US Forest Service
National Interagency Support Cache
Optimization and Review
Report
March 3, 2009
Prepared for:
USDA Forest Service
WO Strategic Planning &
Performance Accountability/
Management Analysis Staff
Washington, DC
Prepared by:
Management Analysis, Inc.
2070 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 550
Vienna, VA 22182
U.S. Forest Service
National Interagency Support Cache (NISC)
Optimization and Review
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................ 1
1.3 Participants ........................................................................................................... 2
1.4 NISC End State, Missions, and Principles ........................................................... 2
1.5 Overview of the National Interagency Support Cache Program .......................... 3
The Model ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1
Cache Details ................................................................................................ 4
2.1.2
Cache Workload............................................................................................ 7
2.1.3
Fire Information .......................................................................................... 10
2.1.4
Potential Site Information ........................................................................... 10
Analysis..................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Study Limitations ............................................................................................... 14
3.3 Model Runs ........................................................................................................ 14
3.4 Output Analysis .................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Costs ................................................................................................................... 18
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Defined Roles of Caches within the National System ....................................... 19
4.2 New Location – Sparks, NV .............................................................................. 23
4.3 Southern California Cache ................................................................................. 23
4.4 Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 25
Attachments
Attachment #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Title
Current Cache Locations
Forest Service Data Call Correspondence from Chief
Data Call Forms
How the Model Works
Potential Cache Locations
Five-Year Cost Summaries for Current Cache
Locations
Expanded Personnel Costs
Initial Model Run Detailed Results
Maps of Results from Initial Model Run
Sparks Model Run Detailed Results
Calculation of Facility Baseline Costs
Shipment Factors for Sparks Model Run
Mileage Analysis for Model Results
Sparks One-Time Facility Start-up Costs
U.S. Forest Service
National Interagency Support Cache (NISC)
Optimization and Review
Executive Summary
One of the goals identified in the February 2007 National Interagency Support Cache
(NISC) strategic plan is to address cache infrastructures and develop a most efficient
organization. The most efficient organization would be one where caches have the
national facilities, equipment, and staffing necessary to deliver supply logistics support to
all incident response needs and are geographically located for maximum efficiency. The
strategic plan noted that the objective of optimally locating caches should be met by 2010
to support the achievement of the Cache Infrastructure and Most Efficient Organization
goal.
The NISC system was originally designed to meet traditional seasonal wildland fire
support needs of the past. As additional expectations of all-hazard, fuel reduction project
support, and extended fire seasons combined with increased wildland fire activity have
become realities, the amount and type of support traditionally required of the caches has
changed. The current national cache locations are able to adequately provide the
equipment and services required for both their geographical area and nationally, but the
organization may not be meeting these needs in the most efficient manner.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current National Interagency Support Cache
(NISC) system to determine the optimal number and location of national caches. The
NISC Evaluation and Review provides an analytical assessment of the size, location, and
workload of the optimal cache system. The study also provides recommendations to
leadership regarding the implementation of the optimized system.
The Team developed a mathematical model to help analyze alternative cache locations
and associated response time and cost, and to identify the most optimized national cache
system. The model used workload data from six fiscal years (2002-2007) and the results
provide the most ideal solutions for the distribution of shipment workload through a
relatively unconstrained NISC system. Because it is not possible to program all real-life
operations, costs, and feasibilities into the model, its development required an iterative
approach with multiple revisions and evaluations.
The results of the model developed during this Study showed that the NISC system is
generally operating in the correct locations and with the correct number of facilities. The
results indicated that relocating two locations into a single Type 1 cache would increase
the cost effectiveness of the entire system. The results of this study provide a general
idea of the workload impacts that the recommendations would have, but an additional run
of the model in which real-life workload constraints were placed on the cache facilities
that would remain in the system would need to be conducted to understand the actual
impacts the relocation would have on workload. In addition, the results indicated that the
Ontario Interagency Support Cache (LSK) is not located in a cost-effective location, and
should be evaluated for relocation to a different Southern California location.
U.S. Forest Service
i
NISC Optimization and Review
Going forward, the model developed for this study will be a lasting resource. The model
can be updated to include the latest NISC workload, and can be re-run as needed to
provide current results regarding the distribution of shipments and optimal locations. The
model can also be updated to include the most recent cost data (e.g., facilities, personnel,
shipments), and to reflect any changes in the NISC system. With a few design changes,
the model can also optimize results based on time, mileage, or a combination of these and
cost. With some additional data and redesign, the model can also study centralized
refurbishment or other cost optimization considerations.
U.S. Forest Service
ii
NISC Optimization and Review
U.S. Forest Service
National Interagency Support Cache (NISC)
Optimization and Review
1
Introduction
1.1 Background
One of the goals identified in the February 2007 National Interagency Support Cache
(NISC) strategic plan is to address cache infrastructures and develop a most efficient
organization. The most efficient organization would be one where caches have the
national facilities, equipment, and staffing necessary to deliver supply logistics support to
all incident response needs and are geographically located for maximum efficiency. The
strategic plan noted that the objective of optimally locating caches should be met by 2010
to support the achievement of the Cache Infrastructure and Most Efficient Organization
goal.
The NISC system was established, in large part, on the basis of where the infrastructure
already existed. The system is comprised of a three-tiered network of national
interagency facilities that include Geographic Area Caches, Support Satellite Caches, and
Local Area Support Caches. In addition to these interagency caches, Local or Initial
Attack caches directly support local state, federal agencies, and administrative units not
otherwise supported by the NISC system.
The NISC system was originally designed to meet traditional seasonal wildland fire
support needs of the past. As additional expectations of all-hazard, fuel reduction project
support, and extended fire seasons combined with increased wildland fire activity have
become realities, the amount and type of support traditionally required of the caches has
changed. An evaluation of the current NISC system with regard to the location and
workload for the support required has not been conducted since service expectations have
changed. The caches’ ability to deliver equipment and supplies in a real-time basis has
also changed as a result of improved transportation networks, technologies, and
resources. The current national cache locations are able to adequately provide the
equipment and services required for both their geographical area and nationally, but the
organization may not be meeting these needs in the most efficient manner.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current National Interagency Support Cache
(NISC) system to determine the optimal number and location of national caches. The
NISC Evaluation and Review provides an analytical assessment of the size, location, and
workload of the optimal cache system. The study also provides recommendations to
leadership regarding the implementation of the optimized system.
