Appendix to the
California Sub-Team Report
A Part of the
INTERAGENCY DISPATCH OPTIMIZATION
PILOT PROJECT
(IDOPP)
FINAL REPORT
January 31, 2013
ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA GACCS ................................................................................................................................................. 1
No Action Alternative - Maintain Current GACC Locations ........................................................................................................................................1
Alternative 1 - Consolidate Two GACCs into One GACC.............................................................................................................................................2
ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA OPERATIONAL CENTERS ...................................................................................................................... 4
Alternative 1 - Maintain the Current Number and Location of Operational Centers ..................................................................................................4
Alternative 2 - Primarily Consolidate Low Complexity Operational Centers ..............................................................................................................4
Alternative 2 - Option 1 - Consolidate Modoc ECC into Susanville ECC ......................................................................................................................4
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 1 Consolidation (Modoc and Susanville) ................................................................................................................... 5
Alternative 2 - Option 2 – Consolidate Plumas ECC into Susanville ECC .....................................................................................................................6
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 2 Consolidation (Plumas and Susanville) ................................................................................................................. 6
Alternative 2 - Option 1 & 2 Combined .....................................................................................................................................................................7
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 1 and Option 2 Combined Consolidation (Modoc, Plumas, and Susanville) ............................................................. 7
Alternative 2 - Option 3 – Consolidate Hoopa Dispatch into Fortuna ECC..................................................................................................................8
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 3 Consolidation (Hoopa and Fortuna) ....................................................................................................................... 8
Alternative 2 - Option 4 – Consolidate Whiskeytown Dispatch into Redding ECC ......................................................................................................9
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 4 Consolidation (Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity and Redding) .................................................................................. 9
Alternative 2 - Option 5 – Consolidate Mendocino ECC into Red Bluff ECC ..............................................................................................................10
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 5 Consolidation (Mendocino and Red Bluff) ......................................................................................................... 10
Alternative 2 - Option 6 – Consolidate Stanislaus ECC into San Andreas ECC ...........................................................................................................11
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 6 Consolidation (Stanislaus and San Andreas) ...................................................................................................... 11
Alternative 2 - Option 7 – Consolidate Yosemite ECC into Mariposa ECC ................................................................................................................12
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 7 Consolidation (Yosemite and Mariposa) .............................................................................................................. 12
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
i
Alternative 2 Option 8 – Consolidate Sequoia Kings/Ash Mtn ECC into Visalia ECC .................................................................................................13
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 8 Consolidation (Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain and Visalia) .................................................................................... 13
Alternative 2 Option 9 – Consolidate Owens Valley ECC into Federal Interagency CC in San Bernardino .................................................................14
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 9 Consolidation (Owens Valley and Federal Interagency Communications Center) ............................................... 14
Alternative 2 Option 10 – Consolidate Los Padres ECC into San Luis Obispo ECC .....................................................................................................15
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 10 Consolidation (Los Padres and San Luis Obispo) .............................................................................................. 15
Alternative 2 - Option 11 – Reorganize Hawaii Volcanoes NP Dispatch Center to Include Law Enforcement and Aviation Dispatch Services ...........16
Alternative 3 - Create Supercenters ........................................................................................................................................................................17
Complexity Table for Alternative 3 Super Centers ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Average Normalized Score for California Super Centers ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
California Super Centers .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 22
Alternative 1 - Include Law Enforcement in the Scope of Federal Dispatch Services ................................................................................................22
Alternative 2 - Obtain Law Enforcement Dispatch Services through Partnerships ...................................................................................................23
Alternative 2 Option 1 - NPS...................................................................................................................................................................................24
Alternative 2 - Option 2 - California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Parks and Recreation ........................................24
Alternative 2 - Option 3 - County Sheriffs’ Offices...................................................................................................................................................24
Alternative 3 - Establish one or Multiple Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch Centers .............................................................................................25
LIMITED COST ESTIMATE FOR CALIFORNIA OPERATIONAL CENTERS .................................................................................................... 26
Alternative 2 - Primarily Consolidate Low Complexity Operational Centers ............................................................................................................26
Alternative 2 - Option 1 – Consolidate Modoc ECC with Susanville ECC ..................................................................................................................27
Modoc/Susanville Estimated Annual Personnel Savings ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Modoc/Susanville One-Time Costs .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
ii
Alternative 2 - Option 2 – Consolidate Plumas ECC with Susanville ECC ..................................................................................................................28
Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Salary Savings with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction .................................................................................. 29
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction ............................................................................................................ 29
Alternative 2 - Option 1 & 2 Combined ...................................................................................................................................................................30
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Personnel Savings................................................................................................................................................ 30
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Cost Savings with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction ....................................................................... 31
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction ............................................................................................... 31
Alternative 2 Option 3 – Consolidate Hoopa Dispatch with Fortuna ECC .................................................................................................................31
Hoopa/Fortuna Estimated Annual Salary Savings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Alternative 2 - Option 4 – Consolidate Whiskeytown Dispatch with Redding Interagency ECC ................................................................................32
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity/Redding Estimated Annual Cost Savings ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Alternative 2 - Option 5 – Consolidate Mendocino ECC with Red Bluff ECC .............................................................................................................32
Mendocino/Red Bluff Estimated Annual Personnel Savings ....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Alternative 2 - Option 6 – Consolidate Stanislaus ECC with San Andreas ECC ..........................................................................................................33
Stanislaus/San Andreas Estimated Annual Personnel Savings .................................................................................................................................................... 33
Alternative 2 - Option 7 – Consolidate Yosemite ECC with Mariposa ECC ................................................................................................................33
Yosemite/Mariposa Estimated Annual Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Alternative 2 - Option 8 – Consolidate Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain ECC with Visalia ECC ......................................................................................34
Sequoia King/Ash Mountain/Visalia Estimated Annual Cost Savings .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Alternative 2 - Option 9 – Consolidate Owens Valley ECC with Federal Interagency Center in San Bernardino ........................................................35
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings.................................................................................................... 35
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center One-Time Costs ........................................................................................................................... 35
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction ................ 36
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction .......................................... 36
Alternative 2 - Option 10 – Consolidate Los Padres ECC with San Luis Obispo ECC ..................................................................................................36
Los Padres/San Luis Obispo Estimated Annual Cost Savings ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
iii
Cost Estimate for California Operational Centers Alternative 3 - Create Super Centers ...........................................................................................37
North West Super Center .......................................................................................................................................................................................37
North West Super Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
North West Super Center One-Time Costs .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
North East Super Center .........................................................................................................................................................................................38
North East Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
North East Super Center One-Time Costs ................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
North Central Super Center ....................................................................................................................................................................................39
North Central Super Center Estimated Salary Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 39
North Central Super Center One-Time Costs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Central Super Center ..............................................................................................................................................................................................40
Central Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings .............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Central Super Center One-Time Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
South Central Super Center ....................................................................................................................................................................................41
South Central Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings .................................................................................................................................................... 41
South Central Super Center One-Time Costs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Inland Empire Super Center ...................................................................................................................................................................................42
Inland Empire Super Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
Inland Empire Super Center One-Time Costs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 42
South Coast Super Center.......................................................................................................................................................................................43
South Coast Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
South Coast Super Center One-Time Costs ................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
iv
Alternatives for California GACCs
No Action Alternative - Maintain Current GACC Locations
The no action alternative is to maintain the status quo, with the North Ops GACC, South Ops GACC, and the
CAL FIRE Headquarters located in their current locations (Redding, Riverside, and Sacramento respectively).
GACC functions will not change (initial attack support with aviation assets, large fire support, multi-agency
coordinating group activities, predictive services, etc.).
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CAL FIRE supports maintaining the two GACCs for California due to current infrastructure and business
practices.
