1. 1 Evaluation of Existing Fire Tracking Systems FEJF Meeting Day 1, 1030a – Albuquerque, NM

2. 2 Project Overview Is there an existing FTS system, with few or minor modifications, that will satisfy the WRAP’s requirements for an FTS. Web-based and historical systems (e.g., wildfire systems) to be reviewed. Primary emphasis of this project is on real- time data import and export capabilities. Evaluation made from the perspective of an FTS user.

3. 3 Project Goals Evaluate existing FTS and provide: –A feasibility assessment of existing systems. –An analysis of modifying each system to include WRAP needs. –Estimate resources needed to modify the system to meet the required elements for tracking prescribed fires.

4. 4 Systems Evaluated 1.San Joaquin Valley Smoke Management System Wayne Clark 2.Airshed Management System (formerly, RAZU) Dave Grace, USDA – Forest Service 3.Smoke Management Database – New Mexico Lisa Bye, USDOI – BLM, NPS, FWS in New Mexico 4.Nez Perce Tracking System Andrea Boyer, Nez Perce Tribe 5.South Carolina Tracking System Ken Cabe, South Carolina Department of Forestry 6.Florida Tracking System Jim Brenner, Florida Division of Forestry 7.USDA Smoke Management System Dale Guenther, USDA – Forest Service

5. 5 Project Methodology Develop evaluation chart that includes: –Basic data elements –System information –Front- and Back-end applications –Indexing and reporting –Optional modules –Interface/exchange of data Conduct interviews with current FTS users/managers. Feasibility assessment of 7 systems. Shortlist and assess 3 systems –Necessary modifications –Cost to modify & host

6. 6 Feasibility Assessment Reviewed all FTS for all elements and system characteristics listed in the Workplan. Developed a point system to rank the evaluated FTS. –Importance of each category of elements reflects Project Team judgment. Maximum possible points: Basic Elements = 55 System-Related Features = 45.

7. 7 Feasibility Assessment Bonus Point Categories 1.2 points per each Basic Elements category -- the majority of listed elements were included in the FTS and/or if all critical elements were included. 2.5 bonus points to overall score -- if the Project Team identified some unique flexibility, an apparent ease in transfer of the FTS to the future WRAP system, and/or an expressed willingness of the current FTS host to support transfer to the WRAP system.

8. 8

9. 9 Feasibility Assessment Points assigned in a 2-step process: Step 1 – Each individual element listed in the evaluation table was objectively scored (0 = not included; 1 = included; 3 = critical elements included) and an overall bonus for the category was scored (0 = few if any elements are included; 2 = most and/or critical elements included).

10. 10 Step 1 Example – For the Burn Date category (14 points total). –8 listed elements start date – CRITICAL 3 POINTS start hour – 1 point multi-day start dates – 1 point multi-day start hour – 1 point end date – CRITICAL 3 POINTS end hour – 1 point multi-day end dates – 1 point multi-day end hour – 1 point 2 bonus points if majority of elements or all critical elements are present in the FTS. FTS#1 - both critical elements and none of the other listed elements. - - FTS#1 receives an objective total score of 8. FTS#2 - includes 1 critical element (start date) and 3 listed elements. - FTS#2 receives an objective total score of 6. FTS#3- includes all listed elements and receives the maximum of 14 points.

11. 11 Feasibility Assessment Step 2 – Based on the objective scores in step 1, each FTS was assigned a score for the category based on the maximum possible points for the category. Within a category, the relative points assigned to an FTS accurately reflected how well it stacked up against all of the other FTS.

12. 12 Example (Burn Date category): Total possible points for the Burn Date category is 10. FTS#1 (objective score of 8) is assigned a 7 (all critical elements; no additional listed elements). FTS#2 (objective score of 6) is assigned a 5 (one critical element; two of four other listed elements). FTS#3 (objective score of 14) is assigned a 10 (all listed elements).

13. 13

14. 14 Short-Listed Systems (3) State of New Mexico Smoke Management Database (total score 71) USDA Smoke Management System (total score 67). Summary: -- Both include most of the critical elements. -- Both received the five bonus points for apparent flexibility, ease in transfer, and/or willingness of host to support transfer the FTS to the WRAP FTS. -- Both scored well in the Indexing and Reporting category. -- No obvious incompatibilities with transferring over either system to the WRAP FTS.

15. 15 Short-Listed Systems (3) A 3 rd FTS was considered and added to the short list (as approved by the FTS Task Team) Airshed Management System (MT/ID). Summary: -- The unique aspects of this FTS include a standard and rigorous architecture, an interactive mapping website, and features that promote regional coordination.

