G-1

WASHINGTON STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIC FORECAST SUPPORT SYSTEM

INNOVATIONS AWARDS PROGRAM

G-2

2003 INNOVATIONS AWARDS PROGRAM Application Form

1. Program Name: The Strategic Forecast Support System (SFSS)

2. Administering Agency: Emergency Management Division of Washington State Military

Department

3. Contact Person: Ferruccio Crocetti, Emergency Management Coordinator

4. Address: Building 20, Camp Murray, WA 98430

5. Telephone Number: 253-512-7052

6. FAX Number: 253-512-7008

7. E-mail Address: f.crocetti@emd.wa.gov

8. Please provide a two-sentence description of the program:

Develop a system that supports the conduct of objective and scientific vulnerability analysis of all hazards identified in the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) document for the state of Washington. The program seeks to integrate proven tools such as FEMA-developed earthquake modeling program known as Hazards US (HAZUS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the Federal Emergency Management Information System (FEMIS), and the internet combined with more experimental tools such as remotely sensed (satellite) data. How long has this program been operational (month and year)?

This program was started in April 2001.

9. Why was the program created? (What problem[s] or issue[s] was it designed to address?)

Washington State is one of most disaster-vulnerable states in the nation. In the last 40 years, the state has had 42 Presidential Disaster declarations and many more state and locally proclaimed emergencies. It is the mission of Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) to protect life, property, the economy, and the environment and it was in fulfillment of this mission that the Division, in early 2001, developed a new Strategic Plan based of the following model:

G-3

DIRECTOR’S VISIONAn Integrated Emergency Management Approach

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment+

Vulnerability Analysis = Priorities

Mitigation/Preventions Strategies =Reduce Impact

If Hazard Remains = Get Ready

Preparedness Education

Contingency Planning

Effective Response

Fast Recovery

FEEDBACK

This is the model that captures the ideal approach to emergency management. EMD identifies all the hazards in the state and conducts a risk assessment of each of them. The vulnerability analysis to the hazard was not being performed because we did not have the requisite scientific tools to conduct the hazard analysis. The director’s charge to the organization was to develop the tools and expertise to be able to scientifically project the likelihood of events.

In 2001 the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) was performing a monthly hazards assessment of the likelihood of twenty different types of natural and man-made disasters occurring within a six month forecast period. The purpose of the six months forecast is to support decision making for resource allocations to mitigate against possible damages or respond and recover from disasters. This decision-making process, referred to as "strategic forecasting", was being performed by emergency management personnel based solely upon experience, coordination and communication with regional managers, and consultation with technical experts. A sample of the report is at appendix 1.

G-4

Hazard analysis must not only foresee the likelihood of an even but also consider its impact. Cognizant of limited forecasting tools EMD made a commitment to use advancements in information technology and build partnerships with state and federal agencies as well as local jurisdictions throughout the state to improve our capabilities.

One of these was a commitment to the use of advancements in spatial information technology. Many of the basic analysis functions that were being developed at EMD were based on simple visual overlay of historical data and other available geo-spatial data layers. This type of analysis is based upon the interpretative skills of the individual and is limited to the information on hand. The ESRI™ Arc View GIS platform is used for map display and query, in addition to supporting a number of hazard specific analysis tools. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided a Hazards US (HAZUS) model to estimate the general impacts of earthquakes. Similarly, the US Army has provided a Federal Emergency Management Information System (FEMIS), which is a chemical plume dispersion model that uses Arc View as its GIS platform. While very complicated, FEMIS is not a very sophisticated model and is limited in its application and utility.

Each of these efforts is designed to provide a scientifically valid and geographically referenced assessment of risk. The decision support system for this activity lacked the ability to integrate remotely sensed data in a dynamic assessment tool.

10. Describe the specific activities and operations of the program in chronological order:

To build upon the recognized need for timely and adaptive information we committed to the development of a Strategic Forecast Support System (SFSS).The SFSS developed three components: (1) a geo-spatial database management system, (2) a model integration system, and (3) a user interface and visualization tool set. Many of these components are currently still in development. The SFSS will most certainly always rely upon the expertise and experience of the Emergency Management Division staff, but will evolve to rely upon the contribution of more quantitative models of risk and vulnerability.

