Wildfire detection in western Canada: trends and innovations

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT March 2014 Wildfire detection in western Canada: trends and innovations Ray Ault Wildfire Operations Research INTRODUCTION The Government of the rthwest Territories (GNWT) asked FPInnovations to survey wildfire management agencies in Canada to identify advancements in fire detection. The GNWT will consider the data collected for future wildfire detection planning. OBJECTIVES The objective of this project was to answer the following two questions for the GNWT: 1. Are there national trends in wildfire detection that might be relevant to GNWT? 2. Are there wildfire detection innovations or program improvements that GNWT can learn from and adapt to their operation? METHODS To answer the questions posed by GNWT, FPInnovations created a survey and sent it to eight Canadian agencies, Alaska, and the Canadian Forest Service (Table 1). We based the survey questions on information gleaned from our discussions with GNWT staff and from an internal review of the topics presented at the FPInnovations wildfire detection workshops held in 2003, 2006 and The survey consisted of twenty-eight questions (see Appendix) that covered four categories: resource allocation and costs policies and programs trends innovations The survey included questions on the specifics of each agency s detection program, how they define and evaluate their program s effectiveness, and any activities or initiatives underway to improve their program. For the Resource Allocation and Costs category, we provided survey respondents with five primary detection methods (Table 2). They were then asked to calculate the percentage of detections from each source and to calculate the percentage of detection budget dollars associated with each category. Finally we asked respondents to forecast how detection dollars (as a percent) might be allocated in the next five years. 1

2 We ed the survey to each agency contact and followed up with a telephone call. We contacted the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) for current information on satellite systems. Table 1. Agencies contacted to participate in the survey. AGENCY Parks Canada British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Yukon rthwest Territories Alaska CFS CONTACT Dean MacDonald Shawn Lund Mike Kakoullis Steve Roberts Gary Friesen Colin McFayden Mike Sparks Richard Olsen Marsha Henderson Tim Lynham Table 2. Primary wildfire detection methods. AIR FIXED GROUND PUBLIC SATELLITE fixed-wing patrols lookout towers agency officers ground Modis rotary-wing patrols automated cameras industry infrared scans manual cameras spark watcher commercial & private aircraft lightening locations night-vision goggles infrared sensors 2

3 RESULTS We administered the survey in February 2014 and collected responses in the weeks that followed. Eight agencies completed the survey. Resource Allocation and Costs t all agencies collect wildfire detection data by source, so much of the information we received from survey respondents did not fit neatly into the data fields we used in the survey. In many cases, respondents could provide only a best-guess estimate, and in some cases respondents had no information at all. The percentage of detections from each source is summarized in Table 3, and the percentage of detection budget dollars associated with each category is summarized in Table 4. Aerial Detection On average, fixed-wing air patrols account for 24% of all fires detected. Rotary-wing air patrols account for some, but not all survey respondents were able to tease out this information from their data. In general, aerial detection accounts for between 11% (Alberta) and 70% (Manitoba) of fires detected. Aerial patrols account for a large proportion of the detection budget. It ranges between 40% (Alaska) and 98% (Manitoba and Ontario). Aerial detection is an important source of fire detection in Canada and there is a significant cost. For example, in the Yukon approximately 30% of the fires detected in 2013 required 289 flight hours and cost approximately $500,000, which works out to approximately $1,700 per flight hour. Fixed Detection Fixed detection includes manned lookout towers, automated camera systems, and manual camera systems. Alberta, Saskatchewan 1, Yukon, and the rthwest Territories are the only agencies currently operating manned lookout towers. Lookouts detect 27% of fires in Alberta (5 year average), 10% in Saskatchewan, and 7% in the Yukon and rthwest Territories. ne of the respondents were able to give a percentage of the detection budget allocated to lookout towers. Alberta s network of 127 lookout towers costs approximately $3 million annually to operate and maintain, plus they have been spending $2 million annually to refurbish their towers. The Yukon currently operates six towers, down from nine in Ontario has one automated detection system operating as a research platform. Saskatchewan is implementing the ForestWatch 2 automated smoke detection system to replace their network of approximately forty lookout observers. Alberta has approximately twenty-five fixed cameras and five Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) cameras located throughout the province, but these are used to 1 Saskatchewan has since replaced all its lookout observers with remote cameras. 2 By Envirovision Solutions, based in Durban, South Africa. 3

