# FINAL
Development of 2000-04 Baseline Period and 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventories

W ESTERN 

## G OVERNORS 

## A

SSOCIATION 

## / W ESTERN 

## R EGIONAL 

## A IR 

## P ARTNERSHIP

P ROJECT N O

. 178-8 M

AY 2007WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc ii 

# CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .................................E-1

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. ........................................... 1 1.1 Fire Inventory Calculation Tool............................................................................................ ................................... 2 1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control.......................................................................................... ................................ 3 1.3 National Inventory Format (NIF) Files...................................................................................... ............................... 3 2 BASELINE (2000 – 04) FIRE EMISSION INVENTORIES............................................................................... .............. 4 2.1 Wildfire Baseline Inventory ................................................................................................ ..................................... 4 2.2 Prescribed Burning Baseline Inventory...................................................................................... ............................. 9 2.3 Wildland Fire Use Baseline Inventory....................................................................................... ............................ 11 2.4 Agricultural Burning Baseline Inventory.................................................................................... ............................ 12 2.5 Non-Federal Rangeland Prescribed Burning Baseline Inventory ................................................................ ......... 16 2.6 Baseline Inventory Results and Comparison to Phase II...................................................................... ................ 17 2.7 Base Control Case Inventory................................................................................................ ................................ 21 3 PROJECTION (2018) FIRE EMISSION INVENTORIES .................................................................................. ........... 27 3.1 Prescribed Burning Projection Inventory .................................................................................... .......................... 28

3.1.1 Prototype or “Stem Cell” Events.......................................................................................... .......................... 30 3.2 Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Projection Inventory........................................................................ ..................... 31 3.3 Agricultural Burning Projection Inventory.................................................................................. ............................ 33 3.4 Non-Federal Rangeland Prescribed Burning Projection Inventory.............................................................. ......... 37 3.5 Air Quality Planning Suites ................................................................................................ ................................... 38 3.6 Projection Inventory Result s and Comparison to Baseline.................................................................... ............... 39



### Tables
Table 1: Summary of Phase II EI and Baseline EI Development................................................................... .................. 6 Table 2: Summary of Baseline Development and Phase II Comparison Methods ...................................................... .. 18 Table 3: ERFs (percent PM 2.5

emissions averted) for Seasonal Suites of ERTs........................................................... 23 Table 4: Summary of 2018 Projection Scalars for the Less, Likely, and More Scenarios.......................................... .... 27 Table 5: Summary of Air Quality Planning Suites ............................................................................... ........................... 39WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc iii 

# CONTENTS - continued Page



### Figures
Figure ES-1: Baseline and Projection Emission Inventory Results............................................................... ................E-2 Figure 1: Baseline Scalars for Wildfire and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Fed-5 Database ................................. 7 Figure 2: Potential Range of Wildfire Activity and Emis sions Estimated From the Baseline Period Fed-5 Data and Comparison to Baseline Activity and Emissions .................................................................................. ......... 8 Figure 3: Potential Range of Wildfire Activity by State Estimated From the Baseline Period Fed-5 Data and Comparison to Baseline Activity................................................................................................ .................... 9 Figure 4: Baseline Scalars for Prescribed Burning and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to SIT Database ................ 10 Figure 5: Baseline Scalars for WFU and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to SIT Database....................................... 12 Figure 6: Comparison of WRAP Phase II Burned Agricultur al Acres to NASS Harvested Agricultural Acres............ 13 Figure 7: Baseline Acres Harvested by Crop, County, and Month for Nevada ....................................................... ... 15 Figure 8: Baseline Agricultural Acres Burned and Num ber of Burn Events by Crop and County for Nevada............ 15 Figure 9: Comparison of WRAP Phase II Burned NFR Acres to NRI Existing NFR Acres......................................... 17 Figure 10: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phas e III Emission Inventories by Fire Type......................................... 1 8 Figure 11: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Wildfire Inventory by State................................................ ..... 19 Figure 12: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Prescribed Burning Inventory by State .................................. 19 Figure 13: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III WFU Inventory by State..................................................... .... 20 Figure 14: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Agricultural Burning Inventory by State ................................. 20 Figure 15: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III N on-Federal Rangeland Burning Inventory by State ............. 21 Figure 16: WRAP Phase III Base Control Case: Wildland Prescribed Burning PM 2.5

Emissions by State With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs ............................................................................ . 25 Figure 17: WRAP Phase III Base Control Case: Wildland Prescribed Burning PM 2.5

Emissions and Acres by Vegetation Category With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs ................................... 26 Figure 18: WRAP Phase III Base Case Control: Agricultural Burning PM 2.5

Emissions by State With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs...................................................................................... ......... 26 Figure 19: WRAP Phase IV 2018 Projection Inventory: Prescribed Burning PM 2.5

Emissions and Acres by State for Each Scenario .................................................................................................................. ........................... 29 Figure 20: WRAP Phase IV 2018 Projection Inventory: Prescribed Burning PM 2.5

Emissions and Acres by Scenario With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs ..................................................................... 29 Figure 21: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Phase IV Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Acres and PM 2.5 .................. 32 Figure 22: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Phase IV Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Acres and PM 2.5

by State .... 32 Figure 23: Agricultural Burning Base line Versus 2018 Projection Inventory ...................................................... .......... 36 Figure 24: Agricultural Burning Projection EI Acres Burned, Tons PM 2.5

Emitted, and Emission Averted from the Application of ERTs............................................................................................................ ......................... 37 Figure 25: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Phase IV 201 8 Non-Federal Rangeland Burning Likely Inventory by State.......................................................................................................................... .................................. 38 Figure 26: Summary of Phase IV Projecti on Inventory Air Quality Planning Suites ................................................ ..... 40WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc iv 

# CONTENTS - continued Page



### Appendices

Appendix A 

### : Technical Methodologies Used to Create Event-Based Fire Records in the 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventories Appendix B 

### : Uncertainty Analysis and Exceptions for WRAP Phase IV Fire Event Projection Methodology Appendix C 

### : Reviewer Comments and Corrective Actions Appendix D 

### : EPA Proposed SCC CodesWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc E-1 SECTION 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Wes tern Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), through a contract issued by the Western Governors Association (WGA) to Air Sciences Inc. and EC/R Incorporated, has prepared “Phase III” baseline period (2000-2004) and “Phase IV” projection year (2018) fire emission inventories. This docu ment is a summary of th e technical methodology, activity data, and calculated emissions for baseline and projection inventories of wildfire, prescribed burning, wildland fire use (WFU), agricultural burning, and non-federal prescribed rangeland burning (NFR).

The purpose of this project (“Development of 2 000-04 Baseline Period and 2018 Projection Year Emissions Inventories”) is to develop fire emissions inventories (EIs) for regional haze planning purposes. The inventories are intended to be repr esentative of fire emissions during the Regional Haze Rule’s (Rule) baseline monitoring period ( 2000-04) and to describe potential fire activity scenarios for the Rule’s initial projection year of 2018. Projection inventories were prepared for “less,” “likely,” and “more” activity scenarios for ea ch fire type. Then individual EI files for each fire type were combined to form three distinct air quality planning suites for fire emissions:

• Base-case – Likely projection activity scenarios for all fire types.

• Climate Conditions/Resource Limited – More occurrences of wildfire and Wildland Fire Use with less application of prescribed burning in wildlands.

• Max-Application of Prescribed Fire – Highest level of application of prescribed burning with likely activity levels for all other fire types.

The EI data files and air quality planning suites produced for this project are to be used for regional dispersion modeling analyses and to po pulate the WRAP’s Emissions Data Management System (EDMS). In addition, the deliverables for this project are intended to provide necessary, timely, and sufficient documentation for use by WRAP members for use in assessing the need, structure, and scope of fire and smoke emission s management programs in the implementation plans due by the end of 2007. Figure ES-1 and it s associated data table present a summary of the results of the baseline and projection emission inventories.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc E-2 Figure ES-1: Baseline and Projection Emission Inventory Results

The methodologies for creating the baseline inve ntories for each fire source, along with a presentation of the results of the baseline inventor y work appear in Section 2. The methodologies and results for the projection inventories are presented in Section 3. WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Source Activity Scenarios Grouped into Air Quality Planning Suites

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000Acres

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000Tons PM2.5

Prescribed Acres 669,348 1,959,700 966,191 3,704,327

WFU Acres 153,697 2,311,067 4,703,922 2,311,067
Wildfire Acres 4,517,818 2,263,069 2,263,069 2,263,069 Agricultural Acres 2,164,166 1,730,333 1,730,333 1,730,333 NF Rangeland Acres 1,042,003 1,257,004 1,257,004 1,257,004
Prescribed PM2.5 59,635 219,298 110,091 427,028

WFU PM2.5 41,171 526,636 1,155,633 526,636
Wildfire PM2.5 971,453 480,269 480,269 480,269 Agricultural PM2.5" 34,590 29,591 29,591 29,591 NF Rangeland PM2.5 15,454 18,643 18,643 18,643 Baseline Control Case Base-case Climate conditions/ resource limited Max-App of Rx FireLessMoreMoreMore ("Likely" activity and emission scenario choosen unless otherwise noted)WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 1 SECTION 1 

# INTRODUCTION

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Wes tern Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), through a contract issued by the Western Governors Association (WGA) to Air Sciences Inc. and EC/R Incorporated, has prepared “Phase III” baseline period (2000-2004) and “Phase IV” projection year (2018) fire emission inventories. This docu ment is a summary of th e technical methodology, activity data, and calculated emissions for baseline and projection inventories of wildfire, prescribed burning, wildland fire use (WFU), agricultural burning, and non-federal prescribed rangeland burning (NFR).

The purpose of this project (“Development of 2 000-04 Baseline Period and 2018 Projection Year Emissions Inventories”) is to develop fire emissions inventories (EIs) for regional haze planning purposes. These wildfire, wildland fire use, pres cribed fire, rangeland fire, and agricultural fire EIs will be representative of fire emissions during the Regional Haze Rule’s (Rule) baseline monitoring period (2000-04) and describe potential inventory scenarios for the Rule’s initial projection year of 2018. The objective is to build event-based inventories comprised of realistically sized, placed, and timed fires that add up to equal activity targets that have been determined to be representative of the baseline and projection periods. The source of the fire events used to populate the baseline and projecti on inventories are the fire event records from the WRAP’s Phase II (historical 2002) fire emission inventory.

In order to gather data and develop appropriate assessment and analysis techniques, Air Sciences directed two Phase III/IV Technical Workshops (Workshops) in August and November 2005. The Workshops were attended by federal land managers, Smoke Management Program personnel, and any other stakeholders that wished to participate. The primary purpose of the Workshops was to agree on the baseline and activity targets for each fire type (wildfire, Wildland Fire Use, prescribed burning, agricultural burn ing, and non-federal rangeland burning). In the Workshops, participants were presented Strawman approaches for their consideration and then participants and the contractors would work together to refine and approve the technical approaches to be employed to build the baseline and projection inventories. The details of the Workshop #1 (August 2005) can be reviewed at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/meetings /050810fc/index.html and the details for Workshop #2 (November 2005) can be reviewed at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fej f/meetings/051101m/index.html.

Results from prior and ongoing FEJF emissions inventory work, air quality sensitivity modeling results, and source attribution analyses will pr ovide additional information on the appropriate considerations and framework to conduct the preparation of the baseline and projection years’
fire EIs.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 2 The EI files for this project are expected to serve as input to the WRAP Emissions Data Management System (EDMS). The EDMS is expected to be capable of producing output EI files that can be used in regional modeling analys es to quantify the air quality improvements
associated with emissions reductions due to smoke management programs being implemented by WRAP states and Tribes. In addition, the deliv erables for this project are intended to provide necessary, timely, and sufficient documentation for use by WRAP members for use in assessing the need, structure, and scope of fire and smoke emissions management programs in the implementation plans due by the end of 2007.

For regional dispersion modeling purposes, the baseline and projection inventory files have been delivered in SMOKE Model Format (PT/IDA). For emission inventory purposes, the baseline and projection inventory files have been delivered in database file (DBF) format.

There are many technical methodologies that are common to the development of the Phase II
events that are used to build both the baseline an d the projection fire emission inventories. These methodologies are described in detail in the documentation for previously completed WRAP/FEJF projects. These projects are listed below and the posted documentation is available on the FEJF project pages of the WRAP’s website (url’s are provided in parentheses). In addition,
for ease of reference as reviewers read this docu ment, descriptions of several critical technical methodologies are included in this report in Appendix X.

• WRAP Phase I Fire Emission Inventory. (http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fej f/tasks/FEJFtask7PhaseI.html)

• WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory. (http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fej f/tasks/FEJFtask7PhaseII.html)


## 1.1 Fire Inventory Calculation Tool
Air Sciences Inc. developed an EXCEL-based spre adsheet tool to generate the nominal (i.e., not actual) fire event databases for the baseline and proj ection inventories. Th e essential functions of
the Calculation Tool include:

• Store Phase II fire events (actual fire events ) as “seed” data to be used to build the nominal, event-based inventories.

• Accommodate entry of state- and agency-specific fire activity targets (in acres) for the inventory planning years (Phase III – 2000-2004 representative year ; Phase IV – 2018).

• Perform database processing tasks that popu late the nominal fire inventory with seed data until the state- and agency-specific fire activity targets are reached.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 3 The Calculation Tool, while developed to prepare the baseline and projection inventories for this project, will be modified and made available to WRAP states and Tribes to facilitate preparation of custom nominal inventories of prescribed fire. It is anticipated that the Calculation Tool willbe available to states and Tribes in the spring of 2007 as a technical tool on the WRAP’s webbased Technical Support System.


## 1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC ) Plan was implemented as specified in Appendix A of the project Work Plan (Air Sciences and EC/R, August 2005). Specific QA/QC procedures are described in the text of this report. In addition, changes to the inventories that arose out of the implementation of QA/QC proced ures are presented and quantified in the text of this report. 

## 1.3 National Inventory Format (NIF) Files

Air Sciences, in consultation with the FEJF, have concluded that NIF files for the baseline and the projected fire inventories will have limited utility for WRAP states and tribes. This finding is based on the fact that the baseline and projection fire inventories are nominal (i.e., not actual)
inventories and files in NIF format have historical ly been used for States and Tribes to fulfill federal requirements for periodic reporting of actual emissions to the National Emission Inventory (NEI). Therefore, the NIF files will not be prepared. Air Sciences will retain the scripts to create the NIF files in the future if required by the WRAP.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 4 SECTION 2 

# BASELINE (2000 – 04) FIRE EMISSION INVENTORIES

Baseline period (2000-04) inventories were built based upon the FEJF's Phase II (historical 2002)inventories for wildfire, wildland fire use, prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and nonfederal rangeland burning completed in 2005 by the FEJF (Air Sciences, July 2005 http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/ tasks/FEJFtask7PhaseII.html).

The fundamental steps to build the baseline fire inventory were:

1. Gather relevant activity data to determine emissions estimates; and

2. Apply various assessment and analysis tec hniques to determine if and where fire emissions for the 2000-04 period are differ ent from the WRAP Phase II “actual 2002” inventory report and EI products at vari ous appropriate geogra phic scales, using statistical significance tests.

The project team has prepared a 2000-04 baseline pe riod EI similar in scope and scale to the Phase II 2002 fire EI. The process for preparing the baseline period EI included an assessment of whether the temporal and spatial distribution of the Phase II 2002 EIs for all types of fire can be preserved or can reasonably be changed with technical justification. These analyses were presented to the FEJF prior to building the baseli ne period EI. For WRAP region jurisdictions with Smoke Management Pr ograms (SMP), data were also gathered to allow the calculation of the benefit of applying Emissions Reduction Tec hniques (ERTs) in each jurisdiction’s SMP.

Wildfire, prescribed burning, and WFU baseline emission inventories were each created by "scaling" the respective Phase II inventory up or down based on an analysis of independent activity data across the baseline period. Agricultural burning and non-federal prescribed rangeland burning inventories for Phase II were considered to be representative of annual activity during the baseline period. Therefore, the Phase II EIs for agricultural burning and nonfederal rangeland burning were used as is as the baseline inventories.


## 2.1 Wildfire Baseline Inventory
A single scenario for wildfire activity was deve loped that represented wildfire in the baseline (2000-04). All events in the wildfire inventory were categorized as "natural" per the WRAP's Fire Categorization Policy.

The WRAP's Phase II wildfire inventory for 2002 (w hich has been reviewed by state, Tribal, and federal agencies through the Phase II QC process) served as the starting place for the wildfire baseline inventory. The Phase II wildfire inventory was scaled up or down on a state-by-state basis to meet computed baseline levels per the following steps:WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 5 1. Air Sciences obtained the Federal Fire Hi story data (Fed-5 data) compiled by the Geospatial Task Group of the Nati onal Wildfire Coordinating Group (ftp://ftp.nifc.gov/pub/FireHistoryData/). Fed-5 data is available for the baseline years 2000-2003 but data for 2004 was not compiled at the time of the preparation of
the baseline inventories.

2. Developed a summary table of acres of wildfire by state by year.

3. For each state, calculated the mean number of annual wildfire acres over the baseline period 2000 - 2003. This is the average annual activity for the baseline period according
to the Fed-5 data.

4. For each state, calculated the difference in Phase II wildfire acres and Fed-5 wildfire acres strictly for year 2002. This difference is intended to emphasize the more resolved data collection and quality control activities in the WRAP Phase II activity data set. The goal for building the baseline inventory for wildfire is to preserve this difference when considering the average annual activity derived from the Fed-5 data.

5. For each state, the Phase II versus Fed-5 difference for 2002 was added to the mean of the Fed-5 wildfire acres. The result repres ents the "baseline target" in acres for each state. The baseline target divided by the Ph ase II activity acres is the "baseline scalar" for a state. See Equations 1 and 2.

Baseline target = [Phase II 2002 – Fed-5 2002] + Average (Fed-5 2000 thru 2003) (1)

Baseline scalar = Baseline Target / Phase II 2002 (2)

Phase II wildfire events (acres/day for each fire event) were used to build the baseline wildfire inventory on a state-by-state basis (see Figure 1 on page 7). For states with a baseline scalar of less than one, then Phase II events were rand omly removed from the Phase II data set for that state until the baseline target in acres was met. If the scalar for a state was greater than one, then wildfire events from the Phase II inventory for that state were randomly repeated until the baseline target was met. Wildfire events added or removed were randomized but fire days comprising an event were kept together. In this way the concept of multi-day events was preserved in the baseline inventory. Similarly, smoldering records were carried over to the baseline inventory (or excluded) according to the outcome of its parent flaming-day record.

In the instances where records from the Phase II inventory were added to the baseline inventory in order to reach the baseline targets, data processing steps were implemented:

• Each event added to the baseline inventory was assigned a random date within the month of occurrence of the original Phase II record.

• All other attributes of the fire event were cloned including acres consumed and tons of each pollutant emitted. The location (latitude and longitude) of the event was notWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 6 changed because when the emissions input data are processed by the WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center, each emissions event is associated with the 36 km by 36 km grid cell (i.e., the latitude and longitude of the event is not preserved in the results of the model runs). Therefore, the Emissions Task Team of the FEJF determined to not change the latitude and longitude of the event going into the baseline inventory so that the emissions from the event would appear in the same RMC grid cell.

Scaling the Phase II inventory up or down in this manner created a baseline emission inventory with the desired change in emissions magnitude and retention of the overall activity statistics (seasonality, location, fuel types, etc.) of an “actual” year of fire events (the 2002 Phase II inventory). Table 1 presents the WRAP-wide statisti cs for the baseline inventory (as well as a the Phase II fire statistics for comparison purposes).

Table 1: Summary of Phase II EI and Baseline EI Development

Fire Source Baseline Adaptation
From Phase II Phase II
Acres
Burned Phase II
Tons PM 2.5

Emitted Baseline
Acres Burned Baseline
Tons PM 2.5

Emitted Wildfire Scaled by state 5,276,485 1,489,886 4,517,818 971,453 Prescribed Burning Scaled by state 649,044 71,421 669,348 72,218 WFU Scaled by state 201,548 81,505 153,697 41,171 Agricultural As is + NV 2,162,836 34,571 2,164,166 34,571 NFR As is 1,042,003 15,454 1,042,003 15,454 Total 9,331,917 1,692,838 8,547,031 1,134,868

Figure 1 and its associated data table show th e Phase II wildfire acreage compared to Fed-5 wildfire acreage and the baseline target acreage and lists the scalars used to reach the baseline targets.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 7 Figure 1: Baseline Scalars for Wildfire and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Fed-5 Database

For Alaska and Utah, the 2002 Fed-5 wildfire acreages were at least 1.5 times greater than the 2002 Phase II acreages. Using the 2002 Fed-5 acres in Equation 1 resulted in a baseline target that was less than any individual year of Fed-5 data for the respective state. Upon investigation of the suspected source of the differences in activity levels between the Phase II EI and the Fed-5 data, Air Sciences concluded that the discrepancy is likely to be due to the more rigorous data collection and quality control techniques implemented in the WRAP Phase II project. Implementing the scalar development techniques th at were applied to all other states would have produced unreasonably low baseline targets for Al aska and Utah. Therefor e, Air Sciences, with concurrence from the Emissions Task Team of the FEJF, elected to use the average of the Fed-5 acres as the baseline targets for Alaska and Utah.

In addition to the "static" baseline inventory for wildfire, a potential range of emissions (from low to high) for wildfire was estimated for the baseline period based on Fed-5 data. The low and high range of wildfire activity was determined fr om minimum and maximum years of the annual WRAP-wide Fed-5 total acres burned. The low range year of activity was Fed-5 2001 and the high range year was Fed-5 2002. The low and hi gh range of emissions was estimated from the Fed-5 2001 and 2002 activity totals by scaling Baseline PM 2.5 up or down by the difference
between Baseline total acres and the Fed-5 low and hi gh year total acres. As shown in Figure 2, Baseline Scalars for Wildfire: WRAP Phase II vs. "Fed5 database"

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000Acres

2000 Fed 5 767,707 68,854 323,205 126,301 1,677,150 945,541 9,238 340,445 594,609 350,385 373,416 233,577 99,167 367,077

2001 Fed 5 218,114 21,081 411,334 15,552 190,009 230,694 5,481 32,674 444,329 370,971 57,149 69,382 255,136 90,450
2002 Fed 5 2,660,393 597,932 596,550 404,025 85,614 186,403 39,636 260,990 42,714 1,017,949 91,576 406,698 81,031 156,518
2003 Fed 5 583,214 333,573 1,155,525 45,537 346,840 903,556 5,286 183,991 17,793 158,568 45,992 105,564 145,727 108,374
Phase II Wildfire 1,790,533 555,873 510,140 412,697 77,678 112,413 83,599 247,243 56,218 921,515 78,384 212,853 89,854 127,486
Baseline 1,057,357 213,301 535,244 156,525 566,967 492,559 58,874 190,778 288,365 378,034 128,841 203,805 154,088 151,573
Scalar 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.4 7.3 4.4 0.7 0.8 5.1 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.7 1.2 Average Fed5 1,057,357 255,360 621,653 147,854 574,903 566,549 14,910 204,525 274,861 474,468 142,033 203,805 145,265 180,605 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 8 the low range of emissions was estimated as 512,100 tons PM 2.5 and the high range as 1,407,100
tons PM 2.5
.
Figure 2: Potential Range of Wildfire Activity and Emissions Estimated From the Baseline Period Fed-5 Data and Comparison to Baseline Activity and Emissions

Figure 3 shows the potential range of wildfire acti vity by state. On a WRAP-wide basis, 2001 was the low range year and 2002 was the high range year. However, for any individual state, any year during the baseline period can have the lowest or highest acres burned. (For example, in Idaho, 2002 was the lowest year and 2000 was the highest year.) The totals shown are the totals for each year. Figure 3 shows the extremes within each state. Note that for the range of emissions estimation, the 2002 emissions do not match the WRAP Phase II 2002 emission inventory because they are estimated from Fed-5 da ta, not calculated from individual events. Potential Range of Wildfire Acti vity (acres) and Emissions (PM 2.5 ) Estimated from Baseline Period Fed-5 Data

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000Acres or Tons

Acres 2,412,400 4,576,300 6,628,000
Tons PM2.5 512,100 971,500 1,407,100 Low Range (2001 Fed5) Baseline Wildfire High Range (2002 Fed5)WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 9 Figure 3: Potential Range of Wildfire Activity by State Estimated From the Baseline Period Fed-5 Data and Comparison to Baseline Activity



## 2.2 Prescribed Burnin g Baseline Inventory
The WRAP's Phase II prescribed fire inventory for 2002 (which has been reviewed by state, Tribal, and federal agencies through the Phase II QC process) served as the starting place for theprescribed fire baseline inventory. The baseline inventory for prescribed burning was built stateby-state using methods similar to the process implemented to develop the wildfire baseline inventory. The primary difference between the two methods is that the average annual activity for the baseline period (2000 – 2004) for prescr ibed burning was obtained from the Interagency Situation Report (SIT) Program SIT/ICS-209 repo rts (not the Fed-5 data used for wildfire).

The Interagency Situation Report (SIT) Program is a web-based application that captures incident activity and resource status information in summa ry form intended for use by land managers. SIT reports for prescribed and wildland fires are submitted by Dispatch Of fices on a daily basis May through October. Reports are also submitte d November through April if wildland fires are active or if fire danger is "very high" or "extreme." The SIT Program uses incident information from the ICS-209 Program. Incident Status Summ aries (ICS-209) are submitted to the Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACCs) and are used to report significant fire events on lands under federal protection or federal ownership. La nds administered by states and other federal cooperators may also report to the ICS-209 Progra m. Significant events are classified as large Potential Range of Wildfire Activity (acres) by State from Baseline Period Fed-5 Data

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000Acres

Baseline 1,057,357 213,301 535,244 156,525 566,967 492,559 58,874 190,778 288,365 378,034 128,841 203,805 154,088 151,573 4,576,311
2000 Fed 5 767,707 68,854 323,205 126,301 1,677,150 945,541 9,238 340,445 594,609 350,385 373,416 233,577 99,167 367,077 6,276,673
2001 Fed 5 218,114 21,081 411,334 15,552 190,009 230,694 5,481 32,674 444,329 370,971 57,149 69,382 255,136 90,450 2,412,356
2002 Fed 5 2,660,393 597,932 596,550 404,025 85,614 186,403 39,636 260,990 42,714 1,017,949 91,576 406,698 81,031 156,518 6,628,028
2003 Fed 5 583,214 333,573 1,155,525 45,537 346,840 903,556 5,286 183,991 17,793 158,568 45,992 105,564 145,727 108,374 4,139,540 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY TOTALWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 10 wildfires or WFU events that are 100 acres or larger in timber fuel types, 300 acres or larger in grass or brush fuel types, or events when a Type 1 or 2 Incident Management Team is assigned. The ICS-209 is submitted by the agency that has protection responsibility for the incident regardless of who administers the land. GACCs are responsible for ensuring that reports are complete and accurate. The SIT data was the most appropriate data source available at the time that this project was performed for determining average annual activity during the baseline period because the SIT and 209 Programs "capture incident activity" as opposed to cataloging planned activity.

SIT acres were filtered for prescribed burning activity tallied in the "RXACRES" field. The baseline target from prescribed burning was calculated as indicated in Equations 3 and 4.

Baseline target = [Phase II 2002 – SIT 2002] + Average (SIT 2000 thru 2004) (3)

Baseline scalar = Baseline target / Phase II 2002 (4)

Phase II prescribed burning events were used to assemble the scaled baseline inventory in the
same manner as for wildfire. Each event in th e Phase II prescribed fire inventory has been categorized as "natural" or "anthropogenic" accord ing the categorization method approved by the ETT and the FEJF. This categorization carried thro ugh to the baseline inve ntory. Figure 4 shows the state-by-state Phase II prescribed burning acreage compared to SIT prescribed burning acreage, as well as the baseline target acreage and the scalars used to reach baseline.

Figure 4: Baseline Scalars for Prescribed Burning and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to SIT
Database
Baseline Scalars for Prescribed Burning: WRAP Phase II vs. SIT

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000Acres

2000 SIT 0 24,393 41,598 9,235 13,433 12,137 3,506 26,702 2,540 24,427 8,561 3,275 9,080 2,363

2001 SIT 2,280 50,726 28,146 19,769 14,454 12,143 13,071 23,734 11,032 86,951 4,156 35,198 10,430 1,936
2002 SIT 1,560 44,347 73,962 8,762 38,049 15,022 17,269 7,989 1,441 72,005 3,636 14,117 12,624 3,179
2003 SIT 1,555 69,405 58,840 15,398 38,760 16,297 4,235 22,384 3,584 83,260 264 17,886 22,514 23,390
2004 SIT 58,231 55,310 76,586 49,602 46,158 34,802 21,099 18,393 3,630 127,260 10,056 18,840 32,521 14,802
Phase II Rx 1,108 103,619 86,785 17,425 89,477 77,419 26,826 25,292 5,659 129,290 8,811 14,531 41,196 21,605
Baseline 1,346 108,108 68,649 29,216 81,599 80,478 21,393 37,143 8,664 136,066 10,510 18,278 46,006 27,560
Scalar 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 Average SIT 1,798 48,836 55,826 20,553 30,171 18,080 11,836 19,840 4,445 78,781 5,335 17,863 17,434 9,134 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 11 For Alaska, review of the 2000 and 2004 SIT acreage during the Workshops by the participants
and the contractor resulted in the conclusion th at the 2000 and 2004 SIT acreage data were not accurate. Therefore, only 2001, 2002, and 2003 SIT data were used to develop the baseline scalar
for Alaska.


## 2.3 Wildland Fire Use Baseline Inventory
The WRAP's Phase II WFU inventory for 2002 (whi ch has been reviewed by state, Tribal, and federal agencies through the Phase II QC process) served as the starting place for the WFU baseline inventory. The baseline inventory for WFU was built state-by-state analogous to the method used for prescribed burning, also using th e SIT database. In this case, the SIT data was
filtered for wildland fire use ac res identified as "WFURBACRES."

The following special rules were necessary to account for incomplete data in either the Phase II or
SIT database.

• The average of the SIT (2000-2004) acre s was used as the baseline target if:

o The Phase II acres were fewer than the SIT 2002 acres (presumed underreporting in Phase II for the affected state).

o Either Phase II or SIT 2002 has zero acres reported.

• In both North and South Dakota, no WFU acres were recorded in the Phase II inventory or in any year of the SIT data , and therefore baseline targets were zero.

• In Oregon and Washington, the WFU acres burned were negligible (less than 500 acres annually) and therefore the baseline inventor ies would have been difficult to precisely produce through the standard of using random events to build the inventory until the baseline targets are reached. Therefore, the baseline targets for Oregon and Washington were set to zero.

Phase II WFU events were used to assemble the sc aled baseline inventory in the same manner as for prescribed burning: Phase II WFU events were added to the inventory or dropped to meet WFU baseline targets. For states that had a WFU- baseline/Phase II scalar greater than 1.0, new
WFU events were created from Phase II wildfire events. (This is because there were so few WFU events in the Phase II inventory that building the baseline WFU inventory from Phase II WFU
events would have resulted in an unrealisticall y homogeneous set of events in the baseline WFU inventory). On a state-by-state basis, events fr om the original Phase II wildfire database were randomly chosen until the baseline target was met. The dates for these adapted wildfire events were shifted to the subsequent month because an analysis of WFU and wildfire activity by month
in the SIT database showed that the WFU "seaso n" lagged behind wildfire by about one month.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 12 Each event in the baseline WFU inventory was ca tegorized as "natural" per the categorization method approved by the ETT and the FEJF. Figure 5 shows the Phase II WFU acreage compared to SIT WFU acreage and the baseline target acreage, along with the scalars used to reach baseline.

Figure 5: Baseline Scalars for WFU and Comparison of WRAP Phase II to SIT Database

Baseline Scalars for WFU: WRAP Phase II vs. SIT

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000Acres

2000 SIT 0 1,175 756 1 19 6,001 0 305 0 0 0 861 0 400
2001 SIT 0 2,717 11,490 4,824 11,049 34,746 0 773 7,566 1 0 530 2 4,196
2002 SIT 0 0 2,421 15,523 5,552 1,155 0 1,643 852 1 0 193 11 5,137
2003 SIT 0 754 27,164 1,563 28,814 56,616 0 83,294 2 151 0 587 1 6,380
2004 SIT 55,021 1,172 5,030 4,707 5,177 433 0 859 494 1,112 0 12,529 27 4
Phase II WFU 159,554 0 4,051 22,852 3,543 25 0 4,759 0 0 0 545 0 6,220
Baseline 55,021 1,455 11,002 12,652 10,122 19,790 0 20,491 2,229 0 0 3,292 0 4,306
Scalar 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.6 2.9 791.6 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.7 Average SIT 55,021 1,455 9,372 5,324 10,122 19,790 0 17,375 2,229 316 0 2,940 10 3,223 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY



## 2.4 Agricultural Burning Baseline Inventory
The WRAP's Phase II agricultural burning inventor y for 2002 (which has been reviewed by state and Tribal agencies through the Phase II QC pr ocess) served as the starting place for the agricultural burning baseline inventory. The Phase II agricultural burning inventory was comprised of a combination of event-based and gap-filled data (i.e., for states with minimal agricultural burning data but where agricultur al burning activities are known to occur, agricultural burning events derived from summary statistics such as crop production and cropspecific percentage of acres burned data were al located to these states. Given the nature of the burning activity data (comprised of actual events and gap-filled events), the Phase II inventory was considered to be representative of any year during the baseline period.

Air Sciences performed a "reality check" of agricultural burning activity in the Phase II inventory and performed additional and essential gap-fillin g to develop the final baseline inventory for agriculture burning. Air Sciences acquired acre s harvested statistics from the 2002 Census of Agriculture published by the USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). ThisWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 13 analysis was for field crops and excluded "forage". The total acres burned by state in the Phase II inventory was divided by the acres harvested by state according to NASS to arrive at a "percent burned" statistic. Figure 6 shows the comparison of Phase II acres burned to NASS acres harvested, as well as the percent burned statistic.

Figure 6: Comparison of WRAP Phase II Burned Agricultural Acres to NASS Harvested Agricultural Acres

Montana, South Dakota and Nevada had the lowest percent burned statistics and their Phase II activity was therefore scrutinized in detail. Air Sciences reviewed correspondence and data augmentation previously performed under the Ph ase II contract. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality had submitted data during the Phase II "QC process" to bring the activity levels to their satisfaction. Likewise, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources had participated in the Phase II QC Process and provided activities levels and knowledge of burning practices. Even though Montana and South Dakota had low percent burned statistics relative to other WRAP states, the investigation determined the inventory was reasonable. Phase II activity in the state of Nevada was initially zero acres and this was identified as requiring essential gap-filling.

Chet Sergent at the Nevada Division of Envi ronmental Protection provided annual acres harvested of field crops for 2002 (using NASS as his source), the predominate counties in which agricultural burning occurs, and the typical size of an agricultural burn in each county. The Agricultural: Phase II (acres burned) vs. NASS (acres harvested)

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000Acres (Burned or Harvested)

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%Percent Burned

Sum of NASS acres 612,435 6,552,232 3,007,856 2,694,871 5,966,349 15,441,302 502,582 26,599 1,243,874 10,083,013 221,085 3,574,304 336,002
Sum of Phase II acres 16,203 727,641 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 1,330 129,781 5,018 16,684 656,705 38,223

Percent 2.65% 11.11% 1.27% 10.85% 0.15% 1.37% 4.21% 5.00% 10.43% 0.05% 7.55% 18.37% 11.38% AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 14 average annual harvest activity by crop for the baseline period was also obtained, where available, from NASS, and merged with the info rmation provided by Mr. Sergent to determine
the total acres harvested. This value was then converted to acres burned and subsequently allocated to individual fire events. Mr. Sergent determined that five-percent of the NASS harvest acres was a reasonable assumption to estimate ag ricultural burning activity for Nevada. This assumption was used in Figure 6. The crops that were presumed to be burned were alfalfa (grown for seed), barley, corn (for silage), oats, spring wheat, and winter wheat. Annual acres harvested per crop were allocated to each "maj or player" county based on NASS reporting. Those annual county figures were then allocated to monthly totals based on Nevada Department of Environmental Protection general rules. Figure 7 shows the acres harves ted by crop by county by month in Nevada. The acres burned (shown in Figure 8) were calculated from the acres harvested using the 5% burning rate provided by Mr. Sergent. The acres of burning by crop by county by month were further broken down in to typically sized (10 acres or the remainder thereof) events and assigned to a random day in the month. "Blackout days" per the Phase II agricultural emission inventory allocation, were observed. (For details, please see the report “Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emission s Inventory for Prescribed Fire, Wildfire, and Agricultural Burning,” Air Sciences Inc. (December 2002) posted at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/f ejf/tasks/FEJFtask7. html.) Events were given random coordinates in their county based on the USGS Land Cover characteristics map, per the existing WRAP emission inventory method.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 15 WRAP Baseline Agricultural EI for Nevada Acres Harvested by Crop and Month (Annual Average for Baseline Period)

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Month Harvested (and Burned)Acres Harvested

11 142 2,975 1,133 917 208 1,675 158 200 439 818 884 1,625
10 142 2,975 1,133 917 208 1,675 158 200 439 818 884 1,625
5 195 195 1,346 195 195
4 195 195 1,346 195 195

Churchill Humbold t Pershing Humbold t Lyon Churchill Lyon Churchill Humbold t Lyon Nye Humbold t Churchill Douglas Humbold t Lyon Nye
ALFALFA: BARLEY: CORN FOR SILAGE: OATS: SPRING WHEAT: WINTER WHEAT:



### WRAP Baseline Agricultural EI for Acres Burned and Number of

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Ac
re s

Num Events 2 30 12 10 4 18 2 4 6 10 10 18 2 2 14 2 2
Acres Burned 14.2 297.5 113.3 91.7 20.8 167.5 15.8 20.0 43.9 81.8 88.4 162.5 19.5 19.5 134.6 19.5 19.5 Churchill Humboldt Pershing Humboldt Lyon Churchill Lyon Churchill Humboldt Lyon Nye Humboldt Churchill Douglas Humboldt Lyon Nye

ALFALFA: BARLEY: CORN FOR SILAGE: OATS: SPRING WHEAT: WINTER WHEAT: Figure 7: Baseline Acres Harvested by Crop, County, and Month for Nevada

Figure 8: Baseline Agricultural Acres Burned and Number of Burn Events by Crop and County
for Nevada.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 16 The baseline agricultural inventory was identical to Phase II for all states with the exception of Nevada. Each event in the baseline agricultural burning fire inventory was categorized as "anthropogenic" according the categorization me thod approved by the ETT and the FEJF.


## 2.5 Non-Federal Rangeland Prescri bed Burning Baseline Inventory
The WRAP's Phase II non-federal rangeland pr escribed burning inventory for 2002 (the development of which was reviewed and approved by the ETT and FEJF) served as the starting place for the non-federal rangeland burning baseline inventory. Each event in the baseline rangeland burning fire inventory was categorized as "natural" based on the typically low fuel loading levels and the reasonable opinion of th e FEJF that non-federal rangeland burning is typically done to maintain natural fuel conditions.

The Phase II 2002 non-federal rangeland burning inventory was comprised entirely of allocated summary data (i.e., gap-filled data) and was asse ssed to be representative of the baseline 2000- 2004 period. The top-down approach to estimate rangeland burning activity was documented in the Phase II report (Air Sciences, July 2005). Because of the nature of the Phase II non-federal rangeland burning level data and the fact that the inventory was "nominal" by design (i.e. noactual event-based rangeland burning data is included in the inventory), the Phase II 2002 nonfederal rangeland inventory was used "as is" as the baseline inventory.

To increase confidence in the rangeland inventory, a brief reality check was performed. Air Sciences compared the Phase II 2002 non-federal rangeland acres burned by state to total rangeland existing per state appearing in the 1997 National Resources Inventory (NRI) published by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rangeland acres burned divided by existing rangeland acres created a "percent burned" statistic by state. Figure 9 shows the comparison of Phase II rangeland acres burned to NRI rangeland acres existing, as well as the percent burned statistic.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 17 Figure 9: Comparison of WRAP Phase II Burned NFR Acres to NRI Existing NFR Acres

The average percent burned of non-federal rangel and acres by state is 0.48%. Oregon was the most apparent outlier and had the highest perc ent burned with 3.23%. The next highest was Arizona with 0.77%. Nevada had the lowest percent burned with 0.01% and the next lowest were Colorado and Wyoming with 0.05%. If the baseline inventory for non-federal rangeland fire data be used for other emission inventory or regional dispersion modeling in the future, users of the data should consider further examination of the total acres of non-federal rangeland burned in Oregon.


## 2.6 Baseline Inventory Results and Comparison to Phase II
The baseline inventories for wildfire, prescribed burning, and WFU were created by adding or subtracting events from the phase II inventory to ac hieve the baseline targets, as discussed above. In that fire days were added or subtracted in their entirety, the baseline target was inevitably over exceeded or not reached by a nominal amount . The fire activity and emissions of the final baseline inventories are presented in this section. Table 2 tabulates, in summary format, the method used to develop the baseline inventories for each fire type. Figure 10 compares Phase II to Phase III (Baseline) acreage tota ls for each fire source, and Fi gures 11-15 show the comparison of Phase II to Phase III (Baseline) invent ories for each fire source by state. Non-Fed Rangeland: Phase II (acres burned) vs NRI (acres existing)

0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000Acres (Burned or Existing)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5%Percent Burned

NASS (acres) 13,505,375 15,952,019 20,129,123 5,691,125 41,666,273 12,395,570 41,420,424 5,004,806 11,397,443 24,543,574 7,340,047 6,859,879 31,745,109 NRI (acres) 32,323,000 18,269,300 24,574,100 6,500,500 36,750,900 10,689,400 39,989,500 8,372,400 9,286,300 21,876,400 10,733,400 5,856,900 27,302,400 Phase II (acres burned) 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 Percent Burned (Ph2/NRI) 0.77% 0.22% 0.05% 0.12% 0.41% 0.23% 0.15% 0.01% 3.23% 0.69% 0.23% 0.10% 0.05% AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 18 Table 2: Summary of Baseline Development and Phase II Comparison Methods

Fire Source Comparison
Data Set Years of Comparison Averaging
Method Baseline Target Equation Adjustments Wildfire Fed-5 2000-2003 Mean [Phase II – Fed-5 2002] + Average (Fed-5) AK and UT baseline = Fed-5 mean

Prescribed SIT 2000-2004 Mean [Phase II – SIT 2002] + Average (SIT) None

WFU SIT 2000-2004 Mean [Phase II – SIT 2002] + Average (SIT) If Phase II < SIT 2002 then baseline = SIT Average; If Phase II or all SIT years = 0, then baseline = SIT Average; ND, SD, WA, OR apply de minimis, baseline = 0 Agricultural Phase II Inventory (as Baseline Inventory) plus a supplemental inventory for Nevada. Rangeland Phase II Inventory (as Baseline Inventory).

Figure 10: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Emission Inventories by Fire Type
WRAP Phase II vs. Phase III (Baseline) Emissions Inventory Annual Acres Burned and Tons PM2.5 Emitted by Fire Type

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Acres 5,276,485 649,044 201,548 2,162,836 1,042,003
Baseline Acres 4,517,818 669,348 153,697 2,164,166 1,042,003
Phase II PM2.5 1,489,886 71,421 81,505 34,571 15,454
Baseline PM2.5 971,453 72,218 41,171 34,590 15,454 Wildfire Prescribed Burning WFU Agricultural Non-Fed RangelandWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 19 Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories Prescribed Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Prescribed Acres 1,108 103,619 86,785 17,425 89,477 77,419 26,826 25,292 5,659 129,290 8,811 14,531 41,196 21,605
Baseline Prescribed Acres 1,244 103,569 69,291 28,746 78,494 77,418 21,030 37,259 8,460 142,153 9,905 18,649 45,109 28,025
Phase II Prescribed PM2.5 177 20,230 9,438 379 11,499 7,067 713 2,029 284 12,568 245 2,021 2,256 2,516
Baseline Prescribed PM2.5 178 20,213 7,564 705 10,222 7,054 555 2,795 397 13,739 332 2,487 2,548 3,428 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Figure 11: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Wildfire Inventory by State

Figure 12: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III Prescribed Burning Inventory by State Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories Wildfire Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Wildfire Acres 1,790,533 555,873 510,140 412,697 77,678 112,413 83,599 247,243 56,218 921,515 78,384 212,853 89,854 127,486
Baseline Wildfire Acres 1,065,097 220,221 510,092 155,763 566,039 479,068 52,300 197,353 286,362 347,657 124,788 212,828 150,257 149,993
Phase II Wildfire PM2.5 802,701 100,920 112,759 108,436 7,962 10,453 3,665 19,872 5,541 246,411 2,393 30,509 11,854 26,409
Baseline Wildfire PM2.5 452,336 39,491 112,743 34,058 57,046 44,610 2,001 17,886 28,207 98,993 3,560 30,505 22,105 27,912 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 20 Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories Agricultural Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Agricultural Acres 0 16,203 727,641 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 0 129,781 5,018 16,684 656,705 38,223 Baseline Agricultural Acres 0 16,203 727,641 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 1,330 129,781 5,018 16,684 656,705 38,223 Phase II Agricultural PM2.5 0 209 8,543 852 4,302 195 2,155 190 0 3,407 136 210 13,797 576 Baseline Agricultural PM2.5 0 209 8,543 852 4,302 195 2,155 190 19 3,407 136 210 13,797 576 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Figure 13: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Phase III WFU Inventory by State

Figure 14: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Ph ase III Agricultural Burning Inventory by State Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories WFU Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000Acres or Tons

Phase II WFU Acres 159,554 0 4,051 22,852 3,543 25 0 4,759 0 0 0 545 0 6,220
Baseline WFU Acres 58,236 1,516 11,914 15,094 10,421 20,017 0 25,262 2,686 0 0 3,302 0 5,250
Phase II WFU PM 2.5 67,616 0 2,304 8,152 1,881 14 0 194 0 0 0 196 0 1,147
Baseline WFU PM2.5 25,710 83 3,510 5,165 2,348 871 0 488 682 0 0 1,221 0 1,092 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 21 Figure 15: Comparison of WRAP Phase II to Ph ase III Non-Federal Rangeland Burning Inventory by State



## 2.7 Base Control Case Inventory

The Phase III Base Control case for fire is the Phase III Baseline inventory with emissions reduced to reflect emission reduction techniques (ERTs) be ing applied to prescribed fire and agricultural burning throughout the WRAP region.

A method to develop a lookup table of seasonal ERTs and associated emission reduction factors (ERF) included a Strawman process over the cour se of several FEJF meet ings, Phase III/IV Task Team breakout sessions, and conference calls. The primary resource document for this work is the Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire – 2001 Edition (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Fire Use Working Team). From this document and expert/stakeholder input, several EXCEL worksheet tables were developed. In addition, Federal Land Mangers (FLM) from each ge ographic region for which seasonal suites of ERTs have been developed provided input to complete the lookup table of seasonal suites of ERTs and the
associated ERFs.

The lookup table of ERTs and ERFs generally characterize ERTs by season (winter, spring, summer, fall), by vegetation type category (grass , brush, timber, crop), and by geographic region (northwest [NW], southwest [SW], and intermount ain west [IMW]). Air Sciences and the FLMs Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories

Non-Federal Rangeland Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Rangeland Acres 0 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 Baseline Rangeland Acres 0 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 Phase II Rangeland PM 2.5 0 3,708 593 178 119 2,225 371 890 15 4,449 2,225 371 89 222 Baseline Rangeland PM2.5 0 3,708 593 178 119 2,225 371 890 15 4,449 2,225 371 89 222 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 22 who provided input to prepare the lookup table recognize that that the ERT seasonal suites reasonably represent ERTs (and combinations of ERTs) that are typically implemented for the regions and vegetation categories. The ERFs are in tended to be general estimates of the overall, average effectiveness of the seasonal suit es of ERTs in reducing emissions of PM 2.5 . Each ERF that has been assigned to a seasonal ERT suit e for a geographic region is based upon ERF information found in the current literature, estimates of the effectiveness of certain ERTs in reducing available fuel loading, and the professi onal experience of the FLMs who provided input to the lookup table. The seasonal suites of ERTs and the ERFs are not intended to be prescriptive nor precise in representing the application of ERTs in all cases.

Seasonal suites of ERTs and the associated ERFs were developed for three regions of the WRAP. Each event was classified into a region based on the event's location (state). The regions and
associated states are:

• Northwest region (NW) : Alaska, Oregon, and Washington

• Southwest region (SW) : Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah

• Inter-Mountain West region (IMW) : Colorado, Idaho, Mont ana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming

Seasonal suites of ERTs and the associated ERFs were developed for each of the four seasons.
Each event was classified into a season based on the event's date of burn (month). The seasons
and associated months are:

• Winter : December, January, and February

• Spring : March, April, and May

• Summer : June, July, and August

• Fall : September, October, and November

Seasonal suites of ERTs and the associated ERFs were developed for each of four vegetation categories (grass, brush, timber, crop). The fuel category of a prescribed event was determined by the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel model code (fuel model A though U) assigned to each event in the Base Case fire in ventory. All agricultural burning events were assigned the "crop" fuel type. The vegetation ca tegories and associated NFDRS fuel models are:

• Grass –

o A - western grasses (annual),

o L - western grasses (perennial),

o N - sawgrass, and

o S - tundraWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 23 • Brush –

o B - California chaparral,

o F - intermediate brush,

o O - high pocosin, and

o T - Sagebrush grass

• Timber –

o C – pine grass savanna,

o D - southern rough,

o E - hardwood litter (winter),

o G - short needle (heavy dead),

o H - short needle (normal dead),

o I - heavy slash,

o J - intermediate slash,

o K - light slash,

o P - southern pine plantation,

o Q - Alaskan black spruce,

o R - hardwood litter (summer), and

o U - western pines

Accounting for the implementation of ERTs in th e Phase III Base Case (2000 -2004) fire emissions inventory was accomplished by reducing emissi ons according to the appropriate ERF based on the location, timing, and vegetation type of ea ch event. The seasonal suites of ERTs and
associated ERFs are listed in Table 3. ERFs are defined as the percentage of PM 2.5 emissions averted due to the application of the seasonal suite of ERTs.

Table 3: ERFs (percent PM 2.5 emissions averted) for Seasonal Suites of ERTs

Vegetation Category Region Season Grass Brush Timber Crop SW Spring 55% 45% 45% 50% SW Summer 55% 40% 30% 50% SW Fall 55% 45% 45% 70% SW Winter 55% 45% 60% 70% NW Spring 55% 70% 40% 0% NW Summer 65% 45% 45% 30% NW Fall 65% 65% 52.5% 70% NW Winter 10% 70% 25% 75% IMW Spring 55% 40% 40% 50% IMW Summer 60% 40% 45% 40% IMW Fall 65% 60% 60% 70% IMW Winter 25% 50% 20% 0%WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 24 ERFs were applied to all agricultural burning events, which have all been categorized as "anthropogenic" in the Base Case inventory. ERFs were also applied to prescribed broadcast fires categorized as "anthropogenic" in the Base Case in ventory. Prescribed pile burning events in the inventory, also categorized as "anthropogenic," did not have ERFs applied because a unique suite of emission factors for pile burning events (whi ch accounts for the emissions control associated with pile burning) was already applied to burning events in the Base Case prescribed fire inventory. The application of ERFs to prescribed broadcast and agricultural burning events was dependent upon specific data contained in each fire record: location (state, cross-walked to ERT region), time of burn (month, cross-walked to season), and fuel type (NFDRS, cross-walked to fuel category [grass, brush, timber, crop]).

The Base Control case emissions were calculated by multiplying the PM 2.5 emissions from each qualifying event in the Base (2000 -2004) fire inventory times one minus the by-region, by-season, by-fuel category ERF. The application of the ERF is shown in Equation 5.

Emissions (Base Control) = Emissions (Base) × (1 – ERF) (5)

A step-by-step example of the Base Control emis sions calculation for a hypothetical prescribed burning broadcast event is shown below:

1. Base PM 2.5 emissions from single prescribed broadcast burn event:

a. Fire type – prescribed fire , broadcast, anthropogenic.

b. Emissions – 100 tons PM 2.5
.

c. Fire location – Southwest (Arizona).

d. Fire timing – Spring (April).

e. Vegetation category – Grass (NFDRS fuel model A).

2. Look up ERF in the ERT Seasonal Suite look up Table: 55% (Southwest, spring, grass fire).

3. Calculate PM 2.5 emissions:

a. Equation: Emissions (Base Control) = 100 tons PM 2.5 × (1 – 0.55)

b. Result: Emissions (Base Control) = 45 tons PM 2.5

c. Emissions Averted = 55 tons PM 2.5
Figures 16 through 18 display the effectiveness in reducing PM 2.5 emissions due to the application
of ERFs associated with the seasonal suites of ER Ts to the qualifying events in the Base Control fire inventory.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 25 Figure 16: WRAP Phase III Base Control Case: Wildland Prescribed Burning PM 2.5 Emissions by State With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs



### WRAP Phase III Baseline Control Case Prescribed Burning by State: Emissions Averted

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000Tons PM2.5

Averted (ERTs on Broad-ANTH) 79 30 1,944 39 3,784 2,395 0 214 16 2,955 0 136 163 840 12,595
Broadcast - ANTH 88 37 2,395 56 3,594 1,857 0 353 19 3,840 0 155 167 587 13,148
Piled - ANTH 4 814 276 273 162 453 0 166 44 4,512 0 195 1,123 296 8,318
Broadcast - NAT 8 19,337 2,955 339 2,688 2,361 556 2,064 319 2,447 333 2,003 1,105 1,708 38,221 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Grand TotalWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 26 

### WRAP Phase III Baseline Control Case Prescribed Burning by Fuel Type: Emissions Averted

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000Tons PM2.5

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000Acres

Averted (ERTs on Broad-ANTH) 413 0 12,182 12,595
Broadcast - ANTH 459 0 12,688 13,148
Piled - ANTH 286 34 7,997 8,318
Broadcast - NAT 8,314 2,125 27,782 38,221
Acres 110,105 59,641 499,602 669,348 Brush Grass Timber Grand Total



### WRAP Phase III Baseline Control Case Agricultural Burning by State: Emissions Averted

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000Tons PM2.5

Emissions Averted 110 5,378 298 2,350 101 1,509 118 13 1,207 68 121 4,238 264 15,774
Baseline Control PM2.5 99 3,164 554 1,952 94 647 72 6 2,200 68 89 9,559 312 18,816 AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Grand Total Figure 17: WRAP Phase III Base Control Case: Wildland Prescribed Burning PM 2.5 Emissions and Acres by Vegetation Category With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTs

Figure 18: WRAP Phase III Base Case Control: Agricultural Burning PM 2.5 Emissions by State With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTsWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 27 SECTION 3 

# PROJECTION (2018) FIRE EMISSION INVENTORIES

Projection (2018) inventories were built from the baseline inventories for wildfire, wildland fire use, prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and non-federal rangeland burning (described in Section 2).

Prescribed burning, wildfire, and WFU burning projection emission inventories were each created by "scaling" the respective baseline in ventory up or down based on input presented during the two technical Workshops that was provided by the Interagency Fuels Committee (IFC) to the FEJF. The non-federal prescribed rangeland burning projection inventory was built by "scaling" the NFR baseline inventory up or down based on input from the USDA - National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and FEJF. For each fire type, sets of scalars were developed to create less, likely, and more projection inventories. A likely agricultural burning projection inventory was created by removing events from the baseline inventory to reflect known limits to future agricultural burning. The less, likely, and more scalars for each fire type
are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of 2018 Projection Scalars for the Less, Likely, and More Scenarios

Fire Type Breakdown Less Likely More Prescribed By state and agency Fed. Agencies = IFC x 0.25 State/Private/Other = baseline Fed. Agencies = IFC x 0.5 State/Private/Other = baseline x 2 Fed. Agencies = IFC

State/Private/Other = baseline x 3 Wildfire By state 0.9 x (WF base + WFU base) 0.5 x (WF base + WFU base) 0.5 x (WF base + WFU base) WFU By state 0.1 x (WF base + WFU base) 0.5 x (WF base + WFU base) (WF base + WFU base) Agricultural By state Baseline - limits to future burning Rangeland By state 0.5 x NRCS 2018 Estimate NRCS 2018 Estimate 2.0 x NRCS 2018 Estimate

In addition, the results from the 2018 projection inventories for each fire type were grouped into three air quality planning suites to reflect possible future bu rning scenarios (see Section 3.5). These suites include,

• Base Case, reflecting the most probable scenario.

• Climate Conditions/Resource Limited, reflec ting high rates of wildfire and WFU and resource constraints for prescribed burning.

• Maximum Application of Prescribed Fire, influenced by the IFC’s targets for prescribed burning.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 28 

## 3.1 Prescribed Burning Projection Inventory
The WRAP's Phase III Baseline (2000-2 004) prescribed fire inventory (described in Section 2.2) served as the starting place for the prescribed fire projection inventory. The projection inventory for prescribed burning was built by scaling the baseline inventory based on IFC target acres and FEJF scalars.

The IFC provided projected activity targets (in acres) for broadcast and piled burning by state and agency. The participants of the Technical Workshops used the IFC targets to develop the agency- and scenario-specific scalars. The IF C targets were used to establish the "more" prescribed burning scenario scalars for federal ag encies. For state, priv ate, and other agencies, the “more” scenario scalar was set to three times baseline. The "likely" scenario scalars were calculated using half of the IFC target acres for federal agencies and twice the baseline values for state, private, and other agencies. The "less" scenario scalars were calculated using one-quarter of the IFC target acres for federal agencies and equal to baseline the baseline values for state, private, and other agencies. For all WRAP states other than Nevada, the scalars for the less
scenario were set to ensure that the “less” scenar io projections were at least equal to the baseline values for the federal agencies. For Nevada, 2018 prescribed burning levels for the less scenario were established at 1,553 acres below baseline levels.

The 2018 scaled projection inventories were assembled by adding events to the baseline prescribed burning inventory base d on the by-state, agency, and burn type scalars in the same manner as described for creating the baseline pr escribed inventory from Phase II events in Section 2.2, with the exception that a random date was assigned to new, repeated events. For the projection inventories, new repeated events were given a date within seven days before or after the original date. ERTs were applied to the 2018 projection inventory using a similar technical methodology as used for the Base Control case described in Section 2.7. Figure 19 shows the projected prescribed acres compared to baseline pres cribed acres. Figure 20 shows the affect on
PM 2.5 emissions of applying ERTs to the pr escribed projection inventory.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 29 WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Prescribed Burning: Burn Type (with Alaska)

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000Tons PM2.5

0 2 4MillionsAcres

Averted (ERTs on Broad-ANTH) 12,595 24,978 50,385 96,894
Broadcast - ANTH 13,148 29,413 59,396 114,889
Piled - ANTH 8,318 11,256 22,816 40,080
Broadcast - NAT 38,221 60,192 120,281 238,422
Acres 669,348 966,251 1,959,146 3,704,081 Baseline Less Likely More WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Prescribed Burning Scenarios

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000Acres

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000Tons PM2.5

Baseline Acres 1,244 103,569 69,291 28,746 78,494 77,418 21,030 37,259 8,460 142,153 9,905 18,649 45,109 28,025

Less Acres 5,505 150,072 95,680 41,621 116,860 122,538 26,772 78,718 6,906 188,369 13,726 29,403 60,077 30,006 Likely Acres 11,002 297,937 191,740 90,329 234,519 250,593 54,509 160,830 15,491 379,089 31,157 59,196 121,514 61,242

More Acres 22,029 601,074 375,276 182,153 459,294 453,779 94,572 305,973 30,341 672,849 61,633 118,668 210,439 116,003
Baseline PM2.5 180 20,218 7,570 707 10,227 7,067 556 2,796 398 13,753 333 2,490 2,558 3,430

Less PM2.5 165 33,489 8,565 1,102 15,158 8,175 707 6,977 335 15,058 375 4,057 3,949 2,749 Likely PM2.5 250 66,278 17,618 2,318 30,889 16,609 1,446 13,807 735 30,212 805 7,805 7,989 5,730

More PM2.5 502 133,829 34,079 4,652 60,790 30,587 2,529 27,189 1,443 54,490 1,657 15,785 14,807 11,052 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Figure 19: WRAP Phase IV 2018 Projection Inventory: Prescribed Burning PM 2.5 Emissions and Acres by State for Each Scenario

Figure 20: WRAP Phase IV 2018 Projection Inventory: Prescribed Burning PM 2.5 Emissions and Acres by Scenario With Emissions Averted Due to the Implementation of ERTsWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 30 

### 3.1.1 Prototype or “Stem Cell” Events The 2018 prescribed burning inventories were cr eated from the Phase III (baseline) inventory by adjusting the baseline inventory based on the scal ars (specific to state, agency, and burn type) developed during the two Technical Workshops. This scaling method resulted in fire activity in areas of some states, agencies, and burn types, wh ich did not exist in the baseline inventory. In order to include this fire activity in the 2018 inventories, prototype or "stem cell" events were
created and added to the baseline seed events.

Stem cell fire events were created to create ev ents for each state-agency-burn type combination with acres projected by the IFC activity targets but without acres in the baseline inventory. The stem cell events were then used to augment the baseline events utilized by the Projection Calculation Tool (described in Section 1.1) to create the prescribed burning projection inventories. In order to include fire events in the projection inventory that are spatially and temporally reasonable, a 12 kilometer grid was created for the WRAP region. For each grid cell (based on the location of the centroid of the grid cell), fuel loading, agency jurisdiction, and natural or anthropogenic emissions, along with state, county, and time zone was determined. The fuel loading was calculated from the NFDRS code an d the natural or anthropogenic categorization
was determined based on the fuel characteristic classification system (FCCS) code at each centroid. By creating the stem cell events from th e grid centroids, each event has site-specific fuel
information as well as accurate location information.

The average burn size for prescribed broadcast bu rns in the baseline inventory is 50 acres and for piled burns it is 25 acres. In the baseline inventory, the spring month with the most broadcast acres burned is April and the fall month with the mo st activity is October. For piled burning, the spring month with the most burned acres is also April and the fall month with the most piled burning is November. For each grid cell with st ate and agency combinations needing stem cellevents, 50 acre broadcast burns and 25 acre piled burns were created with the appropriate sitespecific fuel information. To add events to the projection inventory in the appropriate stateagency combinations, an appropriate broadcast burn stem cell event was assigned a random burn date in April and October and added to the projec tion inventory until the target value of acres was reached. Similarly, stem cell piled events were added to the projection inventory with a random burn date in April and November until th e targets are reached. The emissions from each
stem cell event were calculated based on si te-specific fuel loading and acres burned.

Stem cell events were created for 40 state-ag ency combinations and comprised approximately 20,000 acres out of 1,000,000 acres in the 2018 prescribed burning “less” projection inventory, about 45,000 acres of the 2,000,000 acres in the “likely” projection inventory, and approximately 90,000 acres out of the 3,700,000 acres in “more” projection inventory. In each inventory, the stem cell events account for approximately 2 percent of the total acres.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 31 

## 3.2 Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Projection Inventory
The WRAP's Phase III Baseline (2000-2004) wildfi re and Wildland Fire Use (WFU) inventories (described in Section 2.1 and Section 2.3, respectively) served as the starting place for the wildfire and WFU projection inventories. The projection inventories for wildfire and WFU were built by summing total baseline wildfire and WFU acres from the baseline inventory and allocating the total acres on a by state basis using the activi ty targets provided by the IFC and the FEJF projection scalars. The IFC provided projected activity targets (in acres) for WFU by state and agency. In general, the IFC activity targets indica te that Federal Land Managers intend to utilize the WFU designation for more naturally caused wildla nd fire events in the future. Therefore, the participants in the Technical Workshops elected to represent significantly more wildland fire acres as WFU in the projection inventory.

The wildfire and WFU scalars are presented in Table 4. For all scenarios, WFU acres were allocated on a by-state basis by allocating th e total wildfire and WFU acres according to IFC activity targets. The IFC activity targets were us ed to allocate WFU by state by calculating each state's target acres as a percen t of the total target acres. 1

The 2018 scaled wildfire and WFU projection inventories were assembled by combining the wildfire and WFU baseline inventories and randomly selecting events from the combined set for each fire type regardless of the original baseline fire type of each event. This technique ensured that each inventory had spatially and temporally realistic fire events and increased the number of seed events that were available to be pulled fr om the seed data and added to the projection inventory for the WFU “more” scenario. The scaled 2018 wildfire and WFU inventories were
created from events in the baseline inventories in the same manner as the creation of the baseline wildfire inventory from the Phase II wildfire inventory (described in Section 2.1). An exception to this method is that the date given to new, re peated events was plus or minus seven days from the original date. In addition, WFU events were limited to fire events smaller than 50,000 acres (except in Alaska). For wildfire, one abnormally large fire in Arizona was removed from the seed data. Figure 21 shows wildfire and WFU acres and PM 2.5 for each scenario compared to baseline
wildfire and WFU acres and PM 2.5 . Figure 22 shows wildfire and WFU projected acres by state compared to baseline acres.

1 State-by-state WFU activity targets to not reflect t he role that Smoke Management Programs may play in permitting wildland fires to be managed as Wildland Fire Use events.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 32 WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Wildfire and WFU by State

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000BaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMoreBaselineLikelyMore

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYAcres Sum of WFU Sum of Wildfire WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Wildfire and WFU (with Alaska)

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000Acres

0 1 2MillionsTons PM2.5

Total Acres 4,671,515 4,606,074 6,934,577
Wildfire Acres 4,517,818 2,291,618 2,291,618
WFU Acres 153,697 2,314,456 4,642,959
WF+WFU PM2.5 1,012,663 1,088,938 1,642,907 Baseline Likely More Figure 21: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Ph ase IV Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Acres and
PM 2.5

Figure 22: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Ph ase IV Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use Acres and
PM 2.5 by StateWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 33 

## 3.3 Agricultural Burning Projection Inventory
As determined during the two Technical Workshop s for developing the projection inventories, only a "likely" scenario that accounts for variat ions from the Phase III (bas eline) for agricultural burning was developed. To determine the extent, if any, the projection inventory should vary from baseline activity levels for agricultural burning, legal documents (such as state and local bills and statutes) were examined for codified limit s to present and future agricultural burning. The agricultural projection inventory was crea ted by removing activity from the baseline inventory to reflect the known limits to future agricultural burning. The projected emission inventory was created to reflect realistic burning pa tterns (on a spatial and temporal scale) with a reasonable projected activity level. In addition, ERTs were applied to the 2018 projection agricultural inventory in the same manner as for the base-control case discussed in Section 2.7.

For agricultural burning, the foreseeable variations from baseline resulted from changes in allowable burning levels throughout the WRAP region. The "likely" inventory was therefore developed by starting with the baseline (2000-2004) agricultural burning inventory and removing agricultural burning activity based on future or current (2005) limitations on burning. The allowable burning levels were gleaned through a search of literature, rules, regulations, and statute of state and local agencies in the WRAP region. Each limit was examined for its effect on the baseline inventory and fire events were dro pped accordingly. Specifically, events in the baseline emission inventory were dropped (by geog raphic area and crop type) as necessary to meet the burning level targets (in acres) , identified in the literature search.

The quality controlled baseline emission inventory was created from reported and estimated burning levels centering on 2002, and is therefore deemed accurate for fire size, fuel type, location, and time of burns. By starting with the baseline agricultural burning inventory and then dropping events for regulation changes, th e 2018 projection inventory remained realistic on a spatial and temporal basis. That is, fire events in the projected inventory were of realistic size, location and timing.

A summary of the bills, statute, rules, and regu lations that were examined is presented in the
numbered list that follows. Th e consequent acres removed from th e baseline inventory to arrive at the projected inventory are also identified.

1. Pima County: Only tumbleweed can be burned in Pima County, Arizona.

Area: Pima County, Arizona

Citation: Pima County Code 17.12.480 - .500 Implementation Method: Select all burning except ditches and ditch banks in Pima County.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 34 Affected Acres in Baseline: 0 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 0 acres

2. Sacramento Valley: Rice Straw burning limited to 125,000 acres per year in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

Area: Sacramento Valley air basin includes the Ca lifornia counties: Shasta, Placer, Butte, Colusa, Yolo, Sacramento, Tehama, Glenn, Yuba, Sutter, and Solano

Citation: Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act Implementation Method: Select all rice straw burning in the Sacramento Valley Air
Basin counties.

Affected Acres in Baseline: 155,078 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 30,154 acres (randomly chosen events, total acres removed is slightly more than necessary due to randomly removing entire events)

3. San Joaquin Valley: Eliminate burning of all agricultural wastes in the San Joaquin Valley starting June 2006.

Area: San Joaquin Valley air basin includes the California counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulane, and Kern (western part)

Citation: Senate Bill 1056 Implementation Method: Select all burning in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
counties.

Affected Acres in Baseline: 402,987 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 402,987 acres 2

4. Southwest Air District: Best Management Practices allows very little agricultural burning in Washington's Southwest Clean Air Agency district.

Area: Southwest Clean Air Agency includes the Washington counties: Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Skamania, and Wahkiakum

Citation: BMP Part II (WAC 173-430) Implementation Method: Select all burning in Washington's Southwest Clean Air Agency counties.

Affected Acres in Baseline: 0 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 0 acres

2 The efforts to quantify the effects on agricultural emissions of regulations that will be implemented in the future did not consider the degree to which exemptions to the regulations would be utilized.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 35 5. Willamette Valley: Open field burning limited to 65,000 acres (40,000 acres regular burning, 22,000 acres identified species, 3,000 acres steep terrain) and propane flaming limited to 37,500 acres in the Willamette Valley.

Area: The Willamette Valley includes the Oreg on counties of: Columbia, Washington, Multnomah, Yamhill, Clackamas, Polk, Marion, Linn, Benton, Lane, and Douglas

Citation: Field Burning Rule 603-077-0101 Implementation Method: Select all burning in the Willamette Valley counties.

Affected Acres in Baseline: 51,845 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 0 acres The agricultural burning inventory does not include information regarding the type of burn (i.e. regular, identified species, stee p terrain, propane flaming) and therefore the specific limits by type of burn cannot be assessed. However, from 2002 to 2005 the total average open-field burning in the Willamette Valley was 50,000 acres with an addition average of 1,700 acres of propane flaming. The baseline inventory includes 51,845 acres (including propane flaming) and is therefore deemed average, resulting in no removal of acres from the baseline inventory.

6. Washington Orchards: No orchard removal in Washington in 2018.

Area: Washington State

Citation: Discussions at Phase III/IV Tec hnical Workshop 2.5 in Seattle Implementation Method: Select all orchard removal burning in Washington.

Affected Acres in Baseline: 1334 acres Proposed Acres Removed: 1334 acres

The total fire activity that was dropped for the 2018 projection inventory was 434,475 acres accounting for 4,999 tons PM 2.5 (Figure 23). Of the agricultural activity that was dropped, 99.7% of acres occurred in California. Within California, a majority (97%) of the activity removed was from the San Joaquin Valley. The only other state with fire activity removed from baseline for the 2018 projection inventory was Wa shington for orchard removal.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 36 

### WRAP Phase IV 2018 Agricultural Burning Projection EI Baseline vs 2018 Projection Inventory (Proposed)

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000Acres

Baseline Acres 0 16,203 727,641 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 1,330 129,781 5,018 16,684 656,705 38,223 2,164,166

2018 Acres 0 16,203 294,500 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 1,330 129,781 5,018 16,684 655,371 38,223 1,729,691
Acres Removed 0 0 433,141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,334 0 434,475 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Grand Total Figure 23: Agricultural Burning Baseline Versus 2018 Projection Inventory

The total agricultural burning activity in the base line fire inventory was 2,164,166 acres. The total agricultural burning activity in the projected (2018 ) fire inventory is 1,729,691 acres, or 80% of baseline activity. The total PM 2.5 emissions and acres in the projected inventory and the emissions averted from the application of ERTs are shown in Figure 24.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 37 WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Agricultural Burning by State: Emissions Averted

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Tons PM2.5

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000Acres

Emissions Averted 128 2,320 193 1,700 99 1,294 127 13 843 34 107 4,652 203

PM2.5 81 1,322 659 2,602 96 862 63 6 2,563 102 103 9,040 373

Acres 16,203 294,500 38,231 292,348 8,890 211,932 21,180 1,330 129,781 5,018 16,684 655,371 38,223 AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Figure 24: Agricultural Burning Projection EI Acres Burned, Tons PM 2.5 Emitted, and Emission Averted from the Application of ERTs



## 3.4 Non-Federal Rangeland Prescri bed Burning Projection Inventory
The WRAP's Phase III Baseline (2000 -2004) non-federal rangeland (N F) fire inventory (described in Section 2.5) served as the starting place for the NFR projection inventory. The projection inventory for NFR was built by scaling up the baseline inventory based on NRCS projected acres and FEJF scalars. The NRCS provided projected acres by state, which were determined by the participants of the Technical Workshops as the likely scenario. The Workshop participants
determined that the less scenario should be ha lf of the NRCS projected acres by-state and the
more scenario should be twice th e NRCS projected acres by-state. 3

The baseline non-federal rangeland events were used to assemble the scaled projection inventory
in the same manner as the creation of the baseli ne wildfire inventory from the Phase II wildfire inventory. Figure 25 shows the projected NFR acres compared to the baseline NFR acres.

3 In the Air Quality Planning Suites (described in Section 3.5) only the likely scenario was utilized.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 38 Figure 25: Comparison of WRAP Phase III to Phase IV 2018 Non-Federal Rangeland Burning Likely Inventory by State



## 3.5 Air Quality Planning Suites
The technical approach to produce projection inve ntories for each of the fire types included the development of “less,” “likely,” and “more” scenar ios. The projection inventories are intended for use by the WRAP and its Regional Modeling Center (RMC) to estimate future air quality impacts associated with fire emissions. As a pr actical matter, the resources of the WRAP to have the RMC execute regional dispersion models are limited. Therefore, the FEJF was asked to identify a limited number of combinations of fire emissions (one scenario from each of the five fire types) to serve as the Air Quality Planning Suites for fire. The Air Quality Planning Suites
are summarized in Table 5. WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning by State

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000Acres

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000Tons PM2.5

Baseline Acres 0 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 1,042,003 Likely Acres 0 374,721 40,000 19,969 9,962 149,901 34,951 119,937 1,000 300,001 150,001 34,734 5,929 15,000 1,256,106
Baseline PM2.5 0 3,708 593 178 119 2,225 371 890 15 4,449 2,225 371 89 222 15,454 Likely PM2.5 0 5,558 593 296 148 2,223 518 1,779 15 4,449 2,225 515 88 222 18,630 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Grand TotalWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 39 Table 5: Summary of Air Quality Planning Suites

Fire Type Baseline
Control Case Base
Case Climate Conditions/
Resource
Limited Maximum Application of
Prescribed Fire Wildfire Baseline Likely More Likely WFU Baseline Likely More Likely Prescribed Baseline with ERT Likely Less More Rangeland Baseline Likely Likely Likely Agricultural Baseline with ERT Likely Likely Likely

Base Case Planning Suite. This suite reflects the most "likely" fire emissions scenario for 2018. This suites avoids extremes of either mostly pres cribed or mostly wildfire burning. As shown in Table 5, the base case suite is comprised of all of the likely inventories. The base case suite can be compared to baseline to estimate changes in emissi ons and visibility due to fire from the baseline period (2000-2004) to 2018. This suite would re flect favorable conditions for prescribed burning in most states and steady funding for fuels treatment using prescribed fire.

Climate Conditions and Resource Limited Suite. This suite reflects the highest expected levels of wildfire and wildland fire use in 2018. This suite includes low prescribed fire usage (due to unfavorable fuel and weather conditions). This suite is comprised of the “more” inventory for wildfire and WFU, the “less” inventory for prescribed burning, and the “likely” inventory for agricultural and NFR burning. The climate conditions and resource limited suite can be compared to baseline to estimate the potential change in emissions and visibility impacts due to prolonged drought, heaving loadings of dry fuels, and constrained resources.

Maximum Application of Prescribed Fire Suite. This suite reflects prescribed burning at the Interagency Fuels Committee's target activity levels . The suite includes the “more” inventory for prescribed burning and the “likely” inventories for wildfire, WFU, agricultural burning, and NFR burning. The maximum application of prescribed fire suite can be compared to baseline to estimate the possible change in emissions and vi sibility impacts due to the maximum application of prescribed fire. This suite would reflec t the maximum funding for treatment and ideal conditions for burning. It could also be used to estimate the maximum potential air quality benefit that could be accomplished through the app lication of ERTs to prescribed fire events.


## 3.6 Projection Inventory Result s and Comparison to Baseline
The 2018 projection inventories for prescribed burning, wildfire, WFU, and NFR were created by adding or subtracting events from the baseline in ventory to achieve the projection targets, as discussed above. These inventories were then comp iled into air quality planning suites to reflectWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc 40 future burning scenarios and allow for comparison to baseline to analyze possible changes in emissions and visibility impacts due to fire. Th e fire activity and emissions of the final 2018 projection inventories are presented in this section. Figure 26 presents the acreage and PM 2.5 totals for the Phase III Baseline, Baseline Control, Phase IV Base Case suit e, Climate Conditions and Resource Limited suite, and the Maximum Application of Prescribed Fire suite for each fire

source.

Figure 26: Summary of Phase IV Projection Inventory Air Quality Planning Suites

WRAP Phase IV 2018 Fire Projection EI Source Activity Scenarios Grouped into Air Quality Planning Suites

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000Acres

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000Tons PM2.5

Prescribed Acres 669,348 1,959,146 966,251 3,704,081

WFU Acres 153,697 2,314,456 4,642,959 2,314,456
Wildfire Acres 4,517,818 2,291,618 2,291,618 2,291,618 Agricultural Acres 2,164,166 1,729,691 1,729,691 1,729,691 NF Rangeland Acres 1,042,003 1,256,106 1,256,106 1,256,106
Prescribed PM2.5 59,687 202,493 100,861 393,391

WFU PM2.5 41,173 574,159 1,128,127 574,159
Wildfire PM2.5 971,490 514,780 514,780 514,780 Agricultural PM2.5 18,816 17,871 17,871 17,871 NF Rangeland PM2.5 15,454 18,630 18,630 18,630 Baseline Control Case Base-case Climate conditions/ resource limited Max-App of Rx Fire ( "Likel y " activit y and emission scenario choosen unless otherwise noted )MoreMoreMoreLess

# APPENDIX A 

# Technical Methodologies Used to Create Event-Based Fire Records in the 2002 Phase II Fire Emission InventoriesWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -ii 

# CONTENTS Page

A.1 Fuel Loading and Emission Factors .......................................................................................... ..............................A-1 A.2 Emission Calculations...................................................................................................... ........................................A-3 A.3 Day-After Smoldering Emissions Added to Eligible Fires ..................................................................... ...................A-3 A.4 Plume Profile .............................................................................................................. .............................................A-4 A.4.1 Virtual Acres ............................................................................................................ .....................................A-4 A.4.2 Diurnal Consumption ...................................................................................................... ..............................A-4 A.4.3 Fire Size Classes and Plume Profile Calculations......................................................................... ...............A-5 A.5 Natural and Anthropogenic Assignments (For All Fire Sources) ............................................................... ............A-14



### Tables
Table A-1: Summary of Fuel Loading and Consumption by NFDRS Model ............................................................. ....A-2 Table A-2: Summary of Emission Factors........................................................................................ .............................A-3 Table A-3: Standard Diurnal Consumption Template Used to Distribute Fire-Total Heat Production and Emissions ..A-5
Table A-4: Fire-Related Parameters as Function of Fire Size Classes........................................................... ..............A-5 Table A-5: Buoyant Efficiency as Function of Hour of Day ...................................................................... .....................A-6 Table A-6: SCCs and Their Fire Type and Natural/Anthropogenic Classification.................................................. .....A-15
Table A-7: Prescribed Fire NFDRS Fuel Model Categorization as Natural or Anthropogenic....................................A-17



### Figures
Figure A-1: Buoyant Efficiency................................................................................................ ......................................A-7 Figure A-2: Projected Top of Plume............................................................................................ ..................................A-7 Figure A-3: Projected Bottom of Plume......................................................................................... ................................A-8 Figure A-4: Proportion of Plume in Surface Layer .............................................................................. ..........................A-9 Figure A-5: Fire Size Class 1 Plume Characteristics ........................................................................... .......................A-10 Figure A-6: Fire Size Class 2 Plume Characteristics ........................................................................... .......................A-11 Figure A-7: Fire Size Class 3 Plume Characteristics ........................................................................... .......................A-12 Figure A-8: Fire Size Class 4 Plume Characteristics ........................................................................... .......................A-13 Figure A-9: Fire Size Class 5 Plume Characteristics ........................................................................... .......................A-14WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -1 

## A.1 Fuel Loading and Emission Factors
In the event that fire event-specific fuel loading values were not contained in the database record, fuel loading in tons per acre for the wildfire inventory were assigned using the NFDRS fuel model codes and a table of fuel loading values for NFDRS fuel model categories (Cohen and Deeming, 1985). In addition to the default NFDRS fuel loadings, additional fuel loading was added to each category to adjust for fuel pres ent as duff and tree crowns. Similarly, for prescribed fire events for which no fuel loadin g value was available, the prescribed fire fuel loading values were the same as those used for the wildfire inventory. “Adjusted” NFDRS fuel loading assignments for wildfire and prescribed burning differed by the percent consumption assumed for live fuels, duff, and crown compon ents. Table A-1 presents the adjusted NFDRS fuel loading assignments for wildfire and prescribed burning.

An emission factor suite was developed to apply to wildfire and prescribed fire activity data. The emission factor suite included one look-up table for wildfire and prescribed broadcast burns and one table for prescribed pile burns. The tw elve pollutants included were total suspended particulate matter (TSP), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ), elemental carbon (EC) , organic carbon (OC), non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOC), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and coarse particulate matter–
defined as the difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 (PMC). The emission factor suite consists of two look-up tables. Two emission factor references were drawn upon: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) AP-42 Section 13 .1 and an emission inventory methods survey report (Battye, 2001) funded by the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The emission factor suite is a compila tion of emission factors and emission factor relationships (multipliers) from both documents. Table A-2 lists the emissi on factors used for the
Phase II EI.

In addition to smoldering consum ption incorporated into the NFDRS fuel loading table, distinct smoldering emissions were added to the emission inventory on the day after certain wildland fire days (see Section A.3).WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.docA-2Table A-1: Summary of Fuel Loading and Consumption by NFDRS Model for Wildfire, WFU, and Prescribed Fire.Dead and live fuel loadings were based on Cohen and Deeming (1985). Values in parentheses indicate total fuel loading for prescribed fire. Anasterisk (*) after the NFDRS model description indicates the wildfire emissions were augmented for smoldering consumption.Dead Fuels (tons/acre) Live Fuels (tons/acre) Additional (tons/acre)NFDRSAbbr. NFDRS Model DescriptionTotal,WF/WFU(Rx fire)(tons/acre) 1-hour10-hour100-hour1,000-hourFineWood Herbaceous Duff CrownA Western grasses (annual) 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00B California chaparral 19.5 3.50 4.00 0.50 0.00 11.50 0.00 0.00 0.00C Pine-grass savanna 4.7 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.80 4.00 0.00D Southern rough * 15.6 (10.6) 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.75 7.70 8.00E Hardwood litter (winter) * 3.8 1.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.10 0.00F Intermediate brush 15.0 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00G Short needle (heavy dead) * 43.5 (25.6) 2.50 2.00 5.00 12.00 0.50 0.50 18.20 19.20H Short needle (normal dead) * 27.5 (15.0) 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 16.90 18.70I Heavy slash * 55.1 (49.1) 12.00 12.00 10.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 18.20 0.00J Intermediate slash * 34.0 (31.2) 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 16.90 0.00K Light slash * 14.4 (13.1) 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.00L Western grasses (perennial) 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00N Saw grass * 5.0 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00O High pocosin * 46.1 (45.1) 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 0.00 58.20 0.00P Southern pine plantation * 16.4 (10.2) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 13.30 10.00Q Alaskan Black Spruce 57.6 (48.8) 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 4.00 0.50 57.90 26.80R Hardwood litter (summer) * 3.1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.10 0.00S Tundra * 19.3 (19.1) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 32.60 0.00T Sagebrush grass * 4.5 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.50 0.00 0.00U Western pines * 19.1 (10.3) 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 10.60 14.20WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -3 Table A-2: Summary of Emission Factors Summary of emission factors (EF) in pounds per to n for prescribed burning. In the case of piled fuels, when two sources are mentioned, the first source refers to the emission factor and the second to the empirical relationship used to derive that emission factor.

Prescribed Fire

Piled Fuels Prescribed Fire
Non-Piled Pollutant EF Source EF Source

TSP 12.0 AP42 4 34.1 AP42 PM 10 8.0 AP42 28.1 OAQPS PM 2.5 8.0 AP42 24.1 OAQPS Elemental Carbon 0.6 AP42, OAQPS PM 2.5 * 0.072 1.5 OAQPS Organic Carbon 4.3 AP42, OAQPS PM 2.5 * 0.54 11.6 OAQPS VOC 6.3 AP42, OAQPS CO * 0.085 13.6 OAQPS CH 4 7.7 OAQPS 2*(42.7-43.2*CE) 13.6 OAQPS NH 3 0.5 AP42, OAQPS CO * 0.0073 1.3 OAQPS NO x 6.2 OAQPS 6.2 OAQPS CO 74.3 AP42 289.0 OAQPS SO 2 1.7 OAQPS 1.7 OAQPS PM coarse 0.0 PM 10 – PM 2.5 4.0 PM 10 – PM 2.5



## A.2 Emission Calculations
For wildfire and prescribed burning, daily emissi ons were calculated as fuel consumed (tons of fuel) multiplied by each emission factor (pounds of pollutant per ton of fuel). Total fuel consumed was either extracted directly from the activity data (more often the case with prescribed fire) or was calculated as the size of the fire (acres burned) multiplied by the “adjusted” NFDRS fuel loading value (tons of fuel per acre burned). For wildfires and prescribed broadcast burns of fuel model types with a fuel loading greater than 5 tons per acre, additional smoldering emissions were assigned to the same location on the following calendar day.


## A.3 Day-After Smoldering Emissions Added to Eligible Fires
Emissions due to smoldering were estimated and added to the emissions estimates for wildland
broadcast fire events. Fire events associated with heavy fuel loading (based on the National Fire Danger Rating System fuel model assigned to ea ch event) were assumed to produce smoldering emissions on the day after each day of burnin g (assumed to be flaming-phase days). For smoldering-eligible wildfire and WFU events, smoldering emissions were assumed to be 17 percent of the emissions of the previous day (personal communication with David Sandberg, USDA – Forest Service (retired)). For smolderi ng-eligible prescribed fire events, smoldering

4 AP-42, Section 13.1, Table 13.1-3, Logging Slash Debris, No Mineral Soil, weighted average of flaming and smoldering.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -4 emissions were assumed to be 8.5 percent of th e emissions of the previous day. Smoldering emissions were not added to pile burning events.



## A.4 Plume Profile
A plume profile tailored for wildland fire was assi gned to each daily fire event. Normally, plume rise is predicted using hourly pyrotechnical and meteorological information. However, given the unique physical characteristics of wildland fire events and previous experience with dispersion models that indicated questionable performance with regard to dispersing smoke plumes, the FEJF utilized expert opinion to assign pl ume characteristics to each fire event.

It is important to note that there are alternativ e methods available to represent smoke plumes in regional dispersion models. In 2007, the FEJF intends to coordinate a stakeholder group to investigate the available methods and any associated research on model performance. The focus of the stakeholder group will be to determine if the FEJF should recommend that the WRAP’s plume assignment method be modified or replac ed in order to enhance the performance of the WRAP’s regional modeling analyses with regard to smoke impacts. Users of the WRAP’s modeling results and entities that conduct regional dispersion modeling using the WRAP’s fire emission input files should factor these technica l realities into the interpretation and use of regional modeling results.



### A.4.1 Virtual Acres Fires were classified into size classes based on “virtual acreage.” The virtual acreage was calculated by multiplying the actual fire size by the square root of the normalized pre-burn fuel loading (Equation A-1). This was done in order to relate fuel loading to the characteristic “stack” diameter of the plume. Total fuel loading was normalized to 13.8 tons per acre for wildfire and 5.0 tons per acre for prescribed fire. The normal izer for wildfire was equal to the total surface loading plus a portion of the crown biomass of NFDRS fuel model U (western pines). The prescribed fire normalizer is equal to the surface loading only of NFDRS fuel model U.



### Normalizer / Loading Fuel Acreage Acreage actual virtual 

### ⋅ = Equation A-1

The plume profile for days added to model smolderi ng for the day after an original activity day was the same as for the original fire event. In the emission inventory, the smoldering events retained the virtual acreage of the fire event they were created from, and thus the plume
calculations were identical.


### A.4.2 Diurnal Consumption
A diurnal fuel consumption table was created to al locate daily wildland fire emissions by hour (Table A-3). The table, consisting of a percen t of fuel consumed for each hour of the day,WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -5 summing to 100, was submitted to the Air Qual ity Modeling Forum (and the WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center [RMC]). The diurnal fuel consumption tabl e was implemented by the RMC within the SMOKE emissions processor to allocate daily emission estimates to hourly emissions.

Table A-3: Standard Diurnal Consumption Template Used to Distribute Fire-Total Heat Production and Emissions

Hour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 % Per Hour 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 2.00 4.00 7.00

Hour 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 % Per Hour 10.00 13.00 16.00 17.00 12.00 7.00 4.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57



### A.4.3 Fire Size Classes and Pl ume Profile Calculations Plume values include the top and bottom of the plume (Ptop and Pbot, respectively; both expressed in meters above ground elevation) an d the percent of emissions entrained within the surface layer of the atmosphere (Lay1F), defined by the ETT of the FEJF as the first 38 meters above the ground. 5 These three plume parameters are establ ished and assigned for each of the 24 hours of each daily fire event. All of the pl ume values were assigned based on the limited information available for each fire event, including fire size (fire area grown per day) and either a reported fuel loading or the NFDRS fuel model.

Five plume classes were defined with increasing potential plume heights to reflect the range of “heat release” possible in wildland fires (Table A-4). Plume bottom heights and percent of the plume fumigated to the first layer of the atmosp here were also developed for the five plume classes. Using expert opinion and anecdotal eviden ce, a table of hourly buoyant efficiency values was derived (Table A-5).

Table A-4: Fire-Related Paramete rs as Function of Fire Size Classes

Class 1 2 3 4 5
Size (virtual acres) 0 – 10 >= 10 – 100 >= 100 – 1,000 >= 1,000 – 5,000 >= 5,000
BE size 0.40 0.60 0.75 0.85 0.90 Ptop max (m) 160 2,400 6,400 7,200 8,000 Pbot max (m) 0 900 2,200 3,000 3,000

5 The height of the first (lowest) vert ical layer is 38 m in the WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center’s model setup. The calculation methodology for the Lay1F values have been review ed (by Air Sciences and the US DA Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab) and assessed to be reasonabl e with no additional scaling. The maximum bottom of plume values was revised downward for the three largest fire size classes (a lso based on discussions with the USDA Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab).WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -6 Table A-5: Buoyant Efficiency as Function of Hour of Day

Hour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

BE hour 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.2 0.4

Hour 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
BE hour 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95 0.99 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03

Equations were used to calculate Ptop and Pbot as a function of time of day and size of the fire (expressed in terms of virtual acres). Note that the calculations used an hourly value for buoyant efficiency (Table A-5) and heat release value based on fire size, also referred to as normalized fire growth.

The hourly top of the plume was calculated as follows:


# ( )( )

max 2 size 2 hour hour 

### Ptop * BE * BE Ptop = (A-2)
Where: BE is the buoyant efficiency looked up from the hourly or size class tables. The hourly bottom of plume was similarly calculated as:


# ( )( )

max 2 size 2 hour hour 

### Pbot * BE * BE Pbot = (A-3)
Lastly, an equation was used to calculate Lay1F, the proportion of emissions fumigated into the first atmospheric layer. Lay1F was calculated as the arithmetic inverse of the hour-specific buoyant efficiency multiplied by th e size-specific buoyant efficiency. 

# ( ) size hour hour 

### BE * BE

- 1 

### Lay1F = (A-4)
Using Equations A-1 through A-4, the bottom and top of the atmospheric plume as well as the proportion of the plume fumigated into the first at mospheric surface layer were all scaled to fire size, fuel loading (incorporated in virtual acres calculation), and hour of the day. Figures A-1 through A-4 illustrate the relationships described above.

Figures A-1 through A-9 illustrate the hourly plume characteristics (Ptop, Pbot, and Lay1F) assigned to each of the five fire size classes into which daily fire events in the Phase II EI have been assigned (Class 1 - less than 10 acres; Class 2 – 10 to 100 acres; Class 3 – 100 to 1,000 acres; Class 4 – 1,000 to 5,000 acres; Class 5 – greater than 5,000 acres). Also shown on Figures A-5 through A-9 is the height (38 m) of the first ve rtical atmospheric layer (as designated by the WRAP’s RMC).WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -7 

### Projected Top of Plume

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m) [log-scale] >5000
1000-5000
100-1000
10-100
<10 Figure A-1: Buoyant Efficiency The relationship between buoyant efficiency and time of day.

Figure A-2: Projected Top of Plume The projected top of the atmospheric plume (meters) as a function of time of day and fire size. Fire sizes represent the upper cutoff of the fire si ze categories. The lowest line represents the 10- acre cutoff. Note the logarithmic scale on the Y-axis. 

### 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
HourBuoyant efficiencyWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -8 

### Projected Bottom of Plume

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m) [log-scale] >5000
1000-5000
100-1000
10-100
<10 Figure A-3: Projected Bottom of Plume The projected bottom of the atmospheric plume (meters) as a function of time of day and fire size. Fire sizes represent the upper cutoff of the fire size categories. The line representing the 10-acre
cutoff is constant at a value of zero.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -9 Figure A-4: Proportion of Plume in Surface Layer The proportion of the plume fumigation to the atmospheric surface layer (<38 m) as a function of time of day and fire size. Fire sizes represent th e upper cutoff of the fire size categories. The highest line represents the 10-acre cutoff.



### Percent Entrained Lowest Vertical Layer

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m) [log-scale] >5000
1000-5000
100-1000
10-100
<10WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -10 Figure A-5: Fire Size Class 1 Plume Characteristics This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bb ot, and Lay1F) for Class 1 fires for each hour. Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-ax is (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the righ t Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red.

WRAP Plume Rise Class 1: Virtual Acres <10

1 10 100 1000 10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% entrained in lowest vertical layer P_top P_bot
Reference Lay1FWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -11 WRAP Plume Rise Class 2: Virtual Acres 10-100

1 10 100 1000 10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% entrained in lowest vertical layer P_top P_bot
Reference Lay1F Figure A-6: Fire Size Class 2 Plume Characteristics This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bb ot, and Lay1F) for Class 2 fires for each hour. Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-ax is (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the righ t Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -12 Figure A-7: Fire Size Class 3 Plume Characteristics This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bb ot, and Lay1F) for Class 3 fires for each hour. Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-ax is (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the righ t Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red.

WRAP Plume Rise Class 3: Virtual Acres 100-1000

1 10 100 1000 10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% entrained in lowest vertical layer P_top P_bot
Reference Lay1FWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -13 Figure A-8: Fire Size Class 4 Plume Characteristics This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bb ot, and Lay1F) for Class 4 fires for each hour. Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-ax is (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the righ t Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red.

WRAP Plume Rise Class 4: Virtual Acres 1000-5000

1 10 100 1000 10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% entrained in lowest vertical layer P_top P_bot
Reference Lay1FWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -14 WRAP Plume Rise Class 5: Virtual Acres >5000

1 10 100 1000 10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPlume height (m)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% entrained in lowest vertical layer P_top P_bot
Reference Lay1F Figure A-9: Fire Size Class 5 Plume Characteristics This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bb ot, and Lay1F) for Class 5 fires for each hour. Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-ax is (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the righ t Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red.



## A.5 Natural and Anthropogenic Assignm ents (For All Fire Sources)
Each wildfire, wildland fire use event, prescr ibed burn, agricultural burn, and non-federal rangeland burn in the baseline and projection emission inventories for fire was flagged as “natural” (NAT) or “anthropogenic” (ANTH). There are two principal reason for categorizing fire events as natural or anthropogenic:

1. To allow the results of the WRAP’s region al dispersion modeling to be used to distinguish “natural background” co nditions from man-made impacts.

2. To identify anthropogenic fire events in the emission inventories for which the emission reduction effects of applying Emission Reduction Techniques can be
estimated.

It is important to note that the results of im plementing the NAT/ANTH categorization method in the Phase II (historical 2002), Phas e III (baseline) and Phase IV (p rojection) inventories do not necessarily reflect actual emissions that are, in fact, natural or anthropogenic. While the NAT/ANTH categorization criteria are based on sound logic and available informationWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -15 pertaining to fuel levels and conditions, the application of these criteria to historical or nominal events only produces a representative brea kdown of fire emissions into natural and anthropogenic categories. State and Tribal Smoke Management Programs that actively track fires, make burn-no-burn decision, require the ap plication of Emission Reduction Techniques to burns, and who categorize burns as NAT/ANTH at th e time of the burn will be able to generate actual inventories of natural and anthropogenic emissions from fire.

NAT/ANTH categorization was done using the fo llowing approaches, based on the WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum’s 2001 WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions and Guidance for Classifying Natural Versus Anthropogenic Fire Emissions

. 6 (Posted at the “Fire Categorization” heading at http://www.wrapair.or g/forums/fejf/docs.html). The FEJF database for fire was amended with a field to flag each fire event as natural or anthropogenic. Also, the Source Classification Code (SCC) assignment performed in the database was refined to assign custom SCCs, which accommodate specific fire types discussed in this document. Each SCC present in the emission inventory identifies each event as either natural or anthropogenic. The SCC stays with the fire event in the SMOKE model-ready files delivered to the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). These SCCs are defined in Table A-6. 7

Table A-6: SCCs and Their Fire Type and Natural/Anthropogenic Classification

SCC Fire Type Natural or Anthropogenic
2810001000 Wildfire Natural 2810001001 WFU Natural 2810001002 WFU Anthropogenic 2801500000 Agricultural Anthropogenic 2801500001 Agricultural (Native American) Natural
2810015000 Prescribed Anthropogenic 2810015001 Prescribed Natural 2810016000 Non-Federal Rangeland Anthropogenic 2810016001 Non-Federal Rangeland Natural

The categorization criteria are summ arized in the following bullets:

• Wildfire. All wildfire was categorized as natural (SCC 2810001000). was considered exclusively natural.

6 Alternative approaches for catego rizing natural and anthropogenic fire s are discussed in Appendix B. 7 After reviewing the WRAP’s Phase II emission inventorie s, the US Environmental Protection Agency provided the WRAP with a proposed list of SCC’s for all type and categorie s of fires. The WRAP has not implemented EPA’s proposed SSC list and continues to assign SCCs to fire events per the Phase II method described herein. EPA’s proposed list is included for reference as Appendix D to this report.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -16 • Wildland Fire Use. All Wildland Fire Use (WFU) incidents were categorized as natural (custom SCC of 2810001001). It is helpful to note that by definition WFU is a distinct fire source from both wildfire and prescribed burning. That is, a WFU incident cannot also be considered wildfire or prescribed burning. In the event that entities within the WRAP modify the categorization of WFU incidents to include anthropogenic events, a custom SCC of 2810001002 has been reserved as a placeholder.

• Agricultural Burning. All agricultural burning in the Phase II EI was categorized as anthropogenic (standard SCC 2801500000). The 2001 WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire
Emissions states that “vegetative burning conducted by Native Americans for traditional, religious, and ceremonial purp oses” is considered natural. All other vegetative burning conducted by Native Americans is classified as “prescribed,” with agricultural burning fitting the definition of prescribed fire. Some agricultural fire events in the inventories occur within the exterior boundaries of tribal lands, but the data from which the baseline and projection events are made lack an indication of “traditional, religious, or ceremonial” purpose. Therefore agricultural events falling on tribal lands were categorized as anthropogenic. A custom SCC of 2801500001 has been reserved as a placeholder should agricultural burning determined to be of a natural origin in future
inventories.

• Prescribed Fire. Prescribed fire events were categorized as either natural or anthropogenic. The standard SCC of 2810015 000 was used for anthropogenic prescribed burns, and a custom SCC of 2810015001 was used for natural burn s. Because the raw activity data for prescribed fire do not include a natural or anthropogenic identifier, nor do the raw data contain burning objective information (e.g., “maintenance” or “restoration”), the Emissions Task Team (ETT) of the FEJF elected to base the categorization of prescribed fire as natural or anthropogenic on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel model for each in cident (Table A-7). For example, heavy
fuel loads or "restoration" burns were identi fied as anthropogenic, while lighter fuel
loads or "maintenance" burns we re identified as natural. An NFDRS fuel model exists for each prescribed burn in the inventories. Each incident has only one NFDRS assignment based on: 1) the observed fuel model reported in the activity database (preferred); or 2) based on NFDRS assignment by overlaying the fire
location on the national NF DRS fuel model map using GIS (see the WRAP 1996 Fire Emission Inventory documentation). The NFDRS categorizations as natural or anthropogenic were based on examining the text descriptions of the NFDRS fuel models. If fuel model descriptions indicated a buildup of “above normal” fuel loadings (for example, the short-needle conifer model G), then the NFDRS fuel model was categorized as anthropogenic. If the fuel model descriptions indicated normal fuel loading levels (for example, short-need conifer model (H), then the NFDRS fuel model was categorized asWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -17 natural. Regardless of NFDRS fuel model, all piled prescribed burns were categorized as anthropogenic.

Table A-7: Prescribed Fire NFDRS Fuel Model Categorization as Natural or Anthropogenic

NFDRS
Fuel Model Categorization Short Vegetation Description A Natural Western annual grasslands B Anthropogenic Tall dense older brush C Natural Open pine with grass understory D Natural Southeast fuel types E Natural Hardwood after leaf fall F Natural Mature closed Chamise with Oakbrush G Anthropogenic Dense Conifer with heavy downed duff H Natural Short-needled Conifer with thin litter I Anthropogenic Clearcut Conifer Slash <6" J Anthropogenic Clearcut heavily thinned Conifer Slash <6" K Anthropogenic Light conifer slash partial cuts L Natural Western perennial grasslands N Natural Southeast fuel types O Natural Southeast fuel types P Natural Southeast fuel types Q Natural Upland Alaska Black Spruce R Natural Hardwoods after leafout S Natural Alpine Tundra and grass T Natural Sagebrush and grasslands U Anthropogenic Closed Western Long-Needled Pine Piles Anthropogenic Piled activity fuels

• Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning. The ETT elected to assign all non-federal rangeland burning events in the inventory as natural (custom S CC 2810016001). This decision was deemed to be consistent with the intent of the WRAP’s categorizationpolicy. The decision is also based on the facts that fuel loading assignments for nonfederal rangeland burning events are assigned generally (i.e., there are no event-specific fuel loading data for nonfederal rangeland fire events in the inventory) and fuel loading is low (1.75 tons of fuel per acre). The SC C 281001600 will be reserved for anthropogenic non-federal rangeland burning in case the categorization technique changes for the
future fire inventories.

The ETT also acknowledged the following:WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc A -18 • Non-federal rangeland burning should be re garded similarly to wildland prescribed burning in that efforts to control emissions should be implemented when and where possible.

• The FEJF’s fire tracking system (to be developed) should accommodate data that indicates the stated objective(s) of no n-federal rangeland burning events. The categorization technique for non-federal rangeland burning may be modified for future
inventories.

# APPENDIX B 

# Uncertainty Analysis and Exceptions for WRAP Phase IV Fire Event Projection MethodologyWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc B-ii 

# CONTENTS Page

B.1 "Rounding Error" from Scalars and Activity Targets......................................................................... .......................B-1 B.2 "Rounding Error" Statistics ................................................................................................ ......................................B-1 B.3 Assignment of Natural vs. Anthropogenic Fire Events ........................................................................ ....................B-1 B.4 Assignment of Smoldering Values for Fire Event Records..................................................................... .................B-3



### Tables

Table B-1: Total Acres Burned From Prescribed Burns Fr om the Phase II (2002) Emission Inventory When Applying the NFDRS NAT/ANTH Classifica tion Scheme and the FCCS/FRCC Scheme..........................B-3 Table B-2: Impact of Missing Emissions From Smoldering Events on Baseline total PM 2.5 ........................................B-3WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc B-1 

## B.1 "Rounding Error" from Scal ars and Activity Targets
Multiplying a baseline fire event level times its scal ar produces an activity target in acres. By design, the 2018 Fire Event Projection Calc-Tool populates fire-days (with their complete acres and emissions) up to this activity target. For every jurisdiction for which the Projection Calculation Tool builds an inventory, the event-based projection emission inventory will deviate from the activity targets. This deviation can be thought of as a "rounding error” in the 2018 fire event projection.


## B.2 "Rounding Error" Statistics
The "Rounding Error" deviation was assessed by-state or by-agency or by-burn type for all fire types and scenarios, although the assessment did not aim to examine each prescribed state/agency/burn type combination. The average deviation for all 124 scalars needed for the 2018 projection suites is 2.6%. There were 10 projections that had a deviation of over 10%. The projection target of these events was less than 100,000 acres; therefore, these events could be affected by a large fire in the seed data.


## B.3 Assignment of Natural vs. Anthropogenic Fire Events
The National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) is the method currently used by the USDA Forest Service, and many other organizations to integrate the effects of topography, fuels, risk conditions and current or predicted weather into numerical indices of fire danger on a day-to-day basis. The fire danger rating of an area gives th e manager a tool to assist in the day-to-day "fire business" decisions. The NFDRS is a tool that is considered along with the manager’s local knowledge of the area and consequences of the deci sion when arriving at the best solution to a fire business decision or problem.

Phase II fire events were categorized as Natural or Anthropogenic based on the NFDRS fuel model described above. In this method, heavy fuel loads (restoration mode, where fuel conditions deviate significantly from natural conditions) were classified as "Anthropogenic" fires, while lighter fuel loads (maintenance mode, where fuel conditions approximate natural conditions) were classified as "Natural" events. The NFDRS method has been used in previous fire emission inventories and is described in the Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting (September 27-29, 2005) in Missoula, MT (http://www. wrapair.org/forums/ef/ meetings/050927/Ph_3- 4_MissoulaMT_20050928.pdf).

As an alternative to the NFDRS method, the FEJF wi th the assistance of Air Sciences Inc. devised the National System of Fuel Characteristic Classification/Fire Regime Condition Class (FCCS/FRCC) method of classifying fire events as Natural or Anthropogenic. Participants at the first Phase III/IV Workshop proposed using the FCCS/FRCC method to categorize events as Natural or Anthropogenic fo r the WRAP fire models.WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc B-2 The FCCS is a comprehensive software system used to build, characterize, and classify fuel beds to accurately capture the structural complexity and geographical diversity of fuel components across landscapes and provide the ability to assess elements of human (e.g. logging slash) and natural (e.g. insect and disease) change. The FCCS could be characterized as a more resolved version of the NFDRS and a system that is more centered on characterizing vegetation conditions, in general, than on characterizing fuel conditions as they pertain to fire danger. It analyses fuel conditions and assigns each a descript or name and a fuel loading mass.

The FRCC is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference (historical) conditions for vegetati on, fuels and disturbance regimes. The FRCC examines FCCS fuel types and assigns each fuel class a certain fire danger level. The three fire regime condition classes are based on no or low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the re ference conditions. Low departure (FRCC 1) describes fire regimes and vegetation-fuel conditions considered to be within the natural range of variability.

The FEJF devised a NAT/ANTH cate gorization method that utiliz es FCCS and FRCC. All FCCS that correspond to FRCC1 are categorized as Na tural fire events. FRCC2 events represent moderate departures from reference conditions. The FRCC2 class represents conditions, which may require fire, hand or mechanical treatment to restore conditions to the natural fire regime. The FCCS that correspond to FRCC2 are not cons idered entirely natural or anthropogenic and fall between maintenance and restoration modes. The Natural or Anthropogenic assignment for this class is based on a review of FCCS fuel model information (fuel loading, duff depth, description, etc.). FRCC3 represents areas having high departures from reference conditions, which may need high levels of restoration to return to natural conditions. All FCCS that correspond to FRCC3 are characterized as Anthropogenic. Further information about FCCS and FRCC is available online at: http:// www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fccs/ and http://www.frcc.gov/ respectively.

Although the FEJF and Air Sciences had develo ped the FCCS/FRCC method to categorize fire events with the intention of implementing the me thod in the baseline inventory, Air Sciences implemented the NFDRS-based NAT/ANTH classifi cation scheme (in a continuation of the method implemented in the Phase II inventory) . The Phase III baseline inventories using the NFDRS scheme have already been used in model runs for the RMC. In order to facilitate the comparison of Phase IV to Phase III model results, Air Sciences decided, with the concurrence of the FEJF, to continue using the NFDRS method fo r categorizing fire events in the Phase IV inventories as Natural or Anthropogenic. (This exception applies only to prescribed broadcast burns. The NAT/ANTH categorizati on of other categories of fire events (wildfire, WFU, NFR, agricultural burning, and prescribed pile burns) are based on criteria other than fuel loading.)WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc B-3 In the interest of full documentation of this st ep in the processing of the Phase IV emission inventory files, Air Sciences has prepared a statistical comparison of the Natural versus Anthropogenic categorization methods using the Phase II (2002) fire emission inventory for prescribed fires. Air Sciences applied the F CCS/FRCC parameters to the Phase II (2002) fire emission inventory and compared those results to the Phase II EI using the NFDRS classification scheme to statistically review how the classificati on of total fire acres would change. The results
are shown in Table B-1.

Table B-1: Total Acres Burned From Prescribed Burns From the Phase II (2002) Emission Inventory When Applying the NFDRS NAT/ANTH Classification Scheme and the FCCS/FRCC Scheme

Total Acres Description Natural Anthropogenic Phase II RX w/ NFDRS 348,000 301,000 Phase II RX w/ FCCS/FRCC 326,000 323,000 Net Change -6.7% +6.8%

The table above shows that when using Phase II em ission inventory data as a case study, the FCCS method would categorize more total burned acres as Anthropogenic (restoration mode) as compared to the NFDRS method.


## B.4 Assignment of Smoldering Va lues for Fire Event Records

In the baseline and baseline control case inventories, emissions for some wildfire and WFU
events were underestimated because some fire ev ents that were eligible to have smoldering records added were not correctly processed in the emissions inventory system. The missing emissions from smoldering events impacted only the baseline and baseline control case. The emissions processing error was corrected for the Ph ase IV 2018 fire projec tion inventories. As shown in Table A2 below, emissi ons from wildfire and WFU even ts in the Phase III baseline and baseline control inventories were underestimated by 19,148 tons of PM 2.5 (approximately 4 percent of the entire inventory). When compar ing model runs for the baseline and projection cases, the additional emissions of PM 2.5 not present in the baseline cases should be considered.

Table B-2: Impact of Missing Emissions From Smoldering Events on Baseline total PM 2.5

Description Wildfire WFU
PM 2.5 Tons 19,147 1.579 Percent of fire-specific PM 2.5 4% 2%

# APPENDIX C 

# Reviewer Comments and Corrective ActionsWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.docC-1Table C-1: Reviewer comments with responses and corrective action takenPageResponse Action2Where can we get the “EXCEL-based spreadsheet tool to generate nominal fireevents database” tool described on page 2Addressed on page 3: "It is anticipated that the CalculationTool will be available to states and Tribes in the spring of2007 as a technical tool on the WRAP’s web-based TechnicalSupport System."None5Spatial distribution of future fires is based on a single latitude/longitude coordinateof the original or seed fire event. It might be a better approach to distribute large fireemissions across multiple grids. Such as the Mc Nalley fire that would have burnedacross a minimum of 17 (36 km x 36 km) grid cells.Addressed in text on pp. 5-6. The location (latitude andlongitude) of the event was not changed (from the 2002 EI)because when the emissions input data are processed by theWRAP’s Regional Modeling Center, each emissions event isassociated with the 36 km by36 kmgrid cell (i.e., the latitudeand longitude of the event is not preserved in the results ofthe model runs). The Emissions Task Team of the FEJFdetermined to not change the latitude and longitude of theevent going into the baseline inventory so that the emissionsfrom the event would appear in the same RMC gridcell.Locations of fire events in the were based on RMCinputs. (continued in the cell below)none(continued from the cell above) A 36x36 km grid cell isequivalent to 320,000 acres and therefore resolving a firebeyond a single lat/lon would not improve accuracy in thevast majority of modeling cases. In the instance addressedby the commenter, the McNally fire perimeter was 150,000acres, with general dimensions of 48 km north-south x 28 kmeast-west. In the baseline EI, if the McNally fire from the2002 EI was pulled randomly to populate the baseline EI, it'slocation would be represented as a lat/lon coordinate andthe RMC would represent the entire event as occurring in asingle 36x36kmgrid cell. This is an acknowledged limitationof the EI and the regional modeling. A more resolvedmethod could potentially distribute a fire like the McNallyfire into 2 (at the very most 4) grid cells5What are the calculated “scalars” for CA for WF, WFU and Rx burning, and thesupporting values (i.e.: baseline targets and Fed 5 2000-2004 averages)?Provided in the Figures and supporting tables in Sections 2.1(Wildfire), 2.2 (Prescribed Burning) , and 2.3 (Wildland FireUse).Added reference tofigure 1 on page 5WRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.docC-2Table C-1: Reviewer comments with responses and corrective action taken10Since SIT data is not generally considered the source for prescribed fire data withinthe fire community, I'm wondering if you should elaborate on why it was chosen.Isn't it the case that the SIT data was the best available source (most complete record)for the time period? If you were to conduct the same analysis today, for more recentyears, I don't think the SIT data would be the source folks would expect you to go to.The SIT data was the best available source (most completerecord) for the time period.Described in thereport.28What are the IFC (interagency fuels committee) target acres for Rx burning, inrelation to the Rx baseline?Specifically addressed on page 28, paragraph 2, and shownvisually in Figure 19, page 29.none34. The assumption that there will be zero ag burning the San Joaquin Valley in thefuture in not likely. Exemptions in the San Joaquin Valley rules will allow for futureburning of ag material.The efforts to quantify the effects on agricultural emissions ofregulations that will be implemented in the future did notconsider the degree to which exemptions to the regulationswould be utilized. States, Tribes, and many Federal LandManagers participated in the two technical workshops andseveral FEJF meetings at which the method to quantify theeffect of regulations of future emissions from fire werepresented and discussed.footnote addedFigure 21The assumption that WFUs will be 15 times higher as the “likely” scenario in 2018 isnot reasonable for CA because of our nonattainment areas. Fire permits are requiredfor WFUs in CA and due to poor air quality in adjacent Air Districts; it is not realisticthat WFU will be allowed to burn at a rate 15 times higher then the base case in CA.Although the total sum of WF and WFUs are the same in the baseline and likelyscenarios, shifting the majority of fire activity from WF category to WFUs category in2018 is not likely for CA.Figure 21 shows projection results on a WRAP-wide basis,and is not intended to reflect state-by-state results.Individual state projections for WFU are depicted in Figure22. The increase in wildland fire is due to the predominantposition that clilmate change and worsening fuels conditionswill result in a higher incidence of wildfires. The shift tomore utilization of WFU to accomplish land managementobjectives (as opposed to suppression of wildfire) is apredominant position among Federal Land Managers. The"rules of thumb" for each scenario used to split wildland fireinto wildfire and WFU were applied uniformly across allstates (i.e., the scalars were not developed on a state-by-statebasis). State-by-state WFU activity targets to not reflect therole that Smoke Management Programs may play inpermitting wildland fires to be managed as Wildland FireUse events. States, Tribes, and many Federal Land Managersparticipated in the two technical workshops and several FEJFmeetings at which the scalars to develop projections forwildfire and WFU were developed, presented, and discussed.footnote addedWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.docC-3Table C-1: Reviewer comments with responses and corrective action takenTable 4This table is confusing. Rx burns are divided into Less, Likely and More categories.However, in the text, WF and WFUs are divided into different scenarios namedBaseline, Likely and More. Is the Rx Less scenario go with the WF/WFU Baselinescenario? And how does the description on P 27 line up – “base case,” “climateconditions/resource limits,” and “maximum application of prescribed fire” with thecategories in the table? Also, the fire scenario breakdowns and descriptions in thetable are difficult to follow. Recommendation: reformat table, provide cleardescriptions of the scenarios beneath the table and provide consistent categorizationnomenclature across the fire types in the text.Table 4 and the quoted description on pg 27 refer to twodifferent things. Section 3.5 of the report describes in detailthe air quality planning suites.Clarifying languageadded to distinguishthe intro of section3.5 with theindividual projectioninventories in sec's3.1-3.4Table A1Are the fuel loading or fuel consumption assumptions the same for WFU, WF and Rxburns the same? This table lists Rx fires only, though the text says the table appliesto WF, Rx and WFUs? If fuel loading (consumption) assumptions are the same forWF and Rx, how do you account for WF characteristics that often burn hotter andconsume canopy fuels vs. Rx burn that do not?Table A-1 addresses WF,WFU and Rx fires. Rx fuelconsumption values are shown in parentheses when theydeviate from WF and WFU values; fuel consumption valuesfor WF and WFU are assumed equivalent.Clarified language intable to betterdistinguish WF/WFUand Rx values.It does not appear that fires were divided into size classes, like in the previousWRAP 2018 projection methodology. That seemed to be a reasonable and acceptedmethod to project wildfire into the future. Why was this approach not used?Projection emission inventories were prepared per themethodologies described in detail in the report. Themethodologies included the inclusion of realistically sizedfires across the domain of the emission inventory. Astatistical review of fire events in the projection inventorieswould reveal that the distribution of fires per size classwould be identical to the distribution of fires in the Phase III(Baseline) and Phase II (historical 2002) fire emisisoninventories.none

# APPENDIX D 

# EPA Proposed SCC CodesWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.doc D-1 Comparison of Phase II and Baseline (2000-2004) Inventories

Non-Federal Rangeland Acres Burned and PM 2.5 Emissions

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000Acres or Tons

Phase II Rangeland Acres 0 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 Baseline Rangeland Acres 0 250,001 40,000 12,000 8,000 150,001 25,000 60,000 1,000 300,001 150,001 25,000 6,000 15,000 Phase II Rangeland PM 2.5 0 3,708 593 178 119 2,225 371 890 15 4,449 2,225 371 89 222 Baseline Rangeland PM2.5 0 3,708 593 178 119 2,225 371 890 15 4,449 2,225 371 89 222 AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WYWRAP Fire Ph3-4 EI Report_20070515.docD-2Proposed EPA SCC Codes & Codes for any Future RPO EIs WRAP Phase II SCC CodesSCC Code Status SCC Name(L3/L4) SCC Fire TypeNatural orAnthropogenic2610000500 Clarify NameConstruction, Land Clearing Debris & Other / (Non logging)Unspecified burn method (Note: Use 2810005000 for slash andlogging-related debris burning)N/A2810005000 Clarify NameManaged Burning, Slash (Logging Debris) / Unspecified burnmethod (Note: Use 2610000500for non logging (e.g.,construction)-related debris burning)N/A2810001000 Clarify Name Wildfire / Unspecified fire stage,class/purpose, ownership 2810001000 Wildfire Natural28100010F0 New Wildfire / Flaming, Unspecifiedclass/purpose, ownership 2810001000 Wildfire Natural28100010S0 NewWildfire / Smoldering, Unspecified class/purpose,ownership2810001000 Wildfire Natural2810001001 NewWildland Fire Use / NATURAL (Maintenance), unspecifiedfire stage, ownership2810001001 Wildland Fire Use (WFU) Natural28100010F1 NewWildland Fire Use / Flaming, NATURAL (Maintenance),unspecified, ownership2810001001 WFU Natural28100010S1 NewWildland Fire Use / Smoldering. NATURAL (Maintenance),unspecified ownership2810001001 WFU Natural2810001002 NewWildland Fire Use / ANTHROPOGENIC (Restoration),unspecified fire stage, ownership2810001002 WFU Anthropogenic28100010F2 NewWildland Fire Use / Flaming, ANTHROPOGENIC(Restoration), unspecified ownership2810001002 WFU Anthropogenic28100010S2 NewWildland Fire Use / Smoldering, ANTHROPOGENIC(Restoration), unspecified ownership2810001002 WFU Anthropogenic2810015000 Clarify NamePrescribed Forest Burning / Unspecified ownership,class/purpose2810015000 Prescribed Anthropogenic2810015001 New Prescribed Forest Burning/ NATURAL 2810015001 Prescribed Natural2810015002 New Prescribed Forest Burning / ANTHROPOGENIC 2810015002 Prescribed (USE in FUTURE) Anthropogenic2810020000 Clarify NamePrescribed Rangeland Burning / Unspecified ownership,class/purposeNA2810016001 NewPrescribed Rangeland Burning / Non-Federal RangelandNATURAL2810016001 Non-Federal Rangeland (NFR) Natural2810016000 NewPrescribed Rangeland Burning / Non-Federal RangelandANTHROPOGENIC2810016000 NFR Anthropogenic2801500000 Clarify Name Agricultural FieldBurning / Unspecified crop, class/purpose 2801500000 Agricultural Anthropogenic2801500001 NewAgricultural Field Burning / NATURAL (Native AmericanFire Use)2801500001 Agricultural Natural2801500002 New Agricultural Field Burning / ANTHROPOGENIC 2801500002 Agricultural (USE in FUTURE) Anthropogenic