National Wildfire Coordinating Group

Fire Environment Working Team

Meeting Notes

Portland, Oregon

November 15 - 17, 2005

**Day One:**

[Tuesday, November 15]{.underline}

**Basics -- discussion led by Chair, Paul Schlobohm**

Welcome and Introduction:

Paul welcomed Rich McCrea, representing BIA for Dennis Dupuis.
Attendees: Paul Schlobohm, Erin Albiston, Wayne Mitchell, Shari Shetler,
Joe Kennedy, Neal Hitchcock, Wayne Cook (call-in), Larry Bradshaw, and
Tom Wordell

Logistics:

Break-out rooms: 203, 204

Contact: Wendy Reeder, Sixth Floor, HR

Expectations for the Meeting:

Chair's expectation -- wrap-up strategic planning session today.
Prioritize budgets to make strategic plan happen and work on out-year
budget allocations. Team will need to revisit the strategic plan each
year (in fall session) in order to develop annual budget proposals.
Rearranged agenda to fit needs of the group.

Action Item Tracker Update:

No. 2 (Evaluation of ROMAN and other similar systems). Recommend where
to invest and what to cut - final report) -- Assessment of current
system similarity to be provided by Dick Bahr; task with respect to
reporting to NWCG is completed; on-going effort to determine user
needs/requirements will be a new task (#54).

No. 3 (Request FUWT to examine scope boundaries with fire effects) --
Paul had discussion with FUWT: general understanding of situation and
suggestions offered, but more collaboration is necessary. **Add to Feb.
meeting agenda**.

No. 10 (Present FENWT Charter final to NWCG) -- Not complete

No. 11 (Recommend fire weather system programs and/or activities to
sunset - report to NWCG) -- Complete. Paul reported to NWCG in October.
Long-term resolution to this question has been linked to User Assessment
(see No. 2).

No. 13 (Invite Strategic Partners (JFSP, Social Science WG, Lessons
Learned Center, Western Governors\' Assn, UCAR, LANDFIRE) -- Ongoing;
discussion about how to address specific task (kind of laundry list):
may need to sunset and be more specific actions in mind. Suggestion that
strategic plan may help to develop action plans as related to this
action item. Designated "Complete"

No. 16 (Committee Charters to FENWT Chair) -- Charters were completed by
FDC & FBC by June session. FWC working toward completing task.

No. 24 (Continue discussions with Strategic Partners, to include new
suggestions ie. Program Mgmt. Office, Tribal Rep., Core Fire Science
Caucus, Permian Basin) -- Ongoing

No. 27 (Letter to TWT to address issues with 492/493) -- to be addressed
in this meeting

No. 28 (Proposing a training curriculum for 492/493/FLAMMAP)
--presentation discussion below

No.29 (Send paragraph/brief description to Paul regarding Users\'
Evaluation Team in order to forward information to FENWT) -- not
completed

No. 35 (Recommend command and control at local level be exercised or
relinquished to regional level) -- to be addressed in this meeting

No. 37 (Develop goal sheets, including objectives, critical success
factors, barriers, and strategies) -- Completed November session

[Report on 490+ meeting (No.28):]{.underline}

See Attachment 1: not for public dissemination in current version

Paul Schlobohm, Wayne Cook, and Dick Bahr, as steering committee chairs
for the S491, S492, and S493 courses respectively, met to consider
strategies for future course curriculum development. This somewhat
narrowly focused topic grew into a discussion of core elements that are
relevant to today's discussion of our strategic plan. Wayne, Dick and
Paul identified five key types of data that influence "fire environment"
tools: fire occurrence, fuels, weather, topography, and resources and
examples of current sources of these data were presented. The need for
quality data and a source of record were discussed. Outcomes from tools
we use were identified, such as fire spread and fire danger ratings.
These outcomes were matched with each of the five data types needed to
produce them. Examples of the applications that exist today that deliver
these outcomes were identified. A 5-year timeline was initiated to
visualize the impact through time of revised existing applications and
new developments that will impact training development. FENWT addressed
several concerns: the chart describing the key data types requires more
information before dissemination outside the group...current version of
road map is not inclusive enough...may be viewed as limiting.
Suggestion: "requirements" block feeds the data blocks. Suggestion:
include two descriptors, etc or leave without descriptors (bucket
concept). The concepts presented here were relevant to and further
discussed during other parts of the meeting.

