California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
California Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
The California Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project (IDOPP) Sub-Team was tasked with developing
alternatives for optimization of dispatch services including but not limited to: Fire, Aviation, Law
Enforcement (LE), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) services within the Dispatch Centers of
California (CA) and Hawaii (HI). This group was also tasked to review the alternatives for the current two
Coordination Center system in California. Vital to the operations of the dispatch/coordination system,
preliminary data was also collected on the communications /radio systems of participating agencies.
The safety of our employees and the public is a core value for all stakeholders in this project. All
participating agencies are required by Federal and State OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health) laws
and regulations to provide safe working environments, which include communications for field going
employees.
The California Executive Oversight Group recognized interagency partnerships as another core value
during this process and the alternatives developed. This mirrors the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
Management Strategy 2011 whereas; “Federal agencies, local, state, tribal governments support one
another with wildfire response, including engagement in collaborative planning and the decision-making
processes that take into account all lands and recognize the interdependence and statutory
responsibilities among jurisdictions.”
CAL FIRE leader’s intent during this study:
CAL FIRE’s 21 Units are only looking for opportunities to optimize their Command Centers within their
existing counties/jurisdictions because of their relationships with the counties. They do not want any
fiscal impact to county or local government. They want to minimize disruption of dispatch services for
1
their cooperative fire agreements.
CAL FIRE also stated that they do not support consolidation into one Geographic Area Coordination
Center for California because of their existing Regional structure with Northern Region (CNR) and
Southern Region (CSR) combined at the existing interagency operations in the Northern and Southern
2
California Geographic Coordination Centers (ONCC and OSCC respectively).
CAL FIRE utilizes local Sheriff Offices or federal dispatchers for LE dispatch services requiring access to
state and federal department of justice records (NCIC) which avoids potential labor, legal, and funding
issues associated with the security requirements for access to state and federal department of justice
records (NCIC) in CAL FIRE Command Centers. This eliminates issues that would arise with employees
3
“cleared” versus “not cleared” to access state and federal department of justice records (NCIC).
1
Appendix A CAL FIRE Agreements Overview
Appendix B CAL FIRE Command and Control 8101
3
CAL FIRE does not require their employees to have Federal and State background checks as condition of hire and
they may not meet the clearances required by State Department of Justice (DOJ) to be in the room where the
California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
terminals are located.
2
1
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
California’s Coordination System: A Brief Overview
“Fire and people have interacted for millennia in California. The long dry seasons typical of the
Mediterranean climate ensured a prolonged fire season every year. Although fire did visit almost
every landscape in California, it did so with a remarkable variety in frequency, intensity, and efforts.
California has always been and will continue to be a fire environment unmatched in North America
(James K. Agee).”4
The wildland fire agencies within California have the constant challenge of assessing the condition of the
numerous natural resources with an increasing population of approximately 38 million resulting in a
complex wildland urban interface (WUI). The California fire agencies protect roughly 101 million acres.5
The ten year average statewide for 2002-2011 is approximately 8,475 fires and 603,997 acres burned
per year. 6 The number of agencies involved is significant, including the US Forest Service (USFS), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL
FIRE), the California Emergency Management Agency Fire and Rescue Division (CAL EMA), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and various other state and local agencies. Understanding the
roles, responsibilities, and missions of these cooperators adds to the complexity of emergency response
in California. This cooperation and collaboration of the wildland fire agencies meets the intent of the
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. California has the largest wildland fire
organization in the Nation and some of the most complex firefighting conditions.
The California Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement
(CFMA) (http://fsweb.fire.r5.fs.fed.us/coop/docs/08_cfma.pdf) recognizes the Northern and Southern
California Coordination Centers in Redding and Riverside, respectively, as the Geographic Area
Coordination Centers (GACCs) for California under the California Wildfire Coordinating Group (CWCG).
The signatory agencies to CFMA agree to maintain, support, and participate in local Interagency
Command Centers, as appropriate. 7
In order to limit duplication and improve efficiency and effectiveness of response, intermingled lands
“equivalent” to similar lands protected directly by the State or the Federal Agencies have been divided
into practical “Direct Protection Areas” (DPAs) delineated by boundaries regardless of statutory
responsibility. The concept of a functionally integrated fire protection system using the “closest forces
concept,” involving Federal, State and Local government resources, is the most effective method of
delivering fire protection where life, property, and natural resource values are at risk.
Dispatch/Command Center boundaries coincide with the DPAs of their sponsoring agencies rather than
by jurisdictional boundaries.
4
Sugihara, Neil G. (et al), 2006, Fire in California’s Ecosystems, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California.
5
Direct Protection Areas Data Analysis (Version 0.2); USFS GIS Specialist, Lorri Peltz-Lewis; October 20, 2011.
6
As reported through the Interagency Management Situation Report which may not be inclusive of fires and acres
for all ownerships.
7
Note: The CFMA does not include the NPS All Hazard (non-fire) Centers or the US Park Police Center.
2
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
CAL FIRE and CAL EMA have a shared Center in Sacramento, CA. CAL FIRE Sacramento Headquarters is
mostly responsible for coordination of Mission Tasking from CAL EMA; the Fire Management Assistance
Grant (FMAG) processes between CAL FIRE and CAL EMA; the aircraft tracking between the Regions; and
assignment of Headquarters and Academy resources. CAL EMA coordinates their own resources; the
mobilization of local government resources through the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA);
California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, (Master Mutual Aid Agreement) and
deals with out of state requests for fire and rescue resources through agreements with the Federal
wildland agencies and adjacent state agreements to include the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC) process. The California Fire Rescue Mutual Aid System divides the state into 6 Regions,
and 64 Operational Areas. The California Fire Rescue Mutual Aid System regional boundaries do not
match the geographic area boundaries. This is a separate dispatch layer in the Resource Ordering Status
System (ROSS) known as the California Fire Rescue Mutual Aid System or the “X-system”. CAL EMA Fire
and Rescue operates an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) which is activated during multiple
emergencies and for Gubernatorial and/or Presidential Declared Disasters.
California’s dispatch and coordination system currently includes 2 Geographic Areas Coordination
Centers (Federal and CAL FIRE), 14 Federal Emergency Communications Centers (ECCs), 14 CAL FIRE
Emergency Command Centers (ECCs), 7 Interagency CAL FIRE/Federal ECCs, 1 US Park Police ECC, 1
Tribal ECC, and 6 Contract Counties (as illustrated in Figure 1).8 The California Executive Oversight Group
excluded the Contract Counties for the purpose of this project. The estimated annual cost of the current
dispatch/coordination system gathered in this project is $70,365,084; however this may be a low
estimate due to missing data for annual operating costs from 5 centers. 9
The California dispatch/coordination system is complex and reasonably efficient. However, in changing
times, with rapidly changing technologies, and declining budgets, it is prudent to take a fresh look at the
current system and potentially “retool” our dispatching system for the next generation. The
dispatch/coordination system requires that staffing, infrastructure, and equipment in the future is
reliable, adaptable, and sustainable in achieving our stakeholders’ missions. Cost is a concern of all
agencies. A mindful approach and a commitment to resilience are necessary in developing a long term
strategy toward improving efficiency and effectiveness of the dispatch/coordination system.
8
The Federal Sierra Interagency ECC (SICC) and the CAL FIRE Fresno Kings ECC (FKCC) are collocated in Fresno, CA.
This makes a total of 8 CAL FIRE/Federal shared dispatch facilities in California.
9
CAL FIRE reported zero for operating costs for ONCC, OSCC, Sacramento HQ/CAL EMA, Visalia ECC and Red Bluff
ECC. Personnel costs were the only reported costs for these centers. The smaller NPS Parks or Monuments that
receive services by agreement or in partnership with another agency were not included in this study.
3
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
10
Figure 1 California Dispatch Centers/GACC Boundaries and DPA by Agency
10
This is the first geographic information system (GIS) attempt to display statewide Dispatch Boundaries using
response areas from the various Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems. Admittedly, there may be errors that
can be identified and improved.
4
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Geographic Area Coordination Centers Alternatives
GACC Alternative 1 - Maintain Current GACC Locations in California
The California Executive Oversight Group has an alternative to maintain the current configuration of
ONCC, OSCC and CAL FIRE HQ and CAL EMA in their current locations (Redding, Riverside, and
Sacramento respectively).
California is divided into two geographic areas. The Northern geographic area includes 10 National
Forests from the Eldorado north, 6 National Parks and Monuments, 1 BLM District, 2 FWS Refuges, the
Hoopa Valley Tribe, and 11 CAL FIRE Units. The Southern geographic area includes 8 National Forests
from the Stanislaus south, 7 National Parks and Monuments, 2 FWS Refuges, 2 BLM Districts and 10 CAL
FIRE Units.
Table 1 Direct Protection Areas per GACC
11
DPA_GROUP
NORTH GACC
FEDERAL
LOCAL
STATE
Polygons
Sum of Acres
1013
15,239,491
2387
5,952,042
453
16,580,677
DPA_GROUP
SOUTH GACC
FEDERAL
LOCAL
STATE
Polygons
Sum of Acres
2718
32,875,112
6102
15,204,941
3088
14,192,454
Table 2 ONCC, OSCC and CAL FIRE SAC HQ/CAL EMA annual costs
Center Name
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
Annual
Personnel
Costs
$5,466,140
Fed/State $2,594,531
Federal
$1,648,493
State
$946,038
State
$465,390
Fed/State $2,406,219
Federal
$1,705,017
State
$701,202
Type of
Agency
Annual Other Annual
Lease
Operating
Costs
Costs
$0
$345,000
$0
$300,000
$0
$300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$0
$45,000
$0
$0
Total
$5,811,140
$2,894,531
$1,948,493
$946,038
$465,390
$2,451,219
$1,750,017
$701,202
The facilities for ONCC; OSCC; and CAL FIRE SAC HQ /CAL EMA are government or state owned. There is
a reciprocal agreement for ONCC and OSCC with no lease costs for either agency. The Forest Service
11
Forest Service lands per GACC: ONCC has 11,294,396 acres and OSCC has 8,846,237 acres (USFS GIS Specialist,
Lorri Peltz-Lewis).
5
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
owns the facilities for ONCC and CAL FIRE owns the facilities for OSCC. Operating costs are off set for
the agencies. The operational costs for CAL FIRE CNR and CSR at the GACCs, and CAL FIRE SAC HQ/CAL
EMA centers were not reported; therefore the estimated total annual cost of $5,811,140 for the
combination of these centers should be higher.
The Federal annual personnel costs are higher due to inclusion of 2 Assistant Director positions, 2
Department of Interior (DOI) Coordinator positions, 4 Intelligence positions, 7 Meteorologists positions,
and 1 NFDRS/WIMS/RAWS position. CAL FIRE did not include the leadership positions above the ECC
Division Chief. CAL FIRE seasonally assigns personnel to staff the Intelligence function. CAL FIRE by
agreement reimburses the Forest Service for the equivalent of 2 Meteorologists.12 The DOI agencies
employ a Meteorologist at ONCC.
Table 3 GACC Functions and Services
GACC Functions and Services
ONCC
OSCC
Aviation Coordination
Command/Coordination
Initial Attack Aviation Support
Intelligence
Aviation Coordination
Command/Coordination
Initial Attack Aviation Support
Intelligence
Predictive Services
MAC Group Activities
Operations
FIRESCOPE Membership
Administrative Support
Federal National Cache
Oversight
FMAG Federal
Principal Advisor
Federal Smokejumper
Oversight
Federal Mobilization Center
Predictive Services
MAC Group Activities
Operations
FIRESCOPE Membership
Administrative Support
Federal National Cache
Oversight
FMAG Federal
Principal Advisor
The geographic coordination centers in California have multiple different functions and services to the
field, but there are some clear distinctions from other GACCs that should be highlighted as best
practices: direct radio communications to the local ECCs and Air Attack Bases for control of initial attack
aviation resources; operations and coordination are combined; Multi-agency Coordination (MAC)
12
CWCG requested a review of the Predictive Services programs in California in 2007. Appendix C: An Evaluation
of: California’s Predictive Services Organization (March 26, 2008) recommended to keep the California Predictive
Service Unit Offices staffed to their current level and at their existing locations. This report led to the CAL FIRE
agreement to fiscally support 2 Meteorologists. The Sub-Team felt that because of this recent study, we did not
need to collect and evaluate the workload for Predictive Service Units.
6
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Groups at the GACCs; Training Officers at each GACC, and direct oversight of National Interagency
Support Caches.
The GACCs in California have direct intercom radio communications with all of the ECCs and
most of the Air Attack Bases. This direct communication allows for the support of initial attack
aviation resources (lead planes, air attacks, helicopters and airtankers) and their prioritization.
This capability allows the GACCs to divert resources in a timely manner to initial attack or higher
risk emerging incidents. Only ONCC, OSCC, and the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center
have this capability. The GACCs are also able to prioritize aviation assets for large fire support
while maintaining initial attack capability. This Command and Control of aviation assets is
efficient and effective.
The CAL FIRE command and control structure at the CAL FIRE Regions combined with the
Federal Duty Chiefs at the GACCS participate in the Northern California (NorCal) MAC and
Southern California (SoCal) MAC operations in each geographic area. These MAC Groups are
unique in that they combine operational and coordination perspective to priority setting and
resource allocation. Operations being in close proximity to the field provide advice and counsel,
oversight, resource availability, and regional strategy.
