R1/R4 AIRSPACE CLOSEOUT


Salt Lake City, October 19th, 2000


The meeting was hosted by Eastern Great Basin Coordination Center.

Objective:

An opportunity for airspace coordinators, dispatchers and aviation managers to review airspace coordination for fire season 2000. The purpose was to identify lessons learned, strengths and weaknesses that will prepare us for future airspace coordination efforts.

Welcome/Introductions:

Julie Stewart welcomed everyone and introduced guests from the FAA and DoD. Special thanks were offered to the FAA and DoD for their assistance during last season. The impact on both the FAA and DoD was phenomenal and far reaching.

There is a need to identify the assistance received from both the FAA and DoD for a formal thank you from our wild land fire agencies. Our agencies need to be briefed on the FAA and DOD's assistance. Preliminary statistics from the FAA identifies more than 300 FAA personnel involved in fire season. We need to also include assistance from FSDO, FAA Frequency coordinators, and contract towers (Ogden and Missoula).

Facts and statistics:

At one point this summer there was more than 70 fire TFR's in existence. 85% of the TFR's was in Salt Lake ARTCC's airspace (Idaho, Montana and Utah). This created an astonishing workload for Salt Lake ARTCC and for the FAA FSS who documented that they were giving pilot briefings from 39 pages of NOTAMS.

Who was involved in airspace coordination? Julie Stewart was based in Salt Lake City and had a staff of 14 Field Airspace Coordinators based in Missoula, Hamilton, Salmon, Grangeville and Salt Lake City. This was the first time a field-based airspace coordinator was used to facilitate airspace coordination between Dispatch, IMT's, Area Command, FAA and local Aviation interests. They were extremely successful.

Airspace Coordination efforts involved Dispatchers at the local level and GACCS, FAA ARTCC, FSS, FSDO, NFDC and Regional and National Headquarters, Air Operations, Air Support, Air Attack, Helibase Mgrs, Local Airport Managers, Unit Aviation Officers, DoD Scheduling Activities and AFREPs, NAVREPS and DARRS, Agency Frequency Coordinators and FAA Frequency Coordinators.

TFR Lessons Learned:

The FAA protects the nation's airspace and allows airspace use to the fullest extent. The TFR's largest impact is on the VFR pilots. The FAA fields many complaints. They will give us what we need for TFR's but no more. Often they need to negotiate for the least impact by a TFR.

Issue: Latitudes and Longitudes versus VOR/DME.

Reviews from FAA FSS indicate that they would like to see TFRs issued in both Lat/Long and VOR/DME. This is no problem for the simple TFR in a circle format (NOTAM lists both Lat/Long and VOR/DME.) However, the larger complicated TFR's is often only in Lat/Longs. FAA will check with NFDC to see if publishing both is possible within the NOTAM.

Issue: Typos within NOTAM

There were many cases of NOTAMS needing to be reissued due to typo's. This was noted by Seattle, Salt Lake and Oakland Centers. FAA would need more documentation to determine where the problem lies. NOTAM's with typos require re-issuance. The DoD Website for NOTAMS was an outstanding asset for dispatchers and airspace coordinators to verify NOTAMs.

Issue: TFR Review Process during Issuance

One step that could prevent typos would be a review process for the originator to review the NOTAM prior to issuance. At this time, many FAA facilities do not have access to e-mail or the Internet. NFDC prefers faxing as a method of receiving TFR requests from ARTCC.

Both the FAA and Land Mgt agencies can foresee a time when TFR requests are e-mailed to the FAA and forwarded within their agency for issuance. An ideal situation would involve a computer application where a TFR requestor could plot and visualize the TFR request on a sectional prior to forwarding this request to the FAA. The TFR process could be similar to the SAFECOM process where the information is "guarded" until published. We need to work with FAA and NFDC to verify the NOTAM data before it is published.

