United States 

Department of Influences on Prescribed 

Agricu lt 

Forest Sewice 

Burning Activity and Costs in 

the National Forest System 

David A. Cleaves, Jorge Martinez, 

Southem 

Research Station and Terry K. Haioes 

General Technical 

Report SRS-37 
The Authors 

David A. Cleaves, fomerly a Research Forester (now Pro 

USDA Forest Service, Fire Systems Reseajrch, Wmhgton, DC); Surge 

Martinez, formerly a Computer Assistant; and Terry K. Haines, Research 

Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest 

Resowe Law and Economics Unit, New Orleans, LA 70 1 1 3. 

June 2000 

Southern Research Station 

P.O. Box 2680 

Asheviile, NC 28802 
Influences on Prescribed Burning 

Activity and Costs in the 

National Forest System 

David A. Cleaves, Jorge Martinez, and Terry K. Haines 
h&Blkductjloaa ................................................................. I 

Objectives ................................................................... 1 

Background .................................................s...e............el 

LegalEnviroment ............................................................ 1 

%eFedemlClerurAirAct ..................................................... 1 

Federal agencies-rights and responsibilities ...................................... 2 

Activity .................................................................... .3 

Costs ...................................................................... '3 

Me&& .................................................................... *.4 

Survey ...................................................................... 4 

Costs ....................................................................... 4 

Results ....................................................................... 5 

Responses .................................................................. 5 

Activity ..................................................................... 5 

DeskedActi .;i ty ............................................................. 12 

ResourceTargetMixes ........................................................ 12 

Historical Trends in Burning Activity ............................................. 13 

Expected Trends in Burning Activity ............................................. 15 

g ........................................................... 15 

Costs ..................................................................... Totsnl Cost aftfie PrescTibed Burning Program ...................................... 19 

GostFxtors ................................................................ 21 

Discussion ................................................................ #..21 

ActivityLevels .............................................................. 21 

Bders to Increased Burning ................................................... 23 

Costs .................................................................... 24 

DabLhi&tisns ..................................*....................... ...24 

Activitydata ............................................................. *24 

costdab ................................................................. 24 
Influences on Prescribed Burning 

Activity and Costs in the National 

Forest System 

David A. Cleaves, Jorge Martinez, and Terry K. Haines 

Abstract 

The results of a survey concerning National Forest System prescribed 

burning activity and costs from 1985 to 1995 are examined. Ninety-five of 

one hundred and fourteen national forests responded. Acreage burned and 

costs for conducting burns are reported for four types of prescribed fire: 

slash reduction; management-ignited fires; prescribed natural fres; and 

brush, grass and rangeland burns. Rankings of impo&mce are presented 

for 9 resource enhancement targets, 14 potential barriers to burning, and 

12 factors influencing burning costs. Survey responses concerning the 

presence and impact of Class I and nonattabent air quality areas are 

discussed. Anticipated burning levels over the next 10 years and burning 

levels needed to achieve desired management goals on National Forest 

System lands are also presented. 

Keywords: Ecosystem management, environmental laws, hazard 

reduction, management ignited fife, national forests, prescribed natil 

fire. 

Introduction 

Recent analyses of fire policy have called for increased 

prescribed burning to prevent future wildfue damage and to 

enhance fre-dependent ecosystems and commercial forests 

(Bell and others 1995;' Nutch 1994; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service 1994; U.S. Department of the 

Interiorm. S. Department of ~griculture 1995;2 Walstad and 

Siedel 1990). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service (Forest Service), has set a goal of burning 3 million 

acres per year by the year 2010 (Bell and others 1995). 

Achieving such a goal will require a solid baseline 

assessment of current activity, wise allocation of prescribedfxe resources, and an understanding of the barriers to 

hplementation of burning programs. Despite its ecological 

benefits, prescribed burning is being increasingly scrutinized 

and regulated as a source of air pollution (Sandberg and 

others 19781, traffic hazards (Mobley 1990), and escaped 

wildf~e (Cleaves and Haines 1997, Craig 1990, Hoover 

1989, Mobley 1985). 

An attempt to quantify burning activity on Forest Service 

lands, to estimate and interpret burning costs, and to identify 

barriers to increased burning is described in this report. The 

information obtained should be useful in identifyrng 

oppodties for reintroducing fue and choosing appropriate 

environmental, social, and economic tradeoffs. 

Objectives 

The objectives of this study are to (I) quantify and describe 

trends in the Forest Service acreage that is burned each year 

for silvicultural purposes; (2) identify and evaluate physical, 

managerial, legal, and other barriers to implementing 

prescribed bhg; and (3) compare per-acre costs of 

different types of prescribed g in diEerelnt geogra~phic 

and administrative regions. 

Background 

Legal Environment 

The Federal Clean Air Act -The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

amendments of 1970 (P.L. 91-604) and 1977 (P.L. 95-95) 

gave the Federal Govement responsibility for setting airquality standards. Three provisions of the act pertain to 

prescribed burning: establishing national ambient air-quality 

standards, ensuring that States implement plans to obtain 

standards, and developing programs to prevent significmt 

deterioration of air quality where pollutants exceed national 

standards. The CAA requires that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) administrator identifies and 

publishes a list of air pollutants and develops national 

ambient air-quality standards (NAAQS) for each. Primary 

standards are set to protect public health; secondary 

standards are set to protect public welfare, including 

property and aesthetic values. Currently, air-quality 

standards are in effect for six pollutants: carbon monoxide 

Bell, E.; Cleaves, D.; Croft, H. [and others]. 1995. Fire economics 

assessment report. 68 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (03), 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, Sidney R. particulate matter (PM), and sulfur oxides (SOz). 

Yates Building, 20 1 14th Street, S.W. at Independence Avenue., S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250. Particulate matter (PM) is the primary pollutant resulting 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Western forest fkom prescribed f~e. In July 1997, standards for particles 

health initiative. 67 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department - <2.5 microns (PM,,,) in dimeter were set. These standards 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Auditors Building, 201 14th Street, S.W. at 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250. 
evolved from stmdasds based on a total suspended particle 

(TSP) measuring ( 40 microns (FM,,) and, more recently, 

standards for particles ( 10 microns (PM,,). The CAA 

requires that standads be reassessed every 5 years and 

updated if necessary. Epidemiological studies linking 

respiratory illnesses with fine particulate matter led the 

American Lung Association to file suit requiring the EPA to 

conduct an assessment of the PM,, standard's adequacy. 

Since then, the EPA has established a monito~g network 

and will analyze air quality for 3 years. States may begin 

programs to control particulate matter pollution, including 

PM, ,, during the monitoring period. After the monitoring 

phase, the EPA will identify areas not in compliance with 

particulate levels specified by PM, , standards. States will 

then be required to develop progms to improve air quality 

in such areas, and those programs will be subject to EPA 

approval. The future impact of more s~gent sandards on 

prescribed burning activity is uncertain. 

Because smoke produced from prescribed burning includes 

high levels of fine particulates, new standards could 

apportion a greater share of monitored pollaatior, $9 

prescribed burning. For example, areas that formerly did not 

exceed the TSP or PM,, standard may exceed the PM,, 

standard. When an area exceeds air-quality standards, 

regardless of the source, the use of prescribed fure may be 

limited in order to meet those standards (Sandberg and 

others 1978). The trend in tightening Federal air-quality 

standards may limit forest managers' options. More urban 

areas may be classified as nonattaiment areas and, 

therefore, subject to greater restrictions. 

Wbereas the PM,, program has primarily affected the 

Western United States, PM, standards could affect a 

significant proportion of the East. In addition, greater 

emphasis an regional models and standards for particulate 

matter on a regional scale are being considered to control 

pollution that is transported by air currents from one airshed 

to another. 

State innplementation plans (SIP'S) must contain provisions 

for carrying out, maintaining, and enforcing air-quality 

standards, including emission limits, schedules, and 

thetables for compliance. States have been allowed to set 

their own standards if they are more s~gent than the 

Federal standards but are still required to monitor air quality 

and review new pollution sources. 

The EPA developed its Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to protect air quality in areas 

that already exceed Federal standards. The PSD describes 

three area classes: Class I, which severely restrictf activities 

that would reduce pristhe air quality; Class 11, which 

restricts activities to achieve air-quality levels associated 

with normal, controlled growth; and Class 111, which allows 

air quality to be main&ined at levels beyond national 

mbient air-quality standards. denhen& were passed in 

1977 to protect visibility in Glass I areas, which include 

national parks, designated wildemess areas, and wildlife 

refuges. In the rule-making process, the EPA identified 

prescribed burning as a source of visibility pollution. It 

acknowledged that prescribed f5re is necessary and should 

not be eliminated, although it did suggest that burning 

restrictions might be necessary in some areas. 

Federal agencieerights and responsibilities-Several 

Forest Service criteria regarding air quality must be met 

before conducting prescribed burning on Forest Service 

lands. Through a Forest Service national directive, smoke 

management must be addressed in bum plans, and risk 

assessments for prescribed natural fire must evaluate smokemanagement concerns. In addition, prescribed-fure 

managers and fire-planning specialists must possess smokemanagement skills when aerial ignition tech-niques are used. 

Smoke-management directives are generally issued at the 

regional and forest level. Criteria are developed in 

accordance with the CAA and State and local air-quality 

laws (Lahm 1990). 

Section 1 1 8 of the CAA requires each Federal agency 

engaged in activities that discharge air pollutants to comply 

with applicable State and local laws and regulations to the 

same extent as any nongovenunental entity. In many States, 

documentation and permitting requirements for individual 

burns on National Forest System lands have been replaced 

by provatic permits and memoranda of understanding. 

One significant impact has been in the scheduling of burns. 

State air-quality agencies allocate burning times for the 

national forests in. conjunction with other bums in the 

airshed. 

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, the 

Forest Service can be held liable to the same extent as an 

individual citizen, for ages resulting from negligent acts 

under State statutes or comon law. There are, however, 

several abinistrative procedures with which a private party 

must comply when making damage claims against Federal 

agencies. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when Federal forest 

aged by another party's fire, State forest fire 

laws provide protection from cases of fire trespass. As a 

result, State forest fure laws protect national forest lands as 

well as other ownership wiener 1995). 
In. addition to the Feded CM, other enviromentaf laws 

may play a role in shaping the Forest Service prescribed 

. Rules and standards issued in accorhce 

with natural resource protection and land-use management 

laws, e.g., the Endatlgered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the 

Clean Wter Act of 1977 (CWA'), and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (NFM), as well as pl-g and 

docwentation conducted in compliance with the National 

En~omental Policy Act of 1970 WPA), may impose 

constrainls on burning. 

