Transcript Fire Emissions Tracking System White Paper

July 12, 2006/10a
Fire Emissions Tracking
System White Paper
Fire Emissions Joint Forum
July 11-12, 2006 Portland, OR
Dave Randall, Air Sciences Inc.
1
Presentation Objectives
• To bring the FEJF up-to-speed with the
FTS Task Team on the current thinking re:
the development of the WRAP’s FETS.
• For the FEJF to reach consensus on the
direction the FTS Task Team will take to
develop the WRAP’s FETS.
2
Presentation Outline
• ID Purpose & Objectives of FETS
• Review FTS Evaluation & Conclusions
• Recommendations – Approach to Develop FETS
– Contractual Relationship (Air Sciences/CIRA)
– Preliminary Scope
– Cost Estimate
– Schedule
3
Purpose of WRAP FETS
• Regional Haze Rule (Rule) Requirements:
– 309 states – FETS is part of the GCVTC
recommendations
– 308 states – FETS is likely an important tool for the
effective management of fire sources:
• inventory fire location & type (natural or anthropogenic)
• calculate & inventory fire emissions
• data influences choices on planned burns
4
Objectives of WRAP FETS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consistently track fire activity & emissions
Accommodate regional coordination
Create fire emission inventories
Apply Emission Reduction Techniques (ERT)
Implement Annual Emission Goals (AEG)
FETS data available to States/Tribes for
Regional Haze planning
5
FTS Evaluation Project
Cursory Overview
• Is there an existing FTS system that will
satisfy WRAP’s FTS requirement?
• Review Web-based & historical systems
• Primary emphasis: real-time data import
and export capabilities.
• Evaluation made from the perspective of
an FTS user.
6
FTS Evaluation Goals
• Evaluate existing FTS and provide:
– A feasibility assessment of existing systems.
– An analysis of modifying each system to
include WRAP needs.
– Estimate resources needed to modify the
system to meet the required elements for
tracking prescribed fires.
7
KEY FEATURES OF WRAP FTS
Elements
Date of Burn
Burn Location
Area of Burn
Fuel Type
Pre-Burn Fuel Loading
Type of Burn
Nat/Anth
Annual Emission Goal Info
AEG (addl)
Projections
Emissions
Emissions (addl)
System Features
Real time data import and export
Web based
Can info easily be shared between states
GIS/mapping capabilities
Conventional system language & design
Important
Characteristics
Straightforward queries
Straightforward reporting
Important Elements for Regional Coordination
Basic Elements of FTS Policy
8
Table 1 – Feasibility Study Point System
Data Elements
Task 2.A. Basic Data Elements
Critical Elements Evaluated
Max
Possible
Points
Burn Date Start date; end date
Burn Location Latitude/longitude
Burn Area Size of burn (acres); fuel type
Components related to Annual Emission Goals
Emission Reduction Techniques Any ERT element
Bonus Ranking
Total for Basic Data Elements
Task 2.B. System Information
Web-based, exporting capabilities
Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications
Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting
Task 2.E. Optional Modules
10
10
10
15
5
5
55
15
10
10
5
Task 2.F. Interface and/or Data Exchange
Total for System-Related Features
5
45
Total Maximum Possible Score
100
9
Table 2 - FTS Evaluations
San Joaquin
Valley
Airshed
Management
System
(MT/ID)
Smoke
Management
Database
(NM)
10
10
10
15
5
5
55
15
10
10
5
5
45
5
7
9
12
0
0
33
6
3
4
0
0
13
3
8
9
4
0
5
29
10
6
4
0
0
20
5
8
9
13
0
5
40
12
8
8
3
0
31
7
2
6
10
0
0
25
4
10
0
5
0
19
100
46
49
71
44
Max
Possible
Points
Burn Date
Burn Location
Burn Area
Components related to Annual Emission Goals
Emission Reduction Techniques
Bonus Ranking
Total for Basic Data Elements
Task 2.B. System Information
Task 2.C. Back-End and Front-End Applications
Task 2.D. Indexing and Reporting
Task 2.E. Optional Modules
Task 2.F. Interface and/or Data Exchange
Total for System-Related Features
Total Maximum Possible Score
Data Elements
Task 2.A. Basic Data Elements
Nez
South
Perce
Carolina
Tracking Tracking
System
System
Florida
Tracking
System
USDA Smoke
Management
System
5
9
9
10
0
0
33
4
5
4
0
0
13
5
10
7
10
0
0
32
4
3
4
0
0
11
5
8
7
10
0
5
35
12
10
10
0
0
32
46
43
67
10
Table 3 – WRAP FTS Requirements
Table 4 - WRAP FTS Requirements
FTS Requirements Total Points:
Element
What required fields are
missing?
