III I}: II" w III II l 55r'55 '1'," II?“ 5 5‘ 15'3“” ”fit, 555,555I5II5 I555 “555%“ I5 5‘._ 55‘I5I,'5¥5 ' I505. .55 5.55 555555 5.5 5 $.‘5I'5'55I'I5I'5-I .. 5}5‘_. NI ‘5I5555I55‘III'I’i905-u 5555535555555 55 55 5 5 5 c |I“|, {I " I‘ L, ‘5“5‘ 555 5 5. ‘5'.'5 5YI5 5’_.~5 555.555 5] 555555 5 '3‘“? IAN“ 55\V5'55'I‘ “III“ II)". 55;“5' “I55I III III II III " ' 5 I I“ a )‘I' G‘IYIIIIL‘II‘S“ '“I 3““ VIM“ 1. III In “I"III'III” I III“ I ~ 535555I555555551;5}5l 55I5I5 5 555'." IIHZI‘I‘ h5‘II I ‘III ' ‘ ”I III aw III :‘-‘IIII3 5 ‘ ' . ' III" III IIILII‘I‘I" I - ““IIIIIIIII'I.I-IIII“ I,‘II‘I IIIIII‘III . - ‘; 55.5I. ,‘,I 1 “MI 1‘ II \I 55'II55I55 TIGHT“ II 555 . 55.- I III m I I IU‘IMII‘IIIII‘I 1" II”“IIIII.H‘ II 51II‘II IIZI “$5.5 5w} ' 5 I- IIIGIIII““I III “IIIIII: I5n55 . ;55 III :I5 {I I" 'IIIIIIII III‘II“ :. , ILIII‘IIIIIII‘II‘ I II III 5YI'5II5I I I‘..5 55‘55H5'.“ 55.55 I I 5I “155% 5\U/ IIWI’WWHIIYII =I"5.III.;.'I,\I5II‘I5 ,IIISIIII. I " his. .555 'III“IM”WW”II “I'IIIIIII a;.5II5I,I‘II5I"5'I5II. 2.}.5 5III‘I\I'5I.5IS.I5'- _:‘ .I. v 4:} I355 I'IIII‘IIIII “III III “I“ I‘III‘I‘III‘I‘IM I - . '5 | .‘ I. 5 5 .fi ‘ ' I III “I“ “IN “' I 2344-“ I: 5" 5|5’H‘ a1 3.‘1:.h\\1.5.\5“§ 5W I‘gl I “III . Ht] - “MI“ \S'UII‘U‘IN III. ‘I‘I‘I‘I‘Iw “III . v 5. I - 5 . z-I '- IIIa 37:1 .323!“- IIIIIII“ '. IIIIIII gI‘I‘h '. I“ - ‘I 1' '“inII :5If9I 'I.I. “‘1‘.“ v5»: [5‘35 “5“” I“ \ ‘5‘. “343‘ - , 5-5 5 5 1'1) 55 III'II‘IIIII - I .. I I I» . .. I :I. » I II“ .I . 5\5Il5 '55 I 55 5 |5I5I55555IH I551" 55:5.“ 555] 55'5'555 :15E‘5vx 5:55 III'5I'IIII'II'II‘I‘TIIIII‘"5‘ I5 (55 I‘I5555I5 II5I' III?” ' 5, SHIIIIIIH7IIG‘IWII“ ‘ I ~ ~ I I. III . . “I ‘ 5, "I“ ‘ III‘I' .' , ~ I '5 | I 55"5553555. ‘ .5III\1I|II I515H5I,I.%5 55.. 555A. l5::;555 555' 5.5 I I 55‘ 5'55“ II“) M'IIHIIII‘W . . . . 55555|I5 .. . III II 555355-555 ‘5’5 5:. .I 5 55.5 I 5155 I55I55,\5I‘.5n5 55'555555o55I5.555I55.5555. 55 . I I " .5555L555;,5.5I5I555 ~ 555555555'5555 I'. '515‘III'I‘5II I‘ I5 I ‘ II III - 'I ‘5 55.5555 5555555555 555‘5'5‘5 5,555 55555555555 5I5u5‘5I5I‘ II‘55 555555555h55 ' 'I“I|'II5"I5I I57 5I'5I HI I5 I ' “5'5‘1‘55‘5‘5555 55 A\55‘555,I J52“ w I I‘II‘I' II .. 533‘. .55 5555555555. -I.‘ II I55 I}: I 5 55I5’ 55 5I III " “I“. "‘ w I “III. III. 'J‘.H5"' 5 5\ 5 5 55|551555. 5I'555l55 I 5|5| I 555555555555 55555 ‘. " 5‘55‘5 “it?" ‘I l‘ 55 I - ‘ ' I "t {I 55 I"I"III I \MII‘ ‘ Il‘I | | ' I " II“ I‘l5 "I 5I1II [I 5 “55 ‘III5 5 I' I5 5 5 5.5-5I; 55.5 I ‘ " II- , II. 5. ‘I55I: 155 IN 555555I I U ‘I' ' 'l‘II I ’IIIIHIII“ ‘ .\~ ' 5“) “5| I III I, 555“} I I‘I ." \5 I I I ' I I I I!“ 5 I LIBRA P Y b: PM? Sitte LLLLV».51L, This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATION OF FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS presented by Robert David Gale has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Forestry 0/9: 17Z / waif: / Manflofessm Date October 12, 1977 0-7639 EVALUATION OF FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS BY Robert David Gale A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1977 4.1 . v. W O. t if“: ”an is ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS BY Robert David Gale The study evaluates individual practices, procedures and management strategies of the Fire Management organization of the U. S. Forest Service, and examines the appropriateness of achieved results. The purpose is to fulfill a request by the Office of Management and Budget for information regarding the recent escalation of Fire Management expenditures. It is also intended that the material presented in the study will be used for internal improvement of the Fire Management program within the Forest Service. For this reason, the posi- tive aspects of Fire Management have not been highlighted. A systems approach was devised to categorize Fire Man- agement activities into five areas: 1) Law and Policy; 2) Resource Values; 3) Planning; 4) Managerial Control; and 5) Evaluation. The activities of each of these five subsys- tems are described and evaluated; and recommendations for improvement are presented. Emphasis is given to the economic implications of Fire Management activities. An array of physical and fiscal data is presented and evaluated for the ten year period, 1966—75. foil: "fl tej a“ ‘ .l '1 .4 Robert David Gale Findings and recommendations of the study include the following. The laws under which the Forest Service Operates with regard to fires are very general, requiring only that some form of protection be provided. The Agency's fire policies have not kept pace with its rapidly evolving philosophy of managing fires. New policies are needed which take a broader more positive approach to fire. Forest values are neither adequately assessed or pro- perly used in Fire Management today. Procedures for prOper- ly estimating forest values should be established and used as input for determining the level of Fire Management acti- vity and for assessing accomplishment. The fire planning process is incomplete. An integra- ted planning process based on appropriate values, resource management objectives and an analysis of viable alternatives needs to be devised. Within the managerial control area, the current fiscal and statistical information systems need to be revised. Fis— cal improvement is particularly needed in the area of sup- pression funds. More relevant and timely statistical infor- mation is also needed. Additional emphasis is needed in the area of evaluation. Effectiveness evaluations are lacking and need to be added. Also a feedback mechanism from evaluations to other Fire Mama” sho ul' Robert David Gale Management subsystems and to other Forest Service programs should be developed. Many of the above findings and recommendations have already been acted upon, and a discussion of these actions is contained. C. .\ at ‘r C .9; C v. “1 in ‘J § ‘Ji la; AC KNOWLE DGMENTS This thesis is based on a report of the same name produced by the author, a member of the Policy Analysis Staff of the U. S. Forest Service. For the dissertation, the original report has been rewritten and the final two chapters added. Many Forest Service employees contributed informa- tion, ideas, and suggestions. And several submitted staff papers on various aspects of the text. Major contributions were made by Wiley Daniels, Lance Hodgin, Robert White and Rita Thompson. Doctor Adrian Gilbert, former Director, and Everett Towle, Director of the Policy Analysis Staff, provided di- rection and counsel during the course of the study. My graduate committee, Doctors Robert Marty, Robert Manthy, Lee James, and Lawrence Sarbaugh, have been helpful in shaping the former report into a dissertation. My special appreciation goes to Doctor Robert Marty, who pro- vided the necessary advice and counsel throughout my doctor- ial program. ii iii I wish to recognize my wife, Nancy, without whose help and sacrifice this dissertation and my previous aca- demic pursuits would not have been a reality. Robert David Gale CHAPTE CHAPTE TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Study Objective and Design . . . . . . . . . . 6 Study Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CHAPTER I. LAW AND POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Of Existing Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Of Existing Policies . . . . . . . . . 28 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CHAPTER II. RESOURCE VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Actual Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Potential Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Analysis of Present Resource Valuation Practices 41 Categorizing and Valuing Actual Damages. . 44 Assessing Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Assigning Potential Damage Classes . . . . 4S Suggested Framework for Measuring Affectable Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Identifying Components of Value . . . . . 51 Appraising Forest Resources . . . . . . . 54 Categorizing Values . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Grouping Resource Values . . . . . . . . . 56 Concept of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Model Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 iv CHAPTE CHAPTEE rn m I rn CHAPTE! CHAPTp CHAPTER III. PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Fire Plans . . . . . . . National Fire Planning Instructions Analysis of Current Fire Planning . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IV. MANAGERIAL PLANNING . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . Background and Current Situation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Information Management . . . Current Situation . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER V. EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . Formal Management Review Process . Individual Fire Analyses . . . . . FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefit-Cost Analyses . . . . . . Fire Management Inspections . . . External Review . . . . . . . . . Evaluation Needs of Fire Management . . Fire Activity Index . . . . . . Comprehensive Statistical Analysis Comparison Evaluations . . . . . . Analysis of Alternatives . . . . . Updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER VI. USE OF THE EVALUATION . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Management Fund . . . . . . . . . . Fire Planning Study Team . . . . . . . . Policy Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . July Fire Policy Meeting . . . . . . . . National Fire Planning Meeting . . . . . Fire Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 101 102 102 102 107 111 113 121 123 124 125 125 126 129 131 132 139 141 144 144 145 Recommendations Action on Recommendations APPENDICES A. G. H. BIBLIOGRAPHY COMPARISON TO POTENTIAL DAMAGE OF LAND VALUE ESTIMATES CLASS VALUES TYPES OF FIRE PLANS Vi TREND ANALYSIS OF FIRE ACTIVITY MEASURABLE RESOURCE VALUE GROUPINGS INDIVIDUAL FIRE REPORT HANDBOOK (FORM STATISTICAL DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL YEARS 5100-29) DISCUSSION OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PRESUPPRESSION SPENDING EFFECTIVENESS EXAMPLE OF FIRE ACTIVITY INDEX CALCULATIONS 148 149 153 158 161 163 165 166 176 181 190 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. l7. l8. 19. PCT LA}; ACT F ‘x' LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. PERCENT OF FIRES LESS THAN TEN ACRES . . 2. AREAS WITH APPROVED EXCEPTIONS TO THE 10 A.M. SUPPRESSION POLICY . . 3. NATIONAL FOREST FATALITIES . . . . . . . 4. POTENTIAL FIRE DAMAGE CLASSES . . . . . 5. POTENTIAL DAMAGE BY VALUE CLASS . . . . 6. LAND VALUES VS POTENTIAL DAMAGE VALUES . 7. ACTUAL DAMAGE VS POTENTIAL DAMAGE VALUES 8. FY 1976 FUEL MANAGEMENT ATTAINMENT REPORT 9. EXPENDITURE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . 10. FFF EXPENDITURES ADJUSTED FOR CARRYOVER, 11. FIRE ACTIVITY INDEX FOR NATIONAL FOREST PROTECTED LANDS . 12. SUMMARY OF COST AND RELATED STATISTICS . 13. 1975 EXPENDITURES . . . . . . . . . . . 14. AN EXAMPLE OF LEAST COST PLUS NET LOSS . 15. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . 16. NEW FIRE POLICIES AS DRAFTED BY THE FIRE POLICY MEETING COMMITTEE 17. EXPENDITURE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . 18. NATIONAL STATISTICAL FIRE INFORMATION . 19. FIRE SEVERITY INDEX . . . . . . . . . . vii $M 30 33 39 42 47 48 49 72 81 84 105 110 112 122 133 137 167 172 174 20. 21. viii 20. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES PER ACRE . . . . . . 184 21. REGIONAL FIRE DATA, 1965-1975 . . . . . . . . . 187 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. IS. l6. l7, LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY MODEL . . . . . 2. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES (FFF) . . . 3. CURRENT AND PROJECTED COSTS . . . . . . . FOREST RESOURCE VALUE MODEL . . . . . . 5. MODIFIED VALUE MODEL . . . . . . . . . . 6. TYPICAL LEAST COST DIAGRAM . . . . . . . 7. LEAST COST (PRESENT THEORY) . . . . . . . LEAST COST (PROPOSED) . . . . . . . . . 9. COST PLUS NET LOSS . . . . . . . . . . . 10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (P&M AND FFF) . . . . 11. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES (P&M) . . . 12. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES (FFF) . . . l3. SUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES (FFF) . . . . . 14. FIRES TO WHICH FOREST SERVICE RESPONDED 15. NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION USE . . . . . 16. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED 17. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURE COMPARED TO FIRE SEVERITY FOR SELECTED REGIONS ix REGIONS 21 24 53 60 117 118 118 120 168 169 170 171 173 175 185 186 lY in?c1 equipmg: INTRODUCTION Background The major manager of forest fires in the United States is the Forest Service, an agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This agency has three major program areas which are involved with forest fire activities: 1) State and Private Forestry which primarily provides advice and fi- nancial support to State agencies and private landholders en- gaged in forest fire activities; 2) Research which is primari- ly involved in the development of models, techniques, and equipment for improving the capability of fire managers; and 3) the National Forest System which, through its Fire Manage- ment staff, conducts fire operations on the National Forests and, by agreement, on some adjacent lands. Of the three Forest Service programs involved with fire activities, the National Forest System is by far the largest Operating on 200,736,000 acres of land. While approximately 37 percent of these lands are nonforested (e.g., grasslands), all fires on land protected by the Forest Service are gener- ally referred to as forest fires. To control or manage fires on these lands, the Forest Service has built a large and highly structured organization which it refers to as Fire Management. This organization 8? ti th 1) J) ‘1 ROI? SlO'v 2 employs between 10,000 and 20,000 pe0ple depending on the time of year and fire severity conditions. Fire management on lands protected by the Forest Service, which is what this thesis is limited to, consists of the following programs: 1) fire prevention, 2) fuel modification, 3) fire detection, 4) presuppression activities, and 5) fire suppression. Fire prevention includes those activities aimed at preventing man-caused fires. It employs such methods as advertising campaigns, one-to-one contact with forest users, and inspecting the equipment and facilities of forest users for fire hazards. The fuel modification program is composed of three types of activities: fuel maintenance (disposal of logging slash by burning); fuel break construction (creation in the normal forest vegetation of strips or breaks intended to slow down, stOp or provide an area from which to begin ad- verse action against an on-coming fire); and fuel reduction (broadcast burning of large expanses of highly flamable vege- tation to reduce flamability of the fuel). The fire detection program involves those activities required to spot and locate fires. The means employed are: public reports; the traditional fire lookout operation; ob- servation airplanes; and, to a limited degree, infrared de- tection flights. The presuppression program involves those preparatory activities necessary to taking suppressive action against an 3 a fire. These activities include acquiring, distributing and maintaining men and equipment in an action-ready state. Fire suppression, the program area of Fire Management with which the general public is most familiar, includes those actions required to fight, control, and extinguish an actual forest fire. Prior to 1972, Fire Management was called Fire Control and its primary mission was to prevent or control all forest fires. In 1971, the Forest Service decided that a broader approach to fires was needed and the concept of increased preparedness, involving increased presuppression activities, began to receive new emphasis. More recently, the philosophy of Fire Management was further expanded to include the rein- troduction of fire to its natural role in the forest eco- system. The use of this "natural role of fire" is accom- plished by prescribed burning or by allowing wildfires to burn under predetermined conditions to accomplish specific objec- tives. It was with these changes in stated philos0phical em- hasis that the name change from Fire Control to Fire Manage- ment was instituted. However, despite the new name and the stated new philosophy Fire Management, in action, is still very much a control-oriented organization. This is exempli- fied: l) by the fact that it still makes fire plans, and attacks all nonpreplanned fires, in accordance with its 10 a.m. and 10 Acre Policies; 2) by the emphasis it is placing its an yea the 4 on continually increasing its presuppression forces and equipment; and 3) by the overall, ever-increasing costs it has been incurring. Fire Management's largest visible change has been in its presuppression operations. This change has resulted in an increase in expenditures of 134 percent in the past five years. The rationale justifying this increase is based on the idea that, through increased preparedness, a net savings in suppression expenditures will be realized. However, to date, this cause-effect relationship has not been realized. Suppression costs have increased 78 percent. Statement of Problem The escalation of fire expenditures in the 19703 prompted the Office of Management and Budget to request that the Forest Service provide information concerning expendi- tures by Fire Management. Specifically, the Office of Man— agement and Budget (Lynn, April 15, 1975) requested the Forest Service to: 1) Determine what the increases in real costs have been over the FY 1964-75 period and what has accounted for these increases. 2) Determine the desirability of individual prac— tices and procedures based on apprOpriate fac— tors and values of costs and results. 5 3) Determine whether management procedures are cap- able of selecting appropriate fire fighting strategies and limiting use of fire fighting funds to approved activities. Study Approach Responsibility for conducting the study was assigned to the Policy Analysis staff unit within the Programs and Legislation Deputy Area of the Forest Service. In July 1975, representatives of the Office of Manage- ment and Budget, the Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- vice Fire Management, and the Policy Analysis staff group met. They agreed that the Office of Management and Budget's request could be satisfied most effectively by the prepar- ation of two reports: a short-term report providing the re- quested cost information; and a longer-term in-depth study of the decisionmaking processes of Fire Management and the cost- effectiveness implications of fire management procedures. The short-term study, referred to as Phase I, consisted of a breakdown of deflated fire expenditures from Fiscal Year 1965 through Fiscal Year 1974. The Phase I study (Hodgin, 1976) was completed in July, 1976, and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. The longer—term effort, dealing with Office of Management and Budget questions two and three, is the subject of this thesis. 6 Study Objective and Design In outlining the approach for this study, a two-pronged goal was visualized: responding to the Office of Management and Budget request and providing information for internal improvement within the Forest Service. A study objective was defined: To analyze the desirability of the individual prac- tices, procedures and strategies of Fire Management and to determine whether present management procedures are capable of selecting appropriate fire fighting strategies and direct— ing prOper expenditure of fire fighting funds. To achieve this objective, it was determined that a model which would illustrate and conceptualize the activi- ties of Fire Management should be develOped to promote under- standing of the total responsibilities of Fire Management. It was visualized that this model would provide a framework for gathering and analyzing the information necessary to address the objective. A general systems model was developed, identifying Fire Management subsystems. These subsystems are: Law and Policy; Resource Values; Planning; Managerial Control; and Evalua- tion. (See Figure 1, page 7.) Each subsystem is the subject of a chapter in this report. Study Organization The text of Chapters I through V is organized to pre- sent and determine the working effectiveness of each subsys- tem. Within these chapters, an introductory statement (I) AHQOS NBH>HBU¢ BZNEWOfiZfiS mmHm .H mmDUHh S28 n>~u eases / mmumDOmmm Zn ZOHHU< mo ZOHFt>£o< #55252 2.: 25272; mmmmOJ mxmmm w w mtnmzmm < mom/Bur mung n H C Bmaommz H as 25 establ tive 5 Manage practi fied. IGCOYC gardi Summa outlj Nati: were 8 establishes the purpose or theoretical basis for the respec- tive subsystem. The current role of that subsystem in Fire Management activities is discussed. Current procedures and practices are evaluated, and problems or concerns are identi- fied. Concluding remarks summarize study findings, and recommendations are presented. Chapter VI documents the events which took place re- garding the use of the developed evaluation; and Chapter VII summarizes the findings and recommendations of the study and outlines the actions taken on those recommendations. The study is limited to fire activities within the National Forest System. National Forest fire expenditures were the concern of the Office of Management and Budget, so no attempt was made to examine expenditures or fire activi- ties of Research or State and Private Forestry. Expenditure data were limited to those portions of the National Forest System budget referred to as Protection and Management funds and Fighting Forest Fire funds. Findings of the study may be applicable beyond this scope, however. While this study was in progress, several related efforts emerged. These include changes in the fire budgeting system, evaluation of the national fire planning process, and most recently develOpment of alternative fire management policies. To the extent possible, this study was coordinated with these other efforts. A discussion of these and related events is contained in Chapter VI. Fire revie icies I. LAW AND POLICY Introduction Before reviewing the laws and policies which direct Fire Management activities of the Forest Service, it is worth reviewing the role each serves. The purpose of laws and pol- icies is to guide decisionmaking; both are expressed in terms of assigned responsibilities, regulations or guides, proce- dures to follow, and goals to be met. While general con- straints or guidelines are set by law, more specific direc- tion to effectuate the intent of the law usually is left to policymakers within administering departments, agencies, and units. For example, laws direct Federal land management agen- cies such as the Forest Service to "protect" the various re- sources on lands under their jurisdiction. The word "pro- tect" is open to a spectrum of interpretations ranging from little to complete protection. Policymakers, therefore, must rely heavily on what is referred to as "intent" -- the inten- tion of the lawmakers who drafted the law. Policies must be consistent with laws; policymakers are responsible for exist- ing policy being in line with the "intent of the law" as per- ceived by Congress or the Executive. On occasion, lawmakers have taken it upon themselves to specify in law what is normally thought of as policy, thereby 9 10 limiting the role of administrators to program implementation. Lawmakers also frequently assume a policy—formulating role by outlining specific policy they want enacted and including their views in supplemental materials, such as Congressional committee reports, public statements, or correspondence to administrators. Though these do not have the binding effect of law, administrators realize that ignoring them can lead to more rigorous policy specification in later legislation. In a line and staff organization such as the Forest Service, the head of each administrative unit has decision and policymaking responsibility. In the Forest Service, this is the Chief at the Washington Office level, the Regional Forester at the Regional level, the Forest Supervisor at the Forest level, and the District Ranger at the District level. At any time, policymaking responsibility may be preempted by a higher ranking line officer, or on the other hand, specifi- cally delegated to a subordinate. At all levels, except the District level, there may be associate or deputy positions which have limited line authority (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 1206). At each level, there are Fire Management staff and technicians responsible for advising and carrying out the fire policies and programs of the line officers. Line direc- tion is provided by manuals, memos, speeches, management reviews, and personal contact. The situation described above would fit most line and staff organizations. An important point, and one that most ll authorities on the topic of organization and management would support, is that in practice most decisions and policies are actually made by staff groups. They accomplish this through drafting policies and decisions, training, formal and infor- mal meetings, memoranda, task forces, activity reviews, and an active grapevine. Only when an issue is politically acute or when a line officer has a particular interest, does line usually exercise its decision and policymaking responsibility. That line officers do not actually exercise their de- cision and policymaking responsibility is not necessarily a problem. Because of the magnitude of decisions and policies made, the chief executive could not be expected to have the time or the expertise to make even a majority of the neces- sary decisions. The potential for a problem does exist however in the fact that the part of the organization which has no recogni- zed authority (i.e., the staff) is largely providing its own direction. Meanwhile, line has the responsibility of seeing that that direction complies, and is consistent, with the laws and, in some cases, the policies under which the agency has been directed to Operate. If communication between line and staff is not optimally maintained, a misdirection of ef- fort may easily result. The potential for a problem becomes particularly acute when a staff group expands or changes its direction rapidly. 8X3? Cri the SQ“ mat. ‘\ 12 There are some indications that such a problem exists today in Fire Management. This can be illustrated by the following examples. 1) In 1971, when the organization was expanded from Fire Control to Fire Management, an ex- panded staff role resulted. 2) There is presently a general lack Of under- standing and participation in fire planning by line Officers. 3) There was a failure, at the 1971 Denver Fire Policy meeting, to discuss a policy that re- sulted in a greatly expanded presuppression role in the 19703. That policy was the 10 Acre Policy. The complexity, the associated risks, and the present rigidity of fire policies have caused many line officers to exercise extreme caution in counteracting a Fire Management decision. It has been the bold Forest Supervisor who would intentionally allow a fire to continue to burn into the next burning period. In the past, such actions met with strong criticism. But there now appears to be a strong desire on the part of many line Officers and some Fire Management per- sonnel for line officers to assume more of the decision- making responsibility and to incorporate fire management in- to a total forest management program. 12 There are some indications that such a problem exists today in Fire Management. This can be illustrated by the following examples. 1) 2) 3) In 1971, when the organization was expanded from Fire Control to Fire Management, an ex- panded staff role resulted. There is presently a general lack of under- standing and participation in fire planning by line Officers. There was a failure, at the 1971 Denver Fire Policy meeting, to discuss a policy that re- sulted in a greatly expanded presuppression role in the 19703. That policy was the 10 Acre Policy. The complexity, the associated risks, and the present rigidity of fire policies have caused many line officers to exercise extreme caution in counteracting a Fire Management decision. It has been the bold Forest Supervisor who would intentionally allow a fire to continue to burn into the next burning period. In the past, such actions met with strong criticism. But there now appears to be a strong desire on the part of many line officers and some Fire Management per- sonnel for line Officers to assume more of the decision- making responsibility and to incorporate fire management in- to a total forest management program. ‘ fun: deve best Fore Serv- nGnt 13 Current Situation Laws Seldom is the word "fire" mentioned in legislation re- lating to the Forest Service. The Forest Service has had to establish its fire management policies from the implied in- tent of such words and phrases as "improvement," "protec- tion," and "securing favorable conditions." Intent must also be gleaned from the passage Of laws which provide for fire related expenditures such as the law which established a brush disposal fund (16 USC 490) and that which provided funds for "Smokey Bear" prevention campaigns (16 USC 488a). In addition, foresters have used professional judgement to develop policies of fire prevention and fire suppression to best meet what they saw as the needs of managed National Forests. Several major pieces of legislation influence Forest Service fire policies. In the following discussion of perti- nent laws, attention is directed to identifying the degree of flexibility or constraint the laws provide. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 provides the first indication that forest lands will have a fire program. It states that: No National Forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries or for the purposes of securing con- ditions of favorable waterflow, and to furnish a continuous supply Of timber for use and necessities of citizens of the United States. (U.S. Congress, 1974b, 16 USC 475) dew be S PC:- 13 Current Situation Laws Seldom is the word "fire" mentioned in legislation re- lating to the Forest Service. The Forest Service has had to establish its fire management policies from the implied in- tent of such words and phrases as "improvement," "protec- tion," and "securing favorable conditions." Intent must also be gleaned from the passage of laws which provide for fire related expenditures such as the law which established a brush disposal fund (16 USC 490) and that which provided funds for "Smokey Bear" prevention campaigns (16 USC 488a). In addition, foresters have used professional judgement to develop policies of fire prevention and fire suppression to best meet what they saw as the needs of managed National Forests. Several major pieces of legislation influence Forest Service fire policies. In the following discussion of perti- nent laws, attention is directed to identifying the degree of flexibility or constraint the laws provide. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 provides the first indication that forest lands will have a fire program. It states that: No National Forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries or for the purposes of securing con- ditions of favorable waterflow, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for use and necessities of citizens of the United States. (U.S. Congress, 1974b, 16 USC 475) From t inherc any p: tion termi Speci direc PE!) ati 14 From this statement it can be inferred that fire, having an inherent potential for ldestruction, must be dealt with in any program to "protect the forest." The Organic Administra- tion Act gives the Forest Service great flexibility in de- termining how to accomplish this protection. It does not specify how to achieve the stated objectives. It does not direct the Agency to suppress all fires. Indeed, in some situations, a type of "fire herding" policy would fit the protection mandate of the legislation. Fire exclusion poli- cies could even be interpreted as nonprotective Of some re- sources such as wildlife habitat, or as producing unfavorable conditions of waterflow in some cases. In 1908, Congress authorized establishment of the Fighting Forest Fires Supplemental Fund (31 USC 534). This legislation further increased the Forest Service's flexi- bility in dealing with forest fires by authorizing the ex- penditure Of nonfire appropriations for emergency fire situ- ations. The law requires only that a detailed report be filed with the Government Accounting Office, assuring that funds used under this authority were actually spent for emer- gency forest fire fighting. Necessitated by the uncertain nature of the forest fire problem, this legislation reinfor- ces the notion that fire control policy should be left large- ly to the discretion of the Forest Service. The Clarke-McNary Act of 1927 (16 USC 563-565b) recog- nized the difficulty of confining fire to politically defined 15 boundaries and the need to establish a protection program on non-Forest Service lands. The Act provided funds for this purpose to State and private land managers who logically can now be expected to resist any change in National Forest fire policy which would jeopardize the availability of the Federal fire fighting funds on which they have become dependent. The 1928 McSweeney-McNary Act (16 USC 581) added pro- visions to the U. S. Code authorizing sutdies and investiga- tions into fires, weather conditions, and forestry economics. By authorizing economic investigations, the McSweeney-McNary Act made it clear that economic considerations were intended to be used in Forest Service decisions. Specifically, the Act directed the Forest Service to undertake scientific in- vestigations on the impact of fire "and to determine and promulgate the economic considerations which should underlie the establishment of sound policies for the management of forest land." (U. S. Congress, 1974b, 16 USC 581) Further responsibility for using an economic approach was given to the Forest Service by the Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 USC 529). It states that "the National Forests shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes" and "utilized in combinations that will best meet the needs of the American people." The Act further states that "in the administration of the National Forests due con- sideration shall be given to the relative values of the var- ious resources." (U. S. Congress, 1974 b, 16 USC 529) 31"" 16 Although for the most part Congress indicates those policies it wishes to specify in the form of authorities for, or procedures regarding, implementation, it has over the years enacted several specific policies into legislation. For example, laws are now on the books authorizing reward payments for information regarding violation of USDA regula- tions develOped to protect forests from fires and authorizing funds to cover losses during fires in National Forests (16 USC 599a). Further, Congress has established regulations governing the type of hiring and contracting used in fire protection. For example, the Economy Act Of June 30, 1932, establishes general guidelines for an agency's purchasing goods and ser- vices from other government agencies and from the private sector (31 USC 686). The 1944 Department of Agriculture Or- ganic Act provided for contracting aerial facilities and services for protection of National Forests (16 USC 577a) and for temporary hiring or contracting of personnel services within the USDA (7 USC 2225). Three general conclusions can be drawn from the laws discussed above. 1) The Forest Service is expected to provide pro- tection of the various resources on National Forest lands. 2) Congress has left fire management policy to the Forest Service and has, without being unduly l7 restrictive, provided the Forest Service with the necessary authority to determine this policy. 3) Some Of the legislation relating to the Forest Service intends that economic rationale, based on resource values, be used as a basis for establishing fire protection levels. Policy Policy serves to express the intent of the law and may be defined as any statement that provides program direction. The wording used in a policy statement may be the same as or similar to that used in the law. Policy differs signifi- cantly from law only in that policy is more specific and is not legally binding. The purpose of this section is to consider various policies which are important to the current Operation of Fire Management. These policies will be considered one by one; but, before this is done, two points should be emphasized. First, not all policy under which Fire Management Operates is included in the Forest Service Manual (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a). Characteristic of the situation that develOps with a rapidly evolving program, the Manual has not kept pace with all the policy currently guiding fire management activi' ty. Secondly, this study does not review all fire manage- ment policies but concentrates on those having economic imp] Offj cult U) (D (f m Of 1 Sim: than to tho: tic: 18 implications and those relating to concerns expressed by the Office Of Management and Budget and the Department of Agri- culture. The policies to be considered include: the Zero Code and prevention, presuppresssion, suppression and fuel management policies. Zero Code The first paragraph Of the Fire Section of the Forest Service Manual (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, Section 5100) sets the tone for fire policy in what is known as the Zero Code. Forest fires cause serious damagel/to water, soil, timber, recreation, and forage resources. These resources are indispensible to a grow- ing population. Effective fire control is essential to (1) ensure an adequate supply of usable water by maintaining an adequate cover on upstream watersheds, (2) minimize down- stream flood damage, (3) protect wildlife habitat and prevent destruction of forage for both wildlife and domestic stock, (4) ensure a continuous supply of timber, and (5) protect the recreational values of the Forest, so im- portant to the physical and spiritual health of the Nation. The Zero Code, as it has been interpreted, is a policy of fire control and exclusion to the fullest possible extent. Simply stated, the policy implies that all fires are bad and that all resources need to be protected from fire. It fails to recognize any benefits from fire, or the existence Of those resources which do not need total (or any) fire protec- tion. l Emphasis added. on b Clea Obje or n econ valu anal the haZa Pr ~ISE are pres VQnt 20 on how to construct prevention plans (FSM 5112.1), it is clear that, in contrast to what is stated in the prevention objective (FSM 5110.1), the policy actually is to eliminate or reduce the number of man-caused fires regardless of any economic considerations. The areas of cost and resource values are not referred to in the Manual's directions for analysis of fire prevention needs. Most of the Forest Service's fire prevention efforts, to date, have utilized advertising campaigns (e.g. "Smokey the Bear"), personal contacts, equipment inspection and hazard reduction practices. Presuppression The Forest Service's presuppression policy and program are perhaps the least understood of all its fire activities. Although the presuppression program has changed significantly in size and scope in the 19703 (Figure 2, page 21), relative- ly little effort has gone into formalizing these changes by including them in the Servicewide directives system. The Forest Service Manual defines presuppression as: . . . work done in advance of fire occurrence to ensure effective suppression action. This preliminary activity includes recruiting and training, planning the organization, maintain- ing fire equipment and fire control improve- ments, and procuring equipment and supplies. (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5120) For accounting and National fire planning purposes, presuppression also includes program activities such as pre- vention, detection, and fuel management (hazard reduction). 19 It would be inaccurate not to mention that the Zero Code continues on for nine pages and discusses the necessity of establishing a tolerable 1033 level with attention to cost, damages, and coordination with resource managers. How- ever, the specific fire program policies that follow the Zero Code in the 5100 Section of the Forest Service Manual never recover from the Code's initial implication that all fires are bad. Prevention The prevention policy, stated in the Fire Section of the Manual, says little about what the policy actually is. Rather, it states: Prevention of fires is a job of high priority for all Forest Service personnel. Next to fire suppression, it is the highest priority job of all fire control personnel, District Rangers. . . Each Region will prepare and ac- tivate a Regional prevention program. (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5110.20) The policy is perhaps better expressed in the prevention objective. The objective of fire prevention is to elimi- nate (man-caused) fires. The attainment of this objective is dependent upon the cost of the fire prevention program and the resource values involved. (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5110.1) Economic logic will support the soundness of the above statement that there is a need to qualify the Objective of eliminating man-caused fires by reference to cost and re- source values. However, on reviewing the Manual's directions 21 .uuo .momua Ll. zzlua huma Ammmv mmmaaHozmmxm onmmmmmmDmmmm .m mmaon chad. mnma «mad mnma . U .000... o no c.0000... coco-on 000000. 00.0 00 000.000 0 .00.. 000000. 00.0 0 0000000 I 000000 000000 oooooo o 0000... to o to 0000000 ....... 00.0.0. I 0000 0.00.00 ..... . coco-o 0 00.000. 00.000. .... . 000000. 0 00.00000 0.00... o o. o .000... c o 0.. .000 000.00. .... . 00-000. 0 o. 0.00 0000000 000. I 0000... o coco-coo 000.000 0 o. co 0...... O O I. O ....... noon to coo-coo o o. no. .... .. 00.0000 0 on... o 000... ....... .C...’ ....... o oo o. 0 on... O O. O. ....... ....... ....... 0000 00 o to... ....... ....... ....... 00000.0 .... . . .... 0000000! .00... I 000000. to o no 000. o. I 00000.. ....... 000000. .00.... 0000000;Il , 0000.00 0000.00 no.0... .0000... ....... 00.00.. 0000.00 ....... ....... 00.000. ...:.. , m woumamon E w anduu< I HH 5H mm mm mm Hg Ne mm an me an m z: 21 .HuO .mamuH segue» Ammmv mumseHozmmxm onmmmmmmOmmmm .~ mmOon m wmumflmmn w Hmnuu< HH ma mm mm mm as he mm an no as m z: 22 For the purpose of this evaluation study, reference is made only to those actions necessary to establish a level of fire protection (e.g. manning, equipment and facility needs). Presuppression policy, as stated in the Manual, is un- clear. Section 5120.2 states that: Each Region will organize and maintain an active fire control force in accordance with approved presuppression plans and available funds. (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a) This statement directs preparation of a plan, but pro- vides little guidance or indication of what this plan is to accomplish. In 1972, a draft handbook entitled "National Fire Plan- ning" was developed by Fire Management. A concept appears in this handbook which has today become the primary focus of presuppression planning. This concept may be referred to as the "10 Acre Policy" although it is not formally designated as such. The 10 Acre Policy is to presuppression planning what the 10 a.m. Policy is to fire suppression planning. The 10 a.m. Policy, which requires a sufficient level of activity to suppress all fires which have escaped initial attack be- fore 10 a.m. of the next burning period, is the dominant policy of suppression planning. The 10 Acre Policy requires that presuppression activities be planned and available to hold fires to 10 acres or less. The 10 acre concept reflects the theory that it is cheaper to keep all fires as small as possible. Two H] deve] ports Plan: '0 kd L4. '0 H (T) w - C 23 developments occurred in the 19703 which emphasized the im- portance of the concept. First, through the National Fire Planning instructions (USDA, Forest Service, 1972), the 10 Acre Policy became a formal building block in presuppression planning. Secondly, the reduction of the number of fires exceeding 10 acres was popularly embraced as the ultimate goal for which to strive. Presuppression plans in current use on National Forests have been developed in accordance with manpower and equipment needs to achieve this goal. The National Fire Planning instructions direct the Regions to strive for holding 100 percent of the fires to less than 10 acres. Some Regions and Forests saw this as an impossible goal and did not attempt to reach it; others took a more literal interpretation. The supporting document for the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (USDA, Forest Ser- vice, 1976d) established a new planning level for presuppres- sion forces intended to reduce the number of fires exceeding 10 acres by two percent of the current figures. To accom— plish this two percent reduction, a 90 percent increase in presuppression expenditures over the 1976 level is predict- ed (Figure 3, page 24). Suppression Suppressing forest fires has always been a priority job for the Forest Service. The Forest Service has its roots in what was considered the need to prevent destruction of 24 mBmOU Gmaumbomm 924 BZMMmDU .m mmome ommH mm mm em mm om m5 mp eh Nb on mm mmma b L in - 30ammmumm3mmum Hmuoa mcHHHmU mumuuwnud Omuomnoum I I I II I \ mmusuficcmmxm \\ H38. Mm ON ow ‘00 wow .OOH ONH .ovH .omH .omH .ooN .ONN .ovm 22w for of in F0] kn: si: e 18 s i 0 p S a W Sig tie} 25 forests by fire and man. Up until the mid-19303 appraisals of tangible forest values were used to determine the amount of emphasis placed on controlling any specific fire; however, in 1935 in the aftermath of several severe fire seasons, Forest Service Chief F. A. Silcox outlined what has become known as the "10 a.m. Policy." This policy, which has remained pretty much intact since Silcox first stated it, reads: Fire suppression will be fast, energetic, thorough, and conducted with a high degree of regard for personal safety. . . . (The fire organization will) organize and acti- vate sufficient strength to control every fire within the first work period. If the fire is not controlled in the first work period, the attack each succeeding day will be planned and executed to Obtain control before 10 o'clock the next morning. (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5130.3) The policy goes on to state that any exceptions to it must be preplanned in advance of the actual fire and can be granted only by the Chief, or Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems. According to Chief Silcox, the 10 a.m. Policy would provide a "chance for experimentation on a continental scale." (Silcox, May 25, 1935) Thirty—six years later, at a Fire Policy meeting in Denver, the direction of that experiment was reaffirmed as Forest Service policy. While the decision to establish 10 a.m. as a suppres- sion criterion was arbitrary, it was based on several assump- tions and findings (Brown and Davis, 1973). First, a definite action policy with regard to fire suppression is F .7. I I E . 