Coordination and operations are centrally located within the Northern and Southern areas in California.
The two GACCs and multi-agency coordinating groups balance resource allocation and prioritization
throughout the state.
Workload distribution is relatively even between the GACCs for the peak fire season.
The Operations personnel are close to the field units for oversight. Local knowledge of area is important
to the quality of service. The GACCs and Predictive Services provide outstanding service to the field
units.
Multiple GACCs provide redundancy in the event of disaster. 1
In 2011, North Ops replaced radios; upgraded the electrical system; replaced flooring, HVAC systems,
cabling, UPS, and ergonomic furniture; expanded the Intelligence area; and completed other repairs and
upgrades. The interagency project cost approximately $1,635,000.
Disadvantages:
• Agencies have to combine information from the two GACCs and coordinate with two staffs for a
complete outlook of California.
• The GACCs have slightly different operating procedures.
• South Ops currently needs a new facility and is currently working on interagency plans to move to March
Air Reserve Base.
• A freeway overpass encroaches on the CAL FIRE compound where South Ops resides.
• Despite the upgrades, the North Ops facility is not large enough for a consolidated GACC.
1
The capability exists in the Resource Ordering and Status System for either GACC to pick up the workload for the other
GACC. The GACCs and CAL FIRE Sacramento Headquarters have the following intercom redundancies: North Ops has
Redding Interagency ECC as backup; South Ops has the Federal Interagency Communications Center as backup; and CAL
FIRE Sacramento Headquarters has Grass Valley Interagency ECC as backup. The capability exists for easily patching the
five intercoms together so that every ECC and Air Attack Base can hear all intercoms.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
1
Alternative 1 - Consolidate Two GACCs into One GACC
Alternative 1 is to consolidate the North Ops GACC and South Ops GACC into one GACC serving all of
California. Depending on the selected location, the consolidated GACC may or may not include CAL FIRE
Headquarters.
The potential locations considered for a consolidated GACC include Redding, Sacramento, and March Air
Reserve Base in Riverside. Any selection of a single GACC location in California should consider a Natural
Hazard Disclosure Statement 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.
Advantages
• One GACC will have uniform and consistent standard operating procedures; one Intelligence section for
information; one Predictive Services Unit providing services statewide; and uniform coordination and
resource movement. One source will coordinate initial attack aviation resources. One GACC will
streamline the ordering process, unit to GACC to unit.
• The NICC will only need to deal with one GACC in California. The NorCal Multi-Agency Coordinating
Group and SoCal Multi-Agency Coordinating Group could be dissolved and the California Multi-Agency
Coordinating Group (CalMAC) designated as the only priority setting and resource allocation body for
California. 2
 CalMAC will have the support staff if Sacramento (or another central location) were chosen as the
GACC location.
Disadvantages
• CAL FIRE leadership has stated that they do not support consolidation into one GACC because of their
existing regional structure with Northern Region and Southern Region combined at the existing
interagency operations in the North Ops GACC and South Ops GACC respectively.
 The consolidated GACC will be federal only if CAL FIRE chooses not to participate; this may negate
many of the advantages listed above.
 Federal-only consolidation into one GACC may affect partnerships with CAL FIRE as face-to-face
interaction and cooperation between agencies will decrease.
 Since CAL FIRE may choose not to consolidate, this alternative will be against the core value of
interagency partnerships.
• This alternative does not provide for redundancy of GACCs in the event of a disaster. The agencies will
need to establish a Continuity of Operations Plan to address this issue.
• If the operational Duty Chiefs for the agencies stayed in their current locations, consolidation could affect
the unique combination of coordination and operations. Duty Chiefs will not have the staff to support
NorCal Multi-Agency Coordinating Group or SoCal Multi-Agency Coordinating Group operations and will
have to be supported virtually. Intelligence and Predictive services functions will be supported virtually
for priority setting. If CalMAC were the only Multi-Agency Coordinating Group then they would meet on
a normal basis impacting their normal duties. Neither of the current GACC locations is suitable for
CalMAC operations. The administrative staff for the FS will need to stay at Redding for the other
functions on the compound. Redding Mobilization Center responsibilities will need to be shifted to the
Shasta Trinity National Forest, incurring PCS/TOS costs.
• This alternative will require federal PCS/TOS for employees moved greater than 50 miles.
2
The rest of the geographic areas across the nation use a single Multi-Agency Coordinating Group per area, however this
could be a highly political decision based on the Multi-Agency Coordinating Group participants in Southern California.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
2
•
Consolidation and relocation of the South Ops GACC to Central or Northern California may cause
concern among the major political entities, publics, and cooperators in Southern California.
• All three potential locations would require a new facility. The North Ops GACC is located in Redding;
however, the current facility will not be able to accommodate additional workload and personnel.
Similarly, CAL FIRE Headquarters, which is located in a Cal EMA building, is too small and needs more
space for existing staff.)
• If the consolidated GACC is federal only, the federal agencies will bear the entire cost of the radio
system.
Location-Specific Advantages – Redding:
• Redding has lower per diem and locality pay.
Location-Specific Disadvantages – Redding:
• No specific disadvantages identified.
Location-Specific Advantages – Sacramento:
• Sacramento offers the GACC close proximity to managing agencies and their executives.
• Opportunities for partnerships with Federal Emergency Management Agency/ Department of Homeland
Security may exist.
Location-Specific Disadvantages – Sacramento:
• McClellan Air Force Base, a possible site to be used in Sacramento, is located in a flood zone.
Location-Specific Advantages – March Air Reserve Base (Riverside):
• If moving to March Air Reserve Base, the facility could be large enough to accommodate the increased
workload and personnel.
Location-Specific Disadvantages – March Air Reserve Base (Riverside):
• Riverside County has the highest per diem and locality pay of the three potential locations.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
3
Alternatives for California Operational Centers
Alternative 1 - Maintain the Current Number and Location of Operational Centers
Alternative 1 is to not consolidate any operational centers in the California area, leaving each center in its
current location. Although the number and location of centers will not change, this alternative will not
continue business as usual. The centers will standardize training, procedures, equipment, and systems to
increase the efficiency of the dispatch operations within the area through the implementation of
recommendations outlined in Chapter 4.
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
This alternative causes the least amount of disruption to dispatch personnel and operations.
Disadvantages:
Standardization may be more difficult to implement if centers are not changing.
Operational costs are higher for two centers than for one.
This alternative does not leverage economies of scale.
This alternative does not support the goal for reducing the federal government’s environmental
footprint.
This alternative leaves 16 low complexity centers in California, including centers within close proximity to
one another.
Alternative 2 - Primarily Consolidate Low Complexity Operational Centers
Alternative 2 is to consolidate lower complexity operational centers to create more efficient moderate or
high complexity centers and reduce the cost of operations. According to an earlier study in California,
technology allows for a reduction in the number of centers within the area. 3 Centers selected for
consolidation are located within a reasonable proximity to one another. The options presented for
Alternative 2 strive to use existing facilities to minimize capital outlay, take advantage of current plans to
upgrade infrastructure and facilities, locate a consolidated center within a two-hour drive time to minimize
travel by management, and maintain CAL FIRE cooperative fire protection agreements.
Alternative 2 - Option 1 - Consolidate Modoc ECC into Susanville ECC
Option 1 consolidates the Modoc Interagency ECC, located in Alturas, into the Susanville Interagency ECC,
located in Susanville. Table E.6-3-1 below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
3
Emergency Communication Center (ECC) and Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) Study, 2006
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
4
Fed/
State
Combined Total
Fed/
State
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
# of Non-Fire/
Non-LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Susanville
Interagency ECC (CASIFC)
Interagency
Integrated
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Modoc Interagency
ECC (CA-MICC)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Fires A-C & D+ (5
Yr Avg)
Center Name and
Identifier
Current FTE per
Center
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 1 Consolidation (Modoc and Susanville)
7.0
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24 (Low)
9.0
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
(Moderate)
16.0
684
4,406
5,536
432
9,805
1.47 (High)
Proposed FTE
15.0
Change in FTE
-1.0
Average
Normalized
Score
Advantages:
• This option consolidates a low complexity center and a moderate complexity center to form a more efficient
high complexity center.