The program is being implemented on a three-year timeline. The first year saw the development of hazard analysis criteria, organization of the analysis team, development of partnerships with other institutions and research organizations, development of funding sources, a work plan development, obtaining internal and statewide support, data collection and training of the development team. Ongoing in year two is the development of the design and testing parameters, data integration efforts, the systemization of hazard analysis using the new SFSS model, development of mapping support capabilities, and integration of internet capabilities. The final phase in year three will be the completion of an integrated and fully functioning SFSS and completion of export of the product to local jurisdictions and nationally.

Systemic results currently emerging and expected to be fully integrated by 2004 are reliable forecasting for all hazards with damage projections and exercise modeling. Customized maps will be developed for state and local emergency practitioners as well as the public in general. Specific benefits for emergency management can be found in all four phases of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. The forecasting capabilities being developed are assisting in mitigation by pinpointing multiple hazards

G-5

for each location, identifying risks to infrastructure, and providing better data for decision making in prioritization of limited resources and reduction of loss potential. For preparedness and response the model identifies locations to reduce transit times, provide faster response, preposition critical supplies, provides mapping support, and identifies evacuation routes. For recovery activities boundary information is developed to identity control points and areas that are event related and deal with isolating contaminated regions, imposing embargoes, and assisting managers and elected officials in making event related decisions. Re-entry routes can be mapped and ground acceleration events can also be mapped to determine damage and recovery measures and priorities.

11. Why is the program a new and creative approach or method?

At 12:30 P.M. on February 28, 2001, amidst the initial statewide response to an earthquake, Governor Gary Locke signed a Proclamation of Emergency based, among other indicators, on rudimentary Geographical Information System (GIS) data. This was the first significant operational use of technical data to support executive decision-making in Washington State Emergency Management (EMD). This was the first bold step for Washington State Emergency Management Division into the world of integrated Hazard Analysis. Since that event the development of a new, integrated and innovative approach using technological advances has been ongoing and is being embraced by the whole organization.

The SFSS model is an integration of a variety of partners into an integrated analytical whole to produce the scientific ability to forecast events that may impact a specific area using all available data sets from a multitude of sources. For example, through the Strategic and Practical Use of Remotely Sensed data in Emergency Management (SPURS-EM) project, EMD is taking the next major step in the use of spatial data by using remote sensing, as an essential tool in the executive decision making process for all phases of emergency management.

The SPURS-EM application focuses on developmental and operational integration for the continuous use of an adaptive classified land cover product and the monthly generation of hazard specific forecasts. SPURS-EM provides additional, more current remotely sensed information to support the hazards analyses and predictive functions of the EMD in developing the strategic forecast support system. This information supplements local jurisdictions’ priorities and other available information such as risk maps and historical data. A major portion of the effort is to define and evaluate the contributions remote sensing technology can make to strategic hazard mitigation and integrated assessment.

The SPURS-EM partnership between the EMD, the University of Washington (UW) and the Western Disaster Center (WDC), with funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which provides the skills and resources necessary to realize the integration of this type of application. The WDC provides outreach opportunities to promote the usage of this application and EMD promotes the use of SPURS-EM with Washington State Emergency Management Association (WSEMA), which represents emergency managers from Washington county and municipal jurisdictions

G-6

SPURS-EM takes satellite images combined with other static data layers in a GIS to test disaster probability scenarios for decision-making purposes. Depicted below is the SFSS model that integrates the hazard analysis effort to produce hazard forecast assessments. The SPURS-EM fits into the SFSS model as depicted below:

SPURS-EM

Spatial Explicit Hazard Forecast Assessments

Geo Spatial Database

Available Data Layers & Event Specific Data

Federal State County Local Tribal Remotely Sensed Data

collection

Spatial and Temporal Registration

Data Models, Indices

& Products

Physical Process Models

& Forecast

Strategic Forecast Support System (SFSS)

Expert Knowledge

& Historical

Data

Assessment Reports

The shaded area depicts the SPURS-EM application.

G-7

This is an innovative approach of integrating all available sources of data and analyzing such data with a scientific model for Emergency Management in the State of Washington. The program provides a means of:

• Analyzing actual and proposed mitigation efforts and alternatives; • Improving guidance for preparedness activities and programs; • Planning and predicting response requirements and; • Providing a framework for effective recovery planning and prioritization

The SFSS model specifically:

• Establishes the method for EMD to create and update an adaptive general land

cover dataset; • Establishes procedures for producing monthly disaster specific risk

assessments; • Tests the use of derived products in actual and historical emergency

management response and mitigation scenarios and; • Coordinates a spatial data management plan within EMD as well as regional and

national disaster management organizations.

12. What were the program’s start-up costs? (Provide detail about specific purchases for this program, staffing needs and other financial expenditures, as well as existing materials, technology and staff already in place.)