Issue: Latitude and Longitude

Latitude and Longitude have several methods of being displayed. This results in great disparity for the FAA. Often the Lat/Long and the VOR/DME given to the FAA for a TFR do not match. LAT/LONG must be standardized within our agencies. The FAA requirement is Degrees/Minutes/Seconds. Some land mgt units have agreed to degree/Decimals/Minutes. Others are using Degrees/Minutes/Seconds and even Degrees and Tenths. The further your site is from the VOR, the larger the possibility is for error.

There are also many ways of displaying Lat/Longs. In order for an automated system to work (such as a program that would download TFR's directly from the NOTAM website onto sectionals), Lat/Long display printing would have to be standardized. This would be a key factor at the input level to NFDC into the NOTAM process. NFDC needs to standardize their Lat/Long display within an NOTAM.

Issue: IAMS Conversion Factor

There are further applications beyond TFR's that is affected by the Lat/Long issue. The conversion factor in IAMS can introduce error into the data. We need to identify a primary standard for Lat/Long that is in agreement with the FAA. We need to remove the conversion options on IAMS (or educate the IAMS users that other applications of Lat/Long conversion may not be in compliance with the FAA Standard). Need to discuss with IAMS coordinator Larry Mahaffey.

Best solution for the future would be a TFR program that stands alone with one entry level for the TFR. The FAA will still plot and verify. The TFR program would be automated so the users could display the TFR prior to issuance.

Issue: AP/1B

Many commercial phone numbers in the AP1/B are missing. We do not have access to DSN. In some cases the DSN number is the same as the commercial number. Julie Stewart will contact the DoD FLIP Committee and see if commercial phone numbers can be reinstated in the AP1/B. This is a crucial contact for our coordination with DoD and affects our IAMS program.

Issue: Standardized TFR Form

Presently, there are several TFR forms in use (Regional Forms, the original TFR form from the 1991 Airspace Guide, a proposed revision from 1994, an IAMS form and a form for ROSS.) A Standardized form could assist in stabilizing input into NFDC which would result in improved output (TFR Formatting). A Draft standardized form was prepared in August 2000. It will implement a standardized format (including Lat/Longs). It is presently under review.

Issue: Information on TFR form

Phone number on TFR must be a 24-hour contact number (not an expanded dispatch number that goes away). Point of contact needs to be the person that the FAA contacts when they have questions regarding the TFR. In the FAA perspective - "person ordering" is not the air ops - it is the dispatcher placing the request with the FAA.

Issue: Frequency on TFR NOTAM

The FAA publishes a frequency in the TFR NOTAM and provides this to the public during a pilot briefing. There are many reasons for the publication of the TFR frequency (ie - media contact, disaster relief aircraft, other aircraft seeking entry during an emergency situation). The frequency must be kept accurate and updated on the TFR NOTAM. Often the frequency listed is the outdated original initial attack frequency. After the arrival of an Incident Management Team (IMT), the frequency for air to air could change. The TFR NOTAM must list the current frequency and will result in the issuance of a new NOTAM if a frequency change is made.

Issue: Coordination with Agency Frequency Coordinators

Agency Frequency coordinators are an integral part of airspace coordination. They need to be kept in the loop as to what frequencies are in use for TFR coordination. Presently TFR frequencies are published in three locations: the TFR NOTAM (via NOTAM website), GACC Intelligence reports and the R-6 Airspace Website. All three sites need to have current frequencies.

Issue: TFR Cancellation

Some times the TFR cancellation was not processed all the way through ARTCC to NFDC. In many cases, Dispatch issued an E-mail throughout the Region stating the TFR was canceled when it remained on the books (as noticed through the US NOTAM website). Dispatch should verify the TFR is canceled through channels before issuing an e-mail notice throughout the agency.

Issue: Ordering of radio equipment

Some fires were ordering equipment (#4370) and using as a Temporary Tower without FAA involvement. There is no specification within the Mob Guide or Cache catalog that determines when this kind of equipment may be ordered. Radios shortages affected the ability to set up Temporary Towers and TFR Advisory Units.

