12.{7Cf

YIRESOOPE Accomplishments

l. I ncident C0111mond Systea: The oost significant change in el!lerg~>ncy organization in dt!cades.

A common systt!o for fire services.

Integrates urban and wildland forces .

loproves planning and multiple asencies, interface.

execution of eoergency actions involving part tcularly at the urban-wildland

An organhat tonal s tructure that :Is nationally applicable.

Has achieved rapid acceptance.

2. Fire Hodcltng: The first automated tool for predicting wildland tire potential.

Rapid , reliable , easy to communicate for planning purposes.

Has contributed to considerble acreage saved already.

Being ust!d daily (during fire season).

Has wide-ranging potential application in vegetative and land management planning .

3 . Mapping: A FIKESCOPE advance with national application.

The Urst common aapping process accept able t o amltiple fire services.

Tht! "Famt ly of tlaps" concept uses the same orthophoto base and s tmt lar processes to produce multi scale maps for aert al, ground, dispatching , t actical , strategical, and planning uses.

Superior in quality over present products .

Keduces s t orage, equipment needs.

Reduces updating and 110lntenance tiCle and staffing needs.

lias attracted users outside the fire services:

o Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Board

o Ventu ra County Planning Commission

,, ·'

o Ct~li(ornio Coao;tal Cor.:cisslon

lias provided uses vith a "model process" foJ; cooperat fng l(( th other users.

4. CD:!IMunfc.lt tons: Interim implementation has improved mul t !agency coordination capabilities.

Nicro,ave lntercoa systeo connects all major partner dispatch centers.

Frequency management plan makes oosi te comll!Unication between cooperating agencies possible.

Basic multI agency communication design to support ICS is now in " draft" stage.

o Has agency acceptance.

o Acceptable to Progra~ Office.

o Enumerates modules and costs .

5. the FIRESCOPE Partnership: Another pioneering effort wlth li tt le, o r no, precedence.

Four governmental levels .

No legal or financial mandate.

A 9-year, voluntary association t hat has provided the environment for the advances listed above.

2

r

.. _.,. ... ---- ... ------.--

·• \'

'' UHtT£0 STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST ~ORCST AND RANGE E X PERIMENT STATION rORt!~T ~IRE LABORATORY

4t$S CANYON CREsT DRIVE POST OFFIC£ BOX 5007 RIVCRStD£. CALIFORNIA t2$17

6520 February 1, 1980

I

I (!)

Enclosed is an estlmate of partner agency contributions to the }'lRESCOPE Program during Federal fiscal year 1980. It was prepared quickly, in response to a "rush" request , with a 2-day deadltne, from the U. S. Senate.

The figures in the est:lma te come from some fast work done by several members of the Opcrat1.ons Team, and from past records in the Progrrun Office .

The Senate request asked for an estimate of State and local agency contributions in relation to the Program budget, which is separate frQIIl the ftre management budget of the Pacific Southwest Region ("Forest Service, R-5"). For this reason, the significant amount of Forest Service fire n10ntes expended in support of FlRESCOPE are not included in the estimate.

A second paper, titled "FlRESCOPE" STAT.EHENT, dated January 1, 1980, is also enclosed. This was prepared and submitted to l~ashington to an effort t o clarlfy previous arrangements and agreements perttnent to the ""atching funds" question .

Sincerely,

~lRWUI Progr11111 •lanager

Enclosures

' •

.. •. J anuary 10, 1980

Estimated Contributions to FIRESCOPE

by

State and Local Agencies .. ..

1 . l NTROJ>UCTION

This paper summarizes the actions required to implement FIRESCOPE. It chows how Federal funds ui.ll be allocated according to an antici­pated $2.4 million budget, and it lists estimates of the contributions that will be made to Program implementation by State and local agencies in 1980.

II. PROG~I }!ANACEMENT

These arc administrative costs . Precedent indicates that they arc not subject to "matching funds" requirements from cooperators.

Region and \~ashington Office "overhead" Program Office staffing, travel , etc. Regional Office Computer Nanager Planning a.nd integration contract

III . RESEARCH DESIGN VALIDATION

$l't4,000 185,000

'•0 ,000 75,000

.,

The Research design for FIRESCOPE provided only performance standards . Before any clement in the design can be considered complete , or ready for application, several tasks must be performed: (1) detailed technical specifications must be prepared, (2) each element munt be developed or procured and tested in a prototype configuration, and (3) if specifications are not met , revisions and/or modifications must be made.

This work is the responsibility of the Program Office. If it is not pcrforme<l properly, then there is no product to b•plcment. :t'he follo1ri.ng Program clements are in· the category of design validation and should not require matching funds .

I nfrared tel emetry design and testing Automated weather station acquisition, testing, and integration vith l ocal wind model Computer system configuration and programming Data bnse definition Communication van design Coordination Center design

$170,000

150,000 343, 000 30,000 50,000 50 ,000

$793,000

.•

- ... __.,._ .. __

.. .. .. 2

IV. DEVELOP~!ENT

After initial validation, Program elements are ready for field one\ operntional testing. State and local agencies arc actively sliaring in this phase to cain actual experience llith the operation, integrntion, and application of the following elements:

' . ..

Program Funds State & Local

)ticrowave intercom Computer applications Mapping Decision Teams & specialist groups Internal support staffs Data base collection

V. UIPLU!ENTATION

$ 40,000 (incl. in III)

115,000

105,000 -0-

185,000 $445,000

$ 40,000 150, 000 10,000

uo,ooo 50,000 85,000

$71o5,000

. .. : .. ~. . _:..

Those clements that prove effective during the Development phase arc implemented by the fire services . The following implc.mentation efforts nrc being carried out by State and local agencies, with Program (Federal) assistance, as shown:

' Program Funds .. . .

Training $200 , 000 Coordination Center operation and maintenance Special equipment

-0-

o Purchase o Operation &

Facilities value

_300,000 maintenance 50,000

-0-State Board of Fire Services and State Fire Training personnel Extension to other fire services Contributions to fire suppression Communications hard«are llcquisition

· -0--0--o-

160,000 $710,000

VI. SIDI:iARY

Program Phase

}lanagcment Design Validation Development Implementation

TOTALS

Program Funds

($444,000)* ( 793,000)**

445, 000 '710,000

$2, 392, 000

*Not subject to "matching" requirement. **Should not be subject to "matching" requirement.

State & Local

$350,000

150, 000

~o-

5o,ooo 25, 000

35,000 20,000

300,000

160,000 $1,090,000

State & Local Contributions

-0--o-

$745, 000 1 ,090,000

$1,835,000

. .

•• ... -· ... .. . - ··--·•-···- -·u'-"~"'···_.... ~.--:··==·~· :::::::::::::=~::::'"':':::::"1 --·· --- ···-

.. .. . .