4 confirm a public smoke report rather than as a primary detection role. Alberta has one manual camera that a lookout observer uses to monitor a blind area. The lookout observer operates and monitors the camera from his lookout tower. Ground Detection For ground detection, survey respondents provided information for agency patrols only; no information was given for industry patrols, or spark watchers. Saskatchewan estimated that agency ground patrols account for 15% of fires detected, British Columbia estimated 5%, Alaska estimated 9%, Alberta estimated 22%, Yukon estimated 6%, and rthwest Territories estimated 5%. Alaska estimated that their agency ground patrols account for approximately 50% of their total detection budget and British Columbia estimated 10%. Other respondents did not provide an estimate. Although all agencies likely have some form of ground patrol as part of other job functions (e.g. a forest officer), only Alaska and British Columbia track the costs associated with it. Satellite Detection In Alaska, satellite detections accounted for 40% of all fires detected, 32% in Yukon, 15% in British Columbia, and 11% in rthwest Territories. Satellite detection is a low-cost means of detecting and monitoring wildfires in remote areas. However, Alaska and British Columbia estimated that 5% of their detection budget is allocated to staff interpreting and monitoring satellite fire detections. Public Detection Public reporting of fire from the ground was the primary source of detection for many agencies. It accounts for 50% of detections in Ontario, 48% in British Columbia, and 40% in Alberta. And it is an important source of detections in Saskatchewan (31%), Yukon (15%), Alaska (15%), Manitoba (10%), and 11% in rthwest Territories. Public reporting of fire from the air (commercial and private aircraft) accounts for 9% of detections in Ontario, 2% in British Columbia, 8% in Saskatchewan, 20% in Manitoba, 4% in Yukon, 5% in Alaska, and 12% in rthwest Territories. Most survey respondents estimated the cost of a public reporting system to be 1% or less of their overall detection budget. British Columbia and Alaska estimate 5%. 4

5 Table 3. Percentage of detections by detection source. Detection Category AGENCY MB ON SK BC AK AB YK NT AERIAL Fixed-Wing Patrols 30% 10% 11% 30% 25% 11% 30% 44% Rotary-Wing Patrols 40% 1% 1% 10% Other* 30% 20% FIXED Towers 10% 27% 7% 7% Cameras GROUND Field-staff patrols 15% 5% 9% 22% 6% 5% SATELLITE Modis 12% 11% Lightening 15% 40% 20% PUBLIC Ground 10% 50% 31% 48% 15% 40% 15% 11% Aerial 20% 9% 8% 2% 5% 4% 12% OTHER n/a 5% 5% 6% *Aerial detections made by other government departments and ministries. Table 4. Percentage of detection dollars spent by detection source. Detection Category AGENCY MB ON SK BC AK AB* YK NT AERIAL Fixed-Wing Patrols 38% 90% 80% 35% 60% Rotary-Wing Patrols 60% 8% 5% 10% FIXED Towers 50% 30% Cameras GROUND Field-staff patrols 10% 50% SATELLITE Modis Lightening 5% 5% PUBLIC Ground 1% 1% 5% 5% Air 1% 1% *Percentage spent on other detection sources for AB not provided. 5

6 Additional information provided by some of the respondents included: Saskatchewan s direct detection cost in 2013 was $420,000. Alberta s overall detection budget is $6 million; $3 million of that is spent on manned detection towers. Yukon spent $500,000 on fixed-wing aerial detection in Anticipated Budget Changes Generally, survey respondents did not forecast their budget allocation by detection source, or if they did, their forecasted budgets matched current spending. The only exception was the rthwest Territories; it expects their overall detection budget to increase. ne of the respondents identified a known threat to future detection budgets. Policies and Programs Performance Measures Fire size, or a combination of fire size and other attributes, was the most common performance target. A number of respondents mentioned that is difficult to find a performance target that is relevant to both remote areas and populated areas. The Yukon and rthwest Territories are currently without a detection target as they seek an appropriate balance. Ontario has a unique, but complex approach where they do not rely on a specific performance target. They can be contacted for more information. Alaska, Saskatchewan, and rthwest Territories expressed concerns about their current detection performance. Alaska believes that slow detection is the primary cause of fires escaping initial attack, and Saskatchewan has replaced manned lookouts with cameras. Despite these issues and concerns, only rthwest Territories anticipates a change to their performance measures. Lookout Tower Policies With the exception of Alberta, many agencies have abandoned their lookout programs for two primary reasons: first, questionable structural integrity of the tower structures and safety of the occupants; and second, occupational health and safety legislation restrictions for working alone. Saskatchewan will be replacing all manned lookouts with cameras for the aforementioned reasons and because camera systems provide more flexibility and longer seasons. They will remove the cupolas from its lookout towers and use the tower structures for cameras. rthwest Territories is open to new cost-effective alternatives. Fire Detection Review Reports ne of the agencies have completed a recent formal detection review; however Saskatchewan had an internal review as part of the move to automated smoke detection, and Ontario has been in the process of program improvement since rthwest Territories is undergoing a review, but it is not yet completed. The Yukon reviewed their lookout program and this lead to 6

