Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Microsoft Access wikipedia , lookup
Entity–attribute–value model wikipedia , lookup
Concurrency control wikipedia , lookup
Extensible Storage Engine wikipedia , lookup
Open Database Connectivity wikipedia , lookup
Microsoft Jet Database Engine wikipedia , lookup
Relational model wikipedia , lookup
Functional Database Model wikipedia , lookup
Microsoft SQL Server wikipedia , lookup
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