**FENWT Strategic Plan -- discussion led by Facilitator, Shari Shetler**

Strategic Plan Elements -- Part I

Complete Goals:

Group successfully completed defining goals. A reduction in total number
of Goals with the inclusion of communication, leadership and
coordination in the Guiding Principles was agreed upon. Guiding
Principles defined:

Strategic Plan Elements -- Part II

Complete Objectives, Critical Success Factors, Barriers and Strategies:

With Shari's guidance and explanation, the group recognized that overlap
is inevitable when creating these pieces of a strategic plan. Overlap
will become truly evident in the Action Plans. Group decided to finish
these elements for each goal before moving on to Action Plans for each
Goal. Homework for the group was to prioritize the strategies before
moving on to Action Plans. From this individual input, Shari created a
document to help prioritize the strategies (continued Wednesday
afternoon).

**Day Two:**

[Wednesday, November 16]{.underline}

**User Needs Assessment: Information Gathering**

NWCG Parent Group has requested that FENWT produce a draft study plan of
a User Needs Assessment. The due date for the plan presentation has been
set for the January 2006 NWCG meeting. The completion date is currently
set for October 2006.

[Review NPSG User Needs Assessment -- Tom Wordell]{.underline}

National Predictive Services Group, officially formed in 2002, developed
a framework that determined vision, mission, and goals. The group has
not yet taken the framework to the final step of action items related to
the strategic plan. One of the goals developed was to create a User
Needs Assessment. NPSG decided to seek outside help in the form of a
contractor to identify key constituents, key decisions and types of
information needed to support them, and use surveys to gather
information. Used a process of social science to administer and
interpret the survey. The original survey was a Microsoft Word document.
Circulated information gathered within the NPSG committee. Survey was
converted to web format for circulation to a broader group of
constituents. Multiple tests and refinements were administered. Revised
version was sent out to "real" respondents. The sample construction is
complete. Sample came from information provided by Tom Wordell to the
survey coordinators as well as coordinators' request for specific groups
(i.e. Information Officers). List of respondents includes approximately
4,200 names. Expectation for response is 75%. Agencies represented
include BIA, BLM, FWS, NOAA, NPS, USFS, some state agencies. Sample
frames for analysis include geographic, position type and agency
affiliation. Target date for release is January 15, 2006 and will be
open for six weeks. NPSG is using the BLM "avenue" to get OMB approval
(approval required under law). Fiscal year 2005 commitment by NPSG is
\$31K and FY 2006 is \$38K. Final NPSG report expected by end of June
2006. (see Attachment 2).

Tom explained the differences between the NPSG survey and the NWS
survey, including objectives and timing. The NWS survey, which has been
coordinated with the timing of the NPSG survey, went live this day at:
[www.cfigroup.net/NWSFireWeatherSurvey2005](http://www.cfigroup.net/NWSFireWeatherSurvey2005).
Final report for NWS survey anticipated to be completed in early
February.

[Recommendations on User Assessment -- Wade Smith, MitreTek
Systems]{.underline}

"Assessing Needs for Wildland Fire Weather Information"(see Attachment
3). The presentation based on a small survey conducted with the RAWS
network and MitreTek Systems (MTS) that turned up quite a bit of
information. Survey reaffirmed the mission requirements that wildland
fire managers have for weather information. Presentation intended to
discover approach to identifying requirements. Several questions are
necessary to reaffirm the mission requirements for wildland fire
management. The RAWS network is not a requirement but a solution to meet
the requirements. Many solutions are apparent for the different
questions presented by the requirements. Identifying the requirements
(needs assessment) include: work with each scale of decision-making,
identify time situation of interest for each scale, and consider
different management situations. How the questions are asked determines
the requirements. Emphasized that knowing what is needed is not
necessarily inherent by asking "what kind of weather station do you
need?" Requirements are static while solutions to the requirements are
fluid and dynamic. Technologies influence the solutions to the
unchanging requirements.

