WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Community Smoke Emissions Model WRAP Fire Emissions Forum Meeting December 2002 Douglas Fox Cooperative Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Status and Changes to the US National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Thompson G. Pace, PE U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC.
Advertisements

Fire Modeling Protocol MeetingBoise, IDAugust 31 – September 1, 2010 Applying Fire Emission Inventories in Chemical Transport Models Zac Adelman
Georgia Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference: Improved Air Quality Modeling for Predicting the Impacts of Controlled Forest.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
Smoke Modeling BlueSkyRains and SHRMC-4S Rick Gillam U.S. EPA Region 4 Air Modeler’s Workshop March 8-10, 2005.
Fire Modeling issues: fire effects on regional air quality under a changing climate Douglas G. Fox
U. Shankar 1, D. McKenzie 2, J. Bowden 1 and L. Ran 1 Assessing the Impacts on Smoke, Fire and Air Quality Due to Changes in Climate, Fuel Loads, and Wildfire.
BlueSky-EM, SMOKE and Data Linkages Andy Holland Carolina Environmental Program Symposium on Climate, Forest Growth, Fire and Air Quality Interactions.
Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.
Fire Emissions Inventory Doug Fox. Outline of the datasets and models that are needed to estimate smoke.
Discussion Space Research Centre. Urbanization and Industrialization: in 2008, more than half of humans live in cities UN Population Report 2007.
Climate, Fire and Air Quality Climate Impacts Group June 1, 2006.
Climate change, fires, and carbon aerosol over N. America with preliminary detour to discuss GCAP model development (GCAP= Global change and air pollution)
Recent Finnish PM studies / 2 examples. Characterizing temporal and spatial patterns of urban PM10 using six years of Finnish monitoring data Pia Anttila.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
F.O.F.E.M. 5 First Order Fire Effects Module Adapted from: Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory Systems for Environmental Management.
BlueSky Implementation in CANSAC Julide Kahyaoglu-Koracin Desert Research Institute - CEFA CANSAC Workshop Riverside, CA May 2006 Julide Kahyaoglu-Koracin.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
System and Data Requirements for Fire and Air Planning Janice Peterson.
National Fire & Air Workshop January 28-30, 2003 Westward Look Resort Tucson, AZ Emission Inventory for Prescribed and Wildland Fire: –What we mean by.
CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.
Photo Seattle Times, 9/2012 Use of Advanced Dispersion Modeling Examples for the Northwest Susan O’Neill, Research Scientist USDA Forest Service, AirFire.
Oct-03FOFEM 5 Overview An Overview of FOFEM 5 Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory Systems for Environmental Management.
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
1 WRAP Policy Fire Tracking Systems Draft December 9, 2002 FEJF Meeting December 10-11, 2002 Jackson, WY.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
WRAP COHA Update Seattle, WA May 25, 2006 Jin Xu.
Remote Sensing and Modeling of the Georgia 2007 Fires Eun-Su Yang, Sundar A. Christopher, Yuling Wu, Arastoo P. Biazar Earth System Science Center University.
Determining and Distributing Real-Time Strategic-Scale Fire Danger Assessments Chris Woodall and Greg Liknes USDA North Central Research Station, Forest.
FireCAMMS Fire Consortia for Advanced Modeling of Meteorology and Smoke
RPO Monitoring Issues by Marc Pitchford, Ph.D. WRAP Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Co-chair.
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
Evaluation and Application of Air Quality Model System in Shanghai Qian Wang 1, Qingyan Fu 1, Yufei Zou 1, Yanmin Huang 1, Huxiong Cui 1, Junming Zhao.
Project Outline: Technical Support to EPA and RPOs Estimation of Natural Visibility Conditions over the US Project Period: June May 2008 Reports:
Projecting future changes in U.S. forest fuel and fire conditions using NARCCAP regional climate change scenarios Yongqiang Liu Center for Forest Disturbance.
Future climate change drives increases in forest fires and summertime Organic Carbon Aerosol concentrations in the Western U.S. Dominick Spracklen, Jennifer.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at Riverside Fire Plume Rise WRAP (FEJF) Method vs. SMOKE.
Wildland Fire Impacts on Surface Ozone Concentrations Literature Review of the Science State-of-Art Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. Rocky Mountain Center USDA FS Rocky.
Missoula Air Quality Conformity Analysis Required by Federal and Montana Clean Air Act – Transportation-specific air quality requirements enacted in Federal.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,
TEMIS user workshop, Frascati, 8-9 October 2007 TEMIS – VITO activities Felix Deutsch Koen De Ridder Jean Vankerkom VITO – Flemish Institute for Technological.
Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.
Statewide Protocol: Regional Application August 27, 2003 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Luis F. Woodhouse.
Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.
Pollutant Emissions from Large Wildfires in the Western United States Shawn P. Urbanski, Matt C. Reeves, W. M. Hao US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research.
1 Aika Yano, Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Armistead Russell Georgia Institute of Technology October 15, th annual CMAS conference.
Simulating global fire regimes & biomass burning with vegetation-fire models Kirsten Thonicke 1, Allan Spessa 2 & I. Colin Prentice
Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Denver 2004 TGP1 PM2.5 Emissions Inventory Workshop Denver, CO March 2004 Thompson G. Pace USEPA Emissions Estimation for Wildland Fires.
Uncertainties in Wildfire Emission Estimates Workshop on Regional Emissions & Air Quality Modeling July 30, 2008 Shawn Urbanski, Wei Min Hao, Bryce Nordgren.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
June 29, 2011NASA/ARB Data Analyses Discussion1 What can We Learn from ARCTAS-CARB Data? Modeling and Meteorology Branch Planning and Technical Support.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
Wildfire activity as been increasing over the past decades Cites such as Salt Lake City are surrounded by regions at a high risk for increased wildfire.
Application of Fuel Characteristic Classification System to Ph II EI (add-on task to Inter RPO project) Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting Spokane, WA.
Breakout Session 1 Air Quality Jack Fishman, Randy Kawa August 18.
September 28, 2005Missoula, Montana1 Inter-RPO 2002 National Wildfire Emission Inventory - Results - by Air Sciences Inc. and EC/R, Inc. for the Inter-RPO.
Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.
Assessment and Calculations of Plume Rise for Forest Fires during Texas Air Quality Study period. Uarporn Nopmongcol Dept. of Chemical Engineering The.
Implications of burned area approaches in emission inventories for modeling wildland fire pollution in the contiguous U.S Regional smoke layer? August.
Forecasting the Impacts of Wildland Fires
Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)
Phase 1 – 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory
Fire Emissions Joint Forum February 9, 2005
Current Research on 3-D Air Quality Modeling: wildfire!
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Presentation transcript:

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Community Smoke Emissions Model WRAP Fire Emissions Forum Meeting December 2002 Douglas Fox Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Colorado State University Ft. Collins, CO

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Based on work & presentations developed in cooperation with Dr. Mike Sestak (an independent consultant), Dr. Susan O’Neill (research scientist in PNW Seattle FERA group), Dr. Sue Ferguson (PNW FERA), Dr. Jason Ching (EPA/NOAA research) & Dr. Al Riebau (FS research)

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 History Technically Advanced Smoke Estimation Tools (TASET) –JFSP project (Fox & Riebau, ) Establish FCAMMS Cooperative Agreement (2000-continuing) –NPS Air Quality Division/CIRA (1999) Evaluate applicability of Models3/CMAQ in Western US (WRAP….) R&D on fire emissions

SETS -- Strategic SETS -- Tactical SETS -- Operational SETS -- Evaluation Vegetation growth & composition including fire effects models Fire behavior & combustion models Smoke Emissions Models Smoke Emissions Models Archived & On-Site Met Data Archived & On-Site Met Data Local wind field diagnostic models Local wind field diagnostic models Smoke Concentration patterns in space & time Land Cover & Condition Databases Met. Mesoscale Forecast Models Air Pollutant Dispersion Models SETS -- Strategic TASET suggested ‘Smoke Estimation Tool Sets’ need to be populated with some different tools at each level of activity but tools must be able to interact between the activity levels.

