### Attachment 2

### D-1 Appendix D

Emission Inventory Methodology Agricultural Irrigation Pumps - Diesel

(Updated August 2006)



### INTRODUCTION

Diesel-fueled agricultural irrigation pump engines are a significant source of emissions in California, especially during the Apri l through October growing season. The Air Resources Board (ARB) estimates that in 200 5, diesel-powered agricultural irrigation pump engines were the 8 th 

### largest source of nitrogen oxides and the 21 st


### largest source of fine particulate matter in the Sa n Joaquin Valley. For the Sacramento Valley, irrigation pump engines are the 10 th 

### largest source of nitrogen

oxides and the 22 nd 

### largest source of fine particulate matter.

Irrigation pumps are used to pump water from either wells or supply canals to the field. They are also used for a number of other pu rposes, such as discharging water from tailwater pits, ponds, lakes, etc. Booster pu mps are used to increase the water pressure for water that has already been removed fr om the source by another pump.

Pump engines can be either stationary or portable. A stationary pump engine is fixed in place; a portable pump engine is one that is mounted on a mobile piece of equipment or on skids and is moved from place to pl ace depending on the need. Both well pumps and booster pump engines can be eit her portable or stationary.

METHODS AND SOURCES

Emissions from the irrigation pump engines are esti mated by multiplying the number of pump engines by their horsepower rating, load fa ctor, annual operating hours, and
emission factor.

The basic equation for calculating the emission of agricultural irrigation pump engines is:

E y 

### = Σ

Pop ∗ 

### EF ∗ 

### Hrs ∗ 

### HP ∗ 

### %Load EMISSION INVENTORY SOURCE CATEGORY Fuel Combustion / Food and Agricultural Proce ssing

EMISSION INVENTORY CODES (CES CODES) AND DESCRIPTIO N

052-042-1200-0000 Agricultural Irrigation I.C. Engines – Diesel/Disti llate

### D-2

where

E = pollutant specific emissions (tons per year of NOx, HC, CO 2 

### , and diesel PM) y = inventory year Pop = population of diesel agricultural irri gation pump engines EF = emission factor (units of g/bhp-hr) Hrs = average annual use in hours HP = average brake horsepower of engine %Load = average engine load factor

Population The 2003 US Department of Agriculture Farm and Ranc h Irrigation Survey (FRIS) (reference 1) stated that there are 83,216 electric or fuel-powered irrigation pumps in California, of which 12,535 (or approximately 14.1 percent) are powered with diesel engines. Assuming that well and booster pump engin es are powered by the various fuels at the same relative amounts as the general p ump engine population, 8,721 of the 12,535 diesel engine pumps are well pumps and t he remaining 3,814 pumps are booster pumps, performing such tasks as discharging water from tailwater pits.

For inventory purposes, it is necessary to allocate pump engine populations among the various counties, air basins, and districts of California. This is normally done by one of two methods: the bottom-up method uses data bases of individual pump locations to determine where in the state pumps are located; and the top-down method takes a statewide total and uses a surrogate (such as the amount of irrigated acres in a given area) to estimate the pump populat ion in that area. The bottom-up method is usually preferred, but requires extensive databases that are often not available. The top-down method is less specific, b ut is a more straightforward

calculation.

Because of the limited amount of data on individual pump locations, this methodology uses a hybrid approach and uses both bo ttom-up and top-down methods to allocate pumps (and therefore pump engin es) statewide. To the extent possible, district data was used to allocate the nu mber of stationary and portable pump engines to specific areas of the state. Where district data was not available or lacking in specificity, top-down estimates were mad e of pump engine locations.

Bottom-Up Inventories Used A database of well and lift pump engines in the Sac ramento Ozone Non Attainment area (reference 2) shows 1,032 pump engines in that area; Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD staff estimate an additional 132 pump engines (both stationary and portable) that were not surveyed. The Sacramento Non-Attainm ent area includes all of Sacramento, Solano, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and po rtions of Placer and Sutter Counties. In total, it is estimated that there are 1,164 diesel irrigation pump engines
in the Sacramento Non-attainment area. The 132 add itional pump engines

### D-3

estimated by Sacramento Metro AQMD staff were assig ned to counties within the non-attainment area using the top-down methods desc ribed below.

The South Coast AQMD surveyed farm operators in the ir district in January 2005 and again in 2006 to determine the number and size of irrigation pump engines. Results of these surveys demonstrated that that the re are 12 portable and 6 stationary diesel pump engines in the South Coast Air Basin (reference 3). For the purposes of this inventory, the portable engines we re assumed to be booster pump engines and the stationary pump engines were assume d to be on well pumps. Because the survey did not include information on t he specific county engines were located in, they were attributed to the counties in the South Coast Air Basin by top-down methods as described below.