Wade opened the floor for general discussion about a needs assessment to
be completed by FENWT. Discussion began related to RAWS and its role in
the future.

[Review Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology User
Assessment -- Mary M. Cairns, OFCM (call-in)]{.underline}

"OFCM and its Role in the National Wildland Fire Weather Needs
Assessment" (see Attachment 4). Mary began presentation with background
information about her, OFCM and provided a list of current interagency
collaborations. Several examples are available both in the handout and
online in regards to current interagency collaborations. Presentation
specific to wildland fire user needs included a discussion of the
problem to be addressed by their assessment. OFCM is conducting the
assessment at the request of the National Weather Service as an action
whose goals/desired outcomes were called for by the Western Governors'
Association in their fire weather resolution of June 2005. The
assessment is not focusing on one particular functional area but is
broadened to include multiple functional areas of interest including
data collection, modeling, prediction, products/services, training,
information dissemination, user response, R&D, resource considerations,
partnering and socioeconomic impacts. The interim assessment is expected
to be completed by fall 2006 (August) and the final report is
anticipated to be completed by the spring of 2007 (April).

Mary is open to accepting input from members of FENWT regarding missing
pieces. Please submit those questions or examples to Mary for
consideration (please keep Paul in the loop). Mary recognizes a more
complete list is necessary in order for group to understand the
assessment as it progresses. OFCM website:
[http://www.ofcm.gov](http://www.ofcm.gov/)

**ACTION ITEM: FENWT: Provide list to Mary Cairns regarding JAG
members**

**ACTION ITEM: FENWT: Provide feedback regarding additions to the OFCM
proposal/plan to Mary Cairns**.

**User Needs Assessment: Plan Development -- FENWT discussion**

Discussion about the user needs assessment was lengthy and formulation
of a plan seemed abstract and fairly unattainable to the group. The
group, working to discover objectives, gathered a laundry list of items.
From that list the general ideas of defining requirements and providing
solutions seemed to be emphasized by the group. Defining stakeholders
was brought up as an important part of completing the task. As related
to the idea of stakeholders, the group discussed grouping stakeholders
into decision cadres. General scope was discussed. Idea of leveraging
other activities was important to overall idea. In order to advance
discussion beyond the nuts and bolts of individual ideas, Shari
suggested using other user assessment plans as a template for creating
our own document. Discussion postponed until next day and other studies
can be located to reference.

**FENWT Strategic Plan continued -- discussion led by Facilitator, Shari
Shetler**

Strategic Plan Elements -- Part III

Complete Action Plans:

Shari presented consolidated prioritized strategies to the group based
on homework from yesterday's discussion. Group broke into three teams to
work on action plans that relate to the top seven strategies. Remainder
of the day was spent on creating multiple action items for each
strategy. Shari collected information from each small team to
consolidate it for tomorrow's work on this item.

**Day Three**

[Thursday, November 17, 2005]{.underline}

**Committees & Groups**

[Fire Danger -- Larry Bradshaw]{.underline}

Update on Implementation of solar radiation sensor to replace State of
the Weather for intermediate calculation of dead fuel moisture in the
National Fire Danger Rating System:

-   Brief history of dead fuel moisture: Initial studies for 1-hr,
    10-hr, and 100-hr fuels were conducted from the 1930s to 1950s. In
    1978 the 1000-hr fuel moisture was added. All dead fuel moistures
    were based on a once-daily fire weather observation. In the 1980s,
    the electronic fuel sticks appeared but there was no standard. In
    1992, a study was done on woody sticks versus electronic with no
    conclusions other than there was too much variability. In 1994,
    NAGFDR recommended only weighed sticks be used for historical
    databases. In the mid 1990s, there was an effort to automate "state
    of the weather" (SOW) based on temperatures but it did not work
    well. In 2000, Nelson published "Prediction of diurnal change in
    10-hr fuel stick moisture content." In 2001, Nelson worked with
    Collin Bevins to extend to 1-hr, 100-hr and 1000-hr moistures to
    meet NFDRS and FBPS needs. In 2002, a model was "load tested". In
    2002, WIMS moved to a web based system. From 2002-2005, a joint
    study was initiated with Oklahoma State on dead fuel moistures. The
    SOW was based on hourly data plus solar radiation. Phase 2:
    forecasts from solar radiation from NWS gridded forecast model and
    compared to "observed" from OK Mesonet.

-   Implementation for dead fuel moisture. INGEST takes ASCADS weather
    observations and populates WIMS observations with "R" type records.
    Solar radiation column will be added. The NELSON model kicks in then
    and it reads "R" type record and inserts fuel moisture values as an
    "N" value. Could update SOW. NFDRCALC reads WIMS observation "R"
    type records from WIMS. NFDR "N" records with and updates WIMS. NFDR
    "N" records updates ERC, BI and other indices. Approximately 100
    observations every 5 minutes. The "N"s replace the "O"s. Consistency
    and continuity are very important and that is what the model
    provides. In WIMS, we will be continuing to enter the SOW during the
    test period which will run through April 2006 so the system will
    display values for measured solar radiation, observed SOW, and their
    respective outputs.

-   Communication Plan; there will be some prototype pages on the web
    through the RAWS page
    [www.fs.fed.us/raws](http://www.fs.fed.us/raws). Web page will also
    have access to OK Mesonet data a publication, implementation
    strategy, prototype displays and timelines (Dec 05 to Jan/Feb 06).
    WIMS will also show a pop up. Work is ongoing and WIMS is preparing
    to get the job done.

-   Need to lay out an implementation plan. Put this out on a website.
    FENWT will develop this. Do under the banner of FENWT. The Fire
    Danger Committee will write up a transition plan. Issues are
    training and logistics and hardware.

**ACTION ITEM: Implementation plan write-up from FDC regarding solar
radiation to NWCG through FENWT**

-   Transition issues. To fully automate also need live fuel moisture
    model. Currently based on 1000 fm and x1000. NDVI has not proven
    particularly useful.

-   In the past, calculated values have not been archived. Is it time to
    save the fuel moisture and index values for some number of
    hours/days?

-   The next version of Fire Family Plus will have the Nelson model.
    This might be part of the transition plan.

-   The 88 fuel moisture model is finally being fixed.

-   10 hour forecast issue from California is fixed

-   Data scrub. California station numbers, some negative precipitation
    amounts, pre-1975 wet bulb issue, fixes are underway.

-   We probably should not be using pre-1975 data because the
    observation data was 4 hours different. The wet bulb issue needs to
    be addressed

-   FENWT needs to address weather data cleanup and storage. What is the
    field doing? What is FPA doing? Is there a need for a standard?
    **February meeting agenda item**.

[RAWS Partners Presentation -- Kolleen Shelly]{.underline}

-   RAWS Partners were formed at NIFC in 2003 to address change in the
    RAWS program.

-   A draft charter is in place. It is modeled from the FENWT charter
    and currently written for the NIFC Governing Board Charter

-   Many issues dealt with are in response to the Governing Board

-   This may not be the place for RAWS Partners to be but that's where
    it is now.

-   Membership is RAWS leads for FS, BLM, BIA, NPS, and FWS. NWS may
    join. Predictive Services may want to join

-   Other strategic partners are vendors and the BLM RAWS shop

-   Focus of the group is maintenance support of the RAWS system

-   Make strategic recommendations

-   Maintenance contract cost and budget analysis

-   Develop and implement training

-   Agreement with BLM by each agency for

-   Explore standardized contracts with vendors

-   Mobilizations standards are being looked at. How do we send out Fire
    RAWS and Project RAWS and qualifications for RAWS technicians?

-   STIWG group. We have representatives on this group.

-   RAWS Partners will work with groups

-   Web site is managed by the group and it is interagency

-   NFDRS Weather Standards are maintained by the group

-   Consistent policy and effective and efficient delivery of services

-   Are contractors doing the job? We have no way to measure this. There
    may be a need for an independent auditor to oversee this. Perhaps
    when we do the outreach in the FENWT user agency.

-   What is the relationship of FENWT to RAWS Partners? Strategic
    partner.

[Predictive Services and the Interagency RAWS Program -- Tom
Wordell]{.underline}

-   Predictive Services has recognized that there are issues with RAWS
    weather data integrity.

-   Unclear as to what the role is with the RAWS program

-   Predictive Services wants to have a role in this and be engaged

-   SW GA Predictive Services spends half an FTE doing maintenance and
    monitoring.

-   Missing weather data is a huge deal and the transition to automation
    of SOW is critical.

-   Data quality is essential

-   Need to identify the role for RAWS of Predictive Services and
    possibly have a RAWS coordinator.

-   NFDRS Station Standards should outline how the Predictive Services
    works with the RAWS program.

-   METS are looking at data quality and some are doing RAWS
    maintenance. There are basically two functions.

-   METS feel this is not a collateral duty and a new position is
    needed. They feel it may erode their ability to do predictive
    services work.

-   METS are suggesting that the guidelines from stations standards be
    part of management plans.

-   Need super-user access for ASCADS and WIMS so METS can do their job.

-   METS want to be involved with assurance that metadata is good.

-   There is a need for interagency management of RAWS programs.

-   Do we need an interagency RAWS coordinator at the GA level? Each GA
    is different so how do we implement this? How do we interact with
    those GACCs that want local control? Perhaps we ask the Units what
    they want. Does NWCG pick this up and does Predictive Services fall
    under NAFAB. This may happen.

-   Predictive Services is going to develop a handbook with standards to
    be applied and implemented locally. They will get GACC buy in with
    minimum standards.

-   Perhaps we structure part of the OFCM study to address some of these
    issues? We need to focus on data quality and solutions.

[Summary]{.underline}: We need to hold our Agencies to standards in the
weather station handbook. The OFCM study will help to define the issues
and FENWT needs to influence this. NFAEB is looking for a draft handbook
by the spring of 2006. The survey will not be back from OFCM. Do we
draft a position paper from FENWT to NFAEB?

**ACTION ITEM:** **Tom Wordell will prepare issue paper on the role of
the Predictive Services GACC METS with respect to RAWS for FENWT to
present to NFAEB.**

[RMC Fire-Weather Forecast Verification -- Tom Wordell]{.underline}

-   FCAMMS web site. They were asked to do verification

-   There are 3 links; forecast maps, point forecast, and

-   Point Forecast verification

-   You can select a single station or groupings

-   This is the first time this has been done.

-   [www.fireweather.com](http://www.fireweather.com/)

-   Forecast fields; dew point, wind speed, and air temperature

-   Scale; point landscape

-   Employed statistics; 30 day mean bias, 30 day mean absolute error
    and R-squared goodness of fit index

-   This verification was done for 22 stations

-   More stations will be added

-   Most of the differences are small.

-   The system will recommend to the user the best approach

-   RMC and NWS forecasts show very close agreement with temporal
    patterns of observed data and no regional variations over a 30-day
    time period.

-   This is a research and development project. The FCAMMS are
    regionally based but there may be problems for consistent national
    application.

**ACTION ITEM: Need to include more discussions on FCAMMS at the next
meeting of FENWT**

**Team Business**

[Logos -- Larry Bradshaw]{.underline}

-   FENWT needs a logo

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New logos were presented for the committees for FENWT, Fire Weather
    Committee, Fire Danger Committee, and the Fire Behavior Committee.

-   Use is for letterheads

-   Logos were accepted with some minor adjustments.

**ACTION ITEM: Wayne Cook will make changes and provide final version to
the team.**

[Joint Fire Science (JFSP) Conference -- Wayne Mitchell]{.underline}

-   Publications were given out to committee leads

-   Communications with research. Need to invite JFSP to the next FENWT
    Meeting

-   JFSP is looking for help in peer review of research proposals.