USFS/Fire Consortia for Advanced Modeling of Smoke and Meteorology (FCAMMS) will implement smoke management using “BlueSky” by 2003.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 BlueSky: Smoke Modeling Framework Regional application; Automated, centralized processing; Emission tracking; Prediction of surface concentrations; Quantitative verification; Community model development; Web-access control and output products;

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Needs for a Community Smoke Emissions Model Fire smoke is significantFire smoke is significant Current emissions inventories are labor intensiveCurrent emissions inventories are labor intensive –GCVTC, WRAP Potential ApplicationsPotential Applications –Regional Air Quality Modeling Regional Haze planning & SIP development PM2.5 –Smoke Management Blue Sky Framework State based regulatory programs –Land Manager inventory & evaluations

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Monitoring Data IMPROVE program measures visibility & speciated aerosol data representing Class I areas & relates them to each other for the regional haze rule; Majority of fine particle species emitted from fires are organic and elemental carbon & secondary organic aerosol formation is poorly understood. Wildland fire contributes to the 20% worst visibility days, especially in the west

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Fire effects visibility Monthly OC contribution to total fine mass reaches 80% in some western US locations, longer term 10-30% IMPROVE monitoring suggests a range of 10%-40% of OC (organic carbon contribution to PM2.5) on the high mass days (20% worst visibility) may be from wild fires.

On-going research is attempting to quantify fire’s contribution to organic aerosols On-going research is attempting to quantify fire’s contribution to organic aerosols p Organic Carbon % contribution to total extinction Elemental Carbon % contribution to total extinction

Preliminary research results from the NPS Yosemite field study August 2002, on particle chemical composition Organics accounted for about 80% of the non-soil fine mass during the summer of The summertime organics in account for about 60% of the non-soil fine mass. Organics come from biomass & fossil fuels IMPROVE Data

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Why a Community Smoke Emissions Model? Common fire data –Inputs not readily available Common modeling heritage –Fire Behavior - BEHAVE –Fuel Consumption - CONSUME –Emissions Production – EPM –Emissions Factors Variety of applications –Different objectives drive different accuracy & resolution needs

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Community Smoke Emissions Modeling Identify Fires Meteorology Identify Fuels Consumption Emissions Production Speciation Plume Rise Input for Regional AQ model

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 What we CSEM is trying to do… Goal: to build a tool to generate emissions from forest burning for use in regional air quality modeling with the following characteristics: –Scale is regional to national with resolution ranging from 1 km to 36 km; –Temporal resolution from hourly to multi-year; –Chemical species including all NAAQS & visibility components & their precursors; –Accuracy equivalent to other emissions estimates.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 MM5 Meteorology 2pm local time Temperature; Relative humidity; Cloud cover; Wind speed Daily Temperature range; Relative humidity range Past 7 days Precipitation; Same as above MM5 Meteorology 2pm local time Temperature; Relative humidity; Cloud cover; Wind speed Daily Temperature range; Relative humidity range Past 7 days Precipitation; Same as above Identify vegetation cover & fuel loadings (1 km resolution) Read from NFDR fuel model coverage Modify with National FCC coverage Generate species Emissions & Plume Rise (hourly, regional model resolution) Develop emissions profiles to scale species from EPM generated emissions & to generate hourly emissions distributions. Estimate plume rise based on Briggs at appropriate resolution for the spatial scale of emissions. Calculate Fuel Consumption (daily, regional model resolution) Utilize CONSUME to generate fuel consumption and EPM to estimate emissions & heat release rate for each fire. Calculate Fuel Moisture Content (daily, weekly, regional model resolution) NFDR calculations based on MM5 input for range of variables at 36 km resolution Fire Generator (hourly, 1km resolution) Identify Fire Boundaries (daily, 1 km resolution) Read from National Fire Occurrence database FIRES

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Assumptions about our approach… Build a 1 st order tool capable of estimating needed information from existing data & information sources; Accuracy & scale needed are compatible with the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDR); Based on historical fire data; Meteorological data generated from MM5 &/or higher resolution diagnostic models.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Approach outline 1.Identify fire boundaries; 2.Identify vegetation & fuels involved; 3.Calculate fuel moisture content; 4.Calculate fuel consumption; 5.Calculate fire emissions; 6.Speciate fire emissions & calculate plume rise.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Identify fire boundaries Time, location, & size of fires determined from National Fire Occurrence Database (Hardy, et.al. Missoula Fire Lab.) National Fire Occurrence Database Federal & most State fires, from , at 1km resolution in a daily GIS database. Fire Generator (hourly, 1km resolution) Identify Fire Boundaries (daily, 1 km resolution) Read from National Fire Occurrence database FIRES

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Identify NFDR fuel model at 1 km resolution from Bergen, et.al., 1998 Bergen, et.al., 1998 Modify fuel loading, if necessary, using fuel National Current Condition Class coverage (Hardy, et.al. Missoula Fire Lab.)National Current Condition Class coverage Identify vegetation & fuels Identify vegetation cover & fuel loadings (1 km resolution) Read from NFDR fuel model coverage Modify with National FCC coverage

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Optional modifier for NFDR fuel loadings, if needed to replicate WRAP ’96 fire emissions

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Calculate fuel moisture content Use NFDR equations based on data from MM5 including daily temperature & RH range, wind speed, cloud cover, precip. Drought indices from MM5 Resolution from MM5 Calculate Fuel Moisture Content (daily, weekly, regional model resolution) NFDR calculations based on MM5 input for range of variables at 36 km resolution

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Calculate fuel & emissions Use CONSUME with NFDR model estimates of fuel loading & moisture content. Use EPM to generate PM10, PM2.5, CO & heat release rate. Calculate Fuel Consumption (daily, regional model resolution) Utilize CONSUME to generate fuel consumption and EPM to estimate emissions & heat release rate for each fire.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Speciate emissions & calculate plume rise Develop emissions profiles from ratios of species to calculated CO emissions from current research results. Calculate plume rise using Briggs per SASEM Generate species Emissions & Plume Rise (hourly, regional model resolution) Develop emissions profiles to scale species from EPM generated emissions & to generate hourly emissions distributions. Estimate plume rise based on Briggs at appropriate resolution for the spatial scale of emissions.

Emissions speciation CO21521 g/Kg1833*CE g/Kg CO (984*CE) CH – (43.2*CE) PM – (66.8*CE) PM *PM2.5 EC0.7 (0.7)0.072*PM2.5 OC5.8 (5.8)0.54*PM2.5 NOx3.1 (2.0)16.8*MCE-13.1 NH *CE VOC6.8 (5.3)0.085*CE SO20.8 (0.8) Etc, etc. CE = DCO 2 / {DCO+DCO 2 +DCH 4 +DCother} MCE = *CE

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Preliminary Results Comparative data inputs from 2002 Oregon fire (actual vs met) BlueSky/FASTRACS CSEM Area of Burnsite [acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] inch fuel [tons/acre] Duff Burn-site slope [percent] Ignition time [HHMM] hr fuel moisture Surface wind speed (mph) 6 5.5

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Preliminary Results Comparative emissions from 2002 Oregon fire (actual vs met) Bluesky CIRA Time Heat Rel PM-10 Heat Rel PM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Preliminary Results

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 CSEM Summary A rational approach to generating forest fire emissions for regional scale modeling has been developed. Results appear to be consistent with site specific emissions estimates (BlueSky) but more testing is needed. Plans exist to incorporate CSEM into the SMOKE processor.

WRAP Fire Emissions Meeting 5 December 2002 Challenges remaining Coding CSEM into appropriate emissions processors, i.e. ‘SMOKE’; Testing sensitivities & simulating WRAP ‘96 fire emissions; Compare simulated emissions with WRAP ’96 Fire Emissions results; Adding smoke emissions into regional modeling (REMSAD & CMAQ); Finding adequate input data for years since 1996.Finding adequate input data for years since 1996.