Each MACS operation utilizes their Intelligence function as support. This system allows joint
operational conference calls with Incident Commanders, Agency Administrators, and ECCs to set
priorities for each operational period and discuss resource availability and priority, safety issues,
aviation priorities, logistical issues, incident business management issues, etc. FIRESCOPE is the
oversight group in California that authors the MACS Group Procedures Guide MACS 410-1
(http://www.firescope.org/macs-docs/MACS-410-1.pdf). FIRESCOPE (FIrefighting RESources of
California Organized for Potential Emergencies) is an organization that represents all facets of
local, rural, and metropolitan fire departments, CAL FIRE, and the federal fire agencies in
California, again meeting the collaborative intent of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
Strategy. The NorCAL MAC group membership consists of federal, state and CalEMA
representatives. The SoCal MAC group membership is the same plus the large contract counties
in southern California handling highly political situations. Combining the operation and
coordination functions at the GACCs has been a successful model because they convene on a
daily basis at the predictive services briefings and can quickly go into to MAC priority setting.
The California Multi-agency Coordination (CalMAC) group is the overriding decision making MAC
organization for California. CalMAC only convenes when ONCC and OSCC are in competition
for resources at higher statewide Preparedness Levels (PLs) of PL 4 and PL 5.13
Training Officers at each GACC are able to work directly with Incident Management Teams
(IMTs) to facilitate priority training assignments and training package expectations.
Direct oversight of the Northern California National Interagency Support Cache (NCK) and the
Southern California National Interagency Support Cache (LSK) allows the priority setting for
equipment and supplies when there is competition between multiple incidents. Incidents order
directly to the Caches in California.
13
CalMAC convened during the 1999 and 2008 fire sieges. In 2008, CalMAC convened for approximately 45 days.
7
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 4 California 10 Year Average Fires and Acres (2002-2011)
Fires 10 year average
Acres 10 year average
ONCC
OSCC
4,005
207,849
4,470
396,148
14
ONCC/OSCC Combined
8,475
603,997
Advantages: The 2 GACCs and 2 MAC groups balance resource allocation and prioritization throughout
the state. Workload is relatively distributed between the GACCs for the peak fire season illustrated in
Tables 7 and 8. CAL FIRE supports this GACC Alternative of maintaining the 2 GACCs for California due to
current infrastructure and business practices in place. Coordination and Operations are centrally
located. The GACCs and Predictive Services provide outstanding service to the field units. Local
knowledge of area is important to the quality of service. The Operations personnel are close to the field
units for oversight. There is redundancy of the GACCs in case of disaster.15 In 2011, ONCC had the radios
replaced; upgraded electrical; replaced flooring, HVAC systems, cabling, Uninterrupted Power Source
(UPS), ergonomic furniture; expanded Intelligence area, etc. The interagency project cost approximately
$1,635,000. OSCC had a radio remodel completed in 2008 by CAL FIRE. There are no Transfer of Station
Costs or lease costs with this alternative.
Disadvantages: The annual operating costs in support of two GACCs. In some instances, the GACCs
have slightly different operating procedures. The agencies have to combine information from the 2
GACCs and coordinate with 2 staffs. CalMAC does not have a permanent support staff when they
convene, but is virtually supported by the GACCs, as well as, on-site support. The CAL FIRE compound
where OSCC resides has been encroached by a freeway overpass. OSCC is currently working on
interagency plans to move to March Air Reserve Base.16
GACC Alternative 2 – One Geographic Area Coordination Center for California
Combine ONCC, OSCC, and CAL FIRE SAC HQ/CAL EMA into one Geographic Area Coordination Center
location to be determined.17 Management might expect that combining two GACCs would lead to a
reduction in staffing costs and facilities; however previous reviews and studies have not confirmed this
either way. Most consolidations increase the footprint of the facilities and combine the staffing.18 The
14
As reported through the Interagency Management Situation Report which may not be inclusive of fires and acres
for all ownerships.
15
ROSS has the capability of either GACC picking up the workload for the other GACC. The GACCs and CAL FIRE
SAC HQ ECC have the following intercom redundancies: ONCC has Redding ECC as backup; OSCC has San
Bernardino ECC as backup; CAL FIRE SAC ECC/CAL EMA with Grass Valley ECC as backup; and there is capability of
easily patching the 5 intercoms together so that every ECC and Air Attack Base can hear all the intercoms.
16
The land has been purchased and the building plans are complete. The agencies continue to work through the
fiscal, property, and other issues. Estimated costs for the new OSCC are not known to the Sub-Team.
17
The 2008 Dispatch Management Efficiency Analysis (MEA) that only analyzed the federal wildland fire dispatch
centers and GACCs suggested combining ONCC, OSCC, and the Western Great Basin Coordination Center (WGBCC).
A GACC study is currently being conducted in the Great Basin. WGBCC was outside the scope of this project.
18
Findings from the Sub-Team’s research of prior dispatch consolidations nationally.
8
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
real savings is in more effective and efficient mobilization of resources. 19 The workload may reduce
slightly; maybe less than 5 percent because of eliminating one GACC in the statewide resource ordering
process. Without a Workload Analysis and Staffing tool for the GACCs it is difficult to provide estimates
on staffing and square footage. Further analysis would be needed for this; or just assume combination
of the staffs minus a few leadership positions and double the footprint of the facilities.20 Staffing levels
need to be adequate for the June through November season as illustrated in Tables 7 and 8. In the 2008
Dispatch MEA (Table 5) ONCC and OSCC represented approximately 35% of total resource orders
processed nationally. Table 6 shows California has average of 43% of national ROSS requests for 20062011. A combined ONCC and OSCC would have three times or more the average workload (resource
orders processed) of the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC). The NICC has 26 personnel
for covering coordination and predictive services. ONCC has 24 and OSCC has 23 permanent personnel
for covering coordination and predictive services.
Table 5 The NICC and GACCs Workload by Number of Resource Orders Processed (3 year average 2008 Dispatch MEA)
Table 6 California's Percentage of National ROSS Requests 2006-2011
Year
Total National
ROSS Requests
Total California
ROSS Requests
%
California
2006
2007
508,268
527,000
205,980
232,342
40.5%
44.1%
2008
2009
2010
479,343
406,755
364,685
269,432
208,191
147,767
56.2%
51.2%
40.5%
2011
Total
510,356
2,796,407
145,539
1,209,251
28.5%
43.2%
19
CAL FIRE disagrees with this statement.
The 2008 Dispatch MEA stated that the first priority was a Workload Analysis and Staffing Tool. It also
emphasized the need to fix the “stove pipe” programs where dispatchers have to enter the same information into
multiple different Federal programs. DOI started the IrWin Project to move toward an integrated buss server
system that will result in a “type once read often” concept. The recommendation from the MEA was to further
evaluate optimization of dispatch centers after the technological solutions to reduce the workload are in place.
20
9
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Advantages: One GACC would have standard operating procedures; one Intelligence section for
information; one Predictive Services Unit providing services statewide; coordination and resource
movement would be uniform; initial attack aviation resources would be coordinated from one source;
and the ordering process would be streamlined unit to GACC to unit. There is potential to “retool” the
predictive services staff with GIS expertise, Fire Behavior Analysis, Wildland Fire Decision Support
System (WFDSS) expertise, Data Analysts, and or Computer Support. The National Interagency
Coordination Center would only need to deal with one GACC in California. FIRESCOPE could change the
MACS Group Procedures Guide MACS 410-1 guide to dissolve NorCal MAC and SoCal MAC, and
designate CalMAC as the only priority setting and resource allocation body for California.21 CalMAC
would have the support staff if Sacramento (or central location) was chosen as a GACC location.
Equipment and supplies priority setting could still be done virtually.22 The Training Officers could remain
at current locations and perform coordination with IMTs as previously mentioned.
Disadvantages: There are significant disadvantages associated with moving to one GACC. Taken
cumulatively, the current costs are justified in light of the efficiencies and cooperation that would be lost
if the GACCs were combined. 1) The current redundancy provided for between the two centers would
be lost; this is problematic in a state as large as California, where addressing Continuity of Operations
with one GACC over such a large geographic area introduces increased and potentially unworkable
complexity. 2) This alternative violates the core value placed on interagency partnerships by the
California Executive Oversight Group and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy,
since a critical partner, CAL FIRE, cannot support this option due to their current infrastructure and
business practices in place, as stated in CAL FIRE’s Leaders Intent. There is potential this would be a
Federal only GACC if CAL FIRE chooses not to participate, which would in turn negate many of the
advantages listed above. The current cooperation between agencies would likely suffer. 3) The unique
combination of coordination and operations that currently exists could be impacted if GACCs were
combined and the operational Duty Chiefs for the agencies remained in their current locations. They
would not have the staff to support NorCal MAC or SoCal MAC operations and these would have to be
supported virtually. Intelligence and Predictive Services functions would be supported virtually for
priority setting. If CalMAC were the only MAC Group, then they would be convened on a normal basis
impacting their normal duties. Neither of the current GACC locations are suitable for CalMAC
operations. 4) Efficiencies currently being realized from the location of the Northern California GACC
would be lost if the GACCs were combined and Northern California employees relocated: the
administrative staff for the Forest Service would need to remain at Redding to support the other
functions on the compound; the Redding Mobilization Center responsibilities would need to be shifted
to the Shasta Trinity National Forest (this alternative would meet the Federal Permanent Change of
21
Having a single MAC Group is the model practiced by the rest of the geographic areas across the nation, however
this could be a highly political decision based on the MAC Group participants in Southern California.
22
The movement of the National Interagency Support Caches was not evaluated in this project.
10
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Station (PCS) requirement of more than 50 miles23 and incur Transfer of Station (TOS) costs using a
Forest Service average of $92,00024 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
Table 7 5-Year Average of Resource Orders for ONCC, OSCC, and the combined workload
Table 8 5-Year Average of Number of Incidents in ROSS by Month for the California GACCs
23
PCS addressed in Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 C.F.R. Chapters 300-304).
Albuquerque Service Center provided a 3 year average for California Transfer of Station (TOS) plus the
Relocation Services Program (RSP).
24
11
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Any selection of a single GACC location in California should consider a Natural Hazard Disclosure
Statement (NHD) for six disaster zones: flood hazard zone, dam inundation area, very high fire hazard
severity zone, wildland fire area, earthquake fault zone and seismic hazard zone.
Options of current GACC locations:
Redding: A new facility would be needed. The current facility would not be able to
accommodate additional workload and personnel. Infrastructure would need to be assessed
for merging of federal and state telecom requirements. The radio replacement/remodel 2011
was $1,635,000 to complete.
Riverside: If relocating to March Air Reserve Base, the facility could be large enough to
accommodate the increased workload and personnel. Infrastructure would need to be assessed
for merging federal and state telecom requirements. Radio replacement/remodel was
completed by CAL FIRE in 2008.
Sacramento: If relocating to Sacramento, a facility and location would need to be determined.
Infrastructure would need to be assessed to accommodate both Federal and State telecom
requirements. The CAL FIRE SAC HQ/CAL EMA office is too small in existing facilities needing
additional space for the current staff of 4. There might be opportunities for other partners such
as FEMA /DHS, etc. Sacramento is in close proximity to most of the agencies’ headquarters.
Alternate location to be determined.
Recommendation:
Given the following the Sub-Team’s recommendation is to keep the current
configuration of two GACCs in California GACC Alternative 1. The two GACCs provide support to roughly
101 million acres of federal, state, and local government responsibility lands with a population of
approximately 38 million resulting in a complex wildland urban interface environment. The GACCs
support not only wildland fire (10 year average of approximately 8,500 fires and 604,000 acres) but
various all-hazard responses in a disaster prone state. The current redundancy provided for between
the two centers is a necessity for a state as large and complex as California for Continuity of Operations.
No other GACC could assume coordination responsibilities in California because of business practices
and relationships with state, emergency management, and local government in California. This
redundancy also distributes the workload between two GACCs; both being more than equivalent to the
NICC in resource orders processed. The current configuration supports interagency partnerships; a core
value of the California IDOPP Executive Oversight Group and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
Management Strategy. The unique combination of coordination and operations that currently exists at
the GACCs supports the NorCal MAC or SoCal MAC groups; where Federal, State, CalEMA, and local
government share responsibility for prioritization of incidents and allocation of resources. This best
practice has evolved over time and is sanctioned by FIRESCOPE. Two GACCs also supports CAL FIRE’s
Northern and Southern Regions being combined with federal partners at each facility. The costs of the
GACCs are justified in light of the efficiencies, best practices, cooperation, and reciprocal facilities
agreement of the current configuration.
12
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Dispatch Centers Alternatives
Dispatch Centers Current Situation
The California Executive Oversight Group has the alternative to maintain the current configuration of the
37 Emergency Communications/Command Centers in their present locations. The total annual cost
estimate for the local ECCs in California is $63,767,211.25 The Center costs ranged from Perris ECC at
$12,601,554 to Whiskeytown NRA ECC at $321,797. This estimate does not include any long term costs
of maintaining the communication systems, upgrades in equipment, technologies, and facilities (for
agency owned facilities). California has numerous ECCs within a 50 mile range of one another.
Table 9 Average Center and FTE Cost
Type of Center
Single Agency: Federal
Interagency: Federal
Average Cost per
Average Cost per Center
FTE
$
962,622 $
118,477
$
1,058,722 $
122,785
Type of Center
Single Agency: State
Interagency: State
Average Cost per
Average Cost per Center
FTE
$
2,427,188 $
173,371
$
1,635,191 $
145,350
Type of Center
Single Agency: Federal, State &
Tribal
Interagency: Federal, State, &
Tribal
Average Cost per
Average Cost per Center
FTE
$
1,867,617 $
163,929
$
1,710,026 $
132,195
CAL FIRE for example has a statewide plan and budget for radio replacement and cabling
upgrades (inclusive of 8 State/Federal ECCs). The plan includes all the CAL FIRE ECCs, the 2
GACCs, Ione Academy, and CAL FIRE SAC HQ/CAL EMA. They were on about a 10 year
replacement cycle; but with budget shortfall may be looking at a 15-20 year cycle. CAL FIRE has
a Project Manager that oversees the radio replacement and remodels. They have standards for
their radios, telephonic systems, cabling, etc.