Several managers have described how adherence to Federal, 

State, and local regulations has influenced organizational 

policies and decision-making processes. Aufenthie (1989), 

Carlton and Webber (1989), and Martin (1990) looked at 

Federal agency decision making and agreed that managers 

can respond to some regulations with minor adjustments, 

whereas other rules may have profound effects on their 

actions. With increasing fire and environmental regulations, 

fire managers are receiving conflicting directions for 

conducting burning practices. 

Activity 

A comprehensive accounting of areas treated by prescribed 

burning has not yet been made, nor is it known how, over 

time, burning purposes, organizational subdivisions, or other 

parameters will change. Similarly, Forest Service 

administrative units have only recently begun to consolidate 

their estimates of prescribed burning needs. Such 

information, as well as a characterization of the physical, 

social, legal, economic, and managerial factors that shape 

burning progrms on National Forest System lands will be 

necessary to effectively develop expanded burning 

programs. 

Statistics regarding acreage treated with prescribed f~e are 

of little value without some understanding of the factors a 

manager must consider in making decisions about burning. 

Constraints on prescribed burning can be physical, e.g., 

degree of difficulty and danger of burning assiments and 

restricted time periods for safe burning; social, e.g., public 

acceptance and risks to residential smctures; legal, e.g., 

laws and regulations and risk of liability; economic, e.g., 

cost of burning and the availability and costs of alternative 

treatments; and managerial, e.g., shortage of persomel or 

hding and organizational policies toward risk taking. The 

fire manager must determine how constraining those factors 

might be. The context of decisions to use or not to use 

prescribed burning typically involves the manager" unique 

style or perspective, as well as a combination of those 

factors. Without thorough knowledge of these 

intercomected factors and their relative importance, it is 

diEcult to wisely allocate dollars or change institutional 

systems to increase the use of prescribed fxe, Polkyrrllken 

and managers could =move minor 

promote eEective and safe burning 

Costs 

There are few sources of data on the per-acre costs of 

burning, trends in costs, or factors influencing cost levels 

and variability. The total cost of prescribed b-g izlcludes 

components incurred during planning and layout, fire-line 

construction and burn preparation, ignition, and mop-up. 

Fixed costs include burn plan preparation, NEPA analysis 

and public involvement, compliance with other laws, smoke 

management precautions, postfrre evaluation, and general 

overhead. 

Per-acre planning costs can vary depending on operational 

efficiency and unit size. Project costs include firebreak 

construction, igniting and conducting the burn, mopping up, 

postfire monitoring, and contractor costs. Costs may differ 

from unit ts unit because of differences in topographyy 

weather conditions, and other factors. DiBerent burning 

objectives also cause variations in planning, personnel and 

equipment needs, and the precautions that are necessary. 

Overall cost will reflect differences in timber types and fuels 

treated, safety precautions, the objectives of the bum 

program, overall efficiency, and cost-collection methods 

(Gonzalez-Cabh and McKetta 1986). 

Unit size is one of the most important factors to be used in 

calculating per-acre costs; larger units have smaller costs, an 

effect well documented in the literature (Cleaves and Brodie 

1990, Gonzalez-Cab& and McKetta 1986, Rideout and Omi 

1995, Vasievich 198 1). Costs also vary with the shape and 

configuration of the treatment area, especially in slashredwtionisite-prqwation b heplarly shaped units 

are more difficult to burn nitor than more geometric 

units of the same size. Small and beplarly shaped units 

usually cost more to treat, althou& they may be more 

envifomentally and aesthetically desirable. Costs may also 

vary among managers or organizations as a result of 

perceived risk (Bell and others 1995, Cleaves and Brodie 

1990, Cortner and others 1990, Gomdez-Cabtin and 

McKetta 1986). A fire manager's perceptions can be shaped 

by organizational policies and standards regarding risktaking. Decisions to use or not to use prescribed burniag 

expose managers to multiple risks, inclubg (1) not 

project objectives, (2) escaped fire, (3) residualage, (4) an increased likelihood of persomel 

injq, (5) smoke intrusion on c ties, (6) highway 

accidents, and (7) litigation. Fire in heavy fuel 

accumulations and urban interface areas risk human life and 
habi~tion as well as entire ecosyskms. Some managers 

incur higher costs by using more personnel and equipment to 

d agakst escaped fire. Depending on how the bum 

manager perceives and assumes risk, crew dlocation, 

scheduling of smdby firefighters, fire-line standards, 

ignition methods, and bdno-burn determinations may 

account for what seem to be excessive costs. An 

increasingly preferred approach to managing the use of 

prescribed fire is to analyze the probabilities of different 

outcomes under a mge of strategies. 

Methods 

Survey 

Analyses of activity levels (objective 1 ), consmints 

(objective 2 ), and costs (objective 3) were based on 

responses to a questionnaire (Appendix A) mailed to Forest 

Service fuels management officers (FMO's) in December 

1995. For the period 1985-94, they were asked to provide 

estimates of the following variables: (1) the lowest, highest, 

and average acreage burned annually and the number of 

burns conducted for each of four burn types-slash 

reduction, management-ignited burns in natural fuels, 

prescribed natural fires, and brush and range burns; (2) 

major intended resource benefits or purpose of the burnrated by importance &om O.(no importance) to 5 (highest 

importance) (resource benefits include hazard reduction, 

reforestation, vegetation control, nongame wildlife habitat, 

threatened and endangered species habitat, game bird and 

animal habitat, insect and disease protection, grazing, and 

reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem); (3) historic trends 

and expectations in bumed acreage by type of burn; (4) 

barriers to expanding the use of prescribed fue-rated by 

from 0 to 5, with 5 being most hportant; (5) the 

age of prescribed burning needed to achieve 

management goals; (6) per-acre costs of burning, broken into 

planning (fixed) and project (variable) costs at three levels 

of esthation-lowest, highest, and average; (7) factors that 

influence prescribed bming costs-mted for imp0 

from O to 5, with 5 being most t; and (8) impact of 

any Class 1 air-qualily protecti . An open-response 

ent section was also included in the questiomake. 

The questio~lrnake was sent g the off-season to forestand district-level he1 specialists. Contacts were made 

through regional hels specialists to ensure coordination and 

to legitimize the request for infomation. During the spring 

of 1 996, three followups by regional staffs and researchers 

in the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station's 

Forest Resource Law and Economics Research Work Unit 

were conducted by mail, telephone, Data General e-mail 

(Forest Service), and other e-mail. 

Data from responding forests were s 

status and trends for different resource mixes, types of burns, 

and Forest Sewice regions. Forest-level estimates were 

aggregated into regional and national totals. Average burn 

sizes, trends, and other parameters were compared across 

regions. Burned acreage was compared with burnable 

acreage derived &om the USDA Forest Service's Forest 

Inventory and halysis Research Work Units (FIA) reports 

by smarizing acreage in timber types that rely on periodic 

fue. Estimates of past and expected acreage trends were 

compared by burn type and region. Assessments of burning 

barriers were compared across regions. 

Differences across forests and regions, burn types, and other 

parameters were interpreted using comments provided on the 

survey form as well as follow-up telephone interviews. 

Burned acreage fipes were cross-checked against the 

annual Manageme ent Reports (MAR), which tally 

he1 treatment and osal accomplishents. The 

MAR'S are helpful in providing acreage by budget and 

activity code, but these vide uniform information 

for burn types and othe rs. 

We identified our data system needs by exploring differences 

between estimates and the MAR records. For example, 

according to Southern Region fire and management 

operational records (the basis for their response to our 

survey), about half the acreage treated with prescribed fire in 

the southern national forests is not recorded as burned in the 

MAR'S. The 's roughly identify 273,000 treatment 

acres that constitute wildlife habitat improvement or range 

management projects; the treatment method is not included 

in those reports. 

Costs 

The FMO's provided average, highest, and lowest cost 

estimates and apportioned those costs into planning and 

project categories. Project costs included burn-site 

preparation, ignition and maintenance, mop-up, postfire 

monito~g, conmctor or cooperator costs, and other related 

activities. Planning costs included burn-plan preparation, 

WPA compliance and public involvement, project planning, 

appeals, postfire evaluation of effects, smoke management, 

teamwork, and general overhead. 

Cost estimates were s arized and compared across bum 

types, regions, and other parameters. Estimates were also 

compared with other studies on prescribed burning 

expenditures, e.g., Bell and others 1995, Gonzalez-Cabh 
I High I Low X Average . Desired 

Regions (forests surveyedlforests responding) 

Figure I-Estimtes of acres prescribed bmed annully and desired btmhg levels, Natiod Forest Systa, by region, Pangex 

indicate total estimtes sf the lowest, highest, and average activity levels. Note: Region 1's high refers to eight grescribsd naW 

fm totaling 1 14,269 acres in 1 year on the Flathead National Forest. 

and McKetta 1986, Rideout and Omi 1995,Vasievich 198 1, 

Wood 1988. For the Southern Region, responses were 

compared with past reports in Forest Farmer magazine, 

which periodically publishes costs for various forest 

practices in the South (Dubois and others 1995). Estimates 

were also compared with data from Forest Service obligation 

records for fiscal years 1980 through 1995 as reported by 

Bell and others (1995),3 Cleaves and others (1997), and 

Schuster and others (1997). In those studies, per-acre 

expendibres were calculated for each region hm the 

obligation data. The obligation data give detailed hding 

information about fuels treated with appropriated fimds, 

brush disposal funds, hutson-Vandenberg hds, and 

contributed or volunteer (cooperative) work. Prescribed 

burning benefithg Forest Service pro s, such as wildlife, 

forest management, keatened and endangered species, 

recreation, range, and others, is often recorded under more 

general activity codes. The purpose of the comparison was 

to conh overall trends and to quantify data sources. 

