July 12, 2006/10a F ire E missions T racking S ystem White Paper

1. July 12, 2006/10aFire Emissions Tracking System White Paper Fire Emissions Joint Forum July 11-12, 2006 Portland, OR Dave Randall, Air Sciences Inc.

2. Presentation Objectives • To bring the FEJF up-to-speed with the FTS Task Team on the current thinking re: the development of the WRAP’s FETS. • For the FEJF to reach consensus on the direction the FTS Task Team will take to develop the WRAP’s FETS.

3. Presentation Outline • ID Purpose & Objectives of FETS • Review FTS Evaluation & Conclusions • Recommendations – Approach to Develop FETS • Contractual Relationship (Air Sciences/CIRA) • Preliminary Scope • Cost Estimate • Schedule

4. Purpose of WRAP FETS • Regional Haze Rule (Rule) Requirements: • 309 states – FETS is part of the GCVTC recommendations • 308 states – FETS is likely an important tool for the effective management of fire sources: • inventory fire location & type (natural or anthropogenic) • calculate & inventory fire emissions • data influences choices on planned burns

5. Objectives of WRAP FETS • Consistently track fire activity & emissions • Accommodate regional coordination • Create fire emission inventories • Apply Emission Reduction Techniques (ERT) • Implement Annual Emission Goals (AEG) • FETS data available to States/Tribes for Regional Haze planning

6. FTS Evaluation ProjectCursory Overview • Is there an existing FTS system that will satisfy WRAP’s FTS requirement? • Review Web-based & historical systems • Primary emphasis: real-time data import and export capabilities. • Evaluation made from the perspective of an FTS user.

7. FTS Evaluation Goals • Evaluate existing FTS and provide: • A feasibility assessment of existing systems. • An analysis of modifying each system to include WRAP needs. • Estimate resources needed to modify the system to meet the required elements for tracking prescribed fires.

8. Elements Date of Burn Burn Location Area of Burn Fuel Type Pre-Burn Fuel Loading Type of Burn Nat/Anth Annual Emission Goal Info AEG (addl) Projections Emissions Emissions (addl) System Features Real time data import and export Web based Can info easily be shared between states GIS/mapping capabilities Conventional system language & design Important Characteristics Straightforward queries Straightforward reporting Important Elements for Regional Coordination Basic Elements of FTS Policy KEY FEATURES OF WRAP FTS

9. Max Possible Data Elements Critical Elements Evaluated Points Task 2.A. Basic Data Elements Burn Date Start date; end date 10 Burn Location Latitude/longitude 10 Burn Area Size of burn (acres); fuel type 10 Components related to Annual Emission Goals 15 Emission Reduction Techniques Any ERT element 5 5 Bonus Ranking Total for Basic Data Elements 55 Task 2.B. System Information Web-based, exporting capabilities 15 Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications 10 Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting 10 Task 2.E. Optional Modules 5 Task 2.F. Interface and/or Data Exchange 5 Total for System-Related Features 45 Total Maximum Possible Score 100 Table 1 – Feasibility Study Point System

10. Table 2 - FTS Evaluations Airshed Smoke Nez South Max Management Management Perce Carolina Florida USDA Smoke Possible San Joaquin System Database Tracking Tracking Tracking Management Data Elements Points Valley (MT/ID) (NM) System System System System Task 2.A. Basic Data Elements Burn Date 10 3 5 7 5 5 5 5 Burn Location 10 7 8 8 2 9 10 8 Burn Area 10 9 7 7 9 9 9 6 Components related to Annual Emission Goals 15 12 4 13 10 10 10 10 Emission Reduction Techniques 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Bonus Ranking 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 Total for Basic Data Elements 55 33 29 40 25 33 32 35 Task 2.B. System Information 15 6 10 12 4 4 4 12 Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications 10 3 6 8 10 5 3 10 Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting 10 4 4 8 0 4 4 10 Task 2.E. Optional Modules 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 Task 2.F. Interface and/or Data Exchange 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total for System-Related Features 45 13 20 31 19 13 11 32 Total Maximum Possible Score 100 46 49 71 44 46 43 67

11. Table 3 – WRAP FTS Requirements

15. Recommendations - Method • Extended the Technical Modifications assessment to Post-Modification period. • By dedicating a estimated amount of labor, how would each FTS perform as the WRAP’s FTS? • Tabulated this assessment and used results to inform the Project Team’s recommendations.

18. After Preferred Modifications After Preferred Modifications After Preferred Modifications After Essential Modifications After Essential Modifications After Essential Modifications Table 4 - FTS Post Modification As-Is As-Is As-Is Analysis New Mexico MT/ID USDA 2 14 23 5 16 19 5 15 20 Total Points: 0 3 10 4 5 6 4 4 7 System Points: 2 11 13 1 11 13 1 11 13 Elements Points: Estimated Hours: 580 720 740 600 720 600 $80,000 - Estimated Cost (not incl. maintenance: $ 60,000 $ 72,000 $ 60,000 $ 78,000 $ 60,000 $110,000 Total Estimated Costs for Essential & $130,000 - $140,000 $140,000 - $170,000 $138,000 - $150,000 Preferred Modifications Total Estimated Costs Including $135,000 - $160,000 $150,000 - $190,000 $145,000 - $170,000 Optional Modifications:

19. Conclusions of FTS Evaluation • What existing FTS would work best “as-is” for the WRAP’s FTS? MT/ID FTS • Currently functioning system • Supports burn managers in Montana & Idaho • Uses SQL Server database • Meets the needs of the WRAP region • Fully functional user interface

20. Conclusions of FTS Evaluation • What existing FTS requires least amount of modification to work well as WRAP FTS? NM FTS • Upgrading Access database to SQL Server, NM FTS would be capable of meeting current & future WRAP needs • Estimated 120 labor hours to complete upgrade • Already supports limited emissions estimation (PM10) • Generates maps of burn locations • Unsupported features in existing MT/ID & USDA FTSs • Estimated 140 labor hours to implement features in NM FTS.

21. Conclusions of FTS Evaluation • What is the best case scenario WRAP FTS (most features & capabilities)? Modified version of the MT/ID FTS • Advantage because it already uses SQL Server database. • Advantage because the preferred interactive GIS system is already being designed for the MT/ID FTS

22. Conclusions of FTS Evaluation • What are the benefits of building the WRAP’ FETS from and existing FTS? • Each FTS already incorporates many of the essential features • Two systems will include preferred GIS • Time and money already spent: down-payment on building the WRAP’s FTS.

23. Conclusions of FTS Evaluation • Is there an alternative way for the WRAP to proceed with building the WRAP FTS? Commodity-based FETS • NM/FEJF specifications on super-industrial system • Programming to make it look slick & contemporary • Make an existing “Commodity” FTS • Upgrade NM to be industrial strength database • Host on existing e-commerce site (e.g., Yahoo!) • Multi-users accommodated on a Web interface • Export events to Google Earth for review and regional coordination

24. Benefits for WRAP of Developing Commodity-based FETS • The limited dollars in future WRAP grants and the effects on 2006-08 FEJF project funding • Lessons learned in the Fire EI preparation and analysis for haze planning purposes over the past several years • Plans to provide states and tribes ongoing regional technical support and data access for their haze plans • The timing needs for getting the FEJF FTS on-line and fully operational for states to be using for tracking and regional coordination, as well as to point to in their December 2007 haze SIPs.

25. Mechanical Description of WRAP’s Fire Emissions Tracking System Requested Burn Data Acquisition, Data Entry & Regional Coordination Emission Inventory Development & QC Planned RX Burn Raw Data Acquisition Data Entry & QC Burn Decisions Pre-Burn Burn/Post-Burn Mechanical Description of WRAP’s FETS

26. Mechanical Description of WRAP’s FETSneed to mod/include pieces

27. Operable FETS • Operable FETS will: • Provide real-time access to planned fire event data • Build comprehensive database of all wildland fire events • Operable FETS will not: • Provide air quality bases for ad hoc decisions of ESMP • Include a module to estimate the air quality impacts due to emissions from fire events

