APPENDIX FOR THE
INTERAGENCY DISPATCH OPTIMIZATION
PILOT PROJECT (IDOPP) REPORT
Final Report
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................................................1
Table 1.4 - IDOPP Team Members ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2 – METHODS AND APPROACH.........................................................................................................................................................4
Exhibit 2.1-2 - Data Call and Survey ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Sample Personnel Spreadsheet Given to Center Managers for Completion ......................................................................................................................... 4
Sample of the Personnel Spreadsheet Containing Team-Developed Personnel Costs .......................................................................................................... 4
Information Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Exhibit 2.1.3-1 - Reports Reviewed for the IDOPP ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 2.1.3-2 - 2008 Management Efficiency Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 19
Exhibit 2.1.4 – Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
SECTION 3 – THE AS-IS ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 3.4-2 – Dispatch Functions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 3.4-3 - Dispatch Services Provided by Center ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Tables for Section 3.6 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 3.6-1 - Board of Directors/Steering Committees by Area and State .......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 3.6-2 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Area and State .................................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.6-3 - Board of Directors/Steering Committee by Center and Agency ..................................................................................................................... 28
Table 3.6-4 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Center and Agency ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Tables for Section 3.7 Sponsorship and Budget ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 3.7-3 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Area and State ............................................................................................................... 32
Table 3.7-4 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs ..................................................... 33
Table 3.7-5 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Area and State ................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 3.7-6 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Area and State ..................................................................................................................... 35
Table 3.7-7 - Center Sponsor by Center ............................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3.7-8 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Center ............................................................................................................................ 39
IDOPP Report Appendix
i
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-9 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs ..................................................... 41
Table 3.7-10 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Center ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 3.7-11 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Center ................................................................................................................................ 46
Table 3.7-12 - Regular Time Costs by Center (in Thousands) ............................................................................................................................................... 49
Tables for Section 3.8 Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 3.8-1 - Numbers of “Cooperative Agreements” by Area and State ............................................................................................................................ 52
Table 3.8-2 - Number of “Cooperative Agreements” by Center .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 3.8.3 - Reported Law Enforcement/Dispatch Memorandums of Understanding by Area and State ......................................................................... 56
Table 3.8-4 - Centers with a Memorandum of Understanding between Agency Law Enforcement Program and Dispatch Center ................................... 57
Tables for Section 3.9.1 – Fire Workload ................................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.9.1-2 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – California ...................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.9.1-3 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – Southwest ..................................................................................................... 60
Figure 3.9.1-4 - Average Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – California.......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3.9.1-5 - Average Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – Southwest ........................................................................................................ 62
Table 3.9.1-6 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Center ................................................................................................................................................. 63
Table 3.9.1-7 - Location and Size of Expanded Dispatch by Center ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 3.9.1-8 - Average Annual Number of Days Expanded Dispatch Unit Operated by Center ......................................................................................... 67
Table 3.9.1-9 - Units Served by Dispatch Center – California ............................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 3.9.1-10 - Units Served by Dispatch Center – Southwest ........................................................................................................................................... 72
Tables for Section 3.9.2 – Ross Actions and Incidents ................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 3.9.2-5 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California GACCs/CC................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3.9.2-6 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern California GACC ........................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 3.9.2-7 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Total California GACCs/CC ....................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.9.2-8 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California Operational Centers ................................................................................................ 78
Figure 3.9.2-9 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern California Operational Centers ................................................................................................ 79
Figure 3.9.2-10 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Total California Operational Centers ..................................................................................................... 80
Figure 3.9.2-11 - Average Annual Number of Resource Orders (Incoming and Outgoing) by Month by GACC ................................................................... 81
Figure 3.9.2-12 - Average Annual Number of Incidents in ROSS by Month by GACC .......................................................................................................... 81
Tables for Section 3.9.3 Law Enforcement Dispatch .................................................................................................................................. 82
Table 3.9.3-3 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Area and State ................................................................................................ 82
Table 3.9.3-4 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Center............................................................................................................. 83
Table 3.9.3-5 – Services Provided to LEOs by Agency .......................................................................................................................................................... 85
Table 3.9.3-6 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Center as Reported by Center Managers ....................................................................... 86
Table 3.9.3-7 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Center Managers .......................................................... 88
IDOPP Report Appendix
ii
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-8 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers (Summary).......................... 88
Table 3.9.3-9 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Center as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers ......................................................... 89
Table 3.9.3-10 - Centers Officially Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers .......................................................................................................................... 92
Table 3.9.3-11 - Primary Dispatch Centers Reported by the Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency................................................................ 95
Table 3.9.3-12 - Dispatch Centers that Do Not Officially Provide Law Enforcement Dispatching Services but were Listed by Law Enforcement Officer
Respondents as their Primary Dispatch Center ............................................................................................................................................................ 98
Table 3.9.3-13 - Number of LEO Respondents with Access to a Law Enforcement Dispatch Services when Primary Dispatch Center is Closed ............... 99
Table 3.9.3-14 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Dispatched by Multiple Centers .............................................................................. 100
Figure 3.9.3-15 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting Law Enforcement Officer Respondents within Assigned Patrol Area .................................... 101
Table 3.9.3-16 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting LEO Respondents Within Assigned Patrol Area ...................................................................... 102
Table 3.9.3-17 - Reasons Law Enforcement Officers Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers ........................................................................................... 103
Table 3.9.3-18 - Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers (Summary) .......................................................................................................... 106
Table 3.9.3-19 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center ........................................................... 107
Table 3.9.3-20 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center ........................................................... 110
Table 3.9.3-21 – Position Titles of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency ...................................................................................................... 113
Table 3.9.3-22 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During Public Contacts .. 114
Table 3.9.3-23 - Check Back Frequencies for Primary Dispatch Centers Requiring Status Checks .................................................................................... 117
Table 3.9.3-24 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires Welfare Checks During Patrol .............. 119
Table 3.9.3-25 - Frequency of Welfare Checks Required by Primary Dispatch Centers While Law Enforcement Officer is on Patrol .............................. 122
Table 3.9.3-26 - Criminal Information Databases by Area and State ................................................................................................................................. 124
Table 3.9.3-27 - Criminal Information Databases by Center .............................................................................................................................................. 125
Figure 3.9.3-28 - Number of Law Enforcement Incidents by Year for California ............................................................................................................... 127
Table 3.9.3-29 - Arrests and Violations by Agency – California .......................................................................................................................................... 128
Table 3.9.3-30 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – BLM – California (2006-2010) ...................................................................................................... 129
Table 3.9.3-31 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – CAL FIRE – California (2006-2010) ............................................................................................... 130
Table 3.9.3-32 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – FS – California (2006-2010) ......................................................................................................... 131
Table 3.9.3-33 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – FWS – California (2006-2010) ...................................................................................................... 132
Table 3.9.3-34 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – NPS – California (2006-2010) ....................................................................................................... 133
Table 3.9.3-35 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents with Access to Remote Data Terminals................................................................... 134
Tables for Section 3.9.4 Other Workload ..................................................................................................................................................135
Table 3.9.4-2 - Average Annual Number of Other Incidents by Center ............................................................................................................................. 135
Tables for Section 3.10 Staffing ................................................................................................................................................................137
Table 3.10-4 – Summary of Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Area and State ............................................................................................... 137
Table 3.10-5 - Number of Positions and FTE by Center...................................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 3.10-6 - Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Center ................................................................................................................................. 141
Table 3.10-7 - Number of Federal Positions per OPM Series by Center ............................................................................................................................ 144
IDOPP Report Appendix
iii
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-8 - Vacant Positions by Center.......................................................................................................................................................................... 146
Table 3.10-9 - Adverse Impacts on Center Managers Efforts to Fill Vacancies by Center ................................................................................................. 147
Table 3.10-11 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Center and Agency ........................................................................................ 150
Figure 3.10-12 - Average Percentage of Time Spent by Employees per Dispatch Function .............................................................................................. 153
Figure 3.10-13 - Vacant Positions as of July 1, 2011 .......................................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 3.10-14 - Factors Adversely Affecting Center Manager Effort to Fill Vacancies, by Area and State ........................................................................ 155
Table 3-10.15 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – Interagency Integrated Centers Only ................................ 156
Table 3-10.16 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – All Centers ......................................................................... 156
Tables for Section 3.11 Technology and Equipment .................................................................................................................................157
Table 3.11.1-1 - Computer Aided Dispatch System Use by Area and State ....................................................................................................................... 157
Table 3.11.1-2 - Computer Aided Dispatch Systems Used by Area and State* .................................................................................................................. 158
Table 3.11.1-3 - Use of a CAD System by Center ................................................................................................................................................................ 159
Table 3.11.1-4 - CAD Systems Used by Center ................................................................................................................................................................... 161
Table 3.11.2-1 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Area and State ................................................................................................................................. 163
Table 3.11.2-2 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Center .............................................................................................................................................. 164
Table 3.11.2-3 - Standalone Network Server by Area and State ........................................................................................................................................ 166
Table 3.11.2-4 - Standalone Network Server by Center ..................................................................................................................................................... 167
Table 3.11.2-5 - Data Circuits by Center ............................................................................................................................................................................. 169
Table 3.11.4-3 - Number of Discrete Radio Channels Available by Center ........................................................................................................................ 172
Table 3.11.4-4 - Dedicated Radio Frequencies by Center .................................................................................................................................................. 174
Table 3.11.4-5 - Number of Radio Consoles by Center and Agency ................................................................................................................................... 177
Table 3.11.4-6 - Agencies Providing Radio Support by Center ........................................................................................................................................... 179
Table 3.11.4-7 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device ........................................................................................................................................ 182
Table 3.11.4-8 - Agencies Maintaining the Radio Traffic Recording Device by Center ...................................................................................................... 184
Table 3.11.4-9 - Radio Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers ..................................................................................................................... 187
Table 3.11.4-10 – Reported Radio Deficiencies by Center ................................................................................................................................................. 188
Table 3.11.4-11 - Centers with On-site Radio Equipment Back-up System........................................................................................................................ 191
Table 3.11.4-12 - California Radio Towers by Agency and Function .................................................................................................................................. 193
Table 3.11.4-13 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device by Area and State ......................................................................................................... 194
Table 3.11.4-14 - On-Site Radio Equipment Back-up Systems by Area and State .............................................................................................................. 194
Table 3.11.4-15 - Radio Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers ................................................................................................................... 195
Table 3-11.4-16 - Deficiencies in Radio Coverage as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers........................................................................................... 196
Table 3.11.4-17 - Type of Radio Codes Used by LEO Respondent’s Primary Dispatch Center ........................................................................................... 197
Table 3.11.5-1 - Reported Phone System Adequacy by Area and State............................................................................................................................. 197
Table 3.11.5-2 - Reported Phone System Expandability by Area and State ....................................................................................................................... 197
Table 3.11.5-3 - Reported Adequacy and Expandability of Phone System by Center ........................................................................................................ 198
IDOPP Report Appendix
iv
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.12 Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................................201
Table 3-12-1 - Facility Type by Area and State ................................................................................................................................................................... 201
Table 3-12-2 - Reported Building Ownership by Area and State........................................................................................................................................ 201
Table 3-12-3 - Reported Facility Condition by Area and State ........................................................................................................................................... 202
Table 3-12-4 - Reported Facility Age by Area and State ..................................................................................................................................................... 202
Table 3-12-5 - Reported Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities by Area and State ................................................................................................. 203
Table 3-12-6 - Adequate Space for Staff by Area and State ............................................................................................................................................... 204
Table 3-12-7 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Area and State ............................................................................................................................ 205
Table 3-12-8 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Center (as reported by Center Managers) ................................................................................. 205
Table 3-12-9 - Type of Facility by Center ............................................................................................................................................................................ 206
Table 3-12-10 - Reported Building Ownership by Center .................................................................................................................................................. 209
Table 3-12-11 – Reported Condition and Age of Facility (in Years) by Center ................................................................................................................... 211
Table 3-12-12 - Reported Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities by Center ............................................................................................................ 213
Table 3-12-13 - Assessment of Space by Center ................................................................................................................................................................ 216
Table 3-12-14 - Availability of Uninterruptible Power Source by Area and State .............................................................................................................. 218
Table 3-12-15 - Reported Data Transmission Circuit Capacity by Area and State.............................................................................................................. 218
Table 3-12-16 - Expanded Dispatch Locations by Area and State ...................................................................................................................................... 219
Table 3-12-17 - Size of Expanded Dispatch by Area and State ........................................................................................................................................... 220
Tables for Section 3.13 Training ...............................................................................................................................................................221
Table 3.13-1 - Incident Command System (ICS) Training .................................................................................................................................................. 221
Table 3.13-2 - Interagency Aviation Training (IAT) ............................................................................................................................................................. 223
Table 3.13-4 - On-the-Job Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State ........................................................................................................... 224
Table 3.13-5 - Law Enforcement Ride Along for Dispatchers by Area and State ............................................................................................................... 224
Table 3.13-6 - Accredited Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center ......................................................................................................................... 225
Table 3.13-7 - Other Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center ................................................................................................................................. 227
Tables for Section 3.14 Safety ..................................................................................................................................................................229
Table 3.14-1 - Written Standard Operating Procedures for Check-In and Check-Out Required of Field Going Employees by Area and State ................. 229
Table 3.14-2 - Written Standard Operating Procedures Required for Visiting Personnel and Equipment by Area and State........................................... 229
Table 3.14-3 - Standard Operating Procedures Required for Check-In and Check-Out of Visiting Public by Area and State ............................................ 230
Table 3.14-4 - Tracking Methods and Technologies by Area and State ............................................................................................................................. 230
Table 3.14-5 - Tracking Methods and Technologies by Center .......................................................................................................................................... 231
Table 3.14-6 - Centers with Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch Functions by Area and State............................................................. 233
Table 3.14-7 - Centers with Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch Functions .......................................................................................... 234
Table 3.14-7 - Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Center.......................................................................... 236
Table 3.14-8 - Use of Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Area and State ................................................. 237
Table 3.14-9 - Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Center.......................................................................... 238
IDOPP Report Appendix
v
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-10 – Existence of Written Standard Operating Procedures for Check-in and Check-out by Center ................................................................ 240
SECTION 4 – DISPATCH ISSUES AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................... 243
Tracking Procedures ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 243
SECTION 5 – ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................... 244
Table 5.1-3 - Complexity Score Calculation Example ......................................................................................................................................................... 244
Table 5.1-4 – Calculated Complexity Scores for As-Is Operational Centers – California .................................................................................................... 245
Figure 5.1-5 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal/State Operational Centers (As-Is) .................................................................... 248
Figure 5.1-6 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal Operational Centers (As-Is) .............................................................................. 248
Figure 5.1-7 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: State Operational Centers (As-Is) ................................................................................. 249
Table 5.1-8 – Calculated Complexity Scores for As-Is Operational Centers – Southwest .................................................................................................. 250
Figure 5.1-9 - Average Normalized Score by Center - Arizona Operational Centers (As-Is) ............................................................................................... 251
Figure 5.1-10 - Average Normalized Score by Center - New Mexico Operational Centers (As-Is) ..................................................................................... 251
Table 5.2.1-3 - FireOrg Factors ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 252
Table 5.2.1-4 - Comparison of As-Is Staffing to FireOrg Designed Staffing (California) ..................................................................................................... 257
Table 5.2.1-5 - Comparison of Actual As-Is Staffing to FireOrg Staffing (Southwest) ........................................................................................................ 260
Tables for Section 5.2-2 - APCO RETAINS Calculations for Coverage Positions ..........................................................................................262
Table 5.2.2-1 - APCO RETAINS Results from Camino Interagency ECC (California) ............................................................................................................ 262
Table 5.2.2-2 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Initial Entry .............................................................................................................. 263
Table 5.2.2-3 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Revised Entry ........................................................................................................... 263
Table 5.2.2-4 - APCO RETAINS Calculations for Coverage Positions................................................................................................................................... 264
Table 5.3.2-1 - Cost Estimates for Construction of a Dispatch Center ............................................................................................................................... 265
SECTION 6 – ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................................... 267
6.3 - California Sub-Team Report .............................................................................................................................................................267
6.3a - Appendix to California Sub-Team Report ........................................................................................................................................267
6.5 - Southwest Sub-Team Report ............................................................................................................................................................267
6.5a - Appendix to Southwest Sub-Team Report ......................................................................................................................................267
7.8 - Lessons Learned ...............................................................................................................................................................................268
Data Call ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 268
Communications ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 270
IDOPP Report Appendix
vi
January 31, 2013
Section 1 - Introduction
Table 1.4 - IDOPP Team Members
Name
Agency
Interagency Dispatch Improvement Project (IDIP) Steering Committee
DOI – Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security,
Jim Douglas
Emergency Management
Kim Christensen
FS – National Interagency Coordination Center Manager
Jim Kenna
BLM – State Director – Arizona
Tim Lynn
FS – Assistant Director Law Enforcement and Investigations
Doug Nash
FS – Chief Information Officer
Corbin Newman
FS – Regional Forester – Southwest
Dean Ross
NPS – Deputy Chief – Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Services
Louis Rowe
NPS – Deputy Associate Director of Visitor Resource Protection
Dan Smith
National Association of State Foresters – National Wildfire Coordinating Group Representative
Mark Stanford
Texas State – Forest Fire Protection Committee Representative
Kim Thorsen
DOI – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security, Emergency Management
Oversight Support Team
Mike Kerrigan
FS – Fire and Aviation Management Project Management
Bob Kuhn
FS – Fire and Aviation Management Program Lead for Efficiency Assessments
FS – Program Analyst – Business Operations Lead for Efficiency Assessments and contract
Betsy Walatka
Contracting Officer’s Representative
Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Bridge Team
Cindy Ott-Jones
NPS – Superintendent, Big Bend National Park
Tom Speaks
FS – Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests
Mike Dudley
FS – State and Private Forestry Director for Regions 1 & 4
Kelly Castillo
BLM – Southwest Sub-Team Leader
Susie Stingley-Russell FS – California Sub-Team Leader
Darlene Hall
FS – National Federation of Federal Employees Representative
Tracy Perry
FS – Deputy Director for Law Enforcement and Investigations
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
IDOPP Role
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
DOI Co-Chair / Line Officer
FS Co-Chair / Line Officer
Bridge Team Coordinator
Southwest Sub-Team Liaison
California Sub-Team Liaison
FS – National Federation of Federal
Employees Representative
Law Enforcement Representative
January 31, 2013
Name
Dean Ross
Sue Stewart
Agency
NPS – Deputy Chief – Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Services
NPS – Assistant Branch Chief – Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Services
FS Region 4 Fire and Aviation Management Director
Simon Strickland
Jimmie Porter
FS – Radio Program Manager
FS – Radio Operations & Maintenance Manager
California Sub-Team Executive Oversight Group
Karen Barnette
BLM – Deputy State Director for Support Services
Kevin Hendricks
NPS – Chief Ranger, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park
Margaret Kolar
FWS – Assistant Regional Director
Randy Moore
FS – Pacific Southwest, Regional Forester
Ken Pimlott
CAL FIRE – Director
Ron Recker
BIA – Pacific Regional Fire Management Officer
Rita Wears
FS – Patrol Commander
FS – Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Marion Matthews
Kim Zagaris
Office of Emergency Services/California Emergency Management Agency – Chief of Fire and
Rescue Branch
California Sub-Team
Susie Stingley-Russell FS – Center Manager of North Ops Geographic Area Coordination Center
Tom Contreras
FS – Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest
Dexter Dearth
BLM – Radio Telecommunications
Kevin Guerrero
Robert Haggerty
CAL FIRE – Deputy Chief – Operations Support and Command & Control (Acting)
BLM – Safety & Occupational Health Specialist
Tim Havens
Jeri Hayes
Cathy Johnson
Jay Kurth
Pat O’Bannon
FWS – Zone Officer – Northern California
FS – Center Manager of Monte Vista Emergency Coordination Center
FS – Logistics Coordinator, North Ops Geographic Area Coordination Center
FS – Chief Fire Management Officer, Eldorado National Forest
California Emergency Management Agency
IDOPP Report Appendix
2
IDOPP Role
Law Enforcement/ Emergency
Medical Services/Search and
Fire Management Program
Representative for National Wildfire
Radio/Telecommunications
Representative
Line Officer
NPS Representative
FWS Representative
Line Officer
CAL FIRE Representative
BIA Representative
Law Enforcement & Investigations
Representative
California Emergency Management
Agency Representative
Team Leader
Line Officer
Information Technology/Chief
Information Office/Radio
CAL FIRE Representative
DOI Fire Management and Law
Enforcement Representative
FWS Representative
FS Dispatch Representative
Documentation
FS Fire Management Representative
California Emergency Management
Agency Representative
January 31, 2013
Name
Deborah Otto-Oberg
Agency
FS – Radio Telecommunications
David Thorpe
NPS – Yosemite National Park Communications Branch Chief
Diane Welton
FS – Patrol Captain
Frank Aguilar
FS – Patrol Captain
Southwest Sub-Team Executive Oversight Group
Butch Blazer
New Mexico State – State Forester
Scott Hunt
Arizona State – State Forester
Ray Suazo
BLM – Arizona State Director
Corbin Newman
FS – Regional Forester
John Philbin
BIA – Regional Forester
Ken Phillips
NPS – Chief of Emergency Services, Grand Canyon
Robyn Poague
FS – Special Agent in Charge
Southwest Sub-Team
Kelly Castillo
BLM – Arizona Fire Management Officer
IDOPP Role
Information Technology/Chief
Information Office/Radio
NPS Dispatch Representative
FS Law Enforcement and
Investigations Representative
New Mexico
Arizona
BLM
FS
BIA
NPS
Law Enforcement Representative
Leon Ben
Cheri Bowen
Chris Dennison
BIA – Western Region Fire Management Officer
FS – Law Enforcement Officer
FS – Communications Supervisor
David Geyer
Art Goldberg
Arizona State – Fire Operations Specialist
BLM – Telecommunications Manager
Donald Griego
Kenan Jaycox
Bob Leaverton
Jon Young
Consultant Support
Susan Bosco
Michelle Langley
New Mexico State – Fire Management Officer
FS – Center Manager of Southwest Coordination Center
FS – Region 3 Fire and Aviation Management Director
BLM – Arizona Chief Ranger (Law Enforcement)
Team Leader and Fire Program
Representative
BIA/Tribal Representative
Law Enforcement Representative
Information Technology/Chief
Information Office/Radio
Arizona State Representative
Information Technology/Chief
Information Office/Radio
New Mexico State Representative
Dispatch Program Representative
Fire Program Representative
Law Enforcement Representative
Senior Consultant
Consultant/Analyst
Management Analysis, Inc.
Management Analysis, Inc.
IDOPP Report Appendix
3
January 31, 2013
Section 2 – Methods and Approach
These hyperlinks will direct the reader to the documents on line.
Exhibit 2.1-2 - Data Call and Survey
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/Exhibit2.1.2DataCallandSurvey.pdf
Sample Personnel Spreadsheet Given to Center Managers for Completion
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/SamplePersonnelSpreadsheet.pdf
Sample of the Personnel Spreadsheet Containing Team-Developed Personnel Costs
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/SamplePersonnelSpreadsheetContainingTeamDev
elopedCosts.pdf
IDOPP Report Appendix
4
January 31, 2013
Information Needs Assessment
The IDOPP teams used the following information to develop the alternatives for the optimized dispatch organization. The chart below aligns the
data elements to the major scope areas defined in the approved Project Plan and shows the source for each data element.
In general, the teams needed the data to define the current situation and provide input to the alternatives. For example, in an alternative
recommending agencies use a single CAD system, supporting data would include a table showing the CAD systems currently in use and percentage of
centers using each system (showing lack of standardization). Bridge Team discussions stressed the importance of having back-up data to support
each of the alternatives in the IDOPP Report.
Data Element
Reason Needed
Data Source
Comment
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Dispatch Mission, Function, and Scope: Review the services performed by dispatch offices across the various land management agencies to identify the
business needs and user requirements for all program areas supported and to validate the overall mission, function, and scope of the program. Determine
functions and activities that are appropriate for dispatch and those that might be best handled elsewhere.
List of overall categories of
dispatch (law enforcement,
wildland fire, search and rescue,
etc.) performed by each center
Detailed list of functions
performed by dispatch centers
Agencies for which law
enforcement dispatch is
performed
More detailed information on law
enforcement dispatch functions
performed (database checks,
status checks, etc.)
IDOPP Report Appendix
Assess classification of
current centers. Input for
possible consolidation sub-teams should consider
whether existence of single
function centers is still
appropriate.
Assess whether nondispatch organizations
should perform any
existing dispatch functions.
Need to understand exactly
which agencies receive law
enforcement dispatch
services.
Need to understand which
dispatch services centers
are providing to law
enforcement.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will develop chart showing percentage of single
function vs. multi-function centers (shown for as-is
and as back-up for alternatives recommending shift
to more multi-function centers).
Brainstorming
by Bridge
Team and subteams
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will include in as-is section of report. Will serve as
basis for any alternatives recommending that
agencies move functions elsewhere.
n/a
Will show chart with summary of agencies receiving
law enforcement dispatch services. May serve as
input for standardization.
Center
Manager Data
Call (limited
input)
More input
being provided
by Bridge
Team
n/a
Will develop chart showing percentage of centers
performing each of these categories of law
enforcement dispatch functions. May use for as-is
and for development of alternatives recommending
standardization of law enforcement dispatch
service offerings or services to be offered by
consolidated facilities under optimization.
5
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Reason Needed
Data Source
Comment
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Governance: Review the structure, funding policies, decision processes, and delegation of authorities used to manage dispatch operations to determine
opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Address how to best organize governance structures and processes for shared (agency/program)
dispatch operations to include such issues as membership, authorities, roles and responsibilities, decision processes, and funding.
Current governance structures
(board of directors and steering
committees)
Shows how governance
varies across centers and
areas. Will use as input to
create new governance
model. May provide input
on best practices for
optimization.
Shows how this practice
varies across centers and
areas. May be a best
practice for optimization.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will use for as-is to define the variety of governance
structures currently in place and to use during
optimization to determine how to best organize the
governance structure.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Basis for determining current cost
sharing
Shows how cost sharing
methods vary across
centers and areas.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
List of program areas providing
funding for dispatch
Shows how cost sharing by
program varies across
centers and areas.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will develop chart showing percentage of centers
with these groups. Will use during optimization to
determine whether agencies should set up groups
at each center or at certain types of center based
on complexity.
Will develop chart showing how cost sharing varies
(or does not vary) across centers and areas. May
use as input to determining the optimal cost sharing
mechanism.
Will develop chart comparing the workload for each
program against the funding that program area
provides. May use for developing alternative cost
sharing practices.
Cost to operate the center by
agency
Shows how cost sharing by
agency varies across
centers and areas.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Existence of user/stakeholder
groups
IDOPP Report Appendix
6
Will develop chart comparing the workload for each
agency against the funding that agency provides.
May use for developing alternative cost sharing
practices.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Determination of whether center
manager has delegated
responsibility for directing work of
all employees regardless of agency
Comment
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Current version is Will develop chart showing number of centers
just a yes or no
where center managers do not have delegated
question, thus
responsibility. Sub-teams could ask follow-up
limiting the
questions if necessary to assess any issues.
usefulness of the
responses. The
2008
Management
Efficiency
Assessment
version asked the
follow-up
question "Does
this cause any
conflicts between
agency priorities
or work plans?
Please explain."
which would have
provided more
valuable
feedback.
Dispatch Workload/Staffing: Review all dispatch workload (regular as well as expanded) to determine optimal hours of operation, staffing, and organizations to
meet current and projected requirements.
Workload counts for major fire
These workload items are
Where
n/a
Will develop charts showing distribution of
actions
necessary to define the
workload across for both as-is and optimized
possible, teams
amount of work performed will pull
centers. Collection of the data by month will allow
at each center as well as to workload from
for the display of any seasonality in workload.
serve as an input for
systems of
consolidation of work. Also record. Teams
necessary for input into
will request
FireOrg.
the rest via the
Center
Manager Data
Call.
IDOPP Report Appendix
Reason Needed
Shows where center
managers do and do not
have delegated authority.
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
7
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Position descriptions
Current organizational charts
Normal operating hours
Months during which center
operates 24/7
IDOPP Report Appendix
Reason Needed
Will compare variance in
position descriptions across
agencies. Serves as input
for potential
standardization of position
descriptions for
optimization.
Will compare variance in
current organizational
structures and serve as
potential models for
organizational structures
under optimization. Also
will use to confirm list of
employee survey recipients
and as-is staffing.
Will use to determine
requirements for hours of
operation and whether
24/7 operation is required.
Data Source
Being collected
by sub-teams
Determination of peak
periods.
Center
Manager Data
Call
Comment
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Teams will review position descriptions to
determine which are the best examples for dispatch
positions. Optimization could then include
recommended position descriptions for use.
Being collected
by sub-teams
n/a
Will help define the as-is organization. May serve
as best practice for how to structure the optimized
centers.
Center
Manager Data
Call
The Bridge Team
discussed transfer
of after-hours
dispatch to an
existing 24/7
center as a
potential area for
increased
efficiency and
safety. The data
call does not
collect info on
number of hours
per day if fewer
than 24.
n/a
Will use to determine percentage of centers with
24/7 operation vs. five day a week operation.
Teams will use current requirements as an input for
the consolidated centers and for potential transfer
of after-hours dispatch to those centers with 24/7
operation.
8
Will develop chart for the as-is to show the variance
of peak seasons across centers and areas. This will
help assist with determining peak staffing needs.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Current staffing (quantity, series,
grade, appointment type)
Reason Needed
Needed for costing of as-is
and for determining size of
current centers.
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
State pay scales
Needed for costing of as-is
and optimized
organizations. Shows
differences in pay, which
has been discussed as a
reason for staffing issues in
some agencies and centers.
Being collected
by sub-teams
Issues impacting ability to fill
vacancies
This information will
highlight the most common
issues faced by center
managers for hiring staff.
Center
Manager Data
Call
IDOPP Report Appendix
9
Comment
n/a
California has
specifically
mentioned that
the state
dispatchers are
making more than
their federal
counterparts.
Having the federal
grades of
employees in the
centers along with
the state pay
scales will allow
for the teams to
determine
discrepancies.
Past studies have
noted that federal
salaries and
benefits are not
competitive with
those offered by
local and state
public safety
agencies, which
could affect hiring
and retention.
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will develop charts summarizing staffing levels and
costs. Serves as potential criteria for consolidation,
with smaller centers consolidated into larger
centers.
Will serve as input for the costing tables. Will also
help in optimization of staffing.
Will show percentage of managers reporting each
issue. Hiring has been an issue discussed in many
past studies. Alternatives may address some issues
impacting hiring and retention.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Overtime hours
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
n/a
Will help in optimization of staffing to reduce
overtime costs. Also relates to potential
recommendation for transfer of after-hours
dispatch functions to existing 24/7 centers.
Dispatch Center Locations and Coverage: Assess alternatives for the physical locations and geographic coverage of dispatch centers to provide the most
efficient and effective services.
Center name
Basic information needed
Center
n/a
No separate analyses - this information is needed to
to classify data call results.
Manager Data
classify all other data for charts, graphs, etc.
Call
Center Identifier
Basic information needed
Center
n/a
No separate analyses - this information is needed to
to classify data call results.
Manager Data
classify all other data for charts, graphs, etc.
Call
Address and latitude/longitude of
Needed for input into GIS.
Center
Discussion
GIS points of contact will use data to develop maps
each center
Teams will use GIS maps as Manager Data
indicated that it
for both the as-is and for optimization.
input for reviewing current Call
would be more
locations as they relate to
efficient to
potential consolidation
request this data
under optimization.
from the center
managers (who
would readily
have access to it)
rather than have
the GIS points of
contact convert
address to
latitude and
longitude as done
for earlier
mapping efforts.
Acreage and boundaries of each
Needed for reviewing
Sub-teams' GIS n/a
Will use as an input for determining optimized
center's geographic coverage area current locations as they
points of
center locations.
relate to potential
contact to
consolidation under
provide
optimization and for
determining overlapping
boundaries.
IDOPP Report Appendix
Reason Needed
Needed for costing of as-is
and optimized
organizations.
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
10
Comment
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Maps showing physical location of
centers
Reason Needed
Need a map to show the
physical locations of the
current centers to help
when looking at overlap
and duplication of efforts
for consolidation. It will
also show areas that
currently do not have any
centers.
Data Source
Sub-teams to
collect
Comment
May overlap with
GIS data, but
requested maps
already exist and
are available.
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will use to define coverage areas for both the as-is
and for optimization.
Operational Standards: Review operational practices, business processes, and standards across agencies and program areas to assess where changes might
increase operational efficiency while effectively meeting mission requirements.
Existence of written standard
operating procedures for dispatch
functions
Sub-teams could follow up
to collect these procedures
and use them as an input
to develop recommended
procedures under
optimization.
Showing inconsistency in
current safety practices can
support alternatives for
enhanced safety.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will show percent of centers with and without
standard operating procedures. For those centers
that report they have standard operating
procedures, the IDOPP can review the procedures
for best practices.
Center
Manager Data
Call
Will show percent of centers with and without
these standard operating procedures. Serves as
basis for recommending development of standard
operating procedures or templates to increase
standardization, efficiency, and safety.
Existence of standard operating
procedures regarding check-in and
check-out for field going visitors
Showing inconsistency in
current safety practices can
support alternatives for
enhanced safety.
Center
Manager Data
Call
Safety has been
highlighted in the
charter and in
executive letters
as a primary goal
of the IDOPP.
Safety has been
highlighted in the
charter and in
executive letters
as a primary goal
of the IDOPP.
Existence of standard operating
procedures regarding dispatch of
law enforcement and public safety
employees
Showing inconsistency in
current safety practices can
support alternatives for
enhanced safety.
Center
Manager Data
Call
Safety has been
highlighted in the
charter and in
executive letters
as a primary goal
of the IDOPP.
Will show percent of centers with and without
these standard operating procedures. Serves as
basis for recommending development of standard
operating procedures or templates to increase
standardization, efficiency, and safety.
Existence of standard operating
procedures regarding check-in and
check-out for field going
employees
IDOPP Report Appendix
11
Will show percent of centers with and without
these standard operating procedures. Serves as
basis for recommending development of standard
operating procedures or templates to increase
standardization, efficiency, and safety.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
National level policy manuals or
guides
Relevant area regulations or
directives and standard operating
procedures
Reason Needed
Gives information on
required functions and
methods.
Gives area-specific
information on required
functions and methods.
Data Source
Bridge Team to
collect
Sub-teams to
collect
Comment
n/a
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will primarily use for developing as-is descriptions.
May also serve as input for optimization.
Will primarily use for developing as-is descriptions.
May also serve as input for optimization.
Training Standards: Review training and qualification standards for dispatch personnel and recommend changes or the creation of standards in order to ensure
a well-trained and safe dispatch workforce.
Security clearance requirements
Shows difference between
Bridge Team or n/a
Serves as input in developing optimal staffing, for
for law enforcement positions
law enforcement dispatch
Sub-teams to
example whether employees can be cross-trained in
and fire dispatch.
collect
both fire and law enforcement dispatch will impact
staffing requirements.
Current training standards for
Shows the lack of
Center
Earlier studies
Will use as input in recommending standardized
dispatchers (fire and law
consistent training
Manager Data
have discussed
training. May include chart summarizing the variety
enforcement)
standards, specifically for
Call (limited
the need for more of training curricula currently being followed (lack
law enforcement which has input)
effective and
of standardization).
been show in earlier
Bridge Team
standardized
studies to be inconsistent
and sub-teams training, primarily
across areas and agencies.
to collect more for law
input
enforcement.