Top-Down Inventories Used Top-down methods were used to allocate pump engine populations to all remaining areas of the state. Surrogates to allocate well pu mp engines and booster pump engine populations were developed using 2000 U.S. G eological Survey (USGS) data on the amount of ground and surface water withdrawa ls (reference 4). Ground water withdrawals were used to allocate well pump engine populations. USGS data on the amount of surface water withdrawals for agriculture was used to allocate booster pump engines by county. Because some surface water irrigation is done by gravity and thus does not require any pumping of any kind ( for example, in rice fields), the amount of surface water withdrawals was multiplied by the ratio of sprinkler and drip irrigation acreage to total acreage irrigated by sp rinkler, drip, and surface irrigation to estimate the potential gravity irrigation for a giv en county. Data on irrigation acreage by type was obtained from USGS (reference 4). Alth ough surface irrigation can be accomplished by either gravity or pumping, no compr ehensive regional data was available to estimate the proportion of surface irr igation that is pumped.

For counties split between air basins or non-attain ment areas, GIS data on irrigated acreage developed by the California Department of W ater Resources (reference 5) was used to estimate the proportions of pump engine s in the split portions of a county.

All 18 estimated pump engines in the South Coast Ai r Basin and the 132 additional engines in the Sacramento Non-Attainment Area were allocated to counties within the respective regions using the surrogates describ ed above.

Estimation of the split of stationary and portable pump engines by county was done based upon a methodology developed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton for the OFFROAD model (reference 6). This methodology was based up on interviews with engine manufacturers (DDC, Caterpillar, Cummins, and Deutz ) and equipment manufacturers (Stewart & Stevenson and Valley Diese l) which suggested that the majority of generator, pump, and compressor engines greater than 100 horsepower were stationary. Table D-1 defines the percentages of portable and stationary engines by horsepower that were developed as a resu lt of this work.

### D-4 Table D-1 – Portable vs. Stationary Engine Distribution

Horsepower Rating Percent

Portable Percent

Stationary

0-25 100% 0%

26-50 90 10

51-120 70 30

121-175 20 80

176-250 15 85

251-500 10 90

501-750 10 90

>750 10 90



### Table D-2 (on Page D-5) summarizes the resulting pu mp engines population used
for the emissions estimates.

### D-5 Table D-2 – Estimated 2003 Diesel Agricultural Irri gation

Pump Engine Population

District Portable Stationary Total
Amador County APCD 5 12 17
Antelope Valley APCD 2 17 19
Bay Area AQMD 49 98 147
Butte County AQMD 183 304 487
Calaveras County AQMD 1 3 4
Colusa County APCD 98 228 327
El Dorado County APCD 4 7 11

Feather River AQMD 214 315 529
Glenn County APCD 109 177 286

Great Basin Unified APCD 46 102 148
Imperial County APCD 46 69 115
Kern County APCD 4 11 15
Lake County AQMD 7 21 28
Lassen County APCD 48 121 169
Mariposa County APCD 0 1 1
Mendocino County AQMD 8 16 24
Modoc County APCD 35 72 107
Mojave Desert AQMD 0 2 2
Monterey Bay Unified APCD 161 513 674

North Coast Unified APCD 20 45 64

Northern Sierra AQMD 19 31 50
Northern Sonoma County APCD 7 12 20
Placer County APCD 27 34 61
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 35 65 101
San Diego County APCD 74 104 178
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 2092 4965 7057
San Luis Obispo County APCD 32 92 124
Santa Barbara County APCD 75 165 241
Shasta County AQMD 33 81 114
Siskiyou County APCD 87 161 248

South Coast AQMD 12 6 18
Tehama County APCD 60 135 195
Tuolumne County APCD 1 2 3
Ventura County APCD 44 100 145

Yolo/Solano AQMD 238 570 808

Statewide 3879 8656 12535



### Horsepower Distribution Where available, district data was used to define p ump engine horsepower. Information on horsepower ratings of 1,032 engines from the Sacramento
Non-Attainment Area and South Coast AQMD was used t o allocate pump engines

### D-6

for these areas. Also, Carl Moyer Program data for approximately 1,300 pump engines replaced between 1997 and 2003 was used to estimate emissions for engines in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Montere y Unified local air district jurisdictions.

To estimate the horsepower of pump engine populatio ns across the state where no specific information was available, the minimum hor sepower required to move water for irrigation was calculated. Where engine specif ic horsepower was available, comparisons were made between actual engine horsepo wer data and the estimated horsepower to ensure that the estimated horsepower profiles were reasonable

estimates.