• One consolidated center will require lower operational costs than will two centers.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is a 9,000 square foot facility and should be able to accommodate additional staff.
• This option requires minimal budget outlay for facility upgrades and will have minimal impact on current
business practices.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is already an agency-owned, interagency center.
• Susanville Interagency ECC replaced or remodeled the radios and infrastructure in 2004.
• The jurisdictions of the federal agencies are within the same geographic area as the CAL FIRE unit.
Disadvantages:
• Currently the Modoc National Forest is including the dispatch center (1,800 square feet) in the building plans
for a new leased Supervisor’s Office. Construction is scheduled to be completed December 2012.
• The distance from Alturas to Susanville is approximately 104 miles. One time PCS/TOS costs will apply.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
5
Alternative 2 - Option 2 – Consolidate Plumas ECC into Susanville ECC
Option 2 consolidates the Plumas ECC, located in Quincy, into the Susanville Interagency ECC, located in Susanville. The
table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
Susanville Interagency
ECC (CA-SIFC)
Fed/
State
Fed/
State
Combined Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
7.0
116
1,598 3,490
445
132
0.50 (Low)
9.0
573
3,688 4,219
379
9,350
1.23
(Moderate)
16.0
689
5,286 7,709
824
9,482
1.73 (High)
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr
Avg)
# of Non-Fire/ Non- LE
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
Fed
# of LE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Plumas ECC (CA-PNFC)
Type of
Center
Fires A-C & D+
(5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 2 Consolidation (Plumas and Susanville)
Average
Normalized
Score
14.0
or
-2.0 or
-1.0
Advantages:
• This option consolidates a low complexity center and a moderate complexity center to form a more efficient
high complexity center.
• Operational costs for one center will be less than for two.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is a 9,000 square foot facility and should be able to accommodate additional staff.
• This option requires minimal budget outlay for facility upgrades and will have minimal impact on current
business practices.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is already an agency-owned, interagency center.
• Susanville Interagency ECC replaced or remodeled the radios and infrastructure in 2004.
• The jurisdictions of the federal agencies are within the same geographic area as the CAL FIRE unit.
• This option avoids the need to upgrade inadequate infrastructure and facilities at Plumas ECC.
Disadvantages:
•
The distance from Quincy to Susanville is approximately 68 miles. One-time PCS/TOS costs will apply.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
6
Alternative 2 - Option 1 & 2 Combined
Another option is to consolidate both the Modoc Interagency ECC and the Plumas ECC into the Susanville Interagency ECC.
Table E.6-3-3 below shows the complexity for this consolidated center. With this consolidation, the resulting center will
have an average normalized score of 1.97, which is equivalent to the Federal Interagency Communications Center.
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Fed
Fed/
State
Fed/
State
7.0
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24 (Low)
7.0
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50 (Low)
9.0
573
3,688
4,219
379
9,350
1.23
(Moderate)
23.0
800
6,004
9,026
877
9,937
1.97 (High)
# of Non-Fire/
Non- LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Combined Total
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out 5
Yr Avg)
Modoc
Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC (CAPNFC)
Susanville
Interagency ECC
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
Fires A-C & D+ (5
Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 1 and Option 2 Combined Consolidation (Modoc, Plumas, and Susanville)
Average
Normalized
Score
19.0 or
21.0
-4.0 or 2.0
Advantages:
• This option reduces the number of low complexity centers in California.
• Operational costs will be lower for one combined center than for three separate centers.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is a 9,000 square foot facility and should be able to accommodate additional staff.
• This option requires minimal budget outlay for facility upgrades and will have minimal impact on current
business practices.
• Susanville Interagency ECC is already an agency-owned, interagency center.
• Susanville Interagency ECC replaced or remodeled the radios and infrastructure in 2004.
• The jurisdictions of the federal agencies are within the same geographic area as the CAL FIRE unit.
• This option avoids the need to upgrade inadequate infrastructure and facilities at Plumas ECC.
Disadvantages:
• The same disadvantages as Options 1 and 2 apply.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
7
Alternative 2 - Option 3 – Consolidate Hoopa Dispatch into Fortuna ECC
Option 3 consolidates the Hoopa (Fire) Dispatch Center, located in Hoopa, into the Fortuna Interagency ECC, located in
Fortuna. The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center. The California sub-team was unsure about
the consolidation of law enforcement due to tribal jurisdiction.
# of Non-Fire/
Non-LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed/
State
Fed/
State
Single
Agency
Interagency
Co-Located
Interagency
Integrated
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Combined Total
Tribal
319
2,498
1,053
0.38 (Low)
2,916
4,232 1,255
7,020
0.97
(Moderate)
3,007
4,551 3,753
8,073
1.35 (High)
1.0
248
91
14.0
259
15.0
507
Proposed FTE
14.0
Change in FTE
-1.0
Fires A-C & D (5
Yr Avg)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out
(5 Yr Avg)
Hoopa Dispatch (CAHIAC)
Fortuna Interagency
ECC (CA-FICC)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE
per Center
Center Name and
Identifier
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 3 Consolidation (Hoopa and Fortuna)
Average
Normalized
Score
Advantages:
• This option consolidates a low complexity center and a moderate complexity center to form a more efficient
high complexity center.
• Operational costs will be lower for one combined center than for two centers.
• This option requires minimal budget outlay for facility upgrades and will have minimal impact on current
business practices.
• Fortuna ECC is a state-owned facility and is already interagency.
• The radios and infrastructure at the Fortuna Interagency ECC are scheduled for partial replacement and
remodel in 2013.
• Both centers provide support over the same geographic area.
• This option provides an opportunity for Hoopa to receive 24/7 service rather than build up the staff at the
Hoopa (Fire) Dispatch Center.
Disadvantages:
• Hoopa will need to pay annual fees for the provision of dispatch services. The team does not know if these fees
will be more or less than the cost of the existing Hoopa Dispatch Center.
• The distance from Hoopa to Fortuna is approximately 77 miles. PCS/TOS costs might apply, if applicable to
tribal regulations.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
8
Alternative 2 - Option 4 – Consolidate Whiskeytown Dispatch into Redding ECC
Option 4 consolidates the Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area Dispatch Center, located in Whiskeytown,
into the Redding Interagency ECC, located in Redding. The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
Redding Interagency
ECC (CA-RICC)
Fed/
State
Fed/
State
Combined Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Co-Located
Interagency
Integrated
2.0
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34 (Low)
14.0
451
4,371
8,620
1,605
14,181
1.72 (High)
16.0
485
4,513
8,738
5,566
15,071
2.06 (High)
# of LE Incidents (5
Yr Avg)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Fed
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
WhiskeytownShasta Trinity
National Recreation
Area (CA-WNP)
Type of
Center
Fires A-C & D+ (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
# of Non-Fire/ NonLE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 4 Consolidation (Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity and Redding)
Average
Normalized
Score
15.0
-1.0
Advantages:
• This option reduces the number of low complexity centers in California and saves on operational costs.
• The distance between the Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area Dispatch Center and the Redding
Interagency ECC is only 10 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• The Redding Interagency ECC plans to replace radios and remodel and upgrade infrastructure in 2012-2013.
• This option has minimal impact on current business practices.
• The consolidated center has the potential to retool staff to provide 24/7 coverage.
• The dispatch centers encompass the same geographic area. Currently the CAL FIRE Shasta Unit provides initial
attack response and Shasta-Trinity National Forest provides logistical support for large fires by agreement.