Initial start-up costs were mitigated by excellent executive support that allowed use of facilities, equipment, and personnel in the organization to work on concept development, search for partners, and grant writing. One position was converted from planning to hazard analysis in June of 2001 and that started the full time development of the SFSS model. Between February of 2001 and June of 2001 part time work was done by two supervisors, a planner and an administrative assistant and probably used up one-year equivalent of effort. Prospective partners from the University of Washington (UW) and the Western Disaster Center (WDC) combined also contributed approximately one-year equivalent of one-person effort to the project. Research, computer, communications, and physical facilities at UW, WDC, and EMD were extensively utilized during the start-up phase.

In June of 2001 a full time hazard analyst was hired, computer equipment was purchased and full time effort on the project begun. We were also notified about this time that a NASA grant for the SPURS-EM project was approved. Although it took several months for the moneys to become available, our partners began in earnest to devote time to the project and to lay the foundations for the necessary research and development. The initial annual report on this segment of the effort is attached and is titled SPURS-EM 2002 Annual Report.

13. What are the program’s annual operational costs?

The budget summary is shown below:

G-8

BUDGET SUMMARY Period from: 1 October 2001 to 30 Sept 2005 FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 Total 1.Direct Labor (salaries, wages, and fringe benefits) 155,000 160,000 165,000 172,000 652,000 2.Other Direct Costs: a. Subcontracts UW 130,000 80,000 60,000 0 270,000 WDC 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 b. Consultants: Exchange of consultants with other State of Washington agencies such as Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology, among others is routinely provided without direct compensation, as each agency is funded by the same public budget. c. Equipment 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 d. Supplies 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 22,000 e. Travel 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 48,000 f. Other/Training 14,500 14,500 5,000 5,000 39,000 3.Facilities & Admin Costs 60,000 40,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 20% of all money received is allocated to administration to cover utilities, service costs, budgeting, facilities maintenance, etc. 4.SUBTOTAL—Est Costs 395,500 327,500 288,000 235,000 1,246,000 5.Less Proposed Cost Sharing EMD 95,500 127,500 163,000 235,000 621,000 UW 6.Total Estimated Costs 300,000 200,000 125,000 0 625,000 7.Data Costs*Landsat Scene 2,000 2,000 2,00 ____ 6,000

• Data currently provided by NASA to the University of Washington through other programs, see paragraph

14. How is the program funded?

It is a cooperative effort among several partners. Within EMD, the funding comes from state budget and from a grant from NASA. The UW share comes from use of facilities and equipment and a very advanced earth sciences laboratory that provides spatial data from collaborative programs with NASA. NASA Provides satellite data and imagery, and WDC provides a web site and a national communication system, and along with the University of Washington’s Institute for Hazard Mitigation and Planning (IHMP) will lead in the Evaluation and Outreach Program of the SPURS-EM part of the project.

G-9

15. Did this program require the passage of legislation, executive order or regulations? If YES, please indicate the citation number.

No. Although executive support was required and available from the Governor, who endorsed the grant application to NASA by letter, as well as the State Adjutant General and the Director of EMD who provided their wholehearted support to the effort.

16. What equipment, technology and software are used to operate and administer this program?

EMD uses the Strategic Forecast Support System (SFSS) on Pentium 3 computers with GIS capability. The HAZUS and FEMIS software models and imported databases from several state agencies, UW, and the US Census Bureau.

The UW uses the spatial analysis lab in the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, and the W.M. Keck Remote Sensing laboratory at the UW Department of Earth and Space Sciences in addition to teaching and research laboratories engaged in activities related to remote sensing. The labs maintain Windows 2000t™ workstations, data servers and data production facilities. They use licensed software from ESRI, ERDAS, RSI, S-Plus, and MatLab, in addition to standard office productive tools.

The NASA contribution comes from routine data products from from remote-sensing platforms such as MODIS and Landsat Etm+, and AVHRR.

17. To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? If YES, please

indicate the innovator’s name, present address and telephone number. Yes, the program originated in Washington State as a collaborative effort between staff

members of the Emergency Management Division, the University of Washington, and the Western Disaster Center. Program Leadership is provided by EMD.

SFSS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:

Terrence M.I. Egan, ED.D. Emergency Management Division Washington State Military Department (253) 512-7041

18. Are you aware of similar programs in other states? If YES, which ones and how does this

program differ?

