# -- 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 byWSU, 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 PortlandIVancouver Area

Preparedby YingXie 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



### 1Table ofcontents


# - 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 EKMAmodeling
.............................................................................. 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 PBLheight 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 Modelingresults and evaluation (July 1997 episode)
..........................................................29 5.4 Backtrajectory analysis
.......................................................................................................35 6 Photochemical air quality modeling
.......................................................................................... 37 6.1 Modeling methods
...............................................................................................................37 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 modelingresults and evaluation (July 1997 episode)
.............................................58 6.3.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation
......................................................................................... 64 6.3.2 Comparisons withNOx monitoring data
..................................................................... 69 6.4 Conclusion for July 1998 and 1997 CMAQ simulation
......................................................76 7 Future episode modeling (2015)
................................................................................................ 76 7.1 Future yearbase case ...........................................................................................................76 7.1.1 CMAQ**mod~ling** results
.............................................................................................. 76 7.1.2 VOC/NOx ratios and regional increase ofozone ........................................................ 83 7.2 What ifscenario

- No lower ColumbiaRiverpoint sources................................................86 Reference
...................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A. Emission Inventory Documentation
........................................................................ 95 Appendix B: Area Source CategoryEmission 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 ofozone 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

### ICommunityMulti-scale Air Quality Modeling System (MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ). 

### These two episodes were selected for this modeling workbecause 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 datawere also available for the July 1997 episode for comparison to the modeled results. As part ofthebase simulation for the July 1998 episode, tests were conducted to investigate the effects ofusing a more complex land-surface modeling option-theNoah Land Surface Model, LSM-within the MM5 meteorological model. In these tests, using the LSM inMM5 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 qualitymodeling results for ozone were also improved using MM5 with the LSM option. Forthe CMAQ simulation, model performance statistics for most monitoring sites were within United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested I-hr and 8-hr ozone modeling guidelines. Time series plots, scatter plots, and Quantile-Quantileplots 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 thebase 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 PortlandIVancouver urban area. The future year (2015) emission inventorywas developed using growth factors depending on the surrogates for each source category. Federallymandated 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-sensitiveregion, 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. Thereduction ofozone 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

3Washington observation sites when compared to the first 2015 managed growth maintenance projection; sites in Oregon showed small orno differences associated with this simulation. Further analysis ofother 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 PortlandIVancouver 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). Theregion is also in attainment ofthe 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 airregulatory agencies proposed performance ofphotochemical modeling for the area as a basis for improving our understanding ofthepotential 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 of4 

### km x 4 

### km horizontal grid cells covering an area that extended from north of Puget Soundto south ofSalem, OR and from the Pacific coast on the westto 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. Themodel results were compared to available observations, and then the 1998 episode was used as a basis for evaluation offuture year (20IS) managed growth projections. An 

### important aspect ofthe modeling study was the evaluation of model sensitivityto use ofdifferent land/surface models within the MMS meteorological model. ,- Results from these sensitivity studies are also described inthis report. 

### 3 Ozone Modeling Study Q>al and Design The overall goal for this work was to improve understanding ofozone 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 ortypical 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 PortlandIVancouver ozonemodeling 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 areato perform photochemical modeling or anyother attainment demonstration. Furthermore,

S

### there have notbeen other federal requirements for airregulatory agencies to perform ozone air 

# - quality modeling in the PortlandNancouver airshed. The only ozone modeling work that has beenperformed has been a result ofspecial project work orlarge-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 onhistorical ozone monitoring data, future control measures, and emission inventoryprojections 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 SouthwestWashington Ozone Study Following EPA's approval ofthe Portland and Vancouver ozone SIP submittals, WSU was contractedby Ecology and SWCAA to conduct a photochemical modeling study ofthe area to determine the potential effects ofpoint sources upwind ofthe Portland/Vancouvermaintenance area on the area's monitored ozone values. The mainpurpose 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 inthe 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 ofmodels 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 NWRegional Technical Center Demonstration Project This work was the result ofa 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 ofEnvironmental Quality and Environment Canada. The main goal ofthis project was to establish a virtual technical center and to demonstrate theuse 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 PortlandNancouverregion to date. Several modelingruns 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 thebasis for the design ofthe currentmodeling project. In particular, the demonstration and evaluation ofCMAQ 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 PortlandlVancouver Maintenance Areahas 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 ofelevated ozone levels during most years when the standard was not exceeded. General EPA guidance for episode selectionrecommends 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 ofeach ofthe major meteorological situations that cause exceedances. The following episodes were suggested as potential episodes to model.
• July 11-14, 1996 (Same episodeused for the NWRTC DemonstrationProject and the Southwest Ozone Study, one I-hour ozone exceedance in the Portland area) • July 22-31, 1998 (Series of3 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 PortlandlVancouvermonitors butwell 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 PortlandlVancouver ozone modeling technical committee considered several factors during selection ofthe episodes to be modeled, including: 

### • Ozone episodes selected for modeling shouldbe selected from the most frequent, typical, and representative patterns associated with high ozone intheregion. 

### • Recent episodes are preferred over older episodes because recent episodes represent the current emissions inventory, including mobile and point configurations. Recent episodes can also bemore representative ofcurrent reduction strategies. 

## • Well-monitored episodes (withmoremeteorology, VOC, and NOx data) are preferred over data poor episodes. Additional data allow for more thorough model evaluation and provide information necessaryto understand the processes leading to high ozone. 

### • Ozone episodes shouldbe selected with high monitored values to represent the meteorologythat results in severe ozone. Furthermore, episodes shouldhavehigh ozone in the geographical areas where high values typically occur. Such selection will allow modelingpotential control strategies withrepresentative ozone concentrations in the areas where the strategies must work. 

### • Multi-day episodes are themost efficient wayto model both long range transport of ozone and the accumulation oflocal 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 bemore 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. Therecommended episodes are as follows: July 22-31, 1998 was selected to be the first episodemodeled. The July 1998 episode accounted for 3 exceedances ofboththe I-hour and 8-hour ozone standards at the Carns monitor in the Portland area within a shortperiod 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 ofdays and light NW winds. The 1998 episode was chosen instead ofthe July 11-14, 1996 episodebecause considerable analysis has alreadybeen done for the 1996 episode, and there would be morebenefit from analyzing a new episode. Table 1 shows some select data from the 1998 episode.
T bl

a e 1 Sit d peak ozone concen ra

### l' IOns d . e ec e t 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 bethe second episode modeled. This episode did not coincide with any ozone standard exceedances; however there were moderatelyhigh ozone levels recorded at the Milwaukiemonitor. This episode also seemed to show a slightlydifferent meteorological pattern than the 1998 episode as indicated bymoderate values at boththe Vancouver and Carns sites. The modelingtechnical committee compared this episode with the July 11-14, 1996 episode and decided that it wouldbemorebeneficial to focus the efforts on an event thathas not previouslybeen 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 inthe summer of 1997, 1998, and part of 1999. In addition to the meteorological and ozone data onthe Oregon side, in both 1998 and 1997, Southwest W A had four ozone sites inthe 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