Temporary Towers - Lessons Learned

Eight Temporary Towers were set up in the FAA NW Mountain Region this summer (Durango, Hamilton, Grangeville, McCall, Kalispell, Atlanta, Id, Superior County, MT, Darby, MT). Two "TFR Advisory Units" were set up (Bitterroot and Salmon) and Two contract towers had extended hours (Ogden and Missoula). How many Temporary Tower facilities does the FAA NW Mountain Region have? They currently have two mobile facilities and "tower in a suitcase". The FAA has been inventorying their available equipment.

A Temporary Tower request usually results in filling with two air traffic controllers (with or without radios) and no facility. This should be coordinated with the FAA prior to the dispatch of the controllers.

Issue: Temporary Tower Coordination

The Airport Manager or owner MUST be consulted before a temporary tower is brought in. Dispatch/Air Ops should coordinate with local FBO or Airport Mgr PRIOR to the arrival of FAA personnel. This situation created a negative situation in both Salmon, ID and Kalispell, MT.

Issue: Temporary Tower Form for Ordering

A standardized form for ordering Temporary Towers needs to be developed. FAA needs more information than what is currently passed via a resource order. FAA/Stewart are currently working on developing a form. For example - are the controllers going into a facility that already has unicom? Are we renting a trailer? Is this a camp or hotel situation?

Issue: Temporary Tower Checklist

The checklist in the Temporary Tower chapter of the Interagency Airspace Guide is working well. The checklist needs to be altered to include frequency coordination and pull in the FAA and NIFC frequency coordinators. IMT's need to be acquainted with the Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide. A purchasing agent attempted to purchase a "tower" from FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center. A Temporary Tower (ATC Controllers) was eventually ordered and sent to the fire. It turns out that the IMT was actually looking to purchase a metal tower and did not want the Air Traffic Controllers.

Issue: Temporary Tower Frequencies

Temporary Tower frequencies need to be coordinated with our agency frequency coordinators. FAA has frequencies set aside that NIFC access. Sometimes the FAA Temporary Tower Coordinator goes to the FAA for a frequency and this can result in duplication of effort. Frequency information needs to be specified on the request for a Temp Tower. Sometimes the FAA controllers order frequencies directly from the FAA. Agency Frequency Coordinators need to be involved.

Issue: PPE for Controllers

Other factors must be considered when ordering a Temporary Tower. A request for controllers to bring leather boots is a union issue. If the request is made, FAA Management would be asked to provide the boots. It is suggested that if a "fam trip" is required for FAA personnel to look at using a Fixed Wing Aircraft.

Issue: FAA Transition Periods

Due to scheduling complications at FAA facilities, the Temporary Tower controllers were on a 5 day rotation period. This resulted in many difficulties for Incident Management Teams and Dispatchers working with the towers. Once a controller is introduced to our operational cycles and systems and is up and running, their five day rotation is over and we have to brief and train new controllers. The FAA will look into some kind of overlap to mitigate this problem.

Issue: Briefing of FAA Personnel

Each controller on assignment had to be briefed on ICS terminology, aviation operations and the basics of wild land fire operations. In the past, tower controllers have been handed fire shelters with no explanation or training. A briefing Book for FAA (and DoD) should be prepared for transitions and briefings. It was suggested to look at the DoD briefing package prepared by Helena NF as a potential template.

Issue: Temporary Tower Shut Downs

The FAA requires advance notice of shutting down Temporary Towers. The FAA has a series of steps they must take in order to shut down and tower and would like to have 48 hour notifications.

TFR ADVISORY UNITS - Lessons Learned

Two TFR's ("Salmon" and "Bitterroot" a.k.a. "Mega") combined to be an airspace that was 20% larger than the state of Delaware. The complications of the two TFRs (that shared a mutual boundary) are that they involved 2 Regions, 4 National Forest, 2 Area Commands, at least 6 Incident Management Teams, several airports and at least 6 operational areas. Salmon Airport had eight Victor Routes. There was also an MTR (Military Training Route) inside the TFR.