-   Association for Fire Ecology is meeting on Nov 13-17, 2006 in San
    Diego.

-   A list of principal investigators was passed out.

-   There is a need to meet with the Interagency Fuels Group and sort
    out our roles.

-   Connection between operations and research. Researchers want/need to
    get out on fires. Many do not understand how fire operations work
    but are interested.

-   Most of the researchers were from universities not agencies at this
    meeting. Many are out of the loop on how this fire business works.
    There is a real opportunity/need to work with these folks.

**ACTION ITEM: Paul will connect with JFSP Governing Board to invite a
representative to the next FENWT meeting.**

**Committees & Groups**

[Fire Behavior -- Wayne Cook]{.underline}

Question was brought up about how to address issues presented to FENWT
for a decision. Should information come through the committees then to
FENWT or vice versa? Shari reminded group that this type of information
is available in the Operating Principles. Action items were created from
this discussion. Process should be addressed by the completion of the
action items.

**ACTION ITEM: Erin: Change agenda format to describe agenda items as
"informational" or "decision" topic**.

**ACTION ITEM: Paul and Erin: Work on decision processes within the
Operating Principles to present to group on next conference call or next
meeting.**

Wayne requested that FENWT make a decision about endorsing or not a fire
behavior fuel model. Referenced "A New Set of Standard Fire Behavior
Fuel Models", (see Attachment 5) to update group on the basis of the
request. After lengthy discussion, group consensus was to endorse the
fuel models.

**ACTION ITEM: Wayne C.: Work up endorsement and implementation plan for
new 40 fuel models to present to NWCG through FENWT.**

Discussion initiated about "Request to endorse development of a Fireline
Weather Observations Module for the Annual Fireline Safety Refresher"
memorandum (see Attachment 6). Group consensus was to endorse. Wayne
will draft necessary documentation and move forward using FENWT
letterhead upon review by the Chair. Draft will be made available to
members.

**ACTION ITEM: Wayne C.: Draft endorsement documents for weather
refresher module with FENWT letterhead; carry forward on behalf of
FENWT.**

Real-time monitoring discussion brought to FENWT. Requests that no
current decision needs to be made but suggested that item may be
sanctioned by FENWT. Pete suggested that FENWT may field items but not
sanction such types of work. Wayne C. will get with Pete to further this
discussion outside of FENWT arena.

FENWT Training issues topic introduced. FBC Action Item #173: Memo to
FENWT requesting S490 to be moved from under TWT to FENWT for curriculum
development and maintenance. Discussion resulted in an action item to
re-tool the proposal.

**ACTION ITEM: Wayne C.: Rewrite S-490 proposal rewritten to emphasize
efficiency gained.**

**ACTION ITEM: FENWT: Explore current and future training issues and
need of the respective FENWT committees/groups**

Discussion introduced about 2007 Fire Behavior and Fuels Conference. How
much does FENWT want to be involved in the 2007 conference? Paul
suggested that our involvement is crucial to upholding our guiding
principles as a leadership group. General group concern was around funds
available to commit to such an adventure. Timeframe for making decision
is soon (marketing next conference this year already). Defer discussion
to next conference call. FENWT needs more information about funds, scope
and scale in order to make a decision.

**ACTION ITEM: Wayne C.: Provide more information to FENWT by next
conference call.**

[Predictive Services Group Safety Letter -- Tom Wordell]{.underline}

Presented letter to FENWT for information purposes. Suggested to have
the information fielded to FDC and FBC. Safety & Health Working Team is
meeting in January. Committees should look at the letter provided by Tom
and prepare to discuss at January conference call. (see Attachment 7)

**ACTION ITEM: Committees discuss letter presented by Tom within their
groups. Discuss at January conference call.**

**Team Business**

[OFCM, Joint Action Group]{.underline}

Final discussion about involvement on the OFCM, Joint Action Group
(JAG). After some discussion, Paul suggested it would be necessary to
explore the options before making any kind of commitment.

**ACTION ITEM: Paul will contact Mary Cairns; Pete will contact ICMSSR
DOI and USDA contacts as soon as possible.**

[Strategic Planning -- Action Plans continued]{.underline}

Group has deferred completing this item over the next few weeks and will
discuss on the January 4, 2006, conference call. Sub-groups will work on
tasks created by their groups. Assign dollar amount, task relation
(dependence), resources, skills needed, potential external sources, and
duration.

**Strategy: Identify and prioritize existing and emerging technologies**

Action 1: Organize technologies (hardware and software) by fuels,
weather, and topography. Weather includes smoke emissions and
dispersion.

Task 1: Identify current and emerging fuel description
systems/technologies

Who: Dennis, Dick, Larry

Potential external source: PMO

Dependence: current side not dependent; emerging may be dependent upon
requirements

Duration: current -- 2006; emerging -- 2007-09

Budget: none

Task 2: Identify current and emerging weather observation & modeling
systems/technologies

Who: Dick, Larry, Leroy

Potential external source: PMO

Dependence: current side not dependent; emerging may be dependent upon
requirements

Duration: current -- 2006; emerging -- 2007-09

Budget: none

Task 3: Identify current and emerging topographic (geospatial) data
technologies

Who: Paul

Potential external source: Sue Goodman, Katie Madrid, PMO, LANDFIRE

Dependence: current side not dependent; emerging may be dependent upon
requirements

Duration: current -- 2006; emerging -- 2007-09

Budget: none

Action 2: Define and create a Technology Assessment Matrix. Matrix rows
are technologies defined in Action 1. Matrix columns are assessment
parameters such as scope (spatial & temporal), linkages to
current/emerging tools, impact of implementation of new technology,
cost/benefit assessment, accuracy, linkage/integrity to
science-based/peer-reviewed R&D strategy.

Who: Larry, Wayne C., Dick

Potential external source: PMO, NWS

Dependence: none

Duration: early 2006

Budget: none

**Strategy: Utilize an iterative process to user needs, evaluate
products, and monitor feedback**

Action 1: Develop and provide input to user assessments to best
articulate fire environmental business requirements.

Task 1: Have a presence on the Joint Action Group for the Wildland Fire
Weather Needs Assessment (OFCM) Jan. 06

Who: FENWT - JAG representative(s)

Potential external source: OFCM

Dependence: none

Duration: Winter 2006-Spring 2007

Budget: possible state travel funded (\$9K)

Task 2: Coordinate with NPSG, NWS, BlueSkyRains West user surveys

Who: FENWT Chair and members (coordinate with Leroy, Tom, Pete)

Potential external source: Heath Hockenberry (NWS), Jim Douglas (BSRW)

Dependence: none (feeds own user assessment)

Duration: Fall 2006 -- Spring 2007

Budget: none

Action 2: Use results in the framework of the Technology Assessment
Matrix to evaluated products and assess how current implementations meet
user needs.

Who: FENWT

Potential external source: none

Dependence: Strategy 1, Action 2

Duration: ongoing

Budget: none

Action 3: Recommend to NWCG the desired Fire Weather system
architecture.

Who: FENWT

Potential external source: Enterprise Architecture, RAWS Partners, NWS,
R&D

Dependence: many actions and tasks above

Duration: 2008

Budget: may need to procure skills to write up SOW, requirements (\$50K)

Action 4: Repeat Actions 2 and 3 at 5-year intervals with additional
input from user feedback and new technology monitoring processes.

Who: FENWT

Potential external source: same as above

Dependence:

Duration: ongoing

Budget:

**ACTION ITEM: Subgroups 1, 2 and 3 complete the development of their
action plans as shown above prior to FENWT conference call January 4,
2006.**

[After Action Review -- All]{.underline}

Pete offered suggestion about managing invited guests and several
agreed. Paul suggested that members bring issues or tasks before the
team that can be reviewed, assessed, revised, etc. and avoid bringing
items before the team that need to be created by the group.

Meeting Adjourned.