1. National Fire Danger Rating System Proposed Update
Sept. 17, 2014

2. Proposed Changes to NFDRS
Has remained mostly static for almost 40 years.
Update current components of NFDRS:
Live Fuel Moisture Model
Dead Fuel Moisture Model
Consolidate existing fuel models to 4 fuel response types based on existing Fire Behavior Fuel Models:
Grass
Brush
Timber
Slash

3. Case for Change Practitioners demand it: NFDRS is too complex
Much of the complexity adds little insight
Fire Danger expertise is diminishing
Practitioners demand it:
WIMS operations simplified
Updated system will provide clearer and more intuitive output
Extension of logic that has been taught for years
Most fatality investigations cite a lack of knowledge of local fire danger as contributing factor.

4. Case for Change (cont’d)
Prepares NFDRS to integrate into future uses of weather data
Described in the FENC/CEFA RAWS Network Analysis of 2011, including increasing use of gridded data in analysis products like NFDRS
Preparing to do this for over a decade:
Installing solar radiation sensors on RAWS
Evaluating new model performance
Lessons learned in extensive analysis in Fire Danger Operating Plans correlating NFDRS Indices, fuel models and fire activity.

5. New Live Fuel Moisture Model Growing Season Index - GSI
Current live fuel moisture model acknowledged as the weakest model in NFDRS.
GSI is a meteorological based phenology model
A significantly better model using elements from a standard once-daily fire weather observation
Requires no constant human intervention yet accurately reflects within season and season to season live fuel conditions
Is currently running in the WIMS Test System

6. Average GSI and Measured Nevada Sagebrush Moisture 1986-2014
This is a actually a graph of LFI from FireFamilyPlus. Remember that LFI = GSI * 100 if anybody notices. It is the daily average over the period compared to measured fuel moisture, rescaled to 0 to 100 to match the LFI range. In WIMS the LFI/GSI is just rescaled between 50 and 200 to compute woody fuel moisture.

7. New Fine Dead Fuel Moisture Model Nelson
Current model developed by Fosberg in the 1970’s.
Uses once-daily weather information and requires manual entry of ‘state-of-the-weather’ and ‘fuels wet’ codes
Calibrated for mid-afternoon conditions
Nelson Model:
More accurately models diurnal fine dead fuel moisture using elements from hourly fire weather observations
Requires no daily human intervention
Has been running in a prototype mode in operational WIMS since December, 2011
While not part of the Nelson model, in the same update, the “automated state of weather” was implemented based on solar radiation at the 1300 observation and measured precipitation over the past 24 hours.
It might be good to point out that when we put the Nelson model in WIMS, at the same time we started having the RAWS ingest gateway routines compute estimates for State of the Weather and Wet Flag based.
The point of the Automated State of the weather is that now there is an NFDRS computation 365/days year as long as data are coming through the gateway. This is important for continuity of things like
100 and 1000 hour fuel moisture and KDBI.

8. The fine dead fuels computed by the Nelson model are better at reflecting rain, especially rain that does not occur during the 1300 observation when the state of weather or wet flag are set.
During the rain week of 16-Jun, if the Wet Flag on the 17th was Yes (14 hours, 0.52) the ERC on the 17th would have been 11. The same as Nelson.

9. Consolidate Fuel Models
John Deeming, the lead developer of the NFDRS in use today, proposed reducing the 9 fuel models in the 1972 system to 4 in the 1978 update
He negotiated to 20 with his steering committee
In the 1988 update, essentially 20 more were added
Outputs from most NFDRS fuel models are not unique
Similarity analysis of output distributions revealed just four really unique fuel model types.

10. ERC correlation analysis between four model pairs
This is an example of four of the 400 model pair correlations that were done on ERC, Model G.
Top Left: J to I: Perfect correlation.
Top Right: G to H: Very high correlation
Bottom Left: G to C: Moderate correlation
Bottom Right: F to T: Lower correlation
A cluster analysis was done on all fuel model pairs and the results are in the next slide.