Results 

Responses 

Ninety-five of the one hundred and fourteen FMO's 

submitted usable responses. The response varied greatly by 

region, as shown in table 1, ranging from only 53 percent in 

the Intemountain Region (Region 4) to 100 percent in the 

Southwest and Southern Regions (Regions 3 and 8, 

respectively). Because no response was received from the 

Alaskan Region (Region 1 O), our calculations omit this 

region. Nonetheless, the responding forests represent 85 

percent of the land area in the Nationd Forest System and 

provide a reasonable estimate of acreage trends, costs, and 

opinions about burn pro factors. An estimate of acres 

bumed for the entire sy ould be made from these data 

if the estimate was adjusted for the nomesponding forests. 

The basis of this adjustrlllent could be obtahed f?om 

reports, although they do not present the detail provided in 

our survey. 

Activity 

"ell, E.; Cleaves, D.; Croft, H. [and others]. 1995. Fire economics 

assessment report. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of The average total prescribed-fm area constiluted 6,763 Agriculture, Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Managemenl, Sidney R. 

Yates Building, 201 14th Street, S.W. at Independence Avenue, S.W., bums and about 908,120 acres per year (fig. 1). The 

Washington, DC 20250. estimated lowest activity level was 446,999 acres in 3,429 
Table 1--National forests surveyed and response status, April 21,1997 

National 

Forests 

RatioTotal 1 acreage burned-@- 

acreage burned acreage 

Northern (Region I) 

Beaverhead 

B inemootil 

Custer 

Deer Lodge 

Flaaead 

Gallatin 

Helena 

Idaho Pdandle 

Kootenai 

Lewis and Clark 

Lo10 

Nez Perce 

Total 

Rocb Mountain (Region 2) 

Arapaho and Roosevelt 

Bighorn 

Black Hills 

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre 

and Gu~son 

Medicine Bow-Routt 

Nebraskaa 

Pike and San Isabel 

San Juan-Rio Grande 

Shoshone" 

te River 

Total 

Southwestern (Region 3) 

Apache-Sitgreaves 

Carson 

Cibola 

Coconino 

Coronado 

Gila 

Kaibab 

Lincoln 

Prescott 

Santa Fe 

Tonto 

Total 

Intemountain (Region 4) 

Askley 

Boiseu 

Bridger-Teton 

Cariboua 

Challis-Salnnona 

Dixie 

Fishlake" 

Hmboldt" 

Manti-La Sal 

Payette 

continued 
Table 1-National forests surveyed and response status, April 2l9I9SV (continued) 

National 

Forests 

RatioTotal 1 acreage bumed-toacreage burned acreage 

Intemountain. (Region 4) (cont.) 

Saurtooth 1,803,&41 

Targhee" 1,643,80 1 

Toiyabe 3,877,126 

Uinta 87 1,237 

Wasatch-Cache 1,561,192 

Total 

Pacific Souhest (Region 5) 

hgelesa 

Cleveland 

Eldorado 

Inyo 

Klamath 

Lassen 

Los Padres 

Mendocino 

Modoca 

Plumas 

San Bernardino 

Sequoia 

S hasta-Trinity 

Sierra 

Six Rivers 

Stanislaus 

Tahoe 

Total 

Pacific Northwest (Region 6) 

Colville 

I>eschutesa 

Fremont 

Gifford Pinchot 

Malheur 

Mt. Wood 

Mt. Baker- Snoquahie 

Ochoco 

okanogan 

Olympic 

Rogue Ptiver 

Siski you 

Siuslaw 

Urnatilla 

U~P~W 

WBllowa- Wtmm 

Wenatchee 

Willamelte 

W'inerna 

Total 

Southern (Region 8) 

Alabama Ws 

Florida NFs 

Mississippi NFs 

North Carolina Ws 

Texas Ws 

Percent 

continued 
Table 1-National forests surveyed and response status, April 21,1997 (continued) 

National 

Forests 

RatioTotal hual acreage burned-toacreage burned acreage 

Southern (Region 8) (coat.) 

Chanahoochee-Oconee 

Cherokee 

Daniel Boone 

Francis Marion and Sumter 

Kisatchie 

Ouachita 

Ozark and St.Francis 

Waskington and Jefferson 

Total 

Eastern (Region 9) 

Allegheny 

Chequamegon 

Chippewa 

Green Mountain-Finger Lakes 

Hiawatha 

Hoosier" 

Huron-Manisteeu 

Mark Twain 

Monongahela 

Nicoleta 

Ottawa 

Shameu 

Superior 

Wayne 

Wte Mountain 

Total 

Total all National Forests 

Percent 

" Did not reply to the survey. 

' Mean 

Table 2-Average annual acres burned by National Forest System region and burn type (1985-94)" 

National Prescribed Brush, 

forest Forests surveyed/ Slash Management- natural range, and All 

system responses received reduction ignited fnes grassland types 

Region 1 

Region 2 

Region 3 

Region 4 

Region 5 

Region 6 

Region 8 

Region 9 

Total 1 14/95 230,13 1 564,912 37,8 18 75.259 908.120 

" Total reported includes only those forests responding to the survey. 
d highest activity level was 1,5 74,3 11 

The mean of the average es~ated 

acreage ranged &om 434,119 acres in Region 8 to < 11,867 

acres in the Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) and 16,2 13 

in the Eastern Region (Region 9) (table 2). The difference 

between the estimated highest and lowest years was greatest 

in Region 8 at 309,557 acres, followed by the Nohem 

Region (Region 1) at 286,240 acres, and Region 3 at 

194,424 acres (fig. 1). The highest-lowest mge as a percent 

of the average was greatest in Region 1, but most of the high 

activity comes fiom 1 year on the Flathead Nationd Forest, 

where managers conducted eight prescribed natural fires 

totaling 114,269 acres. Different burn types displayed 

different activity ranges (figs. 2a through 2e). The greatest 

variation was in management-iated fires. 

Region 8 reported the highest annual average burned acreage 

at 434,119 (table 2). Region 3 was next highest at 184,248 

acres, followed by the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) 

at 114,674 acres, Region 1 at 77,186 acres, the Pacific 

Southwest Region (Region 5) at 54,40 1 acres, Region 9 at 

15,2 13 acres, Region 4 at 15,4 12 acres, and Region 2 at 

1 1,867 acres. 

I High 

The total acreage treated was not evenly distributed by bunt. 

type. Management-i@ted prescribed fires accounted for 

most, totaling 564,912 acres or 62.2 percent of the system 

total (table 2), followed by slash reduction (230,13 1 acres or 

25.3 percent), brush and rangeland (75,259 acres or 8.3 

percent), and prescribed natural fire (37,8 18 acres or 4.2 

percent). Most of the management-ignited acreage (87.6 

percent) was in Regions 8 and 3. Most of the slash burning 

acreage (70.7 percent) was in Regions 6,3, and 1, whereas 

brush and rangeland buming were conducted mainly in 

Regions 3 and 5 (62.7 percent). 

The average burn size was 134 acres. Regions 8 and 3 

conducted by far the largest burns with average sizes of 458 

and 44 1 acres, respectively (table 3). All the other regions 

averaged < 90 acres. 

Region 6 reported the most burns per year at 1,8 16, which 

were primarily for slash reduction (table 3). Region 1 

followed with 1,727, Region 5 with 1,28 1, and Region 8 

with 947. Overall, national forests conducted an average of 

6,763 bms per year, sf which 20.3 percent was 

management-iated burns in natural fbels and 75.1 percent 

was slash-reduction burns. Slash burns were especially 

I Low X Average 

Slash Mgt-ignited Natural Brush 

Burn types 

Figure 2eEstimated ranges for total acres of prescribed burning for all bum types of all the National Forest Systern 

regions, 1985-94. 
I High I Low X Average 

Regions (fmsts surveyedffarests respanding) 

Figure 2LEstimteB total acres burned for slash reduction, by region, Natioml Forest System. bgm k&cate total es~males 

of the lowest, bighetit, and average levels. 

I High I Low X Average 

g zoo ; 

Regions (forests sunreyedfforests respanding) 

Fime Zc-Estimated total acres burned for mmt-il$lit& prescribd &m by re@on, Na~oml Forest Syskm. kg6 

indicate total esthtes of the lowest, bigbest, and avmge levels. 
I High I Low X Average 

R-l(13112) R-2(1018) R-3(1 Ill I )R-4(1518) R-5(18115) R-6(19118) R-8(13113) R-9(15110) 

Regions (forests surveyedlforests responding) 

Figure 2d-Estimated total acres burned for prescribed natunl fires by region, National Forest System. Ranges indicate total 

estimates of the lowest, highest, and average levels. 

I High I Low X Average 

Regions (forests surveyedlforests responding) 

Figure 2eEstimted total acres burned for brush, range, and grassland fuels by region, National Forest System, Ranges 

indicate total estimates of the lowest, highest, and average levels. 
Table &Number of burns and average burn size, in acres, by burn type and Natioaal Forest System region (1985-94) 

Slash Management- Prescribed Brush, range, 

reduction ignited natural fires All types 

National 

Forest Forests suweyedi Acres/ B 

system responses received burn year burn year burn year burn year bum year 

Region 1 

Region 2 

Region 3 

Region 4 

Region 5 

Region 6 

Region 8 

Region 9 

Total 114195 5,079 1,376 6 1 246 6,763 

Average 45 41 1 620 306 134 

comon in Regions 1,5, and 6 but averaged only about 

33 acres per fire. 

The largest bums were prescribed natural fires (620 acres), 

and the smallest were slash burns (45 acres). Managementignited burns were the second largest (4 1 1 acres), followed 

by brush and range bums at 306 acres (table 3). This 

proportion of bum-type size was similar among regions. 

The largest prescribed natural fires were in Region 1 (1,270 

acres) and Region 3 (49 1 acres). The largest brush and 

range fires were in Region 3 (769 acres), Region 4 (4 16 

acres), Region 6 (296 acres), and Region 8 (283 acres). The 

largest management-ignited bums were in Region 8 (707 

acres) and Region 3 (484 acres). Slash burns were the 

largest in Region 3 (290 acres) followed by Region 8 (76 

acres). Slash bums in the other regions were small, ranging 

fiom 25 to 53 acres. 

