California's Efforts to Manage WFU Emissions

1. California's Efforts to Manage WFU Emissions Jeff Lindberg California Air Resources Board Interagency Air and Smoke Council May 4, 2005 jlindber@arb.ca.gov - (916) 324-8622

2. Background • WFUs • Reasons AQ is important • Reasons for our actions • Compromises lead to solutions

3. Who is Involved • 35 Local Air Districts • Primary regulatory authority to manage smoke • Approve Smoke Management Plans • Represent CA’s 58 Counties • Primary Public Contact • Federal Land Managers • Identify and implement smoke/emission mitigation measures • Primary Public Contact

4. Who is Involved (continued) • California Air Resources Board • Sets state air quality standards • Title 17 Smoke Management Program • Program oversight • Facilitate communication • U.S. EPA • Sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards • Facilitate communication

5. How California Manages Air Quality Impacts of WFU • California law treats WFUs like Prescribed Burns for smoke management purposes • Smoke Management Plans are required for all WFUs over 10 acres in size(*) • Coordination between regional Air Quality Managers and the Land Management Agencies * Some air districts require SMPs for ALL WFUs regardless of size.

6. Smoke Management Plans • Must be approved by air district in which fire is burning • Allows air quality managers to provide input into smoke/emission mitigation measures and trigger points • Land managers identify on-the-ground smoke/emission mitigation measures California Air Resources Board

7. WFU Protocol • Facilitate communication between land and air quality managers • Timelines and information needs to minimize smoke/emission impacts • Mitigation measures and trigger points developed locally to meet local conditions • Developed by land managers and local, state and federal air quality managers • Current version dated May 2004

8. What’s Still Needed • Development of Air Quality based trigger-points • Development of Emission Mitigation Measures & Control Strategies

9. Regional Efforts • San Joaquin Valley - Southern Sierra Smoke Management Working Group • Great Basin Unified APCD Efforts • Statewide Efforts to Build on WFU Protocol

10. Southern Sierra Interagency Smoke Management Group • San Joaquin Valley APCD and Land managers in Southern Sierra Nevada • Meets Regularly to discuss “burning issues” • Development of Working Plan • includes reporting requirements for all fire activities • Exploring methods to manage emissions • Seasonality – Total emission limitations • Controls based on expected meteorological conditions • Consider regional emissions from all sources, fire and non-fire – Limitations on the number of WFUs

11. Great Basins Unified APCD • Limitation of new WFUs when threshold smoke impacts are observed • Considers proximity of new fires to fire causing impacts • Allow for fires with minimal growth potential • Provides tools up front to Fire Manager when making go/no go decisions • Requirement for limiting emissions from on-going fires where impacts occur

12. Statewide Efforts • Update WFU Protocol to include Suggested Mitigation Measures ad Trigger-Points • Provide Tool-chest of control strategies • Recognize that all fires have unique conditions • Recognize that all areas have varying degrees of smoke sensitivity • Continue towards development of globally useful tools

13. Trigger Points &Mitigation Measures • Can be identified well in advance of need • Should be documented in the Smoke Management Plan • Should be appropriate for the fire, the region and the air quality conditions • Not all trigger points and mitigation measures will work in every situation

14. Potential Trigger Points • Ambient Air Quality Standard Exceedance • Should avoid exceedance • Consider regional and localized exceedances • Nuisance complaints • Locally defined threshold • Reflective of smoke level, intensity, and duration of impacts on communities

15. Potential Trigger Points(cont) • Air Quality and Meteorological Conditions • Inversion layers, drainage flow, monitored data, Fuel moistures, etc. • Cumulative Considerations • Availability of LMA manpower • Unusual events (tire fires, wildfires, etc.) • Fire Specific Changes • Daily growth, changes in fuel types, etc.

16. Potential Trigger Points(cont) • Emission Threshold • Establishment of daily, weekly or total emissions limitations • Temporal Trigger-points • Time of year / Seasonality • Time of day • Past Experience • Knowledge of fire behavior in area • Community sensitivity

17. Potential Mitigation Measures • Regional Multi-fire measures • Prioritization and limitations on number and locations of WFUs regionally • Limited Fire Suppression • black lining, bucket drops, holding actions, etc. • Management actions to re-direct fire spread • Direct towards lower fuel densities

18. Potential Mitigation Measures(cont) • Mitigation of Exposure • Educate and/or relocate sensitive persons • Management Action Based on Predicted Weather Outlook • Increase or decrease fire activity based on weather predictions • Conversion from WFU to suppression status • Should be last resort after other actions have failed to reduce emissions enough.

19. Conclusion • Communication is important • Development of emission mitigation measures control strategies is just beginning • Land managers and air districts need to work together to develop locally viable control strategies

20. Contact Jeff Lindberg California Air Resources Board 1001 I StreetSacramento,CA 95814 (916) 324-8622 jlindber@arb.ca.gov