Forecasting Wildfire Suppression Expenditures for the United States Forest Service

  • Karen L. Abt
  • Jeffrey P. Prestemon
  • Krista Gebert
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 79)

The wildland fire management organization of the United States Forest Service (USFS) operates under policy and budget legacies that began nearly 100 years ago and a forest fuel situation that is all too current. The confluence of these three factors contributes to increased burning and firefighting costs for the agency, and increased concern from both the U.S. Congress and the public. Historically, the 10-year moving average of suppression expenditures has been used in USFS annual budget requests to Congress. But in a time when fire activity and costs are steadily rising, the 10-year moving average budget formula has translated into shortfalls in available suppression funds nearly every year since the mid-1990s. When the budgeted amount is insufficient, the agency continues to suppress fires by reallocating funds from other land management programs and by making subsequent requests to Congress for additional funding. A recent report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004) recommended a reevaluation of the budgeting system for wildfire suppression expenditures by the federal land management agencies (U.S. GAO, 2004). While many of the issues and critiques made by GAO are beyond the control of the agencies, the USFS has explored alternatives to current practices used in developing out-year budget requests for emergency fire suppression.

We have two primary objectives in this chapter. First, we seek to evaluate candidate forecast models of wildfire suppression expenditures. These time series models are constructed to allow suppression budget forecasts up to 3 years in advance of a coming fire season. These models are evaluated for their suitability for budget documents presented to Congress. The structure of estimated models highlights the importance of accounting for intertemporal dynamics and stochasticity in wildfire suppression expenditures. Second, we demonstrate a method from the forecasting literature that quantifies some of the factors potentially important in choosing among alternative models. The method applies loss functions to errors in forecasts, and our comparisons are between the 10-year moving average and our estimated time series models.


Root Mean Square Error Loss Function Forecast Error Time Series Model Wildland Fire 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumgarten, F. R., and B. D. James. 1993. Agendas and instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, B. M., P. N. Omi, and P. L. Chapman. 2006. Regional relationships between climate and wildfire-burned area in the Interior West, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(3):699-709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Donovan, G. H. 2005. A comparison of the costs of Forest Service and contract fire crews in the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20(4):233-239.Google Scholar
  4. Granger, C. W. J., and M. H. Pesaran. 2000. Economic and statistical measures of forecast accuracy. Journal of Forecasting 19:537-560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greene, W. 2003. Econometric analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Princeton Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Karlberg, F. 2000. Population total prediction under a lognormal superpopulation model. Metron 58(3/4):53-80.Google Scholar
  7. Kitzberger, T., P. M. Brown, E. K. Heyerdahl, T. W. Swetman, and T. T. Veblen. 2007. Contingent Pacific-Atlantic Ocean influence on multicentury wildfire synchrony over western North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (2):543-548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68:715-719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawrence, M., and M. O’Connor. 2005. Judgmental forecasting in the presence of loss functions. International Journal of Forecasting 21:2-14.Google Scholar
  10. Schoenberg, F. P., R. Peng, Z. Huang, and P. Rundel. 2003. Detection of nonlinearities in the dependence of burn area on fuel age and climatic variables. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12:1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schoennagel, T., T. T. Veblen, W. H. Romme, J. S. Sibold, and E. R. Cook. 2005. ENSO and PDO variability affect drought-induces fire occurrence in Rocky Mountain subalpine forests. Ecological Applications 15(6):2000-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Swetnam, T. W., and J. C. Betancourt. 1990. Fire-Southern Oscillation relations in the Southwestern U. S. Science 249:1017-1021.Google Scholar
  13. U. S. General Accounting Office. 2004. Wildfire suppression: Funding transfers cause project cancellations and delays, strained relationships, and management disruptions. General Accounting Office Report GAO-04-612, June 2004. 62 p.Google Scholar
  14. Westerling, A. L., T J. Brown, A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2002. Climate and wildfire in the Western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84(5):595-604.Google Scholar
  15. Westerling, A. J., A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, and T. P. Barnett. 2003. Long lead statistical forecasts of area burned in western U. S. wildfires by ecosystem province. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(3-4):257-266.Google Scholar
  16. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U. S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen L. Abt
    • 1
  • Jeffrey P. Prestemon
    • 1
  • Krista Gebert
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Research StationUnited States Forest ServiceResearch Triangle Park
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Research StationUnited States Forest ServiceMissoula

Personalised recommendations