NASA ROSES08: Applying NASA Observations, Models and IT for Air Quality Proposal

Air Quality Cluster > Applying NASA Observations, Models and IT for Air Quality Main Page > Proposal | NASA ROSES Solicitation | Context | Resources | Schedule | Forum | Participating Groups

Proposal Cover Page incl.

Proposals submitted electronically through NSPIRES will use the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Page that is available through the World Wide Web at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. Access for application to a given NRA is provided through a menu entitled "Solicitations" then accessing the link "Open Solicitations." Once completed by the PI, the Proposal Cover Page must be accessed in the NSPIRES system and submitted electronically by the AOR.

If a hard copy submittal is also required, the submitted cover page should then be printed and signed by the AOR. As directed in the solicitation, the signed copy must be submitted with the original copy of the proposal on or before the proposal due date. In addition, reproductions of the signed Proposal Cover Page are used to preface the required printed copies of the proposal.

NSPIRES automatically assigns a unique proposal number to each proposal only after it has been successfully submitted. NASA uses this NSPIRES number throughout the proposal review and selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated electronic data. If no NSPIRES number appears on the Proposal Cover Page, then it has not been properly submitted through the NSPIRES system.

Proposal Summary 300 words

The objective of this project is to develop a decision-support system (DSS) for the implementation of the new Exceptional Event (EE) Rule, which permits States to flag air quality data caused by exceptional air pollution, such as forest fires and dust storms. The flags are considered in establishing the compliance with the National Air Quality Standards. The Rule requires States to document and quantify the exceptional source contributions. Based on the evidence, EPA decides if the EE flag is justified. Preparing and evaluating the EE evidence is a tedious and technically challenging task for the State and EPA offices.

In the proposed approach, a wide range of distributed data relevant to EE's will be integrated using the NASA-supported, federated data system, DataFed, which is built on GEOSS interoperability principles and architecture. Multi-sensory data (including MODIS, OMI, TOMS, GOCART) will be accessed through GIOVANNI and other data providers (EPA-AQS, VIEWS, AirNow, NAAPS, BlueSky, BAMS). The data processing for analysis will be through DataFed applications orchestrated from reusable, web service components.

The DataFed tools will allow the States and EPA users to explore and analyze data for specific EEs. Furthermore, a dedicated EE DSS tool will consist of a software package that facilitates the Preparation of EE reports by the States; Examination of the submitted reports by the Regional offices; Final verification and approval of EE flags by EPA.

The DSS tools for EEs will provide a formal venue for the incorporation of NASA Earth Science observations and models into AQ regulatory processes. For the States, the powerful EE tools will make the Event documentation easy and efficient. For EPA, the standardized DSS tools will make the decisions more consistent and robust. The data flow infrastructure for the EE DSS will also have broader benefits for the implementation of other SOA-based DSSs.

Table of Contents

Offerors should include a one-page Table of Contents that provides a guide to the organization and contents of the proposal. This item may also incorporate customized formats of the Proposer’s own choosing, e.g., identification of the submitting organization through use of letterhead stationary, project logos, etc. The electronic system chosen may provide some assistance in preparing the Table of Contents, but Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of proposals submitted.

Decision-making Activities Description and Baseline Performance (2page)

In case of natural exceptional pollution events, such as forest fire smoke the air quality analysts are typically affiliated with the impacted states. They submit their reports to the federal EPA as part of their request for exceptional event waivers. EPA analysts review the requests and make their recommendations to the EPA regulatory decision makers. In this case, the DSS needs to support both state and the federal analysts.

EPA determines compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based upon ambient air quality measurements using Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors. Based on the 2006 ammendment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the Exceptional Event Rule provides for the exclusion of data strongly influenced by impacts from "exceptional events," such as smoke from a wildfire or dust from abnormally high winds. States "flag" data for those days that they believe to be impacted by exceptional events. Such flagged days if concurred with by EPA, may be given special consideration in the compliance calculations.

Need to incorporate the forecasting/FASTNet before States flag. 