No. Although other states do hazard analysis and California, in particular has done extensive GIS work, we do not know of anyone using the SFSS integration model as described in this paper.

G-10

19. Has the program been fully implemented? If NO, what actions remain to be taken?

The program is in the second year of a three-year implementation cycle. All the pieces are being developed and analyzed. The beginnings of a Geo Spatial Database has been developed using SPURS-EM Data Models, Indices, and Products, Event Specific Data along with Available Data Layers are being consolidated from available Federal and State agencies data bases, HAZUS modeling is being done and mapping is being provided for event specific display for exercises and real events. This is being run in parallel with assessment reports being compiled with expert knowledge and historical data.

The desired confidence and level of detail will not be completed until year three when the Western Disaster Center (WDC) accomplishes evaluation and outreach with assistance from the Institute for Hazard Mitigation and Planning (IHMP). Both the WDC and the IHMP are uniquely qualified to conduct program evaluation because of resident expertise in emergency management, data systems development and program management. The evaluation matrix is depicted at appendix 2.

20. Briefly evaluate (pro and con) the program’s effectiveness in addressing the defined problem[s] or

issue[s]. Provide tangible examples.

Vulnerability assessments are presently conducted primarily to support existing hazard management policies and programs, such as building relocation and emergency management plans, but may be extended to evaluate the relative benefits of alternative policies. Various mitigation alternatives may be evaluated by combining vulnerability assessments with forecasts for the likelihood of a hazard. When combined with experience, and assessment of risk, and an estimate for the likelihood of an event; a future scenario becomes a valuable planning tool.

Integrating GIS and remotely sensed data into scenario software to support decision-making is not a new planning tool. Software applications such as Sapient Technology's "Smart Places,",and Community Analysis and Planning System's "What if," have enhanced the planning process by facilitating the iterative process of assessing urban development patterns in light of hazardous events. The HAZUS model from FEMA integrates spatial data into loss estimates from earthquakes and allows for scenario testing and mitigation strategies. These applications, while very useful tools do not actively use remotely sensed data, nor do they play an operational role in the daily activities of emergency managers.

The SFSS user is primarily a hazard analyst and a decision maker. For example, it is used to apply limited resources to emergency situations, to mitigate multiple hazards, and to pre-position critical assets. The SPURS-EM application provides data to decision makers and the public to help manage risk, respond to critical events, and aid in recovery from disasters. Derived indices provide a picture over time, that aids the decision maker in prioritizing scarce resources.

21. How has the program grown and/or changed since its inception?

The program has galvanized EMD’s Remote Sensing and Geographic information Systems projects in a wide variety of unexpected ways, including working with affiliated organizations. For example, EMD is now working with the Air Force’s Auxiliary – the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), to

G-11

explore the use of the CAP’s remote sensing capabilities as an adjunct to the SPURS-EM project, and the use of the CAP’s aerial platforms for a variety of emergency management endeavors. EMD has been working closely with the Washington Geographic Information Council to standardize statewide data acquisition procedures and metadata content.

EMD is the process of adding a homeland defense component to the project by adding target analysis to determine infrastructure vulnerability in the equation. To accomplish this the Division is embarking in a data collection effort with the 39 counties in the state. In addition, EMD intends to export GIS capabilities to 9 homeland defense regions in partnership with the National Homeland Defense Department to allow for data collection, storage, and analysis.

22. What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this

program?

While the program requires data input from a variety of sources in Federal, State, and local jurisdictions, the most crucial requirements are willing partners and executive support to make the sharing and cooperation happen. A NASA- grant deliverable is ongoing outreach conducted by the Western Disaster Center to assist other states in using the program to conduct their own hazard analyses.

G-12

APPENDIX 1 STRATEGIC FORECASTING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July-December 2001

Drought: Even with normal levels of spring rain, drought conditions continue, particularly in Eastern Washington. The impact of the drought is expected to intensify in August and September, possibly extending well into next year. Anticipating a generally poor harvest, the agricultural community is most vulnerable to economic hardships caused by water shortages, rising energy, labor, food processing, and storage costs. Increased public conservation and proactive business and government mitigation measures will help lessen the severity of the drought. Wildfire: Fuels have increased due to spring precipitation. A dry summer could bring a higher than normal fire hazard season. Lightning and human actions have caused several fires already. Dry conditions are noted in all areas, especially in Eastern Washington. The intensity and duration of the summer weather patterns plus public precautionary measures will ultimately determine the severity of the wildfire season. Units are on standby in the fire districts and extensive training is been conducted. Energy: The “real” energy problem could arrive in January / February of 2002 as water used to generate power during the summer of 2001 is no longer available, especially in a colder-than-normal winter. Difficult resource allocation decisions remain because water levels behind the dams are insufficient to adequately support agriculture, power generation, and fish migrations. Other Potential Risks:

