NRGA FPAC CONFERENCE CALL
Date: 10/6/2011 1400-1600
(406) 329-3631; pc 2580 after the beep
Participants:
□ Brad Gillespie (SWT) □ Jesse Duhnkrack (NPS) □ John Barborinas (BIA) □ Kevin Knauth (BLM)
□ Linda Kerr (NPS), □ Paul Mancuso (NPS), □ Richard Sterry (FWS), □ Shane Del Grosso (FWS),
□ Ken Schmid (BLM), □ Anne Rys-Sikora (FS) □ Shari Miller (FS) □ Lori Clark (FS-CHAIR)
OTHER PARTICIPANTS:
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #1
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #2
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #3
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #4
MEETING OBJECTIVES
Roll call and any additional agenda topics
Highlights from National FPA Call
Info from 10/6/11 National Call
Lori Clark/group
SWT Updates
News?
Brad Gillespie
FPAC Business
NWCG Meeting in November
Reps for FPUs ( Bob Rebarchik
replacement?)
Update contacts for FPUs in AOP
FPAC Vice Chair
Round Robin
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #5 Other
□ Information
□ Discussion
□ Decision
Agenda Topic #6 Other
□ Information
□ Discussion
Lori Clark
Lori Clark
All
□ Decision
NOTES:
Executive Director—Jeff Whitney: 2012 status direction and timeline---despite best efforts—the
promised memo has not been signed or disseminated to the field, but the Bureaus have signed it…and it
is now front of the FS chief to be signed. Once the memo is signed, it will be posted on FPA website,
The Timeline is centered around what FPA is expected to do this year, and mostly on work being done
by the SWT
Assuming FS approves the memo, when can we launch? Group discussed several options to
communicate the intent of the memo to the FPUs. Given that FPA has not produced much to date,
some FPAC members felt that there is no urgency in organizing a meeting or conference call when the
memo is out for public consumption.
Lori will disseminate the memo to FPU Leads via email to start with and further options for Webinars,
conference calls, etc will be determined later by the FPAC, depending on the need. We may have an
FPAC call to discuss options on Oct 24. Whether the memo contains critical information requiring
action, or not, it is still a good business practice to control the information as best we can when it is
released so that information is not mis-interpreted or causes undue concern.
An external review will happen the week of Oct 24, in Boise. Oversight group will also be meeting in
Boise Oct 27-28, in conjunction with External review meeting. FPA oversight group meeting on Thurs Fri
of same week
Engagement Plan/Interagency Guidance – when can we expect to see it? No concrete answer provided
other than “should be out soon”
Project Manager: Not Present on Call, no info
Business Leads: Timeline…have been careful to announce “open” dates until FPA system is ready for use
Joe Frost indicated on the UMAT call that the Interagency Guidance was originally shooting for Oct 3 for
field engagements, and the fact that that date has passed should not affect the SWT’s work, as they
should be getting ready to work with FPUs. The work can be done in the pre-production system and
then migrated to production side.
Looking at NOV 1 for production system to be up and running, have been using the pre production –it is
currently being loaded with all the updates from IBM ; An in-depth testing process is ongoing with the
system ---planning to do end to end runs for calibration to ensure that they match with preproduction--testing should last about 2 weeks
SWT currently busy doing calibration…and will be working in pre production for hands on calibration
session in Ft Collins---they will then make plans to meet face to face before they fully engage with the
field
View access to production for everyone except SWT and Administrators---they will be the only ones
actually allowed to manipulate data in the FPA system.
IAT : Level of detail anticipated was not realized in FY11---and will likely not be realized in FY12.
There is lots of data in the system…and ample info we can glean as to how the model operates, including
the reasonableness of the data. Lessons learned will be utilized as we move into Fy12
Based on system capabilities we are looking at the outputs to make sure data is reasonable. For
example, suppression costs should be in 10 year average range and acres burned within a 10%
confidence level of historic patterns. We will also look at information relative to look at trade-off
analysis between preparedness and suppression funding.
Allocation is not the goal of the FPA outputs…it is more about understanding our capabilities in wildfire
response. FPA has shown that decreases in preparedness result in increases to suppression funding.
There appears to be an inverse relationship.
The capability of gathering this type of information has caused OMB, and senior leaders to have higher
expectations how we show our capability. As a result the FPA Team must be prepared to have a more
robust message and show that we have more trust and more understanding of the dynamics of the
model outputs, allowing us to provide advanced information to upper levels---OMB and Congress, when
communicating the budget.
When we talk about he GA level for FPA outputs, it is because the FPA Team is feeling more comfortable
at GA levels and expressed that they are not comfortable with looking at this down to FPU level. The
field has asked for clear definition of intent of FPA, and the FPA Team has tried to emphasize that FPA is
being used as a national strategic level tool which is causing some heartburn at the FPU level. The
information is intended to be used to inform a greater level ---none of us operate at the FPU level---it is
national level GA level of resolution to analyze—this provides confidence at that level that the data can
reflect an accurate assessment
Transition in the models intention away from fuels into suppression---it was mentioned that the FPA
Team needs to communicate this better and to capture that so that our line offers and directors really
fully understand what happened to the fuels portion of FPA.
The work being done in fuels at the National level has just not moved the model, therefore there is a
need to figure out the level of fuels work we need to see in order to move the mode and l in order for it
to influence the model and affect suppression and preparedness costs. It will be important to find a way
to find a way to bring fuels back into the conversation, specifically relating to its role in reducing
suppression expenditures. It has been difficult to model those relationships when fuels work also serves
the role for other resource functions (wildlife, range, etc)
Prevention Model Status Kole B.:
There have been no changes…biggest change from last time---is that it looks at prevention fires and the
degree of change.
In past applications, the preventable fires would go into the system and then we had to put in the
hours; now they show up as prevented, and as a change in the alternatives.
Some FPUs that do not have a lot of prevented fires, may not have human caused fires, or may have a
really good prevention program, it was hard to tell with the model outputs
How are prevented fires part of fire event scenario? Prevented fires are calculated on the number of
human cause fires, then multiplied by a factor. That then determines how many of these types of fires
can could occur and then the FPA system categorized these as a prevented fires.
Jesse Asked a question Relative to Performance Measure #5 – “is the hope and expectation that the
outputs for this FY12 analysis might inform some future investments by GA as far as prevention dollars?
Answer from the UMAT: We are along ways from that and we need to ask “should FPA be evaluating it,
and what is the level of confidence in outputs given the inputs?” The current concern is that the
amount of effort may not yield the expectation. Therefore prevention funding is not considered at this
time, but maybe it can be put on the plate for later analysis?
Jesse will contact Kole for more technical info on the Prevention Model: there is a tech paper specific on
this posted on the web (Lori and other FPA Leads will also participate to try and better understand the
technical aspects of the Prevention Model).
FSIM Webinar: Karen Short was not on call to provide the update, but it was mentioned that she wants
so hold the next FSIM webinar when she can get enough folks together. She is waiting for the
Interagency Guidance (Aren’t we all? ;-) to support this effort.
Jesse mentioned that the data posted on myfirecommunity.com is really good data, but the stuff is
pretty advanced and not sequenced well with the launch of FPA in FY12. FSIM data is complicated, and
not relevant to what the SWT is doing at this time—which is the focus of the FPUs. Jesse suggested that
the FPA Team state in clear text about the role of this data in FPA and infuse some key points relative to
the overall process (how is was obtained and how it should be interpreted and applied?). The FPA Team
said that a webinar will be designed to provide clarity because it is crucial that FPUs understand the
launch of FPA, before they are asked to understand and interpret this data
FPA team needs to decide on appropriate time to launch this Webinar in the right sequence.
2013: FPA Team is beginning to think about FPU boundaries…for the FY13 analysis cycle, because this is
first data set the project needs to start initiating work on 2013 analysis, which begins the end of January.
Not a whole lot to share at this point just began talking about the 2013 run. FWA boundaries has been
a constant topic of discussion amongst SWT members. SWT is looking at the affect of how some of
those boundaries are designed—specifically how the FWA s are set up and how they are affecting the
outputs in the analysis. They are not specifically zeroing in on agency to agency issues, but these
discussions are just now evolving. It has always been an issue getting fire occurrence data, therefore the
FPA TEAM will be looking at which budget number will be held constant for 2012 analysis.
Boundary Issues/Interagency Boundary Unit/Interagency Fire Management Boundaries? May work on
this issues in 2014? Need to review the design and methodology and mechanics in order to implement a
new process that makes sense(and need policy to implement a new process) This will be a discussion
topic at the OG meeting .
Final analysis review for 2012---there have been two reviews: a technical review and a programmatic
review. Two additional reviews are planned: one at calibration and one before hitting the “submit”
button. The process has changed: before were looking at the field going forth with proper interagency
guidance, but this time it will be a review to see that the SWT is doing what they have been tasked with
doing.
SWT UPDATES:
Working on Calibration, will be attending a calibration workshop in Fort Collins the week of October 17.
NWCG Meeting---Lori will attend and provide the FPA committee updates to the Board –meeting is to
take place November 14-15.
Bob-Rebarchik replacement as FPAC FPU rep..tabled this topic until we have more participants
Updates to AOP – Lori will make appropriate updates for FPU contacts in AOP
NRGA FPAC Vice- Chair: John Barborinas is not available to be the Vice chair due to workload---still need
to find an FPAC member willing to take this slot.
END OF CALL
/s/ Lori Clark, FPAC Chair