CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES WRAP Implementation Working Group Meeting San Diego, California ♦ April 17-19, 2007.

CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES

WRAP Implementation Working Group MeetingSan Diego, California ♦ April 17-19, 2007

Population Distribution

San Francisco

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Los Angeles

California ContextDATA• 17 IMPROVE monitors, 4 with substituted data, for 29 Class 1 areas

AIR QUALITY• All but one small county non-attainment for state ozone or PM standards• 21 Class 1 Areas are, or have been, in federal non-attainment areas

REGULATORY CONTROL• State (ARB) controls on and off-road mobile sources, toxics, and

consumer products• Local districts control stationary and area sources (including BART)• In-State Transport Mitigation: requires BARCT rules in upwind districts• Legislative initiatives (agricultural control, global warming, Carl Moyer)• Executive initiatives (goods movement)

REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS vs. LONG TERM STRATEGY• On-the-books vs. continuous improvements

Geographic Overview

•Far Northern California (Inland)•Sierra Nevada•Southern California•Coastal Units

TRANSPORT

Reasonable Progress DemonstrationCase Study: LABE

• LABE (Lava Beds) Monitor – Lava Beds Wilderness Area (28,460 acres)– South Warner Wilderness Area (70,385 acres)

• Far Northern California (inland)

Lava Beds

Source: all images from COHA

LABE

South Warner

Nearby Transportation Pattern

Source:

www.wrapair.org

In-And-Near Forum

Vegetative Land Cover Type

Source:

www.wrapair.org

In-And-Near Forum

Nearby Population Density

Source:

www.wrapair.org

In-And-Near Forum

Lava Beds / South WarnerBaseline Extinction Budget

Source: http://matar.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

Best 3.9 Mn-1 Worst 39.3 Mn-1 15.06 dv

Actual Species Seasonal Contribution

Source: TSS >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Aerosol Composition Tool & Trend Analysis

Source: TSS >> Reasonable Progress Demonstration >> Modeling >> Visibility Modeling Time Series

BEST WORST

CMAQ Species Input Comparison

LABE

Best 3.1 Mn-1Worst 33.8 Mn-1 14.15 dv

Best 3.9 Mn-1Worst 39.3 Mn-1 15.06 dv

LAVO

PMF PM2.5 Modeling Results

Oregon & Northern California

Urban Mixture

6%

Smoke/Mobile61%

Aged Sea Salt18%

Road Dust/Mobil

e15%

PMF Modeling Results

(All Sampling Days)

Oregon & Northern California

Urban Mixture

5%

Smoke/Mobile63%

Aged Sea Salt16%

Road Dust/Mobil

e16%


(20% Worst Visibility Days)

Source:

COHA >> PMF Modeling

y = 0.601x + 1.4867R2 = 0.6778

y = 0.3647x + 3.9964R2 = 0.4793

Source Apportionment: LAVOSources and Areas of Potential Organic Carbon Emissions Influence

2000-2004 Baseline for Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA20% Worst Visibility Days

0.0

93.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.04.6

0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Color

ado

Idah

o

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Ore

gon

South

Dak

otaUta

h

Wash

ingt

on

Wyo

min

g

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l Dis

tan

ce W

eig

hte

d E

mis

x R

esT

ime

Biogenic Natural Fire Point Area WRAP Area O&G Off-Shore On-Road Mobile Off-Road Mobile Road Dust Fugitive Dust WB Dust Anthro Fire

Source: TSS>> Demonstrating Reasonable Progress>> Emissions & Source Apportionment >>WEP >> Worst days Spread Sheet available for nearby Lassen Volcanic

Sources and Areas of Potential Sulfur Oxide Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA

20% Worst Visibility Days

0.1

58.9

0.0 0.0 0.03.9

0.0 0.0

5.2

0.0 0.02.2

0.0

28.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Color

ado

Idah

o

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Ore

gon

South

Dak

otaUta

h

Wash

ingt

on

Wyo

min

g

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l Dis

tan

ce W

eig

hte

d E

mis

x R

esT

ime


Sources and Areas of Potential Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA


0.1

85.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.03.6

0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

7.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce W

eig

hte

d E

mis

x R

esT

ime


Sources and Areas of Potential Elemental Carbon Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA


0.0

91.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.04.5

0.0 0.0 0.7 0.02.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce W

eig

hte

d E

mis

x R

esT

ime


OMC

SOx

NOx

EC

Worst Months: Non-Fire PS4 Contributions

Source: TSS>> Emissions & Attribution >> WEP >> NOx & SOX Tracer Results

Worst Months: Non-Fire PN3 Contributions


* Emission maps not yet available on TSS. Hence, the above map is used as a placeholder and is for illustration purposes only. This map was obtained from the Causes of Haze website.

Illustr

ation O

nly

Illustr

ation O

nly

SOx 1996 Point Source Emissions NOx

Evaluate Large Point Sources in Surrounding Region

Worst Months: Fire Contributions


TO DO: Emission Inventory Analysis

Questions to Ask• What is local inventory for surrounding CA counties

(Lassen, Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta)• Which county inventories to use for Oregon and Nevada?• What are projections for 2018 by source type and by

species?• Any significant BART reductions in CA, OR, WA, NV?• What percentage of local CA inventory are the out-of

state reductions?

OR NOx Emissions

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

-38%

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Emissions

Example: Look at nearby OR, NV, WA

OR SO2 Emissions

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

OR EC Emissions

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

+5%

-75%

-61%

-27%

-33%

OR OC Emissions

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

-28%

-32% -36%

+5%

-6%

Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Portland General Electric Company 9,418Wood/Bark Waste Fort James Operating Company 520

Roseburg Forest Products Co. 1,059Smurfit Newsprint Corporation 802Boise Cascade Corporation 527

Natural Gas Boise Cascade Corporation 749Cement Manufacturing (Dry Process) Ash Grove Cement Company 2,290Sulfate (Kraft) Pulping Boise Cascade Corporation 843

Fort James Operating Company 706Pope & Talbot, Inc. 430Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. 413Weyerhaeuser Company 392

Natural Gas Future Natural Gas EGU (COB Energy Facility) 1,880Future Natural Gas EGU (PGE Port Westward) 1,153Future Natural Gas EGU (Klamath Generating) 887

Natural Gas Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation 524

NOx Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018Oregon Point Source Pivot Table

Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

Look at nearby CA, OR, NV and WA sources, but make judgment on size and distance, e.g Q/D > 10

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

Source Category PSAT WEP Notes

Pacific Boundary conditions

Outside state authority.

High uncertainty.

California Primarily MV reductions

Oregon Maybe 10% SOx reduction in stationary sources (pivot tables) but minor impact for all worst days

Washington Maybe minor benefit from BART reductions

Nevada Are there sources of concern? Smoke?

Most Likely ---- Sources Significantly Contributing to ----at LABE On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

Attribution & Potential Consultation

For SO4, NOx, EC…

• Is the Base+BART projection better than URP?– CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show ----%

reduction in extinction due to ___, ___, ____.• Sources outside CA have some influence

• Is WRAP anthro reduction > 20%?– PSAT apportionment shows only a ---% reduction

from WRAP anthro sources• BART not yet included, but only one source

remaining in northern CA• Reductions from BART sources in WA, OR, NV not

known, minor impact currently• Mobile source reductions are key contributors

Draft Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days

LABE: Lava Beds and South Warner Wilderness Areas

2000-04Baseline

Conditions (Mm-1)

2064Natural

Conditions (Mm-1)

2018URP

(Mm-1)

2018Base Case

(Mm-1)

2018Control Case

(Mm-1)

Change In Statewide Emissions1

(tons / %)

Change In Upwind

Weighted Emissions1

(%)

Change InWRAP Anthro

Contribution1

(%)

Other Apportion-

ment Results

SO4 / PSAT PMF

NO3 / PSAT PMF

OC /

NotApplicable

PMF

EC / PMF

FS / PMF

CM / PMF

DV3 Not Applicable

1 Represents change between control case and 2000-04 baseline condition.2 Visibility projections not available due to model performance issues.3 Unitless value.4 This becomes the reasonable progress goal for the worst visibility days.

Final Analysis

• Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources?– Which species do they contribute and when?– Are there any technologies to control them?– Are there legal opportunities in place?– What is the likely timeline for additional controls or

reductions?

Lava Beds / South WarnerSpecies Trends and URP Glidepaths


Parameter Baseline URP-2018 Base-2018 RPG-2018 Target 2064

LABE (EPA) 15.05 13.37 15.10 7.86

LABE (quarter) 15.05 13.37 15.33 7.86

LABE (Monthly) 15.05 13.37 15.41 7.86

Best Days 3.21 (2.76) 3.03 < 3.21 (1.29)

Reasonable Progress DemonstrationCase Study: JOSH

• JOSH (Joshua Tree) Monitor (not JOTR) – Joshua Tree Wilderness Area (429,690 acres/~10 sq. mi.)– Southern California (inland desert)– Influence from LA Basin through San Gorgonio– Influence from Mexico and the Gulf

Source: all images from http://www.nps.gov/jotr/

WebCam 11/15/06From Belle Mountain

Nearby Transportation Pattern

Source:

www.wrapair.org

In-And-Near Forum

NV

Arizona

AZ

Land Use / Land Cover

Source:

www.wrapair.org

In-And-Near Forum

NV

AZ

Arizona

Nearby Population Density

Source:www.wrapair.orgIn-And-Near Forum

NVAZ

Arizona

Joshua TreeBaseline Extinction Budget


Species Contribution to Baseline

TSS: Methods>> Monitoring >> Select extinction individually 2001-2004, show best and worst days to get seasonal patterns and relationships

PMF PM2.5 Modeling Results


(All Sampling Days)


(20% Worst Visibility Days)

Source:

COHA >> PMF Modeling

y = 0.8762x + 0.8179R2 = 0.9067

y = 0.6545x + 3.5958R2 = 0.674

Southern California

Smoke/Urban

21%

Nitrate-rich Secondary

25%

Sulfate-rich Secondary

21%

Road Dust/Mobile

6%

Mobile7%

Oil Combustion/

Shipping6%

Dust14%

Southern California

Smoke/Urban19%

Nitrate-rich Secondary

33%

Sulfate-rich Secondary

21%

Road Dust/Mobile

4%

Mobile6%

Oil Combustion/

Shipping6%

Dust11%

NOx & SOx Tracers and Other Apportionment Needs

• Not currently available for JOTR…what about JOSH?

• Look at the fire / non-fire break out?• Look at inventory for nearby counties: Riverside,

San Bernardino, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego

• Mexico, Pacific, what other possible source areas?• Look at SAGO or AGTI although both are on the

other side of a mountain pass• Organic Matter and Coarse Mass info also needed

Check PSAT at Surrogate Monitors

Nitrates:

CA, PO

BC

Sulfates:

CA, BC, PO

MX

NV, CAN, OR, WA

Check Surrogate Sources: OM, CM

ExRT (Plan 02 PMC Worst 20%)Residence Time (Worst 20%)

COARSE MASS at SAGO

ORGANIC CARBON MATTER at SAGO

Residence Time (Worst 20%) ExRT (Plan 02 POA Worst 20%)

JOTR – Not JOSH Organic Aerosol base 02b

TSS: Source Apportionment, Organic Aerosol Tracer, Monthly, all days, (worst days not available), 2002 base case

TSS: Source Apportionment, Organic Aerosol Tracer, Monthly, all days, (worst days not available)

JOTR- not JOSHOrganic Aerosol Attribution

2000-2004 Baseline plan 02c

2018 Base Case plan 18b

CMAQ OC Species at JOSH

CMAQ Species

Species Definition Annual Average Modeled Concentration (ug/m3)

Clean02a Plan02b Base18b (% change)

AORGA Secondary Organic Aerosols from Anthropogenic Sources

AORGB Secondary Organic Aerosols from Biogenic Sources

AORGPA Primary Organic Aerosols from All Sources

TO DO:Emission Inventory Analysis

• What is local inventory for surrounding CA counties: Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego?

• What are projected reductions for 2018 by source type and by species for nearby CA sources?

• What percentage are the out-of state reductions?– Which sources for Mexico NV, OR, WA really matter?– Any significant BART reductions in CA, OR, WA, NV?

• Is there a correlation between the coarse mass peaks and wind events?

• What is the correlation for the organic matter elevated periods? Anthro VOC, fire events, biogenics?

2018 Changes to California Inventory

Taken from the RMC Inventory Spreadsheets (not verified for current California inventory updates)

Pollutant Species 2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

Change (2018-2002)

% Change Less More

Sulfur Dioxide 59125.04 60130.13 1005.0932 1.70%

Particulate Sulfate 8361.699 7474.033 -887.6661 -10.62%

Sulfuric Acid 93.8577 107.2877 13.43 14.31%

Nitrogen Oxides 1113370 626109.1 -487260.806 -43.76%

Particulate Nitrate 260.6254 219.3572 -41.2682 -15.83%

Organic Carbon 62972.07 55698.73 -7273.3376 -11.55%

Elemental Carbon 27104.86 18326.45 -8778.4087 -32.39%

Fine PM 66891.97 68878.56 1986.5903 2.97%

Coarse PM 277425.7 309025.5 31599.7745 11.39%

Ammonia 220243.6 218742.7 -1500.9197 -0.68%

VOC 3592145 3364550 -227595.587 -6.34%

Carbon Monoxide 5042735 1972633 -3070101.83 -60.88%

Total Inventory 10,470,729.48 6,701,894.55 -3,768,834.93 -35.99%

Source Category PSAT WEP Notes

Boundary conditions Outside state authority.

SECA, Asian transport

CA mobile sources Look at local inventory changes

CA Stationary/Area sources

Look at local changes

Mexico Really need the JOSH analysis

Other states Really need the JOSH analysis

Most Likely NOx, SOX, OC, CM Sources Significantly Contributing to these top drivers

at JOSH on the 20% Worst Visibility Days

Draft Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days

Joshua Tree Wilderness Area – JOSH IMPROVE Monitor

2000-04Baseline

Conditions (Mm-1)

2064Natural

Conditions (Mm-1)

2018URP

(Mm-1)

2018Base Case

(Mm-1)

2018Control Case

(Mm-1)

Change In Statewide Emissions1

(tons / %)

Change In Upwind

Weighted Emissions1

(%)

Change InWRAP Antrho

Contribution1

(%)

Other Apportion-

ment Results

SO4

NO3

OC

EC

FS

CM

DV3

1 Represents change between control case and 2000-04 baseline condition.2 Visibility projections not available due to model performance issues.3 Unitless value.4 This becomes the reasonable progress goal for the worst visibility days.

Joshua Tree (JOSH)Species Baseline and URP Glidepaths

Are these still valid?

Method 1 predictions for Pacific Northwest and California sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HE

CA

1

KA

LM1

MO

HO

1

MO

RA

1

NO

CA

1

OLY

M1

PA

SA

1

SN

PA

1

ST

AR

1

TH

SI1

WH

PA

1

AG

TI1

BLI

S1

DO

ME

1

HO

OV

1

JOS

H1

LAV

O1

PIN

N1

RE

DW

1

SA

GA

1

SA

GO

1

YO

SE

1

base18b old algorithm

base18b new algorithm

Pacific Northwest California

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HE

CA

1

KA

LM1

MO

HO

1

MO

RA

1

NO

CA

1

OLY

M1

PA

SA

1

SN

PA

1

ST

AR

1

TH

SI1

WH

PA

1

AG

TI1

BLI

S1

DO

ME

1

HO

OV

1

JOS

H1

LAV

O1

PIN

N1

RE

DW

1

SA

GA

1

SA

GO

1

YO

SE

1

Per

cen

t o

f ta

rget

red

uct

ion

ach

ieve

d

Pacific Northwest California

Eleven California IMPROVE sites

http://wrapair.org/forums/aoh/meetings/061102m/index.html

Source: U.S. Census BureauYear 2000 Each dot represents 7500 people

CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES WRAP Implementation Working Group Meeting San Diego, California ♦ April 17-19, 2007.

Documents