“Ride along” experience for law
Shows the lack of
Center
Earlier studies
Will use as input in recommending standardized
enforcement dispatch
consistent training
Manager Data
have discussed
training.
standards, specifically for
Call
the need for more
law enforcement which has
effective and
been show in earlier
standardized
studies to be inconsistent
training, primarily
across areas and agencies.
for law
enforcement.
IDOPP Report Appendix
12
January 31, 2013
Data Element
On-the-job training for law
enforcement dispatch
Reason Needed
Shows the lack of
consistent training
standards, specifically for
law enforcement which has
been show in earlier
studies to be inconsistent
across areas and agencies.
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
Comment
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Earlier studies
Will use as input in recommending standardized
have discussed
training.
the need for more
effective and
standardized
training, primarily
for law
enforcement law
enforcement.
Technology/Equipment Standards: Gather information to develop functional requirements needed to support dispatch operations (e.g., radio consoles,
telephone systems/sets, computer system capability, software suites/licensing, and printers) while improving consistency and compatibility.
List of current infrastructure
Need assessment of
Sub-teams and n/a
Information on what currently exists will help
infrastructure to determine their technical
identify discrepancies, areas of overlap, and lack of
(radio, repeaters, IT, backbone,
issues and ability for
points of
standardization across the centers and areas. Subtelephone, etc.)
consolidation.
contact to
teams may also develop maps (for example,
collect
repeater site locations).
Capacity of current infrastructure
Need assessment of
Sub-teams will n/a
Will use as input to determine feasible optimized
infrastructure to determine assess
locations.
to take on additional users
ability for consolidation.
infrastructure
if site is
proposed for
expansion.
List of criminal information
Necessary to identify the
Center
n/a
Will develop a chart showing variety of systems the
systems currently being
Manager Data
centers use. Will use as an input into developing
databases used by each dispatch
used and determine
Call
staffing requirements for optimized organizations
center
system-dependent security
(security clearance requirements).
requirements.
Computer aided dispatch system
used by each center
Need to identify various
computer aided dispatch
systems currently in use by
centers and areas.
Need assessment of
infrastructure to determine
issues and ability for
consolidation.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Number of discrete channels
available for use in the dispatch
area
IDOPP Report Appendix
13
Will develop chart showing various systems the
centers use. May serve as input into recommended
acceptance of a standard computer aided dispatch
system.
Will develop chart summarizing channels the
centers use. Information on what currently exists
will help identify discrepancies and serve as an
input for optimization.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Existence of dedicated
frequencies
Deficiencies/issues with radio
system
Reason Needed
Multiple impacts on
changes to current
infrastructure and dispatch
operations.
Need input on current
problems faced by centers
and their law enforcement
customers.
Type of radio code used
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
Comment
n/a
Center
Manager Data
Call
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
n/a
Center
Manager Data
Call
Center
Manager Data
Call
Center
Manager Data
Call
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will develop a chart showing dedicated frequencies
the centers use. Will use as an input into
developing infrastructure for optimized centers.
Will develop chart showing number/percentage of
centers experiencing each problem. Teams will
then address these problems during optimization.
Need to identify variety of
n/a
May use to recommend a standardized code.
codes used by centers,
which impacts law
enforcement officers.
Bandwidths used
Need to identify variety of
n/a
May use to recommend a standardized bandwidth
bandwidths used by
or multi-band radios.
centers, which in some
cases requires law
enforcement officers to
carry multiple radios.
Facility Standards: Assess current conditions and infrastructure to assist in determining which offices should be kept or eliminated for any alternatives involving
consolidation. Assess the minimum facility and other infrastructure requirements and standards needed for a dispatch office to perform at an optimal level.
Type of office dispatch center is
located in (standalone,
temp/modular, etc.)
Availability of excess space
Adequacy of current space
Age of dispatch centers
IDOPP Report Appendix
Will use for classification of
facility types.
Will use for input in
determining possible
consolidation.
Will use for input in
determining possible
consolidation.
Will use for input in
determining possible
consolidation.
14
n/a
May use as an input for optimized centers.
Recommendation could be for optimized centers to
be of a specific type.
Will help in determining where to consolidate
centers.
n/a
Will help in determining where to consolidate
centers.
n/a
Will develop chart showing percentage of centers
by age. This will help in determining where to
consolidate centers.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Condition of dispatch centers
Annual facility lease costs
Size and location of expanded
dispatch
Reason Needed
Will use to understand
condition status of current
centers and for input in
determining possible
consolidation.
Needed for costing of as-is
and for input into selection
of centers for possible
consolidation.
Needed to determine
variation in on-site vs. offsite expanded dispatch and
available square footage.
Data Source
Center
Manager Data
Call
Comment
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will develop chart showing percentage of centers
by condition. This will help in determining where to
consolidate centers.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will help in determining where to consolidate
centers.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
May serve as an input for selection of consolidated
centers.
Dispatch Center Typing: Assess the range of dispatch center duties, workload, and complexity to establish a single, interagency dispatch center typing schema
(e.g., recognize and be able to identify the range of capabilities within what is now classified as a “tier 3” or local interagency center and eliminate differences
that currently exist between the National Park Service (NPS) and other agencies).
Number of centers by tier for each
agency
Shows the current number
and distribution of centers
across each area. Serves as
baseline for IDOPP.
Whether center is single agency or
multi-agency
Need to assess as-is and
serve as input to
optimization.
List of agency or agencies
sponsoring each multi-agency
center
Number of cooperative
agreements for each center
Need to assess as-is and
serve as input to
optimization.
This is a potential indicator
of complexity.
Description of law enforcement
tiers by agency
Need to better understand
and describe law
enforcement tier system (if
one exists).
IDOPP Report Appendix
Sub-teams to
collect from
ROSS and
mobilization
guides
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will develop chart summarizing tiers and agencies.
Will use as input for typing of centers during
optimization.
n/a
Center
Manager Data
Call
Center
Manager Data
Call
Bridge Team to
collect
n/a
Will develop chart showing number of single agency
vs. multi-agency centers. Sub-teams will consider
whether existence of single agency centers is still
appropriate, especially where located near other
agency centers.
May use as input for consolidation during
optimization in conjunction with line above.
15
n/a
n/a
May develop chart summarizing number of
agreements by center. May use as input for
consolidation.
Needed for description of law enforcement as-is.
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Description of NPS tiers
Reason Needed
Data Source
Comment
Need to better understand Bridge Team to n/a
and describe how NPS tier
collect
system differs from other
agencies.
Cross-Cutting Issues: In examining the above issues, the IDOPP will address these cross-cutting issues:
• Safety of field going personnel and the public;
• Risk management;
• Sustainability in operations;
• Eliminating unnecessary facilities and infrastructure;
• Opportunities to share dispatch services, personnel, and facilities among multiple program areas;
• Processes for reconciling and adjudicating competing priorities; and,
• Relative roles and functions of geographic area coordination centers and local dispatch centers
Methods used for check-in and
Showing inconsistency in
Center
Safety has been
check-out and field tracking
current safety practices can Manager Data
highlighted in the
support alternatives for
Call
charter and in
enhanced safety.
executive letters
as a primary goal
of the IDOPP.
Other Input and Feedback
Best practices used by each center This information will
Center
n/a
- from perspective of center
highlight best practices
Manager Data
manager
which teams could
Call
consider using in
optimization.
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
May use to recommend standardized typing.
Challenges and issues faced by
each center - from perspective of
center manager
Best practices used by each center
- from perspective of dispatch
center employee
IDOPP Report Appendix
This information will
highlight issues which
teams could address in
optimization.
This information will
highlight best practices
which teams could
consider using in
optimization.
Will serve as basis for recommending
standardization of method. A non-radio based
alternative may reduce volume of radio traffic.
Will use as input for optimization.
Center
Manager Data
Call
n/a
Will use as input for optimization.
Dispatch
Employee
Survey
n/a
Will use as input for optimization.
16
January 31, 2013
Data Element
Challenges and issues faced by
each center - from perspective of
dispatch center employee
Effectiveness of having a
centralized interagency land
management law enforcement
dispatch center
Challenges and issues experienced
by law enforcement officers
regarding dispatch services
Successes and strengths of the
dispatch services experienced by
law enforcement officers
IDOPP Report Appendix
Reason Needed
This information will
highlight issues which
teams could address in
optimization.
Gives information on
impact centralized dispatch
has had on law
enforcement officers.
This information will
highlight issues which
teams could address in
optimization.
This information will
highlight strengths which
teams could consider using
in optimization.
Data Source
Dispatch
Employee
Survey
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
Law
Enforcement
Officer Data
Call
17
Comment
n/a
Analyses to be Performed Using the Data Element
Will use as input for optimization.
n/a
Will use as input for optimization.
n/a
Will use as input for optimization.
n/a
Will use as input for optimization.
January 31, 2013
Exhibit 2.1.3-1 - Reports Reviewed for the IDOPP
Title
Studies Internal to the Interagency Dispatch System
An Examination of Dispatch Center Opportunities in Northeastern Oregon
DOI Radio Communications System Partnering Analysis
DOI Southwest Radio Communications Task Force Final Report
Emergency Communication Center (ECC) and Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) Study
FICC Best Practice Review
IDIP Briefing Paper: Dispatch Optimization: Framing the “as-is” situation
IDIP Briefing Paper: FireOrg - A workload analysis and dispatch staffing application
IDIP Briefing Paper: Need for Interagency Continuity of Operations (COOP) National Strategy
IDIP Briefing Paper: Need for Standard Field Going Employee Tracking Protocols
IDIP Briefing Paper: Standardizing AD (Administrative Determined) Protocols to Reduce Dispatch Center Workload
IDIP Briefing Paper: Training for Law Enforcement Dispatchers
Management Efficiency Assessment of the Interagency Wildland Fire Dispatch and Related Services
Region 5 Briefing Paper: Discussion and Decision Regarding Region 5’s Emergency Communication Centers (ECCs)
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Fire and Aviation Management Briefing Paper: SAFENET Alert within
most R5 Emergency Command Centers
Studies External to the Interagency Dispatch System
Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council Key Findings and Effective Practices for Public
Safety Consolidation
Report for Consolidation Analysis and Next Generation 9-1-1 Implementation Study, prepared for State of Oregon
Office of Emergency Management by L.R. Kimball
San Diego Regional Technology Center Regional Fire Dispatch Center Optimization Study
Staffing Levels in the State Operated Communications Centers (An Audit Report on State Operated Dispatch
Centers in Utah)
IDOPP Report Appendix
18
Date
2007
July 2006
September 2003
2006
April 2005
November 2010
September 2010
July 2010
December 2010
September 2010
October 2010
August 25, 2008
June 15, 2010
May 2010
October 2010
February 2012
April 29, 2009
October 14, 1998
January 31, 2013
Exhibit 2.1.3-2 - 2008 Management Efficiency Assessment
Place curser on the Management Efficiency Assessment cover below and Cntl/Click to access the full
report in Adobe Acrobat format (181 pages). The report is also available via this URL for those reading
this report hard copy.
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/interagency_wildland_fire_dispatch_mgmt_efficiency_assessment_report.pdf
IDOPP Report Appendix
19
January 31, 2013
Exhibit 2.1.4 – Interviews
Interview Questions
The Southwest sub-team asked the following questions of center managers:
• Do you believe that Wildland Fire and Law Enforcement Dispatching can be done by the same
office/individual? Why? Co-located in the same facility? Why?
• What is your current workload (expressed as an approximate percentage) of “Admin” resource
dispatching? What do you believe the standards should be for check-in check-out in terms of nonfire resources?
• Do you believe that consolidation of some centers in the Southwest could work? What would the
pros and cons be to consider before any such consolidations?
• Do you feel the Southwest lacks consistency and standards in expanded dispatch? What thoughts
and ideas do you have for addressing this issue?
The California sub-team asked the following questions of FS line officers (Forest Supervisors), fire
management officers, and center managers:
• Do you believe that Wildland Fire and Law Enforcement Dispatching should be done by the same
center? Why or why not?
• What is the current workload (expressed as an approximate percentage) of “Administrative”
resource tracking for your unit?
• Do you feel that California lacks consistency and standards in dispatch processes? What thoughts
and ideas do you have for addressing this issue?
• Do you believe that consolidation of some centers in California can work? What pros and cons
should be considered before any such consolidations?
• If your dispatch center was to be consolidated with another center or centers, which center(s)
should it be and why?
• Can you think of any other dispatch centers that would make a good consolidation fit and why?
• Do you support having two Geographic Area Coordination Centers in California or the consolidation
of California Geographic Area Coordination Centers and why?
IDOPP Report Appendix
20
January 31, 2013
Section 3 – The As-Is Organization
Table 3.4-2 – Dispatch Functions
The tables in this exhibit summarize additional information from the center manager data call, typically at the area and
state level.
The IDOPP team determined that dispatch centers provide the following support functions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dispatch Operations Functions (Non-Law Enforcement)
Check-in and check-out, tracking of field going
• Systems usage
personnel – both people from the unit and others
 Wildland Fire Decision Support System
visiting from other locations
 Resource Assessment of Values At Risk
 Resource Ordering and Status System
Call taking
 Aviation Mishap Information System
911
 Computer Aided Hazard Information System
Console - Initial Attack & Radio
•
FireCode
Recordkeeping (for example, Incident
Providing information to responders
Qualification Certification System and Incident
Situational awareness
Qualification System)
Emergency Medical Dispatch
• Records management
Ordering and sending personnel and resources to
• Data management
incidents
• Alert notification
Providing logistical support to incidents
•
Alarm monitoring
Resource coordination and management
• Access control – facilities and systems
Calling private vendors
• Tracking equipment/assets for incident management
Dispatching contracted resources
teams
Tracking incidents and resource status
• Travel planning/travel management program
Incident reporting
• Establishment of preparedness level/response levels
Support to all-hazard incidents
• Expanded dispatch
Search and rescue operations
• Public information/notifications (by telephone, email,
Staging support
or other forms of notification to individuals, public,
Airspace management/coordination
agency personnel, and cooperators)
 Creating Temporary Flight Restrictions
• Developing and updating plans
Aviation dispatching/flight following
• Upward reporting of dispatch information to
Infrared Operations
Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) and
Command Center Duty Officer
National Interagency Coordination Center
Providing notifications to Duty Officers and Duty Chiefs
•
Monitoring of remote cameras
Mobilization guides
• Supporting expanded dispatch teams
National mobilization coordination
•
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA)
Demobilization planning
operational area dispatching (Specific to California)
Using and maintaining the computer aided dispatch
system
IDOPP Report Appendix
21
January 31, 2013
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Law Enforcement Dispatch Functions
Obtaining criminal history information – National
• Processing warrants
Crime Information Center, etc.
• Data entry for and Law Enforcement and Investigations
Conducting warrant checks
Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS),
Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System
Conducting drivers’ checks (27/29 or 28/29
(IMARS), and LawNet
information)
• Manage a part of Mobile Data Terminal program
Maintain federal warrants
• Broadcast bolos
Process tow requests
 California Highway Patrol (CHP) Form 180 (Specific • Documentation of incidents
to California)
• Status checks for Law Enforcement Officers and Forest
Protection Officers
Use of Law Enforcement telecommunications systems
 California Law Enforcement Telecommunication
• Tracking of cooperators
System (CLETS) administration (Specific to
• Providing dispatch services for cooperators
California)
• Support to special events/dignitaries
• CAL-photo (Specific to California)
• Special operations
 Arizona Department of Public Safety Net
• Manage Field Investigation/Interview database
(Telecommunication System)
(county/local database)
 New Mexico State Police System
• Conducting or support Department of Justice audit
Parole/probation checks
• Providing training for law enforcement (for example,
Obtaining stolen property information
radio protocol)
Confirming warrants and stolen property with outside
agencies
Employee Supervision and Development Functions
 Tracking and monitoring employee
Employee supervision
performance and work tasks
 Employee relations
 Employee development
 Employee discipline
 Mandatory training
Labor relations
 Timekeeping
Employee accountability
•
Apprentice
coordinator
Human Resources tasks performed by supervisors
 Personnel hiring
Management and Organization Functions
 Needs assessment
Work planning
 Coordinating/facilitating
Priority setting

Zone training – coordination and development
Information resources
 Conference calls
Preparedness reviews
•
Serve as "Acting" when requested or assigned
Fire reports
• Support or manage a cache
Manages schedules and budgets
• Support or manage an expanded cache
Fiscal accountability of project codes
• Support or manage a mobilization center
Conduct training (not just limited to dispatch)
 Planning
IDOPP Report Appendix
22
January 31, 2013
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support to/from Other Functions
 Setting up in GovTrip with 6500 form
Contracting Officer’s Representative duties/managing
 Ensuring completion of security training and
contract resources in coordination with Acquisition
refresher training
Management
 Verification of drivers’ licenses
411
 Verification of qualifications
Cost analyses and cost estimates
 Mobilization
Credit card management

Monitoring of days worked
Credit card reconciliation
•
Workload
associated with local partners
Process payment documents
 Creating cooperative agreements
Reviewing billings for agreements payments on fires
 Data entry into ROSS
Micro purchasing program/Procurement
 Coordinating travel
Issue burn permits

Coordinating with local Emergency
Travel vouchers
Coordination/Command Centers (ECCs)
Additional duties acquired due to centralization of
 Billing
other functions
• Provide incident documentation for claims
Key control/management
• Serve as 24/7 contact
IT security guidance
• Providing basic telecom services
Website management
• Wireless communications program management
Network administration
• Committees for training and curriculum development
Help desk – creating tickets for repair/support
• Continuity of Operations Plan
Workload associated with Administratively
 Developing plan
Determined/casual employees
 Conducting/participating in exercises
 Hiring
Predictive Services/Intelligence Functions
Weather forecast analysis and communication
• Weather Information Management System/National
Fire Danger Rating System
Weather station management and maintenance
• Develop and update plans
Intel collection and analysis
• Requests for Information
Gathering fire situation information
• Respond to Freedom of Information Act requests
Situation assessment and reporting
• Attend numerous conference and coordination calls
Mapping fires and other all-hazard incidents
with National Weather Service and other agencies
Conducting and participating in agency(s) briefings,
• Attend predictive services program meetings and work
providing current and predicted fire information,
sessions
resource needs and priorities and critical resource
shortages
• Predictive services product development and testing
Coordinate prescribed burning and smoke
• Upward reporting of predictive services and
management reporting
intelligence to GACC and NICC
Airshed/smoke coordination
• Preparing and submitting Incident Status Summary
(Forms ICS-209)
Data maintenance
• Developing initial Report of Conditions
Interagency Cooperation Functions
 Arizona: Department of Emergency Management
Knowledge of interagency policy and guidelines

New Mexico: Department of Homeland Security
Interagency representation/attend interagency
and Emergency Management
meetings

California:
Cal EMA Master Mutual Aid)
Multi-Agency Coordinating Group coordination
• Interagency coordination and response to incidents
Agreements
•
Local interagency coordination and response to
Mutual aid
incidents
Working with local cache system
All-hazard support
IDOPP Report Appendix
23
January 31, 2013
Table 3.4-3 - Dispatch Services Provided by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
24
34
85%
2
67%
0
2
1
31
86%
1
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
30
75%
0
0%
0
0
0
29
81%
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
26
65%
0
0%
0
0
0
25
69%
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
31
78%
1
33%
0
0
1
29
81%
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
29
73%
0
0%
0
0
0
28
78%
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
Other
Wildland Fire
Structural Fire
Search &
Rescue
33
83%
0
0%
0
0
0
32
89%
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
NCIC/State
Authorized LE
39
98%
3
100%
1
1
1
35
97%
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Local Dispatch
Contract
32
80%
1
33%
0
0
1
30
83%
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Helicopter
Dispatching
EMS
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC Performing Dispatch Functions
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Howard Forest ECC
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mariposa ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Modoc Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Perris ECC
1
All-hazard
Total
Number
of
Centers
Admin
Dispatch Services Provided
39
18
98% 45%
2
3
67% 100%
0
1
2
1
1
1
36
15
100% 42%
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
25
Search &
Rescue
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
100%
1
9
64%
6
67%
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
Other
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
100%
1
4
29%
2
22%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Wildland Fire
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
100%
1
7
50%
5
56%
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
NCIC/State
Authorized LE
Local Dispatch
Contract
Helicopter
Dispatching
EMS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
100% 100% 100%
1
1
1
13
3
11
93% 21% 79%
9
3
7
100% 33% 78%
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
4
0
4
Structural Fire
Plumas ECC
1
1
Red Bluff ECC
1
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
2
San Andreas ECC
1
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
0
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
2
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
1
St. Helena ECC
1
0
Stanislaus ECC
1
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
1
Visalia ECC
1
0
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
1
1
Yosemite ECC
1
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
2
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
100%
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
1
Southwest Area Total
14
12
Percent of SW Area Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
86%
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
7
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
78%
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
0
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
0
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
5
All-hazard
Total
Number
of
Centers
Admin
Dispatch Services Provided
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
100%
1
2
14%
2
22%
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
12
86%
7
78%
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
0%
0
7
50%
5
56%
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
26
80%
1
1
1
1
0
45
83%
40%
0
0
1
0
1
37
69%
40%
0
0
1
1
0
30
56%
60%
0
1
0
1
1
40
74%
Structural Fire
Search &
Rescue
NCIC/State
Authorized LE
Local Dispatch
Contract
Helicopter
Dispatching
EMS
0%
0
0
0
0
0
36
67%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
31
57%
Other
80%
1
1
0
1
1
52
96%
Wildland Fire
Percent of NM Operational Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
100%
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
44
Percent of IDOPP Centers Performing Dispatch Functions
81%
All-hazard
Total
Number
of
Centers
Admin
Dispatch Services Provided
100%
1
1
1
1
1
51
94%
40%
0
0
1
1
0
25
46%
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.6 Governance
Table 3.6-1 - Board of Directors/Steering Committees by Area and State summarizes how many centers have boards of directors or steering committees, by
area and state.
Table 3.6-1 - Board of Directors/Steering Committees by Area and State
Center has a Board of Directors / Steering Committee
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Yes (%)
4
0
4
0
12
7
5
16
10%
86%
30%
No
No (%)
36
3
32
1
2
2
0
38
90%
14%
70%
Table 3.6-2 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Area and State summarizes the existence of user/stakeholders groups by area and state.
Table 3.6-2 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Area and State
Center Has a Stakeholder Group
Total Number
Yes
Yes (%)
No
No (%)
of Centers
California Area Total
40
12
30%
28
70%
California (GACC/CC)
3
2*
1
California (Operational
36
10**
26
Hawaii
1
0
1
Southwest Area Total
14
5
36%
9
64%
Arizona
9
3
6
New Mexico
5
2
3
IDOPP TOTAL
54
17
31%
37
69%
*At the California GACCs, the federal center manager reported having a user/stakeholder group but the CAL FIRE center manager did not.
**At the Grass Valley Interagency ECC, the CAL FIRE center manager reported having a user/stakeholder group but the federal center manager did not.
IDOPP Report Appendix
27
January 31, 2013
Table 3.6-2 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Area and State summarizes the centers with a board of directors/steering committee by area and state. Table 3.6-3 Board of Directors/Steering Committee by Center and Agency shows this information by center and agency. For centers with a federal and state center
manager, the table also shows the governance information by agency type.
Table 3.6-3 - Board of Directors/Steering Committee by Center and Agency
Center has
a BOD/
Steering
Committee
Total
Number
of
Centers
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers with BOD/Steering Committee
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC with BOD/Steering Committee
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Federal
1
State
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
Federal
1
State
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers with BOD/Steering
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Federal
1
State
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Federal
1
State
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
Yes
No
4
10%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11%
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
36
90
3
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
89
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
Center has
a BOD/
Steering
Committee
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
28
Total
Number
of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
January 31, 2013
Center has
a BOD/
Steering
Committee
Total
Number
of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with BOD/Steering
Committee
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with BOD/Steering Committee
Arizona Operational Centers Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
Yes
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
10
0%
1
2
14
2
1
14
9
0
12
86%
7
Total
Number
of
Centers
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with BOD/Steering
Committee
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
1
Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers with BOD/Steering
Committee
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
Percent of IDOPP Centers with BOD/Steering Committee
No
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0%
Center has
a BOD/
Steering
Committee
29
Yes
No
78%
1
22
%
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
100%
0%
1
1
1
1
1
16
30%
0
0
0
0
0
38
70
January 31, 2013
Table 3.6-2 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Area and State summarizes the centers with a board of user/stakeholder group by area and state. Table 3.6-4 User/Stakeholder Groups by Center and Agency shows this information by center and agency.
Table 3.6-4 - User/Stakeholder Groups by Center and Agency
Center has a
Stakeholder
Group
Total
Number of
Centers
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers with Stakeholder Group
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC with Stakeholder Group
Northern California Coordination Center*
1
Federal
1
State
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command
1
Southern California Coordination Center*
1
Federal
1
State
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers with Stakeholder
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
State
1
Federal
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
State
1
Federal
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC**
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
Yes
No
12
30%
2
67%
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
10
28%
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
28
70%
1
33%
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
26
72%
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
Center has a
Stakeholder
Group
State
Federal
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
State
Federal
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
State
Federal
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
30
Total
Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
No
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
January 31, 2013
Center has a
Stakeholder
Group
Total
Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
State
Federal
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
State
Federal
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with Stakeholder
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with Stakeholder Group
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with Stakeholder
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
Yes
Center has a
Stakeholder
Group
Total
Number of
Centers
No
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with Stakeholder
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with Stakeholder Group
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0% 100%
0
1
5
9
36% 64%
3
6
33% 67%
0
1
Yes
No
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
40%
0
0
1
0
1
17
31%
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
60%
1
1
0
1
0
37
69%
1
1
1
1
1
54
*At the California GACCs, the federal center manager reported having a user/stakeholder group but the CAL FIRE center manager did not.
**At the Grass Valley Interagency ECC, the CAL FIRE center manager reported having a user/stakeholder group but the federal center manager did not.
IDOPP Report Appendix
31
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.7 Sponsorship and Budget
Table 3.7-3 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Area and State shows the number and percentage of dispatch centers with operational costs
funded by various agencies, as reported by center managers. This summary presents whether an agency contributes funding to a center but does not examine
amounts funded by different agencies. No federal agencies outside the dispatch community contribute funding for operational costs.
Table 3.7-3 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Area and State
Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
BIA
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
State /
Territory
Tribal
Gov't
Others
1 (3%)
0
1
0
7 (50%)
5
2
8 (15%)
5 (13%)
1
4
0
5 (36%)
2
3
10 (19%)
19 (48%)
2
17
0
12 (86%)
7
5
31 (57%)
1 (3%)
0
1
0
3 (21%)
2
1
4 (7%)
8 (20%)
0
7
1
4 (29%)
3
1
12 (22%)
22 (55%)
2
20
0
3 (21%)
1
2
25 (46%)
1 (3%)
0
1
0
0 (0%)
0
0
1 (2%)
14 (35%)
2
12
0
0 (0%)
0
0
14 (26%)
32
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-4 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs shows the agencies receiving dispatch
services versus the agencies providing funding for personnel or operating costs. In some cases, the agencies receiving services may pay lease costs, data
that IDOPP did not collect by agency.
Table 3.7-4 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs
BIA
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Rec
Svs
8
2
6
0
11
7
4
19
Bureau of
Reclamation
BLM
Prov
Fund
1
0
1
0
8
6
2
9
Rec
Svs
12
2
10
0
8
3
5
20
Prov
Fund
6
2
4
0
7
3
4
13
NPS
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Rec
Svs
17
2
14
1
11
6
5
28
Prov
Fund
9
0
8
1
4
3
1
13
Rec
Svs
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
FS
Rec
Svs
20
2
18
0
11
6
5
31
33
Prov
Fund
19
2
17
0
12
7
5
31
Prov
Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Department
of Homeland
Security
Rec
Prov
Svs
Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
State /
Territory
Rec Prov
Svs Fund
24
23
3
3
21
20
0
0
8
3
3
1
5
2
32
26
Department
of Defense
Rec
Svs
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
3
Tribal Gov't
Rec
Svs
5
1
4
0
7
3
4
12
Prov
Fund
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
FWS
Prov
Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rec
Svs
7
2
5
0
8
3
5
15
Prov
Fund
1
0
1
0
3
2
1
4
Others
Rec
Svs
15
2
13
0
5
2
3
20
Prov
Fund
14
2
12
0
0
0
0
14
January 31, 2013
Agencies use cost sharing to fund the dispatch centers. Methods used for cost sharing include workload analysis, percentage of operating budget, annual
operating plan, number of positions per agency, or as specified by contract and/or agreement.
Table 3.7-5 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Area and State shows the percentage of centers using each method. Some centers reported using multiple
methods.
Table 3.7-5 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Area and State
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
34
28%
33%
25%
100%
29%
22%
40%
28%
40%
0%
42%
100%
64%
67%
60%
46%
Other (%)
Contract (%)
30%
33%
31%
0%
14%
11%
20%
26%
Number of
Positions/Agency
(%)
23%
0%
25%
0%
36%
33%
40%
26%
Annual Operating
Plan (%)
Percent of
Operating Budget
(%)
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Workload Analysis
(%)
Total Number of
Centers
Method Used for Funding/Cost Sharing
45% 23%
33% 67%
47% 17%
0% 100%
7% 29%
11% 33%
0% 20%
35% 24%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-6 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Area and State shows which program areas are paying for dispatch services, as reported by center
managers. The California sub team noted that, with few exceptions, law enforcement does not provide funding for dispatch services. This is not an issue in
the Southwest, which dispatches law enforcement separately.
Table 3.7-6 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Area and State
Program Area Paying for
Dispatch Services
California
Area Total
California
(GACC/CC)
Wildland Fire
Law Enforcement
Admin Services
Emergency Medical Service
Search & Rescue
Resources
Recreation
Off-highway Vehicles
Other
Total Number of Centers
34 - (85%)
6 - (15%)
5 - (13%)
10 - (25%)
1 - (3%)
1 - (3%)
1 - (3%)
1 - (3%)
20 - (50%)
40
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
IDOPP Report Appendix
California
(Operational
Centers)
30
5
5
10
1
1
1
1
18
36
35
Hawaii
Southwest
Area Total
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12 - (86%)
1 - (7%)
0 - (0%)
0 - (0%)
0 - (0%)
0 - (0%)
1 - (7%)
0 - (0%)
1 - (7%)
14
Arizona
New
Mexico
IDOPP
TOTAL
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
46 - (85%)
7 - (13%)
5 - (9%)
10 - (19%)
1 - (2%)
1 - (2%)
2 - (4%)
1 - (2%)
21 - (39%)
54
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-7 - Center Sponsor by Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Type of Center
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Type of Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Type of Center
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number
of
Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
Interagency
Center –
Integrated
Functions
18
45%
2
67%
2
0
2
16
44%
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
Type of Center
Interagency
Center –
Collocated
Only
6
15%
0
0%
0
0
0
6
17%
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Single Agency
Center
16
40%
1
33%
0
1
0
14
39%
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Type of Center
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Type of Center
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Type of Center
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number
of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
37
Interagency
Center –
Integrated
Functions
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0%
0
13
93%
8
89%
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
Type of Center
Interagency
Center –
Collocated
Only
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Single Agency
Center
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
100%
1
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Type of Center
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Type of Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number
of
Centers
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
38
Interagency
Center –
Integrated
Functions
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
31
57%
Type of Center
Interagency
Center –
Collocated
Only
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
6
11%
Single Agency
Center
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
17
31%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-3 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Area and State summarizes the agencies providing funding for operating costs by area and state.
Table 3.7-8 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.7-8 - Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs by Center
5
13%
1
33%
0
0
1
4
11%
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
20%
0
0%
0
0
0
7
19%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
19
48%
2
67%
1
0
2
17
47%
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
22
55%
2
67%
1
0
1
20
56%
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
Others
Tribal
Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
DHS
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
BOR
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Howard Forest ECC
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mariposa ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Modoc Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Perris ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
BLM
Total
Number of
Centers
BIA
Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs
1
14
3% 35%
0
2
0% 67%
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
12
3% 33%
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
January 31, 2013
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0%
0
12
86%
7
78%
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
100%
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0%
0
3
21%
1
11%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
40%
0
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
100%
1
4
29%
3
33%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
20%
0
Tribal
Gov't
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
3
21%
2
22%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
20%
0
State/
Territory
DOD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
FS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
NPS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
FWS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
5
36%
2
22%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
60%
1
DHS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
5
5
5
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
1
40
BOR
Plumas ECC
1
Red Bluff ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
14
Percent of SW Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
BLM
Total
Number of
Centers
BIA
Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
January 31, 2013
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Receiving Funding from Each Agency
1
1
1
1
54
1
0
0
0
8
1
1
0
1
0
10
19%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
1
0
0
0
4
7%
1
0
0
0
12
22%
1
1
1
1
31
57%
Others
Tribal
Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
DHS
BOR
BIA
Total
Number of
Centers
BLM
Agencies Providing Funding for Operating Costs
1
0
1
0
25
46%
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0
0
0
0
14
26%
Table 3.7-4 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs summarizes the agencies receiving dispatch
services versus the agencies providing funding for personnel or operating costs by area and state. Table 3.7-9 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies
Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs shows this information by center.
Table 3.7-9 - Agencies Receiving Dispatch Services vs. Agencies Providing Funding for Personnel or Operating Costs
IDOPP Report Appendix
Prov Fund
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
7
2
1
1
0
0
17
2
1
9
0
0
20
2
1
19
2
1
24
3
2
23
3
1
5
1
0
1
0
0
15
2
1
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
6
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
10
0
0
2
2
1
4
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
14
1
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
2
18
1
0
2
2
2
17
1
0
2
2
2
21
0
1
2
0
1
20
0
1
1
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
13
0
0
2
0
1
12
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rec Svs
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
2
0
0
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
6
2
1
Rec Svs
12
2
1
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
1
0
0
Rec Svs
Rec Svs
Others
Prov Fund
Prov Fund
Tribal
Gov't
8
2
1
41
Prov Fund
State/
Territory
FS
Rec Svs
NPS
Prov Fund
FWS
Rec Svs
DOD
Prov Fund
DHS
Rec Svs
BOR
Prov Fund
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command
Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Center
BLM
Rec Svs
BIA
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
42
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
Prov Fund
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rec Svs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Others
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tribal
Gov't
Rec Svs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rec Svs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
State/
Territory
FS
Prov Fund
Rec Svs
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NPS
Prov Fund
Rec Svs
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
FWS
Rec Svs
DOD
Prov Fund
DHS
Rec Svs
BOR
Prov Fund
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
BLM
Rec Svs
BIA
3
0
0
1
0
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
Prov Fund
Prov Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
1
0
0
0
0
8
6
1
0
0
0
0
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
7
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
0
1
1
11
6
0
1
0
1
1
4
3
0
0
2
0
0
11
6
0
0
1
0
0
12
7
0
0
2
0
0
8
3
1
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
1
1
1
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
1
1
0
1
1
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
1
1
1
1
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
28
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
13
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
31
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
31
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
1
1
1
1
1
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
26
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
0
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
2
1
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Rec Svs
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
0
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
0
Rec Svs
1
Rec Svs
Prov Fund
0
Rec Svs
Rec Svs
Others
Prov Fund
Prov Fund
Tribal
Gov't
0
43
Prov Fund
State/
Territory
FS
Rec Svs
NPS
Prov Fund
FWS
Rec Svs
DOD
Prov Fund
DHS
Rec Svs
BOR
Prov Fund
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
BLM
Rec Svs
BIA
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-5 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Area and State summarizes the funding/cost sharing determination by area and state. Table 3.7-10 Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.7-10 - Funding/Cost Sharing Determination by Center
Total Number
of Centers
Workload
Analysis
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers using Method for Determination
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC using Method for
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers using Method for Determination
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Howard Forest ECC
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mariposa ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Modoc Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Perris ECC
1
Plumas ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
9
23%
0
0%
0
0
0
9
25%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
44
Method Used for Funding/Cost Sharing Determination
Number of
Percent of
Annual
Positions/
Operating Budget Operating Plan
Contract Other
Agency
12
11
16
18
9
30%
28%
40%
45%
23%
1
1
0
1
2
33%
33%
0%
33%
67%
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
11
9
15
17
6
31%
25%
42%
47%
17%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number
of Centers
Workload
Analysis
Red Bluff ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers using Method for Determination
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
14
Percent of SW Centers using Method for
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
Percent of AZ Operational Centers using Method for Determination
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers using Method for Determination
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
5
36%
3
33%
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
40%
0
1
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
45
Method Used for Funding/Cost Sharing Determination
Number of
Percent of
Annual
Positions/
Operating Budget Operating Plan
Contract
Agency
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0%
100%
100%
0%
0
1
1
0
2
4
9
1
14%
29%
64%
7%
1
2
6
1
11%
22%
67%
11%
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
3
0
20%
40%
60%
0%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
Other
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
100%
1
4
29%
3
33%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
20%
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number
of Centers
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers using Method for Determination
Method Used for Funding/Cost Sharing Determination
Number of
Percent of
Annual
Positions/
Operating Budget Operating Plan
Contract
Agency
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
14
15
25
19
26%
28%
46%
35%
Workload
Analysis
1
1
54
0
0
14
26%
Other
0
0
13
24%
Table 3.7-6 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Area and State shows the program areas paying for dispatch services by area and state. Table 3.7-11
- Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.7-11 - Program Areas Paying for Dispatch Services by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46
34
85%
3
100%
1
1
1
30
83%
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
10
25%
0
0%
0
0
0
10
28%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Other
Off-highway
Vehicles
Recreation
5
13%
0
0%
0
0
0
5
14%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Resources
6
15%
0
0%
0
0
0
5
14%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Emergency
Medical
Service
Search &
Rescue
Admin
Services
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Receiving Funding from Program Area
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of
Centers
Wildland Fire
Program Area Paying for Dispatch Services
20
50%
2
67%
1
0
1
18
50%
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
47
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Off-highway
Vehicles
Recreation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Resources
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Emergency
Medical
Service
Search &
Rescue
Admin
Services
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of
Centers
Wildland Fire
Program Area Paying for Dispatch Services
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
48
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
10
19%
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
2%
Other
Off-highway
Vehicles
Recreation
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
5
9%
Resources
100% 100%
1
1
12
1
86%
7%
7
1
78% 11%
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
100%
0%
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
46
7
85% 13%
Emergency
Medical
Service
Search &
Rescue
Admin
Services
Percent of HI Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Receiving Funding from Program Area
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of
Centers
Wildland Fire
Program Area Paying for Dispatch Services
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
21
39%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-2 - Summary of Personnel Costs by Area and State in the body of the report summarizes the annual costs by area and state for permanent full-time and
part-time personnel, not including overtime or special pay. Table 3.7-12 - Regular Time Costs by Center (in Thousands) shows this information by center. For
centers with a federal and state center manager, the table also shows costs by agency type. These costs include benefits and represent the cost to the
government.
Table 3.7-12 - Regular Time Costs by Center (in Thousands)
Type of
Agency
Center Name
California Area
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Tribal
State
49
Annual Personnel Costs
(in Thousands)
$35,630
$4,990
$2,390
$1,600
$790
$360
$2,230
$1,680
$550
$30,310
$800
$1,050
$1,780
$570
$1,200
$600
$1,470
$830
$1,000
$460
$530
$980
$1,000
$1,840
$510
$1,330
$110
$760
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers
IDOPP Report Appendix
50
Type of
Agency
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
State
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Annual Personnel Costs
(in Thousands)
$530
$1,130
$480
$460
$1,820
$860
$960
$680
$610
$500
$2,900
$480
$610
$990
$480
$520
$540
$610
$740
$470
$530
$830
$400
$670
$280
$380
$460
$100
$620
$1,010
$480
$530
$330
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo interagency dispatch center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
51
Type of
Agency
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Annual Personnel Costs
(in Thousands)
$330
$5,710
$4,050
$520
$860
$280
$550
$580
$280
$420
$270
$280
$1,660
$450
$430
$250
$270
$260
$41,340
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.8 Stakeholders
The data call asked center managers to report the number of “cooperative agreements” for the center. The data call did not define cooperative agreements but
the agreements reported here should estimate numbers of interagency agreements, memorandums of understanding and other formalized agreements among
centers and organized entities. Table 3.8-1 - Numbers of “Cooperative Agreements” by Area and State summarizes the responses by area and state. For centers
with a federal and state center manager, the table shows the number of agreements by agency type.
Table 3.8-1 - Numbers of “Cooperative Agreements” by Area and State
Numbers of Cooperative Agreements
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Center Manager
51
5
45
1
14
9
5
65
52
0
1-10
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
4
25
2
22
1
11
6
5
36
11-20
10
3
7
0
0
0
0
10
21-30
31+
7
0
7
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
7
0
1
1
0
8
January 31, 2013
Table 3.8-2 - Number of “Cooperative Agreements” by Center shows the same information by center. For centers with a federal and state center manager, the
table shows the number of agreements by agency type.
Table 3.8-2 - Number of “Cooperative Agreements” by Center
Number of Cooperative Agreements
Total Number
of Center
Manager
Responses
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
IDOPP Report Appendix
51
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
45
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
0
1-10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
22
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11-20
10
3
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
21-30
31+
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
January 31, 2013
Number of Cooperative Agreements
Total Number
of Center
Manager
Responses
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
54
0
1-10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-20
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-30
31+
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Number of Cooperative Agreements
Total Number
of Center
Manager
Responses
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
65
55
0
1-10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
11
6
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
36
11-20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
21-30
31+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
January 31, 2013
Table 3.8.3 - Reported Law Enforcement/Dispatch Memorandums of Understanding by Area and State summarizes the centers reporting a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the agency law enforcement program and dispatch center, by area and state. Only operational centers support law enforcement
dispatch. Of the centers dispatching for law enforcement, 28% reported established MOUs with the agency law enforcement program.
Table 3.8.3 - Reported Law Enforcement/Dispatch Memorandums of Understanding by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers
Performing LE Dispatch
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
Memorandums of Understanding Between Agency Law Enforcement
Program and Dispatch Center
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes
Yes (%)
No
No (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
7
25%
20
71%
1
4%
0
0
0
7
19
1
0
1
0
4
36%
7
64%
0
0%
2
5
0
2
2
0
11
28%
27
69%
1
3%
56
January 31, 2013
Table 3.8.3 - Reported Law Enforcement/Dispatch Memorandums of Understanding by Area and State summarizes the centers with a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the agency law enforcement program and dispatch center, by area and state. Table 3.8-4 - Centers with a Memorandum of
Understanding between Agency Law Enforcement Program and Dispatch Center shows this information by center. Only the operational centers provide law
enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.8-4 - Centers with a Memorandum of Understanding between Agency Law Enforcement Program and Dispatch Center
MOU Between Agency Law
Enforcement Program and Dispatch
Center
Total Number of
Centers Performing
LE Dispatch
28
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with an MOU
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with an MOU
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
57
Yes
No
7
25%
7
26%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
20
71%
19
70%
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
MOU Between Agency Law
Enforcement Program and Dispatch
Center
Total Number of
Centers Performing
LE Dispatch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with an MOU
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with an MOU
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with an MOU
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with an MOU
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with an MOU
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
11
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
39
58
Yes
No
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
4
36%
2
29%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
50%
1
0
1
0
11
28%
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
100%
1
7
64%
5
71%
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
50%
0
1
0
1
27
69%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
3%
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.9.1 – Fire Workload
Figure 3.9.1-2 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – California
Figure 3.9.1-2 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – California and Figure 3.9.1-3 - Average
Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – Southwest show the average annual number of A-C and D+
wildland fires by agency based on 2006-2010 data. 1,2 For California, CAL FIRE had 65% of the fires, with FS having
the second largest number at 15%. For the Southwest, BIA and FS had the largest number of fires, at 32% and 28%
respectively.
Figure 3.9.1-2 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – California
(Based on Five-Year Average)
5-Year Average Number of Fires Southern California
5-Year Average Number of Fires Northern California
NPS, BIA, 293,
FWS, 94, 140, 3% 6%
BLM,
2%
342, 6%
FS, 853,
16%
FWS, 2%
NPS, 4%
BIA, 3%
BLM,
14%
FS, 14%
CAL FIRE,
3447,
67%
CAL FIRE,
63%
5-Year Average Number of Fires - California
NPS, 4%
BIA, 4%
FWS, 2%
BLM, 10%
FS, 15%
CAL FIRE, 65%
Data sources: FAMWEB (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/), CAL FIRE, Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD), and New
Mexico State Forestry (NMSF).
2
Fire Class definitions: Class A - one-fourth acre or less; Class B - more than one-fourth acre, but less than 10 acres; Class C - 10 acres
or more, but less than 100 acres; Class D - 100 acres or more, but less than 300 acres; Class E - 300 acres or more, but less than 1,000
acres; Class F - 1,000 acres or more, but less than 5,000 acres; Class G - 5,000 acres or more.
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
59
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.1-3 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Agency (A-C and D+) – Southwest
(Based on Five-Year Average)
5-yr Average Number of Fires - Arizona
ASFD,
11%
FWS, 1% NPS, 6%
5-yr Average Number of Fires New Mexico
NPS, 12%
BIA, 21%
FS 34%
BIA, 39%
NMSF,
32%
BLM,
14%
FWS, 1%
BLM, 9%
FS, 20%
5-yr Average Number of Fires - Southwest Area
ASFD, 7%
NPS, 8%
NMSF, 13%
FWS, 1%
BIA, 32%
FS, 28%
BLM, 11%
IDOPP Report Appendix
60
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.1-4 - Average Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – California and Figure 3.9.1-5 - Average
Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – Southwest show the average annual number of prescribed (Rx) fires
by agency based on 2006-2010 data. The FS executes the majority of the prescribed burns in both areas. For
California, FS executed 80% of the prescribed fires. While CAL FIRE accounted for 65% of the A-C and D+ fires, this
agency executed only 3% of the prescribed fires. For the Southwest, FS accomplished 57% of the prescribed fires.
Figure 3.9.1-4 - Average Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – California
(Based on Five-Year Average)
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires Southern CA
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires Northern CA
BLM, 3%
CAL FIRE,
2% FWS, 9%
BLM, 12%
CAL FIRE,
3%
FWS, 4%
NPS, 3%
NPS, 9%
FS, 72%
FS, 83%
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires - California
BLM, 6%
CAL FIRE, 3%
FWS, 7%
NPS, 4%
FS, 80%
IDOPP Report Appendix
61
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.1-5 - Average Annual Number of Prescribed Fires by Agency – Southwest
(Based on Five-Year Average)
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires Arizona
BIA, 8%
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires - New
Mexico
BLM, 6%
BIA, 18%
FWS, 4%
FS, 37%
NPS, 7%
BLM,
29%
FS, 75%
NPS, 8%
FWS, 8%
5-Year Average Number of Rx Fires - Southwest
BIA, 12%
BLM, 17%
FS, 57%
FWS, 6%
NPS, 8%
IDOPP Report Appendix
62
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.1-1 in the body of the report shows the average annual number of fires by area and state, and breaks
down the California workload by Northern and Southern California and by federal and state data. Table 3.9.1-6 Average Annual Number of Fires by Center below shows this information by center.
Table 3.9.1-6 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Center
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Center Name
California Area Operational Centers
Northern California Operational Centers
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Southern California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Fresno Kings ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of Agency
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Tribal
State
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
63
A-C Fires
10,550
4,946
337
566
128
438
163
252
89
163
17
654
84
570
16
247
176
87
108
330
110
190
440
154
286
438
550
424
126
30
235
101
134
5,604
222
469
740
431
44
722
428
D+ Fires
236
104
3
3
0
3
1
6
5
1
0
6
2
4
1
1
9
4
3
8
6
2
11
7
4
6
22
18
4
4
8
6
2
132
5
23
25
6
6
8
9
Rx Fires
Total
807
11,593
596
5,646
1
341
134
703
132
260
2
443
1
165
81
339
80
174
1
165
1
18
75
735
74
160
1
575
0
17
0
248
0
185
44
135
53
164
2
340
47
163
2
194
44
495
44
205
0
290
1
445
94
666
94
536
0
130
2
36
14
257
14
121
0
136
211
5,947
2
229
31
523
7
772
0
437
44
94
0
730
15
452
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Visalia ECC
Yosemite ECC
Southwest Area Operational Centers
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of Agency
Federal
State
State
Federal
State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
64
A-C Fires
109
319
187
68
810
345
269
201
65
169
64
254
116
4,854
2,889
571
0
579
0
720
76
390
291
262
1,965
484
615
309
213
344
15,404
D+ Fires
4
5
3
4
10
5
5
3
4
3
2
6
5
288
99
23
0
12
0
11
3
10
23
17
189
79
35
31
31
13
524
Rx Fires
14
1
1
15
3
1
0
1
9
51
22
0
9
356
190
15
0
28
0
20
10
63
20
34
166
46
44
23
21
32
1,163
Total
127
325
191
87
823
351
274
205
78
223
88
260
130
5,498
3,178
609
0
619
0
751
89
463
334
313
2,320
609
694
363
265
389
17,091
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.1-7 - Location and Size of Expanded Dispatch by Center summarizes the locations with expanded dispatch, by
area and state. Table 3-12-17 - Size of Expanded Dispatch by Area and State summarizes the size of the expanded
dispatch, by area and state.
Table 3.9.1-7 - Location and Size of Expanded Dispatch by Center
Location of
Expanded
Total
Number of
Centers
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
On- OffNone site site
40
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
34
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
30
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Size of Expanded
Dispatch is Adequate
Mixed
Response: 1
Yes No Yes and 1 No
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
23
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
11
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
9
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sq. Ft. of
Expanded
Dispatch Area
31,451
3,300
2,000
900
1,100
80
1,220
620
600
28,051
400
500
700
700
700
800
400
300
1,300
900
400
1,200
500
2,200
1,200
1,000
0
1,500
720
525
0
300
800
865
865
865
588
442
January 31, 2013
Location of
Expanded
Total
Number of
Centers
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
On- OffNone site site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
66
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
11
6
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
5
1
1
1
1
1
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Size of Expanded
Dispatch is Adequate
Mixed
Response: 1
Yes No Yes and 1 No
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
10
6
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
0
1
1
1
1
34
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Sq. Ft. of
Expanded
Dispatch Area
1,200
444
672
2,250
1,200
1,050
800
600
1,000
1,000
800
800
800
1,200
650
550
345
0
800
500
500
500
100
100
14,378
10,226
266
0
4,000
0
1,500
952
988
1,440
1,080
4,152
349
400
1,700
1,053
650
45,829
January 31, 2013
Center managers were asked to provide the number of days the expanded dispatch unit (EDU) operated each year for
2006-2010. Table 3.9.1-8 - Average Annual Number of Days Expanded Dispatch Unit Operated by Center shows the
number of days the expanded dispatch operated by center. For centers with a federal and state center manager,
information is shown by agency type.
Table 3.9.1-8 - Average Annual Number of Days Expanded Dispatch Unit Operated by Center
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Total Number of Centers
Operating EDUs
37
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
67
Average Number of Days
EDU Operated per Year
1,700
468
291
162
129
41
136
96
40
1,232
24
13
6
6
6
94
31
10
138
62
76
24
0
60
55
5
1
168
4
30
32
32
32
15
10
34
118
13
5
January 31, 2013
Total Number of Centers
Operating EDUs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
50
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
68
Average Number of Days
EDU Operated per Year
190
34
156
10
4
4
3
15
9
31
63
45
18
1
0
72
72
72
2
2
421
268
26
3
18
96
12
45
43
26
152
54
23
11
64
1
2,121
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.1-9 - Units Served by Dispatch Center – California
Unit(s)
California Dispatch Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Angeles National Forest
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
Butte Unit
Amador-Eldorado Unit
Eldorado National Forest
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Bakersfield Field Office
Carrizo Plain National Monument
Hollister Field Office
Kern National Wildlife Refuge
Mother Lode Field Office
Pixley National Wildlife Refuge
Sequoia National Forest
Tule River Tribe
Ukiah Field Office
Barstow Field Office
Death Valley National Park
El Centro Field Office
Joshua Tree National Park
Mojave National Preserve
Needles Field Office
Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office
Ridgecrest Field Office
San Bernardino National Forest
Southern California Agency
San Mateo-Santa Cruz Unit
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Humboldt Del Norte Unit
Redwood National Park
Six Rivers National Forest
Fresno-Kings Unit
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit
Tahoe National Forest
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Mendocino Unit
Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Channel Islands National Park
Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
Los Padres National Forest
Pinnacles National Monument
Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit
69
January 31, 2013
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Unit(s)
Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area
Coleman National Fish Hatchery
Colusa National Wildlife Refuge
Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
Haleakala National Park
John Muir National Historic Site
Mendocino National Forest
Point Reyes National Seashore
Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site
Puuohonua O Honaunau National Historic Park
Red Bluff Fish And Wildlife Office
Round Valley Tribe
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge
Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lava Beds National Monument
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc National Forest
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Camp Pendleton Marine Base
Cleveland National Forest
Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Monte Vista Unit
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge
San Benito-Monterey Unit
Santa Clara Unit
Bishop Field Office
Devils Postpile National Monument
Manzanar National Monument
Inyo National Forest
Riverside Unit
Central California Agency
Plumas National Forest
Tehama Glenn Unit
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Shasta-Trinity Unit
Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit
San Bernardino Unit
San Luis Obispo Unit
Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
70
January 31, 2013
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Unit(s)
Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Grasslands Wildlife Management Area
Merced National Wildlife Refuge
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
San Pablo National Wildlife Refuge
Sierra National Forest
Sonoma Lake Napa Unit
Stanislaus National Forest
Alturas Field Office
Arcata Field Office
Eagle Lake Field Office
King Range National Conservation Area
Lassen National Forest
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Lassen-Modoc Unit
Redding Field Office
Surprise Field Office
Tulare Unit
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
Yosemite National Park
Klamath National Forest
Klamath River Fire Company
Northern California Agency
Siskiyou Unit
71
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.1-10 - Units Served by Dispatch Center – Southwest
Dispatch Center
Arizona Dispatch Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch
Center
Unit(s)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grand Canyon National Park
Arizona State Office
Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge
Casa Grande National Monument
Cibola National Wildlife Refuge
Colorado River Agency
Flagstaff District – Arizona State Forestry Division
Fort Yuma Agency
Hassayampa Field Office
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge
Kingman Field Office
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Havasu Field Office
Lower Sonoran Field Office
Montezuma Castle National Monument
Phoenix District – Arizona State Forestry Division
Tucson District – Arizona State Forestry Division
Tuzigoot National Monument
Yuma Field Office
Canyon De Chelly National Monument
Coconino National Forest
Hopi Agency
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site
Navajo National Monument
Navajo Regional Office
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument
Walnut Canyon National Monument
Wupatki National Monument
•
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch
Center
•
•
•
•
•
Prescott Interagency Dispatch
Center
Pima Agency
Salt River Agency
San Carlos Agency
Tonto National Monument
Tonto National Forest
•
•
•
•
•
Prescott National Forest
Western Regional Office – BIA
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
Fort Apache Agency
Petrified Forest National Park
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch
Center
Show Low Interagency
Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
72
January 31, 2013
Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch
Center
Unit(s)
• Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
• Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
• Chiricahua National Monument
• Coronado National Memorial
• Coronado National Forest
• Fort Bowie National Historic Site
• Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge
• Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
• Papago Agency
• Safford Field Office
• Saguaro National Park
• San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge
• Tucson Field Office
• Tumacacori National Monument
Williams Interagency Dispatch • Grand Canyon National Park – Fire Only
Center
• Kaibab National Forest
• Truxton Canon Agency
• New Mexico Dispatch Centers
Alamogordo Interagency
• Amistad National Recreation Area
Dispatch Center
• Big Bend National Park
• Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge
• Capitan District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Carlsbad Caverns National Park
• Carlsbad Field Office
• Chamizal National Memorial
• Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Fish Technology Center
• Fort Davis National Historic Site
• Guadalupe Mountains National Park
• Lincoln National Forest
• Mescalero Agency
• Roswell Field Office
• San Andreas National Wildlife Refuge
• White Sands National Monument
IDOPP Report Appendix
73
January 31, 2013
Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency
Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch
Center
Silver City Interagency
Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch
Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Unit(s)
• Albuquerque Field Office
• Albuquerque Service Center
• Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument
• Amarillo Field Office
• Aztec Ruins National Monument
• Bernalillo District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
• Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
• Chaco Culture National Historical Park
• Cibola National Forest
• El Malpais National Monument
• El Morro National Monument
• Grulla National Wildlife Refuge
• Laguna Agency
• Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
• Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge
• Optima National Wildlife Refuge
• Petroglyph National Monument
• Ramah Navajo Agency
• Rio Puerco Field Office
• Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
• Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge
• Socorro Field Office
• Southern Pueblos Agency
• Southwest Regional Office
• Zuni Agency
• Bandelier National Monument
• Fort Union National Monument
• Las Vegas District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• New Mexico State Office
• Northern Pueblos Agency
• Pecos National Historic Park
• Santa Fe National Forest
• Gila National Forest
• Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument
• Las Cruces Field Office
• Socorro District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Capulin Volcano National Monument
• Carson National Forest
• Chama District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Cimarron District – New Mexico State Forestry
• Farmington Field Office
• Jicarilla Agency
• Maxwell National Wildlife Refuge
• Taos Field Office
74
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.9.2 – Ross Actions and Incidents
Figure 3.9-2-1 in the main report shows the seasonality of fire workload using the average annual number of ROSS
actions by month for the Northern and Southern GACCs/CC and a total for the GACCs/CC. Figure 3.9.2-5 - Average
Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California GACCs/CC, Figure 3.9.2-6 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern
California GACC and Figure 3.9.2-7 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Total California GACCs/CC further depict workload
distribution between the federal centers and CAL FIRE. In Northern California and for the overall total, the federal
workload is higher; in Southern California, the CAL FIRE workload is higher. In Northern California, the peak is in July; in
Southern California, the peak is in October.
Figure 3.9.2-5 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California GACCs/CC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Northern CA CAL FIRE GACC/CC
5-yr Average
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern CA Federal GACC
5-yr Average
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern CA Total GACC/CC 5-yr Average
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
IDOPP Report Appendix
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
75
July
Month
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.2-6 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern California GACC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Southern CA CAL FIRE GACC
5-yr Average
2,000
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Southern CA Federal GACC
5-yr Average
1,500
1,000
500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Southern CA Total GACC 5-yr Average
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
IDOPP Report Appendix
76
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.2-7 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Total California GACCs/CC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Total CA CAL FIRE GACCs/CC
5-yr Average
4,000
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Total CA Federal GACCs
5-yr Average
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Total CA GACCs/CC 5-yr Average
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
IDOPP Report Appendix
77
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9-3 in the body of the report shows the seasonality of fire workload using the average annual number of ROSS
actions by month for the Northern and Southern California operational centers and a total for the California operational
centers. Figure 3.9.2-8 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California Operational Centers, Figure 3.9.2-9 Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern California Operational Centers and Figure 3.9.2-10 - Average Annual ROSS
Actions – Total California Operational Centers depict the distribution between federal and CAL FIRE workloads. The
federal workload is slightly higher than the CAL FIRE workload in both Northern and Southern California. For both
Northern and Southern California, the workload peak occurs in July.
Figure 3.9.2-8 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Northern California Operational Centers
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Northern CA CAL FIRE Operational
Centers 5-yr Average
25,000
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern CA Federal Operational
Centers 5-yr Average
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern CA Total Operational 5-yr Average
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
IDOPP Report Appendix
78
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.2-9 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Southern California Operational Centers
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Southern CA CAL FIRE Operational
Centers 5-yr Average
25,000
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Southern CA Federal Operational
Centers 5-yr Average
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Jan Mar May July Sept Nov
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Southern CA Total Operational Centers 5-yr Average
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
IDOPP Report Appendix
79
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.2-10 - Average Annual ROSS Actions – Total California Operational Centers
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Total CA CAL FIRE Operational Centers 5yr Average
Number of ROSS Actions
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Number of ROSS Actions
Total CA Federal Operational Centers 5yr Average
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Total CA Operational Centers 5-yr Average
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
IDOPP Report Appendix
80
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.2-11 - Average Annual Number of Resource Orders (Incoming and Outgoing) by Month by GACC and Figure
3.9.2-12 - Average Annual Number of Incidents in ROSS by Month by GACC also show the distribution of workload
between the GACCs.
Figure 3.9.2-11 - Average Annual Number of Resource Orders (Incoming and Outgoing) by Month by GACC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Figure 3.9.2-12 - Average Annual Number of Incidents in ROSS by Month by GACC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
5-Year Average of the Number of Incidents in ROSS by Month
Number of Incidents in ROSS
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Northern CA GACCs/CC
IDOPP Report Appendix
June
July
Southern GACC
81
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total GACCs/CC
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.9.3 Law Enforcement Dispatch
The team collected additional information from the center managers at the 39 centers that support law enforcement dispatch. Table 3.9.3-3 - Agencies
Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Area and State shows this data by agency. The greatest numbers of centers provide law enforcement dispatch
services for FS (67%), State/Territory (36%), BLM (31%), and NPS (28%). No centers reported dispatching LEOs for Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Homeland Security, or Department of Defense.
Table 3.9.3-3 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Area and State
Number/Percent of Centers Providing Law Enforcement Dispatch Services for Each Agency
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE Dispatch
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
BIA
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
State /
Territory
Tribal
Gov't
Local
Gov't
Other
1 (4%)
0
1
0
1 (9%)
1
0
2 (5%)
9 (32%)
0
9
0
3 (27%)
2
1
12 (31%)
16 (57%)
0
16
0
10 (91%)
6
4
26 (67%)
4 (14%)
0
4
0
2 (18%)
2
0
6 (15%)
8 (29%)
0
7
1
3 (27%)
3
0
11 (28%)
14 (50%)
0
14
0
0 (0%)
0
0
14 (36%)
1 (4%)
0
1
0
0 (0%)
0
0
1 (3%)
6 (21%)
0
5
1
1 (9%)
0
1
7 (18%)
1 (4%)
0
1
0
1 (9%)
0
1
2 (5%)
82
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-3 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Area and State summarizes the agencies receiving law enforcement dispatch services,
by area and state. Table 3.9.3-4 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Center shows this information by center. Only the operational
centers provide law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-4 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
83
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
57%
16
59%
1
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
14
50%
14
52%
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Local Gov't
Tribal Gov't
8
29%
7
26%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
State/
Territory
4
14%
4
15%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
FS
DOD
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NPS
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FWS
9
32%
9
33%
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
DHS
1
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BOR
California Area Total
28
Percent of CA Area Centers Supporting Each Agency
California Operational Centers Total
27
Percent of CA Operational Centers Supporting Each Agency
Angeles ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Plumas ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
BLM
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE Dispatch
BIA
Number of Centers Providing Law Enforcement Dispatch Services for Each
Agency
6
21%
5
19%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
84
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
14
36%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
3%
Other
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0%
0
10
91%
6
86%
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
4
100%
1
1
1
1
26
67%
Local Gov't
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
100
1
3
27%
3
43%
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0%
0
0
0
0
11
28%
Tribal Gov't
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
2
18%
2
29%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0%
0
0
0
0
6
15%
State/
Territory
DOD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
FS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
NPS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
FWS
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0%
0
3
27%
2
29%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
25%
0
0
1
0
12
31%
DHS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
1
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
BOR
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Supporting Each Agency
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
11
Percent of SW Area Centers Supporting Each Agency
Arizona Operational Centers Total
7
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Supporting Each Agency
Federal Law Enforcement Comm Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
4
Percent of NM Operational Centers Supporting Each
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
39
Percent of IDOPP Centers Supporting Each Agency
BLM
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE Dispatch
BIA
Number of Centers Providing Law Enforcement Dispatch Services for Each
Agency
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
100
1
1
9%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25%
0
0
1
0
7
18%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
9%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25
0
1
0
0
2
5%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-3 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Area and State summarizes the law enforcement dispatch services provided by area
and state as reported by law enforcement officers. Table A.3-7-2 below shows the services by the LEO’s agency and Table 3.9.3-5 – Services Provided to LEOs by
Agency shows the information by primary dispatch center. Only the operational center managers reported providing law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-5 – Services Provided to LEOs by Agency
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California - Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
Services Provided to LEOs by the LEOs' Primary Dispatch Center
Check in and
Field
Status Checks when
Standard
Criminal
Check out
Tracking
Public Contacts
Welfare Checks Database Info
344
280
346
271
329
343
280
345
270
328
37
22
39
27
46
71
60
74
56
41
111
88
109
78
113
8
2
7
4
9
115
107
115
105
119
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
111
91
100
95
105
85
71
78
76
83
32
27
31
30
31
33
26
27
27
30
13
11
13
12
13
7
7
7
7
9
26
20
22
19
22
7
7
7
7
7
17
11
13
10
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
455
371
446
366
434
For the status checks, 53% cited a frequency of every five minutes, 22% cited a frequency of every four minutes, and the remaining 25% cited a different
frequency. For the welfare checks, the most common frequency reported is once per day (32%), with the second most common frequency being every one
to two hours (29%).
IDOPP Report Appendix
85
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-4 - Agencies Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by Center summarizes the law enforcement dispatch services provided, by area and state
as reported by center managers. Table 3.9.3-6 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Center as Reported by Center Managers below shows this
information by center. Only the operational centers provide law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-6 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Center as Reported by Center Managers
IDOPP Report Appendix
86
25
89%
24
89%
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
18
64%
17
63%
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
20
71%
19
70%
1
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
27
96%
26
96%
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Other
20
71%
19
70%
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
Status Checks
28
100%
27
100%
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Criminal Database
Checks
Flight Ops
26
93%
25
93%
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
Field Tracking
California Area Total
28
Percent of CA Area Centers Providing Law Enforcement
California Operational Centers Total
27
Percent of CA Operational Centers Providing Law Enforcement
Angeles ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Plumas ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Drug Clean-up Ops
Check in/out
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE
Dispatch
Dispatch
Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided
7
25%
7
26%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
87
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
100%
1
4
36%
2
29%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
50%
1
0
1
0
24
62%
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
11
100%
7
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
100%
1
1
1
1
38
97%
Other
Status Checks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
100% 100% 100% 100%
1
1
1
1
10
2
10
3
91% 18% 91% 27%
7
2
6
1
100% 29% 86% 14%
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
4
2
75%
0% 100% 50%
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
38
22
35
21
97% 56% 90% 54%
Flight Ops
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
11
100%
7
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
100%
1
1
1
1
37
95%
Criminal Database
Checks
Field Tracking
Dispatch
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Providing Law Enforcement
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
11
Percent of SW Area Centers Providing Law Enforcement
Arizona Operational Centers Total
7
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Providing Law Enforcement
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
4
Percent of NM Operational Centers Providing Law Enforcement
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
39
Percent of IDOPP Centers Providing Law Enforcement Dispatch
Check in/out
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE
Dispatch
Drug Clean-up Ops
Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0%
0
2
18%
2
29%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
9
23%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-7 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Center Managers summarizes by area and state the types of law
enforcement support provided, as reported by center managers. The centers support multiple activities, most commonly dispatch, status checks, check-in and
check-out, and field tracking.
Table 3.9.3-7 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Center Managers
Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided
Total Number
of Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
Checkin/out
Dispatch
26 (93%)
0
25
1
11
7
4
37 (95%)
28 (100%)
0
27
1
10 (91%)
7
3
38 (97%)
Drug
Clean- up
Ops
20 (71%)
0
19
1
2 (18%)
2
0
22 (56%)
Field
Tracking
25 (89%)
0
24
1
10 (91%)
6
4
35 (90%)
Flight
Ops
Criminal
Database
Checks
Status
Checks
Other
18 (64%)
0
17
1
3 (27%)
1
2
21 (54%)
20 (71%)
0
19
1
4 (36%)
2
2
24 (62%)
27 (96%)
0
26
1
11 (100%)
7
4
38 (97%)
7 (25%)
0
7
0
2 (18%)
2
0
9 (23%)
Eighty-seven percent of the centers dispatching for law enforcement have established standard operating procedures (SOPs) to document their standard
procedures. There is variance among the SOPs for different centers. The law enforcement data call forms the basis for the charts in this exhibit. Of the 744 law
enforcement officers surveyed, the teams received 500 responses. Law enforcement officers provided input on the specific dispatch services they receive. Table
3.9.3-8 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers (Summary) below shows this information by
the respondent LEO’s agency.
Table 3.9.3-8 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers (Summary)
California Area Total
Southwest Area Total
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
384
116
500
Services Provided to LEOs by the LEOs’ Primary Dispatch Centers
Check-in and
Field
Status Checks when Standard Welfare
Criminal
Check-out
Tracking
Public Contacts
Checks
Database Info
344 - (90%)
280 - (73%)
346 - (90%)
271 - (71%)
329 - (86%)
111 - (96%)
91 - (78%)
100 - (86%)
95 - (82%)
105 - (91%)
455 - (91%)
371 - (74%)
446 - (89%)
366 - (73%)
434 - (87%)
88
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-9 - Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Provided by Center as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
California Area Total
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from CA Area Centers
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from CA GACC/CC
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from CA Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
384
13
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
5
6
4
21
89
Services Provided to LEOs by the LEOs' Primary Dispatch Center
Status
Check in
Standard
Criminal
Checks
and Check
Field
Welfare
Database
when Public
out
Tracking
Checks
Info
Contacts
344
90%
11
85%
7
4
307
91%
17
1
13
13
57
2
10
4
14
7
1
6
3
6
1
13
2
2
5
5
3
18
280
73%
7
54%
6
1
252
75%
14
1
11
9
40
2
11
5
12
6
1
4
1
4
1
10
1
2
5
4
4
12
346
90%
9
69%
6
3
309
92%
17
1
14
14
57
2
11
6
13
7
1
5
3
6
1
12
1
3
5
6
4
20
271
71%
10
77%
6
4
238
71%
16
1
11
9
47
1
8
2
11
6
0
2
3
3
1
10
1
1
3
2
3
11
329
86%
6
46%
6
0
290
86%
17
0
15
14
57
0
10
6
15
7
0
7
0
6
1
12
0
0
5
2
4
20
January 31, 2013
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
San Andreas ECC
6
San Luis Obispo ECC
3
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
22
Sierra Interagency ECC
7
St. Helena ECC
2
Stanislaus ECC
7
Susanville Interagency ECC
15
Visalia ECC
5
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
5
Yosemite ECC
32
Yreka Interagency ECC
5
California Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
30
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from CA Local, State, County, City Centers
Local, State, County, City Police Department
30
California Other Total
3
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from CA Other
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin County
1
Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically
1
support my work.
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state parks.
1
we have nothing except 911 on a cell phone
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from HI Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
116
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from SW Area Centers
Arizona Operational Centers Total
73
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from AZ Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
5
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
61
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
90
Services Provided to LEOs by the LEOs' Primary Dispatch Center
Status
Check in
Standard
Criminal
Checks
and Check
Field
Welfare
Database
when Public
out
Tracking
Checks
Info
Contacts
5
3
22
7
0
7
15
4
5
31
5
23
77%
23
2
67%
4
3
22
5
0
5
11
3
5
30
4
20
67%
20
1
33%
4
3
22
7
2
7
14
5
5
30
1
25
83%
25
2
67%
5
3
20
5
1
4
12
4
5
27
0
20
67%
20
2
67%
3
0
22
7
0
7
13
2
5
32
1
29
97%
29
3
100%
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
100%
1
111
96%
72
99%
5
61
1
0
0%
0
91
78%
63
86%
4
56
0
1
100%
1
100
86%
68
93%
4
61
0
1
100%
1
95
82%
67
92%
4
60
0
1
100%
1
105
91%
68
93%
4
60
0
January 31, 2013
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
2
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
20
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from AZ Local, State, County, City Centers
Local, State, County, City Police Department
20
Arizona Other Total
3
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from AZ Other
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
1
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
1
ST George Comm Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
6
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from NM Operational
Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
3
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police Department
14
Total
Percent of LEOs Receiving Services from NM Local, State, County, City Centers
Local, State, County, City Police Department
13
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County Dispatch
1
IDOPP TOTAL
500
Percent of LEOs Receiving Dispatch Services
IDOPP Report Appendix
91
Services Provided to LEOs by the LEOs' Primary Dispatch Center
Status
Check in
Standard
Criminal
Checks
and Check
Field
Welfare
Database
when Public
out
Tracking
Checks
Info
Contacts
2
0
1
2
17
85%
17
3
100%
1
1
1
6
1
0
0
2
14
70%
14
1
33%
0
0
1
4
2
0
0
1
15
75%
15
2
67%
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
15
75%
15
1
33%
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
19
95%
19
3
100%
1
1
1
1
100%
67%
33%
33%
17%
1
2
3
0
1
3
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
13
9
13
10
14
93%
12
1
455
91%
64%
8
1
371
74%
93%
12
1
446
89%
71%
9
1
366
73%
100%
13
1
434
87%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-10 - Centers Officially Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers summarizes the centers officially dispatching law enforcement officers by area and
state. Table 3.9.3-10 - Centers Officially Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers shows this information by center.
Table 3.9.3-10 - Centers Officially Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers
Center Officially
Dispatches Agency LEOs
Total
Number of
Centers
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
92
Yes
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
63%
0
0%
0
0
0
24
67%
1
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
No
12
30%
3
100%
2
1
2
9
25%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
3
8%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center Officially
Dispatches Agency LEOs
Total
Number of
Centers
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
93
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
No
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
100%
1
11
79%
7
78%
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
3
21%
2
22%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center Officially
Dispatches Agency LEOs
Total
Number of
Centers
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Officially Dispatching Agency LEOs
IDOPP Report Appendix
94
Yes
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
0
4
80%
1
0
1
1
1
36
67%
No
1
1
20%
0
1
0
0
0
15
28%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
3
6%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-5 – Services Provided to LEOs by Agency law enforcement officers receiving dispatch services by agency. Table 3.9.3-11 - Primary Dispatch Centers
Reported by the Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency below shows the primary dispatch centers from which the law enforcement officer
respondents reported receiving dispatch services. Only the operational center managers reported providing law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-11 - Primary Dispatch Centers Reported by the Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
California Area Total
384
Percent of LEOs Reporting CA Area Centers as Primary Dispatch Center
California GACC/CC Total
13
Percent of LEOs Reporting CA GACC/CC as Primary Dispatch Center
Northern California Coordination Center
8
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
5
California Operational Centers Total
337
Percent of LEOs Reporting CA Operational Centers as Primary Dispatch
Angeles ECC
17
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
16
Central California ECC
14
Federal Interagency Communications Center
62
Felton ECC
2
Fortuna Interagency ECC
13
Fresno Kings ECC
6
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
15
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
8
Howard Forest ECC
2
Los Padres ECC
7
Mariposa ECC
3
Mendocino Interagency ECC
6
Modoc Interagency ECC
2
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
13
Monterey ECC
2
Morgan Hill ECC
3
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
5
Perris ECC
6
Plumas ECC
4
Redding Interagency ECC
21
San Andreas ECC
6
IDOPP Report Appendix
95
BLM
46
12%
0
0%
0
0
40
12%
0
0
0
7
27
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Agency of Law Enforcement Officers
State of
California CAL FIRE
FWS
NPS
Other
91
10
120
1
24%
3%
31%
0%
7
0
6
0
54%
0%
46%
0%
2
0
6
0
5
0
0
0
84
4
101
1
25%
1%
30%
0%
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
20
0
2
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
1
14
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
FS
116
30%
0
0%
0
0
107
32%
9
0
8
7
11
0
2
0
0
5
0
7
0
6
1
9
0
0
4
0
4
11
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
San Luis Obispo ECC
3
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
22
Sierra Interagency ECC
7
St. Helena ECC
2
Stanislaus ECC
7
Susanville Interagency ECC
15
Visalia ECC
5
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
5
Yosemite ECC
32
Yreka Interagency ECC
5
California Local, State, County, City Police
30
Percent of LEOs Reporting CA Local, State, County, City as Primary
Local, State, County, City Police Department
30
California Other Total
3
Percent of LEOs Reporting CA Other as Primary
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin
1
County Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers
1
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA
1
state parks. we have nothing except 911 on a cell
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of LEOs Reporting HI Operational Centers as
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
116
Percent of LEOs Reporting SW Area Centers as
Arizona Operational Centers Total
73
Percent of LEOs Reporting AZ Operational Centers as Primary Dispatch
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
5
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
2
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
61
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department
20
Percent of LEOs Reporting AZ Local, State, County, City as Primary
IDOPP Report Appendix
96
BLM
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
20%
6
0
0%
Agency of Law Enforcement Officers
State of
California CAL FIRE
FWS
NPS
Other
3
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
32
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
11
0
0%
17%
37%
0%
0
5
11
0
0
1
1
0
0%
33%
33%
0%
FS
0
0
7
0
7
7
0
0
0
2
8
27%
8
1
33%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
39
34%
34
47%
1
0
2
0
0
31
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
14
12%
14
19%
2
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0%
1
100%
1
10
9%
9
12%
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
1
5%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
53
46%
16
22%
2
1
0
0
1
11
1
19
95%
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
Local, State, County, City Police Department
20
Arizona Other Total
3
Percent of LEOs Reporting AZ Other as Primary
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
1
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
1
ST George Comm Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
6
Percent of LEOs Reporting AZ Operational Centers as Primary Dispatch
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
3
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police
14
Percent of LEOs Reporting NM Local, State, County, City as Primary
Local, State, County, City Police Department
13
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County
1
IDOPP TOTAL
500
Percent of LEOs Responding to IDOPP Data Call Receiving Dispatch
IDOPP Report Appendix
97
BLM
0
3
100%
1
1
1
0
0%
0
0
0
2
14%
2
0
85
17%
Agency of Law Enforcement Officers
State of
California CAL FIRE
FWS
NPS
Other
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
24
130
1
18%
5%
26%
0%
FS
19
0
0%
0
0
0
6
100%
1
2
3
12
86%
11
1
169
34%
January 31, 2013
The center manager data call asked center managers to respond whether their center officially provides law enforcement dispatching services. For several
of the centers that stated they do not provide those services, law enforcement officer respondents selected the center as their primary dispatch center.
Table 3.9.3-12 - Dispatch Centers that Do Not Officially Provide Law Enforcement Dispatching Services but were Listed by Law Enforcement Officer
Respondents as their Primary Dispatch Center shows these centers and how many law enforcement officer respondents selected them as their primary
dispatch center.
Table 3.9.3-12 - Dispatch Centers that Do Not Officially Provide Law Enforcement Dispatching Services but were Listed by Law Enforcement Officer
Respondents as their Primary Dispatch Center
Number of Law Enforcement Officers Reporting
as Primary Dispatch Center
34
13
8
5
21
1
2
3
2
6
2
5
7
5
5
2
2
41
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento HQ Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Mariposa ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
St. Helena ECC
Visalia ECC
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Total
Table 3.9.3-21 – Position Titles of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency shows centers that law enforcement officers identified as their primary
dispatch centers, but that center managers reported not dispatching for law enforcement.
IDOPP Report Appendix
98
January 31, 2013
The 150 officers not using a 24/7 center reported whether they have access to law enforcement dispatch services when their primary center is closed.
Table 3.9.3-13 - Number of LEO Respondents with Access to a Law Enforcement Dispatch Services when Primary Dispatch Center is Closed shows the
results.
Table 3.9.3-13 - Number of LEO Respondents with Access to a Law Enforcement Dispatch Services when Primary Dispatch Center is Closed
LEO Has Access to Law Enforcement Dispatch
Services When Primary Center Closed
California Area Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
FS
FWS
New Mexico Total
FS
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of LEO Respondents
without 24/7 Access at Primary
Dispatch Center
132
17
16
81
3
15
18
10
8
2
8
8
150
Yes
Yes (%)
85
11
9
50
1
14
16
9
8
2
6
6
101
64%
89%
90%
75%
67%
No
47
6
7
31
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
49
No (%)
36%
11%
0%
25%
33%
Law enforcement officers use a variety of backups, including their agency supervisor, other officers from their agency, officers from another agency, the
agency dispatch center, and state, county, local, or city police departments. When someone within the same agency provides backup, the same center
dispatches 94-96% of the backups. When state, county, local, or city police departments provide backup, the same center dispatches only 20% of the
backups.
IDOPP Report Appendix
99
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-14 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Dispatched by Multiple Centers below shows the number of LEOs dispatched by multiple
centers, as reported in the data call.
Table 3.9.3-14 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Dispatched by Multiple Centers
LEO is Dispatched by Multiple Centers
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California – Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
Yes
178
178
28
52
63
4
31
0
0
0
75
56
19
32
3
2
19
4
14
0
1
253
Yes (%)
46%
46%
0%
65%
63%
70%
51%
No
198
197
15
36
52
5
88
1
1
1
38
30
13
2
10
5
8
3
4
1
0
236
No (%)
Unknown
Unknown (%)
52%
51%
8
8
3
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
11
2%
2%
100%
33%
34%
30%
47%
0%
3%
3%
0%
2%
The data call asked LEO respondents who reported receiving support from by more than one center to specify how many dispatch centers support them.
Figure 3.9.3-15 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting Law Enforcement Officer Respondents within Assigned Patrol Area summarizes these responses by
area. Of the 253 law enforcement officers dispatched by multiple centers, 56% use three or more dispatch centers in their assigned patrol areas.
IDOPP Report Appendix
100
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9.3-15 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting Law Enforcement Officer Respondents within Assigned Patrol Area
California Area
Southwest Area
5 to 6,
9%
7+, 8%
5 to 6, 8%
7+, 3%
2, 31%
2, 49%
3 to 4,
35%
3 to 4,
57%
IDOPP Total
7+, 6%
5 to 6, 8%
2, 44%
3 to 4, 42%
IDOPP Report Appendix
101
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-16 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting LEO Respondents Within Assigned Patrol Area shows this information in further detail by agency.
Table 3.9.3-16 - Number of Dispatch Centers Supporting LEO Respondents Within Assigned Patrol Area
Number of Centers Providing Law Enforcement Dispatch Services
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Receiving
Support from
Multiple
Centers
California Area Total
178
Percent of California Area LEOs Using Multiple
California Total
178
Percent of California LEOs Using Multiple Centers
BLM
28
CAL FIRE
52
FS
63
FWS
4
NPS
31
Southwest Area Total
75
Percent of Southwest Area LEOs Using Multiple
Arizona Total
56
Percent of Arizona LEOs Using Multiple Centers
BLM
19
FS
32
FWS
3
NPS
2
New Mexico Total
19
Percent of New Mexico LEOs Using Multiple Centers
BLM
4
FS
14
NPS
1
IDOPP TOTAL
253
Percent of IDOPP LEOs Using Multiple Centers
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
2
3
6
3%
6
3%
1
2
1
0
2
5
7%
4
7%
3
1
0
0
1
5%
0
1
0
11
4%
84
47%
84
47%
15
23
26
1
19
22
29%
19
34%
4
12
3
0
3
16%
2
1
0
106
42%
33
19%
33
19%
2
11
11
2
7
20
27%
13
23%
4
7
0
2
7
37%
1
5
1
53
21%
4
5
6
28
7
7
16% 4% 4%
28
7
7
16% 4% 4%
6
2
1
5
3
3
16
1
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
20
5
1
27% 7% 1%
15
3
1
27% 5% 2%
8
0
0
7
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
26% 11% 0%
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
48
12
8
19% 5% 3%
102
7
8
3
2%
3
2%
0
0
2
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
3
1%
1
1%
1
1%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
9
10
12
13
14
17
23
25
1
1%
1
1%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
2
1%
2
1%
0
2
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
2
1%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
1%
1
2%
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
1
1%
1
1%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
1%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
5%
0
1
0
1
0%
3
2%
3
2%
0
0
3
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
3
1%
1
1%
1
1%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
1
1%
1
1%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
0%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-18 - Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers summarizes the reasons LEO’s reported they contact a non-primary dispatch center. Table
3.9.3-17 - Reasons Law Enforcement Officers Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers shows this information by center. Only the operational center managers
reported providing law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-17 - Reasons Law Enforcement Officers Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
IDOPP Report Appendix
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
103
42
11%
0
0%
0
0
36
11%
2
0
1
2
7
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
75
20%
2
15%
0
2
66
20%
3
1
2
3
9
1
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
0
163
42%
2
15%
0
2
147
44%
7
0
4
9
19
2
11
2
2
6
2
2
2
5
2
6
2
2
Never/Don't Use
Additional Centers
115
30%
2
15%
0
2
103
31%
4
1
3
5
15
0
7
1
2
3
2
1
1
4
1
6
1
0
Other
Check in - Primary
Center Closed
71
18%
0
0%
0
0
64
19%
0
0
3
10
3
0
3
0
2
2
0
0
0
5
1
1
1
0
Criminal Database
Info
13
75
20%
0
0%
0
0
67
20%
2
1
3
2
14
0
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
1
5
1
0
Standard Welfare
Checks
384
Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary CA Area Centers
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary CA GACC/CC
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary CA Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Change Locations in
Field w/in Center's
Coverage Area
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Enter/Exit Center's
Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
130
34%
6
46%
6
0
108
32%
7
0
7
8
25
0
1
4
5
1
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
1
86
22%
3
23%
2
1
76
23%
6
0
3
0
17
0
1
1
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
104
1
4
2
7
0
2
2
5
0
2
9
0
5
4
3
9
30%
9
1
33%
1
0
0
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
0
2
5
0
5
3
2
6
20%
6
1
33%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0%
0
29
25%
14
19%
2
0
0%
0
23
20%
14
19%
1
0
0%
0
14
12%
6
8%
1
0
0%
0
32
28%
16
22%
2
0
0%
0
25
22%
14
19%
2
0
0%
0
50
43%
25
34%
3
0
0%
0
59
51%
41
56%
2
1
100%
1
10
9%
9
12%
0
Other
Never/Don't Use
Additional Centers
3
0
4
7
0
0
1
3
0
5
6
0
4
0
0
6
20%
6
1
33%
1
0
Criminal Database
Info
0
0
1
3
1
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
2
1
1
6
20%
6
0
0%
0
0
Check in - Primary
Center Closed
0
0
2
6
0
1
3
3
0
1
6
1
2
3
2
8
27%
8
0
0%
0
0
Change Locations in
Field w/in Center's
Coverage Area
Standard Welfare
Checks
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
5
Perris ECC
6
Plumas ECC
4
Redding Interagency ECC
21
San Andreas ECC
6
San Luis Obispo ECC
3
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
22
Sierra Interagency ECC
7
St. Helena ECC
2
Stanislaus ECC
7
Susanville Interagency ECC
15
Visalia ECC
5
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
5
Yosemite ECC
32
Yreka Interagency ECC
5
California Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
30
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary CA Local, State, County, City
Local, State, County, City Police Department
30
California Other Total
3
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary CA Other
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin County
1
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically
1
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state parks.
1
we have nothing except 911 on a cell phone
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary HI Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
116
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary SW Area
Arizona Operational Centers Total
73
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary AZ Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
5
Enter/Exit Center's
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
1
1
5
1
2
1
13
8
3
0
1
1
3
6
5
2
1
1
2
4
10
4
3
0
5
2
4
9
4
2
13
13
43% 43%
13
13
1
3
33% 100%
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
17
0
6
20%
6
0
0%
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
105
11
0
1
0
0
1
4
20%
4
0
0%
0
0
0
1
17%
1
0
0
4
29%
4
0
65
13%
Never/Don't Use
Additional Centers
8
0
2
0
1
1
6
30%
6
1
33%
0
1
0
3
50%
1
1
1
1
7%
1
0
100
20%
Other
12
0
1
0
0
1
8
40%
8
1
33%
0
1
0
3
50%
1
1
1
4
29%
4
0
147
29%
Criminal Database
Info
Check in - Primary
Center Closed
4
0
0
0
0
1
4
20%
4
0
0%
0
0
0
4
67%
1
1
2
0
0%
0
0
85
17%
Standard Welfare
Checks
9
1
1
0
0
1
5
25%
5
1
33%
0
0
1
4
67%
1
0
3
5
36%
5
0
104
21%
Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
61
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
2
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
20
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary AZ Local, State, County, City
Local, State, County, City Police Department
20
Arizona Other Total
3
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary AZ Other
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
1
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
1
ST George Comm Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
6
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary NM
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
2
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
3
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
14
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary NM Local, State, County, City
Local, State, County, City Police Department
13
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County Dispatch
1
IDOPP TOTAL
500
Percent of Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Centers
Change Locations in
Field w/in Center's
Coverage Area
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Enter/Exit Center's
Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
18
38
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
13
7
65% 35%
13
7
1
3
33% 100%
0
1
1
1
0
1
5
1
83% 17%
1
0
1
1
3
0
6
7
43% 50%
6
6
0
1
213
189
43% 38%
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
1
7%
1
0
96
19%
January 31, 2013
The data call asked LEOs to select the reasons they might contact a dispatch center other than their primary center. Table 3.9.3-18 - Reasons LEOs Contact NonPrimary Dispatch Centers summarizes the results.
Table 3.9.3-18 - Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers (Summary)
California Area
Southwest Area
IDOPP TOTAL
384
116
500
75
29
104 (21%)
42
23
65 (13%)
71
14
85 (17%)
115
32
147 (29%)
75
25
100 (20%)
163
50
213 (43%)
130
59
189 (38%)
Never/Do Not Use
Additional Centers
Other
Criminal Database
Info
Standard Welfare
Checks
Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Check-in - Primary
Center Closed
Change Locations in
Field w/in Center's
Coverage Area
Total Number
of LEO
Respondents
Enter/Exit Center's
Coverage Area
Reasons LEOs Contact Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
86
10
96 (19%)
In addition to the reasons listed, LEOs reported contacting non-primary dispatch centers to have data entered into CLETS or the NCIC, since not all primary
centers are authorized to enter such data; for support when their primary center is closed; for interagency operations or special operations; when
experiencing radio coverage issues with the primary center; and when the primary center is busy with fire.
IDOPP Report Appendix
106
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-19 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center summarizes the type of radio codes used by the
law enforcement officer respondents’ primary dispatch center by area. Table 3.9.3-21 – Position Titles of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency
shows this information by center. Only the operational center managers reported providing law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-19 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using Radio Code
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Using Radio Code
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
384
13
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
5
6
4
21
107
Clear Text
340
89%
13
100%
8
5
307
91%
16
1
13
13
56
2
12
6
9
6
2
7
3
5
2
12
2
3
4
6
2
18
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
175
33
0
46%
9%
0%
3
0
0
23%
0%
0%
2
0
0
1
0
0
145
24
0
43%
7%
0%
9
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
0
4
1
0
29
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
13
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
1
0
3
0
0
15
4
0
Other
10
3%
0
0%
0
0
6
2%
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
January 31, 2013
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
California Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
Percent of CA Local, State, County, City Centers Using Radio Code
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
Percent of CA Other Using Radio Code
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin County Comm
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically support my
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state parks. we
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Area Centers Using Radio Code
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
Percent of AZ Local, State, County, City Centers Using Radio Code
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
6
3
22
7
2
7
15
5
5
32
5
30
30
3
1
1
1
1
1
116
73
5
61
1
2
1
2
1
20
108
Clear Text
6
3
22
7
2
7
14
4
5
32
5
17
57%
17
2
67%
1
0
1
1
100%
1
64
55%
40
55%
3
32
1
1
1
1
1
9
45%
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
8
4
0
2
1
0
4
0
0
8
1
0
2
0
0
25
9
0
83%
30%
0%
25
9
0
2
0
0
67%
0%
0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
100
0
0
86%
0%
0%
66
0
0
90%
0%
0%
4
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
75%
0%
0%
Other
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
7%
2
2
67%
0
1
1
0
0%
0
1
1%
1
1%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
January 31, 2013
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
Percent of AZ Other Using Radio Code
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
Percent of NM Local, State, County, City Centers Using Radio Code
Local, State, County, City Police Department
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County Dispatch
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of Total Centers Using Radio Code
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
20
3
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
14
13
1
500
109
Clear Text
9
2
67%
0
1
1
5
83%
1
1
3
8
57%
7
1
404
81%
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
15
0
0
3
0
0
100%
0%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
33%
0%
0%
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
100%
0%
0%
13
0
0
1
0
0
275
33
0
55%
7%
0%
Other
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
11
2%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-19 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center exhibits summarizes the type of radio codes used
by the law enforcement officer respondents’ primary dispatch center by area. Table 3.9.3-20 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer
Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center below shows this information by center. Only the operational center managers reported providing law enforcement
dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-20 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center
Total Number of LEO
Respondents
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using Radio Code
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Using Radio Code
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Clear Text
384
13
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
5
6
4
110
340
89%
13
100%
8
5
307
91%
16
1
13
13
56
2
12
6
9
6
2
7
3
5
2
12
2
3
4
6
2
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
175
46%
3
23%
2
1
145
43%
9
0
12
4
29
0
6
2
13
5
0
1
0
4
1
2
0
1
2
3
3
33
9%
0
0%
0
0
24
7%
0
0
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10
3%
0
0%
0
0
6
2%
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
January 31, 2013
Total Number of LEO
Respondents
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
California Local, State, County, City Police Department
Percent of CA Local, State, County, City Centers Using
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
Percent of CA Other Using Radio Code
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin County
Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically
support my work.
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state
parks. we have nothing except 911 on a cell phone
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Area Centers Using Radio Code
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
IDOPP Report Appendix
Clear Text
21
6
3
22
7
2
7
15
5
5
32
5
30
Other
18
6
3
22
7
2
7
14
4
5
32
5
17
57%
17
2
67%
15
0
0
3
4
1
1
8
2
4
8
2
25
83%
25
2
67%
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
9
30%
9
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
7%
2
2
67%
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
100%
1
64
55%
40
55%
3
32
1
1
1
0
0%
0
100
86%
66
90%
4
59
0
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
1%
1
1%
0
1
0
0
0
30
3
1
116
73
5
61
1
2
1
111
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
January 31, 2013
Total Number of LEO
Respondents
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department Total
Percent of AZ Local, State, County, City Centers Using Radio
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
Percent of AZ Other Using Radio Code
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using Radio Code
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police Department
Percent of NM Local, State, County, City Centers Using
Local, State, County, City Police Department
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County Dispatch
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of Total Centers Using Radio Code
IDOPP Report Appendix
Clear Text
2
1
20
20
3
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
14
13
1
500
112
1
1
9
45%
9
2
67%
0
1
1
5
83%
1
1
3
8
57%
7
1
404
81%
Type of Radio Code Used
10 Code 11 Code 12 Code
2
0
15
75%
15
3
100%
1
1
1
2
33%
0
2
0
14
100%
13
1
275
55%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
33
7%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
Other
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
11
2%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-21 – Position Titles of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents by Agency
California Area Total
California Total
Arson and Bomb Investigator
Assistant Chief
Battalion Chief
Deputy State Fire Marshal III
Fire Captain
Forester I
Forester II
Forestry and Fire Protection Administrator
LEO or LE Ranger
Patrol Captain or Supervisory Ranger or
Supervisory LE or Zone Officer
Special Agent or Criminal Investigator or Detective
Hawaii Total
Patrol Captain or Supervisory Ranger or
Supervisory LE or Zone Officer
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
LEO or LE Ranger
Patrol Captain or Supervisory Ranger or
Supervisory LE or Zone Officer
Special Agent or Criminal Investigator or Detective
New Mexico Total
LEO or LE Ranger
Patrol Captain or Supervisory Ranger or
Supervisory LE or Zone Officer
Special Agent or Criminal Investigator or Detective
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
12%
12%
91
91
1
22
35
1
22
4
3
3
0
24%
24%
10
0
1
0
116
89
70
39
32
23
13
8
0
2
2
0
1
6
27
17
1
7
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
18
12
4
1
0
1
0
0
2
6
500
1
85
0
91
0
24
1
130
0
1
4
169
0%
0
34%
36%
26%
17%
113
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0%
0%
18%
14
13
11
4
1
0
100
1
12
15
4%
5%
10
9
7
0%
0%
FS (%)
38
1
32
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
FS
6
0
0
31%
31%
State of
California Other (%)
59
5
120
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
State of
California Other
NPS (%)
46
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0%
3%
3%
NPS
384
383
1
22
35
1
22
4
3
3
195
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
FWS (%)
FWS
CAL FIRE (%)
CAL FIRE
BLM (%)
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
BLM
Agency
0
0
4%
26%
0
0
0
30%
30%
16
0%
0
9%
10%
116
116
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
24
0
0%
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
53
35
29
46%
39%
67%
34%
January 31, 2013
Periodic checks are critical to the safety of LEOs, both status checks during public contact and welfare checks during patrol. Table 3.9.3-22 - Number of Law
Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During Public Contacts, Table 3.9.3-23 - Check Back Frequencies for
Primary Dispatch Centers Requiring Status Checks, Table 3.9.3-24 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires
Welfare Checks During Patrol and Table 3.9.3-25 - Frequency of Welfare Checks Required by Primary Dispatch Centers While Law Enforcement Officer is on
Patrol detail the requirements for and frequencies of such checks.
Table 3.9.3-22 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During Public Contacts
Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
384
13
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
5
114
Yes
220
6
5
1
198
13
0
12
9
43
2
3
1
5
5
1
2
1
4
0
10
0
1
4
Yes
(%)
57%
46%
59%
No
128
6
2
4
111
4
1
4
3
13
0
7
5
7
2
1
3
2
0
1
3
2
2
1
No (%)
33%
46%
33%
Unknown
36
1
1
0
28
0
0
0
2
6
0
3
0
3
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Unknown
(%)
9%
8%
8%
January 31, 2013
Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
California Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin
County Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state
parks. we have nothing except 911 on a cell phone
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
IDOPP Report Appendix
Yes
(%)
Yes
No
No (%)
6
4
21
6
3
22
7
2
7
15
5
5
32
5
30
30
3
2
4
13
2
1
15
5
1
5
11
1
4
18
0
14
14
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
116
73
5
61
1
2
1
1
1
72
49
3
44
0
1
0
115
47%
33%
100%
62%
67%
4
0
7
3
2
5
2
1
2
3
3
1
12
5
11
11
0
Unknown
0
0
29
15
2
10
1
0
1
37%
0%
0%
25%
21%
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
5
5
2
0
0
15
9
0
7
0
1
0
Unknown
(%)
17%
67%
0%
13%
12%
January 31, 2013
Primary Dispatch Center Requires Status Checks During
Public Contacts
Total
Number of
LEO
Respondents
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police
Local, State, County, City Police Department
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
2
20
20
3
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
14
13
1
500
116
Yes
0
1
12
12
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
9
8
1
292
Yes
(%)
60%
33%
17%
64%
58%
No
0
1
5
5
2
1
1
0
4
0
1
3
3
3
0
157
No (%)
25%
67%
67%
21%
31%
Unknown
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
51
Unknown
(%)
15%
0%
17%
14%
10%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-23 - Check Back Frequencies for Primary Dispatch Centers Requiring Status Checks
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of LEO Respondents
Required to Provide Status Checks
for Public Contacts
220
6
5
1
198
13
12
9
43
2
3
1
5
5
1
2
1
4
10
1
4
2
4
13
2
1
15
5
1
5
11
117
Frequency of Check Back (in minutes)
4
5
5
Other
min.
min.
4 min.
(%)
(%) min. (%) Other
53
0
0
0
50
0
0
1
23
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
6
24%
0%
25%
111
4
3
1
98
6
7
5
16
1
1
0
2
4
0
1
1
1
7
0
3
2
1
7
0
0
13
3
0
2
2
50%
67%
49%
56
2
2
0
50
7
5
3
4
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
2
0
2
3
25%
33%
25%
January 31, 2013
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
California Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin
County Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police
Local, State, County, City Police Department
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of LEO Respondents
Required to Provide Status Checks
for Public Contacts
1
4
18
14
14
1
118
Frequency of Check Back (in minutes)
4
5
5
Other
min.
min.
4 min.
(%)
(%) min. (%) Other
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
10
8
3 21%
7 50%
4
29%
3
7
4
0
0%
1 100%
0
0%
1
0
1
1
72
49
3
44
1
1
12
12
1
1
1
1
9
8
1
292
0
0
11
10
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
64
1
0%
15%
20%
0%
0%
0%
11%
22%
1 100%
1
44 61%
28 57%
1
27
0
0
8 67%
8
1 100%
1
0
0%
0
7 78%
6
1
155 53%
0
0
0
17
11
1
8
1
1
4
4
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
73
0%
24%
22%
33%
0%
100%
11%
25%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-24 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents Whose Primary Dispatch Center Requires Welfare Checks During Patrol
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
384
13
8
5
337
17
1
16
14
62
2
13
6
15
8
2
7
3
6
2
13
2
3
5
6
4
21
6
3
22
7
119
Yes
132
5
5
0
115
15
0
3
4
45
0
4
0
1
1
0
2
0
3
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
7
1
0
3
4
Primary Dispatch Center Requires
Welfare Checks During Patrol
No
Yes (%)
No
Unknown Unknown
(%)
(%)
34%
198
52%
54
14%
38%
7
54%
1
8%
2
1
5
0
34%
178
53%
44
13%
2
0
1
0
12
1
8
2
11
6
2
0
6
3
5
1
7
7
6
1
2
0
3
2
3
0
3
0
1
1
9
1
2
0
3
0
4
0
4
2
3
0
8
6
5
0
3
0
15
4
2
1
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
California Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2) Marin
County Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4) USCG sector
I am a Region 5 asset, so all dispatch centers technically
We no longer have a primary dispatch, it was CA state
parks. we have nothing except 911 on a cell phone
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police Department
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
Colorado State Patrol Dispatch Center
Madison County Sheriff's Office - Montana
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
120
Yes
Primary Dispatch Center Requires
Welfare Checks During Patrol
No
Yes (%)
No
Unknown Unknown
(%)
(%)
2
0
6
1
5
1
4
0
3
0
24
3
4
1
33%
13
43%
7
23%
13
7
33%
0
0%
2
67%
2
7
15
5
5
32
5
30
30
3
0
0
9
1
2
5
0
10
10
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
116
73
5
61
1
2
1
1
2
20
20
3
1
1
1
6
1
1
62
41
3
38
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
1
0
0
1
1
100%
53%
56%
65%
33%
17%
0
0
39
25
2
16
1
2
1
1
2
6
6
2
1
1
0
3
0%
34%
34%
30%
67%
50%
0
0
15
7
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0%
13%
10%
5%
0%
33%
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
LEO Respondents
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police
Local, State, County, City Police Department
New Mexico, Primary Dispatch is Sandoval County
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
2
3
14
13
1
500
121
Yes
1
0
0
6
6
0
194
Primary Dispatch Center Requires
Welfare Checks During Patrol
No
Yes (%)
No
Unknown Unknown
(%)
(%)
0
0
1
1
2
1
43%
3
21%
5
36%
3
4
0
1
39%
237
47%
69
14%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-25 - Frequency of Welfare Checks Required by Primary Dispatch Centers While Law Enforcement Officer is on Patrol
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
132
5
5
115
15
3
4
45
4
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
7
1
3
4
9
1
2
19
0
0
17
0
2
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
5
3
14%
0%
15%
35
0
0
30
2
3
3
6
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
3
3
0
0
2
122
27%
0%
26%
61
0
0
59
13
0
1
34
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
46%
0%
51%
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3%
0%
3%
4
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3%
20%
3%
10
4
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8%
80%
3%
Other (%)
Other
Every 1-2 Hours (%)
Every 1-2 Hours
Every 3-4 Hours (%)
Every 3-4 Hours
Twice/Day (%)
Twice/Day
Other Once/Day (%)
Other Once/Day
End of Shift (%)
End of Shift
Start of Shift
Total Number
of LEO
Respondents
Using Centers
Requiring
Welfare
Checks during
Patrol
Start of Shift (%)
Frequency of Welfare Checks
21 16%
0
0%
0
17 15%
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
3
January 31, 2013
California Local, State, County, City Police
Department Total
Local, State, County, City Police Department
California Other Total
1) Point Reyes National Seashore Dispatch 2)
Marin County Comm Center 3) CHP 911 4)
USCG sector
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Center
Arizona Local, State, County, City Police
Department Total
Local, State, County, City Police Department
Arizona Other Total
ST George Comm Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Local, State, County, City Police
Department Total
Local, State, County, City Police Department
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Other (%)
Other
Every 1-2 Hours (%)
Every 1-2 Hours
Every 3-4 Hours (%)
Every 3-4 Hours
Twice/Day (%)
Twice/Day
Other Once/Day (%)
Other Once/Day
End of Shift (%)
End of Shift
Start of Shift
Total Number
of LEO
Respondents
Using Centers
Requiring
Welfare
Checks during
Patrol
Start of Shift (%)
Frequency of Welfare Checks
10
1
10%
4
40%
2
20%
0
0%
0
0%
2
20%
3
30%
10
1
1
1
1
1
100
4
1
1
100
2
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
2
1
1
100
3
0
0
0%
1
1
62
41
3
38
0
0
7
4
0
4
13
1
13
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
6
194
0
26
0%
11%
10%
0
0
7
4
0
4
8%
1
0%
1
1
1
1
1
0
13%
0
42
100
100
123
0%
0%
11%
10%
0
0
1
0
0
0
8%
1
0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
22%
0
62
100
100
0%
2%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
8%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
32%
0
4
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
9
5
1
4
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
4
2%
4
13
0%
0%
0%
15%
12%
0
0
47
33
2
31
0%
11
67%
11
1
1
0
0
2
7%
2
57
0%
0%
0%
100
76%
80%
1
1
4
2
0
2
85%
2
15%
6%
5%
33%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0%
29%
0
25
13%
100
0%
0%
0%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-26 - Criminal Information Databases by Area and State summarizes the criminal information databases used by the centers, by area and state. The
most widely used database is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database (54%), followed by CLETS (41%), and
Other (41%). Some centers use more than one criminal information database.
Table 3.9.3-26 - Criminal Information Databases by Area and State
Criminal Information Databases
Total Number
of Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
National
Crime
Information
Center
18 (64%)
0
17
1
3 (27%)
2
1
21 (54%)
Arizona
DPS Net
1 (4%)
0
1
0
2 (18%)
2
0
3 (8%)
124
CAL
PHOTO
8 (29%)
0
8
0
0 (0%)
0
0
8 (21%)
CLETS
16 (57%)
0
16
0
0 (0%)
0
0
16 (41%)
LEAWEB
7 (25%)
0
7
0
0 (0%)
0
0
7 (18%)
New Mexico
State Police
System
0 (0%)
0
0
0
1 (9%)
0
1
1 (3%)
Other
8 (29%)
0
8
0
8 (73%)
5
3
16
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-26 - Criminal Information Databases by Area and State summarizes the criminal information databases used by the centers by area and state. Table
3.9.3-20 - Type of Radio Codes Used by Law Enforcement Officer Respondents’ Primary Dispatch Center below shows this information by center. Only the
operational centers provide law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.9.3-27 - Criminal Information Databases by Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using Database
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Database
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
28
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
125
19
68%
18
67%
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
32%
9
33%
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
16
57%
16
59%
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
8
29%
8
30%
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
NM State
Police
System
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
LEAWEB
CLETS
CAL PHOTO
Total Number of Centers
Performing LE Dispatch
AZ DPS Net
NCIC
Criminal Information Databases
8
29%
8
30%
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Using Database
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Area Centers Using Database
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using Database
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using Database
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Using Database
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
39
126
1
1
1
1
0
1
100%
1
3
27%
2
29%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
25%
0
0
1
0
22
56%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
2
18%
2
29%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
1
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
9
23%
1
0
1
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
16
41%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
8
21%
NM State
Police
System
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
9%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25%
0
0
1
0
1
3%
Other
LEAWEB
CLETS
CAL PHOTO
Total Number of Centers
Performing LE Dispatch
AZ DPS Net
NCIC
Criminal Information Databases
0
0
1
1
2
0
0%
0
8
73%
5
71%
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
75%
1
1
0
1
16
41%
January 31, 2013
As shown in Figure 3.9.3-28 - Number of Law Enforcement Incidents by Year for California, the number of law enforcement incidents in California
has increased an average of 6% per year from 2006 through 2010, with a total increase over these years of 28%. The data source for this figure
is the Center Managers’ data call responses.
Figure 3.9.3-28 - Number of Law Enforcement Incidents by Year for California
Number of Law Enforcement Incidents by Year for California
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2006
2007
Northern CA Centers
IDOPP Report Appendix
2008
Southern CA Centers
127
2009
2010
Total CA Centers
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-29 - Arrests and Violations by Agency – California shows the arrests and violations by agency and year, along with the totals and
averages. Table 3.9.3-30 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – BLM – California (2006-2010), Table 3.9.3-31 - Total Arrests and Violations by
Unit – CAL FIRE – California (2006-2010), Table 3.9.3-32 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – FS – California (2006-2010), Table 3.9.3-33 - Total
Arrests and Violations by Unit – FWS – California (2006-2010) and Table 3.9.3-34 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – NPS – California (20062010), show total arrests and violations by unit for each agency. The California sub-team law enforcement representatives pulled this data from
various law enforcement databases.
Table 3.9.3-29 - Arrests and Violations by Agency – California
2006-2010 Total
2006-2010 Average Annual
Arrests and Violations
Arrests and Violations
BLM
3,696
4,111
5,407
5,261
4,361
22,836
4,567
CAL FIRE
1,005
868
783
749
1,242
4,647
929
FS
3,701
4,086
5,888
7,888
6,563
28,126
5,625
FWS
425
511
682
446
299
2,363
473
NPS*
22,257
53,790
58,257
8,232
38,970
181,506
36,301
* NPS data from 2009 is incomplete and NPS statistics vary from the other agencies in that arrests include both
physical arrests and summoned arrests (mandatory court appearances).
Agency
2006
IDOPP Report Appendix
2007
2008
2009
2010
128
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-30 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – BLM – California (2006-2010)
Field Office
Alturas Field Office
Eagle Lake Field Office
Mother Lode Field Office /Folsom Field Office
Arcata Field Office
King Range National Conservation Area
Headwaters Forest Reserve
Redding Field Office
Surprise Field Office
Bishop Field Office
Ukiah Field Office
Hollister Field Office
Bakersfield Field Office
Carrizo Plain National Monument
California Desert District
El Centro Field Office
Ridgecrest Field Office
Needles Field Office
Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office
Santa Rosa/Jacinto Mountains
Barstow Field Office
Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
2006
6
16
22
200
34
4
159
6
24
112
28
64
15
11
2109
272
50
273
25
266
3696
129
Total Arrests and Violations
2007
2008
2009
3
4
3
8
13
37
10
9
12
118
90
86
17
15
21
7
0
0
84
130
142
0
4
0
61
8
32
146
86
77
107
110
38
25
24
143
0
1
7
42
19
29
2789
4061
3549
228
265
270
33
11
16
102
218
403
26
2
17
305
337
379
4111
5407
5261
2010
1
32
21
64
13
4
89
1
6
85
20
86
4
11
2658
201
12
641
41
371
4361
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-31 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – CAL FIRE – California (2006-2010)
Unit
Amador-El Dorado Unit
San Benito-Monterey Unit
San Bernardino Unit
Butte Unit
San Mateo-Santa Cruz Unit
Fresno-Kings Unit
Humboldt-Del Norte Unit
Sonoma-Lake Napa Unit
Lassen-Modoc Unit
Mendocino Unit
Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit
San Diego Unit
Nevada-Yuber-Placer Unit
Riverside Unit
Santa Clara Unit
Shasta-Trinity Unit
Siskiyou Unit
San Louis Obispo Unit
Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit
Tehama Glenn Unit
Tulare Unit
Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Arrests and Violations
2007
2008
2009
4
14
7
5
18
11
40
51
13
25
31
39
11
14
20
14
0
0
6
3
8
6
7
13
36
88
460
315
0
4
30
30
18
29
21
24
101
74
26
21
11
3
868
783
2006
20
8
63
74
26
15
6
10
0
12
16
11
46
538
5
9
3
43
5
13
82
1005
130
44
11
21
21
23
31
26
3
0
9
3
25
66
325
13
34
5
22
44
15
8
749
2010
31
11
66
20
22
42
34
5
14
8
5
44
164
437
30
90
7
14
181
4
13
1242
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-32 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – FS – California (2006-2010)
Forest
Eldorado National Forest
Klamath National Forest
Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Lassen National Forest
Mendocino National Forest
Modoc National Forest
Plumas National Forest
Shasta Trinity National Forest
Six Rivers National Forest
Stanislaus National Forest
Tahoe National Forest
Angeles National Forest
Cleveland National Forest
Inyo National Forest
Los Padres National Forest
San Bernardino National Forest
Sequoia National Forest
Sierra National Forest
Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
Zone
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
2006
512
71
74
135
197
10
58
180
168
281
182
235
184
94
145
282
610
283
3701
131
Total Arrests and Violations
2007
2008
2009
548
893
1154
70
105
125
117
260
192
133
71
128
173
299
262
11
16
7
76
156
147
186
191
428
208
189
169
204
313
521
293
289
321
640
749
1024
83
332
391
104
322
294
82
474
631
325
647
1130
536
313
538
297
269
426
4086
5888
7888
2010
516
102
134
109
304
18
133
509
259
404
217
1257
304
84
526
1014
297
376
6563
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-33 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – FWS – California (2006-2010)
Unit
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Hopper National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex
San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge Complex
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Sonny Bono National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
2006
8
0
9
19
1
64
79
203
38
0
4
425
132
Total Arrests and Violations
2007
2008
2009
7
5
7
0
0
0
7
6
15
23
0
14
1
0
0
62
93
112
150
327
199
228
180
55
26
63
38
3
5
1
4
3
5
511
682
446
2010
9
0
12
12
0
59
107
54
37
2
7
299
January 31, 2013
Table 3.9.3-34 - Total Arrests and Violations by Unit – NPS – California (2006-2010)
Unit
Cabrillo National Monument
Channel Islands National Park
Death Valley National Park
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Joshua Tree National Park
Lava Beds National Monument
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Mojave National Park
Pinnacles National Monument
Point Reyes National Seashore
Redwood National Park
Santa Monica Mountains National Rec. Area
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
Yosemite National Park
Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
2006
28
0
122
1917
249
0
0
0
179
0
0
117
0
4722
14923
22257
133
Total Arrests and Violations
2007
2008
2009
79
7
31
13
0
34
328
28
119
3094
0
2837
1251
220
0
23
223
174
70
63
96
75
279
480
61
104
0
497
609
0
58
75
0
115
146
98
1544
1560
1214
2846
3159
3149
43736
51784
0
53790
58257
8232
2010
90
19
131
1411
615
87
134
170
16
448
312
82
1042
3888
30525
38970
January 31, 2013
In some instances, LEOs use remote data terminals that allow them to access criminal information databases without having to contact a dispatch center. As shown in
Table 3.9.3-35 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents with Access to Remote Data Terminals, 13% of officers in the California area and 6% in the Southwest
have access to remote data terminals.
Table 3.9.3-35 - Number of Law Enforcement Officer Respondents with Access to Remote Data Terminals
LEO Has Access to a Remote Data
Terminal
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California - Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of LEO
Respondents
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
134
Yes
Yes (%)
No
No (%)
48
48
15
8
17
5
3
0
0
0
7
3
0
1
2
0
4
1
3
0
0
55
13%
13%
336
335
31
83
99
5
116
1
1
1
109
86
32
34
11
9
23
6
15
1
1
445
88%
87%
0%
6%
3%
15%
11%
100%
94%
97%
85%
89%
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.9.4 Other Workload
Table 3.9.4-1 in the body of the report shows the average annual number of “other” incidents (aircraft, Federal Emergency Management Agency, hazardous materials,
medical aid incidents, off-highway vehicles, planned events, public assistance, recreation, resource, search and rescue, traffic collisions, and unplanned events) by area
and state. Table 3.9.4-2 - Average Annual Number of Other Incidents by Center shows this information by center. The tables show the workload for centers with two
center managers by agency type.
Table 3.9.4-2 - Average Annual Number of Other Incidents by Center
Center Name
California Area Operational Centers
Northern California Operational Centers
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yreka Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of
Agency
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Tribal
State
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Average Annual
Number of Other
Incidents
336,195
142,259
13,692
28,919
1,975
26,944
9,947
7,020
209
6,812
3,463
22,245
1,081
21,164
80
1,053
7,732
181
455
4,262
132
7,794
14,181
282
13,900
5,650
9,350
2,638
6,713
890
5,214
135
Center Name
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Southern California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Fresno Kings ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Visalia ECC
Yosemite ECC
Southwest Area Operational Centers
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Type of
Agency
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Average Annual
Number of Other
Incidents
405
4,809
193,936
1,634
598
2,859
10,958
3,906
15,334
12,283
1,509
10,774
3,850
150
99,080
10,193
12,943
7,723
987
867
736
3,661
6,174
9,114
8,312
59
0
174
4,541
66
2,534
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of
Agency
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Average Annual
Number of Other
Incidents
327
115
496
802
405
136
Center Name
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Type of
Agency
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Average Annual
Number of Other
Incidents
2
20
227
148
345,309
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.10 Staffing
To supplement staff during peak season, some centers bring in additional dispatchers through ROSS. As shown in Table 3.10-4 – Summary of Additional Staff
Hired During Peak Season by Area and State, of the 65 center managers responding to the data call, 48 (74%) hire one or more supplemental staff through
resource orders.
Table 3.10-4 – Summary of Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Area and State
Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season
Total Number
of Center
Manager
Responses
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
51
5
45
1
14
9
5
65
137
Yes
36
5
31
0
12
7
5
48
Yes (% of
centers)
71%
86%
74%
No (% of
centers)
No
15
0
14
1
2
2
0
17
29%
14%
26%
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.10-1 in the body of the report summarizes the dispatch personnel by area and agency and Figure 3.10-3 in the body of the report shows the number of
centers staffed at various levels. Table 3.10-5 - Number of Positions and FTE by Center shows the number of positions and FTE by center. For centers with a
federal and state center manager, the table shows staffing by agency type.
Table 3.10-5 - Number of Positions and FTE by Center
Type of
Agency
Center Name
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Tribal
State
Federal
State
138
Number of
Positions
482
52
26
17
9
4
22
16
6
424
11
14
24
8
16
9
21
11
14
7
7
13
14
25
7
18
1
10
7
15
Number of
FTE
481.5
52.0
26.0
17.0
9.0
4.0
22.0
16.0
6.0
423.5
11.0
14.0
24.0
8.0
16.0
9.0
21.0
11.0
14.0
7.0
7.0
13.0
14.0
25.0
7.0
18.0
1.0
10.0
7.0
15.0
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Operational Centers
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
139
Type of
Agency
Federal
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Number of
Positions
7
7
9
26
13
13
8
8
41
7
8
14
7
7
7
8
10
8
9
11
6
9
4
5
6
2
10
14
7
7
6
6
93
64
9
Number of
FTE
7.0
7.0
9.0
26.0
13.0
13.0
8.0
7.5
41.0
7.0
8.0
14.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
9.0
11.0
6.0
9.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2.0
10.0
14.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
88.5
62.5
8.0
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
140
Type of
Agency
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Number of
Positions
14
4
9
10
4
6
4
4
29
8
8
4
5
4
575
Number of
FTE
14.0
4.0
9.0
9.5
4.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
26.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
570.0
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-4 – Summary of Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Area and State summarizes whether managers hire additional staff during the peak
season by area and state. Table 3.10-6 - Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Center shows this information by center. For centers with a federal and
state center manager, the table shows information by agency type.
Table 3.10-6 - Additional Staff Hired During Peak Season by Center
Additional Staff Hired During
Peak Season
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Hiring Additional Staff
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Hiring Additional Staff
Northern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Hiring Additional Staff
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Center
Manager Responses
51
141
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
45
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
Yes
36
71%
5
100%
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
31
69%
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
No
15
29%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
31%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Additional Staff Hired During
Peak Season
Total Number of Center
Manager Responses
State
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Yes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
142
No
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
January 31, 2013
Additional Staff Hired During
Peak Season
Total Number of Center
Manager Responses
Federal
State
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Hiring Additional Staff
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Hiring Additional Staff
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Hiring Additional Staff
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Hiring Additional Staff
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Hiring Additional Staff
IDOPP Report Appendix
143
Yes
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
65
1
0
0
0%
0
12
86%
7
78%
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
48
74%
No
0
1
1
100%
1
2
14%
2
22%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
17
26%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-2 in the body of the report shows the number of federal positions per OPM series, by area and agency. Table 3.10-7 - Number of Federal Positions
per OPM Series by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.10-7 - Number of Federal Positions per OPM Series by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
144
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
21
11
10
137
11
7
7
19
7
0
6
7
7
7
13
7
7
7
0
7
6
4
0
7
7
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Specified
2151 Dispatching
1802 Compliance
Inspection and Support
1340 Meteorology
13
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
462 Forestry Technician
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
455 Range Technician
390 Telecommunications
Processing
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
401 Natural Resources
Management
326 Office Automation
Clerk and Assistance
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
391 Telecommunications
303 Miscellaneous Clerk
and Assistant
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
301 Miscellaneous Admin
and Program
Number of Positions per OPM Series
Total
30
0
0
0
30
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218
33
17
16
185
11
8
9
21
7
14
7
7
7
7
13
8
7
7
8
9
6
4
2
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
145
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0%
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
2%
0
0
0
0
6
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
8
3%
0
7
1
1
51
31
1
0
4
0
8
4
6
4
4
20
4
6
4
3
3
209
68%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2%
0
0
0
0
13
13
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
4%
Not Specified
2151 Dispatching
1802 Compliance
Inspection and Support
1340 Meteorology
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
4%
462 Forestry Technician
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0%
455 Range Technician
390 Telecommunications
Processing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1%
401 Natural Resources
Management
326 Office Automation
Clerk and Assistance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1%
391 Telecommunications
303 Miscellaneous Clerk
and Assistant
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent
301 Miscellaneous Admin
and Program
Number of Positions per OPM Series
Total
9
0
5
5
15
11
0
1
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
2
0
45
15%
0
10
0
7
0
6
0
6
1
89
1
61
0
6
0
14
0
4
0
9
1
10
0
4
0
6
0
4
0
4
0
28
0
8
0
7
0
4
0
5
0
4
1
307
0% 100%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-8 - Vacant Positions by Center shows the number of vacancies by center as of July 11, 2011. For centers with a federal and state center manager, the
table shows vacancy information by agency type.
Table 3.10-8 - Vacant Positions by Center
Dispatch Center
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Monterey ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of
Agency
Fed/State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
Number of
Vacant
Positions
Dispatch Center
30
5
2
2
1
2
2
25
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Yosemite ECC
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
146
Type of
Agency
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
Federal
Number of
Vacant
Positions
1
1
3
1
2
20
15
2
3
2
3
4
1
5
1
2
1
1
50
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-9 - Adverse Impacts on Center Managers Efforts to Fill Vacancies by Center summarizes the impacts on efforts of center managers to fill vacancies by
area and state. Table 3.10-9 - Adverse Impacts on Center Managers Efforts to Fill Vacancies by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.10-9 - Adverse Impacts on Center Managers Efforts to Fill Vacancies by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
65%
2
67%
1
0
1
23
64%
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
147
20
50%
0
0%
0
0
0
19
53%
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
15
38%
0
0%
0
0
0
15
42%
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
9
23%
1
33%
1
0
0
8
22%
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
10%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
5%
0
0%
0
0
0
2
6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Applicable
Security
Clearances
FTE Constraints
18
45%
1
33%
0
0
1
16
44%
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
Other
15
38%
1
33%
0
0
1
14
39%
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
IFPM
Qualifications
Location/Cost of
Living
40
Firefighter
Experience
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Center Managers Reporting Impact
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Center Managers Reporting Impact
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Center Managers Reporting Impact
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Funding
Total
Number
of
Centers
Lack of Qualified
Applicants
Impacts on Efforts of Center Managers to Fill Vacancies
10
25%
2
67%
1
1
0
8
22%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Center Managers Reporting Impact
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Center Managers Reporting Impact
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Center Managers Reporting Impact
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
Not Applicable
Security
Clearances
FTE Constraints
Other
IFPM
Qualifications
Location/Cost of
Living
Firefighter
Experience
Funding
Total
Number
of
Centers
Lack of Qualified
Applicants
Impacts on Efforts of Center Managers to Fill Vacancies
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
100% 100% 0%
100% 0%
0%
100% 0%
0%
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
9
8
10
3
4
3
3
0
1
64%
57%
71%
21%
29% 21%
21%
0%
7%
4
6
5
1
1
3
0
0
1
44%
67%
56%
11%
11% 33%
0%
0%
11%
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
149
0
1
1
1
2
40%
0
1
0
0
1
28
52%
0
0
0
0
3
60%
0
1
1
1
0
19
35%
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
12
22%
0
0
0
0
3
60%
0
1
0
1
1
7
13%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
Not Applicable
Security
Clearances
FTE Constraints
0
0
0
0
2
40%
0
0
1
0
1
21
39%
Other
0
1
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
25
46%
IFPM
Qualifications
Location/Cost of
Living
0
0
0
0
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
35
65%
Firefighter
Experience
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Center Managers Reporting Impact
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
Percent of IDOPP Center Managers Reporting Impact
Funding
Total
Number
of
Centers
Lack of Qualified
Applicants
Impacts on Efforts of Center Managers to Fill Vacancies
1
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
11
20%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.10-11 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Center and Agency shows this information by center.
Table 3.10-11 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Center and Agency
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Center Managers with Delegated Authority
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CA Managers with Delegated Authority
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Center Managers with Delegated Authority
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
150
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Center Manager has Delegated
Supervisory Authority
Mixed Response: 1
Yes
No
Yes and 1 No
30
9
1
75%
23%
3%
1
1
1
33%
33%
33%
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
28
8
0
78%
22%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Center Managers with Delegated Authority
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Center Managers with Delegated Authority
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Center Managers with Delegated Authority
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Center Managers with Delegated Authority
IDOPP Report Appendix
151
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
Center Manager has Delegated
Supervisory Authority
Mixed Response: 1
Yes
No
Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
100%
0%
0%
1
0
0
13
1
0
93%
7%
0%
8
1
0
89%
11%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
100%
0%
0%
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
54
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Center Managers with Delegated Authority
IDOPP Report Appendix
152
Center Manager has Delegated
Supervisory Authority
Mixed Response: 1
Yes
No
Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
43
10
1
80%
19%
2%
January 31, 2013
The employee survey asked dispatch employees (excluding center managers) to provide the percentage of time that they work on the seven categories of
dispatch functions defined in Table 3.4-2 – Dispatch Functions. Figure 3.10-12 - Average Percentage of Time Spent by Employees per Dispatch Function
summarizes the average percentage per function for California, the Southwest, and both areas combined based on the input from the survey respondents. Of
the 311 center employees responding to the survey, 274 were from the California area and 37 from the Southwest. The employee survey was not mandatory
so not all dispatch employees completed it.
Figure 3.10-12 - Average Percentage of Time Spent by Employees per Dispatch Function
California
Interagency
Cooperation, 5%
Predictive
Services/
EmployeeIntelligence, 6%
Development
and/or
Supervision, 8%
Support to/from
Other Functions,
6%
Southwest
Management and
Organization, 6%
Interagency
Cooperation, 7%
Management and
Organization, 9%
Dispatch
Operations (NonLE), 40%
Predictive
Services/
Intelligence, 10%
Dispatch
Operations (NonLE), 60%
Employee
Development
and/or
Supervision, 7%
Support to/from
Other Functions,
7%
LE Dispatch, 9%
LE Dispatch, 20%
California & Southwest Combined
Predictive Services/
Intelligence, 7%
Interagency
Cooperation, 5%
Management and
Organization, 7%
Employee
Development and/or
Supervision, 7%
Support to/from
Other Functions, 6%
Dispatch Operations
(Non-LE), 58%
LE Dispatch, 10%
IDOPP Report Appendix
153
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.10-13 - Vacant Positions as of July 1, 2011shows the percentages of vacant positions by area and type of center.
Figure 3.10-13 - Vacant Positions as of July 1, 2011
Type of Center
CA GACC/Command Center
10%
CA Operational Center
6%
SW Operational Center
22%
Overall
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percent of Vacant Positions
IDOPP Report Appendix
154
January 31, 2013
The data call asked center managers to select the factor(s) adversely affecting efforts to fill vacancies. Some managers selected multiple factors. Overall the
most cited reasons were lack of qualified applicants (a problem 65% of the time), inadequate funding (52%), and need for firefighter experience (46%). Table
3.10-14 - Factors Adversely Affecting Center Manager Effort to Fill Vacancies, by Area and State shows the results.
Table 3.10-14 - Factors Adversely Affecting Center Manager Effort to Fill Vacancies, by Area and State
IDOPP Report Appendix
26 (65%)
2
23
1
9 (64%)
4
5
35 (65%)
155
15 (38%)
0
15
0
4 (29%)
1
3
19 (35%)
9 (23%)
1
8
0
3 (21%)
3
0
12 (22%)
4 (10%)
0
3
1
3 (21%)
0
3
7 (13%)
2 (5%)
0
2
0
0 (0%)
0
0
2 (4%)
Not Applicable
Security Clearances
FTE Constraints
18 (45%)
1
16
1
3 (21%)
1
2
21 (39%)
Other
15 (38%)
1
14
0
10 (71%)
5
5
25 (46%)
Interagency Fire
Program
Management
Qualifications
Funding
20 (50%)
0
19
1
8 (57%)
6
2
28 (52%)
Location/ Cost of
Living
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Firefighter
Experience
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Lack of Qualified
Applicants
Total Number of
Centers
Factors Affecting Center Manager Efforts to Fill Vacancies
10 (25%)
2
8
0
1 (7%)
1
0
11 (20%)
January 31, 2013
The data call asked if center managers have delegated supervisory authority to prioritize and direct work for all employees in the dispatch center, regardless
of agency affiliation. This authority facilitates the supervision and operation of a seamless, integrated interagency dispatch center. Table 3-10.15 - Delegated
Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – Interagency Integrated Centers Only provides the results for the centers who classified
themselves as interagency integrated centers. The California centers without delegated supervisory authority are Camino Interagency ECC (CAL FIRE and FS),
Central California ECC (BLM and FS), St. Helena ECC (CAL FIRE), and Yreka Interagency ECC (CAL FIRE and FS). The Southern California Coordination Center
provided a mixed response, with the FS center manager reporting having delegated supervisory authority and the CAL FIRE center manager reported not
having this authority. The Southwest center without delegated supervisory authority is the Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center in Arizona, which has staff
from both BIA and FS.
Table 3-10.15 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – Interagency Integrated Centers Only
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of Interagency
Integrated Centers
18
2
16
0
14
9
5
32
Center Manager has Delegated Supervisory Authority
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes
No
(%)
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
12
67%
5
28%
1
6%
0
1
1
12
4
0
0
0
0
13
93%
1
7%
0
0%
8
1
0
5
0
0
25
78%
6
19%
1
3%
Table 3-10.16 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – All Centers shows this information by area and state for all centers.
Table 3-10.16 - Delegated Supervisory Authority for Center Managers by Area and State – All Centers
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
30
1
28
1
13
8
5
43
Center Manager has Delegated Supervisory Authority
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Mixed Response
No
(%)
Yes and 1 No
(%)
(%)
75%
9
23%
1
3%
1
1
8
0
0
0
93%
1
7%
0
0%
1
0
0
0
80%
10
19%
1
2%
156
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.11 Technology and Equipment
In California, 92% of the operational centers reported using a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. One of the two responding center managers at
Northern California Coordination Center and Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC reported using a CAD system, while their counterparts reported no CAD
system at the same locations. In Hawaii, Arizona, and New Mexico, all of the centers reported using CAD systems. The California centers reporting no CAD
system were the Southern California Coordination Center, CAL FIRE Sacramento Headquarters Command Center, Hoopa Dispatch, and Whiskeytown-Shasta
Trinity National Recreation Area. Table 3.11.1-1 - Computer Aided Dispatch System Use by Area and State, Table 3.11.1-2 - Computer Aided Dispatch
Systems Used by Area and State* summarizes this data by area and state.
Table 3.11.1-1 - Computer Aided Dispatch System Use by Area and State
Center Uses a Computer Aided Dispatch System
Total Number
of Centers
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
(%)
Yes
34
0
33
1
14
9
5
48
157
85%
100%
89%
No
No (%)
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
4
10%
0%
7%
Mixed
Response: 1 Yes
and 1 No
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
Mixed
Response (%)
5%
0%
4%
January 31, 2013
The NPS has nine CAD enterprise systems under deployment that will serve 51 parks and units, some within the scope of this project. Rollout of these
systems will be complete by January 1, 2014. Systems approved for use by NPS for law enforcement and emergency medical service dispatching are
Motorola Premier and Computer Information Systems, integrated into the DOI Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS) of law
enforcement case records. Table 3.11.1-2 - Computer Aided Dispatch Systems Used by Area and State* shows the CAD systems in use in the California and
Southwest areas. Some centers use multiple CAD systems.
Table 3.11.1-2 - Computer Aided Dispatch Systems Used by Area and State*
Model of Computer Aided Dispatch System
Total Number
of Centers with
a Computer
Aided Dispatch
System
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
*Some centers use multiple CAD systems.
36
1
34
1
14
9
5
50
Altaris
CAD
CIS
22 (61%)
0
22
0
0 (0%)
0
0
22 (44%)
0 (0%)
0
0
0
0 (0%)
0
0
0 (0%)
IQ CAD
911
0 (0%)
0
0
0
1 (7%)
1
0
1 (2%)
Motorola
0 (0%)
0
0
0
1 (7%)
0
1
1 (2%)
WildCAD
19 (53%)
1
17
1
12 (86%)
7
5
31 (62%)
Other
2 (6%)
0
2
0
1 (7%)
1
0
3 (6%)
In California, six centers use both Altaris CAD and WildCAD: Fortuna Interagency ECC, Grass Valley Interagency ECC, Monte Vista Interagency ECC, Redding
Interagency ECC, Sierra Interagency ECC, and Yreka Interagency ECC. Sierra is a federal center co-located with the CAL FIRE Fresno Kings ECC. The other five
centers are interagency centers with both CAL FIRE and federal presence. The remaining interagency centers (CAL FIRE and federal), Camino Interagency
ECC and Susanville Interagency ECC, reported using only Altaris CAD. Additionally in California, Yosemite ECC reported using two computer aided dispatch
systems: WildCAD and Other (Positron).
In New Mexico, the center with two computer aided dispatch systems is Silver City, which uses both Motorola and WildCAD.
IDOPP Report Appendix
158
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.1-3 - Use of a CAD System by Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using CAD
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Using CAD
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using CAD
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
159
Yes
34
85%
0
0%
0
0
0
33
92%
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
Center Uses a CAD System
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
4
2
10%
5%
2
1
67%
33%
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
6%
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
January 31, 2013
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Using CAD
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Using CAD
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using CAD
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using CAD
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Using CAD
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
160
Yes
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
100%
1
14
100%
9
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
48
89%
Center Uses a CAD System
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
7%
4%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.1-4 - CAD Systems Used by Center
Type of CAD System
Total Number
of Centers with
a CAD System
36
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using Type of CAD System
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Using Type of CAD System
Northern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Type of CAD System
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
161
Altaris
CAD
22
61%
0
0%
0
22
65%
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
CIS
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IQ CAD
911
Motorola
WildCAD
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
53%
1
100%
1
17
50%
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
Other
2
6%
0
0%
0
2
6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Type of CAD System
Total Number
of Centers with
a CAD System
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Using Type of CAD System
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
14
Percent of SW Centers Using Type of CAD System
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using Type of CAD System
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using Type of CAD System
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
50
Percent of IDOPP Centers Using Type of CAD System
IDOPP Report Appendix
162
Altaris
CAD
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
22
44%
CIS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
IQ CAD
911
Motorola
WildCAD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
20%
0
0
0
1
0
1
2%
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
100%
1
12
86%
7
78%
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
31
62%
Other
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
3
6%
January 31, 2013
The data call asked center managers if the network in their center adequately supports center requirements. As shown in Table 3.11.2-1 - Reported Adequacy of
Network by Area and State, managers from 78% of the centers assessed their networks as adequate. For an additional 7% of the centers, one manager assessed
the network as adequate and the other manager assessed the network as inadequate.
Table 3.11.2-1 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
29
2
27
0
9
5
4
42
Yes
(%)
73%
64%
78%
163
Center has an Adequate Network
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
No
(%)
1 Yes and1 No
Response (%)
7
18%
4
10%
0
1
6
3
1
0
5
36%
0
0%
4
0
1
0
12
22%
4
7%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.2-1 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Area and State summarizes the reported adequacy of the dispatch centers’ networks by area and state. Table
3.11.2-2 - Reported Adequacy of Network by CenterTable 3.11.2-3 - Standalone Network Server by Area and State shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.2-2 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Center
California Area Total
Percent CA Area Centers with Adequate Network
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC with Adequate Network
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with Adequate Network
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
164
Center has an Adequate Network
Mixed Response:
Yes
No
1 Yes and 1 No
29
7
4
73%
18%
10%
2
0
1
67%
0%
33%
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
27
6
3
75%
17%
8%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
Centers
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with Adequate Network
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with Adequate Network
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with Adequate Network
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with Adequate Network
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
165
Center has an Adequate Network
Mixed Response:
Yes
No
1 Yes and 1 No
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0%
100%
0%
0
1
0
9
5
0
64%
36%
0%
5
4
0
56%
44%
0%
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
80%
20%
0%
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of
Centers
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with Adequate Network
1
1
1
1
54
Center has an Adequate Network
Mixed Response:
Yes
No
1 Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
38
12
4
70%
22%
7%
Some centers have set up “snap” servers to allow the location to operate on one system and have a backup system during a system outage. Within the
California and Southwest areas, 44% of centers have a standalone network server, shown in Table 3.11.2-3 - Standalone Network Server by Area and State.
Table 3.11.2-3 - Standalone Network Server by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
17
2
15
0
7
4
3
24
166
Center has a Stand Alone Network Server
No
Mixed Response: Mixed Response
No
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
(%)
21
53%
2
5%
0
1
20
1
1
0
50%
7
50%
0
0%
5
0
2
0
44%
28
52%
2
4%
Yes
(%)
43%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.2-3 - Standalone Network Server by Area and State summarizes the standalone network servers at the dispatch centers by area and state. Table
3.11.2-4 - Standalone Network Server by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.2-4 - Standalone Network Server by Center
Total Number
of Centers
40
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with Standalone Server
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC with Standalone Server
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with Standalone Server
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
167
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Center has a Standalone Network Server
Mixed Response: 1
Yes
No
Yes and 1 No
17
21
2
43%
53%
5%
2
0
1
67%
0%
33%
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
15
20
1
42%
56%
3%
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number
of Centers
San Andreas ECC
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers with Standalone Server
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
14
Percent of SW Centers with Standalone Server
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with Standalone Server
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers with Standalone Server
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
Percent of IDOPP Centers with Standalone Server
IDOPP Report Appendix
168
Center has a Standalone Network Server
Mixed Response: 1
Yes
No
Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0%
100%
0%
0
1
0
7
7
0
50%
50%
0%
4
5
0
44%
56%
0%
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
2
0
60%
40%
0%
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
24
28
2
44%
52%
4%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.2-1 - Reported Adequacy of Network by Area and State summarizes by area and state whether data transmission circuits are at maximum capacity.
Table 3.11.2-5 - Data Circuits by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.2-5 - Data Circuits by Center
Total Number of Centers
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Total
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
169
Data Transmission Circuits are at Maximum Capacity
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
23
14
3
58%
35%
8%
1
1
1
33%
33%
33%
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
21
13
2
58%
36%
6%
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of Centers
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
170
Data Transmission Circuits are at Maximum Capacity
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100%
0%
0%
1
0
0
7
7
0
50%
50%
0%
3
6
0
33%
67%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4
1
0
80%
20%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number of Centers
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
54
171
Data Transmission Circuits are at Maximum Capacity
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
30
21
3
56%
39%
6%
January 31, 2013
The data call asked center managers to report the number of discrete channels available for use by the dispatch center. Table 3.11.4-3 - Number of Discrete
Radio Channels Available by Center shows responses by center. For centers with a federal and state center manager, the table depicts information by agency
type.
Table 3.11.4-3 - Number of Discrete Radio Channels Available by Center
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Number of Discrete
Radio Channels Available
344
23
18
14
4
1
4
4
0
305
2
2
10
10
10
16
0
0
2
2
0
13
10
3
3
0
5
50
2
2
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
172
Number of Discrete
Radio Channels Available
3
2
24
24
24
5
2
4
1
8
8
2
2
0
6
10
8
7
2
0
0
34
23
11
1
10
24
27
27
27
January 31, 2013
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Number of Discrete
Radio Channels Available
16
16
166
105
34
40
2
9
0
5
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
173
Number of Discrete
Radio Channels Available
7
8
0
61
2
50
3
6
0
510
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-1 in the body of the report summarizes the dedicated radio frequencies by area and state. Table 3.11.4-4 - Dedicated Radio Frequencies by Center
shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.4-4 - Dedicated Radio Frequencies by Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with Dedicated Frequencies
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC with Dedicated
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with Dedicated
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
33
83%
3
100%
2
1
2
29
81%
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
174
19
48%
0
0%
0
0
0
18
50%
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
21
53%
1
33%
1
0
0
19
53%
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
25
63%
3
100%
2
1
2
21
58%
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
18
45%
1
33%
0
1
0
17
47%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
11
28%
0
0%
0
0
0
11
31%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
18%
1
33%
0
1
0
6
17%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
None
Other
Search & Rescue
Emergency
Medical Service
Aviation
Admin
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of Centers
Wildland Fire
Dedicated Radio Frequencies
9
23%
0
0%
0
0
0
9
25%
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
13
93%
8
89%
1
0
1
1
1
1
175
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
100%
1
5
36%
5
56%
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0%
0
2
14%
2
22%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
4
29%
3
33%
0
0
0
0
1
0
None
Other
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
100%
1
12
86%
7
78%
1
0
1
1
1
1
Search & Rescue
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
100%
1
10
71%
7
78%
0
1
1
1
1
1
Emergency
Medical Service
Aviation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Admin
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with Dedicated
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with Dedicated
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with Dedicated
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of Centers
Wildland Fire
Dedicated Radio Frequencies
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with Dedicated
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with Dedicated Frequencies
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
1
1
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
46
85%
176
1
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
24
44%
1
1
0
3
60%
1
1
0
0
1
31
57%
1
1
0
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
37
69%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
19
35%
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
13
24%
1
0
1
1
20%
0
0
0
1
0
11
20%
None
Other
Search & Rescue
Emergency
Medical Service
Aviation
Admin
Law
Enforcement
Total
Number
of Centers
Wildland Fire
Dedicated Radio Frequencies
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
9
17%
January 31, 2013
Additionally, the data call asked center managers to report the number of radio consoles in the dispatch center. Table 3.11.4-5 - Number of Radio Consoles by
Center and Agency shows their responses by center. For centers with a federal and a state center manager, the table shows information by agency type.
Table 3.11.4-5 - Number of Radio Consoles by Center and Agency
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Ctr
Federal
State
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Ctr
Federal
State
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Number of Radio
Consoles
256
30
17
10
7
3
10
6
4
224
5
5
10
10
10
11
13
4
9
3
6
5
5
8
2
6
1
5
7
6
3
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Federal
State
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Federal
State
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
177
Number of Radio
Consoles
6
10
10
10
4
4
4
10
4
4
15
7
8
4
4
4
5
10
6
4
12
6
6
5
2
4
6
6
6
2
2
January 31, 2013
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
Number of Radio
Consoles
73
50
6
10
4
2
5
6
6
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
178
Number of Radio
Consoles
10
1
23
5
3
3
8
4
345
January 31, 2013
Center managers also provided information on the agencies providing radio support to the dispatch center. Table 3.11.4-6 - Agencies Providing Radio Support by
Center shows the responses by center.
Among the 12 interagency operational centers in the Southwest, four centers (33%) obtain radio support for their dispatch area from a single agency. The
remaining Southwest centers obtain support from between two and five agencies. Among the 16 integrated interagency operational centers in the California
area, six centers (38%) obtain radio support for their dispatch area from a single agency. The remaining California centers obtain support from between two and
five agencies. In both areas, FS and the states provide support to the largest number of dispatch centers.
Table 3.11.4-6 - Agencies Providing Radio Support by Center
California Area Total
40
Percent of CA Area Centers Receiving Radio Support from
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC Receiving Radio Support from
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
California Operational Centers Total
36
Percent of CA Operational Centers Receiving Radio
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Howard Forest ECC
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mariposa ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
179
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5%
1
33
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
20%
1
33%
0
0
1
6
17%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
43%
2
67%
2
0
1
15
42%
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
25
63%
3
100%
2
1
2
22
61%
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
25%
1
33%
0
0
1
9
25%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5%
0
0%
0
0
0
2
6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Other Fed
Tribal
Gov't
Local
Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
6
15%
1
33%
0
0
1
5
14%
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DHS
2
5%
1
33%
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
BOR
BLM
Total
Number
of
Centers
BIA
Agencies Providing Radio Support
3
8%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Modoc Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Perris ECC
1
Plumas ECC
1
Red Bluff ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Receiving Radio
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
14
Percent of SW Area Centers Receiving Radio Support from
Arizona Operational Centers Total
9
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Receiving Radio
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
100
1
5
36%
3
33%
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0%
0
12
86%
7
78%
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0%
0
4
29%
2
22%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
Other
Other Fed
Tribal
Gov't
Local
Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
5
36%
2
22%
1
1
0
0
DHS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
5
36%
3
33%
0
0
1
0
BOR
BLM
Total
Number
of
Centers
BIA
Agencies Providing Radio Support
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers Receiving Radio
Support from Agency
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
Percent of IDOPP Centers Receiving Radio Support from
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40%
60%
0%
0%
1
1
0
0
0
7
13%
1
1
0
1
0
11
20%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
181
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Other Fed
Tribal
Gov't
Local
Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
DHS
BOR
BIA
Total
Number
of
Centers
BLM
Agencies Providing Radio Support
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
40%
100%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
3
6%
1
1
0
0
0
13
24%
1
1
1
1
1
29
54%
0
1
1
0
0
29
54%
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
0
0
0
0
0
11
20%
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
0
0
0
0
0
3
6%
January 31, 2013
Center managers also reported whether the dispatch center has a recording device. Table 3.11.4-8 - Agencies Maintaining the Radio Traffic Recording Device by
Center summarizes their responses by area and state and Table 3.11.4-10 – Reported Radio Deficiencies by Center shows the information by center. Table
3.11.4-7 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device shows the agencies maintaining the radio traffic recording devices.
Centers without a recording device include Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area in California and Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center and
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center in Arizona.
Table 3.11.4-7 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
182
Yes
Center has a Radio
Traffic Recording Device
Mixed Response:
No
1 Yes and 1 No
36
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
34
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
183
Yes
Center has a Radio
Traffic Recording Device
Mixed Response:
No
1 Yes and 1 No
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
12
2
0
7
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
48
3
3
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-8 - Agencies Maintaining the Radio Traffic Recording Device by Center
California Area Total
39
Percent of CA Area Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
California GACC/CC Total
3
Percent of CA GACC/CC Devices Maintained by Agency
Northern California Coordination Center
1
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
1
Southern California Coordination Center
1
California Operational Centers Total
35
Percent of CA Operational Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
Angeles ECC
1
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Howard Forest ECC
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mariposa ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Modoc Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Perris ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
184
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
10%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
9%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
18%
0
0%
0
0
0
7
20%
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
64%
3
100
1
1
1
22
63%
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Other Fed
Local Gov't
Tribal Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
DHS
BOR
BLM
Total Centers with
a Radio Traffic
Recording Device
BIA
Agencies Maintaining Radio Traffic Recording Device
7
18%
1
33%
0
1
0
6
17%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0%
0
1
8%
1
14%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
Other
Other Fed
Local Gov't
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
9
75%
4
57%
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
5
100%
1
Tribal Gov't
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
100%
1
1
8%
1
14%
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
State/
Territory
FWS
DOD
DHS
BOR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
3
25
1
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
40
0
FS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
NPS
Plumas ECC
1
Red Bluff ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Bernardino ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
St. Helena ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Visalia ECC
1
Yosemite ECC
1
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
12
Percent of SW Area Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
Arizona Operational Centers Total
7
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
BLM
Total Centers with
a Radio Traffic
Recording Device
BIA
Agencies Maintaining Radio Traffic Recording Device
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
January 31, 2013
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Devices Maintained by Agency
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
51
0
0
0
0
0
0%
1
0
1
0
4
8%
186
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
5
10%
1
1
1
1
16
31%
0
0
0
0
26
51%
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0
0
0
0
1
2%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Other
Other Fed
Local Gov't
Tribal Gov't
State/
Territory
FS
NPS
FWS
DOD
DHS
BOR
BLM
Total Centers with
a Radio Traffic
Recording Device
BIA
Agencies Maintaining Radio Traffic Recording Device
0
0
0
0
7
14%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-9 - Radio Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California - Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
35
35
6
2
9
0
18
0
0
0
9
6
2
3
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
44
9%
9%
237
236
33
71
80
7
45
0
1
1
84
67
25
28
10
4
17
4
11
1
1
321
0%
8%
7%
11%
9%
187
62%
62%
100%
72%
75%
63%
64%
39
39
3
4
4
2
26
0
0
0
7
4
2
1
0
1
3
2
1
0
0
46
10%
10%
0%
6%
4%
11%
9%
73
73
4
14
23
1
30
1
0
0
16
12
3
3
2
4
4
0
4
0
0
89
Non-Primary Center Uses a
Combination of their
Agency's Frequencies and
My Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Non-Primary Center Uses a
Combination of their
Agency's Frequencies and
My Agency’s Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
Other Frequencies (%)
Non-Primary Center Uses
Other Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
their Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Non-Primary Center Uses
their Agency’s Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
My Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Total Number
of LEO
Respondents
Non-Primary Center Uses
My Agency’s Frequencies
Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
19%
19%
0%
14%
13%
15%
18%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-2 in the body of the report summarizes the radio deficiencies reported by the center managers by area and state. Table 3.11.4-10 – Reported Radio
Deficiencies by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.4-10 – Reported Radio Deficiencies by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
188
33
83%
0
0%
0
0
0
32
89%
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
13%
0
0%
0
0
0
4
11%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limited
Bandwidth
Availability
/Traffic
Frequency
Overlap
10
25%
0
0%
0
0
0
10
28%
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
18
45%
0
0%
0
0
0
18
50%
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
None
40
Other
California Area Total
Percent of CA Centers Reporting Deficiency
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Reporting Deficiency
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Reporting Deficiency
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Recording
Device
Total
Number
of
Centers
Dead Spots
Radio Deficiency
13
33%
1
33%
1
0
0
12
33%
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
15%
3
100%
1
1
2
3
8%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Reporting Deficiency
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Reporting Deficiency
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Reporting Deficiency
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
189
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
12
86%
7
78%
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
100%
1
2
14%
1
11%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0%
0
7
50%
4
44%
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0%
0
3
21%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0%
0
3
21%
1
11%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
None
Other
Limited
Bandwidth
Availability
/Traffic
Frequency
Overlap
Recording
Device
Total
Number
of
Centers
Dead Spots
Radio Deficiency
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
2
14%
2
22%
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Reporting Deficiency
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Reporting Deficiency
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
190
1
5
100%
1
1
1
1
1
45
83%
0
1
20%
0
0
0
1
0
7
13%
0
3
60%
0
1
1
1
0
17
31%
0
3
60%
1
0
1
1
0
21
39%
0
2
40%
0
1
1
0
0
16
30%
None
Other
Limited
Bandwidth
Availability
/Traffic
Frequency
Overlap
Recording
Device
Total
Number
of
Centers
Dead Spots
Radio Deficiency
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
8
15%
January 31, 2013
The data call also collected information on whether centers have on-site radio equipment back-up systems. Table 3.11.4-11 - Centers with On-site Radio
Equipment Back-up System shows the information by center.
Table 3.11.4-11 - Centers with On-site Radio Equipment Back-up System
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
191
Center has On-Site Radio Equipment Backup System
Mixed Response:
Yes
No
1 Yes and 1 No
21
12
7
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
19
12
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
January 31, 2013
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
192
Center has On-Site Radio Equipment Backup System
Mixed Response:
Yes
No
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
11
3
0
6
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
32
15
7
January 31, 2013
Separate from the data call, the California sub-team collected radio tower information. Table 3.11.4-12 - California Radio Towers by Agency and Function
shows the numbers of towers by agency and major function:
Table 3.11.4-12 - California Radio Towers by Agency and Function
Agency
California
CAL FIRE
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
IDOPP Report Appendix
Major Function
Total
Total
Total
Administrative
Fire
Hydrologic
Law Enforcement
Maintenance
Medical
Natural Resources
Trunking
Utilities
Total
Admin Fire Net
Admin Net
Air Net
Border Comm
Common Use
Fire Net
Forest Net
Humboldt
LE Net
MW Net
NA
PSW Net
Service
Tactical
Toiyabe
Number of Radio Towers
4940
732
777
4
89
4
284
41
4
306
36
9
3431
24
643
46
1
22
641
194
6
110
82
1632
2
26
1
1
193
January 31, 2013
Center managers reported whether each dispatch center has a recording device. Table 3.11.4-13 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device by
Area and State summarizes their responses by area and state.
Table 3.11.4-13 - Centers with a Radio Traffic Recording Device by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Yes (%)
36
1
34
1
12
7
5
48
90%
86%
89%
Center has a Radio
Traffic Recording Device
Mixed Response:
No
No (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
1
3%
3
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
14%
0
2
0
0
0
3
6%
3
Mixed
Response (%)
8%
0%
6%
The data call also collected information on whether centers have on-site radio equipment back-up systems. Table 3.11.4-14 - On-Site Radio
Equipment Back-up Systems by Area and State summarizes the responses by area and state.
Table 3.11.4-14 - On-Site Radio Equipment Back-up Systems by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Center has On-site Radio Equipment Back-up System
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes (%)
No
No (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
21
53%
12
30%
7
18%
1
0
2
19
12
5
1
0
0
11
79%
3
21%
0
0%
6
3
0
5
0
0
32
59%
15
28%
7
13%
194
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-15 - Radio Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers shows the radio frequency distribution used by the officers’ non-primary dispatch
centers.
Table 3.11.4-15 - Radio Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California - Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
35
35
6
2
9
0
18
0
0
0
9
6
2
3
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
44
9%
9%
237
236
33
71
80
7
45
0
1
1
84
67
25
28
10
4
17
4
11
1
1
321
0%
8%
7%
11%
9%
195
62%
62%
100%
72%
75%
63%
64%
39
39
3
4
4
2
26
0
0
0
7
4
2
1
0
1
3
2
1
0
0
46
10%
10%
0%
6%
4%
11%
9%
73
73
4
14
23
1
30
1
0
0
16
12
3
3
2
4
4
0
4
0
0
89
Non-Primary Center Uses a
Combination of their
Agency's Frequencies and
My Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Non-Primary Center Uses a
Combination of their
Agency's Frequencies and
My Agency’s Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
Other Frequencies (%)
Non-Primary Center Uses
Other Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
their Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Non-Primary Center Uses
their Agency’s Frequencies
Non-Primary Center Uses
My Agency’s Frequencies
(%)
Total Number
of LEO
Respondents
Non-Primary Center Uses
My Agency’s Frequencies
Frequencies Used by Non-Primary Dispatch Centers
19%
19%
0%
14%
13%
15%
18%
January 31, 2013
Table 3-11.4-16 - Deficiencies in Radio Coverage as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers shows the deficiencies in radio coverage reported by the LEOs.
Table 3-11.4-16 - Deficiencies in Radio Coverage as Reported by Law Enforcement Officers
IDOPP Report Appendix
348 - (91%)
347 - (91%)
43
75
105
8
115
1
1 - (100%)
1
108 - (93%)
88 - (99%)
32
34
13
9
20 - (74%)
1
17
1
1
456 - (91%)
196
122 - (32%)
122 - (32%)
17
15
42
1
47
0
0 - (0%)
0
25 - (22%)
20 - (22%)
8
11
0
1
5 - (19%)
0
4
0
1
147 - (29%)
197 - (51%)
196 - (51%)
18
30
78
1
69
0
1 - (100%)
1
39 - (34%)
29 - (33%)
15
11
2
1
10 - (37%)
2
8
0
0
236 –(47%)
65 - (17%)
64 - (17%)
8
10
22
3
21
0
1 - (100%)
1
11 - (9%)
7 - (8%)
2
4
1
0
4 - (15%)
3
1
0
0
76 - (15%)
No
Deficiencies
92 - (24%)
92 - (24%)
10
10
35
2
35
0
0 - (0%)
0
17 - (15%)
14 - (16%)
9
4
0
1
3 - (11%)
0
3
0
0
109 - (22%)
Other
Limited
Bandwidth
113 - (29%)
113 - (30%)
16
14
39
1
43
0
0 - (0%)
0
15 - (13%)
12 - (13%)
4
6
1
1
3 - (11%)
0
3
0
0
128 - (26%)
Competing
Functional
Traffic
384
383
46
91
116
10
119
1
1
1
116
89
32
35
13
9
27
7
18
1
1
500
Inadequate
Number of
Channels
California Area Total
California Total
BLM
CAL FIRE
FS
FWS
NPS
State of California - Other
Hawaii Total
NPS
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
New Mexico Total
BLM
FS
FWS
NPS
IDOPP TOTAL
Frequency
Overlap
Total
Number of
Respondents
Dead Spots
Type of Deficiency
17
17
2
9
3
1
2
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
2 - (7%)
2
0
0
0
20 - (4%)
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.4-17 - Type of Radio Codes Used by LEO Respondent’s Primary Dispatch Center summarizes the types of radio codes used by the law enforcement
officer respondents’ primary dispatch center by area.
Table 3.11.4-17 - Type of Radio Codes Used by LEO Respondent’s Primary Dispatch Center
Type of Radio Code Used
California Area Total
Southwest Area
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of LEO Respondents
384
116
500
340
64
404 (81%)
175
100
275
33
0
33 (7%)
0
0
0 (0%)
10
1
11 (2%)
The data call asked center managers to assess the adequacy of their centers’ existing telephone systems and report whether the manager believes the systems
are expandable. Table 3.11.5-1 - Reported Phone System Adequacy by Area and State and Table 3.11.5-2 - Reported Phone System Expandability by Area and
State show the results.
Table 3.11.5-1 - Reported Phone System Adequacy by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
29
2
26
1
13
9
4
42
Yes (%)
73%
93%
78%
No
6
0
6
0
1
0
1
7
Phone System is Adequate
No (%) Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
15%
5
1
4
0
7%
0
0
0
13%
5
Mixed Response (%)
13%
0%
9%
Table 3.11.5-2 - Reported Phone System Expandability by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
27
2
24
1
13
9
4
40
Yes (%)
68%
93%
74%
No
9
1
8
0
1
0
1
10
197
Phone System is Expandable
No (%) Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
23%
4
0
4
0
7%
0
0
0
19%
4
Mixed Response (%)
10%
0%
7%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.11.5-1 - Reported Phone System Adequacy by Area and State summarizes the reported adequacy of the dispatch centers’ phone system by area and
state, and Table 3.11.5-2 - Reported Phone System Expandability by Area and State summarizes the reported expandability of the phone system by area and
state. Table 3.11.5-3 - Reported Adequacy and Expandability of Phone System by Center shows this information by center.
Table 3.11.5-3 - Reported Adequacy and Expandability of Phone System by Center
Total
Number
of Centers
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
198
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Phone System is Adequate
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
29
73%
2
67%
0
1
2
26
72%
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
6
15%
0
0%
0
0
0
6
17%
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
13%
1
33%
1
0
0
4
11%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phone System is Expandable
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
27
68%
2
67%
0
1
2
24
67%
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
9
23%
1
33%
2
0
0
8
22%
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
10%
0
0%
0
0
0
4
11%
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total
Number
of Centers
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
199
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Phone System is Adequate
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
13
93%
9
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phone System is Expandable
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
100%
1
13
93%
9
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total
Number
of Centers
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
Percent of NM Operational Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
Percent of IDOPP Centers with Adequate/Expandable Phone System
Phone System is Adequate
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
1
1
4
80%
0
1
1
1
1
42
78%
0
0
1
20%
1
0
0
0
0
7
13%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
5
9%
Phone System is Expandable
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
1
1
4
80%
1
0
1
1
1
40
74%
0
0
1
20%
0
1
0
0
0
10
19%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
4
7%
;’
IDOPP Report Appendix
200
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.12 Facilities
Table 3-12-1 - Facility Type by Area and State summarizes the reported facility type by area and state.
Table 3-12-1 - Facility Type by Area and State
Number/Percent of Centers by Facility Type
Total Number of Centers
Part of an Agency Facility
Standalone Facility
Temporary or Modular Facility
California Area Total*
40
20 (50%)
22 (55%)
1 (3%)
California (GACC/CC)*
3
3
1
0
California (Operational Centers)*
36
16
21
1
Hawaii
1
1
0
0
Southwest Area Total
14
10 (71%)
3 (21%)
1 (7%)
Arizona
9
6
2
1
New Mexico
5
4
1
0
IDOPP TOTAL*
54
30 (56%)
25 (46%)
2 (4%)
*The Southern California Coordination Center, Grass Valley Interagency ECC, and Redding Interagency ECC provided conflicting
responses (both part of an agency facility and standalone), so California percentages and the IDOPP Total exceed 100%.
The data call also asked the center managers who owns the building in which the dispatch center is located. Table 3-12-2 - Reported Building Ownership by Area
and State summarizes building ownership by area and state.
Other (%)
Other
Privatelyowned
(Leased) (%)
Privatelyowned
(Leased)
Local
Governmentowned (%)
State
Governmentowned
State
Governmentowned (%)
Local
Governmentowned
Other Federal
Governmentowned (%)
Other Federal
Governmentowned
GSA (%)
GSA
Total Number
of Centers
Table 3-12-2 - Reported Building Ownership by Area and State
California Area Total*
40
1
3%
10
25%
22
55%
3
8%
4
10%
2
5%
California (GACC/CC)
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
California (Operational Centers)
36
1
8
20
3
4
2
Hawaii
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Southwest Area Total
14
1
7%
3
21%
1
7%
2
14%
7
50%
0
0%
Arizona
9
0
2
1
2
4
0
New Mexico
5
1
1
0
0
3
0
IDOPP TOTAL
54
2
4%
13
24%
23
43%
5
9%
11
20%
2
4%
*In California, the Central California ECC and Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain ECC provided conflicting responses, so percentages for California and the
IDOPP Total exceed 100%. For California and the Southwest overall, most centers are located in state government-owned buildings (43%), followed
by Non-GSA federal government-owned (24%), and privately owned/leased (20%).
IDOPP Report Appendix
201
January 31, 2013
The data call asked center managers to provide the age and their opinions as to the condition of the dispatch center facility. Table 3-12-3 - Reported Facility
Condition by Area and State summarizes facility conditions by area and state and Table 3-12-4 - Reported Facility Age by Area and State summarizes facility ages
by area and state.
Table 3-12-3 - Reported Facility Condition by Area and State
Condition of Facility
Fair - Minor
Poor - Major
Total Number
Excellent
Good Improvement(s)
Fair
Poor
Improvement(s)
of Centers
Excellent
(%)
Good
(%)
(%)
(%)
Needed
Needed
California Area Total*
40
5
13%
20
50%
15
38%
5
13%
California (GACC/CC)
3
0
2
2
0
California (Operational Centers)
36
4
18
13
5
Hawaii
1
1
0
0
0
Southwest Area Total
14
6
43%
5
36%
2
14%
1
7%
Arizona
9
5
3
1
0
New Mexico
5
1
2
1
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
11
20%
25
46%
17
31%
6
11%
*In California, the centers managers from the Southern California Coordination Center, Central California ECC, Fortuna Interagency ECC, Monte Vista
Interagency ECC, and Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain ECC provided conflicting responses, so percentages for California and the IDOPP Total exceed 100%.
Table 3-12-4 - Reported Facility Age by Area and State
Age of Facility
Total Number
0 - 10
0 - 10
11 - 20
11 - 20
21 - 50
21 - 50
50+
50+
of Centers
Years
Years (%)
Years
Years (%)
Years
Years (%) Years Years (%)
California Area Total*
40
9
23%
20
50%
12
30%
6
15%
California (GACC/CC)
3
1
0
2
1
California (Operational Centers)
36
7
20
10
5
Hawaii
1
1
0
0
0
Southwest Area Total
14
7
50%
3
21%
4
29%
0
0%
Arizona
9
5
3
1
0
New Mexico
5
2
0
3
0
IDOPP TOTAL
54
16
30%
23
43%
16
30%
6
11%
*In California, the center managers from the Southern California Coordination Center, Central California ECC, Fortuna Interagency ECC, Grass
Valley Interagency ECC, Redding Interagency ECC, Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain ECC, and Susanville Interagency ECC provided conflicting
responses, so percentages for California and the IDOPP Total exceed 100%.
IDOPP Report Appendix
202
January 31, 2013
The center manager data call also asked whether the centers offer “full accessibility for employees with disabilities.” Table 3-12-5 - Reported Accessibility for
Employees with Disabilities by Area and State summarizes the responses by area and state. The question did not ask about compliance with Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements so centers reporting “full accessibility” may or may not be fully compliant with the ADA.
Table 3-12-5 - Reported Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
32
2
29
1
11
7
4
43
Full Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities
Mixed Response: Mixed Response
Yes (%) No No (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
(%)
80%
6
15%
2
5%
0
1
6
1
0
0
79%
3
21%
0
0%
2
0
1
0
80%
9
17%
2
4%
Table 3-12-6 - Adequate Space for Staff by Area and State shows center managers assessments of whether the centers have adequate space. The data call also
asked center managers whether they have excess space available for potential expansion.
IDOPP Report Appendix
203
January 31, 2013
Table 3-12-7 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Area and State shows the results. Table 3-12-8 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Center (as
reported by Center Managers) lists the centers reporting excess space and the square footage of this space.
In the California area, 67% of the operational centers reported having adequate space. Of these 25 centers, 10 centers reported excess space. In the
Southwest, 71% of the operational centers reported having adequate space. Of these 10 centers, seven centers reported having excess space.
Table 3-12-6 - Adequate Space for Staff by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Yes (%)
26
1
24
1
10
7
3
36
65%
71%
67%
204
Center has Adequate Space for Staff
Mixed Response: Mixed Response
No
No (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
(%)
12
30%
2
5%
0
2
12
0
0
0
4
29%
0
0%
2
0
2
0
16
30%
2
4%
January 31, 2013
Table 3-12-7 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Area and State
Center has Excess Space for Expansion
Total Number
of Centers
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Yes (%)
10
0
10
0
7
5
2
17
25%
50%
31%
No
28
1
26
1
7
4
3
35
No (%)
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
Mixed Response
(%)
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
5%
70%
50%
65%
0%
4%
Table 3-12-8 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Center (as reported by Center Managers)
Centers with Excess Space for Expansion
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Felton ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Los Padres ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
San Bernardino ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Arizona Operational Centers
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
205
Square Feet of Excess Space
101 - 500
501-1000
101 - 500
1001+
101 - 500
101 - 500
101 - 500
501-1000
501-1000
101 - 500
101 - 500
1001+
1001+
101 - 500
1001+
501-1000
501-1000
January 31, 2013
Table 3-12-1 - Facility Type by Area and State summarizes the facility type by area and state. Table 3-12-9 - Type of Facility by Center shows this information by
center.
Table 3-12-9 - Type of Facility by Center
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Facility Type
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Facility Type
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center*
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Facility Type
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC*
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
206
Part of an
Agency Facility
20
50%
3
100%
2
1
1
16
44%
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
Type of Facility
Standalone
Temporary or
Facility
Modular Facility
22
1
55%
3%
1
0
33%
0%
0
0
0
0
1
0
21
1
58%
3%
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC*
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Facility Type
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Facility Type
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Facility Type
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Facility Type
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
207
Part of an
Agency Facility
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
100%
1
10
71%
6
67%
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
4
80%
Type of Facility
Standalone
Temporary or
Facility
Modular Facility
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
3
1
21%
7%
2
1
22%
11%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
20%
0%
January 31, 2013
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Facility Type
Total Number
of Centers
1
1
1
1
1
54
Part of an
Agency Facility
0
1
1
1
1
30
56%
Type of Facility
Standalone
Temporary or
Facility
Modular Facility
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
2
46%
4%
*In California, the Southern California Coordination Center, Grass Valley Interagency ECC, and Redding Interagency ECC
reported two conflicting responses (both part of an agency facility and standalone), so percentages for California and the
IDOPP Total exceed 100%.
IDOPP Report Appendix
208
January 31, 2013
The data call also asked the center managers to report dispatch center location building ownership. Table 3-12-2 - Reported Building Ownership by Area and
State summarizes the building ownership by area and state and Table 3-12-10 - Reported Building Ownership by Center shows the building ownership by center.
Table 3-12-10 - Reported Building Ownership by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
209
Other
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Privately- owned (Leased)
Other
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Local Government-owned
Privately- owned (Leased)
22
2
0
1
2
20
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
State Government-owned
Local Government-owned
10
1
2
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
Other Federal Government-owned
State Government-owned
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GSA
Other Federal Government-owned
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Number of Centers
GSA
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Ctr
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Ctr
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Building Owner
Total Number of Centers
Building Owner
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
210
Other
0
0
0
0
7
4
0
1
1
0
1
Privately- owned (Leased)
Other
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
Local Government-owned
Privately- owned (Leased)
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
State Government-owned
Local Government-owned
1
0
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
Other Federal Government-owned
State Government-owned
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
GSA
Other Federal Government-owned
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
Total Number of Centers
GSA
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Building Owner
Total Number of Centers
Building Owner
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
January 31, 2013
The data call also asked the center managers to provide the age and condition of the dispatch center facility. Table 3-12-3 - Reported Facility Condition by Area
and State summarizes the responses for the condition of the facility by area and state and Table 3-12-4 - Reported Facility Age by Area and State summarizes the
response for the age of the facility by area and state. Table 3-12-11 – Reported Condition and Age of Facility (in Years) by Center shows the reported condition
and age of the facility by center.
Table 3-12-11 – Reported Condition and Age of Facility (in Years) by Center
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Condition and Age of Facility (in Years) of Center
Fair - Minor
Poor - Major
Excellent
Good
Improvement(s) Needed
Improvement(s) Needed
5
20
15
5
0
2
2
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
21 to 50
51+
0
4
18
13
5
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
11 to 20
0 to 10
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
51+
0
11 to 20
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0
11 to 20;
0
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
11 to 20
11 to 20
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0
51+
0
211
January 31, 2013
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
54
Condition and Age of Facility (in Years) of Center
Fair - Minor
Poor - Major
Excellent
Good
Improvement(s) Needed
Improvement(s) Needed
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0
0
21 to 50; 51+
0
0
21 to 50
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
0
51+
0
0
51+
21 to 50
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
0 to 10;
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
1
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
6
5
2
1
5
3
1
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
0
0
11 to 20
0
0
1
2
1
1
0 to 10
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
0
0
0 to 10
0
0
21 to 50
0
0
0
0
0
21 to 50
11
25
17
6
212
January 31, 2013
The data call also asked the center managers whether the center is “fully accessible” to employees with disabilities. Table 3-12-5 - Reported Accessibility for
Employees with Disabilities by Area and State summarizes the responses by area and state and Table 3-12-12 - Reported Accessibility for Employees with
Disabilities by Center shows the responses by center.
Table 3-12-12 - Reported Accessibility for Employees with Disabilities by Center
Center is Fully Accessible for
Employees with Disabilities*
Total Number of
Centers
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers that are Fully Accessible
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC that are Fully Accessible
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers that are Fully Accessible
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
213
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
32
80%
2
67%
0
1
2
29
81%
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
No
6
15%
0
0%
0
0
0
6
17%
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
2
5%
1
33%
1
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center is Fully Accessible for
Employees with Disabilities*
Total Number of
Centers
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers that are Fully Accessible
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers that are Fully Accessible
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers that are Fully Accessible
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
214
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
No
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
100%
1
11
79%
7
78%
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0%
0
3
21%
2
22%
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center is Fully Accessible for
Employees with Disabilities*
Total Number of
Centers
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
0
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
5
4
1
Percent of NM Operational Centers that are Fully Accessible
80% 20%
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
0
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
0
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
0
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
1
0
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
0
1
IDOPP TOTAL
54
43
9
Percent of IDOPP Centers that are Fully Accessible
80% 17%
*Term “full accessibility” is subjective and does not address whether a facility is in full compliance with the ADA.
IDOPP Report Appendix
215
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
January 31, 2013
Table 3-12-6 - Adequate Space for Staff by Area and State summarizes the center managers’ responses on whether the dispatch center has adequate space for
the staff, by area and state. Table 3-12-7 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Area and State summarizes the center managers’ responses on whether
there exists excess space for expansion, by area and state. Table 3-12-8 - Excess Space for Potential Expansion by Center (as reported by Center Managers)
shows the excess space by center for those centers that responded having excess space for expansion. Table 3-12-13 - Assessment of Space by Center shows an
assessment of the space by center.
Table 3-12-13 - Assessment of Space by Center
California Area
California GACC/CC
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
216
Adequate Space
for Staff
Excess Space for Expansion and
Available Square Footage
Mixed:
Yes
Mixed:
Mixed:
No
Mixed:
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes - 101 - 500
No
No
No
Yes - 501 - 1000
Yes - 101 - 500
No
No
Yes - 1001+
No
No
No
Yes - 101 - 500
No
No
No
No
Yes - 101 - 500
Yes - 101 - 500
No
No
No
No
January 31, 2013
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
217
Adequate Space
for Staff
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Excess Space for Expansion and
Available Square Footage
No
No
Yes - 501 - 1000
No
No
Yes - 501 - 1000
Yes - 101 - 500
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes - 101 - 500
Yes - 1001+
Yes - 1001+
Yes - 101 - 500
Yes - 1001+
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes - 501 - 1000
No
No
No
Yes - 501 - 1000
January 31, 2013
Emergency Power
Dispatch centers provide safe and cost effective resource mobilization to emergencies for their respective agencies.
Continuity of dispatch operations is vital to mobilizing resources to any incident or catastrophic emergency that occurs
locally, in the geographic area, or nationally. Dispatch centers cannot maintain continuous, uninterrupted radio
communications without backup power.
While electrical power is vital to dispatch operations, data call responses indicate that not all centers have backup
generators. Some dispatch centers are able to remain operational using backup generators and uninterruptible power
sources (UPS) during intermittent power outages. Not all agencies have a requirement that dispatch centers have a
backup power source but NPS Reference Manual #9 requires all NPS dispatch operations to have backup emergency
power sufficient to continue core operations. The teams excluded specifics from this report for national security
reasons. Table 3-12-14 - Availability of Uninterruptible Power Source by Area and State summarizes UPS availability.
Table 3-12-14 - Availability of Uninterruptible Power Source by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Uninterruptible Power Source is Available
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
No
(%)
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
95%
1
3%
1
3%
0
0
1
1
0
0
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
96%
1
2%
1
2%
Yes
38
3
34
1
14
9
5
52
Data Transmission Circuits
Another facility-related question asked whether data transmission circuits (T-1 lines) are at maximum capacity.
Table 3-12-15 - Reported Data Transmission Circuit Capacity by Area and State shows the results.
Table 3-12-15 - Reported Data Transmission Circuit Capacity by Area and State
Data Transmission Circuits are at Maximum Capacity
Total Number of
Centers
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
23
1
21
1
7
3
4
30
218
Yes
(%)
58%
50%
56%
No
14
1
13
0
7
6
1
21
No
(%)
35%
50%
39%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
Mixed
Response (%)
8%
0%
6%
January 31, 2013
Expanded Dispatch
An agency temporarily establishes an expanded dispatch unit when a high volume of activity requires increased
dispatch and coordination capability. During emergency operations or large fire support, agencies expand dispatch
work shifts and staffing to provide up to 24 hour a day operations, as the situation dictates. An expanded dispatch
unit takes the high volume workload out of the local Tier 3 or Tier 4 initial attack center, so these centers can focus
on dispatching for initial attack fires. Two or more centers may share an expanded dispatch unit.
Many operational dispatch centers maintain on-site or off-site expanded dispatch space year-round in case they
need to activate a unit. Table 3-12-16 - Expanded Dispatch Locations by Area and State summarizes the locations of
the expanded dispatch by area and state. Eighty-five percent of California’s operational centers and 79% of the
Southwest’s operational centers maintain on-site expanded dispatch space. The centers without expanded
dispatch include Hoopa Dispatch, Mendocino Interagency ECC, and the Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area in California and Grand Canyon National Park and the Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Center in Arizona.
Table 3-12-16 - Expanded Dispatch Locations by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Location of Expanded Dispatch
On-site Expanded
Off-site Expanded
No Expanded
Dispatch
Dispatch
Dispatch
34 (85%)
3 (8%)
3 (8%)
3
0
0
30
3
3
1
0
0
11 (79%)
1 (7%)
2 (14%)
6
1
2
5
0
0
45 (83%)
4 (7%)
5 (9%)
219
January 31, 2013
Table 3-12-17 - Size of Expanded Dispatch by Area and State summarizes the center managers’ assessments of the
adequacy of their expanded dispatch square footage. The average size of an expanded dispatch area for an operational
center is 828 square feet in California and 1,198 square feet in the Southwest.
Table 3-12-17 - Size of Expanded Dispatch by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of Centers
with Expanded Dispatch
37
3
33
1
12
7
5
49
Size of Expanded Dispatch is Adequate
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
(Adequate)
(Inadequate)
1 Yes and 1 No
24 (65%)
11 (30%)
2 (5%)
0
2
1
23
9
1
1
0
0
10 (83%)
2 (17%)
0 (0%)
6
1
0
4
1
0
34 (69%)
13 (27%)
2 (4%)
In the California area, expanded dispatch units at operational centers were in place between 0 to 190 days per year, an
average of 37 days per year. In the Southwest, expanded dispatch units were in place between 10 to 96 days per year,
an average of 38 days per year.
Expanded dispatch increasingly relies on AD employees to staff these temporary units. Historically, personnel from
dispatch centers that were experiencing low activity levels or were in their off-seasons at the time of need staffed
expanded dispatch units. The trends of fluctuating budgets and reduction of resource staffs has resulted in significantly
fewer agency personnel available to support expanded dispatch operations.
IDOPP Report Appendix
220
January 31, 2013
IA
IA
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
CO
CO
AC
AC
FF
3
X
R
IDOPP Report Appendix
R
R
R
R
X
R
R
R
X
X
R
R
R
X
X
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
X
221
X
X
R
R
07
R
R
X
®
®
R
R
R
R
X
R
R
X
R
R
®
®
07
IS - 800
R
R
IS - 700
NFFE Master Agreement Training
IAMS - See ACE
WIMS
Multimedia First Aid
S-580 Advanced Fire Use
S-491 Intermediate NFRDS
S-381 Leadership & Organ Development
S-290 Intermediate Fire Behavior
S-281 Supervisory Concepts
S-271 Interagency Helicopter
S-270 Basic Air Operations
S-260 Interagency Incident Business Mgmt
S-215 Fire Operations in Urban Interface
S-190 Intro to Fire Behavior
X
X
R
R
S-200 IA IC
S-130 Firefighter Training
X
X
R
R
S-110 Wildfire Orientation
M-480 Multi-Agency Coordination
L-480
L-380
L-280
L-180 Human Factors on the Fireline
NROSS - Resource Order Status System Dispatch
I-401 Multi-Agency Coordination
I-400 Advanced ICS
I-300 Intermediate ICS
I-200 Basic ICS
I-100 Introduction to ICS
D-510 Supervisory Dispatcher
D-311 Initial Attack Dispatcher
D-310 Support Dispatcher
D-111 Entry level Dispatcher
D-110 Dispatch Recorder
1st 40 Supervision (for example, S-281/S-381)
D-312 Aircraft Dispatcher
Tables for Section 3.13 Training
Table 3.13-1 - Incident Command System (ICS) Training 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
This table is a compilation of requirements from IQCS and other agency requirements provided by Sharon Allen Brick.
January 31, 2013
D-111 Entry level Dispatcher
D-310 Support Dispatcher
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IDOPP Report Appendix
X
X
X
X
X
222
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-270 Basic Air Operations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-290 Intermediate Fire Behavior
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IS - 800
IS - 700
NFFE Master Agreement Training
IAMS - See ACE
WIMS
X
Multimedia First Aid
S-580 Advanced Fire Use
S-491 Intermediate NFRDS
S-381 Leadership & Organ Development
S-281 Supervisory Concepts
S-271 Interagency Helicopter
S-260 Interagency Incident Business Mgmt
X
X
S-215 Fire Operations in Urban Interface
X
S-200 IA IC
S-190 Intro to Fire Behavior
S-130 Firefighter Training
X
S-110 Wildfire Orientation
M-480 Multi-Agency Coordination
L-480
L-380
L-280
L-180 Human Factors on the Fireline
NROSS - Resource Order Status System Dispatch
I-401 Multi-Agency Coordination
I-400 Advanced ICS
I-300 Intermediate ICS
I-200 Basic ICS
I-100 Introduction to ICS
D-510 Supervisory Dispatcher
D-311 Initial Attack Dispatcher
D-110 Dispatch Recorder
D-312 Aircraft Dispatcher
1st 40 Supervision (for example, S-281/S-381)
FF
IFP
IFP
IFP
IA
X = Required Training (2011)
R = 310-1 Recommended Training (2011)
FS = 5109.17 Recommended Training (2007)
Fire Service Fire & Aviation Qualification Guide (2011)
® = No longer list as recommended in the 310-1 as of 11/11, but still reflected in the 5109.17 as a 310-1 recommendation
January 31, 2013
X
?
A-401 Management of Aviation Safety Programs
X
X
A
A-218 Aircraft Pre-Use Inspection
?
?
**A-410 Crew Resource Mgmt
?
?
X
X
A-403 Human Factors in Aviation
X
X
X
X
A-310 Crew Resource Mgmt
A-308 Aviation Policy & Regulations III
A-303 Human Factors in Aviation
A-302 Personal Responsibility & Liability
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
X
3
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
A X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IAT classes are offered on-line at https://www.iat.gov or in a classroom setting (Aviation Centered Education - ACE).
1 = Need to take annually
3 = Need to take every 3 years
* Courses are currently available online
** Courses are currently not offered at an ACE conference or online
A = additional requirements when specified by individual DOI bureau/Forest Service Policy
? = are courses that have two different levels, but IFPM does not clearly identify which level course is required
?
?
X
A-307 Aviation Policy & Regulations II
X
A-305 Risk Management
R
R
X
X
X
X
A-212 Aircraft Rental Agreement /BPA
*A-207 Aviation Dispatching
A-206 Aviation Acquisitions & Procurement
S-205 Risk Awareness
*A-204 Aircraft Capabilities & Limitations
A-203 Basic Airspace
*A-202 Interagency Aviation Organizations
A-200 Annual Mishap Review
A-115 Automated Flight Following
*A-113 Crash Survival
*A-112 Mission Planning & flight request process
*A-111 Flight Payment Document
*A-110 Aviation Transportation of HAZMAT
*A-109 Aviation Radio Use
*A-107 Aviation Policy & Regulations
*A-106 Aviation Mishap Reporting
*A-104 Aircraft Capabilities & Limitations
A-103 FAA NOTAM System
*A-108 Preflight checklist & Briefing/Debriefing
*A-105 Aviation Life Support Equipment
*A-101 Aviation Safety, Operations & Mgmt
Table 3.13-2 - Interagency Aviation Training (IAT)
?
?
A
A
A
Interagency Aviation Management & Safety (IAMS) was the aircraft class required prior to the development of IAT (ACE) classes, which have been replaced by
the current D-312 Aircraft Dispatcher Course for Incident Qualification such as ACDP and EDSP (IAMS to ACE to D-312). A-207 is being replaced with D-312.
IADP 5109-17/310-1, EDRC 5109-17/310-1, and EDSD 5109-17/310-1 have no IAT class requirements.
IDOPP Report Appendix
223
January 31, 2013
In addition to the formal training shown in Table 3.13-3 in the body of the report, some centers require on-the-job training (OJT) before dispatchers are
“qualified” to dispatch for law enforcement without supervision, or require ride along experience to increase the dispatchers’ understanding of specialized
LEO support needs. Table 3.13-4 - On-the-Job Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State and Table 3.13-5 - Law Enforcement Ride Along for
Dispatchers by Area and State summarize these practices.
Table 3.13-4 - On-the-Job Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number of Centers Performing LE
Dispatch
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
Yes
Yes (%)
No
21
0
20
1
6
5
1
27
75%
5
0
5
0
5
2
3
10
55%
69%
Center Requires OJT
No Mixed Response:
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
18%
2
0
2
0
45%
0
0
0
26%
2
Mixed
Response (%)
7%
0%
5%
Table 3.13-5 - Law Enforcement Ride Along for Dispatchers by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers Performing
LE Dispatch
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
224
Yes
12
0
12
0
4
3
1
16
Center Requires Ride Along Experience
Yes
No Mixed Response:
Mixed
No
(%)
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
43%
12 43%
4
14%
0
0
11
4
1
0
36%
7 64%
0
0%
4
0
3
0
41%
19 49%
4
10%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.13-3 in the body of the report summarizes the required accredited law enforcement dispatch training by area and state. Table 3.13-6 - Accredited Law
Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center shows this information by center. Only the operational centers provide law enforcement dispatch support.
Table 3.13-6 - Accredited Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center
IDOPP Report Appendix
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
225
2
7%
2
7%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Agency
Sponsored
POST
6
21%
6
22%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
50%
14
52%
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
None
28
Other
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Requiring Training
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Requiring Training
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
FLETC
Total Number of Centers
Performing LE Dispatch
CALEA
APCO
Type of Accredited Law Enforcement Training
8
29%
8
30%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
36%
9
33%
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
January 31, 2013
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
11
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
39
226
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
2
5%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
3%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
3%
Agency
Sponsored
POST
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
6
15%
1
0
0
0%
0
2
18%
1
14%
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
25%
0
0
1
0
16
41%
None
1
1
1
Other
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Requiring Training
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Requiring Training
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Requiring Training
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Requiring Training
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Requiring Training
FLETC
Total Number of Centers
Performing LE Dispatch
CALEA
APCO
Type of Accredited Law Enforcement Training
1
0
0
0%
0
2
18%
1
14%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25%
0
0
1
0
10
26%
0
2
1
100
1
8
73%
5
71%
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
75%
1
1
0
1
18
46%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.13-4 - On-the-Job Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State summarizes the on-the-job law enforcement dispatch training required by area
and state and Table 3.13-5 - Law Enforcement Ride Along for Dispatchers by Area and State summarizes the law enforcement ride-alongs required for
dispatchers by area and state. Table 3.13-7 - Other Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center below shows this information by center.
Table 3.13-7 - Other Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Center
Center Requires OJT
Total Number of
Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Requiring Other Training
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Requiring Other Training
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
28
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
227
Yes
No
21
75%
20
74%
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
5
18%
5
19%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
1 No
2
7%
2
7%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Center Requires Ride
Along Experience
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
12
43%
12
44%
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
12
43%
11
41%
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
4
14%
4
15%
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center Requires OJT
Total Number of
Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Requiring Other Training
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent SW Centers Requiring Other Training
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Requiring Other Training
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers Requiring Other Training
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Requiring Other Training
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
39
228
Yes
No
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
1 No
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
100
0%
1
0
6
5
55% 45% 0%
5
2
71% 29%
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
25% 75%
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
27
10
69% 26%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
2
5%
Center Requires Ride
Along Experience
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and
Yes
No
1 No
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
0% 100
0
1
4
7
36% 64% 0%
3
4
43% 57%
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
25% 75%
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
16
19
41% 49%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
4
10%
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 3.14 Safety
Safety questions on the center manager data call focused on the whether the centers have established standard operating procedures for location or check-in
and check-out for field going employees, visiting personnel and equipment traveling through or temporarily assigned to the unit, and location or check-in and
check-out status for the visiting public.
Table 3.14-1 - Written Standard Operating Procedures for Check-In and Check-Out Required of Field Going Employees by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total
Number of
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Center Has Standard Operating Procedures for Field Going
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes (%) No
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
31 78
7
18%
2
5%
2
0
1
28
7
1
1
0
0
13 93
1
7%
0
0%
8
1
0
5
0
0
44 81
8
15%
2
4%
Table 3.14-2 - Written Standard Operating Procedures Required for Visiting Personnel and Equipment by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Center has Standard Operating Procedures for Visiting
Personnel and Equipment
Yes
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes (%) No
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
24 60% 13
33%
3
8%
2
1
0
22
11
3
0
1
0
10 71%
4
29%
0
0%
6
3
0
4
1
0
34 63% 17
31%
3
6%
229
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-3 - Standard Operating Procedures Required for Check-In and Check-Out of Visiting Public by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
9
1
8
0
3
1
2
12
Center has Standard Operating Procedures for the Visiting Public
Mixed Response:
Yes (%)
No
No (%)
Mixed Response (%)
1 Yes and 1 No
23%
29
73%
2
5%
1
1
27
1
1
0
21%
11
79%
0
0%
8
0
3
0
22%
40
74%
2
4%
The California managers reported SOPs in none of the three categories at Monte Vista Interagency ECC, San Bernardino ECC, Sierra Interagency ECC, St. Helena
ECC, and Stanislaus ECC. Within the Southwest, only the Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center reported SOPs in none of the three categories.
Table 3.14-4 - Tracking Methods and Technologies by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number
of Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
GPS
5(13%
0
5
0
4
2
2
9
Computer Aided
Dispatch
32 (80%)
0
31
1
12 (86%)
8
4
44 (81%)
230
Tracking Method or Technology
Web-based
White Board/
"In/Out Board" Manual Reporting
3 (8%)
15 (38%)
0
1
3
14
0
0
4 (29%)
5 (36%)
2
3
2
2
7 (13%)
20 (37%)
Other
17 (43%)
3
14
0
6 (43%)
3
3
23 (43%)
Not
Applicable
8 (20%)
2
6
0
1 (7%)
1
0
9 (17%)
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-5 - Tracking Methods and Technologies by Center
Total
Number
of
Centers
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers Using Method/Technology
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC Using Method/Technology
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers Using Method/Technology
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
231
GPS
Tracking Method/Technology
WebWhite
based
Board/
"In/Out
Manual
CAD Board" Reporting Other
5
13%
0
0%
0
0
0
5
14%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
32
80%
0
0%
0
0
0
31
86%
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
8%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
15
38%
1
33%
1
0
0
14
39%
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
17
43%
3
100%
1
1
1
14
39%
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Not
Applicable
8
20%
2
67%
1
0
1
6
17%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total
Number
of
Centers
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers Using Method/Technology
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers Using Method/Technology
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers Using Method/Technology
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
IDOPP Report Appendix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
232
GPS
Tracking Method/Technology
WebWhite
based
Board/
"In/Out
Manual
CAD Board" Reporting Other
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0%
0
4
29%
2
22%
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
100%
1
12
86%
8
89%
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
4
29%
2
22%
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0%
0
5
36%
3
33%
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0%
0
6
43%
3
33%
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
Not
Applicable
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total
Number
of
Centers
Percent of NM Operational Centers Using Method/Technology
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers Using Method/Technology
1
1
1
1
1
54
GPS
Tracking Method/Technology
WebWhite
based
Board/
"In/Out
Manual
CAD Board" Reporting Other
40%
0
0
1
1
0
9
17%
80%
1
1
1
1
0
44
81%
40%
1
0
1
0
0
7
13%
40%
1
0
1
0
0
20
37%
Not
Applicable
60%
1
0
1
0
1
23
43%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
9
17%
Table 3.14-6 - Centers with Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch Functions by Area and State
Center has Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch Functions
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Yes
Yes (%)
37
2
34
1
14
9
5
51
93%
100%
94%
233
No
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
3%
2
1
1
0
0%
0
0
0
2%
2
No (%)
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Mixed Response (%)
5%
0%
4%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-7 - Centers with Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch Functions
California Area Total
California GACC/CC Total
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Center has Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch
Total Number of Centers
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes / 1 No
40
37
1
2
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
36
34
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
234
January 31, 2013
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Total
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Center has Written Standard Operating Procedures for Dispatch
Total Number of Centers
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes / 1 No
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
14
14
0
0
9
9
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
5
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
54
51
1
2
235
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-7 - Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Center
Center has SOPs for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch
Total Number of Centers Performing LE Dispatch
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Los Padres ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
IDOPP Report Appendix
28
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
236
27
96%
26
96%
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
4%
1
4%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
January 31, 2013
Center has SOPs for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch
Total Number of Centers Performing LE Dispatch
Yes
No
Mixed Response: 1 Yes and 1 No
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Area Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
11
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
39
7
64%
5
71%
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
50%
0
0
1
1
34
87%
4
36%
2
29%
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
50%
1
1
0
0
4
10%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
1
3%
Table 3.14-8 - Use of Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total Number of Centers Performing
Law Enforcement Dispatch
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
Yes
27
0
26
1
7
5
2
34
237
Center has Standard Operating Procedures for Law
Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch
No
Mixed Response:
Mixed
Yes (%) No
(%)
1 Yes and 1 No
Response (%)
96%
0
0%
1
4%
0
0
0
1
0
0
64%
4
36%
0
0%
2
0
2
0
87%
4
10%
1
3%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-9 - Standard Operating Procedures for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatch by Center
Total Number
of Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
California Area Total
28
Percent of CA Area Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
California Operational Centers Total
27
Percent of CA Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public
Angeles ECC
1
Camino Interagency ECC
1
Central California ECC
1
Federal Interagency Communications Center
1
Felton ECC
1
Fortuna Interagency ECC
1
Fresno Kings ECC
1
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
1
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
1
Hoopa Dispatch
1
Los Padres ECC
1
Mendocino Interagency ECC
1
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
1
Monterey ECC
1
Morgan Hill ECC
1
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
1
Plumas ECC
1
Redding Interagency ECC
1
San Andreas ECC
1
San Luis Obispo ECC
1
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
1
Sierra Interagency ECC
1
Stanislaus ECC
1
Susanville Interagency ECC
1
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
1
Yosemite ECC
1
IDOPP Report Appendix
238
Center has SOPs for Law Enforcement/Public
Safety Dispatch
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and 1
Yes
No
No
27
0
1
96%
0%
4%
26
0
1
96%
0%
4%
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
January 31, 2013
Total Number
of Centers
Performing LE
Dispatch
Yreka Interagency ECC
1
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
1
Percent of HI Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
1
Southwest Area Total
11
Percent of SW Area Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
Arizona Operational Centers Total
7
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
1
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Grand Canyon National Park
1
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
1
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
4
Percent of NM Operational Centers with SOPs for LE/Public
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
1
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
1
IDOPP TOTAL
39
Percent of IDOPP Centers with SOPs for LE/Public Safety
IDOPP Report Appendix
239
Center has SOPs for Law Enforcement/Public
Safety Dispatch
Mixed
Response:
1 Yes and 1
Yes
No
No
2
0
0
1
0
0
100%
0%
0%
1
0
0
7
4
0
64%
36%
0%
5
2
0
71%
29%
0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
50%
50%
0%
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
34
4
1
87%
10%
3%
January 31, 2013
Table 3.14-10 – Existence of Written Standard Operating Procedures for Check-in and Check-out by Center
Center Has SOPs for Field Going
Employees
California Area Total
Percent of CA Area Centers with SOPs
California GACC/CC Total
Percent of CA GACC/CC with SOPs
Northern California Coordination Center
Sacramento Headquarters Command
Southern California Coordination Center
California Operational Centers Total
Percent of CA Operational Centers with
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number of
Centers
40
3
1
1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
No
31
78%
2
67%
2
1
0
28
78%
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
7
18%
0
0%
0
0
0
7
19%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
2
5%
1
33%
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
Center Has SOPs for Visiting
Personnel/Equipment
Yes
No
24
60%
2
67%
2
0
2
22
61%
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
13
33%
1
33%
0
1
0
11
31%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
3
8%
0
0%
0
0
0
3
8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Center Has SOPs for the Visiting
Public
Yes
No
9
23%
1
33%
0
1
0
8
22%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
29
73%
1
33%
2
0
0
27
75%
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
2
5%
1
33%
0
0
1
1
3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
January 31, 2013
Center Has SOPs for Field Going
Employees
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers Total
Percent of HI Operational Centers with
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Southwest Area Total
Percent of SW Centers with SOPs
Arizona Operational Centers Total
Percent of AZ Operational Centers with
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers Total
Percent of NM Operational Centers with
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
Yes
No
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
100%
1
13
93%
8
89%
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
100%
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
11%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
241
Center Has SOPs for Visiting
Personnel/Equipment
Yes
No
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0% 100%
0
1
10
4
71% 29%
6
3
67% 33%
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
4
1
80% 20%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Center Has SOPs for the Visiting
Public
Yes
No
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0% 100%
0
1
3
11
21% 79%
1
8
11% 89%
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
3
40% 60%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
January 31, 2013
Center Has SOPs for Field Going
Employees
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
IDOPP TOTAL
Percent of IDOPP Centers with SOPs
IDOPP Report Appendix
Total
Number of
Centers
1
1
1
1
1
54
Yes
No
1
1
1
1
1
44
81%
0
0
0
0
0
8
15%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
242
Center Has SOPs for Visiting
Personnel/Equipment
Yes
No
1
0
1
1
1
34
63%
0
1
0
0
0
17
31%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
3
6%
Center Has SOPs for the Visiting
Public
Yes
No
0
0
0
1
1
12
22%
1
1
1
0
0
40
74%
Mixed Response:
1 Yes and 1 No
0
0
0
0
0
2
4%
January 31, 2013
Section 4 – Dispatch Issues and Areas for Improvement
Tracking Procedures
Some units have no formal procedures for tracking field going personnel who simply inform their
supervisors of their planned daily activities before going to the field. Some units have a check-in and
check-out board or clipboard at the reception area for field going personnel to show where they are
going and when they plan to return. A local dispatch center closely tracks most fire personnel, but
tracking of non-fire resources varies greatly. Local interagency dispatch centers or County 911 centers
often support law enforcement operations, but field tracking protocols are inconsistent there as well.
The use of computer or web-based tracking systems, including CAD systems that have resource tracking
capabilities, seems to be increasing.
•
The BLM in Oregon and Washington uses a web-based program where employees must check
themselves in and out of the office daily.
•
Two BLM districts in Arizona are piloting centralized resource and administrative dispatching
services using the FLECC as the host. The Phoenix District Office will be the first office to pilot these
services using devices developed for personnel tracking in the field. BLM Arizona
Telecommunications and FLECC personnel conducted extensive market research, attended various
vendor and federal agency demonstrations, and consulted with the FS Missoula Technology and
Development Center (MTDC) to develop recommendations for Phoenix District Office management.
Devices tested and researched included SPOT, Delorme inReach, and the NAL Shout Nano.
Integration with current CAD mapping solutions was a major criterion. Many of the devices on the
market have a web-based portal for device tracking solutions but do not work with CAD mapping
solutions. Research showed that a one-device solution for fire, law enforcement, resource, and
administrative tracking does not exist. By integrating g these devices into a CAD-based mapping
solution, agencies could reduce dispatcher workload and fatigue. MTDC found that the Delorme
inReach and the NAL Shout Nano are capable of meeting these criteria. Short-term goals are
integrating this tracking data into a single web portal offered by Road Post through an application
called GeoPro. The long-term goals are integrating the devices’ tracking data directly into the
current CAD mapping solution at the FLECC. Standard operating procedures and protocols are
under development, with start of the pilot scheduled for fall of 2012.The FS has committed to
purchasing the Delorme inReach Satellite Emergency Notification Device unit as its field personnel
tracking solution but is keeping usage at the field supervisor level. By not using the dispatch
centers, FS does not need to integrate the tracking with the CAD systems.
•
The NPS is using a COMPAS system to integrate GIS mapping and employee tracking via the NAL
Shout Nano device, satellite based communication, VOIP, and ROIP to integrate regional dispatch
centers. The system is up and running and has had good success in the Southwest. 4
4
NPS endorses only the Iridium-based systems for computer aided dispatch use.
IDOPP Report Appendix
243
January 31, 2013
Section 5 – Analysis and Findings
Table 5.1-3 - Complexity Score Calculation Example
A sample complexity score calculation follows.
The Yosemite ECC in California has the following values for each complexity factor:
•
Fires A-C & D+ (five-year average)
121
•
Resources Dispatched Out (five-year average)
434
•
Incoming Resources (five-year average)
903
•
LE Incidents (five-year average)
21,000
•
Non-Fire and Non-LE Incidents (five-year average)
6,174
The complexity factors have the following averages across the centers:
•
Fires A-C & D+ (five-year average)
325 (CA + SW)
•
Resources Dispatched Out (five-year average)
2,157 (CA + SW)
•
Incoming Resources (five-year average)
2,794 (CA + SW)
•
LE Incidents (five-year average)
2,885 (CA only)
•
Non-Fire and Non-LE Incidents (five-year average)
9,086 (CA only)
The teams divided each of the Yosemite ECC values by the average, or:
•
Normalized Score for Yosemite ECC = 121/325 + 434/2,157 + 903/2,794 + 21,000/2,885 +
6,174/9,086 = 8.86
The teams then divided this score by five (the number of factors), resulting in the average normalized
score, or:
•
Average Normalized Score for Yosemite ECC = 8.86/5 = 1.77
Yosemite is considered a high complexity center since its score (1.77) exceeds 1.25. Of the five factors
used for California, Yosemite ECC had a below average workload for four of the factors; however, for
the law enforcement incidents factor, Yosemite had a high workload which far exceeds the California
average, thus giving the center a high complexity score.
Exhibits 5-2 and 5-3 display complexity scores and numerical rankings for California and Southwest
dispatch centers.
IDOPP Report Appendix
244
January 31, 2013
# of Law
Enforcement
Incidents - (5 Yr Avg)
# of Non-Fire/ NonLaw Enforcement
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
4,327
1,832
1,634
0.88 (Moderate)
19
14
340
1,740
3,294
-
13,692
0.91 (Moderate)
18
25
570
3,664
3,648
1,404
28,919
1.69 (High)
8
10
492
6,765
6,679
2,707
598
1.61 (High)
9
21
766
2,896
4,796
12,524
2,859
2.01 (High)
3
11
165
705
1,473
24
9,947
0.49 (Low)
29
14
259
2,916
4,232
1,255
7,020
0.97 (Moderate)
16
13
437
1,664
1,983
13,870
10,958
1.77 (High)
5
14
17
10
-
29,439
3,463
2.13 (High)
2
25
660
4,082
4,836
1,408
22,245
1.72 (High)
7
Single Agency
7
16
81
73
184
80
0.04 (Low)
37
Single Agency
Single Agency
1
10
248
185
91
1,877
319
2,138
2,498
405
1,053
7,732
0.38 (Low)
0.64 (Low)
31
23
Federal
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
CA-BTCC
Camino Interagency ECC
CA-CICC
State
Fed/
State
Central California ECC
CA-CCCC
Federal
Federal Interagency
Communications Center
CA-SBCC
Federal
Felton ECC
CA-CZCC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
CA-FICC
State
Fed/
State
Fresno Kings ECC
CA-FKCC
State
Golden Gate National
Recreation Area
Grass Valley Interagency
ECC
Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
CA-GNP
Federal
CA-GVCC
Fed/
State
Single Agency
Interagency CoLocated
Interagency CoLocated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency CoLocated
HI-HAVO
Federal
CA-HIAC
CA-MECC
Tribal
State
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of Center
CA-ANCC
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
245
Incoming Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr
Avg)
2,863
Angeles ECC
Center Name
FTE per Center
227
Type of Agency
11
Center Identifier
Fires
A-C & D+ (5 Yr Avg)
Table 5.1-4 – Calculated Complexity Scores for As-Is Operational Centers – California
Average
Normalized
Score
Rank Based
on Average
Normalized
Score
January 31, 2013
CA-MNFC
Federal
Modoc Interagency ECC
CA-MICC
Federal
Monte Vista Interagency
ECC
Monterey ECC
CA-MVIC
CA-BECC
Fed/
State
State
Morgan Hill ECC
CA-SCCC
State
Owens Valley Interagency
ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
CA-OVCC
Federal
CA-RRCC
CA-PNFC
State
Federal
Red Bluff ECC
CA-TGCC
State
Redding Interagency ECC
CA-RICC
Fed/
State
San Andreas ECC
CA-TCCC
State
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
CA-BDCC
CA-SLCC
State
State
IDOPP Report Appendix
# of Non-Fire/ NonLaw Enforcement
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
State
# of Law
Enforcement
Incidents - (5 Yr Avg)
CA-MMU
9
50
4,641
9,464
3,954
3,906
1.50 (High)
10
15
730
1,287
2,702
47
15,334
1.10 (Moderate)
13
7
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40 (Low)
30
7
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24 (Low)
35
28
437
4,373
5,720
1,606
12,283
1.47 (High)
11
9
190
2,753
2,185
44
3,850
0.62 (Low)
25
8
339
2,105
4,820
60
4,262
0.85 (Moderate)
20
8
72
779
1,224
680
150
0.25 (Low)
34
42
7
820
116
6,260
1,598
6,795
3,490
445
99,080
132
3.75 (High)
0.50 (Low)
1
28
8
192
2,375
1,520
7
7,794
0.62 (Low)
24
17
451
4,371
8,620
1,605
14,181
1.72 (High)
6
10
349
4,135
3,369
92
10,193
1.07 (Moderate)
15
8
11
274
203
2,019
2,345
2,529
2,089
83
12,943
7,723
0.82 (Moderate)
0.67 (Low)
21
22
246
Incoming Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency
ECC
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency CoLocated
Single Agency
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency CoLocated
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
Single Agency
Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of Center
Federal
Fires
A-C & D+ (5 Yr Avg)
Type of Agency
CA-LPCC
FTE per Center
Center Identifier
Los Padres ECC
Center Name
Average
Normalized
Score
Rank Based
on Average
Normalized
Score
January 31, 2013
Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr
Avg)
# of Law
Enforcement
Incidents - (5 Yr Avg)
# of Non-Fire/ NonLaw Enforcement
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
Federal
Single Agency
9
69
486
544
823
987
0.21 (Low)
36
Sierra Interagency ECC
CA-SICC
Federal
9
172
2,629
1,886
1,331
867
0.60 (Low)
26
St. Helena ECC
CA-LNCC
State
14
445
4,141
4,051
-
5,650
1.07 (Moderate)
14
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency
ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta
Trinity National
Recreation Area
Yosemite ECC
CA-STCC
6
66
1,231
1,002
1,962
736
0.38 (Low)
32
10
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23 (Moderate)
12
CA-TUCC
Federal
Fed/
State
State
Interagency CoLocated
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Single Agency
6
260
1,593
1,696
27
3,661
0.51 (Low)
27
CA-WNP
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
4
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34 (Low)
33
CA-YPCC
Federal
Fed/
State
Single Agency
Interagency
Integrated
11
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77 (High)
4
14
244
3006
5580
66
5214
0.95 (Moderate)
17
Yreka Interagency ECC
CA-SIFC
CA-YICC
IDOPP Report Appendix
247
Incoming Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Fires
A-C & D+ (5 Yr Avg)
CA-SQCC
FTE per Center
Type of Agency
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash
Mountain ECC
Center Name
Type of Center
Center Identifier
Average
Normalized
Score
Rank Based
on Average
Normalized
Score
January 31, 2013
Figure 5.1-5 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal/State Operational Centers (As-Is), Figure 5.1-6 - Average Normalized
Score by Center - California: Federal Operational Centers (As-Is), and Figure 5.1-6 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal
Operational Centers (As-Is) show center-specific results for California. Within these figures, the lower, green line is the cut-off for low
complexity (0.75) and the upper, red line is the cut-off for high complexity (1.25). Centers located between these lines are moderate complexity
centers.
Figure 5.1-5 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal/State Operational Centers (As-Is)
Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal/State Operational Centers (As-Is)
4.00
3.00
CA-CICC
1.69
2.00
CA-RICC
1.72
CA-GVCC
1.72
CA-MVIC
1.47
CA-FICC
0.97
1.00
CA-SIFC
1.23
CA-YICC
0.95
-
Figure 5.1-6 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal Operational Centers (As-Is)
Average Normalized Score by Center - California: Federal Operational Centers (As-Is)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
CA-CCCC
1.61
CA-ANCC
0.88
-
IDOPP Report Appendix
CA-SBCC
2.01
CA-GNP
2.13
HI-HAVO
0.04
CA-LPCC
1.50
CA-SQCC
CA-MICC CA-OVCC
0.25 CA-PNFC 0.21 CA-SICC CA-STCC
CA-MNFC 0.24
0.60
0.40
0.50
0.38
248
CA-YPCC
1.77
CA-WNP
0.34
January 31, 2013
Figure 5.1-7 - Average Normalized Score by Center - California: State Operational Centers (As-Is)
Average Normalized Score by Center - California: State Operational Centers (As-Is)
CA-RRCC
3.75
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
CA-FKCC
1.77
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
CA-BTCC
0.91
CA-CZCC
0.49
-
IDOPP Report Appendix
CA-MMU
1.10
CA-MECC
0.64
CA-SCCC
0.85
CA-BECC
0.62
249
CA-TCCC
1.07
CA-TGCC
0.62
CA-BDCC
0.82
CA-SLCC
0.67
CA-LNCC
1.07
CA-TUCC
0.51
January 31, 2013
Table 5.1-8 – Calculated Complexity Scores for As-Is Operational Centers – Southwest
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Arizona
AZ-ADC
Fed/State
Interagency
Flagstaff
AZ-FDC
Federal
Interagency
Phoenix
AZ-PHC
Federal
Interagency
Prescott
AZ-PDC
Federal
Interagency
Show Low
AZ-SDC
Federal
Interagency
Tucson
AZ-TDC
Federal
Interagency
Williams
AZ-WDC Federal
Interagency
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo
NM-ADC Federal
Interagency
Albuquerque
NM-ABC Fed/State
Interagency
Santa Fe
NM-SFC Federal
Interagency
Silver City
NM-SDC Federal
Interagency
Taos
NM-TDC Federal
Interagency
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of
Center
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Current
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
Incoming
Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Number
of Rx
Fires (5
Yr Avg)
Average
Normalized
Score
Rank Based
on Average
Normalized
Score
11
593
5,183
3,082
15
1.46 (High)
1
5
591
1,429
1,434
28
6
10
731
790
1,913
20
0.98
(Moderate)
0.99
(Moderate)
4
78
341
787
10
0.25 (Low)
12
8
400
1,828
1,568
63
3
5
313
970
3,219
20
5
279
1,246
1,598
34
1.19
(Moderate)
0.81
(Moderate)
0.79
(Moderate)
9
563
1,342
1,704
46
1.13
(Moderate)
4
7
650
2,509
1,453
44
1.29 (High)
2
4
340
696
1,531
23
0.67 (Low)
10
6
244
506
2,047
21
0.61 (Low)
11
6
357
1,123
790
32
0.75 (Low)
9
250
5
7
8
January 31, 2013
Figure 5.1-9 - Average Normalized Score by Center - Arizona Operational Centers (As-Is) and Figure 5.1-10 - Average Normalized Score by Center
- New Mexico Operational Centers (As-Is) show center-specific results for Arizona and New Mexico. Within these figures, the lower green line is
the cut-off for low complexity (0.75) and the upper red line is the cut-off for high complexity (1.25). Centers located between these lines are
moderate complexity centers.
Figure 5.1-9 - Average Normalized Score by Center - Arizona Operational Centers (As-Is)
Average Normalized Score by Center - Arizona Operational Centers (As-Is)
4.00
3.00
2.00
AZ-ADC
1.46
1.00
AZ-FDC
0.98
AZ-SDC
1.19
AZ-PHC
0.99
AZ-TDC
0.81
AZ-WDC
0.79
AZ-PDC
0.25
-
Figure 5.1-10 - Average Normalized Score by Center - New Mexico Operational Centers (As-Is)
Average Normalized Score by Center - New Mexico Operational Centers (As-Is)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
NM-ADC
1.13
NM-ABC
1.29
NM-SFC
0.67
-
IDOPP Report Appendix
251
NM-TDC
0.75
NM-SDC
0.61
January 31, 2013
Table 5.2.1-3 - FireOrg Factors
Factor*
Fires
A-C Fires
D+ Fires
Incident Mgt Team
Deployments
Unit of
Measure*
Fires
Fires
Fires
Teams
Fire Use Days
Days
Prescribed Fire Days
Days
Rx Fire Acres
Acres
Law Enforcement
Incidents
Incidents
Hazmat Incidents
Incidents
Search & Rescue
Incidents
Traffic Collision
Incidents
Medical Aid
Incidents
Incidents
Incidents
Incidents
Description*
Data Source for IDOPP
Total Average Annual number of Fires, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of A-C Fires, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of D+ Fires, by unit/agency
Average Annual number Incident Management Teams
used within your area (T1,2, 3, Fire Use), by unit/agency
Average Annual number of days WFU lasted, by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of days of Prescribed Fires, by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of Prescribed Fire Acres
accomplished, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Law Enforcement Incidents,
by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Hazmat Incidents, by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of Search & Rescue Incidents, by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of Traffic Collision Incidents, by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of Medical Aid Incidents, by
unit/agency
Fire and Aviation Management
Fire and Aviation Management Website
Fire and Aviation Management Website
IDOPP Sub-Teams 6
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
IDOPP Sub-Teams 7
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
5
FAMWEB is at http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/
Data for California was provided by Cathy Johnson, Logistics Coordinator, Northern California Operations Coordination Center and CAL FIRE; data for the
Southwest was pulled from the ICS-209 Database.
7
DOI data was pulled from the National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS); FS data for California was provided by Cathy Johnson, Logistics
Coordinator, Northern California Operations Coordination Center; FS data for the Southwest was provided by Pam Bostwick, Fuels Specialist, Southwest
Region; and CAL FIRE provided the state data for California.
6
IDOPP Report Appendix
252
January 31, 2013
Factor*
Unit of
Measure*
Description*
Data Source for IDOPP
Unplanned Event
Days
Days
Average Annual number of Unplanned Event Days, by
unit/agency (Natural or Human caused Disasters
(hurricane, terrorist, etc.)
Center Manager Data Call
Planned Event Days
IA Resource
Dispatches
IA Resource
Dispatches
IA Resource
Dispatches
IA Resource
Dispatches
IA Resource
Dispatches
Days
OH/SMJ
ENG/WT
CRW
DOZ/TP
AC
Incoming Resources
Dispatched
OH/SMJ
Incoming Resources
Dispatched
ENG/WT
Incoming Resources
Dispatched
CRW
Incoming Resources
Dispatched
DOZ/TP
IDOPP Report Appendix
Average Annual number of Planned Event Days, by
unit/agency (Events that require preparatory planning
and resource mobilization rainbow family gathering,
Sturgis Rally, etc.)
Average Annual number of Overhead used for Initial
Attack, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Engines and Water Tenders
used for Initial Attack, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Crews used for Initial Attack,
by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Dozers & Tractor Plows used
for Initial Attack, by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Aircraft used for Initial Attack,
by unit/agency
Average Annual number of Overhead dispatched to local
incidents, admin, etc., by unit/agency (Non-IA)
(Counts are by the Incident’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Engines and Water Tenders
dispatched to local incidents, admin, etc., by unit/agency
(Non-IA) - (Counts are by the Incident’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Crews dispatched to local
incidents, admin, etc., by unit/agency (Non-IA)
(Counts are by the Incident’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Dozers & Tractor Plows
dispatched to local incidents, admin, etc., by unit/agency
(Non-IA)
253
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
January 31, 2013
Factor*
Unit of
Measure*
Incoming Resources
Dispatched
AC
Resources
Dispatched
Out Of Your Area
Resources
Dispatched
Out Of Your Area
Resources
Dispatched
Out Of Your Area
Resources
Dispatched
Out Of Your Area
OH/SMJ
ENG/WT
CRW
DOZ/TP
Resources
Dispatched
Out Of Your Area
AC
Resources Available
For Dispatch
OH/SMJ
Resources Available
For Dispatch
ENG/WT
Resources Available
For Dispatch
CRW
Resources Available
For Dispatch
IDOPP Report Appendix
DOZ/TP
Description*
Data Source for IDOPP
Average Annual number of Aircraft dispatched to local
incidents, admin, etc., by unit/agency (Non-IA)
(Counts are by the Incident’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Overhead from your area
dispatched to other areas incidents, admin, etc., by
unit/agency
Average Annual number of Engines and Water Tenders
from your area dispatched to other areas incidents,
admin, etc., by unit/agency - (Counts are by Resource’s
Average Annual number of Crews from your area
dispatched to other areas incidents, admin, etc., by
unit/agency (Counts are by Resource’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Dozers & Tractor Plows from
your area dispatched to other areas incidents, admin,
etc., by unit/agency - (Counts are by Resource’s Unit)
Average Annual number of Aircraft from your area
dispatched to other areas incidents, admin, etc., by
unit/agency - (Counts are by Resource’s Unit)
Total Current Annual number of Overhead (Gov &
Cooperators) from your area available for dispatch, by
unit/agency
Total Current Annual number of Engines and Water
Tenders (Gov & Cooperators) from your area available
for dispatch, by unit/agency
Total Current Annual number of Crews (Gov &
Cooperators) from your area available for dispatch, by
Total Current Annual number of Dozers & Tractor Plows
(Gov & Cooperators) from your area available for
dispatch, by unit/agency
254
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Resource Ordering and Status System
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
January 31, 2013
Factor*
Unit of
Measure*
Resources Available
For Dispatch
AC
AD & Contract
Resources Available
Crews
AD & Contract
Resources Available
AD & Contract
Resources Available
AD & Contract
Resources Available
Equip-ment
OH
AC
National Resources
AT Bases
National Resources
Heli-copters
National Resources
SMJ Bases
National Resources
LP
National Resources
C1
Area Resources
AC
Area Resources
CRW
Area Resources
ENG
IDOPP Report Appendix
Description*
Data Source for IDOPP
Total Current Annual number of Aircraft (Gov &
Cooperators) from your area available for dispatch, by
unit/agency
Total Current Annual number of AD & Contract Crews
from your area available for dispatch, by hiring
unit/agency
Total Current Annual number of Contract Equipment
from your area available for dispatch, by hiring
Total Current Annual number of AD & Contract Overhead
from your area available for dispatch, by hiring
Total Current Annual number of CWN & Contract Aircraft
from your area available for dispatch, by hiring
Total Current number of Airtanker Bases within your
area, by hiring unit/agency
Total Current number of State & Govt -owned &
Contracted National Helicopters within your area, by
Total Current number of Smokejumper Bases (including
contingent bases) within your area, by hiring unit/agency
Total Current number of Leadplanes (including ASM)
positioned within your area, by hiring unit/agency
Total Current number of National Type 1 Crews located
within your area, by hiring unit/agency
Total Current number of State & Govt -owned &
Contracted Aircraft positioned within your area
(excluding national contracts), by hiring unit/agency
Total Current number of State & Federal Crews available
from your area, by hiring unit/agency (excluding AD,
contracts & National IHC)
Total Current number of State & Federal Engines
available from your area, by hiring unit/agency (excluding
255
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
January 31, 2013
Factor*
Unit of
Measure*
Local Govt
Cooperation
Agencies
Days To Prepare
Plans
Days
Intel / Predictive
Services
Hours Per
Day
Database
Administration
Days
Description*
Data Source for IDOPP
Total number of units (state, federal and cooperators)
affecting the support systems workload
Annual Number of Person Days needed to prepare
required documents (Mob Guides, Incident /Accident
Response Plans, Annual reports, etc.)
Average Annual number of Person Hours per day
required to perform predictive services.
Annual Number of Person Days required for Database
Administration (Fire report programs, Quals, IQCS, ROSS,
WildCad, PCMS, etc.)
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
Center Manager Data Call
*These columns are from the FireOrg User Guide, July 2009.
IDOPP Report Appendix
256
January 31, 2013
Table 5.2.1-4 - Comparison of As-Is Staffing to FireOrg Designed Staffing (California)
Center Name
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Comm. Center
Felton ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Fresno Kings ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Howard Forest ECC
Los Padres ECC (see below)
Mariposa ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Monterey ECC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
CA-ANCC
CA-BTCC
CA-CICC
CA-CICC
CA-CICC
CA-CCCC
CA-SBCC
CA-CZCC
CA-FICC
CA-FICC
CA-FICC
CA-FKCC
CA-GVCC
CA-GVCC
CA-GVCC
CA-HIAC
CA-MECC
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
Tribal
State
CA-MMU
CA-MNFC
CA-MICC
CA-MVIC
CA-MVIC
CA-MVIC
CA-BECC
State
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
24/7 Hours
of
Operation?
yes
yes
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
FTE
Change
IR FTE (As-Is to
from
IR
FireOrg FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
no
yes
no
yes
11.0
14.0
25.0
8.0
17.0
9.5
21.0
11.0
14.0
7.0
7.0
13.0
25.0
7.0
18.0
1.0
10.0
9.5
11.8
14.3
4.2
11.1
14.4
12.0
14.4
12.9
6.2
6.7
8.5
31.1
3.8
27.4
2.6
5.6
-1.5
-2.2
-10.7
-3.8
-5.9
4.9
-9.0
3.4
-1.1
-0.8
-0.3
-4.5
6.1
-3.2
9.4
1.6
-4.4
-13%
-16%
-43%
-48%
-34%
52%
-43%
31%
-8%
-11%
-4%
-35%
25%
-46%
52%
164%
-44%
16.4
28.5
53.6
8.3
46.3
27.3
21.7
29.3
26.2
11.7
14.5
19.5
59.4
7.3
52.2
4.6
14.5
5.4
14.5
28.6
0.3
29.3
17.8
0.7
18.3
12.2
4.7
7.5
6.5
34.4
0.3
34.2
3.6
4.5
49%
104%
114%
4%
172%
187%
3%
167%
87%
67%
108%
50%
138%
4%
190%
358%
45%
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
15.0
7.0
7.0
28.0
13.0
15.0
9.0
14.5
4.0
3.8
19.9
6.3
14.5
9.1
-0.6
-3.0
-3.2
-8.1
-6.7
-0.5
0.1
-4%
-43%
-45%
-29%
-51%
-3%
1%
30.4
6.9
6.2
42.1
15.9
27.2
17.7
15.4
-0.1
-0.8
14.1
2.9
12.2
8.7
103%
-1%
-11%
50%
22%
81%
96%
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
257
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Morgan Hill ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Perris ECC
Plumas ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
San Andreas ECC
San Bernardino ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
St. Helena ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Visalia ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity NRA
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
IDOPP Report Appendix
24/7 Hours
of
Operation?
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
CA-SCCC
CA-OVCC
CA-RRCC
CA-PNFC
CA-TGCC
CA-RICC
CA-RICC
CA-RICC
CA-TCCC
CA-BDCC
CA-SLCC
CA-SQCC
CA-SICC
CA-LNCC
CA-STCC
CA-SIFC
CA-SIFC
CA-SIFC
CA-TUCC
CA-WNP
CA-YPCC
CA-YICC
CA-YICC
CA-YICC
State
Federal
State
Federal
State
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
State
Federal
Federal
Fed/State
Federal
State
yes
no
yes
no
yes
HI-HAVO
Federal
Total:
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
258
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
FTE
Change
IR FTE (As-Is to
from
IR
FireOrg FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
8.0
7.5
42.0
7.0
8.0
17.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
14.0
6.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
10.5
14.0
7.0
7.0
28.1
2.9
9.7
6.0
4.9
19.1
7.8
11.3
11.1
10.2
9.1
2.5
5.9
9.9
2.7
11.8
7.0
5.8
7.9
1.2
3.2
8.0
7.4
7.5
20.1
-4.6
-32.3
-1.0
-3.2
2.1
0.8
1.3
1.1
2.2
-1.9
-6.5
-3.1
-4.1
-3.3
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.9
-2.8
-7.3
-6.0
0.4
0.5
251%
-62%
-77%
-14%
-39%
12%
12%
13%
11%
27%
-17%
-72%
-34%
-30%
-56%
18%
39%
16%
31%
-69%
-70%
-43%
5%
8%
33.6
5.1
78.1
9.8
12.0
35.2
11.7
23.5
22.1
22.7
21.0
4.4
13.7
16.0
6.9
42.2
14.3
28.9
16.6
1.9
7.2
16.5
12.0
14.6
25.6
-2.4
36.1
2.8
4.0
18.2
4.7
13.5
12.1
14.7
10.0
-4.6
4.7
2.0
0.9
32.2
9.3
23.9
10.6
-2.1
-3.3
2.5
5.0
7.6
320%
-32%
86%
40%
50%
107%
67%
135%
121%
184%
91%
-51%
53%
14%
15%
322%
186%
479%
177%
-52%
-31%
18%
71%
109%
7.0
428.5
1.2
353.5
-5.9
-75.0
-84%
-17%
1.4
784.1
-5.6
355.6
-79%
83%
January 31, 2013
Notes:
•
•
FireOrg calculated FTE needed for the overall integrated interagency center at lower than combining the separate agency FTEs.
The team did not use FireOrg for Golden Gate National Recreation Area (CA-GNP) in California due to lack of data.
The team removed the following FireOrg results from the totals above due to obvious data errors (inflation of workload quantities):
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
24/7 Hours
of
Operation?
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
Los Padres ECC
CA-LPCC
Federal
no
8.6
IR FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
174.6
166.0
1934%
284.9
276.3
3219%
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
49%
4%
187%
3%
67%
4%
-1%
-11%
22%
-32%
40%
The team also reviewed federal-only FireOrg results, again excluding Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Los Padres ECC.
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
24/7 Hours
of
Operation?
California Operational Centers
Angeles ECC
Camino Interagency ECC
Central California ECC
Federal Interagency Comm. Center
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
CA-ANCC
CA-CICC
CA-CCCC
CA-SBCC
CA-FICC
CA-GVCC
CACA-MICC
CA-MVIC
CA-OVCC
CA-PNFC
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
IDOPP Report Appendix
259
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
11.0
8.0
9.5
21.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
13.0
7.5
7.0
IR FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
9.5
4.2
14.4
12.0
6.2
3.8
4.0
3.8
6.3
2.9
6.0
-1.5
-3.8
4.9
-9.0
-0.8
-3.2
-3.0
-3.2
-6.7
-4.6
-1.0
-13%
-48%
52%
-43%
-11%
-46%
-43%
-45%
-51%
-62%
-14%
16.4
8.3
27.3
21.7
11.7
7.3
6.9
6.2
15.9
5.1
9.8
5.4
0.3
17.8
0.7
4.7
0.3
-0.1
-0.8
2.9
-2.4
2.8
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Redding Interagency ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Sierra Interagency ECC
Stanislaus ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity NRA
Yosemite ECC
Yreka Interagency ECC
Hawaii Operational Centers
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
IR FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
24/7 Hours
of
Operation?
CA-RICC
CA-SQCC
CA-SICC
CA-STCC
CA-SIFC
CA-WNP
CA-YPCC
CA-YICC
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
7.0
9.0
9.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
10.5
7.0
7.8
2.5
5.9
2.7
7.0
1.2
3.2
7.4
0.8
-6.5
-3.1
-3.3
2.0
-2.8
-7.3
0.4
12%
-72%
-34%
-56%
39%
-69%
-70%
5%
11.7
4.4
13.7
6.9
14.3
1.9
7.2
12.0
4.7
-4.6
4.7
0.9
9.3
-2.1
-3.3
5.0
67%
-51%
53%
15%
186%
-52%
-31%
71%
HI-HAVO
Federal
Total:
yes
7.0
169.5
1.2
112.0
-5.9
-57.5
-84%
-34%
1.4
210.2
-5.6
40.7
-79%
24%
Table 5.2.1-5 - Comparison of Actual As-Is Staffing to FireOrg Staffing (Southwest)
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Arizona Operational Centers
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
Grand Canyon Dispatch Center
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center
AZ-ADC
AZ-FDC
AZ-GCZ
AZ-PHC
AZ-PDC
AZ-SDC
AZ-TDC
IDOPP Report Appendix
Type of
Agency
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
Fed/Stat
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
10.8
4.5
9.0
9.5
4.0
8.0
4.5
260
IR FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
8.4
6.4
1.0
5.9
2.4
6.9
7.2
-2.4
1.9
-8.0
-3.6
-1.6
-1.1
2.7
-22%
41%
-89%
-38%
-39%
-13%
60%
22.0
11.2
19.4
10.0
4.2
18.1
11.5
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
11.3
6.7
10.4
0.5
0.2
10.1
7.0
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
105%
148%
115%
5%
6%
127%
155%
January 31, 2013
Center Name
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
New Mexico Operational Centers
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
As-Is FTE
as
Reported
on Data
Call
IR FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
IR
FireOrg)
Total
FTE
from
FireOrg
FTE
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
Percent
Change
(As-Is to
Total
FireOrg)
AZ-WDC
Federal
4.5
4.7
0.2
4%
7.5
3.0
66%
NM-ADC
NM-ABC
NM-SFC
NM-SDC
NM-TDC
Federal
Fed/Stat
Federal
Federal
Federal
Total:
8.5
7.0
4.0
5.5
6.0
85.8
8.0
9.4
6.8
5.4
5.4
77.8
-0.5
2.4
2.8
-0.1
-0.7
-7.9
-6%
34%
69%
-2%
-11%
-9%
16.0
22.9
9.2
9.5
8.1
169.6
7.5
15.9
5.2
4.0
2.1
83.9
88%
227%
131%
72%
35%
98%
Notes:
•
The team did not use FireOrg for the Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center (AZ-PHDC) in Arizona as it is a law enforcement
center.
IDOPP Report Appendix
261
January 31, 2013
Tables for Section 5.2-2 - APCO RETAINS Calculations for Coverage Positions
The following shows the results of the RETAINS testing by the Camino Interagency ECC and Federal Law
Enforcement Communication Center.
The Camino center manager considered all positions (Supervisor, Assistant Center Manager, and Dispatcher)
“coverage” positions. The completed RETAINS report does not show how the center manager calculated the
hours needing coverage by an Assistant Center Manager (7,280) or Dispatcher (20,020). Columns (a) through
(i) of Table 5.2.2-1 - APCO RETAINS Results from Camino Interagency ECC (California) shows the center
manager’s data inputs.
Based on these inputs, RETAINS calculated that Camino Interagency ECC needs 15.97 FTE, an increase 88
percent over its current staffing level. The center manager’s RETAINS entry for current authorized FTE
totaling 8.5 does not match the staffing reported in the IDOPP data call, where the center manager listed
total as-is staffing as 8.0 FTE, with one Supervisor, two Assistant Center Managers, and five Dispatchers.
Table 5.2.2-1 - APCO RETAINS Results from Camino Interagency ECC (California)
(a)
Position
(b)
(c)
Current
Authorized
FTE
Supervisor
Asst Center Mgr
Dispatcher
Total:
1.00
2.00
5.50
8.50
Hours
Needing
Coverage
2,080
7,280
20,020
(d)
(e)
(f)
÷
Employee
Availability
=
÷
÷
÷
1,840
1,840
1,840
=
=
=
(g) (h)
Staff
Needed
1.13
3.96
10.88
15.97
(i)
(j)
x
Turnover
Rate
=
x
x
x
0%
0%
0%
=
=
=
(k)
Estimated
FTE
1.13
3.96
10.88
15.97
Classifying the Supervisor as a function position would have improved the accuracy of the calculations, as
would using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard for productive hours per FTE (1,776)
instead of the center manager-specified 1,840. These input changes result in a calculated need for 16.37 FTE.
Since the teams do not know how the center manager calculated coverage hours, they could not validate the
correctness of these entries.
For the FLECC, the center manager considered the Center Manager position a function position and the Lead
Mission Support Technician (Shift Supervisor) and Mission Support Technician positions to be coverage
positions. Columns (a) through (i) of Table 5.2.2-2 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Initial
Entry below show the information entered by the center manager. The center manager defined staffing
needs as 24/7 coverage for one Lead Mission Support Technician (Shift Supervisor) and six Mission Support
Technicians (Law Enforcement) 24/7 and 12/7 coverage for one Mission Support Technician
(Administrative/Resource).
IDOPP Report Appendix
262
January 31, 2013
Based on these inputs, RETAINS calculated that the FLECC needs 43.94 FTE, an increase of 29.94 FTE (214%)
over current staffing.
Table 5.2.2-2 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Initial Entry
Six Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) Required 24/7
(b)
(c)
(e)
(g)
(i)
(a)
Position
Center Manager
Lead Mission Support Technician
(Shift Supervisor)
Mission Support Technician
(Administrative/Resource)
Mission Support Technician (Law
Enforcement)
Total:
(k)
Current
Authorized
FTE
Hours
Needing
Coverage
Employee
Availability
Staff
Needed
Turnover
Rate
1.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.00
2.0
8,760
1,530
5.73
0%
5.73
2.0
4,380
1,530
2.86
0%
2.86
9.0
52,560
1,530
34.35
0%
34.35
Estimated
FTE
14.0
43.94
Table 5.2.2-3 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Revised Entry shows a revised version of RETAINS for
the FLECC. In this version, the teams used the OMB standard 1,776 productive hours per FTE. RETAINS calculated that
the center needs 37.99 FTE, still an increase of 23.99 (171%) over current staffing.
(a)
Table 5.2.2-3 - APCO RETAINS Results for the FLECC (Southwest) – Revised Entry
Six Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) Required 24/7
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Position
Current
Authorized
FTE
Hours
Needing
Coverage
Employee
÷ Availability
=
Staff
Needed
x
Turnover
Rate
(j)
(k)
=
Est.
FTE
Center Manager
1.0
n/a ÷
n/a =
n/a x
n/a =
1.00
Lead Mission Support Technician
2.0
8,760 ÷
1,776 =
4.93 x
=
4.93
(Shift Supervisor)
Mission Support Technician
2.0
4,380 ÷
1,776 =
2.47 x
0% =
2.47
(Administrative/ Resource)
Mission Support Technician (Law
9.0
52,560 ÷
1,776 =
29.59 x
0% = 29.59
Enforcement)
Total:
14.0
37.99
A user could research the FTE impact of various staffing scenarios by running various scenarios in RETAINS. For
example, if the center used six Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) for 16 hours per day Monday
through Friday and two Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) for the remaining 8 hours per day Monday
through Friday and 24 hours per day Saturday and Sunday, calculated staffing needs for the position would
decrease from 29.59 FTE to 19.26 FTE.
IDOPP Report Appendix
263
January 31, 2013
Table 5.2.2-4 - APCO RETAINS Calculations for Coverage Positions
The following sample shows how RETAINS calculates staffing for coverage positions.
(A) Number of consoles that need to be covered
(B) Number of hours per day that need to be covered
(C) Number of days per week that need to be covered
(D) Number of weeks per year that need to be
(E) Total hours needing coverage (E = A x B x C x D)
(F) Employee Availability:
Net available work hours can be calculated based on
o Total contract hours
o Holiday/vacation leave hours
o Sick leave hours
o Personal leave hours
o Training leave hours
o Military/FMLA/etc. hours
o Total meal/break hours
o Total other hours
o Total hours unavailable
Staff Needed:
(G) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) base estimate (G = E /
(H) Turnover rate [decimal, can be calculated via
(I) FTE required to accommodate turnover (I = G x (1
IDOPP Report Appendix
264
1 Shift
Supervisor
24/7
1.00
24.00
7.00
52.14
8,759.52
1,776.00
4.93
4.93
1 Shift
Supervisor 24
hours/ day for
1.00
24.00
2.00
52.14
2,502.72
1,776.00
1.41
1.41
3.76
1 Shift
Supervisor 16
hours/ day for
1.00
16.00
5.00
52.14
4,171.20
1,776.00
2.35
2.35
January 31, 2013
Table 5.3.2-1 - Cost Estimates for Construction of a Dispatch Center
1.
2.
3.
Source
CAL FIRE, 2012
CAL FIRE, 2012
U.S. Department of
the Interior Radio
Communications
System Partnering
Analysis, July 2006
Approximate
Cost per
Square Foot
$415
$800+
$335.00
Description
Structure only, not including soft costs such as design and inspection.
Structure (including design, inspection, and other soft costs), site work,
towers, telephone and IT systems, consoles and furnishings, and vault
equipment. Cost does not include site acquisition. (An email from CAL
FIRE stated costs “in excess of $800.”)
This cost not included in IDOPP calculated average because it is an outlier.
“Through industry and public safety agency contacts we have
compiled the following budgetary cost information and features of
current communications center designs. The budgetary costs
presented are derived from a group of facility construction costs for
ten different communications centers that incorporated from eight
positions to 30 telecommunicator positions. The facility
construction cost is for a new single-story building including site
preparation, a sound structure (bullet proof windows, etc.), but
does not cover “California Style” (earthquake proof) or tornado’s
resiliency above a category 3. The estimated cost includes—
• uninterruptible power system (UPS)
• redundant generators
• fenced and lighted employee parking lot
• visitor parking lot
• concrete driveways
• security fencing
• building security systems incorporating proximity cards and CCTV
cameras
• raised computer floor systems with a grounded carpeting system
on the operations floor
• redundant HVAC systems
• fire suppression and fire alarms
• central vacuum system for the operations floor
• office and operations floor console furniture (no electronics)
• kitchen and break room fixtures
• lockers, restrooms and shower facilities
• lighting and drywall construction
The average construction cost is $335.00 per square foot.
Significant variances may be realized due to local building codes
and specific agency requirements.”
IDOPP Report Appendix
265
January 31, 2013
4.
5.
6.
Source
L.R. Kimball, Report
for Consolidation
Analysis and Next
Generation 9-1-1
Implementation
Study prepared for
State of Oregon
Office of Emergency
Management,
February 2012
DOD Facilities Pricing
Guide for FY 2011
(UFC 3-701-01),
March 2011, and
Programming Cost
Estimates for
Military
Construction, TM 5800-4, May 1994
DOD Facilities Pricing
Guide for FY 2011
(UFC 3-701-01),
March 2011, and
Programming Cost
Estimates for
Military
Construction, TM 5800-4, May 1994
Average:
Approximate
Cost per
Square Foot
$325-$425
Description
Cited as an industry figure for the cost of a new Public Safety
Answering Point facility. Does not include required system
technology or site acquisition, design, and preparation.
The report also noted that recent construction costs for the
Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon center were $356
per square foot, with total costs of $421 per square foot. The
report did not specify what the base and total costs included.
$410.40
New construction cost for an information systems facility or
communications center. Includes demolition.
This cost not included in IDOPP calculated average because it includes
demolition.
$396.54
New construction cost for an information systems facility or
communications center. Excludes demolition.
$380
Includes #1, 3, 4, and 6.
The Blue Mountain Interagency Dispatch Center recently consolidated as recommended in the report “An
Examination of Dispatch Center Opportunities in Northeastern Oregon” (2007). Per the center manager, the local
county government constructed the new center at the La Grande Airport at a cost of just below $2 million. The
construction cost included the 5,500 square foot dispatch office and a 16,500 square foot fire cache. The table
above does not include this cost since the team could not determine how much of the overall cost was attributable
to the dispatch center.)
IDOPP Report Appendix
266
January 31, 2013
Section 6 – Organizational Alternatives
Electronic access to linked documents - In order to access the linked documents, the reader’s computer must
have access to the internet.
Hard copy access to linked documents – For readers with hard copies of the report, the URL to each
document is posted underneath the links.
•
6.3 - California Sub-Team Report
California Sub-Team Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/CaliforniaSubTeamExecutiveSummary.pdf
•
California Sub-Team Report Executive Summary
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/CaliforniaSubTeamExecutiveSummary.pdf
•
•
•
6.3a - Appendix to California Sub-Team Report
California Sub-Team Report Appendix
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/CaliforniaSubTeamAppendix.pdf
6.5 - Southwest Sub-Team Report
Southwest Sub-Team Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/SouthwestSubTeam Report.pdf
6.5a - Appendix to Southwest Sub-Team Report
Southwest Sub-Team Report Appendix
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/assessments/SouthwestSubTeamAppendix.pdf
IDOPP Report Appendix
267
January 31, 2013
7.8 - Lessons Learned
Data Call
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Data Needs - To avoid unnecessary impacts to the field, establish what information is available through
systems of record before beginning to design a data call. Complete Information Needs Assessment with
data source(s) identified. Collect data necessary to analysis but stop short of attempting to collect data
necessary for implementation planning.
Data Call Timeline - Planning for the data call should include adequate time for the various steps such as
draft development, project team review, review by others (if planned), creation of online format (if used),
testing, and should include a minimum of 30 days’ response time, preferably 45 days. Project teams
should avoid running the data call during fire season to minimize the burden on respondents and
maximize the response rate.
Data Call Interpretation Issues - Data call interpretation issues affected the responses to several
questions in the IDOPP center manager data call. Members of both sub-teams and the Bridge Team
reviewed the data call, the sub-teams held conference calls to answer center manager questions, and the
teams generated frequently asked questions which they circulated following these calls. Despite these
efforts, some responses still reflected misunderstanding.
 Instructions that are more explicit may prevent interpretation issues. For smaller projects, walking
the respondents through each question may be helpful.
 The teams recommend providing multiple-choice or “pop-down” data call response choices
whenever practicable to minimize issues related to interpretation as well as spelling, wording,
punctuation and other variables.
Survey Completion by More than One Center Manager - At centers that had more than one manager
responding to the data call, conflicting responses caused difficulties in data compilation and analysis. In
most cases, CAL FIRE and federal managers provided responses. In some cases, two federal managers
submitted responses. In most cases, allowing multiple responses per center created issues with
conflicting responses. For example, one center manager said the center was interagency co-located
while the other selected interagency integrated. Multiple responses also made it difficult for the team to
determine whether responses were overlapping or additive. For example, if each center manager
recorded a different number of radio consoles, the teams did not know if they should add these
responses together for a center total or if that would that be double-counting the total number. These
impacts added significant time to the data compilation, analysis, and development of tables and figures
for the report.
 The IDOPP teams recommend that future project teams limit data calls to one response per center.
For centers with multiple managers, the managers should work together and submit one response
which includes all of their data.
Distribution of Data Call to Tier 4 Centers - The IDOPP teams decided to limit the center manager data call
distribution to the Tier 3 centers. In retrospect, the teams would have liked to have Tier 4 data as they
did review these centers for consolidation.
Printing of Data Call Responses - A few center managers asked for a copy of their responses after they
had submitted the data call. Future data calls could include instructions on how to print a copy before
submitting or add functionality to allow for printing. This was not an issue with the 2008 MEA data call,
which was all one section and could more easily be printed. Due to its size, the teams split the IDOPP
center manager data call into multiple sections so that center managers could finalize and submit
sections as they completed them. This also allowed the teams to track percentage completed.
Limiting Free Form Questions - The IDOPP data requests limited the number of questions allowing free
form responses, instead using drop-down menus and radio buttons. This allowed for more efficient and
effective data analysis.
IDOPP Report Appendix
268
January 31, 2013
•
•
•
Collection of Cost Data - The IDOPP data call used only two categories: annual facility lease costs and
other annual operating costs. The IDOPP teams developed personnel costs separately based on staffing
input provided by the center managers. Due to the wide variance in responses, the IDOPP teams should
have provided further guidance when asking for operating costs. Future data calls should give more
explicit directions as to which items respondents should include under operating costs. The data call
could break out the operating costs by item (for example, utilities, custodial services), instead of asking
for an overall total. In the data call for the 2008 MEA, center managers provided costs in the following
categories: planned operational costs, actual operational costs, lease costs, and facility costs (broken
down by utilities, maintenance, support contracts, and security systems or guards).
Questions to Add - The IDOPP data call did not include the following questions. Project teams should
consider adding them to other optimization data calls.
 Square footage information would have been useful both for determining facility size for
consolidation and, more importantly, for development of costs. The 2008 MEA data call and a draft of
the IDOPP data call included a question collecting square footage of each dispatch center. The IDOPP
teams removed this question from the center manager data call before its release.
 Knowing which centers are 24/7 would have been useful input in developing alternatives. Knowing
operational hours per day (8 per day, 12 per day, etc.) would also be useful. A question on a draft of
the IDOPP data call asked center managers to list their centers’ normal hours of operation. The
teams removed this question from the final version and replaced it with a dropdown that allowed the
managers to select 5 days a week - less than 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - less than 24 hours a day,
7 days a week - 24 hours a day, or other. In reviewing the data from completed surveys, it seems that
misinterpretation of the question caused many center managers to select 24/7 despite not being
24/7 centers. In these cases, the team believes the centers have staff on standby/call-out who can
work in case of emergency, but that the centers are not routinely staffed 24/7. Another possibility is
that center managers answered the question during their peak fire season and were operating 24
hours per day at that time. (One area for increased efficiency and safety that the teams discussed
but ultimately did not address was the potential for transferring after-hours dispatch to those centers
with 24/7 operation.)
Questions to Delete - Project teams should consider deleting some questions from the IDOPP data call.
These questions primarily fell under the facility category or the IT category. Facility questions included
number of parking spaces, security of parking area, and accessibility of facility for employees with
disabilities. IT questions included adequacy of phone system and ability to expand phone system. The
responses to each of these items were not limiting factors on whether the teams considered a center for
consolidation. For example, at an optimized center, agencies could likely add parking spaces and install
new phone systems. The team could have collected this information from centers selected as a possible
consolidation site. It is important for project teams to consider what information is needed when
determining where to consolidate centers versus what information is nice to have, but would be better
collected during the implementation phase.
IDOPP Report Appendix
269
January 31, 2013
Communications
•
Communications with Executive Oversight Group - The Southwest sub-team, which had access to and
ongoing communication with their executive oversight group, gained concurrence to move forward with
the proposed alternatives early in the process and began implementation planning. For California, the
executive oversight group was more removed from the process, primarily being briefed on overall
concepts in January 2012 and then briefed on the proposed consolidations in May 2012. While the
Southwest has begun the initial stages of implementation, the California sub-team recommends further
study of their proposed consolidations. If the executives had been more engaged in the process, it is
possible that the California sub-team could have made greater progress, such as verifying whether
proposed consolidations would be feasible. More involvement by line officers on the sub-team may have
lessened the need for additional executive oversight group involvement.
• Need for Point of Contact for Executive Oversight Group - Project teams should consider asking their
executive oversight group to appoint a primary point of contact for communications. Having a single
point of contact on the group will facilitate communications between the group and the project team.
• Need for In-Person Meetings - While teams can conduct some meetings via conference call or web
meeting, the most productive meetings related to optimization are typically conducted in-person. During
in-person meetings, participants can focus on the project and most freely share and discuss ideas. For
IDOPP, face-to-face meetings proved to be much more effective than teleconferences. At a minimum,
project teams should conduct face-to-face meetings for key decision points.
• Intra-Agency Communications - Optimization projects require well-coordinated communications among
the agencies involved. Communications released by each agency should be consistent in message and
timing so that all affected parties receive the same information.
• Website: While the Bridge Team set up a website to provide information on IDOPP
(http://www.iiog.gov/idopp.php), it was not kept up-to-date. Regularly updating the website through the
posting of current status reports, current team rosters, and additional frequently asked questions will
improve the communication process with affected employees, stakeholders, and other interested
parties. In the future, the website could also include the IDOPP report and toolbox. The Bridge Team
discussed multiple options for the location and hosting of the IDOPP website, preferring an option which
spans program areas (fire, law enforcement) and agencies. If the Interagency Interoperability Oversight
Group stays active, the current location would be suitable since this group meets the criteria for being
multi-program and interagency.
Other
• Defining Project Scope - As part of the IDOPP Project Plan, the teams defined the scope of the project.
The scope included nine categories, as well as cross-cutting issues such as safety:
 Dispatch mission, function, and scope
 Governance
 Dispatch workload and staffing
 Dispatch center locations and coverage
 Operational standards
 Training standards
 Technology and equipment standards
 Facility standards
 Dispatch center typing
While the teams briefly discussed many of these areas, they ultimately narrowed the scope to a primary
focus on dispatch center locations and coverage. While agencies should address all categories, the scope was
too broad for the time and authority allotted the team . As the scope dictated many of the questions asked
IDOPP Report Appendix
270
January 31, 2013
of center managers in the data call, more narrowly and realistically defining scope in other optimization
projects may streamline the data call, reducing completion time for respondents as well as time for analysis.
• Understanding the Approval Process for Partners: The IDOPP teams recommend engaging partners early
in the project as partners may have different approval processes which must be taken into account. For
example, decisions impacting BIA/tribal centers may require approval by the tribal councils.
• Selection of Team Members: As optimization projects consider center consolidations and other difficult
high-level issues, it is important that the project teams include the correct mix of individuals, including
management level personnel with decision-making experience and objectivity.
• Site Visits: Project teams should consider conducting site visits to assess the feasibility of center
consolidations. Visits allow teams to view the facility layout and assess space usage. As part of these
visits, teams could collect facility information such as number of parking spaces, adequacy of room for
existing staff, and room for expansion, allowing teams to remove these questions from the data call.
• Performance Standards: One item that the IDOPP teams did not do but that would be beneficial is to
develop performance standards. Performance standards for quality and timeliness allow agencies to
measure quality assurance, verifying whether the centers are meeting specified standards.
IDOPP Report Appendix
271
January 31, 2013