USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-24WWW

February 2005

Introduction

New wildfire performance measures compel land managers and researchers to 

address the complicated problem of determining the economic efficiency of wildfire 

suppression activities. The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 

2004) calls for an increase in the percentage of large fires where the value of resources 

protected exceeds the cost of suppression. Ideally, the cost of suppression expenditures 

on an individual fire would be evaluated against the change in resource values, both 

positive and negative, in areas that would have burned had suppression efforts not 

occurred (a cost-benefit analysis). However, quantifying the resource value change 

between what actually burned and what would have burned with no suppression effort 

is extremely difficult and beyond current capabilities for the following reasons:

• The effectiveness of suppression efforts in changing fire behavior and size is poorly 

understood, particularly during the severe fire weather events that cause most of 

the damage. Recreating how fires would have burned without suppression would 

be a highly subjective modeling exercise.

• The effects of fire on many important resource values are difficult to measure, and 

often the direct and indirect effects are not fully understood. Even when the effects are well understood, it can be difficult to quantify the resource value change 

in monetary terms. Furthermore, some resource value changes may be considered 

negative at a small geographic scale or in the short term. However, examining the 

effects of these changes at a larger geographic scale or over a longer period may 

indicate that the changes are beneficial.

Nonetheless, understanding the types and values of resources at risk due to wildfires can help managers develop strategic suppression strategies, determine when it 

may be appropriate to use less aggressive suppression efforts, and prioritize suppression resources between multiple, simultaneous fires. We can use past fires to examine 

resource values at risk adjacent to actual final fire perimeters and compare these values 

with Forest Service fire suppression expenditures. If values at risk are high relative to 

expenditures, it is more likely that suppression efforts were economically warranted 

than if the values at risk are low relative to expenditures.

Comparing Resource Values at Risk 

from Wildfires with Forest Service Fire 

Suppression Expenditures: Examples from 

2003 Western Montana Wildfire Season

David Calkin, Kevin Hyde, Krista Gebert, Greg Jones

Abstract—Determining the economic effectiveness of wildfire suppression activities is complicated by difficulties in identifying the area that would have burned and the associated resource 

value changes had suppression resources not been employed. We developed a case study using 

break-even analysis for two large wildfires from the 2003 fire season in western Montana—the 

Black Mountain and Crazy Horse Fires. We used GIS to identify the location and taxable value of 

private residences within perimeters expanding in a likely direction of fire spread for both fires. We 

identified the size of an expanded perimeter where the market values of private property equaled 

the amount of money spent suppressing a fire (the break even point). This analysis showed that 

suppression expenditures on the Black Mountain Fire were economically justified if these efforts 

reduced the potential fire perimeter a modest amount. However, the potential fire perimeter for 

the Crazy Horse Fire would have had to be considerably larger than the actual fire perimeter to 

economically justify the associated suppression expenditures. We also demonstrated the ability to 

use this methodology to examine nonmarket resource values at risk on the Crazy Horse Fire.

Keywords: wildfire suppression costs, break-even analysis, cost containment, cadastral data

David Calkin is a 

Research Forester, 

Krista Gebert is an 

Economist, and Greg 

Jones is a Research 

Forester and Project 

Leader with the 

Economic Aspects of 

Forest Management on 

Public Lands Research 

Work Unit, Rocky 

Mountain Research 

Station, USDA Forest 

Service, in Missoula, 

MT. Kevin Hyde is 

Landscape Modeling 

Hydrologist employed 

by METI, Inc., El Paso, 

TX, under contract with 

the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station at 

the Forestry Science 

Laboratory in Missoula, 

MT.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005

Approach

We provide two examples from the 2003 fire season in western Montana—the Black 

Mountain and the Crazy Horse Fires (fig. 1). The Black Mountain Fire in the Lolo 

National Forest burned 7,062 acres in August 2003. The Forest Service spent $19.7 

million in suppression expenditures fighting the fire ($2,789 per acre). The fire burned 

in the urban interface southwest of the city of Missoula and threatened a number of 

densely populated neighborhoods. Three homes were burned. Of the area in the final 

burn perimeter, 83 percent was Forest Service nonwilderness, 16 percent private nonindustrial land, and less than 1 percent Plum Creek timberland.