Disadvantages:
• The Redding Interagency ECC has limited space. The consolidated center will need a larger facility to accommodate
the additional personnel and workload. According to the data call, Redding Interagency ECC does not have
adequate space for current staff or excess space for expansion. Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
Area Dispatch Center is located in a park facility with no lease costs. Redding ECC is a state-owned facility, which
might lead to lease costs.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
9
Alternative 2 - Option 5 – Consolidate Mendocino ECC into Red Bluff ECC
Option 5 consolidates the Mendocino Interagency ECC, located in Willows, into the Red Bluff ECC, located in Red Bluff.
The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
Red Bluff ECC (CA-TGCC)
State
Combined Total
Fed/
State
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
# of Non-Fire/
Non- LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Mendocino Interagency
ECC (CA-MNFC)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
7.0
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40 (Low)
8.0
192
2,375
1,520
7
7,794
0.62 (Low)
15.0
282
3,660
3,649
959
7,975
1.02
(Moderat
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
Fires A-C & D+ (5
Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 5 Consolidation (Mendocino and Red Bluff)
Average
Normalize
d Score
15.0
0.0
Advantages:
• This option consolidates two low complexity centers to form a more efficient moderate complexity center at
lower overall operational cost.
• The distance from Willows to Red Bluff is approximately 47 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• Red Bluff ECC recently upgraded its facility.
• Red Bluff ECC replaced or remodeled its radios and infrastructure in 2002.
• Both centers provide support over the same geographic area.
Disadvantages:
• This option may require a larger facility to accommodate the additional personnel and workload. (According to the
data call, Red Bluff ECC has adequate space for current staff but does not have excess space for expansion.)
• This option will require the centers to change business practices to become interagency.
• Red Bluff ECC is a state facility, which might lead to lease costs for the federal agencies. Mendocino Interagency ECC
currently pays lease costs of $40,000 in the Forest Supervisor’s Office.
• The distance between Willows and Red Bluff may affect employees’ commutes.
• If the agencies maintain the current practice of having both a federal and state center manager in an interagency
center, this option will not generate cost savings associated with eliminating one center manager position.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
10
Alternative 2 - Option 6 – Consolidate Stanislaus ECC into San Andreas ECC
Option 6 consolidates the Stanislaus ECC, located in Sonora, into the San Andreas ECC, located in San Andreas. The table
below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
The California sub-team also considered combining Stanislaus ECC into the Camino Interagency ECC. The sub-team
determined that San Andreas was closer and a better geographic fit. Camino Interagency ECC is approximately 86 miles
from Stanislaus ECC.
Fed/
State
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
6.0
66
1,231
7.0
349
4,135
3,369
13.0
415
5,366
# of Non-Fire/
Non-LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Combined Total
State
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed
Average
Normalized
Score
1,002 1,962
736
0.38 (Low)
92
10,193
1.07
(Moderate)
4,371 2,054
10,929
1.45 (High)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Stanislaus ECC
(CA-STCC)
San Andreas ECC
(CA-TCCC)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
Fires A-C & D+ (5
Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 6 Consolidation (Stanislaus and San Andreas)
13.0
0.0
Advantages:
• This option consolidates a low complexity center and a moderate complexity center to form a more efficient high
complexity center.
• The distance from Sonora to San Andreas is approximately 29 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• San Andreas ECC replaced or remodeled its radios and infrastructure in 2005.
• Both centers provide support over the same geographic area.
• Operational costs for one center are less than fo8r two.
Disadvantages:
• This option will require the centers to change business practices to become interagency.
• San Andreas ECC is a state facility, which might lead to lease costs for the federal agencies. Stanislaus ECC currently
has a lease cost of $35,000 for its space in the Forest Supervisor’s Office. The team does not know whether the new
lease cost will be greater than the current lease cost.
• The consolidated center will need a larger facility to accommodate the additional personnel and workload. According
to the data call, San Andreas ECC does not have adequate space for current staff or excess space for expansion.
• If the agencies maintain the current practice of having both a federal and state center manager in an interagency
center, this option will not generate cost savings by eliminating one center manager position.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
11
Alternative 2 - Option 7 – Consolidate Yosemite ECC into Mariposa ECC
Option 7 consolidates the Yosemite ECC, located in El Portal, into the Mariposa ECC, located in Mariposa. The table below
shows the complexity of the consolidated center. Unlike the other options in Alternative 2, this option does not involve
any low complexity centers. The Yosemite Communications Branch Chief, who supervises the Yosemite ECC, asked that
this consolidation be considered.
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Combined Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
State
Fed/
State
# of Non-Fire/
Non-LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Fed
Average
Normalized
Score
10.0
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77 (High)
15.0
730
1,287
2,702
47
15,334
1.10
(Moderate)
25.0
851
1,721
3,605
21,047
21,508
2.87 (High)
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Yosemite ECC
(CA-YPCC)
Mariposa ECC
(CA-MMU)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name
and Identifier
Fires A-C & D+ (5
Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 7 Consolidation (Yosemite and Mariposa)
25.0
0.0
Advantages:
• The distance between El Portal and Mariposa is approximately 27 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• Mariposa ECC replaced or remodeled its radios and infrastructure in 2008.
• The centers provide support for adjacent geographic areas.
• This option allows 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.
• Operational costs for one center are lower than for two.
Disadvantages:
• This option will require the centers to change business practices to become interagency.
• Mariposa ECC currently has a staff of 15 and is a moderate complexity center; Yosemite has a staff of 11 and is already
a high complexity center.
• This option may require a new facility or additional infrastructure. According to the data call, Mariposa ECC has
adequate space for current staff but does not have excess space for expansion.
• If the agencies maintain the current practice of having both a federal and state center manager in an interagency
center, this option will not generate cost savings associated with eliminating one center manager position.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
12
Alternative 2 Option 8 – Consolidate Sequoia Kings/Ash Mtn ECC into Visalia ECC
Option 8 consolidates the Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC, located in Three Rivers, into the Visalia ECC, located in
Visalia. Sequoia Kings ECC is the all-hazard dispatch center and Ash Mountain ECC is the fire and aviation dispatch center;
the ECCs are in different buildings on the park compound. The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated
center.
Visalia ECC (CA-TUCC)
State
Combined Total
Fed/ State
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
486
544
823
987
0.21 (Low)
260
1,593 1,696
27
3,661
0.51 (Low)
329
2,079 2,240
850
4,648
0.72 (Low)
8.0
69
6.0
14.0
# of Non-Fire/Non-LE
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
# of LE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Fed
ROSS Incoming Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash
Mountain ECC (CA-SQCC)
Type of
Center
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Fires A-C & D+ (5 Yr Avg)
Center Name and
Identifier
Current FTE per Center
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 8 Consolidation (Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain and Visalia)
Average
Normalized
Score
13.0
-1.0
Advantages:
• This option reduces the number of low complexity centers in California.
• This option reduces operational costs by consolidating three facilities into one location.
• The distance between Three Rivers and Visalia is approximately 35 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• Visalia ECC replaced or remodeled its radios and infrastructure in 2007.
• The centers provide support for adjacent geographic areas.
Disadvantages:
• Consolidation of these two low complexity centers results in a center that is still low complexity.
• This option will require the centers to change business practices to become interagency.
• This option may require a new facility or additional infrastructure. According to the data call, Visalia ECC has adequate
space for current staff but does not have excess space for expansion.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
13
Alternative 2 Option 9 – Consolidate Owens Valley ECC into Federal Interagency CC in San
Bernardino
Option 9 consolidates the Owens Valley Interagency ECC, located in Bishop, into the Federal Interagency Communications
Center, located in San Bernardino. The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
The California sub-team also considered combining Owens Valley Interagency ECC with the Sierra Front Dispatch Center in
Minden, NV. Sierra Front Dispatch Center was outside the scope of this project and approximately 161 miles from Owens
Valley Interagency ECC.