Desired Activity 

Figure 1 addresses the question, "How many acres should be 

burned (over the next 10-year period) to achieve forest land 

management, fie protection, and other goals?' Estimates 

received from FMO's totaled 2,030,155 acres amually, more 

than double the average annual reported bumed acreage 

(908,120) over the survey period. The largest difference 

between actual and desired burning acreage was reported for 

the two regions that now burn the most, Region 8 (350,88 1 

acres) and Region 3 (223,252 acres), Of the total Forest 

Service-wide gap of 1,122,035 acres, 5 1 '2 percent was 

accounted for in responses from Region 8 and 3. 

Resource Target Mixes 

Overall importance ratings ranged widely over nine resource 

targets: hazard reduction, reforestation, vegetation control, 

pest control, nongame wildlife, threatened and endangered 

species, game birds and animals, grazing, and the 

reintroduction of fire. The targets were grouped into five 

resource disciplines: fire, silviculture, wildlife, range, and 

ecosystem management. The overall importance mix for a 

national forest, region, or the agency as a whole varies 

relative to the importance assigned to the individual resource 

targets. Importance ratings are less valid when comparing 

the relative importance of a single resource target across 

regions because such judgments come fiom a variety of 

subunits within the Forest Service with a variety of resource 

concerns and internal, organizational cultures. Nonetheless, 

multiple resource burn plans are now the rule rather than the 

exception. A resource target may not be as highly rated but 

could nevertheless be a frequent comp~on toother 

resource targets for many, if not most, actual burns. For 

example, burning for hazard reduction may have concurrent 

wildlife and silvicultural benefits. Overall impoftance 

ratings are professional judgments about individual forest 

projects and do not reflect statistical data about the use of 

fire to accomplish management objectives. Such operational 

data would give a more accurate and highly stratified 

assessment of the agency's bumhg program. 
Table &-Mean ratings of relative importance for major resource objectives that would be addressed by bur&g 

programs, by National Forest System region 

R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 

R- 1 Rocky South- Inter- Pacific Pacific R-8 R-9 All 

Northern Moun western motlxltain SW Southern Eastern regions 

Resource objective 13/12' 1018 11/11 15i8 18/15 19/18 13113 15110 114/95 

Fire 

Hazard reduction 

Silviculture 

Reforestation 

Vegetation controlC 

Pest protectiond 

Wildlife 

Nongamee 

T&E speciesf 

Game birds 

and animals 

Range 

Grazing 

Ecosystem 

Fire reintroductiong 

" Number of forests surveyed/number of forests responding. 

Fuels mgement officer's subjective assessment of resource objectives on a scale of 0 to 5 (0 = no importance and 5 = highest importance). 

' Vegetation control (established stands). 

Pest protection: insect and disease protection. 

" Nongame: nongame wildlife habitat. 

T&E species: threatened and endangered species. 

g Reintroduction: reintroduction of fze-ecosystem management. 

Region 4. Threatened and endangered species received the 

most variable ratings, ranging fiom lowest in importance 

(1.08 for Region 6 and 1.30 for Region 2) to the most highly 

rated objective (4.37 in Region 8). 

Hazard reduction was the most highly rated resource 

objective in Regions 1,3,4,5, and 6 (table 4). Game and 

nongame habitat was the highest in Region 9, threatened and 

endangered species in Region 8, and ecosystem management 

(he1 reduction) in Region 2. Ecosystem management was 

the second most highly rated objective in Regions 1,2,3,4, 

and 5. Compared with the other categories, "fire 

reinb.oduction'5s a more inclusive and less exact tern, 

which is comonly used in highly publicized communiquCs 

on ecosystem management. These factors may have 

contributed to its high ranking. 

Historical Trends in Burning Activity 

The FMO's were asked to describe historical trends in 

burning activity for each burn type-wheethr annual acreage 

has increased, decreased, or stayed the same between 1985 

and 1994 (table 5). Because of reductions in timber 

harvesting, slash burning decreased in more forests (60 

percent) than in any other burn type. Conversely, increased 

%el-treatment budgets and greater emphasis on the use of 

prescribed fue for silvicultural, ecosystem, and wildlife 

purposes resulted in a 76 percent increase in managementignited burning. Prescribed natural fire levels remained 

fairly constant service wide (62 percent), whereas brush and 

rangeland burns increased on 43 percent of the forests, and 

had remained stable on 44 percent. 

Except in Regions 2 and 3, range improvement was rated 

fairly low. The importance of wildlife-related burning to 

create or enhance wildlife habitat was primarily for game 

and nongame species. In Region 8, however, threatened and 

endangered species habitat rated highest. Reforestation and 

game habitat were the third or fourth most important 

resource objectives in most regions. The lowest rated 

resource objective was pest management, except in 
Table 5-Ten-year trend in prescribed burned acreage (1985--94) by National Forest System region and burn types in percentage of national forests in each 

region reporting each trend 

Slash Managernent- Prescribed Brush, range, 

reduction ignited natural fires and grassland All types 

Forests surveyed/ - 

Region responses received" Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same 

-------------------------------------------percent-------------------------w-----------

Average 18.3 59.6 22.1 75.5 3.9 20.6 34.8 2.9 62.3 42.5 13.8 43.7 42.8 20.0 37.2 

" There were a total of 114 forests surveyed and 95 responses received. 

Table &Expected 10-year trend in prescribed burned acreage (1995-2004) by National Forest System region and burn type in means of subjectively 

assessed likelihood points" 

Slash Managernent- Prescribed Brush, range 

redue tion ignited natural fires and grassland All types 

Forests surveyed/ 

Region responses receivedb Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same Incr. Decr. Same 

Average 

* Each regionallburn type combination consists of the mean points allocated to each trend by the responding fuels manager, indicating his confidence level in a particular trend on a scale of O to 100. 

A total of 1 14 forests were surveyed and 95 responded. 
Table 7-Barriers to prescribe& bwnling and the mean ratings by National Forest System mgisns, of importance of 14 

influenee eategoriies (P98S9.4) 

R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 

W-l Roc& Sou&- Inter- Pacific Pacific R-8 R-9 All 

Pao&em Moun* westean om SW Souhem Eakm regions 

Bdem wiefi 

influence categoPies 131 12" t 8/8 11/11 15i8 18115 19118 13/13 15/10 114195 

Social6 

Public opirrion 

Residentid 

Economicd 

Fmding 

Altemtives 

Legal" 

Regulations 

Laws 

Liabiliv 

Insurance 

Adminismtivd 

Mgt. policy 

Personnel 

Technical." 

Fuel loadings 

Narrow window 

UncePtainv 

" Number of forests sumeyedinmber of forests repo*g. 

Social-public opinion: public input on the enviromental effmts of prescribed fue; residential: residential development in proximi@ of desired burn areas. 

oEIiicer3 subjmtive assessment of resource objatives on a scale of 0 to 5 with 0 = no hprtance and 5 = hi&est importance. 

mg costs. the ovcheild kcwed d~g forest- and project-level plming; hding: lack of adequate hding; alt 

alternative silvicultural systems, 

Technical-Euel loadings: the amom and dis~burion of IoggiPlg slash and other dead and downed organic mt&al; nmw window: tinaebe in which 

prescribed burning is pssible; uncminw: not cmin abut the effectiveness of prescribed beg. 

Expected Trends in Burning Acti~Q 

We asked the FM09s (question 3) to mticipate brenids in 

burning over the next 10 years, ney bdicated the degree of 

certainty in their expeeations by allocathg 100 "l&elihood 

points" in each of the four bum mes across a range of 

trends: increase, decrease, or sme- ne poiin& were totaled 

and averaged across bum mes and regional categories 

(table 6). The systemwiCZF: mem expeckation dis~butioa for 

all burn types was 58 points to bnacreae, 15 points to 

decrease, md 28 to s'tay tbe sme. The: s&ongest 

expectations for increasirng acreage were in Regions 2,3,4, 

and 1. 

Overall, slash burning had a I&eliltosd of only 3 1 points for 

increasing. Mmagement-ignited3 prescfibed nahitral fires, 

and bmsh and range bms had a Forest Sewice-wide mean 

likelihood to increase of 49,66, md 5 f poh@, respectively. 

The dishbutions were shilw in all regions. Expecation for 

increasing management-ignited acreage was s 

was strongest in Regions 1,2, and 3, A similar pattern 

emerged for prescribed nahual fm (PTVF). An increase was 

most strongly expected, especially in Regions 1,2,3, and 4. 

Only Region 9 gave a rnoderale likelihood (3 1 points) to the 

prospect of increasing prescribed nam1 fire. All except 

and 9 gave < 39 points to tbe PW acreage 

the same. Bmsh, range, and gssland burning 

received its highest likelihood of increase in Regions 2,3, 

and 4. 

Barriers to Burning 

The FMO's rated 14 factors on a $-point scale of 

e, representing he degree to w~ch each factor 

hposed a barrier to eexpmdhg the use of prescdbed 

bming. We categorized the factors as social, economic, 

legal, ah~sbrative, and tecficd (hble 7). Forest Servicewide, air quality and smoke mmgernent regulations 
received the highest mean rating (3 3); only in Region 9 did 

regulations receive a mean rating of < 3.0. Lack of adequate 

hding vvas the second most imp0 

overall mean of 3.7 and a mean rating of 2: 3.0 in each 

region. Also highly rated were personnel (shortages of 

qualified professionals and techicians), narrow window (the 

prescription window for conducting burns), liability (for 

smoke intrusion and escaped fires), and regulations 

(exclusive of air quality and smoke management). 

Residential development and agency policies that discourage 

risk taking received ratings of moderate importance (2.7 and 

2.6, respectively), even though these are often featured in 

speeches, policy issue papers, and other studies. 

Funding was among the four most highly rated barriers in 

seven of the eight regions; air quality and smoke 

management regulations were among the top four barriers in 

six regions; and personnel was among the top four in five 

regions. Public opinion, planning costs, and environmental 

laws were among the top ranked in four regions. 

The air quality and smoke management regulations category 

was the top-rated barrier in three of the eight regions, and a 

narrow prescription window was the top-rated barrier in two. 

The top-rated barriers in the remaining regions were public 

opinion, personnel limitations, and bding. 