1 C D. C <15 V a 1 r u .C n O S .l O e t u f men 26 needed. Second, aggressive initial action is cheapest in the long run. Third, it is difficult to accurately deter- mine forest values. Finally, there is a need to build and maintain the morale of suppression forces. Although these assumptions may have been valid in 1935, their economic implications today are increasingly in question. Fuel Management For years it was thought that, through increased effort and improved techniques, fires could be prevented or at least quickly controlled. While there is evidence that we can stop fires reasonably quickly under some conditions, there is little evidence that we can prevent a given area from eventu- ally burning. Prevention and control efforts have delayed and, in some cases, reduced the frequency of burning. It now appears that the outcome of a vigorous prevention and suppression program is a continual buildup or accumulation of fuels and an eventual, inevitable series of conflagrations. Thus, the Forest Service carries out a program of fuel manage- ment. Fuel management is defined as the manipulation or re- duction of fuels to meet forest protection and management objectives while at the same time preserving and enhancing environmental quality. The Objective of fuel management is to Obtain fuel conditions which permit protection forces, using methods which maintain environmental quality, to meet fire control objectives which have been established to en re tr ti ch 27 ensure a sustained, high productivity level for renewable resources (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5150.2). Fuel management policy states that when alternate treatments will accomplish the same fuel management objec- tives at comparable costs, selection priority will first choose treatment which does not require burning; then treat- ment which allows the greatest period of time for safe burn- ing; then treatment with a restricted safe burning period; and finally combinations of treatment and extra protection (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5150.3). Using fire to manipulate vegetation and alter fuels to achieve various management Objectives may be done in two ways: by man igniting a fire or by allowing a naturall/ fire to continue to burn. In both cases, the Forest Service re- quires development and approval of a plan prior to the use of fire. The plan contains specific management Objectives, identified areas, constraints for burning conditions, and a backup plan in the event the fire escapes the planning area. These requirements clearly distinguish fire by prescription from what is often referred to as a "let burn" policy (i.e., merely sitting back and watching a fire burn). Analysis Of Existing Laws The laws under which Fire Management Operates are basi— cally adequate, although there is a need to redefine the uses 1 Caused by agents other than man and/or his activities. pI‘I 28 of the supplemental fire fighting funds initially provided by law in 1908. The need for this type of open-end fund was much greater in 1908 when there were limited fiscal and fire data available to use as a basis for estimating needs. Today supplemental funds are still necessary to cover suppres- sion expenses in excess of predicted norms. However, budget- ing generally promotes better recordkeeping, accountability, and efficiency of expenditures. Of Existing Policies Prevention Prevention is an important policy to pursue, but it should be more closely related to returns. In order to set realistic prevention goals, it is necessary to know: -- the cost of preventing an additional fire; and -- the benefits derived when additional fires are prevented. Prevention efforts utilizing such methods as land management planning and zoning (e.g., identification Of high risk fire areas and the placing of restrictions on types of building materials in fire-prone areas) might produce more returns than current advertising campaigns, inspections, etc. Presuppression A significant portion of Fire Management's cost increa- ses in the 19703 can be attributed to the application of the 10 Acre Policy. As stated previously, the National Fire CO De We:- Cask B 29 Planning instructions (USDA, Forest Service, 1972) direct the Regions to strive for holding 100 percent of the fires at less than 10 acres, and the document supporting the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (USDA, Forest Service, 1976d) establishes a planning level for presuppression forces that would reduce the number of fires exceeding 10 acres by two percent over the current level. This two percent decrease would involve an estimated 90 percent increase in presup— pression expenditures. At the same time, the Resources Plan- ning Act document does not project any decreased suppression costs or any increase in resource output resulting from the nearly doubled presuppression expenditures. As the data on Table 1, page 30, show, the percentage of fires less than 10 acres in size has changed little in the past five years in spite of increased expenditures during the same period. Suppression Although the assumptions on which the 10 a.m. Policy were based may have been valid in 1935, their economic impli- cations today are increasingly in question. An example which makes this point is the Cane Gully fire in Region 8, reported in an article in Fire Management (Devet, 1975). The fire was not considered to be a threat to the forest; it met the conditions of a pre-determined plan (i.e., DESCON) and was therefore exempt from the 10 a.m. criterion. Under the DESCON plan, the actual fire costs were $62. NO 30 .mhmalmmma .mnm can mum mcflOsHocH #0: some mmz .ucmoumm m.om u .mmma OH mum can mum on copcm mum scans mummuom bum Eoum bump OOOHOOH uoc moon mmma HON mumo film .mow>umm ummuom .floms ”mousom .cmccommou ooa>nmm amouom may soas3 O» mouflm Ham mocsaosH \wa.mm\h.vm m.m¢ v.mm m.¢m N.mm w.mm a.mm a.mm N.mm w.mm mnw m ummqlcwmz \«b.mm\m.mm H.¢m v.5m h.Nm m.hm m.mm m.mm v.mm m.vm 0.0m may Hadlcmmz mhma m.vm m.mm N.mm N.mm v.mm h.mm a.mm m.mm m.mm ¢.wm mhmH b.mm m.Hm m.hm a.mm h.hm m.mm m.vm v.mm h.vm N.wm vhma ¢.mm H.¢m m.mm a.mm a.mm a.mm v.wm c.0m N.mm h.¢m mnaa a.mm m.mm o.wm m.mm h.mm m.wm o.mm m.mm o.hm o.mm tha m.mm m.~m m.hm v.¢m o.mm N.mm v.¢m N.mm m.mm w.mm Hhma a.mm o.ooa h.wm ¢.om 0.5m a.mm a.mm o.mm m.vm h.vm onma m.Hm v.¢m h.~m m.mh N.mm H.wm a.mm N.Nm m.mm a.mm mmma h.Nm h.Hm m.mm m.mm w.mm w.¢m «.mm o.mm m.vm h.¢m mmma a.mm 0.0m m.mm o.mh N.hm m.hm v.5m m.¢m a.mm m.vm hmma a.mm ~.mm >.Hm h.Hm m.hm v.mm a.mm a.mm N.mm v.¢m mmma h.vm H.¢m \Mm.mm \Mm.mm o.mm m.hm m.mm a.mm m.wm m.hm mmmH .lfldBOB mmz calm mlm mlm elm mlm vlm mlm Nlm Hlm mdmw m¢azmA¢U .H mqm¢a \Mmmmud ZmB Z439 mmmq\flmHMHm ho Bzmommm 4C t 31 damage was reported and a fuel management objective, worth $146, was accomplished by the fire. It was estimated that the cost of a normal suppression action would have been $250. The desired output of any suppression action is to maximize the sum of the benefits minus the sum of the costs. This can be expressed: benefits cost FM Maximum results = EKEV + DA + SA) - 245C + D) The equation reads: To maximize results, consider the sum of enhanced values (EV), plus damages averted (DA), plus suppression cost averted (SA), minus the sum of suppression cost (SC), plus actual damages (D). Assessing effectiveness of a suppression activity requires looking at more than the relationship of damages to suppression cost. An analysis of the whole equation should be made. While this is more diffi- cult to assess, it is far more meaningful. The major problem with the 10 a.m. approach is that it does not consider the benefit aspect of the equation. It merely assumes that benefits will be forthcoming and that the faster the fire is put out the greater the benefits will be. Like most assumptions, when carried to extremes they are no longer valid. The question of the relationship between benefits and suppression costs is ignored. The 10 a.m. Poli- cy does not lead to identifying benefits; it merely assumes theyrexist. me. ta.‘ rev 32 Fuel Management For all practical purposes, the section of the Forest Service Manual which deals with fuel management (FSM 5150) describes only the hazard reduction aspect of fire use. There is no section dealing with other more positive aspects of fire use. Thus, the Manual gives a distorted view Of current fire use practices, ignoring the use of fire in ac- complishing resource management and environmental objectives such as site preparation, silvicultural thinning, insect and disease control, control of undesirable plant species, im- provement of range and wildlife habitat, maintenance of forest openings and edge habitat, and improvement of scenic vistas. This role of fire (i.e., developing and maintaining forest ecosystems) accounts for most of the ways in which fire is used today. Alternatives to the use of fire (mechanical devices, herbicides, etc.) are not ecological equivalents and do not achieve the same resource management and environ- mental objectives while preserving and enhancing environmen- tal quality. The fuel management section of the Manual needs to be revised to reflect the current situation which, in reality, 1/ is a Fire by Prescription policy. This policy is being practiced today in the form of wildlife habitat improvement, hazard reduction, and exceptions to the 10 a.m. Policy. Since 1972, five areas have been approved for the 10 a.m. exception (Table 2, page 33). The areas include 1.1 million 1 Any controlled use of fire to achieve management Objec- tives. 33 TABLE 2. AREAS WITH APPROVED EXCEPTIONS TO THE 10 A.M. SUPPRESSION POLICY LAND EXCEPTIONl/ YEAR UNIT CLASSIFICATION ACREAGE APPROVED DESCON Kisatchie NF Non-wilderness 84,000 1973 Francis Marion NF Non-wilderness 249,000 1973 Gila Wilderness 60,488 1974 White Cap Wilderness 66,000 1972 Bear Creek Wilderness 67,000 1973 Teton g/ Wilderness 557,000 1975 Non-wilderness 28,000 1975 1 Total acreage NFS lands = approximately 187 million acres. Total wilderness acreage = approximately 12 million acres. 2 Six additional units are currently under study for 10 a.m. exceptions. >1 tn 0: 34 acres, or approximately one-half of one percent of the total acres of forest lands protected. Fire by prescription has many important implications to future policy. Principally, it represents an alternative to continued expansion of presuppression and suppression. Summary and Conclusions The laws under which Fire Management Operates are basically adequate. Their intent is that the Forest Service protect resources on National Forest lands. Some pertinent legislation directs that economics and the relative values of resources be considered in protection programs. Traditionally, the task of setting policy to carry out the intent of laws has been left to the Forest Service. In performing this task, the Forest Service has emphasized the mandate to protect and has given minimum consideration to economics and resource values. The expression of Fire Management policy has not kept pace with rapidly evolving Fire Management philosophy. At all levels of the Fire Management organization, the desire to change from the role Of fire control to fire management is apparent; yet policy statements never quite recover from the implication Of the Zero Code that all fires are bad. In practice, the beneficial effects of fire are being used to accomplish a variety of resource management Objec- tives; however, none of these beneficial effects are recog- nized in policy. This fact is especially apparent in the D. a f a: PC 35 fuel management policy which addresses only hazard reduction. Changing this policy to reflect the use of fire for both fuel alteration and vegetation manipulation (i.e., fire by prescription) would provide a recognized alternative to con— tinued expansion of presuppression and suppression activities and would relate fire management more directly to other re- source management needs. Current fire management policies are basically non- economic, based on the assumption that increased levels of activity produce increased returns. Suppression activity should be assessed according to enhanced values, damages averted, and suppression cost averted (i.e., beneficial effects of fire) in addition to suppression cost and actual damages. Neither the 10 a.m. Policy which states suppression objectives, nor the 10 Acre Policy which states the presup- presion objectives, is related to total Forest Service manage- ment and resource values and needs. Many of the concerns with current policy expressed here are also reflected in other chapters of this report. This interrelatedness of tOpics is expected in a management system where subsystems are related through information flow and feed- back. Specific recommendations relating policy to other fire fire management subsystems (resource values, planning, etc.) are reserved for their apprOpriate chapter. In summary, a basic change is needed from the Old policies Of fire control to policies which will promote the USE the 36 use and management of fire. These new policies should do the following: 1) encourage an efficient, effective fire pro- gram within the total resource management system; 2) require economic input in the decisionmaking process; 3) provide a protection level responsive to resource and management needs; 4) encourage more active participation by line managers in fire management decisions; and 5) consider responsibilities to private land owners and cooperators on lands adjacent to the National Forest. Recommendations Develop new Fire Management policies which provide for a broader, more positive approach to fire, consider economics, and encourage line partici- pation in the decisionmaking process. C~ SI a C e ‘ mu 6 II . RESOURCE VALUES Introduction In order to understand the significance of resource values to fire management programs, it is important to under- stand that Fire Management is a service-oriented organiza- tion in the Forest Service. As such, it produces secondary outputs. By managing fires (i.e., preventing, suppressing or using fire), the primary outputs of other resource func- tions may be enhanced or their quantity increased. TO determine the desired amount of fire management service, it is necessary to know: 1) the values that other resource functions place on the resources they produce: 2) the cost of providing the fire management service; 3) the feasibility Of providing the fire management service; and 4) a knowledge of other Options to enhance the resources or in— crease their quantity. After weighing these factors, an equitable level of fire management activity can be establish- ed. Values, in addition to their use in helping establish a desired level of service, provide a means through which to measure fire management accomplishments. Knowledge of the resource values involved permits a more nearly accurate as- sessment of the enhancements, losses, and savings resulting from fire management activities. As indicated in the 37 38 previous chapter, it is not accurate to assume that fire management yields benefits in direct proportion to its level of activity. In using values as a means by which to determine the desired level Of fire management activity, it is important that the values involved be carefully assessed. For example, it is agreed that it is necessary to consider public safety when planning for and suppressing fires and, in populated areas, this factor might outweigh all other considerations. However, it is the Opinion of this study that there is a tendency to view public safety as a factor which implicitly demands high fire management activity particularly in areas where neither resource values or other needs support a high protection level. A look at the record reveals that the per- formance of Fire Management in the area of public safety is excellent. Table 3, page 39, indicates that there has not been a public fatality due to fire on National Forest lands in at least 34 years. Private citizens, the record states, are not being killed by forest fires. (Fire fighters, on the other hand, are.) This does not imply that public safety is not a significant objective, but rather that each fire situ- ation should be objectively assessed and public safety should be considered according to the real, rather than the emotion- ally inflated, need. On the other hand, in some cases, management objectives for a specific resource might require a protection level in excess of normal resource values. In the case of the Condor I39 wanna cu.) noauuunuqu on can «cad on anon vasuuoo- on.) ovuouou ouuphom nacho» «a. chum louu uo o» cusouco nusovuuua savages uOuOI cc anxnaxa ounv 0» cod 0 "0 I vs I Q N Gauo NV. In HN NNH unannouadu onddnhud HMO command N" "C N NN H naguguau cuss Fddunuab Chan ”HM nounouuaon NHH‘M unnamuu< oaas 332.: anus 33...: .mmnll A canons-fl cowbuou unouou OOHUE.N\MOUUIMUDOU nouuuno ou¢>au~ nu On on I1IV11VAVIO '1'“ OOuufiluOfi Vacuoquuaou I1IV11VKVIO VI”! Meadow» HQOH o-C F4!‘ F4 OHSOONQNF‘BOOONF‘OQ nu concasl- .uom uouuo~ .N .0 .oauuunu-u sou-aux ouau lbw” BO. mmHnHuqunusm uuwmmzvm AmmunHHnyum .m mwamwnm 40 in southern California, for example, an all-out protection effort might be mandated to protect the last remnants of this endangered species. Current Situation At the present time, two systems for assessing resource values are used. Both equate "values" with "damages" and are briefly described below. Actual Damages In the Forest Service Manual (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a), the 5140 section entitled "Damage from Fire," defines and categorizes damages, providing directions for measuring those it lists as tangible. If the directions are followed, a reasonable estimate can be obtained of damage to sawtimber and other marketable wood products, livestock forage, im- provements, and equipment. According to section 5140, dam- ages are categorized as "tangible" and "intangible" and ex— amples are listed. Section 5331 of the Manual, entitled "Fire Trespass", contains procedures for calculating only tangible fire dam- age (including cost). All procedures presented utilize con- servative dollar value estimates, chosen to withstand court tests. At the end of the Fire Trespass section there are provisions for revising the methods of calculating tangible fire damage, including placing supportable dollar values on items heretofore considered intangible. 41 Potential Damages For the 1972 National Fire Planning process, actual measured damages were not considered adequate for fire plan- ning by Fire Management personnel. Therefore, a delphi techniquel/was instead used to establish potential fire dam- age classes and assign them values. A set of seven "poten- tial fire damage" classes was developed. This appears in the National Fire Planning instructions (USDA, Forest Service, 1972). The instructions (page 27) define damage potential as "the anticipated loss from a fire burning under 'high' burning conditions. It includes resource loss and improve- ment 1033, such as road damage and reservoir siltation. (It does) not include high value improvements on the land such as summer homes and resort buildings." The seven damage classes are composed of 48 general re- source categories, each Of which is assigned to one of the seven damage classes. Classes have an assigned dollar value ranging from $250 per acre (Damage Class 1) to $3,000 per acre (Damage Class 7). See Table 4, pages 42 and 43. Field personnel develop Damage Potential Maps on which each area of a National Forest is assigned to one of the damage classes. Analysis of Present Resource Valuation Practices Fire Management today uses values very little in its planning and evaluation activities. A formal process does l A subjectively arrived at conclusion utilizing a group Of experts. In this case, the group included Fire Management personnel who used various resource specialists in a limited capacity. 42 TABLE 4. POTENTIAL FIRE DAMAGE CLASSESl/ CATEGORY CATEGORY DAMAGE AVERAGE $ NUMBER (PRIMARY USE) CLASS LOSS & DAMAGE 1 Commercial Development 7 2 Recreation, Heavy, Diversified 7 3,000 3 Seed Orchard 7 4 Historical Area 6‘? 5 Domestic Water 6 6 Camp and Picnic Area 6 7 Endangered Species 6 1>. 2,400 8 Rare Species Habitat 6 9 Anadromous Fish (A strip shading stream) 6 10 Water Influence 6 ll Experiment Forest 6 12 Brushfield (Erodible Soil) 6mL 13 Power (Water) 5‘— 14 National Recreation Area 5 15 Congressional Classified Area 5 16 Summer Home Area 5 l7 Brushfield (Thin soil) 5 1?. 2,000 18 Fisheries 5 19 Travel Influence Zone 5 20 Archeological Zrea 5 21 Botanical Area 5 d 22 Scenic Area 4'] 1,500 1 Source: USDA, Forest Service, 1972. 23 24 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 43 TABLE 4 (CONTINUED). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Winter Game Range (Non-sprouting species) Irrigation (Water) Industry (Water) Timber (Old growth) Land Suitable for Recreation Sites Barometer Watershed Peripheral Species (Fauna) Geologic Areas Timber (Poles) Timber (Second growth) Timber (Reproduction) Timber (Saplings) Game & Non-game (Sprouting species) Non-commercial Forest Winter Sports Wilderness Primitive Area Seed Production Area Perennial Forb Range Seed Collection Area Range Meadow Conifer, Pinion, Juniper, Broadleaf Sagebrush Natural Area Brushfield (Non-palatable) Stable Soil Range Grassland H #4 he to N H ha Ia I II ‘> > 1,500 1,000 500 250 44 not exist within the Fire Management organization for review- ing actual damage estimates, and the presuppression planning process which utilizes a potential damage input is relative- ly insensitive to that input. Moreover, there is no link between actual damages and potential damages. In part, Fire Management's limited use of values can be attributed to its recognition of the inadequacies of the methods it is instructed to use. For example, Fire Manage— ment's instructions for categorizing damages and assigning dollar values to them are inadequate and, in some part, in- accurate; its method for determining costs is inadequate; and the dollar values assigned to the potential damage classes exceed actual damage incurred. Categorizing and Valuing Actual Damages The FSM 5140 system of categorizing "tangible" and "in- tangible" damages is inadequate and inaccurate. Most of the types of damages that are listed as intangible are in fact tangible and can be measured by dollars using recognized pro- cedures which have been tested in court. In addition, the narrative in FSM 5140 states that the losses from intangible damages will usually exceed those suffered from tangible dam- ages. The effect of this statement is the message that one does not need to be too concerned about damages because in- tangible damages, which you cannot measure, will usually be greater than tangible damages, which you can measure. The negative impact of this message is intensified by the wrong assignment of tangible damages to the intangible category. 45 The Fire Trespass section (FSM 5331) contains proce- dures for estimating only those damages which have been clas— sified as tangible in section 5140. It ignores the legally accepted procedures for estimating the dollar value of such items as recreation losses, employment losses, environmental degradation, fish and wildlife losses, and loss of life (Mishan, 1976). These procedures should be incorporated into both sections 5140 and 5331. Assessing Costs The way in which "costs" are handled in FSM 5140 pre- cludes separating suppression cost from rehabilitation cost. While, in the final analysis, these costs may be additive, they are not synonymous and should not be perceived as such. Further, the aftermath of a fire may be a watershed loss and a watershed rehabilitation cost; yet the directions in FSM 5140, and the associated cross-references to section 2520 dealing with watershed management, refer only to the rehabi- litation cost as damage. (This is not intended to imply that rehabilitation cost may not be used as a means of esti— mating some form of damage.) Assigning Potential Damage Classes The dollar values assigned to the potential fire dam- age classes, as they appear in the National Fire Planning instructions, appear to exceed actual fire damage by a fac— tor of 10. As a part of this study, a test Of the validity of the potential damage class figures was conducted. In this 46 test, potential damage class data were compiled and arrayed by Regions and value classes (Table 5, page 47). Estimates of fire damage and land value data were also collected from several independent sOurces for comparative purposes. These two sets of data are displayed in Tables 6 and 7, pages 48-49. When making comparisons between the two sets of data, two points should be kept in mind. 1) Potential damage applies only to that portion of the resource that can be damaged by fire. 2) The independent data in several cases include values which fire cannot damage and, therefore, these data should serve as an upper limit which fire losses could not exceed. Discussion of the comparisons is appended to this re- port (Appendix A). Suggested Framework for Measuring Affectable Values Thus far in this chapter resource values have been dis- cussed only in terms of damage or potential damage. That the present systems of valuation presently used by Fire Man- agement consider values only in the context of damages has been a major obstruction to establishing a desired level of fire management and to measuring fire management accomplish- ments. It needs to be recognized that, in some areas, eco- logical Or other benefits result from fire as clearly as benefits result from excluding fire in other areas. Reliable estimates of the benefits as well as the actual damages from 4'7 «on.~ o~m.mmn.no_ ou~.~¢~ .a.~ «anon — q . Iva-ho 35 on: «as :2. 3 30.33. 3 oo~.~ m~a.m~n.ep ooe.a~ num.auo coo.ooo.a nam.noo.u -n.~no.n can.-o.~ sano.-~ oe~.o~ a nae." euu.mpm.~— -H.n~ neo.oh~.n amo.~nn.~ osa.noo.c ooo.o-.o ann.no¢.o 333.4ofi ~oc.c a .Noo.~ _mm.vne.q~ oen.~c can.~nn.u ana.nn~.~ ~nc.~os.n~ oo~.~nn.<~ amm.o~a.~ .coo.nno o~o.¢o o neo.~ «mo.mo..n~ «on.an con.moo.u ono.on~.- oo~.oon.o~ oen.-~.o onc.-«.n a~n.~n¢ muo.oh~ n nag.“ -n.m¢o.~n o-.on ~oo.nn~.a who.on~.o oo~.~no.o can.aok.nfi soa.~o~.n c-.nao.~ oom.on~.~ a. gen.” nn~.moo.- ”do.o~ aho.oqa.~ o~a.~oe.o oo3.eao.~ on~.n~e.c~ n-.~n~.n ..Gmn.ooo ~om.oo~.~ n cnn.~ m~e.m-.- 303.3“ on~.on~.~ a~u.~o~.o one.nnn.n ~3~.ao~.~ can.hn~.¢ nsn.n«~.~ onu.uoa a cum." ~mo.o~o.- soo.nn o~o.cko «Ho.o~o.n ooa.ooo.n «an.o~e.cd aoe.nno.o o~o.aom.~ q-.~a~ a 5 ~51 ES B3 3.41123 £9 35 3.3 a” ouu< can motu< can.» coon» oon~m coon» coma» aces» can” on~w ...«u anacs .u>< 4 mmdqu MDQ<> Mm m042155 113.5: 2.83. ASSAAA 88: . A83. 328 A 883 A I A A8: A A A A A0 88 and .. h... .21 .32 A 23. A no: A :2. A 2.: A A8: A 83 A A8: A «83 A .33 A «.5 A 8.3 A and. 6333:... .. A A A u u u 5 A 5 u a u u n n 8.: u :3. H as. ”.33 A an. A 683 A SARA. AAA-A A an: A :2 A 2.... A :8 A :3 A 33 A 58:33:. . AA A a u u u u u . n 5 5 5 .39 A an: A A3! A :3» A A3: A an: A as." A :5 A «on: A 3.3 A A33 A 35 A .32 A .83. caulk-lot I... u H H as H as H ASA. H 33 H as. H 3.3 H .8: H :5 H .33. AAA: H 5:” .. 3A . I A 3:15. NASA in :3 «A: :AA AA: AHA 424 3.4 3+ ASA j 6'.“ ZOHBEOWZH EDBHQmeXm .m mgmdfi 82 funds to finance all presuppression activities. Under the FMF system, the amount of FFF—financed presuppression is restricted to an allocated amount, which is established prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. To make available cost information which could be related to accomplishments, the FMF system divides pre- suppression activities into six categories or accounts for budget purposes. These categories include: prevention; detection; attack forces; aviation Operations; fuels man- agement; support and facilitating services. Fire suppres- sion activities are still charged directly to the FFF apprOpriation. There is no breakdown of suppression acti- vities; and all FFF suppression expenditures are recorded to one account number. (An exception to this is a minor amount of P&M apprOpriated suppression funds.) Analysis FFF Carryover That a problem exists with the current fiscal manage- ment system is apparent when the meaning of the FFF carry- over is examined. Each year, a token $4.275 million is appropriated by Congress for emergency fire fighting. Obligations incurred by Fire Management are reported periodically to the Office of Management and Budget, and needs beyond those covered by this appropriation are funded on a deficiency basis. In January, an estimate is made of total expected FFF obligation 83 for the remainder of the year. This estimate, together with the deficiency funding, is used to request supple— mental funding and is included with the subsequent year's budget request. Present instructions call for computing the supplemental funding figure using a three-year average for the estimated period. Obligations through December 31 plus the three-year average determine the supplemental re- quest for the FFF funding apprOpriation. The result of this procedure is that, since 1970, Fire Management's supplemental funding request has been low. To provide enough cash to cover expenditures, money is borrowed from another Forest Service account. Forest Service accountants say that this procedure is prOper under current legislation; however, it distorts the next fiscal year's FFF obligations, because when the loan is repaid it is recorded as an obligation in the current fiscal year. With the FFF carryover handled in this manner, consi- derable searching and calculating are necessary to determine the real fire expenditures of any given year. The present system makes it difficult to determine, and hence to pre- dict, a given year's Servicewide expenditures. One must know the amount of deficit brought forward, what the account- ing records show, and the amount of deficit carried for- ward to the next year. Table 10, page 84, shows the true expenditures of Fire Management over the past ll years (derived from the method outlined above) and compares these true expenditures to those shown on the Forest Service 84 TABLE 10. FFF EXPENDITURES ADJUSTED FOR CARRYOVER, $M FISCAL ON FFF TRUE YEAR RECORDZ/ CARRYOVERi/ EXPENDITURESE/ 1965 $ 39,252 0 $ 39,252 1966 40,332 0 40,332 1967 54,503 0 54,503 1968 70,582 600 71,182 1969 49,243 0 48,643 1970 53,925 1,000 54,925 1971 111,691 8,100 118,791 1972 90,115 4,600 86,615 1973 93,534 4,600 93,534 1974 145,524 14,983 155,907 1975 151,054 10,181 146,252 1976 189,614 31,6593/ 211,092 TQl/ 82,766 26,2523/ 109,018 1977 254,4313/ ------ 5/ ------- 1 Transition Quarter. 2 Total expenditures, P&M plus FFF (USDA, Forest Service 1965-76 TQ). 3 TO and 1976 carryover were covered together under the 1977 supplemental appropriation. Total carryover to FY 1977 is $57,911,000. 4 (USDA, Forest Service, 1977b) 5 No figures for carryover since this table was prepared prior to the end of FY 1977. 6 See text for explanation of how derived. 85 statement of obligations for each Fiscal Year 1965 through 1976. Table 104also shows the amount of carryover and its increase over the past 11 years. The Fire Management Fund (FMF) The Fire Management Fund, effective Fiscal Year 1977, is a step in the right direction toward achieving financial and managerial accountability in the Fire Management pro- gram. Two obvious advantages of the FMF are: 1) It centralizes, to the Chief, authority to expend funds establishing tighter financial control on the Fire Management program. This control is accomplished through a budgeted amount for presuppression, agreed-upon nation- ally, prior to the fire season. 2) There are Opportunities, with budgeted pre- suppression activities, to improve efficiency in management by promoting flexibility within the total fire program. Funds, manpower, and equipment can be shifted interregionally in response to national needs. The FMF is currently operating under an arbitrarily set expenditure level, or ceiling, which is acceptable as a temporary measure to control escalating expenditures. The ceiling should be replaced with budget authorizations based on a cost-effective national fire plan. 86 Suppression Expenditure Accounting At the present time, there is no way of indicating how suppression expenditures are made on a daily basis re- lative to the behavior of a fire. There is no way of tracking what a given day's expenditures "bought" toward accomplishing the suppression task. And there is no way to account for the effectiveness of various suppression activities relative to physical fire conditions, or in one vegetative type as opposed to another. Daily suppression expenditures are made without an objective assessment of what total cost might result, or what the returns will be in terms of values saved. With im— plementation of the Fire Management Fund, returns from Spe- cific presuppression activities can be established. With- out a similar accounting system for suppression expenditures, actual suppression costs can be neither predicted or measured. It is as important to know about potential cost as it is to be aware of potential damage; in the final analysis, both become a cost to the taxpayer. To help itemize suppression expenditures, there should be an accounting process which provides for breaking down suppression cost into suppression activity accounts. To achieve this, a means for recording financial information on the Individual Fire Report, Form 5100-29 (Appendix *D), is needed. The addition of financial information to Form 5100-29, and getting that information into an automatic 87 data processing system, would facilitate the estimation and, eventually, the prediction of suppression expenditures at the Forest, Regional and National levels. The possibility of setting a suppression budget for the "normal" year should be investigated. The bases for a suppression budget could be historical expenditure records, resource values, and management objectives identified in the land management planning process. A suppression budget would encourage before-the-fact decisions about suppression actions being made in a non- emergency atmosphere. For example, in areas identified in the land management plans as having low affectable values, a manager might plan for less than all out suppression ac- tion. (It is assumed that there would be flexibility in this scheme to override planned expenditures when fire con- ditions warrant.) Statistical Information Management Current Situation The importance of collecting and reporting data on fires was recognized in the National Forest Manual of Regu— lations and Instructions: Carefully made reports on individual fires on Form 929 are the foundation of records on which the major strategy of fire control must depend. Every report needs to be care- fully made. Estimates of damage should be made with special care. . . . Progress in fire research is dependent in part on the ba— sic data obtained from individual fire reports. (USDA, Forest Service, 1928, pages 58-A & 61-A) 88 The basic fire reporting procedure outlined in the National Forest Manual of Regulations and Instructions re- presented an expansion of that used in the Use Book (USDA, Forest Service, 1908); the procedure in current use is essentially a further expansion. Since 1908, the amount of information collected on individual fires has increased from a statement of acres burned to a two page form (the Individual Fire Report Form 5100-29) requiring 33 entries for a Class A or B fire and 44 entries for a Class C or larger fire. (Form 5100-29 appears in Appendix D.) Infor- mation required on Form 5100-29 includes: time of discovery, reporting, attack and control; number of firefighters and other forces utilized; control methods; a description of physical and vegetational features; fuels; weather informa- tion; location; and total fire cost. The Individual Fire Report Form is the basic source of statistical information for an individual fire. A copy of the report is sent to the Regional Office where data from the report are compiled through an automatic data processing program known as FIRSTAT (Fire Statistics). These data are used as a base for the Monthly Fire Report, the Annual Re- gional Fire Report, and the Annual National Forests Fire Re- port compiled at the end of each calendar year by the Wash- ington Office. In addition to Form 5100-29, a written report is re- quired on Class E or larger fires to provide more detail 89 on control efforts, area burned, and resource damage in- formation. Analysis According to section 5180 of the current Forest Ser- vice Manual, the purpose of individual fire reports is to provide data for improving administration, fire planning, and research. Fire reports are used to: analyze fire control and results; find ways to improve fire control man- agement; isolate and study problems; and justify financing for adequate fire protection. The reports are not serving their intended purpose. They do provide data, but the data are not adequate. Pro- blems identified include the following: information provi- ded on costs and damages is insufficient for analytical or accounting uses; the current system does not relate fire to the output potential of other resource systems; data are not reported frequently enough nor in enough detail to assure usability for fiscal planning; the practice of reporting fire statistics on a calendar year, rather than a fiscal year, makes it difficult, or impossible, to make financial analyses of fire activities; and current instructions do not provide adequate procedures for reporting beneficial and non-threatening fires, and fires adjacent to and threatening forest lands. 90 Costs and Damages The information on costs and damages provided by the current fire reporting system is insufficient for use in analyses or accounting. On the 5100-29 fire report form, fire cost is reported as one item: total suppression expen- diture. In the Annual National Forests Fire Report, cost information is displayed in six "cost class" categories which are so broad they are meaningless, especially when suppression costs are high. In addition, with the present system, cost cannot be related to fire size, spread, vege- tative type, or any of the other physical data collected. Damage estimates are not reliable and are not made according to any standard system (see Chapter III). Beneficial effects of fires are not considered in current reporting. Relationship to Other Resource Systems The current statistical reporting system does not re- late fire to the output potential of other resource systems. Damage to mature timber is reported, but effects on decadent stands, regeneration, or young stands are not reported. There are no provisions for recording either damages or bene- ficial effects to wildlife habitat, livestock forage, or recreation. Data Handling and Processing Reporting times are frequently delayed due to problems encountered in collecting and processing the data. This lag 91 time results in the Annual National Forests Fire Report be- ing produced too late to be useful for fiscal planning. In addition, all of the data collected do not get into the automatic data processing system so they are not visible in the various report printouts. Available information which is useful for fire management and research purposes, such as physical site data and vegetation characteristics, is not published and is difficult to retrieve. Reporting Period A major evaluation and management problem exists be- cause the report periods used in collecting fire statistics are based on a calendar rather than a fiscal year. Data in the Annual National Forests Fire Report cover a calendar year period so that the data can be used in another report, the Annual Wildfire Statistics report, prepared on a calen- dar year basis by the Forest Service, State and Private Division of C00perative Forest Fire Control. The problem is that this calendar year reporting is not compatible with fiscal year financial reporting. Therefore, fire evaluations based on financial data are difficult, if not impossible, to make. Reporting Procedures 1/ Reporting of non-statistical fires— , fires within a protective boundary, and fires on lands adjacent to National 1 Fires not requiring suppression action, or fires not causing damages to natural resources on lands protected by the Forest Service, i.e., non-threatening fires. 92 Forestswhich threaten National Forest lands is not adequate- ly covered by current instructions. Clearly defined pro- cedures are needed for recording these types of fires and those which have beneficial effects. Summary and Conclusions It is anticipated that implementation of the Fire Management Fund this current fiscal year will result in bet- ter fiscal control over presuppression expenditures, which have been a concern both within and outside of the Fire Management organization. Likewise, the budgeting of FFF funds will stimulate more careful planning and more efficient utilization of personnel and equipment. However, the arbi- trarily set budget ceiling should be replaced with budget authorizations based on a cost—effective national fire plan as soon as that plan is available. In addition, the cost accounting process needs to be expanded to provide for a breakdown of suppression cost into suppression activity accounts (similar to the FMF for pre- suppression). From a management accountability standpoint, it is necessary to be able to relate suppression costs to returns, and to be able to measure and predict actual sup- pression cost relative to values protected. The statistical reporting system needs to be revised to accomodate and process the types of data necessary for evalu- ating the Fire Management program. The system devised should be applicable to predicting fire effects, estimating suppres- ion needs, and relating fire management to the output 93 potential of other resource systems; in general, it should provide for better tracking of fires relative to suppres- sion expenditures. Fiscal data on a per fire day basis are needed to permit analysis of suppression expenditures rela- tive to suppression activity. Recommendations Address the accounting and budgeting systems of Fire Management to: 1) Complete and implement an accounting system for fire suppression. 2) Explore possibilities of budgeting the normal suppression load. 3) Adjust the statistical reporting system to provide timely, relevant data. V. EVALUATION Introduction Primary purposes of this chapter are to discuss the role and importance of evaluation; review, critique and suggest some modifications to present evaluation procedures in Fire Management; and to present and discuss some evalu- ations, not covered in the other chapters, which could be used by Fire Management in the future. This presentation is accomplished by examples of the suggested analytic procedures. In all viable organizations, evaluation must play an important and active role. The evaluation process directs systematic thinking to a particular activity or program ask- ing what that program is accomplishing and how well it is meeting its objectives. Evaluations also provide a sound basis for helping program managers decide whether to continue in the present manner or make changes. Evaluations deal with 1) accuracy, 2) efficiency, and 3) effectiveness. Evaluation of accuracy involves inspect- ing and auditing to see that procedures were properly follow— ed. 'Evaluation of efficiency attempts to determine how much time, how much money, or how much effort was expended in carrying out a given activity. And evaluation of effec— tiveness examines an activity in relation to its stated 94 95 objective (Marty, 1974). All three types of evaluations are essential. Harold Hatry (1973), in a book on program evaluation, identifies the following problems commonly encountered in the conduct of an evaluation. 1) Evaluation often tends to focus only on pro- gram inputs or management processes rather than on outputs and the quality of service received. 2) The procedures used to gather information are often poor. Thus, the information available may not represent true conditions. 3) The shortage of time and manpower provided for evaluation often prevents meaningful con- clusions. Use of evaluation in a program can usually result in improvements. However, some evaluations become inappro- priate because conditions change. Others fail to produce a clear meaning. No one evaluation procedure can answer all questions about a program. Different questions require dif- ferent procedures; often the viewpoint of an additional eva- luation adds clarity and understanding. In any case, the result of an evaluation is not necessarily scientific truth. Many human judgements are involved in selecting, evaluating and presenting the data. 96 Current Situation This section will discuss six evaluations currently conducted of the Fire Management program. These include: the Formal Management Review Process; the Individual Fire Analysis; FOCUS; Benefit-Cost Analyses; Fire Management In- spections; and External Reviews. Several general conclusions can be made regarding the present evaluation system in Fire Management. 1) Fire Management has a strong and effective re- view and inspection system aimed at improving efficiency. 2) Most evaluations deal only with the efficiency aspects of Fire Management. 3) Evaluations tend to be on an irregular basis. 4) The scope and role of evaluations within Fire Management needs to be expanded. Formal Management Review Process The formal Forest Service review system presented in Section 1400 of the Forest Service Manual (USDA, Forest Ser- vice, l977a) is currently under revision. A review of the old inspection system (FSM 1440) reveals that it was very structured and dealt largely with examining adherence to specified procedures and determining the degree of efficiency with which these procedures were carried out. Fire Manage- ment was addressed specifically in a section called "General Functional Inspection" (FSM 1448.2). 97 Formal reviews of Fire Management in the future will be conducted under the Manual's newly revised 1410 section entitled "Management Reviews." FSM 1410 prescribes three types of review. The broadest is the General Management Review (GMR). The GMR is an objective assessment of over- all Forest Service performance within the area of the unit being reviewed. Its purpose is "to determine whether or not national objectives, policies and procedures are dis- charged in a timely manner that results in a cohesive effort toward mutual, correlated goals of the Secretary (and) the Chief. . ." (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 1410). The GMR may recommend a more indepth review of a specific func- tion such as Fire Management. The second type of management review is the Program Review (PR). It consists of examining a group of closely related activities that meet a common specific objective, such as fire management activities. The purpose is "to de- termine if all activities that serve the program are coor— dinated, planned, and managed in a manner which achieves de- sired quantity and quality of results." (USDA, Forest Ser- vice, l977a, section 1410) The third type is the Activity Review (AR) which is de- fined as a review of "any action or group of interdependent actions which have a Specific purpose or result." The purpose of the AR is "to determine if all actions cf the 98 activity(ies) are carried out in a desirable and beneficial manner." (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 1410) The description of the new management review system in- dicates that it should improve the ability of Forest Service reviews to focus on objectives and results of programs such as those of Fire Management. However, based on an examina- tion of a currently proposed plan for a Fire Management acti- vity review, it appears that these reviews, in practice, may be so broad that they do not accomplish the necessary indepth examination. Individual Fire Analyses The Fire Management Section of the Manual states that "Regions will make an analysis each year of selected Class E and Extra Period fires. The number of these analyses is left to the discretion of the Regional Forester, but three or four analyses are regarded as a desirable minimum unless there actually is a smaller number of problem fires during the year." (USDA, Forest Service, 1977a, section 5194.12) These analyses are intended to identify problems and training needs and, as such, they are a significant part of the total evaluation process. As a part of this study, the author attended the Flat Fire Analysis in Region 5 in 1976. This analysis was the only Individual Fire Analysis conducted in Region 5 for the 1975 season, despite the occurrence of 21 Class E and larger fires. 99 The review was conducted in a vigorous and professional manner. Many ideas were explored on how to do a better job, with emphasis on questions of efficiency in performing parti- cular tasks. However, few questions were raised concerning the appropriateness of the decisions made, nor were alter- native actions explored. It seemed that a basic weakness existed in the process of the fire review: emphasis was on efficiency, rather than on the appropriateness of the course of action taken. If a course of action is wrong, it is of little consolation that it was carried out efficiently. This shortcoming can be traced to the Forest Service Manual where discussion of the Individual Fire Analysis is contained (FSM 5194.12). Emphasis is directed to questions of how well the system worked. Little emphasis is given to asking whether effective decisions were made. FOCUS Forest Service Fire Research has developed a computer simulation model, entitled FOCUS, for evaluating alternative presuppression organizations (Davis, 1976). The model evalu- ates the type and placement of various combinations of man- power and equipment in terms of the efficiency with which they can suppress fires. The model has had limited applica- tion to date, but has been successful in identifying situa- tions where a given presuppression force could be 1) rear- ranged and its capability increased, or 2) the force reduced while maintaining the same capability to suppress fire. 100 FOCUS is a step forward in improving the evaluation techniques of Fire Management and should receive greater application. However, it is limited to fire control prepa- redness and deals primarily with efficiency. Benefit-Cost Analyses During the 19705 Fire Management has used the benefit- cost analysis procedure for estimating the potential and actual returns from several types of fire activities (in- cluding presuppression effect, project fires, fuel reduction treatment, and fuel break projects). These benefit-cost analyses, however, have been conducted on an irregular basis. Their most extensive use has been in the California Region, where they have been applied to evaluating the effective- ness of presuppression forces and fuel break treatments. Basically, the analyses are easy to conduct and the results are easily understood. The analysis consists of to- taling up all costs and all benefits associated with a pro- ject, then comparing the total cost to the total benefits. If the benefits exceed the costs, the project is considered to produce positive returns. Three common problems occur when using a benefit-cost analysis. These problems were evident in several of the analyses reviewed by this study. First, benefits and costs may be improperly estimated. (Chapter II on Resource Values addresses this problem.) Second, all relative benefits and costs must be included in the analysis. Commonly, some 101 significant benefits and costs are omitted, which often re- sults in improper conclusions. Third, negative results are as meaningful as positive ones, but not as readily accepted by managers. Two Forests recently reported that a "good" analysis of their presuppression activities could not be made for a particular time period, because the Forest did not have enough fire activity during the period. What they should have concluded was that, for the given time period, the cost of the presuppression force was greater than the benefits derived from having it. The primary ingredient for a good benefit-cost analy— sis, and most other analyses, is an objective analyst who can eliminate his concern for the results when establishing the inputs. Objectivity may be the most difficult ingredient to obtain. Benefit-cost analysis, in summary, is one means of showing program effectiveness and more extensive use of this type of analysis should be encouraged. Fire Management Inspections Fire Management conducts a variety of reviews and in- spections which are a type of evaluation. These inspections generally concentrate on efficiency and evaluate such things as equipment, training, safety, and facilities. The inspec- tions are usually thorough and effective at improving effi- ciency. 102 External Review Several outside groups conduct or request evaluations of Forest Service activities at various times. These groups include the Department of Agriculture, Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and various public organizations. The Department conducts a formal review known as the Internal Audit. The Office of Management and Budget, on occasion, will request the Department or the Forest Service to conduct a specific evaluation such as the one resulting in this re- port. These evaluations may cover any facet of an organiza- tion. Evaluation Needs of Fire Management In addition to continuing, with the above suggested modifications, the evaluation procedures which Fire Manage- ment currently uses, it is suggested that the following be instituted or utilized: a Fire Activity Index; a comprehen- sive statistical analysis system; comparison evaluations; analysis of alternatives; and updating. Some of these suggested procedures have been employed in this current study and the findings are indicated where appropriate. Fire Activity Index In any effort to review a fire program on an annual basis, one of the first questions which the analyst or fire manager asks is, "What level of fire activity occurred during a given year?" At present, there is no satisfactory 103 means of providing a quantitative expression to answer this question. As part of this study, a methodology was developed to produce an activity index number which would provide this _1_/ quantitative expression for each Region and for the Nation as a whole, in the form of a weighted summation of three variables. The three variables used in deriving the activity in- dex are: the number of fires, the number of acres burned, and the number of Class E and larger fires. These variables were selected for two reasons: 1) they appear to produce reasonable results; and 2) they are readily available. The data are collected regionally on a monthly basis, published annually, and available back to 1908. In calculating the index, the variables are selected from the different Regions, or are summed for the Nation, to produce the index specific to the area desired. Derived index numbers are weighted summations of the three variables. The use of weighting coefficients is an attempt to place equal importance on all three input varia— bles. Weighting coefficients are derived by: l) summing the three input variables for the period covered by the data; 2) dividing the larger variable (acres burned) by the number of fires to obtain the first coefficient; and 3) then dividing the original sum of the acres burned by the 1 By adjusting the data to a regional sum instead of a national one, the reliability of the intraregional compari- son (one year to another in the same Region) is increased. 104 number of Class E and larger fires to arrive at the second coefficient. The process places some emphasis on acres burned in that the other two variables are adjusted to it. For convenience, the index numbers which can equal any number from zero to infinity have been divided by 10,000 to reduce their magnitude. In addition, the national index has been further divided by the number of Regions to put it in the same relative magnitude as the regional index numbers. An example of the calculations necessary to compute the index is found in Appendix E. The index has one major shortcoming. Forest Service effectiveness in dealing with fires cannot be separated from the effects of fuels, topography, and weather conditions. These conditions, with the exception of weather, become less significant when examining a given year if we accept that fuel, topography, and the Forest Service's ability to deal with fires changes over long time periods, but not signifi- cantly from year to year. Accepting the index's shortcomings, several observations can be made. Refer to Table 11, page 105. First, looking at the coefficient of variation (CV)l/ one sees the following. 1) The fire activity fluctuates less nationally (CV = 30) than in any individual Region. This suggests that national goals are the most predictable and that planning objectives directed at this level are most likely to l Coefficient of variation is a statistical technique for express1ng in percent the amount of variation from the mean for a group of numbers. The technique allows the comparison of groups of numbers of differing magnitude. .30Hmn UODMHDOHMO mum 50H53 mOHpmHumum can cH cocoHocH soon you m>mc paw mumc m>Humucmu so comma mum mhmH How mmsHm> xmocH N .mmuHm meHMH can m mmmHU mo “chasm cam .mmuHm mo Hogans Hmuou .umcunn mmuom so pmmmm H 105 mom wNMH wmv mvw won wvm mNm wow qu whm ZOHB¢Hm¢> m0 BzmHUHmmmou m.mH mm.o ¢.0H N.vN «.mm a.mh N.Hm m.mv N.OH c.5v ZOHB¢H>mD QmHEU¢ MMHh .HH mqmdfi 106 be met. 2) Regions 4, l and 6, in that order, are least predictable. (Their respective CVs are: 92, 87 and 76.);/ Thus, it is difficult to accurately predict the suppression force needs for these Regions. 3) Regions 5, 3, 2 and 8 have fairly consistent levels of activity (CV = 34, 40, 41 and 44 respectively). The planning job should be easier in these Regions. Second, looking at the means for the Regions as a whole reveals that Region 5 normally has twice the activity of any other Region, and Regions 9 and 2 have the least amount of activity. Third, examining the National Fire Activity Index since 1965 reveals that 1970 was the worst year, with an FAI of 98; the FAI for 1965 was the lowest (35); and the FAI for 1976 was the lowest since 1969 (48 vs 40). Several other comparisons can be made examining trends in such areas as retardant use, manpower, and expenditures utilizing the index to separate out variation due to acti- vity level. It is suggested that the index be calculated weekly or biweekly in order to assess the progress of fire activity during the season. The index numbers may be thought of as an expression of the environmental conditions of weather, fuels and topography that were encountered and of the effec' tiveness of Fire Management in responding to those conditions. 1 Region 10, with a CV of 132, is omitted here because most of the variation over the ten year period is accounted for during one year. 107 The index would also provide management with a quanti- tative assessment of a given fire season relative to pre- vious periods or norms. In the event of a need for addition- al funds, the index could serve as an expression of activity relative to funding needs. Comprehensive Statistical Analysis A need for broad comprehensive statistical analysis exists within Fire Management. This analysis should consist of a series of evaluations at all levels, covering prediction, present situation, annual results, and long-term trends. The process should be clearly defined, scheduled on a regular basis, automated as much as possible; and the results should be distributed to field levels as quickly as possible. A great deal can be learned about a program by examin- ing its growth and related statistics over a period of time. The original OMB request for a study of Fire Management ex- penditures asked that statistical information be made avail- able for a 10 year period, beginning in 1965. This informa- tion was compiled and presented in the Phase I report (Hodgin, 1976). The statistics are reviewed here and a trend analysis technique is employed to interpret them. As discussed in Chapter IV of this report, physical fire statistics are traditionally recorded on a calendar year basis, while expenditures are recorded on a fiscal year basis. To counter this difficulty, for the purposes of this analysis, expenditure data from a fiscal year is correlated 108 with the physical data from the previous calendar year which is one numerical unit lower. For simplification, all refe- rences in the narrative are to calendar years. All costs discussed are in terms of dollars deflated to a 1965 base. The deflators used are based on the cost of government purchases of goods and services (Hodgin, 1976). Most of the comparisons made are between two periods, 1965-69 and 1970-75. There are two reasons for this group- ing. First, comparisons of individual years are difficult to understand because of annual fluctuation in fire sever- ity. Second, the two groupings represent two periods of significantly different Fire Management philosophy. Total Fire Management program costs remained fairly constant from 1965 through 1969, averaging $48 million per year. From 1969 to 1970, costs doubled, at least partially because of the severe 1970 fire season. Throughout the period 1970 to 1975, however, costs averaged $75 million per year, or 57 percent higher than the 1965—69 average. Presuppression (FFF)%/one of the two distinct activi- ties within the Fire Management program, averaged $7 million during 1965 to 1969. In 1970, presuppression (FFF) costs increased 50 percent over those of 1969. These costs have increased substantially ever since, with 1975 costs being three times the 1970 level. The average for the 1970-75 period is $23 million, or three times the average for the 1 In this chapter, where "(FFF)" follows reference to a Fire Management activity, reference is to only that portion of the activity financed by Fighting Forest Fire funds. 109 1965-69 period. (FFF presuppression expenditures for FY 1977 are currently projected at over $100 million.) Pre- suppression expenditures, financed by P&M funding, decreased over the same 11 year period by 17 percent. With an average cost of $18 million, suppression costs, which use mostly FFF funds, show the same relative constancy from 1965 through 1969. During the severe 1970 fire season, FFF suppression costs quadrupled. They dropped 50 percent during 1971, but remained twice as high as the 1969 level. This latter level of suppression spending has been maintained during subsequent years, and the 1970-75 average of $32 million is nearly twice the average for the 1965-69 time period. The above data are summarized in Table 12, page 110, which compares the 1965-69 and 1970-75 periods. Related statistics are also summarized in this table. (Supportive data for individual years is given in Appendix F.) Given these increases in presuppression and suppression costs (FFF) between the two time periods, what conclusions can be drawn? Effective program management requires that in- creasing expenditures be related to something. To answer this question, a trend analysis of the phy- sical statistics was made. The analysis is appended (Appen- dix G). In general, the analysis did not show increased achievement commensurate with increased expenditures. 110 TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF COST AND RELATED STATISTICS y AVERAGE AVERAGE PERCENT 1965-69 1970-75 CHANGE Total fire management $ 47,896 $ 75,054 + 57 costs2 (includes "differential" costs) Presuppression (P&M) $ 22,165 $ 19,606 - 12 Presuppression (FFF) $ 7,405 $ 22,949 + 210 Suppression (FFF) $ 17,666 $ 32,418 + 84 Number of acres burned 183,468 227,160 + 24 Damages (M$) $ 11,300 $ 71,124 + 529 Number of fires 10,429 13,027 + 25 Lightning-caused 5,485 6,560 + 20 Man-caused 4,944 6,467 + 31 Fire severity index 0.98 1.08 + 10 Fire activity index 58.60 65.00 + 11 Acres burned per fire 17.20 17.00 - l Damage ($)/acre burned $ 68 $ 340 + 400 Natl Forest recreation 154,967 185,985 + 20 use (M visitor days) Fire size class (acres) A (1/4 or less) 6,987 9,332 + 34 B (.26 - 9) 2,714 2,953 + 9 C (10 - 99) 581 598 + 3 D (100 - 299) 77 77 0 E (300 or more) 72 67 - 7 1 Source: N Hodgin, 1976. Updated with 1975 data. Thousands of dollars, deflated to 1965 real dollars. 111 A multiple regression analysis was also used to ana- lyze the overall effect of increased presuppression spending on the level of fire activity. Analysis of data from 1948 through 1966 indicated that presuppression expenditures had a significant effect on reducing both acres burned and the number of Class E fires. For the period 1965 through 1975, however, the statistical relationship is much weaker. It could not be concluded with any degree of confidence that increased presuppression spending during this period had a significant effect on reducing fire losses. Additional dis- cussion on and conclusions of this analysis are appended. (Appendix H) As has been demonstrated above, the use of trend analy- sis can be worthwhile in any effort to evaluate existing pro- grams. It is suggested that this technique could be used to further advantage in future Fire Management evaluations. Comparison Evaluations Comparing a program to one with similar goals, ob- jectives, or operating characteristics can provide indicators of effectiveness. Some recent correspondence to Forest Ser- vice Associate Chief Resler (Tikkala, September 1, 1976) supplied data for comparing Forest Service total presuppres— sion and suppression expenditures with those of other organi- zations that administer wildlands. (See Table 13, page 112.) While there are many reasons why the comparisons may not be 112 TABLE 13. 1975 EXPENDITURES ACRES PROTECTED PRESUPPRESSION SUPPRESSION TOTAL (M) (M$) $/ac (M$) $/ac (M$) $/ac States 726,356 N/Al/ N/A 166,588 .23 NFSg/ 187,506 100,623 .54 42,576 .23 143,199 .77 Interior BLMi/ 401,000 19,2325/ .05 25,357 .06 44,589 .11 BIAé/ 59,099 1,375 .02 5,438 .09 6,813 .12 Npsé/ 980 .04 N/A N/A F8WSZ/ N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A = not available. Most States do not separate expen- ditures into these categories. 2 National Forest System 3 Bureau of Land Management 4 BLM's presuppression expenditures include everything ex- cept suppression expenses. 5 Bureau of Indian Affairs 6 National Park Service 7 Fish and Wildlife Service 113 totally representative, they nevertheless show that the Forest Service emphasis on presuppression does not appear to have held suppression costs down. The data suggest that the availability of additional presuppression forces has, instead, generated additional suppression expenditures. Another type of comparison evaluation is an accomplish- ment evaluation in which what was planned is compared to what was accomplished. Data which would lend itself well to such an.evaluation are presented in Table 8, page 72, regarding fuel treatments. Whenever accomplishments are planned or predicted, an evaluation of accomplishment should be sche- duled. Accomplishments need not always coincide with what was planned, but discrepancies of any magnitude should be understood and explained. Analysis of Alternatives In addition to analyzing projects, procedures are need- ed for evaluating the program mix. An obvious shortcoming of today's Fire Management organization is its lack of tools to analyze alternative choices in terms of either their pre- dicted or actual effectiveness. (FOCUS accomplishes this to a limited extent by Simulating the distribution of presuppres- sion forces and their impact on fire size.) Each of the three equations that follow may be used to either: 1) calculate results; 2) compare results of alterna— tive program mixes; or 3) compare alternative suppression strategies. 114 It is stated in Chapters II and III that Fire Manage— ment is a service, and that proper measures of resource values are essential for planning and evaluation purposes. In Chapter IV, the need for more adequate cost information is stressed. The question remains, "How are resource values (i.e., values at risk, damage and benefits) and cost infor- mation used to assess or predict the effectiveness of Fire Management?" In Chapter I, a measure of suppression effec- tivenss was suggested by the equation cited immediately be- low. Equation (1) Maximum Results = 2(EV+DA+SA) - £(SC+D) Where: EV = enhanced values DA = damage averted SA = suppression averted SC = suppression cost D = damage In order to examine the effectiveness of Fire Manage- ment in its entirety, all prefire costs (prevention, detec- tion, and presuppression) must be added to suppression cost. When all prefire costs are added, the equation becomes: Equation (2) Maximum Results =Z(EV+DA+SA) - i(sc+D+PFC) Where: PFC = prefire costs To date, some of the data necessary to operate this equation have been lacking. In previous chapters, the how and why of collecting all but the damage averted and suppression averted data have been discussed. These data are difficult to obtain, requiring better prediction techniques than are now available. However, crude estimates can and should be made of these elements of the equation since they form the 115 data base for extrapolation to areas which were prevented from burning. When sufficient data are available to Oper- ate the above equation, benefits of Fire Management can be determined more precisely. The cost plus loss, or least cost, concept has been around for a some time, but it has never really been imple- mented. This concept is represented by a simplified version of Equation 2. It is very applicable today, and lends it- self well to supporting alternative policies which might re- place the present noneconomic (10 Acre and 10 a.m.) approach- es. The cost plus loss concept is common in fire literature. It was first presented in 1916 (Headley, 1916) and later was stated as the overall objective of Forest Service fire con- trol up until 1935. In the 1928 National Forest Manual of Regulations and Instructions, it was stated that: "The objective of fire control is to reduce to a minimum the sum of the cost of fire prevention, presuppression, fire suppres- sion, and the damages caused by fire." (USDA, Forest Service, 1928) With few changes, this concept has continued to be cited and discussed in literature up to the present time. Yet, it appears that it is not fully understood, perhaps accounting for its lack of application. For instance, the 1928 Manual instructs the user to practice the concept by concentrating on reducing each of the components of the equation (i.e., prevention, presuppression 116 etc.) to a minimum. This ignores the fact that the intent of the concept is to minimize the sum, not each individual component. For example, to decrease the sum, it might be desirable to increase one of the components (e.g., presup- pression or damages). Another misconception common to all the literature re- viewed is that cost and damages always have an inverse rela- tionship, i.e., as one increases, the other always decreases (Figure 6, page 117). Further, to fully utilize the concept, the objective should be to minimize the sum of cost plus net loss with net referring to the sum of enhancements, minus damages. Equation (3) Minimum sum = 2(cost - net loss) In the cases where enhancements exceed damages (e.g., a fuel treatment), the net "loss" is actually positive. The liter- ature on least cost ignores any enhancement value of fire. Present policies (10 a.m., 10 Acre) exclude benefits or enhancement values and assume that costs and damages in- crease exponentially as area burned increases. (For graphic representation, refer to Figure 7, page 118.) Given this assumption, it follows that the harder fires are hit, the smaller they will be, and the sum of cost plus loss will al- ways be minimized. A more realistic view, supported by the trends in fire size and the increased cost of suppression, is represented by Figure 8, page 118. In referring to that figure, it can be 117 Minim sum dollars area burned -—-) 1002 FIGURE 6. TYPICAL LEAST COST DIAGRAM DOLLARS 118 '/ COST + LOSS / 0 acres burned X3 FIGURE 7. LEAST COST (PRESENT THEORY) ' COST + DAMAGE —. — — a. 1’.-- --- .— — .- Y34 ' . ".."....ou one DAMAGE ' .......oeoooo ' Y a ' 0........ ' 2 F1 «0 . COST Y1 ...o" ' ' A...“ | ‘L I x x x x x5 1 2 3 4 acres burned FIGURE 8. LEAST COST (PROPOSED) 119 seen that the portion between X2 and X3 is intended to be the same as that between 0 and X3 in Figure 7. Figure 8 suggests that excessive aggression in initial attack results in high cost and low damage (Y2). Such might be the case where a fire with little potential for damage is attacked with two airtankers and a helitack crew. A less agressive attack with two men and a pickup would result in slightly larger damage but a significantly lower cost plus damage sum (Y1). Note also that expecting a large acreage such as X for an escape fire gives a minimum cost plus loss over 5 any point between X3 and X This view was also supported 5. by the DESCON example in Chapter I. In applying the cost plus net loss concept, the impor- tance of benefits must be recognized. They must be given equal consideration when trying to minimize the sum of cost plus net loss. Figure 9, page 120, is intended to Show the added dimension of benefits. It also shows that the curves may be shaped in a variety of ways reflecting time- dependent ecological and meteorological circumstances. With the last example, the cost plus net loss equation begins to look complicated and, as most fire scientists know, the task of defining the shape of the curves is beyond present capability. However, every point on the curve does not need definition. A Fire Plans Chief on a fire can usually identify more than one point where a fire might be stopped. The same is 120 mmOA Bmz moan BmOU .m mmDUHm 83 £2 H $8 vosuap menus I HmOU I mugn ( .\\. III \\ o\0 to ’ mam—2mm I.l..\ II a... I, \\ . :IIIIIII|||\\‘ mmoH umz H umool m 050 mmog umz A uwmemMH quUI szettop 121 true of a Fire Management Staff Officer on a Forest when he is developing preattack, or other presuppression, plans. Once these points have been identified, the task of calcula- ting points on the horizontal axis is one of simple arith- metic as seen below: - cost - damage net loss + benefit - cost i net loss For further consideration, an example using cost plus net loss to evaluate alternative program mixes is contained in Table 14, page 122. Updating A final and important step in any evaluation process involves updating in the Fire Management system and the pro- grams it serves. Updating should be a formal, structured process which provides for applying the information learned in the evaluation process. Internally, plans should be adjusted and improved, based on how well they met objectives. Values should be updated and estimates of value at risk improved. Data collection systems should be revised to meet current evaluation needs. And, occasionally, evaluations may indicate and provide the basis for a policy change to reflect new information or man- agement needs. Externally, the results of Fire Management activities should be available for adjusting the outputs and plans of 122 TABLE 14. AN EXAMPLEl/OF LEAST COST PLUS NET LOSS ALTERNATIVES A B C D Prevention 02/ 200 1,200 3,000 PreSUPPression 500 1,800 2,000 1,800 SUPPression 2,000 2,500 1,200 500 Net Loss 5,000 2,000 1,000 700 Least Cost Plus Net Loss 7,500 6,500 5,4003/ 6,000 1] This example is a modification of one presented by Brown and Davis (1973). g; The figures given are monetary units of expenditure or loss. 3] Alternative C is the least cost alternative. 123 the various resources, land management plans, the RPA, and the program budget. When Fire Management accomplishments are available to resource management planning, programming, and budgeting units, the relationship of Fire Management to these external units will be identified. Summary and Conclusions Several general conclusions can be made regarding the present evaluation system in Fire Management. 1) Fire Management has a strong and effective review and inspection system aimed at improv- ing efficiency. 2) Most evaluations deal only with the efficiency aspects of Fire Management. 3) Evaluations tend to be on an irregular basis. 4) The scope and role of evaluations within Fire Management needs to be expanded. In addition to the existing efficiency evaluations, in- creased effort is needed to identify Fire Management effec- tiveness. To accomplish this, it is suggested that the following be developed and instituted. 1) A system for rating a fire season and a capa- bility for tracking its progress. 2) A comprehensive statistical analysis system. 3) Additional comparison evaluation procedures. 4) Procedures for evaluating alternatives in Fire Management. 124 5) Techniques for ensuring updating of evaluation findings into the Fire Management system. Evaluations presented in this chapter revealed the following concerning the Fire Management program. 1) The least cost theory has not been fully under- stood. 2) Analysis of Fire Management activities has not shown increased achievement commensurate with increased expenditures. Recommendations Develop and implement a comprehensive evalu- ation system which: 1) includes effectiveness as well as efficiency evaluations; and 2) contains a feedback mechanism to the Fire Management subsystems and other Forest Service programs. VI. USE OF THE EVALUATION Introduction A large bureaucracy, such as the Forest Service, will naturally have a variety of reactions to any evalua- tion conducted of one of its major programs. This study has been an evaluation of the Forest Service's second largest program, the Fire Management organization. It has been conducted basically from within the Forest Service by the author, a Forest Service employee. Most significantly, perhaps, is the fact that a number of the major findings of the evaluation have been predominantly critical of pre- sent Fire Management activities. This chapter describes some of the activities related to Fire Management which took place during the preparation of this evaluation and after its completion. Special atten- tion will be given to attempting to determine how the find- ings of this evaluation affected these activities. It should be stressed that the veiws presented here are the author's alone and therefore are confined to his limited point of view. It should also be noted that the length of time that this evaluation report has been available is brief, and has 125 126 not allowed for full consideration of some of the material. More time is needed to assess the impact of the evaluation, and an even greater amount of time will be necessary to fully understand what changes have occurred. Fire Management Fund As a result of work done by members of the Policy Ana- lysis staff group in Phase I (Hodgin, 1976) of the response to the request by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the Forest Service evaluate the escalating expenditures of its Fire Management program, it became apparent that Fire Management's funding and accounting procedures were of very limited value for management control or analytical purposes. (See Chapter IV for discussion.) As a result, it was determined that Phase II of the response to OMB (i.e., this evaluation) should involve an extensive effort to reach a better understanding of funding and accounting needs for Fire Management in an effort to seek possible al— ternatives. For this purpose, field trips were made by Pol- icy Analysis staff to Forests in four Regions to solicit ideas and information from fire and business management field personnel. About the time that these field trips were concluded, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Conservation inde- pendently became interested in the funding procedures of Fire Management and communicated to the Chief of the Forest Ser- vice expressing "his feeling that presuppression activities 127 including financing for the implementation of the National Fire Plan, should be with regular apprOpriated (budgeted P&M as opposed to unbudgeted FFF) funds." (McGuire, Octot ber 21, 1976) According to the Chief, the Assistant Secre- tary at the same time indicated that he would also be will- ing "to entertain a proposal for a shift in the present method of financing presuppression." (McGuire, October 21, 1976) This suggestion not only sanctioned the effort of this evaluation in examining Fire Management's accounting and funding procedures, but it also provided the opportunity for the results of the study's findings to institute change. As a result of the Assistant Secretary's letter, a Task Force was organized and headed by the Fiscal and Accounting Management staff of the Forest Service to develop an alter- nate financing proposal. Because of its concern and work up until that time, the Policy Analysis unit was able to play an active role in the development of this alternate financ- ing proposal. The result of the efforts of the Task Force was the Fire Management Fund (FMF). Chief McGuire, in his memo transmitting instructions to the field for implementing the new FMF, stressed that "the primary purpose of this policy is to get financial and managerial control over the fire management program." (McGuire, October 21, 1976) In part, this purpose was accom- plished by the FMF's establishing a budgeted amount to be spent on presuppression. McGuire's transmittal memo, and 5" 128 its accompanying directive, contained explicit instructions for managing these budgeted funds. In discussing the institution of the FMF with field personnel (primarily in Region 5 during a recent field in- spection of fire activities), the author found what appears to be overwhelming satisfaction at all levels with the fund. A common statement that was heard was that Fire Management expenditure decisions have increased in quantity and improved in quality. This is probably attributable to the fact that there are now a limited amount of dollars available. At the same time, however, there appears to be a pressure to break what is viewed as a ceiling imposed by the FMF on pre- suppression expenditures by finding ways to obtain additional funds. As in any situation where an innovative change is intro- duced, this testing of the FMF's stability and the strength of top management's commitment to it is unavoidable. Whe- ther the stated purpose of gaining financial and management control is attained by the FMF will be, to a large extent, determined by the responses made to these challenges. Whatever the success of the FMF in standing up to its tests in the field, it must still grapple with two items which have been left unresolved. One is the unregulated use of FFF suppression funds. It is the conclusion of this eval- uation that suppression funds should be incorporated, in part, into the FME,(See discussion in Chapter IV.) 129 The second unresolved issue is acceptance of the FMF concept by the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget. Acceptance of the FMF by the Depart- ment and by OMB would probably mean an elimination of FFF presuppression funding, with these funds being converted to P&M dollars. This would result in an all-P&M presuppres- sion program requiring Department, OMB and Congressional negotiation and approval through the regular budget process each year. Fire Planning Study Team On July 21, 1976, the FMF concept was presented to the Chief and his staff for their approval. During the discus— sion which preceded approval of the concept, the concern of OMB over escalating fire costs was raised as an issue. The Forest Service's ability to defend the increasing costs was questioned. Consequently, the Chief and his staff decided that an analysis of fire planning and cost-effectiveness of presuppression activities needed to be conducted (Peter- son, August 12, 1976). A study team was appointed by the appropriate Staff Directors. This team consisted of Mr. Lance Hodgin from the Policy Analysis unit, a Field Program Analyst and a Fire Management Field Representative. The main emphasis of the Fire Planning Study Team cen- tered around a review of the National Fire Planning (NFP) procedures. Several of the recommendations made by the team 130 in its report (Gibson et a1., 1976) are similar to the findings of this author's evaluation study. Specifically, the findings of the two studies concur in such recommenda- tions as the need for: eliminating the lO-Acre Policy and utilizing land management plans for setting protection ob- jectives; strengthening benefit-cost analysis techniques and developing procedures for evaluating effectiveness of the fire programs; and develOping a system for determining potential fire damage and benefits based on actual damage and values. One of the recommendations which the Fire Planning Study Team made was undertakenand accomplished by the present evaluation study. To evaluate the effectiveness of presup- pression efforts, the study team suggested that a regression model which had been develOped and used for the period 1948 to 1966 (Ellis, 1969) be rerun and compared with the results of the past ten years. This task was accomplished and appen- ded to this report (Appendix H)- Perhaps the most valuable contribution which the Fire Planning Study made to the present study is that it offered an acceptable, sanctioned vehicle for surfacing and testing some of the information and ideas that were emerging from this evaluation study. This was possible because of the good rapport and working relationship between members of the two studies. Also the Fire Planning Study Team, for the first time, established non—fire expertise in the area of fire 131 planning. This expertise proved useful throughout the re- mainder of this evaluation when questions relating to plan— ning were dealt with. Policy Task Force During the January 1977 Regional Foresters and Staff Directors meeting, the Chief of the Forest Service question- ed the ability of Fire Management to support the existing level of expenditures (USDA, Forest Service, January, 1977c). Fire Management accepted the challenge and took the initiative to examine and, if necessary, revise the policies under which it was Operating. A Task Force, consisting of five full-time and four part-time members, was appointed by Fire Management. The author and a representative from Fire Research were the only non-Fire Management representatives on the Task Force. Prior to the formation of the Task Force, a draft of the chapters on Fire "Law and Policy" and "Resource Values" of this evaluation had been completed. This and the fact that the Policy Analysis unit (of which the author is a member) is assigned responsibility for policy analysis, accounted for the inclusion of the author in the Task Force. The direction given to the Task Force was minimal and thus a great deal of time was spent in developing a problem statement and in analysing the problem. This exhaustive task took the better part of two weeks, but allowed for a free-flow of ideas, criticism and comment. During this 132 process, much of the information which is contained in this final report was presented and discussed, along with ideas and information of other task force members. This Oppor- tunity greatly improved the content and acceptance of this report. Three basic conclusions emerged from these discussions: 1) that the existing policies as they were being interpreted were not acceptable; 2) policies which moved Fire Management closer to the land management planning process would be more desirable; and 3) the selection of the most apprOpriate al- ternatives should be made by the Chief and the Regional Foresters to obtain greater involvement and commitment to Fire Management activities. Four alternative policies were developed; a fifth representing the current policies was defined (See Table 15, page 133). Throughout the Task Force's functioning, all conclu- sions reached were supported by the entire team. All alter- natives including the existing policies were considered to be viable alternatives. The Task Force made no attempt to select or promote a specific alternative. The Task Force finished its work in early May, 1977, and a decision making session for the Regional Foresters, the Chief and his imme- diate staff was scheduled for the second week in July. July Fire Policy Meeting Following the conclusion of work by the Fire Policy Task Force, and before the July Fire Policy meeting, several actions were accomplished. TABLE 15. 133 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVESL/ A PRESENT SITUATION B ESCAPE FIRE ANALYSIS Initial Attack Objective Escape Fires 10 acre fire plan- ning objective with Regional variations. Current 10 a.m. 10 acre fire plan- ning objective with Regional variations. Control strategy Policy. that minimizes cost plus net loss. C D ZONES RELATIVE VALUES Initial Attack Objective Escape Fires 10 acre fire plan objective except where zones esta- blished for modified/ deferred initial attack. Alternative B to in- clude management ob- jectives for any zones establiShed.. Range of objectives for protection unit based on relative value. Alternative B to in- clude consideration of relative value. E RESOURCE OUTPUTS Initial Attack Objective Escape Fires Range of objectives for protection unit based on resource outputs. Alternative B to include impact on resource out- puts. 1 Source: Harden, 1977. 134 First, the Chief directed the Policy Analysis Staff Director to have this fire evaluation study completed prior to the July meeting. Two weeks prior to the meeting, a draft was completed and 40 copies were distributed to Wash— ington Office Staff Directors, Regional Foresters and Fire Management staff. Second, the Fire Policy Task Force leader prepared a report summarizing the work of that Task Force and present— ing the five alternative policies it had outlined (Harden, 1977). Third, a one-day meeting took place early in June with all of the Regional Fire Staff Directors present. At this meeting, the Fire Policy Task Force summarized its work and preSented the alternative policies. The reception of this presentation was generally favorable and the Regional Staff Directors were assigned the responsibility of briefing their Regional Foresters for the up-coming July Fire Policy meeting. Fourth, a series of briefings starting in mid-June were scheduled for the purpose of conveying the findings of this evaluation to as many people as possible. For these briefings, a paper was prepared which summarized the study's major findings and recommendations. Presentations were given to a wide spectrum of groups and individuals in the Washing— ton Office, beginning with the Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems. At each of these briefings, comments were 135 solicited many of which ultimately were used to refine this final report. The Fire Policy meeting itself was a two day meeting held July 12 and 13, 1977. Attendance included the Regional Foresters, the Chief and his immediate staff, and a few selected individuals. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and consider alternative fire policies in order to reach an agreement on which policy would be followed in the future. The meeting was structured with a half day of presentations, a half day of work groups, a half day of group presentations and discussion, and finally a half day to clarify the agreed-upon policy and its implementation. During the first half day session a 45 minute presen- tation and discussion of this evaluation report was conduct- ed. The discussion became fairly controversial. It was noted that most of the meeting participants seemed to be familiar with the content of the paper and had a copy on hand. The work group session held during the second half of the first day dealt with a set of predetermined questions concerning such topics as delegation of authority, implemen- tation issues, and barriers to change. A group discussion session was held at the end of the first day and several conclusions emerged. They were: 1) there was general agreement that Alternative El/should even- tually be implemented; 2) Alternative E should be rewritten 1 This stated that present fire plan initial attack objec- tives would be changed. Protection objectives would be based on resource and land management outputs and their correspon- ding values. Policy for escape fires would also be changed. 136 to give it a more positive tone; and 3) an interim policy is needed to solve some of the immediate problems and allow time to implement Alternative E. It was agreed that the interim 1/ policy should be structured using Alternative C as a basis and eliminating the 10 a.m. Policy. The rewritting of A1- ternatives C and E was assigned to a committee and was com- pleted that evening. The results of this committee effort are shown in Table 16, pages 137 and 138. The second day began with presentations from the work groups, which were followed by the committee's presentation of the interim policy it had prepared. At this point, the issue of cost began to emerge with such questions being asked as: "Is cost really an issue?", "Can much be done about cost in the short run?", "Why have costs increased so much more rapidly in some Regions than in others?", and "Might it not increase costs to implement a significant shift in policy?". As the meeting progressed, it became clear that cost was a major concern and ways to reduce costs should be sought as soon as possible. The remainder of the Fire Policy meeting was spent discussing possible ways to cut costs, defining tasks to be accomplished, and establishing completion dates. Several tasks, including that of determining ways for cutting costs, were designated for the agenda of a national meeting of the Regional Fire Planners scheduled for the following month. 1 Present fire plan initial attack objectives would be modified for some areas on a zone basis. Present policy for escape fires would also be changed. 137 TABLE 16. NEW FIRE POLICIES AS DRAFTED BY THE FIRE POLICY MEETING COMMITTEE INTERIM POLICY: REWRITE OF ALTERNATIVE C Title Description Strategy for Initial Attack Strategy for Escape Fires None given. Present fire plan initial attack objectives would be tailored to confinement rather than to 10 acre planning guides. Present policy, direction, and objectives for escape fires would be changed. Areas where initial attack objectives would be pre—planned and tailored for confinement would be established. For such areas, pro- tection objectives would be based on values, risks, and management objectives. Suppres- sion actions would include appropriate at- tack and monitoring of fire activity similar to current exception areas. Suppression ac- tions would minimize the cost plus net loss. Until objectives are tailored on all other areas, the current fire plan objectives would remain in effect. Suppression action for escape fires would be determined in the first work period and would be based, as follows, on FSM 5130.3. When first attack fails, the policy will be to: 1) Promptly analyze the existing situa- tion. 2) Consider and give emphasis in sup- pressing decisions to alternatives having lease adverse environmental effects. 3) Cal- culate the probabilities, including spread, and determine manpower and equipment needs. The responsible Forest officer making this calculation shall record his computations and assumptions for later reference. 138 TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). LONG TERM POLICY: REWRITE OF ALTERNATIVE E Title Description Strategy for Initial Attack Strategy for Escape Fires Land Management Objectives Present fire Elan initial attack objectives would be base on planned resource and land management outputs. Present policy, direc— tion, and objectives for escape fires would be changed. Fire related actions would be designed to maintain and enhance the capacity to pro- duce resource and land management outputs identified in land management plans. Fire management plans developed to support land management plans will provide cost effec- tive mix of fire program elements. Suppression action for escape fires would be determined in the fire management plans developed to support land management plans. 139 The Fire Policy meeting closed with a general feeling of satisfaction. The Chief expressed his pleasure with the quality of the meeting prework and the organization of the meeting itself. National Fire Planning Meeting The national meeting of Regional Fire Planners had originally been scheduled for the Spring of 1977 with one of its primary goals being to address questions raised by the Fire Planning Study Team (Gibson et a1., 1976). A second main goal of the meeting was to be an effort to normalizel/Forest and Regional fire plans. To allow the additional consideration of changes in fire planning policy which were expected to result from the July Fire Policy meeting, the National Fire Planning meeting was postponed until August. The meeting was held in Denver on August 15-19 and was organized and conducted by the Washington Office of Fire Management. Meeting participants included fire planners from the various Regions, a few representatives from Fire Research and several other selected individuals. Three objectives were identified for the meeting (Mann, July 22, 1977). The first objective was to develop guide- lines for the evaluation and revision of existing Regional fire plans. (The revisions are to be completed by December 31, 1977). Some items relevant to this topic which were 1 A term used to describe the process of eliminating vari- ation between the plans, due to different interpretations of the National Fire Planning instructions. 140 suggested for consideration included: a) high-cost items on high-cost Forests; b) the need for a National Fire Plan Monitoring Board; and c) the need for more extensive use of Fire Preparedness Plans. The second objective of the National Fire Planning meeting was to develop guidelines to help revise existing fire plans to meet the initial attack objective of the new Interim Fire Policy (i.e., the planning area concept devel- oped by the July Fire Policy meeting to replace the 10 Acre Policy). These revisions are to be completed by September 30, 1978. The third objective, to be accomplished by December 1978, was to develop a total fire management planning system responsive to the National Forest Management Act (RPA), zero-based budgeting, resource and land management output objectives, appropriate resource values, and an analysis of viable alternatives. The underlined portion of this objec- tive relates directly to the recommendations made in Chapter III of this evaluation report which had been made available to all meeting participants. At this writing, the National Fire Planning meeting was in progress. However, the author attended the Opening day session and gave a short presentation on the fire evalua— tion study and its implications for fire planning. Some of the author's observations during his brief attendance at the meeting might be of some value in judging how the developments from the July Fire Policy meeting were 141 being communicated. First, most of the National Fire Plan- ning meeting participants had not been involved in the July Fire Policy meeting. Second, there was widespread concern over the actual meaning of the policies developed at the July meeting; and third, there was disagreement over whether cost was really an issue. Hopefully during the remainder of this meeting, a better understanding of the July Fire Policy meeting and its accomplishments will be developed. Fire Research Throughout this report, discussion of Forest Service Fire Research activities has been avoided because it was the intention of the evaluation study to deal only with the acti- vities of Fire Management in the National Forest System. However, because of the implication of the report's findings to research activities and vice versa, it seems that it would be useful to discuss the current situation of Fire Research and to briefly mention some of the activities of Fire Research over the past year and how they relate to this report. Currently, there appears to be a feeling by some fire researchers in the Forest Service that the research back— ground which is necessary to carry out many of the recently prOposed changes for Fire Management, does not exist. Conse- quently, the research organization which generally finds it- self advocating change has found itself in a position of hav- ing to caution those who want to see change effected. 142 The fact exists, however, that change is imminent and a pressure is building on the research organization for it to provide information with which to support this change. Fire Research has taken steps to meet this demand. Two national meetings were held during this past year. The first meeting, attended by fire researchers and several Fire Management staff personnel, was a colloquium held in Septem- ber, 1976, in Washington, D. C. The primary focus of this meeting was on identifying economic problems in fire manage- ment. At this meeting, the author gave a presentation of some of the material on resource values contained in Chapter II of this report. Several other presentations were given and much of the discussion centered around the need to measure damages, the role of resource values in fire management, and how to better relate fire planning with resource and land management planning. Long and short-term lists were develop- ed by the participants to identify research needs and possible solutions to fire economic and planning problems. The second meeting, which dealt with the topic of "Fire Planning Research Status and Needs," was held in January, 1977, at Macon, Georgia. That meeting attempted to summarize the state of the art and identified research needs in six areas: 1) physical effects of fire; 2) biological effects of fire; 3) fire behavior consideration in planning; 4) assess- ment of effectiveness of fire management alternative plans; 143 5) economic considerations in fire planning; and 6) integra- tion of fire management planning with land management plan- ning (Chandler, March 28, 1977). These six areas essentially describe the areas of research that are being pursued by Fire Research at this time. The first three areas represent traditional areas of fire re- search. In the first area, that of fire's physical effects, an expanded effort is underway brought about primarily by a recognition that more information on fire effects is neces- sary if research efforts in other areas are to be successful. The last three areas identified are relatively new areas for Fire Research. They have developed rapidly in the past year to meet what is seen as the needs of Fire Manage- ment. These areas are particularly relevant to the recommen- dations made by this evaluation report, and answers to many of the questions raised by the report will ultimately be re- solved or refined by research on these tOpics. VI I . SUMMARY Introduction The Office of Management and Budget requested that the Forest Service analyze the desirability of the individual practices, procedures, and strategies of Fire Management and to determine whether present management procedures are capa- ble of selecting apprOpriate fire fighting strategies and directing proper expenditure of fire fighting funds. This request is the subject of this evaluation study. During this study several positive aspects of the pre- sent Fire Management program were identified. These include fire training activities, the interagency fire coordinating group, and the national leadership role occupied by the Forest Service in fire-related matters. In addition, it be- came apparent that Fire Management was acting to solve pro- blems which it had identified. These corrective actions in- clude the development of the Fire Management Funds, esta- blishment of a Task Force to review fire planning and the scheduling of fire policy meetings. One of the stated goals of this evaluation study was to provide information which would lead to internal improve- ment of the Fire Management program. Therefore, positive aspects of that program have not been covered in any detail; 144 145 and, instead, problem areas have been identified and high- lighted. Following are the major findings of the study and their related indicators. A list of recommendations drawn from the study, and an explanation of the actions taken to date on these recommendations, completes the summary. Findings LAWS The Agency is reguired by law only to pro- tect resources. -- Relevant laws are very general. —- The laws seldom refer to fire. -— Determination of policy is left almost entirely up to the Forest Service. -- An economic rationale was intended to be included in establishing fire protection levels. -- The laws will permit policy changes. POLICIES The expression of Fire Management policy has not kept pace with rapidly evolving Fire Management philosophy. -- The most visible program change in the 19705 is an expansion of the fire control effort. -- Fire "effects" are presented only as dam- ages. 146 -- Present policy does not express the bene- ficial aspects of fire. —- The desire for change in the Fire Manage- ment organization is visible at all levels. RESOURCE Values are neither adequately assessed nor VALUES properly used in Fire Management today. -- Systems presently used to assess values equate values with damages.l/ -- Benefits from fire are not recognized. -— The validity of existing value data is questionable. -— Values do not play a significant role in establishing Fire Management activity levels. -- Values do not play a role in evaluating Fire Management activity. -- Fire Management values are neither repre- sentative of nor related back to other resource systems. PLANNING The Fire Management planning process is in— complete. -- The develOpment and analysis of alterna- tives are not required. -— Individual fire-related plans are not re- quired to be integrated with one another or with other Forest Service programs. 1 Values should include: total resource values, damages and benefits, and social values. I—""-"" MANAGERIAL CONTROL 147 The goals and objectives of fire planning do not address resource and management needs. The lO-acre goal is a fire planning goal; it does not relate to resource management needs or priorities. Planning is geared to total protection rather than to resource values and accep- table losses. Identification of the fire management needs of the various resources' programs has been left to Fire Management. The current fiscal and statistical information systems are not adequate for evaluation and management. Data specific to evaluation needs (e.g., a breakdown of suppression expenditures) are not being gathered. Data needed for evaluation and management are not available in a timely and appro- priate manner. The current system does not provide for re- cording beneficial effects of fire. There currently is no integrated system which displays fire management cost rela- tive to resource planning, the RPA program, land management planning, and the program budget. EVALUAT I ON 148 Current evaluations concentrate on efficien- cy (i.e., doing it cheaper, faster, and with less effort) which has limited application to prggram improvement. There is a general lack of effectiveness evaluations (i.e., the extent to which we are meeting goals and opjectives). -- Within Fire Management, there is a weak link between evaluations, resource values, planning, policy, and managerial control. -- Evaluations do not establish a relation— ship between Fire Management activity and resource management outputs. -- At the present time, Fire Management re- turns are not visible. Recommendations I. Develop new Fire Management policies which provide for a broader, more positive approach to fire, consider economics, and encourage line participation in the decisionmaking process. II. Establish procedures for determining reliable estimates of forest values that will be used as input for esta- blishing the level of Fire Management activity and as- sessing accomplishment. III. Improve the Fire Management planning process by incor- porating: appropriate values, resource management 149 objectives, an analysis of the viable alterna- tives, and integration with other plans. IV. Address the accounting and budgeting systems of Fire Management to: A. complete and implement an accounting system for fire suppression; B. explore possibilities of budgeting the normal suppression load; and C. adjust the statistical reporting system to provide timely, relevant data. V. Develop and implement a comprehensive evaluation system which: A. includes effectiveness as well as efficiency evaluations; and B. contains a feedback mechanism to the Fire Management subsystems and other Forest Ser- vice programs. Action on Recommendations The first recommendation of the present evaluation study -- that new Fire Management policies be developed -- has largely been accomplished by the July, 1977, Fire Policy meeting. The new policy selected at that meeting re- mains to be implemented, a task which will require several years before it is fully achieved. The real impact and effectiveness of this new policy will not be known for some time. 150 The second recommendation of this evaluation -- that procedures be established for determining reliable estimates of forest values -- has received some attention from Fire Research and publications on this topic will probably be forthcoming. Several other sources of information are currently available as discussed in Chapter II. The task remains, however, for Fire Management to evaluate whatever processes are available and to select and formalize the pro- cedure it chooses to implement. The third recommendation -- that the Fire Management planning process reflect appropriate values, resource man- agement objectives and an analysis of viable alternatives and that it be integrated with other plans -- has been desig- nated as an objective to be accomplished by the National Fire Planning meeting being held August 15-19, 1977, in Den- ver. The fourth recommendation of this evaluation study is composed of three parts and identifies problems associated with the accounting and budgeting system, none of which are being actively addressed at this time. Part A recommends that an accounting system for fire suppression be completed and implemented. This task could be incorporated into the Fire Management Fund. Part B recommends that possibilities of budgeting the normal suppression load be explored. The same advantages which have been attained by the Fire Management Fund in budgeting presuppression funds (i.e., increased effectiveness 151 through greater planning and more careful consideration of expenditures) could be realized for most suppression activities as well. Part C recommends that the statistical reporting system be adjusted to provide timely, relevant data. The problem of timeliness could be solved relatively easily with an adjustment in the mechanics of the fire data re- porting system. The question of selecting relevant data, however, should be carefully considered in light of the data needed to support current and proposed changes in Fire Management. The final recommendation of this evaluation study -- that a comprehensive evaluation system be developed and implemented -- is currently receiving some attention through research efforts and possibly through the National Fire Planning meeting being held on August 15-19, 1977, in Den— ver. If Fire Management is to know whether its new policies and developing planning system are successful, it must have a well developed self-evaluation system. Also it will be this evaluation system which provides information to com- plete the link between Fire Management and the various re- source and management systems. Fire Management is presently in the midst of a severe fire season, a time when it is easy to say that the only good fire is a suppressed fire. But in Spite of the 152 immediate situation, a need for change has been recognized and the institution of this change has begun. APPENDIX A COMPARISON OF LAND VALUE ESTIMATES TO POTENTIAL DAMAGE CLASS VALUES Three independent sources which make estimates of the value of Federal and Forest Service land are cited. The Bureau of Census reports that there are 762 million acres of Federally-owned land, valued at $98.5 billion (U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, 1974). This approximates a value of $129 per acre and includes the value of the land, resources, and improvements. An article in Fortune magazine lists the estimated market value of all Federal land as $94 billion (Loomis, 1973), a value comparable to that of the Bureau of Census. A recent article in Science Magazine (Clawson, 1976) reports that the National Forest System's assets have an average market value of $225 per acre. On the other hand, using the system for estimating potential fire damage provided in the National Fire Planning instructions (USDA, Forest Service, 1972 ) the value of Forest lands (which compose only 25 percent of all Federal land) is computed at $246.7 billion or $1,361 per acre. It is difficult to accept that a value based on poten— tial damage estimates for resources on Forest Service land could be so much greater than these other estimates. It is, 153 154 therefore, concluded that the dollar values assigned to the potential damage classes by the National Fire Planning (NFP) instructions are excessive and inaccurate. The discrepancy between actual and potential damage values can be further accentuated by comparing the average value of cropland with the average potential damage value for National Forest land. Cropland values published by the USDA Economic Research Service range from $72 to $2,852 per acre, with a nationwide average of $403 (Paulson, 1976). Keep in mind that the discrepancy between this figure and the $1,361 per acre figure assigned to Forest Service land by the NFP instructions would be even greater if the damage class value included land and other non-fire damageable values. Large discrepancies again appear when individual po— tential damage class estimates are compared to specific land values and estimates of resource damages. For timber the potential damage, according to the NFP instructions, ranges from $1,000 to $1,500 per acre depending on whether second growth or old growth is involved. No other factors are considered in determining this value. Kimberly-Clark Corporation valued 388,000 acres of its second growth hardwood timberland (including timber value) in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula at $100 per acre (Wall Street Journal, 1976). The Cleve— land Cliffs Iron Company owns land in the same general area with a similar value, $100 to $135 per acre for the timber 155 resource alone (Mueller, 1976). In the Southwest, the Coco- nino National Forest in Arizona estimated that a 3,200 acre fire in 1971 caused timber resource damages of $19 per acre (Washipgton Star, 1971). The Grama Fire occurred on Nation- al Forest land in Arizona in 1974 and caused $205 per acre of timber damage (Holley, 1974). The NFP values of potential damage to rangeland and watershed value classes also show wide discrepancies to those values obtained through other methods. In New Mexico, in 1974, the actual calculated damage to grassland from two fires which burned 30,500 acres of State land, averaged $4 to $5 per acre (USDA, Forest Service, 1974d) compared to the NFP potential damage class estimate of $250 per acre. Watershed damage to the Coconino National Forest land in Arizona from a 1971 fire was assessed at $81 per acre (Washington Star, 1971) while the NFP potential damage values range from $1,500 to $2,400 per acre, depending on the type of watershed use. State and private land also show significantly lower actual damage estimates. For four Southern States (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas) the estimated ave- rage fire damage (1970 dollars) which has occurred during recent years on non-Federal land is $90 per acre (USDA, Forest Service, 1976a). The comparable average potential damage value class estimate for the Southeastern Region is $1,413, a figure which is 16 times larger. 156 A smaller, but similar discrepancy exists for resource damages in New Mexico. The spring of 1974 was a particularly bad fire season; several fires on State and private land burned 41,888 acres of range and timberland. Damages were assessed at an average of $344 per acre; and, for individual fires, they ranged from $4 per acre for rangeland to $1,867 per acre for severe damage to prime timberland accompanied by severe watershed damage (USDA, Forest Service, 1974d). Comparing these figures with a potential damage class estimate of $1,269 shows that the NFP potential damage estimate was still four times higher than the average actual damages during this severe fire season. One resource value class (fisheries) showed no signi- ficant discrepancy between potential values identified using the NFP instructions and estimates of actual damages. The total value of South Atlantic and Gulf Coast marshlands and estuaries as fishery nurseries for commercial fish, sport fish, and shellfish catches is calculated at $2,000 per acre (Mattill, 1976). This figure is identical to the Fire Man- agement potential damage estimate for all areas classed as fisheries. However, few Forest Service fisheries are of this type. Besides the fact that the values assigned by the NFP potential damage class system appear to be excessive, another problem exists in that the system does not allow for signifi- cant differences in individual resource values between or within Regions. The timber resource value class is a good example of this. Potential damage values range from $1,000 157 to $1,500 per acre, depending on whether the timber is old growth or second growth, but not depending on where the re- source is located or what kind of timber it is. In summary, potential damage should bear a direct re- lationship to measured actual damage and in most cases should be less than the total land value. This relationship is not apparent in the NFP potential damage class system. APPENDIX B MEASURABLE RESOURCE VALUE GROUPINGS The following is a sample grouping of resource values. Each grouping includes a brief discussion of appraisable items and how to measure them. Wood Products. This group includes all saleable wood items such as timber, pulp, chips and firewood, each measured in its appropriate physical units. The value of mature pro- ducts is reasonably easy to assess. For immature products or productivity effects, the task of appraisal is more diffi- cult but several methods exist, including those described in section 5330 of the Forest Service Manual (USDA, Forest Ser- vice, 1977a). Range Products. This group includes two types of items. One is forage, measured in AUMs; the other is livestock, measured in kind and number. Both types of range products usually have well established local market values. It is rare that livestock are directly affected by fire. Generally the effect of fire on forage is of short duration (one sea- son) and, in the long run, an increase in value often results. Wildlife and Fish. This group can be divided in a manner similar to the range products group, according to habi- tat and to species. The large number of species and their 158 159 various habitat requirements make this grouping complex. In assessing wildlife values, critical effects must be iden- tified, i.e., critical habitat or a significant change in population size or structure. To establish the actual value, identify the impact on species number and then assess the value that man places on that species. Recreation. "The product of the recreation resource is human satisfaction from recreation activities." (Crosby, 1977, p. 14) While satisfaction cannot be directly quanti- fied, the number of people participating in a recreational activity and some expression of what it cost them to parti- cipate are generally accepted as a measure of a recreational resource's worth. The basic units of measurement are visi- tor days, fisherman days and hunter days. Several sources are available for assigning value to these units. These include documents by the Value at Risk Task Force (USDA, For- est Service, 1971a), the Water Resources Council (1973), and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (US Department of the Inter- ior, 1976). Improvements and Equipment. Generally, a present mar- ket value for improvements and equipment can be established with little effort. The idea of intended use applies here as well as with other groups. An item which is no longer needed and cannot be sold might be valued as to the cost of its disposal. In this case, a benefit is derived if it is destroyed. Social Impacts. Several of the other value groupings include items which might be considered social impacts such 160 as employment and loss of business income. Their actual value is not too difficult to assess provided their indirect relationship with the affectable forest values can be esta- blished. However, if an alternate source of employment or income is available, then the relationship is not a signi- ficant one and the only impact involved is the cost to change from one alternative to another. Environmental Effect. This grouping includes such items as watershed degradation (including effects on water quality), esthetics and forest insects and diseases. Some of these impacts may be intangible and should be noted as such. Extreme care should be taken in identifying the fire- related environmental impact, remembering that fire is a natural agent in a forest environment. Health and Safety. This group includes such items as air and water quality, hazards to life, and accidents. These items usually result in an indirect impact on some activity. The difficulty again is in identifying what is affected. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. APPENDIX C TYPES OF FIRE PLANS Aviation Management Plan Burning Plan Central Dispatching Plan Contingency Fire Plan -- Mountain Pine Beetle Coordinated Fire Situation Plan Deletion Plan Fire Training Plan Forest Fire Plan Fuel Management Plan Hazard Reduction Plan Integrated Fire Control Organization and Finance Plan Law Enforcement Plan Manning and Specific Action Guide Mobilization Plan Operating Plan -- Forest Service and State Organization Plan for Project Fires Physical Fitness Plan Pre-attack Plan Preparedness Plan Protection and Manning Plan 161 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 162 Red Flag Alert Plan Regional Fire Plan Smoke Management Plan Special Protection Plans Supplemental Protection Plan Timber Sale Fire Plan Wilderness Fire Management Plan 10 a.m. Exception Plan APPENDIX D INDIVIDUAL FIRE REPORT HANDBOOK (FORM 5100-29) USDA - FOREST SERVICE '1" WWI: WW0" '1" “5- INDIVIDUAL FIRE REPORT fiQfifig—flflmw cuss s [-34 cuss c to o t-« /3]j I. Stete [2.3] 2. County 3- Forest 0 (id) 4. District [s- 1) 5. Supervisor (0.10) 2590/; ~15 ‘ 4.1%, 7 a [B {pref/ems 0.? 01! 6. Fl started on (II) 7. Month [it] Der [ii-i4) Veer (is: 0. Vetersiied No. [is-u) 9. Sire Ciess (“I «Margit-UL 0144/1 Z .1 f ((21249! E 4‘ 10. StetisticeiCeuse '23) ii. Getfirei Ceuse (26] 12. Specific Ceuse (at-2|) 13. aces of pcofie (I!) W}? 5 T/mber l/drirur‘ ! RAM haw/41 46 Pcrflifigg ‘ 3 " .nn: noun human 11m: 27. Slope " not No. Dey Hours {Min g! 2 g is. Origin (so-m ; 23. Aspect ' (so) 7- / 13410 : Mar/l 9 IS. Discovered (33.33] 134.5 29. Elevetion (st) _ (item 15 minus 14) 7- I [345’ __ g /340 1 I6. First ettecit L36- 373 :39” 30. Cover type - vicinity oi origin (62.03] (Item I6 minus IS) 7' I [31“ __ : __I #4 8.! 17. First Reinforcement (‘0) :“41 31. Fuei type - vicinity oi origin (04.60] (item I7 minus l6) 7", If“! t if? "-123- il. Fire Controlled 3:43! ; 32. Cost Clo s (761 lien: 18 minus 16 7'5 [’00 _ ; [is 529 I9. Fire Out T 33. Locetion I‘— 7.2 2 I 750 I Locetion description 10 Disc voted by (CiessH Locetion ' ’ *f— [as‘ 5““: inches 3 “u“. e Town. {rt-7" ' , , . ”any 6 ; . . lift: Jeri/c: PM: g 7 — . . t .15: 2|. First Attecir by (0006) ((Amount) (‘74.? I z : b. Rang! (is-m mnkgr -----:-- -:C O —-:- e- cd .-!F 22. First Reinforcements (Kind) IMmount) [“4014 i : : ' c. Section '79-'01 4.4114 2‘04): 9 mgr) 5 A ' . l! 23. simutn No. Personnel (31.541 5” 4%‘13/ d. “e". i g ‘ WW 1:!“ 1 ”4? i “"‘ * 2 24. Value Ciess st Origin ($5) : i : Alternete description (or ‘ I . lends not covered by ----1---J-_-J---- e* 23. Fire denger (so-Ir] I ' : ., Leti- £12.73] 1.7 1 : : M- 1922- 26. Ipeciei 'estiter lecture (30) i i 4' I. ngi- [16.00] If mp. 4 “g " ‘“"‘ *-L2{.g- * 34. Acres burned NATIONAL OTHER 36. Totei eree when controlled {es-10] FOREST LANDS mugs lNSiDE "-53! e. amen-mini forest (ii-m (nan 3710“ two Prevailing on turned eree man 5. Connerciei forest (21.-2.7).-- ‘ (20:53..-- 38. Topogrepity (vicinity oi origin) -377).-- (I) Neturei “.5 ..... (13.17) (30.42) 39. Highest Fire Denger (70-20! m Plentstion _____ - Z] c. Noniorest (U-“i ("43) 40.Criticei reenter Feeture (I0) r! 4 7 as V I at inbe (sets-9T" i ;---- I 7 6 — . o ume t s so (IBM) r destroyed 1004 i Resorts (Continue on reverse it rectum!) “knitted (moisture) Dete Approved (Signeture) Dete Ml 34M 7V. 6‘. (229/ .. - A i (Acting) District longer /"7' 5’ {Acting} forest Silver-visor [a ’4 4 3100-29 "0:69) 163 164 OTHER LANDS (2) Veioe o! Resources besieged or Destroyed N". LAND: (i) iNSlDE F3 PROTECTION (Code in'hundreds of doll-rs) boilers Code Dollsrs Code st. Timber ' (it-m [was] 02. Other (non-timber) ’ e. Ieterstted (ti-1!) (u- as) .J 4m “-19 ---- b. Recreetioe [Jo-ts] (is-3s) c. Renge s Iiidiiie .‘--- ---- d. Improvements t 500 e. Other non-timber '- Tote! non-timber (e to e incl.) (39.01) ‘40...) H.500 “-16 ..... 43. GRAND TOTALUtetns GI end 420 44. Acres burned by Vsiue Cisss Velue Acres Acres Close [4t] '30-“; (ts-so) (”I (st-es) (es—.76).-- (7|) (72.73; not"; ore est-st! Intrcu. . tit -' "(I‘ “die 7 v APPENDIX E EXAMPLE OF FIRE ACTIVITY INDEX CALCULATIONS RAW DATA # OF ACRES # FIRES YEAR FIRES BURNED E AND 1985 10 1000 5 R-11 1986 5 2000 1 15 3000 6 1985 4 500 2 R-12 1986 8 1500 6 12 2000 8 1985 14 1500 3 NFS 1986 13 3500 11 27 5000 14 COEFFICIENT C1 C2 200 500 167 250 185 375 (WD) WEIGHTED DATA 2000 + 1000 + 2500 = 5500 1000 + 2000 + 500 = 3500 667 + 500 + 500 = 1667 1333 + 1500 + 2000 = 4833 2593 + 1500 + 1071 = 5164 2407 + 3500 + 3929 = 9836 INDEX NUMBERS R-ll R-12 NFS 1985 55 36 1986 35 41 165 coefficientl = total ac burned total # fires c = 3000 = 200 1 15 coefficient = total ac burned total #E & > fires c = 3000 = 500 2 6 c and c are calculated 1 2 for each unit or Region WD = raw data x coeffi- cient 2000 = 10 x 200 or 2500 = 5 x 500 The weighted sums were divided by 100 to obtain the index numbers. When using actual data, weigh- ted sums are divided by 10,000 to derive the In— dex. The NFS Index num— ber is further divided by the number of Regions to obtain the National Index. APPENDIX F STATISTICAL DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL YEARS This appendix contains a detailed breakdown of fiscal and physical data relating to Forest Service fire management for the years 1965 to the present. Most of this data was gathered during the initial stages of the evaluation and also appears in the Phase I report (Hodgin, 1976). Figure 12, page 170, and Table 17, page 167, of this appendix appeared in the text as Figure 2, page 21, and Table 9, page 81 respectively. They have been reproduced here to provide easier reference and comparison to associated data. 166 .Nuou and .a# one anaH sou. ea Anna sou veg-«H sesohuueu on» .euoueuecu mouse» segue sou eons... seduces-esuou on» no on .uees osoaeeun ecu noun oesosuseu .~.n.u eosHuou one 3. e5. .eeuuasuuue a: r 3.3 on noose: secoe on» no ecu-dunes e..- 2: r- oom seas: sense: e3eeeusosno.u.-.u one soaeeeunnseessr£££ \fl .eeouueuueounee HenceIeHnnse muoH uh uo use use-hen sou sees veauueu on one one chad sue: you oesosuueu \m .uesole sesosuseu «had one nus-upon sec. 1ce Heuou one». need ecu o. assess oesoauseu oeueHH on» one .nseu sou eeusuuooeens ess- ecu so. ..e.u .oeoaueasnoonne House-ounces shun no use no. owed sues Necu noose. ecu ea lean woos—us“ esea semen. use .ossooaeeua .oeusuaooeene ueoou H44 167 .QOHoee ones es. s« eoos- cocoa-nosnee Heuneneuoose use so». guesses so. oeso oeuuunu use as» .1oaseo sen-«H on» on needs sues sensuuooeone sooth \fl . . unsaved Heueeeeuoose eo oeoen essences \N n .22..- .. :33 e. 3.32: .8 \m - e328 .6 .338...” \m r e r 3 2:. 4. 2on .3: u 8:: u 93. s :8. u 3:. “ o2? m .33 w 313%. Soul... - a u u n a a n a u n a a . a r . r . .or u 2 u on . 2: u :2 . o: s as n S. n 8. u on. s 3. n .or . maul-83o . i.e.- . . u . . u . u . . u a . . r . i . e22 . :8» . 3:» .. 2.3 H 23" . 2e: 3 an: s .33 . 3n: . n23 . .32 . 32: .8838..- o d...- n a u a u n u n a a a a n e .. . .. . o3: . an: . ~22 . e23 . 2.2 u 923 n 88 . 23 . :3 . do: . :3 . can . ease-utter. r i.e.- . a a u u a a u a a a u a r . r . .233 . o3: . 3e: . .3: . o8: . 88“ n =2." . 33" . 33m . «no: . n33 . e83. sauce-tall r I: a a a a a a a a a a a n a o a . . a . . . . e e a . . . a on nuheanun . u u u a u n a a a n a a a “2:32 2:4. .. :22 a :22 u an: s an: 4. 28s . 32:». “we: i. 32. s «323 .38. go 3 . n 2: . S a . .2 n 3 .82 . n . . n23 . . 3. . canoe-233s r «33 .o- 1o- . .o- s 3 .2 u 3. . n: . 2~ . «2 . e2 8. .8 3. u .o- 3688:: .. d...- hdzn (”ASN.3 5.235. 33.5. 2.333 83: s .83.. 833 s 88: . i . .83 . . . . h 8.6 8.6 r .3... one: . .32 . e33 . n83 . :2. s 2.3 . n8: . 81.. . 8.: . an: . .22 . «:3 . 88a . ~82. ear-:33 r d...- o a a u a a u u a a u a a a 88. . e53 . 23- n .33 H .33 . :3“ H 3:" " ~33 . on": . 2: . «one . =3 . 33 . 33 " see-Suki:- r iii a a a u a . . a a a .23 . .32 n «33 u 2.: . Sean 1 22a . 33a . 38* . «on: . 33a . ~38 93.3 . .83 . e83. see-useless r 3.. . . e . . . . e . . . an: e t . . . 33 . Sc . .83 . Sac . SS. . 2:: . 82. . =2. . 3364 an: . a. . ass—allegory“ Hz: .a 2: a: z: 2: a: d: S: 3: :ji .lepp ZOHBdSmOhZH mmDBHozmmxm .hH 39.3.. 168 OHUO .manuH Nan oan nNmH ean man Nan HNmH oan mbmH momH Amhm Q24 Swmv mHMDBHOmexm 44908 .OH mmDUHh NcmH moaH nomH lude carryover. Does not esee inc 0000000 w OOuOHMOQ 8, H6394 on to: lnfi IHS IHK 1.ow Ina IHEH THHH IANH [HRH IHSH .IonH I see I o: I 2: omH Sm nanny mmmoeHo2mmxm onmmmmmmommmm .HH mmoon euuc .maouh uhmH ehmH mhmH chmH mumH Nan HRH ean momH womH hmmH oomH nomH 169 FI— :zmxw ll TON IwN Ion w cmumHmoQ INm m H95 3. E I «m tom names stun 170 e ““0 .meHH .1 x: New Ahmmv mmMDBHQmexm ZOHmmmmmmDmmmm .NH HMDUHh w touoamon m Hoauo< HH NH MN mN mm Hg we mm an no Hm w as Amway mmmDBanmmxm ZOHmmmmmmDm .MH NmDUHh .Huo vocSOHm 171 .maoua NNmH oan mNmH ehmH nhmH thH Han chmH momH momH NomH oomH momH o .......4WH.«IqH ..u.... ....... . . . .. . . H . u “u .. n .. I..”.. Hummuuuun.n.. eeeeeeeneeseeees eeeeee o eeeeeeesseceeeeseeeeeee eeeee eereeeeeeneeeeeee eeeeeeeeseeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeee‘ eeeeeee eeeeoee ”HHHHHH e C eeeeeeeeveeeeeeu eeeeeee oeeeeeosveeeeeee eeeee ee eeeeeoesvseeeess eeeee ee . ....... 7.6.6... ....... ,I . _ .n..nnu ....... lsoNN u.- .WWHE ........ r“..nuu .o..... Ilom tom IN.» two m souoemon , w H953. E too It Fl 1.. I 18 INN $1M 172 .Hmnuomou U can .m .m mommneo tongue somermema mo monooom . Huey Hn«v Hva a«0v Ho«v Aan Home HootnoaHvusH«~IO~o~gunman o o N 2 n A S . I :83 O 3 3 3 a 3 AN an "2.3583 .. o« on Na N« on H« s« as e o« e mm e no a OHH e on e .oomtocnv u nu ma no Nn on Na OOH up on «a Na nu my AraNtooHv a «on mo« Nso Hn« H~« one new Han Hoe Nan cno «Ho «H« HomtoHv u anon 83 min Sou :5 Son 23 «ZN can" .33 33 394. 32 3-3.. - Nana «n: ~.«no an: 3on same 033 33 Home 23 «Hon 8: 2.3 Hose“ .0 «NC < «Neouucv aaoHu seam 0.: «.3 «.3 0.3 «6 O.«.— N.«n «.2 To «.3 TS SON To our. use 2.53 e33. 32: ~33 manna 323 «3: «33 03.: o~«3 «33 :3 H2: SN: no: «33. oo«o ONon anon a«oo o«~n mono NNHN ««o« mean nNo« ~no« Nana NNH« vacancies: on: . no: 33 :3 33 «En «o2 no: «a: no? 33 on: 3N.” 338555.33 . _ "mouse «0 senssz o«n nan nNn No« man can «N no nuu nn on on An cocoon euucxsaseia OOHNNN 32: :33 «Sc: 33: $3: 233 3:3 «Sue 233 333 Zownn ca: 333 aouuc «2.: ~33 “32: ans: 033 «SN... 22.: can: Nun: 32: ~23 032 :2 $5 acne-.3 37°C 23 «3H 23 «NS :3 23 Scan: 33 no: 33 33 33 eueuea< uueuo>< onadzmomzH mmHm HflUHBmHadem HdZOHedz .mH mqmda \m_0~00 0000 J . rainy .hhmH Tam humscmn mo mm mmusmflm m>flumuama \fl QmQZOmmmm WUH>mmm Bmmdpm mUHmB OB mmmHh 2:” MMDUHm J J 1 d J i 1 A! J1 1 [1 mmuwm Hauoa mouam "financing a I..- I mmufim wcwauswfin II III. 5 «8H man Nnma Hum." 03H ooma mom." $3” coma noma $3” mama mom.” HemH com." 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 sfitIa no uaannn oooJa 000.00 oooSa 174 .00000 .mmummocmqv 0000 :00umum 0000002 0000 mcwms .onmoH .mmwom um ucmEmmmcmE wnwm m>0umummoou an vmmoam>m© was mecH \fl mmc.0 Nwm. ans. mum.p mmm. me.p «mm. 00m. com: 000.0 000. 000. 000.0 000. . 00.0 000. 000. 0000 A$0.0 000. 000. 000.0 000. 00.0 000. 000. 0000 000.0 000. 000. 000.0 000. 00.0 000. 000. 0000 00.0 000.0 000. 000. 000.0 000.0 00.0 000. 000.0 0000 .000 000. 000. 000. 00.0 000. 00. 000. 000.0 0000 0000 r000.0 000. 000. 000.0 000.0 00.0 000.0 000.0 0000 wmoo.0 000. 000. 000. 000.0 00. 000.0 00.0 0000 000. 000.0 000. 000. 000. 00. 000. 000. 0000 .mm« 000.0 000.0 000.0 000. 000. 00. 000. 000.0 0000 000.0 000.0 000.0 000. 000.0 00.0 000.0 000. 0000 000. 000.0 0.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 0000 dmam 0:0 0-0 0-0 0.0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 000000 \0x0020 000mm>mm 000m .00 m0m Region 6 .60d 4 C) X 50‘ 0 x X X X : xx X .404 <> 0 0 .30 0 I fi <9 0 <9 .20i Q I in 0 <9. . <2. I I 96 o .10. . x O O <> 0 . . 0T . . . . . r 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 FIGURE 17. PRESUPPRESSION EXPENDITURE COMPARED TO FIRE SEVERITY FOR SELECTED REGIONS 1977. 187 TABLE 21. REGIONAL FIRE DATA, 1965-1975 107. ACRES 707. N0. ACRES ExP£~01709Es NO. REVISED f C FIRES BURNED FIRES CL. PRo- PRE- CL. SEV. REG Y Y INSIDE INSIDE FOUGHI E IECTED SUPP. SUPP. 6 INDEX 1000 N0. ACRES N0. N0. ACRES ----81000---- N0. INDEX 01 6665 0707 000066 0709 00 29178 3013 702 0.506 01 6766 1502 035779 1560 10 28903 0123 3222 0.972 01 6867 1833 082086 1851 22 28896 7053 16330. 1.350' 01 6968 0800 008760 0819 06 28937 0038 1592 0.610 OI 7069 0861 003102 0875 02 28752 0689 1806 1.500 01 7170 1797 018050 1818 10 28756 0212 0715 00 1.092 01 7271 1022 007507 1039 03 27650 0333 1729 00 01 7372 1260_002030 1279 03 28618 0035 1908 00 1.201 01 7073 1783 031303 1806 22 28066 5666 7816 02 1.235 01 7570. 1405 007250 1037 00 27181 3966 2610 00 0.207 01 7675 0570 000483 0577 00 26695 0808 1196 00 0.053 02 6665 0322 020001 0302 02 20166 1171 382 0.630 02 6766 0720 007633 0766 11 23573 1171 758 1.253 02 6867 0381 003075 0392 02 20123 1120 392 0.739 02 6968 0005 003311 0051 03 20126 1216 306 0.800 02 7069 0008 005920 0058 06 20708 1083 876 1.290 02 7170 0512 007863 0528 03 25708 1108 1109 00 1.270 02 7271 0669 004511 0682 02 20690 1013 703 00 02 7372 0553 000022 0560 00 20070 1260 299 01 0.835 02 7073 0525 005118 0538 01 23039 1325 788 00 0.516 02 7570 0957 011353 0980 10 23366 1178 820 00 0.698 02 7675 0560 013350 0577 05 25091 r067 920 00 0.777 03 6665 1730 013822 1952 08 22010 2105 1321 03 6766 1797 031510 1803 15 24778 2259 1700 1.210 03 6867 1532 039556 1537 23 25778 2230 2291 0.910 03 6968 1600 003237 1611 13 25778 2913 2163 0.910 03 7069 1696 026008 1713 10 24070 3201 2029 . 0.770 03 7170 2680 029520 2698 17 23098 5555 6076 01 1.290 03 7271 2867 056260 2913 19 22987 7031 5198 00 03 7372 3152 037125 3180 05 20070 0650 1510 01 0.650 03 7073 2002 020097 2025 05 22707 8632 6172 02 2.170 03 7570 3077 105019 3123 28 23007 6702 3166 05 0.050 .03 7675 2013 025279 2025 10 21026 10700 0709 01 3.000 00 6665 0523 001979 0329 01 32818 657 582 0.828 00 6766 1291 061370 1300 25 32568 .1089 3725 1.677 00 6867 0880 001603 0889 01 32661 3020 1023 0.830 00 6968 0852 000378 0863 06 32670 2809 1051 0.830 00 7069 0680 001969 0691 01 32680 2922 789 1.099 00 7170 1009 000038 1019 03 32858 _3070{ .1520 00 1.129 00 7271 0900 011565 0950 08 32925 3663 1311 01 00 7372 1550 010051 1566 08 33035 3676 2705 00 0.593 00 7073 1139 008858 1157 11 32811 . 3875 2672 01 1.065 00 7570 1085 017100 1095 10 32207 3630 2501 00 0.869 00 7675 0883 001522 0906 01 32636 3885 1090 00 0.986 188 TABLE 21 (CONTINUED). REG 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 701. F CFIRES 6665 6766 6867 6968 7069 7170 7271 7372 7073 7570 7675 6665 6766 6867 6968 7069 7170 7271’ 7372 7073 7570 7675 6665 6766 6867 6968 7069 7170 7271 7372 7073 7570 7675 6665 6766 6867 6968 7069 7170 7271 7372 7073 7570 7675 NO. 2027 1882 2218 1915 2169 2208 1810 2887 2715 2565 2015 1872 1015 2296 1670 1500 3329 1713 2017 2069 2030 1900 1260 1911 1680 1005 1699 2217 2028 1355 0920 1022 1370 0715 0895 0700 0750 0697 0808 0918 0729 0573 0685 0890 ACQES BURNED Y YINSIDE INSIDE ACRES 009278 162002 019003 089625 019605 266057 033181 030599 067550 003590 109290 003209 013286 020203 039000 011091 160911 007512 002902 026329 000128 003005 019811 016238 025561 015505 010786 027863 028051 009906 006203 010723 018288 006303 005059 005973 006571 006890 000672 022793 006615 003089 005003 006086 701. N0. FIRES CL. FOUGH7 E N0. N0. 2082 10 1938 29 2293 I7 2032 28 2250 10 2386 07 1899 I9 2970 20 2859 21 2656 20 2101 21 1902 03 1058 06 2338 17 1708 13 1572 00 3380 09 1738 00 2062 02 2099 02 2001 03 1922 03 1279 07 1000 09 1738 10 1000 00 1752 02 2266 12 2055 10 1375 02 0927 00 1053 03 1389 03 0736 05 0911 01 0713 01 0711 02 0705 02 0858 00 0933 00 0730 00 0579 00 0696 01 0901 02 ACRES 900- 700100 1000 ACRES 20103 20103 20103 20118 20118 20118 23888 23888 23058 20022 20022 25392 25392 25387 25387 20960 20960 20960 20872 20561 25200 25660 12873 12873 12092 11955 12108 12105 12257 13052 12092 13052 10982 16510 16510 16210 16351 16075 16652 16730 16566 15758 10860 10969 EXPENDITURES PRE- .--0$1000---. 10892 11789 11007 10800 10306 11222 11103 11623 13251 16039 20501 0166 0393 5619 0550 0953 6090 6023 7786 9990 11826 10039 2707 2791 2701 2560 2801 3370 2920 2020 2776 2920 0677 1758 1909 1691 1068 1336 1571 1521 1306 1062 1539 5586 6628 5013 0869 5019 11186 6551 10289 11070 7660 13612 1709 2609 8717 3332 1980 22920 5013 0306 6315 0059 0685 521 590 018 260 099 911 255 169 805 ‘669 1295 168 225 100 122 109 057 180 77 568 006 359 N0. REVISED SEV. CL. G NO. 08 01 01 08 01 05 01 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 INDEX INDEx 0.776 0.865 0.860 0.737 0.963 2.160 1.590 1.785 1.506 1.301 1.100 ‘Ouu‘ 1.725 0.387 0.728 0.555 0.799 0.819 0.619 0.280 1.158 1.120 1.036 1.067 0.605 0.970 0.538 0.176 0.200 0.220 1800 189 TABLE 21 (CONTINUED). IDI. ACRES 707. NH. ACRES EXPENDIIURES N0. REVISED F C FIRES BURNED FIRES CL. 980- PRE- CL. SEV. REG Y Y INSIDE INSIDE FUUGHT E IECTED SUPP. SUPP. 6 INDEX 1000 N0. ACRES NO. NO. ACRES ----31000---- N0. INDEX 10 6065 0030 000001 0030 00 20850 113 10 10 6766 0021 000000 0021 00 20850 117 17 10 6867 0019 000106 0020 00 20850 102 2 10 6968 0036 000162 0036 00 20850 759 202 10 7069 0018 000271 0018 01 21290 215 16 10 7170 .0018 000000 0019 00 20070 138 11 00 10 7271 0026 000087 0026 00 20670 186 3 00 10 7372 0022 000013 0022 00 21013 133 5 00 10 7073 0033 000105 0030 00 20908 153 110 00 10 7570 0035 000107 0037 00 21251 157 23 00 10 7075 0020 000010 0020 00 21251 170 8 00 Source: Ellis, 1977. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, J. 0., Jr. Wilderness fire management: policy develop- 1975 ment and implementation. M. S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Boulder. Brown, Arthur A. and Kenneth P. Davis. Forest Fire: Control 1973 and Use. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. Carter, Jack (Fire Management Staff). Fire planning (as 1977 is). USDA, Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA. Chandler, Craig C. (Director, Fire Research). Memo to 1977 attendees of Project Leaders Conference. Sub- ject: National fire research. File Designa- tion: 1360. March 28, 1977. USDA, Forest Ser- vice, Washington, DC. Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. Dell Publishing 1968 Co., Inc., New York, NY. Clawson, Marion. The national forests. Science Magazine, 1976 Vol. 191, pp. 762-777. Crosby, John S. A guide to the appraisal of wildfire damages, 1977 benefits, and resource values protected. For- est Service Research Paper NC-l42. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest and Range Experi- ment Station, St. Paul, MN. Davis, James B. and Robert L. Irwin. Focus: a computerized 1976 approach to fire management planning. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 74, No. 9, pp. 615-618. Davis, Kenneth P. and Arthur A. Brown. Forest Fire: Control 1973 and Use. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Deeming, John E., James W. Lancaster, Michael A. Fosberg, 1974 R. William Furman and Mark J. Schroeder. Na- tional fire danger rating system. Forest Ser- vice Research Paper RM-84. USDA, Forest Ser- vice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Devet, David D. Wildfire used to achieve land management 1975 objectives. Fire Management, Vol. 36, No. 1. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 190 191 Ellis, Thomas H. Evaluating national fire planning methods 1977 and measuring effectiveness of presuppression expenditures. USDA, Forest Service, Forest Products Lab, Madison, WI. . Multiple regression estimates of the 1969 effectiveness of national forest fire control expenditures. USDA, Forest Service, Division of Programs and Special Projects, Washington, DC. Gale, Robert D. (Policy Analysis Staff). Calculation of 1976 fire damages. In memo to A. Gilbert. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Gibson, H. P., Lance F. Hodgin and John L. Rich. Evaluating 1976 national fire planning methods and measuring effectiveness of presuppression expenditures. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Greentree Associates. Integrating fire into land management 1977 planning. Report submitted to USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experi- ment Station, Ogden, UT. Harden, Charles. Fire policy meeting: Fire Management pre- 1977 work. USDA, Forest Service, Fire Management Staff, Washington, DC. Hatry, Harry P., Richard E. Winnie and Donald M. Fisk. Prac- 1973 tical Program Evaluation for State and Local Government Officials. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Headley, Roy. Fire suppression district 5. USDA, Forest 1916 Service. Hodgin, Lance F. National forest fire prevention and control 1976 expenditures (Phase 1). Updated February, 1977. USDA, Forest Service, Policy Analysis Staff, Washington, DC. Holley, H. Tom. Trespass report narrative: Grama fire. USDA, 1974 Forest Service, Apache-Sitgraves National Forest, Springerville, AZ. .Lancaster, Wally. Interim.work on fire severity index. USDA, 1977 Forest Service, Cooperative Fire Management, Boise, ID. Loomis, Carol J. An annual report for the federal govern- 1973 ment. Fortune Magazine, May, 1973. 192 Lynn, James T. (Director, OMB). Letter to Honorable Earl 1975 Butz, Secretary of Agriculture. April 15, 1975. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. Mann, James F. (National Fire Planning Officer for Fire 1977 Management Staff). Memo to participants. Sub- ject: National Fire Management Team. File De- signation: 1360. July 22, 1977. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Marty, Robert J. Fire damage appraisals: economic concepts 1965 underlying their development and use. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. . Study materials, NR 450, Natural Resource 1974 Administration. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Mattill, John. Pricing a swamp. Technical Review, July/ 1976 August, 1976, Vol. 78, No. 8. McGuire, John R. (Chief of the Forest Service). Memo to 1976 Regional Foresters. Subject: Proposal for fi- nancing the fire presuppression job. File De- signation: 6510. October 21, 1976. USDA, For- est Service, Washington, DC. Mishan, E. J. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Praeger Publishing 1976 Co., New York, NY. Mueller, James H. Testimony concerning Seney Wildlife Refuge 1976 fire before the US House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Conserva- tion and the Environment, September 15, 1976. New York Times. Kimberly-Clark may sell control of 388,000 1976 acres. July 9, 1976. New York, NY. Paulson, Morton C. Profits from plowshares, National Obser- 1976 ver, September 18, 1976. Peterson, R. Max (Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation). 1976 Memo to Regional Foresters R-8 and 9. Subject: Preparation of plans for analysis of fire plan- ning methods. File Designation: 6520. August 12, 1976. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 193 Silcox, F. A. (Chief of the Forest Service). Memo to Region- 1935 al Foresters. Subject: Fire suppression policy. File Designation: Fire. May 25, 1935. USDA,‘ Forest Service, Washington, DC. Simard, A. J. Wildland fire management: the economics of 1976 policy alternatives. Forestry Technical Report No. 15. Canadian Forestry Service, Forest Fire Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. Tikkala, Willard R. (Director, Cooperative Forest Fire 1976 Protection Staff). Letter to Rex Ressler, Asso- ciate Chief of the Forest Service. Subject: Fire fighting costs. File Designation: 6520. September 1, 1976. USDA, Forest Service, Wash— ington, DC. U. S. Congress. United States Code, Title 31 - Money and 1976 Finance, Section 686. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. . 93rd . The Forest and Rangeland Renewable 1974a Resources Planning Act of 1974. Public Law 93-378, 5.2296, August 17, 1974. . United States Code, Title 16 - Conservation, 1974b Sections 475 through 686. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. . United States Code, Title 7 - Agriculture, 1973 Section 2225. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. USDA, Forest Service. Forest Service Manual. Washington, 1977a DC. . Testimony concerning FY 1977 supple- l977b mental appropriation request before the US House of Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Washington, DC. . Meeting notes of the January Regional 1977c Foresters and Staff Directors meeting, January, 1977. . An approach to determining cost effec- l976a tiveness and economic value of expenditures for wildland fire control. Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, GA. . Management attainment report for FY 1976b 1976. Washington, DC. 194 a supplemental appendix. Washing- . RPA: 1976c ton, DC. . RPA: recommended renewable resource pro- l976d gram, 1977-2020. Washington, DC. . Annual fire report. Region 3, Albuquer- 1975a que, NM. . Potential policy issues in fire manage- 1975b ment. RPA Staff Paper. Washington, DC. . National forests fire report. Washing- l974a ton, DC. . Principal laws relating to Forest Ser- l974b vice activities. Agriculture Handbook No. 453. US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC. . Squaw Basin Fire. In ID team summary 1974c and reports. Washington, DC. 4t_ . Ten days in June. Southwestern Region, 1974d Albuquerque, NM. if . National fire planning —— instructions. 1972 (Draft) Washington, DC. A model for the determination of wild- US Govt Printing Office, 1971a land resource values. Washington, DC. Fire policy meeting: Denver, Colorado, Washington, DC. 1971b May 12-14, 1971. . Individual Fire Report Handbook, FSH 1971c 5109.14. Washington, DC. . National forests fire report, Washing- . 1965-76 TQ. Statement of obligations 1965-76 for each fiscal year. Washington, DC. . The National Forest Manual of Regula- 1928 tions and Instructions. Washington, DC. . The Use Book: Regulations and Instruc- 1908 tions for Use of the National Forests. US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC. The U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974 U. S. Fact Book. No. 95. Washington, DC. 195 U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- 1976 Wall Street Journal. 1976 tion. Evaluation of public willingness to pay user charges for use of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Washington, DC. Washington Star. Fire crew contains 3,200 acre blaze. Ap- 1971 ril 16, 1971. Washington, DC. Water Resources Council. Water Resources Planning Act (P. 1973 Williams, 1976 L. 89-80). Water Resources Council: water and related land resources -— establishment of principles and standards for planning. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 174, Part III, September 10, 1973. US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC. Don. Subsystem II resource values. Region 1, Missoula, MT. Kimberly-Clark may sell control of 388,000 acres. July 9, 1976. New York, NY. \ q ., 1