FSH 5109.19 - FIRE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS AND PLANNING HANDBOOK 9/85 WO AMENDMENT 3 CHAPTER 40 - FOREST PROGRAM ANALYSIS 40.2 - Objectives. To identify the efficient fire management program and budget that meet land and resource management objectives for a planning unit; to identify for potential constrained budget levels below the efficient one the program mix that would be most effective; to develop the following for each program option evaluated: 1. Annual budgeted presuppression cost. 2. Expected annual emergency suppression cost. 3. Expected annual wildfire net resource value change. 4. Expected annual number of fires and acres burned by fire size and intensity. 40.3 - Policy. Follow the procedures described in this chapter when developing data for Forest plans or for input to Regional and National program planning and budgeting. Appropriate deviations in inputs for the analysis or in procedures may be made when using the analysis process for local purposes. 40.5 - Definitions 1. Cost Plus Net Resource Value Change (C+NVC). Cost includes both the fixed annual cost for the protection organization (annual fire program budget) and the variable suppression (emergency fire fighting) costs; NVC is the difference in value of planned resource outputs on an area before and after a fire. 2. Effective Program. The fire management program that will result in the minimum expected emergency fire fighting costs and net resource value changes (NVC) for a given fire management budget. 3. Efficient Program. The fire management program that will result in the minimum expected total cost plus net resource value change (C+NVC). 4. Fire Intensity Level (FIL). An expression of fireline intensity, based on typical flame length of a fire behavior condition, used in the analysis to reflect differences in difficulty of suppression and fire effects on resource outputs: Flame length FIL (feet) 0 - 2 1 2 - 4 2 4 - 6 3 6 - 8 4 8 - 12 5 12 + 6 5. Fire Management Analysis Zone (FMAZ). The basic geographical area on which the analysis is carried out within the planning unit. An FMAZ is represented by a single set of fire behavior characteristics based on fuels, topography, and local weather regime. Several FMAZ's are often needed to adequately reflect differences in conditions across a planning unit (sec. 41.13). 6. Fire Program. The planned mix of activities, facilities, and forces that constitutes how the fire management budget will be allocated on the planning unit. Prevention, detection, fuels management, and suppression are included. 7. Fire Program Option. A specific, unique proposed fire program mix for a fire management planning unit. Any change in the kind or amount of proposed forces or activities because of a change in budget or the way an identical budget would be allocated, constitutes a new program option. Identify each option evaluated with a unique code, and document the organization and activities that make it up. 8. Planning Unit. The organizational unit for which a fire program and its expected outputs are defined. The basic planning unit for the fire analysis is the lowest organizational level for which an independent fire program and budget is defined. For the National Forest System this is the National Forest. Other agencies using this handbook should equate references to the National Forest with a comparable organizational unit in their organization. 9. Representative Location (RL). A term used to designate a portion of an FMAZ represented by a unique set of data relating to the planned typical dispatch of suppression forces (kind, amount, attack time), fire occurrence, or potential NVC. One RL may represent an entire FMAZ where conditions are reasonably uniform. An RL (and its descriptors) reflects average typical conditions over the area represented as a whole (sec. 41.14). 40.6 - Analysis Standards. As a minimum, evaluate the current general fire program by varying at least the initial attack forces to identify the efficient organization and budget level and to develop expected cost and net value change outputs. Units with moderate-to-high fire workloads also shall develop and evaluate alternative viable program mixes for each budget level tested to identify the most effective program mix for that level. Evaluate sufficient program alternatives for each budget level to provide an adequate response to the unit's fire management problem. 40.7 - Procedure Overview. The economic efficiency analysis (analysis level II) evaluates the projected performance of candidate fire management programs on the unit. The analysis tests alternative planned initial action dispatches against a set of fire spread and intensity conditions that represent the expected range of fire behavior over time on the unit. It is a simulation process using FPL-FIREPLAN computer programs. The analysis outputs provide information to identify the most efficient fire program and the consequences of alternatives to that program. Follow these steps: 1. Identify fire management analysis zones (FMAZ) based on similar fire behavior characteristics and land and resource management objectives (sec. 41.13). 2. Calculate fire occurrence, spread, and intensity data for each FMAZ. National Forests shall use FIREPLAN FPL-FREQ and FPL-LEVEL2 programs based on data from the National Fire Occurrence and National Fire Weather Libraries; State units shall use data from local forests if appropriate or develop data from the FIRDAT program or other suitable source. 3. Use FIREPLAN program FPL-IAA to calibrate the model (sec. 42.32). 4. Document the current fire organization and program (including costs) by functional activity (prevention, fuels management, detection, attack). 5. Develop potential fire effects and net resource value change data for each FMAZ (sec. 43). 6. Develop and document emergency fire suppression cost data (sec. 42.31c). 7. Develop fire size and probability distributions for each FMAZ for those fires that the initial attack model does not contain (sec. 42.31d). 8. Run FIREPLAN program FPL-IAA2 for each FMAZ and develop expected emergency fire suppression cost and net value change data for the National Forest/unit as a whole. 9. Repeat FPL-IAA2 runs; adjust the initial attack dispatch program as appropriate to reflect different budget levels. (Hold prevention, detection, and fuels constant.) At each budget level, develop and test different attack program mixes as necessary to identify the most effective program at that level (lowest cost + net resource value change C+NVC for that budget). Run sufficient budget levels to identify the one providing the minimum C+NVC (sec. 41.41). This is the efficient budget (and attack program) for the unit. 10. If other functions (prevention, detection, fuels) are not significant components of the unit program, or if it is not possible to reasonably estimate the effects of changes in the kind or size of the function's program on inputs to the analysis, the analysis is complete. However, if a function is significant to the protection program and if it is possible to reflect changes to that function in the program analysis, continue as follows. Keep the attack organization identified in step 9 constant and develop a different program for the next most significant function to be evaluated. Repeat steps 8 and 9, adjusting the functional program being tested (and its inputs) to correspond to budget changes. Repeat for other functions if appropriate, holding the programs already evaluated constant at their efficient level. Instructions for the prevention, detection, suppression, fuels, and net value change processes are in sections 42 and 43. 41 - GENERAL GUIDELINES 41.1 - Analysis Preparation. The basic fire management inventory requirements and the data produced from the analysis of the management situation (Level I analysis) provide most of the information needed. Additional preparation follows. The terms capability area, analysis area, or management area all refer to National Forest land management planning areas. Fire management analysis zones (FMAZ) and representative locations (RL) are terms specific to the fire management analysis. 1. Basic Analysis Area. The analysis is done by individual, designated geographic areas of generally uniform fire behavior characteristics and reasonably similar fire management direction and resource objectives called a fire management analysis zone (FMAZ). For National Forests, the boundaries of an FMAZ should coincide with the management area, except that a management area may be split into two or more FMAZ's, or one FMAZ may cover two or more management areas. You must aggregate the cost and net value change data for the individual FMAZ to calculate and evaluate the cost plus net value change for the National Forest/unit. 2. Shared Suppression Forces. Each Region (State) shall indicate the location and number of suppression forces available for local use by two or more National Forests/units for initial and reinforcement action. Where a number of forces, such as airtankers or smokejumpers, are available at a base, Regions may limit the number that each National Forest may use at one time in an initial attack model dispatch list based on historic availability. Treat presuppression budget costs of shared forces as Regional (State) costs and do not include them in National Forest/unit cost calculations for program development and budgeting purposes. 3. Local Cooperator Resources. Include in the planned initial action dispatch lists local cooperator forces covered by agreement and currently available for initial action or reinforcement purposes. Because there are periods when a cooperator is taking suppression action within its jurisdiction and is unable to provide full assistance, it is suggested that only one-half to three-fourths of the available cooperator force be included in the planned dispatch depending upon local experience with availability during periods when fires occur at higher fire intensity levels. An exception to this will be when a joint, interagency analysis is carried out (sec. 41.11 (4)). In developing options to evaluate decreased budget levels, decrease "free" cooperator attack forces in some reasonable proportion to the National Forest/unit force reduction. If this decrease does not occur, the cooperator forces become efficient alternatives in the analysis to those that the agency must pay for. 41.11 - Lands Included in Analysis. Include in the analysis only those lands for which the National Forest/unit has a legal protection responsibility. Fires starting adjacent to such lands may be included to the extent they must be attacked to protect lands for which the National Forest/unit is responsible. Handle lands protected for or by others under formal agreement in accordance with the appropriate procedure following: 1. Where protection responsibilities on two areas are traded (offset) by formal agreement with another agency and these responsibilities involve either relatively small areas or larger areas of approximately equal fire protection load and cost (as influenced by size, values, management objectives, access, occurrence, and fire behavior), the analysis may be done for the area protected. The analysis would consider the fires and potential losses on the land protected for the other agency in lieu of those on the lands that agency protects. 2. Special action is necessary in cases where lands protected for another agency do not meet the above criteria. Because the objective of the analysis in the case of National Forest System lands is to identify and evaluate the efficiency of programs to protect National Forest System resources, additional costs for protection of non-National Forest System lands must not be included. In item 1 above, an equitable trade of costs is assumed. If this is not the case, separate the "other" lands in the analysis by taking one of two actions: (a) either totally exclude the non-National Forest System lands from the analysis, or (b) include them in one or more separate FMAZ and develop specific cost and NVC data for them to provide a basis for establishing equitable charges for their protection. In the latter case, do not include emergency suppression cost and NVC data developed for these FMAZ with that data developed for National Forest System lands. Prorate budgeted presuppression costs for National Forest System forces that serve both areas based on the relative use in each area, and include the appropriate proportions in the budget cost calculations for each. 3. In cases where the cooperator protects larger areas of National Forest lands under formal agreement (and protection responsibilities are not offset) include the area in a separate FMAZ and use the analysis to identify the efficient level of protection and related costs based on National Forest System forces and a reasonable level of available cooperator assistance. This establishes a maximum cost for payment to the cooperator for protection. 4. Where there are significant areas of adjacent or intermingled lands of two or more protection jurisdictions, consider conducting a single joint analysis to identify the efficient mix and level of protection for the area as a whole and to establish the equitable proportional share each agency involved should bear based upon probable cost plus net value change (C+NVC) for the lands for which each is responsible. To identify these separate C+NVC's, delineate each agency's lands in one or more individual FMAZ and develop through the analysis the efficient fire program for each based on the concept of a single shared force available to all FMAZ's. From this analysis, apportion among the agencies, based on individual C+NVC ratios, the cost of the protection program identified for the total area, which cost should be less than the separate programs to protect individual agency areas. 41.12 - Data Requirements. The following data are necessary for the analysis. In some cases it may be obtained by refining or expanding data already developed for the Level I analysis (sec. 33.2). 1. The typical slope (National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) class) for each fire management analysis zone (FMAZ). 2. Fuel profile for each FMAZ. Where management activity will cause significant changes during the planning period, identify both current and future profiles. (NFDRS fuel model; dual fuel models are acceptable.) 3. An inventory of the current and planned prevention, detection, and suppression (initial action and local reinforcements) organization, equipment, and facilities. Include planned cooperators. Data needed are kind, size, location, and fixed (budgeted) and use costs expressed as constant dollars for a selected recent year. 4. Representative discovery-to-attack times for existing and potential initial action and local reinforcements, including planned cooperators, to areas of each FMAZ where they may be dispatched. 5. The fire weather station that represents each FMAZ (National Forests only). 6. Fire occurrence map and tabulation of fires by FMAZ for most recent 10-year period available (5 years may be sufficient for units with more than 100 fires annually). A tabulation of historic escaped fires by size and location for the past 20 years (10 years may be acceptable for units with more than two escapes per year if the 10-year period selected represents a normal distribution of escape fire sizes over time) is also necessary. 7. Map identifying management areas, FMAZ's, and representative fire locations. 8. Land and resource management objectives, planned resource outputs and unit values, and fire management direction for each FMAZ. 41.13 - Fire Management Analysis Zones. The fire management analysis zone (FMAZ) divides the National Forest/unit into areas of similar fire behavior based upon generally uniform terrain, slope, and fuel conditions. It also should reflect similar management practices and objectives, and potential economic fire consequences; although some differences in these may be reflected within an FMAZ by separate representative fire locations (sec. 41.14). An FMAZ is represented by a single weather station, slope class, and fuel profile. In determining the size of an individual FMAZ, consider the potential fire program cost and resource net value change the area may generate. These are influenced by the expected fire occurrence, potential rates of spread, and values. Where fire frequency or potential value changes are relatively small, it is possible to accommodate greater differences in potential fire behavior by a single FMAZ covering a larger area. In initially designating the FMAZ, be sure to consider planned or potential resource or fire management practices that may result in significant vegetative/fuel profile changes during the planning period. Areas on which the current fire behavior characteristics will be altered, through either resource management practices or fuel treatment, for a significant part of the planning period must be in separate FMAZ's from unaffected areas. An FMAZ may either be a contiguous area or may consist of a number of "islands" or small blocks having similar fire behavior and resource management characteristics and scattered inside one or more other FMAZ's. Develop all analytical data on the basis of individual FMAZ's and aggregate these data for the protection unit for each program option. 41.14 - Representative Locations. Base the evaluation of the effectiveness of planned suppression forces on fire, terrain, access, and resource value conditions represented by a generalized set of data for an area. This set of data may represent an FMAZ as a whole, or develop different sets for two or more defined portions of it. Each data set is a representative location (RL). The RL identifier designates the particular descriptors that apply to each separate area (FMAZ or portion of FMAZ) represented. The RL and associated descriptors reflect average conditions over the represented area as a whole, not just at a specific single point or site. Use the same RL's for testing all options; however, a represented area may be subdivided into two or more RL's if necessary to reflect particular conditions for analysis of different options. Make changes in the descriptors for an RL only as appropriate to reflect changes resulting from different budget levels or fire program mixes. An FMAZ may have more than one RL. One RL is appropriate for a small FMAZ or one where the applicable attributes do not vary significantly in different parts of it. Where there are important variations, delineate two or more RL areas with the FMAZ. Base the decision to designate one or more representative locations in an FMAZ on: 1. The kind, amount, and representative attack time of initial action forces typically dispatched to the FMAZ. Where there are significant differences in any of these items in different parts of the FMAZ, designate additional RL's to reflect these variations. It is obvious that attack times will differ over an area. Evaluate the need to designate additional RL's to reflect these differences in terms of rate of fire spread and resultant economic consequences. In areas where the fire spread, resistance to control, and resource value change are low, use of a single average attack time may be satisfactory (from the standpoint of affect on the analysis results) even where there are real time differences of 60 minutes or more over the area. In fast-spreading fuels with high values, a 15-minute variation may be the maximum acceptable to simulate "real world" conditions and evaluate effectiveness. Select the representative attack time for any particular force for an RL to reflect an appropriate attack time for that portion of the RL area where fire occurrence and loss potential is greatest. 2. Major differences in annual frequency of fire occurrence in different parts of an FMAZ. Separate high and low fire occurrence areas in order to be able to reflect differences in the effectiveness of alternative suppression force locations and attack strategies at different budgets or program mixes. 3. Potential economic consequences of wildfire on resources and improvements. Where different parts of an FMAZ have significantly different kinds or amounts of resources or improvements and fires over time will not affect all parts of the FMAZ equally, designate a separate RL to represent each part of the FMAZ in order to reflect potential economic consequences accurately (sec. 43). 41.15 - Multiple Fire and Other Reduced-Force Situations. Where there historically have been significant differences in the amount or kind of initial action forces available for dispatch to an area at different times as a result of multiple fires (including fires occurring in other areas that draw off suppression resources), early/late season, or less than 7-day manning, two or more "co-located" representative locations may be designated for the same geographic area to model the use of differing attack force levels and kinds under the different situations. See section 42.31a, item (1)f, for appropriate procedures. 41.2 - FIREPLAN Programs. Chapter 80 provides a description of and instructions for using a series of programs that provides data for the fire management analysis. The programs are elements of the FPL-PROGRAMS file that has the qualifier FPL-FIREPLAN. There are five programs to run for analysis Level I to define the current fire management situation. The remainder are for use in analysis Level II to evaluate fire management program options. (The program FPL-FREQ is run for both analysis levels.) FPL-IAA2, the initial attack simulation model, evaluates planned suppression action effectiveness for a given set of fire occurrence and fire behavior inputs and calculates resultant C+NVC for each FMAZ. Detailed instructions for data preparation and running this model are in a separate User's Guide available from the Forest Service Washington Office, Aviation and Fire Management Staff. 41.3 - Fire Management Direction. Fire management direction is developed in the land management planning process based on the potential positive and negative effects of fire on the achievement of specific land and resource management objectives. It is used in the fire analysis process to develop the kind and amount of fire management program that is appropriate and efficient for each fire management analysis zone (FMAZ). Information required for each FMAZ includes: 1. Resource management objectives; the kind, timing, and level of planned resource prescriptions and outputs. 2. The appropriate suppression strategy (prompt control, containment, or confinement) that reflects the desired or acceptable pattern of fire sizes at each intensity based on resource management objectives and prescriptions and fire's potential to enhance or disrupt the planned outputs of the area. This is a guide; the efficient strategy and resulting probable fire sizes and burned acreage are identified through the analysis process. 3. Standards, guidelines, and practices for fire management activities that reflect specific social, political, environmental, and management requirements and constraints. 41.4 - Fire Management Program Options. A program option is a given program mix (kinds and amounts of forces and activities) at a given budget. Any change in the program resulting either from a change in budget or from a change in the program composition at the same budget creates a new option. First, run a calibration option to adjust fire behavior inputs to the simulation model. This option is the mix and budget that best reflect the kind and level of fire management program organization and activity that produced the record of wildfire sizes/acres burned in the recent 5 to 10 year period used as a base. This fire program is usually different than the current one. Once the model is calibrated, run a current program option (budget and organization of the current or previous year). In addition to the current program, develop and evaluate viable alternative mixes to identify the program that is most efficient or, for constrained budgets, effective in meeting management objectives. Code the base ("current year") option 011 for analysis identification purposes. Give each option tested a unique identifier. Use a 3-digit code as follows: xyz, where x = a number assigned to each forest plan or management alternative. y = a number assigned to identify different mixes, program emphasis, or other selected program attribute. z = a number assigned to each different budget level tested (for example +10%, -20%). Current year budget level must = 1. 41.5 - Measurement of Relative Efficiency. The analysis identifies the program mix and associated budget level that will result in the lowest expected total cost plus net resource value change (C+NVC). This is the efficient program. In determining program effectiveness and efficiency you must measure C+NVC and compare alternatives based on the total for all the FMAZ on the National Forest or other administrative unit for which the budget is being evaluated. In cases where several program mixes (kinds of forces or activities) are potentially viable at a given budget level, evaluate each in order to identify the one that is the most effective (that is, results in the minimum C+NVC) at that budget. In deciding how many alternative mixes you should try at any particular budget level, consider the kind and size of the fire problem and the possible improvement in effectiveness. First, evaluate the budget level for the base (current year) program. Next, evaluate budget levels in increments and decrements of 10 to 20 percent of that base budget for the individual functional component being analyzed. Vary larger budgets in 10-to-15-percent changes; smaller budgets in 15-to-20-percent changes. Make the adjustments by adding (delete when evaluating a lower budget) individual functional forces or activities on the National Forest/unit that are approximately equal in annual budgeted cost to the percent budget adjustment being evaluated. Include in the evaluation one or more budget levels that are at least 25 percent less than the current total fire program allocation for all functions for the National Forest unit. 41.51 - Program Evaluation. Conduct the analysis by making changes in only one function at a time, starting with initial attack; hold inputs reflecting the other functional program areas constant until you identify the efficient suppression program. The steps to determine the most efficient level (minimum C+NVC) of the fire management program on a National Forest/unit are as follows: 1. Calculate total C+NVC for the base (current program in most cases) option. 2. Adjust the forces planned for dispatch by deleting lower priority (least effective) forces from the National Forest/unit program to reflect an initial attack budget that is approximately 10 to 20 percent less than the initial attack budget of the base option. Be sure to reflect the changes in forces in each FMAZ that is affected. Run FPL-IAA2 with the reduced program components for each FMAZ affected by the change, and develop a total C+NVC for the National Forest/unit as a whole. 3. If the total C+NVC developed in step 2 is lower than that of the base option, delete additional attack forces to reflect a further 10-to-20-percent decrease in the initial attack budget. Run IAA2 for the FMAZ affected by the changes, and calculate a new total C+NVC for the National Forest/unit. If the C+NVC of step 2 is higher than that of the initial option, increase the budget approximately 10 to 20 percent over that for the base option by adding forces to meet identified needs, and calculate the new C+NVC. 4. Continue with budget changes in the direction indicated in step 3 until a higher C+NVC occurs. At that point, if you are satisfied that the attack force composition is the best you can develop, the previous budget and attack program evaluated, with the lowest C+NVC, is the efficient program for the current level of prevention, detection, and fuels activity, since these were not varied. 5. It is not necessary to analyze functions other than suppression (detection, prevention, fuels) if (a) the functional program is not a significant component of the National Forest/unit protection budget; or (b) realistically, there would be little opportunity to make significant changes in the program even if the budget changed; or (c) it is not possible to identify the effects (in terms of inputs to the analysis) of changes in the level, amount, or composition of the program with reasonable confidence. 6. If evaluation of program changes in a second function is appropriate, carry out steps 2, 3, and 4. Vary only the function being evaluated; hold the initial attack program at the efficient level identified in step 4 and hold the remaining functions at their base level. The changes should reflect 10-to-20 percent increments of the base budget level for that function. If it is appropriate to evaluate a third function, start with the efficient program (and associated analysis inputs) identified in the second function analysis, and repeat steps 2 through 4 while holding the other function inputs constant. 7. If you have not evaluated a budget level equal to at least a 25 percent reduction of the total current year fire program budget for the forest, develop an appropriate program option to equal a budget of that amount and run the analysis. 8. During or subsequent to these steps, use the analysis to develop information relating to specific management questions such as potential risk and consequences of major fires, or the effect of different program funding levels on specific resource outputs. It is also possible to develop some feel for how sensitive various outputs are to individual program changes. At the completion of each succeeding functional analysis, look at the total program mix and determine whether or not the level and composition of the function(s) previously analyzed are still valid. If there is a question, repeat steps 2 through 4; use the last developed efficient program as a starting point. 41.6 - Analysis Outputs. Document the results for each option for the planning record: 1. Total National Forest/unit annual fire program costs, including overhead and program assessments. a. Costs by function-prevention, detection, fuels management, attack (National Forest System 111-115). b. Emergency suppression costs. c. Investments costs. (1) Fire management fuels treatment. (2) Fire management facilities and equipment. 2. Net economic effects. a. Market-net resource value change. b. Nonmarket-description of consequences. 3. Calculation of the fire management effectiveness index (FMEI) (selected option only). 4. Expected acres burned by fire size and fire intensity level (FIL), by FMAZ (all options). 5. Description of program mix (all options). 41.61 - Validity Check of Outputs. The outputs of a valid analysis will (with rare exception) graph as smooth curves, as shown in exhibit 1a. Reversals in direction of either the emergency suppression cost curve or net value change curve, as shown in the exhibit 1b example, usually result from (1) erroneous suppression costs for one or more fire size classes or net value changes for one or more FIL; (2) arithmetic or procedure errors in the analysis; or (3) failure to identify the most effective program mix at one or more budget levels. If such a reversal occurs, determine the reason for it and correct any error. A completed unit analysis must identify a minimum point on the total cost plus net value change (C+NVC) curve. The analysis, therefore, must include at least one budget level on each side of the budget which produced the minimum C+NVC. SEE PAPER COPY FOR EXHIBIT 1A