2016-11-30 WAQS Monitoring Network Assessment Working Group

Date: November 30, 2016
Time: 1-2PM MST
Call in: 1-800-768-2983 and access code 4918837

Links

1. Webinar:
   https://join.me/IWDW-Online
2. Working Group Wiki
   WAQS Monitoring Network Assessment
3. Summary of states' 5-year monitoring network assessments and monitoring sites in AQS
   WAQS Network Assessment - State monitoring site summaries.docx
4. An excel version of AQS monitors with individual tabs for each of the seven states (monitors with last_sample_date >=2015)
   AQS monitors by state.xlsx
5. A version of AQS monitors that includes initial and last reported sample dates (monitors with last_sample_date >=2010)
   AQS monitors by state and date.xlsx
6. Powerpoint for the call
   WAQS Monitoring Network Assessment WG2.pptx

Agenda

1. Review monitoring site list (items 4 and 5 above)
2. Gather feedback from states on current monitoring network configuration and planned network changes
3. Outline analysis phase of WAQS monitoring network assessment

Minutes

Attendees: Bo Call (UTDEQ), Rebecca Matichuck (EPA), Cara Keslar (WYDEQ), Barkley Sive (NPS), Doug Kuenzli (MTDEQ), Barb Regynski, Brad Schultz (SDDENR), Kevin Briggs (CDPHE), Mike Barna (NPS), Gordon Pierce, Gregory Harshfield (CDPHE), John Vimont (NPS), Chuck Hyatt (NDDH), Will Vicars (CDPHE), Rodger Ames (CIRA), Dustin Schmidt (CIRA)

Rodger Ames started the call with roll call, then went through the ppt for the call (#6,(item #6, above). The first itemslide in the ppt was a review of Nov. -Dec. Working Group activities. During Nov. Rodger solicited and gathered feedback from state air agency representativesWorking Group participants provided feedback on current monitoring sites and planned chnageschanges for their respective states. Feedback on two documents (#s 3 & 4 above) was received from Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Montana provided their 5-year assessment for review.

The group identified the need to gather up-to-date monitoring site information form federal agencies and tribes conducting monitoring was identified,monitoring, as was the need to clarify WAQS funded monitoring.monitoring sites. Just before the call, John Vimont provided information on sites funded through NPS on behalf of the WAQS, and slide 3#3 in the ppt was updated accordingly. Of the six sites funded viaduring the 3SAQS, one was discontinued (Walden-CO), one transferred from NPS to UDEQ (Escalante-UT), and one (Fruitland-UT) transferred from UDAQ to UBLM, then to Seth Lyman's research group at Utah State.

Slide #4 showed a list of FS operated sites obtained from a recent AQS data pull. Debbie Miller updated the group on the current status of theFS monitoring sites, and will follow up with anadditional annotatedinformation list whenafter she returns from vacation on 12/12. DM noted that Holy Cross and Deadman Pass sites indicated on Slide #4 werehave yet to be installed.

Slide #4 also included "new monitors" peridentified in the 3SAQS network assessment. Gordon Pierce noted that the Dinosaur site is a relocation of the Rock Springs site, and that they (presumably CDPHE, clarify with GP) have interest in retaining the Shamrock site that is currently operated jointly operated by FS and COBLM.

Rebecca Matichuck and Bo Call offersoffered assistance in reaching out to Tribes conducting AQ monitoring in their respective regions.

Rodger presented a preliminary outline of analyses for the WAQS monitoring network assessment. He suggestedproposed generally following the approach employed by the state of Colorado in their assessment for area and population served;served analyses; confining emissions source data to WAQS 2011b gridded emissions; and surveying this working group for projected emissions changes related to new and/or ramping up/down of O&G development areas. As for AQ representativeness, a list of analyses was presented at the end ofin slide #5; Rodger suggested that the removal bias analysis may not be all that useful for the WAQS assessment and could be omitted (Will Vicars agreed).also commented on the limitations of this particular analysis).

Final slides in the ppt outlined next steps and a tentative (and perhaps overly ambitious) time were shown to conclude the call.line. After the call, Dustin Schmidt noted that in AQ analysis that compare site DVs to modeling data,DV exceptional events will need toshould be accounted for in(particularly preparingWRT compiling data from 2011 base and projectionsfuture basedcase onmodel modeling output.output). Methods for filtering exceptional events should be discussed on a future call.

Action Items

• Clarification on WAQS funded sites (3 of original 6 3SAQS sites)
• Outreach to federal agencies and tribes on monitoring activities
• Follow up with state air agency representatives on current monitoring activities (where necessary)
• Continue data gathering and begin data analysis
• Next working group meeting in early Jan., 2017