January 1, 1980

"FIRESCOP£" STATEHENT

As a result of the fire disaster in Southern California in 1970, Congress .-.

.· charged the Forest Service \dth the design, development , and implementa­tion of a system that would increase the effectiveness of Southern California fire services. The resulting system, kno1ro as FIRESCOPE, requires $16.2 mil~ion of high technology and capital. investment ' to reach initial implementation.

. . Since 1976, the Forest Service has had agreements with the State, County, and other local fire service agencies that the Federal Government would provide · the technology and capital investment for this system. As their share, the cooperating agencies were to operate and maintain the co~ponents of the system as they are implem~nted. . .

They have fulfilled their part of the -agreement. To date, they have spent about $4 million in staffing, equipment, and facilities to support the program. Their annual share uill increase in future years while the Federal Government continues its design and development effort. As the FIRESCOPE System is implemented, the annual Federal Government share will .decrease ~hile the State and local operations costs will increase. Tite

· cooperators will spend about $800,000 annually to operate and maintain FIRESCOPE after it is fully implemented. Over a 20-year period , the .cooper~tors wi~~ .~pend more money than the Federal Government .

•,

DECISION PROCESS

Revised as directed

Calls for recording votes

Ready for Board signatures

IMPORTANT DECISION TOPIC

The "FIRESCOPE Decision Te ... s and Specialist Croup Charters" has been revised according to Board direction.

The Operattons Teelll recommends Board approval of the new process, which includes provision for the Board to record votes on development issues, and to slgn agreements Cor implementation actions.

A briefing to cxplai.n the nev process will be presented. The four following pages match the briefing chart.

The new process will be handed out . If approved, the new signature page will be available for signing.

PHASE 1 PROCRAM MANAGEMENT

"These are the plans... Here's vbat needs to be done. "

Established by Charter, funded by Forest Service, guided by the FIRESCOPE Decision Process.

Administrative and political in character:

Planning, contracting Management of Decision Process Budgets Meetings, briefings Internal Forest Service processes Consolidate t.nformation and feedback into productive actions

Long-term, multiyear in time perspective.

Examples:

Annual budgets, revisions , and accompl i shment reporting Boord, Operations Team, Task Force, Work Croup meetings Computer justiflcatton and acquisition "Matching funds" Urban fire-spread models

Effectiveness is in dtrect relationship to the t imeliness and validity of information received.

2

PHASE 2 RESEARCH VALIDATION

''This has to be proven." ''This 1s ready for trial."

Elements established by research Design, selected by Board to be implemented. Validation funded by Forest Service.

Technical and "scient1flc" in character:

Test and assure the baste performance of technical products Move toward design goals Involves technical contracting (sometimes) Tries prototypes Involves revisions, modifications

Long-term time perspective .

Examples:

IR telemetry design (2 years) Weather stations (3 years) Data bases (3 years) Coordinat ton Center locatlon and design (5 years)

Effectiveness is influenced by funding , planning, and feedback.

3

PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT

"We will try it." (or) ''We will try it, if ... "

Elecents ready for trial are accepted through the Decision Process and funded primarily by the Forest Service, with some agency contributions.

Technical , poli t ical , and organiza t ional in character :

Field trials of technologies and procedures Requires agency participation and effor t Evaluations may lead to changes , redesign Requires change in t raditional operations

One to three years to activate and evaluate.

Examples:

Microwave intercom Coordination Center procedures Computer applications

Effectiveness influenced by strength and clarity of agreements, effort expended, quality of analyses and evaluations.

4

PitAS£ 4 UIPLDtENTATION

"We w111 use it . It is oun."

Elements are adopted by agencies as a part of their standard operating pro­cedures. May have 11111ted Program support.

Organtzatlonal 1n character, vith technical and polttical involvements:

Activation of "proven" elements Operation and maintenance costs borne by agencies Integration into agency operations

Ongoing after adoptlon.

Examples:

Tra1.n1.ng lCS adoption Coordination Cooter operations

Requires (almost) complete agreement and commitment to be effective.

5

HULTIAGENCY COORDINATION SYSTEM (HACS)

Review Board goals (as modified)

Review summary of "September Fire Analysis"

Review HACS functions and operational requirements

Review FIMS hardware/software configurations

Reach decision on HACS/Fli!S designs

IMPORTANT DECISION TOPIC

General HACS goals and functions were agreed to by the Board in August 1979 . The Operations Team has clarified wording in the August direction, and the Program Office has designed hardware configurations to meet the goals. The September fire experience and subsequent analysis showed the strength of the system concept and suggested several areas for improvement.

A briefing will be presented to cover the "review" topics listed above .

The Board will be asked to:

Approve the HACS goals as modified .

Approve the generalized list of work to be done .

Accept the hardware/software plan for the Fire Information Manage­ment System (FIMS) .

Reference papers for each "review" item follow this page.

MACS DIRECTION FROM THE FIRESCOPE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

On August 1 , 1979, the Board generally agreed on a set of goals, functions, and operational requirements fo r t he FIRESCOPE Hul tiagency Coordination System (HACS) .

On August 9 and 10 , and again on November 27, 1979 , the Operations Team revie'-'ed the Board ' s direction. After t he September fires and the ensuing evaluation of the period, the Operations Team has agreed that the Board's directions can be achieved, '-'ith only minor '-'Ording and semantics changes .

Shown below are the Board ' s original directions ..t t h Operations Team modifi­cations. Original wording which has been deleted is shown thusly : 0061.'& d~e&. Operations Team modifications are underlined:

1. Design goals

a. Pr ovide fo r t he t imely _._i_"~ r equest .,!!E!! vol untary assign­ment of adequate available resources to all incidents which exceed the capability of any single agency .

b . Efficiently allocate multiagency resources on a FIRESCOPE r egional basis .

2 . System goals

a . Establish a n "all- risk", 24- hour coor dination system .

b . Establish "one- stop- shopping" (This rlll require evolutionary ~!utual Aid Agreement.)

for all resource assis t ance . changes in the Statewide Master

c . Obtain closest available appropriate resources .

d . Hultiagency resources , dispatched with the approval of the involved agencies, are to be allocated according to the MACS priority-setting process.

e . Devel op efficient agency cooperation.

f . Centralize fire behavior predictions and situation information.

g . Anticipate incident needs for sing l e major incidents as well as for multiple occurrences .

3 . Hultiagency Coor dination System (MACS) functions l£ be carried out by assigned agency staff and management personnel .

a . Maintain current selected regional resource and situation status information.

b. Evaluate the potential and resource needs for major incidents .

c. S~l-Mit pl"t&t'~8 *'"' r-e~t&ttree elleett~ft *" lllttt~i!He ~4-&eft~ "'"'tota~ft!t.

