1/13/20161 FETS: State of the System Providers, Features, Lessons Learned August 31, 2009 FETS Project Meeting Boise, ID

1/13/20162 Outline Review Status Report –FETS functions and features –Data acquisition status –Recent user case studies –Solicit feedback from the group Present results of generating a Level 1 emissions inventory for 2008

1/13/20163

4

5 User Case Studies ICS-209 data errors –BACKGROUND: Maricopa Co downloaded daily wildfire activity for Acreage values in some cases were more than twice what ICS-209 reported. –PROBLEM: FETS was double-counting acres for fires that had a lapse in daily reporting. –SOLUTION: Queries for loading ICS-209 data into the system were modified. All wildfire data was re-loaded into the FETS. Washington Agricultural Burns in Alaska!? –BACKGROUND: Alaska DEC alerted us to fires appearing in Alaska that never occurred, or that occurred the year before. –PROBLEM: Washington agricultural data shared the same identification schema with Alaska data. Washington fires were erroneously being assigned to Alaskan event. –SOLUTION: Queries that matched new data with existing records were improved to avoid cross-contamination. Washington ag data and Alaska data were re-loaded.

1/13/20166 User Case Studies New Mexico WFU reporting –BACKGROUND: New Mexico reports their own WFU activity. In some cases, the map shows co-located wildfires reported by ICS-209 with the same name as a WFU reported by NM. –PROBLEM: Data are being reported in New Mexico to two different sources as unique fire types (but with the same name). –SOLUTION: UNRESOLVED. Unclear whether the two sources of data are double-counting or complementary (i.e. the same fire is being managed two ways). Fires at right were still active at the time of download and may be incomplete. No examples exist from 2008.

1/13/20167 Level 1 Emissions Inventories include: –Daily activity and calculated emissions –ERTs used and % reduction, if reported –Natural/Anthropogenic classification Level 1 Emissions Inventories do not include: –Explicit smoldering calculations* –Plume Characteristics –Emissions of PAHs, PABs, Mercury, or other toxics *CONSUME calculates smoldering and flaming stages together

1/13/20168 Status: Data Acquisition Provider FederalStatePrivateAgriculturalRangeland Alaska XXXX Arizona XXX California XXXX Colorado XXX Idaho XXXX Montana XXX Oregon XXXXX Nevada XXX New Mexico XXXX Nez Perce Tribe XXX Utah XXX Washington XXXX Wyoming XXX ActivePendingKnown, not initiated

1/13/20169 FETS 2008 Level 1 Emissions Inventory So…you’re up-to-date on the status of the FETS. You may be wondering, “Does it work?” We wondered the same thing…so we tested it. Had a person with little/no experience with FETS query and download data: –2008- WRAP Region- All fire types –WRAP & CONSUME-based emissions

1/13/ FETS 2008 Level 1 Emissions Inventory Basic Approach Downloaded all data for 2008 from Web site Performed diagnostic checks to assess confidence level in data Set up EXCEL Pivot Tables to review data Compared to other published sources (WF only) Summarized findings

1/13/ FETS 2008 Level 1 Emissions Inventory Summary of Findings IT WORKS!!...with room for fixes/improvements –Decent agreement with other available fire data –CONSUME tends to estimate lower emissions (PM2.5) than WRAP-method (probably due to adjustments in fuel consumption) Some coding fixes for the CONSUME suite are necessary –Data acquisition (for Rx, Ag, NFR) is the key –Pretty modest effort to download, QA/QC, and summarize fire activity and emissions data.

1/13/ Level 1 EI For the WRAP Region Basic Approach Download all data for 2008 from Web site Perform simple diagnostic checks Compare to other published sources (WF only) Summarize results

1/13/201613

1/13/201614

1/13/201615

1/13/201616

1/13/ Planned vs. Accomplished Acres 2008 Pre-Approval Records Only | Rx, Ag, NFR Fires By Month By State

1/13/ Planned vs. Accomplished Acres 2008 All Records | Rx, Ag, NFR Fires By Month By State