Barriers that received low ratings include alternatives to 

prescribed burning, uncertainty about burning as an effective 

fuels management practice, and the availability of insurance 

for prescribed burning. Excluding these three factors, the 

range of ratings was fairly narrow. Forest Service-wide, the 

mean rating of each of the remaining 1 1 factors was between 

2.5 and 3.6. In the individual regions, the number of factors 

within one point of the highest ranked factor ranged fiom 

four in Region 9 to eight in Regions 2 and 4. 

Patterns in the rankings differed among regions, but most 

FMO's perceived the nature of barriers to be more economic 

and legal than social, ahinistrative, or technical. The most 

hportant of the economic factors were funding availability 

and planning costs. Of the legal barriers, air quality and 

smoke management regulations were more important 

either enviromental laws or liability for smoke intrusion or 

escaped fire. Of the administrative barriers, personnel 

availability was more important than the ahinismtive 

policy of risk taking. The focus on technical barriers was 

narrowness of the burning window, which is influenced in 

large measure by the other legal and economic constraints, 

Regional patterns about prescribed burning revealed 

heterogeneity in the decision-m&g cultures and 

enviroments. Such pattern also indicate how differently 

e overall problem or oppo 

s they might prefer in order to promote 

As described above, some fhctorsbding, regulations, a limited prescription window, and 

personnel-were considered the most limiting in all regions. 

Beyond that similariv, responses for Region 1 were oriented 

to public opinion and economic issues, whereas Region 3 

was strongly driven by legal concern and interactions within 

the narrow prescription window Region 4 appeared 

similarly hed in air quality and smoke management 

regulations and technical issues, whereas Regions 5 and 6 

perceived the challenges to be more economic and legal 

(both air quality and enviromental protection). Managers 

in Region 8 found the greatest challenges in air quality and 

smoke management, as well as in long-term personnel and 

bding shortages. 

Costs 

Overall, slash burning had the highest estimated cost per 

acre ($167.04), in six of the eight regions (table 8). 

Prescribed natural fire was the second most costly type 

($103.68). However, the variability across regions was 

large, ranging fiom the least expensive treatment in some 

regions to the most expensive in others. Managementignited burns ($78.13 per acre) and bmsh, range, and 

grassland burns ($57.09 per acre) were the least costly, 

except in Region 8. 

Ilifferences among the costs of burn types reflect differences 

in the blend of resource objectives, burning conditions, site 

characteristics, and management policies. Differences 

between slash-burning and management-burning costs were 

greatest in Region 6 ($334.02 - 77.55 = $256.47) and 

Region 5 ($344.46 - 223.38 = $121.08) and smallest in 

Regions 8 ($42.34 - 22.80 = $19.54) and 2 ($61.06 - 58.24 

= $2.82). In Region 9, management-ignited burns were 

more expensive than slash burns by $18.07 per acre. 

There also were differences within regions in the range of 

costs for a burn type. Slash g ranged from an overall 

lowest of $68.24 to an overall highest of $330.72 

(fig. 3a). The range (highest minus lowest) varied fiom 

$594.40 per acre in Region 1 to $3 1.25 in Region 8 (fig. 3b). 

The widest ranges for management-ignited prescribed burns 

(fig. 3c) were reported in Region 1 ($437.1 1 - 37.56 = 

$399.55) and Region 5 ($356.98 - 93.56 = $263.42). The 

smallest range was reported in Region 8 ($30.73 - 16.02 = 

$14.71). Regions 2,3, and 4 had similar ranges-about $81 

between the mean highest and lowest costs. This variation 

reflects a wide range of site characteristics, post-harvest 
Table &Estimated average cost per acre and planning cost percentage for prescribed burning, in 1994 dollars by 

National Forest System region and burn type (198594) 

Slash Management- Prescribed Brush, range, 

reduction ignited All wes National 

Forest Forests surveyedi Per acre P1 Per acre Pldg Per acre PI 

systm responses receiveda cost cost cost cost cost cost cost cost cost cost 

Region 1 

Region 2 

Region 3 

Region 4 

Region 5 

Region 6 

Region 8 

Region 9 

Dollars Pe~ent hllars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent 

Average 167.04 18.9 78.13 34.4 103.68 10.5 57B9 30.3 101.48 21-3 

" A total of 1 14 forests were surveyed and 95 reponded. 

I High I Low X Average 

0 

Stash Mgt-ignited Natural Brush 

Burn types 

Figure 3a-Estimated ranges in costs per acre for prescribed burning, all bum types, National Forest System, in 1994 dollars, all 

regions, 1985-94. 
I High I Low X Average 

Regions (forests s~~r~eyedlforesds responding) 

Fipe S&Es~mt& to&% p g plus project costs pa acre for slash rdwtisra, by =@on Mationa_l Forest Systm. Raages 

bdicate total estimate of lowest, highme, and avmge total cost level. 

I High I Low X Average 

Regions (forests suweyedlfsrests responding) 

Figwe SC-Est~mted total pBi~~~hg plus project 60~b pa acre f~% gemmt-i@t& pmcGb& fire by ~giort, National 

Forest System. Ranges Ifidicate tot231 estimates sf lowest, highest., and average total cost level. 
conditions, and multiple objectives mong Forest Service 

hmesting arrd sahage units. 

Management-ignited prescribed bums were the most 

on of burn types, responsible for more acres burned 

than any other. Their cost would, therefore, drive any 

weighted-average regional or national estimate. The Forest 

Service-wide mean cost, $78.13 per acre, was calculated 

fiom a regional mean of $22.80 per acre in Region 8 to 

$223.38 per acre in Region 5. This interregional range was 

much smaller than the ranges for either slash burning or 

prescribed natural fires. 

Prescribed natural fire (fig. 3d) had the widest kaegional 

cost range of all burn types. However, because most regions 

do not have an active PNF program, these estimates may not 

be reliable. They are based on 61 fires per year Forest 

Service wide, and two regions reported no PNF's. The 

intraregion range in PNF costs varied firom $428.75 - 53.00 

= $375.75 in Region 1 to $1 1.75 - 9.65 = $2.10 in Region 8. 

In Region 5, reports of the average and lowest estimates 

were the same in most forests, 

Brush and mgeland burning '"verage" costs v&ed &om 

$19.83 in Region 4 to $174.47 in Region 5 (fig. 3e). The 

hmegional rmges were the smallest of my burn type, 

except in Region 5. 

The largest portion of total costs (79 percent) for a11 bum 

types and regions was accounted for in project (vasiable 

cost) acti~ties (see Methods section for &~tioni). 

Planning costs accounted for 2 1 percent of the me= avemge 

cost, ranging &om a low of 1 1 percent for PNF's to a high of 

34 percent for management burns. The pl 

percentage was highest for PNF fms in Region 3 (52 

percent). Planning percentage was lowest for bmh md 

rangeland burns in Region 9 (1 1 percent) and slash 

Region 3 (1 1 percent). Planning percentages were highest 

overall in Region 8 (30 percent), folIowed by Region 6 (28 

percent). The lowest overall planning percentages were in 

Regions 4 (14 percent) and 5 (19 percent). 

Total Cost of the Prescribed Burning Program 

To estimate the total cost of the burning pro 

multiplied treatment acres reported by each region md bum 

I High I Low X Average 

Regions (forests surveyedfforests responding) 

Figure 3d-Estimated total planning plus project costs per acre for prescribed natural fires by region, National Forest System. 

Ranges indicate total estimates of lowest, highest, and avmge cost levels. 
I High I Low X Average 

Regions (forests surveyedlforests responding) 

Figure 3e--Estimated total planning plus project costs per acre for brush, range, and grassland fuels by region, National Forest 

System. Ranges indicate total estimates of lowest, highest, and average cost levels. 

type by the corresponding mean per-acre costs. The total 

annual cost for burning an average 908,180 acres per year 

was $76.9 million (table 9), most of which was incurred by 

Region 6 (38 percent) and Region 5 (20 percent). Most 

expenditures were for slash burns (63 percent) and 

management-ignited bums (26 percent). 

These totals do not reflect the cost of today's burning 

program. Our grand average is greater than Cleaves and 

others (1997) and Schuster and others (1997) inflationadjusted expenditures i?om appropriated hels (FFFP) and 

brush disposal (BDBD) hnds for fiscal years 1980 through 

1995. The reported per-acre cost estimates in our survey 

was higher than the per-acre expenditures described in those 

reports. For example, for the r\rlLAR PF-2 class activity 

("'natural hels burning," which is analogous to Forest 

Service management-ignjted burns) between 1980 and 1995, 

Cleaves' and Schuster 's reports show expenditures of $48.10 

per acre. Our Forest Service-wide estimate averaged $78.13 

per acre. Earlier studies'estimates (versus our estimates) 

were Region 1, $125.78 ($12 1.00); Region 2, $80.06 

($58.24); Region 3, $31.28 ($38.85); Region 4, $101.39 

($34.88); Region 5, $191.42 ($223.38); Region 6, $192.72 

($77.55); Region 8, $10.97 ($22.80); and Region 9, $89.24 

($63.67). The mean estimates in this survey were not 

weighted by acreage in burn types or regions-they were 

simply the means of estimated costs. Rankings of regional 

averages were similar in the two data sets: Regions 1,5, and 

6 were more costly, and Regions 2,3, and 8 were less costly. 

Our survey estimates include plWng costs paid with iknds 

other than FFFP and BDBD, including general overhead or 

other program functions. Project costs include those paid 

with funds provided by wildlife, range, and other benefiting 

programs. For example, about 273,000 of the 434,119 acres 

burned per year in Region 8 have been hded with hatsonVandenberg (KV) funds, timber management, wildlife, 

range, other resource programs, and volunteered resources. 

This represents an additional $3 to $4 million not reflected 

in Region 8's Fire and Aviation Management obligations 

records and the corresponding acreage not listed as fuel 

treatment in MAR. We were not able to deternine the extent 

of non-FFFP and non-BDBD in the other regions. However, 

by comparing our survey with Cleaves and oaers (1 9971, we 
Table 9-Estimated total annual costs, in 1994 thousan& of dollars, for prescribed burning activity based on 

acreage and mean cost estimates, by National Forest System region and burn type (1985-94) 

-- 

Natimal Prescribed Brush, 

Forest Forests sweyedi Slash Managemat- range and All 

System responses received reduction ignited fires grassland types 

Region 1 

Region 2 

Region 3 

Region 4 

Region 5 

Region 6 

Region 8 

Region 9 

Total 

can identi@ regions where additional acreage is being 

treated. 