The USFS Chief Information Office (CIO) works with the California ECC Center Managers to
establish a priority list for the remaining 8 FS ECCs. Their current funding was moving toward
more of the 15 year replacement cycle. The CIO only pays for a certain portion of the
replacement; the rest of the costs are the responsibility of the local unit. The CIO does not
25
This may be a low estimate because Visalia ECC and Red Bluff ECC reported no operating costs, only personnel
costs. This figure does not include the smaller National Parks where they may only have minimal dispatching
capabilities or get dispatching services through other centers: Lava Beds NP, Point Reyes NP, and Redwood NP.
For the smaller Parks it gets very confusing because fire may be dispatched by one center and LE is dispatched by
another.
13
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
provide a Project Manager for a holistic approach to the ECCs multifaceted technology needs
leaving the Center Manger to coordinate the project.
These ECCs are scheduled for radio replacement in the next 5 years: Fortuna ECC, Redding ECC, and
Monterey ECC in 2012; Grass Valley ECC in 2013/14; Fresno ECC in 2015; Susanville in 2015/16 as
reported by CAL FIRE. The radio replacement plans for the next couple of years are Redding ECC,
Fortuna ECC, and Yreka ECC as reported by USFS CIO.
Table 10 State Average Costs Single Agency and Interagency
26
Table 11 Federal Average Costs Single Agency and Interagency
26
The State Single Agency includes a statistical outlier. Perris ECC reported operating costs of $12,601,554 and 42
FTEs.
14
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Two other dispatch center studies are going on in Northwest Geographic Area and in Nevada
concurrently with IDOPP. Both studies are anticipating increased efficiencies, but because the workload
dictates the staffing numbers and footprint of the facility, only long term cost savings realization. The
Southwest IDOPP pilot project is looking at seasonal employees as staffing solutions for peak season.
“The Dispatcher’s job reflects the growing complexities faced by Land Management Agencies and the
wildland fire and other incidents to which they respond. Concern for employee safety, critical fire and
all hazard incidents, and the increasing engagement of law enforcement issues in wildland dispatch
offices all create a demand for skills and services that were not required in the past. At the same time,
decreasing budgets and employee attrition has forced the Wildland Agencies into closer cooperation
and management. Dispatch Centers, including Interagency Centers, are under the same budget and
staffing pressures as the Wildland Agencies who employ them; even as they engage complex incidents
arrayed against a background of diverse and sometimes divergent agency policies.”27 The following
chart illustrates the types of incidents that ECC personnel provide services for.
Table 12 California Dispatch Services Provided by Agency
NPS
FS
BLM
FWS
Tribe/BIA
CAL FIRE
Employee
Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
Administrative
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aviation
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
Wildland
Fire
X
X
X
X
X
X
Structural
Fire
X
s
s
s
X
X
Law
Enforcement
X
X
X
X
X
s
EMS
X
s
s
s
X
X
S&R
X
s
s
s
s
s
Public
Safety
X
X
The 2008 Dispatch MEA reported these items as workload in the Federal Fire ECCs: LE Support, Traffic
Collisions, Downed Aircraft, Medical Aides, Structural Fires, Public Service Assistance, and Search and
Rescue (SAR) support. The “s” signifies a support role for the primary authority.
Previously in the overview the complexity of the California dispatch/coordination system was briefly
explained citing the interagency partners; the agreements of the CFMA and the CFAA (the “X-system”);
and now add in local agreements with fire departments, vendor lists and processes, and all of the other
services listed in Table 12. The complexity of incident support for our ECCs should be defined by the
services they provide and the sheer volume of resources that respond to incidents. It is not unique to
have 300-1200 people on an incident in the first operational period in California. Most IA dispatchers
are monitoring 4-6 computer screens monitoring multiple frequencies and running multiple computer
programs.
27
Interagency Dispatch Coordination in the Pacific NW: A Proposal for Future Organization and Service (May
2012).
28
This chart was validated from the IDOPP Data Call data for all agencies.
15
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Dispatch Centers Basic Principles and Consolidation Criteria
The Sub-Team reviewed the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) Key
Findings and Effective Practices for Public Safety Consolidation October 2010
(http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/csric/CSRIC-1A-Report.pdf) and recommended that these best practices
are adopted as the basic principles for consolidation of dispatch centers or services.
 A trusted and secure governance structure is established and a champion of the consolidation is
identified for leadership.
 All involved agencies and stakeholders need to buy in and support the process.
 Legislation may be necessary to create opportunities for sustainable funding.
 Formalize all agreements, operating and communication plans so that they are transparent for
all stakeholders.
Each consolidation alternative developed was evaluated by the following criteria.
1. Agency mission and needs.
2. Partnerships and proximity.
3. Improve efficiencies dispatch system through consolidation of dispatch centers and governance
structure.
4. Maintain jurisdictional boundaries for the majority of partners where possible.
5. Opportunities for combining dispatch services over the same geographical area.
6. Evaluate dispatch centers workload and complexity as: low, moderate and high volume centers.
Workload and complexity were combined and known as complexity throughout this document.
7. Look for opportunities to combine low to moderate complexity centers into high complexity.
Dispatch centers to maximize personnel and infrastructure.
8. Distribute workload equitably throughout the dispatch system through optimization.
9. Analyze all Tier 2, 3 and 4 dispatch centers in California for opportunities to increase
effectiveness of the dispatch coordination system.
10. Identify politically sensitive areas where one dispatch center may improve the efficient use of
resources through one governance structure.
11. Consider previous capital investments in dispatch center facilities and communication
infrastructure.
12. Consider opportunities/limitations based on capital investment needs – cost, personnel,
facilities, radios, etc.
13. Develop a long range plan for future centers as technology advances.
The California Executive Oversight Group endorsed the above principles and criteria in January 2012.
16
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Dispatch Center Complexity Methodology
There are a multitude factors that can describe the complexity of a dispatch center based on the types
of services provided, their partnerships and missions, and their customers. For the purposes of this
project the Complexity of a center was compressed down into only a few key factors in order to
compare all 37 centers in California. The Data Call provided values for number of Resources Managed,
number of Initial Attack Resources Dispatched, number of Cooperative Agreements, number of Agencies
providing dispatch services to, number of Prescribed Fires, number of Days in Expanded Operations,
number of Incident Management Teams supported, number of Agencies providing LE services to,
number of consoles, and Hours of Operation. The data reflected a wide range of discrepancies and
inconsistencies where there were no systems of record with standard operating procedures common to
all centers. What is captured in a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system can vary widely from agency
to agency, and from center to center.
After the appropriate complexity factors were selected by the Sub-Team, the next step was to translate
the factors into a single complexity value or score for each center by calculating the average normalized
score for California centers. The benefit of the average normalized score methodology is that it
incorporates the actual volumes of workload.
The average normalized score for each center was developed as follows:
For each center, the center’s workload quantity for each complexity factor was divided by the
mean for all centers (this is the center’s "normalized score" for each complexity factor).
The normalized scores for each of the factors were then averaged to calculate the average
normalized score for each center. The approach assumed that each complexity factor is equally
weighted.
Based on this method, an average normalized score of 1.0 is exactly average, with scores less than 1.0
being below average and scores greater than 1.0 being above average. For IDOPP classification
purposes: a high complexity center has an average normalized score greater than or equal to 1.25, with
a moderate complexity center having a score of 0.75 up to but not including 1.25 (Table 13Error!
Reference source not found.), and a low complexity center having a score of less than or equal to 0.75
(Table 14). Of the 37 centers included in this study, there were 11 High Complexity Centers, 10
Moderate Complexity Centers, and 16 Low Complexity Centers.
17
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 13 High and Moderate Complexity Centers
Center Name
Perris ECC
Golden Gate National
Recreation Area
Center Type of
Identifier Agency
CA-RRCC
State
CA-GNP
Federal
Federal Interagency
Communications Center CA-SBCC
Federal
Yosemite ECC
CA-YPCC
Federal
Fresno Kings ECC
Redding Interagency
ECC
Grass Valley
Interagency ECC
Camino Interagency
ECC
CA-FKCC
State
Central California ECC
CA-RICC Fed/State
CA-GVCC Fed/State
CA-CICC Fed/State
CA-CCCC
Federal
Los Padres ECC
CA-LPCC Federal
Monte Vista Interagency
ECC
CA-MVIC Fed/State
Susanville Interagency
ECC
CA-SIFC Fed/State
Mariposa ECC
CA-MMU
State
St. Helena ECC
CA-LNCC
State
San Andreas ECC
Fortuna Interagency
ECC
CA-TCCC
State
Yreka Interagency ECC
CA-YICC Fed/State
CA-FICC Fed/State
Butte ECC/Oroville ECC CA-BTCC
State
Angeles ECC
CA-ANCC
Federal
Morgan Hill ECC
CA-SCCC
State
San Bernardino ECC
CA-BDCC
State
Type of
Center
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
FTE per
Center
IDOPP
ROSS
Fires
Resources
A-C & Dispatched
D+ (5 Yr Out (5 Yr
Avg)
Avg)
Complexity Factors
ROSS
Incoming
Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
41
820
6,260
6,795
14
17
10
21
766
10
# of Non# of LE Fire/Non-LE Average
Incidents Incidents (5 Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Yr Avg)
Score
-
99,080
3.75
-
29,439
3,463
2.13
2,896
4,796
12,524
2,859
2.01
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77
13
437
1,664
1,983
13,870
10,958
1.77
14
451
4,371
8,620
1,605
14,181
1.72
25
660
4,082
4,836
1,408
22,245
1.72
24
570
3,664
3,648
1,404
28,919
1.69
9
492
6,765
6,679
2,707
598
1.61
7
50
4,641
9,464
3,954
3,906
1.50
26
437
4,373
5,720
1,606
12,283
1.47
9
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
15
730
1,287
2,702
47
15,334
1.10
11
445
4,141
4,051
5,650
1.07
7
349
4,135
3,369
92
10,193
1.07
14
259
2,916
4,232
1,255
7,020
0.97
14
244
3,006
5,580
66
5,214
0.95
14
340
1,740
3,294
-
13,692
0.91
11
227
2,863
4,327
1,832
1,634
0.88
8
339
2,105
4,820
60
4,262
0.85
8
274
2,019
2,529
12,943
0.82
-
-
18
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 14 Low Complexity Centers
Center Name
Center Type of
Identifier Agency
Type of
Center
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Collocated
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
San Luis Obispo ECC
CA-SLCC
State
Howard Forest ECC
CA-MECC
State
Red Bluff ECC
CA-TGCC
State
Monterey ECC
CA-BECC
State
Sierra Interagency ECC
CA-SICC
Federal
Visalia ECC
CA-TUCC
State
Plumas ECC
CA-PNFC
Federal
Felton ECC
Mendocino Interagency
ECC
CA-CZCC
State
CA-MNFC
Federal
Hoopa Dispatch
CA-HIAC
Tribal
Stanislaus ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta
Trinity National
Recreation Area
Owens Valley
Interagency ECC
CA-STCC
Federal
CA-WNP
Federal
CA-OVCC
Federal
Modoc Interagency ECC CA-MICC
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Integrated
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash
Mountain ECC
CA-SQCC
Federal
Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park
Federal
HI-HAVO
FTE per
Center
IDOPP
ROSS
Fires
Resources
A-C & Dispatched
D+ (5 Yr Out (5 Yr
Avg)
Avg)
Complexity Factors
ROSS
Incoming
Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
# of Non# of LE Fire/Non-LE Average
Incidents Incidents (5 Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Yr Avg)
Score
10
203
2,345
2,089
83
7,723
0.67
10
185
1,877
2,138
405
7,732
0.64
8
192
2,375
1,520
7
7,794
0.62
9
190
2,753
2,185
44
3,850
0.62
9
172
2,629
1,886
1,331
867
0.60
6
260
1,593
1,696
27
3,661
0.51
7
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50
11
165
705
1,473
24
9,947
0.49
7
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40
1
248
91
319
2,498
1,053
0.38
6
66
1,231
1,002
1,962
736
0.38
2
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34
8
72
779
1,224
680
150
0.25
7
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24
Single
Agency
8
69
486
544
823
987
0.21
Single
Agency
6
16
81
73
184
80
0.04
In Tables 13 and 14 the column for FTE per Center excludes seasonal and temporary employees.
Seasonal and temporary employees were included in the Center Manager Data Call responses and in the
Draft CA IDOPP Report, however the IDOPP Bridge Team decided to only include full-time permanents
and part-time permanents in both the as-is and alternatives.
19
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Figure 2 CA Dispatch Areas Displayed by Complexity
Dispatch Centers Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Center Locations
20
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
The first alternative would be to not consolidate any operational centers in the California region, leaving
each center in its current location. Although the number and location of centers would remain
unchanged, this alternative would not continue business as usual. The centers would standardize
training, procedures, equipment, and systems to help increase the efficiency of the dispatch operations
within the region through the implementation of recommendations.
Advantages: Least amount of disruption to dispatch personnel and dispatch operations.
Disadvantages: Standardization will be more difficult when centers remain unchanged. This does not
leverage economies of scale nor support the goal for reduction in the federal government’s facility
footprint. This alternative leaves 16 low complexity centers in California, as well as centers within close
proximity to one another.
Dispatch Centers Alternative 2 – Opportunities for Primarily Low Complexity
Centers
This project gathered as much information as possible to tell the story of the current
dispatch/coordination system in California, but by no means is it all inclusive. This report has the
potential to be a blueprint for the next 10 years or longer for opportunities to consolidate ECCs. Of
course any of the Options laid out in this report will need supportive management and willing partners.
Each Option should be evaluated for the cost and efficiencies to be gained by sharing infrastructure,
staffing, and facilities. This can be the opportunity to “retool” our dispatch centers for the future. For
instance, with larger staffs ECCs may implement an Intelligence position or provide 24/7 services to LE.