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Interagency
Co-Located
7.5
72
779
1,224
Fed
Interagency
Integrated
21.0
766
2,896
Fed
Interagency
Integrated
28.5
837
3,675
# of Non-Fire/ NonLE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Fed
Type of
Center
# of LE Incidents (5
Yr Avg)
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr
Avg)
Combined Total
Fires A-C & D+ (5 Yr
Avg)
Owens Valley
Interagency ECC
(CA-OVCC)
Federal
Interagency
Communications
Center (CA-SBCC)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 Option 9 Consolidation (Owens Valley and Federal Interagency Communications
Center)
680
Average
Normalized
Score
150
0.25 (Low)
4,796
12,524 2,859
2.01 (High)
6,020
13,204 3,009
2.27 (High)
25.5 or 27.5
-3.0 or -1.0
Advantages:
• This option reduces the number of low complexity centers in California.
• This option saves operational costs by reducing the number of facilities.
• This option has minimal impact on current business practices.
• The Federal Interagency Communications Center already has the infrastructure and law enforcement radio frequency
in place 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 will 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 enough space for additional workload and
personnel. According to the data call, the center has 501-1,000 square feet of available space.
Disadvantages:
• Personnel costs will be greater in San Bernardino due to higher locality pay.
• The distance between Bishop and San Bernardino is approximately 252 miles. One time PCS/TOS costs will apply.
• Relationship with local duty chiefs might suffer because of the distance for Inyo National Forest management.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
14
Alternative 2 Option 10 – Consolidate Los Padres ECC into San Luis Obispo ECC
Option 10 consolidates the Los Padres ECC, located in Santa Maria, into the San Luis Obispo ECC, located in San Luis
Obispo. The table below shows the complexity of the consolidated center.
The California sub-team also considered combining Los Padres ECC with the Angeles ECC in Lancaster. This was ruled out
due to the distance of approximately 172 miles between Los Padres ECC and Angeles ECC.
Los Padres ECC
(CA-LPCC)
San Luis Obispo
ECC (CA-SLCC)
Combined
Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Fed
State
Fed/
State
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
# of Non-Fire/Non-LE
Incidents (5 Yr Avg)
Current
FTE per
Center
# of LE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Center
ROSS Incoming Resources
(5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5 Yr Avg)
Center Name
and Identifier
Fires A-C & D+ (5 Yr Avg)
Complexity Table for Alternative 2 - Option 10 Consolidation (Los Padres and San Luis Obispo)
Average
Normalized
Score
7.0
50
4,641
9,464 3,954
3,906
1.50 (High)
10.0
203
2,345
2,089
83
7,723
0.67 (Low)
17.0
254
6,986
11,553 4,037
11,629
2.17 (High)
17.0
0.0
Advantages:
• The distance between Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo is approximately 40 miles. PCS/TOS costs will not apply.
• Consolidation will save on operational costs.
• San Luis Obispo ECC replaced or remodeled its radios and infrastructure in 2005.
• Both centers provide support over the same geographic area.
Disadvantages:
• This option will require the centers to change business practices to become interagency.
• San Luis Obispo ECC is a state facility, which might lead to lease costs for the federal agencies. (Los Padres ECC
currently has a lease cost of $30,500 for its space in modular facilities. The team does not know whether the new
lease cost will 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.)
• If the agencies maintain the current practice of having both a federal and state center manager in an interagency
center, this option will not generate cost savings by eliminating one center manager position.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
15
Alternative 2 - Option 11 – Reorganize Hawaii Volcanoes NP Dispatch Center to Include Law
Enforcement and Aviation Dispatch Services
Option 11 reorganizes the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center to provide law enforcement and fire and
aviation dispatch services. Hawaii Volcanoes will assume the fire support and ordering for the Hawaiian Islands that
currently goes through the Mendocino Interagency 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
area and minimal workload, yet is staffed with 6.0 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 do other work. (See also Alternative 2 Option 5 for the consolidation of
Mendocino Interagency ECC and Red Bluff ECC.)
Disadvantages:
• Staff at the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Dispatch Center will need training to dispatch for fire and aviation.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
16
Alternative 3 - Create Supercenters
Alternative 3 is a long-range scenario for future super centers within California as technology advances.
Advantages:
• This alternative addresses low, moderate, and high complexity federal centers.
• This alternative provides the potential to decommission multiple current centers, saving on operational
costs and improving standardization in business practices.
• In conjunction with this alternative, the federal agencies could upgrade infrastructure and facilities to the
latest technologies.
• This alternative provides potential to retool staff to provide 24/7 coverage in support of law enforcement
and other field going personnel working outside of regular operating hours.
Disadvantages:
• All super centers will require a large capital outlay, with new facilities to be leased or constructed.
• This alternative has the most significant impact on business practices.
• Management of the super centers will have greater than a two-hour drive time for attendance at some
meetings at local units.
• Consolidation of dispatch centers may require implementation of sub-geographic area multi-agency
coordinating groups for prioritization and allocation of resources for large incidents.
• Many centers will meet the one-time TOS/PCS requirements.
• The complexity of Duty Officer communications and coordination will increase significantly.
• Super center may reduce services to local administrative units and stakeholders.
• With federal-only consolidation, operational centers will lose the in-person interagency coordination
with CAL FIRE. This goes against the core value of interagency partnerships.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
17
The table below shows the complexity for the existing operational centers proposed for each super center.
North West Super Center
Fortuna Interagency
ECC - Federal Only (CA- Fed
FICC)
Hoopa Dispatch (CATribal
HIAC)
Mendocino
Fed
Interagency ECC (CARedding Interagency
Fed
ECC - Federal Only (CAWhiskeytown-Shasta
Trinity National
Fed
Recreation Area (CAWNP)
Yreka Interagency ECC Federal Only (CA-YICC)
North West Super
Center Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
North East Super Center
Grass Valley
Interagency ECC Federal Only (CA-GVCC)
Modoc Interagency
ECC (CA-MICC)
Plumas ECC (CA-PNFC)
Susanville Interagency
ECC - Federal Only (CASIFC)
North East Super
Center Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Fed
Fed/
Tribal
Interagency
Co-Located
# of Non-Fire/NonLE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Center
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Agency
Fires A-C & D+
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Center Name and
Identifier
Current FTE per
Center
Complexity Table for Alternative 3 Super Centers
Average
Normalized
Score
7.0
94
1,142
2,554
1,165
209
0.43 (Low)
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Co-Located
1.0
248
91
319
2,498
1,053
0.38 (Low)
7.0
90
1,285
2,129
952
181
0.40 (Low)
7.0
161
2,014
5,327
1,529
282
0.78
(Moderate)
Interagency
Integrated
2.0
33
142
118
3,961
890
0.34 (Low)
7.0
108
2,105
4,372
8
405
0.58 (Low)
31.0
735
6,779
14,819
10,113
3,020
2.91 (High)
7.0
86
1,838
2,017
1,297
1,081
0.48 (Low)
7.0
111
718
1,317
53
455
0.24 (Low)
7.0
116
1,598
3,490
445
132
0.50 (Low)
374
2,638
0.70 (Low)
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
22.0
-9.0
Fed
Fed
Fed
Interagency
Co-Located
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Fed
Interagency
Integrated
4.0
442
1,790
2,504
Fed
Interagency
Integrated
25.0
756
5,944
9,328
2,169 4,306
1.93 (High)
21.0
-4.0
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
18
North Central Super Center
Camino Interagency
Fed
ECC - Federal Only (CAGolden Gate National
Fed
Recreation Area (CAGNP)
Hawaii Volcanoes
Fed
National Park (HIStanislaus ECC (CAFed
STCC)
North Central Super
Fed
Center Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Central Super Center
Sierra Interagency ECC Fed
(CA-SICC)
Yosemite ECC (CAFed
YPCC)
Central Super Center
Fed
Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
South Central Super Center
Central California ECC
Fed
(CA-CCCC)
Los Padres ECC (CAFed
LPCC)
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Fed
Mountain ECC (CASouth Central Super
Fed
Center Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
Inland Empire Super Center
Federal Interagency
Fed
Communications
Center (CA-SBCC)
# of Non-Fire/NonLE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Center
Fires A-C & D+
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
Average
Normalized
Score
Interagency
Integrated
8.0
129
2,016
1,308
1,017
1,975
0.47 (Low)
Interagency
Integrated
14.0
17
10
-
29,439
3,463
2.13 (High)
6.0
16
81
73
184
80
0.04 (Low)
6.0
66
1,231
1,002
1,962
736
0.38 (Low)
34.0
228
3,338
2,383
32,602
6,254
3.02 (High)
9.0
172
2,629
1,886
1,331
867
0.60 (Low)
10.0
121
434
903
21,000
6,174
1.77 (High)
19.0
293
3,063
2,789
22,331
7,041
2.37 (High)
9.0
492
6,765
6,679
2,707
598
1.61 (High)
7.0
50
4,641
9,464
3,954
3,906
1.50 (High)
8.0
69
486
544
823
987
0.21 (Low)
611 11,892
16,688
7,484
5,491
3.31 (High)
4,796
12,524
2,859
2.01 (High)
Single
Agency
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
30.0
-4.0
Interagency
Co-Located
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
18.0
-1.0
Interagency
Integrated
Interagency
Integrated
Single
Agency
Interagency
Integrated
24.0
21.0
-3.0
Interagency
Integrated
21.0
766
2,896
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
19
# of Non-Fire/NonLE Incidents (5 Yr
Avg)
# of LE Incidents
(5 Yr Avg)
Type of
Center
Fires A-C & D+
(5 Yr Avg)
ROSS Resources
Dispatched Out (5
Yr Avg)
ROSS Incoming
Resources (5 Yr
Avg)
Type of
Agency
Current FTE per
Center
Center Name and
Identifier
Average
Normalized
Score
Owens Valley
Fed
Interagency ECC (CAOVCC)
Inland Empire Super
Fed
Center Total
Proposed FTE
Change in FTE
South Coast Super Center
Interagency
Co-Located
7.5
72
779
1,224
680
150
0.25 (Low)
Interagency
Integrated
28.5
837
3,675
6,020
13,204
3,009
2.27 (High)
Angeles ECC (CA-ANCC)
Interagency
Integrated
227
2,863
4,327
1,832
1,634
0.88
(Moderate)
Fed
25.5
-3.0
11.0
Monte Vista
Interagency
Fed
13.0
113 1,739
1,602
1,606
1,509
Interagency ECC Integrated
Federal Only (CA-MVIC)
South Coast BLM (El Centro and Palm Springs) (from
Federal Interagency Communications Center)
South Coast Super
Interagency 24.0 340
Fed
4,602 5,929
3,438
3,143
Center Total
Integrated
Proposed FTE
23.0
Change in FTE
-1.0
0.49 (Low)
1.37 (High)
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
20
The figure below shows the average normalized score for each super center and the following table
summarizes the consolidations.
Average Normalized Score for California Super Centers
Average Normalized Score
3.50
3.00
3.31
3.02
2.91
2.37
2.50
2.27
1.93
2.00
1.37
1.50
1.00
0.50
North North East North
West
Super
Central
Super
Center
Super
Center
Center
Central
Super
Center
South
Central
Super
Center
Inland
Empire
Super
Center
South
Coast
Super
Center
California Super Centers
2.91(High)
1.93 (High)
3.02 (High)
2.37 (High)
3.31 (High)
2.27 (High)
1.37 (High)
Total
31.0
25.0
34.0
19.0
24.0
28.5
24.0
185.5
17%
13%
18%
10%
13%
15%
13%
22.0
21.0
30.0
18.0
21.0
25.5
23.0
160.5
Percent of
Proposed
Staffing
6
4
4
2
3
2
2
Total Proposed
Federal FTE
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
Percent of
Current Staffing
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total Current
Federal FTE
Total
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
Average
Normalized
Score
High
North West Super Center
North East Super Center
North Central Super Center
Central Super Center
South Central Super Center
Inland Empire Super Center
South Coast Super Center
Moderate
Super Center Location
Low
Number of
Centers Being
Consolidated
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
21
14%
13%
19%
11%
13%
16%
14%
Alternatives for California Law Enforcement
Alternative 1 - Include Law Enforcement in the Scope of Federal Dispatch Services
In Alternative 1, all 23 federal operational centers will provide National Crime Information Center authorized
or state authorized law enforcement dispatch services in the California area. Law enforcement and other
functions will have dispatch services 24/7 from a local or other designated dispatch center.
Advantages:
• This alternative will provide enhanced interaction, information sharing, and communication between the
dispatch center and stakeholder personnel.
• This alternative will provide consistency for training of the dispatch center employees, expectations of all
stakeholders, standard governance, etc.
• Federal dispatchers have a working knowledge of their geographical areas.
• This is the lowest cost alternative, as no new facilities will be needed.
• In a questionnaire to California FS Dispatch Center Managers, Fire Management Officers, and Line
Officers, 90% of respondents replied that the same dispatch centers should handle law enforcement that
handle fire, aviation, and other dispatch services (all-hazard).
Disadvantages:
• Some California dispatch centers have fewer CLETs and NCIC terminals (hardware) and staff than needed
to accommodate the numbers of law enforcement requests and LEOs. Centers will need more terminals
and staff to fully support law enforcement.
• The dispatchers have to contact the county sheriff’s office to obtain local wants and warrants
information, which increases the contact time between law enforcement personnel and the subject(s).
• The current radio system and infrastructure is outdated, with extensive radio dead zones and insufficient
repeaters to cover the dead zones. 4 The FS has not fully implemented its planned statewide FS law
enforcement communication network (LE Net).
4
Forest Service Strategic Investment in Safety letter, December 12, 2011.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
22
Alternative 2 - Obtain Law Enforcement Dispatch Services through Partnerships
In Alternative 2, federal dispatch centers will no longer provide law enforcement dispatch services. Instead,
the federal agencies will partner with other law enforcement communication centers to receive these
services. Partners could include NPS centers, California Department of Fish and Game and California
Department of Parks and Recreation, or county sheriffs’ offices.
Advantages:
• This alternative will eliminate the need for an individual dispatcher to prioritize between fire and law
enforcement incidents.
• Local radio traffic could be heard by adjacent law enforcement personnel.
 This could increase responses for backup, sharing of local information, and communication between
responding officers.
 This will provide immediate emergency notifications to law enforcement personnel such as Be On the
Look Outs and Amber Alerts.
• Dispatchers are already trained to provide law enforcement dispatch services and meet Department of
Justice requirements for law enforcement dispatching.
Disadvantages:
• All-risk incidents (fire and law enforcement) will require coordination through multiple dispatch centers.
• A potential lack of communication between agency personnel due to the need to monitor multiple
radios/frequencies.
• This alternative will not require face-to-face contact between dispatch employees and law enforcement
personnel.
• No statewide standard radio code or agreement to use clear text exists, causing potential 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. The purchase and installation of compatible radios will require an initial outlay of funds.
• All departments/agencies could require funding for providing dispatch services, estimated at $5,000 per
officer.
• Multiple MOUs will be required with the department/agencies providing the dispatch. The parties could
terminate these MOUs at any time.
• Some departments/agencies do not want to work with federal law enforcement personnel. 5
5
The FS does not have peace officer authority in several counties in California.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
23
Alternative 2 Option 1 - NPS
In Option 1, federal agencies will establish agreements with NPS dispatch centers that provide law
enforcement and all-hazard dispatch services, such as Yosemite ECC.
Advantages:
• Partnering with another federal agency has advantages of sharing federal frequency regulations, intergovernmental agreements, and equipment. NPS also has a common mission and objectives of resource
protection and land management.
Disadvantages:
• See general Alternative 2 disadvantages above.
Alternative 2 - Option 2 - California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of
Parks and Recreation
In Option 2, federal agencies will establish agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game and
California Department of Parks and Recreation. These agencies operate three joint state-wide law
enforcement dispatch centers: Northern Communications Center in Rancho Cordova, CA; Central
Communications Center in Monterey, CA; and Southern Communications Center in Perris, CA.
Advantages:
• Inter-governmental agreements may be easier because of similar mission and objectives.
Disadvantages:
• State agencies may have different frequency regulations.
Alternative 2 - Option 3 - County Sheriffs’ Offices
In Option 3, federal agencies will establish agreements with local county sheriffs’ offices. This may not be
feasible statewide as California has 58 counties.
Advantages:
• Sheriffs’ office dispatch centers have the ability to interface with the California State Criminal Justice
Systems so they could input stolen and recovered vehicles, vehicles that have been towed, and stolen
property.
Disadvantages:
• Service fees may be based on each county, which increases the cost since many officers cover multiple
counties.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
24
Alternative 3 - Establish one or Multiple Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch Centers
Alternative 3 is to establish one or more centralized federal law enforcement dispatch centers to provide
24/7 coverage.
Advantages:
• Having centralized interagency land management law enforcement dispatch centers will streamline
communication with all law enforcement field going units, prevent overlap of investigations/patrol
activities, ensure 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 will have dedicated law enforcement dispatch services.
• Having one standard operating procedure and standardized training will enhance communications with
all federal law enforcement personnel.
• May increase the fields’ confidence with dispatch services.
• Law enforcement dispatching is technical and specialized; centralization of law enforcement dispatch
allows dispatchers to focus on the specialized skills and priority of this type of dispatch.
• Costs, infrastructure, facilities, and frequencies in support of law enforcement activities will be shared by
an interagency agreement.
• Results from the law enforcement officer data call showed that 53% of the respondents would like a
centralized interagency dispatch center for land management law enforcement.
Disadvantages:
• This alternative will require building out a radio system for law enforcement dispatch area coverage with
tone protection and encryption capabilities. The cost to build out the radio system statewide will be a
major financial commitment.
• Facilities, equipment, and staffing will require an upfront capital outlay.
• This alternative has the potential to isolate the law enforcement program from other land management
disciplines.
• Dispatchers may not be familiar with the geographical area, roads, landmarks, and known problem areas
they are servicing.
• This alternative will create a lack of face-to-face contact between dispatch employees and law
enforcement personnel.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
25
Limited Cost Estimate for California Operational Centers
Alternative 2 - Primarily Consolidate Low Complexity Operational Centers
For each consolidation in Alternative 2, this exhibit includes tables for estimated annual salary cost savings
and one-time costs (implementation and PCS/TOS). Technological improvements, standardization and
efficiency gains may enable greater FTE savings. The team based these estimates on available data and
recommends comprehensive analysis and costing prior to implementation decisions.
•
•
•
The team calculated one time PCS/TOS costs for consolidation of centers that are over 50 miles apart.
The team assumed that 75% of the non-vacant permanent full-time and part-time staff, minus the Center
Manager and any other specified staffing reductions, would move to the new location. California
calculations use the area-provided estimate of $92,000 per person for PCS/TOS costs.
Implementation costs are not included for California since these costs have yet to be determined.
The teams calculated personnel costs for federal positions using the federal pay schedule. The teams
calculated personnel costs for CAL FIRE positions using the CAL FIRE pay scale.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
26
Alternative 2 - Option 1 – Consolidate Modoc ECC with Susanville ECC
Alternative 2 Option 1 consolidates the Modoc Interagency ECC with the Susanville Interagency ECC in
Susanville.
Modoc/Susanville Estimated Annual Personnel Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
7.0
9.0
16.0
$461
$666
$1,127
15.0
15.0
$1,039
$1,039
$88
-1.0
Modoc/Susanville One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$414
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
27
Alternative 2 - Option 2 – Consolidate Plumas ECC with Susanville ECC
Alternative 2 Option 2 consolidates the Plumas ECC with the Susanville Interagency ECC in Susanville.
Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Plumas ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Plumas ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
7.0
9.0
16.0
$475
$666
$1,141
15.0
15.0
$1,052
$1,052
$89
-1.0
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$276
TBD
This consolidation includes three Assistant Center Managers - one from Susanville and two from Plumas. A
staffing reduction of one Assistant Center Manager would result in additional savings shown in the table
above.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
28
Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Salary Savings with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Plumas ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Plumas ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
7.0
9.0
16.0
$475
$666
$1,141
14.0
14.0
$979
$979
$162
-2.0
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$276
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
29
Alternative 2 - Option 1 & 2 Combined
Another possibility is to combine Alternative 2 Option 1 (Modoc Interagency ECC and Susanville Interagency
ECC) and Alternative 2 Option 2 (Plumas ECC and Susanville Interagency ECC), forming a center in Susanville
that consolidates the three existing centers.
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Personnel Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC/Plumas ECC/Susanville
Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
7.0
7.0
9.0
23.0
$461
$475
$666
$1,602
21.0
$1,425
21.0
$1,425
$177
-2.0
Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$690
TBD
This consolidation includes four Assistant Center Managers – one from Modoc, two from Plumas, and one
from Susanville. For additional savings, the center could reduce staffing by two Assistant Center Manager
positions, resulting in the estimated salary savings shown in the table above.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
30
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville Estimated Annual Cost Savings with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Modoc Interagency ECC/Plumas ECC/Susanville
Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
7.0
7.0
9.0
23.0
$461
$475
$666
$1,602
19.0
$1,278
19.0
$1,278
$324
-4.0
Modoc/Plumas/Susanville One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing Reduction
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$690
TBD
Alternative 2 Option 3 – Consolidate Hoopa Dispatch with Fortuna ECC
Alternative 2 Option 3 consolidates the Hoopa Dispatch with the Fortuna Interagency ECC in Fortuna.
Hoopa/Fortuna Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Center
As-Is Costs
Hoopa Dispatch
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Hoopa Dispatch/Fortuna Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Total FTE
Annual Personnel Costs
(in thousands)
1.0
14.0
15.0
$106
$995
$1,101
14.0
14.0
$995
$995
$106
-1.0
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since Hoopa Dispatch only has one Center Manager position.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
31
Alternative 2 - Option 4 – Consolidate Whiskeytown Dispatch with Redding Interagency ECC
Alternative 2 Option 4 consolidates the Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area Dispatch with
the Redding Interagency ECC in Redding.
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity/Redding Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
Area
Redding Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation
Area/Redding Interagency ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs(in thousands)
2.0
$102
14.0
16.0
$991
$1,093
15.0
$1,039
15.0
$1,039
$54
-1.0
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 10 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Alternative 2 - Option 5 – Consolidate Mendocino ECC with Red Bluff ECC
Alternative 2 Option 5 consolidates the Mendocino Interagency ECC with the Red Bluff ECC in Red Bluff.
Mendocino/Red Bluff Estimated Annual Personnel Savings
Center
As-Is Costs
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Red Bluff ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Mendocino Interagency ECC/Red Bluff ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Total FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
7.0
8.0
15.0
$475
$606
$1,081
15.0
15.0
$1,081
$1,081
$0
0.0
The staffing for this alternative did not change because the federal Center Manager will stay at this newly
created interagency (federal/state) center.