Determine ll mul tiagency group, those incidents which portend ~ most serious potential costs and losses. Designate priorities .!!!!. incidents and allocate available resources to meet regional needs.

d. Determine most appropriate source fer of resources to fill e~ey requests for assistance .

e . Request resources on behalf of agencies, and carry out all operations~ procedures, in accordance with appropriate legal authorities and agreements.

4. MACS design will provide for:

a. A comprehensive geographic data base (including vegetation and cultural features) .

b. Current regional information on weather, resource use, fire, and other incident activity.

c . Prediction of fire behavior and probable resource needs for incidents .

d. Dynamic evaluation of multiple incident situations for setting resource allocation priorities.

5. Basic operational requirements

a . Integration of 9&&, GPF, ene \1 .&.1'. &. reto!::&tlat ree&ttl'eett ;i;e a HAGS local, State, and Forest Service resource coordination systems for the FIRESCOPE region within MACS.

b. MACS design will include OES areas .

c. Current reporting of selected status and situation information to MACS by agencies.

d. All urban department requests for assistanee ..2!!. incidents .!!!!.! involving State-interest £!_ Forest Serviee lands, or beyond loeal ~lutual Aid, will be made to MACS through retttler e~p~eMttt existing Statewide Fire and Kaster Mutual Aid proeedures.

e. OES Regions 1 and 6 are to maintain their identity and functions.

2

THE SEPTEMBER FIRE ANALYSIS

After the September 1979 fires, the FIR.ESCOPE Program Office distributed 320 questionnaires to persons lotto had been involved in various phases of the emergency.

The questionnaires asked over 100 questions about four specific activities:

1. Effectiveness of tbe Incident Command System (ICS) on those inci­dents loft ere it was utiliz:ed.

2. The perfo1111ance and effectiveness of the foklltiagency Coordination System (HACS) as it was applied over the 11- day period.

3. The internal and procedural effectiveness of the Operations Coordi­nation Center (OCC) in Riverside.

4. Interface activities between ICS, HACS, OCC, and individual agency dispatch operations.

Response to the questionnaires exceeded 50 percent . were overwhelmingly positive in tone, and helpful in all four categories of inquiry.

Those responses returned defining problem areas in

The most serious deficiency noted was a lack of training . This deficiency occurred in all facets of the Septenber experience, and was mentioned in almost all of the responses .

The FIRESCOPE Task Force and Operations Team have analyzed all responses and developed action plans to resolve all deficiencies. Host actions can and will be completed below the Board of Director's level over the next 12-16 months. Several policy recommendations will be forwarded to the Board during 1980. The training deficiencies will require several years to overcome.

A few successes deserve "special mention" here:

The ICS concept sod general performance received high praise and support.

In broad terms, each of the MACS goals established by the Board in August 1979 were met in September .

The OCC did perfono its designed function of regional coordination.

The combined efforts of the fire services attracted national atten­tion. The particularly high level of coordination, supported by timely information aod communications, made a favorable impression on local and national observers.

The full set of questions, responses, analyses, problems, and action plans have been provided to each Operations Team member .

ROBERT L. IRWIN Program Hanager

3

~~-~~=~~ ----~--------------

I I

I

DESIGN GOALS

PROVIDE RESOURCES

TO MEET ALL REQUIRED INCIDENT

NEEDS

-

ALLOCATE RESOURCES

ON REGIONAL BASIS

.

MACS DESIGN GOALS

SEPTEMBER SITUATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

• FAIR IN MODES • FIMS IMPLEMENTATION

3 & 4

• IMPROVE INFORMATION

COLLECTION AND

PROCESSING

• IMPROVE OCC/GHO DISPLAYS

• FAIR TO GOOD • MODE 4 AGENCY

FOR AIRTANKERS GHO COMMITMENT

• POOR FOR • FIMS

OTHER RESOURCES

• ESTABLISH CRITERIA

FOR PRIORITIES

MACS SYSTEM GOALS SYSTEM GOALS SEPTEMBER '79 SITUATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

ESTABLISH ALL RISK 24 HOUR • PERFORMED IN MODES 3 & 4 • AGENCY COMMITMENT TO COORDINATION SYSTEM • POINTED UP NECESSITY FOR SUPPORT ALL RISK MACS

24 HOUR OPERATION

ESTABLISH ONE STOP SHOPPING • NOT DONE • CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPT FOR ALL RESOURCES NEEDS • CONCEPT NOT UNDERSTOOD • PROCEDURES • LACK OF PROCEDURES

• DIFFERENT STROKES FOR • COMMITMENT

DIFFERENT FOLKS

OBTAIN CLOSEST • GOOD FOR AIRTANKERS & CREWS • FIMS WILL PROVIDE VEHICLE AVAILABLE RESOURCES

• SOLID ATTEMPT MADE • MUST HAVE COMMITMENT

I ALLOCATE RESOURCES ON • FAIR IN MODE 3 • FIMS REGIONAL PRIORITIES •• FAIR TO GOOD IN MODE 4 • IMPROVED INFORMATION BASE

• GOOD FIRST STEP FOR PRIORITY DECISIONS

• IMPROVED GHQ DISPLAY CAPABILITY

DEVELOP EFFICIENT • MUCH IMPROVED INTER AGENCY • FIMS AGENCY COOPERATION LIAISON AT BOTH ICS AND MACS • INTERCOM

LEVELS • TRAINING • AGENCY DISPATCH TO SITSTAT • COMMITMENT TO FOLLOW

ONLY FAIR THROUGH

CENTRALIZE FIRE BEHAVIOR • MIXED RESULTS • IMPROVED IR SYSTEMS PREDICTIONS AND SITUATION • LACK OF TRAINING • MET NETWORK INFORMATION • LACK OF GOOD INPUT DATA • FIMS .

• TRAINING

ANTICIPATE • MOST ACTIONS REACTIVE • FIMS INCIDENT • IMPROVED DATA BASE NEEDS PROCEDURES TO ALLOW FOR

• ANTICIPATORY ACTIONS

e MACS NS MACS FUNCTIONS SEPTEMBER SITUATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

MAINTAIN STATUS • FAIR • FIRST INSTALLMENT OF FIMS INFORMATION • DIFFICULT JOB COLLECTING WILL HELP

INFORMATION • ELECTRONIC MAIL

• INTERCOM • IMPROVED INCIDENT STATUS

SUMMARY

EVALUATE MAJOR • POOR • FIMS INCIDENT RESOURCE NEEDS • LACK OF COMMUNICATION • ELECTRONIC MAIL

LINKS TO INCIDENTS • IMPROVED INCIDENT

• AGENCIES NOT FAMILIAR COMMUNICATIONS TO AGENCIES WITH PROCEDURES AND OCC

ESTABLISH RESOURCE • FAIR TO GOOD FOR • MORE TIMELY INFORMATION

ALLOCATION PniOniTII:S AIRTANKERS & CREWS • IMrnOVI:D OCC GIIO OISrLAVS

• POOR FOR OTHER RESOURCES DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION

DETERMINE BEST SOURCES • GOOD FOR AIRTANKERS • FIMS

FOR RESOURCES FAIR FOR CREWS • AGENCY TERMINALS - I • • AGREEMENT ON USE !