Terrorism and Civil Disturbance: Northeast Washington State is vulnerable to disruptions caused by members of the Rainbow Family Gathering of early July even though the location is the Bear Valley area of Idaho. Returning people often task food banks and other social services. Foot and Mouth Disease: Increased alert and planning effort to keep this highly contagious animal disease out of the country is being spearheaded by the Department of Agriculture. EMD conducted a related tabletop exercise in the Tri-Cities area. Hazard / Risk Calendar: The risk calendar illustrates anticipated hazards, prioritizes current vulnerability and anticipated vulnerability periods. (Attached).

Recommendations: Continue preparing for drought and wildfire activation this summer. Continue energy conservation measures as a priority.

G-13

Hazard / Risk Calendar 2001 – 2002

Hazard

Jan 02

Feb Mar Apr May 01

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Drought

Wildland Fire

Energy Shortage

Terrorism

Major Earthquake

Civil Disturbance

Flood

HAZMAT

Winter Storms

Nuclear Facility

Chemical

Tsunami

Volcano

Avalanche

Airport Incidents

Landslides

Dam Failures

G-14

APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION MATRIX

ATTACHMENT: SPURS-EM 2002 Annual Report

EVALUATION TABLE

Baseline Emergency Management Phase

Project Conclusion Outcome

Measurement

Six Month Forecast - Intuitive

Preparedness Integrated Geospatial History and Other Datasets

More accurate Forecasts based on objective data

Evaluated after the fact to compare forecast with outcome

Exercises – Static Maps

Preparedness Special maps created on-the-fly; what-if scenarios run

Real-Time information for decision makers

Use of Remote sensing layers in GIS included as part of procedures and checklists

Communications – EMD must request info from local jurisdictions

Response EMD produces appropriate event maps for locals with consistent info that is easy to interpret

Shared data base Number of calls between EMD and local jurisdictions are reduced

Resources – acquired after request made

Preparedness Response

Can anticipate requirements and pre-stage material

Resources are provided in more timely manner

Amount of transit time reduced

Individual and Public Assistance

Recovery Mitigation

Assistance Requests are easily prioritized based on forecasted need

Faster response Time required to provide aid

Mitigation activities not emphasized by state/local government

Mitigation Better data for decision makers

Reduced loss due to hazards

Increased mitigation activities

1

WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION (EMD)

Strategic and Practical Use of Remotely Sensed Data in Emergency Management (SPURS-EM)

2002 ANNUAL REPORT Emergency Management Division ¦ Mitigation, Analysis and Plans Unit

Bldg 20, MS: TA-20, Camp Murray, WA 98430 ¦ Phone: (253) 512-7000 ¦ FAX: (253) 512-7209 ¦ Website: www.spurs-em.org

Dear Colleagues: The Honorable Gary Locke, Governor of the State of Washington, writing in support of the Emergency Management Division (EMD) grant proposal to NASA noted: “EMD is committed to improving our state’s ability to integrate remotely sensed data into its operational structure and decision-making processes.” What follows is a description of the activities of EMD and its partners, the University of Washington (UW) and the Western Disaster Center (WDC) in fulfillment of that commitment. Since it received confirmation of its grant on January 17, 2002, EMD and its partners have made steady, measured progress on a variety of fronts. Initially, the most daunting project was complying with various organizational budgeting and contracting requirements. This took some time to accomplish and is the reason that the project has expended only 16% of allotted funds in the first year of the contract. As contracts were being coordinated, the project staff organized themselves into teams. The UW partners became the Product Team, responsible for designing the initial product. WDC accepted responsibility for outreach and evaluation and EMD furnished the Integration Team that will test and distribute the final product. During the first year of the project, staff were trained in remote sensing and geographic information systems. As product use expands, training will continue to be an essential element of this enterprise. The Project Team also developed performance metrics for evaluating the success of the SPURS-EM endeavor. Outreach is also an important aspect of the project. For example, EMD made a presentation to senior staff members at FEMA’s Region X in Bothell, Washington, and Principal Investigator,