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 47 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
32
Alternative 2 - Option 6 – Consolidate Stanislaus ECC with San Andreas ECC
Alternative 2- Option 6 consolidates the Stanislaus ECC with the San Andreas ECC in San Andreas.
Stanislaus/San Andreas Estimated Annual Personnel Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Stanislaus ECC
San Andreas ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Stanislaus ECC/San Andreas ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
6.0
7.0
13.0
$402
$536
$938
13.0
13.0
$938
$938
$0
0.0
The staffing for this alternative did not change because the federal Center Manager will stay at this newly
created interagency (federal/state) center.
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 29 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Alternative 2 - Option 7 – Consolidate Yosemite ECC with Mariposa ECC
Alternative 2 - Option 7 consolidates the Yosemite ECC with the Mariposa ECC in Mariposa.
Yosemite/Mariposa Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
As-Is Costs
Yosemite ECC
Mariposa ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Yosemite ECC/Mariposa ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Total FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
10.0
15.0
25.0
$621
$1,130
$1,751
25.0
25.0
$1,751
$1,751
$0
0.0
The staffing for this alternative did not change because the federal Center Manager will stay at this newly
created interagency (federal/state) center.
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 27 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
33
Alternative 2 - Option 8 – Consolidate Sequoia Kings/Ash Mountain ECC with Visalia ECC
Alternative 2 - Option 8 consolidates the Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC with the Visalia ECC in Visalia.
Sequoia King/Ash Mountain/Visalia Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
As-Is Costs
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Visalia ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Total FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
8.0
6.0
14.0
$469
$457
$926
13.0
13.0
$866
$866
$60
-1.0
Staffing for this newly created interagency (federal/state) center includes the state Center Manager from
Visalia and the federal law enforcement Center Manager from Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC, with a
staffing reduction of one federal fire Center Manager from Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC. A federal
Assistant Center Manager position could be designated for fire.
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 35 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
34
Alternative 2 - Option 9 – Consolidate Owens Valley ECC with Federal Interagency Center in San
Bernardino
Alternative 2 - Option 9 consolidates the Owens Valley Interagency ECC with the Federal Interagency
Communications Center in San Bernardino.
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Owens Valley Interagency ECC/Federal
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
7.5
21.0
28.5
$496
$1,467
$1,963
27.5
27.5
$1,921
$1,921
$42
-1.0
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
TBD
$414
TBD
This consolidation includes six Assistant Center Manager positions - two from the Owens Valley Interagency
ECC and four from the Federal Interagency Communications Center. For additional savings, the center could
reduce staffing by two Assistant Center Manager positions, resulting in the salary cost savings shown in the
table above.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
35
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings with Assistant Center
Manager Staffing Reduction
Center
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Federal Interagency Communications
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Owens Valley Interagency ECC/Federal
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
7.5
21.0
28.5
$496
$1,467
$1,963
25.5
25.5
$1,758
$1,758
$205
-3.0
Owens Valley/Federal Interagency Communications Center One-Time Costs with Assistant Center Manager Staffing
Reduction
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$345
TBD
Alternative 2 - Option 10 – Consolidate Los Padres ECC with San Luis Obispo ECC
Alternative 2 - Option 10 consolidates the Los Padres ECC with the San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo.
Los Padres/San Luis Obispo Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
As-Is Costs
Los Padres ECC
San Luis Obispo ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Los Padres ECC/San Luis Obispo ECC
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Total FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
7.0
10.0
17.0
$529,000
$737,000
$1,266,000
17.0
17.0
$1,266,000
$1,266,000
$0
0.0
The staffing for this alternative did not change because the federal Center Manager will stay at this newly
created interagency (federal/state) center.
PCS/TOS costs do not apply to this option since the centers are located approximately 40 miles apart.
Implementation costs to be determined.
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
36
Cost Estimate for California Operational Centers Alternative 3 - Create Super Centers
This exhibit includes tables for estimated annual salary savings and one-time costs (PCS/TOS) for the seven
super centers in Alternative 3.
•
•
•
•
The teams calculated PCS/TOS costs for consolidation of centers greater than 50 miles apart, based on
the assumption that 75% of the non-vacant permanent full-time and part-time staff, minus the Center
Manager and any other specified staffing reductions, will move to the new location. California
calculations use the area-provided estimate of $92,000 per person for PCS/TOS costs.
Implementation costs are not included for California since these costs have yet to be determined.
The teams calculated personnel costs for federal positions using the federal pay schedule. The teams
calculated personnel costs for CAL FIRE positions using the CAL FIRE pay scale.
In order to develop personnel costs for the super centers, the teams assumed a location. Costs will differ
if the center is located in a different locality pay area.
North West Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the North West Super Center will be
located in Redding.
North West Super Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Total
FTE
Center
As-Is Costs
Fortuna Interagency ECC
Hoopa Dispatch
Mendocino Interagency ECC
Redding Interagency ECC
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
Yreka Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
North West Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
7.0
1.0
7.0
7.0
2.0
7.0
31.0
$463
$106
$475
$475
$102
$475
$2,096
22.0
22.0
$1,377
$1,377
$719
-9.0
North West Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$966
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
37
North East Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the North East Super Center will be
located in Susanville.
North East Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Total
FTE
Center
As-Is Costs
Grass Valley Interagency ECC
Modoc Interagency ECC
Plumas ECC
Susanville Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
North East Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
7.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
25.0
$508
$461
$475
$282
$1,726
21.0
21.0
$1,280
$1,280
$446
-4.0
North East Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$1,035
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
38
North Central Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the North Central Super Center will be
located in Camino.
North Central Super Center Estimated Salary Cost Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Camino Interagency ECC
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Stanislaus ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
North Central Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
8.0
14.0
6.0
6.0
34.0
$572
$1,001
$333
$402
$2,308
30.0
30.0
$1,935
$1,935
$373
-4.0
North Central Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$966
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
39
Central Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the Central Super Center will be located in
Fresno.
Central Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Sierra Interagency ECC
Yosemite ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Central Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
9.0
10.0
19.0
$525
$621
$1,146
18.0
18.0
$1,073
$1,073
$73
-1.0
Central Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$483
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
40
South Central Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the South Central Super Center will be
located in Porterville.
South Central Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Central California ECC
Los Padres ECC
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
South Central Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
9.0
7.0
8.0
24.0
$595
$529
$469
$1,593
21.0
21.0
$1,317
$1,317
$276
-3.0
South Central Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$345
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
41
Inland Empire Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the Inland Empire Super Center will be
located in San Bernardino. This super center alternative is the same as Alternative 2 - Option 9.
Inland Empire Super Center Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Federal Interagency Communications
Center
Owens Valley Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
Inland Empire Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
21.0
$1,467
7.5
28.5
$496
$1,963
25.5
25.5
$1,758
$1,758
$205
-3.0
This super center would not need a new facility. The Federal Interagency Communications Center is large
enough to accommodate this consolidation.
Inland Empire Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$414
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
42
South Coast Super Center
The team developed the following costs using the assumption that the South Coast Super Center will be
located in Monte Vista.
South Coast Super Center Estimated Annual Salary Savings
Center
Total FTE
As-Is Costs
Angeles ECC
Monte Vista Interagency ECC
Total for Combined As-Is Centers
Alternative Costs
South Coast Super Center
Total for Consolidated Center
Estimated Annual Cost Savings
Change in FTE
Annual Personnel
Costs (in thousands)
11.0
13.0
24.0
$796
$859
$1,655
23.0
23.0
$1,539
$1,539
$116
-1.0
South Coast Super Center One-Time Costs
Type of Cost
Implementation Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
TOTAL
Cost (in thousands)
TBD
$690
TBD
Appendix to California Sub-Team Report – Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project
43