The Crazy Horse Fire on the Flathead National Forest, final area 11,132 acres, 

occurred in a more rural setting, putting substantial acreage of industrial timberland at 

risk but threatening few residential structures. The Forest Service spent $10.0 million 

on suppression ($898 per acre). The fire began in a Forest Service wilderness area and 

burned into Forest Service nonwilderness and Plum Creek timberland. Of the area 

within the final burn perimeter, 45 percent was Forest Service wilderness, 32 percent 

Forest Service nonwilderness, and 23 percent Plum Creek timberland. The taxable land 

value of the Plum Creek timberland was $1.78 million. No structures were burned.

We conducted GIS-based spatial analysis using multiple data sets to evaluate both 

market and nonmarket resources proximate to the perimeters of the Black Mountain 

and Crazy Horse Fires. All analytic procedures used standard program features; no 

custom programming was necessary. All data are publicly available (specific information regarding software, data sources, and procedures used in this pilot are available 

upon request). In general, buffers in 0.5 km increments were generated into unburned 

lands to a distance of 10 km from the fire perimeter. For this preliminary exercise, an 

Area of Concern (AOC) was defined extending through the buffered region to the east 

(fire spread in western Montana typically occurs to the east due to prevailing west 

winds). However, any polygon defining an AOC may be used. It may be generated by fire 

behavior software or hand-digitized based on expert opinion or political concerns.

Figure 1—Location within Montana of fires analyzed in this study.

Once these zoned buffers were defined (see fig. 2), we identified selected resource 

values that were threatened by the fire within these expanded perimeter zones. 

Break-even analysis—the point where project costs equal the marketable benefits—

was employed to identify the expanded fire perimeter area where the amount spent 

on suppressing the fire (the costs) equaled the resources protected for which we can 

assign a monetary value (the benefits). If it is likely that the fire would have spread 

beyond this break-even point had no suppression effort occurred, the expenditures on 

suppression resources were economically justified. However, if it is unlikely that the fire 

would have reached this break-even point, nonmarket resource values at risk may still 

justify an aggressive suppression response. If it does not appear that fire suppression 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005 3

was justified from a values-at-risk standpoint (both market and nonmarket resources), 

a discussion can be initiated of some of the policy drivers that encourage aggressive 

suppression tactics by the Forest Service.

To demonstrate the utility of our approach, we focused initially on assessed taxable 

private land and structure value from the Montana cadastral data layer (MT NRIS 

2003). We did not quantify the likelihood that a given structure would burn had the fire 

expanded into the perimeter that includes the structure. We simply quantified private 

land value for the expanded fire perimeters assuming 100 percent of the structure value 

and 25 percent of the land value. The assumption of 25 percent loss of land value is a 

coarse assumption that will be improved in future work by identifying land value change 

of burned properties through public assessors’ records. Additionally, we categorized 

forestland by type (low elevation species, high elevation species, and other), relative 

size (young and mature), and ownership and designation (Forest Service Wilderness, 

Forest Service Nonwilderness, State, Tribal, and Private). We did not assign a value 

change to these areas had the fire burned, we simply quantified the area in each class 

for each expanded fire perimeter zone and listed the Plum Creek Timber assessed 

taxable land value. Additionally we considered noneconomic, ecosystem attributes for 

the Crazy Horse Fire; fire regime and condition class for fire areas and wildlife habitat 

(CST 2002). Fire regime and condition class may be used to assess potential ecological 

effects of fire. Analysis of sensitive wildlife habitat included bull trout spawning and 

rearing habitat.

Figure 2—Buffer zones extending from fire perimeters with building centroids (+).
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005

Results

Taxable residential value was very high adjacent to the Black Mountain Fire and 

quickly became extremely large as the fire perimeter was expanded into densely developed neighborhoods on the outskirts of Missoula. Figure 3 presents a graph of private 

land and structure values as a function of the increased fire size (potential timber value 

loss due to fire is not included in this figure). If the fire had progressed 1 km to the 

east (an increase of 55 percent from the final fire size), the residential value within the 

expansion area equaled approximately $22.5 million, while if the fire had progressed 5 

km (188 percent increase in fire size) residential value increased to $227.5 million. The 

amount the Forest Service spent on suppression efforts ($19.79 million) was equivalent 

to the residential value in an expanded perimeter of between 32 and 55 percent of the 

final fire size (between 0.5 and 1 km eastern buffer zones). These expanded perimeters 

included significant private land (39 percent private land in the 1 km perimeter and 69 

percent in the 5 km perimeter). Additionally, we looked at the distribution of residential 

values in these expanded perimeters. Suppression strategy for protecting one second 

home valued at $2 million may vary from protecting 20 year-round residences valued at 

$100,000 each because of social equity. Total market value at risk is the same, but the 

social impact of the loss would likely be much greater for the fulltime residents. Figure 

4 presents the distribution of residential values within a 5 km perimeter. A majority 

of the structures in this expanded area are valued at under $200,000. However, there 

are a number of structures valued above $400,000 with one structure exceeding $1 

million.

The Crazy Horse Fire presents a far different situation. If the fire had progressed 

1 km to the east (an increase of 42 percent from the final fire size), residential value 

within the expansion area equaled only $0.42 million, while if the fire had progressed 

5 km (136 percent increase in fire size) residential value increased to $9.39 million 

(see fig. 5). The amount the Forest Service spent on suppression efforts ($9.97 million) 

was equivalent to the residential value in an expanded perimeter of between 182 and 

191 percent of the final fire size (between the 7.5 and 8 km eastern buffers). Land 

ownership in these expanded perimeters was mixed, with 55 percent Forest Service 

nonwilderness, 5 percent Forest Service Wilderness, 37 percent Plum Creek Timber, 

and 3 percent private nonindustrial land in the 1 km perimeter, and 42 percent Forest 

Service nonwilderness, 2 percent Forest Service Wilderness, 29 percent Plum Creek 

Figure 3—Increase of taxable value (million $) with increasing fire size for Black Mountain II Fire.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005 5

Figure 4—Distribution of taxable residential value within 5 km of final Black Mountain II Fire perimeter.

Figure 5—Increase of taxable value (million $) with increasing fire size for Crazy Horse Fire.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005

Timber, and 28 percent private nonindustrial land in the 5 km perimeter. The Plum 

Creek timberland in the 1 km expanded perimeter has a taxable value of $1.31 million, 

while the taxable value of Plum Creek lands within the 5 km buffer is $2.51 million.

Future studies will include estimates of the effect of wildfire on timber values, and 

these value changes may be incorporated into figures 3 and 5 to more fully represent 

market values at risk.

For this pilot project we limited our vegetation analysis to the area within the 

Crazy Horse Fire perimeter. Of the vegetation within the burned area, 65 percent was 

classified as upper elevation species (subalpine fire, grand fir, and lodgepole pine); 55 

percent was identified as having stand replacement fires as the historic fire regime; and 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) was distributed between 62 percent in FRCC 1 

(low departure from historic fire regime), 19 percent in FRCC 2 (moderate departure), 

and only 16 percent in FRCC 3 (high departure). Prior to containment, the fire was 

spreading downslope into areas where stand-replacement fires should be expected. The 

current vegetation was classified predominantly as FRCC 1 or as representing current 

vegetation conditions with low departure from the historic fire regime.

The entire Crazy Horse burn occurred in bull trout habitat (fig. 6). Over 9,000 acres 

rated as strong spawning and rearing habitat burned during the fire. A fire perimeter 

expanded 5 km to the east included over 14,000 additional acres of critical spawning 

and migration corridor habitat. Bull trout habitat was presented to demonstrate the 

ability to include analysis of nonmarket resource values. However, the effects of fire 

on bull trout habitat are currently not fully understood. Short-term effects on trout 

habitat may be negative due to increased siltation; however, in the long term, habitat 

may improve due to increased downed wood in streambeds (Rieman and Clayton 

1997). Market resource values appear not to provide sufficient justification for aggressive suppression on the Crazy Horse Fire. However, discussion with Region 1 Fire 

and Aviation Management (Greg Greenhoe, pers. comm. 2004) identified that when a 

fire that started on lands protected by the Forest Service burns into or threatens nonFederal land (Plum Creek timberland in this case), aggressive suppression is expected 

by the stakeholders and the jurisdictional agency (Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation, in this case).

Figure 6—Bull trout habitat status, Crazy Horse Fire.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005 7

Discussion

In this analysis, as a first step in comparing values at risk with suppression expenditures, we concentrated on residential land values. Obviously, wildfire affects a number 

of resource values in addition to residential lands, and wildfire suppression decisions 

are not based solely on values at risk. Some resource value changes due to wildfire, 

such as managed timberland value, could be evaluated and assigned a monetary value. 

Others, such as the value of endangered species habitat, are far more difficult. In many 

instances the value change to a resource due to wildfire may be positive (for example, 

low intensity fire in low elevation forest types can reduce hazardous fuel levels and 

improve forest health). Black and others (2004) suggest that determining if the effects 

of fire on forestland are positive or negative can be gleaned by comparing the area 

burned by FRCC with desired future conditions established within existing land 

management plans. We endorse the premise that “management for wildland fire objectives cannot be isolated from the management of native fishes (and other ecosystem 

concerns)” (Rieman and others 2003). The challenge before us is to determine how best 

to incorporate ecosystem considerations into this analytic approach. This requires that 

we work with resource specialists to build consensus on which resources to analyze and 

how they are to be analyzed in the context of wildland fire management.

Further analysis is planned to provide a more comprehensive accounting of resource 

values at risk due to fire including assessing the likelihood that individual structures 

will burn under different wildfire conditions, quantifying resource value changes that 

can be assigned a monetary value such as timber value change, and accounting for those 

resource values that are difficult to assign monetary values (both negative and positive 

effects). We plan to expand research efforts to examine a wider range of fire sizes and 

geographic areas, and will incorporate fire spread models such as FARSITE (Finney 

1998) and RERAP (USDA Forest Service 2000) to better define areas of concern.

Management Implications

Spatial maps identifying the value and location of important resource values at 

risk due to fire can improve communications between local land managers and fire 

managers during strategic wildfire planning. In the spring and summer of 2005, we 

will work with Fire and Aviation Management personnel in Forest Service Region 1 

and the Northern Rockies Coordination Group (NRCG) to provide resource value maps 

to fire managers in real time at wildfire events in western Montana for the 2005 fire 

season. Additionally, mapping the values at risk for multiple fires occurring at the same 

time can help prioritize resource allocation to these fires. For the 2005 fire season we 

will deploy in a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) group to help managers prioritize 

suppression resources to large wildfires.

The strength of this analysis approach is that it may be applied using any resource, 

market or nonmarket, for which a GIS-based inventory exists. The primary limitation 

of this approach is the availability and consistency of the spatial data. Application of 

this approach to nonmarket resource values should be undertaken with caution. The 

effects of fire and fire management on many nonmarket resource values are poorly 

understood, and it is frequently difficult to determine resource value change. Rule sets 

for quantifying wildfire risks to nonmarket resource values should be developed in the 

spatial and temporal context of fire management decisions.

Acknowledgments

Greg Greenhoe provided a technical review and is coordinating the implementation of 

these resource value mapping techniques on large fire events for Region 1 of the USDA 

Forest Service. Ann Black and Linda Lagner provided technical review. Mark Finney 

provided advice and consultation.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-24WWW. 2005

References

Black, A., C. Miller, and P. Landres. 2004. Wildland Fuels Management: Evaluation and Planning 

Risks and Benefits. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/F001.htm. 

Accessed May 18, 2004.

CST, Cohesive Strategy Team. 2002. Northern Region National Fire Plan Cohesive Strategy 

Geospatial Dataset: Fire Regime Condition Class. USDA Forest Service. Available at: http://

www.fs.fed.us/r1/cohesive_strategy/datafr.htm. Accessed May 12, 2004.

Finney, M.A. 1998. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator-model development and evaluation. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-4, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 47 p.

Greenhoe, Greg. 2004. [Telephone conversation]. May 12.

MT NRIS, Montana Natural Resources Information System. 2003. Montana Cadastral Mapping 

Project. Available at: http://nris.state.mt.us/nsdi/cadastral/. Accessed May 12, 2004.

Rieman, B. and J. Clayton, 1997. Wildfire and Native Fish: Issues of Forest Health and Conservation 

of Sensitive Species. Fisheries. 22: 6-15.

Rieman, B., D. Lee, D. Burns, R. Gresswell, M. Young, R. Stowell, J. Rinne, and P. Howell. 2003. 

Status of native fishes in the Western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 197–211.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008. 

Washington DC. 27 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. RERAP user’s guide: version 5.03. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service 

National Fire and Aviation Management Information Systems Team. 155 p.
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following 

media. Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

 Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

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 family status. (Not all prohibited 

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

alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, Room 326 W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

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

employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, 

protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is 

designed to meet the needs of the National Forest managers, 

Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, 

academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving 

ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource 

inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, 

forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, 

wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may 

be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper