Evaluation of Existing Fire Tracking Systems

1
Evaluation of Existing Fire Tracking Systems

• FEJF Meeting
• Day 1, 1030a Albuquerque, NM

2
Project Overview

• Is there an existing FTS system, with few or
  minor modifications, that will satisfy the WRAPs
  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
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
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
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
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
Feasibility Assessment

• Bonus Point Categories
• 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.
• 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
(No Transcript)
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

• 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.
• FTS1 - both critical elements and none of the
  other listed elements. - - FTS1 receives an
  objective total score of 8.
• FTS2 - includes 1 critical element (start date)
  and 3 listed elements. - FTS2 receives an
  objective total score of 6.
• FTS3 - includes all listed elements and receives
  the maximum of 14 points.

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

• Example (Burn Date category) Total possible
  points for the Burn Date category is 10.
• FTS1 (objective score of 8) is assigned a 7 (all
  critical elements no additional listed
  elements).
• FTS2 (objective score of 6) is assigned a 5 (one
  critical element two of four other listed
  elements).
• FTS3 (objective score of 14) is assigned a 10
  (all listed elements).

13
(No Transcript)
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
Short-Listed Systems (3)

• A 3rd 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
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 dAlene, 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
(No Transcript)
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
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
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
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
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
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
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
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 WRAPs FTS?
• Tabulated this assessment and used results to
  inform the Project Teams recommendations.

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Recommendations

• What existing FTS would work best as-is for the
  WRAPs 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
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
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
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 WRAPs
  FTS.

36
Recommendations

• Rather than starting from an existing FTS, is
  there a better way for the WRAP to proceed with
  building the WRAP FTS?
• Butthere 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
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.