emissions reduction techniques (erts) w hither fejf?

Emissions reduction techniques (ERTs)

Whither FEJF?

Don McKenzie (USFS)

Dave Randall (Air Sciences)

FEJF September 2004

Rationale

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

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

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?

FEJF September 2004

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?

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.

How do we apply ERT calculations consistenly across different ecosystems?

“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?

Discussion