Three equations define the brake horsepower require d to pump a given amount of

water:

Equation 1:

PH VH FH SH TDH +

+ + =

Where: TDH = Total Dynamic Head (feet) SH = Total Static Head (feet) (total vertical dista nce pump must lift water) FH = Friction Head (feet) (pressure head loss due to friction in pipes) VH = Velocity Head (feet) (energy imparted to water to get it in motion; usually negligible) PH = Pressure Head (feet) (pressure required to ope rate the irrigation system) (1 foot of pressure = 2.31 pounds per square inch) 

### Equation 2:

3960 / * TDH Q WHP =

Where:

WHP = Water Horse Power Q = Flow Rate in gallons per minute TDH = Total Dynamic Head (feet; from equation 1)) 

### Equation 3: ) * * * /( DRE

LF DE PE WHP BHP =

Where: BHP = Brake Horsepower WHP = Water Horsepower (from equation 2) PE = Pump Efficiency (percent) DE = Drive Efficiency (percent)

LF = Load Factor DRE = Relative Efficiency of Diesel Engines compare d to Electric Motors



### Well Pumps The total static head for well pumps is the depth t o water for a well plus the drawdown (the lowering of the water table as a result of the pumped water). The average depth to water was obtained from USGS for over 10,000 wel ls in California (reference 7). A

drawdown of 50 feet was assumed for wells with wate r depths of less than 500 feet; a drawdown of 100 feet was assumed for deeper wells. The depth of pump drawdowns can vary from well to well based on location and qu ality of the well. In general the drawdown of a well should be negligible. However, in practice the distance can change because of seasonal rain fall or pumping at a rate that exceed the ability of the

### D-7

well to refresh itself. Therefore, the maximum dra wdown is the distance between the initial water level and the top of the pump bowls f ormed by the water pumping. To compensate for this change in static head a minimum distance between the water level and the pump bowl is assumed to range from 50 to 10 0 feet depending on the depth of

the well.

Well locations were determined with GIS software, a nd only wells located within irrigated agricultural fields (as defined in the De partment of Water Resources land use data set found in reference 5) were used to determi ne horsepower. Because the USGS well database contains information on specific wells at specific locations, these data were used to determine horsepower profiles spe cific to each county, air basin,

and district.

Because pumps are purchased to accomplish a wide va riety of tasks, a pressure head of 75 pounds per square inch (psi) was assumed as an upper bound of typical operating pressures. This pressure would be typica l of that found in a booster pump
that lifts the water an additional 10 feet once the water has reached the surface and pressurizes a sprinkler system such as rainmakers.

Table D-3 lists the parameters used to calculate ho rsepower profiles for well pump engines. Data on flow rates and the static head of booster pumps were obtained from the 2003 FRIS (reference 1). Friction head was est imated at 2.54 feet, based on data contained in publication by the National Resources Conservation Service (reference 8), which represents the friction impart ed by a flow rate of 900 gallons per minute through 100 feet of steel 8-inch diameter pi pe. This value was selected as a mid-range estimate of friction loss. Friction head varies with the length of irrigation pipe, flow rate, and the diameter of pipe and can r ange between near zero to well over 20 feet for high flow rates and lengthy pipes.

Table D-3 – Parameters Used to Calculate Horsepower of

Irrigation Pump Engines

Booster Pumps

Parameter Well Pump Tailwater Pump Pond/Lake

Discharge Relift

Static Head Average Depth to

Water 11 20 19

Friction Head (feet) 2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54

Pressure Head (psi) 75 75 75 75

Flow Rate (gpm) 802 450-4937 450-4376 450-

5277 Pump Efficiency 86% 80% 80% 80%
Drive Efficiency 85% 95% 95% 95%

### D-8

The pump efficiency can vary between 70 and 90 perc ent depending on the type, size, and number of stages. A pump efficiency of 86 perc ent was assumed for these calculations. The drive efficiency is the efficien cy of the drive between the engine and the pump itself; it varies between 70 percent and 1 00 percent depending on the method used to connect the motor and the pump. For these calculations, a drive efficiency of 85 percent was used. The relative ef ficiency of diesel engines compared to electric motors is about 75 percent; that is, an electric motor needs to be only 75 percent as powerful as a diesel engine to perfor m the same amount of work.

Table D-4 lists the average estimated horsepower an d the range of horsepower used to calculate emissions. This data was used only wh en districts did not provide specific data. The bottom-up data for the Sacramento Non-At tainment Area has an average horsepower of 147 hp for well pump engines, which c ompares favorably with the 149 hp/157 hp estimates for engines in the Yolo/Sol ano AQMD and the Sacramento Metro AQMD local air districts. The average horsep ower of the engines replaced under the Carl Moyer Program for the San Joaquin Va lley is 197 hp, which is very close to the 196 hp estimate in Table D-4 for the S an Joaquin Unified APCD. In 1996, Sonoma Technology (reference 9) surveyed San Joaqui n Valley farmers on their irrigation pumps and showed an average horsepower o f 161 hp for diesel engines. However, this average was based on only 35 response s out of 368 qualified respondents.