7 the recent closure of three lookout towers. All the agencies are willing to talk with the GNWT about the results of their internal reviews, but they cannot provide any formal documentation because none was produced. Aviation Reporting Most respondents have an initiative to encourage fire reporting from commercial and private aircraft. The Yukon meets annually with local carriers and supplies Initial Fire Report (IFR) booklets. British Columbia maps their air patrol routes in the north to compliment scheduled carrier routes and will pay half a flight hour when commercial aircraft report a fire. Saskatchewan pointed out that the commercial operators in their province maintain scheduled flights into mining camps up to ten times a week and that these commercial operations report approximately 8% of the province s fires. At one time, Saskatchewan had a recognition program for aviation reporting, but it was discontinued for budget reasons. Alberta relies on their 310-FIRE public awareness campaign, with no special effort put towards commercial or private aircraft. Alaska and Manitoba indicated that they have programs, but did not provide details. Trends Cellular Networks We identified three trends related to cellular networks. (1) Improved cellular networks and widespread use of cell phones has resulted in an abundance of public reporting, which accounts for a large portion of wildfire detections. It is a low-cost source of detections, which is a boon for most agencies. Alberta has created the Alberta Wildfire App to facilitate public reporting of wildfire. (2) Increased use of smart phones and tablets for communication and data transfer by air patrols, initial attack crew leaders, and lookout observers. (3) Increased use of camera systems for smoke detection, which in the case of Saskatchewan is heavily reliant on a 4G cellular network. We were interested to see if there was a link between growing cellular coverage and active planning to promote public reporting in previously remote areas with limited communication. Respondents indicated that advertising or promotion of a public toll-free fire reporting phone number is the primary method of benefiting from changes in cellular coverage. There were no initiatives identified by the respondents to work with cellular providers to increase cell coverage into new areas. Staffing The ability to attract adequately trained staff was an issue for Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, and Saskatchewan. Alberta currently has a low turnover rate (<20%) and provides a long season for seasonal staff (Alberta has moved to a March 1 start of the fire season). The Yukon relies on casual and emergency-hire workers to fill detection roles on an as-needed basis. Five agencies have specialised training and development for staff in wildfire detection. Ontario has a detection leader initiative; Saskatchewan is implementing a detection specialist position; Alberta is developing training aids for the lookout observers; the Yukon has a training module for 7

8 fire detection; and rthwest Territories is training aerial observers to improve their fire assessment skills. Forest Management Currently, agencies have no plans to adjust their detection requirements based on foreseeable changes in forest management, such as harvest levels, recreation, and tourism. Only Manitoba indicated that increased tourism would over time increase their need for fire detection. With the exception of the Yukon and rthwest Territories, most agencies recognize the protection of species-at-risk within their wildfire management programs (included in their valuesat-risk analyses). The rthwest Territories is currently addressing the issue. As a response agency under the Department of Community Services, the Yukon wildfire program is not responsible for protected species. Protected species are the responsibility of the environmental department. Social Media All agencies, except Ontario and Manitoba, do not use social media for public reporting of wildfire. One respondent mentioned that social media is more often used to communicate information to media and public, rather than as a means of receiving public reporting of fires. Partnerships Only Saskatchewan has plans to partner with industry to use private communication towers as part of their automated detection program. The Yukon is willing to entertain opportunities to share costs for camera systems in the future. Agencies that do not use lookouts or cameras have no plans to partner with industry. Innovations Duty Officer Tools Respondents mentioned a number of tools under development that would help duty officers determine resource requirements and increase detection patrols. Manitoba uses an enhanced distribution system of weather indices and lightning data. Saskatchewan recently implemented a new information network that allows real-time information, dispatching, and resource-tracking at all levels. Alaska has three new tools they use to help the duty officer: (1) common operating image software; (2) a common risk assessment protocol to manage fires; and (3) a decision documentation protocol. Ontario has a detection demand index based on projected fire occurrence, public reporting probability, and risk related to values, and potential fire behaviour. Their model identifies where detection is required provincially and helps them efficiently allocate detection aircraft. rthwest Territories is implementing the SPARCS Wildfire Management Program. Alberta plans to provide all its initial attack crew leaders and air attack officers with Apple IPhones or IPads to take advantage of the wide 4G cellular network in that province to forward photos of fires to the duty officer. Lookouts as well will have Apple products to get accurate weather, storm path, and fire permit information over the Internet. 8

9 Alberta, British Columbia and rthwest Territories believe that smartphones will enable the timely transfer of fire photos and fire information to the duty room. Saskatchewan will be integrating their new automated detection system with their burn permit reporting and WIIN system. Ontario implemented their Aerial Detection Digital Fire Reporting System 3 in The tool allows air patrols to send digital detection messages from a tablet in the airplane to the duty room without using the radio. Ontario anticipates more accurate reports, less communication congestion during severe fire events, and quicker response from the duty room. Air patrols in Alaska also use tablets. Satellites The Canadian Forest Service (the Great Lakes Forestry Centre in Sault St Marie, Ontario) identified a number of advancements in satellite technology that they believed would increase the frequency of reporting and will detect smaller thermal targets. NASA recently launched VIIRS as a replacement for Modis. VIIRS has a 300 m pixel compared to the 1 km pixel from Modis. Also, there is the launch of new satellites from the European Space Agency (Sentinel III A & B), the Canadian Space Agency (Micro Satellite), and the Department of National Defence (Polar Communications and weather Satellite PCW). Remote Communities ne of the agencies currently have a specific detection program focused on small, remote communities, but Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Yukon mentioned that camera systems have good potential as a fire detection tool for these areas. Saskatchewan and Alberta both have camera initiatives underway. Saskatchewan is replacing manned lookouts with cameras, and Alberta uses a manual remote camera system in the Chisholm Fire Lookout to monitor the hamlet of Chisholm, which is in a blind area. Alberta is considering using a similar application for other remote communities. Holdover Fires Only Alberta and Ontario are actively trying to improve the detection of holdover fires. Alberta contracts high-altitude infrared scanning services and has a program to qualify helicopter operators who use infrared cameras. Ontario uses a holdover lighting model and has experimented with the use of night-vision goggles to detect holdover fires. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall provincial fire detection programs are stable. Budgets are forecasted to remain the same, so little to no changes are anticipated. Other than Saskatchewan s switch to automated smoke detection, all the respondents indicated their programs are relatively static. 3 Ontario s Aerial Detection Digital Fire Report uses Skyde from Latitude Technologies. It can transmit a stream of data input on a tablet using cellular or satellite networks. Latitude s Skyde is used by many provinces to transmit the data in their aircraft flight following (AFF) systems. 9

10 For the GNWT, the most promising innovation identified by this survey may be the approaching launch of new satellites. The CFS indicated there is an opportunity for the GNWT to help define new wildfire outputs from the satellites by joining a user-group steering committee that will start discussions in March Advancements in cellular networks account for the primary innovations in wildfire detection in Canada, but with a small population and an under-developed cellular phone network, the GNWT is not in a position to benefit from technological advancements in reporting and communications that are occurring in other parts of the country. Current trends may have limited application in the north. Ontario s program to improve the productivity of air patrols using tablet technology may have some application in the rthwest Territories. As more provinces require aircraft contractors to have AFF systems these systems will appear more often in aircraft used in the north. Public reporting by private and commercial aircraft may be of interest to GNWT. rthern-most agencies (Manitoba, Yukon, Alaska) had lower public reporting numbers, but generally higher commercial aviation reporting. Manitoba has twice the percentage of fire detections attributed to commercial aviation than any other province. Efforts to encourage fire reporting by commercial and private aircraft would be a valuable tool for the north. When it comes to wildfire detection, survey respondents fell into one of two camps: fixed detection (towers), or aerial detection. Interestingly, cost was not identified as a reason for changing primary detection methods. Although the Yukon was the only respondent that clearly stated that they used both towers and aerial assets, we know from past communications that both British Columbia and Alberta operate towers and run aerial patrols during part of the fire season or during extreme fire conditions. Although we determined that advancements in cellular technology are responsible for three major trends in wildfire detection, it seems odd that agencies are not working closely with cellular network providers to look for ways to enhance public reporting. Initiatives to partner with, or influence, cellular communications would be warranted. A number of the enhanced tools for duty officers rely on cellular communications and may have limited benefit for the GNWT. Ontario s Aerial Detection Digital Reporting System uses AFF and is increasingly used on aircraft throughout Canada. As these systems become more common, the GNWT can benefit from the use of tablets to enhance aircraft reporting. The automated smoke detection system in Saskatchewan relies on cellular networks. The Yukon is interested in cameras for remote communities and expressed an interest to collaborate in developing fixed fire detection solutions for remote communities. Alberta is using camera technologies and the presence of camera systems will likely grow in the near future. 10

