USDA 

~ 

United States 

Department 

of Agricultu re 

Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

Resear ch Pa per 

PSW-RP-230 

Analysis of USDA Forest Service 

Fire-Related Expenditures 1970-1995 

Ervin G. Schuster David A. Cleaves Enoch F. Bell 

,..,. 

~:,: ~ I 

::! ~-· 11 ! t50·~ ,,." I .,.·It·• L 0 '"" AIA:RJA-4RSR .. AIAIA10 

FOAE.ST SERVICE .GI()>, 
Publisher: 

Albany, California 

Mailing address: 

PO Box 245, Berkeley CA 

94701-0245 

51 0 559-6300 

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us 

March 1997 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Forest Service 

US Department of Agriculture 

Abstract 

Schuster, Ervin G.; Cleaves, David A.; Bell, Enoch F. 1997. Analysis of USDA Forest Service 

fire-related expenditures 1970-1995. Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. Albany, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 29 p. 

Forest Service expenditures for fire presuppression and suppression activities increased 

from $61 million in FY 1970 to $951 million in FY 1994. Yet, real (net of inflation) 

expenditures have not increased significantly since FY 1970, ifFY 1994 expenditures are 

excluded. During any given year, 56 percent of suppression expenditures are spent on 

supplies and services, including aircraft and food, and 32 percent on salaries and wages. 

Weather, access, and firefighter availability and skills were key contributors to suppression 

expenditures. Real expenditures for fuel treatments have declined over the past 25 years, 

but are currently rising with renewed interest in prescribed burning. The future challenge 

for fire managers is reducing fire-related expenditures in light of how fire is dealt with in 

ecosystem management. 

Retrieval Terms: fire, fire economics, fire expenditures, fire costs 

The Authors 

Ervin G. Schuster, a research forester, is Project Leader-Economic Aspects of Ecosystem 

Management Research, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 Block East Beckwith, P.O. 

Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. David A. Cleaves was formerly Research Forester with 

the Evaluation of Legal, Tax, and Economic Influences on Forest Resources Management 

Research Unit, Southern Research Station, and is now Land Management Planning 

Specialist with the Ecosystem Management Staff, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, 

Washington, DC 20090-6090. Enoch F. Bell is Assistant Station Director for Continuing 

Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 245, 

Berkeley, CA 94701-0245. 

Acknowledgments 

We express our deep appreciation to the many Forest Service employees who provided 

fire expenditure data and conducted needed analyses. In particular, we thank Andrea 

Wojtasek (Washington Office, Fire and Aviation Management Staff), John Baker 

(Washington Office, Fiscal and Accounting Services Staff), Delvin Bunton (Boise National 

Interagency Fire Center}, Coleen Reed (Intermountain Region, Fire and Aviation 

Management Staff), Michael Schultz (Intermountain Region, Fiscal and Accounting 

Management Staff), Kelly Giard (Rocky Mountain Research Station), and Jorge Martinez 

(Southern Research Station). Additionally, we received invaluable assistance from 

numerous fire management and accounting management specialists with region-specific 

information needs. 
Analysis of USDA Forest Service 

Fire-Related Expenditures 1970-1995 

Ervin G. Schuster David A. Cleaves Enoch F. Bell 

Contents 

In Brief •••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••.•••.•••.•••.•••.•••.••••.•••••.•.••••.••••.. ii 

Introduction •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• I 

Methods .••......•.••...••.•..•.•..•...•••••..•....•....•........•.......•....•........................•....•...••....... I 

Overall Fire Expenditures ...................................................................................................... I 

Data Collection and Structure ..................................................................................... 2 

Missing Data and Verification ........................................................................................ 2 

Fire Suppression Expenditures ............................................................................................. 4 

Incident Commander Survey ................................................................................................. S 

Fuels Management Expenditures .......................................................................................... 6 

Results: Fire-Related Expenditures ........•........•.......•.................•..•.•.•....•....•....•. 6 

Overall Fire Expenditures ...................................................................................................... 6 

General Expenditures ..................................................................................................... 7 

Fund Code and Work Activity Classes .................................................................... I 0 

Fire Suppression Expenditures ........................................................................................... IS 

Types of Expenditures .................................................................................................. IS 

Expenditures Per Acre .................................................................................................. 18 

Expenditure-Increasing Factors .................................................................................. 19 

Fuels Management Expenditures ........................................................................................ 22 

Discussion •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.•.•.•.••..•.•.•...•.........•...•.••••••••••• 25 

Data Needs .............................................................................................................................. 2S 

Long-Term Trends ................................................................................................................. 2S 

Expenditure-Reducing Opportunities ............................................................................... 27 

References .......................•.....•..•.•..................•................•.................................... 2 9 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper 

PSW-RP-230 

March 1997 
ii 

In Brief 

Schuster, Ervin G.; Cleaves, David A.; Bell, Enoch F. 1997. Analysis of USDA Forest Service 

fire-related expenditures 1970-1995. Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. Albany, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 29 p. 

Retrieval Terms: fire, fire economics, fire expenditures, fire costs 

To respond to extreme expenditures (nearly $1 billion) in fiscal year (FY) 1994 for 

fire management, the Fire Economics Assessment Team was formed in January 

1995 by the USDA Forest Service's Fire and Aviation Management Staff, 

Washington, D.C. The Team was chartered to assess expenditures for fire 

management and determine ways to reduce or control those expenditures in the 

future. As part of this effort, the Team compiled fire expenditure data from a 

number of sources and analyzed them. Forest Service expenditures for fire 

presuppression and suppression activities had increased from $61 million in FY 

1970 to $951 million in FY 1994. Yet, real (net of inflation) expenditures had not 

increased significantly since FY 1970, ifFY 1994 expenditures are excluded. In 

any given year, 56 percent of suppression expenditures are spent on supplies and 

services, including aircraft and food, and 32 percent on salaries and wages. 

Weather, access, and firefighter availability and skills were key contributors to 

suppression expenditures. Real expenditures for fuel treatments have actually 

declined over the past 25 years, but are currently rising with renewed interest in 

prescribed burning. The future concern for fire managers involves reducing firerelated expenditures without a major restructuring of how fire is dealt with in 

ecosystem management. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
Introduction 

Fiscal year (FY) 1994 was a banner year for wildfire in our nation's forests and 

rangelands. During that year the expenditures for USDA Forest Service fire 

management reached a record-breaking total of nearly $1 billion, and other agencies 

saw similar increases. Because of these soaring expenditures and recommendations 

to address them from the Strategic Assessment of Fire Management Report (USDA 

Forest Service 1995b), the Fire Economics Assessment Team (FEAT) was chartered 

in 1995 by Forest Service's Fire and Aviation Management (F&AM) Staff in 

Washington, D.C. FEAT was to review current Forest Service fire management 

expenditures and their trends, and identify opportunities to control or reduce 

them. To accomplish this, FEAT identified expenditures and trends, causal factors 

driving them, projected future developments, and suggested changes to reduce 

future expenditures. FEAT's report was submitted to the Forest Service in 

September 1995 (Bell and others 1995). 

This paper summarizes the FEAT Report's fire expenditure data and related 

analyses, which have been updated to include the 1995 fire season; describes 

procedures used to obtain data, presents summaries of the expenditures and 

their trends; and discusses some implications for fire management. 

Methods 

The assessment of fire-related expenditures focused on expenditures controlled 

by the USDA Forest Service's Fire and Aviation Management (F&AM) Staff. 

These expenditures, however, understate the total fire-related expenditures on 

National Forests for two reasons. First, F&AM is not the only unit within the 

Forest Service performing fire-related activities. For example, fuels reduction is 

conducted by timber management units on National Forests using brush-disposal 

funds collected from timber sales. Second, agencies other than the Forest Service 

fight fires on National Forests, for which partial or no reimbursement is made. 

For example, when military personnel fight fire on National Forests, the Forest 

Service reimburses for expenditures above basic expenses only. When a U.S. 

Department of the Interior (USDI) agency, such as the Bureau of Land 

Management, fights fire on National Forests, funds are not transferred. Similarly, 

funds are not transferred when Forest Service personnel fight fire on USDI lands. 

Thus, in light of these caveats, we focused on four types of fire expenditure 

information: overall fire expenditures, fire suppression expenditures, an incident 

commander survey, and fuels management expenditures. 

Overall Fire Expenditures 

Fire expenditure information was developed for F&AM forest fire protection and 

fire suppression activities. Fiscal years (FY) were analyzed over time (1970-95) 

and space (Forest Service regions) in both nominal and 1995 real dollars. The 

current Federal fiscal year begins October 1 and ends the following September 

30. For example, FY 1994 ran from October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994. During 

the early 1970's, the Federal fiscal year ran from July 1 to the following June 30. 

The last such year was FY 1976 which ended on June 30, 1976. FY 1977 began the 

current system, starting on October 1, 1976. The 3-month period of July 1, 1976, to 

September 30, 1976, is referred to as the "transition quarter" and does not belong 

to any fiscal year. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
2 

Data Collection and Structure 

Information about fire expenditures came from several sources, but all basically 

derived from the official Forest Service accounting record, the Statement of 

Obligations. Information for FY 1970-82 was provided mainly through the Forest 

Service Fiscal and Accounting Services (FAS) staff (Washington, D.C.), by 

accessing and copying original archived records. Information from those records 

were transferred to spreadsheets by Intermountain Research Station (INT) 

personnel. In many cases, records thought to exist (e.g., archived computer tapes 

at the National Finance Center in New Orleans, Louisiana) did not. In addition to 

obtaining the missing information for FY 1970-82, records for FY 1983-88 were 

obtained by contacting regional-level fiscal personnel. FY 1989-95 information 

was provided electronically by the F&AM staff, with the assistance of the Fiscal 

and Accounting Management unit of the Intermountain Region. Database query 

macros were developed to access the Forest Service's Central Accounting Data 

Inquiry (CADI) database. Electronic file information was converted to a 

spreadsheet format for our use. 

The format of fire expenditure records has changed over time. Expenditure 

categories (currently referred to as work activities) became more detailed. Budget 

accounts (currently referred to as fund codes) varied between 1- and 2-year 

appropriations, controlled by F&AM or Timber Management. General 

Administration expenditures were included in fire-related appropriations in 

some years and separated in others. Nevertheless, this study always focused on 

two broad appropriations: forest fire protection and fighting forest fires. 

These and other changes in the accounting system required us to develop a 

set of conversions (between fund codes and work activities) to ensure uniformity 

and consistency from year to year (table 1). Specifically, personnel from INT and 

WO-F&AM developed conversions for FY 1994-95; WO-F&AM did FY 1989-93; 

and INT, WO-FAS, and the Northern Region Administration unit did FY 1970-

88. Because the content and specificity of work activities changed over time, they 

were aggregated into broad categories: 

• Forest fire protection (FFP) - Presuppression 

- Fuels improvement 

-Other 

• Fighting forest fires (FFF) -Suppression 

- Rehabilitation 

-Severity 

- Economic efficiency 

-Other 

For example, the fund code pertaining to fire protection was 002P&M in FY 

1970 (then referred to as appropriation codes) and 701FP in FY 1987 (table 1). 

Similarly, work activity codes 101 and 102 contained presuppression 

expenditures in FY 1970 (then referred to as major functions), as did codes 102 

and 111 in FY 1987. However, the broad categories developed to aggregate work 

activity data did not always exist: Economic Efficiency began with FY 1993; 

Severity began with FY 1987; Rehabilitation began with FY 1977; and Fuels 

Improvement was distinguished from general presuppression expenditures in 

FY 1977 (table 1). 