Table D-4 – Estimated Horsepower of Diesel Well Pump Engines 1

District Average Minimum Maximum Bay Area AQMD 148 104 248 Butte County AQMD 129 102 157 Colusa County APCD 141 116 189

Feather River AQMD 144 99 190 Glenn County APCD 132 103 162 Imperial County APCD 114 98 205 Monterey Bay Unified APCD 149 112 187 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 157 98 203 San Diego County APCD 130 56 305 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 196 76 705 San Luis Obispo County APCD 162 100 346 Santa Barbara County APCD 151 63 446

South Coast AQMD 180 100 363 Ventura County APCD 181 98 401

Yolo/Solano AQMD 149 103 211 Statewide Average 184 56 705
1. Statewide average assigned to areas without dat a

### D-9

Booster Pumps Data to calculate booster pump engine horsepower pr ofiles is summarized in Table D-3. All parameters except for the pressure head and friction head are average
values obtained from Tables 19 and 20 of the 2003 F arm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. Table D-5 summarizes the horsepower profiles of the three types of booster pump engines.

Table D-5 – Estimated Horsepower of Diesel Booster Pump Engines

Type Percent

of Type Calculated

HP

Tailwater 46% 51

Tailwater 23% 85

Tailwater 18% 141

Tailwater 3% 197

Tailwater 6% 282

Tailwater 3% 556 Tailwater Average 111

Pond/Lake 10% 40

Pond/Lake 19% 66

Pond/Lake 9% 111

Pond/Lake 12% 155

Pond/Lake 37% 221

Pond/Lake 12% 387

Pond/Lake Average 176

Relift 21% 53

Relift 19% 88

Relift 17% 147

Relift 16% 205

Relift 21% 294

Relift 4% 620 Relift Average 177



### Activity The average annual usage of diesel irrigation pump engines is assumed to be 1,000 hours. Data on electrical use for Pacific Ga s and Electric small and large agricultural electric rate payers indicates that av erage pumping hours may have ranged from 187 to 4,569 for year 2003 (PG&E, 2004) . The 2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey indicates that the average hours of operation of well pump engines was 1,016 hours. Finally, analysis of irrigation p ump engines replaced under the Carl Moyer Program shows that the average pump usag e is about 1,000 hours.

Age Distribution The average useful life of an irrigation pump engin e is about 20 years; that is, half of the engines that were purchased 20 years ago will s till be in operation. Engines

### D-10

replaced under the Carl Moyer Program were as old a s 61 years but averaged 18 years of age. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers has estimated the average agricultural engine is used 20,000 hours (A SAE, 2005). At an average annual usage of 1,000 hours, 20 years is a reasonab le estimate of useful life. The actual age of irrigation pump engines was avail able for 1,032 engines in the Sacramento Non-Attainment area and the 1,300 pump e ngines replaced through the Carl Moyer Program from 1997 through 2003. For all other pump engines, an age distribution was calculated using the methodology u sed in the ARB OFFROAD model. Table D-6 shows the base year age distribut ion. The OFFROAD age distribution methodology takes into account an “S”- shaped scrappage curve and historic diesel engine populations reported in the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys for the years 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998, and 2003. Fo r all other years within the complete 40 year time span, the average yearly grow th between the years 1984 and 2003 was assumed. (Note: for future years, differ ent growth rates are assumed and will be discussed in the “Growth” section).

### D-11 Table D-6 – Base Year Age Distribution of Diesel Irrigation Pump Engines

Age Model Year Percent

0 2003 8.3%

1 2002 7.7%

2 2001 7.5%

3 2000 7.2%

4 1999 3.1%

5 1998 3.0%

6 1997 2.8%

7 1996 2.6%

8 1995 4.4%

9 1994 4.3%

10 1993 4.1%

11 1992 3.9%

12 1991 3.7%

13 1990 3.5%

14 1989 4.5%

15 1988 4.3%

16 1987 4.0%

17 1986 3.7%

18 1985 2.5%

19 1984 2.9%

20 1983 2.4%

21 1982 1.5%

22 1981 1.3%

23 1980 1.1%

24 1979 1.0%

25 1978 0.8%

26 1977 0.7%

27 1976 0.6%

28 1975 0.5%

29 1974 0.4%

30 1973 0.4%

31 1972 0.3%

32 1971 0.2%

33 1970 0.2%

34 1969 0.2%

35 1968 0.1%

36 1967 0.1%

37 1966 0.1%

38 1965 0.1%

39 1964 0.1%

40 1963 0.0%

### D-12

Load Factor The load factor assumed for agricultural irrigation pump engines was 65 percent. This figure was based on extensive discussions with engine dealers, manufacturers, and irrigation experts.

Emission Factors Emission factors for CO, hydrocarbons, NOx, PM, and CO 2 

### were used to estimate
emissions. These emission factors are from the OFF ROAD model and are based upon source tests of engines. The OFFROAD emission factors are in three parts: the zero hour emission factor; the base emission ra te for a new engine; and a deterioration factor, which is dependant on the cum ulative number of hours an engine has been in operation. The final emission f actor is the zero hour emission factor plus the deterioration factor times the cumu lative engine use (in hours). Because engines can only deteriorate a certain amou nt before they cease to operate, deterioration was capped at the average us eful life of the engine, or 20 years (20,000 hours). These emission factors ar e summarized in Table D-7.

OFFROAD diesel emission factors require adjustment for calculation of TOG: hydrocarbon emissions must be multiplied by a facto r of 1.44 to get TOG.
OFFROAD emission factors for NOx and PM also need t o be corrected for the

difference between the fuels the factors were devel oped with and the fuels actually
used in California. These fuel correction factors are specific for the year of emission estimates, the model year of the equipment, and the horsepower of the equipment. For NOx, the fuel correction factor varies between 0.93 and 1; for PM, the fuel
correction factor varies between 0.72 and 1.0. For ROG, the fuel correction factor is

0.72 for diesel fuel.

### D-13 Table D-7 – Diesel Emission Factors

(g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 )

HP Year HC HC det CO CO det NOX NOX det PM PM det

26 - 50 <= 1987 1.84 2.35E-04 5 5.13E-04 7 1.05E-04 0.76 5.8 9E-05

26 - 50 1988 - 1998 1.8 2.30E-04 5 5.13E-04 6.9 1.04E-04 0. 76 5.89E-05

26 - 50 1999 - 2003 1.45 1.85E-04 4.1 4.20E-04 5.55 1.03E- 04 0.6 4.65E-05

26 - 50 2004 0.64 9.80E-05 3.27 3.34E-04 5.1 9.33E-05 0.43 3 .36E-05

26 - 50 2005 0.37 6.90E-05 3 3.05E-04 4.95 9.67E-05 0.38 2.9 3E-05

26 - 50 2006 - 2007 0.24 5.45E-05 2.86 2.90E-04 4.88 9.83E -05 0.35 2.72E-05

26 - 50 2008 - 2012 0.1 4.00E-05 2.72 2.76E-04 4.8 1.00E-0 4 0.16 1.22E-05

26 - 50 2013 - 2020 0.1 4.00E-05 2.72 2.76E-04 2.9 6.04E-0 5 0.01 1.11E-06

51 - 120 <= 1987 1.44 6.66E-05 4.8 1.27E-04 13 3.01E-04 0.8 4 6.11E-05

51 - 120 1988 - 1997 0.99 4.58E-05 3.49 9.23E-05 8.75 2.02 E-04 0.69 5.02E-05

51 - 120 1998 - 2003 0.99 4.58E-05 3.49 9.23E-05 6.9 1.60E -04 0.69 5.02E-05

51 - 120 2004 0.46 3.33E-05 3.23 8.55E-05 5.64 1.03E-04 0.3 9 2.85E-05

51 - 120 2005 0.28 2.92E-05 3.14 8.33E-05 5.22 8.40E-05 0.2 9 2.12E-05

51 - 120 2006 - 2007 0.19 2.71E-05 3.09 8.21E-05 5.01 7.45 E-05 0.24 1.76E-05

51 - 120 2008 - 2011 0.1 2.50E-05 3.05 8.10E-05 2.89 3.80E -05 0.2 1.45E-05

51 - 120 2012 0.09 2.31E-05 3.05 8.10E-05 2.53 3.33E-05 0.0 7 4.96E-06

51 - 120 2013 - 2014 0.09 2.31E-05 3.05 8.10E-05 2.53 3.33 E-05 0.01 9.33E-07

51 - 120 2015 - 2020 0.07 1.74E-05 3.05 8.10E-05 1.4 1.84E -05 0.01 9.33E-07

121 - 175 <= 1969 1.32 6.11E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 14 3.24E-04 0. 77 5.60E-05

121 - 175 1970 - 1971 1.1 5.09E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 13 3.01E-0 4 0.66 4.80E-05

121 - 175 1972 - 1979 1 4.63E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 12 2.78E-04 0 .55 4.00E-05

121 - 175 1980 - 1984 0.94 4.35E-05 4.3 1.14E-04 11 2.54E- 04 0.55 4.00E-05

121 - 175 1985 - 1987 0.88 4.07E-05 4.2 1.11E-04 11 2.54E- 04 0.55 4.00E-05

121 - 175 1988 - 1996 0.68 3.15E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 8.17 1.89 E-04 0.38 2.76E-05

121 - 175 1997 - 2002 0.68 3.15E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 6.9 1.60E -04 0.38 2.76E-05

121 - 175 2003 0.33 2.79E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 5.26 9.64E-05 0.2 4 1.70E-05

121 - 175 2004 0.22 2.63E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 4.72 7.52E-05 0.1 9 1.35E-05

121 - 175 2005 - 2006 0.16 2.57E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 4.44 6.46 E-05 0.16 1.18E-05

121 - 175 2007 - 2011 0.1 2.50E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 2.45 3.20E -05 0.14 1.00E-05

121 - 175 2012 - 2014 0.09 2.17E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 2.27 2.96 E-05 0.01 4.67E-07

121 - 175 2015 - 2020 0.05 1.17E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 0.27 3.56 E-06 0.01 4.67E-07

176 - 250 <= 1969 1.32 6.11E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 14 3.24E-04 0. 77 5.60E-05

176 - 250 1970 - 1971 1.1 5.09E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 13 3.01E-0 4 0.66 4.80E-05

176 - 250 1972 - 1979 1 4.63E-05 4.4 1.16E-04 12 2.78E-04 0 .55 4.00E-05

176 - 250 1980 - 1984 0.94 4.35E-05 4.3 1.14E-04 11 2.54E- 04 0.55 4.00E-05

176 - 250 1985 - 1987 0.88 4.07E-05 4.2 1.11E-04 11 2.54E- 04 0.55 4.00E-05

176 - 250 1988 - 1995 0.68 3.15E-05 2.7 7.14E-05 8.17 1.89 E-04 0.38 2.76E-05

176 - 250 1996 - 2002 0.32 1.48E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 6.25 1.4 5E-04 0.15 7.96E-06

176 - 250 2003 0.19 2.09E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 5 9.05E-05 0.12 6 .51E-06

176 - 250 2004 0.14 2.30E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 4.58 7.23E-05 0. 11 6.03E-06

176 - 250 2005 - 2006 0.12 2.40E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 4.38 6.3 3E-05 0.11 5.79E-06

176 - 250 2007 - 2010 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 2.45 3.18 E-05 0.11 5.59E-06

176 - 250 2011 - 2013 0.07 1.83E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 1.36 1.7 7E-05 0.01 4.55E-07

176 - 250 2014 - 2020 0.05 1.17E-05 0.92 2.43E-05 0.27 3.5 6E-06 0.01 4.55E-07

### D-14 Table D-7 – Diesel Emission Factors (Continued)

(g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 ) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr 2 )

HP Year HC HC det CO CO det NOX NOX det PM PM det

251 - 500 <= 1969 1.26 4.39E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 14 2.33E-04 0. 74 3.93E-05

251 - 500 1970 - 1971 1.05 3.66E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 13 2.16E- 04 0.63 3.34E-05

251 - 500 1972 - 1979 0.95 3.31E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 12 2.00E- 04 0.53 2.81E-05

251 - 500 1980 - 1984 0.9 3.14E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 11 1.83E-0 4 0.53 2.81E-05

251 - 500 1985 - 1987 0.84 2.93E-05 4.1 8.12E-04 11 1.83E- 04 0.53 2.81E-05

251 - 500 1988 - 1995 0.68 2.37E-05 2.7 5.35E-05 8.17 1.36 E-04 0.38 2.02E-05

251 - 500 1996 - 2000 0.32 1.12E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 6.25 1.0 4E-04 0.15 7.96E-06

251 - 500 2001 0.19 1.95E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.95 7.34E-05 0. 12 6.51E-06

251 - 500 2002 0.14 2.22E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.51 6.32E-05 0. 11 6.03E-06

251 - 500 2003 - 2004 0.12 2.36E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.29 5.8 1E-05 0.11 5.79E-06

251 - 500 2005 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4 5.30E-05 0.11 5. 55E-06

251 - 500 2006 - 2010 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 2.45 3.18 E-05 0.11 5.55E-06

251 - 500 2011 - 2013 0.07 1.83E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 1.36 1.7 7E-05 0.01 4.55E-07

251 - 500 2014 - 2020 0.05 1.17E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 0.27 3.5 6E-06 0.01 4.55E-07

501 - 750 <= 1969 1.26 4.39E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 14 2.33E-04 0. 74 3.93E-05

501 - 750 1970 - 1971 1.05 3.66E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 13 2.16E- 04 0.63 3.34E-05

501 - 750 1972 - 1979 0.95 3.31E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 12 2.00E- 04 0.53 2.81E-05

501 - 750 1980 - 1984 0.9 3.14E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 11 1.83E-0 4 0.53 2.81E-05

501 - 750 1985 - 1987 0.84 2.93E-05 4.1 8.12E-04 11 1.83E- 04 0.53 2.81E-05

501 - 750 1988 - 1995 0.68 2.37E-05 2.7 5.35E-05 8.17 1.36 E-04 0.38 2.02E-05

501 - 750 1996 - 2001 0.32 1.12E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 6.25 1.0 4E-04 0.15 7.96E-06

501 - 750 2002 0.19 1.95E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.95 7.34E-05 0. 12 6.51E-06

501 - 750 2003 0.14 2.22E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.51 6.32E-05 0. 11 6.03E-06

501 - 750 2004 - 2005 0.12 2.36E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.29 5.8 1E-05 0.11 5.79E-06