Exceptional Event flagging decisions are performed in three organizations: States, Regional EPA Offices and Federal EPA. The States need to decide whether a particular sample is to be flagged or not. The EPA Regional Offices need to evaluate the submitted flagged requests and recommend approval. The Federal EPA makes the final decision whether a requested EE flag to be approved.

• What are the reasons and needs for improving (creating) it?

Currently, in making their flagging decisions States use ad hoc methods at their disposal. The formal decision support system to aide the States does not exist. The State's decision whether to flag a sample is reached either from the general knowledge that an Exceptional Event has occured or from scanning their monitoring data for anomolous pattern. The general knowledge that an EE has occured, typically arises from media reports of fires, dust storms and other EEs. Increasingly, reports from the Public in the form of blogs, YouTube and other shared public content can be used to identify Exceptional Events. Another method of identifying EEs is to scan the air quality monitoring data for anomolously high concentrations, particularly those that are likely contributors to non-compliance of a given site. It is believed that depending on the situation, both methods are being used in flagging decisions.

Both Regional and Federal EPA Offices need to evaluate the submitted EE claims. The EE Rule is intentionally vague on the types of evidence and analyzes. As a consequence, the submissions are highly variable; some are very detailed and technical while others are brief and descriptive. The EPA Regional Offices currently use ad hoc methods to understand the events, to evaluate the claims, and to make their recommendation. The lack of formal procedures and tools makes evaluation difficult and uneven.

The Exceptional Event Rule... formalizes the procedures ... The agencies submitting the flagged data are required to provide appropriate justification for the exceptional event flags.

• What analyses does (will) it support and what actions and decisions are (will be) made?

The main scientific, technical challenge arises from the fact that many different source types contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. Some sources are anthropogenic, others are natural; some are located nearby, others can be located far away. Emissions from natural and 'extra-jurisdictional' sources, such as biomass fires and windblown dust or intercontinental pollution transport can contribute to severe episodic PM events, i.e. short-term concentration spikes. However, accounting for the contributions of these extra jurisdictional events in the implementation of the NAAQS is still under development.

Real-time continuous PM monitoring provides the record for short term event detection. Time-integrated and less frequent speciated PM samples provide the chemical signatures for specific aerosol types, such as smoke or dust. Satellite images delineate both the synoptic-scale as well as fine-scale features of PM events under cloudfree conditions. The full integration of these diverse PM data arising from a variety of measurements is still a major challenge for the data analyst. Air quality models that assimilate the various observations could serve as effective data integration platform. Unfortunately, the science and technology of such data assimilation is not yet available for the modeling and data analysis communities.

Flagging procedure has to be in accordance with section 40 CFR 50.14 (c)(3)(iii) of the EE rule. Preparing and evaluating the evidence for flagged data is a technically challenging task both for the State and the Regulatory offices. It requires:

• Access to a diverse array of data sources illustrating various aspects of the exceptional event
• Integration of the heterogeneous data sources, frequently incomplete and incompatible
• Demanding data analysis and to establish "clear causal relationship" between the EE and the exceedance
• Finally, the Rule requires a demonstration that the exceedance would not have occurred but for the presence of the EE.

The above requirements place high demand on the resources and skills of the analysts at the State, Region and Federal level. Many State and Regional AQ management offices lack the means for detecting, flagging and documenting exceptional events.

Fortunately, there are now outstanding opportunities to develop executable, credible and reasonably simple methods for PM2.5 Exceptional Event analysis. In the past, the EPA evaluation of the State-provided data did not benefit from tools and sources of information which are now available.

The purpose of the Excepitonal Event DSS (EE DSS) for the preparation of technical documantation and supporting information for exceptional event data claims. The EE flags and the flag justification reports are prepared by the individual States, the primary users of the DSS are the States. However, since the EE flag claims are evaluated by Regional and Federal EPA offices, they also represent major user groups.

• What measures/metrics do (will) its users employ to determine the value or quality of their decision-making?

---

This section must explicitly identify and describe the decision-making activity to be enhanced (or created) in the project. The description should describe the management, business, or policy topic or issue that it serves, including any quantitative information regarding its use. This section must identify and describe the end-user organization(s) and their responsibility and/or mandate to address the topic/issue.