U.S. Forest Service
1
NISC Optimization and Review
1.3 Participants
The NISC Optimization and Review participants included a mix of United States Forest
Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) representation, as well as
consultant support. The following were the participants in this Study.
Representing
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
Forest
Service
Oversight
Committee
Consultant Support
Name
Tory
Henderson
Matt
Cnudde
Robert
Behrner
Jeri
Billiard
Paul
Naman
Robert
Kuhn
Kolleen
Shelley
Art Smith
Aaron
Sanders
Pamela
Hein
Role
Team Leaders
Subject Matter Expert
Subject Matter Expert
Subject Matter Expert
Subject Matter Expert
WO FAM Planning &
Budget
Program
Specialist,
CIO/ISO
Business
Management
President, Management
Analysis, Incorporated
(MAI) Engineer, MAI
Senior
Industrial Engineer, MAI
The Team also acknowledges the Cache Managers and other subject matter experts
throughout the NISC program who provided data and information that was incorporated
into this study.
1.4 NISC End State, Missions, and Principles
The February 2007 NISC Strategic Plan stated that the NISC vision is:
To have a National Interagency supply program that is cost effective and
efficient in all business practices in order to support the wildland
firefighting community and other all-hazard incidents.
The wildland fire community has continued to expand its capability through the use of
agreements, training cooperators, and international partners. This capability has been
recognized by leaders as a model to adopt and implement in all types of emergency
responses. The NISC has been required to adjust its ability to meet these changes and
demands. In order to continue to be successful with this level of support, changes in the
program must occur. The end result of these changes will be the vision as stated, and will
in particular provide the public with the most cost-effective incident response program.
The Study Team’s mission was to determine the number of national cache locations
required based upon the workload of the current cache system. This study therefore
determined the optimal number and locations for potential caches while taking the
existing caches into account. The results and recommendations of this study are designed
to complement the National Interagency Support Cache mission:
To provide the best value integrated logistics solutions for wildland
firefighting equipment and supplies for Federal and State wildland
firefighting agencies.
U.S. Forest Service
2
NISC Optimization and Review
The Team developed a mathematical model to help analyze alternative cache locations
and associated response time and cost, and to identify the most optimized national cache
system. Once this system was identified, the Team was able to analyze the gap between
the current system and the optimized system to allow for the development of a strategic
plan to work towards the mission objectives of the Forest Service and the end state
described above.
1.5 Overview of the National Interagency Support Cache Program
The NISC system provides support within respective zones of influence (i.e. geographic
area), outside zones of influence, and nationally to small and large fires and to all-hazard
incidents. As noted earlier, the NISC system is comprised of a three-tiered network of
national interagency facilities that include Geographic Area Caches, Support Satellite
Caches and Local Area Support Caches. In addition to these interagency caches, Local or
Initial Attack caches directly support local state, federal agencies, and administrative
units not otherwise supported by the NISC system. Customers of the NISC system
include all federal and state agencies and other cooperators, including disaster agencies,
local government entities, and military or foreign governments.
National Interagency Support Caches
Currently there are 11 Geographic Area Caches, independently hosted, staffed, and
managed. Their foremost responsibility is to service all customers in a designated
Geographic Area and also serve as the primary source and collector of information for the
Fire Loss/Use Program. These caches have a complex role of meeting Geographic and
National emergency supply needs. Often referred to as Type 1 caches, these caches are
capable of individually supporting most emergency response activities individually.
National Interagency Support Satellite Caches
The National Interagency Support Satellite Caches support the Geographic Area Caches,
but service only a segment of the designated Geographic Area. These caches are
associated with the Geographic Area Cache, but are independently staffed and managed.
Often referred to as Type 2 caches, these caches have information management systems
integrated with the supporting National Interagency Support Cache.
Local Area Interagency Support Caches
Local Area Interagency Support Caches are independently hosted, staffed, and managed
but may work in partnership with a National Interagency Support Cache. Local
interagency caches provide direct support to more than one agency and generally cover
more than a single administrative unit within the Geographic Area. Often referred to as
Type 3 caches, these caches contribute to national mobilization and inventory
management activities.
Local or Initial Attack Caches
Various states, federal agencies, and administrative units have small, localized caches
that generally provide single agency support to one administrative unit. These localized
caches may or may not adhere to National Fire Equipment Standards (NFES) and are
considered outside the scope of this study.
U.S. Forest Service
3
NISC Optimization and Review
2
The Model
The NISC Optimization model was developed using an Access database, and
incorporates six years of historic cache workload data, as well as other key factors and
information as discussed in Section 2.1 below. The model is run by fiscal year and
identifies the most cost-effective distribution of shipment workload among the various
potential cache locations for that fiscal year. A summary of how the model works is
provided in Attachment 4.
2.1 Data Collection
Multiple data elements and sources were evaluated in the course of developing the model.
The primary sources of data include a data call completed by cache managers, data from
FIRECODE, and data from the ICBS system.
The data incorporated into the model was reviewed and analyzed for accuracy and
completeness to ensure the best outputs from the model. The following outlines the data
collection efforts, the data that was incorporated into the model, and the type of editing
and cleansing applied to the data. The data was also used to calculate each cache’s actual
operating cost for Fiscal Year 2007. Additional calculations were also made to forecast
the operating cost for each cache over five years. These calculations can be seen in
Attachment 6.
2.1.1 Cache Details
Data collection forms were developed by the Study Team to solicit information from
each cache. This initial data collection started as an informal request from the Team
to the Cache Managers, followed by an official letter of request from the Chief.
Attachment 2 lists the caches included in the data call. The Team also made phone
calls and follow-up requests for data clarification during site visits to NIFC in Boise,
ID.
The main data collection form was developed and tailored as needed to each cache.
The form requested information including, but not limited to, the location of the base
(including latitude and longitude), facility data (including structures, square footage
and year built), major equipment, additional capacity, and various costs (e.g.,
overhead, vehicle, administrative). The data collection form is provided in
Attachment 3.
2.1.1.1 Personnel Data
The data collection forms included a section for the Cache Managers to report
data regarding their direct and indirect support staff for Fiscal Year 2007. The
data requested included position type, appointment type, series and grade, and the
estimated number of hours worked (regular, overtime, holiday, Sunday). The
reported data was compiled and personnel costs were calculated using OMB
Circular No. A-76 costing rules. These rules provide standard cost factors for
calculating the cost of federal operations (e.g., general and administrative
overhead, liability insurance) and reflect the use of current pay rates, inflation,
and fringe benefit factors (note: Fiscal Year 2007 factors were used for this
study). For consistency, federal General Schedule positions are costed at a step 5
U.S. Forest Service
4
NISC Optimization and Review
and Wage Grade positions at a step 4. The grades reported by each Cache
Manager were used to generate estimated annual personnel costs.
The Study Team reviewed and validated the personnel data reported by each
Cache Manager. The nature of the cache workforces resulted in different
methodologies to calculate personnel costs based upon the type of position:
1. Direct Federal Staff - Federal employees hired by a cache as a direct
support position were costed using standard OMB Circular A-76 costing
rules, as described above.
2. Federal Militia - Federal employees who do not work in the cache system
on a regular basis, but are detailed to the facilities during periods of high
incident activity were considered to be Federal Militia. These positions
were costed identically to Federal Government cache personnel. These
positions are similar to contract temporary employees who work on an "as
needed" basis. The costs were quantified separately from dedicated cache
personnel because all of the additional cost factors are not incurred by the
cache system for these positions.
3. State Employees – Two caches, Coeur d’Alene and Northeast, have state
employees as their primary staff. These employees primarily work on
state incidents, but help with federal incidents during peak activity. The
costs for these positions were prorated based on estimated percentages of
time the employees spend performing federal work. State employees
could occasionally be detailed to a cache and the costs associated with that
time would be also accounted for using this method.
4. Administratively Determined Hires - Administratively Determined (AD)
emergency workers are hired by the caches during periods of high incident
activity. AD hires are also similar to contract employees and are hired on
an "as needed" basis. The AD pay scale is determined for the Agency in
March of each year for consistent hiring practices. The pay rate is based
on the position the individual is hired to perform.
5. Subcontract Employees – On occasion, caches hire subcontractors to
perform work at the cache. These costs were quantified separately and
correspond to the costs that were invoiced to the Government.
2.1.1.1.1
Refinement of Personnel Data
A few caches have programs and workload that are considered outside the scope
of this study (e.g., Symbols Program, National Radio Cache, Publications).
Based on interviews with representatives from these caches, the Study Team
estimated the amount of time spent by certain positions for each of these
programs, and that time was removed from the personnel cost calculations.
The transportation data collected and used in the model (see Section 2.1.2)
included personnel costs for driving time for the reported 2007 shipments. To
avoid double counting the personnel costs associated with driving time, the
personnel data reported for each cache was adjusted. The hours reported in the
U.S. Forest Service
5
NISC Optimization and Review
shipment data for federal and state employees were removed from the personnel
costs according to the corresponding pay rates. AD costs for driving time were
adjusted by removing all positions hired as drivers.
The personnel costs associated directly with cache workload were quantified to
allow the model to increase or decrease a cache’s personnel costs as it calculates
potential changes in workload. The costs for positions such as material handlers
and small engine mechanics were isolated for each cache and were included as a
separate field in the model. As workload for a given cache increased or
decreased in the model results, these costs were adjusted in proportion. These
costs can be found in Attachment 7.
The Study Team also set workload thresholds at which supervisory and
administrative positions would be increased or decreased. The number and cost
impact of the increase or decrease of positions were defined by the Team for
each individual cache. The matrices identifying the increases or decrease to
supervisory and administrative staff that were used in the model can be seen in
Attachment 7.
2.1.1.2 Facility and Equipment Information
The cache manger data call requested facility and equipment information for each
cache. Information requested ranged from structural details to the annual lease
cost for equipment at the facility. All data requested and used in the model was
from Fiscal Year 2007, unless otherwise specified. In a few instances, changes
which were known to occur in Fiscal Year 2008 or 2009 were reflected in the
model. The costs for these changes were deflated by Fiscal Year 2007 factors for
consistency.
Each cache reported specific details for each structure at their cache facility
including square footage and installed equipment in each structure. Cache
Managers also provided a list of all other equipment at their facility and the
planned replacement year for owned equipment. The total annual equipment
lease costs were calculated and included in the total annual operating cost for each
cache. The planned investment costs for any equipment owned by the cache was
calculated and summarized. These costs were not included in model, but were
included in the Five-Year Cost Summaries for Current Cache Locations
(Attachment 6) for each cache because the investment is planned for the future.
The annual cost of real property leases was reported, as well as the costs for any
supplemental facilities leased by the cache. Two caches, Rocky Mountain and
Wenatchee, have signed lease agreements for the future. The agreed-upon lease
costs were used in the model to represent the true facility costs.
The data call also requested additional Fiscal Year 2007 annual costs such as
operating and maintenance (O&M), supply, training, and other cost pools.
Varying budgeting methodologies resulted in some caches reporting certain items
under different cost headings (e.g., supplies being included as part of O&M).
These situations were noted where applicable. All apparent anomalies in the data,
U.S. Forest Service
6
NISC Optimization and Review
such as unusually high or low costs, or a lack of reported costs were clarified
through further rounds of inquiry.
Major maintenance and renovation requirements were also reported in the data
call. Reported requirements also included a planned year and an estimated cost.
The annual cost of planned maintenance for each cache that was included in the
model was calculated by the sum of the annual cost of capital (using the OMB
five-year Cost of Capital cost factor) and the cost of casualty insurance (using the
OMB casualty insurance cost factor).
Cache Managers also provided detailed data regarding the cost of refurbishment
contracts for Fiscal Year 2007. The total annual cost of refurbishment contracts
was included in the model as part of each cache’s annual operating cost. The
labor cost of any internal refurbishment performed in Fiscal Year 2007 is
accounted for in the hours reported for personnel costs.
Each cache’s expansion capability (i.e. the potential to process increased
workload) was also reported. The data call requested each cache’s expansion
capability: (1) without any capital investment, and (2) with an estimated capital
investment. The reported expansion capabilities that did not require capital
investment were reviewed and refined by the Team on a cache-by-cache basis.
The final determinations were used as expansion caps in the model. For example,
if a cache with 500 shipments in 2007 is able to expand 100% without any capital
investment, the initial expansion cap set in the model was 1000 shipments. The
data provided by each cache regarding expansion with capital investment was
reviewed by the Team, but ultimately was not used in the model. Initial model
runs and Team deliberations determined that no current cache would expand its
activities beyond current physical limitations as a result of the model, and new
cache locations would be designed to suit their workload requirements.
2.1.2 Cache Workload
Discussions with the Study Team revealed that cache workload must be measured by
both the number of shipments and the number of issues at each location. The
number and type of shipments is a primary cost driver for the effectiveness of a
cache location. The number of cache issues is a primary cost driver for the material
handling portion of the cache’s workload. Therefore, data for both are needed to
develop an accurate model and are discussed in further detail below.
2.1.2.1 Shipment Data
In addition to the main data collection form, the Study Team developed four
additional forms to collect information pertaining to the shipment workload from
each cache. As shown in Attachment 3, the forms were distinguished by the
vehicle type (contracted or Government owned) and whether the shipment was
from one cache to another or to an incident. Each variation required a different
set of data fields, therefore required four different data forms.
The shipment data collected encompassed Fiscal Year 2007 only. Shipment data
is not recorded electronically at the caches, but is captured in a transportation log
of some sort at each cache’s discretion. The shipment data was compiled and
U.S. Forest Service
7
NISC Optimization and Review
reviewed. Any suspect data points were identified and adjustments were made, as
necessary based upon input from the cache and/or Study Team. The compiled
shipment data for 2007 was matched up with the issue data retrieved from ICBS
(See Section 2.1.2.2). Upon review, the Team determined that the Cache
Managers did not report any pick-ups at their cache because only shipment data
was requested. The Team assumed that a single pick-up “shipment” is equivalent
to a single issue. Rather than make an additional request for data, the issues
identified as pick-ups for 2007 in ICBS were added to the reported shipment data
for 2007 to ensure that the workload for each cache was fully captured. A billing
rate of $19.12 (equivalent to the average loaded WG-06 hourly pay rate) was used
for all pick-ups for standardization purposes, and a vehicle use rate of $0.29/mile
(the 2007 GSA rate for POV usage when a GOV is available) was also used.
These rates were considered moderate rates that would not bias the results
significantly. No per diem costs were used for pick-ups, as is expected in the vast
majority of cases.
Each shipment reported in the data call identified the appointment type and billing
rate for the driver. Once compiled, the appointment types were standardized for
all reported shipments. The reported billing rates included the driver’s base salary
and a benefit percentage. Some caches did not report a billing rate, but provided a
grade level for shipments. The 2007 OPM pay rate (step 5 for General Schedule
and step 4 for wage grade) for these shipments was assigned according to locality.
To keep all cost factors and calculations consistent, the reported billing rates for
permanent full time and seasonal positions were unloaded to remove the benefit
percentages that were assumed to be included in the reported rate. The benefit
rates included in the billing rate vary depending on the retirement plan of the
individual. The distribution of each retirement type was determined using the
reported personnel data, and the ratios were applied to the billing rate data to
determine the unloaded billing rate. A 36.45% fringe factor was the applied to all
unloaded billing rates (with the exception of AD, contract and temporary
employees) to determine the revised billing rate for the shipment. The application
of this fringe factor is consistent with how the personnel costs were calculated.
The NISC Study Team estimated that the billing rate for temporary employees
included an 8% fringe factor. The billing rate for temporary employees was not
modified because this fringe factor was similar to the 7.65% OMB fringe factor.
AD employees do not receive benefits; therefore the billing rates for temporary
employees did not require adjustment.
The transportation information reported in the data call was used to calculate the
cost per mile associated with each shipment type for each cache. The model used
the calculated costs to evaluate and assign shipments to caches during each model
run. The total miles traveled by each cache that were input into the model and the
results produced by the model can be seen in Attachment 13.
2.1.2.2 Cache Issues
A request for material from a cache creates an issue. A material handler gathers
the requested materials for each issue and places it in the staging/shipping area.
U.S. Forest Service
8
NISC Optimization and Review
Depending on the location and type of incident, multiple issues may be placed on
the same shipment for cost purposes. As noted in Section 2.1.2.1, issues may also
be picked up at the cache, rather than shipped to a location. Some caches have a
higher percentage of pick-ups, resulting in a higher material handling cost per
shipment compared to other caches that have a higher percentage of shipments.
Data regarding the exact number of issues generated at each cache for the past six
years was obtained from the ICBS system for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007.
This data was reviewed to remove any issues that were recorded for inventory
tracking purposes only and for issues that were a result of state-specific workload
(specifically at Northeast and Coeur d’Alene). The issues were then matched up
with documented latitude and longitude data for the incident, whenever possible
(See Section 2.1.3).
The system also provided data regarding the type of transportation used to ship
the issue. When entering the data into the system, employees rarely know the
most cost-effective shipment method at the time and may therefore identify the
shipment type as “best”. The transportation method is often not updated in the
system once the issue is shipped to reflect the actual shipment type used. The
Team agreed that the transportation typically chosen with “best” is commercial
ground, so the data was adjusted to reflect this as the vehicle type for these
shipments.
2.1.2.3 Translating Issue Workload to Shipment Workload
The model is designed to help achieve the minimal cost per shipment, therefore
the number of issues needed to be translated into shipments before they could be
input into the model. As noted earlier, the translation is not a one-to-one match
up, and was further complicated by the fact that actual shipment data for each
cache was only gathered for 2007. The Team assumed that the shipment to issue
ratios that could be calculated from actual 2007 data would generally be the same
for the previous years.
Using the reported 2007 shipment data and the issue data, the overall ratio of
shipments to issues was calculated. These ratios were also broken down by
vehicle type. The ratios were then applied to the issue data from Fiscal Years
2002 through 2006 to translate the data into shipments while still maintaining the
same mix of vehicle type as was reported in the 2007 shipment data. The billing
rates and usage rates from 2007 were assumed to remain the same for prior years.
Once the estimated number of shipments and costs were calculated for prior
years, the data also needed adjustment to account for instances where multiple
issues may be included in one shipment. The Team estimated that a shipment
with multiple issues would have, on average, an additional 100 miles roundtrip
per extra issue included in the total travel distance to account for the delivery of
each additional issue to other locations. The Team also assumed that the
frequency of multi-issue shipments would vary by the characteristics of the
geographic regions in which the fire occurred rather than by the cache making the
shipment. The ratios of shipments to issues were therefore calculated for each
Forest Service Region for each fiscal year. For example, if a region had 200
U.S. Forest Service
9
NISC Optimization and Review
issues and 100 shipments were made to the same region in a year, then the multiissue shipment ratio would be 2.
The model incorporated the ratios by adding mileage to each shipment to a given
region in proportion to the calculated ratio for that region. In the example above,
the 100 extra issues would represent 10,000 additional miles (100 * 100) over the
roundtrip distances based on the shipments’ destinations. The mileage of each
shipment in the model to this region was increased by the formula: (ratio-1)*100,
or in this case: (2-1)*100 or 100 miles. By increasing every shipment by 100
miles, the desired outcome of increasing the total mileage for all shipments to this
region by 10,000 miles is accomplished.
The ratio adjustments occur
automatically in the model, regardless of which cache makes the shipment.
2.1.3 Fire Information
FireCode data was available and downloaded for five of the six years used in the
model, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007. A previous study conducted on the Aerial
Delivery of Firefighters (ADFF) provided an additional source of fire locations for
Fiscal Years 2002-2006. The translated shipments, developed from the methods
described above, had numerous identifying fields from ICBS such as: incident order
number, incident name, receiving unit, etc. The ADFF data contained only state, fire
names, and latitude and longitude data. Because each incident had less identifying
characteristics in the ADFF data, FireCode data was used as the primary source for
locating the latitude and longitude of the shipment destinations. Any shipments that
were not found in FireCode data were looked up in the ADFF data. If a shipment
was not found in either data set, the latitude and longitude for the receiving unit
location was used for the shipment. Once the review was completed, every shipment
for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 had a destination latitude and longitude for the
model to use to calculate shipping distance, time, and cost.
2.1.4
Potential Site Information
U.S. Forest Service
10
NISC Optimization and Review
In order to fully evaluate the current national cache system, new potential sites for
national cache locations must be considered by the model. A list of nearly 2,500
existing Department of Interior (DOI) and Forest service units of district level of
authority or higher was compiled and served as a starting point for the identification
of potential sites. The Team decided that this level of DOI and Forest Service (FS)
presence would be necessary if a location was to serve as an effective national cache.
Upon analysis, the 2,500 DOI and FS units resided in 947 different U.S. cities. Each
city was then evaluated for acceptability as a potential site according to the
following criteria:
Population greater than 5,000 or within 50 miles of a metropolitan area
Further than 120 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico
(hurricane concerns)
Readily accessible by paved roads or highways
Not specifically excluded by the NISC Study Team upon an initial
examination of the list
A few specific sites (e.g. Tallahassee, FL and Lufkin, TX) were included despite
their hurricane risk, because the state facilities present at the location provided
potential partnership opportunities. Once the cities were evaluated using the criteria
described above, 342 cities remained for consideration in the model. These cities
can be seen in Attachment 5.
In a subsequent step, all potential locations within 100 miles of an existing national
cache were eliminated from the list. The potential sites and existing caches were
then run in a version of the model that assigns shipments strictly based on distance to
further eliminate potential locations that received the fewest shipments. This process
was repeated until each potential location received at least 100 shipments, and
resulted in lists of 35-40 locations (including existing caches) for consideration. A
different final list of potential locations was created for each fiscal year because the
fire locations and shipments for each fiscal year were different. The model was run
using the list for the applicable fiscal year. The team also conducted Internet
research to ensure that adequate warehousing capability existed for potential sites
which were potential “finalists”.
Costing for these potential sites used LSK as a baseline for modeling personnel
costs, as decided by the Team. It was further decided that a Type I cache could
perform satisfactorily with 40% of the facility space at LSK, so 40% of LSK’s
facility costs were used for the baseline cache costs. At Lufkin and Tallahassee, the
Team felt there would be no building or land costs related to facilities there due to
the existing presence, and therefore those costs were excluded from the total cost of
new caches in those locations.
U.S. Forest Service
11
NISC Optimization and Review
Finally, a location adjustment was applied to each proposed site to account for
varying labor and material costs in different locations. The location adjustment
factors utilized in the model were developed by RS Means, a leading supplier of
construction and facility maintenance cost information. Adjustment factors are
based on a national average of 1.0 and are available for numerous cities in each state.
For example, the location adjustment factor for Ontario, CA is 1.07; indicating labor
and material costs in this city are generally seven percent higher than the national
average. If an adjustment factor for a specific location was not available in RS
Means, a factor for the closest city within the same state was used to estimate the
annual cache costs for that location.
3
Analysis
3.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions were developed through model development, data analysis
and discussions with the Team:
 Interagency caches will continue to be needed to support wildland firefighting
efforts in the future.
 Cache facilities operate year round. Although staffing levels fluctuate at various
times throughout the year, the cache is able to respond as necessary.
 While the model outcome affects the location and workload of the cache system,
the method of doing business will remain the same in the future.
 The model does not consider non-federal costs and/or resources. Costs for the
Northeastern Cache (NEK), which is collocated with the State of Minnesota, and
for Coeur d’Alene, which is an Idaho Department of Lands facility, have been
adjusted to reflect only the costs that are billed to the Federal Government.
 Data gathered for this effort was the best available, but there may be some
disconnects and errors. The data used in this model was reviewed for these
instances, and was adjusted as needed. Adjustments made to the data were
documented and noted where applicable.
 The model assumes no impediment to moving resources across Geographic Area
Coordination Center (GACC) boundaries, states, and regions. In other words, the
model has no restrictions for crossing boundaries (regional and state lines) to
deliver shipments. The model assumes any required coordination is taken, if
necessary.
 The model assumes that each cache will maintain the same ratios for shipment
types for previous years. Gathering actual shipment data for Fiscal Year 2002
through 2006 would be both cost and time prohibitive, so the shipment type ratios
were applied to the issue data from ICBS to translate issues for each cache to
shipments.
 Fluctuations in shipment workload at each cache would affect the staffing
required at each location. Personnel costs for Material Handler and Mechanic
type positions were isolated for each cache. As the model runs, the percentage
U.S. Forest Service
12
NISC Optimization and Review
that workload fluctuates is applied to the total personnel costs for that cache and is
increased or decreased accordingly. In addition, thresholds were determined for
the expansion/decrease in management and administrative positions. Once a
cache reached a workload threshold during a model run, the personnel costs were
increased or decreased by the identified amount. The Study Team determined the
specifics regarding the number of positions that would increase/decrease on a
cache by cache basis. The cost impacts were also calculated on an individual
cache basis and the cost of liability insurance was included in the total personnel
cost impact. Attachment 7 provides a summary of the cost impacts for these
positions at the different workload thresholds.
 As noted in Section 2.1.2, the analysis conducted on the reported transportation
data assumed that the ratios of CSRS and FERS retirements for the personnel
reported in the Cache Manager Data Call would be consistent; no actuarial
analysis was conducted.
 The model assumed distance restrictions for each cache equal to the farthest
shipment for each cache in each fiscal year.
 The maximum expansion capability for each cache was assumed to be equal to
the cache’s maximum workload capability without capital investment. (Note: this
assumption was added after model runs demonstrated that further expansion of
existing sites through capital investment was not cost effective.)
 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current NISC system, determine the
optimal number of caches, and identify the optimal location of those caches.
 The model assumes that all cache locations can accommodate all types of
shipments.
 The model incorporates data from the entire cache system (with the exception of
Alaska, which was not included).
 The model only incorporates caches that have been identified as potential sites
and those currently in use. A list of potential sites is provided in Attachment 5.
 A single pick-up issue is assumed to be equivalent to a single shipment.
 Shipments are not restricted to specific caches. The model allows for shipments
to be assigned to any location, with the exception of pick-ups. Pick-ups only
occur in the model results when the shipment is assigned to the same cache that
shipped it in that fiscal year. Otherwise, the shipment becomes a “normal”
shipment, using the pick-up billing rate. Essentially, this allows for per diem to be
incurred, as applicable.
 The current responses to fire incidents/historical workload data and utilization of
resources have been satisfactory to date. The model is designed to refine and
improve upon this utilization.
 New facilities were assumed to have an annual cost equivalent to those at the
Ontario cache (LSK). However, the Team determined that a facility 40% of
LSK’s size is all that is required, so the costs and size were reduced by 60% for
new facility considerations.
U.S. Forest Service
13
NISC Optimization and Review
 The model assumes that the only operational costs that vary between each fiscal
year model run are associated with transportation. All other costs remain constant
and in 2007 dollars.
3.2 Study Limitations
The Study Team identified some limitations of the study, outputs, and recommendations
generated from the model. These limitations are:
 The incident support required of the cache system is a part of the model output, in
that the cost of operating each cache is based upon federal workload input.
Recommendations must recognize the need for other localized support that would
not otherwise be apparent.
 The model is an economic model designed to minimize cache shipment costs.
 Certain resource limitations cannot be modeled (e.g., availability of vehicles,
material handling capabilities), but should be considered with the implementation
of any recommendations.
 The model has the advantage of knowing workload requirements. In reality,
workload varies with each fire season. Previous workloads are only an indication
of future requirements, not a predictor.
 Process limitations include inability to include all regions, state representation,
and line officer participation in the Team composition.
 The recommendations are based solely on capabilities of the NISC system and do
not evaluate state contributions to requirements beyond their historical
contributions to federal workload.
 The cost results of the model only reflect the estimated operational cost for the
cache. Additional overhead costs incurred by the Federal Government (e.g.,
percentages of Regional Forester time) may not be accurately reflected.
 To accurately calculate the total operational costs of the cache system from the
model outputs, a minimum workload level would need to be set for each cache to
avoid a situation where a cache would have no workload but still incur an
operational cost for remaining open. However, the objective of determining the
optimal number and location of national caches for this study would not have
been achieved if minimum workload thresholds were imposed in the model.
3.3 Model Runs
The model conducted in-depth calculations for NISC shipments to minimize the shipment
costs for a given workload from all available cache locations. The model attributed cache
facility, personnel, and transportation costs (on a per shipment basis) to all shipments.
Using the data in the model, the lowest cost shipment was selected and assigned to the
cache. The variables of the model were refined by subject matter experts, and the model
was run again until results stabilized to generate feasible and realistic workload
distributions.
U.S. Forest Service
14
NISC Optimization and Review
The model was initially run using Fiscal Year 2007 data only in order for the Team to
carefully review the outputs, identify anomalies, and make changes as necessary. By
running the single, most recent year, the Team could compare the model results to what
they observed the workload to be to identify significant differences.
One of the most important results of this initial run was the review of the cost data for the
caches. This run allowed the Team to identify the discrepancies in the operation,
personnel, and transportation costs, and to look for alternative sources for the same data.
The Team also reviewed specific shipment and issue workload to remove any workload
considered out of scope for this study.
Once the initial results for 2007 were reviewed by the Team, the model was run using all
six fiscal years. The results were provided to the Team, which once again reviewed and
evaluated the model outputs. This initial model run provided results for an optimal
unconstrained NISC system. The results for this initial model run can be seen in
Attachment 8. The Team evaluated the outputs and determined that the current locations
of caches should remain relatively the same, with the potential addition of Sparks,
Nevada. Sparks, Nevada was added as a potential location and all other new locations
were removed from consideration and the model was run again. A summary of the
outputs from the Sparks run is provided below in Table 1.
U.S. Forest Service
15
NISC Optimization and Review
Table 1 – Summary of Results of Sparks Model Run
Cache Name
Cache Code
Six-Year Average
Model Results
(Shipments)
Standard Deviation
of Model Results
(± from Six-Year
Average Model)
2007 Actual
Shipments from
Cache
% Difference of SixYear Average
Six-Year Average
Actual Shipments Actual Shipments
from 2007 Actuals
Standard Deviation % Difference of
Six-Year Average
of Actual
Model Results
Shipments
from Six-Year
(± from Six-Year
Average Actual)
Average Actuals
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
CO-RMK
33
80.75
79
-58%
252
249.06
-87%
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
0
0.00
151
-100%
421
206.87
-100%
MN-NEK
815
0.00
582
40%
684
115.14
19%
OR-NWK
1176
302.85
1094
7%
1074
455.36
9%
OR-LFK
757
586.63
568
33%
342
149.23
122%
WA-WFC
577
281.69
627
-8%
545
195.32
6%
AZ-PFK
573
214.74
347
65%
608
211.58
-6%
KY-SAK
950
109.00
530
79%
612
232.40
55%
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
622
676.18
1228
-49%
796
502.83
-22%
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
873
935.48
1925
-55%
1929
531.45
-55%
MT-BFC
229
226.24
204
12%
237
135.22
-3%
CA-LSK
255
279.16
204
25%
418
182.11
-39%
CA-NCK
977
0.00
649
51%
785
204.21
24%
ID-CDK
327
84.07
243
35%
234
94.00
40%
Sparks
765
42.87
N/A
N/A
N/A
156.65
N/A
Northeast Interagency Fire
Cache
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
Ontario Interagency Support
Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency
Support Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
Cache
Standard Deviation
A standard deviation measures how widely values are dispersed from the average value of the number of shipments for all six model years. A standard deviation of zero indicates that all
shipment values were the same for all years. Here, it means that the model assigned the maximum number of shipments allowable for the cache for all years. A low standard deviation
indicates a low variation between the number of shipments the model assigned for each of the years. This indicates that the workload levels for that cache would be relatively steady for each of
the six years. A high standard deviation indicates a large variation between the years, and thus a significant workload fluctuation.
U.S. Forest Service
16
NISC Optimization and Review
3.4 Output Analysis
The results generated by the initial runs of the model identified several areas for the
implementation of more cost-effective and strategic approaches to the shipment of
materials in the NISC system. Specifically, the results indicated that not all of the current
locations of national caches in the system are optimal for the minimization of shipment
costs for the six years of workload evaluated. The model assigned shipments to most of
the current locations for each model year, indicating that while it may be advantageous to
relocate or open a new location for a given workload year, most of the existing facilities
proved to be in locations that enable the NISC system to adjust to changing wildland fire
workload requirements. Although the locations are currently in generally correct
locations, the variation in the model results for each year identifies the need for a
reevaluation of each cache’s role within the system.
The model outputs for both the initial model run and the Sparks run indicate that two
current national caches, Rocky Mountain (RMK) and Silver City (SFK), potentially be
adjusted to a different level of service rather than maintain a Type 1 level without
significant impact to the current system. Neither model run assigned shipments to either
of the caches for any of the six model years, with the exception of RMK in 2002. The
workload for SFK and RMK was absorbed by the other caches and had a relatively low
impact on the overall system.
When the additional capacity of the Sparks cache is added to the system, four functioning
caches experience a relatively low average workload over the six-year period. Those
caches are Northwest (NWK), Wenatchee (WFC), Southwest (PFK), and Billings (BFK).
Table 1 shows the six-year averages of the Sparks model run for all caches and also the
standard deviation of the results for each cache. The standard deviation of the results for
the caches that experienced a low workload impact on average was somewhat high, but
Billings was the cache that experienced the most significant workload fluctuations across
the years. Workload fluctuations of less than 10% were assumed to have a relatively low
cost impact on the cache, because workload fluctuations would be handled by addition or
removing personnel overtime.
In contrast, the remaining caches showed significant workload changes on average from
their current levels during the Sparks run. The Northeast Interagency Fire Cache (NEK)
experienced a 19% workload increase for all model years. This increase corresponds to
the maximum expansion that was programmed into the model for NEK, and indicates that
it has lower shipment costs. Further analysis into the model results showed that NEK had
a higher number of pick-up shipments than most caches, which may have skewed the cost
of their shipments to make them appear less expensive. In addition, NEK’s response
distances were limited to the maximum shipping distance in 2007 (as with all the other
caches), which may have allowed some longer shipments to be assigned to NEK that
would not be practical. The Northern California Interagency Support Cache (NCK)
experienced a workload change similar to NEK where the shipments the model assigned
to the cache for each year corresponded to the maximum expansion of the cache (24%).
Great Basin (GBK) and Ontario (LSK) Interagency Support Caches showed the most
significant decreases in average workload. These caches were not assigned shipments for
multiple years during the Sparks run and for almost all of the years during the initial
U.S. Forest Service
17
NISC Optimization and Review
model run. These results indicate that while these two caches may be located in close
proximity to workload, they are not cost effective for the NISC system.
The Sparks run indicated a significant workload increase for three caches: La Grande Fire
Cache (LFK), Southern Area Incident Support Cache (SAK), and Coeur D’Alene
Interagency Support Cache (CDK). LFK showed the most significant workload increase
at 122% above its current workload. This workload increase indicates that LFK should
have a more significant role in the NISC system in the future, coinciding with its eminent
relocation to a new facility. Like LFK, the workload increase at CDK indicates the need
for an increased role in the NISC system. This change also indicates the need for a
potential increase in federal presence at the cache because CDK is a state-run facility.
The workload increase for SAK supports the theory that the NISC system needs to
increase its presence in the Southern United States in response to an increased all-hazard
response workload (e.g. hurricane support). The initial model run identified a few
locations as advantageous for a given workload year, but SAK was the most cost
effective for the average of all years for both the initial and the Sparks model runs.
The model results from the Sparks run indicate that locating a facility in Sparks, NV is
advantageous to the NISC system in terms of responding to workload in a cost-effective
manner. The model assigned a fairly consistent workload level to Sparks for each of the
six model years, as indicated by the low standard deviation in Table 1.
3.5 Costs
A cost summary of the six fiscal years for the initial model run can be found in
Attachment 8 and for the Sparks run can be found in Attachment 10. The tables in these
attachments compare the initial costs of the cache as input into the model and the
resulting cost of the cache found by the model. The initial model run showed an average
annual savings of $21,627,293.58. This savings is unrealistic, given that facilities cannot
be opened and closed each year depending on workload, because some additional
operating costs will be experienced.
The cost summaries for the Sparks run in Attachment 10 provide a more realistic idea of
potential savings, because the system was held at a specific number of cache locations.
The model demonstrated an average annual savings of $937,507.35 for the Sparks run.
This savings is inflated because the model assumes that if no shipments are assigned to a
cache, in a given year then there will be no cost incurred to the system for that cache for
the year. Since this would not occur in reality, the model outputs were revised to reflect
the total cost of the system that includes a baseline cost for cache facilities to remain open
even if the cache is not assigned any shipments by the model.