The Sub-Team decided to only address the centers with Low Complexity determined by the Average
Normalized Score. Any consolidations need to be monitored for their successes and challenges as
lessons learned. The agencies should prioritize target opportunities for future investment.
Advantages:
This Alternative has the opportunity to address 12 of the 16 Low Complexity centers. The other
3 Low Complexity centers are CAL FIRE not in proximity to other Federal centers. 1 Low
Complexity center is already collated with CAL FIRE.
Opportunity to increase efficiency in emergency response.
Combining with existing center facilities would mean minimal capital outlay.
Take advantage of current plans to upgrade infrastructure and facilities.
Proposing neighboring consolidation of centers should have minimal impact to business
practices given local annual operating plans (AOPs).
If the consolidated center was within two hour drive time for management.
Some options do not meet the Transfer of Station (TOS) requirements.
There is potential to retool staff to provide 24/7 coverage in support of LE and/or other
functions such as intelligence.
CAL FIRE maintains Cooperative Fire Protection agreements.
21
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Disadvantages:
If the consolidated center was greater than a two hour drive time for management.
Any consolidation of dispatch centers will require implementation of Sub-Geographic Area MAC
groups for prioritization and allocation of resources for large incidents.
Reengineering of CADs systems for interagency responses.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) more than 50 miles.29
Given CAL FIRE’s intent statement for their ECC’s during this study, even after Alternative 1
California will have centers that are less than 50 miles apart.
TOS costs using Forest Service estimate of $92,000 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
Complexity of Duty Officer communications and coordination would increase.
There may be minimal salary savings through consolidation because the workload will not be
reduced.
Reduced service to local administrative units and stakeholders.
Not near local vendors and support for large fire support
Lease cost of Centers in combined facilities would shift the lease to the remaining agency lease
holder.
CAL FIRE expressed concern that any consolidation should form true interagency centers. A truly
interagency center would have standardized work hours and mission; such as LE dispatching for the CAL
FIRE side and 24 hour /7 day a week dispatching with EMD for the federal side. Consolidations would
need to benefit all agencies.
Option 1 - Consolidate the Modoc Interagency ECC (Alturas) into one dispatch center at Susanville ECC.
Susanville ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2004. The jurisdictions of the
agencies are within the same geographic area with the CAL FIRE unit. Susanville ECC should be able to
accommodate with 9,000 Sq. Ft. facility. The Sub-Team looked at the other options of Lakeview ECC in
Oregon (53 miles away) which is outside the scope of this study and Yreka ECC (180 miles away).
Advantages: The distance is 104 miles from Alturas to Susanville. There would be minimal
budget outlay for facility upgrades and minimal impact to current business practices. Susanville
ECC is already an agency owned, interagency center.
Disadvantages: Currently the Forest is including the dispatch center (1,800 Sq. Ft.) in their
building plans for a new leased Supervisors Office. Construction is to be completed December
2012. This qualifies for transfer of station costs.
29
PCS addressed in Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 C.F.R. Chapters 300-304).
22
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Center
Type of
Center Name
Identifier Agency
Modoc
Interagency ECC CA-MICC Federal
Susanville
Interagency ECC CA-SIFC Fed/State
Type of
FTE per
Center
Center
Interagency
Integrated
7.0
Interagency
Integrated
9.0
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
16.0
Combined
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
684
4,406
5,536
432
9,805
1.47
Option 2 – Consolidate Plumas National Forest ECC (Quincy) into one dispatch center at the Susanville
ECC. Susanville ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2004. The jurisdictions of
the agencies are within the same geographic area with the CAL FIRE unit. Susanville ECC should be able
to accommodate with 9,000 Sq. Ft. facility. The Sub-Team looked at the other options of Butte ECC in
Oroville (77 miles away) and combining Mendocino ECC (Willows) into a new facility in Chico at the USFS
Tree Farm (87 miles away).
Advantages: The distance is 67 miles from Quincy to Susanville. There would be minimal
budget outlay for facility upgrades. Avoid upgrade of inadequate infrastructure and facilities at
Plumas ECC. There would be minimal impact to current business practices. Susanville ECC is
already an agency owned, interagency facility.
Disadvantages: This qualifies for transfer of station costs.
Type of
Center
Single
Plumas ECC
CA-PNFC Federal
Agency
Susanville
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-SIFC Fed/State Integrated
Interagency
Combined
Fed/State Integrated
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.0
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50
9.0
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
16.0
689
5,286
7,709
824
9,482
1.73
If both Options 1 and 2 were implemented the Average Normalized Score would be 1.97 approximately
equivalent to the Federal Interagency Communications Center (SBCC).
Type of
Center
Single
Plumas ECC
CA-PNFC Federal
Agency
Modoc
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-MICC Federal Integrated
Susanville
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-SIFC Fed/State Integrated
Interagency
Combined
Fed/State Integrated
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.0
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50
7.0
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24
9.0
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
23.0
800
6,004
9,026
877
9,937
1.97
23
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Option 3 – Consolidate Hoopa (Fire) Dispatch Center with Fortuna Interagency ECC (not sure about LE
because of Tribal jurisdiction). The centers provide support over the same geographic area. This would
be an opportunity to provide service rather than build up the staff at Hoopa ECC. The Sub-Team did look
at the option of retooling Hoopa ECC but the staffing costs would be prohibitive.
Advantages: The distance is 77 miles from Hoopa to Fortuna. There would be minimal budget
outlay for facility upgrades and minimal impact to current business practices. Fortuna ECC is a
state owned facility. The radios and infrastructure are scheduled for partial
replacement/remodel in 2013. Note that the California Sub-Team was unsure about the
consolidation of law enforcement due to tribal jurisdiction.
Disadvantages: Annual fees for providing dispatching services. This qualifies for transfer of
station costs if applicable to Tribal regulations.
Center Name
Hoopa Dispatch
Fortuna
Interagency ECC
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
Single
CA-HIAC
Tribal
Agency
Interagency
CA-FICC Fed/State Collocated
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
1.0
248
91
319
2,498
1,053
0.38
14.0
259
2,916
4,232
1,255
7,020
0.97
15.0
507
3,007
4,551
3,753
8,073
1.35
Option 4 - Combine the Whiskeytown NRA Center (Whiskeytown) with Shasta-Trinity National Forest
and CAL FIRE Shasta-Trinity Unit at the Redding ECC (Redding). The current dispatch center
encompasses the same geographic area. Currently CAL FIRE Shasta Unit provides Initial Attack response
and Shasta-Trinity NF provides logistical support for large fires by agreement. Plans to replace radios and
remodel infrastructure to the existing facility are for 2012-13.
Advantages: The distance between Whiskey town ECC and Redding ECC is 10 miles. The
current facility has plans to upgrade infrastructure and equipment but is limited on space.
Minimal impact to current business practices. There is potential to retool staff to provide 24/7
coverage.
Disadvantages: There would be a need for a larger facility to accommodate the additional
personnel and workload. Infrastructure would need to be assessed for interagency expansion.
Redding ECC is a state owned facility which might lead to lease costs. Whiskey town NRA Center
is currently in a park facility with no lease costs.
24
California IDOP Project Final Report
Center
Type of
Center Name
Identifier Agency
WhiskeytownShasta Trinity
National
Recreation Area
CA-WNP Federal
Redding
Interagency ECC CA-RICC Fed/State
Combined
Type of
Center
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
9/14/2012
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
2.0
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34
14.0
451
4,371
8,620
1,605
14,181
1.72
16.0
485
4,513
8,738
5,566
15,071
2.06
Option 5 – Consolidate the Mendocino Interagency (Willows) with the Red Bluff ECC (TGU). Red Bluff
ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2002. All the centers provide for support
over the same geographic area. This would be an opportunity to combine centers to better provide
service to the field going resources. Mendocino currently has a lease cost of $40,000 in the Forest
Supervisor’s Office. The Sub-Team did consider other options of combining Mendocino ECC with
Redding ECC (78 miles away), with Plumas ECC (Quincy) into a new facility in Chico at the USFS Chico
Genetic Resource Conservation Center (GRCC) or the Tree Farm (33 miles away), or with Howard Forest
ECC (Willits) (136 miles away).
Advantages: The distance is 47 miles from Willows to Red Bluff. The facility has been recently
upgraded. The facility would need to be evaluated in order to accommodate staff and
equipment.
Disadvantages: Change in business practices to become interagency. Lease costs for state
facility. The facility would need to be evaluated in order to accommodate staff and equipment.
This does not qualify for transfer of station costs and the commute may impact the employees.
Center
Type of
Type of
Center Name
Identifier Agency
Center
Mendocino
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-MNFC Federal Integrated
Interagency
Red Bluff ECC
CA-TGCC
State
Integrated
Interagency
Combined
Fed/State Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.0
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40
8.0
192
2,375
1,520
7
7,794
0.62
15.0
282
3,660
3,649
959
7,975
1.02
Option 6 - Combine the Stanislaus ECC (Sonora) with San Andreas ECC (San Andreas) (TCU). San Andreas
ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2005. Both agencies provide the
dispatching services over the same geographic area. Given the current location of each office, a new
facility would be needed to accommodate the staff and workload. Infrastructure would need to be
assessed for interagency expansion. Currently Stanislaus ECC lease cost is approximately $35,000 in the
Forest Supervisor’s Office. Camino was considered in this consolidation, but it was determined that San
Andreas was closer and was a better geographic fit for the center.
25
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Advantages: The distance is 28 miles from Sonora to San Andreas. The facility would need to
be evaluated in order to accommodate staff and equipment.
Disadvantages: Change in business practices to become interagency. Lease costs for state
facility. The facility would need to be evaluated in order to accommodate staff and equipment.
Camino was over 80 miles away from Stanislaus ECC.
Center Name
Stanislaus ECC
San Andreas
ECC
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
Single
CA-STCC Federal
Agency
Interagency
CA-TCCC
State
Integrated
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
6.0
66
1,231
1,002
1,962
736
0.38
7.0
349
4,135
3,369
92
10,193
1.07
13.0
415
5,366
4,371
2,054
10,929
1.45
Option 7 – Consolidate the Yosemite NP ECC (El Portal) with the Mariposa ECC (Mariposa). Mariposa
ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2008. Yosemite ECC requested this
consideration be added to the study. The centers provide support for adjacent geographic areas. This
would be an opportunity to combine centers to provide better recruitment and retention for Yosemite
employees.
Advantages: The distance between El Portal and Mariposa is 29 miles. The facility would need
to be evaluated in order to accommodate staff and equipment. This option would allow for
better recruitment and retention of Yosemite employees. No non-park housing exists near the
center in El Portal, so Yosemite employees must drive a long distance over a mountainous area.
This is both a quality of life and safety issue.
Disadvantages: Change in business practices to become interagency. Mariposa ECC currently
has a staff of 15 and Yosemite has a staff of 10. This option might require a new facility or
additional infrastructure.
Center Name
Yosemite ECC
Mariposa ECC
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
Single
CA-YPCC Federal
Agency
Single
CA-MMU
State
Agency
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
10.0
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77
15.0
730
1,287
2,702
47
15,334
1.10
25.0
851
1,721
3,605
21,047
21,508
2.87
Option 8– Consolidate the Sequoia-Kings Canyon ECC/Ash Mountain ECC (Three Rivers) with the Visalia
ECC. Sequoia-Kings Canyon ECC is the All-Hazard dispatch center. Ash Mountain ECC is the Fire and
Aviation dispatch center. The ECCs are in different buildings on the park compound. Visalia ECC’s radios
and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2007. The centers provide support for adjacent
26
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
geographic areas. This would be an opportunity to combine centers to better provide service to the
field going resources. The sub team considered Porterville ECC (41 miles) and Sierra ECC (72 miles).
Advantages: The distance between Three Rivers and Visalia is 29 miles.
Disadvantages: Change in business practices to become interagency. Visalia ECC currently has a
staff of 6 and Sequoia-Kings Canyon ECC/Ash Mountain ECC has a staff of 8. This option might
require a new facility or additional infrastructure.
Center Name
Sequoia Kings
ECC/Ash
Mountain ECC
Visalia ECC
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
Single
Agency
Single
CA-TUCC
State
Agency
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
CA-SQCC
Federal
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
8.0
69
486
544
823
987
0.21
6.0
260
1,593
1,696
27
3,661
0.51
14.0
329
2,079
2,240
850
4,648
0.72
Option 9 - Consolidate the Owens Valley ECC (Bishop) with the San Bernardino Federal Interagency ECC
(San Bernardino). Infrastructure and LE radio frequency is in place to support the Inyo National Forest
out of the Federal Interagency Communications Center (San Bernardino) for night time operations. The
Owens Valley ECC has a lease cost of $20,000 in with other federal agencies. Current facility would be
sufficient for additional workload and personnel. Minden ECC in NV was considered but was outside
the scope of this project (156 miles).
Advantages: The infrastructure and law enforcement radio frequency are in place for the
Federal Interagency Communications Center to support the Inyo National Forest for night time
operations. (Inyo National Forest is a unit supported by the Owens Valley Interagency ECC.) The
Owens Valley ECC has a lease cost of $20,000 for its space in a building shared with other
federal agencies. This cost would be eliminated if the center were to consolidate with the
Federal Interagency Communications Center, which has no lease cost. The current Federal
Interagency Communications Center facility has sufficient space for additional workload and
personnel. (According to the data call, the center has 501-1,000 square feet of available space.)
Minimal impact to current business practices.
Disadvantages: The distance between Bishop and San Bernardino is 249 miles. This qualifies for
transfer of station costs. Relationship with local duty chiefs might suffer because of the distance
for Inyo NF management. Local knowledge of dispatch area may decline.