Cleaves and others (1 997) reported average annual BDBDfunded acreage at 36 1,757, whereas our study reported 

230,13 1 (table 2 j. Most of this discrepancy resulted from an 

absence of data, e.g., in Regions 4 and 6, a total of eight 

forest FMO's did not respond to our survey. The FFFPfunded (natural Euels) acreage in Cleaves and others (in 

press) was 336,460; our estimate was 677,989. Most of the 

difference in the two measures was in Regions 1,3, and 8. 

Region 1 excesses reflected the use of prescribed natural 

fire, a burn type not recorded in MAR'S. The Region 3 

excesses, which totaled about 94,000 acres per year, were 

brush and range fires (37,677 acres) and, presumably, other 

fire activities not funded under FFFP. In Region 8, where 

we recorded 196,434 acres more than Cleaves and others 

(19971, the discrepancy was due largely to burning fbnded 

by other benefiting programs, primarily wildlife and 

~eatened and endangered species. Although the FMO 

response rate was low in Regions 4 and 6, our acreage 

estimates were close to those of the earlier studies. Greater 

response to our survey would have substantially increased 

the estimate of acreage not finded by FFFP and BDBD. 

Several of the nonresponding national forests have wellpublicized, natural fuels burning progms of tens of 

thousands of acres per year. 

Cost Factors 

Table 10 describes factors that fuels managers consider 

&portant influences to per-acre costs. In all regions, unit 

size and the cost and availability of labor were the two most 

highly rated factors. Overall, safeguards to reduce the 

number and severity of escaped ftres and ensure compliance 

with environmental laws and regulations ranked third and 

fourth. The latter received 3.0 and higher ratings h six of 

the eight regions and was among the top four in Regions 1, 

3,5,6, and 8. Escape safeguards received 3.0 and higher 

ratings in six regions and was among the top four factors in 

Regions 1,4,5, and 9. 

Two factors received low ratings in all regions: availability 

of liability insurance and agency policies about risk taking. 

Satisfying multiple objectives, burn-unit shape, risks of 

liability, and residential development also were not highly 

rated overall but were among the four most highly rated 

factors in at least one region. 

The rating profiles across factors and factor categoriesphysical, legal, inputs, risks, and management action-were 

similar across the regions. Regional results skew toward 

physical (primarily size), inputs (labor), legal, and 

management action (escape safeguards). DiEerences in 

regional responses showed up in the risk category. For 

example, in Region 2 three of the risk factors were among 

the most highly rated, but in Region 8 no factor in this 

category was so rated. 

Discussion 

Activity Levels 

Prescribed burning is an important activity in the National 

Forest System; more than 900,000 acres are treated each 

year. It may be the most common plamed disturbance, a 

distinction formerly held by timber harvesting. The acreage 
Table IlO---Parameters affecthg the cost of prescribed burdg and the mean rahgs, by national forest region, of 12 

variable inRuence categories (198594) 

R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 

R- 1 Rocky South- her- Pacific Pacific R-8 R-9 All 

Northern Mountajn western moun~ SW NW Southern Eastern regions 

Resource objective 13/12' 1018 11/11 15i8 18/15 19/18 13/13 15110 114595 

Physical 

Size of the unit 

Shape of the unit 

Legal 

Regulations 

hputs 

Labor 

Liability 

Resideneial 

Crew safety 

Weather 

Management action 

Objectives 

Escape safeguards 

" Number of forests surveyedlnumber of forests reporting. 

gement officer's subjective assessment of resource objectives on a scale of 0 to 5 wi~ 0 = no importance and 5 = highest importance. 

of natural fuels burned each year has been increasing; both 

management-ignited and prescribed natural fire. This 

activity level accelerated in the latter part of the study 

period, so our averages may understate what could be 

expected for the future. There is some uncertainty about the 

prescPibed natural fire program; its use is controversial and 

has been the subject of debate on political, physical, and 

mmgerial grounds. 

wildland-urban interface, sensitive species habitats, and 

other protected areas. Slash and site-preparation burning 

have been decreasing and are expected to decrease even 

further. The emphasis on natural fuels may require research 

on new ignition and fire management techniques. 

Burning helps managers achieve a variety of resource 

objectives. The Forest Service prescribed burning program 

is linked to the future of many other agency programs; e.g., 

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, range, and 

ecosystem management. Reintroduction of fire is a wellestablished goal in the minds of fbels managers; it is less 

certain whether fxe reintroduction is valued more as a 

unique objective under new policy and program needs or as 

a convenient justificatory package for meeting the traditional 

objectives. 

The FMO's who responded to our survey conhed the 

need for an increased use of fire. Less fhd32 half of that need 

is behg met, although recent increases in appropriated hds 

have narrowed the gap. Some were optimistic about making 

major progress on these goals, despite implementation 

brarriers aknd cost constraints. 

Msny FMOk identified the shift &om slash reduction to 

1 fuel bums as indicative of a trend toward fewer and 

larger bms. Although such a trend could have positive 

kplications for per-acre costs, it might also present some 

probtms in successfblly managing resources in the 

The issue of who pays for burning will become more critical. 

Multiple objectives, tighter budgets, and severe reduction in 

timber harvest-based fhding will lead to more complex and 
contentious cost and activity allocation problems. Besides a 

general agreement that hazard reduction is the key objective 

of burning, ;there are strong differences in regiollill resource 

objective mixes. A better articulation of these mkes and an 

mderstanding of how fire efiances resource objectives 

could both be used to guide fbture budget pl 

implemenBtion. 

Barriers to Increased Burning 

Air quality and smoke management replations, funding 

sho&falls, nmow burning windows, and a shortage of 

available personnel are m g it ajncreasingly difficult to use 

prescribed fire. Funding and persomel shortages may 

become critical in the near fbture, especially as the wildfxecontrol burden increases. According to our suwey, public 

opin_ion, the wildland-urban interface, potential Forest 

Service liability, and the agency's risk-&ng policies are 

seen as minor compared with the complexities of dealing 

with diverse and often conflicting air-quality and 

enviromental laws and forest-level standards and 

guidelines. The FMO's who responded may have seen the 

wildland-wbm interface more as an objective than a 

constraint. Nevertheless, our survey is only exploratory and 

may have biased responses with our abbreviated defmitions 

of these factors. 

The FMO's prominent concern about air quality and smoke 

management was not surprising. The perceived impo 

of this barrier may be explained by a combhtion of factors: 

ambiguity about application of regulatory standards, 

confusion about actual res.trictions on burning, and reaction 

to what is perceived as the specter of igcreasing regulations. 

Some FMO's may assign more weight to air quality and 

smoke mmagement because of potential legal actions by 

interest groups or other concerned citizens. 

Burning restrictions within or 

have constituted the greatest a 

project's nonattahent status 

notification requirements through the 

agency. Several managers expressed concern about the 

effect of PM,, standards, wbich were only proposed at the 

time of the survey, as well as the implications of elrpmding 

human populations. If these more stringent standards had 

been adopted at the time of the s qualily laws may 

have been seen as an even more factor. 

We asked whether the presence of Ctass I air-quality 

protection areas affected individual bming progms. Most 

of the FMO's said that their grogrms had not been. greatly 

affected. Pursumt to wilderness ad roadless mea 

ramgemeat policies, &ere is no slash or managementi@ted bumhg in titese areas; only prescribed 

we allowed, md &ey aue not subject to Glass I 

Fuder, rraucb of the prescfibed near such areas is 

conducted md early sphg when use 

of wildem atisad pmh is lowest. MO's 

were most concerned aboM uhe w prescription wbdow 

for bums nea Cllms I mew where f~e caraonly be used 

when whd dbectism are favorable. Some cited the 

diEcul@ h documenting possible eEec& to Glass I areas in 

the NEPA malysis. 

Lhita~ons to the available burning windows are a result of 

wearther and &el conditions md the influence of air pality 

rewlatiom on the ability to schedule bums. The regulation 

factor could be closely cornlaled to the FMO's response on 

ilvailabilip if semonal, the of day, an8 

mles related to ak wality were viewed as 

in wsesshg the? air ~aliky d smoke 

mmagement factor* 

Air quality re~lalisms envkomeabl laws are: Wated as 

sepasate factors in -this study. Respondents described how 

complimce with envbomental laws can also add to the 

sts of burnhg, a bighfy rated factor (3.2). In 

nts about constraints on bm-ing as an effect of 

enviromentali laws, f~e mmagers cited a number of issues. 

Many mentioned the need to provide envkomental-effects 

docmentation lira comptiaace witkt the mPA. There is little 

hfomation about haw many prescfibed bms require NEPA 

malysis. However, rn~ mmagers considered these 

requirements excessive, especially den they diverted 

persome1 from their gdv daaty. National Envkomental 

Policy Act docmenation requkes public ""soping" which 

cm delay project hplieaaenbtion or cause missed 

prescription windows. kterdisclip can result 

in expensive or infemible mit con execution, 

and follow-up. Some FMO's expect mE"A re<auiremenB to 

hsacrezose, Qecalrrse sf the bend tow& lage 

hels. 

Federal arad Sbte ref~ula~ons and Forest Service standards 

for species and water qmlily protection may also constrain 

presc~bed fm. Stan&& include best mmagement 

practices (BW") for firelFne consbnrction mder the CAA 

md various fspotection measures for tfareatened and 

enhgered species lrrader the ESA. Under the P\IFm, the 

ecies viability when p 

t;v%th umccepltably high fish of 

g species or thek bbi&ts may be 

pospgsoaed or cnncelled. It is mclea how such risks are 

accomted for du~g bm p% 
Snag retention standards have become issues not only 

because snags must be protec ut also 

because they post a hazard to eas an 

imition sauce. Protecting a growing network of riparian 

sites has also complicated Forest 

agency policies toward risk 

, although our presentation of 

conhsed some. In addition, there are 

few alternative policies for comparison: differences in 

regional and forest-level, decision-m 

culbml and difficult to describe. Many FMO's may have 

resporakd to risk-taking issues in their responses to other 

su~ey questions, e.g., constrained hding and personnelfhit options for handling risk. Disciplinary action for 

escaped fie or accidents was not highly rated. More 

sophisticated studies, i.e., MacGregor (19961, cm better 

focus sn the subtle effects of policy and culture on a 

raaiarnager9s behavior. 