Missing Data and Verification 

Accounting records were not always complete and attempts to fill in the gaps 

with other data sources were not always successful. As a result, some missing 

fire expenditure data were estimated by INT personnel. The data verification 

process provided some values for missing data. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
c 

tn 

0 

> Table 1-Fund codes and work activity codes for classes of fire expenditures, in FY 1970-1995 "T1 

0 

Fighting forest fires (FFF) ., Forest fire protection (FFP) !! 

tn 

Work activity classes Work activity classes ID 

~ n· 

ID Fiscal Fund Fund Econonic ::0 year codes Presuppression Fuels Other codes Suppression Rehabilitation Severity efficiency Other ~ 

;;p 1970 002P&M 101, 102 312,313,320 003FFF 101,102,103 312,313 , 1971 102P&M 101, 102 312,313,320 103FFF 101, 102, 103 312,313 ID 

., 

., 

tn 1972 202P&M 101, 102 312,313,320 203FFF 101, 102, 103 312,313 

~ 1973 302P&M 101, 102 312, 313, 320 303FFF 101, 102, 103 312,313 ::0 

l 1974 402P&M 101, 102 312,313,320 403FFF 101, 102, 103 312, 313, 315 w 

p 1975 502P&M 101, 102 312, 313, 320 503FFF 101, 102, 103 312, 313, 315 

..., 1976 ..., 602 101, 102 312, 313, 320 603 101, 102, 103 312, 313, 315, 180 

;-... 1976TQ1 102 101,102 312, 313, 320 103 101, 102, 103 312, 313, 315, 180 

1977 701 111 to 114, 115 312,313, 180, 173, 703 102, 111 to 116 094 312, 313, 180 

116, 920s, 930s 960+ 

1978 801 111 to 114, 115 312,313, 180, 173, 803 102, 111 to 116 094 312, 313, 180 

116, 920s, 930s 960+ 

1979 901FM 102, 110 to 114, 115 311 to 313, 316, 180, 903FFF 102, 110 to 116 094 312, 313, 316, 180 

116, 920s, 930s 173,960+ 

1980 001FFP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 003FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1981 101FFP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 103FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1982 201FFP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 203FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1983 301FP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 303FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1984 401FP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 403FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1985 501FP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 503FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1986 601FP 102, 111 to 114 115 311 to 313, 316 603FFF 102 092 312, 313, 316 

1987 701FP 102,111 115 311, 312, 313 703FFF 102 092 111 312, 313, 316 

1988 8NFAF PF11s, PF12 PF2s ETs, GMs, MLs, PLs, 8NFFF8 PF12s FWs PF11s ATs, TSs 

TSs 

8NFFF9 PF12s FWs PF11s ATs, TSs 

1989 9NFAF PF11s, PF12 PF2s ETs, GMs, MLs, PLs, 9NFFF9 PF12s FWs PF11s ATs, TSs 

TSs 

9NFFFO PF12s FWs PF11s ATs, TSs 

1990 ONFAF PFlls, PF12 PF2s Others OFFFSO PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PF11s Others 

OFFFP PF11s, PF12 PF2s Others OFFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PF11s Others 

1991 FFFP PFlls, PF12 PF2s Others FFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PF11s Others 

1992 FFFP PF11s, PF12 PF2s Others FFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PF11s Others 

EFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PF11s Others 

1993 FFFP PF11s, PF12 PF2s Others EFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PFlls PF114 Others 

1994 FFFP PF11s, PF12 PF2s Others EFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PFlls PF114 Others 

1995 FFFP PF11s, PF12 PF2s Others EFFS PF12 FWs, ATs, LTs PFlls, PF115 PF114 Others 

1

TQ=transition quarter 

w 
4 

Verification-Fire expenditure data were verified by cross-checking for 

consistency and patterns with both internal and external sources. Internally, 

statement-of-obligation records came in two formats: fund code by work activity 

(Forest Service accounting report BUDG4V-3) showing a fund code check-total; 

and work activity by fund code (Forest Service accounting report BUDG4V-5) 

without fund code check-total. If work activity information was missing, it was 

treated as missing data, and regional personnel (both fiscal and fire) were 

contacted to secure needed records. External verification came from a variety of 

sources, records, and reports. 

Missing Data-Even after extensive efforts to obtain all needed data, some 

data could not be obtained. We were able to obtain virtually all data for the 

Northern Region (Region-1 }, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2}, and the Southwest 

Region (R-3), and most data for the Intermountain Region (R-4), Pacific 

Northwest Region (R-6}, Southern Region (R-8}, Eastern Region (R-9}, and the 

Alaska Region (R-10). The Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) and the Washington 

Office (R-13) had the most missing data, but R-13 was the worst. Missing data 

were developed by using three methods. First, some missing values were 

deduced, as when the preceding and succeeding values for a particular work 

activity were zero. Second, some fund code totals (e.g., R-5 firefighting in FY 

1980) were estimated by assuming the same pattern of change as in adjacent 

regions (e.g., R-3, R-4, and R-6 for missing R-5 values), or by assuming a 

percentage share for the missing year (e.g., R-6 fire protection expenditures in FY 

1981 and FY 1982 were assumed to be 6 percent of the national total, because they 

were that in FY 1980 and FY 1983). Third, in some cases all data were known, 

except for the missing observation; in that case, the missing observation was 

specified as the residual. This approach was used extensively for the Washington 

Office, for which there was virtually no expenditure information from FY 1980 

through FY 1988. 

Fire Suppression Expenditures 

The original purpose of this part of the study was to develop a predictive model 

of fire suppression expenditures, based on fire-specific characteristics (the 

independent variables) and fire expenditures (the dependent variable). Firespecific characteristics were to be obtained from the National Fire Management 

Information System (NFMIS) database and fire expenditures were to come from 

the specialized fire portion of the CADI database (CADI-Fire). But during this 

study, we discovered that fire acreage information contained in NFMIS included 

all acres in the fire, not just the National Forest acres. However, the expenditures 

contained in CADI-Fire (and NFMIS as well) are Forest Service expenditures 

only, excluding expenditures of other assisting agencies. In other words, 

whenever agencies other than the Forest Service fought a fire, Forest Service 

records understated total fire-related expenditures, which is the typical situation 

in larger fires. This is a seemingly insurmountable problem: the expenditures do 

not correspond to the acres. Thus, because fire size (acres) is a critical variable, 

the predictive model was abandoned. Nevertheless, we determined the 

magnitude of detailed Forest Service expenditures in several categories of fires 

relating to fire size and fuel type. 

Sampling-Ultimately, expenditure information for sampled fires must come 

from the CADI-Fire database, which uses project codes (P-codes) as a primary fire 

identifier. CADI-Fire contains expenditure information, but no information about 

fire characteristics; NFMIS contains that information. Not all fires are assigned Pcodes (especially the smaller fires}, and not all fires contained in the NFMIS 

database have P-codes recorded. After an evaluation of the information available 

in the CADI-Fire and NFMIS databases, we decided to restrict the data to medium 

(100-999 acres) and large (1,000+ acres) fires occurring in FY 1993 and FY 1994, and 

to aggregate them into two classes of fuels: grass/brush and wood/ slash. The 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
NFMIS administrator (Portland, Oregon) provided the sampling frame of all 

applicable fires. INT personnel selected a sample size of 202 fires, which would be 

distributed among regions, size class, and fuel type in proportion to their 

frequency. Forest Service regions were aggregated into three categories: East (R-8 

and R-9), Interior West (R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4), and Pacific West (R-5, R-6, and R10). Information for the sampling frame was entered into a Mini tab worksheet and 

the random sample procedure was used to select the fires sampled. 

The NFMIS database indicated that 612large and medium grass/brush and 

wood/ slashfires occurred during FY 1993-94. From that total, we selected an 

initial sample of 202 fires, in which large fires were sampled at a higher rate (63 

percent) than were medium fires (19 percent) because large fires were believed to 

be far more expensive. Ultimately, fires without P-codes assigned and fires with 

duplicated P-codes reduced the total sample size to 171 fires. 

Data Collection-The list of sampled fires was communicated electronically 

to the CADI-Fire administrator (Ogden, Utah) and R-4 fiscal personnel who 

prepared needed database queries to access the CADI-Fire database. Queries 

were designed to be compatible with those developed in the Overall Fire 

Expenditure phase, insofar as fire suppression expenditures were aggregated 

into three classes of budget object code (BOC): personnel (salary and travel), 

supplies and equipment, and others. Query results were maintained in an 

electronic format. 

Incident Commander Survey 

The survey of incident commanders (IC's) was intended to measure the role of 

selected factors (e.g., wildland I urban interface) in increasing fire suppression 

expenditures. The survey was restricted to individual IC's for a sample of large 

fires occurring during the FY 1994 fire season. 

Questionnaire-A brief questionnaire was developed and reviewed by FEAT 

personnel. Ultimately consisting of 34 factors (topics or issues), each was rated 

on a five-category scale ranging from very unimportant to very important. 

Respondent IC's were asked to indicate the response category that best described 

each factor's role in increasing fire suppression expenditures. Respondents were 

instructed to restrict attention to a specific fire (for which they were the incident 

commander) and were reminded to consider the full range of categories on the 

response scale. 

Sampling-Fires sampled for the IC survey were limited to the large, FY 1994 

fires sampled for the fire expenditure portion of this study, 102 fires in total. 

Wilderness fires (that had no incident commander), mislabeled fires (i.e., small 

fires labeled as large), and so on, reduced the initial sample such that 84 fires 

were used for the IC survey. Regional fire intelligence officers were contacted 

regarding identity and location of the IC(s) for each fire. Electronic mail 

addresses, surface mail addresses, or other information was provided. In many 

cases, several fires had the same IC, and in some cases, a single fire (typically a 

multiple-fire complex) had several IC's. 

Data Collection-On May 15, 1995, questionnaires were sent, either via 

electronic or surface mail. Respondents were given almost 3 weeks to respond. 

After the deadline, a reminder note was sent, along with a new deadline. A 

second reminder note was sent on June 8, with an immediate-response deadline 

and another copy of the questionnaire. In total, 103 questionnaires were sent and 

98 were returned, for a 95 percent response rate. 

Data Analysis-Data from returned questionnaires were entered into a 

spreadsheet for analysis. Descriptive statistics were developed for each topic/ 

issue, including the range, median, arithmetic mean, and total score. Topic 

importance was based on the median rating, with the mean score used to break ties. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 5 
6 

Fuels Management Expenditures 

Data on fuels management expenditures were obtained from Forest Service 

accounting records by using a process similar to that used for other fire 

expenditures. Several fund codes were used, including appropriated fuels 

management funds (FFFP), brush disposal funds (BDBD), Knutson-Vandenburg 

funds (KV), and funds from benefiting functions such as wildlife, timber 

management, threatened and endangered species, recreation, and others. Fuels 

management was not a designated work activity before FY 1977; it had been 

previously under either timber management or fire presuppression dollars. 

The current Forest Service accounting structure allows for more than 20 

different work activity codes to be recorded under fuels-related fund codes. But 

only a subset (the PF-2' s) pertain to on-the-ground applications of fuel treatment, 

and only a subset of those concern prescribed burning. Fuel treatment (including 

prescribed burning) expenditures are recorded under work activity codes for 

activity fuels reduction (PF-25) and natural fuels treatments (PF-24), including 

management-ignited (PF-242) and prescribed natural fire (PF-241). We could not 

determine whether fuel treatment expenditures were for burning or some other 

method of fuel reduction. Therefore, expenditure data are most useful for 

comparing overall funding trends, shifts in expenditures among work activities, 

and expenditure shifts among Forest Service regions for the FFFP fund code. 

Detailed FFFP fuels expenditure data were available for FY 1987-95 and BDBD 

expenditure data for FY 1991-95. 

Forest Service Management Attainment Reports (MAR) were used to isolate 

the number of acres reported in fuel management activity. Appropriated fuel 

treatment (MAR code 16.2) and brush disposal fuel treatment (MAR code 16.3) 

are summarized in the regional MAR data and represent our best estimate of 

natural fuels (MAR code 16.2) and activity fuels (MAR code 16.3) 

accomplishments. We used the MAR category "final accomplishments" rather 

than targeted or projected accomplishments. Reporting conventions vary 

somewhat by region and forest, and apparently some acres treated for multiple 

purposes (e.g., reforestation and fuels reduction) were double-counted in the 

MAR framework. In addition, about half of the natural fuels burning in the 

Southern Region was not captured under either of these MAR codes, presumably 

because the primary purpose of the burning was not fuel reduction. 

Results: Fire-Related Expenditures 

Fire-related expenditures in FY 1994 prompted concern that led to this study. FY 

1994 did not have the highest number of fires, nor were the most acres burned. 

Over the FY 1970-95 period, the highest number of fires occurred in FY 1970, with 

more than 15,000 ignitions; FY 1994 ranks fifth, with 13,575 fires ifig.l). The most 

acres (more than 2.7 million) burned in FY 1988; FY 1994 ranks second, with about 

one-half as many acres. However, FY 1994 ranks first in expense; it was the most 

expensive year on record, exceeding the previous record (FY 1988) by 56.9 percent. 

Overall Fire Expenditures 

Fire-related expenditures refer to payments made by F&AM for goods and services 

to protect forests from fires and fight forest fires. Fire expenditures were acquired 

from central accounting records storage, fiscal management personnel from each of 

the regions, and the current accounting database. We distinguish between 

expenditures and costs. Economic cost is a more comprehensive term, generally held 

to be what is forgone to secure something, including opportunity and social costs. 

For example, some might argue that loss of biological diversity or air pollution are 

fire-related costs. Fire-related expenditures simply refer to direct, financial outlays. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
General Expenditures 

Our assessment of fire-related expenditures covers the time period FY 1970-95 

and becomes more detailed approaching FY 1995. Over this period, the Forest 

Service spent about $7.9 billion on fire-related activities. F&AM expenditures 

amounting to $61 million in FY 1970 rose to almost $1 billion by FY 1994, a 

sixteenfold increase (jig. 2). Using the average of FY 1970-74 to represent FY 1970 

and the average of FY 1991-95 to represent FY 1995, fire-related expenditures 

rose at an average rate of 15.5 percent annually. The infamous 1988 fire season 

was expensive ($606 million), but not nearly as expensive as FY 1994, with a 

record of $951 million (jig. 2). 

Measuring total fire-related expenditures in 1995 dollars adjusts for inflation, 

thus holding the purchasing power of money constant at 1995 levels (jig. 2). In 

20 

18 

16 

-en 

"'0 14 c 

Rl 

en 

:::J 12 0 

..c 

c. 10 en 

CD 

L.. 

u:: 8 

6 

................................................................................................................................ . 

:: 

II 

II 

......................................................................................... .: •................................... 

Number of Fires : : I I I I I I ... ..... . ....................................................................................................................... . I 0 i : ·············-·········· .............................................................. . . . . . . . . . I I 

.................................................................................. : ..... ., .......................... . . . I 

. . I ... 

. . . .. I 1 • I ................................................................................. &. .............................. ··•····· 

. i : . . . :'' \ ................................................................................... J .......... i ................. ; ........ \ ... . I I • I 

Acres Burned *• j i I \ 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

4 .. \. ...................................................................... J.! •. .: ............ J.,.v,······-J ............. \ .. •• • : ··.; ~ : ~ 0.5 

·~ .... ·'···· : ~ : ~ 

-en 

c 

~ 

~ en 

L.. 

~ 

0 

0 

2 ................................. / .... \ ... ..;. ....... '!~ .............. ; .............................. ~,.; ................... . 

.................. ·~: ··.. ..·· ~ ....• 

0 

Fiscal Years 

1000 

900 .................................................................................................................... .. 

800 ................................................................................................................ - ... . 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

-

.. ............................. ~ ...................................................... ,.\-----------------...... -- .. . ., '' ., . ' 

. '' . ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ........................... , .... -\ ................................................ t ......................... ---- --

! \ Real 1995$ i \ ·························f·····---~----·············-·························f·· ..... ··\;····---n~--- ....... . I t I t 

,.-··' \ , ....... ,.i"\ ·"· I ', -----~·-········r·················-'i~-,·-----------,-·-···········:··~··r· ·············· \;· 

: '. ,• ' \ : 'tl ' 

I "-.J \ .: .... 1 ......................................................... ~ ..... :.., ....... . ! ._.~ 

75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 

Fiscal Years 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 

-en 

c 

~ 

l: 

-en 

CD 

L.. 

u 

<( 

Figure I -Number of fires and acres 

burned, FY 1970-95, by year. 

Figure 1-Total fire-related 

expenditures, FY 1970-95, by year. 

7 
Figure 3-Fire protection and firefighting expenditures, FY 1970-95, by 

year. Protection includes and Fire 

Fighting excludes Economic Efficiency 

and Severity. 

8 

constant dollars, FY 1994 was still the record year, followed by FY 1988 at $747 

million and FY 1976 (a 15-month year) at $704 million. Though highly erratic, 

real, total fire-related expenditures from FY 1970-95 showed a statistically 

significant (p = 0.05) increase, primarily because of the influence of FY 1994. On 

the basis of constant 1995 dollars, about $11.8 billion were spent on fire-related 

activities for FY 1970-95, an amount 50 percent greater than measured in currentyear dollars. However, real, fire-related expenditures rose at an average annual 

rate of only 2.3 percent. With FY 1994 removed from the time-series of real, total 

expenditures, the linear trend is not statistically significant (p = 0.20). 

Figure 3 shows the historical level of nominal expenditures in forest fire 

protection (FFP) and fighting forest fires (FFF), as well as FFP expenditures in 

constant dollars. Generally, protection-related activities include actions taken 

before a fire is fought as a wildfire. Because Severity expenditures in FY 1987-95 

and Economic Efficiency expenditures in FY 1993-95 were intended to 

supplement Presuppression expenditures, they were added to FFP totals and 

subtracted from FFF totals. 

FY 1994 was the record year for both nominal FFP expenditures ($266 million) 

and FFF expenditures ($685 million) (jig. 3). Over the entire FY 1970-95 period, 

FFP expenditures accounted for about $3.7 billion (47.6 percent of the total) while 

FFF accounted for $4.1 billion (52.4 percent of the total). However, FFP 

expenditures have increased faster than those for FFF. During the early years 

(FY 1970-74), FFP expenditures averaged about $35.2 million (33.0 percent) 

annually, and FFF expenditures averaged about $71.4 million (67.0 percent) 

annually. In recent years (FY 1991-95), FFP expenditures averaged $246.5 million 

(47.4 percent) annually, and FFF averaged $273.9 million (52.6 percent) annually. 

FFP expenditures in constant, 1995 dollars generally rose throughout the 

1970's, peaked in the late 1970's, and showed a statistically nonsignificant (p = 

0.17) decline since FY 1977, despite recent increases (jig. 3). In constant, 1995 

dollars, FFP expenditures accounted for 82.3 percent of all fire-related expenditures 

in FY 1978, only 28.0 percent in FY 1994, but rose to 60.2 percent in FY 1995. FFF 

expenditures are not shown in constant, 1995 dollars because they so erratic. Even 

with FY 1988 and FY 1994 included, the linear trend in real, FFF expenditures over 

the FY 1970-95 period is not statistically significant (p = 0.40). 

600 

~ 500 

~ 

~ 400 

~ 

~ 

0 300 

0 

200 

100 

73 75 81 83 

Fiscal Years 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
Fire-related expenditures are not distributed uniformly across the country. 

To display these data, Forest Service regions were aggregated into the Interior 

West (R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4), the Pacific West (R-5, R-6, and R-10), the East (R-8 

and R-9), and WO+ [R-13 (the Washington Office) plus other units, e.g., 

Experiment Stations]. WO+ expenditures include expenses of operating the WO 

staff, funding research (Missoula, Montana, and Riverside, California) and 

development (Missoula, Montana, and San Dimas, California) projects, operating 

the National Advanced Resource and Technology Center (Marana, Arizona) for 

advanced fire management training, and supporting the Forest Service portion 

of the National Interagency Fire Center (Boise, Idaho) that provides national 

contracts for air tankers, helicopters, etc. 

During the FY 1970-95 period, the Pacific West accounted for almost half 

(49.6 percent) of all fire-related expenditures (jig. 4). The East accounted for the 

least (8.0 percent) while the Interior West (32.4 percent) and the WO+ (10.0 

percent) constituted the mid-range. Additionally, just as overall fire-related 

expenditures increased substantially between FY 1970-74 and FY 1991-95, region 

expenditures also increased. For example, fire-related expenditures in the Pacific 

West averaged $53.3 million annually during FY 1970-74, but rose to $248.8 

million annually during FY 1991-95, an average 14.7 percent annual increase. The 

Interior West and East displayed similar growth rates, 13.3 percent and 15.6 

percent, respectively. But the highest increases in fire-related expenditures 

occurred in the WO+ region: 5.8 percent of all expenditures during FY 1970-74, 

but rising to 12.0 percent by FY 1991-95; this doubling represents an average 

growth of 36.7 percent annually. 

Clearly, the increase in fire-related expenditures was not uniform within fire 

activities nor among regions (table 2). Overall, annual average expenditures 

increased by $197 million per year. The overall expenditure changes in R-5 alone 

accounted for about one-third of all changes. Overall, annual FFF expenditure 

increased by $122 million, representing more than half (61.7 percent) of all 

changes. Within FFF, expenditure increases by R-5 accounted for about one-third 

of all FFF increases and one-fifth of the overall total change. FFF increases by R-5 

were followed closely by increases in the WO+ region (23.0 percent of total). 

More than one-third of FFP increases were accounted for by R-5, which also 

4SO 

400 

3SO 

-

Cl) 

c: 300 

~ 

~ 2SO 

Cl) 

s.. 

..!!! 200 

0 

0 ISO 

100 

so 

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

70 71 72 73 74 7S 76 77 78 79 80 8182 83 84 85 86 8788 89 90 91 92 93 94 9S 

Fiscal Years 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 

Figure 4-Regional fire-related 

expenditures, FY 1970-9S, by year. 

9 
10 

Table 2-Total and percentage distribution of annual forest fire protection (FFP) and fighting forest fires (FFF) expenditure 

changes (1995 dollars), FY 1970-74 relative to FY 1991-95. 

Forest Service 

region 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

10 

WO+ 

Total 

Expenditure change Percent distribution 

FFP FFF Total FFP FFF Total 

$4,368,556 $7,405,640 $11,774,196 2.22 3.76 5.97 

1,048,424 2,327,214 3,375,638 0.53 1.18 1.71 

11,120,507 (3,096,944) 8,023,562 5.64 -1.57 4.07 

5,419,943 21,701,514 27,121,456 2.75 11.01 13.76 

25,381,642 38,923,201 64,304,843 12.87 19.74 32.62 

14,626,952 5,711,209 20,338,162 7.42 2.90 10.32 

2,479,637 10,207,233 12,686,869 1.26 5.18 6.43 

(797,574) 3,330,754 2,533,180 -0.40 1.69 1.28 

218,101 1,592,143 1,810,245 0.11 0.81 0.92 

11,567,624 33,620,973 45,188,598 5.87 17.05 22.92 

$75,433,813 $121,722,937 $197,156,750 38.26 61.74 100.00 

accounted for 13.0 percent of the total increase. Average annual FFF expenditures 

in R-3 actually decreased, as did FFP expenditures in R-9. 

Fund Code and Work Activity Classes 

Accounting records for fire-related expenditures were organized at three levels. 

The broadest level corresponded to Congressional appropriations; this level 

identified the source of funds and was referred to as "fund codes" (or previously as 

"appropriation codes"), such as FFP and FFF. Fire-related expenditures were 

made for a specific purpose, such as fire detection. These purposes were referred to 

as "work activities" (or previously as "major functions"). Hundreds of work 

activities have been described and codified in Forest Service manuals. Work 

activity codes were not designed for the exclusive use of any particular functional 

area within the Forest Service. For example, both F&AM and Timber Management 

may use the work activity code pertaining to fuels improvement activities. The 

most specific level of expenditure information is the budget object code (BOC). 

BOC's refer to the kind of expenditure, such as personnel compensation. There are 

hundreds of BOC' s organized in numerical codes and listed in the Forest Service 

Manual. Fire-related expenditures are specified by BOC (kind), associated with a 

work activity (purpose), and charged to a fund code (source). 

Work activities were aggregated within the major fund codes because they 

are easier to assess if combined and so that changes in the definitions of work 

activities (as the accounting system evolves to meet the need for more- or lessdetailed information) remain within an aggregate. For instance, FFP included 

Presuppression (the aggregate) expenditures for preventing, detecting, 

dispatching, planning, training, overhead, and staffing the initial attack 

organization (individual work activities). The initial attack organization includes 

recruiting, hiring, training, personnel compensation, equipment, and other such 

resources. Fuels improvement refers to actions that reduce fire hazard, such as 

prescribed burning. FFF includes Suppression expenditures such as those 

incurred after a natural fire has been declared a "wildfire" (burning out of 

prescription), or when Presuppression funds are inadequate for initial attack. 

Emergency fire Rehabilitation expenditures prevent additional damage resulting 

from suppression actions by performing activities such as repairing trails and 

fences, water-barring fire lines, and repairing drainage ditches. Severity 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
expenditures are emergency presuppression actions needed because of higherthan-average fire danger and potential fire severity. Economic efficiency 

expenditures are used to provide non-emergency presuppression capability, 

resulting from an imbalance between FFP and FFF appropriations. The "Other" 

categories consist of work activities that did not clearly fit other categories, such 

as PL-132 Law Enforcement. 

Overall expenditures (nominal dollars) were tallied for the FFP and FFF fund 

codes and the aggregates of work activities within each (table 3). Some codes were 

not functional for all years in the study. For example, Severity begins in FY 1987, 

but did not exist in prior years. Expenditures in constant, 1995 dollars were also 

tallied (table 4) and can be used to assess changes in "real" fire-related expenditures. 

Forest Fire Protection-During the FY 1991-95 time period, Presuppression 

(including Severity and Economic Efficiency) dominated FFP expenditures; 

Presuppression activities accounted for 86.5 percent of all FFP expenditures, and 

Fuels Improvement accounted for 4.5 percent (Jig. 5). Average annual 

Presuppression expenditures over this period were $213.2 million while Fuels 

Improvement averaged $11.2 million. Though nominal Presuppression 

expenditures have been increasing, the real value of both Presuppression and 

Fuels Improvement has been decreasing over the past decade (table 4). Even with 

the addition of Severity and Economic Efficiency, which causes the real value of 

FFP expenditures to increase in FY 1991-95, there has been a statistically nonsignificant linear decrease in both overall FFP (p = 0.17) and Presuppression (p = 

0.36) expenditures from FY 1977 to FY 1995. Real Fuels Improvement 

expenditures, which generally account for the difference between FFP and 

Presuppression expenditures, showed a statistically significant (p = 0.00) linear 

decline over that time period. 

The most notable aspect of Presuppression (including Severity and Economic 

Efficiency) expenditures are the sharp increases in FY 1977. This increase reflects 

increased fire presuppression appropriations after the large fires of 1967, 1970, 

and 1972, and the 1972 fire re-planning effort that recommended increased 

presuppression resources. In FY 1972, the "10:00 a.m." policy was replaced by a 

policy of "appropriate suppression response" for escaped fires and start of a 

planning standard of a 10-acre average fire size. In FY 1978, the appropriate 

suppression discretion was extended to initial attack. Expenditure increases 

were probably caused by pre-attack planning. 

250~------------------------------------------, 

200 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-en 

c: 

~ 

f 

ISO 

-en 

'-

~ 100 l5 

0 

Fuels Improvement __ ,,---------~ ____ , ,- -------~-----

Fiscal Years 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 

Figure 5-Fire protection 

expenditures, FY 1970-95, by year. 

Presuppression includes Economic 

Efficiency and Severity. 

II 
IV 

Table 3-Forest Service fire protection (FFP) and fire fighting (FFF) expenditures, FY 1970-95, by work activity class of expenditure 

Forest fire protection (FFP) Fighting forest fires (FFF) ~---~---~--

Fiscal Economic 

year Presuppression Fuels Other FFP total Suppression Rehabilitation Severity efficiency Other FFF total Total 

1970 $28,234,106 _1 $4,445,903 $32,680,009 $27,425,705 $1,047,642 $28,473,346 $61,153,355 

1971 30,139,322 4,473,166 34,612,488 82,929,089 2,388,901 85,317,990 119,930,478 

1972 30,194,836 3,600,472 33,795,307 60,508,114 3,011,878 63,519,992 97,315,300 

1973 31,618,290 3,531,627 35,149,917 62,141,570 2,039,041 64,180,611 99,330,528 

1974 35,864,090 3,920,551 39,784,641 110,053,738 5,304,559 115,358,298 155,142,939 

1975 47,020,132 7,038,127 54,058,259 114,479,335 4,327,533 118,806,868 172,865,127 

1976 38,354,111 7,607,043 45,961,154 150,803,587 2,846,854 153,650,440 199,611,595 

1976TQ2 13,781,468 2,393,159 16,174,628 70,200,929 1,637,354 71,838,283 88,012,911 

1977 111,254,555 $5,368,327 27,638,582 144,261,463 95,435,588 $695,522 7,153,621 103,284,730 247,546,194 

1978 104,541,207 11,528,545 27,951,880 144,021,631 27,683,921 630,858 2,757,934 31,072,712 175,094,344 

1979 115,288,501 14,666,134 1,892,465 131,847,100 80,339,053 315,594 4,876,425 85,531,072 217,378,172 

1980 138,338,458 21,088,634 1,701,487 161,128,578 63,375,264 1,365,721 4,448,703 69,189,688 230,318,266 

1981 151,709,352 19,549,933 1,706,274 172,965,559 97,822,618 1,233,216 7,097,326 106,153,161 279,118,720 

1982 124,894,897 16,297,431 1,697,601 142,889,929 27,158,985 102,785 2,563,927 29,825,697 172,715,626 

1983 135,081,899 17,833,106 1,842,345 154,757,350 31,803,617 126,220 3,371,171 35,301,008 190,058,358 

1984 139,024,025 17,180,623 1,609,182 157,813,830 62,011,053 215,743 4,037,359 66,264,155 224,077,985 

1985 141,477,807 15,030,631 1,809,327 158,317,765 160,473,143 1,018,2521 5,208,929 166,700,324 325,018,090 

1986 140,804,355 8,545,330 1,646,807 150,996,491 110,252,540 1,371,391 3,726,411 115,350,342 266,346,834 

c 1987 145,674,975 9,499,856 1,637,070 156,811,902 252,402,013 622,714 $631,523 7,163,465 260,819,714 417,631,616 VI 

0 1988 150,798,495 6,685,323 6,404,090 163,887,908 413,603,414 5,021,616 10,995,388 12,937,987 442,558,406 606,446,315 )> 

, 

0 

~ 1989 144,755,945 6,522,766 7,816,133 159,094,843 317,762,959 6,628,811 7,280,089. 7,933,617 339,605,476 498,700,319 

:a 

VI 1990 158,824,765 7,887,609 10,107,657 176,820,031 219,750,976 2,409,328 27,342 4,145,530 25,3647,506 430,467,537 Ill 

l 

1991 162,67 4,056 7,835,434 1,072,363 1,330,183 135,749,784 317,668,925 n 11,409,651 181,919,141 109,938,530 23,408,706 Ill 

::0 

PI 1992 169,620,330 7,451,460 11,453,032 188,524,822 254,825,229 1,903,222 29,160,878 4,947,494 290,836,823 479,361,645 

~ "0 1993 164,620,006 12,362,925 11,981,434 188,964,364 108,512,905 7,524,319 3,400,296 $58,713,435 1,945,496 180,096,452 369,060,817 Ill 

.., 

;:5I 1994 141,293,264 11,465,698 35,816,289 188,575,251 667,557,238 9,505,075 6,225,922 71,624,390 7,613,072 762,525,698 951,100,949 

~ 1995 105,486,062 16,643,994 39,829,271 161,959,327 167,660,724 12,768,948 4,778,848 125,058,586 12,364,110 322,631,218 484,590,545 ::0 

-p 

...., 

w 

!::J 

::0 1

Work activity class did not exist. 

"' 2TQ=transition quarter :'-I 
c Table 4-Forest Service fire protection (FFP) and fire fighting (FFF) expenditures (1995 dollars), FY 1970-95, by work activity class of expenditure VI 

0 

> Forest fire protection (FFP) Fighting forest fires (FFF) ,.. 

0 

i --· ~-------- -----·-----~ 

Fiscal Economic VI Presupprcssion Fuels Other FFP total Suppression Rehabilitation Severity efficiency Other FFF total Total ID year < ;:;-

ID 

:;g I ~ 1970 $102,669,477 - $16,166,919 $118,836,395 $99,729,835 $3,809,606 $103,539,441 $222,375,837 ., 

Col 

"'C 1971 103,984,722 15,433,027 119,417,749 286,116,533 8,242,031 294,358,564 413,776,313 ID 

, 99,611,829 11,877,846 111,489,674 199,614,398 9,936,092 209,550,490 321,040,164 ., 1972 

~ 1973 97,993,731 10,945,478 108,939,209 192,593,728 6,319,546 198,913,274 307,852,483 :;g 

""!' 1974 102,240,614 11,176,625 113,417,239 313,738,942 15,122,129 328,861,072 442,278,311 "" ""' p 1975 122,328,798 18,310,575 140,639,373 297,832,417 11,258,622 309,091,040 449,730,412 ~ 

"' :"-I 1976 93,868,570 18,617,620 112,486,190 369,079,523 6,967,444 376,046,967 488,533,157 

1976TQ2 33,729,024 5,857,063 39,586,087 171,811,069 4,007,292 175,818,360 215,404,448 

1977 254,751,037 $12,292,413 63,286,914 330,330,364 218,528,716 $1,592,608 16,380,384 236,501,708 566,832,072 

1978 221,911,683 24,471,869 59,334,007 305,717,559 58,765,205 1,339,134 5,854,320 65,958,660 371,676,219 

1979 225,296,613 28,660,537 3,698,252 257,655,402 156,998,454 616,733 9,529,502 167,144,690 424,800,092 

1980 246,964,053 37,647,770 3,037,521 287,649,344 11,3138,547 2,438,108 7,941,896 123,518,551 411,167,895 

1981 246,119,101 31,715,988 2,768,100 280,603,189 158,698,291 2,000,655 11,514,039 172,212,986 452,816,174 

1982 190,770,248 24,893,451 2,592,994 218,256,693 41,483,891 156,999 3,916,260 45,557,151 263,813,844 

1983 198,285,357 26,177,036 2,704,360 227,166,753 46,684,208 185,277 4,948,507 51,817,993 278,984,746 

1984 195,550,276 24,166,151 2,263,465 221,979,892 87,224,339 303,462 5,678,923 93,206,724 315,186,616 

1985 191,834,315 20,380,517 2,453,324 214,668,156 217,590,702 1,380,681 7,062,955 226,034,338 440,702,494 

1986 185,995,432 11,287,949 2,175,349 199,458,730 145,638,029 1,811,538 4,922,401 152,371,969 351,830,699 

1987 186,463,969 12,159,816 2,095,449 200,719,234 323,074,576 797,073 $808,350 9,169,235 333,849,234 534,568,468 

1988 185,776,780 8,236,009 7,889,544 201,902,332 509,540,299 6,186,399 13,545,811 15,939,002 545,211,511 747,113,843 

1989 170,771,990 7,695,060 9,220,875 187,687,925 374,872,431 7,820,164 8,588,493 9,359,475 400,640,562 588,328,487 

1990 179,431,332 8,910,980 11,419,065 199,761,376 248,262,356 2,721,924 30,889,092 4,683,388 286,556,759 486,318,136 

1991 177,060,197 8,528,363 12,418,668 198,007,228 119,660,985 1,167,198 25,478,865 1,447,818 147,754,867 345,762,095 

1992 179,581,491 7,889,057 12,125,625 199,596,173 269,790,151 2,014,991 30,873,387 5,238,041 307,916,570 507,512,743 

1993 170,618,306 12,813,396 12,418,004 195,849,705 11,2466,816 7,798,484 3,524,194 $60,852,792 2,016,385 186,658,671 382,508,377 

1994 143,422,187 11,638,457 36,355,948 191,416,591 677,615,595 9,648,292 6319,730 72,703,585, 7,727,782 774,014,983 965,431,574 

1995 105,486,062 16,643,994 39,829,271 161,959,327 167,660,724 12,768,948 4,778,848 125,058,587 12,364,110 322,631,218 484,590,545 

1

Work activity class did not exist. 

2'fQ=transition quarter 
14 

Expenditure information for Fuels Improvement begins in FY 1977. But that 

does not mean activities to improve fuels did not occur before FY 1977. Rather, 

before FY 1977 all FFP-related expenditures were controlled by timber 

management staffs, not by F&AM Staffs. Because timber management staffs also 

conduct fuels improvement activities not related to fire protection (e.g., slash 

reduction in timber sales), the accounting system could not distinguish between 

timber-related fuels improvement from fire-related fuels improvement. (In FY 

1977, FFP appropriations came under the control of F&AM.) During FY 1977-81, 

Fuels Improvement expenditures averaged $14.4 million annually; during FY 

1991-95 expenditures averaged $11.1 million annually. This difference represents 

an annual average decrease of 1.3 percent in nominal dollars, and a 3.2 percent 

annual decrease in constant, 1995 dollars. 

Though labeled "presuppression," some expenditures contained in 

Presuppression are actually for suppressing forest fires. For example, the work 

activity covering fire suppression (PF12) constituted 2.2 percent of the 

Presuppression expenditures for the period FY 1991-95. This situation results 

from fiscal and accounting conventions. Fire suppression activities are charged 

to Presuppression for the base salary (the first 8 hours) of FFP-funded, initialattack personnel. Overtime, hazard pay, and any other expenses not included in 

the FFP budget are charged to Suppression in the FFF budget. Additionally, if 

FFP-funded presuppression personnel are replaced at their home unit by backup 

personnel, backup personnel expenses are charged to Presuppression and all 

personnel expenses for the original presuppression personnel are charged to 

FFF-Su ppression. 

Fighting Forest Fires-Expenditures related to FFF are more difficult to 

evaluate at the level of work activity aggregates than were FFP expenditures 

because only one aggregate, Suppression, has existed over the entire FY 1970-95 

time period. Rehabilitation was formally recognized in FY 1977; Severity began in 

FY 1987, and Economic Efficiency began in FY 1993. In the case of Rehabilitation, 

work activity 094 did not exist before FY 1977, so any rehabilitation work was 

charged to another code. Work activity 111, used to measure Severity, existed 

before FY 1987, but could not be used with FFF appropriations. And PF114, used 

for Economic Efficiency, existed in FY 1991, but was rarely used until FY 1993 

when it was designated for use with Economic Efficiency. 

Since FY 1970, Suppression has accounted for 95.6 percent of all FFF 

(excluding Severity and Economic Efficiency) expenditures, and 50.1 percent of 

all fire-related expenditures (fig. 6, table 3). Using annual average expenditures 

during FY 1970-74 to represent FY 1970 and FY 1991-95 to represent FY 1995, 

Suppression expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 11.4 percent. During 

the FY 1991-95 period, Suppression accounted for 95.6 percent of FFF 

expenditures (excluding Severity and Economic Efficiency) and 50.3 percent of 

all fire-related expenditures. In contrast, Rehabilitation accounted for a scant 1.3 

percent of the total. Suppression expenditures peaked in FY 1994 and 

Rehabilitation expenditures in FY 1995. 

Suppression expenditures should be interpreted cautiously. There is a 

statistically significant (p = 0.00) positive linear trend in the (nominal) 

Suppression expenditures (fig. 6). However, in constant, 1995 dollars, we found 

no statistically significant (p = 0.36) trend. In fact, except for FY 1988 and FY 1994, 

real Suppression expenditures vary quite closely around the mean of $230 million 

(1995 dollars) (table 4). 

Non-F&AM Fire-Related Expenditures-Because F&AM was not the only 

functional unit with fire-related expenditures, our assessment was probably 

understated, especially for FFP activities. Although a thorough evaluation of 

non-F&AM fire-related expenditures is beyond the scope of this study, 

expenditure data from R-1 provide some insight. In FY 1990 and FY 1993 about 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
31.5 percent of the main forest protection expenditures (the PF1s and PF2 work 

activities) were accounted for by non-F&AM units: 

Protection Expenditures 

F&AM $26,919,000 

Non-F&AM 

TOTAL 

12,369,000 

$39,288,000 

Seven non-F&AM fund codes were used, including Brush Disposal (BDBD), 

Knutson-Vandenberg (CWKV}, Cooperative Work (CWFS}, Recreation 

Management (NFRN}, Wildlife Habitat Operations and Improvement (NFWF}, 

Anadromous Fish (NFAFO}, and Restoration of Improvements (RIRI). In total, 

Brush Disposal accounted for 99.3 percent of all non-F&AM expenditures. 

Fire Suppression Expenditures 

To this point, we have focused on fire-related expenditures in terms of fund 

codes and aggregates of work activities. We now turn to a more in-depth look at 

the most expensive of all work activity aggregates, fire Suppression, and shift 

our focus to expenditures in budget object codes. We used two samples of fires. 

One sample consisted of 171large and medium fires, randomly selected from the 

FY 1993-94 fire seasons. The other sample contained 20 very expensive fires from 

the FY 1994 fire season which were examined in detail. Data on individual fire 

characteristics (size, fuels, etc.) were obtained from the Individual Fire Report 

(Forest Service form SF 5100-29) database. Expenditure data on individual fires 

were obtained from the CADI-Fire database. 

Types of Expenditures 

Fire suppression expenditures for fires studied were identified through a 

series of queries in the Forest Service's accounting system database. In the 171-

fire sample, budget object codes were aggregated into five categories. In the 

20-fire sample, expenditures were aggregated into 47 more specific categories. 

The number of budget object categories is important to database queries because 

of complexity; the 47-category query is far more complex than the five-category 

query. In addition, because database queries for the 171-fire sample and the 20-

14~------------------------------------~700 

12 ........................................................................................................ . • 

. ; .. 600 

I • -en 

c: 

10 ......................................................................................................... ~ .... 500 ~ 

I ~ 

8 

6 

2 

ro n ~ n n oo ~ M ~ ~ ~ n M 

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 

Fiscal Years 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 

Figure ~ire-fighting expenditures, 

FY 1970-95, by year . 

IS 
Figure 7-Distribution of 

FFF suppression costs for 171 

fires in FY 1993-94. 

16 

Supplies and Services 

(56.6 pet) 

Personnel Compensation 

(3 1.7 pet) 

fire sample focused on FFF-suppression expenditu res exclusively and FFPsuppression expenditu res were not assessed, our results somewhat understa te 

the actual magnitude of s uppression expenditures. 

171 Fires-In ou r study of 171 fires, the original fifth category included 

aviation services, contracts, and fuel. But in the course of our study, we found 

numerous coding e rrors and inconsisten cies s uch that aviation-re lated 

expenditures had to be aggregated into Suppli es and Services (jig. 7). Therefore, 

more than half (55.6 percent) of all fire suppression expenditures were for 

Supplies and Services. This includes aviation expenditures, along with purchase 

of equipment, food-supply contracts, and so on. The second most important 

category wa s Pe rsonn el Compensation, consti tu ting 31.7 percent of fire 

suppression expenditures on large fires. If Personnel Travel (per diem, lodg ing, 

a nd so on ) we re added to Personne l Com pensa ti on, personnel-re lated 

expenditu res would amount to more than one-third of the fire suppression 

expen ditures. The Other category, about 10 percent of suppression expenditures, 

included ins urance claims and interest payments. 

The 171-fire sample was also divided in to major componen ts on the basis of 

fire size and fu el type. We developed expenditure data fo r Supplies and Services, 

Personnel Compensation, Personnel Travel, and Other for large (1,000 acres and 

more) and med ium-sized (100-999 acres) grass/ brush and woods/slash fires. 

Those four individual patterns of expenditures did not differ from the p attern 

shown in figure 7. 

20 Fires- The 20 very expensive fires in FY 1994 consisted of the fi ve most 

expensive fires from Forest Service regions R-1 , R-3, R-4, and R-6. Res ults from 

the 20-fire sample were very compatible with those from the 171-fire sample 

(table 5). For example, Personnel Compensation (Budge t Code 1100) plus 

Personnel Benefits (Budget Code 1200) for the 20-fire samp le totalled 28 percent 

of the expenditures, as compared to 31.7 percent from the 171-fire sample. 

Premium Overtime (Budget Code 1170) pay and pay to Casual Employees 

(Budget Code 1193) account for 21 of the tota l 28 percent for Personnel 

Compensation; full-time employees accou nt for on ly 4 percent (table 5). Similarly, 

Contractual Services-Other (Budget Code 2540) accounts for abou t 86 percent (49 

of the 57 percent) of total expenditures accou nted for by Other Services (Bu dget 

Code 2500). Combined, expenditures for those contractual services and the two 

types of personnel amount to 79 percent of fire suppression expenditures. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
Table 5-DistribuHon of fire suppression costs from 20 large fires, in 1994, by 

budget object code 

Budget Suppression Percent 

code Description cost cost 

100 Operating Income $(24,049) -0 

200 Inter-Office I Region (1,131,451) -1 

1100 Personnel Compensation 61,786,386 28 

1101 Full-time 8,168,546 4 

1121 Full-time temporary 2,537,886 1 

1165 Hazard pay differential 3,213,158 1 

1170 Premium overtime non-wage board 24,017,015 11 

1193 Casual employees 21,885,434 10 

All other 1,964,347 0 

1200 Personnel Benefits 3,579,865 2 

1400 Commissary Deductions (142,393) -0 

2100 Travel/Transport People 7,590,302 3 

2111 Common carrier-domestic 3,365,029 2 

2131 Per diem allowance-domestic 925,708 0 

2160 Vehicular transport 2,926,440 1 

All other 373,125 0 

2200 Transportation of Things 4,755,124 2 

2220 All other transportation of things 1,602,629 1 

2231 Truck rental-commercial 3,074,249 1 

All other 78,248 0 

2300 Rent, Communications & Utility 6,720,104 3 

2320 Communication services 183,077 0 

2360 Rent equipment 4,813,616 2 

All other 1,723,411 

2400 Printing/Reproduction 38,180 0 

2500 Other Services 125,506,086 57 

2513 WCF Equipment & FOR1 1,259,696 1 

2540 Contractual services-other 107,145,285 49 

2541 Flying contracts 3,870,056 2 

2550 Agreements 3,417,727 2 

2570 Misc. services 2,142,008 1 

2576 Medical and dental care 590,785 0 

All other 7,080,529 3 

2600 Supplies 9,234,668 4 

2610 Supplies-energy 174,447 0 

2614 Gasoline 627,891 0 

2615 Diesel 396,717 0 

2616 Aviation fuel 680,689 0 

2670 Supplies I materials 7,125,225 3 

2680 GSA-Fedstrip supply2 179,051 0 

All other 50,648 0 

3100 Equipment 220,250 0 

3200 Land & Structures 4,276 0 

4100 Grants, Subsidies, & Contribution 969,070 0 

4200 Insurance Claims & Indemnities 375,489 0 

4300 Interest & Dividends 13,904 0 

4400 Refunds 18,440 0 

Total $219,514,251 100 

1

WCF=working capital fund; FOR=fixed overhead rate. 2

GSA=General Services Administration. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 17 
18 

Expenditures Per Acre 

We were also interested in understanding the relationship between fire 

suppression expenses and fire-specific characteristics, especially fire size. The 

idea was to obtain expenditure information from the accounting system (CADIFire) and fire-specific information from the National Interagency Fire 

Management Integrated Database (NIFMID), but the two systems are not 

completely compatible. Specifically, information on fire size from NIFMID 

includes all fire acreage, National Forest and any other lands within the fire's 

boundary. On the other hand, expenditure information from the accounting 

system pertains to the Forest Service expenses only. Therefore, the expenditure 

information available must equal or understate the true expenditures incurred in 

suppressing fires. 

The Forest Service incurred an average expense of $267 per acre of fire to 

suppress large- and medium-sized fires in FY 1993-94 (table 6). Suppression 

expenditures (per acre) for fires occurring in woods/ slash fuels are about twothirds more expensive than fires in grass/brush. Similarly, suppression 

expenditures (per acre) for large fires are only about one-fourth those of medium 

ones. Does this mean that large fires and woods I slash fires are less expensive to 

the Forest Service? Yes. Does it mean that those fires are less expensive, overall, 

to suppress? Possibly not. Certainly, conventional wisdom attributes those 

decreases to "economies of scale," that decreasing expenditures per acre result 

from spreading fixed suppression expenditures over a larger acreage base. But 

other factors might also affect expenditures for large fires: as fires become larger, 

other agencies become increasingly involved and there may be little or no 

payment of suppression funds to those agencies; and because fire size is 

measured on the basis of a gross perimeter, as fires become larger, increasing 

amounts of unburned lands are included in the calculation of the fire's acreage. 

Both factors tend to make large fires seem less expensive to suppress on a peracre basis. 

One of the purposes for our analysis of per-acre fire expenditures was to 

assess the quality of suppression expenditure estimates contained in the NIFMID 

database. These estimates are widely regarded as unreliable. However, the 

correlation between uncorrected, NIFMID-based expenditures and those from 

the accounting system is 0.85, a surprisingly high level. A comparison of estimates 

of per-acre suppression expenditures on the 171 fires from the CADI-Fire 

accounting system with two NIFMID-based shows: 

Database Per acre 

CADI-Fire $267.08 

NIFMID, uncorrected 

NIFMID, corrected 

$296.97 

$294.84 

The uncorrected NIFMID estimate is 11.2 percent higher than the accounting 

system's estimate, partially because it does not correct for duplicated or corrupted 

records associated with fires that are part of a ''complex~~ of fires. After that 

correction was made, NIFMID produced an estimate that was 10.4 percent 

Table 6-Forest Service suppression expenditures per acre, 

by size class a11d fuel type, FY 1993-94 

Fuel type 

Size 

class Grass/brush Woods/ slash Total 

Medium $1005.67 $1027.38 $1,014.50 

Large 154.35 302.08 251.44 

Total $184.11 $311.35 $267.08 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
higher than the accounting system estimate. Because fire expenditures continue 

to be added to the accounting system database but not to NIFMID, per-acre 

expenditure estimates can only converge over time. Note, however, that although 

the per-acre expenditure estimates shown above are reasonably close, none deal 

with the understatement problem discussed earlier. 

Expenditure-Increasing Factors 

What causes fire suppression expenses to increase? An understanding of these 

causes may be key to identifying policies and procedures aimed at reducing or 

controlling fire suppression expenditures. We addressed this problem through a 

questionnaire administered to incident commanders (IC's), the persons in overall 

control of suppression activities on fires. We surveyed the IC's from 84 (the large 

FY 1994 fires) of the 171 fires selected in the detailed expenditure analyses. 

Respondents rated 34 topics or issues in terms of their role in increasing 

suppression expenses on the fire(s) for which they were responsible. The rank of 

each issue was determined on the basis of median rating, and mean ratings were 

used to break ties. 

Data were grouped in one of three sets of rankings: overall, those for the 

seven most expensive fires, and those for the seven least expensive fires (table 7). 

Only two overall issues had a median rating of "very important" (rating of 5) in 

increasing suppression expenditures: Weather During Fire and Access. Only two 

issues had a median rating of "moderately unimportant" (rating of 2): Air 

Quality Standards and Protecting Livestock. None of the issues received an 

overall rating of "very unimportant" (rating of 1 ). Twelve issues received an 

overall rating of "moderately important" (rating of 4) and 17 issues received a 

neutral rating of 3. Except for Weather During Fire, every issue received the full 

range of ratings, from "very unimportant" to "very important." The lowest 

rating given to Weather During Fire was "moderately unimportant." 

Issues should be evaluated both in terms of their influence on fire suppression 

expenditures, and in terms of the ability of the Forest Service to influence 

outcomes. For example, Weather During Fire is clearly the most important issue 

studied, but it cannot be influenced by Forest Service actions. On the other hand, 

while the Forest Service can influence Forecasting/Decision Tools, that issue has 

only a neutral effect on suppression expenditures. 

The overall ranking pertains to all84 fires studied. Do these rankings change 

when only the most or least expensive of those fires are considered? Weather 

During Fire was the most highly rated issue with both the seven most expensive 

fires and the seven least expensive fires (table 7). Beyond that similarity, 

differences are substantial. For the most expensive fires, Threatened and 

Endangered Species Standards, Protecting Structures, and Water Quality 

Standards were more important than in the overall ratings. For the least 

expensive fires, Protecting Lives and Fire Suppression Standards were more 

important than in the overall ratings. 

We found differences in individual issues, but they do not illuminate patterns 

of response (table 7). Issues with a common theme were also grouped and 

arranged in order of importance (table 8). The first two groupings deal with firespecific circumstances, and both have a very important effect on suppression 

expenses. They differ in that the Forest Service has some ability to influence 

Access/Fuel, but it cannot affect Weather /Terrain. Similarly, the Firefighter, 

Interface, and Availability groupings had a moderately important effect on 

suppression expenditures and can be influenced by the Forest Service. The 

Resource Availability grouping is distinct from those of quantity and quality of 

firefighting resources; the availability of those resources when they are needed 

has a moderately important effect on suppression expenses. All other groupings 

had a neutral effect on increasing suppression expenditures. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 19 
Table 7-Importance of issues and topics in increasing fire suppression costs for large 1994 fires. 

Topic or issue 

Weather during fire 

Access 

Terrain 

Protecting lives 

Line-officer direction 

Firefighter availability 

Fire suppression standards 

Fuel loadings 

Firefighter quality 

Firefighter quantity 

Protecting structures 

Support personnel availability 

Wildland I urban interface 

Publicity I notoriety 

Recreational/ esthetic values 

Equipment availability 

T&E species standards1 

Communications 

Previous decisions 

Equipment quantity 

Equipment quality 

Ecosystem values 

Support personnel quantity 

Support personnel quality 

Water quality standards 

OSHA standards2 

Forecasting/ decision tools 

Cultural/historic values 

Penalty for failure 

Wilderness values 

Timber values 

Rewards for success 

Air quality standards 

Protecting livestock 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

19 

21 

22 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Overall 

Median 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1

T&E=threatened and endangered. 2

0SHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

Mean 

4.53 

4.10 

4.18 

4.10 

3.82 

3.80 

3.79 

3.76 

3.70 

3.70 

3.69 

3.54 

3.45 

3.35 

3.30 

3.52 

3.48 

3.43 

3.38 

3.38 

3.33 

3.27 

3.27 

3.22 

3.18 

3.17 

3.04 

3.00 

2.90 

2.80 

2.58 

2.36 

2.36 

2.27 

Seven most expensive fires 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

10 

11 

6 

14 

8 

12 

8 

5 

21 

12 

17 

19 

23 

4 

27 

16 

24 

19 

15 

24 

29 

6 

27 

21 

18 

30 

24 

31 

34 

32 

33 

Median 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

Mean 

4.80 

4.70 

4.65 

3.85 

3.8 

3.95 

3.65 

3.9 

3.75 

3.90 

4.00 

3.00 

3.75 

3.25 

3.05 

2.95 

4.50 

2.80 

3.45 

2.85 

3.05 

3.60 

2.85 

2.60 

3.95 

2.80 

3.00 

3.15 

2.35 

2.85 

2.20 

1.70 

1.80 

1.75 

Seven least expensive fires 

Rank 

1 

4 

9 

20 

5 

3 

20 

9 

19 

24 

17 

34 

18 

12 

5 

7 

13 

32 

9 

22 

28 

27 

24 

13 

8 

24 

16 

28 

23 

32 

28 

13 

28 

Median 

5 

5 

4 

5 

3 

5 

5 

3 

4 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

4 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

5 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

3 

Mean 

4.86 

4.57 

4.14 

4.86 

3.43 

4.43 

4.71 

3.43 

4.14 

3.86 

2.86 

3.29 

2.43 

3.14 

3.86 

4.43 

4.14 

3.71 

2.43 

4.14 

3.29 

2.57 

2.71 

2.86 

3.71 

3.86 

2.86 

3.57 

2.57 

3.00 

2.43 

2.57 

3.71 

2.57 
Table 8-lmportance of groups of issues and topics in increasing fire suppression costs for large 1994 fires. 

Original ratings Grouping ratings 

Topic or issue Rank Median Mean Mean Rating 

Weat er during fire 1 5 4.53 4.36 Very important 

Terrain 3 4 4.18 4.36 

Access 2 5 4.10 3.93 Very important 

Fuel loadings 8 4 3.80 3.93 

Firefighter availability 6 4 3.796 3.73 Moderately important 

Firefighter quantity 9 4 3.70 3.73 

Firefighter quality 9 4 3.70 3.73 

Protecting lives 4 4 4.10 3.65 Moderately important 

Protecting structures 11 4 3.69 3.65 

Wildland I urban interface 13 4 3.45 3.65 

Publicity I notoriety 14 4 3.35 3.65 

Firefighter availability 6 4 3.80 3.62 Moderately important 

Equipment availability 16 3 3.52 3.62 

Support personnel availability 12 4 3.54 3.62 

Line-officer direction 5 4 3.82 3.42 Neutral 

Communications 18 3 3.43 3.42 

Previous decisions 19 3 3.38 3.42 

Forecasting I decision tools 27 3 3.04 3.42 

Equipment availability 16 3 3.52 3.41 Neutral 

Equipment quantity 19 3 3.38 3.41 

Equipment quality 21 3 3.33 3.41 

Support personnel availability 12 4 3.54 3.34 Neutral 

Support personnel quantity 22 3 3.27 3.34 

Support personnel quality 24 3 3.22 3.34 

Fire suppression standards 7 4 3.79 3.20 Neutral 

T&E species standards1 17 3 3.48 3.20 

Water quality standards 25 3 3.18 3.20 

OSHA standards2 26 3 3.17 3.20 

Air quality standards 33 2 2.36 3.20 

Recreational I esthetic values 15 4 3.30 2.87 Neutral 

Ecosystem values 22 3 3.27 2.87 

Cultural/historic values 28 3 3.00 2.87 

Wilderness values 30 3 2.80 2.87 

Timber values 31 3 2.57 2.87 

Protecting livestock 34 2 2.27 2.87 

Penalty for failure 29 3 2.90 2.63 Neutral 

Rewards for success 32 3 2.36 2.63 

1

T&E=threatened and endangered. 

2QSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW -RP-230. 1997. 21 
22 

Fuels Management Expenditures 

Concerns about ecosystem health have focused attention on fuels accumulation 

and the resulting hazard of catastrophic fires, especially in the western U.S. The 

costly 1994 fire season seemed to confirm these concerns and increased the 

demand for additional fuel treatments, which divide into two classes: natural 

fuel treatment refers to treating combustible wildland vegetation, either through 

prescribed natural fire or management-ignited prescribed fire; and activity fuel 

treatment refers to treating fuels resulting from management activities, such as 

timber harvest or road construction. Fuel treatments are funded in four ways: 

appropriated FFP funds are generally used for natural fuel treatments; brush 

disposal deposits (BD) resulting from timber sales are mainly used for activity 

fuel treatments; Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) funds from timber sales are also 

mainly used for activity fuel treatments; and other funds (e.g., wildlife or range) 

are used to accomplish specific management goals. 

Comprehensive information on the extent and expense of fuel treatment 

does not exist. But available data for FY 1987-95 suggest that nearly 1 million 

acres of National Forest fuels are treated annually. About 70 percent of the fuel 

treatment acreage (about 673 thousand acres) is funded by either appropriated, 

FFP fuels improvement funds for natural fuel treatment or BD funds for activity 

fuels treatment. Although natural fuel treatment corresponds to use of prescribed 

fire, activity fuels treatment can involve chemical and mechanical treatments in 

addition to prescribed fire. The remaining 291,000 acres (about 30 percent) 

consist mainly of prescribed burning in R-8, funded by KV funds, timber 

management, or other resource functions, such as wildlife, range, and threatened 

and endangered species. 

FFP expenditures for fuels management peaked in 1980 at $37.7 million 

(1995 dollars) (table 4). Expenditures then dropped steadily until FY 1989 and 

increased steadily since FY 1992, with a sharp upturn in FY 1995. In 1995 dollars, 

FY 1995 expenditures were 29 percent higher that FY 1994, but still less than half 

of the FY 1980 level. R-5 accounted for the largest percentage increase, about 41 

percent over FY 1994. Most regions experienced about a 30 percent increase in 

FFP funding, except for R-2 (14.6 percent) and R-10 (37 percent decrease). The 

acreage treated with FFP funds in FY 1995 was the highest recorded during the 

FY 1987-95 period. More than $16.6 million was expended for fuel treatment on 

457,922 acres. Expenditures for BD-funded fuel treatment are not available. 

Most fuels management is conducted with either appropriated FFP fuels 

improvement funds or with BD funds. An average of nearly 673,000 acres were 

treated annually from FY 1987-95, 53.6 percent from FFP funds and 46.4 percent 

from BD funds (fig. 8). Acres shown in figure 8 represent about 71 percent of the 

total acreage treated and 91 percent of the total expenditures on fuel treatment 

and prescribed burning in the National Forest System. Despite 3 consecutive 

years (FY 1992-94) of lower accomplishments (by about 100,000 acres), the total 

acreage of fuel treatment funded under these funds has remained relatively 

steady, with a coefficient of variation of less than 10 percent. The major trend has 

been the shift from BD to FFP-appropriated funding. The acreage treated with 

FFP-appropriated funds held steady through the late-1980's and almost doubled 

from FY 1992 to FY 1995. Appropriated fuels treatment averaged 360,779 acres 

annually. The acres treated with BD funds decreased from 351,697 acres in FY 

1987 to 172,367 acres in FY 1995. As a percent of the total, BD-funded acres 

peaked in FY 1990 (57 percent) and decreased to 23 percent by FY 1995. 

Because of reductions in Forest Service timber harvests, continued decreases 

in BD and KV funding of fuel treatments are probable. However, reduced 

harvests will also mean less need for slash reduction and site preparation 

burning, the types of activities most commonly funded by BD. Fuel treatment 

acreage in the western Forest Service regions (R-1 through R-6) is likely to shift 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
800 .---------------------------------~ 

,....._ 

"0 "'

c 

"' "' ::J 

0 

..c 

!::.-

"' Ql 

'-

u 

<( 

3 

87 88 

Brush Disposal Funds 

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

Fiscal Years 

FOREST SERVICE REGIONS 

more toward natural fuels treatment to achieve ecosystem management and 

forest health goals; benefitting functions may have to bear a larger part of the 

funding. More than half of the prescribed burning in the R-8 (not reflected in fig. 8) 

is funded through KV, an arrangement that may change as harvests in that 

region shift downward under new forest land management plans and the new 

red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. 

The number of acres treated and the split between FFP-funded and BDfunded varies widely between regions (jig. 9). Though the R-8 averages nearly 

0.25 million acres annually, R-10 averages just a few thousand acres annually. R8 treats the most acres, generally by underburning on gentle terrain in southern 

pine timber types. Forest Service records show prescribed burning on National 

Forests in R-8 average about 500,000 acres an nually. Because FFP-funded acres 

(jig. 8) average about 229,536 acres and R-8 has no BD funding for fuel treatment, 

the remaining 270,000 acres of annual burning is funded through wildlife, 

threatened and endangered species, timber management/ reforestation, 

recreation, range, and other accounts. An ana lysis of R-8 burning records for the 

period FY 1985-93 showed that 43 percent of the acres burned (about 215,000 

acres per year) were primarily fue l-reduction burns. The next primary purpose 

was wildlife (30 percent), followed by control of undesirable species and range 

improvement (both at 8 percent), site preparation (5 percent), threatened and 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 

Figure 8-Acres treated for fuel 

management. FY 1987-95, by year. 

Figure 9-Average annual fuel 

management acres, FY 1987-95, by 

region. 

23 
Figure I 0-Average cost of FFP fu el 

treatment. FY 1987-95, by region. 

24 

endangered species (4 percent), pre-marking for timber sales (1 percent), and 

brown spo t disease control (1 percent). 

BD funds account for most of the fuel treatments in regions outside R-8 (jig. 9). 

In Regions 1-6, fue l treatments (FY 1987-95) averaged 450,000 acres per year, 

with 70 percent (315,000 acres) accomplished from BD funds. Ninety-nine percent 

of the BD-funded fuel treatment is conducted in Regions 1- 6 with R-6 accounting 

for 43 percent and R-3 for 18 percent. Regions 1-6 accomplished about 130,000 

acres of FFP-funded treatment, with 40 percent accomplished by R-3. KV funds, 

cooperative funds, and other funding sources account fo r relatively little fuel 

treatment in western regions. As the amount of BD-funded fuel treatment 

d ecreases, these regions may have to compensa te with FFP or other fu nds to 

meet n atural fu els and ecosystem management burning objecti ves. Competition 

between regions for FFP and other funds may intensify. 

R-6 has trad itionally treated more acres than any other weste rn region, about 

84 percent (159,000 acres annu ally) with BD fu nds. R-6's fuel trea tment p rogram 

peaked in FY 1990 at 176,352 acres, and decreased to 103,178 acres in FY 1995. 

The percentage of BD-funded treatment has decreased from 86 percent in FY 

1987 to 64 percent in FY 1995. R-3 has treated more FFP-funded acres than any 

western region, about 51,000 acres annually. About 47 percent of R-3 treatment 

acreage is FFP-funded. 

FFP expenditures per acre treated vary widely between regions (jig. 10) (BD 

expenditures were no t available.) Altho ugh R-10 had the highest per acre 

expenditure ($381 per acre) in 1995 constant dollars, it treated very few acres. At 

$130 per acre, R-5 was next highest and treated a substantial number of acres. 

R-2, R-4, R-6, and R-9 have simil ar expend itures, averaging between $47 and $71 

per acre. R-1 's per-acre expenditures were third hi ghest, averagi ng $85 per acre. 

R-8 and R-3 have the lowest per acre expenditures, $13 a nd $23 per acre 

respectively, presumably because more of their burning program is conducted 

through underbu rning in lighter natural fuels. 

Year-to-year variation in expenditures per acre is also qu ite high in some 

regions. For examples, R-1, R-5, R-6, and R-9 actually spent fewer FFP dollars per 

acre in FY 1994 than they did in earlier years. Variation in per-acre expenditures 

can be measu red by the ratio of the variance of the annua l estimates to their 

mean. This variation ranged from 54 percent in R-6 to 33 pe rcent in R-2 and R-8. 

The overall average (nominal dollar) FFP expendi ture per acre in FY 1995 was 

$35.83, compared to an average expenditure in FY 1987 of $31.08, reflecting only a 

sma ll increase. However, in 1995 constant dollars, per acre expenditures actually 

decreased in that period. For example, R-1 decreased from $137 to $53 per acre; R-2 

400 

350 

w 300 ([ 

~ 250 

([ 

~ 200 

<J'} 

~ 15 (]) 

R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 

FOREST SERVICE REGIONS 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
from $90 to $58; R-5 from $128 to $116; R-6 from $91 to $71; and R-9 from $144 to 

$44 per acre. However, R-3 and R-8, which account for most of the FFP-funded 

treatment acres, have shown increases in constant dollar expenditures per acre. In 

1995 dollars, R-3 expenditures increased from $17 per acre in FY 1987 to $20 in FY 

1995; R-8 expenditures increased from $11 per acre to $15 in FY 1995. These data 

suggest that regions with the highest treatment activity are becoming more 

expensive, which will affect the amount of treatment that can be accomplished 

with limited budgets in the future. Factors accounting for increases in burning 

expenditures in R-8 include compliance with air quality regulations and the risk 

of liability for accidents, smoke intrusions, or escape fires (Cleaves and Haines 

1995). Because of expenditure increases and budget reductions in public agencies, 

the more ambitious burning plans found in ecosystem assessments, forest plans, 

and species recovery plans may need to be re-evaluated. 

Time-series trends that use per-acre expenditures should be interpreted 

cautiously. These numbers are single-year estimates and ratios of expended 

dollars to reported accomplishments. Changes in these ratios over time may 

reflect changes in the fuel treatment program's policy on burning in more natural 

fuels or conducting larger burns; changing ratios could also reflect year-to-year 

variations in accomplishment success. 

Discussion 

During our analysis of fire-related expenditures, a number of trends and concerns 

became apparent. These, combined with the other fire review recommendations, 

other policy directions, and Congress' desire to balance the national budget, 

have some important implications for fire management in the Forest Service. 

Data Needs 

Without reliable data, it is difficult to determine where and how expenditures 

can be reduced. The difficulty we had in assembling valid consistent data for this 

report highlights the need to improve existing reporting systems. Data had been 

lost or never gathered, too aggregated or of poor quality, and scattered or 

inconsistent over time. Other reports, such as the Strategic Assessment (USDA 

1995b) and the Fire Management Policy Review (USDI/USDA 1995), have also 

noted this problem and include data management recommendations. In addition, 

as a result of these assessments, an interagency taskforce is being formed to 

address these needs. However, expenditure data may never be standardized 

among agencies because of their unique accounting systems. Furthermore, 

without additional resources and emphasis, data recording will always be the 

first action overlooked or postponed until later. Also, without some form of 

auditing, accuracy will always be suspect. 

Long-Term Trends 

The most obvious trend affecting expenditures is inflation. In recent years 

inflation has been about 3.6 percent per year (Council of Economic Advisors 

1995). Although this rate may not seem high, the amount accumulates (more 

than 45 percent in the past decade). Thus, one of the major reasons fire 

management expenditures increased from $61 million in 1970 to $485 million in 

1995 was inflation. Despite the fact that presuppression expenditures, net of 

inflation, were essentially level during this time period, we expect the inflation 

trend to continue increasing fire-related expenditures. 

In addition, the incorporation of ecosystem management into fire planning is 

a long-term trend that has also increased expenditures. Pioneers viewed fire as a 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 25 
26 

tool for land clearing. But early forest protection efforts viewed wildfire as a 

hazard to the forests and grasslands so that excluding fire from wildlands 

became a goal of all land managers throughout most of this century. The policy 

of exclusion evolved to become an appreciation of the vital role of fire in 

maintaining some ecosystems. Some groups now blame many of our forest 

health problems and catastrophic wildfires on excessive exclusion of fire (Lyons 

1994, Thomas 1994). As a result, the Forest Service has begun to emphasize fire 

use in wildland planning and is searching for ways to modify fire suppression 

activities in light of other values at risk. For example, the Los Padres National 

Forest employed up to 20 archeologists on a relatively small fire (Bell and others 

1995); in our survey of incident commanders, protecting threatened and 

endangered species was considered the fourth-ranked cause of increased 

expenditures; and minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) were thought to 

increase the likelihood of slopovers. The activities increase fire-related 

expenditures and will likely continue to increase expenditures as they become 

more prevalent. 

Another trend involves increasing accumulation of wildland fuels. A number 

of reports (USDA Forest Service 1994, USDA Forest Service 1995b) have identified 

fuels buildup from the exclusion of fire as a major factor for the increase of the 

number and size of wildfires. This fuels buildup can only result in increased cost 

of fighting fires unless fuels are reduced. Unfortunately, fuel reduction is 

expensive. The fuels management appropriation has been only a small part of the 

overall fire budget. The sharp decline in BD and KV funding because of reduced 

harvests and the need to focus on more expensive treatments in the western 

regions will result in either dramatic increases in expenditures or dramatically 

reduced number of acres treated if current funding levels continue. 

Rural urbanization, population growth, and the proliferation of structures in 

rural areas will also increase expenditures. As the Strategic Assessment (USDA 

1995b) identified, the expanding population of the United States increasingly 

interfaces with wildlands that are subject to wildfires. Although this contact is 

particularly serious in the western regions, it is also a problem in some other parts 

of the country. Between 1970 and 1980 the population in rural counties increased 

by 23 percent (Bailey 1991 ). Human-caused fires in these areas are increasing and 

the property values at risk are becoming a dominant factor in fire suppression 

decisions. A larger portion of the Forest Service's fire protection resources are 

being used to protect life and property in the wildland-urban interface. Our survey 

of incident commanders revealed that factors associated with wildland 

urbanization are some of the most important contributors to fire suppression 

expenditures. Firefighting resources used to protect private property can dilute 

the ability to protect wildland resources or keep fires in prescription to accomplish 

ecosystem management objectives. Thus, either more damage will occur to the 

forest or total expenditures must be increased to accomplish both objectives. 

And finally, global warming is another long-term trend that may affect 

expenditures. Although the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that the 

climate is indeed warming, the rate at which it is happening and its effect on fire 

are unclear. Currently, extreme weather events seem to be commonplace, but it is 

debatable if this is a long-term trend or a climate aberration. In any case, our 

survey of incident commanders identified fire weather as the most important 

contributor to fire expenditures; unfavorable weather increases the expense of 

fire. Merely comparing a high and a low-expense fire-year ($66 million in FY 

1984 to $763 million in FY 1994) shows that variations of an order of magnitude 

are possible. If this volatility continues or increases, fire managers can expect 

years with phenomenally higher expenses as well as perhaps irreversible human 

and natural resource losses. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
Expenditure-Reducing Opportunities 

Several reports contain more than 200 recommendations and action items 

oriented toward reducing fire management expenditures (Truesdale and others 

1995, USDA Forest Service 1995a, USDA Forest Service 1995b, USDI/USDA 

1995). Our investigation confirmed the value of many of these recommendations. 

Although we did not develop any new or unique approaches that were not 

already outlined in these reports, we have highlighted several that address the 

most compelling problems that surfaced in our expenditure analysis. Some 

important expenditure-related recommendations include: 

• Prescribed Burning-Establish a landscape-scale prescribed burning 

program of 3 million acres annually by the year 2005. This program should be 

viewed as an investment. Though it would increase expenditures in the shortrun, long-term costs along with resource and property damage should be reduced 

because of it. This program would represent a threefold to fourfold increase over 

present fuel treatment levels. Estimated expenses run to $200 million per year 

given current expenditures per acre. However, this level of funding is unlikely, 

given Congress' desire to balance the budget. Therefore, economic analysis must 

be used to allocate funding to treatment opportunities that are most efficient 

(USDA Forest Service 1995a). 

• Interface Partnerships-Develop specific partnership agreements affecting 

the wildland-urban interface that clearly recognize the limited ability and 

responsibilities of the Forest Service to protect an expanding structures matrix. 

Our survey of incident commanders indicated that current local, State, and 

Federal arrangements significantly contribute to expense in the interface area. 

Agreement provisions and land use zoning laws, such as setbacks, access 

requirements, and smoke restrictions can influence the cost of fighting fires and 

danger to fire fighters and residents in urbanizing area (USDA Forest Service 

1995a and 1995b, USDI/USDA 1995). 

• Tradeoffs-Display the economic tradeoffs of a range of long-term fire 

protection strategies in National Forest land management plans. Desired future 

conditions for Forest management can have significant expenditure implications 

for fire management. These tradeoffs must be considered in the public 

involvement and decision-making process. Likewise, fuels and fire management 

strategies can strongly influence environmental conditions and the feasibility of 

reaching desired future conditions and forest plan direction (USDA Forest Service 

1995a and 1995b, USDI/USDA 1995). 

• Escaped Fire Situation Analysis-Improve the Escaped Fire Situation 

Analysis (EFSA) procedural standards and guidelines, streamline the process, 

and train fire managers in its use in real-time situations. The long-term effects of 

fire on ecosystems and the costs of alternative suppression strategies should be 

incorporated into EFSA' s, and line officers should be trained to use EFSA to 

guide selection of suppression strategies. The strategy selected will determine 

the final fire size, effect on property and resources, the resulting cost, and other 

suppression criteria. The EFSA should be used as a backdrop for conducting 

reviews of fire decisions and creating a base of experience with which to train 

new incident commanders. Standards and review are necessary to reinforce 

efficient and informed decision-making, and to provide for national consistency 

(Park and Smart 1995). 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 27 
28 

• Standards, Training, and Oversight-Make high-cost decisions by those 

with substantial knowledge, skills, and abilities in fire management. Fire 

suppression decisions are subject to large over- or under-allocations of resources 

because firefighting resources must usually be ordered in big packages. This 

"lumpiness" makes suppression decisions vulnerable to overallocation to 

anticipate perceived risks. Better training and more qualifications could help 

reduce expenditures, according to the incident commanders we surveyed. In 

addition, although budget and purchasing specialists are assigned to many 

larger fires (those dealing with millions of dollars), a higher level of fiscal 

accountability is more generally needed to ensure cost-effective fire suppression 

(USDA Forest Service 1995a and 1995b, USDI/USDA 1995). 

• Reviews and Coaching-Conduct performance reviews during fires and 

provide coaching for line officers. These reviews allow for mid-course corrections 

to more efficiently suppress large fires. Adopt an "adaptive management" strategy 

to fire suppression in areas and times where it is appropriate. The "Large Fire 

Cost Study" (Truesdale and others 1995) revealed that changes in fire suppression 

strategy made after the initial EFSA could have reduced final costs. Additionally, 

except for local reviews of individual fires, no studies have evaluated the costs 

and benefits of suppression tactics on large fires. Modeling or analysis techniques 

could be developed to identify cost-effective strategies and tactics and then be 

applied on a real-time basis to individual fires (Park and Smart 1995). 

Fire protection and fire fighting are very expensive activities within the 

Forest Service. Some say that they are too expensive. A thorough understanding 

of fire-related expenditures and a thoughtful assessment of their causes and 

trends, as begun in this report, may be the first steps toward expenditure 

containment. Additionally, the recommendations discussed in this report should 

be implemented. This may take several years, and it is not clear whether these 

recommendations will be sufficient to offset the factors that will tend to increase 

expenditures. Time will tell, but they are a good place to start. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 
References 

Bailey, Dan W. 1991. The wildland-urban interface: social and political implication in the 1990's. 

Fire Management Notes 52 (1 ): 11-18. 

Bell, Enoch; Cleaves, David; Croft, Harry; Husari, Susan; Schuster, Ervin; Truesdale, Dennis. 1995. 

Fire economics assessment report. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: Fire and Aviation 

Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 67 p. 

Cleaves, D.A.; Haines, T.K. [In press). Regulation and liability risk: their influence on the practice 

and the price tag of prescribed burning. In: Proceedings of environmental regulation and 

prescribed fire conference; 1995 March 15-17; Tampa, Florida: Florida Division of Forestry. 

Council of Economic Advisors. 1995. Economic report of the President. Washington, DC: GPO; 407 p. 

Lyons, James R. 1994. Statement before the Subcommittee on Speciality Crops and Natural 

Resources, Committee of Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, concerning fire 

suppression, fire prevention, and forest health issues and programs. Unpublished draft supplied 

by author. 

Thomas, Jack W. 1994. Statement before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Conservation, 

Forestry, and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 

Senate, concerning the health and productivity of fire-adapted forests of the western United 

States. Unpublished draft supplied by author. 

Truesdale, Denny; Bradshaw, Bill; Burgess, Terry; Kohut, Dave; Ottesen, Dick; Park, Jeff; Smart, 

Bob. 1995. Fire suppression costs on large fire-a review of the 1994 fire season. Washington, 

DC: Fire and Aviation Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 18 p. + 

appendix. Unpublished draft supplied by author. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Western forest health initiative. Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; 67 p. Unpublished draft supplied by author. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Course to the future: positioning fire management. Washington, DC: 

Fire and Aviation Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 19 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Strategic assessment of fire management in the USDA Forest Service. 

Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 30 p. 

USDI/USDA. 1995. Federal wildland fire management policy and program review. Draft report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior; 41 p. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. 1997. 29 
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal 

Leadership in forestry. 

It carries out this role through four main activities: 

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System 

lands 

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners 

to help protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed 

lands 

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs 

to improve living conditions in rural areas 

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources 

utilization. 

The Pacific Southwest Research Station 

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American 

Samoa, and the western Pacific. 

#~ 

Federal 

f..~ Recycling Program Printed on Rocyclod Paper 

T~e United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in its programs 

on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, sex, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, 

and marital or familial 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 

contaa USDA's TARGET Center at 

202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint, write the 

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 20250, or 

call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or 

202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal employment 

opportunity employer. 
United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

Research Paper 

PSW-RP-230 

Analysis of USDA Forest Service Fire-Related 

Expenditures 1970-1995