Terry Egan, traveled to Nice, France as a guest of the GIS in Telecoms Conference where he presented the project to a large international audience. In conclusion, these are exciting times for the emergency management and geospatial information communities. The requirements of homeland defense have spurred our need to develop partnerships and to provide on-demand geospatial information for key decision makers who provide emergency services to the community. While we maintain our focus on an all-hazards approach to emergency management, homeland defense will continue to be our pre-eminent mission. Sincerely,

Terrence M.I. Egan, Ed.D. Mitigation, Analysis and Plans Unit Manager Principal Investigator NASA Grant # NAG13-02019 Emergency Management Division Washington MIlitary Department

Dr. Terry Egan

2

SPURS-EM Metrics for 2002

Outputs Hazard Summits

• Meeting of Landslide scientists and emergency managers to refine scope of project

NASA Reporting • Initial project metrics were completed and submitted • 4 Quarterly Reports were completed and submitted • An Annual Report was completed and submitted

Outcomes Increase use of GIS and remotely sensed data within EMD

• Baseline Survey was completed to establish current level of understanding

Number receiving basic GIS and remotely sensed data training • 14 Staff received initial orientation during surveys • 3 Staff received training through conference workshops

Increase use of GIS and remotely sensed data by local jurisdictions • Determined 13 emergency management jurisdiction have some RS usage • Determined 37 emergency management jurisdiction have some GIS usage

Number able to interpret remotely sensed data • 1 Staff attended university course

Provide outreach to promote understanding of project and its products • 1 international conference presentation

Impacts Remotely sensed data leads to additional projects

• Began partnership with Civil Air Patrol for acquiring aerial photography as needed • A new partnership with NASA to beta test the new FEMA HAZUS-MH flood module

3

SPURS - EM 2002 BUDGET SUMMARY Contractor Contract Period Total 2002 Complete Notes EMD NAG13 - 02019 1/17/02 - 1/16/05 $700,805 $39,930 6% 1

EMD NAG13 - 02019 Cost Share $382,294 $92,331 24% 4

$1,083.099 $134,263 12%

Partners WDC EM03 - 0220 6/1/02 - 12/31/04 $30,000 $4,650 16% 3

UW EM03 - 0222 6/1/02 - 12/31/04 $342,000 $0 0% 2

UW EM03 - 0222 Cost Share $22,294 $0 0% 5

1 Late start due to sub - contract process 2 Work underway, but invoice not yet received 3 Work and payment on schedule 4 Work and payment on schedule 5 Cost share will be included on invoice

Total Project Budget

SPURS - EM 2002 BUDGET SUMMARY

4

The NASA grant has galvanized EMD’s Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems program in a wide variety of wonderfully unexpected ways, including working with affiliated organizations. EMD is now working with the Air Force’s Auxiliary - the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), and plans to continue exploring the CAP’s remote sensing capabilities as an adjunct to the SPURS-EM project, and the use of the CAP’s aerial platforms for a variety of emergency management endeavors. EMD also continues to work closely with WAGIC (the Washington Geographic Information Council) to standardize statewide data acquisition procedures and metadata content. Thus the NASA grant has fueled the enhancement of EMD’s technological capabilities and expertise, and expanded our vision for the future. These enhancements are expected to grow throughout the coming year. In early 2003, the University of Washington partners are scheduled to deliver the first remote-sensing product. Then additional products will be developed that will assist Washington State emergency managers in conducting hazard risk assessments. These products will be shared with our partners in emergency management at the federal, state, and local level. Following are our four primary goals for 2003: • Complete the development of five remote

sensing products. • Complete internal testing of products at

Washington EMD. • Complete a plan for customer testing of products

in Washington State in 2004. • Complete a plan for outreach through

presentations, articles and Internet.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2003

MODIS is the NASA instrument used to obtain the data used in the SPURS-EM program.

5

SPURS-EM COMBINED TEAM Project Team (EMD): Terry Egan, Ed.D., Principal Investigator Jeff Parsons, Analysis and Plans Section SupervisorAllen Jakobitz, Hazards Technology Program ManagEd Quarles, All Hazards Coordinator Andy Bohlander, Hazard Technology Coordinator Ute Weber, Program Assistant Jill Nordstrom, Program Assistant John Taylor, Governor’s Fellow

Product Team (UW): Miles Logston, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor,

College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences Robin Weeks, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor,

Department of Earth and Space Sciences Camille Russell, Graduate Research Assistant Leon Delwiche, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Evaluation and Outreach Team (WDC/UW): Richard Davies, President and CEO of WDC Bob Freitag, Director, Institute for Hazard Mitigation

Planning and Research

PARTNERS AFFILIATES