This is an extremely rare situation which is similar to the Yellowstone fires of 1988. The FAA was mobilized to Hamilton, MT and Salmon, ID to assist us in creating what was known at the TFR Advisory Units. FAA Air Traffic Controllers were set up to provide advisories and to assist incident traffic as they traversed from one operational area to another. Assistance was also provided for agency traffic not assigned to a particular incident. The Advisory Units also provided advisories for General Aviation and worked them around the TFR's and prevented many intrusions. The FAA is not allowed to "control" aircraft in this situation and we are not authorized to use them in an ATC situation.

Issue: Why did it take so long (7 days) to implement the Advisory Units?

The Advisory Units were extremely complicated to implement. First an infrastructure had to be developed to support the units prior to going operational. Frequency coordination was critical in establishing two frequencies for both units that had massive geographical coverage. Repeaters had to be moved into place.

Buy-in and support had to be negotiated with the FAA, Area Commands, Forests, Forest Dispatch, Unit Aviation Officers and Incident Management Teams. Initial fear and resistance to change caused delays. An attitude of "Don't' fix it if it ain't broke" counter played against an attitude of "preparing for the worst case situation". Fear of creating confusion or chaos was a large factor and the development was driven by complications such as the Continental Divide complicated frequency coordination.

An operational plan had to be prepared that outlined roles and responsibilities, operations and coordination. A 10-step implementation plan had to be completed prior to going operational. Initially, the Salmon NF IMT opted to not participate with FAA controllers. The Forest overrode the team's decision and the Salmon NF had to scramble to implement the frequency to support the TFR advisory structure. Radio failures resulted in further delays.

The Continental Divide provided further difficulties in setting up communication between the two Advisory Units. It was finally agreed that the Northern half of the TFR advisory unit (known as "Bitterroot") could go operational and the Southern half ("Salmon") followed within days.

Field Airspace Coordinators prepared the Operational Plan, FAA Briefing packages, pilot briefings and fulfilled the necessary steps of the Implementation plan.

Once implemented, the IMT's and Area Command were delighted with the results and the additional safety provided by the FAA. It has been identified that this needs to be an additional chapter to the Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide. It is hoped that the lessons learned in the implementation of the Advisory Units will smooth the way for the future. The Operational Plan and the Implementation Plan could be used as a template. It was a good decision to not go operational until the infrastructure was in place to support the Advisory Unit. It was good that we didn't force it operational until we were ready.

Issue: Co-location

Identified by the IMT's involved, the TFR Advisory Units must be co-located with either the helibase radio operations or the temporary tower. They should not be located as a separate entity. Co-location improves the coordination for all involved.

Issue: Role of Dispatch

Dispatch plays a crucial role in the set up and operations of the TFR advisory Unit. They should be involved from the initial onset and as a liaison to the Advisory Unit. They play a key role in FAA transitions.

Issue: Frequency Coordination

NIFC Frequency Coordinators will review TFR chapter and Temp Tower chapter from Draft Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide and see if there are any revisions or changes that could be added to improve coordination with frequency coordinators. Need to identify When/How/Who do we get and need to obtain frequencies for Temporary Towers.

Information about TFR Advisory units needs to get to the pilots especially Agency pilots.

Issue: 5 Day Transition Periods by FAA/FAA Briefing Package

5 Day transition periods of FAA personnel are difficult for Land Mgt Agencies to cope with. We need to build an FAA Briefing Package to improve continuity. The more transitions - the more "things" get missed.

Airspace Education/Training Discussion:

Issue: Determining the need for a TFR

The group expressed the need to know when to ask for a TFR. Discussed the Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide provides guidance for various factors that could influence the need for a TFR. TFR's can be ordered by the Field/Dispatch/or Aviation Mgt. It is difficult to be more specific in the Airspace guide because each fire is unique. We cannot create a complete list of when or when not to order a TFR as it is a judgmental call for the requesting unit.

Issue: Need more direction on TFR Shapes.

The Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide provides a list of factors that can influence the size and shape of the TFR. Again, it is a judgmental call of the requesting unit.

Issue: TFR Ordering

Some people think that a TFR is an automatic order when using aircraft. The Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide is a good reference point for determining the need for a TFR. It is not a requirement but a safety tool to reduce the risk of a mid air collision.