• POOR FOR ENGINES PROCEDURES "AVAILABLE" I I

• COMMITMENT I

REQUEST RESOURCES ON • POOR • PROCEDURES/AGREEMENTS BEHALF OF AGENCIES ON RESOURCE USE

• LACK OF UNDERSTANDING

• FEAR OF "TAKEOVER"

MULTI-AGENCY COORDI NATION SYSTEM

GOALS AND FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS ON SEPTEMBER INCIDENTS

BACKGROUND

The FIRESCOPE Research Design effort provided a description of functions , organization and

configuration for the MACS System and the Operations Coordination Center. The Board of

Directors were asked in July 1979 to provide some guidance to TASK Force design efforts on

MACS in the area of Coordination, Reimbursement, and Qualifications and Certification. This

paper applies to the issue of Coordination. As guidance to the TASK Force , the Board

developed MACS Design Goals, System Goals, Functions and requirements.

The Operations Team meeting in August of 1979 provided additional guidance in the form of

clarification and definition of certain terminology as applied to the issue of Coordination.

In September, a number of multi-agency incidents occurred over a two-week period which

caused the interim MACS procedures (FP 210-2) to be tested. During September the MACS was

placed in a Mode 4 condition !or the first time, and extensive multi-agency coordination

efforts took place.

In October , questionnaires were distributed to all of those involved in the HACS/OCC and GHQ

operation. The Operations Team and TASK Force have analyzed the results of that survey.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the adequacy of existing ~lACS procedures in the

light of the September incidents and The Boards' statements on Goals and Functions.

I

I

DESIGN GOALS

A. Provide for the timely request

and voluntary assignment of

adequate, available resources

to all incidents which exceed

the capability of any single

agency.

B. Efficiently allocate multi­

agency resources on a

regional basis.

SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER FIRE ANALYSIS

Partially accomplished as result of

improvised procedures involving agency

representatives at CCC. Lack of

timely and complete information on

resources and situation hampered

effectiveness to meet this 11081. Apency

understanding and adherence to exist­

ing procedures (FP 210-2) was poor.

Accomplished for airtankers and to

certain extent crews-again as function

of bringing agency staff representation

to CCC under Mode 4 conditions. Not

adequately met under Mode 3 or for

other kinds of resources due to lack

of timely resources data , and agency

understanding .

There is nothing wrong with the goals. The underlying information gathering and processing

system existed only on paper and in a manual form. There was a lack of understanding of the

existing procedures, which coupled with apparent lack of committment to input to the system,

caused a breakdown in obtaining necessary information to make the system function.

SYSTEM GOALS

A. Establish an "all risk" 24-hour

Coordination System.

B. Establish one-stop shopping for

all resource assistance.

C. Obtain closest available

appropriate resources.

D. Multi-agency resources are to

be allocated according to

regional priorities.

SEPTEMBER FIRE ANALYSIS

September fire situation pointed out

necessity of having 24-hour coverage

of all functions both for operational

needs and viability.

Existing procedures were used during

September situation which resulted

in different methods used depending

upon the kind of resource involved

and agencies involved (Federal, State,

local).

Solid attempt was made to achieve this

goal. Hindered primarily by lack of

good resource information on

"availability" and location.

Mode 4 operations pointed out the

desirability of having an OCC "GHQ"

type operation with face to face

contact and one "big picture." The

respondents in the analysis were

unanimous on this. Mode 3 utilized

command con!erence calls which accom­

plished the goal for the level.

(See discussion under Function.)

I I t

i

SYSTEM GOALS

E. Develop efficient agency cooperation.

F. Centralize fire behavior

predictions and situation

information .

G. Anticipate incident needs (for

single major incidents as well

as for multiple occurrences) .

SEPTEMBER FIRE ANALYSIS

As a result of September fire

situation multi-agency cooperation

has markedly increased both at lCS

and MACS levels. In t er-agency liaison

cooperation at OCC was considered

excellent.

Fire predictions were done at

selected ICS locations as well as OCC

with limited and mixed results due to

lack of training and good input data.

Obtaining current situation information

at OCC was difficult throughout period .

(See discussion under Function.)

Operations in September were primarily

reactive. The MACS was not able to

anticipate needs due to lack of

incident reports and timely situation

information.

l

~lACS FUNCTION

A. Maintain current

selected regional

resource and

situation status

information.

!lOW WELL PERFORMED IN SEPTEMBER

Great difficulty in collecting

viable information from

agencies. Resource Inventory

reports; Initial Incident

reports; and Incident Status

reports (per FP 210-2) were

not made in a timely manner -

therefore data base of

information at OCC was

incomplete.

Agency dispatch personnel

could or would not keep up

with information input -- as

the situation became worse, so

did the information. In Mode 4,

having agency representatives

at DCC opened communications

to agency dispatchers.

Internal DCC telephone system

not adequate or configured

correctly to support operations.

WHAT'S NEEDED

Computer ins tallation and

terminals at major agency

dispatch centers and other

locations will provide an

improved mea ns for keeping

data base information current.

The problem of manning the

terminals -- expecially in

Mode 3 & 4 -- will continue and

will result in incomplete

information, until agencies

provide adequate personnel

support to this operation . The

use of the region intercom

network could assist -

particularly in the reporting

of initial incident reports.

Better understanding of what's

required, how it's used; how it

ultimately improves every

agency's potential is essential .

Agency committment to follow

procedures and training is

required.

MACS FUNCTION

B. Evaluate the

potential and the

resource needs for

major incidents.

HOW WELL PERFORMED IN SEPTEMBER

Evaluating incident potential in

Modes 2 & 3 on information found

in established reports (FP 210-2)

was impossible as information

simply was not being provided in

a timely manner . Under Mode 4

when agency liaison representa­

tives were housed within the OCC,

it was possible to establish

reasonably good information

transfer ties between OCC and

agencies which then allowed for

updating incident reports.

Evaluating resource needs was

largely a function of reacting

to agency requests coupled with

staff assessment of need criti­

cality. This process was

enhanced by once a day staff

overflys which at least provided

the same picture of incident

potential to all.

OCC displays, while improved

somewhat over previous years,

are still not adequate to allow

rapid determination of potential

and priority.

WHAT'S NEEDED

Obviously having up to date

information on current resource

inventorie s as well as incident

status reports would signifi­

cantly improve the ability to

evaluate incident potential .

Compliance with manual imput

procedures would help. Use of

electronic mail capability should

ease load of inputting Incident

Status Summaries . No system will

work however without committed

agency participation.

An improved incident summary

and display system within OCC

is required.

I I

MACS FUNCTION

C. Establish priorities

for available

resource allocation

in multiple incident

situations .

HOW WELL PERFORMED IN SEPTEMBER

This function seemed to work

for the resource categories of

airtankers and crews.

Criteria for establishing

priorities were developed and

used satisfactorily.

The combination of agency

reports to their liaison

representatives; MACS staff

overflights; and inter-agency

telephone communications

provided sufficient information

in most cases for the GHQ staff

to make appropriate decisions

on priorities.

Establishing priorities for use

of engines might well have caused

greater difficulties due to lack

of information .

WHAT'S NEEDED

Better information on resource

and situation status in a more

timely manner; and presented

in composite displays; where

all relevant information

pertaining to a given incident

could be presented in a standard

and visual format.

' I

. . .

HACS FUNCTION

D. Determine most

appropriate source

for resources to fill

agency requests for

assistance.

HOW WELL PERFORMED IN SEPTEMBER

Determining best source for

airtankers worked well -

probably largely due to joint

FS/CDF coordination. Some

concern about having to go out

of FIRESCOPE region for

personnel and some kinds of

resources when probably

Incidents may have bad excess

which could be reassigned.

Due to lack of information

OCC was not able to make

"good" decisions on Engine

Strike Team reassignments.

WHAT'S NEEDED

The information gathering and

processing capability for all

MACS needs to be developed to

start this function.

The use of agency terminals for

electronic transmission of

information now telecopied, and

resource updates will be s step

in the right direction.

Agreement on specific procedures

to be followed; followed by

agency committment to putting

procedures into effect, followed

by training is essential.

. . .

MACS FUNCTION

E. Request resources

on behalf of agencies

in accordance with

appropriate legal

authorities and

agreements.

e ROW WELL PERFORMED IN SEPTEMBER

Considering the variety of

agreements in effect which cover

Federal and Sta t e interest ,

master mutual aid and local

agreements -- requests once made

seemed to get handled . Biggest

problem seemed to be lack of

understanding on the part of

OCC as well as agency dispatch

personnel of the various

agreements.

Significant concern was

expressed over lack of

communications systems upon

which to process information

and r eques t s .

Not all agencies p r ov i ded OCC

liaison (GRQ) person nel with

appropriate auth ority which

caused some variation and

time delays in making

priority decisions .

WHAT'S NEEDED

If MACS is to function within

the existing framework of legal

authorities -- yet serve all the

agencies -- then the different

agreements regarding use of

Federal and State resources (all

kinds) need to be made clear to

all participating agencies .

Improved telephonic as well as

electronic communications are

essential to proper functioning

of the sys t em.

Existing procedures call fo r

establishment of GHQ under

Mode 4 with personnel having

authority to commit agency.

Procedure needs to be followed .

The FlRESCOPE Progr8111 Office vUl provide the agency dispatch offices vith coaputer terminals that vlll allov the dispatchers or some other designated person to communicate over standard phone ltnes to the FIRESCOP£ c0111puter located in the OCC in Riverside, California.

Training in the use of the terminals and the programs stored in the c0111puter vill be conducted by the Progr am Office and vill require about four (4) hours of time for each person the agency vishea to have trained .

The agency vUl need to provide suitable space for the terminal (about that needed for an electric typewriter), standard 110 pover outlet, and a desk-type phone . It should also be noted that all phone charges to Riverside are the responsibility of the agency.

It is recognized that the FtRESCOPE cauputer system is now geared ~re to wildland fires than urban. However, several of the existing products are equally applicable to urban incidents.

A. Resource status keeping for use on urban and vildland incidents.

B. Special inventory of scarce resources and/or supplies, i.e ., foam, chem ., special medical facility, e tc.

C. Electronic mall.

D. Disaster evacuation routes .

E. Weather system (wind models) for smog and fallout perditions .

As the FlRESCOPE system progresses, other models will be developed to further assist urban agencies.

The following is a list of products that wtll be available to southern California Fire Services through the FIRESCOPE minicomputer . The dates li.sted are our best estimate as to their availability via computer terminal .

Resource Status (6/80)

The resource status (RESTAT) function will maintain current information on the type, location , and availability of resources assigned to incidents. The level of de taU , and timeliness, of the status information maint ained at the incident, OCC , and agency dispatch offices wUl differ, in recognition of the differing information requirements . Forest and CDF Ranger Unit Dispatchers, FIRESCOPE Partner agencies , and OES Area Coordinators will all be ab l e to retrieve information from this program that will show t he following :

NI.Jllber and location of serious incidents in progress in southern California, including size , type, and expected control t imes.

Primary suppression resources assigned to each incident , by type .

Agency or OES Area from which the resources have been assigned.

Agency dispatchers and Area Coordinators will have the responsibility for keeping the RESTAT information up to date by reporting data on incidents under their jurisdiction and resources they dispatch. Incident identification data will include Fire Name, Report Time , Incident Commander, Initial Attack Forces, additional resources assigned, and expected containnent and control times . Resour ce dispatch data includes Resource Identification, Order and Request Numbers, Strike Team Leader Name, and ETA's .

Electronic Nail (6/80)

A computer-assisted message system to transmit and receive letters, forms, and other types of correspondence rapidly .

This product wtl l only require user to input data once . It can be sent to several locations at the same time. It should replace the existing FAX systeo1 .

FlREl!OD (6/80)

This is the same program that has been used on the G. E. Timeshare system . I t will provide a rapid (5-7 minutes) indication of a wildland fire ' s general potential . It can cove r time periods of up to 6 hours.

The use of this model will require users t o input the fol lowing data:

1. Type of fuel (grass, chamise, or brush)

2. Slope (in percent)

3 . Age of fuel

2

4. Fine fuel moisture

5. Windspeed

6. tlonth and day

Agency dispatchers and Area Coordinators will receive an output that shows the predicted (I) forward rate of spread, (2) lateral rate of spread, (3) perim­eter, (4) acres burned per hour, (5) flame height , and (6) intensity for fires they provide the input for.

Initial Attack Assessment (6/81)

Rapid estU.ation of early wildland fire behavior and assessment of probability for the actual initial attack forces to contain and/or control that fire is provided by the Initial Attack Assessment Hodel . This computer program would be accessed by Agency dispatchers and Area Coordinators on a real-time basis via a terminal in thelr dispatch office . Estil:>ated time from initiating data entry to ccnpletion of program output is less t han 5 clinutes. Dispatch and command personnel arc providl!d w1.th a nearly instantaneous estU.ate of both the fire's potenttal and a probabtli ty estimate of the initial at tack forces' ability to achieve containnent and control. Unacceptably low estimates of success probabU tty can be r esponded to by dispa tch of reinforcements even before the initial forces srrlve at the fire .

Agencies will be required to keep the data bases updated and inform the OCC of changes in fuels, resources , and road network . This is an annual task, requir­ing several days of 1nvestigat1.on and reporting .

Flre Behavior Assessment (6/83)

The Fire Behavior Assessment tlodel provides fire perU.eter forecasts for specified time intervals. The model calculates free-burning perimeters which can be coupled with line loss models to obtain the expected fire location. The planning, design, and rellability assessment of fire control 1 ines as related to a particular fire constitutes the major output of the fire behavior and line loss models.

This model will also give line production, pe r sonnel fatigue, line reliabil­ity, line completion, alopover, and branding.

This model uses the same data as required for IAA.

~!e teorology Assessment (6/81)

The meteorology model will provide ~~ather data in t he same format that fire services are now receiving it . ln additton, there will be a wind model to predict wind convection in s~cific locations.

This model will only require the user to input the locatton where the weather data is needed .

3

Incident Resource Status (6/81 - 6/82)

At the individual incident, the status keeping information will be maintained on all resource increments assigned to the incident, both by individual ele­ments and in summary form. For individual resource elements, the information will include :

• Identifier

• Type

• Current s t atus ("acttve, 11 11available. 11 or "out-of-service")

• Current location (division or unit assignment; or name of camp staging area, etc ., or "en route"--with ETA)

• Other pertinent performance factors

This greater level of detail will require inputs from the incident itself, in addition to the agency inputs . The incident will be inputting the order and request numbers, needed resource types and quantities, and date and time needed . When the orders are filled and the resources arrive, the check-in times and shift and unit assignments will be input . Later, when the resources are released, date, time and destinations will be input . Thus, each movement of the resource will be recorded and tracked.

This same information will be avaiiable to agency dispatchers and OES Area Coordinators.

The OCC RESTAT function relies upon the agencies to mai.ntatn status of their own individual resources, at least during "routine" activities. In general, the OCC is concerned with levels of activity within each agency and thus, by implication , having an awareness of potential regional resource availability should a major incident occur. Exceptions to this will be certain "scarce" specialized resources, such as fire retardant air tankers, helicopters , and key crews, which are available to other agencies for emergency use. Also, during major emergencies, as resource commitment by agencies beccrnes heavy, the OCC will maintain closer track of numbers of uncommitted resources of all types, as well as resources assigned to each emergency .

4

OPERATIONS COORDINATION CENTER

Review situation

Rev lew alternatives

Reach decision

CRITICAL DECISION TOPIC

This subject has never been resolved, snd time is running out .

The Board faces the alternatives of:

1. Haklog a "go-ahead" declston on a permanent OCC now, and having the Program Office fund and manage its construction,

or,

2 . Plan, fund, and manage any future construction through State and/or local effort.

The Operations Team has studied various alternatives ·and recommends a " go­ahead" decision, provided that the site 1.s located on, or in close proxlmity to, the exist lng, inter lm facU tty.

A brleflng will be prt!scnted to show time and funding constraints, alter­natives studied, and the recommended solution .

Related docucents follow thls page .

GENERAL STATEMENTS

ABOUT THE OPERATIONS COORDINATION CENTER FACILITY

1. The OCC facility is a portion of the Multiagency Coordination System that supplies information to agency decision makers to assist them in resource coordination and incident management. No agency-impacting decisions are made by personnel performing OCC tasks .

2 . The OCC is planned to provide information to the fire services on an all­risk, full-time, yearlong basis. This information system is not yet fully designed and may be manually, or electronically configured .

3. Agency decision makers, using OCC-supplied information to do resource allocations, etc . , via the conference call system or the MACS GHQ system, should be considered as part of the Hultiagency Coordination System and not part of the OCC. The OCC should serve as the location for 11ACS-GHQ meetings.

4. The present OCC facility houses three (3) agency dispatch functions (USFS, CDF, OES Region 6), and the FIRESCOPE Operations Coordination Center. Daily OCC tasks are presently performed by USFS and CDF dispatch personnel. While performing dispatching tasks, personnel are accountable to their respective agency chiefs. While performing OCC tasks, personnel are accountable to the FIRESCOPE Board of Directors through the OCC Support/Services ~lanager.

5. The present (interim) OCC building may not meet the needs for future gro~th, i.e., additional computers, office space, storage, etc.

6. The Department of Forestry cannot financially supply support personnel to perform OCC tasks to the extent it does presently, if the OCC is moved from its present location.

7. The USt'S has rai.sed the possibility of collocating the FlRESCOPE OCC ~ th a "Regional Fire tisnagement Center" to consist of dispatch warehouse air operation facilities, and possibly prevention and fuel management activi­ties .

8 . The CDF and USFS have expressed a strong desire to continue the colloca­tion of the USFS South Zone and CDF Region VI dispatching operation.

9 . Lead time requirements and planning constraints ~ill not allow the FIRE­SCOPE Program Office to canplete the construction of an OCC facility unless a decision as to final site location has been made by June 1, 1980.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (#2)

Functional Perfonnnnce

An information gathering and processing facility with space allotted for other HACS functions, i.e ., Document Control, GHQ, etc .

Possible Locations

At or ad;acent to, or within a proximity reasonable and acceptable to the COP, of the present interim OCC facility site, CDF Region VI, Riverside.

Program ll:lpacts

Pros

Cons

1. A&E prospectus can be issued by June 1, 1980 deadline .

2. Facility should be fully operational by 1985.

3. Would require compl1ance with State and/or Federal acquisition and construction procedures .

1. Provldes advantages of collocated agency support personnel.

2. Time and cost probl""'s associated with land acquisition are cl tmi­natcd.

3. Declsion process is completed with the selection of this alterna­tive.

1. Hay limit political support for construction funds.

2. Limits the possibility of a "Regional Fire Management Center."

2

e

SELECTION ALTERNATIVE #1

Functional Performance

An information gathering and processing facility with space allotted for other MACS functiona, i.e., Document Control, CHQ, etc .

Possible Locations

1. Any~~erc withln the FLRESCOP£ Region.

2. Sltc inventory llsts 14 sites.

3 . Not collocated wlth a partner agency facility .

Progran Impacts

Will be unable to complete construction of thi.s alternative 1f a decision is not made by June 1, 19g0.

Pros

1.

2.

Cons

1.

2.

3.

4.

Supports orlginal OCC deslgn concept .

Could gain wider political support for construction funds .

Possible higher development cost than other alternatives.

May not meet Program Office funding dead I inc and would require non­Federal funding !or c001pletton.