### Date I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour I-hour**~ ~J~u=ly~1-9~~59~--~53~+-~6~5~--~5~5=-~~7~7=---~675~--~59~**  

### 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 sizesof36 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 inWashington to south ofSalem, OR and from the Pacific coast on the west to beyond the Cascade Mountain range onthe east. This domain was larger than the immediate area ofPortlandlVancouver and was selected to minimizethe influence ofboundary conditions. Vertically, 38 sigma layers were specified. The 12 km and 4 km MM5 domains are shown in Figure 1. To obtain meteorological fields thatproduced acceptable results with CMAQ in terms ofozone performance, several MM5 runs with different physics configurations were conducted as shown inTable 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 ! " 0" Label "sen ini LSM" "base sen" "sen ini LSM ns"

ETA212 Initialization NCEPGDAS ETA212 ETA212 Cloud-radiation CCM2 Radiation Cloud-radiation Radiation Cloud-radiation Simple ice Reisner 2 Simple ice Moisture Simple ice 5-layer soil model Surface scheme 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 qualitymodeling. 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 otherruns were initialized using NCEP Etamodel 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 inthe inner 4km domain. For analysis nudging, 3D nudging was employed for

9winds, 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 inthe inner4 km domain. A map ofthese 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 1km USGS global terrain and land use database. The MM5 physics options used in the LSM run included use ofthe 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 sensitivityruns, CCM2 radiation, Reisner2 moisture, and the 5-layer soil model were employed as shown in Table 3. It should benoted that the current configurationused 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 innudging (expect for four ecology sites which were withheld). The sites within the inner box outlined in green were used inmodel evaluation.

11

# - Ithas been shown that soil moisture has a significant impact on PBLparameters such as surface temperature and PBL height (Zhang and Anthes, 1982). These processes as well as cloud coverage, profiles ofhumidity, 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 onland use type. Therefore, the effects ofprecipitation and evaporation are nottreated explicitly. In contrast, the Noah LSM has four soil layers with the thickness of0 .1, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0m. 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 inFigure 3aand 3b at 17 PDT on July 28, 1998. For western Washington and Oregon, the LSMrunpredicted cooler surface temperatures than the simple soil model, with only a small area around Portland above 35°C. Inthe 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. Itappears that onthe high ozone days (July 26 to July 28), the daily maximum temperatures predicted by boththe 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 mightberelated to improved simulation ofclouds onthese days. However, in the northwestern part ofthe domain, such as at Castle Rock(Figure 4c), diurnal variations ofsurface temperature in LSM-l were too small compared to the daily variations in the observations. Similarpatterns 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 peaktemperatures.

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= July29.1998 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



### 13POX
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. Scatterplot 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 ofsouthwesterly as in the LSM-1 run. Similar southwesterly onshore flows were also seen in other runs initialized using the Eta analysis, so this mightbemore related to the difference in initialization than in the surface scheme. The MM5 first layer (38 m) winds were extrapolated to 10musing 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 withthe 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 July29.1998 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 July29.19980:00:00 bv S.OM/S b1CNC 

### Figure 6b. Surface wind pattern from LSM run for 17:00 PDT onJuly 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 predictedbyLSM 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 predictedby 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 Inthe simple soil model, soil moisture has constant seasonal values (summer orwinter) defined as a function ofland use type. Consequently, in summermost areas onthe west side ofthe domain had volumetric soil moisture values of0.3, except for urban areas where the soil moisture equaled 0.1. On the east side ofthe Cascades, most areas weremuch drier with soil moisture of0.1 except for the irrigated land (shown in Figure 8) where soil moistures were equal to 0.5. Inthe LSM-l run, soil moisture was initialized using analysis fields from the Etamodel and solved prognostically. Figure 8 shows the predicted values from LSM-l at 17 PDT on July27. 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 thedeeperlayers. Onthe west side ofthe Cascades, soil moisture varied from 0.25 atthe surface to 0.3 inthe 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 lowerright comerofthe domain; these were the result ofconvective rain storms simulated in this run. Modeled soil moisture was also compared withthe observations at the Wind River Canopy Craneresearch 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 weremeasured at 30 em using Campbell Scientific CS-615 probes. The station is located in an old growth forest canopy where soil moisture canbehighlyheterogeneous (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)



### 200.4

0.35

f 

# I 0.3 

# -**~** 

# 10.25 

# - J 

# ...

0.2 lI( lI( :c
0.15 \I( ""---...

### _ ..

1II ""­ 

# --:

-

r 

# -­**~::~I** "1"...-lay er1 ; " • abo I Wind River

0;00 71271980;00 Date 

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

5.2.4 PBLheight 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 generallypredicted lower PBLheights along the west side ofthe Cascades, especiallyinwestern 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 generallypredicted higher PBL heights, except for the verylow heights in the lowerright comer ofthe domain associated with areas ofconvective rainfall. Mixing heights estimated from upper air soundings at Salem, ORwere compared to simulations from two models as shown in Figure 11. The LSM-l run predicted lower PBLheights onJuly 24, 25 and 27 than the simple soil-l run. On July 26 and 28, thepattern was opposite. Compared to observed values (only available on July 26 to 28), bothmodels tended to overestimate mixing heights by200 to 300 m on these peak ozone days.

21Figure 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 July26.199823:00:00 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 July27,1998 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 July29,1998 22:00:00 Min- 75 at (26.90). Max- 3803 at (611,13) Layer 1 PBLe

3S0099===

99 July26.1998 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 JUIy27.199822:00:00 19 at{10.so). Max- 4290 lit (55.4)

Layer 1 PBLe

99 July29,191l8 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 oftemperature, wind speed, and wind direction were also compared withthe upper air soundings at Salem at 17PDT on July 25 and July 26 as shown inFigure 12. The LSM-l run captured the vertical temperature profile fairly well onJuly 25, whereas the simple soil-l run appeared to overestimate the temperature and predicted a deeper mixed layerthan the soundings. On July 26, both models matched the temperature profile well up to 700 m but predicted a deeper mixed layerthan 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)

SalemJuly 25,199817:00 PDT 4500 

### "!t. 4000 I**~.** 3500

### ~ 3000

### ~ 2500 E 

# ."**.~** 2000**~.** ::c 1500 

### ') 

# . 1000**~** 500

### ~.



### oo 10 20 30 40 Terrp (degree C)

SalemJuly 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) 

# -

-

24Salem 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**~** -+=obs E ':;:; 2500 .c --rerun**.~** 2000 old_run I 1500 1000 500



### o 10 20 30 40 Telll> (degree C)



### 25

# - SalemJuly 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)

SalemJuly 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 Themeteorological simulations were also evaluated using the meanbias 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 meanbias oftemperature from the LSM-1 run was l.4°C, about 1°C smallerthan thebias from the simple soil-1 run. Themean error of temperature was also smallerinthe LSM-1 run compared to the simple soil-1 run (2.9°C versus 3.2°C). Themeanbias and mean error ofwind speed and wind direction from the LSM-1 run (ME 1.S mls for WS; ME = 

### 50° for WD) wereboth largerthan those from the simple soil-1 run (ME =: 

### 1.2 mls for WS; ME = 

### 40° for WD). This couldberelated to the underestimation of daytime surface winds and resulting error inthe 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 smallererror (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 sim_le soil 1 2.85 3.22 -7.8 36.9 -0.23 1.09 

# I

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 showedbetter simulation ofsurface temperatures. 2) LSM predicted generally lowerPBL heights along the west side ofthe Cascades onthe 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 ofthe MRF PBL scheme. 5) Ozone simulation was also improved with MM5 includingthe Noah LSM as shownin 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 shownin Figure 15a and b. Atthe KLS site (Figure 15c) located along the I-5 corridor in southwesternWashington, the LSM-l run under-estimated daytime temperatures onmost days. Nevertheless, there was a fairly large over-estimation ofthe daytime temperatures on July 20. Themodel also missed the overcast condition in that morning, which might explain the overestimate oftemperature as well as ozone (shown in the ozonemodeling section) around the area. Overall, however, the LSM-1 performance appears to bebetter for the 1997 episode compared to 1998, especially for nighttime temperatures. The surface wind patterns inthe 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, whichmight contribute to the high ozone levels there. Surface time series ofwind speed and wind direction are shown inFigure 16a-c. The LSM-1 run performed relatively well for wind direction. Similarto the 1998 episode, underestimation ofdaytime wind speeds were also the case for 1997
.

...- Modeled PBLheights 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 PBLheights were very closeto the observations. On July21, the PBL heights were overestimatedby about 200 m. The LSM-l performance statistics for the July 1997 episode are summarized inTable 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 nudginghad 

### a smaller mean error in wind direction (37° versus 49°), but slightly largermeanbias and errorin wind speed. Overall, the statistics for the 1997 episode werebetterthan for 1998, with smallermean error intemperature (2.1°C versus 2.9°C) and wind direction (40° versus 50°). Itis also worth noting that in 1997 there was a negative temperature bias and positive temperature bias in 1998; this which mightbe 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 July21- 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~**  July21.1997 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**~~~~--V~~--4** 15.00**t-'>.J----\t-...c+---t.;:ft--_+~~_f_--~,.,.** 

## 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 Q 20.00**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

- 1··­

## .J.,;~ 

## ....::J ... 5.00**t-~--t--+--- ·'-'-"-'1I~,==----c--­** 

### ·I·~II-/~L-'·: 

# •

. .-I i·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.

31KLS
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) Figure15c. Surface temperature and cloud covertime 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 predictedby 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 predictedby 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 byLSM compared with observations at KLS. 

# -

33PBL 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 byLSM 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 conductedbyEcologyusing the MM5 wind fields (Bowman, personal communication) and the Vis5D software package. This analysis was done at an early stage ofthe 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-hrbacktrajectories 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 oftime a parcel spends along the path was accumulated ifthe parcel was within 500 meters ofthe surface. This height was selectedto accommodate seasonal and diurnal variations in the mixed layer. Two summaryplots with all availableback trajectories for 1998 and 1997 are shown in Figure 18a and b. The plots show that for both years the airparcels spent a relatively long time in the immediate area due to the low wind speeds that existed. In 

### 1998, mostback 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 Soundarea 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. Summaryplots ofback trajectories during July 18 to 21, 1997.

36

### 6 Photochemical air quality modeling 6.1 Modeling methods EPA Models-3 CommunityMulti-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System (Byun and Ching, 1999) version4.3 was used for photochemical air qualitymodeling. Based on state-ofscience techniques, CMAQ is a multi-scale, multi-pollutant air qualitymodel that simulates the transportation, transfonnation, and deposition ofatmospheric pollutants including as photochemical precursorsand oxidants, particulate matter, and airborne toxics. Itincorporates 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 primarilyderived from GEOS-CHEM global model simulations (personal communication, Rob Elleman). However, vertical ozone ICIBC concentrations were derived from a combination ofdata sources. Forthe western boundary, ozone levels werebased on Trinidad Head ozonesondes data collected duringJuly 98 (personal communication, DanJaffe). Forthe other three sides (north, east, and south), ozone concentrations were derived from ICTC global model simulations (personal communication, y ouhuaTang). The concentrations ofeach 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 inthe vertical. The SAPRC99 photochemical mechanism including aqueous chemistrybut no aerosol dynamics was employed. The aerosol module was not employed because ofthe lack ofemission inventory data for key aerosol precursors. The chemical speciation ofthe emission inventorywas perfonnedby SMOKE according to the SAPRC99 mechanism. TheModified Euler Backward Interactive (MEBI) solver was used to solve the chemical kinetic equations. The first two days ofeach episode were run twice as model spinup to minimize the effects ofinitial conditions.



### 37
.

### T bi a e 

### 6 I m Ia

'f 

### 1 db d or CMAQ Irst I
. an oun lary con 1IOns 

### £ run (fi 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 ONIT 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 1.61 E-Oi 2.31E-Oi i.3SE-03 PAN analogue formed I MPAN 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 withinthe urban core and along the 1-5 corridorwith ozone concentrations below 20 ppb. At 10 PDT, ozone increases were evident south ofSeattle with values above 60 ppb. However, there was no evident ozoneproduction downwind ofPortland at thathour. At 14 PDT, ozone values above 100 ppb were simulated immediatelynorth and south ofthe Portland urban core. Maximum ozone concentrations were simulated at 18 PDT, with themaximumpredicted ozone concentration reaching 149 ppb south ofPortland.



### Ozone 

### Monitoring Site Map - 

### SouthwestWashington &

### Oregon

... Monitoring !>ites - Oates of Operafion 

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

39Figure 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 July28.199813:00:00 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)

400.1"19 99 

### === 0.130 0.112 0.093 0.075 0.056 0.037 0.019 0.000 1 ppmV 99

PAVE

by July28,199821 :00:00 Min= 0.022**at(3.77~** Max- 0.108 at(24.74) MCNC

0.1"19 99 0.130 0.112 0.093 0.075 0.056 0.037 0.019 0.000 1 ppmV

PAVE July29.19981 :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. Notethat the first two days (July 24 and 25) were used as model spinup, so theresults 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 ofPortland; Mt View and Milwaukie are two suburban sites, close to Vancouver and slightly southeast ofdowntown Portland respectively; Carus, another rural site, is located about 30 miles south ofPortland at the foot ofthe mountains; and Turner, the most southern site within the domain, is closeto Salem, OR. Hockinson and Wishram are thetwo sites that are further away from 1-5 and influenced heavilyby complex terrain close to the west slope ofthe Cascade Mountains and along the east edge ofthe Columbia River Gorge, respectively. At Castle Rock, Woodland, Sauvie Island, and MtView, the maximum observed ozone concentrations were close to 100 ppb during July 26 to 28. Nighttime ozone titration was obvious at Sauvie Island and MtView 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 inthe simulations was longerthan 

### in the observations. At Milwaukie, observation data were missing onJuly 27 and part ofJuly 26 and 28. The available data show an exceedance ofthe I-hr standard onJuly 26 with maximum value of 124 ppb. (NAAQS I-hrozone

### = 120 ppb, 8-hr ozone 

### = 80 ppb). The LSM-l rununderestimated the peak ozone onJuly 26 and slightly overestimated iton July 28. At Carus, a series ofthree exceedances ofthe I-hr and 8-hr ozone standards occurred on July 26 through 28, with I-hrpeak
_ values of 136, 133, and 137 ppb, respectively. Nighttime ozone at Carus remained about 20ppb because it was not affected by local NOx sources. Compared to the observations, the LSM-l run missed the maximum ozone onthe July 26 butcaptured the peaks fairly well on the following two days. Thenighttime values were also well simulated, but the timing ofthe daytime peaks were slightly delayed in the simulations. AtTurner, 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 ofWishram and Hockinson. AtWishram, ozone values were moderate throughout the episode with maximum value of77 ppb onJuly27. 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.



# -
420,1

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)

43Sauvle 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)



# -

44Milwaukie 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)

45Turner
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\i

### B**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)

460.06 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 CMAQmodel performance was evaluated by the following set ofozone statistics based on the simulations from July26 to 28. 1) Normalized bias and normalized gross errorbetween observed and predicted l-hr/8-hr ozone concentrations. Datawithin a selected time window were used in evaluation (10­ 19 PDT for I-hr and 14-23 PDT for 8-hr ozone; shown 

### inTable 7). These time windows were selected to encompass periods ofelevated ozone. 2) Normalizedbias between observed and predicted 8-hr dailymaxima using spatially pairedmeans. (Shown in Table 8) 3) Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maximausing all datapairs. (Shown in Table 9) 4) Correlation coefficients and scatterplots ofobserved and predicted 8-hr dailymaxima using spatiallypaired means. (Shown in Figure 22) 5) Quantile-quantile plots ofobserved and predicted 8-hr daily maximausing (a) all data pairs (b) spatiallypaired means. (Shown in Figure 23a and 23b) The normalized gross erroris 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, locatedupwind ofPortland, the LSM-I run had a positive bias especially at Woodland and Sauvie Island (l-hrNB of24% and 28%, respectively). This could berelated to the fact that simulated ozone peaks are slightlybroader than the observed ones. For spatially paired means, the normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr dailymaxima are all below 20% at these sites, which meets EPA suggested guidelines (EPA, 1999). Nevertheless, ifevaluated on a daily basis (as shown in Table 9), there was a largerpositive bias especially on July 28. Mt. View and Milwaukie are two urban sites within the PortlandN ancouver airshed. AtMt. View, the normalized bias and gross errorwerereasonable (I-hrNB 2%, 8-hrNB = 

### 3%, I-hr NE 34%, 8-hrNE 26%). For 8-hr dailymaxima, thebiasbetween the observed and predicted is generally negative when evaluated at the exact grid point ofthe monitoring site. However, when evaluated using the surrounding 5x5 matrix ofgrid cells, thebias becomes positive as a result ofsteep 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 ozonepeaks were generally well simulated as shown in the bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima. However, the timing ofthe ozone peaks were slightly shifted at Carns, and consequently, the gross error was moderatelyhigh (I-hrNE 36% and 8-hrNE 

### =27%). Hockinson and Wishram are two sites further away from the 1-5 corridorand influenced heavily by complex terrain. Theperformance 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 thepredicted 8-hrmaxima are considerablyhigher when evaluated with the surrounding 5x5 grids.
Table 7. Normalized bias and normalized gross errorbetween 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 onJuly 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 illred.



### 48Table 8. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr dailymaximausing spatially 

### IPaired means. (based on 5x5 and Ixl grids) Ave obs Ave pre 8-hr daily 

# I 8-hr daily max Ave pre 8-hr daily max NB (1x1) NB (5x5) site (ppm) 1x1 (ppm) max 5x5 (ppm) • 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 dailymaximausing 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 ofaverage observed and simulated 8-hr dailymaxima (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 of0.63, 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, butthere was some underperdiction ofthe peak ozone and overprediction ofmoderate ozone (80-90 ppb) when evaluated using the range ofconcentrations 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. I • 1x1 

## I .2:**~** 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. Scatterplot ofthe average observed and predicted 8-hr dailymaxima for 5x5 and Ixi grids for July 1998 episode

50Q.Q: B·hr daily maxima (a. all data pairs) 0.140 

### .---------------------------'1

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

# ­

.. --.-.---- .. --- ..--1 

## t (t1x11 

# I ,. · ! 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 ofobserved and predicted 8-hr daily maximausing 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 andpredicted 8-hrdailymaximausing spatially pairedmeans 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 NOIN02

### from 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 earlymorning emissions into a shallow mixed layer and lower NO concentrations during the remainder ofthe daylight hours. The LSM-l run appeared to underestimate the earlymorningpeaks and slightly overestimated observed levels from noon into the afternoon. N02concentrations were also generally high in the morning, and lower in the afternoon. Themodel captured the trend ofN02 well at most times, especially onJuly 27. AtWoodland, early morning NO peaks were underestimated and predicted N02concentrations were also generally lower than the observed ortes. At Castle Rock, bothNO and N02were quite low and there was a lack ofa 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 morningpeaks ofNO on the first two days, and overpredicted onthe 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 Lafayettebothhave 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. Themodel 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. OnJuly 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**I~** i : i o 0.02

### .-~ . 

## I I -

### ~ z

# o.o~

# F·! · -j

# 5- -

# 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 S:**003~::---~~** ..**---~---~---+---~** N .

### ~ 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

___-l**O~~~~~~~~** ..**~** 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;~~ 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00**~oo** 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



### 54Castlerock 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
.. 

# j

... 0.03 I

# ~:**~.**

# ~ O:a:

-

# !-]~ 

# hd

z

# OOO~f4~-"r 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~**t~4** I_II, • 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

# ~**~::** ] 

# l=i**:~**

# .. i 

## K**0.04~----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



# -.

560.2 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~\ A

# !~f\ 

# \

r-..

# ~ 0,1

# 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 shownin Figure 26a and 26b for the afternoon. ofJuly 19 and 20. OnJuly 19, elevated ozone concentrations were simulated downwind of Portland withmaximum slightly above 100 ppb. Onthe next day, high level ozone was simulated right around the Portland urban area withmaximum closeto 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 onJuly 19, 1997 at 17PDT. 99 July20,1997 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 July21,1997 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 onmost days except July 19 when moderate concentrations (around 60 ppb) occurred. The LSM-1 run slightly overestimated ozone levels onJuly 19 and simulated most low ozone days well. Nevertheless, there was significant overestimation onJuly 20 at all three sites. As mentioned in the meteorological modeling section, there were also underestimation ofcloud cover and overestimation ofsurface temperatures onthat day around these sites, which might explain the large overestimation ofozone. At Mt. View and Milwaukie, moderate values occurred on July 19 atboth sites and onJuly 20 at Mt. View. Thepeak I-hr average ozone reached 101 ppb at Milwaukie on July 20, whichwas the maximum observed inthis episode. The LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well on low ozone days, and slightly overestimated onmoderate 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 onrest ofthe days. The LSM-1 run showed some overestimationbut 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. AtHockinson and Wishram, ozone levels were lowto moderate throughout the episode. The LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well at Wishram. AtHockinson, where simulationwas poor inthe 1998 episode, model performance was better. It 

### simulated the right level ofozone onJuly 20, althoughthe 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)



### 600.090
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**+---'v-L-----'"----+---".,.L--------t".·L-----~----__r--'----------__1---''''---------.f..** .. -''''''='------­ 7117197 0:00 7118/97 0:00 7119/970:00 71201970:00 7/21/970:00 7/22/970:00 7/231970:00 Date (PDT)

61Milwaukie**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)



# -
62Turner**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 7121/970:00 7122/970:00 7123197 0:00 71181970:00 7/19/970:00 7/201970:00 Date (PDT)**----~'E**



# -

63Wishram
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 inTable 10. Nonnalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hrdaily maxima using spatiallypaired means and all data pairs are shown in Table 11 and 12, respectively. Thethree upwind sites, Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island, all showedpositive nonnalizedbias around 20% due to the large overestimation ofozone on July 20. Nonnalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hrdaily maximausing spatiallypaired means was around 20% ifevaluated 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 (lhrNB -21%) and positivebias (lhrNB = 

### 15 %), respectively. The negativebias 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-hrdaily maxima was about 20% ifevaluated 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-hrNE = 

### 22% and 17%, respectively). Nonnalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hrdaily maximausing spatiallypaired means or all data pairs was also mostly below 20%. Reasonably good perfonnance was found at the Wishram and Hockinson sites.

­
64I 

### Table 10. Nonnalizedbias and nonnalized gross errorbetween 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 inred.



### Table 11. Nonnalizedbias between observed and predicted 8-br dailymaxima using spatially paired means. based on 5x5 and Ix1 grids) Aveobs 

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

# 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 maximausing 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 Date ' (ppm)**~** max 1x1 (ppm) Site NB (1x1) max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5) Castle Rock July 17 0.028 0.021 -26% 0.023 -16% July 18 0.032 0.036 11% 0.044 35%**~tleRock**
, castle Rock July 19 0.058 0.064 12% 0.066 15% July 20 0.028 Castle Rock 0.056 0.061 99% 114% July 21 0.022 Castle Rock 0.024 7% 0.028 25% I



## I

65Table 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 ofaverage observed and simulated 8-hr dailymaxima (paired in space) are shown in Figure 28. Unlike the July 1998 episode in which onlythree peak ozone days were used in averaging, both low and high ozone days were included inthe 1997 case. Therefore, all spatiallypaired 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 datapairs and spatiallypaired means. When using all datapairs, it appears that the LSM-l run tended to overpredict for moderate and high ozone levels, and performed better at low concentrations. When using spatiallypaired means, themodel 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

# ~ 

# . a

0.040 

### • • 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. Scatterplot ofthe average observed andpredicted 8-hr daily maxima for 5x5 and 

### lxl grids for July 1997 episode.

670·0: 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 maximausing 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 1 :1 d 0.040



## ...**~** 

### 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-Quantileplot ofobserved and predicted 8-hrdailymaxima using spatially paired means for 5x5 and lxl grids for July 1997 episode.


# -

68

### 6.3.2 Comparisons withNOx 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. ForN02, 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 ofN02on the non-episode days. The VOC data collected at the southwest Washington sites in 1997 were reported to have abnormally high levels ofaromatics 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.\

... 

## .... 

# IgEH-J 

# :j
-e 0.1 

# I-+- i
N 0.03 _-. 

## I

## ~.::sr==J. o Z 0.05

# ~**~.~~ f_~~._~**  

# oT--1**.~** 

# ••**~.;** 

# , o 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 0­ E 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**~** 0.15 E 

## -e**003~~--~~--_+_~---+----+---~** N . 0­ 

## -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

# !~EEf±+J1d Z 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 

### o j**~** 

# 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~~~!**~"-~,',!-!** 

# •**i~** N !', o 0.01 " 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--,---...,----,-----,

0.02 r-'

## -,~,,-.-+_-_,'---I--,,_i__-,"-.~ Eli 

## ! 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



# -
72Castlerock 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

# t=. ! 0. I I i 1

## ~ 0.02 

### I

## +--r-~i

# ~ 0.015 .....• .. '
.....

# !~~+_ 

# ..**_~i._~.** 1 0.01

# 1. + .

# '~".. I 

## tl z 0.005 

# I. o**~** "
.... I

### ~ ! •

# t---~ II!' • 

# I·· ..**t~** i' 

## II 

# ,**~** 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21 :00 Hour N02J>re
CastierockJuly 21,1997

# ~**O:'~:E ~=+-~~**  I

.. 

# !'=l T.·
: 

# =q'

. E 

### 8: 0.015'
. .,. i 

### +-,

......, ( 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

73M. 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

# ~0.02~' 

# _g i

...

# -J~~-i_1 N I. I : : 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 

# -.

74Mt. ViewJuly 21, 1997 Mt. ViewJuly 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 inrecent years for the airshed and the July 1997 episode had slightly different meteorological patterns compared to the 1998 case. Forthe 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. Timeseries plots, scatter plots, and QuantileQuantile plots also showed generally good agreementbetween 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 Futureyearmanaged growth maintenance projection simulation 7.1.1 CMAQ modeling results To investigate the impact ofchanges in emissions due to future growth and various control strategies, a year 2015 emissioninventory was developed. This was thenused 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 comparedto 1998. Table 13 Anthropogenic emission comparison betweenthe 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 onJuly 28, 2015 are shown in Figure 31a. For comparison, the contours from the 1998 run and the difference plot between the two years are shown in Figure 31b and 31 c, respectively. Inthe 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 31c, large reductions (20-30 ppb) mainly occur downwind ofPortland extending from close to Cams to south ofSalem. In contrast to the large decrease ofozone downwind ofurban center, the change within Portland itselfis 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 July29.20150:00:00 lI1ellle Min= 0.019 at(6.76). Max= 0.128 at(29.24) 

### Figure 31a. Simulated ozone contour at 17 PDT onJuly28,2015 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 July29.1998 0:00:00

by Mellie Min= 0.020 at (36.82). Max= 0.148 at(29.24)



### 77Figure 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 Min= -0.013 at(36,82). Max"" 0.032 at(28,20) MeN!: 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 inFigure 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 maximaoccur slightly earlierin 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 hrmaximum ozone on that day increases slightly (89 ppb versus 87 ppb) in the future yearrun. 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)


# .­

79Sauvie 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)



# -

80Milwaukie
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

.­

810.12 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 0.05 a.**~** !**~** 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)



# .­
82Wishram
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 areliable indicator of03 response to VOC orNOx emissions changes (Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000b). Values ofthe ratio < 

### 15 indicate the stronglyradical-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 stronglyVOC 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 of03 could be expected. Another wayto understand theregional increase ofozone is to look atprocess analysis output from CMAQ. Process analysis is a feature in CMAQ where the contributions ofdifferent chemical/physical processes are trackedby grid cell for each hour ofsimulations. For example, ozone chemical productionrates are mapped for the two years in Figure 34aand 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 inthe 2015 case. Therefore, higher ozone values might occur in 2015 for the sites within urban center.

83

## Layer 1 03w/(NOw+N02w) w=CCTM_pdxsip201S _22Iay.CONC_20S-210Jeduced 52.000 6S ,......".....,.----,---::-----".."...,-,--------, "15.875 39.750 33.625 27.500 21.375 15.250 9.125 3.000 10 1 60 PAVE July28,201522:00:00

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 July28,1998 22 :00 :00

bl' IIICNC Min= 2.1BO at(30,33). Max=3252.789 at(50,49) Figure 33b. 03INOx contourplot 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.pdxsip201SJ**_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** July28,1998 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 ifscenario - No lower Columbia River point sources' 

# - Following the 2015 managed growthmaintenanceprojection, 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 inVOC 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

. . f 

### d th I C I b' R'
. mamtenance proJec 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 withlarge 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 maintenanceprojection, and 2015 no lower Columbia River point sources modification are shown inTable 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 inthe sameregion as the peak ozone is predicted to occur, and therefore the maximum ozone in the PortlandlVancouver airshed is not affected. Themost 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 ofother potential control strategies, baseduponmodifications to the 2015 managed growth maintenanceprojection, will be conducted by ODEQ and SWCAA as part of the overall maintenance plan development.


# -

86

## Layer 1 03z z=CCTM_pdxsip201S_22lay.paCONC.pdxsip201SJ _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 60 ppmV 1

PAlIE July26.2015 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 Riverpoint source case at 15 PDTonJuly 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 July26.201522:00:00

### 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 July26.2015 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 ColumbiaRiver point sources modification at 15 PDT onJuly 26, 2015 (2015 no Lower Columbiapoint 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----------

__------------

__----------

__------------

__**--~** 71281150:00 71291150:00 71241150:00 7125115 0:00 71261150:00 7/27/15 0:00 Date (POT)

89Mt. View 

# - 0,09
0.08
0.07 0,06 E 0.05 Q. .!!: !! 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 'd ) £; 

### 1998 . d 2015
.. d 2015 I C I b' R d'fi' 

### gn s or eElso e, proJectIOn, an no ower oum la lver mo 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 0.059 I 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



### 910.140**.,--------.------.--.-~----** ..**---~** ..**-~** ..**----.--------~-** .. ..**---~-._** 

# - 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** "bJ 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 " fi' fi' fi' 

### '" '" "'- 

# jll**~I** -1 1**.~I** 

### 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 Riverpoint source modification. 

# -.

92

# - References J.R. Arnold, R.L. Dennis and G.S. Tonnesen, 2003. Diagnostic evaluation ofnumerical air quality models with specialized ambient observations: testing the Community Multiscale Air Qualitymodeling 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-hydrologymodel with the Penn State-NCARMM5 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, WA, 2002. Grell, G.A., Dudhia, J., Stau!er, D.R., 1994. A description ofthe "fifth generationPenn 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 WesternWashington duringthe Summer of 1997, Washington State University Laboratory for Atmospheric Research. Hong, S.-Y., and H.-L. Pan, 1996. Nonlocal boundary layervertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124,2322-2339. Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch, 1993: Convectiveparameterization for mesoscale models: The Kain-Fritsch scheme. The Representation ofCumulus Convection inNumerical Models, Meteor. Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 165-170. Liu, Y., and co-authors, 2004:hnprovements to surface flux computations inthe MRF PBL scheme, and refinements to urban processes in the Noah Land-Surface model with the NCARIATEC Real-Time FDDA and forecast system. The 5thWRF 

### I 14th MM5 User's Workshop, Boulder, CO. June 22-25, 2004. O'Neill, S.M.; Lamb, B.K., 2004. Inter-comparison ofthe CommunityMulti-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 CommunityMulti-scale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system, 

### Environ. Sci. & 

### Technol., in press.

93Tonnesen, 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 theUse ofModels and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour OzoneNAAQS, 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£'conferenceleiIl/modeling/vukovich.pdf) Xiu, A., and J. E. Pleim, 2001. Development ofa land surface model. Part I: Application in a mesoscalemeteorological model. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 192-209. Zhang, D.-L., and R. A. Anthes, 1982. A high-resolution model ofthe planetaryboundary 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-layerparameterizations. 

### 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 activitybased on soil types. The BEIS3 modeling system uses the Biogenic Emissions LandcoverDatabase version 3 (BELD3) which consists of 1km gridded data 230 land-use types. There are two steps involved inBEIS3 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, speciationprofiles, and normalized emissions generated from the previous step, and outputs gridded, speciated, hourlybiogenic emissions. Thebiogenic emissions for 1998 episode are summarized inTable Al which shows that 58% ofthe VOC emissions and 2% ofthe NOx emissions are from biogenic sources in the central part ofthe domain that encompasses the PortlandIVancouver area,
e B' omam h ep: 

### Ta hI Al lOgemc emISSIons summed 

### over the centrald . £ ort e J 1 Uly 1998 isode. I Species Biogenic emissions Total emissions Percent biogenic Mole/day I Mole/day % i I ALK2 643 I 699 92.0 225 226 99.6 l!SOPRENE I I 76 57.5 

### i OLE2 131 I TRP1 781 783 99.7 I I NO 37 1673 2.2 1724 2977 57.9 

### voe 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 EPA for the 1999 NEI, was the startingpoint 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 

### inthe modeling domain using MS ACCESS. Table A2 below details the development ofthe fractions used for each county. In Appendix B, Table B 1 lists the area source categories that were inventoried.

95

# - T bi Al P I f . . R' b C

a e : opu a IOn andEmISSIOn atIOS)Y ounty STATE/COUNT

## Iv 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 3,300,800 1 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 andthe Washington Department ofEcology 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 EPAprotocols as outlined in EIIP references. The eight counties inthe core Washington domainwere Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Yakima counties. WSU staffthenused 1996 area source data for the remainder ofthe domain counties from theNorthwest Regional Technical Center (NWRTC) demonstrationprojectwork. 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, withthe same input parameters except for the change inyear. Table A2 summarizes the fuel parameter inputs representingboth episodes.

96

# - Table A2. Oregon NONROAD model fuel parameter inputs 

## I 

# I NONROAD Modelfuel parameterinputs:
Input 1997/1998 Modeling Episode Inputs FuelRVP 7.8 Fuel 02 wt% 2.0 Gasoline sulfurwt% 0.021 Diesel sulfur wt% 0.5 CNGILPG sulfur wt% 0.0123 Stage II control % * 

## *Control efficiency inMultnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties was setto 81% based on DEQ estimates. Forall 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 EPAbyICF 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 inthe three years leadingup to and includingthe original base year of 1996. Temperature data were taken from the Oregon Climatological Data Survey. Thetemperatures were averaged for the episode; the results are shown inTable A3. Table A3. OregonNONROAD temperature data inputs 

# I AvgHigh T 

# I Avg. 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 49.0 72.2 95.4 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 inthe 1997 and 1998 episode runs were derived from NOAA data at various sites within those counties. The temperatures used were average temperatures

97during the peak days ofeach respected episode. Table A4 shows the temperatures used for the 8 

# -, core counties in 1998 and for the entire WA domain in 1997. T hI

a e 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 inthe same manner as the area sources. Theywereback cast based onthe populationratios 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. InWashington, aircraft and commercial marine emissions from the 1996 NWRTC demonstrationproject 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 inthe Nonroad inventory workbyprocessing the Nonroad model outputs for input into the SMOKE model with a customized script. On-road Mobile The 1997 and 1998 mobile emissions were calculatedbased on episode specific, link-based, dailytrip VMT datamodeledbyRTC and Metro using traffic demand models. MOBILE6.2 was used to calculate the emission factors with the episode-specific conditions. The summary ofthe approach to mobile emissions modeling estimates was to:
• Create link-based daily VMT for theAQMAusing traffic demand models, and county-wide VMT for the remainder ofthe domain. 

### • Create four totalMOBILE6.2 inputfIles 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 ofthemodeling 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 ofSMOKE data. ODEQ completedthe 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 stafffor Washington and Oregon compiled annual emission information for permitted facilities. Industrial Point sources that emit more than 10 tons per year ofVOC, 40 tons peryear ofNOx, 

### or 100 tons per year ofCO within the 4 counties ofthe PortlandNancouver ozone maintenance area were inventoried for this work. Point sources that emit more than 40 tpy ofNOx 

### or 100 tpy ofVOC or CO outsidethe maintenance area counties were also inventoried. Additionally, point sources emitting less than those thresholds within 4 kilometers ofozone 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 TVpoint sources were generated from the ODEQ ACSIS point source database. The emissions were split by SCC, butnot by stack or device. SOx data for the 2002 EI that was used to forecast 2015 emissions estimates was included for all sources inboth states. ODEQ Program Operations staff inventoried the emissions for TV sources; regional staffestimated the emissions for all other sources. All ofthese major categories were processed through SMOKEbyWSU staffinpreparation 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 countyby county annual inventory was developedbythe respective states following the currently accepted methodologies and submitted as part ofthe National Emission Inventory (NEI). As required bythe submittal process it underwent rigorous QA by ODEQ, Ecology and EPA contractors. These statewide inventories covered manymore pollutants than were needed for this ozone modeling. Therefore the ozoneprecursor pollutants (CO, NOx, VOC) and SOx

99were selected by source classification code (SCC) from the submitted inventories for the counties inthe 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 inProcedures for PreparingEmission 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 areaprovided byChiefEconomist, Dennis Yee with METRO's Data Resource Center. Theyrepresent the average growth rate for the period 2002 to 2015 derived from the industrial and commercial employmentprojections, population, and resultinghousehold growth. The industrial and commercial decisions were based on SIC grouping from Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide andPrecursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources and represent an average ofthe following sectors. The same growth factors wereused for boththe Washington and Oregon source categories (Table A6). Although, SWCAA did look for W A specific data in other parts ofthe domain, itwas decided that PortlandNancouver area influences were the greatest and local planning decisions were the most influential in model results. Therate ofgrowth was calculated with the following formula: (Future 

### yr employment

- initial 

### yr employment)/initial employment! # ofyears ofgrowth.



# -.

100

# _. Table A6. 2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summary Industrial Growth FactorTable



# ,­ 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 FactorTable 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 TheNONROAD2004 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

101onthe NONROAD model, the draftNONROAD2004 model includes the following federal emissionreduction 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 emissionbenefits 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 of0.0030 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 oxygenweight % was revised downward, and it was determined that ethanol isblended 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 weremadeby apportioning terminal RVP to county and subsequently incorporating the revised 02 weight %. The final RVP estimates are shownby county inTable 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, SWCAAused 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 inthe 2015 nonroad emissions modeling are shown in Table A9. 

### Table A9: 2015 Ozone M d 0 

### elin 19 

### Nonroa

### dM0

### de

### IInput 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 bythe growth factor analysis method similarto 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 workingits 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. Bycomparing 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 overtime. In the same manner Nonroad diesel sulfur content is expected to drop to 15 ppmby 2012 for locomotives and marine engines. Chapter 3 ofthe Clean AirNonroadDiesel

- FinalRuleRegulatoryImpactAnalysis 

### gives the anticipated changes to S02 emissions. Table 3.1-6a onpage 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-sulfurhighway diesel. Table 3.4-8a onpage 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 bythe 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) S02Emissions (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 shippingis 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. Becausetheremaining towered airports and the many smaller airports do not fall under the Port'sjurisdictionthey were estimatedbyDEQ using the Emissions Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS) developed by the FAA. Therefore, the 2015 aircraft emissions include those estimated bythe Port (where appropriate) and those grown byDEQ 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 themodel along with aircraft emissions for Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties.

. 2015 On-road Mobile

The 2015 mobile emissions were calculated based on link-based, dailytrip 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 ofSMOKE 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 canbe found inAppendix C. 2015 Point Source Growth Factor Implementation Point source emissions were grown using 2003 through 2015 annual growth factors supplied by Metro (ref603). The growth factors are keyed by Metro number, which was cross-walked to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) byDEQ staff(Marianne Fitzgerald, AQ-PPD). The growth factors with matched SICs are shown inTable A.l3.

105

# - Table A13. Point Source SIC growthrates

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 grownby matchingthe 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-categoryfor 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) = 

### 10.56tpy
Biogenic emissions will be assumed to remainunchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the amount, location, and type ofvegetation 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 builtinto 2015 EI The following is a list ofthe assumptions builtin to the 2015 emissions inventoryused 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 withthe rule havebeen 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%



### 107Appendix B: Area Source Category Emission Calculation Methodologies



# -,

IM"thodol,ogyper SIC employee emission factors given in EIIP, IM"lbctdology perSIC 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

108Application-Aqua Ammonia Application-Nitrogen Solutions Application-Urea Application-Ammonium Nitrate Application-Ammonium Sulfllte Application-Otber StraightNitrogen Application-AmmoniumPhosphates 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 percapita growth. (Includes residential

Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 2002 CERR data from WDOE



### 10928-01-500-350 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)

DidNot Include (Assumed Insignificant)
Did'!'lot Include (One large source included in Pt sources)

DidNot 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)
DidNot 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 othercounties

Included aircraft emissions from Puge! Sound Region 

# -,

-,

110

### Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 inputfiles for the 1997 and 1998 episodes. 

## * Filename: CirkIM97

-- Clark County 11M run with M6 

## *This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, saxand 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 MODELYEARS : 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 MODELYEARS : 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 : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDARYEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE MINIMAX TEMP : 50 50

111ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATEEF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSVPMDDRl.CSV 

# -, PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260


## * Filename: WaNoIM97 --1997 Washington No IJM 

### counties 

# * (for the remainder ofthe 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 : RUNDATA 

### ******************* Run Section 

### *************************** NO REFUELING FUELRVP : 8.5 

### * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the countybeing modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\regI997.txt 

### ******************* Scenario Section 

### ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDARYEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7


### * Hourly temp willbe varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE MINIMAXTEMP : 50 50 ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATEEF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDRl.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE 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 areausing Tri-county average 1996 registration from the reg data we used for the 1996 EI because this datais 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 countybeing 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, onlythe LD vehicles get tested. 

## * 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar31) GaryBeyer 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 bewritten for each calendar 

### * year to be analyzed. SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7


### 113

# - * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile usedby 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 theremainder ofthe domain runwith M6.2 This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PMlO emissions from CY1997 for all OregonNon IIM counties inthe 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 otherregistration. 

### ******************* 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 countybeing modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA ]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobi1e6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\reg0R97.d 

### ******************* Scenario Section 

### *************************** SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7


### * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE MINIMAXTEMP : 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

1141998 Episode 

## * Filename: ClrkIM98 -- Clark County 11M run with M6


## * This input generates the summerfleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1998 for Clark County Washington usingWashington 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 : 14.0 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 : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 EVALUATIONMONTH : 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.CSVPMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

## * Filename: WaNoIM98 --1998 Washington No 11M counties Forthe remainder ofthe domainrun with M6.2 This input generates the summerfleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PMlO emissions from CY1998 for all WashingtonNon VM counties inthe modeling domain using Washington 1999 reg data (Sallythinks that is betterthan the 1998). 

### ******************* Header Section 

### ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES SPREADSHEET DATABASE OUTPUT WITH FIELDNAMES AGGREGATED OUTPUT : RUNDATA 

### ******************* 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 : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDARYEAR : 1998 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

### *Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE MINIMAXTEMP : 50 50 ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 PARTICULATE EF :PMGZML.CSV PMGDRI.CSVPMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSVPMDDRI.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 WaECOLOGY 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 IfMprogram entries 

## * 1996 to present gets OBD, 1981-1995 Enhanced test, 1975-1980 Basic test 

## * only the LD vehicles get tested 

### * 1996+ OBD exhaust benefits IfMPROGRAM : 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 IfMWAIVER RATES .: 10.00.0 IfMGRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

### * 1996+ OBD evaporative benefits IfMPROGRAM : 2197520202 T/O EVAP OBD IfM MODELYEARS : 219962020 IfM VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 11M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 IfMCOMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 IfMWAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0 IfMGRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

### * 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar 31) Gary Beyer says this test (2525/5015) models real world better than IM240 IfMPROGRAM : 3197520202 TIO ASM 2525/5015 FINAL IfMMODELYEARS : 3 1981 1995 IfMVEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 IfM STRINGENCY : 3 37.4



# - IfM COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 IfMWAIVER 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 lIMWAlVERRATES : 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.CSVPMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDRl.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260 

## * Filename: ORNoIM98

-- 1998 Oregon No 11M counties Fortheremainder 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 inthe modeling domainusing Oregon LDV and LDT vehicle class registration and Wa all otherregistration. 

### ******************* Header Section 

### ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES SPREADSHEET DATABASE OUTPUT WITH FIELDNAMES AGGREGATED OUTPUT : RUN DATA 

### ******************* Run Section 

### *************************** NO REFUELING FUELRVP : 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 

### ***************************
118SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-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 CountyWashington using Washington 2004registration data. 

## *This is the file runby 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 IIREFUELING: 92280.80
. FUELRVP : 7.8 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the countybeing modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt * There were not enoughprograms to define the I} HDGV2b/3 EVAP OBD & GC program * anticipated to begin in 2008 and 2} HDGV 4+ GC program thatbegan in2002. * HDGV gas cap added to program 2 to at least get some ofthe 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 : 142.4 11M COMPLIANCE : 1 91.0 I/MWAIVERRATES : 14.915.8 11M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25

11911M 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 liMVEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 liM STRINGENCY : 3 42.4 11M COMPLIANCE : 3 91.0 liMWAIVER 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 liMVEHICLES : 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 liMPROGRAM : 6 199320502 T/O 2500JIDLE liMMODEL YEARS : 61968 2007 liM VEHICLES : 6 Illll 22111111 1 liM STRINGENCY : 6 42.4 liM COMPLIANCE : 691.0 liM WAIVER RATES : 64.98.3 liMEXEMPTION 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 liMWAIVER RATES : 74.95.3 IJM EXEMPTION AGE : 7 25 IJM GRACE PERIOD : 7 5 

### ******************** Scenario Section

### *****************************

120SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-102 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE MINIMAXTEMP : 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: 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 bythe canisters on-board the vehicles. There is no longer any stage II vaporrecovery 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 * enterthe appropriate registration distribution filename path for the countybeing 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 MODELYEARS : 319751995 11M VEHICLES : 3 22222111111111 IfM STRINGENCY : 3 37.4 11M COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 IfM WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 0.0 

### * 1975-1980Basic

- 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 mustbe written for each calendar 

### *year to be analyzed. 

### ****************************************************************************************** SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-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.CSVPMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSVPMDDRl.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 runbyDEQ 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 inplace 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.CSVPMGDR2.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 PMl0 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 WITHFIELDNAMES AGGREGATED OUTPUT :


### 123RUN DATA 

# - ******************* Run Section *************************** EXPAND EVAPORATIVE: *STAGE II REFUELING: 92 280.80. FUEL RVP : 8.5 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the countybeing modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA]ROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt
******************* Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : SummerFleet-Average Emission CALENDARYEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 * Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used bySMOKE MINIMAXTEMP : 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



### 124Appendix 

### 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 AirAct CommunityMulti-scale Air Quality CMAQ Chemical Transport Model Washington State Department ofEcology Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach Environmental Protection Agency Global DataAssimilation 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 BoundaryLayer State Air Pollution Research Center chemical mechanisms State Implementation Plan Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System Oxides ofSulfur Southwest Clean AirAgency Title V Volatile Organic Compound

125

# -