16. 16 Technical Mods and Costs List of Essential Elements developed based on: –WRAP Policy – Fire Tracking System (April 2, 2003), –“Needs Assessment for Evaluating and Design of an Emission Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System” (July 25, 2003 – in particular those sections pertaining to fire tracking), –“Fire Tracking System” presentation from the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho meeting on May 15-17, 2001, and the WRAP Emissions Data Management System (EDMS) design information, –The detailed list of basic and system elements for an FTS as presented in the Final Workplan for this Project. –Materials prepared by the Regional Coordination Task Team of the FEJF

17. 17

18. 18 Technical Modifications - Method Assessment of technical modifications to create an FTS with all essential elements and key system characteristics. –Devised an system to evaluate merits of one FTS in relationship to the other FTS -1 or -2 – system deficient compared to other FTS 0 – system essentially as proficient as other FTS +1 or +2 – system more proficient compared to other FTS

19. 19 Technical Modifications - Summary WRAP FTS Requirements –Existing FTS are evaluated to be very similar in terms of meeting the WRAP FTS Requirements NM – Score +2 (PM emissions and track multi day burns) MT/ID – Score +1 (flexible user permissions) USDA – Score +1 (flexible user permissions)

20. 20 Technical Modifications - Summary WRAP FTS System Characteristics –MT/ID and USDA have the system edge over NM NM – Score 0 (plus - simple ACCESS system; minus – size and user limits; not protected well from corruption) MT/ID – Score +4 (plus - built in automation; supports many users and records; minus - more complex to manage; expensive to implement Web GIS) USDA – Score +4 (plus - built in automation; supports many users and records; minus - more complex to manage; system currently under development so features could not be tested)

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23 Cost Estimate - Method Primarily based on input from FTS managers – should be considered approximate. Cost estimate to include: –Development hours –Additional hardware costs Cost estimates most useful as an assessment of relative costs to modify the FTS evaluated.

24. 24 Cost Estimate - Summary To create a WRAP FTS with essential elements and system characteristics, NM FTS can be most efficiently transferred (580 hours). Similar effort required to modify any of the three FTS to include preferred elements and system characteristics (1300 – 1340 hours). Similar effort required to modify any of the three FTS to build WRAP FTS with all bells & whistles (1400 – 1500 hours).

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27 Recommendations - Method Extended the Technical Modifications assessment to Post-Modification period. –By dedicating a estimated amount of labor, how would each FTS perform as the WRAP’s FTS? –Tabulated this assessment and used results to inform the Project Team’s recommendations.

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32 Recommendations What existing FTS would work best “as-is” for the WRAP’s FTS? –MT/ID FTS The MT/ID FTS is a currently functioning system that supports burn managers in the states of Montana and Idaho. The system uses an SQL Server database that can meet the needs of the WRAP region, and the user interface is fully functional.

33. 33 Recommendations What existing FTS would require the least amount of modification to work well as the WRAP FTS? –NM FTS –By upgrading the Access database to SQL Server, the New Mexico FTS becomes a system capable of meeting current and future WRAP needs. The Project Team has estimated that 120 labor hours would be required to do this upgrade. –NM FTS already supports limited emissions estimation (PM10), and it generates maps of burn locations. These features are not supported in the existing versions of the MT/ID and USDA systems, and would require approximately 140 labor hours to fully implement in the NM FTS.

34. 34 Recommendations What combination of existing FTS, technical modifications, and exceptional features from other FTS would comprise a WRAP FTS with the most complete set of features and capabilities? –Modified version of the MT/ID FTS (assuming the current manager proceeds with the planned interactive GIS upgrade). –The MT/ID FTS has the advantage over using the New Mexico FTS because it already uses an SQL Server database. –The Project Team preferred the MT/ID FTS over the USDA FTS because the preferred interactive GIS system is already being designed for the MT/ID FTS, and the USDA FTS is not yet in production mode.

35. 35 Recommendations Rather than starting from an existing FTS, is there a better way for the WRAP to proceed with building the WRAP FTS? –The *easy* answer is NO. Starting with one of the three FTS evaluated in this report could be a cost effective and efficient way of building the WRAP FTS. –Each of the FTS already incorporates many of the essential features, and two of the systems are currently being modified to include the preferred GIS feature. –The labor (time and money) that has been dedicated to build the essential elements and basic functionality of these FTS could be considered a down-payment on building the WRAP’s FTS.

36. 36 Recommendations Rather than starting from an existing FTS, is there a better way for the WRAP to proceed with building the WRAP FTS? –But…there are always other ways to build an equal or better mousetrap. Rely on NM/FEJF specifications on a super-industrial system and use programming to make it look slick & contemporary. Make an existing “Commodity” FTS (not so stand-alone, proprietary) Upgrade NM to be *industrial strength* database Host on existing e-commerce site (e.g., Yahoo!) Multi-users accommodated on a Web interface Export events to Google Earth for review and regional coordination –To be dicussed during the FTS Task Team break out session.

37. 37 Next Steps Finalize Draft Report Post for review by task team. Incorporate comments and post Final Report. FTS Task Team prepares a plan to move forward with building and implementing the WRAP FTS.