501 - 750 2006 - 2010 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 2.45 3.18 E-05 0.11 5.55E-06

501 - 750 2011 - 2013 0.07 1.83E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 1.36 1.7 7E-05 0.01 4.55E-07

501 - 750 2014 - 2020 0.05 1.17E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 0.27 3.5 6E-06 0.01 4.55E-07

751 - 9999 <= 1969 1.26 4.39E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 14 2.33E-04 0 .74 3.93E-05

751 - 9999 1970 - 1971 1.05 3.66E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 13 2.16E -04 0.63 3.34E-05

751 - 9999 1972 - 1979 0.95 3.31E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 12 2.00E -04 0.53 2.81E-05

751 - 9999 1980 - 1984 0.9 3.14E-05 4.2 8.32E-04 11 1.83E- 04 0.53 2.81E-05

751 - 9999 1985 - 1987 0.84 2.93E-05 4.1 8.12E-04 11 1.83E -04 0.53 2.81E-05

751 - 9999 1988 - 1999 0.68 1.12E-05 2.7 5.35E-05 8.17 1.3 6E-04 0.38 2.02E-06

751 - 9999 2000 - 2005 0.32 1.12E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 6.25 1. 04E-04 0.15 7.96E-06

751 - 9999 2006 0.19 1.95E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.95 7.34E-05 0 .12 6.51E-06

751 - 9999 2007 0.14 2.22E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.51 6.32E-05 0 .11 6.03E-06

751 - 9999 2008 - 2009 0.12 2.36E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.29 5. 81E-05 0.11 5.79E-06

751 - 9999 2010 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 4.08 5.30E-05 0. 11 5.55E-06

751 - 9999 2011 - 2014 0.1 2.50E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 2.36 3.0 6E-05 0.06 2.78E-06

751 - 9999 2015 - 2020 0.05 1.17E-05 0.92 1.82E-05 2.36 3. 06E-05 0.02 1.11E-06

### D-15 Growth In April, 2005, the ARB agricultural advisory commi ttee approved a set of growth factors for various types of agricultural equipment . For most categories, including irrigation pump engines, the growth factor selected was irrigated acreage, as collected by the California Department of Conservat ion’s Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program for the years 1996-2002 (reference 12). These growth factors are defined by county for the San Joaquin Valley; an av erage is used for the rest of the State. Table D-8 presents these growth factors. W ith the exception of Madera and Merced counties, the growth of irrigated acreage is declining.

Since usage of diesel agricultural irrigation pump engines is not only defined by the amount of agricultural acreage, but also by market forces including energy costs, the growth rate of these engines will be revisited in f uture years as the USDA publishes new Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys. These surve ys are performed approximately every five years.

Table D-8 – Growth Rates by County

County Name Growth Factor

(per year)

Fresno -0.73%

Kern -0.33%
Kings -0.14%

Madera 0.20%

Merced 0.03%
San Joaquin -0.32%

Stanislaus -0.12%

Tulare -0.62%

All Other

Counties -0.26%



### To calculate emissions growth for future years, the base year population was grown using the growth factors described above using the methodology used for the ARB OFFROAD model. Because the number of diesel irriga tion engines increased dramatically between 1998 and 2003, the base year a ge distribution contains a large percentage of late model engines that declines in f uture years as these engines are

retired.

### D-16

RESULTS

Table D-9 shows the statewide emissions for the bas e year (2003) by local air district for all diesel pump engines. More than half of the emissions of diesel irrigation pump engines are in the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, due to both the large number of pump engines in that district and because wells on the west side of the district tend to be very deep and therefore require much lar ger engines. Table D-10 shows the statewide emissions by horsepower and by pump e ngine portability. About
two-thirds of the statewide emissions are from stat ionary pump engines based on the Booz-Hamilton assumption presented in table D-1. T able D-11 shows the forecasted statewide emissions (does not include the benefits of the regulation). Emissions decline over time because of the negative growth ra te which reflects the disappearance of agricultural land in California an d because as time goes on, existing federal off-road compression ignition engi ne certification standards result in the replacement of older, dirtier engines with newe r, cleaner engines. By 2025, emissions of all pollutants (except CO 2 

### ) are less than half those seen in 2003.

### D-17

Table D-9 – 2003 Diesel Agricultural Irrigation Pum p Engine Emissions By Local Air District (tons per day)

District Name CO CO2 DPM HC NOx PM PM10 PM25 ROG SOx TOG Amador County APCD 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Antelope Valley APCD 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Bay Area AQMD 0.2 28.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Butte County AQMD 0.7 85.4 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Calaveras County AQMD 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colusa County APCD 0.4 57.6 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0. 2 El Dorado County APCD 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Feather River AQMD 0.7 86.5 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0. 2 Glenn County APCD 0.4 48.7 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Great Basin Unified APCD 0.2 29.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.1 Imperial County APCD 0.1 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Kern County APCD 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake County AQMD 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lassen County APCD 0.3 34.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0. 1 Mariposa County APCD 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Mendocino County AQMD 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Modoc County APCD 0.2 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Mojave Desert AQMD 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monterey Bay Unified APCD 0.8 122.0 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3