Data on. costs were scattered and of variable quality. There 

is an appiuent need for a uniform data collection system to 

-kg cost trends, compare cost efficiency of different 

bmhg strategies, allocate costs to benefiting programs, and 

use bm-unit and other parameters to predict costs 

(Comafez-Cabh and Bednor 1990, Gonzalez-Cabh and 

McKem 1986). 

%ere is some indication in our study and in Cleaves and 

others ( 1997) and Schuster and others ( 1997) that per-acre 

expermdiares for natural-fuels burning have been decreasing 

in most regions. This is attributable to more active and 

larger scale bming, a growing awareness of cost 

, and the acceptance of cost egectiveness as a 

decision criterion. 

Unit size still has the greatest influence on per-acre cost and 

is hRur=nc~d by mmy factors, including the objective's mix 

and nsk profile. As slash burning is reduced, FMO's may 

have to contend less with unit sizes and shapes that have 

been deternitled by harvest-unit standards and guides. 

Respomes to questions about project planning costs were 

t-emdably unifom, constituting about 25 percent of the 

total cost in all the regions. Our definition of planning cost 

included activities that would normally be fured-those 

costs tlhs would be equally distributed across the burn unit. 

The use of prescribed natural fire can be expensive. That 

PW's are extensively managed, "let burn" wildfires, with 

little cost, are not consistent with our survey results. 

Subsm~al costs are incmed in monito~g PNF's and 

g suEcient standby personnel to respond quicMy 

to changing burning conditions. Althou& such fires are 

typically large, their per-acre costs are high; and they require 

major comiments of firefighting resources at a time when 

there is a high demand for those nationally. 

Data Limitations 

Survey responses primarily reflect subjective judgnnents and 

qwtified data &om a variety of record-keeping systems. 

Prescribed burning is planned and conducted for a variety of 

purposes; the same data are not for different resource 

management functions. Some of the FMO comments on 

open-ended questions provide additional insight into data 

quality, burning activity, and costs. 

To ensure that the same burn types and parameters are being 

compared, comparisons between or among regions should 

only be considered after extensive follow-up. There is great 

variation among responses from natiorm.1 forests wi"t some 

regions that would require analysis to assess the statistical 

validity of such comparisons. Even comparisons of uniform 

data such as ours should not be used to assert that one region 

is more efficient than another. Each has a unique blend of 

resource objectives and physical, cultural, political, and 

economic-cost influences. Understanding how those 

elements shape the cost of burning is critical to improving 

cost effectiveness. 

Activity data-Many forests that based their estimates on 

burn records reported that data for some years were not 

available. Most rqorted that 1989 was a uniformly low 

year because many natural fuels programs-managementignited and prescribed natural fires-were suspended in the 

face of public uproar and policy reconsidemtions following 

the Yellowstone fires. One reason for wide ranges in activity 

was the variability of g conditions and resource 

availability dhg peak wildfire loads. Many estimades of 

"lowest" activity occurred in 1987, 1988, and 1994; but this 

pattern was not obvious in the data until they were compared 

with wildfue activity levels, 

Cost data-There are few guidelines for collecting or 

analyzing cost data. Most uses of prescribed fire receive 

funding from several sources, making infomation retrieval 

and consolidation difficult and comprehensive estimates 

problmatic. We received estimates from a variety of 

sources: subjective estimates, project burn plans, fxe 

planning work sheets, ranger district records, and 

districtwide or forestwide nrles-of-thumb. Subjective 
estimates reflect matly foms ofjudpental bias and 

dificulty in estimating a 10-year average in inflationadjusted (1994) terms. There is some disagreement about 

what to include as "project'~ot '31 

most FMO's tried to codom to our catego&ations. 

Slash-bwn cost estimates generally included the costs of 

machine or hand piling and other preparation. Our crude 

categorization did not allow managers to show different 

slash preparation and ignition methods, which may have 

been important considerations in the ranges observed. 

According to the respondents, planning-cost estimates were 

less certain than estimates of project costs. Fire managers 

have less hands-on experience with overhead activities' 

costs, which may only be tracked through fiscal accounting 

systems. Many could not estimate their planning costs. 

Others reported conservative estimates. Individual planningcost estimates were as high as 60 to 70 percent. Some 

FMO's also said that the costs of planning were increasing, 

and many commented that requirements for comprehensive 

planning under NEPA, forest plan stank& and guidelines, 

and enviromental protection laws have increased. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Prescribed burning is probably the most extensive planned 

disturbance activity in the National Forest System. The 

agency's burning program is changing, and budgets are 

uncertain; yet, ambitious burning goals are being pursued. 

To meet burning goals, tradeof% among resource objectives 

and funding sources will be necessary, as will be the 

allocation of fuels management dollars among regions and 

forests. 

The General Accounting Ofice (GAO) has recently called 

on the Forest Service to develop a cohesive strategy for fuels 

management that reconciles stewardship objectives and 

overcomes hplementat-ion barriers (United States General 

Accounting Ofice 1999.) The Forest Service is developing 

that strategy at this writing. 

Forest Service frre managers are gradually increasing the use 

of prescribed fire while holding down costs. Their efforts 

deserve support. Burning goals are ambitious, but fuels 

managers believe, attainable. A shortage of qualified 

persome1 and uncertainties about long-term funding are 

barriers to progress in obtaining those goals. The burning 

season's narrow window of opportunity makes it doubly 

important that managers have a well-trained and available 

workforce. 

There is also a need to better understand how politicd, 

managerial, and other forces influence the fire mmager's 

behavior and the costs of bhg. A more comple* 

research design could better assess the relative imp0 

of these factors and how they influence decision processes. 

The role of enviromental regulations could be beaer 

understood by conducting an assessment of the effect of laws 

like the ESA, CWA, WPVZdl, and NEPA, as well as forestlevel guidelines. Such understanding would facilitate beaer 

decision making. The effects of compliance with laws and 

regulations need to be researched as opportunity costs, just 

as studies of harvesting and silvicultural investments were 

made to comply with water quality BMP's. The CAO and 

Congress have been conducting inquiries about Forest 

Service decision making and the implications of NEPA. 

Such decisions would be improved if basic, cornpasable data 

on burning status and trends were available. There is a clear 

need for a comprehensive, uniform system of data collection 

on prescribed burning activities and costs beyond what is 

provided in he PVL4R reports. Further integration of tand 

management planning with fire planning will depend on 

carefully selected measures and good empirical data. 

A set of accepted criteria for indicators of burning 

performance at the program and project levels is also 

needed. The multiple-objective nature of bum presciption 

demands that such criteria be tied to those measures used t~ 

achieve the desired future conditions described in forest 

plans. Measures of variability, in both activity and costs, 

provide valuable perspectives on program perfommce and 

should be included in the displays of basic data. Ranges in 

costs for burn types on individual national forests should be 

confirmed and could be assimilated into flexible 

performance targets and cost-effectiveness standards. 

Activity data should be collected to allow stratification by 

fuel type, habitat type, and other resource management landarea categories for a variety of burn types. The categories in 

this survey were too come to fully explain variations in 

cost, although they provided better infomation than is 

available in data. 

Cost data should include the expense of planning. Fuels 

Management Officers said they had trouble estimating hose 

costs and, as a result, gave them less attention in making 

project or program decisions. 
1,iterrarhre Cited 

Aufenthie, T. 1989. Bureau of Land Management: ~cribed fue decision 

ga, J.; Oliver, C., eds. The b 

decision: re~onal paspa(iva on slash. Smale: University of 

Washingon, College of Forest Resources: 34 1-345. 

earlton, D.W.; Webber, A.A. 1989. Trade-off mlysis in the Forest 

Service: a decision-making tool. In: Hanley, D.P.; 

C., eds. The burning decision: wional perspectives on slash. Seattle: 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resomes: 3 11-3 19. 

Cleaves, D.A.; Brodie, J.D. 1990. Economic analysis of prescribed 

burning. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. 

Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Nortfiwest forests. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press: 271-282. 

Cleaves, D.A.; Haines, T.K. 1997. Regulation and liability risk: their 

influence on the practice and the price tag of prescribed burning. In: 

Proceedings of the envhmental regulation and prescribed frre 

conference; 1995 March 15-17; Tampa, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

State University: 165-1 83. 

Cleaves, D.A.; Schuster, E.; Bell, E. 1997. Fire mgement expenditures 

by the USDA Forest Service: trends and reco-adations for 

controlling cost. In: Redefining roles in forest economic research: 

Proceedings of the 26th annual southm forest economics workshop; 

1996 March 27-29; Gatlinbuug, TI?. [Knoxville, 731: [University of 

Tennessee]. 48 1 p. 

Cortner, H.J.; Taylor, J.G.; Carpenter, E.H.; Cleaves, D.A. 1990. 

Factors influencing Forest Service fire managers' risk behavior. Forest 

Science. 36(3): 53 1-548. 

Craig, J.N. 1990. Regulation of prescribed fue. In: Walstad, J.D.; 

Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural and prescribed frre in 

Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 

26 1-267. 

Dubois, M.R; McNabb, K.; Straka, T.J.; Watson, W.F. 1995. Costs and 

cost trends for forestry practices in the South. 30& ed. Forest Fanner. 

54(3): 10-17. 

Gonzsilez-Cabsin, A,; Bednor, Larry F. 1990. Sources of variability in 

prescribed burning costs. In: Proceedings of the international conference 

on forest fire research; 1990 November P 9-22; Coirnbra, Portugal. 

Coirnbra, Portugal: University of Cohh: A. 14- 1 to A. 14- 12. 

Gonzrilez-Cabsin, A.; McKetta, C.W. 1986. Analyzing he1 treabnent 

costs. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 1 : 1 16- 12 1. 

Hoover, Kenneth. 1989. Wrking with the rules and regulations gov 

slash burning in Washington State. In: Hanley, D.P.; bmenga, J.; 

Oliver, C., eds. The burning decision: regional perspectives on slash. 

Seattle: University of Washitlgton, College of Forest Resources. 12- 14. 

Eahm, Pete. 1990. Smoke management pro 

States. Phoeniz, AZ: Arizona Department of Envhmentaf Quality. 

