FPU Technical Briefing

1. FPU Technical Briefing 3rd DRAFT User inputs and Calibration Fall 2011

2. Objectives: FPA Application Enhancements 2012 Assumptions and Limitations for IRS and LF: Identify Defaults Values for User Inputs Identify Common Issues/Trends with FPA Application 2012 Assumptions for Prevention, Fuels and Budget Options Information to be Included in the SWT Calibration Review

3. Enhancements to the FPA Application:

4. Enhancements to the FPA Application (cont.):

5. Enhancements to the FPA Application (cont.):

6. Enhancements to the FPA Application (cont.):

7. 2012Assumptions and Limitations for IRS and LF: • IRS and LF Model Assumptions: • Metric for calibration is distribution by fire size class (as identified by the Interagency Science Team) • Calibration metric is based on 10 years of historical fire occurrence data (1999-2008) • An observed mean, upper and lower confidence limit has been set at the 95% confidence level • The calibration efforts will strive to meet this 95% confidence range for the ESL size selected by the FPU • IRS Model Limitations: • If an ignition lands on a non-burnable fuel model the ignition will be assigned a burnable fuel model • Selection of the burnable fuel model is based on a proportional acreage by fuel model occurring within the FWA (ie: fuel model with the greatest amount of acreage has a greater probability of the ignition being assigned to it) • The model cannot handle typical burnout tactics • Current model design best supports a single burning period ignition and with minimal multiple ignitions • LF Model Limitations: • Large Fire is limited by map resolution and containers • LF only knows about ESLs from IRS and cannot/will not ignite fires in FWAs that are not included in the analysis, or that had no ESL fires • The smallest fires in LF are expected to be approximately 18 acres (248 acres for Alaska) due to resolution

8. Defaults Values for User Inputs:

9. Common Issues or Trends with FPA Application: .

10. Common Issues or Trends with FPA Application (cont.):

11. Common Issues or Trends with FPA Application (cont.):

12. Common Issues or Trends with FPA Application (cont.):

13. Common Issues or Trends with FPA Application (cont.):

14. 2012 Assumptions for Prevention, Fuels and Budget Options: • Prevention Option: • No changes for 2012 submission. May need to reevaluate what was entered last year, since this year .current is the optimal prevention organization. • Fuels Option: • FPA Fire Behavior fuel model layer was updated using a resample of the 2008 Landfire Refresh data • The re-sampling converted the original 30 meter Landfire data to 270 meters for FPA to facilitate faster computer processing • Fuel treatments may need adjustments if the fuel model identified in the 2010 submitted fuels treatments do not have appropriate amounts of acreage in the updated FPA Fire Behavior fuel model layer to meet the treatment parameters • Fuel treatment costs are to be held constant • Budget Options: • Cost are to be held constant • Assume federal resources to be held constant in each budget option (.Calibration, .Current, Plus 20% and Minus 20%) since cost is to be held constant • Cooperating resources should be held constant in the .Calibration, .Current, and Plus 20% budget options; however may vary in the Minus 20% option

15. Summary of SWT Calibration Reviews: • Information to be included in the initial briefing packet provided to the FPUs will include: • Calibration targets • Initial calibration results • Summary of user input values • Comments and/or changes to input values by SWT to meet calibration targets • Show example of SWT Briefing document