27
California IDOP Project Final Report
Center
Type of
Type of
Center Name
Identifier Agency
Center
Owens Valley
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-OVCC Federal Collocated
Federal
Interagency
Communications
Interagency
Center
CA-SBCC Federal Integrated
Interagency
Combined
Federal Integrated
9/14/2012
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.5
72
779
1,224
680
150
0.25
21.0
766
2,896
4,796
12,524
2,859
2.01
28.5
837
3,675
6,020
13,204
3,009
2.27
Option 10 – Consolidate the Los Padres Interagency ECC (Santa Maria) with the San Luis Obispo ECC (San
Luis Obispo). San Luis Obispo ECC’s radios and infrastructure were replaced/remodeled in 2005. The
centers provide for support over the same geographic area. This would be an opportunity to combine
centers for a more coordinated response to incidents. Currently Los Padres ECC has a lease cost of
$30,500 and they are in modular facilities. Consolidation with the Angeles ECC was considered. The
distance between Santa Maria and Lancaster is 173 miles.
Advantages: The distance between Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo is 33 miles.
Disadvantages: This option would require the centers to change business practices in order to
become interagency.. San Luis Obispo ECC is a state facility, which might lead to lease costs for
the federal agencies. (Note that Los Padres ECC currently has a lease cost of $30,500 for its
space in modular facilities. It is unknown whether the new lease cost would be greater than the
current lease cost.) This option may require a new facility or additional infrastructure.
(According to the data call, San Luis Obispo ECC does not have adequate space for current staff
or expansion.)
Center Name
Los Padres ECC
San Luis Obispo
ECC
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
Interagency
CA-LPCC Federal Integrated
Single
CA-SLCC
State
Agency
Interagency
Fed/State Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.0
50
4,641
9,464
3,954
3,906
1.50
10.0
203
2,345
2,089
83
7,723
0.67
17.0
254
6,986
11,553
4,037
11,629
2.17
28
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Option 11 – Reorganize Hawaii Volcanoes ECC to provide LE and Fire and Aviation dispatching services.
Hawaii Volcanoes would assume the fire support and ordering for the Hawaiian Islands that currently
goes through the Mendocino ECC.
Advantages:
This option gives the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center the ability to respond
to all-hazard incidents.
The Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center can take advantage of local area
knowledge when providing fire and aviation dispatch support to its local units.
The Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center has the lowest complexity score of any
center in the California region and minimal workload, yet is staffed with 7 FTE. By shifting
the fire workload back to the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center, whose current
staff should be able to accommodate the work, resources at the Mendocino Interagency ECC
will be freed to perform other work. (See also Alternative 2 Option 5 for the consolidation of
Mendocino Interagency ECC and Red Bluff ECC.)
This Alternative does not preclude local managers from Moderate and/or High Complexity Centers
from looking for opportunities to consolidate.
Recommendation:
Establish an interagency Board to work with local groups to determine the
feasibility of each option. The interagency Board would establish the funding strategies and priorities
for consolidation. The interagency Board could look at other options of consolidation of Moderate
and/or High Complexity Centers.
29
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Dispatch Centers Alternative 3 - Geographic Dispatch Service Centers
The Sub-Team looked at dividing the workload of the state geographically, realizing that this type of
consolidation would more than likely be Federal only with minimal CAL FIRE participation. This
alternative is a long range plan for future super centers within California as technology advances. This
alternative would rely heavily on Federal partnerships because of CAL FIRE’s tie to the counties and their
desire not to consolidate outside of their unit/county boundaries. The Sub Team felt that these centers
would be too big considering the workload and complexities across the state inclusive of fire and
aviation and LE, however if management choose Alternative 3 for Federal LE dispatching this option is
more feasible. This alternative goes against the core value of interagency partnerships.
The expectation of forming super centers sometimes comes with the expectation of huge cost savings.
Combining the workload of multiple centers might provide a reduction in leadership positions but staff
sizes would remain about the same for the peak seasons. Expect the footprint of the facilities to
increase.
Seven theoretical geographic areas for super centers have been identified for all of California. These
centers would support any agency requesting dispatch services within their geographic boundary given
the agencies fiscally support the centers. The current Dispatch Center names are used for the purpose
of consistency throughout the analysis, however this model only refers to the federal agencies of the
center consolidations. CAL FIRE’s participation would be determined on willingness and selected
location. Any locations would need to be evaluated on the Hazard Zones previously mentioned.
Advantages:
This Alternative has the opportunity to address Low, Moderate, and High Complexity Federal
Centers.
This could upgrade infrastructure and facilities to state of the art technologies.
If the consolidated center was within two hour drive time for management.
There is potential to retool staff to provide 24/7 coverage in support of LE and/or other
functions such as intelligence.
Potential to decommission multiple current facilities.
Disadvantages:
All centers would require new facilities.
Significant impact minimal impact to business practices.
More management of the consolidated center would have greater than a two hour drive time.
Any consolidation of dispatch centers will require implementation of Sub-Geographic Area MAC
groups for prioritization and allocation of resources for large incidents.
Reengineering of CADs systems for interagency responses.
All centers will meet the Transfer of Station (TOS) requirements.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) more than 50 miles.30
30
PCS addressed in Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 C.F.R. Chapters 300-304).
30
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
TOS costs using Forest Service estimate of $92,000 per Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
Complexity of Duty Officer communications and coordination would increase significantly.
There may be minimal salary savings through consolidation because the workload will not be
reduced.
Reduced services to local administrative units and stakeholders might be reduced significantly.
With federal consolidation, Centers will lose the CAL FIRE interagency coordination.
Lease cost of Centers in combined facilities would shift the lease to the remaining agency lease
holder.
North West – This would be a center that would serve Northwestern California to provide full service
dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Fortuna ECC, Yreka ECC, Redding ECC, Whiskey
town NRA ECC and Hoopa ECC.
Center Name
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Fortuna
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
CA-FICC
Federal
Yrek a
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
Combined
FTE per
Center
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
Federal
Interagency
Collocated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
CA-RICC
Federal
Interagency
Collocated
7.0
161
2,014
5,327
1,529
282
0.78
CA-WNP
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
2.0
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34
7.0
108
2,105
4,372
8
405
0.58
31.0
735
6,779
14,819
10,113
3,020
2.91
Hoopa Dispatch
CA-HIAC
Mendocino
Interagency ECC CA-MNFC
Redding
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
WhiskeytownShasta Trinity
National
Recreation Area
Type of
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
CA-YICC
Tribal
Interagency
Federal Integrated
Federal/ Interagency
Tribal
Integrated
7.0
94
1,142
2,554
1,165
209
0.43
1.0
248
91
319
2,498
1,053
0.38
7.0
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40
31
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
North East – This would be a center that would serve Northeastern California to provide full service
dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Modoc ECC, Susanville ECC, Plumas ECC and Grass
Valley ECC.
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Grass Valley
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
CA-GVCC
Modoc
Interagency ECC CA-MICC
Federal
Plumas ECC
CA-PNFC
Federal
Susanville
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
CA-SIFC
Federal
Center Name
Combined
Federal
Federal
Type of
Center
Interagency
Collocated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
7.0
86
1,838
2,017
1,297
1,081
0.48
7.0
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24
7.0
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50
4.0
442
1,790
2,504
374
2,638
0.70
25.0
756
5,944
9,328
2,169
4,306
1.93
North Central - This would be a center that would serve all of North Central California to provide full
service dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Golden Gate NRA ECC, Mendocino ECC,
Hawaii Volcanoes ECC, Camino ECC, and Stanislaus ECC.
Center Name
Camino
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Hawaii
Volcanoes
National Park
Stanislaus ECC
Combined
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
Type of
Center
CA-CICC
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
8.0
129
2,016
CA-GNP
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
14.0
17
10
-
HI-HAVO
Federal
6.0
16
81
CA-STCC
Federal
6.0
66
34.0
228
Federal
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
FTE per
Center
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
1,308
1,017
1,975
0.47
29,439
3,463
2.13
73
184
80
0.04
1,231
1,002
1,962
736
0.38
3,338
2,383
32,602
6,254
3.02
32
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Central – This would be a center that would serve Central California to provide full service dispatching
for participating agencies. This includes: Yosemite ECC, and Sierra ECC.
Center
Center Name
Identifier
Sierra
Interagency ECC CA-SICC
Type of
Agency
Yosemite ECC
Federal
Combined
CA-YPCC
Federal
Federal
Type of
FTE per
Center
Center
Interagency
Collocated
9.0
Single
Agency
10.0
Interagency
Integrated
19.0
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
172
2,629
1,886
1,331
867
0.60
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77
293
3,063
2,789
22,331
7,041
2.37
South Central - This would be a center that would serve all of the South Central California to provide full
service dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Central California ECC, Sequoia-Kings NP
ECC/Ash Mountain ECC, and Los Padres ECC.
Center
Type of
Type of
FTE per
Center Name
Identifier Agency
Center
Center
Central California
Interagency
ECC
CA-CCCC Federal Integrated
9.0
Interagency
Los Padres ECC CA-LPCC Federal Integrated
7.0
Sequoia Kings
ECC/Ash
Single
Mountain ECC
CA-SQCC Federal
Agency
8.0
Interagency
Combined
Federal Integrated
24.0
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
492
6,765
6,679
2,707
598
1.61
50
4,641
9,464
3,954
3,906
1.50
69
486
544
823
987
0.21
611
11,892
16,688
7,484
5,491
3.31
Inland Empire - This would be a center that would serve Inland Empire California to provide full service
dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Owens Valley ECC (Bishop), and San Bernardino
Federal Interagency ECC (with exception of South Coast BLM).
Center
Type of
Type of
FTE per
Center Name
Identifier Agency
Center
Center
Federal
Interagency
Communications
Interagency
Center
CA-SBCC Federal Integrated
21.0
Owens Valley
Interagency
Interagency ECC CA-OVCC Federal Collocated
7.5
Interagency
Combined
Federal Integrated
28.5
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
766
2,896
4,796
12,524
2,859
2.01
72
779
1,224
680
150
0.25
837
3,675
6,020
13,204
3,009
2.27
33
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
South Coast - This would be a center that would serve South Coast California to provide full service
dispatching for participating agencies. This includes: Combining Angeles ECC and Monte Vista ECC
(Monte Vista) and take on Palm Springs South Coast area BLM (border activities).
Center Name
Angeles ECC
Monte Vista
Interagency ECC
- Federal Only
BLM El Centro
and Palm
Springs (from
Federal
Interagency
Communications
Center)
Combined
Center
Identifier
Type of
Agency
CA-ANCC
Federal
Type of
FTE per
Center
Center
Interagency
Integrated
11.0
CA-MVIC
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
Federal
Interagency
Integrated
13.0
Fires
A-C
& D+
(5 Yr
Avg)
227
113
ROSS
Resources
Dispatched
Out
(5 Yr Avg)
2,863
1,739
ROSS
# of LE
# of NonIncoming Incidents Fire/Non-LE Average
Resources
(5 Yr
Incidents Normalized
(5 Yr Avg)
Avg)
(5 Yr Avg)
Score
4,327
1,832
1,634
0.88
1,602
1,606
1,509
0.49
24.0
340
4,602
5,929
3,438
3,143
1.37
Table 15 Average Normalized Score Federal Super Centers
34
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 16 Federal Only Super Centers - FTE and Percent of Total FTE
Federal Only Super Centers
Super Central Location
Low Centers
Moderate
High Centers Total Number of
Being
Centers Being
Being
Centers Being
Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated
Consolidated
Total
Current
FTE
Average
Percent
Normalized
of
Score
Staffing
North West Super Center
5
1
0
6
31.0
2.91
17%
North East Super Center
4
0
0
4
25.0
1.93
13%
North Central Super Center
3
0
1
4
34.0
3.02
18%
Central Super Center
1
0
1
2
19.0
2.37
10%
South Central Super Center
Inland Empire Super Center
1
0
2
3
24.0
3.31
13%
1
0
1
2
28.5
2.27
15%
South Coast Super Center
1
1
0
2
24.0
16
2
5
23
185.5
1.37
13%
2.45 Average
Totals
Using Perris ECC as an equivalency with an Average Normalized Score of 3.75 and a staff of 41; there are
centers of this workload and complexity in existence. The Sub-Team did not have time to evaluate Table
14. There could be an option of bringing the Average Normalized Scores closer to a median and
dispersing the FTE more evenly.
Recommendation:
Acknowledging the core value of interagency partnerships; and the Sub-Team’s
belief that most of these centers would be too much workload for the complexity of incidents; and all
locations would potentially need new facilities: the Sub-Team’s recommendation is to concentrate on
Alternative 1 for consolidation of local ECCs in California.
35
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
California Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch Services Alternatives
An evaluation was completed of the current Law Enforcement dispatch services provided by California
Emergency Communication Centers (ECC) within the scope of the study. The evaluation reviewed the
effectiveness of current practices and best practices for the inclusion or separation of Law Enforcement
from Fire and Aviation dispatch services. Most federal centers in California provide Law Enforcement,
Fire and Aviation, and a variety of other dispatch services. Law Enforcement incidents are on an upward
trend at 6% per year from 2006-2010; as reported through the IDOPP Data Call (Table 18).
Current Situation
There are a total of 559 resource
protection/public safety officers in
Definition of Law Enforcement dispatch
California and Hawaii:
services: Dispatch centers provide
- Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 62;
communications and logistical support for Law
- CAL FIRE 174;
- Forest Service (USFS) 122;
Enforcement personnel and incidents, including
- Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 10;
the following: tracking agency and cooperating
- National Park Service (NPS) 191.
agency Law Enforcement personnel, providing
A total of 21 out of 23 Federal dispatch
information obtained from NCIC/Statecenters (91%) perform NCIC/State
Authorized Law Enforcement databases
Authorized LE dispatch in the CA Region.
(including criminal histories and wants/warrants
In CA, 20 of the 22 Federal operational
checks), dispatching Law Enforcement resources
centers (91%) do NCIC/State Authorized
LE dispatch. In HI, the 1 center does
for back up of field personnel, ensuring Law
NCIC/State Authorized LE
Enforcement incident notifications are
dispatch. Currently there are no
conducted in a timely manner as dictated by the
interagency standard operating
incident, and providing radio communications
procedures for providing law enforcement
and telephonic support to Law Enforcement
dispatch services.
personnel as requested.
Currently, of the 17 Forest Service
dispatch centers all but 2 provide
law enforcement dispatching
services. In a questionnaire to CA
USFS Dispatch Center Managers,
Fire Management Officers, and Line Officers, the majority of the responses (90%) felt that law
enforcement should be handled in the same dispatch center as fire, aviation, and other dispatch
services (all-hazard). Of the 18 National Forests there was a 56% response rate: 11 Dispatch
Center Managers, 12 Fire Management Officers, and 7 Forest Supervisors.
Most National Park Service dispatch centers separate fire dispatch services from all-hazard
dispatch services. Some NPS centers have personnel that are cross-trained in LE and all-hazard
(example Yosemite).
The Bureau of Land Management currently combines law enforcement, fire, and aviation
dispatching services in California.
The Fish and Wildlife Service desires law enforcement dispatching services in California.
36
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have programmatic responsibility for law enforcement
activities because the County and State are given responsibility for Indian Trust Lands under
Public Law 280. Some Federal Dispatch Centers are providing law enforcement dispatch
services for Tribes through agreement.
Table 17 LE Workload by Center
LE Dispatch Services Alternative 1 – The Scope of Federal Dispatch Services is
inclusive of Fire, Aviation, and LE
In this alternative, all 23 federal dispatch centers (100%) would provide NCIC/State Authorized law
enforcement dispatch services in the California Region. This would provide consistency for training of
the dispatch center employees, expectations of all stakeholders, standard governance, etc. Although
the Federal dispatch centers will provide law enforcement dispatch services this is not prescriptive on
how each agency will organize their staffs to provide these services.
Most National Park Service dispatch centers separate fire dispatch services from all-hazard
dispatch services. Some NPS centers have personnel that are cross-trained in LE and all-hazard
(example Yosemite).
The Fish and Wildlife Service will have law enforcement dispatching services in California
through agreement.
37
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 18
Results from the law enforcement officer Data Call reflected that 53% of the respondents would
like a centralized interagency LE dispatch center, 23% of the respondents do not want/like a
centralized center, and 24% of the respondents had no preference.
Advantages:
There is enhanced interaction, information sharing, and communication between dispatch and all
stakeholder personnel.
Federal dispatchers have a working knowledge of their geographical areas.
The LE and other functions would have dispatch services 24/7 from local or a designated dispatch
center. Technological enhancements have been made for a limited number of centers to provide 24/7
coverage over a broader area.
This is the least cost alternative with no new facilities.
38
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Disadvantages:
Currently, inadequate number of CLETS/NCIC terminals (hardware) and staff to accommodate law
enforcement requests.
The dispatchers have to contact the local Sheriff’s Department dispatch in order to obtain, local wants
and warrants information, which increases the contact time between law enforcement personnel and
subject(s).
Current radio system and infrastructure is outdated; extensive radio dead zones and insufficient
repeaters to cover the dead zones as stated in the Forest Service Strategic Investment in Safety letter
(December 12, 2011; Appendix D). Inability to utilize existing encryption technology in the LE King DMH
and DPH radios. The planned statewide Forest Service LE communication network (LE Net) has not been
fully implemented (see Appendices E and F).
LE Dispatch Services Alternative 2 - Partner Federal LE dispatch services with LE
communication centers such as: Sheriff’s Offices, CA State F&G/Parks, or NPS
centers.
Advantages:
This alternative provides dispatch services 24/7. Local radio traffic could be heard by adjacent law
enforcement personnel. This could increase responses for back up, sharing of local information and
communication between responding officers, and immediate emergency notification to law
enforcement personnel, such as BOLOs (Be On the Look Out) and Amber Alerts. Dispatchers are
trained and meet DOJ requirements for law enforcement dispatching.
Disadvantages:
Coordination of all-risk incidents (fire and LE) would be through multiple dispatch centers. There is a
potential lack of communication between agency personnel due to monitoring multiple
radios/frequencies. There is not a standard statewide radio code or agreement to use clear text
causing communication issues for land management law enforcement personnel. Communication
centers may not be equipped, staffed or have the infrastructure to accommodate the additional
workload of 385 federal Law Enforcement Officers. Departments/agencies do not have radio
coverage across remote federal lands. Many departments/agencies operate on different bands (700
MHz and 800MHz) than the land management personnel. There would be an initial outlay of funds
to purchase and install radios that are compatible. All departments/agencies could require funding
for providing dispatch services at $5K per officer (estimate). Many officers cover multiple counties.
There would be multiple Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) agreements with the
department/agencies, which may be terminated at any time. Some departments/agencies do not
desire to work with Federal Law Enforcement personnel.31
31
The USFS does not have peace officer authority in several counties in California.
39
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Option 1 Consider agreements with all-hazard National Park Service Centers that provide law
enforcement and all-hazard dispatch services, i.e. Yosemite.
Advantages: Partnering with another federal agency has advantages in same federal frequency
regulations, inter-government agreements, and equipment. Common mission and objectives
resource protection and land management.
Option 2 Consider agreement with State Parks and Fish and Game that have 3 state-wide law
enforcement dispatch centers: Northern Communications Center (NORCOM) - Rancho Cordova, CA;
Central Communications Center (CENCOM) - Monterey, CA; and Southern Communications Center
(SURCOM) - Perris, CA.
Advantages: Partnering with State agency may have different frequency regulations but intergovernmental agreements may be easier because of similar mission and objectives.
Disadvantages: Estimated costs for all federal LE could be up to $2 million in annual dispatch
service fees at $5000 for 385 officers.
Option 3 Consider agreements with local County Sheriff Offices. This may not be feasible California
wide with 58 counties.
Advantages: Sheriff Department dispatch centers would have the capability to interface with
the California State Criminal Justice Systems (CJIS). Thus they could input stolen and recovered
vehicles, vehicles that have been towed and stolen property.
Disadvantages: Estimated costs for all federal LE could be up to $2 million in annual dispatch
service fees at $5000 for 385 officers. The cost will go up with each additional county. If the
average is 3 counties per officer the estimate could be $6 million in annual fees.
40
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Table 19 Northern CA - average increase of 9% per year; total increase from 2006 - 2010 is 39%; Southern CA - average
increase of 5% per year; total increase from 2006 - 2010 is 20%; and the Total for CA - average increase of 6% per year; total
increase from 2006 - 2010 is 28%.
LE Dispatch Services Alternative 3 – Establish one or multiple Federal Law
Enforcement dispatch centers32
California Dispatch Centers have approximately 91,500 LE incidents (5 year average).33 Examples of high
volume LE Centers given their 5 year averages include: Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA)
Center at approximately 29,000; Yosemite NP Center at 21,000; Federal Interagency EEC at 12,500; and
Phoenix Federal LE Communication Center at 12,300 (3 year average).
As part of the US Park Police, the Golden Gate NRA mission requirements are unique and dissimilar to
other land management agencies. It is questionable if their 5 year average should be included in the LE
workload estimate for an interagency Federal Law Enforcement Center. Golden Gate NRA dispatch
center employees are required to maintain a secret security clearance, which is a higher standard than
the current DOJ requirements used by other federal dispatchers.
If Golden Gate NRA, Yosemite ECC, and Federal Interagency ECC continued with their current volume,
then the remaining average federal LE incident workload would be approximately 29,500: equivalent to
one LE fully functional center. The current estimated cost is around $415/Sq. Ft. for the structure only.
This does not include soft costs (Design/Inspection etc.), site work, tower, site acquisition, phone/IT
32
Southwest IDOPP Sub-Team has endorsed the concept of one Law Enforcement (non-fire) ECC for their area,
separating Fire and Aviation from Law Enforcement dispatching.
33
Keep in mind that this 5 year average only reflects the workload through the dispatch centers in this study. The
workload would be substantially higher due to the after-hours contacts through other LE centers. The information
was collected for the number of citations/violation notices (state and federal) and the numbers of arrests from all
agencies for a relative value of true workload; however the data standards were different and could not be
analyzed.
41
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
system, consoles/furnishings and vault equipment. If all of these items were included except acquisition
you would be in excess of $800/ Sq. Ft.34 The average square footage for a Communication Center is
4000-5000.35 Estimated cost to build new LE communication center is $3.2-$4 million. Staffing costs
would be approximately $1.19-$1.2336 million annually for 16 personnel to operate 24/7 with a
minimum of two dispatchers per shift. Operating costs are too variable to estimate. The cost to build
out the radio system statewide would be a major financial commitment.
Advantages:
Centralized interagency land management LE dispatch centers would streamline communication with all
LE field going units, prevent overlap of investigations/patrol activities, assure de-confliction and provide
enhanced emergency response. This could increase responses for back up, sharing of local information
and communication between responding officers. All Federal agencies would have a dedicated law
enforcement dispatch services. Communications with all federal law enforcement personnel would be
enhanced under one Standard Operating Procedure. Costs, infrastructure, facilities, and frequencies in
support of LE activities would be shared by interagency agreement.
Disadvantages:
This would require building out a radio system to encompass LE dispatch area coverage with tone
protection and encryption capabilities. The cost distribution is normally between the local units and the
CIOs of the Agencies. There will be upfront capital outlay for facilities, equipment, and staffing. This has
potential to isolate the LE program from other land management disciplines. Dispatchers not familiar
with the geographical area, roads, landmarks and known problem areas they are servicing. There would
be a lack of face to face contact between dispatch employees and LE personnel.
Recommendation:
The Sub-Team could not develop a recommendation between the alternatives
until the CA Executive Oversight Group decides that LE dispatching services are to be included, or not, in
Federal ECCs in California. The Sub-Team will highlight specific findings and where the agencies maybe
at the greatest risk.
The Sub-Team does recommend a bridge solution during the interim: 1) fully implement the proposed
LE Net in Region 5 with tone guard, P25 compliance, encryption and operational procedures; 2)
maximize existing LE frequencies and use, through interagency agreements; 3) develop and implement
interagency Standard Operating Procedures for LE Dispatching Services; and 4) develop a certified,
interagency LE Training program for LE Dispatching Services and then train the dispatch workforce.37
34
Square footage costs provided by CAL FIRE.
CAL FIRE average ECC is 4,000 square feet. From the 2008 Dispatch Management Efficiency Analysis the average
square footage of a dispatch center was 5248.
36
Personnel costs calculated using Sacramento and Southern California locality pay.
37
Appendix G is a spreadsheet illustrating the 20 courses that are required for fire dispatch positions under the
Interagency Fire Program Management (IFPM) Qualifications Standards and Guide. There are not any interagency
nationally accepted Law Enforcement dispatch training courses.
35
42
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Figure 3 California – Radio tower locations – all location information provided:
43
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Communications - Radio Infrastructure Analysis
“Improving the quality of existing communication systems and covering dead zones is the number one
priority identified by both the NLC and a survey of Forest Service employees. Existing FS radio systems
have challenges with quality, reliability and capacity, especially during emergency situations when
demand exceeds supply. Field employees, in particular, are concerned about the reliability of the radio
system, and about dead zones within the coverage area (approximately 20% of Forest Service terrain).
Improving the quality and reliability of the existing radio system within the coverage area is a
considerable challenge that would take a substantial investment (see Appendix D, FS Strategic
Investment in Safety).” Other agencies have similar radio infrastructure issues as described below.
California Radio Assessment
Table 14 California Radio Totals from GIS Analysis
California Radio Totals
Organization
CAL FIRE
USFS
DOI
4940
Number of
Radio
Towers
732
3431
777
DOI Breakdown:
USFS Breakdown:
Major Function
Administrative
Fire
Hydrologic
Law Enforcement
Maintenance
Medical
Natural Resources
Trunking
Utilities
Number
of Radio
Towers
4
89
4
284
41
4
306
36
9
CAL FIRE - Breakdown
Dispatch and Fire
732
System
Admin Fire Net
Admin Net
Air Net
BorderComm
Common Use
Fire Net
Forest Net
Humboldt
LE Net
MW Net
NA
PSW Net
Service
Tactical
Toiyabe
Number
of Radio
Towers
24
643
46
1
22
641
194
6
110
82
1632
2
26
1
1
Within the California region, the Agency Telecommunications Managers developed the following
general assessments of the current state of the radio infrastructure:
CAL FIRE: The CAL FIRE radio system is healthy at this time. In the last five years, CAL FIRE replaced all
of its repeaters, control stations, and base stations. Mobile and portable radios are at the end of their
life span but the agency plans to begin replacement of these radios next year. CAL FIRE has funded
system maintenance, including the human resources needed for radio work, but the equipment
replacement budget is a fraction of what is needed. The CAL FIRE Telecommunications budget is
approximately $3.5 million per year short of what is needed replace the system.
44
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
BLM: BLM’s radio system reliability is “average” condition. Most of our repeaters are within their
lifecycle, 30% of our portables and mobiles (EPH/GPH/GMH) are out of date and need to be replaced,
our radio coverage is 95%, we currently have about $3mil of CASHE write-ups at our radio sites which
are funded in FY13 for repair. We are understaffed, with only 6 techs for the entire state. Most of our
Communication system test eq. is out of date and needs replaced. BLM utilizes the USFS strike team
when and where they are available for additional support and tower climbing. We typically use the
USFS for major infrastructure supports i.e. dispatch, microwave, radio sites, etc. as much as we can.