28. Other Operations of the FETS • Gather, compile, QC, query fire activity & emissions data for wildland fires. • Planned fire data added to FETS real-time or in advance • Data for unplanned events (wildfire) obtained after event using crawls • FETS database will require QA/QC, but minimal “ground-up” data gathering • Critical Challenge: SMP’s to optimize collection of accurate data for planned fire events

29. Recommendations: Approach • Commodity-based development of FETS • FETS attached to WRAP’s TSS • Advantages: • FETS would be built to serve specific needs of WRAP states & tribes • Fire emission inventory work integrated into TSS • ESMPs can then integrate fire data into regional haze emissions, monitoring & modeling data • Integrating FETS into TSS will support development of regional haze SIPS

30. Preliminary Scope of Work • Air Sciences • Technical & developmental lead for FETS project • ID other contractors possibly contributing to development of FETS • Work closely with Task Team assigned to project • Bring development issues to Task Team for guidance • Prepare periodic updates on project’s progress for FEJF • Work closely with Technical Director of WRAP, CIRA personnel involved in WRAP’s TSS & TSS team • CIRA: provide technical & developmental oversight for project; integrate FETS into WRAP TSS

31. Tasks for FETS Project • Documentation • Detailed Workplan • Technical support (methods, assumptions, etc) • FETS users guide

32. Tasks for FETS Project • FETS Software Development: • Database architecture • Data retrieval & input • User interface • Data QC & security • Database functionality • Queries & exports for real-time use of fire data & reporting • Commodity-based mapping routines (Google Earth) • Data reporting • Data archiving & back-up

33. Tasks for FETS Project • FETS Technical Integration to TSS • Integrate fire emissions into emission summary tools • Annual Emission Goal demonstration tool • Support Regional Haze SIP content pertaining to fire emissions • FETS Support & Maintenance • QA/QC • Data archiving & retrieval • Data reports & export files for SIP and modeling apps • System repair

34. Hours & Cost Estimate • Assumptions for preliminary estimates: • Average hourly rate for CIRA = $60/hour • Subcontractor hours would replace Air Sciences &/or CIRA hours • Hardware (if necessary), software licensing (if applicable), hosting costs: not included in current cost estimate • CIRA will charge $2,250 overhead fee (45% of the first $25,000 of Air Sciences labor billed through the subcontract.

35. Hours & Cost Estimate • Project Development Cost: • Air Sciences - $120,000 (labor) • CIRA - $37,650 (labor + overhead) • Annual Support/Maintenance Cost: • Air Sciences - $20,000/year

36. Hours & Cost Breakdown • Documentation • Air Sciences – 250 hours/$30,000 • CIRA – 40 hours/$2,400 • FETS Software Development • Air Sciences - 750 hours/$75,000 • CIRA– 160 hours/$9,600 • FETS Technical Integration to TSS • Air Sciences - 120 hours/$15,000 • CIRA– 240 hours/$14,400 • FETS Support & Maintenance • Air Sciences - 200 hours/$20,000

37. Schedule – Major Milestones • 07/15/06 – FEJF approval of approach • 08/01/06 – Signed subcontract (Air Sci/CIRA) & contract (CIRA/WGA) • 08/15/06 – Draft Project Workplan • 11/01/06 – Operational Test Version of FETS • 01/01/07 – FETS Operational, Technical Support Document & User’s Guide • 03/01/07 – TSS Fire Tools Developed

38. Summary • Recommend: • Start with a nuts-and-bolts database structure of the FETS (NM FTS) • Build a commodity-based FETS • FETS attached to WRAP’s TSS • This will support development of regional haze SIPs • Develop User’s Guide & Technical Support Documents • Request for FEJF to reach consensus on providing direction to FETS Task Team with regard to developing the FETS.

40. Reference

41. Essential Components of WRAP FTS • Minimum information required to calculate emissions, assess impacts on haze, meet requirements of Rule • Date of Burn • Burn Location • Area of Burn • Fuel Type • Pre-Burn Fuel Loading • Type of Burn • Classification: “Natural” or “Anthropogenic”