Emissions reduction techniques (ERTs) W hither FEJF?

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

4. Bases for comparisonERT 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? FEJFSeptember 2004

5. ERT typeERT 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