Contract 22xx-xxx0xx-4-6GC-0003. 56 p. 

t of A*culture, Forest Service, Pacific Sou&wet 

Resmh Slation, Riverside, CA. 

Martin, RE, 1990, Goals, m&ods, and elements of prescriw 

En: Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Smdkg, D.V., eds. h"a-1. md 

preshW fire in Pacific No&west fmts. Cowaflis, OR: Oregon State 

Univmity Press: 55-66. 

Mobley, H.E. 1985. S rnmt. lin: Wade, Dale 

PrescriM fue and meat in the South: C 

proceedings; 1984 Seplmk 12-14; Atlanta. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Departmenl of Agriculhrte, Forest Smice, Southeastern Forest 

Ex-at Station: 47-50. [Ummbad publication]. 

Mobley, H.E. 1990. S of smoke related accideats in the South 

from presenibcxl fires. Tech. Rel. 90-R- l 1 . [Place of publication 

horn]: Ameficm Firlpwood Association. 2 p. 

Mutch, R.W. 1994. Pi&tlrmg f%e with prescriw fue: a re- to 

ecosystem health. Jomal of ForestPy. 92(11): 3 1-33. 

Ridwut, D.E; Or&, P.N. 1995. Estiming the cost of fbels h-mbnent. 

Forest Science. 41(4): 664-674. 

Sandberg, D.V.; Piemvieh, J.M.; Fox, ID-G.; Ross, E.W. 1978. Effects of 

fie on air-a slilte-of-howledge review. In: Natiornal fire effects 

workshop: Confepence proceedings; 1978 April 10-14; Denver. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. WO-9. Washington, De: U.S. D 

Forest Service. 40 p. 

Schuster? E.G.; Cleaves, D.A.; mU1, @.I? 1997. hdysis of USDA Forest 

Service fue-re1atet.f expendiws 1970-1 985. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-230. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Sou~west Reswch Station, U.S. Depment of 

Agriculture, Forest Smice. 29 p. 

U.S. DepaHment of the 1nteriornir.S. Depal-ernent of Agriculhrre. 1995. 

of the Intefior; draft report. 4 1 p. 

f AMculture, Forest Service, Fire 

and Aviation Manageement, Washingon, DC. 

US. General Accsundmg Office. 1999. Western aaboml forests. A 

cohesive strtltea is needed to mess catasmphic wilfdfire &a&. 

Rep. CAOiRCED-99-65. W%hine;ton, DG: U.S. Genaal Accounting 

OeEice. 60 p. 

Vasievich, J.M. 198 1. Css~ sfkmard-reducfion 

national forats. Southm Jomd of Applied Foresw: 12-15. 

Walstad, J.D.; Side&, KWW 1990. Use and bepi% of .pracriM fire in 

reforestation. En: Walstad, J.B.; Wadosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., &. 

NaW and prescribed irSve in tke Pacific Nodwest fore$. Cornallis, 

OR: Oregon State Universib Rms: 271-282. 

Wiener, N, 1995. Uncle Sm asld forest fvs: ks ri&& and 

respomibilities. EnviK1mmM Law. 15(623): 623444. 

Wood, D.B. 1988. Costs of prscriW b g in sou&westm pndmsa 

1 of Applied Forelny. 3: 1 15- 11 9. 
Prescribed Burning Activity and Cost Study 

USDA Forest Service 

November 1995 
I ACTIVITY COST EST1 TES SECTION 

Prescribed Burnins Activity 

Please use DATA TABLE-PART I to provide us with annual activity 

information based on the last 10 years (1985-1994). Note that the response 

for natural fuels burning is divided into management-ignited and prescribed 

natural fires. We are assuming that all the fires in the slash-reduction and 

brushlgrassland fires are management-ignited fires. If that assumption is 

incorrect, please tell us in the wCOmENTS1l section how it should be 

corrected. 

If you have information from operational databases, we would appreciate 

receiving summaries of year-to-year activity. If you don't have a database, we 

would appreciate your best judgmental estimates'about the averages and ranges. 

Your responses will be summarized along with those of all the other national 

forests. Although we have access to MAR records, they do not give us reliable 

estimates by forest. MAR records are organized by fund and do not tell how 

much of the various funds are expended on burning versus other vegetation 

management practices. 

Costs of Prescribed Burning 

Please use DATA TABLE-PART I1 to summarize your records or to estimate 

prescribed burning costs for the last 10 years (1985-1994). Note that we have 

distinguished between project costs and planning/evaluation costs . Project 

costs do not include the cost of suppression of burn escapes. Project costs 

include : 

(a) preparing the burn site (e.g. firebreak. 

construction) , (b) conducting the burns, 

(c) mopping up, 

(d) post-fire monitoring, 

(el contractors or cooperators costs, 

(f) other activities. 

Planning costs include: 

(a) burn plan preparation, 

(b) NEPA compliance, planning, and appeals, 

(c) post-fire evaluation of effects, 

( d ) smoke management , (el interdisciplinary team and public involvement, 

( f ) general overhead. 

Please present the planning/evaluation costs and project costs on a per-acre 

burned basis. Please make your estimates in current (1994) dollars. If you 

are estimating a per-acre planning cost from total cost records, please use as 

many years fire data as possible for your per-acre calculations. 

-..-----------COST PER ACRE------------- 

1985 - 1994 LOWEST HIGHEST AVERAGE 

What is the source of these estimates? 

On a scale of 0 to 100, how confident are you that these reflec 

actual costs of burning on your forest? Enter a number between O (n 

confidence) and 2 00 (qrea tes t confidence) : 
ING FACTORS SECTION 

QUESTION -- 1. What are the major resources targeted to benefit from 

the eurrent burning prograna? Please rate each of the factors below on a 

scale of O to 5, with 0 being "no importanceft and 5 being "highest 

importance. : 

- Hazard reduction 

- . Reforestation 

- Vegetation control (established stands) 

-. Nan-gme wildlife habitat 

- Threatened and endangered species 

. Game bird and animal habitat 

Insect and disease protection 

-. Grazing 

. Reintroductien of fire-ecosystem management 

. Other ( 1 

QUESTION 2. Over the last ten years, the average annual burned 

acreage in the categories shown has been (please put an "xn in one 

response for each bum tme) : 

QUESTION 3. In your opinion, over the next ten years, how will 

the amual burned acreage change? Please allocate 100 likelihood 

points across the tr~dshown, indicating your degree of certainty in your infomation or its inteqretation. For example, putting 100 pts in @increaseH 

means you are sure the amual acreage has grown. Putting 33.3 gts in each 

category means ycou tMnk that eaeh trend has equal chance of occurring. Make 

sure the goints bas all three trmds for each burn type add to 100: 
Slash Reduction 

Natural forest fuels: Haagaentignited prescribed fires I pts I 

Natural forest fuels: Prescribed 

natural fires I 

QUESTION 4. What are the most important barriers to expanded use 

8% prescribed burning? Please rate each of the factors below on a scale 

of O to 5, with O being "no importancen and 5 being "highest importance. n: 

. Public opinion and acceptance 

- . High costs of planning and implementing burns 

. Air quality and smoke management laws and 

regulations 

. Other federal, state, and local regulations and 

environmental laws (e.g. Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, local ordinances) 

. Risk of liability (litigation, damages, loss of public 

support, etc.) from smoke intrusion and escape fires 

. Lack of adequate funding to implement burning 

. Residential development in or near the areas to be burned 

. Avai"abi1ity of lower cost, less hazardous, or 

more effective alternatives to prescribed fire 

. Agency management policies that discourage line 

officers from accepting the risks of occasional 

escapes and smoke intrusions 

. Heavy fuel loadings resulting in high prescribed 

burning risks 

-. Narrow prescription window 

. Uncertainty about burning as an effective fuels 

management practice 

. Shortage of qualified personnel 

. Insurance availability 

. Other ( 1 
UESTION 5. In your opinion. in spite of these barriers, for the , how many acres of forest land should be 

er year in your forest to achieve land 

management, fire protection, and other goals? 

acres (1996-2006) or acres per 

year fo ears e 

QUESTION 6. What are the most important factors influencing the 

costs of prescribed burning in your forest? Please rate each of the 

factors below on a scale of 0 to 5, with O being "no importanceM and 5 being 

Nhighes t importance. ": 

Size of the unit being burned 

. Shape of the unit being burned 

. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations 

Cost and availability of Labor 

Risks of liability for eseape fires or offsite 

intrusions 

Residential development in or near the units to be burned 

. Crew safety 

Satisfying mltiple objectives in burn plans 

. Agency managaent policies that discourage 

risk-taking 

Safeguards to minimize likelihoods of eseape fires 

. Unpredictability of weather conditions for burning 

Cost and availability of insurance 

Other ( f 
QUESTION 7. Are there any Class I air quality protection areas 

in or near your forest? YES El NO El If so, how have they 

lwzgacted your burning prograzxl? (Please explain) . 
I Cleaves, David A,; Martinez, Jorge; Haines, Terry K. 2000. Influences on prescribed 

burning activity and costs in the national forest system. Cen. Tech. Rep. SRS-37. 

Asheville, NC: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

34 p. 

The results of a survey concerning National Forest System prescribed burning activity and 

costs from 1985 to 1995 are examined. Ninety-five of one hundred and fourteen national 

forests responded. Acreage burned and costs for conducting bums are reported for four types 

of prescribed fire: slash reduction; management-ignited fires; prescribed natural fires; and 

brush, grass and rangeland burns. Rankings of importance are presented for 9 resource 

enhancement targets, 14 potential baniers to bming, and 12 factors influencing burning 

costs. Survey responses concerning the presence and impact of Class I and nonattainrnent air 

quality areas are discussed. Anticipated burning levels over the next 10 years and burning 

levels needed to achieve desired management goals on National Forest System lands are also 

presented. 

Keywords: Ecosystem management, environmental laws, hazard reduction, management 

ignited fire, national forests, prescribed natural fire. 
The Forest Service, United States Dep 

(USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use 

management of the Nation's forest resources for sustained 

yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry 

research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strivesas directed by Congress-to provide increasingly greater service to a 

growing Nation. 

The USDA pro&bits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or fmily status. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for comunication of prog 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TITARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaht of discdination, write USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, Room 326-Vli, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, 'WashFngton, D.C. 20250-94 10 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.