2002 Fire Emission 

Inventory for the 

WRAP Region –

Phase II

WESTERN GOVERNORS 

ASSOCIATION/WESTERN

REGIONAL AIR PARTNERSHIP

PROJECT NO. 178-6

JULY 22, 2005
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc ii

CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................vi

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Basic Concepts of the 2002 WRAP Fire Emission Inventory ................................................................................. 1

1.2 Fire Emission Inventory Phases ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Comments & Revisions Incorporated in the Final Report....................................................................................... 3

1.4 Partners and Contributors in the Project................................................................................................................. 3

2 THE 2002 WILDLAND FIRE EMISSION INVENTORY.................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Activity Data............................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Geo-Referencing Fire Location by Township/Range/Section and County...................................................... 6

2.1.2 GIS-Based NFDRS Fuel Loading Assignment................................................................................................ 7

2.1.3 Final Activity Data Quality Control................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.4 Wildland Fire Use............................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1.5 Natural and Anthropogenic Assignments (For All Fire Sources)..................................................................... 9

2.2 Fuel Loading and Emission Factors ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Pollutant Speciation....................................................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Emission Calculations........................................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Daily Fire Growth Allocation.......................................................................................................................... 18

2.4 Plume Profile ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.4.1 Virtual Acres.................................................................................................................................................. 19

2.4.2 Diurnal Consumption..................................................................................................................................... 19

2.4.3 Fire Size Classes and Plume Profile Calculations ........................................................................................ 20

2.5 Approach for Technical Refinements of Large Fires and Fire Complexes for WRAP Phase I Fire Emission 

 Inventory.............................................................................................................................................................. 29

2.5.1 Complex Fire Identification............................................................................................................................ 31

2.5.2 Blackened Versus Perimeter Fire Acres ....................................................................................................... 34

2.5.3 Spatial, Temporal, and Fuel Model Refinements .......................................................................................... 36

2.5.4 Overall Assessment of Refinements ............................................................................................................. 41

2.6 Wildland Fire Quality Control Process.................................................................................................................. 42

2.6.1 QC Binder Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 42

2.6.2 Feedback Response Summary..................................................................................................................... 42

3 THE 2002 AGRICULTURAL BURNING EMISSION INVENTORY .............................................................................. 46

3.1 Agricultural Burning Activity Data ......................................................................................................................... 46

3.1.1 Data Sources................................................................................................................................................. 46

3.1.2 Agricultural Burning on Tribal Lands ............................................................................................................. 46

3.1.3 Time Periods of the Actual Agricultural Burning Data ................................................................................... 47

3.1.4 Data Quality Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 47

3.2 Fuel Loading and Emission Factors for Agricultural Burning................................................................................ 47

3.3 Temporal Refinement of Agricultural Emissions Data .......................................................................................... 49

3.3.1 Blackout Dates .............................................................................................................................................. 50

3.4 Spatial Refinement of Agricultural Emissions Data .............................................................................................. 50

3.5 Assigning Plume Characteristics to Agricultural Burning Events.......................................................................... 51

3.5.1 Diurnal Consumption Template..................................................................................................................... 51

3.5.2 Physical Plume Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 52

3.6 Agricultural Burning Quality Control Process........................................................................................................ 53

3.6.1 QC Binder Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 53

3.6.2 QC Response Summary ............................................................................................................................... 53 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc iii

CONTENTS - continued Page

4 THE 2002 NON-FEDERAL PRESCRIBED RANGELAND BURNING EMISSION INVENTORY ................................ 55

4.1 Rangeland Burning Activity Data.......................................................................................................................... 55

4.2 Temporal Allocation of Burn Activity..................................................................................................................... 56

4.3 Emission Calculations........................................................................................................................................... 56

4.4 Allocation of Emissions to Realistic Event Size and Day of Year......................................................................... 57

4.5 Allocation of Emissions to Coordinate Location.................................................................................................... 57

5 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................................................... 60

5.1 Summary of 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory............................................................................................. 60

6 DELIVERABLES AND END USER DATA SUPPORT................................................................................................. 68

7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................. 70

Tables 

Table 1: Executive Summary of Fire Activity and Emissions from Wildfires, Prescribed Fires, Wildland Fire Use, 

Agricultural Burning, and Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning in 2002 ..........................................vii

Table 2: Summary of Wildland Fire Use Data in Phase I EI........................................................................................ 9

Table 3: SCCs and Their Fire Type and Natural/Anthropogenic Classification......................................................... 10

Table 4: Prescribed Fire NFDRS Fuel Model Categorization as Natural or Anthropogenic...................................... 12

Table 5: Summary of Fuel Loading and Consumption by NFDRS Model ................................................................. 14

Table 6: Summary of Emission Factors .................................................................................................................... 15

Table 7: Pollutant Species’ Mathematical Relationships Currently in use by RMC................................................... 16

Table 8: Pollutant Species’ Mathematical Relationships Currently in use in Air Sciences Emission Inventory 

System ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

Table 9: Standard Diurnal Consumption Template Used to Distribute Fire-Total Heat Production and Emissions .. 19

Table 10: Fire-Related Parameters as Function of Fire Size Classes ........................................................................ 20

Table 11: Buoyant Efficiency as Function of Hour of Day........................................................................................... 20

Table 12: Summary of Available Data for Large Wildland Fires in Phase I EI ............................................................ 30

Table 13: Summary of Complex Fire Check Based on Duplicate Names Only .......................................................... 32

Table 14: Summary of Blackened Versus Perimeter Fire Acres for Large Wildfire Events......................................... 35

Table 15: Summary of Unburned Versus Blackened Acres for Six Fires.................................................................... 35

Table 16: Relative Distribution of Blackened Acres by Fire Severity Category........................................................... 36

Table 17: Sensitivity of Estimated Fuel Consumption to Adjustment for Blackened Acres in Combination With Fuel 

Loading Based on GIS-Derived NFDRS and FCC Fuel Layers .................................................................. 38

Table 18: Sensitivity of Estimated Fuel Consumption to Adjustment for Blackened Acres in Combination With Fuel 

Loading Based on GIS-Derived NFDRS and FCC Fuel Layers .................................................................. 39

Table 19: Summary of Fuel Consumption Percentages Applied to Model Variable Consumption by Fire Severity 

Class, NFDRS Fuel Models ........................................................................................................................ 40
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc iv

CONTENTS - continued Page

Table 20: Summary of Fuel Consumption Percentages Applied to Variable Consumption by Fire Severity Class, 

FCC Fuel Models ........................................................................................................................................ 40

Table 21: Summary of Estimated Adjustments to the Phase II EI (Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use) Based on 

Described Quality Control and Data Refinement Procedures ..................................................................... 41

Table 22: Summary of Wildland Fire QC Binders Sent and QC Feedback Received................................................. 42

Table 23: Detail of Wildland Fire QC Binder Feedback Received............................................................................... 44

Table 24: Agricultural Burning ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 25: Plume Class Sizes ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 26: Distributions of Daily Events by Plume Class.............................................................................................. 49

Table 27: Blackout Days for Agricultural Burning........................................................................................................ 50

Table 28: Diurnal Consumption Template Used to Distribute Emissions From Agricultural Burning .......................... 51

Table 29: Fire-Related Parameters as a Function of Fire Emission Classes.............................................................. 52

Table 30: Detail of Agricultural Burning QC Binder Feedback Received .................................................................... 54

Table 31: Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning Activity by State.................................................................... 55

Table 32: Percent Activity per Month for Non-Federal Rangeland Burning ................................................................ 56

Table 33: Rangeland Fuel Loading and Emission Factors.......................................................................................... 56

Table 34: Rangeland Burning Fire Size Packet Statistics ........................................................................................... 57

Table 35: USGS Land Cover Characteristics Flagged as Rangeland......................................................................... 58

Table 36: 2002 Phase II EI Fire Activity and PM2.5 Emissions by State – All Fire Types............................................ 61

Table B-1: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Transmittal Record..............................................................................................B-1

Table B-2: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Site Record .........................................................................................................B-2

Table B-3: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire – Emission Unit Record.........................................................................................B-3

Table B-4: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Process Record ...................................................................................B-4

Table B-5: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Release Point Record..........................................................................B-5

Table B-6: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Period Record......................................................................................B-6

Table B-7: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Control Record ....................................................................................................B-7

Table B-8: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Record .................................................................................................B-8
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc v

CONTENTS - continued Page

Figures 

Figure 1: Buoyant Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2: Projected Top of Plume .................................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 3: Projected Bottom of Plume ............................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 4: Proportion of Plume in Surface Layer............................................................................................................. 24

Figure 5: Fire Size Class 1 Plume Characteristics......................................................................................................... 25

Figure 6: Fire Size Class 2 Plume Characteristics......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 7: Fire Size Class 3 Plume Characteristics......................................................................................................... 27

Figure 8: Fire Size Class 4 Plume Characteristics......................................................................................................... 28

Figure 9: Fire Size Class 5 Plume Characteristics......................................................................................................... 29

Figure 10: Diurnal Emissions/Consumption Profiles for Agricultural Burning and Wildfire/Prescribed Fire................... 52

Figure 11: USGS Land Cover Characteristics Mapped as Rangeland .......................................................................... 59

Figure 12: Annual Acres Burned by Fire Type............................................................................................................... 62

Figure 13: Annual PM2.5 Emissions by Fire Type (tons)................................................................................................. 62

Figure 14: Annual Region-Wide Emissions (tons) ......................................................................................................... 63

Figure 15: State Totals for All Fire Sources as a Percentage of Regional Total (Annual) ............................................. 63

Figure 16: Acres Burned Temporal Distribution (month)................................................................................................ 64

Figure 17: PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Temporal Distribution (month).................................................................................. 64

Figure 18: Annual Acres Burned Spatial Distribution (state).......................................................................................... 65

Figure 19: Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Spatial Distribution (state)............................................................................ 65

Figure 20: Annual Natural and Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State (tons)............................................................ 66

Figure 21: Annual Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State and Fire Type (tons) ........................................................ 66

Figure 22: Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by Month and State (tons).......................................................................... 67

Appendices 

Appendix A: Data Gathering and Compilation 

Appendix B: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire Format Specification 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has 

completed an air emission inventory for fire in 14 of the 15 states in the WRAP region. (Hawaii is 

not in the inventory.) The inventory includes emission estimates and activity data for wildfire, 

prescribed fire, wildland fire use (WFU), agricultural burning, and non-federal prescribed 

rangeland (NF rangeland) burning for the calendar year 2002. The FEJF collected fire activity 

data from federal, tribal, and state agencies; arrived at data quality objectives; culled data from 

the database that did not meet the data quality objectives; allocated summary data to realistic fire 

events where necessary; devised emission calculation routines; estimated emissions for all fire 

events; and published an emission inventory database and dispersion model-ready digital files. 

The purpose of the fire emission inventories is to further the WRAP’s charge of supporting 

member states’ and Tribes’ Regional Haze State Implementation Plans and Tribal 

Implementation Plans. Along with emission inventories from other types of sources, the 2002 fire 

emission inventories will be used by the Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Forums of the 

WRAP to execute, evaluate, and enhance the performance of the WRAP-wide air quality 

dispersion models. Also, the 2002 fire emission inventories will be used to support the WRAP’s, 

States’, and Tribes’ efforts to allocate regional haze impacts to specific sources. 

Building the emission inventory involved many technical steps shaped by extensive stakeholder 

and expert discussion. Many of the techniques utilized for this emission inventory are based on 

the WRAP technical report entitled “1996 Fire Emission Inventory.” Driven by the WRAP’s 

targets for a highly resolved (temporally and spatially) dispersion model, the FEJF produced an 

event-based emission inventory, placing all fire emissions at coordinate locations on specific days. 

Federal and state records of individual fire events were collected. For agricultural and nonfederal rangeland burning, county level data on a monthly basis was collected and allocated to 

the coordinate level on a daily basis for jurisdictions where event level data was not available. In 

general, burning activity data was not available directly from tribal agencies. Federal land 

manager (especially Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs) data included in the 

federal databases as well as state data may include burning in Indian Country. Quality Control 

Packets where sent to states, Tribes, and federal land management agencies (FLMs) to solicit 

corrections to the 2002 activity data for wildland burning and agricultural burning. 

Activity records were checked for completeness for fire size, fuel loading, date, and location. 

Activity records deemed incomplete and therefore not useable in an emission calculation were 

culled from the database (and retained in a companion database for documentation purposes). 

Fuel loading and emission factor tables along with diurnal consumption and plume profiles were 

developed from the literature, expert and professional judgment, and stakeholder input. 

Spreadsheet and geographic information system software was used to store the data, perform 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc vii

data augmentation and quality control functions, calculate emissions, and produce the strictly 

formatted National Emission Inventory Format (NIF) 3.0 and SMOKE/IDA text export files of the 

inventories. The methods developed for this study may be refined and utilized for future air 

emissions analyses. Table 1 presents an abbreviated summary of the 2002 wildfire, prescribed 

fire, and WFU inventories. 

Limitations of this emission inventory include the omission of fire events (e.g., tribal burning, in 

general, not accounted for in non-tribal data sets and individual fire activity records deemed to 

be incomplete) and variable data quality due to the variety of data sources used. Furthermore, 

estimating emissions from vegetative burning involves considerable scientific uncertainty. 

Table 1: Executive Summary of Fire Activity and Emissions from Wildfires, Prescribed Fires, 

Wildland Fire Use, Agricultural Burning, and Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning in 2002 

Source Fire Days 

Acres 

Burned 

Tons Fuel 

Consumed 

Tons PM2.5

Emitted 

Wildfire 5,835 5,276,485 123,642,024 1,489,886 

WFU 369 201,548 6,763,940 81,505 

Prescribed 16,445 649,044 7,195,489 71,420 

Agricultural 105,991 2,163,478 6,061,792 34,578 

NF Rangeland 4128 1,042,003 1,823,507 15,454 

Total 132,768 9,332,559 145,486,752 1,692,845 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 1

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

This documentation is a summary of the activity data, calculations, and results of the historical 

fire emission inventory for 2002 prepared for the Emissions Task Team (ETT) of the FEJF. For 

consistency, many of the technical methods used to build the 2002 inventory are intentionally the 

same as the WRAP 1996 fire emission inventory. Technical improvements were made by the 

FEJF to this 2002 process including refining the daily fire spread algorithm and updating plume 

profile parameters. Details of the 2002 fire activity data collection and processing are bulleted for 

each data set received in Appendix A. 

Significant improvements to the fire emission inventories have been made on the activity data 

side. For example, the results of the wildfire, prescribed burning, and agricultural burning 

quality control review efforts have been incorporated in the Phase II activity data. Also, for the 

first time, estimates of non-federal rangeland burning activity and emissions are included in the 

WRAP’s 2002 fire inventory. 

1.1 Basic Concepts of the 2002 WRAP Fire Emission Inventory 

The FEJF inventoried fire emissions for calendar year 2002 for the states in the continental WRAP 

region plus Alaska. The term “fire” refers inclusively to wildfire, wildland fire use (WFU, 

formerly prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, agricultural burning, and non-federal 

prescribed rangeland burning. The term “wildland fire” refers only to wildfire, WFU, and 

prescribed fire which have many data sources and calculation parameters in common. This 

emission inventory was based on data collected by state and federal agencies. Agricultural 

burning was inventoried based on a combination of event-level and monthly summary data 

submitted to represent 2002. State-level estimates of activity of non-federal prescribed rangeland 

burning were supplied by the ETT and allocated to events for modeling. 

The WRAP Air Quality Modeling and Emissions Forums provided the FEJF with specific data 

resolution requirements for the fire emission inventory. For spatial resolution, each fire event 

needed a specific latitude and longitude in order to satisfy the spatial resolution goal of one 

minute of latitude and longitude. For temporal resolution, hourly emission estimates for each 

fire event were required. 

Estimating emissions from fire events involves considerable scientific uncertainty. Historic data 

are of varying quality and for some areas unavailable. Activity records were not ground-truthed 

and, other than quality control steps described in this report, were generally accepted “as is.” 

Parameters such as the vegetation type of a burn, the vegetation-specific fuel loading, pollutantspecific emission factors, and combustion efficiencies, to name a few, all have uncertainties 

associated with them which may influence emission estimates and regional modeling results. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 2

The efforts of the ETT were dedicated to using professional judgment to select the best available 

or most representative parameters or methods to estimate emissions. However, other parameters 

and methods could have been chosen and could also be considered “reasonable” for estimating 

emissions from fire. 

The specifications required by the Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Forums combined with 

the limitations of existing data and emission estimation methods shaped the emission inventory 

development. Fire, traditionally considered an “area” source, is treated as a “point” source in the 

WRAP’s regional dispersion model. Therefore, fire emissions were placed at a 

latitude/longitude coordinate location for each day. From the daily and spatially resolved 

emission inventory, hourly consumption and plume rise were estimated. 

The 2002 emission inventory was made available to the WRAP Modeling Forum digitally as 

database files and text files formatted for input to the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) Modeling System (PTINV, PTDAY, and PTHOUR files in IDA format). Also under this 

contract, the National Emission Inventory Format (NIF) 3.0 for point sources was adapted to 

accommodate this emission inventory. NIF 3.0 formatted text files were provided to the WRAP. 

1.2 Fire Emission Inventory Phases 

The FEJF has identified a number of phases of emission inventory development to supply the 

WRAP with appropriate emission inventories for its regional haze dispersion modeling efforts. 

These phases are: 

• Phase I – Modeling Evaluation Emission Inventory (Phase I EI): Actual 2002 wildland 

fire and prescribed fire emission inventories and use of the 2018 Agricultural Burning 

Base Smoke Management Program emission inventory as a placeholder. Primary use 

of the Phase I inventories is to verify and enhance dispersion model performance and 

to test geographic source apportionment (modeling estimates of contribution at each 

Class I area from each upwind source jurisdiction). 

• Phase II – Initial Modeling Apportionment Emission Inventory (Phase II EI): Actual 

2002 wildland fire and prescribed fire emissions (split into natural and anthropogenic 

events) emission inventories, actual 2002 agricultural burning emission inventory, and 

estimated 2002 non-federal rangeland burning. Primary use of the Phase II inventories 

is to complete the WRAP’s geographic source apportionment for the Attribution of 

Haze Project (per the WRAP’s Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008). 

• Phase III – Planning Baseline Period Emission Inventory (Phase III EI): Emission 

inventories for wildland fire, prescribed fire, and agricultural burning that are based on 

2000 through 2004 (or longer) fire activity data that is assessed to be representative of 

regional haze baseline period. The emission inventory format used for Phase II will be 

used for Phase III for consistency. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 3

• Phase IV – Planning 2018 Projection Year Emission Inventory (Phase IV EI): Projected 

emission inventories for wildland fire, prescribed fire, and agricultural burning. 

Projections will be based on predictable variables and may be in the form of emission 

scenarios or ranges of emissions. The emission inventory format used for the Phase III 

baseline planning inventory will be used for Phase IV for consistency. 

The fire emission inventories delivered with and described in this document are the Phase II 

emission inventories. Calculation methods and data quality standards were devised with the 

FEJF’s stated objectives for the Phase II inventories in mind. The FEJF emission inventory 

reflected consistent methods and specific fire event data. Data quality standards were set for the 

historic activity data collected. Consistent calculation methods and calculation parameters (such 

as literature-based fuel loadings) were implemented. 

1.3 Comments & Revisions Incorporated in the Final Report 

The draft report for this project was distributed in an e-mail sent on April 4, 2004, by the FEJF cochairs to the Emissions Task Team and other interested members of the FEJF. Reviewers were 

given two weeks to provide comments on the draft report. Seven comments were received. 

Commenters included: 

• Neva Sotolongo, California Air Resources Board 

• Lee Alter, Western Regional Air Partnership 

• Doug G. Fox, Ph.D., Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado 

State University 

• Lisa Bye, US DOI Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico 

• Christi Gordon, USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region 

• Darla Potter, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

• Ron King, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comments were primarily editorial in nature were integrated into the document. One commenter 

requested a comparison of the Phase II EI with the CEIDARS database for California. Such a 

comparison is beyond the scope of this project, but the Phase II data is certainly available for use 

by the commenting agency to perform its own comparison. 

1.4 Partners and Contributors in the Project 

Air Sciences acknowledges the contributors to the development of the Phase II EI database and 

this report. Contributors include: 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 4

• Members of the Emissions Task Team of the FEJF. 

• Members of the FEJF. 

• Peter Lahm, USDA Forest Service, former co-chair of the FEJF. 

• Darla Potter, Wyoming DEQ, co-chair of the FEJF. 

• Mark Fitch, USDA Forest Service, co-chair of the FEJF. 

• Tom Moore, Western Regional Air Partnership. 

• Pat Shaver, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

• Staff of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). 

• Participants in the BETA testing group for the Agricultural Burning and Wildland 

Burning Quality Control Binders, including: 

o Peter Lahm, USDA Forest Service 

o Mark Fitch, USDA Forest Service 

o Darla Potter, WY DEQ 

o Mike Ziolko, Oregon Department of Forestry 

o Jim Russel, USDA Forest Service 

o Paul Schlobohm, US DOI Bureau of Land Management 

o Aaron Worstel, US DOI National Park Service 

o Cathy Messerschmitt (formerly with NTEC) 

o Neva Sotolongo, California ARB 

• State and tribal air quality agency personnel that provided QC review on the fire 

emissions inventory data. 

• State and federal land management agency personnel that provided QC review on the 

fire emissions inventory data. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 5

SECTION 2 

THE 2002 WILDLAND FIRE EMISSION INVENTORY 

The ETT established a number of fire event data objectives that were used to identify and utilize 

wildfire, WFU, and prescribed burning event data suitable for the 2002 fire emission inventory. 

Each individual entry in the “raw” fire activity database was analyzed to determine if all of the 

fire event data objectives were met in order for the record to be included in the fire emission 

inventory. For wildland fire, all activity data collected was at the event level, and summary data 

was rejected. The data objectives were: 

• A specific location for each fire event. 

• A specific calendar day in 2002 for each fire event. 

• A specific size for each fire event. 

• Sufficient information to assign a fuel loading for each fire event. 

The wildfire, prescribed burning, and WFU emission inventories were developed with parallel 

data gathering and emission calculation techniques. The same basic inventory process was 

utilized with a few specific variations implemented. A summary of the technical methods 

follows. 

The wildland fire use events were originally classified as wildfire events in the database. They 

were processed as wildfire events and were identified as WFU events and treated separately from 

wildfire only after spatial and temporal allocation, fuel loading and emission calculations, and 

plume characterization had been completed. Therefore, in this report, the term wildfire includes 

WFU data unless otherwise specified. 

2.1 Activity Data 

Wildfire activity data including WFU data were collected by the FEJF using a tiered process. 

Wildfires greater than 10 acres in size were sought, but any fire record collected was used. 

Detailed activity data with sufficient spatial and temporal resolution were contained in the 

National Interagency Fire Center’s (NIFC) daily National Situation Report publication and ICS209 wildfire forms. The National Situation Report database and ICS-209 databases were merged. 

Procedures were implemented to avoid including duplicate records in the merged data set. 

In a companion effort, 2002 records from the Department of the Interior's Wildland Fire 

Management Data and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service National Interagency Fire 

Management Integrated Database were appended to form an independent “federal database” of 

fire events. Fire events in the National Situation Report/ICS-209 database were then paired with 

fire events in the “federal database.” The National Situation Report/ICS-209 database was 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 6

supplemented on a record-by-record basis with location, fire size, and fuel loading information 

from the “federal database” where necessary. 

For prescribed fire activity, the FEJF set no de minimus activity level for burns. Air Sciences Inc., 

under the authority of the FEJF, made requests of air quality and/or department of forestry 

officials of each state in the WRAP region to provide wildland prescribed fire activity within their 

jurisdiction for 2002. Individual fire records were needed to satisfy precise temporal, spatial, and 

activity criteria for WRAP modeling purposes. Therefore, the FEJF requested: 

1. Any information that could be used to ascertain a prescribed fire’s location (i.e., legal 

location, latitude/longitude coordinates, and county). 

2. Timing information (burn date or season) and/or fire duration. 

3. Such fuels information as vegetation type, acres burned, tons burned, and burn type 

(piles or broadcast). 

2002 prescribed fire information was received from each of the WRAP states. Generally, 

information received from interagency or state-facilitated smoke management programs 

encompassed prescribed fire data for multiple federal and state land management jurisdictions. 

DOI-1202 (Department of Interior), NIFPORS (National Fire Plan Operation Reporting System), 

and FASTRACS (Fuel Analysis, Smoke Tracking, and Report Access Computer System) data 

were received independently from federal agencies. State data not closely matching federal 

prescribed fire totals reported by NIFC were augmented with prescribed fire records from the 

federal databases. Fire records having sufficient spatial, temporal, and activity components were 

formatted into a single region-wide prescribed fire activity inventory. 

See Appendix A for a more detailed description of data gathering methods, results, and 

assumptions for each state and agency. 

2.1.1 Geo-Referencing Fire Location by Township/Range/Section and County 

Many of the records in the prescribed fire activity data set did not have latitude and longitude 

coordinates but did have location information in the form of a Township, Range and Section 

(TRS) or county identifier. 

A geographic information system (GIS) algorithm was developed to convert, or geo-reference, 

TRS codes to a latitude and longitude coordinate pair using the National Atlas Public Land 

Survey System (PLSS) map of Township and Range. Meridian was not available in the raw 

activity data and was assigned to each fire based on state name. The fundamental steps of the 

TRS geo-referencing were: 

1. Convert the fire record’s PLSS information to Meridian Township Range (MTR) and 

Section code. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 7

2. Locate that MTR on the PLSS map. 

3. Within the MTR, estimate the location of the center of the Section. 

4. Identify the latitude and longitude of this point. 

5. Record the estimated geographic coordinates in the activity record. 

In addition to this GIS-based method, legal location was geo-referenced using the “Wefald” TRSconversion software (TRSfile v1.2, available at: 

http://members.cox.net/azregion/trsfile/trsfile.htm). This software attempts to geo-reference 

TRS locations that are not technically part of the PLSS (for instance land grants and tribal lands) 

and hence do not appear in the official PLSS map relied upon in the GIS-based method. Legal 

description and state name for all wildland fires were exported from the activity data to a 

comma-separated file specified by the Wefald software. The Wefald software was run, and the 

output file with latitude and longitude was imported back to the emission inventory. 

Thirdly, fires were geo-referenced by county identifier. If the county and state name matched the 

National Atlas county layer, the centroid coordinates of the county shape were written to the 

activity record. 

In lieu of latitude and longitude coordinates being supplied in the raw data, fire events were 

located by (1) GIS-based TRS geo-referencing, (2) Wefald-based TRS geo-referencing, and, lastly, 

(3) county centroid. After geo-referencing the wildland fire data, 17 fire records, corresponding 

to 16 individual prescribed fire events, had locations that were outside of the WRAP region. 

These records were dropped from the Phase II EI database but retained in a separate file for 

documentation purposes. 

2.1.2 GIS-Based NFDRS Fuel Loading Assignment 

Fire events in the wildfire and prescribed burning activity databases that did not contain fuel 

type in the source data were assigned a fuel model using GIS techniques. The fire’s location was 

plotted on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel model map, and the 

corresponding fuel model code was recorded to the activity record. This procedure was applied 

to each record in the activity database. The specific steps are: 

1. A mappable point for the fire is created from its latitude and longitude. 

 (Activity records are geo-referenced based on their latitude and longitude.) 

2. The fire point is converted to the different map projection of the NFDRS map. 

 (Geographic coordinates are projected to Lambert Equal Area Azimuthal.) 

3. The fire point is “dropped” on the NFDRS Fuel Model map. 

 (The intersected grid cell is identified.) 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 8

4. The fuel model at that point, as a coded number, is identified. 

 (Numeric fuel model attribute value is extracted from the grid cell.) 

5. The numeric fuel model name is saved to the fire activity record. 

 (Numeric fuel model code is written to a newly created field in the activity database.) 

6. The numeric code is translated to the standard NFDRS Fuel Model letter code. 

 (For all records, the fuel letter is looked up by fuel number and saved in a new field.) 

Records receiving the “ag” designation were presumed to occur in a grassland environment and 

assigned the same fuel loading as NFDRS Fuel Model C, pine-grass savanna. Activity records 

intersecting “water” and “barren” did not receive a fuel model assignment from this process. 

2.1.3 Final Activity Data Quality Control 

The wildland fire activity data set was quality-controlled using geographic information science. 

Logical inconsistencies were identified and recorded in the activity data set. Certain flaws were 

considered “fatal” and resulted in the record remaining in the activity data set, but being 

“dropped” from the emission inventory. Only records with a valid start and end date, location 

(latitude and longitude coordinate), non-zero fire size in acres, and calculable fuel loading in tons 

were carried over to the final emission inventory. The wildfire activity data set was supplied 

with 3,243 records. In total, 86 activity records (2.7 percent) totaling 18,447 acres were dropped 

due to insufficient or inconsistent data, and 3,157 wildfire records were carried over to the final 

emission inventory. This corresponds to 1,820 individual fire events (many individual fire events 

were multi-day events). The prescribed fire activity data set was supplied with 10,963 records. 

In total, 963 activity records (8.8 percent) totaling 51,723 acres were dropped due to insufficient or 

inconsistent data, and 10,000 prescribed fire events were carried over to the final emission 

inventory. The majority of prescribed fire records (~890) were dropped due to an invalid location 

input in term of TRS coordinates that could not be filled in the absence of a county code or name. 

2.1.4 Wildland Fire Use 

Wildland Fire Use (WFU) was included as a unique fire type in this emission inventory. WFU 

events were originally categorized as wildfires and were treated as wildfires for spatial and 

temporal allocation as well as emission calculations. Therefore, some of the tables and charts in 

this report categorize data only as wildfire and prescribed fire. In these cases, WFU is combined 

with wildfire. 

Table 2 summarizes the fire events classified as WFU. The majority of WFU fire activity in the 

2002 emission inventory occurred in Alaska: 79 percent of the acreage, 89 percent of the fuel 

consumed, and 89 percent of the PM2.5 emissions. Other states with reported or allocated WFU 

activity included California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 9

Information on WFU events was found in two data sources: 

1. The DOI-1202 data contain a subset of data with a numerical code indicating WFU for 

the FWS, NPS, BLM, and BIA lands. 

2. NIFMID data contains a subset of data that contained the WFU events for the U.S. 

Forest Service in 2002. 

All the WFU records from both the DOI-1202 and the NIFMID data sets were extracted and 

compared to the wildland fire activity data. This comparison was based on (1) fire name, (2) fire 

date, and (3) fire acreage. The results of this comparison indicated that the majority of the WFU 

activity in the DOI-1202 and the NIFMID databases were indeed included in the Phase I EI 

wildfire data. All WFU records were assigned a unique label to distinguish these events from 

wildfire events in the database. 

Table 2: Summary of Wildland Fire Use Data in Phase I EI 

Source Data WFU Acres 

In Phase I EI 

(acres) 

In Phase I EI 

(%) 

DOI 1202 168,055 167,708 99.7 

NIFMID 36,208 33,934 93.7 

Total 204,263 201,642 98.7 

Some of these discrepancies stem from the fact that the Phase I EI includes fire records ≥10 acres 

only, while the DOI-1202 and NIFMID databases include all fire sizes. Moreover, in some cases 

there were minor discrepancies between the acres included in the Phase I EI and the other data 

set for the same fire event. For the Phase I EI, the records in the original database were retained, 

and the discrepancy between the DOI 1202/NIFMID records and the Phase I EI records was not 

resolved (approximately 2,600 acres). 

As a result of the large fire refinements and the wildland fire quality control process (each 

described later in this section), WFU activity was reduced by approximately 100 additional acres 

in the final Phase II EI. 

2.1.5 Natural and Anthropogenic Assignments (For All Fire Sources) 

Each wildfire, prescribed burn, agricultural burn, and non-federal rangeland burn in the WRAP 

Phase II EI for fire was flagged as natural or anthropogenic in origin. This was done using the 

following 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 

(under development). Further approaches for categorizing natural and anthropogenic fires may 

be developed by the FEJF for subsequent Phase III and IV emission inventories. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 10

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) as well as in the NIF 3.0 files. These SCCs are 

defined in Table 3. 

Table 3: 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 

Wildfire 

All wildfire was categorized as natural. The SCC for wildfire (2810001000) was considered 

exclusively natural. 

Wildland Fire Use 

All Wildland Fire Use (WFU) incidents identified in the Phase II EI were categorized as natural. 

A custom SCC of 2810001001 was used to identify WFU natural events. 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 Fire 

All agricultural burning in the Phase II EI was categorized as anthropogenic and given the 

standard SCC of 2801500000. 

The 2001 WRAP Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions states that “vegetative burning conducted by 

Native Americans for traditional, religious, and ceremonial purposes” is considered natural and 

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 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 11

Phase II EI fell within the exterior boundaries of tribal lands, but the Phase II EI lacked an 

indication of “traditional, religious, or ceremonial” purpose. Therefore agricultural events falling 

on tribal lands were still categorized as anthropogenic. A custom SCC of 2801500001 will be used 

in the future to classify agricultural burning determined to be of a natural origin. 

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire was categorized as either natural or anthropogenic. The standard SCC of 

2810015000 represented anthropogenic prescribed burns, and a custom SCC of 2810015001 

represented natural burns. 

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 ETT elected to base the categorization of prescribed fire as natural or 

anthropogenic on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel model for each incident 

(Table 4). An NFDRS fuel model exists for each wildfire and prescribed burn in the Phase II EI. 

Each incident in the Phase II EI had only one NFDRS assignment based on the observed fuel 

model reported in the activity database (preferred) or was assigned by overlaying the fire 

location on the national NFDRS 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 fuel models and identifying the buildup of “above 

normal” fuel loadings (for example, the short-needle conifer models G and H as anthropogenic 

and natural, respectively). 

Regardless of NFDRS fuel model, all piled prescribed burns were categorized as anthropogenic. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 12

Table 4: 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 Phase II EI as natural. 

This decision was deemed to be consistent with the intent of the WRAP’s categorization policy. 

The decision is also based on the facts that fuel loading assignments for non-federal 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). 

All prescribed rangeland burning events on non-federal lands in the Phase II EI were categorized 

as natural and given a custom SCC of 2810016001. The SCC 281001600 will be reserved for 

anthropogenic non-federal rangeland burning in case the categorization technique changes for 

the FEJF’s Phase II and Phase IV emission inventory projects. 

The ETT also acknowledged the following: 

• Non-federal rangeland burning should be regarded similarly to wildland prescribed 

burning in that efforts to control emissions should be implemented when and where 

possible. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 13

• The FEJF’s fire tracking system (to be developed) should accommodate data that 

indicates the stated objective(s) of non-federal rangeland burning events. 

• The categorization technique for non-federal rangeland burning may be modified for 

future inventories. 

2.2 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 present as duff and tree crowns. Similarly, for 

prescribed fire events for which no fuel loading 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 components. Table 5 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 twelve pollutants included were total suspended 

particulate matter (TSP), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), 

non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOC), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and coarse particulate matter– 

defined as the difference between PM10 and PM2.5 (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 compilation of emission factors and emission factor 

relationships (multipliers) from both documents. Table 6 lists the emission factors used for the 

Phase II EI. 

In addition to smoldering consumption incorporated into the NFDRS fuel loading table, distinct 

smoldering emissions were added to the emission inventory on the day after certain wildland fire 

days. The FEJF applied day-after smoldering to each day of a wildfire and prescribed broadcast 

burn with fuel loadings greater than 5.0 tons per acres (personal communication, David 

Sandberg, FEJF). Seventeen percent of the emissions on a wildfire day and 8.5 percent of the 

emissions on a prescribed broadcast burn day were added to the emission inventory at the same 

location on the following day. Prescribed pile burns did not have additional smoldering days 

added. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 14

Table 5: Summary of Fuel Loading and Consumption by NFDRS Model 

Dead and live fuel loadings were based on Cohen and Deeming (1985). Values in parentheses indicate total fuel loading fo

asterisk (*) after the NFDRS model description indicates the wildfire emissions were augmented for smoldering consumpt

Dead Fuels (tons/acre) Live Fuels (tons/acre) 

NFDRS Abbr. NFDRS Model Description 

Total 

(Rx fire) 

(tons/acre) 1-hour 

10- 

hour 

100- 

hour 

1,000- 

hour 

Fine 

Wood Herbaceous 

A Western grasses (annual) 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 B California chaparral 19.5 3.50 4.00 0.50 0.00 11.50 0.00 C Pine-grass savanna 4.7 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.80 D Southern rough * 15.6 (10.6) 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.75 E Hardwood litter (winter) * 3.8 1.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.50 F Intermediate brush 15.0 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 9.00 0.00 G Short needle (heavy dead) * 43.5 (25.6) 2.50 2.00 5.00 12.00 0.50 0.50 H Short needle (normal dead) * 27.5 (15.0) 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 I Heavy slash * 55.1 (49.1) 12.00 12.00 10.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 J Intermediate slash * 34.0 (31.2) 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 K Light slash * 14.4 (13.1) 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 L Western grasses (perennial) 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 N Saw grass * 5.0 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 O High pocosin * 46.1 (45.1) 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 0.00 P Southern pine plantation * 16.4 (10.2) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 Q Alaskan Black Spruce 57.6 (48.8) 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 4.00 0.50 R Hardwood litter (summer) * 3.1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 S Tundra * 19.3 (19.1) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 T Sagebrush grass * 4.5 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.50 U Western pines * 19.1 (10.3) 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 15

Table 6: Summary of Emission Factors 

Summary of emission factors (EF) in pounds per ton 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 AP421 34.1 AP42 

PM10 8.0 AP42 28.1 OAQPS 

PM2.5 8.0 AP42 24.1 OAQPS 

Elemental Carbon 0.6 AP42, OAQPS PM2.5 * 0.072 1.5 OAQPS 

Organic Carbon 4.3 AP42, OAQPS PM2.5 * 0.54 11.6 OAQPS 

VOC 6.3 AP42, OAQPS CO * 0.085 13.6 OAQPS 

CH4 7.7 OAQPS 2*(42.7-43.2*CE) 13.6 OAQPS 

NH3 0.5 AP42, OAQPS CO * 0.0073 1.3 OAQPS 

NOx 6.2 OAQPS 6.2 OAQPS 

CO 74.3 AP42 289.0 OAQPS 

SO2 1.7 OAQPS 1.7 OAQPS 

PM coarse 0.0 PM10 – PM2.5 4.0 PM10 – PM2.5

2.2.1 Pollutant Speciation 

In the development of all of the fire emissions inventories (1996, 2002, 2018) prepared for the 

FEJF, Air Sciences and the WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center (RMC) have relied upon 

mathematical relationships with other pollutants to derive estimates of varies species of 

pollutants, including, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), ammonia (NH3), and methane 

(CH4). While the emission inventory system has included calculated estimates for several of 

these pollutant species, in general, the RMC has derived emission quantities for these pollutants 

as part of the pre-modeling data processing steps (i.e., the RMC has not used the values for EC, 

OC, NH3, and CH4 included in the emission inventory files provided by Air Sciences). This 

section simply documents the current mathematical relationships being utilized to represent 

emissions of EC, OC, NH3, and CH4 in the fire emissions inventory and modeling systems. 

Table 7 includes the mathematical relationships currently utilized by the RMC to prepare 

estimates of several pollutant species. 

 

1 AP-42, Section 13.1, Table 13.1-3, Logging Slash Debris, No Mineral Soil, weighted average of flaming and smoldering. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 16

Table 7: Pollutant Species’ Mathematical Relationships Currently in use by RMC 

Pollutant 

Species 

Agricultural 

& Prescribed 

Multiplier 

Pollutant 

Relationship 

Wildfire 

Multiplier 

Pollutant 

Relationship 

EC 0.075 X PM2.5 0.09 X PM2.5

OC 0.6389 X PM2.5 0.636 X PM2.5

Nitrates (PN03) 

(particulate) 

0.0063 X PM2.5 0.0 X PM2.5

Sulfates (PS04) 

(particulate) 

0.0154 X PM2.5 0.0 X PM2.5

Fine particulate 0.2644 PM2.5-EC-OCPN03-PS04 

0.274 PM2.5-EC-OCPN03-PS04 

Aldehydes 0.205 X VOC 0.205 X VOC 

Ethanes 0.1911 X VOC 0.1911 X VOC 

Non-reactive 

hydrocarbons 

0.2247 X VOC 0.2247 X VOC 

Olefins 0.0310 X VOC 0.0310 X VOC 

Paraffins 0.5511 X VOC 0.5511 X VOC 

 

Air Sciences’ emission inventory systems have not included estimates for all of the pollutant 

species identified in Table 7 (above). Table 8 includes the mathematical relationships currently 

utilized in Air Sciences’ emission inventory system to prepare estimates of several pollutant 

species. For species for which the emission factors were taken directly from the literature, Table 8 

shows the calculated relationship between the pollutant species and the parent pollutant. For 

agricultural burning, emission factors as provided by Bryan Jenkins, Ph.D., UC Davis, are cropspecific and the derivation of each pollutant’s emission factor is not provided. Therefore, Table 8 

shows the range, average (avg), and median (med) of the mathematical relationship between the 

pollutant species and the parent pollutant. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 17

Table 8: Pollutant Species’ Mathematical Relationships Currently in use in Air Sciences Emission 

Inventory System 

Wildland Fire (wildfire and 

Rx broadcast burns) Prescribed Fire - Piled Fuels Agricultural Burning 

Pollutant EF 

Source/ 

Relationship EF 

Source/ 

Relationship EF 

Source/ 

Relationship 

Elemental AP42, OAQPS 

Carbon 

1.5 OAQPS/ 

0.6224 x PM2.5

0.6 

PM2.5 * 0.072 

Varies 

by crop. 

0.15 to 0.31 x 

PM2.5

avg = 0.25 

med = 0.26 

Organic AP42, OAQPS 

Carbon 

11.6 OAQPS/ 

0.4813 x PM2.5

4.3 

PM2.5 * 0.54 

Varies 

by crop. 

0.21 to 0.5 x 

PM2.5

avg = .44 

med = .45 

VOC 13.6 OAQPS/ AP42, OAQPS 

0.047 x CO 

6.3 

CO * 0.085 

Varies 

by crop. 

0.04 to 0.18 x 

CO 

avg = 0.10 

med = 0.09 

CH4 13.6 OAQPS 7.7 OAQPS 

2*(42.7-43.2*CE) 

CE=0.9 

Varies 

by crop. 

0.82 to 19.76 

avg = 7.78 

med = 8.60 

NH3 1.3 OAQPS/ AP42, OAQPS 

.0045 x CO 

0.5 

CO * 0.0073 

Varies 

by crop. 

0.02 x CO 

PM coarse 4.0 PM10 – PM2.5 0 PM10 – PM2.5 Varies 

by crop. 

PM10 – PM2.5

Reference: 

PM10 28.1 OAQPS 8.0 AP42 Varies. UC Davis 

PM2.5 24.1 OAQPS 8 AP42 Varies. UC Davis 

CO 289 OAQPS 74.3 AP42 Varies. UC Davis 

2.3 Emission Calculations 

For wildfire and prescribed burning, daily emissions 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. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 18

2.3.1 Daily Fire Growth Allocation 

The wildfire and prescribed burn emission inventories were required to be resolved to the day, 

but wildfires and prescribed burns were reported both as individual fire days and as single 

records spanning a number of days. Therefore, the acres burned, total fuel loading consumed, 

and emissions per pollutant of multi-day records were allocated to individual days to indicate 

their “fire growth.” In the emission inventory database, new records were appended to add new 

daily fire events where before there was only a single multi-day record. The final date for all 

records was coded in “mm/dd/yy” format. The original multi-day record was overwritten with 

the first day’s allocation. 

Records that only indicated one day’s reporting of activity (i.e., the end date was the same as the 

start date) were skipped over by this daily allocation step. A multi-day event was allocated to 

individual fire days only if its size was greater than 100 acres. Fires less than or equal to 100 acres 

were assigned in their entirety to the activity record’s start date. The growth rate for wildfires 

and prescribed fires was then allocated differently: 

Wildfire 

Wildfire and WFU events greater than 100 acres were allocated to the first two-thirds of the 

duration implied in the source data. The duration of fire growth in days for wildfire was 

calculated as: 

 Wildfire Duration (Daysn) = Ceiling [2/3 (startdate – enddate + 1)] Equation 1

Beginning on the start date, values were allocated to the subsequent calendar days across this 

shortened duration. The FEPS “spreading oval” algorithm was used to emulate a geometric fire 

growth (FEPS version 1.0 Jan-04 Eqn. 20). The fire growth of each day as a percent of the multiday total was calculated as: 

Percent Dayi = (Dayi

2 / Daysn2)) - (Day i- 12 / Daysn2) Equation 2 

Where: i = sequence number of day from the event’s start date, and 

n is the total number of days in the shortened wildfire duration from Equation 1. 

The daily allocation percent was applied to the multi-day values to arrive at daily fire growth in 

acres burned, tons consumed, and tons emitted per pollutant.2

Prescribed Fire 

For multi-day prescribed fires greater than 100 acres, size, loading, and emissions were allocated 

evenly across every day from reported start date to end date, inclusive. 

 

2 The ETT recognizes that the spreading oval technique may not accurately represent the daily growth rate of large multiday events in certain fuel types in Alaska. The FEJF may wish to revise the daily fire growth allocation for Alaska fire 

events in future emission inventories. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 19

2.4 Plume Profile 

A plume profile tailored for wildland fire was assigned 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 poor performance with regard to dispersing smoke plumes, the FEJF 

utilized expert opinion to assign plume characteristics to each fire event. 

2.4.1 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 3). 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 normalizer 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. 

Acreage Acreage Fuel Loading / Normalizer virtual actual = ⋅ Equation 3 

The plume profile for days added to model smoldering 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. 

2.4.2 Diurnal Consumption 

A diurnal fuel consumption table was created to allocate daily wildland fire emissions by hour 

(Table 9). The table, consisting of a percent of fuel consumed for each hour of the day, summing 

to 100, was submitted to the Air Quality Modeling Forum (and the WRAP’s Regional Modeling 

Center [RMC]). The diurnal fuel consumption table was implemented by the RMC within the 

SMOKE emissions processor to allocate daily emission estimates to hourly emissions. 

Table 9: 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 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 20

2.4.3 Fire Size Classes and Plume Profile Calculations 

Plume values include the top and bottom of the plume (Ptop and Pbot, respectively; both 

expressed in meters above ground elevation) and 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.3 These three plume parameters are established and assigned for each of the 24 

hours of each daily fire event. All of the plume 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 10). Plume bottom heights and percent of the 

plume fumigated to the first layer of the atmosphere were also developed for the five plume 

classes. Using expert opinion and anecdotal evidence, a table of hourly buoyant efficiency values 

was derived (Table 11). 

Table 10: Fire-Related Parameters 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 

BEsize 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 

Table 11: Buoyant Efficiency as Function of Hour of Day 

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

BEhour 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 

BEhour 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 11) and heat release value based on fire size, also referred to as normalized fire 

growth. 

 

3 The height of the first (lowest) vertical layer is 38 m in the WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center’s model setup. The 

calculation methodology for the Lay1F values have been reviewed (by Air Sciences and the USDA Pacific Wildland Fire 

Sciences Lab) and assessed to be reasonable with no additional scaling. The maximum bottom of plume values was 

revised downward for the three largest fire size classes (also based on discussions with the USDA Pacific Wildland Fire 

Sciences Lab). 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 21

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour

Buoyant efficiency

The hourly top of the plume was calculated as follows: 

( )( ) max

2

size

2 Ptophour = BEhour * BE * Ptop Equation 4 

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 Pbot hour = BEhour * BE *Pbot Equation 5 

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 the size-specific buoyant efficiency. 

( ) hour hour BEsize Lay1F = 1 - BE * Equation 6 

Using Equations 3 through 6, the bottom and top of the atmospheric plume as well as the 

proportion of the plume fumigated into the first atmospheric surface layer were all scaled to fire 

size, fuel loading (incorporated in virtual acres calculation), and hour of the day. Figures 1 

through 4 illustrate the relationships described above. 

Figures 1 through 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 5 through 9 is 

the height (38 m) of the first vertical atmospheric layer (as designated by the WRAP’s RMC). 

Figure 1: Buoyant Efficiency 

The relationship between buoyant efficiency and time of day. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 22

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

Hour

Plume height (m) [log-scale]

>5000

1000-5000

100-1000

10-100

<10

Figure 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 size categories. The lowest line represents the 10-

acre cutoff. Note the logarithmic scale on the Y-axis. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 23

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

Hour

Plume height (m) [log-scale]

>5000

1000-5000

100-1000

10-100

<10

Figure 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 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 24

Figure 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 the 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

Hour

Plume height (m) [log-scale]

>5000

1000-5000

100-1000

10-100

<10
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 25

Figure 5: Fire Size Class 1 Plume Characteristics 

This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bbot, and Lay1F) for Class 1 fires for each hour. 

Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-axis (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained 

into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the right 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

Hour

Plume height (m)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% entrained in lowest vertical layer

P_top

P_bot

Reference

Lay1F
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 26

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

Hour

Plume height (m)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% entrained in lowest vertical layer

P_top

P_bot

Reference

Lay1F

Figure 6: Fire Size Class 2 Plume Characteristics 

This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bbot, and Lay1F) for Class 2 fires for each hour. 

Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-axis (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained 

into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the right Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest 

vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 27

Figure 7: Fire Size Class 3 Plume Characteristics 

This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bbot, and Lay1F) for Class 3 fires for each hour. 

Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-axis (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained 

into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the right 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

Hour

Plume height (m)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% entrained in lowest vertical layer

P_top

P_bot

Reference

Lay1F
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 28

Figure 8: Fire Size Class 4 Plume Characteristics 

This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bbot, and Lay1F) for Class 4 fires for each hour. 

Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-axis (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained 

into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the right 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

Hour

Plume height (m)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% entrained in lowest vertical layer

P_top

P_bot

Reference

Lay1F
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 29

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

Hour

Plume height (m)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% entrained in lowest vertical layer

P_top

P_bot

Reference

Lay1F

Figure 9: Fire Size Class 5 Plume Characteristics 

This figure shows plume characteristics (Ptop, Bbot, and Lay1F) for Class 5 fires for each hour. 

Plume height in meters is shown on the left Y-axis (in log-scale), and Lay1F in percent entrained 

into the lowest vertical layer is shown on the right Y-axis. For reference, the height of the lowest 

vertical layer (38 m) is shown in red. 

2.5 Approach for Technical Refinements of Large Fires and Fire Complexes for 

WRAP Phase I Fire Emission Inventory 

This section summarizes the proposed technical approaches to refine the wildfire activity data 

represented in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Phase I EI. The technical 

approaches for the three following tasks are discussed in this section. 

• Complex fire identification. 

• Identification of blackened versus perimeter acres. 

• Refinements of spatial, temporal, and fuel loading data for large fires. 

In order to address these tasks, the largest 28 wildfires in the Phase I EI (all near or above 50,000 

acres) were examined for availability of more refined spatial data. This information was obtained 

through Internet searches combined with follow-up phone calls with the appropriate Federal 

Land Manager (FLM). The type of fire-event-specific information included Burned Area 

Emergency Response reports (BAER reports), Environmental Impact Statements, GIS-files 

provided by the national forests or obtained through the internet, as well as other web-based fire 

event information. Availability of these resources varied from fire to fire. Table 12 presents the 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 30

list of large fires for which the availability of fire-specific digital information was researched. The 

list of fire complexes researched includes those in Table 12, as well as several smaller fire 

complexes. 

Table 12: Summary of Available Data for Large Wildland Fires in Phase I EI 

“---“ indicates no data available or located. 

Fire Name State 

Perimeter 

Acres 

Fuels 

Information 

Fire Severity 

Information 

GIS-based Fire 

Perimeter 

Biscuit OR 499,570 Tabular1/GIS Tabular GIS4

Rodeo/Chediski AZ 468,638 Tabular1/GIS Tabular/GIS3 GIS3

Geskamina Lake AK 257,258 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Reindeer AK 227,800 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Minunchima Group AK 196,584 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Yetna River AK 152,962 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

McNalley CA 150,696 Tabular1/GIS Tabular/GIS3 GIS3

Hayman CO 137,760 Tabular2/GIS Tabular/GIS3 GIS3

Sischu AK 128,983 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Tool Box OR 120,085 Tabular1/GIS GIS4 GIS4

Moose Lake AK 117,648 GIS --- Fire history&GIS3

MP 78 AK 115,328 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Rattle UT 94,519 GIS Tabular/GIS4 GIS4

Ponil Complex NM 92,194 GIS GIS4 GIS4

Vinasale AK 92,000 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Long Creek AK 74,931 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Galatea Creek AK 74,511 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Kraft Springs MT 69,900 Tabular1 Tabular --- 

Windy AK 69,523 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Tiller Complex OR 68,775 GIS GIS4 GIS4

Missionary Ridge CO 66,534 GIS Tabular/GIS3 GIS3

Sanford UT 64,972 Tabular1/GIS Tabular/GIS4 GIS4

Spurs AK 64,834 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Bear Creek AK 63,634 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Pines CA 61,705 --- --- --- 

Khotol Riv AK 50,811 GIS --- Fire history GIS 

Boulder OR 48,080 --- --- --- 

Kraft Complex ND 48,000 --- --- --- 

Acres Researched 3,678,235 (58 % of Phase I WF EI)

GIS Acres 

(potential) 3,512,255 (55 % of Phase I WF EI)

Notes: 1 Tabular fuel model distribution derived from vegetation descriptions (hardcopy). 2 Tabular fuel model provided by source (hardcopy). 

 Digital GIS fire perimeter data was either downloaded from the internet (GIS 3) or obtained from the U.S. Forest 

Service (GIS 4). 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 31

2.5.1 Complex Fire Identification 

2.5.1.1 Analysis and Results 

The goal of this analysis was to identify potential duplicate fire entries that might be present in 

the database. A fire event could occur more than once in the emission inventory database if, for 

example, the fire name was changed over the course of time. This can occur when multiple fires 

are merged into a single fire complex. In this situation, the initial fire names are generally 

dropped, and all fires get assigned a common name. The Alaska fires could not be checked for 

the potential of duplicates since information on individual fires that might make up the larger 

complexes was not available (personal communication, Sue Christensen, Alaska Fire Service). Of 

the fire complexes in the WRAP states in the lower 48 the following fires were examined: 

1. Wildfires (including WFU) above approximately 50,000 acres, regardless of fire name. 

2. Wildfires (including WFU) between 6,000 and 50,000 acres with names ending in 

“Complex.” 

Although all fires with names ending in “Complex” were identified, only those above 6,000 acres 

(cumulative acres) were researched in the (online) National Fire Incident Situation Reports for 

2002. The portion of fire complexes not included in the analysis contained 23 fire complexes 

sized from 100 to ~4,000 acres, and totaling ~26,000 acres. The fire complexes were examined for 

(1) the individual fires that made up the complex and (2) the potential duplicate presence of these 

individual fires in the Phase I EI based on fire name and fire event date(s). 

Table 13 summarizes the results for the fire complexes included in this research. For the total of 

24 large fires and fire complexes that were researched, 18 were identified as actual fire complexes. 

Out of these 18 fire complexes, 13 complexes had potential duplicate entries in the Phase I EI, 

based on 26 potential duplicate fires. A total of approximately 260,000 acres that might have been 

double-counted in the Phase I EI was identified. In the second step of this quality control 

procedure, these potential duplicates were compared by fire location. Specifically, the distance 

from the fire complex coordinates to the coordinates of its comprising fires was calculated. The 

distances varied from zero (identical coordinates) to approximately 57 miles. Most of the 

calculated distances were short enough to fall within a reasonable fire perimeter based on the size 

of the fire. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 32

Table 13: Summary of Complex Fire Check Based on Duplicate Names Only 

“---“ indicates no duplicates found by checking fire names; “NA” indicates not applicable. 

Fire Name State 

Perimeter 

Acres 

Fires Included in 

Phase I EI Event 

Potential Duplicate Events 

Identified (acres) 

Distance 

(mi) 

Biscuit OR 499,570 

Biscuit fire 

Florence fire 

Sourdough fire 

Sour Biscuit (41,897 acres) 

--- 

--- 

25 

--- 

--- 

Rodeo/Chediski AZ 468,638 

Chediski fire 

Rodeo fire 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

McNalley CA 150,696 One fire name only NA --- 

Hayman CO 137,760 One fire name only NA --- 

Tool Box OR 120,085 

Toolbox fire 

Silver fire 

Winter fire 

--- 

Silver (24,565) 

Winter (69,673; 2 duplicate sets) 

--- 

8 

21 

Rattle UT 94,519 

Black Canyon fire 

Diamond Creek fire

Black Canyon (5,970) 

Diamond Creek (1,300) 

0 

14 

Ponil Complex NM 92,194 

Middle Ponil Fire 

Medcalf Fire 

Office Fire 

Turkey 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Turkey (1,295) 

--- 

--- 

--- 

13 

Kraft Springs MT 69,900 One fire name only NA --- 

Tiller Complex OR 68,775 

Tallow 

Acker 

Boulder fire 

Buckeye 

Big Bend 

Ruby Red 

Buster Springs 

Digger 

Anderson 

Wilderness 

Tallow (1,132) 

Acker (4,114) 

Boulder (48,080) 

Buckeye (2,212) 

Big Bend (10,063) 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Anderson (457) 

--- 

7 

3 

3 

5 

6 

--- 

--- 

--- 

12 

--- 

Missionary Ridge CO 66,534 One fire name only NA --- 

Sanford UT 64,972 

Sanford Rx burn 

Adams Rx burn 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Kraft ND 48,000 

Kraft 

Bale II 

Twin II 

Kenel Again 

--- 

Bale II (1,076) 

Twin II (450) 

--- 

--- 

28 

23 

--- 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 33

Table 13: Summary of Complex Fire Check Based on Duplicate Names Only - continued 

“---“ indicates no duplicates found by checking fire names; “NA” indicates not applicable. 

Fire Name State 

Perimeter 

Acres 

Fires Included in 

Phase I EI Event 

Potential Duplicate 

Events Identified (acres) 

Distance 

(mi) 

MonumentMalheur OR 44,062 Roberts 

Easy 

Monument 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Daley WY 42,000 Daley Draw 

Hairy 

--- 

Hairy (13,000) 

--- 

1 

Mahogany OR 41,328 Atkins 

Mahogany Mountain 

Atkins (800) 

--- 

12 

--- 

--- 

Trinidad CO 33,000 Spring 

James John 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Mt. Zirkel CO 31,016 Burn Ridge 

Hinman 

Burn Ridge (8,260) 

Hinman (10,176) 

0 

7 

Quartz Mt. WA 12,144 Quartz Mountain 

Middle Mountain 

Lake 

Beauty Peak Action #344 

--- 

Middle Mountain (7,858) 

--- 

--- 

--- 

5 

--- 

--- 

Lincoln County CO 10,000 One fire name only NA NA 

Canyons UT 9,800 Hang Dog 

Hammond 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Inyo CA 6,550 Fuller 

Piper 

Fuller (6,400) 

Piper (150) 

7 

1 

Frank Church ID 6,341 Parker Mountain 

Little Horse 

Little Soldier 

Bobtail 

Waterfall 

Big Hill 

Parker Mountain (301) 

--- 

Little Soldier (303) 

--- 

Waterfall (36) 

--- 

32 

--- 

57 

--- 

23 

--- 

Grizzly OR 6,050 Grizzly 

Bare 

Logan 

--- 

Bare (35) 

--- 

--- 

16 

--- 

El Paso County CO 6,000 One fire name only NA NA 

Acres Researched 2,129,934 (33% of Phase I WF EI) 259,603 (4% of Phase I WF EI) 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 34

2.5.1.2 Results of Complex Fire Identification Analyses 

• The potential duplicate fires were identified by (1) the same name as reported in the 

individual daily fire reports, (2) overlapping fire date, and, (3) similarity of 

geographical coordinates. Based on these similarities, all potential duplicate fires 

recorded in Table 13 were removed from the emission inventory. The data for these 

deleted records will be retained in a companion database. 

2.5.2 Blackened Versus Perimeter Fire Acres 

Based on the fire event-specific information obtained for the largest 28 wildfires in the Phase I EI, 

the percentage of the acreage within the fire perimeter that did not burn was extracted. A range 

of 4 to 54 percent of the acreage within the analyzed fire perimeters reportedly did not burn. 

Table 14 presents a summary of the results of the blackened area analysis.4 A grand total of 

approximately 343,000 acres of wildfire activity were removed from the fire activity database (a 

reduction of 5 percent of the total wildfire acres burned in the Phase I EI). Blackened acres could 

not be calculated for the Alaska fires since burn severity data were not collected for these fire 

events (personal communication, Sue Christensen, Alaska Fire Service). In this case it was 

assumed that the blackened acres and the perimeter acreage were the same for the large Alaska 

fire events. This is a reasonable assumption, given that most of these fires occurred in the interior 

of Alaska, and generally were characterized as intense, stand replacing wildfires (personal 

communication, Sue Christensen, Alaska Fire Service). 

As a follow-up to these blackened acres refinements, selected fires were analyzed to detect any 

trends in this data based on NFDRS fuel model. The goal of this analysis was to see if there was a 

relationship between the proportion of blackened acres and the NFDRS fuel model, which 

potentially could be used to estimate blackened acres for smaller fires in the Phase II EI, as well as 

for fires in future emission inventories. The data were summarized as the proportions of 

unburned acreage and blackened acres (low, moderate, and high fire severity combined) for six 

fires and fire complexes (Table 13). Fire severity data were available in the form of GIS layers 

(Ponil and Sanford) or (hardcopy) reported fire intensities by vegetation type or NFDRS (Biscuit, 

Kraft, McNally, Rodeo-Chediski). The results indicated that the blackened acres within a 

perimeter varied considerably between NFDRS fuel models (average blackened acres 25 to 

almost 100 percent of perimeter). Moreover, blackened acres within a perimeter varied 

considerably within NFDRS fuel models as well, as indicated by the fairly high standard 

deviation in some cases (Table 13). 

 

4 Air Sciences Inc. has discovered that blackened versus fire perimeter information may also be available for two 

additional wildfire events (the Tool Box [120,000 acres] and Tiller Complex [68,775 acres] fires). To date, this information 

(in GIS format) has not been analyzed, and any potential reduction in acres burned for these events has not been 

accounted for in the Phase II EI. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 35

Table 14: Summary of Blackened Versus Perimeter Fire Acres for Large Wildfire Events 

“SD” stands for standard deviation. 

Fire Name State 

Perimeter 

Acres 

Unburned 

Acres (%) 

Blacked 

Acres 

Reduction of 

Acres in EI 

Biscuit OR 499,570 23 384,669 114,901 

Rodeo/Chediski AZ 468,638 15 398,342 70,296 

McNalley CA 150,696 10 135,626 15,070 

Hayman CO 137,760 20 110,208 27,552 

Rattle UT 94,519 54 43,479 51,040 

Ponil Complex NM 92,194 16 77,443 14,751 

Kraft Springs MT 69,900 4 67,104 2,796 

Missionary Ridge CO 66,534 20 53,227 13,307 

Sanford UT 64,972 50 32,486 32,486 

Overall Acres 1,644,783 24 ± 17 (SD) 1,302,584 342,199 

 % WF EI Acres 26% 21% 5%

A further refinement could consist of expressing the blacked acreage as their proportion 

distributed over three fire severity categories typically used in BAER reporting, low, moderate 

and high fire severity, respectively. For the six fires in this analysis the distribution of blackened 

acres over the three fire severity classes did vary considerably, both between NFDRS fuel models 

as well as within each NFDRS fuel model (Table 14). The latter is demonstrated by the high 

standard deviation in comparison with the mean percentages. This variation makes it difficult to 

generalize this categorization to other fires in the WRAP region. 

Table 15: Summary of Unburned Versus Blackened Acres for Six Fires 

“SD” indicates one standard deviation, and “---“ means not calculated due to a sample size of 

one. “*” indicates a statistically significant difference between unburned and blackened acres 

(Kruskal-Wallis test; P<0.05). 

NFDRS Sample Size 

Percent of Perimeter 

Unburned 

Percent of Perimeter 

Blackened SD 

A 3 7 93 6 

B 2 3 97 4 

C* 5 23 77 20 

F* 4 26 74 27 

G 1 75 25 --- 

H 5 29 71 26 

L 1 0 100 --- 

R 3 34 66 53 

T 1 60 40 --- 

U* 4 4 96 3 

Overall* 29 23 77 27 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 36

2.5.2.1 Results of Blackened Versus Perimeter Refinement Analyses 

Accounting for the unburned sections within fire perimeters decreased fire acreage between 4 to 

over 50 percent for a subset of large fires. Adjustments for blackened acres for these large fires 

were implemented in the Phase II EI. 

The proportion of blackened acres relative to the perimeter acres did vary considerably, was 

based on a very small number of fires, and did not represent all NFDRS fuel models present in 

the Phase I EI. Therefore, these proportions were not applied to adjust acreage of other fires in 

the Phase II EI. 

The variation in fire severity by NFDRS fuel model was too high to derive a general approach to 

adjust other fires in the Phase II EI.

Table 16: Relative Distribution of Blackened Acres by Fire Severity Category 

“SD” indicates one standard deviation, and “---“ means not calculated due to a sample size of 

one. 

 Severity Class (Percent of Blackened Acres ± SD) 

NFDRS Sample Size Low Moderate High 

A 3 21 ± 18 36 ± 31 43 ± 49 

B 2 26 ± 29 31 ± 14 43 ± 43 

C 5 25 ± 22 31 ± 29 44 ± 31 

F 4 36 ± 27 34 ± 25 30 ± 19 

G 1 15 ± --- 74 ± --- 11 ± --- 

H 5 33 ± 24 38 ± 21 29 ± 16 

L 1 2 ± --- 17 ± --- 81 ± --- 

R 3 14 ± 25 18 ± 15 68 ± 36 

T 1 14 ± --- 68 ± --- 18 ± --- 

U 4 27 ± 18 36 ± 12 37 ± 28 

ALL 29 25 ± 21 35 ± 22 40 ± 29 

2.5.3 Spatial, Temporal, and Fuel Model Refinements 

2.5.3.1 Spatial Refinements 

Based on the information gathered on the large fire events, as summarized in Table 16, several 

refinements were applied. A spatial check was performed for the largest fires and fire complexes 

for which digital, GIS-based, fire perimeters were available. The fire locations of these fires in the 

Phase I EI (Table 16) were plotted on the same map as the GIS-based final fire perimeters and 

checked for accuracy. The Phase I EI fire locations were consistent with the GIS perimeters for all 

events, and no changes in the location data for these files were implemented. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 37

2.5.3.2 Temporal Refinements 

The data gathered in the form of reports generally only provided the total (perimeter) acreage 

and the start and end date for each fire, while the GIS data only provided the final fire 

perimeters. Generally, the data already present in Phase I EI had a higher temporal resolution 

than either the reports or the GIS data. Thus, no temporal adjustments were made to the data. 

2.5.3.3 Fuel Model Refinements 

For a selection of the larger fires in the lower 48 states, the GIS-based final fire perimeters were 

used to extract the distribution of fuel models within the final perimeters. The fuel consumption 

was then recalculated based on the blackened acres, thereby taking into account the unburned 

portion within the fire perimeter. The fire perimeters were intersected with two fuel model 

maps, the NFDRS fuel model layer (using the WRAP’s NFDRS fuel loading table) and a more 

detailed fuel characteristics class (FCC) layer (personal communication, Donald McKenzie, USFS, 

6/25/04). 

The comparison results presented in Table 17 indicate that adjusting the total consumption using 

a more refined GIS-based methodology can produce mixed results (resulting consumption can be 

either higher or lower than the consumption in the Phase I EI). Generally, the more spatially 

resolved fuel consumption technology yielded lower total consumption than the method used for 

the Phase I EI. An exception was fires with fuel model C (open ponderosa pine), coinciding with 

a fairly low fuel model loading in the Phase I EI. The higher spatial resolution method increased 

consumption for these fires by incorporating acreage with higher fuel loadings within the fire 

perimeter. 

A separate, new (draft) default set of consumption percentages was developed for the FCC 

categories. Note that the FCC estimates did not include the consumption of duff, since the duff 

variable in the FCC data set was provided in terms of thickness (inches) rather than loading (tons 

per acre). Also, it was not clear from the FCC data if the crown mass was included in the loading, 

and if so, how to account for the specific crown consumptions as was done for the WRAP’s 

NFDRS fuel consumption tables. The FCC analysis also produced mixed results. In all cases 

analyzed, the direction of fuel consumption changes was identical to the more refined NFDRS 

method. In general, the FCC analysis indicated slightly higher decreases in fuel consumption 

than the NFDRS method and considerably lower increases. Both fuel consumption refinement 

techniques that were analyzed (refined spatial NFDRS and FCC data) produced consistent results 

(i.e., both methods indicate a fuel consumption decrease for the same fires.) The decision was 

made to implement the final consumption refinement based on NFDRS data layer in the interest 

of maintaining the technical consistency of the Phase II EI system. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 38

Table 17: Sensitivity of Estimated Fuel Consumption to Adjustment for Blackened Acres in 

Combination With Fuel Loading Based on GIS-Derived NFDRS and FCC Fuel Layers 

Fuel consumption was based on default (WRAP) consumption percentages by fuel size class and 

held constant for each fire severity class. 

 Phase I Total Fuel Consumption (106 tons) Delta Consumption (%) 

Fire Name NFDRS Phase I EI NFDRS FCC NFDRS FCC 

Biscuit G 21.73 11.07 7.68 -49 -65 

Hayman C 0.65 2.23 1.34 +244 +107 

McNalley B 2.94 2.67 0.72 -9 -75 

Sanford K 0.93 0.41 0.51 -56 -45 

Ponil Complex H 2.54 0.45 0.17 -82 -93 

Missionary Ridge C 0.31 0.97 0.40 +211 +28 

Rattle G 4.11 0.95 0.34 -77 -9 

2.5.3.4 Additional Fuel Consumption Refinements 

In addition to fire perimeter information, fire severity information was available for a subset of 

wildfire and fire complexes (either based on reports or GIS-layers). This information was used to 

further refine fuel consumption estimates by defining variable fuel consumption percentages by 

fuel size class for each reported fire severity category (low, moderate, and high severity: Tables 

19 and 20). Based on the FCC overlay, this additional refinement decreased the total fuel 

consumption somewhat compared to the process where all burned acres received a default 

consumption percentage (Table 18). Based on the NFDRS overlay this additional refinement had 

variable effects, varying from a decrease to an increase of the estimated consumption compared 

to application of default consumption percentages. However, overall the additional refinement 

of adding fire severity levels did not lead to statistically different changes in consumption (Paired 

T-test, t13=0.465, P=0.650). No changes in the fuel consumption data were made based on fire 

severity information. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 39

Table 18: Sensitivity of Estimated Fuel Consumption to Adjustment for Blackened Acres in 

Combination With Fuel Loading Based on GIS-Derived NFDRS and FCC Fuel Layers 

Fuel consumption was based on variable consumption percentages by fuel size class and fire 

severity class. 

 Phase I Total Fuel Consumption (106 tons) Delta Consumption (%) 

Fire Name NFDRS Phase I EI NFDRS FCC NFDRS FCC 

Biscuit G 21.73 6.22 4.78 -71 -78 

Hayman C 0.65 1.82 1.07 +181 +65 

McNalley B 2.94 2.26 0.60 +23 -80 

Sanford K 0.93 0.35 0.39 +62 -58 

Ponil Complex H 2.54 0.29 0.09 -89 -96 

Missionary Ridge C 0.31 0.82 0.39 +163 +25 

Rattle G 4.11 0.82 0.26 -80 -94 

2.5.3.5 Results of Spatial, Temporal, and Fuel Model Refinements Analyses 

• The data available did not allow for spatial improvement over the temporal course of 

the fire, nor for data quality improvements of daily acres. The spatial accuracy of the 

Phase II EI data was checked for those wildfires for which GIS-based fire perimeters 

were available. 

• Refinement of fuel model information for the large fires was performed for those fires 

with available GIS-based fire perimeters (Table 18) by overlaying the perimeters with 

the NFDRS fuel model layer. This is consistent with the use of NFDRS for fuel 

loadings generally in the 2002 emission inventory. 

• Refinement of fuel model adjustments by distinguishing different fuel consumption 

levels by fire severity category was not implemented. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 40

Table 19: Summary of Fuel Consumption Percentages Applied to Model Variable Consumption by 

Fire Severity Class, NFDRS Fuel Models 

Default percentages applied in Phase I EI. 

Fuel Size Class 

Default 

Consumption 

Low Fire 

Severity 

Moderate Fire 

Severity 

High Fire 

Severity 

1-hour 100% 100% 100% 100% 

10-hour 100% 100% 100% 75% 

100-hour 100% 100% 75% 25% 

1,000-hour 100% 100% 50% 0% 

Wood 100% 100% 100% 50% 

Herb 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Duff 50% 100% 50% 0% 

Crown 62% 100% 40% 0% 

Table 20: Summary of Fuel Consumption Percentages Applied to Variable Consumption by Fire 

Severity Class, FCC Fuel Models 

Default percentages serve as temporary placeholder. 

Fuel Size Class 

Default 

Consumption 

Low Fire 

Severity 

Moderate Fire 

Severity 

High Fire 

Severity 

1-hour 100% 100% 100% 100% 

10-hour 100% 75% 100% 100% 

100-hour 100% 25% 75% 100% 

1,000-hour 100% 0% 50% 100% 

10,000-hour 50% 0% 25% 100% 

>10,000-hour 25% 0% 10% 100% 

Grass 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Shrub 100% 50% 100% 100% 

Duff * 0% 0% 0% 0% 

* Duff consumption was set to zero for all fire categories, since data were provided in terms duff depth and 

 not in actual loading. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 41

2.5.4 Overall Assessment of Refinements 

Table 21 summarizes the potential changes to the data that have resulted from incorporating the 

refinements discussed in this section. The number of fire events, number of fire days, fire acres, 

and fuel consumption are shown in Table 21. The number of fire events and the number of fire 

days only changed based on the duplicate fire checking in the fire complexes. While the change 

in numbers of fire events and fire days was relatively small, the duplicate checking decreased the 

fire acres and the fuel consumption by 4 to 5 percent from the Phase I EI. An additional 

reduction in fire acres and fuel consumption was achieved by adjusting the acreage for the largest 

fire events from perimeter acres to blackened acres. The combined removal of the duplicate fire 

entries and the blackened acreage adjustment reduced the fuel consumption by almost 10 

percent. An additional 3 to 9 percent reduction was achieved based on the fuel model 

refinements of those large fires for which GIS-based perimeter data were available. 

Table 21: Summary of Estimated Adjustments to the Phase II EI (Wildfire and Wildland Fire Use) 

Based on Described Quality Control and Data Refinement Procedures 

The percentages in parentheses refer to the change as a percent of the Phase I EI. 

Adjusted records by 

Refinement Step # of Fire Events # of Fire Days Fire Acres 

Fuel 

Consumption 

(106 tons) 

Phase I EI1 1,899 3,243 6,366,532 178.1 

Fire complex duplicates 

26 

(-1.4%) 

74 

(-2.2%) 

259,603 

(-4.1%) 

8.1 

(-4.5%) 

Blackened acres As above As above 

342,199 

(-5.4%) 

8.9 

(-5.0%) 

NFDRS, default 

consumption2 As above As above As above 

15.2 

(-8.5%) 

FCC, default 

consumption2 As above As above As above 

21.2 

(-12.0%) 

NFDRS, severity class 

specific consumption2 As above As above As above 

19.9 

(-11.2%) 

FCC, severity class 

specific consumption2 As above As above As above 

23.9 

(-13.4%) 

Overall Adjustments 

26 

(-1.4%) 

74 

(-2.2%) 

601,802 

(-9.5%) 

23.3 to 32.0 

(-13.0% to -18.0%)

1 References values were based on data before incomplete records were dropped from EI, and did not include 

smoldering. Hence, the data are somewhat different from those in the final Phase II EI. 2 These adjustments and percentages did include the correction for blackened acres as well as the fuel models. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 42

2.6 Wildland Fire Quality Control Process 

After implementing the technical refinements described in Section 2.5, a quality control (QC) 

process was implemented to allow for review of wildfire and prescribed fire data by state, tribal, 

and federal agencies. The intent of the QC process was to present wildland fire data to those 

presumed to be “closest” to the fire activity data, obtain a critical review of the activity data, and 

incorporate any recommended changes to the data. Through this process, the FEJF sought to 

increase the accuracy of the Phase II EI and to increase the confidence of the WRAP, States, 

Tribes, and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in the use of the Phase II EI in regional haze 

modeling. 

2.6.1 QC Binder Summary 

Hardcopy binders were mailed to representatives of states, Tribes, and FLMs in the WRAPRegion to quality control the Phase II EI activity data. These binders featured wildfire and/or 

prescribed burning summaries and fire event level data specific to the jurisdiction of the 

recipient. The binders included tables and charts summarizing activity data, feedback forms to 

recommend changes to the fire events in the inventory, and a documentation section including a 

previous version of this report. The binders also included instructions on how to download the 

entire emission inventory database to perform a more thorough QC if desired. 

The binders sent to states and Tribes included wildfire, prescribed, and WFU burning activity 

data. GACC FLMs received data for wildfire and WFU only, while all other FLMs received only 

prescribed fire and WFU data. Table 22 summarizes the binders sent and the responses received. 

Table 22: Summary of Wildland Fire QC Binders Sent and QC Feedback Received 

Agency % Response 

QC Binders 

Sent Out 

QC Feedback 

Received No Change New Data 

BLM 55 12 7 3 4 

FWS 50 5 2 1 1 

GACC 33 9 3 1 2 

NPS 0 5 0 0 0 

USFS 33 6 2 1 1 

States 75 16 12 7 5 

Tribes 0 5 0 0 0 

2.6.2 Feedback Response Summary 

The overall response rate for FLMs was 37 percent and for states was 75 percent. Table 23 shows 

the breakdown of responses by agency. Of the 26 QC responses received, 13 confirmed that the 

data was representative of actual burning activity and did not recommend any changes. Thirteen 

reviewers submitted new or revised data for the 2002 Emission Inventory. Overall, the QC 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 43

process resulted in a documented review by states of 92 percent of all Phase II EI acres and 24 

percent by FLMs of all Phase II EI acres. 

A summary of changes to the burning activity data due to QC responses are also presented in 

Table 23. Types of changes included adding events, removal of events, and revision of event 

acres, fuel loading and/or revised location data. 

The most significant QC changes to the data were from the submission of new data sets. Arizona 

and Wyoming submitted new data for prescribed fire for 2002. This new data replaced the 

existing prescribed fire data for those states. Another major new data set was a WRAP-wide 

prescribed fire database for BLM prescribed and WFU fires. Comparing this data with existing 

BLM fire data showed some similarities and some differences. In cases that a BLM regional office 

did not provide a response to a QC packet, data from the BLM’s WRAP-wide prescribed fire 

database was used. 

Air Sciences Inc. implemented internal QC checks when incorporating new data into the 

database. Reported new fires were checked against existing data to see if they were already in 

the database. Some of the existing fire events were updated with new information, while others 

were removed and replaced with new data. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 44

Table 23: Detail of Wildland Fire QC Binder Feedback Received 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 45

Table 23: Detail of Wildland Fire QC Binder Feedback Received – continued 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 46

SECTION 3 

THE 2002 AGRICULTURAL BURNING EMISSION INVENTORY 

For the Phase II EI, an agricultural burning emission inventory representative of 2002 was created 

for the 13-states in the WRAP region (Hawaii is not included in the agricultural burning EI). 

3.1 Agricultural Burning Activity Data 

3.1.1 Data Sources 

The agricultural burning activity data source for each state fell into two general categories: 

• Raw activity data collected under this contract by soliciting state agencies. 

• Activity data carried over from the WRAP 2018 Base Smoke Management Scenario 

emission inventory created for the 2018 projections. 

All states supplied 2002 activity data under this contract except for Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and 

North Dakota. Idaho submitted new activity data for ten counties and requested that 2018 Base 

Smoke Management Scenario figures be carried over for the remainder of the state. 

For a complete description of the WRAP 2018 Base Smoke Management Scenario emission 

inventory, please see: 

• The report entitled Non-Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the 

Western United States (Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Enviro-Tech Communications, 

2002), prepared for the Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the WRAP. The report emission 

included an inventory of agricultural burning activity data for the 13 states in the 

modeling domain. 

• The report entitled Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emissions Inventory for 

Prescribed Fire, Wildfire, and Agricultural Burning (Air Sciences Inc., Draft 2002), 

prepared for the Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the WRAP. This report describes the 

preparation of the model-ready emission inventory and creation of smoke 

management scenarios. 

3.1.2 Agricultural Burning on Tribal Lands 

No agricultural burning activity data was available from tribal governments. The agricultural 

burning activity database does not necessarily include quantification of burning on tribal lands, 

although data collected from states may include burning in Indian Country. In this section of the 

document, the term “state” refers to the entire geographic area within the exterior boundary of a 

state. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 47

When surveyed by ERG, nearly 60 percent of the Tribes that conducted prescribed burning 

reported the existence of agricultural burning. However, the data provided in the survey 

responses were not of sufficient detail to quantify burning activities. For a more complete 

description of the findings of the ERG data gathering efforts with regard to burning on tribal 

lands, please see the report entitled Non-Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in 

the Western United States (Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Enviro-Tech Communications, 2002). 

3.1.3 Time Periods of the Actual Agricultural Burning Data 

Agricultural burning activity data in the database included data for 1996 through 2003. Priority 

was given to 2002 data because that is the year of the crop production data and the WRAP 

emission inventory base year. However, in order to provide data for as large a geographic area 

as possible, it was necessary to use other years if 2002 data did not exist or were known to be 

largely incomplete compared to later years. Importantly, each of the state-specific 13 data sets 

included in the database are believed to represent a single calendar year of agricultural burning 

data. Therefore, when combined, the data sets should represent a single year of agricultural 

burning activity. 

3.1.4 Data Quality Requirements 

Minimum data quality requirements were established for activity data to be eligible for use in the 

emission inventory. Specifically, to be eligible, a record had to have a valid date field (either a 

specific date [daily] or a specific month), a valid state name, a valid county name, and a valid 

value in the residue-loading field. A record with either missing or invalid data in any of these 

fields was flagged as invalid and not used in the emission inventory. 

3.2 Fuel Loading and Emission Factors for Agricultural Burning 

Fuel loading and emission factors were provided by the FEJF and its Alternatives to Agricultural 

Burning Task Team. Fuel loading and emission factors are presented in Table 24 and originate 

from data peer-reviewed by the ETT. Several crops identified in the Phase II agricultural 

burning activity were not included in the fuel loading and emission factors provided by the FEJF 

(indicated with an asterisk in Table 24). In these instances, fuel loading and emission factors 

were assigned from comparable crops. 

The pollutant-specific emission factors (in pounds of pollutant per ton of residue burned) are 

multiplied by the residue loading values (tons residue burned) in the agricultural burning 

activity database to calculate emissions. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 48

Table 24: Agricultural Burning 

 Emission Factors by Pollutant (lbs pollutant/ton residue) 

Crop Type 

Residue 

Loading 

(ton/acre) PM PM10 PM2.5 EC OC VOC CH4 NH3 NOx CO SO2 PMC 

almonds 1 8.72 8.60 8.20 2.15 3.70 8.90 2.34 1.28 7.24 63.86 0.12 0.40 

apples 2.3 8.55 8.39 7.96 2.10 3.61 4.95 3.73 1.81 11.18 90.32 0.22 0.43 

apricots 1.8 9.07 8.90 8.45 2.22 3.83 6.94 5.24 1.48 7.84 73.91 0.15 0.45 

asparagus 1.5 32.94 32.40 30.90 8.10 13.93 14.99 11.32 2.72 5.02 135.88 0.67 1.50 

avocado 1.5 29.69 29.14 27.44 7.28 12.53 26.17 19.76 3.28 7.36 164.07 0.14 1.70 

barley 1.7 15.52 15.36 14.86 2.46 6.14 23.34 4.94 3.95 5.44 197.34 0.08 0.50 

beans; all dry edible 2.5 15.72 15.46 14.67 3.87 6.65 16.03 12.10 3.34 5.87 167.04 0.11 0.79 

blueberries 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

bushberry 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

canola 1.3 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

cherries 1 12.62 12.38 11.60 3.10 5.32 9.40 7.10 1.38 8.15 68.97 0.16 0.78 

citrus 1 8.50 8.35 7.92 2.09 3.59 9.62 7.26 2.29 7.36 114.57 0.14 0.42 

coffee 1 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

corn; for grain* 4.2 12.62 12.42 11.96 1.86 4.35 9.12 3.50 1.55 3.64 77.56 0.40 0.46 

corn; for silage 0 12.62 12.42 11.96 1.86 4.35 9.12 3.50 1.55 3.64 77.56 0.40 0.46 

cotton; amer. pima 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

cotton; upland 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

CRP 2.6 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

dates 1.7 11.52 11.30 10.73 2.83 4.86 4.38 3.31 1.29 6.00 64.59 0.12 0.58 

ditches and ditch banks 3.2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

ditches and fenceline 1.6 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

figs 0.75 10.06 9.87 9.30 2.47 4.24 8.58 6.48 1.63 7.44 81.55 0.14 0.57 

filberts* 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

flaxseed* 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

fruits and vegetables; other 2 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

grapes 1.47 7.29 7.15 6.72 1.79 3.08 5.55 4.19 1.49 7.59 74.45 0.15 0.44 

hay; alfalfa 2.5 32.34 31.81 30.36 7.95 13.68 24.22 18.29 2.66 5.02 132.81 0.67 1.45 

hay; all 0.8 32.34 31.81 30.36 7.95 13.68 24.22 18.29 2.66 5.02 132.81 0.67 1.45 

hay; all other 0.8 32.34 31.81 30.36 7.95 13.68 24.22 18.29 2.66 5.02 132.81 0.67 1.45 

hops 0.8 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

kiwi 1.9 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

lentils 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

macadamia nuts 2.5 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

mint 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

nectarines 0.5 5.84 5.74 5.44 1.43 2.47 3.38 2.55 0.97 7.65 48.53 0.15 0.29 

oats 1.7 23.28 22.90 21.79 5.72 9.85 11.39 8.60 3.01 4.98 150.44 0.66 1.11 

olives 1.6 18.08 17.74 16.69 4.44 7.63 15.49 11.69 3.43 7.82 171.43 0.15 1.05 

onion seeds 1.7 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

orchard pruning; unspecified 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

orchard removal 15 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

peaches 2.5 7.13 7.00 6.64 1.75 3.01 3.56 2.69 1.00 6.17 49.82 0.12 0.36 

peanuts 1.2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

pears 2.6 13.65 13.39 12.63 3.35 5.76 7.76 5.86 1.74 7.91 86.76 0.15 0.76 

peas; dry edible 2.5 15.72 15.46 14.67 3.87 6.65 16.03 12.10 3.34 5.87 167.04 0.11 0.79 

pecans 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

persimmons 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

pistachio 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

plums and prunes 1.2 3.96 3.88 3.75 0.97 1.67 6.16 4.65 1.26 6.96 62.92 0.13 0.13 

pomegranates* 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

potatoes 1.2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

proso millet 1.9 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

quinces* 1.7 11.16 10.96 10.25 2.74 4.71 8.85 6.68 1.85 7.30 92.70 0.14 0.70 

rice; all 3 6.98 6.92 6.44 1.25 1.38 6.74 1.44 1.26 5.68 62.78 1.24 0.48 

rye 1.9 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

safflower 1.3 20.95 20.61 19.67 5.15 8.86 17.23 13.01 3.35 5.24 167.64 0.70 0.93 

seeds; alfalfa* 0.8 32.34 31.81 30.36 7.95 13.68 24.22 18.29 2.66 5.02 132.81 0.67 1.45 

seeds; KBG 2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

seeds; other 2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

seeds; unspecified* 2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

sorghum* 2.9 21.74 21.38 20.41 5.34 9.19 6.16 4.65 1.86 5.43 93.00 0.72 0.97 

soybeans* 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

sudan* 2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

sugarbeets* 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

sugarcane 14 11.22 10.86 9.98 1.63 4.02 3.68 0.82 1.02 2.80 50.96 1.24 0.88 

sunflower 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

various weeds and ditch banks* 1 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

walnuts* 1.2 6.44 6.30 5.92 1.83 2.96 9.30 3.28 2.00 6.78 100.08 0.28 0.38 

wheat; all 1.9 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

wheat; durum 1.9 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

wheat; other spring 1.9 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

wheat; other spring (irrigated) 4 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

wheat; unspecified* 1.9 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

wheat; winter all* 1.9 11.64 11.48 10.88 1.61 4.36 10.84 3.64 2.67 4.66 133.38 0.94 0.60 

unspecified -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CARB average field crop 2.6 9.01 8.86 8.47 2.22 3.81 5.96 4.50 1.27 2.51 63.55 0.33 0.39 

other ag burning* 2.6 9.01 8.86 8.47 2.22 3.81 5.96 4.50 1.27 2.51 63.55 0.33 0.39 

CO average field crop* 4.2 12.62 12.42 11.96 1.86 4.35 9.12 3.50 1.55 3.64 77.56 0.40 0.46 

Idaho Crop N/A* 2 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

berries; other* 1.3 20.95 20.61 19.67 5.15 8.86 17.23 13.01 3.35 5.24 167.64 0.70 0.93 

 

*These crops do not have unique emission factors but are associated with emission factors for other crops. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 49

3.3 Temporal Refinement of Agricultural Emissions Data 

Approximately 1,300 records in the agricultural database were temporally resolved to the month 

(i.e., total residue of a specific crop burned in a county in a month). The WRAP modeling 

requires that emissions data be temporally resolved to the day. The following techniques were 

employed to break the monthly data into daily data. 

First, by the emission calculation methods described above, monthly emissions were calculated 

(i.e., tons of a specific pollutant due to the burning of a specific crop in a specific county in a 

specific month). Then, monthly emissions were broken into daily emissions in discrete 

“packets.” The PM2.5 packet size ranges from the plume characteristic table derived for the 

prescribed fire emission inventory were used here to assign a plume class number to each of the 

daily records in the agricultural emissions database. The PM2.5 packet ranges are shown in Table 

25. 

Table 25: Plume Class Sizes 

Plume Class 

Low End of Range 

(tons PM2.5) 

High End of Range 

(tons PM2.5) 

1 0 1 

2 >1 10 

3 >10 100 

4 >100 500 

5 >500 NA 

Each daily agricultural fire event is assigned a plume category (1 through 5). The probability of 

occurrences for the plume classes for the daily agricultural fires in the database was taken from 

the report entitled Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emissions Inventory for Prescribed Fire, 

Wildfire, and Agricultural Burning and were originally calibrated on daily data collected for that 

project. These probabilities were used to break the monthly agricultural burning emissions for 

each county into representative daily fire size packets. The statistics (number of events and 

probability of occurrence) for the final emission inventory are also shown in Table 26. 

Table 26: Distributions of Daily Events by Plume Class 

Plume 

Class 

Events in 

2018 

Daily 

Data 

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

2018 Daily Data 

Packet 

Fire Size 

(tons PM2.5) 

Events in 

Phase II EI 

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

Phase II EI 

1 47,056 0.975 0.064 99,485 .939 

2 1,158 0.024 2.202 5,886 .056 

3 35 0.0007 16.641 620 .006 

4 0 0.0 NA 0 0.0 

5 0 0.0 NA 0 0.0 

Total 48,249 105,991 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 50

3.3.1 Blackout Dates 

Each daily event is assigned to a specific day of the month. Blackout days on which daily packets 

would not be assigned were taken from the Integrated Assessment report. Under that contract, the 

daily agricultural activity data was analyzed to determine if patterns of temporal distribution 

within months exist. The daily frequencies of events appeared to be uniformly distributed 

throughout the month except for obvious “no-burn” periods, primarily occurring before and/or 

on and/or after holiday periods and perhaps during brief periods of harvesting in late August. 

The daily events were randomly assigned to any day of the month that was not a “blackout” 

date, as identified in Table 27. 

Table 27: Blackout Days for Agricultural Burning 

Month Days(s) Holiday 

January 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 New Year’s Day 

July 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Fourth of July 

August 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Harvesting period 

November 29 Thanksgiving 

December 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Christmas 

Upon the conclusion of the temporal allocation of the monthly emissions, the emission inventory 

included approximately 92,500 daily event records directly from the agricultural database and 

approximately 14,000 daily event records derived from the approximately 1,300 monthly activity 

records for a total of approximately 106,500 events in the inventory. Each produced daily fire 

event was entered in the emission inventory along with its emissions and associated plume 

characteristics. 

3.4 Spatial Refinement of Agricultural Emissions Data 

As described above, the emission inventory included actual daily agricultural burning events 

from the database and realistically-sized daily burning events created from monthly records in 

the activity database. All daily events in the activity database were resolved to the county level. 

To spatially allocate the daily events that did not have a source-supplied coordinate (including all 

the daily allocated events) to a 1-km resolution, the events were each assigned a coordinate 

location within the identified county on a stratified random basis. 

The location of each agricultural burning event in the inventory was expressed by state and 

county identifiers (state/county name and state/county FIP code). Each fire was allocated 

according to its state and county identifiers in space. A map of counties was obtained from the 

National Atlas, and a LCC map showing agricultural cover types was used. Overlaying the two 

maps yielded a map of agricultural cover by county. The eligible pixels (agricultural cover) 

within each county could be looked up on this overlap map. The overlap map was recorded at a 

1-km resolution. The individual fire events retained the state and county identifiers from their 

source database entry. For each fire event, the eligible 1-km cells were selected based on 

state/county identifier and agricultural cover type. In the event the LCC map did not indicate 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 51

agricultural cover types occurring in the county, vegetated 1-km pixels in the county were 

selected. With the eligible 1-km cells selected, a single 1-km cell was then chosen at random. The 

coordinates of the 1-km grid cell were read and the latitude and longitude recorded to the fire 

event. In this fashion, every event in the daily agricultural burning emission inventory lacking a 

source-supplied location was given a coordinate. 

3.5 Assigning Plume Characteristics to Agricultural Burning Events 

The plume profile categories and calculations used for wildland fire (described above) were 

applied to agricultural burning events. The method to assign plume characteristics to 

agricultural burning events is very similar to the method for wildland fire (see Section 2.4). A 

diurnal consumption template was customized for agricultural burning. 

3.5.1 Diurnal Consumption Template 

For the agricultural burning emission inventory, like the 2018 prescribed fire emission inventory, 

the plume characteristics are based on fire size as a function of PM2.5 emissions. 

The WRAP Emissions and Modeling Forums requested hourly values of fire emissions and 

plume characteristics. To satisfy this temporal requirement, daily emissions for each agricultural 

burning event in the inventory were broken into hourly emissions using the agricultural burning 

diurnal consumption template (based on expert opinion) presented in Table 28. 

Table 28: Diurnal Consumption Template Used to Distribute Emissions From Agricultural Burning 

(Percent Of Fuel Consumed Each Hour) 

Hour % Per Hour Hour % Per Hour 

1 0.43 13 14.00 

2 0.43 14 17.00 

3 0.43 15 14.00 

4 0.43 16 12.00 

5 0.43 17 9.00 

6 0.43 18 6.00 

7 0.43 19 3.00 

8 0.43 20 0.43 

9 0.43 21 0.43 

10 3.00 22 0.43 

11 6.00 23 0.43 

12 10.00 24 0.43 

This diurnal consumption template varied from the template used for wildfire and prescribed fire 

in one important way: the daily emissions peak was moved to earlier in the day, largely due to 

the more consistent ignition times for agricultural fires (personal communication, Bryan Jenkins, 

UC Davis). The diurnal profiles for agricultural burning and wildfire/prescribed fire are shown 

graphically in Figure 10. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 52

Figure 10: Diurnal Emissions/Consumption Profiles for Agricultural Burning and 

Wildfire/Prescribed Fire 

3.5.2 Physical Plume Characteristics 

Plume characteristics were assigned to each daily event using the same method employed for the 

wildland fire emission inventory. Table 29 presents the plume characteristics (buoyant efficiency 

[BE], height of the bottom of the plume [Pbot], and height of the top of the plume [Ptop]) to be 

assigned to each daily event according to the plume class of each event. Note, because there were 

no Class 4 or Class 5 agricultural burning events, the plume characteristics for these fire classes 

were not included in Table 29. 

Table 29: Fire-Related Parameters as a Function of Fire Emission Classes 

Class 1 2 3 

Emissions 

(tons PM2.5) 0 – 1 >= 1 – 10 >= 10 – 100 

BEsize 0.40 0.60 0.75 

Ptop max (m) 160 2,400 6,400 

Pbot min (m) 0 900 2,200 

Diurnal Emissions/Consumption Profiles - Fire Sources

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

Hour

% Emitted/Consumed per Hour

Ag Fire WF and Rx

Ag Fire 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 3.00% 6.00% 10.00% 14.00% 17.00% 14.00% 12.00% 9.00% 6.00% 3.00% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43%

WF and Rx 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 2.00% 4.00% 7.00% 10.00% 13.00% 16.00% 17.00% 12.00% 7.00% 4.00% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 53

3.6 Agricultural Burning Quality Control Process 

3.6.1 QC Binder Summary 

States and Tribes were given the opportunity to review and comment on agricultural burning 

activity data in the Phase II EI that was within their state or tribal lands. Binders were prepared 

that summarized data for each state and Tribe, and a CD was included that contained the entire 

agricultural burning database. An introductory letter was sent with the binders to explain the 

purpose for the QC review as well as to give instruction on how to conduct the review and 

submit a response. 

3.6.2 QC Response Summary 

Binders were sent to 16 state reviewers and 3 tribal reviewers, as shown in Table 30. Some states 

received more than one binder. There was no burning data in the inventory for Nevada, so a 

special packet was prepared for Nevada to provide agricultural burning activity data. Three of 

the states reviewed the data and responded that no changes were necessary, including Nevada, 

which responded that agricultural burning data was not available. Ten states submitted new or 

revised burning activity data. No new data was received from Tribes. Details of the responses 

received are given in Appendix A. Overall, the QC process resulted in documented review of 

agricultural burning for every state in the WRAP. The ETT determined that there was no 

agricultural burning in Alaska and, therefore, Alaska was omitted from the Phase II EI. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 54

Table 30: Detail of Agricultural Burning QC Binder Feedback Received 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 55

SECTION 4 

THE 2002 NON-FEDERAL PRESCRIBED RANGELAND 

BURNING EMISSION INVENTORY 

For the Phase II EI an emission inventory of prescribed rangeland burning on non-federal lands 

in the WRAP region was prepared for 2002. In this section, rangeland burning is defined as 

prescribed fires on non-federal lands used for livestock grazing and ranching. Rangeland burning 

on federal lands was assumed to appear in the wildfire and prescribed burning activity data 

sources and corresponding emission inventories. 

Event-level fire activity data for non-federal rangeland burning was not available for the entire 

WRAP region. This first WRAP rangeland burning emission inventory was designed to be 

complete for the WRAP region for 2002, albeit relying on expert opinion for total burning by 

state. This “base layer” was designed to accommodate superseding levels of detailed activity 

information as they become available. This layering concept was proposed as an alternative to 

the “gap-filling” method where trends observed in available specific data are used to fill the areas 

for which data is not available. 

4.1 Rangeland Burning Activity Data 

Rangeland burning activity data across the entire WRAP region was based on the Fire Emissions 

Joint Forum’s assessment led by Pat Shaver of the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). Table 31 shows the FEJF estimate of acres burned by state. Burn activity was 

then pro-rated to the county level using acres of rangeland present in each county per the 1997 

National Resources Inventory (NRI) CD-ROM Version 1 (December 2001) produced by the 

NRCS. 

Table 31: Non-Federal Prescribed Rangeland Burning Activity by State 

State Acres Burned 

AZ 250,000 

CA 40,000 

CO 12,000 

ID 8,000 

MT 150,000 

ND 25,000 

NM 60,000 

NV 1,000 

OR 300,000 

SD 150,000 

UT 25,000 

WA 6,000 

WY 15,000 

Total 1,042,000 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 56

4.2 Temporal Allocation of Burn Activity 

The temporal resolution of the rangeland burning activity for WRAP was supplied by the FEJF 

on an annual basis for 2002. Annual estimates of rangeland burning were allocated to the month 

according to FEJF instructions. The percent of activity per month used for the entire WRAP 

region is shown in Table 32. 

Table 32: Percent Activity per Month for Non-Federal Rangeland Burning 

Month %-Annual 

Jan 0 

Feb 0 

Mar 0.24 

Apr 0.24 

May 0.24 

Jun 0.12 

Jul 0 

Aug 0 

Sep 0.08 

Oct 0.08 

Nov 0 

Dec 0 

Total 1.00 

4.3 Emission Calculations 

Emissions per pollutant were calculated as activity (acres burned) multiplied by a fuel loading 

factor (ton/acre burned) and an emission factor (lb/ton) as shown in Equation 7. A fuel loading 

of 1.75 tons per acre was provided by Pat Shaver USDA – NRCS and accepted by the ETT to be 

representative of rangelands. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) suite of emission factors 

(derived from the California Air Resources Board’s average of emission factors for field crops) 

were used to calculate emissions from rangeland burning activity. Fuel loading and emission 

factors for non-federal rangeland burning are show in Table 33. 

Table 33: Rangeland Fuel Loading and Emission Factors 

Fuel Loading Emission Factors (Lbs Pollutant) / (Ton Biomass Consumed) 

Tons/Acre PM PM10 PM2.5 EC OC VOC CH4 NH3 NOx CO SO2 PM C 

1.75 18.02 17.73 16.95 4.43 7.62 11.93 9.01 2.54 5.02 127.09 0.67 0.78 

2000 lbs

Tons

TonsBiomass

lbsEmissions

AcresBurned

TonsBiomass TonsEmissions = AcresBurned× × × Equation 7 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 57

4.4 Allocation of Emissions to Realistic Event Size and Day of Year 

Emissions calculated per month were allocated into realistic fire size packets in a process similar 

to allocating agricultural fire emission into daily events. A suite of statistics of typical rangeland 

fire sizes and frequency distributions (probability of occurrence) by plume class were supplied by 

the FEJF and appear in Table 34. It was not possible to split the by-month by-county emissions 

exactly into the probabilities specified by the FEJF. Regardless, a fundamental distribution of 

events was achieved. This actual occurrence by plume class size is recorded in Table 34. 

Table 34: Rangeland Burning Fire Size Packet Statistics 

Plume 

Class 

Low End of 

Range 

(tons PM2.5) 

High End of 

Range 

(tons PM2.5) 

Packet 

Fire Size 

(acres) 

Packet 

Fire Size 

(tons PM2.5) 

Proposed 

Probability of 

Occurrence 

Actual 

Occurrence in 

Daily Data 

1 0 1 100 1.483 0.1 0.3 

2 >1 10 200 2.966 0.6 0.6 

3 >10 100 1,000 14.831 0.3 0.1 

All fire events in a given month were assigned randomly to a day in that month. No blackout 

days were deemed applicable to the months in which rangeland burning was presumed to occur. 

4.5 Allocation of Emissions to Coordinate Location 

Daily burning events were located randomly within the county to portions considered to be 

rangeland, as mapped in the U.S. Geologic Service’s Land Cover Characteristics (LCC) Database. 

LCCs are categorized per Table 35, and a corresponding map of rangeland is shown in Figure 11. 

The coordinate of the fire location was the centroid of a 1-km square LCC pixel randomly 

selected within the county. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 58

Table 35: USGS Land Cover Characteristics Flagged as Rangeland 

LCC Description Rangeland? 

Urban and Built-Up Land - 

Dryland Cropland and Pasture Yes 

Irrigated Cropland and Pasture - 

Cropland/Grassland Mosaic - 

Cropland/Woodland Mosaic - 

Grassland Yes 

Shrubland Yes 

Mixed Shrubland/Grassland Yes 

Savanna Yes 

Deciduous Broadleaf Forest - 

Evergreen Broadleaf Forest - 

Evergreen Needleleaf Forest - 

Mixed Forest - 

Water Bodies - 

Wooded Wetland - 

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated - 

Wooded Tundra - 

Mixed Tundra - 

Snow or Ice - 

254 - 

Unlabelled Land Area - 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 59

Figure 11: USGS Land Cover Characteristics Mapped as Rangeland 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 60

SECTION 5 

RESULTS 

5.1 Summary of 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory 

A total of 1,748 wildfires were included in the 2002 wildfire emission inventory with a mean 

duration for each fire of 3.3 days. These fires represented a total of 1,281,000 tons PM2.5 and 

1,490,000 tons PM2.5 with smoldering factored in. An estimated total of approximately 5.3 million 

acres and 124 million tons of fuel were consumed by wildfire in 2002. Wildfire acres burned were 

highest during the summer months and peaked in the month of July. Wildfire activity differed 

widely by state with the highest activities in Alaska and Oregon. 

A total of 35 Wildland Fire Use (WFU) events were included in the 2002 Phase II fire emission 

inventory. These fires lasted an average of 10.3 days, burned a total of 202,000 acres and emitted 

82,000 tons of PM2.5. 

The 2002 prescribed fire emission inventory was comprised of significantly more events than the 

wildfire inventory with 16,396 original fire days. The total acreage consumed by prescribed 

burns was 649,000 acres and the total fuel consumed was approximately 7.2 million tons. Over 45 

percent of the prescribed burning activity records were piled fuels. Temporally, prescribed 

burning had two peaks: one in the spring and a higher peak in the fall. 

Non-federal prescribed rangeland burning contributed 1.04 million acres burned and 15,000 tons 

of PM2.5 to the 2002 inventory while agricultural burning totaled 2.2 million burned acres and 

35,000 tons PM2.5. The lower emissions rates with respect to acres burned of both of these sources 

(relative to wildland burning) are indicative of lower average fuel loadings. 

Wildfires contributed nearly 88 percent of the total emission of PM2.5 for the 2002 Phase II EI. 

Prescribed burning and WFU fires contributed 4.2 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively. 

Rangeland and agricultural contributed 3 percent combined. Wildfire contributed the dominant 

percentage of PM2.5 due to a combination of greater acres of activity and higher fuel loading rates. 

According to the FEJF natural and anthropogenic categorization, 4 percent of the Phase II EI 

PM2.5 emissions were classified as anthropogenic and 96 percent were classified as natural. 

Table 36 and Figures 12 through 22 present the results of the Phase II EI. The assortment of 

figures, though not an exhaustive display for emission inventory statistics, is intended to provide 

a meaningful summary of the Phase II EI data. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 61

Table 36: 2002 Phase II EI Fire Activity and PM2.5 Emissions by State – All Fire Types 

(Including fuel loading and PM2.5 emissions added due to smoldering.) 

 Wildfire Prescribed Fire W

State 

Fire 

Days Acres 

Tons Fuel 

Consumed 

Tons 

PM2.5

Fire 

Days Acres 

Tons Fuel 

Consumed 

Tons 

PM2.5

Fire 

Days Acres 

AK 1,109 1,790,533 66,614,205 802,701 214 1,108 15,024 177 158 159,554 AZ 402 556,601 8,375,651 100,927 1,412 103,619 1,814,906 20,230 0 0 CA 907 505,940 9,294,232 111,995 1,595 86,790 847,822 9,396 38 4,051 CO 446 412,633 8,998,546 108,432 186 17,425 56,988 379 52 22,852 ID 286 78,141 617,118 7,436 1,308 89,754 995,366 11,661 56 3,543 MT 220 113,463 921,178 11,100 2,815 77,719 666,265 7,086 4 25 ND 148 83,397 303,228 3,654 185 26,826 59,151 713 0 0 NM 244 247,243 1,649,118 19,872 155 25,292 185,821 2,029 16 4,759 NV 178 82,163 1,629,911 19,640 71 5,795 31,106 327 0 0 OR 835 899,800 19,342,371 233,076 4,174 129,068 1,713,780 12,553 0 0 SD 156 78,566 199,517 2,404 219 8,811 20,294 245 0 0 UT 436 210,711 2,521,795 30,388 385 14,531 190,945 2,021 14 545 WA 200 89,809 983,495 11,851 3,377 41,164 363,093 2,243 0 0 WY 268 127,486 2,191,658 26,409 349 21,140 234,928 2,360 31 6,220 Total 5,835 5,276,485 123,642,024 1,489,886 16,445 649,044 7,195,489 71,421 369 201,548  Agricultural Burning Non-Federal Rangeland Prescribed Burning 

State 

Fire 

Days Acres 

Tons Fuel 

Consumed 

Tons 

PM2.5

Fire 

Days Acres 

Tons Fuel 

Consumed 

Tons 

PM2.5

AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AZ 1,344 16,203 32,045 209 352 250,001 437,502 3,708 CA 62,428 727,641 1,734,750 8,543 383 40,000 70,000 593 CO 2,124 38,231 139,180 852 372 12,000 21,000 178 ID 11,155 292,352 604,994 4,303 234 8,000 14,000 119 MT 1,848 8,888 24,796 194 556 150,001 262,502 2,225 ND 17,627 212,574 414,306 2,162 327 25,000 43,750 371 NM 329 21,180 35,745 190 311 60,000 105,000 890 NV 0 0 0 0 102 1,000 1,750 15 OR 2,250 129,781 436,622 3,407 450 300,001 525,002 4,449 SD 528 5,018 15,998 136 590 150,001 262,501 2,225 UT 725 16,684 36,605 210 196 25,000 43,750 371 WA 3,127 656,705 2,515,880 13,797 114 6,000 10,500 89 WY 2,506 38,221 70,871 576 141 15,000 26,250 222 Total 105,991 2,163,478 6,061,792 34,578 4,128 1,042,003 1,823,508 15,454 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 62

Figure 12: Annual Acres Burned by Fire Type 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual Acres Burned by Fire Type

5,276,485

649,044

201,548

2,163,478

1,042,003

Wildfire

Prescribed

WFU

Agricultural

Nfrangeland

Figure 13: Annual PM2.5 Emissions by Fire Type (tons) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual PM2.5 Emissions by Fire Type (tons)

1,489,886

71,421

81,505

34,578 15,454

Wildfire

Prescribed

WFU

Agricultural

Nfrangeland
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 63

Figure 14: Annual Region-Wide Emissions (tons) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual Region-Wide Emissions (tons)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Tons

Wildfire Prescribed WFU Agricultural Nfrangeland

Nfrangeland 16,165 15,454 6,948 4,039 711 8,215 10,877 4,577 611 2,316 115,875

Agricultural 36,587 34,578 14,329 6,747 1,745 13,939 32,575 15,710 2,374 7,363 364,202

WFU 95,033 81,505 39,231 5,073 13,528 45,995 45,995 20,968 5,749 4,397 977,389

Prescribed 82,014 71,421 34,803 4,542 10,593 43,328 41,999 22,306 6,116 3,918 835,917

Wildfire 1,737,170 1,489,886 717,124 92,732 247,284 840,766 840,766 383,290 105,096 80,367 17,866,27

PM10 PM2.5 OC EC PMC CH4 VOC NOX SO2 NH3 CO 

Figure 15: State Totals for All Fire Sources as a Percentage of Regional Total (Annual) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

State Totals for All Fire Sources as a Percentage of Regional Total 

(Annual)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY

Acres Fuel Loading PM2.5
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 64

Figure 16: Acres Burned Temporal Distribution (month) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Acres Burned Temporal Distribution (month)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Month

Acres

Wildfire Prescribed WFU Agricultural Nfrangeland

Wildfire 1,040 17,617 27,464 96,221 364,567 1,597,409 1,552,0611,400,131 194,851 13,325 10,468 1,332

Prescribed 12,876 18,977 28,175 63,674 69,192 16,312 19,599 2,548 78,421 122,755 171,827 44,688

WFU 0 0 0 250 0 0 85,326 109,738 5,216 939 79 0

Agricultural 142,348 70,074 238,123 286,824 57,743 57,579 52,529 276,929 458,561 288,153 146,313 88,302

Nfrangeland 0 0 253,058 253,058 253,058 126,529 0 0 78,150 78,150 0 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 17: PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Temporal Distribution (month) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Temporal Distribution (month)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Month

Tons PM2.5

Wildfire Prescribed WFU Agricultural Nfrangeland

Wildfire 47 727 2,571 4,808 111,175 426,477 374,590 516,077 44,714 3,857 4,306 538

Prescribed 887 1,961 2,651 5,083 7,666 2,275 838 203 10,057 18,186 18,333 3,280

WFU 0 0 0 14 0 0 38,932 40,270 1,700 503 85 0

Agricultural 1,657 838 4,088 6,011 988 1,121 1,423 4,383 7,453 4,253 1,479 884

Nfrangeland 0 0 3,753 3,753 3,753 1,877 0 0 1,159 1,159 0 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 65

Figure 18: Annual Acres Burned Spatial Distribution (state) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual Acres Burned Spatial Distribution (state)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

State

Thousands of Acres

Wildfire Prescribed WFU Agricultural Nfrangeland

Wildfire 1,790,533 556,601 505,940 412,633 78,141 113,463 83,397 247,243 82,163 899,800 78,566 210,711 89,809 127,486

Prescribed 1,108 103,619 86,790 17,425 89,754 77,719 26,826 25,292 5,795 129,068 8,811 14,531 41,164 21,140

WFU 159,554 0 4,051 22,852 3,543 25 0 4,759 0 0 0 545 0 6,220

Agricultural 0 16,203 727,641 38,231 292,352 8,888 212,574 21,180 0 129,781 5,018 16,684 656,705 38,221

Nfrangeland 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

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY

Figure 19: Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Spatial Distribution (state) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Spatial Distribution (state)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

State

Tons PM2.5

Wildfire Prescribed WFU Agricultural Nfrangeland

Wildfire 802,701 100,927 111,995 108,432 7,436 11,100 3,654 19,872 19,640 233,076 2,404 30,388 11,851 26,409

Prescribed 177 20,230 9,396 379 11,661 7,086 713 2,029 327 12,553 245 2,021 2,243 2,360

WFU 67,616 0 2,304 8,152 1,881 14 0 194 0 0 0 196 0 1,147

Agricultural 0 209 8,543 852 4,303 194 2,162 190 0 3,407 136 210 13,797 576

Nfrangeland 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 WY
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 66

Figure 20: Annual Natural and Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State (tons) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual Natural and Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State (tons)

-10,000

10,000

30,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

110,000

130,000

150,000

Tons PM2.5

Anthropogenic Natural

Natural 870,324 123,984 118,516 116,941 12,709 15,701 4,737 22,577 19,884 239,754 4,873 32,572 12,833 29,201

Anthropogenic 170 1,090 14,315 1,052 12,691 4,919 2,162 598 98 13,731 136 614 15,147 1,515

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY

Figure 21: Annual Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State and Fire Type (tons) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Annual Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by State and Fire Type (tons)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY

Tons PM2.5

Agricultural Prescribed Piled Prescribed Broadcast
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 67

Figure 22: Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by Month and State (tons) 

WRAP 2002 Phase II Fire Emission Inventory

Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions by Month and State (tons)

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Tons PM2.5

AK AZ CA CO ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT 

WA 30 38 2,472 4,874 212 38 76 490 3,457 2,767 UT 7 11 14 270 22 17 0 88 116 58 SD 0 0 68 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 OR 43 156 188 1,377 2,553 814 941 1,293 563 1,450 NV 24 0 10 1 56 0 0 0 0 2 NM 56 68 50 11 0 141 20 3 184 62 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 720 721 MT 0 0 18 184 563 270 4 14 371 464 ID 0 0 221 644 1,872 539 135 1,673 3,704 1,646 CO 152 132 143 66 22 6 120 137 137 67 CA 1,528 694 1,248 1,298 827 604 221 371 2,395 2,365 AZ 55 38 90 17 0 40 53 16 109 416 AK 0 0 0 0 0 18 50 53 49 0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 68

SECTION 6 

DELIVERABLES AND END USER DATA SUPPORT 

Deliverables for this contract were made available on CD-ROM and for download on the 

Internet. The link(s) to the webpage for deliverables are on the WRAP’s website at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/tasks/FEJFtask7.html. Digital products include: 

• SMOKE input text files (IDA format) for all fire sources. These are PTINV, PTDAY, 

and PTHOUR files as specified by the WRAP Modeling Forum and Regional Modeling 

Center. 

• NIF 3.0 for Fire (NIF Point text format) for all fire sources intended for CERR submittal 

and upload to the WRAP EDMS. These files were provided in a region-wide file and 

by state for each fire source. 

• This final report as a PDF file. 

The initial delivery of the electronic data files of fire inventories were acquired by the WRAP’s 

contractors for the Emissions Data Management System (EDMS) and the Regional Modeling 

Center (RMC). These “end users” of the Phase II emissions inventory files identified several data 

content and format issues as the electronic files were integrated into the EDMS or the modeling 

system. As data issues were discovered, the contractors (Pechan and the RMC) contacted Air 

Sciences to investigate the cause of the data problems. Some of these issues stemmed from the 

formats of the files delivered by data suppliers (e.g., states) during the QC Binder review process 

(labeled DATA SUPPLIER in the list below). Other issues (labeled as END USER tasks) reflect 

specific data formatting demands or recommendations from the RMC or Pechan. The DATA 

SUPPLIER and END USER tasks were completed to resolve issues in the emission inventory data 

that would not have been reasonably discovered by Air Sciences until end users of the data 

attempted to utilize the data files. 

In addition, during the QC effort involving the end users, Air Sciences discovered several issues 

that could have reasonably been discovered by Air Sciences during our internal QC checks of the 

data. These tasks have been labeled AIR SCIENCES and there are no costs to the FEJF associated 

with executing these tasks. 

1. Malformed dates in CA Ag files (DATA SUPPLIER). 

Issue: Records were intended to be dropped and had zero emissions. 

Resolution: Drop flag enforced in the emissions processing file. 

2. Blank dates in AZ prescribed burning (DATA SUPPLIER). 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 69

Issue: Error in date parsing during raw data import. 

Resolution: Corrected records and re-merged to main database. 

3. NIF files inconsistently referred to year "2002" vs. "02" (DATA SUPPLIER). 

Issue: Format of year data was variable across data coming into system from federal and 

state data sources. PT files required "02" and NIF/EDMS system required "2002." 

Resolution: Revised NIF export script to enforce "2002." PT export script continued to 

enforce "02." 

4. Missing PTHOUR records with regard to PTINV file (AIR SCIENCES). 

Issue: CA agricultural burning data records were missed during data processing for a 

block of records during the integration of CA records during the QC-binder 

review/integration process. 

Resolution: Batch file amended. 

5. NIF export produced large Combustion Efficiency (CE) table (END USER). 

Issue: The CE table was included in the NIF scripts, and the NIF export files were 

checked for completeness (specifically, valid values for fields for control efficiency were 

filled in so that NIF files would pass EPA's QA Checker). Advised by Pechan to flag 

events as "uncontrolled" in EM table and thereby eliminating the need for CE table. 

Resolution: Amended NIF script. EPA QA checker run with blank text file for CE table 

as work around. 

6. SCC miscode. 

Issue: SCC miscoded for certain piled prescribed burns (note: Natural/Anthropogenic 

flagging was correct) (AIR SCIENCES). 

Resolution: Corrected SCC formula in Excel and recalculated emission inventory 

worksheet. 

7. Emission factor for "other ag burning" in incorrect units (in the look-up table as kg/Mg 

but should be lbs/ton, a factor of 2x greater than kg/Mg) (AIR SCIENCES). 

Issue: Problem was isolated to that crop code (which is used exclusively when crop type 

information is not provided in source data). Correction added about 250 tons PM2.5 to the 

inventory, mostly in CA with small amounts in two other states. 

Resolution: Corrected look-up table and recalculated emission inventory worksheet. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc 70

SECTION 7 

REFERENCES 

Air Sciences Inc. 2002. Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emission Inventory for 

Prescribed Fire, Wildfire, and Agricultural Burning. Draft Report. Prepared for the Fire 

Emissions Joint Forum of the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

Anderson, G. K., D. V. Sandberg and R. A. Norheim. 2001. Fire Emission Production Simulator 

(FEPS) User's Guide. Version 1.0. USDA Forest Service. 

Battye, W., and R. Battye. 2001. Development of Emissions Inventory Methods for Wildland 

Fire. Draft Final Report to the U.S. EPA OAQPS. 

Cohen, J.D. and J.E. Deeming. 1985. The National Fire-Danger Rating System: Basic Equations. 

USDA, Forest Service. Report PSW-82. 

Eastern Research Group, Inc.; Enviro-Tech Communications. 2002. Non-Burning Management 

Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States. Prepared for the Fire 

Emissions Joint Forum of the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Supplements to the Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 

Section 13.1- Wildfires and Prescribed Burning. 
APPENDIX A 

Data Gathering and Compilation 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-1

Wildfire 

Wildfire activity data was collected from federal databases by WRAP staff. 

• Contact name and agency: John Graves, Arizona DEQ. 

• Date received: 7/24/2003 

• Assumptions: Wildfire activity data reportedly included both wildfire and wildland 

fire use (WFU). Therefore, WFU activity in prescribed fire databases not included in 

the (prescribed) fire activity. This was a categorical decision based on information 

provided by John Graves that was subsequently applied to all states. Decision was 

made since some databases for prescribed fire activity also included WFU activity, for 

example, the DOI database (see below). 

Prescribed Fire 

Alaska 

• Contact name and agency: Ron King, Program Manager, Alaska DEC. (Backup 

contact: Joan Hardesty, Alaska DEC.) 

• Date received: 4/20/04 

• Assumptions: None 

• Additional notes: Data only contained wildfire records. Based on further inquiry 

prescribed fire activity for AK not available. However, a NFDRS fuel loading map for 

AK was located in the process of additional research on AK fire data (downloadable 

from the state forest health web site). This map was incorporated into the wildfire 

inventory in order to assign fuel loading to the AK wildfire records that did not have 

an NFDRS entry. The AK map was based on the Canadian equivalent of the NFDRS, 

the CFFDRS. A cross-referenced key to convert the CFFDRS codes to NFDRS codes 

was obtained from the same source as the map 

(http://agdc.usgs.gov/AGDCgateway.html). 

Arizona 

• Contact name and agency: Mark Fitch, Arizona DEQ. 

• Date received: 3/8/04 

• Assumptions: End date assumed to be same as start date, effectively creating all oneday fire events. Both burn types in the database, specifically, "Activity-nonpile" and 

"Natural" were assumed to be prescribed burns, broadcast burns. 

• Additional notes: Complete data set with approximately 73,000 acres, distributed over 

433 fire entries, and several burn agencies. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-2

California 

• Contact name and agency: Neva Sotolongo, California ARB 

• Date received: 4/8/04 

• Assumptions: Burn type assumed to be all broadcast burns. No identifier for piles 

included in data. Some records have fire end date of ZERO. End date assumed to be 

same as start date, effectively creating one-day fire events. 

• Additional notes: The data only included incomplete records reported by CDF, not 

from other agencies. Hence, the data underestimated actual statewide activity. Data 

was received in the form of a GIS layer, which was converted to latitude/longitude by 

Air Sciences Inc. 

Colorado 

• Contact name and agency: Colleen Campbell, Colorado DPHE 

• Date received: 4/9/04 

• Assumptions: End date assumed to be same as start date, effectively creating one-day 

fire events. Fuel loading – broadcast data was provided in terms of fuel loading and 

consumption (by size class). Pile loading only indicated volume of piles, percent of 

piles and corresponding PM emissions, not actual tonnage. Tonnage was backcalculated from PM emissions in one of two ways: (1) if pile volume and consumption 

available, then calculated by multiplication (Pile volume)*(percent 

consumption)*(loading per pile volume). The latter was back-calculated from PM 

emissions assuming the same emission factors for pile as for broadcast burns. (2) if 

only acres available for pile burn, assumed (geometric) mean of all CO pile burns (9.1 

t/a). Also, the approach described under (1) resulted in two entries with very high fuel 

loading (up to >920 t/a); these two records were adjusted by assuming the geometric 

mean pile loading (~10 t/a). This adjustment decreased fuel loading and increased the 

acreage, thereby keeping the total fuel consumed the same as the original data. 

• Additional notes: This data set had ~18K acres distributed over 189 fire records. Data 

was received in two different file formats, which were combined to provide the most 

complete information. The daily acres file was used to derive actual acres burned 

under each permit. The general permit information was used as a look-up table to fill 

out the activity data in the daily acres file, for example, fire location. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-3

Idaho 

• Contact name and agency: David Grace, USFS. 

• Date received: 3/22/04 

• Assumptions: Data missing description of fire type. All fires assumed to be broadcast 

burns. 

• Additional notes: Although data was provided by the USFS, the data was originally 

assembled by ID-DEQ (e-mail communication, David Grace, 3/22/04). After deletion 

of nine fire records dated in 2003, this data set was ~33K acres, distributed over 554 fire 

entries, and several burn agencies. 

Montana 

• Contact name and agency: Robert Habeck, Montana DEQ. 

• Date received: 3/12/04 

• Assumptions: None. 

• Additional notes: Complete data set with ~219K acres, distributed over 1,813 fire 

entries, and several burn agencies. 

North Dakota 

• Contact name and agency: Chuck McDonald, North Dakota Dept. of Health. 

• Date received: 4/1/04 

• Assumptions: If more than one section entered for location, set to first section only. 

• Additional notes: Data received as hard copy and entered into spreadsheet. Corrected 

mix-up in units of the pre-burn fuel loading in the data entry sheets. 

New Mexico 

• Contact name and agency: Lisa Bye, New Mexico DEQ. 

• Date received: 3/16/04 

• Assumptions: End date assumed to be same as start date, effectively creating one-day 

fire events. If more than one section entered for location, set to first section only, but 

this was not a major issue, since latitude and longitude were provided for each entry as 

well. 

• Additional notes: Complete data set with ~9K acres, distributed over 44 fire entries, 

and several burn agencies. Also, two entries in the data set (~3,500 acre total) had 2003 

data instead of 2002. Assumed to be 2002. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-4

Nevada 

• Contact name and agency: Samuel Jackson, Nevada DEP. 

• Date received: 4/13/04 

• Assumptions: Fuel loading provided for 3 records only; loading for remaining records 

based on NFDRS. NFDRS assigned by the fuel type description provided in the raw 

data. Location - some fire locations were reported as a lat/long combination; most 

reported as TRS. If more than one section entered for location, set to first section only. 

• Additional notes: Data received in form of Excel file with 21 fire records, totaling ~8K 

acres. 

Oregon 

• Contact name and agency: Mike Ziolko, Oregon DF. 

• Date received: 4/19/04 

• Assumptions: The piled burns were inconsistent in quality. Some records had very 

high acreages associated, up to 9,600 acres, others had very high fuel loading, up to 

2,500 tons/acre. In order to resolve these unrealistically high values, the mean loading 

for piled burns in the OR data (excluding the outliers, specifically, acreage>1,500 acres 

or loading >150 t/a) was calculated. Next all OR pile burns were normalized based on 

the (geometric) mean loading, specifically, 12.5 t/a. Since this procedure concurrently 

adjusted fuel loading and acreage, the total fuel consumption for each fire record 

stayed the same. Location – format of state TRS notation was converted to GIS format. 

Specifically, T or R entries, which were in the hundreds, had the last zero removed (for 

example, township 360 N changed to 36N). 

• Additional notes: This data set was clean and complete except for inconsistent 

reporting of piled fire acreage, with ~166K acres total, distributed over 3,603 fire 

records. 

South Dakota 

• Contact name and agency: Steven Hasenohrl, South Dakota DA. 

• Date received: 3/26/04 

• Assumptions: No fire type provided, so assumed to be broadcast burn. 

• Additional notes: Only one state record for 2002 (150 acres). 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-5

Utah 

• Contact name and agency: Greg Zschaechner, Utah DEQ. (Via Pete Lahm) 

• Date received: 2/20/04 

• Assumptions: None 

• Additional notes: Only 11 records totaling ~1.5K acres satisfied data quality objectives 

and were carried over to EI. UTM coordinates (provided) were converted to latitude 

and longitude using a GIS overlay map. 

Washington 

• Contact name and agency: Mark Gray, Washington DNR. 

• Date received: 4/6/04 

• Assumptions: Agency information based on key from Mark Gray. Burn type indicated 

as piled or broadcast. Calculated default fuel loadings were 14.2 and 8.5 t/a for 

broadcast- and piled burns, respectively. Broadcast fuel loading- if data available 

loading in t/a calculated from provided data, if not, set to default. Piled fuel loading 

set to default loading, calculated as the mean loading for broadcast burns, multiplied 

with fuel collection efficiency of 60 percent (*0.6). Blackened acres for broadcast burns 

were available from the data. Acres for piled burns (not provided) were calculated 

based on total loading (provided) and default tonnage per acre. Location – format of 

state TRS notation was converted to GIS format. Specifically, T or R entries, which 

were in the hundreds, had the last zero removed (for example, township 360 N 

changed to 36N). 

• Additional notes: Large data set containing 3,261 records totaling ~41K acres. 

Wyoming 

• Contact name and agency: Darla Potter, Wyoming DEQ. 

• Date received: 8/3/04 

• Assumptions: Start date - assumed to be same as date in comment field. If comment 

data absent, set to planned date; if planned date absent, then assumed to be on 

submitted date. End date - assumed to be same as start date, effectively creating oneday fire events. Fuel type - raw data gives fuel type. This description was specific 

enough to assign an NFDRS fuel model (letter code). Fire location - if more than one 

section reported for location, set to first section only. Fire type - several fire entries 

without acres, but with number of piles. In absence of loading data, the median pile 

size was calculated from all complete WY acres by number of pile combinations. This 

resulted in 1 acre per pile (n=24). For all pile burns without acreage then, acreage was 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-6

set to 1 acre per pile. Fuel loading – no data, but will be calculated based on assigned 

NFDRS model. 

• Additional notes: The pre-processing described above resulted in ~40K acres, 

distributed over 100 fire entries, and several burn agencies. One 11,000 fire entry was 

deleted from database upon recommendation as it never was burned (personal 

communication, Gavin Lowell, 6/3/04). 

DOI-1202 

• Contact name and agency: [Confirm with source] 

• Date received: [Confirm with source] 

• Assumptions: All fires assumed to be broadcast burns. Location based on provided 

latitude and longitude or, alternatively, TRS coordinates. Fuel loading based on 

NFDRS fuels map, which was either provided in the data or derived from a GIS 

overlay with the NFDRS fuels map. 

• Additional notes: This data set covered four agencies: BIA, BLM, FWS and NPS. It 

was clean and had ~180K acres, distributed over 707 fire records, all for Rx on USFS 

lands. 

NIFPORS 

• Contact name and agency: Susan Lee, USFS 

• Date received: 4/20/04 

• Assumptions: Fuel loading was not provided and was calculated based on NFDRS fuel 

loading map. Two large fires set to zero due to extreme outliers: UT Dixie National 

Forest D3 Adams Head (~25K acres) and D3 Sandford Creek (~10K acres). Both were 

broadcast burns. If kept in database, these fires would have been assigned to one-day 

event only. 

• Additional notes: This data set was clean and had ~290K acres, distributed over 1,145 

fire records, all for Rx on USFS lands. 

FASTRAC (WA and OR) 

• Contact name and agency: Jim Russell, USFS. 

• Date received: 4/22/04 

• Assumptions: None 

• Additional notes: This data set was similar to data provided earlier by the state 

agencies in WA and OR. Hence, to avoid duplicate fire entries this data was not 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-7

incorporated in the emission inventory. However, it was used in the quality 

assurance effort of the WA and OR state data. 

Agricultural Burning – QC Packet Responses 

Alaska 

• No Packet sent to Alaska 

Arizona 

• Contact name and agency: Randy Sedlacek/Trevor Baggiore, USFS c/o Arizona 

DEQ 

• QC response: No change. 

California 

• Contact name and agency: Neva Sotolongo, CA EPA 

• QC response: All new data - Year 2000 statewide database. 2002 database for San 

Joaquin Valley Air District. 

• Additional notes: The 2000 CA statewide database included 71,457 event records. 

All records in the statewide database included a crop and county, most included 

date or month, some included TRS location. 

• The 2002 SJV ag burning activity database included 51,782 event records. All 

records included county, crop, and date. The database included location data in 

the form of street addresses rather than coordinates or TRS data. Reportedly, TRS 

location data is available, but it was never received. 

• For the WRAP inventory, the statewide database was used but the records for SJV 

and all of Kern County were replaced with the SJV 2002 data. The inventory 

includes 9,324 records from the statewide database and 51,712 records from the SJV 

database. A few of these records were subsequently dropped because of 

incomplete information. 

Colorado 

• Contact name and agency: Coleen Campbell, CO APCD 

• QC response: Initial response was from James Sharkoff, who reported that no ag 

burning occurs in CO. Further inquiry led to an ag burning summary from Coleen 

Campbell. The data submitted by Coleen was an annual summary with three crop 

types by county. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-8

• Additional notes: A monthly distribution of crop burning based on local anecdotal 

information, developed in coordination with Coleen, was used for temporal 

allocation. 

Idaho 

• Contact name and agency: Diane Riley, ID DEQ 

• QC response: New data for 16 counties including 1,088 records. Suggested 

updating 1996 NASS-based data with 2002 NASS data. 

• Additional notes: Post-QC Phase II database for ID comes from three sources: new 

database for 16 counties from Diane Riley, NASS-based data for wheat and barley 

updated using 2002 NASS data, and 1996 EI data for remainder of counties and 

crops. 

Montana 

• Contact name and agency: James Carlin, MT DEQ 

• QC response: MT submitted ditch burning data to supplement the existing ag 

burning activity data. The data included acres of ditch burning by month and 

county. 

• Additional notes: MT ag burning inventory remained unchanged aside from the 

addition of ditch burning data. 

New Mexico 

• Contact name and agency: Rita Trujillo, NM Environmental Dept. 

• QC response: NM submitted revised data, which included acres by county, month 

and crop. 

• Additional notes: Rita Trujillo sent an electronic copy of Feedback Form B marked 

up with changes for the Phase II EI. The new data includes 20 records and replaces 

the 1996 EI data for NM. 

Nevada 

• Contact name and agency: Chester Sergent, NV Bureau of Air Quality 

• QC response: No new data. 

• Additional notes: 1996 EI had no data for NV ag burning. Existing 1996 data for 

NV was an annual summary of burning with no crop data. A special packet was 

sent to NV to solicit more specific data with crops and monthly allocation of 

burning. The response from NV was that there was no ag burning data available 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-9

other than the annual summary without crop information. This database does not 

meet the minimum requirements for the WRAP EI and cannot be included in the 

inventory without additional information concerning crops and temporal 

allocation. 

North Dakota 

• Contact name and agency: Gene Nelson, ND Health Dept. 

• QC response: ND said the data looks representative for ND, and no changes were 

necessary. 

Oregon 

• Contact name and agency: Jeffrey Stocum, OR DEQ 

• QC response: New database for 2002: annual summary of acres burned by crop 

plus a temporal allocation scheme to allocate the annual data to months. 

South Dakota 

• Contact name and agency: Rick Boddicker 

• QC response: 5,000 ditch burning acres to replace SD ag burning data. 

• Additional notes: Rick Boddicker reports that there is very little ag burning in 

South Dakota. Total burning is reported to be 1,000 to 5,000 acres to clear weeds 

and cattails in wet areas in eastern SD. For Phase II, 5,000 acres of ditch burning 

was estimated for SD and allocated equally between the counties on the eastern 

border. The temporal allocation was not changed from 1996 EI: half in March, half 

in April. 

Utah 

• Contact name and agency: Aaron Chambers, UT DEQ 

• QC response: Annual summary of burning by crop and county to replace 1996 EI 

data. 

• Additional notes: Aaron Chambers submitted 30 MS Excel files, each containing 

an annual summary of ag burning for 2002 for one county. Aaron sent some basic 

guidelines for when burning occurred, but said it was crop-specific and was unable 

to give a detailed temporal allocation by crop. A temporal allocation was derived 

using the guidelines given by Aaron and looking at Idaho and other WRAP data 

for each crop. 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc A-10

Washington 

• Contact name and agency: Karen Wood, WA Ecology 

• QC response: 2003 statewide ag burning database. 

• Additional notes: Washington sent a new 2003 ag burning database to be used as 

the most representative data for 2002. The 2003 data was event-level data with TRS 

location, crop, month, and acres and residue loading. There are 3,235 records in 

the data set. This data replaced the Washington data in the 1996 EI. 

Wyoming 

• Contact name and agency: Darla Potter, WY DEQ 

• QC response: New 2002 statewide ag burning inventory 

• Additional notes: The new WY database for 2002 ag burning included acres by 

summary by county, crop, and month. 

Nez Perce, Coeur d’Alene and Spirit Lake Tribes 

• Contact name and agency: Alene George, Coeur d'Alene Lands Dept. 

 Julie Simpson, Nez Perce Air Quality 

 Frank Black Cloud, Spirit Lake Air Programs 

• QC response: No formal response 
APPENDIX B 

WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire Format Specification 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-1

Table B-1: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Transmittal Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type TR TR for every record 

strStateCountyFIPS FIPS 02050 

No two entries in this record will 

have the same FIPS code 

strOrganizationName Org Name WRAP 

strTransactionType Transaction Type 00 "00" means "Original" 

intInventoryYear Inventory Year 2002 

strInventoryTypeCode Inventory Type CRIT "CRIT" = Criteria 

lngTransactionCreationDate Transaction Creation Date 20050204 Date of report generation 

intIncrementalSubmissionNumber 

Incremental Submission 

Number 1 

All records get a submission 

number of 1 unless data gets 

submitted for a county more than 

once 

sngReliabilityIndicator (Blank) 

strTransactionComments Comments on Inventory no comment 

Any comments on inventory. 

Can be entered when creating 

record 

strContactPersonName Client Name Tom Moore WRAP Contact name 

strContactPhoneNumber Client Phone Number (970) 491-8837 WRAP Contact phone number 

strTelephoneNumberTypeName Client Phone Type Office 

WRAP Contact phone number 

type 

strElectronicAddressText Client E Address mooret@cira.colostate.edu WRAP Contact E address 

strElectronicAddressTypeName Type of E Address Email WRAP Contact E address type 

strSourceType Source Type FIRE 

FIRE is not a valid NIF code. 

Submitted as such to make 

implicit that this is a new format 

strAffiliationType Affiliation Type Report Certifier 

According to NIF doc. is always 

Report Certifier 

sngFormatVersion NIF Format version 3 NIF version 3.0 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal 

code but required data field in 

NIF format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-2

Table B-2: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Site Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type SI SI for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day has 

the same fire ID. Must be less than 

15 characters. 

strFacilityRegistryIdentifier (Blank) 

strFacilityCategory (Blank) 

strORISFacilityCode (Blank) 

strSICPrimary (Blank) 

strNAICSPrimary NAICS NA 

Mandatory NIF field. Will be 

flagged by QC checker. 

strFacilityName Fire Name GYPSUM CREEK 

strSiteDescription Fire Type wildfire Either wildfire or prescribed. 

strLocationAddress Address NA Mandatory NIF field. 

strCity City NA Mandatory NIF field. 

strState State AK 

strZipCode ZipCode NA 

Mandatory NIF field. Will be 

flagged by QC checker 

strCountry Country US 

strNTISiteID (Blank) 

strDun&BradstreetNumber (Blank) 

strTRIID (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-3

Table B-3: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire – Emission Unit Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type EU EU for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day 

has the same fire ID. Must be less 

than 15 characters. 

strEmissionUnitID EU ID (F or S) F 

Either F or S indicating a flaming 

or a smoldering fire day No two 

entries may have the same Fire ID 

and EU ID 

strORISBoilerID (Blank) 

strSICUnitLevel (Blank) 

strNAICSUnitLevel (Blank) 

strBlankField (Blank) 

sngDesignCapacity Area Burned 10 

strDesignCapacityUnitNumerator Area Burned Unit ACRE 

strDesignCapacityUnitDenominator (Blank) 

sngMaxNameplateCapacity (Blank) 

strEmissionUnitDescription (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise, etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-4

Table B-4: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Process Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type EP EP for every record 

strStateCountyFIPS FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day has 

the same fire ID. Must be less than 

15 characters. 

strEmissionUnitID EU ID (F or S) F 

Either F or S indicating a flaming 

or a smoldering fire day 

strEmissionReleasePointID Release Point ID F H1 

Used to relate the entries in the 

"EP" record to entries in the "ER" 

record. A single entry in the ER 

record exists for every EP record. 

One for every hour of every fire 

day (both smolder and flaming 

fire days). 

strProcessID Hour ID H1 

Hourly designation. No two 

records may have the same Fire, 

EU and Hour ID. 

strSCC SCC 2810001000 

strProcessMACTCode (Blank) 

strEmissionProcessDescription NFDRS A 

intWinterThroughputPCT (Blank) 

intSpringThroughputPCT (Blank) 

intSummerThroughputPCT (Blank) 

intFallThroughputPCT (Blank) 

intAnnualAvgDaysPerWeek (Blank) 

intAnnualAvgWeeksPerYear (Blank) 

intAnnualAvgHoursPerDay (Blank) 

IntAnnualAvgHoursPerYear (Blank) 

sngHeatContent Fuel Loading 0.50 

sngSulfurContent (Blank) 

sngAshContent (Blank) 

strProcessMACTComplianceStatus (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-5

Table B-5: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Release Point Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType ER ER ER for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day 

has the same fire ID. Must be less 

than 15 characters. 

strBlankField (Blank) 

strEmissionReleasePointID ER ID F H1 

Used to relate the entries in the 

"EP" record to entries in the "ER" 

record. A single entry in the ER 

record exists for every EP record. 

One for every hour of every fire 

day (both smolder and flaming 

fire days). 

strEmissionReleasePointType ER Point Type 05 

strBlankField2 (Blank) 

sngStackHeight plume top 0.023040 

sngStackDiameter plume bottom 0.000000 

sngStackFencelineDistance percent first layer 0.469300 

sngExitGasTemperature (Blank) 

sngExitGasVelocity (Blank) 

sngExitGasFlowRate (Blank) 

dblXCoordinate X Position -134.977493 

dblYCoordinate Y Position 58.909443 

intUTMZone (Blank) Not required for LATLON 

strXYCoordinateType Coordinate Type LATLON 

IngHorizontalAreaFugitive (Blank) 

IngReleaseHeightFugitive (Blank) 

strFugitiveDimensionsUnit (Blank) 

strEmissionsReleasePtDescription ER record Description Hour1 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strHorizontalCollectionMethodCode Collection Method 027 

"027" = "The information is not 

known" 

strHorizontalAccuracyMeasure Horizontal Accuracy 0 No accuracy data available 

strHorizontalReferenceDatumCode Horizontal Reference NA 

Mandatory field. NA will be 

flagged by QC checker. 

strReferencePointCode Reference Point 108 

"108" = point not included in 

Code Tables 

strSourceMapScaleNumber (Blank) 

strCoordinateDataSourceCode (Blank) 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-6

Table B-6: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Period Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type PE PE for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day has 

the same fire ID. Must be less than 

15 characters. 

strEmissionUnitID EU ID (F or S) F 

Either F or S indicating a flaming or 

a smoldering fire day 

strProcessID Hour ID H1 

Hourly designation. No two 

records may have the same Fire, EU 

and Hour ID. 

IngStartDate Start Date 20020424 

Since fire records are daily, 

StartDate=EndDate and there are 

the same # of records in the this 

table as there are in the ER and EP 

records. Taken From DateSlash 

Field of GISOUT 

IngEndDate End Date 20020424 

strBlankField (Blank) 

intStartTime Start Time 0000 

intEndTime End Time 0059 

strBlankField2 (Blank) 

sngActualThroughput Area Burned/Hour 0.0570 

Acres Burned times temporal burn 

factor 

strThroughputUnitNumerator Area Unit ACRE 

intMaterial Material Burned 936 

Many options are available such as 

wood & wood/bark. "936" is 

vegetation which is what LADCO 

was reporting 

strMaterialIO Material Input/Output I 

intPeriodDaysPerWeek (Blank) 

intPeriodWeeksPerPeriod (Blank) 

intPeriodHoursPerDays (Blank) 

intPeriodHoursPerPeriod (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-7

Table B-7: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Control Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type CE CE for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day has 

the same fire ID. Must be less than 

15 characters. 

strEmissionUnitID EU ID (F or S) F 

Either F or S indicating a flaming or 

a smoldering fire day 

strProcessID Hour ID H1 

Hourly designation. No two 

records may have the same Fire, 

EU and Hour ID. 

strPollutantCode Pollutant Code PM10-PRI 

Some pollutants like EC OC and 

CH4 aren't in the table 

POLLUTANT_CODES but are in 

the POLLUTANT_CATEGORIES 

both of which are NIF standard 

code tables 

strBlankField (Blank) 

sngPrimaryPCTControlEfficiency (Blank) 

sngPCTCaptureEfficiency (Blank) 

sngTotalCaptureControlEfficiency (Blank) 

strPrimaryDeviceTypeCode Primary Device Type Code 000 

Mandatory Field "000" = 

"uncontrolled" 

strSecondaryDeviceTypeCode (Blank) 

strBlankField2 (Blank) 

strControlSystemDescription (Blank) 

strThirdControlDeviceTypeCode (Blank) 

strFourthControlDeviceTypeCode (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used" 
WRAP 2002 PhII EI Report_20050722.doc B-8

Table B-8: WRAP NIF 3.0 for Fire - Emission Record 

EPA NIF Field WRAP NIF Fire Field Example Value Comment 

strRecordType Record Type EM EM for every record 

strStateCountyFIPs FIPS 02110 

strStateFacilityIdentifier Fire ID AK-WF-229-1 

Fire ID must be unique for every 

flaming fire day. Every 

corresponding smoldering day has 

the same fire ID. Must be less than 

15 characters. 

strEmissionUnitID EU ID (F or S) F 

Either F or S indicating a flaming 

or a smoldering fire day 

strProcessID Hour ID H1 

Hourly designation. No two 

records may have the same Fire, 

EU and Hour ID. 

strPollutantCode Pollutant Code PM10-PRI 

Some pollutants like EC OC and 

CH4 aren't in the table 

POLLUTANT_CODES but are in 

the POLLUTANT_CATEGORIES 

both of which are NIF standard 

code tables 

strBlankField (Blank) 

strEmissionReleasePointID ER ID F H01 

lngStartDate Start Date 20020424 

lngEndDate End Date 20020424 

intStartTime Start Time 0000 

intEndTime End Time 0059 

strBlankField2 (Blank) 

dblEmissionNumericValue Hourly Emissions 0.0004014 

strEmissionUnitNumerator Unit TON 

strEmissionType Emission Type 30 

sngEMReliabilityIndicator (Blank) 

sngFactorNumericValue Emission Factor 28.10 

strFactorUnitNumerator Emission Factor Numerator LB 

strFactorUnitDenominator 

Emission Factor 

Denominator TON 

intMaterial Material Burned 936 

Many options are available such as 

wood & wood/bark. "936" is 

vegetation which is what LADCO 

was reporting 

strMaterialIO Material Input/Output I 

strBlankField3 (Blank) 

strEmissionCalculationMethodCode (Blank) 

strEFReliabilityIndicator (Blank) 

sngRuleEffectiveness (Blank) 

strRuleEffectivenessMethod (Blank) 

strBlankField4 (Blank) 

strHAPEmissionsPerformanceLevel (Blank) 

strControlStatus (Blank) 

strEmissionDataLevel (Blank) 

strSubmittalFlag Submittal Flag A 

"A" = "ADD" other options are 

delete or revise etc. 

strTribalCode Tribal Code 000 

WRAP does not report tribal code 

but required data field in NIF 

format "000" = "not used"