1. WRAP Wind Blown Fugitive Dust and Ammonia Emissions Updates
WRAP Regional Modeling Center
UC Riverside/ENVIRON
Presented at
RPO National Workgroup Meeting
November 4 – 6, 2003
St. Louis, Missouri

2. Project Team Fugitive Dust Gerard Mansell; ENVIRON
Martinus Wolf, Paula Fields; ERG
Jack Gillies; DRI
Mohammad Omary; UCR
Bill Barnard; MACTEC Engr. & Consulting
Michael Uhl; DAQM, Clark County, NV
Ammonia
Mark Chitjian; UCR

3. Outline Project Background & Overview Literature Review
Estimation Methodology
Agricultural Considerations
Data Sources
Summary of Assumptions
Program Implementation
Results
Recommendations

4. Background and Overview of Project
Develop General Methodology to Facilitate Future Revisions and Control Strategy Development
Develop Integrated SMOKE Processing Modules for PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions Modeling
Develop PM10 and PM2.5 Emission Inventory Applicable to the Western Region

5. Overview of Technical Approach
Categorize Vacant Land Types
Identify Wind Tunnel Emission Factors
Develop Meteorological Data
Develop Threshold Wind Velocities, Wind Events, Precipitation Events
Apply Emission Factors to Vacant Land Categories

6. Literature Review
Portable field wind tunnels have been used to investigate particle entrainment thresholds, emission potentials, and transport of sediment by wind.
Major contributions of information on:
thresholds from Gillette et al. (1980), Gillette et al. (1982), Gillette (1988), Nickling and Gillies (1989);
emission fluxes from Nickling and Gillies (1989), James et al. (2001), Columbia Plateau PM10 Program (CP3), Houser and Nickling (2001).
Key information has also come from dust emission modeling (e.g., Alfaro et al., 2003) and desert soil characterization studies (e.g., Chatenet et al., 1996).

7. Wind Tunnel Study Results: Thresholds
*(Gillette et al., 1980; Gillette et al., 1982; Gillette, 1988; Nickling & Gillies, 1989) *
Comparison between modeled relationship of threshold friction velocity and aerodynamic roughness length and wind tunnel data.

8. Wind Tunnel Study Results: Emissions
The emission flux as a function of friction velocity predicted by the Alfaro and Gomes (2001) model constrained by the four soil geometric mean diameter classes of Alfaro et al. (2003).

9. Wind Tunnel Study Results: Emissions as a function of texture
Relations between the soil types deduced from aggregate size distributions of various desert soils and soil textural categories (Chatenet et al. 1996). The “gray” highlighted textural classes indicate the 4 sediment types; the arrows indicate the pathways linking these types to the other textures. These can be linked to the North American soil texture triangle.

10. Wind Tunnel Study Results: Emissions
Comparison between model relationship for FS and CS sizes and the wind tunnel data of Nickling and Gillies (1989). Ten (out of 13) sites have a dust production potential similar to the FS model and one site (Mesa agricultural) is closely aligned with the CS model (after Alfaro et al., 2003).

11. Emission Rates by Soil Group for Stable Soils
0.035
0.03
0.025
Soil Group 1
Soil Group 2
0.02
Emission Factor (ton/acre/hour)
Soil Group 3
Soil Group 4
0.015
Soil Group 5
0.01
0.005
10-m Wind Speed (mph)

12. Emission Rates by Soil Group for Unstable Soils
0.03
0.025
0.02
Soil Group 1
Soil Group 2
Emission Factor (ton/acre/hour)
0.015
Soil Group 3
Soil Group 4
Soil Group 5
0.01
0.005
10-m Wind Speed (mph)

13. Agricultural Considerations
Non-climatic factors significantly decrease soil loss from agricultural lands
Similar approach to CARB, 1997
Five “adjustment” factors simulate these effects:
Bare soil within fields
Bare borders surrounding fields
Long-term irrigation
Crop canopy cover
Post-harvest vegetative cover (residue)

14. Canopy Cover and Residue Cover Adjustment Factor

15. Agricultural Adjustment Factor Development
New regional data collected for WRAP project:
Crop calendars with growth curves from Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2) model
Residues remaining after harvest due to conservation tillage practices from Purdue’s Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)
Irrigation events from crop budget databases
Factors applied by county/crop type, crop management zones (CMZs)

16. Data Sources Land Use/Land Cover (LULC)
Biogenic Emission Landcover Database (BELD3)
North American Land Cover Characteristics
National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
Soils Characteristics
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO)
Soil Landscape of Canada (SLC_V2)
International Soil Reference and Information Centre
Meteorological Data
1996 MM5 36-km (Wind Velocity, Precipitation, Snow/Ice, Soil Temperature)

17. Land Use/Land Cover Data
BELD3 LULC Data

20. Meteorological Data 1996 MM5 1996 Annual, hourly, gridded meteorology
36-km horizontal resolution
10-m wind speeds
Precipitation rates
Snow/ice cover flag
Soil temperature

21. Data Compilation for Land Use and Soil Types
Land use and soil texture aggregated to 12-km resolution
Major land use categories
Urban
Agricultural
Shrub and grasslands
Forest
Barren and Desert
Land use fractions from 1-km data retained as percentages
Dominate soil texture at 12-km resolution

22. Soil Texture Categorization
Standard soil types mapped to 5 major types for dust calculations
Silty Sand and Clay
Sandy Silt
Loam
Sand
Silt
STATSGO Soil Texture
Soil Texture Code
Soil Group Code
No Data
Sand 1 4
Loamy Sand 2
Sandy Loam 3
Silt Loam
Silt 5
Loam 6
Sandy Clay Loam 7
Silty Clay Loam 8
Clay Loam 9
Sandy Clay 10
Silty Clay 11
Clay 12

23. Vacant Land Stability
Windblown dust emissions affected by soil stability
Stability determination based on land types
Urban lands may be stable or unstable

24. Urban Land Stability Urban lands divided into core and boundary areas
Core = 92.67%; Boundary = 8.33%
Core urban areas:
8 % unstable
92% stable
Boundary urban areas:
30% unstable
70% stable

25. Reservoir Characteristics
Reservoirs characteristics based on stability
Stable = limited
Unstable = unlimited
Stable reservoirs are depleted within 1 hour
Unstable reservoirs are depleted within 10 hours
Reservoirs require 24 hours to recharge

26. Precipitation and Freeze Events
No dust emissions during rain events
Rainfall from MM5 at 36-km resolution
No dust emissions if snow/ice cover present
Dust emissions re-initiated:
72 hours after rain
72 hours after snow/ice meltdown
12 hours after thaw

27. Vegetative Cover Adjustments
Vegetation cover reduces dust emissions
Methodology developed for bare soil
Emissions reduction factors developed from White (2000)
Vegetation density based on land use types

28. Vegetative Cover Adjustments

29. Summary of Assumptions
Threshold velocity = 20 mph
Vacant land stability
Urban lands
Dust reservoirs
Reservoir depletion and recharge times
Precipitation, snow and freeze events
Vegetation density

30. Program Implementation
Daily/Hourly Meteorological Data
State/County, Crop Management Zone, and Soil Type, For Each 12km Cell.
Area fractions For Each 12km Cell, and Land Use For Each Area Fraction.
Agricultural Adjustment Data
Emission Rates by Soil and Wind Speed Categories

31. Agricultural Input Data
County and CMZs for 12-km grid cells
Crop area percentages for 12-km cells
Barren, border and crop fractions for BELD3 crops
Long term irrigation factors by soil type
Irrigation fraction by county and crop
Tillage fractions by crop and county
Planting and harvesting dates by crop (crop calendars)
Crop canopy cover by crop (growth curves)
Residue cover

32. Summary of Annual PM10 Emissions

33. PM10 Dust Emissions by Month

34. Monthly PM10 Emissions by Landuse Type

35. Monthly PM10 Emissions by Crop Type

36. Annual PM10 and PM2.5

37. Monthly PM10 Emissions

38. Monthly PM10 Emissions

39. Monthly PM10 Emissions

40. Monthly PM10 Emissions

41. Monthly PM10 Emissions

42. Monthly PM10 Emissions

48. Sensitivity Simulation
Evaluate impact of threshold velocity and reservoir assumptions
Extend emissions factor relations to lower wind speeds
Relax reservoir recharge assumptions:
6 hours between wind events
24 hours after rain events
24 hours after snow/ice meltdown
6 hours after thaw

49. Recommendations Methodology review and refinement
Current, detailed data to characterize vacant lands
Methodology validation with small-scale, high resolution domain
Comparison with other methodologies
Identification and evaluation of additional wind tunnel studies
Application to other domains, years

50. WRAP Ammonia Emissions Updates

51. Model Flow ArcGis Ammonia Emission Model Activity Data
Annual Inventory
-by source
-by county
Emission
Factors
Emission
Estimation
Gridded Inventory
-total NH3
-by grid cell
Meteorological Data
ArcGis
Ammonia
Emission
Model
Soils
Data
Reports
Summaries
QA/QC
Spatial and
Temporal
Allocation
NLCD
Census Data
Allocation
Association
Table
Domain
Definition

52. GIS-Based Emissions Model Development
Designed to :
treat relationship of ammonia emissions to environmental variables
incorporate high resolution spatial data (LU/LC databases; population density; geo-coded point sources)
incorporate detailed source classification schemes
Based on Arc/INFO GIS
Flexible input data sources/formats; easily modified input tabular data (activity data, EF, spatial surrogate relationships, domain definition)
Efficient processing capabilities
Modular
Intuitive user interface

53. Focus on Largest Sources
Livestock - dairy, beef, pigs, poultry, sheep, horses
Fertilizer
Soils – highly uncertain, may at time act as source or sink, potentially very large source

54. Minor Sources Mobile - on-road and off-road
Domestic - respiration, perspiration, cigarettes, pets, etc.
Landfills
Composting
Industrial
Wildfire/Ag fire

55. Spatial Allocation Point Sources – As many sources as possible
Landfills Confined Feeding Operation
Industrial Large Poultry Facilities
Compost Dairies
National Land Cover Data (NLCD)
Census Coverages – Domestic Sources
Environmental Parameters – i.e., Soil pH

56. Temporal Allocation Empirically Based Seasonal and Diurnal Profiles
Temporally Varying Environmental Parameters
Wind Speed
Air Temperature
Soil Surface Temperature

57. NLCD 30 meter resolution 21 Land Cover Classification Categories
Based on Landsat Thematic Mapper Data
Developed by Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium
USGS
EPA
Forest Service
NOAA

58. NLCD Classification Codes
11 Open Water
12 Perennial Ice/Snow
21 Low Intensity Residential
22 High Intensity Residential
23 Commercial/Industrial/Trans portation
31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
32 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
33 Transitional
41 Deciduous Forest
42 Evergreen Forest
43 Mixed Forest
51 Shrubland
61 Orchards/Vineyards/Other
71 Grasslands/Herbaceous
81 Pasture/Hay
82 Row Crops
83 Small Grains
84 Fallow
85 Urban/Recreational Grasses
91 Woody Wetlands
92 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

59. WRAP NH3 Model Main Menu

60. Emission Calculation Menu

61. Annual Gridded Domestic NH3 Emissions

62. Eleven Relevant Recently Published Papers
Literature Review
Eleven Relevant Recently Published Papers
Temporal Allocation – Sakurai and Fujita, 2002; vanHove et al., 2002; Pinder at al., 2003; Roelle and Aneja, 2001;De Visscher et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 2003
Livestock Emission Factors – Jarvis and Ledgard, 2002; Battye et al., 2003; Pinder at al., 2003Keener et al., 2001; Doorn et al., 2002; De Visscher et al., 2002
Mobile Emission Factors – Durbin et al 2002
Soil Emission Factors – Battye et al., 2003; Roelle and Aneja 2001

63. Schedule Draft 1996 NH3 modeling inventory by December 2003
Next Step: 2002 NH3 inventory