1. Emissions reduction techniques (ERTs) Whither FEJF?
Don McKenzie (USFS)
Dave Randall (Air Sciences)
FEJF September 2004

2. Rationale
Provide a method for integrating ERTs into reporting and emissions inventories that provides incentives to managers.

3. Objectives
Develop a consistent process for translating ERT reports into modified EIs.
Translate emission reductions into emissions foregone.
Includes non-burning alternatives?
Baseline EI x multiplier(s) = Emissions output.
Define the target landscape unit.
FEJF September 2004

4. Bases for comparison ERT vs. no ERT
Applied to the same “treated” acres?
USFS land managers mandated to treat fuels, with credit given for changing fire regime condition class.
Includes non-burning alternatives, because treated acres are treated acres, therefore emissions reduced to zero?
FEJF September 2004

5. ERT type ERT method
reduce area burned isolate fuels
reduce area burned patchy burns
reduce fuel loadings mechanical removal
reduce fuel loadings firewood sales
reduce fuel loadings grazing
reduce fuel production chemical treatment
reduce fuel production site conversion
reduce consumption large fuel moisture
reduce consumption litter & duff moisture
reduce consumption burn before curing
reduce consumption burn before rain
burn before new fuels burn before litterfall
burn before new fuels burn before greenup
increase combustion efficiency mechanical processing
increase combustion efficiency burn piles or windrows
increase combustion efficiency backing fires
increase combustion efficiency dry conditions
increase combustion efficiency rapid mop-up
increase combustion efficiency aerial or mass ignitions
increase combustion efficiency air curtain incinerators
redistribute emissions burn when dispersion good
redistribute emissions share airshed
redistribute emissions avoid sensitive areas
redistribute emissions burn smaller units
redistribute emissions burn more frequently
Issues for ERT methods
Can we separate burning from non-burning alternatives?
Many-to-one relationship between “types” and “methods” preserved?
Application of multiple ERTs at different scales?
How to combine apples and oranges.
How to put some of these techniques in context of mandate on Federal lands, e.g., “reduce area burned” and even “reduce consumption”.
Given all this, how do we generate a consistent reporting and computational framework?

6. What we’ve done so far
Spreadsheet to identify the following w.r.t. each ERT method.
Location in EI process.
Computational method.
Type of multiplier (e.g., acreage, tons/acre, percentage reductions, emissions factors).
Crude uncertainty level (high, acceptable, or unknown) associated with each computation.

7. How do we apply ERT calculations consistenly across different ecosystems?

8. “Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
Consistent metric for emission reduction.
Means that we need an unbiased procedure for translation from ERT method/type to emissions foregone.
Method should be tuned to “keystone” RxFire frameworks, e.g., aggressive burning upwind from Class 1 Areas to restore CC3 ecosystems.
One simple possibility is min/mode/max for each metric for each ERT.
Literature and MacTec database subdivided by fuel type.
What level of complexity can we manage, and what level of simplicity can we justify?

9. Discussion