11. More similar Less similar Only Grass Not Only Grass
Mostly Grass and Brush
More than Grass and Brush
Minimal live
More live
Points to Make.
The dashed line at the bottom is perfect correlation. I/J/K are right on the line.
The closer the horizontal connecting lines between models are to the dashed line, the more similar the model outputs are to each other.
The larger horizontal lines at the top are the results of the clustering.
I would read this as all models in the mix have about a 0.70 correlation coefficient. This makes sense since they all should be tracking the same way.
In the Only Grass branch, the two pure grass models are essentially the same.
All the models in the Not only Grass Branch have 0.83 correlation. B and F are essentially the same, T is a bit different.
All the models in the More than Grass and Brush have 0.89 correlation. Still very high.
All the models in the More than Grass and Brush, Minimal Live Cluster are highly correlated, > 0.96
The models in the More Live are less correlated that the Minimal Live and break into two groups. Those groups are highly correlated.

12. This slide shows the current status of fuel model use in WIMS today
This slide shows the current status of fuel model use in WIMS today. Of course the 100% G is a function of the work we’ve done and Predictive Services and WFDSS wanting G. But it still lends to the argument that less fuels models will have minimal affect.

13. Implications and Ripple Effects
Possible pushback from the field to reducing fuel models (“my fire danger area is unique”)
Impacts on training – S-491, Intermediate Fire Danger Rating redesign
Working with the Wildland Fire Information and Technology (WFIT) to mitigate and resolve any potential impacts to systems
WIMS, WFDSS, FSIM, etc…
Gains in simplicity widens the breadth of people in the field that can understand and use fire danger.

14. Workload Impact Some temporary increases in workload:
Fire personnel will be required to complete new analyses to provided updated system breakpoints - because old percentiles and breakpoints will be obsolete.
However, this re-analysis would have been required by the field with just the transition to the Nelson (dead fuel moisture) model,
Additionally, it is recommended that breakpoints be re-visited yearly as part of the annual preparedness review process.
Automation of many operations and daily inputs to the model will decrease work load for dispatchers and managers on a day to day basis.

15. What Happens if You Say “No”?
You’ll miss:
Advantage of the latest technology for decision making.
Opportunity to simplify the system which would make it more user friendly.
Harder to integrate new products coming online
Such as the 7 day NFDRS forecast.
Implementation of a new, up to date, easy to use NFDRS moves us back to one true national system.
Currently several different systems depicting fire danger on a daily basis,
78 and 88 version of NFDRS
Canadian FDRS
Predictive services 7 day fire potential.

16. Timeframes 2014 September December
Approval from NWCG to proceed with changes.
December
Technical documentation for new system available in draft form.

17. Timeframes 2015 January March July October November
Develop NFDRS 2016 and move to Weather Information Management System (WIMS) testing side.
Many of the changes are already in WIMS and FireFamily+, but have simply not been tied together yet.
March
Stand down S-491 classes while developing new classroom version.
July
Develop webinar/self-paced training for prior S-491 students to become familiar with the new system.
FireFamily+ updated to include the NFDRS 2016 version.
October
S491 classes resume with emphasis on NFDRS 2016 system.
November
Fire Behavior Subcommittee to review basic Fire behavior class modules focused on NFDRS.
Modules will include updated information on live and dead fuel moisture calculations as well as Fire Behavior models utilized in the 2016 NFDRS.
PocketCard lessons

18. Timeframes
2016
January
NFDRS 2016 moved from test side of WIMS to production side of WIMS. (Fully Operational)

19. Decision Approval and support for the updates to NFDRS. If approved:
FENC will draft a letter for NWCG to review. This letter will go out under NWCG letter head to the field which outlines changes to be made to the system.
FENC will draft a communication for NWCG to coordinate with the federal Fire Management Board for integration with WFIT and implementation.

20. Questions?
Thoughts?