standardized map symbology for emergency management update for nsgic midyear conference march, 2004

1. Standardized Map Symbology for Emergency Management Scott McAfee DHS/FEMA FGDC Homeland Security Working Group

2. CITATION: (Pub.L. 106-390, § 203, October 30, 2000) Maps should identify all applicable natural hazards Requires FEMA to consult with States, local governments and appropriate Federal agencies to develop maps for areas in at least 5 States Directs FEMA to use the most cost-effective and efficient technology available Maps are advisory in nature and shall not require new policy No additional funds budgeted for this directive CITATION: (Pub.L. 106-390, § 203, October 30, 2000) Maps should identify all applicable natural hazards Requires FEMA to consult with States, local governments and appropriate Federal agencies to develop maps for areas in at least 5 States Directs FEMA to use the most cost-effective and efficient technology available Maps are advisory in nature and shall not require new policy No additional funds budgeted for this directive

3. Symbology Subgroup Participants Census DoD (Air Force, Navy, USACE) DISA DOE NIMA NOAA NSGIC FEMA/DHS

4. Approach Draft a minimal set of symbols Emergency managers are the end users Consider existing symbol sets Authenticate draft symbols with users Select the best path to become an accredited standard Explore interoperability

5. Guiding Principles Keep it Simple Icons only (point symbols) Use existing standards where appropriate Focus on U.S., but keep an eye to international use Move quickly

6. Three tiers plus attributes Category Incident, Operations, Infrastructure, Natural Event Theme Example: Fire Feature Example: Origin Attribute example: Electrical Symbol Hierarchy

7. Review by intended users Website Period of review: December 8 – Jan 31 Outreach to Emergency Management Orgs: International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) National Association of Emergency Managers International Association of Fire Chiefs OASIS Emergency Management Tech. Comm. EM forum Disaster Management Information System (DMIS) Report by Ute Dymon of Kent State

8. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG The home page introduces the project and provides instructions for participating in the evaluation if the user so chooses.The home page introduces the project and provides instructions for participating in the evaluation if the user so chooses.

9. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG While not mandatory, we offer a user profile which may help in the response evaluation.While not mandatory, we offer a user profile which may help in the response evaluation.

10. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG There are five sections, one for each of the major symbol groups including incident, natural events, operations, and infrastructures as well as the damage matrix.There are five sections, one for each of the major symbol groups including incident, natural events, operations, and infrastructures as well as the damage matrix.

11. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG Each section includes the symbol, its definition and a option to accept or reject with comment.Each section includes the symbol, its definition and a option to accept or reject with comment.

12. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG A user can choose to accept all symbols within a section with one click in the ‘accept all box’. We make it a little harder on you if you choose to reject a symbol. You have to mark each symbol individually and add a comment if you choose to reject.A user can choose to accept all symbols within a section with one click in the ‘accept all box’. We make it a little harder on you if you choose to reject a symbol. You have to mark each symbol individually and add a comment if you choose to reject.

13. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG infrastructureinfrastructure

14. www.fgdc.gov/HSWG And damage matrixAnd damage matrix

15. Review Statistics 214 questions/200 symbols on review form Accept, reject, comments, respondent info 394 Respondents 101 emergency managers 26% 37 fire fighters 9% 88 GIS practitioners 22% 81 managers, 66 technical All symbols at least 1 comment, some 100 23 Symbols had less than 75% acceptance rate

16. Location of Participants

18. Participant’s Comments Civil Demonstrations Show people with the boards. See riot comment Looks like kids Poor representation of incident. "OK, but I don't have a better alternative." "I think all these symbols would work. However, I really feel they should have opaque backgrounds or at least that option because I find them very difficult to read and decipher on a map of any scale for local enforcement projects. I also feel they are all way too complicated for most people to discern between unless they are so huge the cover everything behind them."

19. Changes to Symbols Keeping 101, changing 81, deleting 14 Adding some for ICS and SAR Changes will be reflected in separate column

20. Comments Very little feedback on definitions Concerns about ability to handwrite these symbols Symbol specific: Incidents - accident & hijacking into attributes – not symbols Fire - needs to be consolidated into Wildland (i.e. grassland and forest), Non-residential and Residential. Search & Rescue needs to have symbology representation Law Enforcement community needs to be more engaged due to the nature of many of the symbols Different weather symbols DOT hazmat placards

21. Toward a standard ANSI through SDSFIE (Tri-Service CADD GIS Center) Annual maintenance cycle already in place HSIP Draft standard to ANSI Incits L1 this Summer Agreement between FGDC/Tri-Service Center

22. Standard Roadmap For SDSFIE And The Emergency Response Symbol Set

23. Process Flow For ANSI’s Approval OfINCITS 353-200x Parts 1 and 2

24. Interoperability There is no perfect symbol for all users. The ideal system: For a given feature type, a user could call up a symbol that was appropriate to their discipline Any application could utilize a web based registry of symbols Open GIS consortium (EMSYS) Funded by NGA and FEMA