Does not include advantages of collocated agency support personnel.

Least cost effective of the alternatives.

3

e

SELECTION ALTERNATIVE #3

Functional Perfo~ance

An information gathering and processing facility with space allotted for other HACS functions, i.e., Document Control, CHQ, etc .

Possible Locations

Any~onere withln the FlRI>SCOPE Region that a partner agency would supply basic support personnel for daily OCC operations .

Program Impacts

Will be unable to C<llllplete construction of a facility if a decision is not made by June 1, 1980.

Pros

1.

2.

3.

Cons

1.

2.

Could be combined with a "Regional Fire Management Center."

Allows for possible consideration of existing buildings.

Could gain wldcr politlcal support for cons t ruction funds .

Hay not meet Program Office funding deadline and would require non-Federal funding for completion.

Time and cost problems could extend time required to have an opera­l tonal facility.

4

INFORMATION OFFICERS' SPECIALIST CROUP

Background

Decide on recommendation

DECISION TOPIC

The Operations Team Recommends that a FIRESCOPE Information Officers' Specialist Croup be activated.

The following page contains that recommendation and a proposed "charter" for the group.

RECOMMENDATION to

FORM A FlRESCOPE lNFORHATlON OFFICERS' SPECIALIST CROUP

The Information Officers frao the FlRESCOPE partner agencies have requested, and th" Oper .. tions TeUIII has recommended, that an Information Officers' Specialist Group be activated.

The "Charter" for the group would be based on the following:

Heet approximately quarterly to coordinate efforts and exchange 1nfonna t Lon.

Support Program Office needs to disseminate accurate implementation information to the public and other interested entities.

Inform the med la regard lng agency actions and decisions made ln support of FIRESCOPE.

Promote lnternal publicity about the Program within their respective agencies.

~'ocus media attention on partner agency activities during emergen­cies.

Support the Board of Directors by publicizing ftre service issues of common interest and impact in southern California.

1981 BUDGET

Review information paper and alternatives

Provide direction to Progr am Office

DISCUSSION TOPIC

The Program Office needs Board opinion and support regarding the 1981 budge t level.

An infoma t ton paper and three ol ternati.ves are provided .

RECONSIDERING TRE 1981 FIRESCOPE BUDGET

ln 1979, the FIRESCOPE Board of Direct ors endorsed an implementation schedule that called for $3.7 million annually for 4 years, and 1 "wind-down" year of about $1.0 million. This plan was based on t he FIRESCOPE Economic Effective­ness Study, and presented the fastest, most cost- effective rate of t.mplemen­tation.

At about the same t lmc in 1979, the Forest Service planners in Washingt on, following pr ocedures included in the Federal "Resources Planning Act" (RPA) entered ~a~~~~~ level figure of $2 . 9 million in a 5- year plan for imple­menting F

In 1980, PIRESCOP£ received $2.4 million. Onder normal conditions, the prece­dent set by a particular budget level such as this one can be continued in future years with less difficulty and justification that would be required for an increased request.

Thus, the FIRI-:SCOPI:. Program has three potential budget levels for 1981:

1. $3.7 million, as decided by the Board.

2 . $2 . 9 million, tn Forest Service budgets.

3. $2.4 million, established by precedent in 1980 .

The Program Office has prepared initial budgets for 1981 at the $2 . 9 level, but this can be amended at a later date if the Board so directs.

The Board should reconsider its wants for future budgets . The following chart suggests the choices, and factors relating to each .

2

Level

$3 . 7 million

$2.9 1:1111 ion

$2. 4 million

I

I

Fiscal Year 1981 Budget Options

Advantages

- Most cost-effective

Completes Program sooner

- Aligns FlRESCOPE plans with RPA and Forest Service budgets

Supported by precedent

Impacts/disadvantages

- Will require a concerted political effort by agencies

- M3y not be successful

Extends necessary life of Program (1 or 2 years)

- Would probably increase final implemen­tation cost by !$1.0 million

- Would require revision of long- term implementation plans

Extends necessary Program life (2 to 4 years)

- Would probably increase final costs by !$2.0 million

- Would require revlslon of long-term implementation plans

NEW ISSUES

Inclusion of other agencies

Prevent Lon clement for FIRESCOP£

DISCUSSION TOPICS

1 . Va r lous fire agencles are expressing tnterest in becanlng more involved with FIRESCOP£. A paper presenting "pros" and "cons" eoncerni~ other agency involvement--both "today" and "tomorrow''-is provided for Board review.

The Board may wish to develop this subject further at another meeting.

2 . Bob Callaham, Director, PS\1 Statton , will present information on the National Fire Prevention Program. Some ou tputs from that Program could be valuable adjuncts to FIRESCOPE .

INCLUSlON OF OTHER ACENCIES lN FIRESCOPE

As FIRESCOPE becomes better defined as a system, aod as more successes are achieved, more interest is expressed by other agencies . To date, three ftre services-not now a part of the "partnersbip"-bave asked to be included in our decision process.

The attached paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of various pos­tures the existing Board of Directors mtght take regarding the inclusion (or exclusion) of other agencies in the FIRESCOPE process .

Part I. examines the question as 1t pertains to the current situation. Part 11. examines alternatives for the future. Both parts consider three levels of involvement by others:

"Status quo"--thc partnership today.

" Involve others"--invtte other agencies to take some pare

" Include others"--bring other agencies i n to full partnership.

Part Ill. offers some thoughts on means of i nvolving and/or tncludtng others .

2

I. Development and Implementation

The process 'WC are tn nov. Building the full system in a "first­generation" confieuration . Making the development and implementation dcclslons t hat wUl put the "recommended design" on the ground circa 1985.

STATUS QUO (Keep t he partnership as it exists today)

Pr o

- Partnership and Decision Process rela t ivel y "stable"

-sat isfactory level of inputs representing other flre services ln the FIRESCOPE region

- Development is NOT complete. It i!lmost efficient to finish development wl th existing partners .

-:.1orc "partners" could con(ound the process .

Con

- FIRESCOPE is not an exclusive club--the intent and goals of the Program inc lude "all" fire services

- Status quo does not provide for inputs from r emainder of State . Fire services in the north will influence the ultimate success of the system.

-Denying "entry" or partic­ipation to others could create barriers.

WVOLVE OTHERS (Invite others to meetings , e tc. but not i nto decisions)

- Builds more commitment

-could brlng more energy to development and implementation

- Could make the sys t ca better--of wlder and/or stronger application

- Would emphasize po"-er and prestige differences ("How ca:te he's 'tn' and

\o;e' re 'out' ?11)

- No equitable system exists to determine those who would/could be involved .

