Williams Creek Fire
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Large Fire Cost Review for FY2009 Submitted to: Secretary of Agriculture Submitted by: Secretary of Agriculture’s Independent Large Cost Fire Review Panel and Guidance Group, Inc. 201 Baumgartner Place, NE Eatonville, WA 98328 (360) 832‐1447 August 2010 Large Fire Cost Review for FY2009 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... I Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. i Recommendations ................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... X CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 2 Organization of Report ............................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER II. FY2009 LARGE COST FIRES ............................................................... 6 Backbone Fire .......................................................................................................................... 6 Big Meadow Fire .................................................................................................................... 10 Knight Fire ............................................................................................................................. 14 La Brea Fire ........................................................................................................................... 18 Station Fire ............................................................................................................................ 22 Williams Creek Fire ............................................................................................................... 28 Summary of Cost Factors ...................................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER III. COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 34 Cost Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 34 Overall Costs of Fires ............................................................................................................ 35 Daily Direct Fire Costs .......................................................................................................... 39 Comparisons with Previous Large Cost Fires ...................................................................... 43 Aircraft Costs ......................................................................................................................... 44 Indirect Costs ......................................................................................................................... 48 Personnel Costs by Agency .................................................................................................... 51 Federal Resource Costs in California ................................................................................... 52 Local and State Government Costs in California ................................................................ 52 Cost Sharing ........................................................................................................................... 54 Incident Business Advisors ................................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER IV. MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 56 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................... 56 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 62 Decision Support Tools, New Technology and Guidance ..................................................... 65 Metrics .................................................................................................................................... 67 Improving the Cost Review Process ...................................................................................... 69 Large Fire Cost Review for FY2009 APPENDIX A. REVIEW PANEL SHORT BIOS ......................................................... 71 APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS ASKED IN INTERVIEWS .............................................. 74 APPENDIX C. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ............................................................ 76 APPENDIX D. LITERATURE REVIEWED ................................................................ 78 APPENDIX E. DAILY COST DETAIL FOR EACH FIRE .............................................. 80 Large Fire Cost Review for FY2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As requested by Congress, an independent panel reviewed the six 2009 wildland fires whose suppression costs exceeded $10 million (M). The six fires were: Backbone ($16.9M), Big Meadow ($16.9M), Knight ($12.1M), La Brea ($34.9M), Station ($94.7M), and Williams Creek ($14.2M). The Williams Creek fire occurred in Oregon, the others in California. The primary purpose of the review was to determine whether agency personnel made prudent and cost effective incident management decisions in light of risk management considerations. In every case, agency administrators, their staffs, and incident personnel paid attention to balancing safety, cost, and risk management. As one would expect, the personnel involved in these fires learned lessons which, if applied, would improve performance in the future. The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), as lead agency for the review, also tasked the Panel to review the use of new technology, tools and guidance on these fires, and to evaluate the large fire cost review process itself, making recommendations for improving its value. To gather information firsthand, the Panel met at Forest Supervisors’ Offices to interview agency administrators, incident commanders (IC), and other senior officials involved in decision making on the fires. National Park Service (NPS) fire officials from Yosemite National Park met the Panel at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor’s Office. The Panel also analyzed cost data and reviewed documentation on the fires. Key Findings Prudent Decisions – The Panel found that overall, agency administrators and incident personnel made prudent decisions on each of these six fires in light of the risks and circumstances they faced, and that agency personnel paid considerable attention to risk management and cost containment. All things considered, the Forest Service and NPS should take pride in how well their personnel performed under pressure in handling the complex situations they faced on the six large wildland fires we reviewed. The responsible units and incident management teams (IMT) could have reduced some costs on most if not all of the fires. However, without prudent decisions and consideration for costs and safety, the fire costs would, in all likelihood, have been much higher and property losses greater. Cost Management – Agency administrators, their key staff, and ICs all proved very conscious of costs, and took steps whenever possible to limit costs. Built-in checks and balances largely worked. For example, agency administrators and their representatives examined the decisions of ICs, Geographic Area Coordinating Centers (GACC) reviewed resource orders, and cost unit leaders and incident business advisors (IBA) tracked and reviewed spending. Costs of tactical operations were largely attributable to crews, engines, and aircraft. Indirect costs, which include (a) overhead and support personnel, (b) supplies, (c) catering, and (d) travel costs were largely proportional to the number of personnel fighting a given fire. Although the mix of direct costs differed among the fires, the proportion of indirect i Large Fire Cost Review for FY2009 Executive Summary costs to direct costs proved very similar for all six fires. This consistency suggests the support system operated similarly across fires and as planned. Savings vs. Costs – The agency administrators, their staffs, IMTs, state and local cooperators, and the thousands of firefighters involved in the firefighting, together saved tens of thousands of acres of wildland resources, a large number of homes, valuable commercial timber, watersheds, and significant amounts of infrastructure such as communications antennas and power transmission lines. The Panel believes that a lack of adequate metrics for comparing values saved to fire suppression costs represents one problem associated with past cost review efforts. We recommend an approach to measuring values saved, enabling Federal fire agencies to better evaluate the cost-effectiveness of wildland fire suppression. Control of Cost Factors – The Panel found that many factors affecting fire suppression costs exist largely outside the control of the people managing large wildland fires. We discuss important cost factors in the next set of items, below. Some influences that take cost control out of the hands of agency personnel prove particularly