11 Recommendations 1. The GNWT has an opportunity to work through the Canadian Forest Service to ensure their operational wildfire detection needs are communicated to those who are developing new satellite products. 2. The Yukon expressed an interest in collaborating with the GNWT in the exploration of camera technologies for wildfire detection in remote communities. 3. The GWNT could benefit from any future expansion of cellular phone service and therefore should consider developing a formal association with the local cell phone provider. Advancements in public reporting in other parts of the country are related to the expansion of the cellular networks. A proactive and engaged approach could lead to lower overall detection costs and improved detection performance in areas with high human values. 11

12 APPENDIX Wildfire Detection Survey February 2014 QUESTION 1 Generally wildfire detection fits within five main categories. In the table below please provide an estimate (in %) for each of the sub-categories listed in terms of (1) source of detections in your most recent fire season, (2) the current allocation of your agency s detection dollars, and (3) the allocation of your agency s detection dollars in five years. DETECTION CATEGORY SOURCE OF DETECTIONS (%) CURRENT ALLOCATION OF DETECTION DOLLARS (%) ALLOCATION OF DETECTION DOLLARS IN 5 YEARS (%) Aerial fixed-wing air patrols rotary-wing loaded patrols lookout towers Fixed automated camera systems manual camera systems Ground fire wardens and field officers industry patrols/spark watchers lightening detection Satellite infrared scanning night vision systems Public ground commercial/private aviation 100% 100% 100% 12

13 QUESTION 2 Which of the following performance targets does your agency use to measure the success of your wildfire detection program? Fire size Response time Total fire cost Other t applicable QUESTION 3 Overall, is your agency satisfied with the performance of the wildfire detection program? QUESTION 4 Do you anticipate a change to your current measure of wildfire detection success? QUESTION 5 How do you expect your detection budget might change in the next five years? Increase Decrease Stay the same QUESTION 6 What would cause your detection budget to increase? QUESTION 7 What would cause your detection budget to decrease? QUESTION 8 Will your agency make significant adjustments to its wildfire detection program in the near future? QUESTION 9 Is your detection program restricted or constrained by the inability to attract adequately trained or experienced workers? 13

14 QUESTION 10 Are there initiatives underway to enhance skill development for staff within your wildfire detection program? QUESTION 11 Will changes in the harvesting industry alter your program s allocation of detection resources in the near future? QUESTION 12 Would an increase in public use of forested areas (e.g. recreation, tourism) increase or decrease your allocation of detection resources? Increase Decrease QUESTION 13 Does your agency have a plan to leverage public reporting in remote areas that now have cellular coverage? QUESTION 14 Is your agency planning to change the allocation of funding and investment in infrastructure related to wildfire detection based on this new paradigm? QUESTION 15 If yes, what might these changes look like? QUESTION 16 Does your agency s wildfire detection program accommodate for the needs of protected species? QUESTION 17 Is your agency adapting to the use of social media for public reporting of wildfires? 14

15 QUESTION 18 Does your agency have plans to partner with private industry to share the cost of replacement or repair of aging infrastructure? QUESTION 19 Is your agency involved in developing tools to help duty officers make decisions related to wildfire detection? If yes, please give examples QUESTION 20 Do you have any specific detection programs focused on small, remote communities? QUESTION 21 What special detection tools might need to be developed for small, remote communities? QUESTION 22 Do you have any initiatives with cellular service providers to enhance coverage for remote locations? QUESTION 23 Does your agency currently use (or have plans to develop) tools that enhance the detection and reporting of wildfire by field staff? QUESTION 24 In addition to radio systems and GPS units, what other tools do wildfire patrol units need to communicate fire detection information to the duty officer? QUESTION 25 Do you have programs or initiatives to foster commercial and private aviation reporting? 15

16 QUESTION 26 Are you developing new tools or methods to improve detection of holdover fires? QUESTION 27 Do you have any additional comments related to the future of wildfire detection? Wildfire Operations Research 16