Tennessee Agricultural Emergency Management System

1. Tennessee Agricultural Emergency Management System (TAgEMS)

2. The Problem Tennessee currently has no efficient system for collecting and providing up-to-date information during disasters to field staff, decision makers, media, and other stakeholders

3. Examples Point to the Need • Tracking FMD cases in United Kingdom • Sulfuric acid spill in Knox County • Winter storms blocking roads, knocking out power for several days • Identifying shelters for animals that must be moved • Identifying suitable dead animal disposal sites

4. Potential Ag Disasters • Disease outbreak • Natural disaster • Hazardous materials releases • Disruption of services • Radiological event • Agroterrorism

5. Stakeholders • Livestock owners • Farmers: beef, dairy, equine, poultry, etc. • Integrators • Companion, service animal owners • Regulators • Field staff, decision makers • Buyers, processors, retailers • Consumers

6. Types of Info Needed • Animal inventories • Type • Number • Locations • Ownership • Health status

7. Types of Info Needed • Maps • Roads with geocoded addresses • Streams • Utilities • Soils • Topography • Aerial imagery

8. Types of Info Needed • Services • Veterinarians • Emergency Services • Transportation • Materials handling • Specialized • Portable incinerators

9. Types of Info Needed • Staff assignments • Locations to inspect • Incident history for each location • Situation reports for the area • Stakeholders in affected area • Info sent to stakeholders • Navigational assistance

10. Types of Info Needed • Inspection reports • Locations inspected • Findings • Quarantine zones established • Etc.

11. Types of Info Needed • Other • Roadblock locations • Sources of supplies • Disposal sites / facilities • Transportation, materials handling equip. • Shelters for humans & animals • Disaster assistance centers • Educational materials

12. Collecting the Information • Much data readily available • Maps, aerial imagery, etc. • Agricultural data generally not available • Ag Census data summarized by counties • Some public data available • Licensing records • Government payment records • May never identify all livestock owners

13. Collecting the Information • Data that is available is scattered • Multiple agencies • Data is in multiple formats • Paper based • Computer databases • Inconsistent file formats • Multiple datums, projections

14. Managing the Information • Need a system for: • Establishing database formats • Collecting needed data • Quality control and data maintenance • Data security and privacy • Developing data collection & analysis tools • Training users

15. Geographical Information System • Computer based system for: • Storing, manipulating, and analyzing • Multiple databases • Georeferenced data

16. Internet Mapping Server • Permits multiple users access to GIS data • One set of data for multiple users • All users have access to latest information • Data queries and analysis possible • Access privileges allow use by various stakeholders

24. The TAgEMS Proposal • Develop GIS and IMS systems to meet needs of stakeholders during agricultural disasters • Develop protocol for data collection and management • Train users & test TAgEMS • Provide appropriate system access to stakeholders

25. The TAgEMS Proposal • System based on ESRI products • ArcView GIS • ArcIMS • ArcPad • ESRI products most widely used • Data compatibility with partners

26. The TAgEMS Proposal • Direct recording of field data • GPS and notebook/handheld computers • Menu driven data collection tools • Faster, more reliable • Near real-time data delivery • Synchronize wireless or from local office • Everyone has most current information

27. Phase 1 • Collect, verify, and serve existing data • Identify data sources • Import and modify for GIS use • Develop field data collection protocol

28. Phase 1 • Launch basic IMS server • Develop scenarios • Develop data entry, analysis tools • Test IMS server and data tools

29. Phase 2 • Pilot counties • Refine data • Collect additional data • GPS data, map-derived, geocoding addresses

30. Phase 2 • Field testing • IMS testing by field staff • Data synchronization by field staff • Training & tabletop exercises

31. Phase 3 • Continued development & refinement • Launch additional counties • 30+ counties per year

32. TAgEMS Evaluation • Data reliability • Data security • User friendliness • System performance • Compatibility with end-user systems • System reliability

33. Who Does What? • UT • Personnel develop system • Computer resources • TDA • Advise on system uses • Testing system features • Local GIS departments • Access to data and GIS expertise

34. University of Tennessee • Personnel • Precision ag specialist • IT specialist • Graduate student • Hourly student labor

35. University of Tennessee • Computer resources • Initially use UT Ag servers • Windows NT servers • Migrate to UT SunSite servers • Faster processing and Internet connections • Greater data storage, regular backups • Backup power supplies for servers and routers • 24/7 onsite support

36. Other Key Players • TDA, USDA • TEMA • GIS departments • Homeland Security • NRCS, FSA • UT Extension Service

37. National Needs • Leadership and consensus • Prioritize needs • Standardize data formats • Standardize methods, rules for collection and use of personally identifiable data • Eventually establish a standard basic AgEMS system • states customize with additional data & tools