BLM-Southern California (CDD) has a dedicated LE Net that is P25 and Encryption capable….currently
being operated in analog mode, we need to replace a few older P24 “D” model Daniels radios utilized on
this Net. Not all “cooperators” are capable of operating in digital yet.
USFS: The USFS radio system in California is mostly in triage mode, with systems being repaired or
replaced when they fail or become unsupportable. The age of the radio infrastructure ranges from 15 to
25 years across the region. Many of the handheld/mobile radios are not supportable by the new CAL
FIRE radio infrastructure and dispatch system replacement is approximately three years behind the
replacement schedule. With all of the critical systems that are quickly becoming non-supportable, USFS
has one major issue that will have a drastic affect on the way the agency will perform maintenance on
its systems in the future - the physical infrastructure. The physical infrastructure has not been properly
maintained since the inception of the Chief Information Office (CIO). The buildings are failing and
towers have not been properly inspected, are aging, and will soon become un-climbable to repair or
replace failed equipment. The CIO is not funded for real property and is not authorized to pay for
facility maintenance, which has caused a problem because the local units are unaware the physical real
property belongs to them. Additionally, USFS has current issues with budget reductions, operating and
maintaining at about 50% of the level at which it should be funded. Another major issue is the limited
personnel and manpower available to do the work at hand - many of the forests only have one or two
technicians but should have two or three technicians to do the work demanded, to include other work
not related to radio. Further, the agency does not have an effective intern or career ladder program and
the required specialized skills are becoming harder to find in the open market. Lastly, USFS leadership
has been striving to improve the radio program. USFS is in the midst of standardizing training, has
developed several contracted venues to streamline supplies on demand, has established a national
contract for test equipment calibration and repair (although in 2015 30% of the agency’s national cache
of test equipment will no longer be supportable for calibration or repair with no funds scheduled to
replace those items before that time), and is building a visible preventive maintenance program that will
be reported and tracked. Further, inventory of the agency’s national warehouse of systems is near
complete, painting a picture to national leadership of what it really costs to maintain and replace the
radio infrastructure. The national leadership is working to standardize and streamline many programs
to improve maintenance effectiveness. In California, the radio program provides weekly reporting to
the forest leadership advising them of system health, and communications between forest leadership
and the CIO has greatly improved.
NPS: All the NPS frequencies are licensed, for the most part, to support Law Enforcement
communications. All the systems are P25 compliant, but most operate in the analog mode. Encryption
is used on a park by park basis depending on operational need and equipment availability.
45
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
USFWS: Historically, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has used two way radio systems primarily for
day to day field operations such as refuge maintenance and repair, law enforcement patrols, field fuels
reduction and project work, water moving projects and fire and all hazard incident operations.
Generally, each of the refuge complexes has its own tactical frequency and therefore operates
independently from the other complexes. Those complexes that have a system lack radio coverage for
the entire complex. Law enforcement and fire typically operate from the same set of tactical
frequencies assigned to each complex (day to day operation and maintenance, not LE patrols). Most
FWS-owned equipment is installed and maintained by private companies, although we have also utilized
the expertise of Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management radio technicians for some install and
maintenance. And we rely on Federal partners often for the annual programming of the radios. The
FWS relies heavily on other Federal, State and Local agency systems for dispatching services. For law
enforcement, there is no statewide radio communication system, nor is there a common
dispatch/frequency pair used for law enforcement purposes.
Dispatch: Other Federal and State agencies are relied upon heavily for law enforcement and fire
dispatching services; FWS has no dedicated dispatch service in the State. Fire utilizes federal
interagency communications centers exclusively. Law enforcement rarely uses the Federal ECCs, uses
state dispatch in San Diego, and the rest is local LE dispatch centers. FWS has entered into individual
local law enforcement and fire agreements with the various agencies across the state for these services.
Some communications centers are provided funding from the FWS for these services (FS for fire and CA
State Parks for LE down south).
Repeaters: Most are an average of 10 years old and some are digital capable. Some repeater
sites are co-located with FS or other Federal agencies. Most refuges utilize other agencies frequencies,
per the local NTIA agreement, specifically for command/repeater frequencies.
Mobiles/Portables: Most portable and mobile radios are less than 10 years old. Equipment is
owned and operated by each individual refuge complex. Most are digital capable with very few
Encryption capable for LE use. The main brands that FWS utilizes are either Motorola Astro or Bendix
King. Some LE vehicles have multiple mobile radios to accommodate for different radio frequencies
used by different dispatch centers (VHF vs. 800 vs. 800 digital), and carry multiple portables to
accommodate encryption requirements.
Maintenance: Historically the maintenance of agency-owned equipment has been completed
by private business on an as-needed basis. USFWS does not have radio technicians in the field, only at
the National Communications Center and they do not provide site visits. Most stations do not have any
type of preventive maintenance or replacement plan. Some utilization of other Federal radio
technicians in the past.
Geospatial Analysis of Radio Infrastructure
Geospatial analysis of the existing radio locations were based on consultations with USFS experts and is
only considered a very preliminary analysis of the existing radio tower locations. This analysis is to show
management the density of radio towers in California and to recommend a full radio coverage analysis
be completed within and between agencies involved in this effort.
Radio locations were gathered from CAL FIRE, DOI (including BLM and NPS), USFWS, and USFS. The
locational data was derived from latitude and longitude coordinates, those that did not fall within
California were corrected if possible. Some data was excluded due to the lack of locational information.
The location data was not closely verified and was generally accepted as correct. Data collected in most
cases included frequency, site name, associated network, etc., but these fields were not consistent
between datasets making analysis beyond simple distance calculations difficult.
46
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
This geospatial analysis is a simple distance analysis using a 30 mile buffer placed around each radio
tower location. A full radio coverage analysis would include items such as the local geography, antenna
height; antenna type, radio power, receiver sensitivity, directionality, radio wave propagation, etc. were
not taken into consideration as part of this effort. There are specialized programs that account for all of
the variables for creating appropriate radio coverage maps, none of these were used here. This is simply
to demonstrate opportunities may exist to collaborate and coordinate better on radio infrastructure
within California.
Figure 2 shows radio tower locations collected for this effort. The map clearly shows a complex
communications and radio infrastructure for California.
Figure 3 shows the 30 mile buffer for all of the radio towers locations. This map indicates that there is
significant overlap when analyzing a simple buffer. While this may show considerable overlap on must
remember that this does not include the details that a full radio coverage analysis would include. When
analyzing the buffers for each of the radio location data sets collected (CAL FIRE, DOI, USFWS, and
USFS); the review showed there are areas where gaps in the 30 mile buffer exist. These gaps are apply
to CAL FIRE and all of the Federal agencies. It appears there may be some areas where collaboration
and coordination opportunities exist.
Figure 4 shows the results from a point density analysis of all the radio tower locations. A density
analysis using calculated default parameters. The results of this tool show areas where the radio tower
infrastructure is high, medium, and low. This shows areas in the central Sierras where the highest
density of radio infrastructure is located. This may be a way to prioritize the collaboration efforts.
The geospatial analysis was limited to a simple 30 mile buffer and density review of the radio tower
infrastructure. It is recommended that a more complete radio coverage and frequency study be
performed to identify tower locations that may meet multiple needs. The USFS has an Enterprise Radio
mapping project which is nationally chartered by Fire and Aviation Management that is creating
coverage studies for the USFS (Douglas King, USFS CIO communication).
Radio Recommendation:
Any dispatch optimization alternatives must consider analyzing
further the radio tower infrastructure in California. Communications/radio systems, as identified in this
report, are vital to the operations of the dispatch/coordination system. The Federal Radio Program
Managers thought that a complete interagency analysis of the radio systems in California is necessary.
This would be a huge undertaking and beyond the current capabilities of the agencies staffs. They
suggested that this task be contracted out. This was a suggested statement of work; “A contractor
should be prepared to integrate various technology from legacy to new and modern for seamless
operations. This should be done by evaluating currently used systems and then designing, procuring
and implementing technology so that all systems operate for the customer in the same seamless
fashion.” A full analysis of the radio capabilities would include robust analysis of signal strength,
topography, frequency, etc.
47
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Figure 4 California 30 Mile Buffer Zones
48
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Figure 5 California Radio Towers – simple density analysis on tower locations.
49
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Federal issues that need to be addressed for the Dispatch/Coordination System
regardless of selected Options or LE Alternative.
Table 15 Federal issues that need to be addressed in the current Dispatch/Coordination System
Dispatch Mission, Function,
and Scope
California Federal Issues
Status
Clearly define the mission and scope of dispatch services
based on agency missions and stakeholder needs. Is there
an acceptance by all federal Agencies to provide LE
dispatching services?
Develop position descriptions that adequately address LE
dispatch services. Require Federal and State Background
Checks for NCIC Certification as condition of hire.
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Briefing
Paper
Establish standard governance structure of dispatch centers
to include all stakeholders.
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Briefing
Paper
IDOPP Bridge
Team and CA issue
GACC and Local
Unit issue
FWS issue
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Briefing
Paper
Governance
Funding sources: Off the top funding of dispatch centers or
all programs pay for services of ECCs.
Establish Service First agreements where applicable to
maximize staffing, streamline supervision.
Establish agreements for FWS Law Enforcement to receive
dispatch services through agreement
Dispatch Workload/Staffing
Develop an ECC Workload Analysis and Staffing
Develop baseline staffing model for Optimized Dispatch
Centers based on Complexity
Develop baseline staffing model for Optimized 24/7 Dispatch
Centers based on Complexity
IDOPP Bridge
Team
IDOPP Bridge
Team
Assigned to CA
ECC Center
Managers; Needs
Interagency Task
Group
Dispatch Center Locations
and Coverage
Equitable distribution of workload through optimization
CA IDOP Project
Interagency Standard Operating Guide for dispatch centers
IDOPP Bridge
Team
FS team assigned
Assigned to CA
ECC Center
Managers; Needs
Interagency Task
Group
Operational Standards
38
National Standard for Check-in Check-out procedures
Develop Standard Operating Guide for LE Dispatch Services
38
Appendix D FS_ Strategic Investment in Safety; a team is assigned to develop agency standards for Check-in
Check-out procedures.
50
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Operational Standards
Felons are not allowed in the room where the CLETS/NCIC
terminals are located. CAL FIRE does not require Federal
and State background checks for their employees in
interagency centers where the federal agencies are utilizing
CLETS/NCIC terminals.
BLM wishes to realign some resources into closest Dispatch
Center through agreement.
Issue in
Interagency
Centers Fed
LE/CAL FIRE;
Unassigned
Local unit issue
Develop Interagency Training Standards for LE dispatching
(Task books, training curriculum, etc.)
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Needs
Interagency Task
Group
Unassigned
Training Standards
Develop Training Standards for Center Managers who
supervise LE dispatch.
Standardize existing CAD practices (Wild CAD)
Unassigned
Technology/Equipment
Standards
Mitigate congestion and competition of limited frequencies
through implementation of the FS LE Net with tone guard,
P25 compliance, and encryption. Employ mobile data
technology for LE. Maximize existing LE frequencies and
use through interagency agreements.
Leverage technology to increase efficiency of dispatch
centers Voice and Radio over IP; T-1s; Consoles
Dispatch centers and GACCs require interagency
telecom/radio/computer support
One CAD system for training interagency personnel.
Alternative External CAD Adapter ($50K) allows Altaris CAD
to talk with other CADs i.e. Tritech.
IDOPP CA
Sub-Team
Recommendations
The agencies need to provide a holistic approach to facilities
and engineering standards; radio, voice, data
communications; and security for our ECCs
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Briefing
Paper assigned;
Needs interagency
task group
Tiers vs. Levels of Dispatch Services vs. Complexity
IDOPP Bridge
Team; Briefing
Paper
IFPM requirements for EDRC for an Initial Attack Dispatcher
GS-5/6/7
Assigned to CA
ECC Center
Managers; Briefing
Paper
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
Facility Standards
Dispatch Center Typing
Cross-Cutting and Other
Items highlighted in yellow are considered high priority actionable items by the California ECC Center
Managers.
There are other issues that the Sub-Team identified that need resolution, such as: Should the agencies
cross train personnel for Fire, Aviation, and LE; what is the best practices for LE support configuration;
51
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
etc. But the Sub-Team felt that further work on these topics was premature until Executive decisions
were made concerning the alternatives of this report. Some briefing papers follow.
Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Briefing Paper
Topic: Dispatch Series and Position Descriptions
Background: As dispatch center services evolve based on the mission and needs of the agencies, will
management recognize the need to provide their employees the knowledge and skills to be successful
supporting resource management, wildland fire, aviation, law enforcement, and all-risk. Some dispatch
centers have Law Enforcement (LE), Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Search and Rescue (SAR),
Structural Fire, and/or All-Risk support duties integrated into their operations along with wildland fire
and resource management support. Some dispatch centers are primarily fire and aviation or law
enforcement. The more services a dispatch center provides, the dispatchers require more formal
training and knowledge skills and abilities. This briefing paper will focus on series and position
description issues surrounding the federal agencies concerning wildland fire, law enforcement
dispatching, and all-risk.
Currently, most federal wildland fire dispatch position descriptions are under the Interagency Fire
Program Management (IFPM) Qualifications Standards and Guide. These position descriptions are in the
Forestry or Range Technician series 0462 and 0455 respectively. NWCG decision January 14, 2010:
“Local Dispatch Center Manager positions will be exempt from the IFPM Implementation Plan
stipulation requiring all IFPM fire positions at the GS-11 grade and above be classified as professional
positions. Local fire managers are granted flexibility to properly define the paramount work
requirements of their respective Dispatch Center Manager positions and to use unit developed position
descriptions which are to be carefully analyzed and classified in the proper series commensurate with
the appropriate knowledge and competencies required for successful performance of the work.” As
Secondary (Administrative) positions covered under firefighter retirement, OPM requires a minimum of
90-days of wildland firefighting experience as a selective factor.
Both the DOI and the Forest Service also utilize the Dispatching Series 2151 for logistics, fire logistics,
aircraft, law enforcement, etc. This series has no OPM occupational requirements.
Key Points:
In 2011, several BLM and FS employees in Forestry/Range Technician (Dispatcher) IFPM position
descriptions from California requested desk audits because support of Law Enforcement was
more than 20 percent of their workload. The additional knowledge of applicable state and
federal law enforcement regulations and procedures needed to ensure officer safety were not
covered in the IFPM position descriptions. For example, dispatchers must obtain and maintain
appropriate certification for use of equipment, and must pass a Department of Justice
background check. Dispatchers have to interpret information retrieved and entered into various
criminal justice system networks (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
and/or LEAWEB). Forest Service classification decision was that the additional law enforcement
duties did not constitute a grade increase. A Forest Service employee requested a second desk
audit through ASC and the determination was that the addition law enforcement duties were
appropriately graded. The employee’s next step is to take his request to OPM. A Correction
Notice with law enforcement duties was added to the position description.
52
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Key Points (continued):
OPM changed the Occupational Series for the BLM Phoenix Law Enforcement Center on January
6, 2011 (OPM Decision number: C-1802-07-04). The series was changed from Dispatching Series
2151 to Compliance Inspection and Supply Series 1802. This series does have proficiency
requirements and selective factors can be added. This affected the Center Manager position, as
well as, the subordinate staff. The grades of these positions remained the same.
The IDOPP Bridge Team has been made aware that the NPS has developed position descriptions
for their dispatch centers with the intent to request a “Public Safety” dispatching series. Where
the NPS is in this effort is unknown at this time.
It is clear, that collectively the agencies engaged in the IDOP project do not have a common goal
for dispatch center position descriptions outside of fire and aviation support under IFPM. Any
agency approaching OPM for series classification has potential to influence outcomes for the
other agencies.
Could a “Public Safety” series benefit more than one agency?
Recommendation: The IDOPP Bridge Team needs to embrace this issue and develop a strategy for series
and position descriptions that can adapt to the varied complexities and services provided by dispatch
centers.
53
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Briefing Paper
Topic: Emergency Command Center Governance Solutions
Issue
A single governance structure needs to be defined starting at the National level, providing a
standardized framework of defined mission, scope, services, funding and base functions of the dispatch
system.
Current Situation
The present system of governance provides the backbone of the interagency dispatch system and
resembles an interpretation of a mostly common idea of function loosely employed nationally, but does
not fully address fundamentals of mission scope, services rendered, funding or authority. Dispatch
functions take on more form as the system gets more localized. This has led to a variety of different
ideas of what dispatch should or should not provide. There is a lack of consistent program authority,
accountability, funding expectations and cooperation between bureaus, agencies and/or departments.
Solution
Establishment of an executive council comprised of one representative from all expected agency
participants to initiate the following actions will provide a standardized basis for governance of the
interagency dispatch function. The executive council representation should be modeled to reflect that
of the National Wildfire Coordination Group.
Dispatch center governance solutions need to start at the top and work down through the interagency
dispatch system. A top down approach would enable executive leadership to establish clear direction
defining mission scope, dispatch services to be provided and establish base function standards.
This first step solution would provide immediate opportunity to agree to a national standardized
workload and complexity analysis from which consistent and appropriate staffing and training could be
established. The culmination of this national level agreement of services should be produced in a
document, Interagency Dispatch Center Operations Guide, similar to guiding direction for the
Interagency Hotshot Operations Guide and the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide.
Funding could be defined based on a standardized module configuration and applied consistently. Once
established, agencies should fund dispatch functions off the top of their budgets at national levels, and
establish cost pools to ensure clear, consistent and appropriate funding.
The primary advantage of this approach is to ensure that agency executive leadership defines and
supports dispatch functions. Standardized definitions at the top will reduce or eliminate identical
discussions currently happening at every level of dispatching without a consistent outcome. One set of
rules, expectations, funding and mission definition will provide the dispatch function with national
interagency consistency while still providing geographic areas and local unit’s opportunity to address
specific differences as operations get closer to the ground using local Board of Directors and geographic
area executive councils comprised of one representative per participating agency.
54
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Briefing Paper
Topic: Standardized Dispatch Workload Analysis and Staffing Application
Background: Methods for assessing dispatch center workload, complexity, and how to determine
baseline staffing levels to meet support requirements vary widely across agencies and areas. A national
standard needs to be developed and utilized across the country to support this critical component of our
agencies’ and partners’ mission.
Currently there are several applications available to perform these workload assessments to derive
appropriate staffing levels.
The FireOrg application was developed by the National Coordinators and other Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs) in 2001 and 2002. The primary objectives of this effort were to:
Develop a national standard process to evaluate dispatch center workload and identify FTE staffing
Calculate percent of workload by unit/agency
Identify and differentiate initial response from extended response staffing needs
Determine fair share costs for supporting dispatch centers based on percent of workload by
unit/agency
In November of 2004, the National Coordinators requested: 1) continued implementation of FireOrg and
2) FireOrg be adopted as the national standard dispatch workload analysis program. The National
Wildland Fire Directors supported FireOrg in concept, but there were issues related to sponsorship and
governance of the program. Consequently, FireOrg was made available and implemented on a
voluntary basis at unit level dispatch centers and is not nationally supported.
The Association of Public-Safety Communication Officers (APCO) has also developed a workload and
staffing application called RETAINS. The APCO Project RETAINS Toolkit and Effective Practices Guide are
designed to address the challenges associated with hiring and retaining qualified personnel. These tools
contain formulas and provide processes that communications center managers can use to estimate their
staffing needs; compare them with current staffing levels by looking at the available hours employees
can work; turnover rates; hours that need to be covered; and call volume. APCO has recently released
the RETAINS Toolkit 2.0 with expanded functionality and capability. Currently, this application has not
been well tested or utilized by land management dispatch agencies since it was specifically developed to
support 911 and other Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) dispatch centers.
Key Point: The Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project (IDOPP) provides a unique opportunity
to pilot various dispatch workload analysis and staffing models to test, validate, and make
recommendations to improve an existing model or develop a new one for national use. This tool could
then be utilized as the standard process for identifying the workload, calculating the percent workload
by unit/agency/program area, and determining the baseline minimum staffing level and funding
requirements at federal interagency dispatch centers.
Recommendation: Simultaneously review and pilot test FireOrg and the APCO RETAINS applications in
the California and Southwest IDOPP pilot areas. The IDOPP Data Call will contain all of the information
necessary to complete the FireOrg program for the dispatch centers in the pilot areas. Have some of the
dispatch centers also utilize the APCO RETAINS application. This is the opportunity to form an
independent national Task Group to review and compare the two applications with data from the
IDOPP pilot areas. Based on findings and feedback from the national Task Group they would document
recommendations to adopt, modify, or develop a workload analysis and staffing tool as part of the
55
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
IDOPP “toolbox” deliverable. The goal of this effort would be to develop and recommend a
standardized tool for determining staffing levels and fair share funding for national use.
Note: The equations and weighting factors in FireOrg should be “protected” so they cannot be modified
if the data is to be input by local centers. Solution: have the supporting IDOPP contractor input the data
into FireOrg.
Recommendation: would be achieved with the following steps:
Step 1. Agree to form a national Dispatch Workload Analysis and Staffing Task Group. This group should
be embody an appropriate blend of dispatch, wildland fire management, law enforcement, planning,
and/or other resource area program SMEs who have a vested interest in dispatch services.
Step 2. Populate FireOrg with the IDOPP data call information. Identify some (x-number) dispatch
centers to complete the APCO RETAINS application. Provide the Dispatch Workload Analysis and Staffing
Task Group with completed data for analysis and evaluation.
Step 3. The Task Group would evaluate the current factors in each application and determine if current
factors should be split/combined or what new factors need to be added to include all aspects of
dispatch support services such as: mobilization of prescribed fire resources, law enforcement or public
safety support activities that are not currently included in the workload factors, all-risk/all-hazard
support activities that are not currently included in the workload factors, and any other workload or
complexity factors that are not addressed in the current applications. All factors old and new listed in
the programs need thorough descriptions to document what goes into each factor. This will likely
include co-lateral duties and/or use of newer software applications (e.g. WFDSS) that were not included
in earlier versions.
Step 4. The Task Group would evaluate, validate, or develop equations utilized in the analysis, to ensure
there is a fair and consist time and workload attributed to each factor. Another example, explain why
FireOrg assumes each agency should contribute .5 FTE just by being signatory to that Center. The Task
Group would document all recommendations for modification of either program.
Step 5. Identify Governance and how it would come into play for staffing and funding of each center.
Step 6. Provide feedback and recommendations to adopt or update application software to IDOPP
Bridge Team. Document findings and make recommendations for a national, standardized dispatch
workload analysis and staffing tool in the final IDOPP report.
Step 7. Develop a Statement of Work and task a contractor to incorporate the recommended
modifications identified or develop a new software application
Other requirements needed from the contractor would be;
A complete and comprehensive User guide
A technical paper that identifies and explains the formulas utilized in the software.
56
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Briefing Paper
Topic: Tiers versus Levels of Dispatch Services versus Complexity
Background: The method for describing wildland fire dispatch and coordination system is based on a
hierological system called “Tiers.”
The Fire Management Efficiencies Steering Committee Report (May 1990) looked at three categories:
1. Dispatch/Coordination Center Efficiencies
a. More than one dispatch center located in the same community.
b. Layering of coordination centers
c. Unequal distribution of workload among area coordination centers
2. Protection Efficiencies
3. Utilization of Resources Efficiencies
Completion of the current geographic area coordination centers was completed approximately a decade
later.
The “tier” system is documented in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations Chapter
8 pages 8-3&4 (http://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/redbook/2011/Ch08.pdf).
“The wildland fire dispatch system in the United States has three levels (tiers): National, Geographic, and
Local. Logistical dispatch operations occur at all three levels, while initial attack dispatch operations
occur primarily at the local level. Any geographic area or local dispatch center using a dispatch system
outside the three-tier system must justify why a non-standard system is being used and request written
authorization from the DOI National Office or USFS Regional Office.”
Key Point: This current system describes the coordination system structure for fire and aviation which
leaves most Tier 3 dispatch centers lumped in the same category without regard to workload,
complexity, or the types of dispatch services provided. In some cases the grades of the employees are
based on assumptions around a Tier 3 or 4 center. The agencies and stakeholders of the dispatch
coordination system support all-risk response within their authorities and limitations. The current “tier”
system does little to describe the types of dispatch services provided by all of the IDOPP participating
agencies.
The National Park Service has established Dispatch Levels of Service
X.2
Levels of Service
X.2.1 Level One: Minimal Dispatch Service
Description. Park areas with a minimal incidents requiring interaction with dispatch operations, such as
a small historic site in an urban setting.
Service. Dispatch operations may be limited to interaction with local, regional, or State dispatch
systems through established PSAP’s and procedures.
X.2.2 Level Two: Occasional PSD Service
Description. Park does not routinely experience a large volume of incidents requiring interaction with
dispatch operations, but isolated incidents have occurred in the past.
Service. These parks rely on the local, regional, or State authorities to provide dispatch services. Park
employees need to be able to receive the report, provide initial activation of dispatch services, and have
limited capability to perform NCIC check or other queries.
57
California IDOP Project Final Report
9/14/2012
X.2.3 Level Three: Active Dispatch Service
Description. Park regularly experiences incidents and provides dispatch to such incidents on a routine
basis. These can be any combination of law enforcement search and rescue, emergency medical
services, structural and wildland fire, etc.
Service. Dispatch services are immediately available, whether they are provided by NPS personnel,
outside organizations and agencies, or a combination of both.
X.2.4 Level Four: Complex and Active Dispatch Service
Description. In addition to the park regularly experiencing and responding to incidents, the uniqueness
of dispatch operations in the area compels the staff to maintain a high degree of dispatch services.
These can be any combination of law enforcement search and rescue, emergency medical services,
structural and wildland fire, etc.
Service. Dispatch services are immediately available, 24x7, provided by NPS personnel, such services
require unique training and experience (emergency medical dispatcher, etc.).
Dispatch Centers are providing these services. (“s”= Dispatching appropriate resource at agency
request in support of common services needed in a dispatch center.) Need to define true scope and
mission for dispatch centers.
Employee
Safety
NPS
X
FS
X
BLM
X
FWS
X
Tribe/BIA X
CAL FIRE X
Administrative
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aviation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wildland
Fire
X
X
X
X
X
X
Structural
Fire
X
s
s
s
X
X
Law
Enforcement
X
X
X
X
X
s
EMS
X
s
s
s
X
X
Public
Safety
X
S&R
X
s
s
s
s
s
X
CAL FIRE requires Law Enforcement dispatch services
Define Public Safety
Define EMD versus EMS (some providing EMD as well)
Private lands intermixed within agency lands. Desolated areas in public lands where an agency
resource is the only responder available.
Looking at the range of dispatching services provided by the IDOP Project participating agencies is there
a different way to describe dispatch services that can meet all agencies needs without exclusion? Or are
they not supported by Manual Direction and possibly outside the scope of the mission. “s” signifies
support role for the primary authority.
Recommendation: Formalize a dispatch nomenclature that embraces all of the aspects of dispatch
services provided. It should be based on the same principles as ICS and NIMS, and be adaptable
overtime. Dispatch Centers can provide these services based on the needs of their stakeholders:
wildland fire, aviation, employee safety, law enforcement, search and rescue, emergency medical
services, structural fire, etc. Once the agencies adopt this concept then we can move forward with
standards for training and qualifications to position our dispatchers and the agencies for success.
58