INCLUDE OTHERS (Bring other agencies into the Decision Process as full partners)

Pro

- Essentially the same as above , PLUS:

3

- Essentially the same as above, PLUS :

--- -------------------------------------

-Could improve FIRESCOPE's political bose

-Communications supporting the Decision Process are strained now. More agencies could confound the process.

- Could impact negatively on Program Office budgets, capabilities to provide prototype programs to all partners .

II. Future Operations and Maintenance

After the "first-generation" of FIRESCOPE is implemented. Forest Service Program Office will be phased out. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) will be State and/or local responsibility, with Forest Service R-5 contribu­tion.

Theoretically, the system will serve--and influence-- all fire services in southern California, and may :Impact those in the rest of the State .

There will be a def inlte need to monitor, operate , and maintain (1) procedures, (2) data bases, (3) programs, and (4) hard wares . Sane form of viable decision and action process will be necessary.

Pro

-Present partner agencies are the ones who risked, supported the development.

-Present partners are representative of "all"

STATUS QUO

Con

-Present partner agencies should not be required to support O&H by themselves

-Would limit inputs, support

-Could create barriers

INVOLVE OT!iERS

Pro

-could be designed to relieve present partners of so=e O&H workload .

-could create monumental confusion in any decision process.

INCLUDE OTHERS

Pro

-Meets the intent ond concept of the system.

-Provides add lt lonol energy and support

4

Con

-Could create another level of political struggle (k'ho get in, who gets left out?)

-Could easily be expanded to entire State.

-Would require a management structure for the process that would essentially continue functions now performed by the Program Office.

III. Soce Alternative Ways to Involve and/or Include Others

A. lnvolvenent

Invite agencies interested in particular areas, or portions of the Program (training, comgunications, etc.), to send represen­tatives to Working Group meetings. Could invite their partici­pation in the development of products.

Invite Cal-Chiefs to assign representatives from their organi­zation as outlined above, thus involving "all" ftre services.

Partner agencies asslgn "consultation teams" to vislt other agencies, Chief's Associations, etc. to inform, get feedback.

B. Inclusion

Phase out present partnership and assimilate O&M responsibili­ties into Cal-Chiefs and/or OES Advisory Committee .

Add one (or more) additional agencies into existing Decision Process on some sort of revolving schedule.

5

•

•

•

MEETING NOTES

FlRESCOPE Board of Directors

A FIRESCOPE Board of Directors' meeting was held September 8, 1978, in Sacramento. Present were:

John Chaffin - Acting Chairman

Clyde Bragdon Bob Callaham Alex Cunn 1ngh3lll John Gerard Stan ~Iasson William Patterson Larry Richey

USFS (R-5)

LA County USFS (PSW) OES LA City Ventura County Santa Barbara County CDF

Also in attendance:

I .

Dick Barrows Frank Borden Bob Irwin Roger Land Rusty Schweicknrt

BUDGET

OES LA City FIRESCOPE OES Governor Brown' s Office

Key issue of the meeting was the future funding of the Oper­ations Coordination Center for State Fiscal Year 1979-80.

It was agreed that the OES should include a Budget Change Pro­posal in its 79-80 request for $60,000 to finance the operation. It was agreed:

1) That this was to support the State responsibility for local partners and be considered as a continuing part of the regular State budget .

2) That it should not impact existing OES or CDF budgets.

3) That $60,000 represented 75 percent of the needed Op­eration and tbintenance funding , and that the Forest Service (R-5) would commit up to $20,000 (25 percent of total needs) to complete the financing .

All Board members agreed to actively support the OES in its effor t to acquire the funds.

During the preceding deliberations, it was displayed and demon­strated that the OCC OM! costs will increase annually, as more and more of the design eleQents become operational. A rough cstim~te indicates an increase of about 50 percent per year from 79-80 through the 81-82 Fiscal Year . Board members are tmare

•

•

•

~leeting Notes (cont.)

II.

of the potential increases and agree on the necessity to con­tinue this increasing support as long as the Program continues to show justifying benefits.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

A brief summary of the preliminary results of the Economic Evaluation contract was presented. This shows a very favorable cost-benefit ratio for the recoQmended FIRESCOPE System.

Copy of the summary is attached (attachment 1).

III. FIRESCOPE FUNCTIONS ~~ U~~N ISSUES

The Program Office letter of August 24, 1978, was reviewed. Items 3 (system functions) and 4 (urban issues) received much discussion. The concern is to include urban issues in actions, not just later planning.

Many of the urban concerns (scarce resources status, costing, mapping, etc. ) are now in the planned capacity of the System. No serious problems are expected in implementing these ONCE SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE AGREED TO liY TUE AGEN­CIES •

Research recommendations have been made for almost all of the required functions. The impasse that exists can only be broken by the partner agencies reaching agreement on what tltey wunt.

The Board members agreed to "provide for the planning, integra­tion, evaluation, and implementation of various urban applica­tions in the FIRESCOPE Program. Activities will be initiated this year. There shall be no degrading of the existing Program efforts. The Board shall continuously monitor and approve the developing recommendations."

To accomplish this direction the Board agreed to:

1. Personally instruct their Operations Team, Task Force and Specialist Group members to reach agreement on system functions with emphasis on the integration of urban ap­plications.

~ 2. Have the Program Office initiate action by preparing an instruction to the Operations Team, etc., outlining the task. The memo will include space for each Board member to endorse the instruction.

Due date for the first effort will be NovembVL 20, 1978 .

?

•

•

•

Neeting Notes (cont.)

IV. NEXT HE£TINC

The Board selected the dates of November 27 and 28, 1978, as time for the next meeting. Location will be Griswold's in Claremont.

The Program Office will prepare the agenda and details for the meeting after conferring with each Board member in October.

~obe,£ L . (J,. " ROBERT L. IRIHN Program Nanager

Attachment (1) Briefing 9/8/78

3

•

•

•

Attachment 1

Briefing - 9/8/78

Preliminary Results of FIRESCOPE Economic Evaluation

I . Alt ernative Studied

II.

The contractor examined nine implementation alternatives. These were grouped into three configurations :

Low: ~lid-level:

High:

Investment (Millions)

$ 8. 1 11.0 14. 6

O&M (Millions)

$0 .6/yr 1.0/yr 1. 5/yr

The Mid-level is the system configuration recommended by the Program Office for implementation.

Efficiency Versus O&H Costs

Earlier studies (SRI, 1973} estimated t hat an integrated FIRESCOPE System would result in an increase i n suppression effectiveness of about 20 percent .

This study shows, for the " recommended" system :

If cost-plus-loss per acre is $200 , then a five percent reduction in burned acres will pay annual O&H costs.

If cost-plus-loss per acre is $300, than a three percent reduction in burned acres will pay annual O&M costs.

Information from partner agencies shows that cost- plus-loss per burned acre in the FIRESCOPE Region range from $200 t o $500 per acre .