Some Air Tacticals expect an automatic TFR. We need to look at what is being taught regarding TFR's in their curriculum. TFR's are not automatic and should be considered if needed. Some Air Tacticals demand a "1A" TFR (we believe they are referring to an (a)1 TFR). The FAA issues TFR's under the paragraph (a)2 of 91.137 for wildfires.

Issue: Information Sharing

The FAA expressed that we need to manage our TFR's and close them in a timely manner. The FAA also expressed interest in being invited to various workshops and training (ie Regional Dispatchers Workshop) where they could interact with Dispatchers and develop a more understanding relationship with our land mgt agencies.

GIS SUPPORT - INFORMATION SHARING

Jack Sheffie, Utah BLM GIS Fire Support
Jack provided GIS support for Utah during the first half of fire season. He has developed Flight Hazard Maps based on the Joint Operational Graphics (NIMA Maps). They are used for hazard maps in both an office and flight setting. They have excellent clarity in highlighting hazards. They do not have the various classes of airspace and would not work for TFR work ups. They are now on their 3rd edition, are extremely popular and easy to use. Unfortunately, they are limited to Utah. Jack provides an excellent product and is a valuable resource.

Issue: Standardization of Flight Hazard Maps

There is a group working on standard symbols for Flight Hazard Maps. We need to standardize our efforts.

Bob Roth, Lolo NF - Briefing on TFR Mapping project
Bob Roth presented a program on the TFR Mapping project that he and Neil Flagg developed this summer. This program has the capability of taking TFRs from the US NOTAM site and downloading them onto Sectionals for display on the Internet. This unique program was a saving grace this fire season as it allowed many people to see an exact replication of our TFR's for pilot briefings, verification and airspace coordination.

Unfortunately, due to lack of standards regarding Lat/Long and VOR/DME, the TFR Mapping project was not automatic and each TFR had to be loaded onto the sectional. This was accomplished through a partnership between our airspace coordination specialists and the Lolo NF.

GeoMac is a GIS specialist unit in Denver, CO and they would like to be involved in TFR mapping. They could continue the program developed this year by the Lolo NF of mapping TFRs on Sectionals. We currently need to work out which TFR goes on which sectional, projection issues and printing challenges for poster size maps.

Issue: Disclaimer

Any map (either TFR or Flight Hazard) MUST post a disclaimer as per the FAA that contains the following "Not to be used for navigational purposes - Pilots must contact the FAA FSS for current NOTAM information). This includes depictions on websites. It is also imperative that maps carry the Date and Time.

FAA Reviews/Meetings

Flight Service Station Review:

Rick Ernenwein and Mike Ebersole (NPS) surveyed FAA personnel at Great Falls, Boise and Cedar City Flight Service Stations regarding the impact of this fire season and our TFRs. The FAA provided valuable feedback regarding the TFR process. This information was primarily focused on in-house FAA procedures and the information will be provided to the FAA for review.

Salt Lake ARTCC Support/Meeting:

Stewart and several Airspace Coordinators visited the Salt Lake ARTCC several times during fire season. Feedback was provided by FAA personnel and will be distributed as an attachment to this document. ARTCC personnel wanted to highlight that they found our agency personnel very pleasant to work with throughout this difficult fire season.

DOD Requests:

Put DoD requests (for Field Airspace coordinators, etc) in early as they take time to process. For DoD support requests, clearly identify "requirements" and not equipment.

Cross "Training":

Consider inviting DoD and FAA to Regional Dispatcher Workshops, Aviation Meetings and various training sessions where DoD and FAA could get more acquainted with our operations and logistics.

Dispatch/Air Ops/Area Command Perspectives

Area Command Perspective:

Temporary Towers worked well. It was a good decision especially for Superior County (in the ILS to Missoula). A good example of other ways to do business besides using a TFR. TFR maps were great. Need to think of user eg.: people at incident. Distribution mechanism needs to be looked at. Some people had printing problems with the TFR map.

Need to brief our folks - ie Area Command, BAER Teams, MAC Groups etc. Briefing package for DoD and FAA personnel is important. Maggie Doherty stated that a briefing package was build for DoD personnel. Need to look at it as a template for a FAA Briefing Package.

Issue: Area Command Geographic Divisions

We are not sure how fires are divided for Area Command purposed but divisions can lead to airspace difficulties. We need separation via geographical boundaries (ie a river). A North/South line on a map has no meaning from the air. It would be better if aviation could provide input on these decisions.

Air Operations Branch Directors Perspectives:

  1. Need to determine if we need a TFR
  2. Need to actively manage a TFR - Do you need all the airspace?
  3. AOBD tried to downsize a TFR - Dispatch felt size change was insignificant and did not change TFR size.
  4. Need to consider General Aviation routes, MEA's, etc when designing TFR - we get this information from a sectional, Most General Aviation is minimally equipped.
  5. Need to educate ourselves as users of airspace
  6. Need to talk with local general aviation - continue use of posters, visit FBO's, use radio announcements to broadcast TFR
  7. Use courtesy and good airmanship
  8. Maybe we didn't need as much airspace

Issue: Team Assignments influence TFR Sizes

14 day IMT assignments led to large TFR's with little or no modifications. For example, an IMT on 2nd week of assignment would postpone changes because new IMT was coming. IMT on first week of assignment would not make any changes because they had not "gone operational" yet and were still assessing needs. Then in week two - would postpone decision until new IMT arrived - it was a continual loop postponing any decision to reduce the TFR in size.

Issue: Could TFR's be daylight only?

No, at the request of FAA Washington DC Headquarters. Our TFR's are already difficult to distribute and there is disparity regarding what constitutes daylight hours. The FAA Headquarters has made a decision that fire TFR's are in effect 24 hours a day. We should remove the daylight only question from the IAMS TFR Form.

Issue: Relationship with Field Airspace Coordinator

Two keys to success were identified - Proactive coordination with Air Operations and identifying TFR changes before they were needed. Outreach to General Aviation assisted efforts.

Air Tactical Perspective:

It was discovered that Air Tacticals were allowing FBO's to pass through the TFR upon request. This created a difficult situation when the FBO decided to offer tours of the wildfires to the general public and were requesting more and immediate access to the TFR on a daily basis. FBO was cranky when dispatch couldn't allow aircraft through and Air Tactical was unavailable for permission.

The situation was resolved when the Forest instructed the IMT to treat the TFR as a TFR and not allow the FBO through on request. If the IMT felt it was important for the FBO to come through upon request, then the IMT could release the TFR.

Dispatch Perspective:

Things were smooth with tower and FAA. FAA was easy to work with. McCall had a tower and had to cope with a fly in for 500 aircraft. FAO would brief temporary tower and was the conduit between the IMT and the Tower. TFR's weren't bad. Some difficulty when they involved back country airstrips. Air Ops and Airspace coordinators would talk with intruders. Some issues with Salmon River Corridor.

The IMT-Dispatch flow of information was good. Area Command add to complications. Transitions (IMT's, Area Commands, FAA) add to complexities. We have Boundary Issues. Our airspace complexities changed daily. Sometimes a pilot might not know where they were or where they were going. Coordination, Communications and Transitions became crucial as pieces of information fell through the cracks.

The need is there for Airspace Coordinators. We need a response before we reach level V.

Issue: Airspace Training

Need to look at basic training issues for Dispatchers. Where is the lesson plans for Lat/Longs, Plotting a bearing and distance, etc. Nevada's Aviation class for dispatchers is excellent. Need more training.

Issue: TFR Standards

Standards are different throughout each GACC for handling TFR's. Region 1 and Region 5 have their GACC's handle TFR's. Region six and Region 4 have their local units handle TFR's. There is no national standard and dispatchers must be aware of local procedures when on assignment.

SafeCom Review - It is impossible to know how many fires the Smokey Bear campaign has prevented. Likewise, it is impossible to know how many intrusions or mid air collisions our airspace program has prevented. Our Airspace Coordinators did an outstanding job of spreading the word about our TFR's, briefing pilots, coordinating TFR maps, investigating intrusions and coordinating with both DoD and FAA. And despite their heroic efforts, our Safecoms still reflect that we have an agency issue for TFR intrusions and Near mid Air collisions.