North Coast Unified APCD 0.1 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0
Northern Sierra AQMD 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Northern Sonoma County APCD 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Placer County APCD 0.1 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 0.1 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 San Diego County APCD 0.3 32.9 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0. 0 0.1 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 11.2 1451.2 1.1 2.4 22.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 2.1 0.1 3.5 San Luis Obispo County APCD 0.2 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Santa Barbara County APCD 0.3 42.9 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .1 0.0 0.1 Shasta County AQMD 0.2 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 1 Siskiyou County APCD 0.4 48.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
South Coast AQMD 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tehama County APCD 0.3 39.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0. 1 Tuolumne County APCD 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Ventura County APCD 0.2 29.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .1
Yolo/Solano AQMD 0.9 143.2 0.1 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4

Statewide Total 18.7 2452.1 1.9 4.2 39.0 2.3 1.9 1.9 3.7 0.2 6.1

### D-18

Table D-10 – 2003 Diesel Agricultural Irrigation Pu mp Engine Emissions

By Horsepower and Portability (tons per day)

Table D-11 – Forecasted Diesel Agricultural Irrigation Pump Engine Emissions

(tons per day)

Pollutant 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020

CO 18.7 17.7 15.0 12.9 11.3

CO2 2452.1 2439.4 2407.5 2375.6 2343.7

DPM 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0

HC 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.0 2.4

NOx 39.0 37.6 32.5 26.3 19.3

PM 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.2

PM10 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0

PM25 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.0

ROG 3.7 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.1

SOx 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

TOG 6.1 5.9 5.1 4.3 3.5 Portability Horsepower CO CO2 DPM HC NOx PM PM10 PM25 ROG SOx T OG Portable 26 to 50 Horsepower 0.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Portable 51 to 120 Horsepower 1.9 231.8 0.3 0.6 4.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 Portable 121 to 175 Horsepower 1.1 162.5 0.1 0.3 2.7 0.2 0. 1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 Portable 176 to 250 Horsepower 0.5 98.8 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Portable 251 to 500 Horsepower 0.6 55.8 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Portable 501 to 750 Horsepower 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.3 563.0 0.6 1.2 9.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 1.7 Stationary 26 to 50 Horsepower 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stationary 51 to 120 Horsepower 0.8 98.5 0.1 0.3 1.7 0.2 0. 1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 Stationary 121 to 175 Horsepower 4.4 649.9 0.5 1.2 10.6 0. 6 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.7 Stationary 176 to 250 Horsepower 2.7 560.7 0.4 0.8 8.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.2 Stationary 251 to 500 Horsepower 5.6 505.3 0.3 0.7 7.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 Stationary 501 to 750 Horsepower 0.9 71.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0 .0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Stationary >751 Horsepower 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0

14.4 1889.1 1.4 3.0 29.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.6 0.1 4.4

18.7 2452.1 1.9 4.2 39.0 2.3 1.9 1.9 3.7 0.2 6.1 Portable Total

Stationary Total All Engines Total

### D-19 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D

1. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultur al Statistics Service, 2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey ( On the internet at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/fris/fris0 3.htm ) and California Well Pump Data by County (Special Request by the Ai r Resources Board),

June 2005. 2. Personal communication from Hao Quinn, Sacrament o Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 3. Personal communication from Al Baez, South Coast Air Quality Management

District 4. US Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2000 . On the internet at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html 5. California Department of Water Resources, Califo rnia Land and Water Use
Datasets. On the internet at: http://www.landwateruse.water.ca.gov/basicdata /landuse/landusesurvey.cfm 6. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Off-Road Mobile Equipment Emission Inventory

Estimate , January 1992. 7. US Geological Survey, California Ground Water Le vels. On the internet at: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/gwleve ls. 8. National Resources Conservation Service, Nationa l Engineering Handbook Part 652 – Irrigation guide , Chapter 12. On the internet at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nrcsirrig/irrig-handbo oks-part652.html 9. Sonoma Technology Incorporated, Emission Invento ry of Agricultural Internal Combustion Engines used for Irrigation in the SJVUA PCD , Final Report, STI95240-1569, August 1996. 10. PG&E, 2004. Personal Communication (email att achment), Keith Coyne, Pacific Gas and Electric, to Carol McLaughlin, ARB Stationary Source Division, 2004. 11. ASAE, 2005. Personal Communication (email) fr om Carla Miller, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, to Barbara Cook, ARB Stationary Source Division, February 9, 2005. 12. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program, California Farmland Conversion Report , on the internet at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm.