . . 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

!-bur 

-


71 
-
 Castlerock July 17, 1997 	 CastierockJuly 17, 1997 

0,025 

~ 0.02 

,g 0.015 

o 0.01 

z 

0.005 

o 

I 

I-­

..A, 

I 

I 

i 

I 

" ... 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 18, 1997 

0.025 

0.02 

i 0.015 

.3: 

~ 0.01 

0.005 

oj 

~ I 

I

-

1\ I 

I , 1 

~ I 

.. ~. ~ ... I 

" 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 19, 1997 

0.025 ,..---:---.....,----;----,----, 

0.02 ,I-.-"-"-+--'''---r-~,,--+-,,--l-''--i 

i 0.015 

0.01 +----1~----_+,,-,,-1--- +-,-,,-; 

+~-,-+--,,--I.-,--+----+---l .3: 

o 

z 

0.005 "t-.:;;;"'~-i- -T--i--~I 

0~-4~~~F.~~~ 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

NO_obs ---NO.J)re 

0.025 t I I I 

I 

o N 	

o~~~! 0.01 ~"-~,',!-! !', " I : •

'" 

i~ " 

z • i , I ~ E' , : 

0.005 - "'-1".--,-'" i ' , t

0'·· ., ...... ~ .. , 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 18, 1997 

0.025 ,---'1--,---...,----,-----, 

Eli

0.02 r-' -,~,,-.-+_-_,'---I--,,_i__-,"-.~ 

! 0.015,,- -j;--_i__--+-",-........j,,-­

8 0.01 1----+ ----+-- ",I "

Z 0.005 t--~.-~- ! ~ -­

0 •• T··~··+···i' ., 

6:00 	 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 19, 1997 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

-


72 

Castlerock July 20, 1997 

0.025 

0.02 

~ 0.015 

E:: 

o 0.01 

z 

0.005 

o 

l I 

I I 

1 

l ..­

~.~.. ..~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

r------..~.. I I .. ·." NO_obs _--NOJ>re. L~._._ .. .. ..~.~~.~.~ 

Castlerock July 21, 1997 

0.025T~ I ! I~ 

0.02}..· -t·-.-........f-..-......-..-_·J

,
 --,.. I i I • 

!::~w--aJ 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

Castlerock July 20, 1997 

025 

0. t=. ! I I i 1 

~ 0.02 I +--r-~i 

~ 0.015 .....• .. 1 ' .....!~~+_.. _~i._~. z tl 0.01 1. + . '~" .. I

0.005 I. 

o ~ 

".... 

I ~ ! 

II!' • t---~•

I··.. t~ i' II , 

~ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

N02J>re 

CastierockJuly 21,1997 

~ O:'~:E T.· ~=+-~~ I .. !'=l

E8: 0.015' . .,. : i +-, =q'. ......, ( I I 

~ 0.01 .. -.... +~ i I !-.. 0.005 t-.-r '" '; I I '. . i ~, oT'· , •••• -~ .••• '. I 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

73 

M. View July 18, 1997 	 M. View July 18, 1997 

0.12 

i 0,1 0.08 

-e 0,06 

~ 0.04 

0.02 

o 

6:00 

0,12 

0.1 

E 0,08 Q. 

-e 0.06 

~ 0,04 

0,02 

o 

6:00 

"I 	 i 

J \1 

t \ 

,\ 


I\, i 


..... 1 .... :"1-­

9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

M, View July 19, 1997 

I , 

, 

i i 

i 

I 

i ~,,,. .l. 

- y 

9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

---NO-pre 

M, View July 20, 1997 

0,12 

0,1 

E 0,08 Q. 

-e 0.06 

o:z 	 0.04 

0,02 

o 

i 

, 

i 

_. J 

~--±--+ 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

• NO_obs NO-pre 1 

~'--..--.--.. 

J::~tt J-B 
 ~ 0,01 t··· I '-"~r- ~'·f-""'''!~.--J 0·· ·····T···I11'··- ­ 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

• N02_obs -_._­

M, View July 19, 1997 

0,04 11"1 1 ~iI 

E 0,03 1-: '-+--H

N 

~0.02~' I. i ... -J~~-i_1 I : : _g
 o .! 

:z 0,01 I~ :F. ~.;-~~-;-t~ 

o ~ I , I 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

M. View July 20, 1997 

0,04 

E 0,03 Q.

Q. 

;;; 0,02 

o 

:z 0,01 

o 

:;r"'ii"'- ... 

I 

! , i 

"", >,," \\ • • ~. • ., ~".~-1 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

-. 


74 

Mt. View July 21, 1997 Mt. View July 21, 1997 

0.12 

0.1 

E 0.08 Co 

5 0.06 

~ 0.04 

0.02 

o 11"'••1 •• ~ .~~ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i A

.. - 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 

Hour 

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 

Hour 

75 

6.4 Conclusion for July 1998 and 1997 CMAQ simulation - Two historical episodes (July 17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998) were selected as potential base 

episodes for this modeling work because the July 1998 episode had the highest ozone levels 

observed in recent years for the airshed and the July 1997 episode had slightly different 

meteorological patterns compared to the 1998 case. For the July 1998 episode, CMAQ model 

perfonnance statistics for most monitoring sites were within EPA suggested I-hr and 8-hr ozone 

modeling guidelines as shown in section 6.2.1. Time series plots, scatter plots, and QuantileQuantile plots also showed generally good agreement between model simulations and 

observations. For the July 1997 episode, the observed ozone levels were much lower than those 

in the 1998 case. The CMAQ perfonnance fo'r ozone was also acceptable for the 1997 run, but 

there was less accurate simulation ofozone levels at different times and locations compared to 

the 1998 case. Therefore, the July 1998 episode was selected as the base for evaluation offuture 

year (2015) control strategy simulations due to higher observed ozone concentrations and better 

simulation ofozone levels. 

7 Future episode modeling (2015) 

7.1 Future year managed growth maintenance projection simulation 

7.1.1 CMAQ modeling results 

To investigate the impact of changes in emissions due to future growth and various control 

strategies, a year 2015 emission inventory was developed. This was then used in a model run 

with July 1998 meteorology to create a 2015 managed growth maintenance projection for ozone 

simulation. Emissions comparisons for 2015 and 1998 are shown in Table 13. For year 2015, the 

NOx emissions are reduced by 49%. In contrast, the VOC emissions reduction is only 26%, and 

consequently, the VOC/NOx ratio increases from 0.73 in 1998 to 1.06 in 2015. There are also 

41% and 16% reductions in SOx and CO emissions in 2015 compared to 1998. 

Table 13 Anthropogenic emission comparison between the 2015 managed growth maintenance 

projection and 1998 run 

1998 2015 base Percentage change I 

Mole/day Mole/day i 

VOC 1253 924 -26% 

NOx 1722 875 -49% 

SOx 166 99 -41% 

CO 23264 19455 -16% 

VOC/NOx 0.73 1.06 45% 

Note: Emlsslons are daIly averages (July 24 -29) summed over the central domam (gnd cells 10,20 to 45,55) 

Simulated ozone surface contours at 17PDT on July 28, 2015 are shown in Figure 31 a. For 

comparison, the contours from the 1998 run and the difference plot between the two years are 

shown in Figure 31b and 31c, respectively. In the 2015 episode, the maximum I-hr average 

-. 


ozone reached 128 ppb at 17 PDT on July 28 slightly south ofPortland, as compared to 148 ppb 


in 1998. The areas with elevated ozone appear to be similar between the two years, although the -. 


76 

- absolute ozone values in 2015 were lower. As shown in Figure 31 c, large reductions (20-30 ppb) 

mainly occur downwind ofPortland extending from close to Cams to south ofSalem. In 

contrast to the large decrease of ozone downwind ofurban center, the change within Portland 

itself is smaller « 15 ppb). 

0.128 99 

0.112 

0.096 

0.080 

0.064 

0.048 

0.032 

0.016 

0.000 1 

ppmV 

PAUE 

by July 29.20150:00:00 

lI1ellle Min= 0.019 at (6.76). Max= 0.128 at (29.24) 

Figure 31a. Simulated ozone contour at 17 PDT on July 28,2015 

1 99 

0.128 99 

0.112 

0.096 

0.080 

0.064 

0.048 

0.032 

0.016 

0.000 1 

ppmV 1 99 PAUE July 29.1998 0:00:00 by 

Mellie Min= 0.020 at (36.82). Max= 0.148 at (29.24) 

77 
Figure 31b. Simulated ozone contour at 17 PDT on July 28, 1998 .­

0.030 99 

0.023 

0.015 

0.008 

0.000 


-0.007 


-0.015 


-0.022 


-0.030 1 


ppmV 

PAVE Hour: 120 by 

MeN!: Min= -0.013 at (36,82). Max"" 0.032 at (28,20)

Figure 31c. Ozone difference contour at 17 PDT on July 28 between 1998 and 2015 (1998 

2015) 

Simulated I-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for the 2015 managed growth maintenance 

projection and July 1998 episode are shown in Figure 32 for each monitoring site. At the Castle 

Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island sites, there is a daytime decrease and slight night increase of 

ozone in 2015 compared to 1998. 

At Mt. View and Milwaukie, the daytime reduction is relatively small and sometimes the daily 

maxima occur slightly earlier in the future year run. On July 28, for example, the I-hr ozone 

peak at Milwaukie is 2-hr earlier and also broader in 2015 compared to 1998. As a result, the 8­

hr maximum ozone on that day increases slightly (89 ppb versus 87 ppb) in the future year run. 

At Cams and Turner, the daytime reductions are large (up to 30 ppb at Turner), but nighttime 

ozone remains about the same level as 1998. At Wishram and Hockinson, in addition to the 

daytime decrease ofozone, nighttime values are also slightly lowered. 

99 

-


78 

Figure 32. Simulated l-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for 2015 managed growth 

maintenance projection and July 1998 episode. 

Castlerock 

0.12 

0.1 

E... 

.!!: 

! 

0 

N 

0 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 .~--~. 

o~----------~-----···~------~-------~----~-------------~----------------~ 

7/24/150;00 7/25/150:00 7/26/15 0,00 7/27/150:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/150:00 

Oate(POT) 

Woodland 

I

.. 

c 

0 

~ 

0.12 

0.1 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0 

7124/150:00 7125/150;00 7126115 0:00 7127/150:00 7/28/150:00 7129/150;00 

Date (POT) 

.­

79 
Sauvie Island - 0.12 

0.1 

0.08 

! 0.06 ! 

! 

0.04 

0.02 

7124/15 0:00 

0.12 

0.1 

E 

~ 0.06 ! 

0 

d 

0.04 

0.Q2 

0 

7124/150:00 

71251150:00 71261150:00 

0.08 +----.-.---~---~---.- ...---~~---------

71281150:00 7/29/150:00 

7127/150:00 71281150:00 71291150:00 

Date (PDT) 

Mt. View 

7/251150:00 71261150:00 7/271150:00 

DateIPOT) 

-


80 

Milwaukie 

0.12 

i 

!! 

B" 

Date (PDT) 

0.1 

0.08 

0.06 

O.M 

0.02 

7124115 0;00 7/25/150:00 7/26/15 0:00 7127115 0:00 71281150;00 71291150:00 

Carus 

0.16 

0.14 

0.12 

0.1 

I 

.!!: 

.. 0,08 c 

~ 0,06 

O,M 

0.02 

a 71241150:00 7125/150:00 7/26/150;00 7127/150:00 7128/15 0:00 71291150:00 

Date (PDn 

.­

81 
0.12 

Turner - 0.1 

E 

a. 

~ 

j 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

7124115 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7127/150:00 

Dale (PDT) 

71281150:00 7129/150:00 

Hockinson 

0.09 

0.08 - 0.07 

0.06 

E 

a. 0.05

~ 

! 

~ 0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

7/24/150:00 7/25/150:00 71261150:00 7/27/150:00 7/28115 0:00 7129/150:00 

Dale (PDT) 

.­

82 

Wishram 

0.07 ~~.------------------.----------.--_ 

0.06 +------...----­

0.05 ·-:\-c-----···--·-···--.FF~t_+---~~-""_<~"f:__ 

0.02 t---------------------------~ .. --j 

0.01 +--...--....--~... ---···------··------------------·---··--1 

o+------~----~----~-----_----_-~ 

7/24115 0:00 71251150:00 71261150:00 71271150:00 7128115 0:00 71291150:00 

Date (PDT) 

7.1.2 VOCfNOx ratios and regional increase ofozone 

The (03]/(NOx] concentration ratio has been shown to be a reliable indicator of 03 response to 

VOC or NOx emissions changes (Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000b). Values of the ratio < 15 

indicate the strongly radical-limited, VOC sensitive condition. Values> 46 indicate strongly 

NOx-limited and therefore NOx sensitive region (Arnold et aI., 2003). The predicted 

[03]/[NOx] contours in the afternoon of2015 and 1998 are shown in Figure 33a and b. For 

1998, the entire Portland urban area and 1-5 corridor appear to be well into the VOC-sensitive 

region. In contrast, for 2015 the VOC-limited areas are much smaller, which is consistent with 

the increased VOCfNOx ratio. This indicator helps to explain the ozone increase at Milwaukie 

in 2015. The site appears to be strongly VOC limited in the afternoon hours of 1998, and 

therefore, excess NO titrates 03 and reduces the 03 level. In 2015, (03]/(NOx] is slightly above 

15 at the site. Being less VOC-limited and hence having less NO titration, an increase of 03 

could be expected. 

Another way to understand the regional increase of ozone is to look at process analysis output 

from CMAQ. Process analysis is a feature in CMAQ where the contributions ofdifferent 

chemical/physical processes are tracked by grid cell for each hour ofsimulations. For example, 

ozone chemical production rates are mapped for the two years in Figure 34a and b. In 1998 there 

is a net loss ofozone due to NOx titration in the urban core. In contrast in 2015, ozone is 

produced at a net rate of 10 to 20 ppb/hr within the urban core. Almost no NOx titration effects 

are observed in the 2015 case. Therefore, higher ozone values might occur in 2015 for the sites 

within urban center. 

83 
Layer 1 03w/(NOw+N02w) 


w=CCTM_pdxsip201 S _22Iay.CONC_20S-210 Jeduced 

52.000 6S ,......".....,.----,---::-----".."...,-,--------, 

"15.875 

39.750 

33.625 

27.500 

21.375 

15.250 

9.125 

3.000 10 

1 60 

PAVE July 28,201522:00:00 by 

II1CNC Min= 3.480 at (29,34~ Max=4148.644 at (50,49) 

Figure 33a. 03INOx contour plot at 15 PDT on July 28,2015 

Layer 1 03f/(NOf+N02f) 

PAUE July 28,1998 22 :00 :00 bl' 

IIICNC Min= 2.1BO at (30,33). Max=3252.789 at (50,49) 

Figure 33b. 03INOx contour plot at 15 PDT on July 28, 1998 

f=CCTM_pdxsipS8_22Iay.paCONC.pdxsipSBJ_senJni_LSM 

52.00065 """'..".-----=== ---------, 

£J5.B75 

39.750 

33.625 

27.500 

21.375 

15.250 

9.125 

3.000 10 ......--~-

1 60 

84 
Layer 1 03_CHEMn 

n=CCTM_pdxsip201S _22Iay.paPA_l.pdxsip201S J _senjni_LS~ 

0.030 65 1""":1'~-----~===== 

0.020 

0.010 

0.000 

-0.010 

-0.020 

-0.030 

-0.0'10 

-0.050 10 '-----------'-"-------'-' 

ppmV 1 60 

P~~E July28201S 22:00:00 IIICNC Min- -0.062 at (29,34). Max= 0.029 at (48,36) 

Figure 34a. Ozone chemical production rates from process analysis at 15 PDT on July 28,2015 

Layer 1 03_CHEMg 

g-CCTM_pdxsip98_22lay.paPA_1.pdxsip98J_senjni_LSM 

0.030 65 ~A--""""JiIiii_iir~=:::=1iii"""'_iiiiii 

0.020 

0.010 

0.000 

-0.010 

-0.020 

-0.030 

-0.040 

-0.050 10 '------"'" 

ppmV 1 60 

P~~E July 28,1998 22 :00 :00 MCN!: Min= -0.060 at (29,34). Max= 0.034 at (27,26) 

Figure 34b. Ozone chemical production rates from process analysis at 15 PDT on July 28, 1998 

85 
7.2 What if scenario - No lower Columbia River point sources' 

- Following the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, a 'what-if control scenario was 

formulated for analysis. The scenario assumed no lower Columbia River point sources. This 

effectively means no large industrial activity along the lower Columbia River. Emissions 

comparisons between the 2015 case and the no lower Columbia River point source case are 

shown in Table 14. There is a 6% reduction in VOC emissions and an 11 % reduction in NOx 

emissions due to the removal ofthe lower Columbia River point sources. 

Table 14. Anthropogenic emissions comparisons between the 2015 managed growth 

mamtenance . proJec . f d th I C I b' R' . IOn an eno ower oum la Iver pomt source case. 

l 

i 

2015 projection 

Mole/day 

2015 no columbia pt 

Mole/day 

Percentage change 

VOC 924 870 -6% 

NOX 875 779 -11% 

SOX 99 55 -44% 

CO 19455 19046 -2% 

VOC/NOx 1.06 i 1.12 6% 

Note: Emissions are daily averages (July 24 -29) summed over the central domain (grid cells 10,20 to 45,55) 

Simulated ozone contours for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, the no lower 

Columbia River point source case, and the difference plots are shown in Figure 35a-c. Simulated 

I-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for the two cases are shown in Figure 36 for the sites 

with large ozone changes. A summary ofVOC/NOx emission ratios and predicted 8-hr daily 

maximum ozone (from the surrounding 5x5 grids) for 1998 episode, 2015 managed growth 

maintenance projection, and 2015 no lower Columbia River point sources modification are 

shown in Table 15 and Figure 37. 

The amount of03 reduction is up to 16 ppb for the case with no lower Columbia River point 

sources. The maximum reduction does not occur in the same region as the peak ozone is 

predicted to occur, and therefore the maximum ozone in the PortlandlVancouver airshed is not 

affected. The most affected sites are at Woodland and Sauvie Island where up to a 12 ppb 

decrease was predicted for the afternoon ofJune 26. At these two sites, there was also some 

increase in ozone at night due to less NO titration. At Mt View and Milwaukie, a small 

reduction was predicted, but not at the peak ozone hours. At the other sites, the changes in 03 

concentrations were almost negligible. 

Further analysis of other potential control strategies, based upon modifications to the 2015 

managed growth maintenance projection, will be conducted by ODEQ and SWCAA as part of 

the overall maintenance plan development. 

-


86 

Layer 1 03z 

z=CCTM_pdxsip201S _22lay.paCONC.pdxsip201S J _senJni_LSM_1_ 

0.128 65 

0.114 

0.100 

0.086 

0.071 

0.057 

O.Olla 

0.029 

0,015 

0.000 10 

ppmV 1 60

PAlIE July 26.2015 22 :00 :00 by 

IIICNC Min= 0.024 at (1.'16). Max= 0.099 at (29.28) 

Figure 35a. Simulated ozone contour for 2015 no lower Columbia River point source case at 15 

PDT on July 26 

Layer 1 03y 

y=CCTMj>dxsip201S_22Iay.CONC_20S-210_reduced_au9_0S 

0.128 6S 

0.114 

0.100 

0.086 

0.071 

0.057 

0.0.qa 

0.029 

0.014 

0.000 10 

ppmV 1 60 

PAUE July 26.201522:00:00 

III~~C Min= 0.024 at (VI6). Max= 0.100 at (29.28) 

Figure 35b. Simulated ozone contour for 2015 projection at 15 PDT on July 26 

87 
Layer 1 03y-03z 


NC_20S-210_reduced_auQ_OS. z=CCTM_pdxsip201S_22Iay.paCONC 

0.016 65 rcc..-;:-----,-----..,.....,..,."",....-.,.,.----,------, 

0.014 

, 

,;Ii 0.012 

0.010 

0.008 

0.006 

0.004 

0.002 

0.000 10 

ppmV 1 60 PAVE July 26.2015 22:00:00 b~ 

MCIllC Min= -0.004 at (47.36~ Max= 0.016 at (23.46) 

Figure 35c. Ozone difference plots between the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection 

and its no Lower Columbia River point sources modification at 15 PDT on July 26, 2015 

(2015 no Lower Columbia point sources) 

88 
Figure 36. Simulated 1-hr and 8-br surface ozone concentrations for the 2015 managed growth 

maintenance projection and its no lower Columbia River point sources modification. 

Woodland 

0,09 

0,08 

0,07 

0,06 

I 0,05 

a

.. 

! 0,04 

0,03 

0,02 

0,01 

0 

71241150:00 7125115 0:00 7126115 0:00 71271150:00 71281150:00 71291150:00 

Date (POT) 

Sauvie Island 

0,1,-------------------------------------------------------------------~ 

_ 0,06 

i

§ 0,05 

B 0.04 +--.~ ..--.--~.---------_j-~rI'_ 

O+------------r----------__------------__----------__------------__--~ 

71241150:00 7125115 0:00 71261150:00 7/27/15 0:00 71281150:00 71291150:00

Date (POT) 

89 
Mt. View 

0,09 - 0.08 

0.07 

0,06 

E 

Q. 0.05

.!!: 

!! 

0 

.. 0.04 0 

0.03 

0,02 

71241150:00 71251150:00 71261150:00 7127115 0:00 7128115 0:00 7129115 0:00 

Date (POTI 

Milwaukie 

-

I 

I! 

~ 

0.12 

0.1 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

71241150:00 71251150:00 

'" 

71261150:00 

,... 

7127115 0:00 7128115 0:00 7129/150:00 

Date (POT) 

90 

Table 15. VOCINOx ratio and predicted 8-hr daily maximum ozone (from the surrounding 5x5 

gn 'd s ) £; or 1998 eEl. d so e, 2015 proJectIOn, .. an d 2015 no I C I ower oum b' la R lver mo d'fi' 1 lcatIOn 

I ,. 1998 base 2015 base i2015 no Columbia ot 

VOC/NOx I 0.73 1.06 I 1.12 

I Pre 8-hr daily max Pre 8-hr daily max I Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 i 

I Site Date 5x5 (ppm) 5x5 (ppm) (ppm) 

Castle Rock 26-Jul 0.075 I 0.060 0.060 

Castle Rock 27-Jul 0.091 I 0.077 0.077 

Castle Rock I 28-Jul 0.079 I 0.068 0.068 

I 

Woodland 26-Jul 0.073 0.062 0.057 

Woodland 27-Jul 0.091 0.075 0.073 

Woodland 28-Jul I 0.083 0.072 0.072 

I 

Sauvie Island 26-Jul 0.070 0.061 0.054 

Sauvie Island 27-Jul 0.090 0.073 0.071 

rsauvie Island 28-Jul 0.087 .0.075 0.074 I Mt View 26-Jul 0.076 0.071 0.070 I 

Mt View 27-Jul 0.086 0.072 0.069 

Mt View 28-Jul 0.088 0.082 0.081 

I Milwaukie 26-Jul 0.086 0.084 i 0.084 

~ilwaukie 27-Jul 0.091 0.085 0.084 I Milwaukie 28-Jul 0.098 0.095 I 0.095 1--. I 

i Carus 26-Jul 0.090 0.077 0.077 

I Carus 27-Jul 0.097 0.085 0.084 

I Carus i 28-Jul 0.107 0.095 0.095 I 

Turner 26-Jul 0.074 I 0.060 I 0.059

I Turner 27-Jul 0.101 0.078 0.076 

I Turner 28-Jul 0.089 I 0.068 0.068 r---:-;. 

I Wishram 26-Jul 0.055 0.050 0.052 

I Wishram 27-Jul I 0.056 ! 0.049 I 0.050 

Wishram 28-Jul I 0.059 0.050 0.051 

Hockinson I 26-Jul 0.062 0.050 0.049 

Hockinson 27-Jul 0.069 0.059 0.059 

Hockinson 28-Jul 0.075 0.064 0.065 

mean 0.081 0.070 0.069 

max 0.107 0.095 0.095 

min 0.055 0.049 0.049 i 

91 
0.140 .,--------.------.--.-~----..---~.. -~..----.--------~-.. ..---~-._ 

- 0.120 t----..--...~---.---..---.~-------------.-----.------.--------,1 

E! 0.100 +----..----..------.--.--~.--------~.---.------_I__ --T-·---------··--~I 

8 

i 0.080 +--a--~ ~ 

~ 

~ 0.060 itI.-.lf-lllff-____iIil-_ Elf- --ltt-E~-ml·-....H.HIrI______i.t-.I_llJI_____IHIIIHBI--b_ 

I 0.040 a. 

0.020 

0.000 

f!!i !:y ~ fe ~ ffI fe ~ ffI ~ l;; ffI fe {:;; ffI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l.ft tv ~ fe {:;; f{J ~I ..Ji::1 ~J "b J b l 	 .... 1 ,,-I ... 1 ~' '&' g' 'OJ i/:' i/:' ,,' "~I .s/ .,t' e' ",' ",I /i;1 /i;1 /i;1 ",' , ,,!! .!!! ,.fJ} 	 <:: .!P'" .!P'" "§ ~ "§ fE IE [!! .!g .$ .!!! I e" G" 	 :! !! :! <JJJ III I '" {Ii " 	 ~I -1 1 .~I fi' fi' fi' '" '" "'- jll c58§ 	 III III ! 

r3" r3" r3" Site 

Figure 37. Predicted 8-hr daily maximum ozone (from surrounding 5x5 grids) for 1998 episode, 

2015 managed growth maintanence projection, and 2015 no lower Columbia River point source 

modification. 

-. 

92 

-


References 

J.R. Arnold, R.L. Dennis and G.S. Tonnesen, 2003. Diagnostic evaluation of numerical air 

quality models with specialized ambient observations: testing the Community Multiscale Air 

Quality modeling system (CMAQ) at selected SOS 95 ground sites, Atmos. Environ. 37, pp. 

1185-1198. 

Byun, D.W., Ching, J.K.S. (Eds.), 1999. Science algorithms ofthe EPA Models-3 Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System. EPA Report No. EPA-600/R-99/030, Office 

ofResearch and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001. Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology model with the 

Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon. 

Wea. Rev., 129,569-604. 

Chen, J.C. M.S. thesis, Washington State University, Department ofCivil and Environmental 

Engineering, Pullman, W A, 2002. 

Grell, G.A., Dudhia, J., Stau!er, D.R., 1994. A description ofthe "fifth generation Penn 

StatelNCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Technical Note NCARlTN-398#STR, 138 pp. 

H. Westberg, B. Hopkins, E. Allwine and B. Lamb, 1998. Speciated VOC Measurements in 

Western Washington during the Summer of 1997, Washington State University Laboratory for 

Atmospheric Research. 

Hong, S.-Y., and H.-L. Pan, 1996. Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range 

forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124,2322-2339. 

Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch, 1993: Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: The 

Kain-Fritsch scheme. The Representation ofCumulus Convection in Numerical Models, Meteor. 

Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 165-170. 

Liu, Y., and co-authors, 2004:hnprovements to surface flux computations in the MRF PBL 

scheme, and refinements to urban processes in the Noah Land-Surface model with the 

NCARIATEC Real-Time FDDA and forecast system. The 5th WRF I 14th MM5 User's 

Workshop, Boulder, CO. June 22-25, 2004. 

O'Neill, S.M.; Lamb, B.K., 2004. Inter-comparison ofthe Community Multi-scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model and CALGRID using Process Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 5742-5763. 

O'Neill, S., B. Lamb, J. Chen, C. Claiborn, D. Finn, S. Otterson, C. Figueroa, C. Bowman, M. 

Boyer, R. Wilson, J. Arnold, S. Aalbers, J. Slocum, C. Swab, M. Stoll, M. DuBois, and M. 

Anderson, 2005. Modeling aerosol fonnation and transport in the Pacific Northwest with the 

Community Multi-scale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system, Environ. Sci. & Technol., in 

press. 

93 
Tonnesen, G.S. and Dennis, R.L., 2000. Analysis ofradical propagation efficiency to assess 

ozone sensitivity to hydrocarbons and NOX. Part II: long-lived species as indicators or ozone 

concentration sensitivity. Journal ofGeophysical Research 105, pp. 9227-9241. 

U.S. EPA, (May 1999). Draft Guidance on the Use ofModels and Other Analyses in Attainment 

Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, EPA-4541R-99-004, 

http://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/guidance/guide/draft03.pdf 

Vukovich, J. and T. Pierce, 2002. The hnplementation ofBEIS3 within the SMOKE Modeling 


Framework, In Proceedings ofthe 11thInternational Emissions Inventory Conference, Atlanta, 


Georgia, April 15-18, 2002. 


(Available online:www. epa. gov/ttnlchie£'conferencel ei Il/modeling/vukovich. pdf) 


Xiu, A., and J. E. Pleim, 2001. Development of a land surface model. Part I: Application in a 


mesoscale meteorological model. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 192-209. 


Zhang, D.-L., and R. A. Anthes, 1982. A high-resolution model ofthe planetary boundary 


layer-sensitivity tests and comparisons with SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor, 21, 1594­

1609. 


Zhang, D.-L., and W. Zheng, 2004: Diurnal cycles ofsurface winds and temperatures as 


simulated by five boundary-layer parameterizations. J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 157-169. 


94 
Appendix A. Emission Inventory Documentation 

1998 and 1997 Methodologies 

Biogenic 

Biogenic emissions were processed using BEIS v3.09 (Vukovich and Pierce, 2002). The model 

estimates VOC emissions from vegetation based on land-use categories and nitric oxide 

emissions from microbial activity based on soil types. The BEIS3 modeling system uses the 

Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database version 3 (BELD3) which consists of 1 km gridded 

data 230 land-use types. There are two steps involved in BEIS3 modeling, In the first step, the 

model inputs the BELD3 land-use data and emissions factors, and outputs gridded, normalized 

emissions (at 30°C and 1000 umol m-2

's-1 PAR). In the second step, the model uses 

. meteorological data, speciation profiles, and normalized emissions generated from the previous 

step, and outputs gridded, speciated, hourly biogenic emissions. The biogenic emissions for 1998 

episode are summarized in Table Al which shows that 58% of the VOC emissions and 2% of the 

NOx emissions are from biogenic sources in the central part ofthe domain that encompasses the 

PortlandIV ancouver area, 

TahI e Al B' lOgemc emISSIons summed over the centr ald omam . £or t e h J 1 Uly 1998 ep:isode. 

I Species Biogenic emissions Total emissions Percent biogenic 

Mole/day I i Mole/day % I ALK2 643 I 699 92.0 

l!SOPRENE 225 226 99.6 I I 76 57.5 OLE2 131 i

I TRP1 781 783 99.7 I NO I 37 1673 2.2 

voe 1724 2977 57.9

I NOX 37 1759 2.1 I 

I 

Note: ElDlsslons are dally averages (July 24 -29) sUlDllled over the central domam (gnd cells 10,20 to 45,55) 

Area 

The 1999 inventory, developed for submittal by Oregon to EP A for the 1999 NEI, was the 

starting point for the Oregon 1997 and 1998 area source emission inventory used for model 

validation. Using population as a surrogate, all the 1999 emissions were scaled back to estimate 

1997 and 1998 emissions for the 15 counties in the modeling domain using MS ACCESS. Table 

A2 below details the development of the fractions used for each county. In Appendix B, Table 

B 1 lists the area source categories that were inventoried. 

95 
T a e : bi Al P I opu a f IOn andEmISSIOn . . R' atIOS)Y b County -


STATE/COUNTIv July 1 July 1 99-97 County 99-98 County July 1 : 

l.99.7 l.99.8 reduction fraction reduction fraction 1929 I 

OREGON 3,217,000 3,267,550 3,300,8001 

BENTON 76700 76.600 0.9948 0.9935 77 100 I 

CLACKAMAS 317.700 323600 0.9720 0.9901 326.850 ! 

CLATSOP 34500 34,700 0.9928 0.9986 34750 

COLUMBIA 41500 42.300 0.9730 0.9918 42650 

HOOD RIVER 19200 19500 . 0.9746 0.9898 19700 

JEFFERSON 17100 17400 0.9688 0.9858 17650 

LINCOLN 42,500 43,200 0.9804 0.9965 43..350 

LINN 100700 102,200 0.9777 0.9922 103,000 

MARION 267700 271900 0.9726 0.9878 275,250 

MULTNOMAJ-1 639,000 641900 0.9879 0.9923 646850 

POLK 57,400 59.500 0.9551 0.9900 60,100 

TILLAMOOK 23,800 24.000 0.9876 0.9959 24100 

WASCO 22.600 22.600 0.9978 0.9978 22650 

WASHINGTOl' 385,000 397600 0.9512 0.9823 404.750 

YAMHILL 79200 81900 0.9531 0.9856 83 100 

SWCAA and the Washington Department of Ecology did not have a complete 1999 area source 

submittal to start with so SWCAA built a 1998 EI for the 8 counties in the core Washington 

domain following EPA protocols as outlined in EIIP references. The eight counties in the core 

Washington domain were Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and 

Yakima counties. WSU staff then used 1996 area source data for the remainder ofthe domain 

counties from the Northwest Regional Technical Center (NWRTC) demonstration project work. 

The emission categories, and the methodologies used for calculating emissions for these 

categories are described in Appendix B. 

Nonroad Mobile 

To create nonroad mobile estimates, excluding aircraft, rail and marine, for the 1997 and 1998 

episodes, DEQ and SWCAA used EPA's 2002 NONROAD model. Collaborative care was 

taken to assure the consistency and validity ofthe model inputs between states and accurately 

reflect the conditions in each state. The NONROAD model allows users to design various 

scenarios to generate emissions. The period input parameters for the model runs that generated 

this data were: seasonal, typical day, summer, weekday to provide a conservative estimate of 

emissions. The 2002 NONROAD model was run for 1997 and 1998 episodes, with the same 

input parameters except for the change in year. Table A2 summarizes the fuel parameter inputs 

representing both episodes. 

96 

- Table A2. Oregon NONROAD model fuel parameter inputs 

I NONROAD Model fuel parameter inputs: I

Input 

1997/1998 

Modeling Episode 

Inputs 

FuelRVP 7.8 

Fuel 02 wt% 2.0 

Gasoline sulfur wt% 0.021 

Diesel sulfur wt% 0.5 

CNGILPG sulfur wt% 0.0123 

Stage II control % * 

*Control efficiency in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties was set to 

81 % based on DEQ estimates. For all other counties within the domain, the control 

efficiency was set to O. 

Fuel RVP is the July ASTM terminal limit RVP for western Oregon and the PortlandNancouver 

area (1997). The 02 and diesel sulfur weight % are DEQ estimates. Gasoline sulfur is from a 

state-by-state fuel properties report prepared for the EPA by ICF consulting. The CNG sulfur is 

a conservative estimate for HD5 propane rated for fuel use. 

Temperature data for Oregon counties for the 1997 and 1998 episode runs were averaged from 

the temperatures ofthe top ten ozone days in the three years leading up to and including the 

original base year of 1996. Temperature data were taken from the Oregon Climatological Data 

Survey. The temperatures were averaged for the episode; the results are shown in Table A3. 

Table A3. Oregon NONROAD temperature data inputs I AvgHigh T IAvg. LowT I I I

Avg. T 

County (F) (F) (F) 

BENTON 75.7 92.1 59.2 

CLACKAMAS 77.0 95.9 58.2 

CLATSOP 65.4 76.5 54.2 

COLUMBIA 78.2 96.0 60.4 

HOOD RIVER 79.3 99.2 59.5 

JEFFERSON 72.2 95.4 49.0

LINCOLN 65.4 76.5 54.2 

LINN 77.0 95.9 58.2 

MARlON 77.2 95.9 58.5 

MULTNOMAH 77.7 96.0 59.5 

POLK 71.8 86.3 57.3 

TILLAMOOK 65.4 76.5 54.2 

WASCO 79.3 99.2 59.5 

WASHINGTON 77.0 94.1 59.8 

YAMHILL 73.1 88.2 58.0 

Temperature data for W A counties in the 1997 and 1998 episode runs were derived from NOAA 

data at various sites within those counties. The temperatures used were average temperatures 

97 
during the peak days of each respected episode. Table A4 shows the temperatures used for the 8 -, core counties in 1998 and for the entire WA domain in 1997. 

T a e hI A4 WA core domam countIes NONROAD temperature data mputs : 

i 1997 Episode 1998 Episode 

Avg. High Avg. Low Avg. ! Avg. High Avg. Low 

(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) Avg. (F) 

Clark 78.9 i 52.6 65.8 86.8 58.6 72.7 

Cowlitz 77.6 53.8 65.7 87.1 59.6 73.4 • 

Klickitat 88.4 i 50.1 69.3 101.4 58.8 80.1 

. Lewis 79.9 54.0 67.0 89.1 61.4 75.3 i 

Pacific 72.8 50.7 61.8 74.9 ! 57.0 66.0 I 

: Wahkiakum 54.0 72.9 63.5 . 80.8 56.4 68.6 • 

Skamania 80.4 I 47.2 63.8 92.3 57.2 74.8 

i Yakima 89.2 53.6 71.4 : 99.7 66.1 82.9 

Aircraft, rail and commercial marine emissions in Oregon were estimated in the same manner as 

the area sources. They were back cast based on the population ratios between the 1999 inventory 

year and each specific episode year. ODEQ calculated the Columbia River commercial marine 

emissions and the emissions were apportioned to the Oregon counties that bordered the 

Columbia River. In Washington, aircraft and commercial marine emissions from the 1996 

NWRTC demonstration project were used because most ofthese emissions were outside ofthe 8 

county core WA domain. Washington locomotive emissions were developed by ODEQ for a 

1997 locomotive emission inventory. 

Washington Department ofEcology assisted in the Nonroad inventory work by processing the 

Nonroad model outputs for input into the SMOKE model with a customized script. 

On-road Mobile 

The 1997 and 1998 mobile emissions were calculated based on episode specific, link-based, 

daily trip VMT data modeled by RTC and Metro using traffic demand models. MOBILE6.2 was 

used to calculate the emission factors with the episode-specific conditions. The summary of the 

approach to mobile emissions modeling estimates was to: 

• 	 Create link-based daily VMT for the AQMA using traffic demand models, and 


county-wide VMT for the remainder ofthe domain. 


• 	 Create four total MOBILE6.2 input fIles representing Clark County, Portland 

Metro Area Counties (both with 11M features); Washington State counties, and 

Oregon State counties (both without VM features) for the remainder ofthe modeling 

domain. 

• 	 Run MOBILE6.2 at a standard temperature and at individual temperatures. 

• 	 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature. 

• 	 Create a set oftemperature adjustment factors from the individual temperature runs. 

• 	 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (from MM5) to apply adjustments to the 

standard emissions. -

98 
This method allowed adjustment ofhourly emissions based on temperature, but involved postprocessing of SMOKE data. ODEQ completed the MOBILE6.2 work with assistance from 

ECOLOGY and SWCAA for Washington data, and WSU completed the SMOKE processing. 

The eight (4 per episode year) MOBILE6.2 input files can be found in Appendix C. 

Industrial Point Sources 

Industrial Point Sources from both states were loaded into a common database to ease tracking 

and model input file generation. Regional staff for Washington and Oregon compiled annual 

emission information for permitted facilities. Industrial Point sources that emit more than 10 

tons per year ofVOC, 40 tons per year of NOx, or 100 tons per year of CO within the 4 counties 

of the PortlandNancouver ozone maintenance area were inventoried for this work. Point sources 

that emit more than 40 tpy of NOx or 100 tpy ofVOC or CO outside the maintenance area 

counties were also inventoried. Additionally, point sources emitting less than those thresholds 

within 4 kilometers of ozone monitoring sites were included in the episode emission inventories. 

Stack parameters, activity, and exact location were collected when available to provide the most 

comprehensive accounting possible. 

SOx emissions have an indirect influence on ozone, as such these emissions were included in the 

model run inventories. No SOx parameters were used in compiling the point source list for this 

project. The emissions were included only for sources that met the NOx, CO, andlor VOC 

thresholds described above. Facility SOx data for Washington point sources were included in the 

1997 and 1998 runs. For Oregon, 1997 and 1998 estimated actual SOx emissions for TV point 

sources were generated from the ODEQ ACSIS point source database. The emissions were split 

by SCC, but not by stack or device. SOx data for the 2002 EI that was used to forecast 2015 

emissions estimates was included for all sources in both states. ODEQ Program Operations staff 

inventoried the emissions for TV sources; regional staff estimated the emissions for all other 

sources. 

All of these major categories were processed through SMOKE by WSU staff in preparation for 

the modeling. 

Future Year Documentation 

Base Year (2002) methodology for area and point sources 

The base year EI chosen to be forecasted to 2015 was the latest emission inventory that was 

created for submittal to EPA under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). This 

2002 county by county annual inventory was developed by the respective states following the 

currently accepted methodologies and submitted as part ofthe National Emission Inventory 

(NEI). As required by the submittal process it underwent rigorous QA by ODEQ, Ecology and 

EPA contractors. These statewide inventories covered many more pollutants than were needed 

for this ozone modeling. Therefore the ozone precursor pollutants (CO, NOx, VOC) and SOx 

99 
were selected by source classification code (SCC) from the submitted inventories for the 

counties in the modeling domain. 

Area source forecast method 

The selected pollutants comprising the Oregon inventory were input into a MS ACCESS 

database table to begin the future forecast. Area source forecasts were developed following a 

method that had been used in the previous Oregon SIPs following EPA guidance in Procedures 

for Preparing Emission Projections & Guidance for Growth Factors. This method involves 

creating surrogate growth factors (Table AS) for industrial, commercial, population, and 

household growth. In addition, there is a no growth option. Each SCC in the inventory is then 

assigned one ofthese surrogates. 

Table AS. 2015 Growth Surrogate Factors 

PSC Portland Metro CO MA Growth Factors Percent Growth Parameter Data 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Population (Zoning & Land Use Based) 

Housing Growth & Land Use Projections 

Commencal Employment & Land Use Projections 

Industrial Employment & Land Use Projections 

Field burning, orchard heating, orchard prunning burning, RWC 

RR -Transportation, Communication, Utilities 

1.8% 

2.0% 

1.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

Linear, Non-Compounding 

Linear, Non-Compounding 

Linear, Non-Compounding 

Linear, Non-Compounding 

No Growth 

Linear, Non-Compounding 

The factors themselves were developed from the METRO Economic Report Regional Forecast 

for the Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA area provided by Chief Economist, Dennis Yee with 

METRO's Data Resource Center. They represent the average growth rate for the period 2002 to 

2015 derived from the industrial and commercial employment projections, population, and 

resulting household growth. The industrial and commercial decisions were based on SIC 

grouping from Procedures for the Preparation ofEmission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide 

and Precursors ofOzone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources and represent an 

average of the following sectors. The same growth factors were used for both the Washington 

and Oregon source categories (Table A6). Although, SWCAA did look for W A specific data in 

other parts ofthe domain, it was decided that PortlandNancouver area influences were the 

greatest and local planning decisions were the most influential in model results. 

The rate of growth was calculated with the following formula: 

(Future yr employment - initial yr employment)/initial employment! # of years of growth. 

-. 


100 

_. 


Table A6. 2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summary Industrial Growth Factor Table 

,­

2002-2015 Industrial Categories 2002 2015 linear. non-coffil2Qunding 

6 Food Processing 8.35 7.71 -0.59% 

7 Textiles & Apparel 3.5 3.06 -0.97% 

8 Paper & Pulp 6.61 6.22 -0.45% 

9 Printing & Publishing 11.4 13.47 1.40% 

10 Nondur. Goods, other 7.24 10.06 3.00% 

12 Lumber & Wood 7.52 5.9 -1.66% 

13 Metals 18.49 19.6 0.46% 

15 Nonelectrical Mach. 15.91 20.82 2.37% 

16 Electrical Mach. & Instr. 43.24 59.31 2.86% 

17 Transportation Equip. 9.52 11.68 1.75% 

18 Durable Goods, other 8.59 11.06 2.21% 

20 Constr. & Mining 53.34 71.82 2.67% 

2002-2015 rate 2195.71 2255.711 0.21 % 

Table A7. 2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summary Commercial Growth Factor Table 

Commercial 2002 2015 linear. non-coffi12ounding 

2 Nonfarm Self-Employ. 253.3 352.0 3.00% 

22 Transport., Comm., & Uti!. 54.5 69.9 2.176% 

24 Retail Trade 167.4 225.6 2.67% 

25 Wholesale Trade 65.0 87.9 2.70% 

26 Fin., Ins., & Real Est. 64.5 80.1 1.87% 

28 Health 64.6 93.5 3.45% 

29 Nonhealth 214.5 326.3 4.01% 

30 Govt., Fed. Civilian 18.1 19.4 0.55% 

31 Govt., Fed. Military 6.6 6.7 0.07% 

32 Govt., State & Local 109.0 129.7 1.46% 

2002-2015 rate 3,019.6 3,406.1 1 0.98% 

Those factors were then used in the ACCESS database to estimate the 2015 emissions with the 

following equation: 

2002 base year emissions + (2002 base year emissions * growth factor * 13 growth years) 

2015 Nonroad Mobile 

The NONROAD2004 model was used to estimate the 2015 emissions since it accounts for both 

growth and federal controls on covered nonroad sources. According to the May 2004 EPA FAQ 

101 
on the NON ROAD model, the draft NONROAD2004 model includes the following federal 

emission reduction rules: 

1) Final Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine standards (also known as the Clean Air Nonroad 

Diesel Rule), final rule. However, the model does not yet contain the evaporative 

emission benefits for the new recreational equipment and large spark-ignition 

standards. [Adjustments for the evaporative reductions were not done for this 

modeling effort.] 

2) Final nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards associated with the Tier 4 rule 

For the 2015 Nonroad Model run inputs, all period parameters except year were retained from 

the 1997/1998 runs. 

For fuel parameter inputs, a 2015 gasoline sulfur default of 0.0030 weight % from EPA's 

MOBILE6 was used. A 2015 diesel sulfur 0.0011 weight % was taken from the inputs for the 

NONROAD model runs EPA generated to develop the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engine Final Rule. 

Stage II control % was set to 0 since Oregon Stage II phase out is expected to begin sometime in 

2008. The CNGILPG sulfur weight % and all temperature data were retained from the 

1997/1998 runs. 

Fuel 02 weight % and RVP data were improved and revised for the 2015 Nonroad Model 

episode runs. Baseline oxygen weight % was revised downward, and it was determined that 

ethanol is blended year-round at some Oregon terminals. DEQ assumes that blending will 

continue through 2015, so the 2015 fuel 02 was estimated to be 1.03% by weight for all counties 

in the domain. RVP refinements were made by apportioning terminal RVP to county and 

subsequently incorporating the revised 02 weight %. The final RVP estimates are shown by 

county in Table A8. 

Table AS. 2015 Ozone Modeling Nonroad Model Input RVP Oregon Counties 

Fuel 

County RVP 

Benton 9.3 

Clackamas 8.1 

Clatsop 9.3 

Columbia 9.3 

Hood River 9.3 

Jefferson 9.3 

Lincoln 9.3 

Linn 9.3 

Marion 8.6 

Multnomah 8.1 

Polk 8.2 

Tillamook 9.3 

Wasco 9.3 

Washington 8.1 

Yamhill 9.3 -

102 
For the Washington portion ofthe modeling domain, SWCAA used the same temporal 

parameters that ODEQ used for their portion ofthe domain. The fuel parameters were also 

consistent with the Oregon portion ofthe domain except for Fuel RVP. The inputs used for W A 

counties were consistent with an internal Ecology document summarizing Mobile 6/6.2 input 

parameters for the different regions ofthe state entitled Mobile 6/6.116.2 Input Parameters and 

Processing (May 6, 2003 update). Fuel RVP values used for WA in the 2015 nonroad emissions 

modeling are shown in Table A9. 

Table A9: 2015 Ozone M d 0 elin19 NonroadM0 deIInput RVP -Washington Counties 

County Fuel RVP County Fuel RVP 

ADAMS 

BENTON 

CHELAN 

CLALLAM 

CLARK 

COWLITZ 

DOUGLAS 

FRANKLIN 

GRANT 

GRAYS HARBOR 

ISLAND 

JEFFERSON 

KING 

KITSAP 

8,5 

8,5 

8.5 

8.5 

7.8 

8.5 

8,5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

7.8 

8.5 

KITTITAS 

KLICKITAT 

LEWIS 

LINCOLN 

MASON 

PACIFIC 

PIERCE 

S~"IlA 

SNOHOMISH 

THURSTON 

WAHKIAKUM 

WALLA WALLA 

YAKIMA 

85 

8.5 

8,5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

7.8 

8.5 

7.8 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

Railroad, marine vessels, and airports are estimated independently ofthe NONROAD model. 

2015 locomotive and commercial marine vessel emissions were estimated by the growth factor 

analysis method similar to area sources. For locomotive engines the national average growth 

factor (1.3%) from the Federal Clean Air Nonroad Diesel- Final Rule Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Document was applied to grow the emissions. However in the 13 years separating the 

base and future years that analysis showed that the clean engine technology was working its way 

into use and lowering the emissions. The reductions from the Tier own implementation on 

emissions work is shown in EPA's Emission Factors for Locomotives (Document EPA420-F-97­

051 Dec. 1997) which gives fleet average emission factors for all locomotives from 1999 to 

2040. By comparing the 2002 fleet average emission factors to the 2015 fleet average emission 

factors, the effects on NOx, CO, HC, and PM are given as follows: 

TableAl0. 2002 vs. 2015 Locomotive EF Ratios 

Pollutant 2015/2002 Ratio ----I 

HC 0.794 


CO 1 


NOx 0.607 


PM 0.779 


103 
These ratios were applied to the grown 2015 emissions to reflect the expected fleet penetration of 

the Tier O-II locomotives over time. In the same manner Nonroad diesel sulfur content is - expected to drop to 15 ppm by 2012 for locomotives and marine engines. Chapter 3 of the Clean 

Air Nonroad Diesel - Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis gives the anticipated changes to 

S02 emissions. 

Table 3.1-6a on page 3-19 gives the Baseline Locomotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive 

S02 emissions in tpy. This 'baseline' sulfur content only fluctuates due to 'spillover' from the 

low-sulfur highway diesel. 

Table 3.4-8a on page 3-57 gives the Control Locomotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive 

S02 emissions in tpy. This table shows substantial reductions for the nonroad low-sulfur diesel 

impacts as well as highway diesel spillover. 

To get the 2002 and 2015 (controlled) numbers on the same basis (lb S02/gallon diesel), each 

years annual emissions were divided by the annual fuel usage for that year from table 3.1-6a. 

This resulted in the following: 

Table All. Locomotive Baseline and Future Fuel Usage and Emissions 

Year Fuel Usa2e (2al) S02 Emissions (tpy) Rate (lb S02/2al) 

2002 2.692 x10A9 49,291 0.03662 

2015 3.148 x10A9 1,231 0.000782 

Therefore the ratio of2015 to 2002 S02 emissions due to the low-sulfur fuel is equal to the ratio 

of0.000782/0.03662 or: 

TableA12. Locomotive Sulfur Emissions Reduction Factor 

Pollutant 2015/2002 Ratio 

S02 0.02135 


Commercial marine vessel 2015 emissions received the derived commercial growth factor 

application. The change in sulfur emissions from large trans-oceanic shipping is not yet clear so 

it was decided that there would be no reduction factor applied to the commercial marine vessel 

emissions. 

Recreational marine vessels are also calculated "offmodel" and so the 2002 emissions were 

grown to 2015 using population as a surrogate following the area source application method. 

Aircraft emissions for the Oregon 2002 NEI submitted data had two sources. The Port of 

Portland went through great detail to prepare emissions for Hillsboro, Troutdale, Mulino, and 

Portland International airports out to the year 2020. This data was verified and accepted as part 

ofthe Oregon CERR submittal. Because the remaining towered airports and the many smaller 

airports do not fall under the Port's jurisdiction they were estimated by DEQ using the Emissions 

Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS) developed by the FAA. Therefore, the 2015 aircraft 

emissions include those estimated by the Port (where appropriate) and those grown by DEQ 

using the commercial growth factor as discussed above. 

104 
In the Washington part ofthe modeling domain, the only significant aircraft emissions were in 

the Puget Soundregion, and the most notable ofthese at the Seattle Tacoma International Airport 

(Sea-Tac). Emission data for that facility were compiled by a consultant (CDM) and provided to 

PSCAA. PSCAA provided these data to SWCAA for input into the model along with aircraft 

emissions for Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties. 

. 2015 On-road Mobile 

The 2015 mobile emissions were calculated based on link-based, daily trip VMT data modeled 

by RTC and Metro using traffic demand models. MOBILE6.2 was used to calculate the 

emission factors with the 1998 episode-specific conditions. The summary ofthe approach to 

mobile emissions modeling estimates was to: 

• 	 Create link-based daily VMT for the AQMA using traffic demand models, 

• 	 ODOT and WDOT provided county-wide VMT for the remainder ofthe domain. 

• 	 Create four total MOBILE6.2 input files representing Clark County, Portland Metro 

Area Counties (both with VM features); Washington State counties, and Oregon State 

counties (both without VM features) for the remainder ofthe modeling domain. 

• 	 Run MOBILE6.2 at a standard temperature and at individual temperatures. 

• 	 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature. 

• 	 Create a set oftemperature adjustment factors from the individual temperature runs. 

• 	 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (from MM5) to apply adjustments to the 

standard emissions. 

This method allowed adjustment ofhourly emissions based on temperature, but involved postprocessing of SMOKE data. ODEQ completed the MOBILE6.2 work with assistance from 

ECOLOGY and SWCAA for Washington data, and WSU completed the SMOKE processing. 

The eight (4 per episode year) MOBILE6.2 input files can be found in Appendix C. 

2015 Point Source Growth Factor Implementation 

Point source emissions were grown using 2003 through 2015 annual growth factors supplied by 

Metro (ref 603). The growth factors are keyed by Metro number, which was cross-walked to 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) by DEQ staff (Marianne Fitzgerald, AQ-PPD). The 

growth factors with matched SICs are shown in Table A.l3. 

105 
Table A13. Point Source SIC growth rates -


SIC Industry MetroNumber 2015 

20 Bakeries 

26 Pulp/paper/paperboard 

27 Graphic arts/printing 

28 Organic chemical mfg. 

29 Petroleum refining 

32 Glass products 

24 Sawmills 

25 Furniture & Fixtures 

34 Fabricated metal products 

33 Iron & steel mfg 

35 Machinery & computer equip. 

38 Photographic equipment 

36 Electronic equipment & components 

37 Transportation equipment 

30 Rubber & misc. plastic products 

17 Construction 

13 Oil & Gas Extraction 

42 Farm product storage 

45 Airports 

49 Waste disposal 

52 Building materials 

50 Scrap & waste materials 

51 Gasoline storage 

72 Industrial laundries 

75 Carwashes 

76 Repair shops 

82 Colleges & Universities 

97 Air national guard 

6 

8 

9 

10 

10 

10 

12 

12 

13 

13 

15 

16 

16 

17 

18 

20 

20 

22 

22 

22 

24 

25 

25 

29 

29 

29 

29 

31 

-1.28% 

-1.11 % 

0.45% 

2.55% 

2.55% 

2.55% 

-3.12% 

-3.12% 

-0.61% 

-0.61% 

0.77% 

1.00% 

1.00% 

-0.09% 

1.19% 

0.43% 

0.43% 

1.55% 

1.55% 

1.55% 

1.59% 

1.29% 

1.29% 

2.50% 

2.50% 

2.50% 

2.50% 

0.00% 

Emissions by facility were grown by matching the facility primary SIC to the SIC in Table 

2.7.X. A linear, non-compounding formula was used: 

((Metro growth factor) * (previous year emissions» + (previous year emissions) 

For example, for a selected SIC sub-category for the year 2003, with a 2002 (base year) value of 

10 tons per year, and growth factors of2.5% in 2003 and 3.0 % in 2004: 

2003 tpy = (0.025 growth *10 tpy) + (10 tpy) = 10.25 tpy 

2004 tpy (0.03 growth * 10.25 tpy) + (10.25 tpy) = 10.56 tpy 

Biogenic emissions will be assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban 

development does modify the amount, location, and type of vegetation over time. 

-


106 

Comparisons between 1998 and 2015 future year 


Figure AI. Episode Emission Comparison 


Domain Anthrogenic Pollution 1998 vs 2015 

1.998 	 2015 

Year 

..--­

Summary ofAssumptions and Strategies built into 2015 EI 

The following is a list ofthe assumptions built in to the 2015 emissions inventory used for the 

modeling ofthe base future year scenario. 

• 	 Railroad emissions have incorporated low sulfur fuel and the effect 

ofTier IIII engine penetration into the fleet. 

• 	 Final Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine standards and diesel fuel sulfur 

standards associated with the rule have been included. 

• 	 Onroad diesel sulfur was 15 ppm 

• 	 Population increased 1.8% 

• 	 Household growth was 2.0% 

• 	 Commercial employment growth was 1.0% 

• 	 Industrial employment growth was 0.21 % 

107 
Appendix B: Area Source Category Emission Calculation Methodologies 

-, 


IM"thodol,ogyper SIC employee emission factors given in EIIP, IM"lbctdology per SIC employee emission factors given in 

SIC employee data obtained from County Business 6. SIC employee data obtained from County 

SIC converted to NAlCS (for 1998) (EIIP website. SIC converted to NAlCS (EIIP 

Im,:thodoi<Jgy, Chapt. 8). No total (aU processes) entered into Chapl. 8), No total (all processes) entered into 

to avoid double counting. Open top degreasing lbe database to avoid double counting. Open top degreasing 

added. categories added. 

,-"",,,,u,.,,,,~metbod 2 from ElI!> Chapte.-7 (10196), (SIC or IlUrern'amle method 2 from EIIP Chapter 7 (10/%): 

employment) Subtract OUI to avoid double counling I (ernpIoynlenl SWTogale) Subtracl OUIIO avoid double 

108 
Application-Aqua Ammonia 

Application-Nitrogen Solutions 

Application-Urea 

Application-Ammonium Nitrate 

Application-Ammonium Sulfllte 

Application-Otber Straight Nitrogen 

Application-Ammonium Phosphates 

Application-Nitrous oxide 

28-01-700-001 

28-01-700-002 

28-01-700-003 

28-01-700-004 

28-01-700-005 

28-01-700-006 

28-01-700-008 

28-01-700-009 

28-01-700-011 

24-65-100-000 

24-65-200-000 

24-65-400-000 

24-65-600..000 

24-65-800..000 

1996 = 24-20-000-055 

1999 = 4-01-001-13 

26-10-000-400 

in with 26-10-030-000 

All open burning based on past SWCAA survey's and 

extrapolated based on per capita growth. (Includes residential 

Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 2002 CERR data from WDOE 

109 
28-01-500-350 

28-01-500-500 

28..Q]-5oo-450 

28-01-500-410 

28..Q1-5oo-420 

28-01-500-430 

28-01-500-440 

28-01-520-000 

28-01-520-010 

28-01 

3..Q9-01O-XXX 

Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) 

Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) 

Did '!'lot Include (One large source included in Pt sources) 

Did Not Include (Insignificant) 

Relied on OR data for Columbia, NWRTC Data for Puge! 

Sound Area 

Calculated based on SWCAA,. derived EF 

ODEQ 1996 Research for W A state 

Did Not Include (Insignificant in SIl1lIIlleI) 

Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) 

Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) 

Did Nollnclude (One large source included in PI sources) 

Did Not Include (Insignificant) 

ODEQ Calculated Columbia River data. WDOE 2002 

CMV data for aU other counties 

Included aircraft emissions from Puge! Sound Region 

-, 

-, 

110 
Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 input files for the 1997 and 1998 episodes. 

* Filename: CirkIM97 -- Clark County 11M run with M6 

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, sax and NOx emissions from 

CYl997 for Clark County Washington using Washington 1997 registration data (regI997) and 

Vancouver liM program file description (imI997.van) 

******************* HeaderSection ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUf FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUfPUf 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUfPUf : 

*REPORT FILE 

RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 

NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 7.8 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : H:\EPA ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\regI997 .txt 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 199320502 TIO ASM 2525 PHASE-IN 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 19682050 

11M VEIDCLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 34.0 

11M COMPLIANCE : 1 93.0 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 12.04.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 1 

I/M PROGRAM : 2199320502 TIO 2500lIDLE 

11M MODEL YEARS : 2 19682050 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 11111222222222 

11M STRINGENCY : 2 34.0 

11M COMPLIANCE : 2 93.0 

I/MWAIVERRATES : 2 2.04.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 1 

******************** Scenario Section ***************************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

111 
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV -, PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

* Filename: WaNoIM97 --1997 Washington No IJM counties 

*(for the remainder of the domain) run with M6.2 

*This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PMI0 emissions 

from CY1997 for all Washington Non IIM counties in themodeling domain using Washington 

1997 reg data (reg1997) because it is the registration developed for that year (vs using the 1999 

distribution). 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 8.5 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : H:\EP A ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\regI997.txt 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

P ARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 350.0 

* Filename: PDXIM97 -- Tricounty Portland Ozone IJM run with M6 

*This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from 

CY1997 for Tri-County area using Tri-county average 1996 registration from the reg data we 

used for the 1996 EI because this data is closer in time to the 97 modeling year and applying the 

112 
.- reg data to the LDV and LDT and using the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle registration for vehicle 

classes 6-16. 

******************* HeaderSection ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


NO REFUELING 


FUELRVP : 7.8 


* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : h:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\RegTRI97.d 

*The Metro area has 2 levels oftests (during 1997) so there needs to be 2 lIM program entries 

* 1981-1995 Enhanced test, 1975-1980 Basic test, only the LD vehicles get tested. 

* 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar31) Gary Beyer says this test (252515015) models real world better than IM240 

lIM PROGRAM : 1 197520202 TIO ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

lIM MODEL YEARS : 1 1981 2020 

11M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

11M STRINGENCY : 137.4 

lIM COMPLIANCE : 1 90.0 

lIM WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0 

lIM CUTPOlNTS : 1 ORCUTPT.d 

lIM GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

* 1975-1980 Basic 

* According to VIP policy 201 "all 1975-1980 gasoline vehicles are subject to the Basic test." 

lIM PROGRAM : 2197520202 TIO 2500JIDLE 

lIM MODEL YEARS : 219751980 

lIM VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

11M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 

lIM COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 

lIM WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0 

ANTI-TAMP PROG 


7575802222222222222 1 12090.22212221 


******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar 

* year to be analyzed. 


SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 


CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 


EVALUATION MONTH : 7 


113 
-
 * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

*perl script will create a constant temp (min 61 max 61) throughout the range. 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

* Filename: ORNoIM97 -- 1997 Oregon No 11M counties 

For the remainder ofthe domain run with M6.2 

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PMlO emissions from 

CY1997 for all Oregon Non IIM counties in the modeling domain using the 1996 Oregon LDV 

and LDT vehicle class registration from the 1996 EI model year end count we received from the 

DMV and Wa all other registration. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES - AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 9.0 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : H:\EPA ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobi1e6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\reg0R97.d 

******************* Scenario Section *************************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 


PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 


PMDDR2.CSV 


PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 


DIESEL SULFUR : 280 


114 

1998 Episode 

* Filename: ClrkIM98 -- Clark County 11M run with M6 

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from 

CY1998 for Clark County Washington using Washington 1999 registration data. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

*REPORT FILE 

RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 

NO REFUELING 

FUELRVP :7.8 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : D:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\R.un\96PdxSip\regI999.txt 

IIM PROGRAM : 1 199320502 TIO ASM 2525 PHASE-IN 

IIM MODEL YEARS : 1 19682050 

IIM VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

IIM STRINGENCY : 1 36.0 

IIM COMPLIANCE : 1 93.0 

IIM WAIVER RATES : 1 4.0 7.0 

IIM GRACE PERIOD : 1 1 

IIM PROGRAM : 2199820502 TIO GC 

IIM MODEL YEARS : 2 1968 2050 

11M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

IIM STRINGENCY : 2 36.0 

IIM COMPLIANCE : 293.0 

IIM WAIVER RATES : 2 4.0 7.0 

IIM GRACE PERIOD : 2 1 

IIM PROGRAM : 3 199320502 TIO 2500/IDLE 

IIM MODEL YEARS : 3 19682050 

IIM VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 

IIM STRINGENCY : 3 36.0 

IIM COMPLIANCE : 3 93.0 

IIM WAIVER RATES : 34.07.0 

IIM GRACE PERIOD : 3 1 

******************** Scenario Section ***************************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

115 
*Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

* Filename: WaNoIM98 --1998 Washington No 11M counties 

For the remainder ofthe domain run with M6.2 

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PMlO 

emissions from CY1998 for all Washington Non VM counties in the modeling domain using 

Washington 1999 reg data (Sally thinks that is better than the 1998). 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 

NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 8.5 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : D:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\regI999.txt 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 


PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRI.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRI.CSV 


PMDDR2.CSV 


PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 


DIESEL SULFUR : 350.0 


116 
* Filename: PDXIM98 -- Tricounty Portland Ozone 11M run with M6 

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from 

CY1998 for Tri-County area using Tri-county average 2002 registration from Jeff's query ofthe 

DMV data (no gas/diesel distinction) and applying the reg data to the LDV and LDT and using 

the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle registration for vehicle classes 6-16. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 7.8 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : D:\EPA ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\lM980R.d 

*The Metro area has three levels oftests so there needs to be :3 IfM program entries 

* 1996 to present gets OBD, 1981-1995 Enhanced test, 1975-1980 Basic test 

* only the LD vehicles get tested 

* 1996+ OBD exhaust benefits 

IfM PROGRAM : 1 197520202 TIO OBD IfM 

11M MODEL YEARS : 1 19962020 

11M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

IfM STRINGENCY : 137.4 

IfM COMPLIANCE : 1 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES .: 10.00.0 

IfM GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

* 1996+ OBD evaporative benefits 

IfM PROGRAM : 2197520202 T/O EVAP OBD 

IfM MODEL YEARS : 219962020 

IfM VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 

11M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 

IfM COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0 

IfM GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

* 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar 31) Gary Beyer says this test (2525/5015) models real world better than IM240 

IfM PROGRAM : 3197520202 TIO ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

IfM MODEL YEARS : 3 1981 1995 

IfM VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 

IfM STRINGENCY : 3 37.4 

- IfM COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES : 3 0.00.0 

IfM CUTPOINTS : 3 ORCUTPT.d 

117 
* 1975-1980 Basic 

* According to VIP policy 201 "all 1975-1980 gasoline vehicles are subject to the Basic test." 

IIM PROGRAM : 4197520202 TIO 2500/IDLE 

liM MODEL YEARS : 419751980 

IIM VEHICLES : 4 22222 22222222 2 

lIM STRINGENCY : 4 37.4 

lIM COMPLIANCE : 4 90.0 

lIMWAlVER RATES : 4 0.0 0.0 

ANTI-TAMP PROG 

7575802222222222222 1 12090.22212221 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar year to be analyzed. 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

*Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

*perl script will create a constant temp (min 61 max 61) throughout the range. 

MINIMAX TEMP ; 5050 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY: 64.01 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

* Filename: ORNoIM98 -- 1998 Oregon No 11M counties 

For the remainder of the domain run with M6.2 

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, sax and PMIO 

emissions from CY1998 for all Oregon Non 11M counties in the modeling domain using Oregon 

LDV and LDT vehicle class registration and Wa all other registration. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DAT ABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 

NO REFUELING 

FUEL RVP : 9.0 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : D:\EPA ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip'iNoIM980R.d 

-, ******************* Scenario Section *************************** 

118 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 280 

* Filename: Q15Clrk -- Clark County 11M run with M6 

* This input generates the summer fleet-average emissions from CY2015 

* for Clark County Washington using Washington 2004 registration data. 

* This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling ofthe future episode. 

******************* HeaderSection ************************ 


MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 


PARTICULATES 


SPREADSHEET 


DATABASE OUTPUT 


WITH FIELDNAMES 


AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 


RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : 


*STAGE II REFUELING: 92280.80. 


FUELRVP : 7.8 


* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : H:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt 

* There were not enough programs to define the I} HDGV2b/3 EV AP OBD & GC program 

* anticipated to begin in 2008 and 2} HDGV 4+ GC program that began in 2002. 

* HDGV gas cap added to program 2 to at least get some of the HD GC test 

* Received from W.Strange 10/21/2004 after consultation with his management. 

11M PROGRAM : 1 199320502 TIO ASM 2525 PHASE-IN 

11M MODEL YEARS : 1 1968 1995 

11M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

11M STRINGENCY : 1 42.4 

11M COMPLIANCE : 1 91.0 

I/MWAIVERRATES : 14.915.8 

11M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

119 
11M GRACE PERIOD : 1 5 

- liM PROGRAM : 2 199820502 T/O GC 

liM MODEL YEARS : 2 1968 1995 

liM VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

liM COMPLIANCE : 2 91.0 

liMWAIVERRATES : 24.915.8 

liM EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

liM GRACE PERIOD : 2 5 

11M PROGRAM : 3 1993 20502 T/O OBD liM 

liM MODEL YEARS : 3 19962050 

liM VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 

liM STRINGENCY : 3 42.4 

11M COMPLIANCE : 3 91.0 

liM WAIVER RATES : 3 4.9 5.3 

liM EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 

liM GRACE PERIOD : 3 5 

11M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC 

liM MODEL YEARS : 4 19962050 

11M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 

liM COMPLIANCE : 491.0 

11M WAIVER RATES : 44.95.3 

11M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 

liM GRACE PERIOD : 4 5 

liM PROGRAM : 5199320502 T/O 2500/IDLE 

liM MODEL YEARS : 519682050 

liM VEHICLES : 5 11111 112222222 

liM STRINGENCY : 5 42.4 

liM COMPLIANCE : 5 91.0 

liM WAIVER RATES : 54.98.3 

liM EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

liM GRACE PERIOD : 5 5 

liM PROGRAM : 6 199320502 T/O 2500JIDLE 

liM MODEL YEARS : 61968 2007 

liM VEHICLES : 6 Illll 22111111 1 

liM STRINGENCY : 6 42.4 

liM COMPLIANCE : 691.0 

liM WAIVER RATES : 64.98.3 

liM EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25 

liM GRACE PERIOD : 6 5 

liM PROGRAM : 7 1993 20502 T/O OBD 11M 


IJM MODEL YEARS : 7 2008 2050 


liM VEHICLES : 711111 22111111 1 


liM STRINGENCY : 7 42.4 


liM COMPLIANCE : 791.0 


liM WAIVER RATES : 74.95.3 


IJM EXEMPTION AGE : 7 25 


IJM GRACE PERIOD : 7 5 


******************** Scenario Section ***************************** 

120 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-102 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

P ARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

* Filename: Q15PDXIM- 2015 Tri County 11M 

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO and NOx, PM10 emissions from 

CY2015 for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties using the tri-county LDGVand 

LDDV registration and appropriate extended registration from WA for HDV. This is the file run 

by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling ofthe future episode. This file calculates the refueling 

emission as being controlled by the canisters on-board the vehicles. There is no longer any stage 

II vapor recovery systems in place at the gas stations . 

. ******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE: 

*STAGE II REFUELING: 92 2 80. 80. 

FUEL RVP : 7.8 

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename path for the county being modeled. 


REG DIST : R02PDX2.d 


* 2 IIM program entries 

* 1996 to CY - 2 gets OBD, 1975-1995 Basic test 

* 1996+ OBD exhaust benefits 


lIM PROGRAM : 1 197520202 TIO OBD IfM 


lIM MODEL YEARS : 1 19962020 


lIM VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 


lIM STRINGENCY : 1 37.4 


lIM COMPUANCE : 1 90.0 


lIM WAIVER RATES : 10.00.0 


lIM GRACE PERIOD : 1 4 -

121 
* 1996+ OBD evaporative benefits 

IfM PROGRAM : 2197520202 T/O EVAP OBD 

IfMMODEL YEARS : 219962020 - 11M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 

11M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 

11M COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES : 2 0.00.0 

IfM GRACE PERIOD : 24 

* 1975-1980 Basic - light duty gas vehicle basic testing 

IfM PROGRAM : 3 197520252 T/O 2500lIDLE 

IfM MODEL YEARS : 319751995 

11M VEHICLES : 3 22222111111111 

IfM STRINGENCY : 3 37.4 

11M COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 0.0 

* 1975-1980 Basic - to correctly model the HDGV basic testing 

11M PROGRAM : 4197520252 T/O 2500/IDLE 

IfM MODEL YEARS : 419752025 

IfM VEHICLES : 4 11111 22222222 2 

IfM STRINGENCY : 4 37.4 

IfM COMPLIANCE : 4 90.0 

IfM WAIVER RATES : 4 0.0 0.0 

ANTI-TAMP PROG 

7575802222222222222 1 12090.22212222 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** -. 

* A separate scenario must be written for each calendar 

* year to be analyzed. 

****************************************************************************************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 


PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 


PMDDR2.CSV 


PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 


DIESEL SULFUR : 15 


* Filename: QI5PXNIM- 2015 Tri County No 11M 

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO and NOx, PMIO and HAPS emissions 


from CY2015 for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties using the tri-county LDGV 


and LDDV registration and appropriate extended registration from WA for HDV. This is the file 


run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling ofthe future episode. This file calculates the refueling --. emission as being controlled by the canisters on-board the vehicles. 

122 

There is no longer any stage II vapor recovery systems in place at the gas stations. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 


MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 


PARTICULATES 


SPREADSHEET 


DATABASE OUTPUT 


WITH FIELDNAMES 


AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 


RUN DATA 


******************* Run Section *************************** 


EXPAND EVAPORATIVE: 


*ST AGE II REFUELING: 92 2 80. 80. 


FUEL RVP : 7.8 


* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename path for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : R02PDX2.d 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** 

* A separate scenario must be written for each calendar 

* year to be analyzed. 

****************************************************************************************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 5050 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SlJLFUR : 15 

* Filename: WaNoIM15 -- 2015 Washington No 11M counties 

(for the remainder ofthe domain) run with M6.2 

This input generates the summer fleet-average YOC, CO, NOx, sax and PMl 0 emissions from 

CY2015 for all Washington Non IJM counties in the modeling domain using latest Washington 

2004 reg data. This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling ofthe future episode. 

******************* Header Section ************************ 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE 

PARTICULATES 

SPREADSHEET 

DATABASE OUTPUT 

WITH FIELDNAMES 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

123 
RUN DATA 

******************* Run Section *************************** 
 - EXPAND EVAPORATIVE: 


*STAGE II REFUELING: 92 280.80. 


FUEL RVP : 8.5 


* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. 

REG DIST : H:\EP A ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt 

******************* Scenario Section ********************** 

SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE 

MINIMAX TEMP : 5050 

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV 

PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

124 

Appendix D: 

BELD3 

BEIS3 

CAA 

CMAQ 

CCTM 

Ecology 

EKMA 

EPA 

GDAS 

GEOS 

ICTC 

KF 

LSM 

NCEP 

NOx 

MCIP 

MEBI 

MM5 

MRF -..~ 

NAAQS 

NWRTC 

PBL 

SAPRC 

SIP 

SMOKE 

SOx 

SWCAA 

TV 

VOC 

Acronyms 

Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database - version 3 

Biogenic Emissions Inventory System version 3 

Clean Air Act 

Community Multi-scale Air Quality 

CMAQ Chemical Transport Model 

Washington State Department ofEcology 

Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Global Data Assimilation System 

Goddard Earth Observing System 

Intercontinental Transport and Chemical Transformation 

Kain-Fritsch cumulus scheme 

Land Surface Model 

National Center for Environmental Prediction 

Oxides ofNitrogen 

Meteorology-Chemistry Interface processor 

Modified Euler Backward Interactive 

Mesoscale Meteorological model Version 5 

Medium Range Forecast 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Northwest Regional Technical Center 

Planetary Boundary Layer 

State Air Pollution Research Center chemical mechanisms 

State Implementation Plan 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System 

Oxides of Sulfur 

Southwest Clean Air Agency 

Title V 

Volatile Organic Compound 

125 
-