Airspace Coordinator Kits - Each person who went out as a Field Airspace Coordinator had to scramble for equipment and supplies. We have prepared a list based on this summers experience of items that would assist an Airspace Coordinator. There will not be kits in the cache. Items are a suggestion for each person to place in their "go" bags. Cell Phones were critical as were e-mail profiles, laptops and printers.

Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide Update - The response period was completed this spring. Julie Stewart is now in the process of reviewing the responses and preparing edits. Fire season 2000 interfered with the completion of the guide and has also resulted in some editing for the TFR and Temporary Tower chapters. The Guide should be completed prior to 2001.

Preparing for the future - Airspace Coordinators fall under "Technical Specialists" in the Redcard system (TESP). If interested in being an Airspace Coordinator, please contact Julie Stewart at 503-808-6728.

Thank yous - as a sign of her appreciation for their outstanding work as Field Airspace Coordinators, Julie Stewart presented Smokey Bear wings to Paul Klawitter and Gary Jewett.

Attendance:

Guests
Dan Mawhorter FAA Reg Hqtrs, Seattle, WAdaniel.mawhorter@faa.gov
Jim Hayes FAA Reg Hqtrs, Seattle, WAjim.hayes@faa.gov
LTC Rich VanAllman DARR/FAA Liaison, Seattle, WArichard.vanallman@faa.gov
John Moulder NIFC, Communications, Boise, IDjohn_moulder@nifc.blm.gov
Kary Mavencamp NIFC, Communications, Boise, ID kmavencamp@fs.fed.us
Mark Hilton NIFC, Communications, Boise, ID mark_r_hilton@nifc.blm.gov
Julie Stewart PNW Region, Portland, ORjulie_stewart@or.blm.gov
Cliff Chetwin NPS, Denver cliff_chetwin@nps.gov
R-1
Barry Hicks RAO MSOwhicks@fs.fed.us
Jim Beck No Rockies Coord Ctr, MSOjbeck01@fs.fed.us
Kim Thomas No Rockies Coord Ctr, MSOkthomas@fs.fed.us
Paul Klawitter Field Airspace Coordinator, MSOpaul@klawitter.com
Nancy Gibson Bitterroot NF Nlgibson@fs.fed.us
Maggie Doherty Helena NF mdoherty@fs.fed.us
Aaron Madson Bitterroot NFAmadsen@fs.fed.us
Bob Cunningham MSO (Area Command) Rhcunningham@fs.fed.us
Dick Hulla USFS, AFD MSOrhulla@fs.fed.us
Eddy Ward USFS, AFD, MSOeward@fs.fed.us
Everett Weniger USFS, AFD, MSOeweniger@fs.fed.us
Collin Holstein Kootenai NF Cholstein@fs.fed.us
Bob Roth Lolo NF Rroth@fs.fed.us
Paul Linse Flathead NF Plinse@fs.fed.us
Charlie Elliott Lochsa/Clear Nez NFcelliott@fs.fed.us
Gary Boyd Idaho Panhandle NFgboyd@fs.fed.us
Chris Shelton Lewiston Field Office, BLMcshelton@mt.blm.gov
R-4
Randy Hart Eastern Great Basin Coordination Ctr randy_hart@ut.blm.gov
Mindy Stevenson Eastern Great Basin Coordination Ctrmstevenson@ut.blm.gov
Trish Harvey SLIFC, Salt Lake, UTpharvey@ut.blm.gov
L. Gary Jewett Ashley NF, UT Ljewett@fs.fed.us
Gary Murphy Payette NF, McCall, IDgmurphy@fs.fed.us
Vince Welbaum Payette NF, McCall, ID vwelbaum@fs.fed.us
Jim Morrison RASO, USFS, Ogden, UT jmorrison@fs.fed.us
Jack Sheffey Utah BLM GIS Supportjsheffy@ut.blm.gov
Pat Simpson Sawtooth NF Psimpson@fs.fed.us

Attachments: