FSH 5109.19 - FIRE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS AND PLANNING HANDBOOK 9/85 WO AMENDMENT 3 42 - FIRE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS. The effectiveness analysis for fire management programs blends separate analytical procedures for each functional fire program component (prevention, fuels management, detection, suppression) into one analysis process. The consequences of changes in an individual fire program function are estimated in terms of changes in expected burned acreage and total program cost plus net resource value change (C+NVC) for the unit analyzed. The outcome of the analysis provides consistent information on the overall effectiveness and economic efficiency of alternative program options from which the line officer may select a specific program for planning, budgeting, or implementation. Procedures are provided to estimate the effects of functional fire program changes including: changes in the kind and size of the fire detection and suppression organization; changes in fire occurrence associated with the prevention program; or changes in fire spread and intensity associated with the fuels management program. The objective of the program-level analysis is to identify and prioritize broad problems and opportunities for their solution using economic evaluation criteria. Detailed operational and project analyses within each function (based on program size and content information developed in the program analysis) are dealt with in the planning for program implementation (ch. 50). 42.1 - Prevention Analysis. The prevention program analysis quantifies potential impacts of person-caused fires on the unit in economic terms. It provides a logical way to identify categories of fires that are problems on the basis of expected cost and net resource value change. The economic effect of different amounts of changes in frequency of occurrence, such as might result from changes in the kind or amount of the fire prevention program, can be estimated and used as a basis for prevention program decisions. Prevention program effects are reflected in the analysis as changes in the fire frequency inputs. To analyze prevention changes for different budgets or program mixes, you must be able to quantify--with reasonable validity--the effects that changes in specific prevention activities would have on fire occurrence by FMAZ and by fire intensity level. The process also provides an estimate of the change in variable cost and resource value outputs that would result from a specified change in fire occurrence. This indicates the value of that magnitude of change and, thus, the maximum number of budget dollars that it would be efficient to spend to bring it about. 42.11 - Prevention Objectives 1. To identify and prioritize person-caused fires, problem areas based on potential occurrence, suppression cost, and resource value change. 2. To analyze priority person-caused fire occurrence to identify problems for which effective prevention action programs can be prepared. 3. To develop alternative prevention options to meet priority occurrence problems and estimate their effects in terms of change in overall fire program cost plus net value change. 42.12 - Process. For the prevention analysis consider person- caused fire occurrence for the past 5 to 10 years. Select the period on the basis of occurrence and trends with the objective of identifying the type and magnitude of expected future problems, not historic ones. Consider concentrations of fires, infrequent occurrence with potential for high costs and losses, and scattered occurrence from a single or related causes that in total constitutes a significant problem. Do not analyze basic prevention awareness programs such as signs, Smokey Bear materials, and school contacts, except as appropriate for local purposes. The effects of these programs cannot be adequately quantified for National budget analyses, and they are assumed to continue at the same level and effectiveness for all program options. Do not consider prevention activities where effectiveness cannot be reasonably quantified in terms of probable reduction in fire occurrence by geographical area. Regions/States may develop and document a consistent analytical process for use by local units in estimating the effects of prevention activities in terms of changes in fire frequency. Identify historical fire frequency by cause and fire intensity level. Use FIREPLAN program FPL-FREQ outputs where available or manual compilations. In general, do not give consideration to cause groups with low frequency of occurrence because of the low probability that prevention activity would affect what may be a random event. Consider historical cost plus net value change associated with each cause, and more importantly, the realistic probable preventability of fires from particular causes even where there is a significant number of starts. Where a Regional/State process has not been specified, follow the general procedure outlined below. 1. Develop a prevention problem area map that identifies geographical locations of causes of fires, or concentrations of fires, tending to recur over time. Prioritize by cause and general area based upon the expected cost and net resource value change impacts and threat to public safety of future fire occurrence. 2. Project future risk by fire management analysis zone (FMAZ) for each for the specific cause(s) for which there is a reasonable basis for a change from historical fire occurrence. Modify this historical occurrence in both frequency and location as appropriate to reflect future changes in land and resource management and use. Where applicable, use historic fire occurrence/resource use relationships as a basis for projections. For example, if there have historically been 1.25 person-caused fires per year per 1,000 user-days in an area, and the annual use is expected to increase by 3,000 user-days over the planning period, the projected expected annual fire frequency would be increased by 3 x 1.25, or 3.75 fires. 3. Develop and document a proposed prevention requirement for each significant occurrence problem that can be addressed meaningfully by a prevention activity to achieve specific objectives consistent with fire management direction for the area involved. Include specific fire prevention objectives, such as "reduce the number of debris fires occurring each year at fire intensity levels 3 and above by 25 percent in FMAZ 03 and 05." 4. Use one of the following approaches to evaluate a specific prevention program for the fire occurrence problem being addressed. a. When the probable effectiveness of the prevention program cannot be estimated with sufficient confidence to use as a reliable input to modify expected fire occurrence, run FPL-IAA2 for the FMAZ first with the organization, costs, and fire occurrence as they would be without the proposed prevention activity. Run the program a second time with the fire occurrence reduced by the amount targeted in the prevention objective. Compare the expected variable (emergency fire suppression) costs and net resource value changes developed in the two runs. The difference between the second run and the first run is the maximum amount that can be spent efficiently on any prevention activity to accomplish the proposed reduction in occurrence. Next, consider the probability of accomplishing at least the target reduction in occurrence for no more than that dollar amount. If the probability is not high, it is a questionable investment. b. When program costs and effects on occurrence can be reliably predicted, estimate the probable effectiveness (on a scale of 0.1 to 1.0) of the proposed prevention program in each FMAZ. Multiply this probability for each FMAZ times the target percent reduction in occurrence for the cause being addressed. Use the resulting decimal to modify expected frequency for each FMAZ where it is appropriate by multiplying the historic occurrence for that cause at each applicable fire intensity level (FIL). For example: FMAZ 05 has an expected occurrence of 8.3 fires at FIL 3; 5.6 of these are caused by debris burning. It is estimated that a prevention program aimed at a 50 percent reduction in debris fires on the unit at FIL 3 and above will be 70 percent effective in that FMAZ. The projected FMAZ frequency for FIL 3 with the prevention program implemented is calculated by (1) .50 (reduction) x .70 (effectiveness in this FMAZ) =.35 (2) .35 x 4.6 (debris fires) = 1.61 (probable reduction) (3) 8.3 (total fires) - 1.61 = 6.69 (projected fire frequency with the proposed prevention program) Make similar computations for each FIL affected in this FMAZ and for other FMAZ's to which the prevention program is applicable. When all adjustments in frequency have been completed, include the prevention program cost in the budgeted organization and run FPL-IAA2 to calculate C+NVC for the unit. 42.2 - Fuels Management Analysis. Fuels analysis evaluates the potential effectiveness and economic efficiency of fire management program options that include proposed investments of budgeted fire program dollars to modify a fuel profile over a significant portion of one or more fire management analysis zones (FMAZ). The change in present value of the total fire program cost plus net resource value change (C+NVC) for the unit after proposed treatment is the criterion for the efficiency evaluation. Fuels program effects are expressed in the analysis through changes in the rates of spread and fire intensity for the FMAZ in which treatment is done. Carry out the fuels analysis by determining the present value of alternative fire management programs with and without the treatment and related maintenance costs. The annual program C+NVC before and after treatment, and the investment amount and number of years are inputs to this process. Secondary biological benefits of fuel treatment on resource outputs may not be used to offset fire program fund expenditures, and therefore are not appropriate for consideration in an analysis done for fire budget purposes. Where a multifunctional project is under consideration, the present value of the decrease in fire-related C+NVC that the program would generate is the maximum justifiable contribution of fire management funds. 42.21 - Analysis Process. For each FMAZ in which you wish to analyze proposed fuel treatment for a fire management program option perform the following: 1. Determine the kind and extent of the proposed treatment work, the number of years and average annual investment cost to accomplish the fuel treatment, and the average annual cost to maintain the investment upon completion. For the purposes of the analytical process, fuel management treatment may either (a) affect the fuelbed profile (and fire behavior characteristics) for the FMAZ, or (b) affect access, travel times, and large fire suppression, such as from fuelbreak construction, or both. 2. If the planned treatment affects the major portion of the area of the FMAZ where fire is of significant concern, identify a new fuel profile to represent the entire FMAZ after treatment. If a significant area of the FMAZ will not be converted to a new fuel profile, divide the FMAZ to establish a new one to cover the area treated. Where this is done, re-allocate fire occurrence. To preclude having to do this, consider fuel treatment program alternatives in the initial designation of FMAZ. Where the fuel treatment planned generally covers the FMAZ, but not every acre within the affected area will be treated, use a dual fuel model to represent the area. For example, a B model that is partially treated throughout 60 percent or more of an FMAZ could be changed by the treatment to a fuel profile that is 60 percent A, 40 percent B. The rate of spread used in the analysis would be an average of the model A and model B rates weighted .6 and .4 respectively. 3. Develop new rates of spread and fire intensity for the post-treatment fuel models in each affected FMAZ. Use FPL- LEVEL2/FPL-FREQ, BEHAVE, or other appropriate process consistent with that used to develop the pretreatment fuel model rates. For calibration purposes, you must adjust the new (post-treatment) calculated rates in the same proportion by FIL as you adjusted the calculated pretreatment model rates in the original calibration. 4. Complete the analysis processes to identify C+NVC for the postfuel treatment conditions; that is, develop and evaluate appropriate initial action options for each FMAZ affected by the fuel treatment. Program costs for post- treatment program options must include annual fuel maintenance. Where decreases in the needed initial action organization for the post-treatment conditions affect forces planned for dispatch to other FMAZ's, be sure to rerun the FPL-IAA2 for those FMAZ's as well to develop the National Forest/unit-wide data needed for evaluation. 42.22 - Evaluation of Fuel Management Programs. Evaluate the efficiency of proposed program options with fuels management investments compared to the most efficient (or preferred) fire management program option that does not involve fuel treatment investment. Use the utility routine FPL-FIREPLAN*FPL- PROGRAMS.FPL-FUEL for the evaluation computations for each affected FMAZ (ch. 80). Inputs to the routine are the annual cost plus net value change (C+NVC) of the most efficient fire management program that does not involve fuel investments; the annual C+NVC (including fuel maintenance costs) of the planned fire management program at the completion of the fuel treatment being evaluated; average annual fuel treatment investment costs; and number of years over which such costs will be necessary. The routine displays the present value (based upon the 4-percent discount rate used for forest planning) of the stream of costs (including fuel treatment investment costs) and net value changes of the fuels program. These are compared in the program routine with the present value of the stream of costs and net value changes of the preferred nonfuels program option to evaluate the economic efficiency of the proposed fuels treatment investment. The more efficient option has the lower present value. 42.3 - Detection and Suppression Analysis. The detection and suppression analysis uses an initial attack assessment model to test the effectiveness of suppression organization options against expected numbers, locations, and intensities of fires on the planning unit. The detection system performance is represented in the model by the estimated typical fire size at discovery for each fire management analysis zone (FMAZ). This figure may be changed as appropriate to reflect alternative detection options that might increase or decrease average expected detection times (and thus fire size at discovery) for the area. FIREPLAN program FPL-IAA2 evaluates the effectiveness of proposed initial attack organizations and dispatch strategies. This evaluation integrates inputs representing the detection, prevention, and fuels programs by the fire size at discovery, fire frequency by location, and fire frequency by fire intensity level and rate of spread. The program assigns final sizes to fires that are not contained by the initial attack organization from a user-supplied list and calculates expected total costs and net value changes for the FMAZ based on user-supplied per acre dollar consequences. The outputs of the model for each program option tested also include expected average annual area burned (by fire size and intensity level) for each FMAZ. Initial attack suppression program inputs include for each FMAZ the number, elapsed time from discovery to attack, and fireline production rate of the individual forces planned for use at each fire intensity level. Section 84 gives the basic description of input data requirements for the initial action assessment model. Specific instructions for running the program are in the FPL-IAA2 User's Guide available from the Washington Office, Aviation and Fire Management Staff. Guidelines for developing inputs and using the initial action assessment model follow. 1. Local Fire Suppression Forces. These include: a. All forces budgeted from presuppression funds on the National Forest/unit and used for initial and first reinforcement action. b. Project crews and other personnel assigned to the planning unit who are usually available in a particular area at fire intensity levels (FIL) for which they would be planned for dispatch. c. Cooperator or adjacent unit forces whose availability for initial action is reasonably certain. 2. Shared Forces. Each Region/State must identify the availability (by FIL if significant) of initial action forces to be shared on a planned basis by two or more National Forests/units. Include the type, ID code, number, and location of forces each National Forest/unit may plan on for the analysis. 3. Costs. Document annual budget (presuppression) costs for the National Forest/unit of all forces and activities (including overhead and assessments) for the current program and each option to be evaluated on worksheet 2 of the FPL-IAA2 User's Guide. Do not include budget costs of shared suppression forces in the National Forest/unit budget for analysis purposes, even though these funds actually may be part of the budget of one local unit. Include these costs in the budget at the Region/State level. Base emergency suppression (FFF) costs on historic expenditures for each area. Separate and develop these costs in two ways for entry into the program: average per-acre-burned costs (AAC) by fire size class, and average unit mission-cost-per-fire (UMC) for individual forces. Section 42.31c explains use of the two cost categories and provides instructions for developing them. All costs must be inflated/deflated to the "current" year designated for the analysis by the Region/State. (Costs and net value changes must be for the same year.) Where several years' costs are used to develop an average, inflate/deflate the individual years to a single constant year first. 4. Production Rates. Regions/States may either use standard national production rates or may establish standard Regional fireline production rates for ground forces. In developing these rates, remember that they reflect the amount of perimeter (expressed in chains per hour) the unit of force can cover during the initial suppression action to slow and then contain the fire's spread. The rate should not reflect the time required for finished control line except for reinforcememt crews and tractors, which tend to construct continuous line even under initial action circumstances. The rates should not reflect sustained controlline construction and holding. Where a dual National Fire Danger Rating System model, such as 70 percent B, 30 percent C, represents an area, the production rate used for a suppression resource may be the weighted average of production rates for each model. The weighting is in the same proportion as the percentages of fuels represented in the dual model. For example, you would calculate the individual production rate for a B70C30 model as follows: Rate in Weighted rate in Model chains per hour Proportion chains per hour B 0.4 .70 0.28 C 3.0 .30 0.9 1.18 This weighting of production rates also may be done for those rates used with a single representative location where fuel treatment has been carried out on a small area and affects only the fires represented by that location. (This applies to an area too small to delineate as a separate zone with an appropriate fuel type change.) While this process would not affect rate of spread or intensity of the fires modeled for that location, it would reflect the reduced resistance to control. 42.31 - Detailed Procedure. Develop inputs for the initial attack assessment model (IAA) on a series of worksheets in the FPL-IAA2 User's Guide, which provides detailed instructions for use of that program. Chapter 80 of this Handbook provides a description of FPL-IAA, and the basic data inputs common to both the IAA and IAA2 programs. 42.31a - Fire Behavior/Fire Suppression Inputs 1. Worksheet 1. Prepare this worksheet for each fire management analysis zone (FMAZ) (ex. 1). a. Establish the maximum size fire the program is to model (escaped fire limit) up to 1,000 acres. The size selected should reflect for each FMAZ the size at which fires typically exceed the initial action/first reinforcement capabilities simulated. The size selected also should reflect the maximum size that fires in the area typically reach under most conditions as a result of topography, barriers to spread, and suppression action. Section 42.31d contains instructions for developing data for the final size of fires above the escape fire limit specified for the model. b. Enter the typical fire size at discovery (to nearest 0.01 acre) for the FMAZ. (If the area has a history of class A fires, size at discovery must be less than .25 ac.) If significant differences in typical fire sizes exist, give weight to location and conditions that pose most probable threat of resource losses. c. Designate appropriate option code (sec. 41.4) for the mix/budget level being analyzed. d. Enter fire frequencies, rates of spread, and historical fire data developed from FIREPLAN programs or, for States, other appropriate sources. e. Determine number and area of representative locations (RL's) for the FMAZ (sec. 41.14). Determine the number and proportion of the average annual number of fires in the FMAZ each RL represents. Number the RL's on a map to maintain identity. f. If, historically, the initial attack forces available for dispatch to fires represented by an RL frequently have differed significantly from the normal dispatch due to such reasons as multiple fires, less than 7-day manning, and pre- or post-season force availability, the following intermediate step may be taken to reflect this. (1) Designate two (or more, if applicable) RL's (co-located) for each area where you wish to reflect differences in attack strength, configuration, or attack time due to unavailability of normally planned forces under particular conditions. For identification purposes, number all RL's in the FMAZ consecutively. (2) For each set of dual representative locations, estimate (based on historical fire occurrence) the proportion of the total fires represented by each RL in that area that are attacked respectively by (a) the planned normal dispatch, and (b) by a modified dispatch. Assign the applicable proportion to each of the respective representative locations. Keep track of which RL number reflects which initial attack configuration. For example: Annual fire frequency for the FMAZ: 24. Two RL's initially designated to reflect differences in normal attack force time/configuration in north and south portions of the FMAZ; north area represents 10 fires, south 14 fires. Within the FMAZ, 60 percent of the fires occur as single fires; 40 percent occur as multiple fires with reduced forces available to attack any one (or essentially the same kinds/amounts of forces may be available, but attack times are greater because the forces must come from farther away). Designate RL's as follows: Total FMAZ Area RL Situation # fires Proportion North 1 normal 6 .25 (6/24) North 2 mult. fire 4 .167 (4/24) South 3 normal 8.4 .35 (8.4/24) South 4 mult. fire 5.6 .233(5.6/24) TOTAL: 24.0 1.0 2. Worksheet 2. Document by function (prevention, detection, attack, aviation, and fuels) on separate copies of this worksheet the positions, equipment, activities, and related annual costs, of each program option. List in left columns all forces or activities, and their budgeted cost, that are part of any option evaluated in the analysis (ex.2). Enter on each applicable function's worksheet, positions financed from more than one function with the appropriate cost share. List with a zero budget cost forces included in the analysis that are not budgeted from presuppression funds (such as cooperators or forest forces paid as used on fire from emergency suppression funds). List attack forces shared by two or more National Forests/units but carry the budget cost at the Regional/State level. For each option, enter the appropriate identifier code at the top of a column, and extend the budget costs for the included items. List and identify by planned use and amount any budgeted fire fund assessments or transfers to support other programs; enter general overhead assessments on the indicated line. Functional and grand totals must equal total budgeted fire program allocation to the National Forest/unit. 3. Worksheet 3 or Worksheet IAA2-17. This documents the planned dispatch for each option for each representative location. Use worksheet IAA2-17 to format data for entry into FPL-IAA2 when unit identifiers are assigned (ex. 3). Use of worksheet 3 is optional (ex. 4). Determine from worksheet 2 for the option being evaluated the suppression forces that would be dispatched to each area represented. List all units, including project and cooperator forces, normally sent as part of the planned initial action/first reinforcement force under the highest burning conditions for that area. (The initial attack assessment program will use only those forces needed to contain the fire at each fire intensity level, in order of arrival.) Forces may be listed in any order. They may be recorded in ascending order of arrival time at the fire; grouped by type; grouped by the FIL at which they would be dispatched; or other desired arrangement. List on one line units of the same type that arrive at approximately the same time and that have the same production rate. Enter the total number of units involved in the "number of units" column. Enter a single representative attack time and the single unit production rate in the appropriate columns. For a crew, enter the number of workers (exclude overhead) in the "number of units" column and the single person hourly production rate. For fixed and rotary wing airtankers, enter 99 in the "number of units" column and the drop amount in hundreds of gallons for the production rate; 1,200 gallons = 12. The program calculates airtanker fireline production internally based on fuel model and rate of spread. Enter the lowest FIL at which each suppression unit would be dispatched. The program will use this unit (if necessary to contain the fire) at that and all higher FIL's. Enter as attack time the typical elapsed time (applicable to each representative area) from discovery to start of suppression work for each attack force. Enter an air tanker that might make repeated drops on a fire if needed for control, a number of times; calculate the successive attack times based on total elapsed time from discovery and include the time after each drop for the return to base and reloading. (Enter the unit ID each time since the unit mission cost for airtankers is for each trip.) Attack times for forces typically sent when requested as reinforcements after the arrival of initial attack units should include the appropriate delay in dispatching. The program would only dispatch and use such forces if they are needed for containment. Reflect the reduction in production rate that occurs when an engine (tanker) runs out of water by entering a dummy unit with a negative production rate at the appropriate elapsed time in the dispatch list. The program will reduce the total line production rate of the units on the fire by the amount of the negative entry. For example, an engine and crew has a production rate of 14 chains per hour with water, and 6 chains per hour without water; water capacity is equal to 20 minutes use. If the unit arrives at the fire at 35 minutes (with a production rate entry of 12 chains per hour), at 55 minutes make an entry for 1 unit with a production rate of 8 to reduce production for the unit to the 6 chains that the crew alone can produce. Do not enter a unit ID for a dummy entry such as this. SEE PAPER COPY FOR EXHIBITS 1-4 42.31b - Net Resource Value Change Inputs. Estimate the physical effects of fire on planned resource outputs and the resulting economic consequences for each fire management analysis zone (FMAZ) or, where appropriate, each representative location within an FMAZ. Guidelines for developing values and preparing input worksheets 6, 7, IAA2-8, IAA2-9, and IAA2-11 are in section 43 and the FPL-IAA2 User's Guide. 42.31c - Emergency Suppression Cost Inputs. Enter nonbudgeted, emergency firefighting (FFF) costs in FPL-IAA2 for each FMAZ in two ways: (1) as average per acre burned cost (AAC) by fire-size class; and (2) as a unit mission cost (UMC), that is the typical emergency cost per single fire mission, for fires contained within the escape fire limit you specify for the model, for individual suppression force units. In both cases, the costs used must reflect typical conditions and suppression actions in the particular FMAZ. For AAC, the program calculates annual costs for each option based on the expected acres burned in each selected fire size class. For UMC, the program calculates the cost based on the annual number of times a unit is used in the simulation model. Calculation of costs through the UMC process best reflects the variable cost differential between program options that use different forces. Therefore, express as much of the emergency fire-funded cost as possible for fires less than the escape fire size as UMC for individual units or types of units. (For fires larger than the escape fire limit, include all costs paid from emergency funds in the AAC.) You must use UMC for all shared forces. The UMC should reflect the typical time (and related fire emergency-funded cost) for the unit on a fire that is controlled at a size less than the escape fire size in the fire management analysis zone. Include mopup time. For airtankers, UMC must be for a single round trip. Use AAC to reflect all emergency, nonbudget costs associated with a fire event that are not accounted for by UMC for individual units. Base on historical costs for the area, terrain, and fuel, by fire size class. The AAC may reflect the cost of local forces typically dispatched to fires in an area under all options and may include costs through mopup and equipment reconditioning; or they may include only support costs with all individual suppression unit costs--for fires controlled by the model at less than the escape size--expressed as UMC. (You must include in the AAC all emergency costs for those fire size classes above the escape size.) The FPL-IAA2 User's Guide contains guidelines for preparing worksheets IAA2-12 and IAA2-13 to enter costs into FPL-IAA2. Convert all costs to the same fiscal year; this must be the same fiscal year as used for values. 42.31d - Escaped Fire Size Inputs. The FPL-IAA2 program output identifies those fires that are not contained by the simulation model within the escaped fire size limit. The FPL-IAA2 program assigns sizes to these fires from an escaped fire table developed and provided as program input for each fire management analysis zone. Procedures for developing the escape fire table (worksheet IAA2-14) are in the FPL-IAA2 User's Guide.