2
Burn hour, location of closest town, burn
agency info., blackened acres, ERT
emission factors, emission reductions,
responsible agency
0
Yes with limitations (see Table 2)
Can the system perform
emissions calculations?
PM10 emissions are estimated by means
of emission factors, acreage, and
tonnage.
1
Is there ERT support?
ERT’s are recorded but no emission
reduction information
0
0
Queries must be created by user with
access to the application server
Is there an ability to assign Yes, only at the database level
different user permissions?
Is there Annual Emission
Goal support?
0
0
0
No ERT information.
0
Is there ad-hoc query
support?
Burn hour, location of closest town,
emissions, emission factors, ERT, burn
agency info., blackened acres, ERT
emission factors, emission reductions,
responsible agency
Yes
USDA
No emissions.
Predetermined map images
Yes
Is there multi-day burn
support?
No
Is there support for
Importing from or exporting
to other systems?
1
MT/ID
Is the system web-based?
Is there a GIS capability?
1
New Mexico
1
Currently developing a web-based
interactive ArcGIS server application to
display burn locations and associated
database information.
No
0
0
0
0
All FTS have essentially the same missing data
elements.
0
Web-friendliness of all FTS is similar.
0
NM has the edge here, with PM emission
calculation cabability. While not sophisticated,
it's funtional and relatively simple to add
pollutants and use the same calculation method.
0
Capability to deal with ERT's is essentially nonexistent with all FTS. Would have to build this
capability from scratch.
0
Currently, systems deal with GIS is a limited
way, at best. MT/ID does provide a client-based
interactive system that can only be used by one
user with access to the application. Waiting for
MT/ID or USDA is an option. Our assumption for
this assessment is that GIS functionality would
have to be added to any of the FTS.
No
0
NM is currently the only system that supports
this.
0
Ability to communicate with other systems would
have to be added to any FTS chosen.
0
Similar query capabiliites for all three FTS.
Whether the WRAP takes query support as-is or
enhances it, it would be the same effort for all
FTS.
1
Permission capabilities essentially the same for
all FTS.
0
Capability to deal with AEG is essentially nonexistent with all FTS. Would have to build this
capability from scratch.
No
0
Queries must be created by user with
access to the application server
Yes, per record, table, or view
1
No
0
0
Currently developing a system that uses
Google Earth to display burn locations
and associated database information.
0
Queries must be created by user with
access to the application server
Assessment
No ERT information.
Yes, per record, table, or view
No
Currently developing a link to
CONSUME.
0
No
0
Burn hour, location of closest town,
emissions, emission factors, ERT, burn
agency info., blackened acres, ERT
emission factors, emission reductions,
responsible agency
Yes*
No
0
* Latest version of the interface is in beta and some new features including the add/change burn data are not yet functional.
11
Table 5 - FTS System Characteristics and Requirements
FTS Requirements Total Points:
Ease of use of web interface
0
4
New Mexico
Montana/Idaho
Easy button navigation and plenty of help.
Use of acronyms provides some confusion
of web page organization.
1
Not clear that you can indicate type of fuel.
Relationship between preseason and
proposed burn is not clear.
Can only set-up permissions at the file
level.
0
Can set-up permissions by table, view, or
record.
4
4
Assessment
0
Easy button navigation with clear labels.
Latest version of the interface is in beta
form and not currently available for testing
by the Project Team. Some of the new
features are not yet available.
-1
Web interfaces are relatively straightforward…with
the potential for some confusion with MT/ID and
upcoming improvements for USDA.
1
Can set-up permissions by table, view, or
record.
1
MT/ID and USDA have greater flexibility for
permission settings. May or may not be a critical
aspect of the WRAP FTS.
1
Perhaps the biggest limitation to the NM system.
If the WRAP FTS is limited to approximately 30
total users with concurrent access limited to 10
users, then this limitation becomes unimportant.
1
MT/ID and USDA have more flexibility to execute
scheduled jobs automatically.
1
MT/ID and USDA are more robust systems.
1
Quite possible that NM system will bump up
against storage limitations without expansion of
backend.
1
Quite possible that NM system will bump up
against storage limitations without expansion of
backend.
-1
NM system requires less software expertise to setup and maintain. Although the sophistication of
the WRAP FTS in general may require enough
database/software expertise to maintain that the
expertise required by MT/ID and USDA would be
in place anyway.
0
Essentially no software costs associated with NM.
Modest software expense for MT/ID and USDA.
0
Signigicant software expense for MT/ID for the
ArcGis Server, modest expense for NM and
USDA.
0
Essentially the same basic server requirements for
all FTS.
USDA
System Characteristics
Permission
Users
Automatic Scheduled Jobs
Robust Queries
System Storage Capacities
Database Record Limits
Limited to approximately 10 concurrent
users in a web environment.
-1
Able to support hundreds of concurrent
users
Difficult to create automatic scheduled jobs
such as back-ups or data aggregation.
0
Database can become corrupt if client
query fails to complete.
-1 from becoming corrupted because of
1
Use of transaction logs prevent database
1
incomplete queries.
More than 1,000,000 TB
2 GB database size limit. Includes data,
queries, and forms
-1
One database will hold approximately
2,000,000 fire records
0
1
Built-in ability to set-up scheduled jobs that
run automatically.
Use of transaction logs prevent database
from becoming corrupted because of
incomplete queries.
More than 1,000,000 TB
1
Limited by server storage.
Easy to set-up database and develop
queries and forms.
Ease of Use of System
Built-in ability to set-up scheduled jobs that
run automatically.
1
Able to support hundreds of concurrent
users
Limited by server storage.
1
Somewhat complex to set-up and manage
database. Requires good knowledge of
SQL language.
-1
Somewhat complex to set-up and manage
database. Requires good knowledge of
SQL language.
Hardware and software
requirements
MS Access 2000 (~ $230)
1
Software
ArcView desktop software (~ $1,500)
required to generate maps.
0
Web/GIS Server
Database Server
Server with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive,
and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100)
0
SQL Server 2000 standard edition for single
processor (~ $6,000)
No Web/GIS server currenlty required. With
development of user-based GIS
capabilities, ArcGIS Server ($30,000 for
one server with 2 processors)* would be
required.
Server with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive,
and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100)
*Used for interactive GIS system that is currently being developed
0
SQL Server 2000 standard edition for single
processor (~ $6,000)
Cold Fusion Server (~ $1,300)
-1
0
Server with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive,
and 1.0 GHz processor (~ $1,100)
12
Table 3 - FTS Modifications and Resources
(E)ssential
(P)referred
or (O)ptional
E
P
E
E
E
Modifications
Final design of database and
structure
Types of records to be included,
classes of users, editing
protocols, and burn approvals if
appropriate
Address system shortcomings:
permissions; user number;
automation; query limitations;
size limitations.
Add fields needed to meet WRAP
requirements
Web interface modifications to
enhance ease of use
Add features to compute
emissions
Develop approach
New Mexico
Level of Effort
(hours)*
Montana/Idaho
Level of Effort
(hours)*
USDA
Level of Effort
(hours)*
60
80
80
Assessment/Notes
SQL Server database requires more work
than Access database
120
0
0
NM Access database could be upgraded to
SQL Server database. MT/ID and USDA
already use SQL Server.
80
100
80
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
MT/ID is missing more required fields than
NM or USDA.
All require slight changes.
Options:
E
O
A. WRAP Phase II/III
emission inventory
Develop queries to
compute emissions by
using look-up tables of
emission factors, acreage,
and tonnage
B. Inter RPO (FEPS)
Develop queries to
compute emissions by
using fuel specific
emission and
consumption factors and
fuel moisture options
NM already has some of the query structure
in place.
60
80
80
NM already has some of the query structure
in place.
C. Link to CONSUME
O
O
O
1) Identify CONSUME
inputs that can be pulled
from the database
80
80
80
2) Create fields in the
database to hold
CONSUME output
3) Develop Visual .NET
application to control
CONSUME
20
20
20
Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently
developing a link between their FTS and
CONSUME.
100
100
100
Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently
developing a link between their FTS and
CONSUME.
Note "a" for USDA: USDA is currently
developing a link between their FTS and
CONSUME.
13
Table 3 - FTS Modifications and Resources
(E)ssential
(P)referred
or (O)ptional
New Mexico
Level of Effort
(hours)*
Montana/Idaho
Level of Effort
(hours)*
USDA
Level of Effort
(hours)*
Develop approach
40
40
40
Create menu of ERT's and
associated emission reduction
credits
Develop queries to compute ERT
impacts
GIS
20
20
20
40
40
40
Predetermined maps
20
80
80
Interactive system
600
600
600
E
Regional coordination features &
methods
Assess current protocols
40
40
40
40
60
60
E
Modifications to accommodate
import from different federal and
state systems
Modifications
Assessment/Notes
ERT
E
E
E
E
P
E
E
Add export feature to interface
20
20
20
Assign different levels of user
permissions
Support for Annual Emission
Goals
Develop queries to report
number of times ERT’s are
used
Total Level of Effort (hours)
20
20
20
20
20
20
1,560
1,620
1,600
E
E
Note "c" for MT/ID & USDA: No hours may
need to be expended since interactive GIS
system is currently being developed.
Less effort required to modify Access
database than SQL Server database.
Export data to modeling and/or
projection system
Assess input requirements of
federal or state system such as
EDMS, WFMI, FACTS, or
TEISS
Create queries to output data in
NIF or flat file format
E
Note "b" for NM: New Mexico FTS already
displays some predetermined maps of burn
locations.
40
40
40
20
40
40
Queries in NM Access database are easier
to create than in the MT/ID and USDA SQL
Server databases.
*Level of effort does not include estimate for workplan development. We estimate that 160 labor hours would be required for workplan development.
Essential:
580
740
720
Preferred:
720
600
600
Optional:
60/200
80/200
80/200
14
Recommendations - Method
• Extended the Technical Modifications
assessment to Post-Modification period.
– By dedicating a estimated amount of labor,
how would each FTS perform as the WRAP’s
FTS?
– Tabulated this assessment and used results
to inform the Project Team’s
recommendations.
15
sen
tial
Mo
dific
Afte
atio
ns
r Pr
efe
rred
Mo
dific
atio
ns
r Es
sen
tial
Mo
dific
Afte
atio
ns
r Pr
efe
rred
Mo
dific
atio
ns
As Is
r Es
Afte
New Mexico
Afte
sen
tial
Mo
dific
Afte
atio
ns
r Pr
efe
rred
Mo
dific
atio
ns
As Is
r Es
Afte
As Is
Table 4 - FTS Post Modification
Analysis
MT/ID
USDA
WRAP FTS Requirements
What required fields are missing?
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
Is the system web-based?
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
Can the system perform emissions
calculations?
1
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Is there ERT support?
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
Is there a GIS capability?
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
Is there multi-day burn support?
Is there support for Importing from or
exporting to other systems?
Is there ad-hoc query support?
Is there an ability to assign different user
permissions?
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Is there Annual Emission Goal support?
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
16
USDA
FTS System Characteristics and
Requirements
Ease of use of web interface
1
1
2
0
1
2
-1
-1
2
Permission
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Users
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Automatic Scheduled Jobs
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Robust Queries
-1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
System Storage Capacities
-1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Database Record Limits
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
017
0
System Characteristics
Ease of Use of System
Hardware and software requirements
Software
Web/GIS Server
Database Server
odi
fica
tion
s
Afte
r Pr
efe
rr
sen
tia
Afte
r Es
AsIs
MT/ID
ed
M
l Mo
dific
atio
n
s
odi
fica
tion
s
ed
M
Afte
r Pr
efe
rr
sen
tia
New Mexico
Afte
r Es
AsIs
Afte
r Pr
efe
rr
ed
M
l Mo
dific
atio
n
s
odi
fica
tion
s
s
atio
n
l Mo
dific
sen
tia
Afte
r Es
AsIs
Table 4 - FTS Post Modification
Analysis
Table 4 - FTS Post Modification
Analysis
New Mexico
MT/ID
USDA
Total Points:
2
14
23
5
16
19
5
15
20
System Points:
0
3
10
4
5
6
4
4
7
Elements Points:
2
11
13
1
11
13
1
11
13
580
720
740
600
720
600
Estimated Cost (not incl. maintenance:
$ 60,000
$ 72,000
$80,000 $110,000
$ 60,000
$ 78,000
$ 60,000
Total Estimated Costs for Essential &
Preferred Modifications
$130,000 - $140,000
$140,000 - $170,000
$138,000 - $150,000
Total Estimated Costs Including
Optional Modifications:
$135,000 - $160,000
$150,000 - $190,000
$145,000 - $170,000
18
Estimated Hours:
Conclusions of FTS Evaluation
• What existing FTS would work best “as-is”
for the WRAP’s FTS?
MT/ID FTS
– Currently functioning system
– Supports burn managers in Montana & Idaho
– Uses SQL Server database
• Meets the needs of the WRAP region
• Fully functional user interface
19
Conclusions of FTS Evaluation
• What existing FTS requires least amount of
modification to work well as WRAP FTS?
NM FTS
– Upgrading Access database to SQL Server, NM FTS would
be capable of meeting current & future WRAP needs
– Estimated 120 labor hours to complete upgrade
– Already supports limited emissions estimation (PM10)
– Generates maps of burn locations
– Unsupported features in existing MT/ID & USDA FTSs
– Estimated 140 labor hours to implement features in NM
FTS.
20
Conclusions of FTS Evaluation
• What is the best case scenario WRAP
FTS (most features & capabilities)?
Modified version of the MT/ID FTS
– Advantage because it already uses SQL
Server database.
– Advantage because the preferred interactive
GIS system is already being designed for the
MT/ID FTS
21
Conclusions of FTS Evaluation
• What are the benefits of building the
WRAP’ FETS from and existing FTS?
– Each FTS already incorporates many of the
essential features
– Two systems will include preferred GIS
– Time and money already spent: downpayment on building the WRAP’s FTS.
22
Conclusions of FTS Evaluation
• Is there an alternative way for the WRAP to
proceed with building the WRAP FTS?
Commodity-based FETS
– NM/FEJF specifications on super-industrial system
– Programming to make it look slick & contemporary
•
•
•
•
•
Make an existing “Commodity” FTS
Upgrade NM to be industrial strength database
Host on existing e-commerce site (e.g., Yahoo!)
Multi-users accommodated on a Web interface
Export events to Google Earth for review and regional
coordination
23
Benefits for WRAP of Developing
Commodity-based FETS
1. The limited dollars in future WRAP grants and the
effects on 2006-08 FEJF project funding
2. Lessons learned in the Fire EI preparation and
analysis for haze planning purposes over the past
several years
3. Plans to provide states and tribes ongoing regional
technical support and data access for their haze plans
4. The timing needs for getting the FEJF FTS on-line
and fully operational for states to be using for tracking
and regional coordination, as well as to point to in
24
their December 2007 haze SIPs.
Mechanical Description of
WRAP’s FETS
Mechanical Description of WRAP’s Fire Emissions Tracking System
Planned RX
Burn
Raw Data
Acquisition
Data Entry
& QC
Pre-Burn
Requested
Burn Data
Acquisition,
Data Entry &
Regional
Coordination
Burn
Decisions
Emission
Inventory
Development
& QC
Burn/Post-Burn
25
Mechanical Description of
WRAP’s FETS
need to mod/include pieces
Mechanical Description of WRAP's Fire Emissions T
Data Tag
FETS Function
Action
Who?
E(ntry of all
Planned Rx Burn Raw
Data Acquisition
Data collection &
submittal
(for WF, web crawler
for data acquisition)
Federal Land Managers (FLM);
private (timber) industry; state
forests; private land owners
Planned burning
Updates
Data Entry and QC
100% of data entry and
data manipulation
Smoke Management Program
(SMP) personnel
(State/Tribe/Local)
All submitted ev
updates
Requested Burn Data
Acquisition, Data Entry,
& Regional Coordination
Requested burns
"posted" for regional
coordination and
burn/no-burn decision
Burners request and SMP
assigns Data Tag
All can view requested burns
(Regional Coord)
Burn reque
Burn approval
SMP
All can view approved burns
(Regional Coord)
Approved b
Burn confirmation
SMP (with input from burners)
All can view accomplished burns
(SIP planning)
Pre Burn
planned burns)
L(ibrary of all
burns in FETS)
R(equested
Burn/Post Burn
burns)
G(go/no-go
…approved burns)
A(ccomplished
burns)
Burn Decisions
Emission Inventory
Development and QC
What?
Accomplished
26
Operable FETS
• Operable FETS will:
– Provide real-time access to planned fire event
data
– Build comprehensive database of all wildland
fire events
• Operable FETS will not:
– Provide air quality bases for ad hoc decisions
of ESMP
– Include a module to estimate the air quality
impacts due to emissions from fire events
27
Other Operations of the FETS
• Gather, compile, QC, query fire activity & emissions
data for wildland fires.
• Planned fire data added to FETS real-time or in
advance
• Data for unplanned events (wildfire) obtained after
event using crawls
• FETS database will require QA/QC, but minimal
“ground-up” data gathering
• Critical Challenge: SMP’s to optimize collection of
accurate data for planned fire events
28
Recommendations: Approach
• Commodity-based development of FETS
• FETS attached to WRAP’s TSS
• Advantages:
– FETS would be built to serve specific needs of
WRAP states & tribes
– Fire emission inventory work integrated into TSS
– ESMPs can then integrate fire data into regional
haze emissions, monitoring & modeling data
– Integrating FETS into TSS will support
development of regional haze SIPS
29
Preliminary Scope of Work
• Air Sciences
– Technical & developmental lead for FETS project
– ID other contractors possibly contributing to development
of FETS
– Work closely with Task Team assigned to project
– Bring development issues to Task Team for guidance
– Prepare periodic updates on project’s progress for FEJF
– Work closely with Technical Director of WRAP, CIRA
personnel involved in WRAP’s TSS & TSS team
• CIRA: provide technical & developmental
oversight for project; integrate FETS into
WRAP TSS
30
Tasks for FETS Project
1. Documentation
– Detailed Workplan
– Technical support (methods, assumptions, etc)
– FETS users guide
31
Tasks for FETS Project
2. FETS Software Development:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Database architecture
Data retrieval & input
User interface
Data QC & security
Database functionality
Queries & exports for real-time use of fire data &
reporting
Commodity-based mapping routines (Google Earth)
Data reporting
Data archiving & back-up
32
Tasks for FETS Project
3. FETS Technical Integration to TSS
–
–
–
Integrate fire emissions into emission summary
tools
Annual Emission Goal demonstration tool
Support Regional Haze SIP content pertaining to
fire emissions
4. FETS Support & Maintenance
–
–
–
–
QA/QC
Data archiving & retrieval
Data reports & export files for SIP and modeling
apps
System repair
33
Hours & Cost Estimate
• Assumptions for preliminary estimates:
– Average hourly rate for CIRA = $60/hour
– Subcontractor hours would replace Air
Sciences &/or CIRA hours
– Hardware (if necessary), software licensing (if
applicable), hosting costs: not included in
current cost estimate
– CIRA will charge $2,250 overhead fee (45%
of the first $25,000 of Air Sciences labor billed
through the subcontract.
34
Hours & Cost Estimate
• Project Development Cost:
– Air Sciences - $120,000 (labor)
– CIRA - $37,650 (labor + overhead)
• Annual Support/Maintenance Cost:
– Air Sciences - $20,000/year
35
Hours & Cost Breakdown
1. Documentation
•
•
Air Sciences – 250 hours/$30,000
CIRA – 40 hours/$2,400
2. FETS Software Development
•
•
Air Sciences - 750 hours/$75,000
CIRA– 160 hours/$9,600
3. FETS Technical Integration to TSS
•
•
Air Sciences - 120 hours/$15,000
CIRA– 240 hours/$14,400
4. FETS Support & Maintenance
•
Air Sciences - 200 hours/$20,000
36
Schedule – Major Milestones
• 07/15/06 – FEJF approval of approach
• 08/01/06 – Signed subcontract (Air Sci/CIRA)
& contract (CIRA/WGA)
• 08/15/06 – Draft Project Workplan
• 11/01/06 – Operational Test Version of FETS
• 01/01/07 – FETS Operational, Technical
Support Document & User’s Guide
• 03/01/07 – TSS Fire Tools Developed
37
Summary
• Recommend:
– Start with a nuts-and-bolts database structure of the
FETS (NM FTS)
– Build a commodity-based FETS
– FETS attached to WRAP’s TSS
• This will support development of regional haze SIPs
– Develop User’s Guide & Technical Support Documents
• Request for FEJF to reach consensus on
providing direction to FETS Task Team with regard
to developing the FETS.
38
39
Reference
40
Essential Components of
WRAP FTS
•
Minimum information required to
calculate emissions, assess impacts on
haze, meet requirements of Rule
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Date of Burn
Burn Location
Area of Burn
Fuel Type
Pre-Burn Fuel Loading
Type of Burn
Classification: “Natural” or “Anthropogenic”
41