1

July 12, 2006/10a

Fire Emissions Tracking System White Paper

Fire Emissions Joint ForumJuly 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 BurnBurn LocationArea of BurnFuel TypePre-Burn Fuel LoadingType of BurnNat/AnthAnnual Emission Goal InfoAEG (addl)ProjectionsEmissionsEmissions (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

Table 1 – Feasibility Study Point System

Data Elements Critical Elements Evaluated

Max Possible Points

Task 2.A. Basic Data ElementsBurn Date Start date; end date 10

Burn Location Latitude/longitude 10Burn Area Size of burn (acres); fuel type 10

Components related to Annual Emission Goals 15Emission Reduction Techniques Any ERT element 5

Bonus Ranking 5Total for Basic Data Elements 55

Task 2.B. System Information Web-based, exporting capabilities 15Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications 10Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting 10Task 2.E. Optional Modules 5

Task 2.F. Interface and/or Data Exchange 5Total for System-Related Features 45

Total Maximum Possible Score 100

10

Table 2 - FTS Evaluations

Data Elements

Max Possible Points

San Joaquin Valley

Airshed Management

System (MT/ID)

Smoke Management

Database (NM)

Nez Perce

Tracking System

South Carolina Tracking System

Florida Tracking System

USDA Smoke Management

SystemTask 2.A. Basic Data Elements

Burn Date 10 5 3 5 7 5 5 5Burn Location 10 7 8 8 2 9 10 8

Burn Area 10 9 9 9 6 9 7 7Components related to Annual Emission Goals 15 12 4 13 10 10 10 10

Emission Reduction Techniques 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bonus Ranking 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5

Total for Basic Data Elements 55 33 29 40 25 33 32 35Task 2.B. System Information 15 6 10 12 4 4 4 12Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications 10 3 6 8 10 5 3 10Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting 10 4 4 8 0 4 4 10Task 2.E. Optional Modules 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 0Task 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 4 - WRAP FTS RequirementsFTS Requirements Total Points: 2 1 1

Element New Mexico MT/ID USDA Assessment

What required fields are missing?

Burn hour, location of closest town, burn agency info., blackened acres, ERT emission factors, emission reductions, responsible agency

0

Burn hour, location of closest town, emissions, emission factors, ERT, burn agency info., blackened acres, ERT emission factors, emission reductions, responsible agency

0

Burn hour, location of closest town, emissions, emission factors, ERT, burn agency info., blackened acres, ERT emission factors, emission reductions, responsible agency

0 All FTS have essentially the same missing data elements.

Is the system web-based? Yes with limitations (see Table 2) 0 Yes 0 Yes* 0 Web-friendliness of all FTS is similar.

Can the system perform emissions calculations?

PM10 emissions are estimated by means of emission factors, acreage, and tonnage. 1

No emissions.

0

Currently developing a link to CONSUME.

0NM has the edge here, with PM emission calculation cabability. While not sophisticated, it's funtional and relatively simple to add pollutants and use the same calculation method.

Is there ERT support? ERT’s are recorded but no emission reduction information 0

No ERT information.0

No ERT information.0

Capability to deal with ERT's is essentially non-existent with all FTS. Would have to build this capability from scratch.

Is there a GIS capability? Predetermined map images

0

Currently developing a web-based interactive ArcGIS server application to display burn locations and associated database information. 0

Currently developing a system that uses Google Earth to display burn locations and associated database information.

0

Currently, systems deal with GIS is a limited way, at best. MT/ID does provide a client-based interactive system that can only be used by one user with access to the application. Waiting for MT/ID or USDA is an option. Our assumption for this assessment is that GIS functionality would have to be added to any of the FTS.

Is there multi-day burn support?

Yes 1

No0

No0 NM is currently the only system that supports

this.

Is there support for Importing from or exporting to other systems?

No

0

No

0

No

0 Ability to communicate with other systems would have to be added to any FTS chosen.

Is there ad-hoc query support?

Queries must be created by user with access to the application server 0

Queries must be created by user with access to the application server 0

Queries must be created by user with access to the application server 0

Similar query capabiliites for all three FTS. Whether the WRAP takes query support as-is or enhances it, it would be the same effort for all FTS.

Is there an ability to assign different user permissions?

Yes, only at the database level0

Yes, per record, table, or view1

Yes, per record, table, or view1 Permission capabilities essentially the same for

all FTS.

Is there Annual Emission Goal support?

No0

No0

No 0

Capability to deal with AEG is essentially non-existent with all FTS. Would have to build this capability from scratch.

* Latest version of the interface is in beta and some new features including the add/change burn data are not yet functional.

Table 3 – WRAP FTS Requirements

12

Table 5 - FTS System Characteristics and RequirementsFTS Requirements Total Points: 0 4 4

New Mexico Montana/Idaho USDA 4 Assessment

Ease of use of web interface Easy button navigation and plenty of help. Use of acronyms provides some confusion of web page organization. 1

Not clear that you can indicate type of fuel. Relationship between preseason and proposed burn is not clear. 0

Easy button navigation with clear labels. Latest version of the interface is in beta form and not currently available for testing by the Project Team. Some of the new features are not yet available.

-1Web interfaces are relatively straightforward…with the potential for some confusion with MT/ID and upcoming improvements for USDA.

System Characteristics

PermissionCan only set-up permissions at the file level. 0

Can set-up permissions by table, view, or record. 1

Can set-up permissions by table, view, or record. 1

MT/ID and USDA have greater flexibility for permission settings. May or may not be a critical aspect of the WRAP FTS.

Users

Limited to approximately 10 concurrent users in a web environment.

-1

Able to support hundreds of concurrent users

1

Able to support hundreds of concurrent users

1Perhaps the biggest limitation to the NM system. If the WRAP FTS is limited to approximately 30 total users with concurrent access limited to 10 users, then this limitation becomes unimportant.

Automatic Scheduled JobsDifficult to create automatic scheduled jobs such as back-ups or data aggregation. 0

Built-in ability to set-up scheduled jobs that run automatically. 1

Built-in ability to set-up scheduled jobs that run automatically. 1 MT/ID and USDA have more flexibility to execute

scheduled jobs automatically.

Robust QueriesDatabase can become corrupt if client query fails to complete. -1

Use of transaction logs prevent database from becoming corrupted because of incomplete queries.

1Use of transaction logs prevent database from becoming corrupted because of incomplete queries.

1 MT/ID and USDA are more robust systems.

System Storage Capacities2 GB database size limit. Includes data, queries, and forms -1

More than 1,000,000 TB1

More than 1,000,000 TB1

Quite possible that NM system will bump up against storage limitations without expansion of backend.

Database Record LimitsOne database will hold approximately 2,000,000 fire records 0

Limited by server storage.1

Limited by server storage.1

Quite possible that NM system will bump up against storage limitations without expansion of backend.

Ease of Use of System

Easy to set-up database and develop queries and forms.

1

Somewhat complex to set-up and manage database. Requires good knowledge of SQL language.

-1

Somewhat complex to set-up and manage database. Requires good knowledge of SQL language.

-1

NM system requires less software expertise to set-up and maintain. Although the sophistication of the WRAP FTS in general may require enough database/software expertise to maintain that the expertise required by MT/ID and USDA would be in place anyway.

Hardware and software requirements

SoftwareMS Access 2000 (~ $230)

1SQL Server 2000 standard edition for single processor (~ $6,000) 0

SQL Server 2000 standard edition for single processor (~ $6,000) 0 Essentially no software costs associated with NM.

Modest software expense for MT/ID and USDA.

Web/GIS Server

ArcView desktop software (~ $1,500) required to generate maps.

0

No Web/GIS server currenlty required. With development of user-based GIS capabilities, ArcGIS Server ($30,000 for one server with 2 processors)* would be required.

-1

Cold Fusion Server (~ $1,300)

0Signigicant software expense for MT/ID for the ArcGis Server, modest expense for NM and USDA.

Database ServerServer with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive, and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100) 0

Server with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive, and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100) 0

Server with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive, and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100) 0 Essentially the same basic server requirements for

all FTS.

*Used for interactive GIS system that is currently being developed

13

Table 3 - FTS Modifications and Resources(E)ssential New Mexico Montana/Idaho USDA(P)referred Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort

or (O)ptional (hours)* (hours)* (hours)* Assessment/NotesFinal design of database and structure

E

Types of records to be included, classes of users, editing protocols, and burn approvals if appropriate

60 80 80SQL Server database requires more work than Access database

P

Address system shortcomings: permissions; user number; automation; query limitations; size limitations.

120 0 0

NM Access database could be upgraded to SQL Server database. MT/ID and USDA already use SQL Server.

EAdd fields needed to meet WRAP requirements

80 100 80 MT/ID is missing more required fields than NM or USDA.

EWeb interface modifications to enhance ease of use

40 40 40All require slight changes.

Add features to compute emissions

E Develop approach 40 40 40

Options:

A. WRAP Phase II/III emission inventory

E

Develop queries to compute emissions by using look-up tables of emission factors, acreage, and tonnage

40 60 60

NM already has some of the query structure in place.

B. Inter RPO (FEPS)

O

Develop queries to compute emissions by using fuel specific emission and consumption factors and fuel moisture options

60 80 80

NM already has some of the query structure in place.

C. Link to CONSUME

O

1) Identify CONSUME inputs that can be pulled from the database

80 80 80Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently developing a link between their FTS and CONSUME.

O2) Create fields in the database to hold CONSUME output

20 20 20 Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently developing a link between their FTS and CONSUME.

O3) Develop Visual .NET application to control CONSUME

100 100 100 Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently developing a link between their FTS and CONSUME.

Modifications

14

Table 3 - FTS Modifications and Resources(E)ssential New Mexico Montana/Idaho USDA(P)referred Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort

or (O)ptional (hours)* (hours)* (hours)* Assessment/NotesERT

E Develop approach 40 40 40

ECreate menu of ERT's and associated emission reduction credits

20 20 20

EDevelop queries to compute ERT impacts

40 40 40

GIS

EPredetermined maps 20 80 80 Note "b" for NM: New Mexico FTS already

displays some predetermined maps of burn locations.

PInteractive system 600 600 600

Note "c" for MT/ID & USDA: No hours may need to be expended since interactive GIS system is currently being developed.

Regional coordination features & methods

E Assess current protocols 40 40 40

E

Modifications to accommodate import from different federal and state systems

40 60 60Less effort required to modify Access database than SQL Server database.

Export data to modeling and/or projection system

E

Assess input requirements of federal or state system such as EDMS, WFMI, FACTS, or TEISS

40 40 40

ECreate queries to output data in NIF or flat file format

20 40 40 Queries in NM Access database are easier to create than in the MT/ID and USDA SQL Server databases.

E Add export feature to interface 20 20 20

EAssign different levels of user permissions

20 20 20

Support for Annual Emission Goals

EDevelop queries to report number of times ERT’s are used

20 20 20

Total Level of Effort (hours) 1,560 1,620 1,600

*Level of effort does not include estimate for workplan development. We estimate that 160 labor hours would be required for workplan development.Essential: 580 740 720Preferred: 720 600 600Optional: 60/200 80/200 80/200

Modifications

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.

16

Table 4 - FTS Post Modification Analysis A

s-Is

Afte

r Ess

ent

ial M

odifi

catio

nsAfte

r Pre

ferred M

odifi

catio

nsAs-

Is

Afte

r Ess

ent

ial M

odifi

catio

nsAfte

r Pre

ferred M

odifi

catio

nsAs-

Is

Afte

r Ess

ent

ial M

odifi

catio

nsAfte

r Pre

ferred M

odifi

catio

ns

New Mexico MT/ID USDA

WRAP FTS RequirementsWhat required fields are missing? 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

Is the system web-based? 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2

Can the system perform emissions calculations?

1 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2

Is there ERT support? 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

Is there a GIS capability? 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2

Is there multi-day burn support? 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1Is there support for Importing from or

exporting to other systems?0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

Is there ad-hoc query support? 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1Is there an ability to assign different user

permissions?0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Is there Annual Emission Goal support? 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

17

Table 4 - FTS Post Modification Analysis

New Mexico MT/ID USDA

FTS System Characteristics and RequirementsEase of use of web interface 1 1 2 0 1 2 -1 -1 2System Characteristics

Permission 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Users -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Automatic Scheduled Jobs 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Robust Queries -1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

System Storage Capacities -1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Database Record Limits 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ease of Use of System 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1Hardware and software requirements

Software 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Web/GIS Server 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0Database Server 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18

Table 4 - FTS Post Modification Analysis A

s-Is

Aft

er

Ess

enti

al M

odifi

cati

ons

Aft

er

Pre

ferr

ed M

odifi

cati

ons

As-

Is

Aft

er

Ess

enti

al M

odifi

cati

ons

Aft

er

Pre

ferr

ed M

odifi

cati

ons

As-

Is

Aft

er

Ess

enti

al M

odifi

cati

ons

Aft

er

Pre

ferr

ed M

odifi

cati

ons

New Mexico MT/ID USDA

Total Points: 2 14 23 5 16 19 5 15 20

System Points: 0 3 10 4 5 6 4 4 7

Elements Points: 2 11 13 1 11 13 1 11 13

Estimated Hours: 580 720 740 600 720 600

Estimated Cost (not incl. maintenance: $ 60,000 $ 72,000 $80,000 - $110,000

$ 60,000 $ 78,000 $ 60,000

Total Estimated Costs for Essential & Preferred Modifications

$130,000 - $140,000 $140,000 - $170,000 $138,000 - $150,000

Total Estimated Costs IncludingOptional Modifications:

$135,000 - $160,000 $150,000 - $190,000 $145,000 - $170,000

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

1. The limited dollars in future WRAP grants and the effects on 2006-08 FEJF project funding

2. Lessons learned in the Fire EI preparation and analysis for haze planning purposes over the past several years

3. Plans to provide states and tribes ongoing regional technical support and data access for their haze plans

4. 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 FETS

Mechanical Description of WRAP’s Fire Emissions Tracking System

Planned RXBurn

Raw Data Acquisition

Data Entry& QC

Requested Burn Data

Acquisition, Data Entry &

Regional Coordination

Burn Decisions

Emission Inventory

Development & QC

Pre-Burn Burn/Post-Burn

26

Mechanical Description of WRAP’s FETS

need to mod/include piecesMechanical Description of WRAP's Fire Emissions Tracking System

Data Tag FETS Function Action Who? What? When? Comments

E(ntry of all planned burns)

Planned Rx Burn Raw Data Acquisition

Data collection & submittal

(for WF, web crawler for data acquisition)

Federal Land Managers (FLM); private (timber) industry; state forests; private land owners

Planned burning events;Updates

1x per year (dbf)Real time (fax)

L(ibrary of all burns in FETS)

Data Entry and QC100% of data entry and

data manipulation

Smoke Management Program (SMP) personnel

(State/Tribe/Local)

All submitted events and updates

Upon submittalPassword access required;Ea. SMP can only modify its own data.Ea. "L" file stored annually

R(equested burns)

Requested Burn Data Acquisition, Data Entry, & Regional Coordination

Requested burns "posted" for regional

coordination and burn/no-burn decision

Burners request and SMP assigns Data Tag

All can view requested burns (Regional Coord)

Burn requests 1-2 days pre-burn

G(go/no-go …approved burns)

Burn Decisions Burn approvalSMP

All can view approved burns(Regional Coord)

Approved burns1 day before burn

or day of burn

May be a challenge to accommodate "conditional burns"…approval to burn any time when conditions meet certain criteria.

A(ccomplished burns)

Emission Inventory Development and QC

Burn confirmationSMP (with input from burners)

All can view accomplished burns (SIP planning)

Accomplished burns Post burn

"A" file exported as emissions inventory data.May be necessary to require some maximum number of days to review "G" burns to toggle to "A" (or not).

Bu

rn/P

ost

Bu

rnP

re B

urn

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

1. Documentation– Detailed Workplan– Technical support (methods, assumptions, etc)– FETS users guide

32

Tasks for FETS Project2. 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 Project3. 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

4. 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

1. Documentation• Air Sciences – 250 hours/$30,000• CIRA – 40 hours/$2,400

2. FETS Software Development• Air Sciences - 750 hours/$75,000• CIRA– 160 hours/$9,600

3. FETS Technical Integration to TSS• Air Sciences - 120 hours/$15,000• CIRA– 240 hours/$14,400

4. 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.

39

40

Reference

41

Essential Components of WRAP FTS

• Minimum information required to calculate emissions, assess impacts on haze, meet requirements of Rule

1. Date of Burn2. Burn Location3. Area of Burn4. Fuel Type5. Pre-Burn Fuel Loading6. Type of Burn7. Classification: “Natural” or “Anthropogenic”