This section should answer the following questions:

• What is the decision-making activity?
• Who uses it and how do they use it in their decision-making process?
• What is the end-users’ current basis for decision-making?
• What analyses does (will) it support and what actions and decisions are (will be) made?
• What measures/metrics do (will) its users employ to determine the value or quality of their decision-making?
• What are the reasons and needs for improving (creating) it?

This section must quantify the pre-project, baseline performance of the decision-making activity, using the end-users’ measures, as well as other quantitative measures the team plans to employ throughout the project to track progress. Proposals seeking to create a decision-making activity must quantify the baseline performance of the end users’ decision-making process/capability without a formal decision-making activity.

Earth Science Research Results (1page)

This section must identify the array of Earth science research results (Section 1.2 of this appendix) that the proposal will utilize. Proposals must be specific:

• For spacecraft observations, proposals should include the spacecraft, sensor, data product, and other specific information.
• For proposals involving Earth science models, this section should identify the inputs to the models as well as the predictions, forecast products, or other products from the models.
• For proposals involving NASA Earth science research results produced with commercial remote sensing data and geospatial information, proposals must identify the commercial inputs and sources.
• For proposals blending commercial products with NASA products, proposals should identify all the data and products.

Chet,

Most of the AQ related impact that satelliotes have is on evaluating emission inventories. While much of the work has focusesd on third world countries that have virtually no bottom up data, there is quite a bit of active effort in improving domestic NOx, biogenic VOC and particulate inventories based on satellites. We have used satellites to improve fire emissions, one of the big three (egu's, transporation, fires) in our recent inventories and satellites play a role analogous to Mobile model and IPM to generating annual (with sub annual resolution) inventories. So, satellites are a big deal in AQ management efforts. I've attached a link to a recent release giving NASA and DOE a ton of credit on characterizing domestic CO2 emissions. While the example does not use satellite data, it sets up the case for bringing in NASA's carbon observatory (CO2 satellite mission - scheduled launch 12/08). It might be a wise idea to build on our partnership with NASA and ORD now to demonstrate support for NASA satellite missions, using the momentum and interest in the greenhouse gas rule and related events. If we don't, no doubt that OAP and/or ORD will start to exhibit a perceived leadership role. NASA and DOE, and to some extent NOAA...but more on ambient condiitons... will be looked at as leaders in greenhosue gas emissions characterizations. This is a logical area for us to engage in and take advantage of NASA's expertise and blend our own bottom up emissions expertise.

Part of the reason I'm writing this is that I'm getting word that NASA increasingly is being frustrated by EPA. NASA has put quite a bit into boundary layer air quality work (applications as well as research), yet EPA appears as only occasionally interested. ... I'm not suggesting we put $ toward NASA projects; but, rather, actively engage in partnering with them, in a manner analogous to what Tom has accomplished...but ramping it up a bit as part of our GHG effort.

Rich

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080407GurneyVulcan.html

Science Questions: Defining Anomaly, Exceptional Behavior; Applications

Transition Approach (1p)

This section should articulate the transition plan, including specific activities to enable the end-users to adopt the enhancements to the decision support activity (or new decision support activity) and sustain their use of the Earth science products within the timeframe of the project.

• Currently ad hoc, divergent, stovepipe
• Future networked, Convergence ...needed

Performance Measures (1p)

This section must articulate the measures (both quantitative and qualitative) the team will use to determine the outcomes, results, and value of the project. The measures should establish the potential improved performance achieved through integration of the Earth science research results. The measures should include those that the decision makers employ, as well as those used to establish the baseline performance.

Anticipated Results (1p)

This section must describe the expected results from the project. This section must state the team’s hypothesis for the expected quantitative improvement(s) over the "baseline" performance. This section should estimate the expected improvement(s) in decision-making enabled from the enhanced (new) decision-making activity and the associated socioeconomic benefits from the improved decision-making. This section should be as specific and quantitative as possible. This section should identify how the expected results will contribute to the specific goals and objectives of the related application area(s).

Project Management (1p)

This section should articulate the management approach and structure; plan of work; partnership arrangements; and the expected contribution, roles, and responsibilities of the team members. Project schedule and milestones must be included. Note: Meetings (number of, frequency of, etc.) do not qualify as project management milestones.

Statements of Commitment – Co-Is (as needed)

Every Co-Investigator and Collaborator (ref. definitions in Section 1.4.2) identified as a participant on the proposal’s cover page and/or in the proposal’s Scientific/Technical/Management Section must submit a brief, signed statement of commitment that acknowledges his/her intended participation in the proposed effort. In the case of more than one Co-I or Collaborator, a single statement signed by all participants may be submitted. In any case, each statement must be addressed to the PI, may be a facsimile of an original statement or the copy of an email (the latter must have sufficient information to unambiguously identify the sender), and is required even if the Co-I or Collaborator is from the proposing organization. An example of such a statement follows:

"I (we) acknowledge that I (we) am (are) identified by name as Co-Investigator(s) [and/or Collaborator(s)] to the investigation, entitled <name of proposal>, that is submitted by <name of Principal Investigator> to the NASA Research Announcement <alpha-numeric identifier>, and that I (we) intend to carry out all responsibilities identified for me (us) in this proposal. I (we) understand that the extent and justification of my (our) participation as stated in this proposal will be considered during peer review in determining in part the merits of this proposal. I (we) have read the entire proposal, including the management plan and budget, and I (we) agree that the proposal correctly describes my (our) commitment to the proposed investigation."

Why Should You Participate?

• Technically Challenging
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Combination of the NASA qualitative as well as quantitative
• Societal Significance
  • Better AQ management
  • 2
  • 3
• Fun
  • Collaboration & Competion
  • Use new web-based collaboration tools

Primary Decision-Support Systems

• DataFed - Husar - Exceptional Events

Other Decision-Support Systems

• VIEWS - Brett/Shawn - Regional Haze
• BlueSky - Sean - Smoke
• BAMS - McHenry - Air Quality Forecasting for the public
• HTAP - Keating - Hemispheric Transport Policy

Data Providers/Value-Adding Mediators

• GIOVANNI - Leptouch
• NAAPS - Westphal
• AQS - Mangus
• Airnow - Dye

Letters from End-User Organizations (4 1page letters)

In addition to the brief statements from Co-Is required per Section 2.3.10 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, this section may include up to 4, one-page letters from the end-user organizations that will benefit from the proposed project. The letters may include input from the community and beneficiaries served by the end user organizations. All statements or letters must be addressed to the PI and included in the proposal.

• Potential End Users
  • Tom Moore, CIRA
  • Southeast/Chat?
  • Other State/Regional participants.

Current/Pending Support

Information must be provided for all ongoing and pending projects and proposals that involve the proposing PI. This information is also required for any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a significant share (>10 percent) of the proposed work.

All current project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organizations) must be listed. This information must also be provided for all pending proposals already submitted or submitted concurrently to other possible sponsors. Do not include the current proposal on the list of pending proposals unless it has been submitted to another possible sponsor.

All projects or activities requiring a portion of the investigators’ time during the period of the proposed effort must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs) must be shown, as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the project for each year, regardless of source of support.

Specifically, for the PI and any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a significant share (>10%) of the proposed work, provide the following information:

• Title of award or project title;
• Name of PI on award;
• Program name (if appropriate) and sponsoring agency or organization, including a point of contact with his/her telephone number and email address;
• Performance period;
• Total budget; and
• Commitment by PI or Co-I in terms of person-months per year for each year.

For pending research proposals involving substantially the same kind of research as that being proposed to NASA in this proposal, the proposing PI must notify the NASA Program Officer identified for the NRA immediately of any successful proposals that are awarded any time after the proposal due date and until the time that NASA’s selections are announced.

References and citations

All references and citations given in the Scientific/Technical/Management Section must be provided using easily understood, standard abbreviations for journals and complete names for books. It is highly preferred but not required that these references include the full title of the cited paper or report.