## C orrecti o n of WRAP region Plan02d CMAQ visibility modeling results on TSS for Regional Haze Planning

– Final Memorandum

June 30 , 2011 Contact: Tom Moore, WRAP Air Quality Program Man a ger, 970.491.8837 or mooret@cira.colostate.edu

2018 Visibility Projections from the Plan02d and PRP18b regional modeling scenarios for the USFS Gila Wilderness Class I area (GICL1) in the NM Regional Haze Plan were not dem on strating reasonable progress on the Worst Visibility Days, as the visibility is worsening from 2002 to 2018 , see Figure 1

.
Figure 1. Original GICL1 Visibility mo nitoring data, Glide Paths, and Visibility Projections for NM Regional Haze Plan

After discussion with the State of NM and EPA Re gion 6, and in r eview ing the 5 principle WRAP region visibility regional modeling scenarios for GICL1 shown in Figure 2

, very different CMAQ results for Plan02d relative to Plan02c, Base18b, PRP18a, and PRP18b are shown for modeled Particulate Organic Mass on the 20% Worst Visibility Days for

GICL1 . This result would lead to questions about results at other WRAP region Class I areas

. The difference in POM

results for Plan02d to PRP18b is unexpected, because the dominant source category of Primary Organi c Aerosol emissions are the Wildfire (natural) and Prescribed/Agricultural Fire (anthropogenic) types, relative to other source s of Primary Organ i c Aerosol emissions, see Figure 3.

Figure 2. CMAQ

- modeled Organic Mass from WRAP RMC Regional Haze Planning Scenarios2 Figure 3. Comparison of Primary Organic Aerosol emissions source categories by WRAP region state for the Plan02d

and PRP18b scenarios

POA emissions for the Plan02d and PRP18b scenarios used by NM and other WRAP region states for their regional haze plan s were to be held constant for Wildfires and declin e for Pres cribed and Agricultur al Fire. The decline in anthropogenic fire emissions results from Emissions Reductions Techniques applied by burners as required by the NM

and other states ’ Smoke Management Program s , as shown in Figure 4

.

Figure 4. Comparison of Natural and Anthropogenic Fire Sources of Primary Organic Aerosol emissions by WRAP region state for the Plan02d and PRP18b scenarios

With emissions sources’ inputs to Plan02 d verified to be as specified

, WRAP Regional Modeling Center staff then

review ed the scripts used to extract gridded CMAQ air quality model ing results to be displayed on TSS at IMPROVE site

locations u s e d t o a s s e s s R e g i o n a l H a z e . We have identified th at a different spheroid type of geographic projection was applied when the Plan02d regional planning scenario ’s air quality modeling results were extracted in Fall 2007, relative to the projection used to extract the air quality results for the other 4 regional planning scenarios (Plan02 c, Base18b, PRP18a, and PRP18b) , which all used the same extraction scripts and spheroid type

. The Plan02d CMAQ extraction results for all species would be affected (Sulfate, Nitrate, POM, Elemental Carbon, Soil, Coarse Mass, and Sea Salt), not just POM. We examined POM because it is dominated by a large and relatively unchanging source type from the3 planning period to the projection year . Sulfate, Nitrate, and other species have a more

- mixed variety of source types and

have reduc ed emissions by 2018 fro m state and federal rules and permits.

We determined that Plan02d CMAQ extraction results were off by one grid cell (either i or j on the 36km modeling grid )

for 9 IMPROVE site locations in the WRAP region , affecting a total of 15 different Class I area s in 8 states represented by

those IMPROVE sites. The Plan02d CMAQ results for the Worst and Best Visibility Days used for Regional Haze Planning, currently displayed on the TSS are from the wrong (next

- door) grid cells for 9 sites in the Plan02d scen ario, and

thus c a u s e the 2018 visibility projection s to either the PRP18a or PRP18b scenarios used by the 8 states for haze planning

to also be incorrect for these 9 IMPROVE site locations in the WRAP region

.

We first compared the scripts

, and then the CM AQ

- extracted results between P lan02d and P lan02c cases , to isolate the locations of the extracted grid cells ’ results where they are off by one grid cell. We then re

- ran the extraction for P lan02d

with the same version of t h e executable as P lan02c and verifie d the locations of the grid cells between P lan02d and

P lan02c to now be the same. We have determined that all other Class I area sites used for regional haze planning in the WRAP region, other than these 9 sites

, are not affected. F our ( 4 ) sites outside the WRAP region and 1 WRAP region

non

- Class I area site (COGO1) were similarly affected

– visibility projection s are not made for those sites on the TSS

.

The following sites, Class I areas, and state regional haze plans are affected by this error.

IMPROVE

Site Code Class I area(s) represented State WRAP “Plan02d” i, j, regional planning scenario

extraction cell coordinates WRAP “Plan02d_rev” i, j, regional planning scenario

extraction cell coordinates

BADL1 Badlands National Park South Dakot a 66,70 65,70

CRLA1 Crater Lake National Park

Diamond Peak Wilderness

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness

Mountain Lakes Wilderness Oregon 21,75 20,75

DOME1 Domelands Wilderness California 24,51 24,52

GICL1 Gila Wilderness New Mexico 48,39 47,39

HECA1 Hells Canyon Wilderness Oregon 34,79 33,79

JARB1 Jarbidge Wilderness Nevada 35,69 34,69

MONT1 Bob Marshall Wilderness Scapegoat Wilderness

Mission Mountains Wilderness Montana 43,83 42,83

NOCA1 North Cascades National Park

Glacier Peak Wilderness Washington 28,92 27,92

PASA1 Pasayten Wilderness Washington 30,90 29,90

The correctly extracted data has been added to TSS tools as results from a nother regional s cenario, called “Plan02d

_ rev” and paired with appropriate 2018 projection scenarios. TSS users ar e able to compare “Plan02d” to “Plan02d

_ rev”, as

well as to compar e Visibility Projections from various combinations of planning scenarios (Plan02d, Plan02d

_ rev) to projection year results ( PRP18a, PRP18b, and PRP18cmv). R e sul t s comparing Worst V i sibility Days’ for PRP18b Projected Visibility from Plan02d versus Plan02d_rev are presented for the affected sites and Class I areas in Appendix A

of this memo

.

WRAP staff has met by phone i n M a y 2 0 1 1 with affected S tates

, EPA regional offices

, and Federal Land Managers to review these changes and address concerns and questions. A d r a f t o f t his memo was t h e n circulated for review and

comment. Th i s final version of the memo will be posted on the WRAP TSS website and the affe c ted TSS tools footnoted.

F igure 5 show the TSS tools t h a t a r e mo difie d to add “Plan02d

_ rev” results.4 Figure s 5 a, b, and c

. Modified TSS tools add ing “Plan02d_r ev” results at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx

5a. Class I area Summary Table s election f o r data and results on Worst and Best Visibility Days

5b. Visibility Modeling R esult s s election under “Modeling button” comparing air quality model ing results in mass concentration units (μg/m 3 ) from WRAP regional modeling scenarios.5 5c. 2018 Visibility Projection s s election under “Modeling button”

– WRAP regional visibility model ing results in Deciview and Species Light Extinction scaled by Relative Response Factors and projected to 2018, following EPA guidance.6 

### Appendix A

Comparison of Changes to Worst Days’ PRP18b Projected Visibility from Plan02d versus Plan02d_rev

Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev7 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev8 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev9 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev10 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev11 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev12 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev13 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev14 Plan02d

Plan02 d _rev