The baseline costs that were calculated for each cache can be seen in Attachment 11. The
costs were calculated using costs that were initially input into the model and adjusting
those costs to reflect the model’s output. For example, if the model output showed a
cache to have a 25% increased workload on average over the six model years, the cache’s
baseline cost was calculated assuming that the cache would maintain the 25% increased
workload in the future.
The adjusted model results showed an estimated annual savings of $644,925.61. The
potential savings would be further increased if minimum thresholds were programmed
U.S. Forest Service
18
NISC Optimization and Review
into the model to maintain a cost for a cache that does not have any workload. The
workload would be redistributed to meet the minimum thresholds of the system and the
output costs for some caches would decrease accordingly. The objective of determining
the optimal number and location of national caches for this study would not have been
achieved if minimum workload thresholds were imposed in the model.
Additional savings could be realized with a downsizing/relocation of LSK to a smaller
facility in a less expensive location. Across the six years, LSK’s actual workload was
418 shipments per year, quite low when cost and size are taken into consideration. The
Sparks run of the model assigned LSK far fewer shipments on average, indicating a local
role for LSK, which would allow for the aforementioned downsizing and/or relocation.
4
Recommendations
The results of the model provide the most ideal solutions for the distribution of shipment
workload through a relatively unconstrained NISC system. It is not always possible to
program some real-life operations, costs, and feasibilities into a model, therefore all
recommendations need to be evaluated with these factors in mind. Development of a
model of this nature requires an iterative approach with multiple revisions and
evaluations.
The following are recommendations for changes to the current NISC system in order to
gain efficiencies and become more cost effective in the future. These recommendations
are justified using data and analysis from both model runs, as well as other external
considerations.
4.1 Defined Roles of Caches within the National System
As Section 1.5 described, the NISC system consists of a tiered network of national
interagency facilities that include Geographic Area Caches, Support Satellite Caches and
Local Area Support Caches. Caches currently operate autonomously within their regions.
The implementation of ICBS-R technology to the cache system will make cache
operations visible at a national level and facilitate the implementation of standard
operating practices to all national caches. As the NISC system migrates to a national
outlook rather than the current regional approach, clearly defining roles of each cache
within the national system provides an opportunity to gain operational efficiencies that
may have been limited previously. Technology advancements that allow the cache
system to view inventory at a national level will allow the NISC system to employ the
most cost-effective shipment options from a systematic viewpoint.
Table 2 below identifies the 14 national caches that were included in this study and their
current role in the organization. The table also describes the recommendation for the role
of the cache for future operation based upon the results of the model runs. Figure 1
following the table shows the location of the recommended caches.
U.S. Forest Service
19
NISC Optimization and Review
Table 2 – Summary of Current and Recommended Roles of Caches
Cache Name
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
Current
Role
Type 1
Recommended Role
Evaluate for
different service level
Recommendation Justification
Neither model run assigned a significant number of
shipments to this cache for any of the workload years.
Silver City Fire Cache
Type 1
Evaluate for
different service level
Neither model run assigned a significant number of
shipments to this cache for any of the workload years.
Northeast Interagency Fire
Cache
Type 1
Type 1
No Change Recommended
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
Type 1
Type 1
No Change Recommended
La Grande Fire Cache
Type 2
Type 1
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Type 2
Type 2
The model results assigned a significantly higher
amount of shipments to LFK given its expansion
capability. The number of shipments assigned to LFK
by the model clearly shows the need for an increased
role in the NISC system.
No Change Recommended
Type 1
Type 1
No Change Recommended
Type 1
Type 1
No Change Recommended
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1 - Support
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
Ontario Interagency Support
Cache
Type 3
Type 3
No Change Recommended
The model results showed a significantly decreased
workload for GBK. The facility and operation costs for
GBK are higher, but it's proximity to national
coordination activities at NIFC justify maintaining
GBK's role in the system at the Type 1 level. The
annual anticipated workload level would be decreased
for GBK, but it would serve as an expansion site for the
NISC system in the event of strained resources. It
would also maintain the majority of its prior
refurbishment, kit building, and publication activities, as
well as the National Radio Cache.
No Change Recommended
Type 1
Type 2
The model results assigned LSK an average annual
number of shipments equivalent to Type 2 Satellite
Caches. However, Section 4.3 below provides
discussion regarding the relocation of LSK to an
alternative Southern California location, where it could
potentially maintain its Type 1 status.
Northern California
Interagency Support Cache
Type 1
Type 1
No Change Recommended
U.S. Forest Service
20
NISC Optimization and Review
Cache Name
Coeur d'Alene Interagency
Support Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New Cache
U.S. Forest Service
Current
Role
Type 3
Recommended Role
Type 3
Recommendation Justification
The model results assigned an increased number of
shipments to CDK. The maximum workload level for
CDK was set at a level correlating to that of a Type 2 or
Type 3 cache, and the model reached the maximum for
four of the six workload years. Consideration should be
given to increasing the partnership at CDK to increase
the federal presence and/or workload handled by the
facility.
N/A
Type 1
The addition of this new location to the model resulted
in a workload assigned to this cache at the level of a
Type 1 facility.
21
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 1 – Map Showing Recommended Type 1 Cache Locations from Sparks Model Run
U.S. Forest Service
22
NISC Optimization and Review
4.2 New Location – Sparks, NV
The results of the initial model run indicated that alternative cache locations should be
considered to enhance the effectiveness of the NISC system. Results from all six model
years of the initial model run were evaluated to determine what changes could be made to
the current system that would be reasonable in terms of cost and system impact. Because
the model results showed that that majority of current locations were feasible, the Team
decided to consider the addition of one cache location to the system. The location that
appeared the most feasible from all six years of model runs and also appeared to be large
enough to support a national cache was Sparks, NV. The model was run again for all six
workload years and Sparks continued to appear to be a more cost-effective option for the
NISC system than several existing alternatives.
The start-up of a facility in Sparks is estimated to cost $220,829.78, as shown in
Attachment 14. This start-up would be a capital investment required by the NISC
system, which is partially offset by the savings generated from the recommendation to
change RMK and SFK’s roles.
As shown in Figure 1, Sparks’ proximity to California, Southern Oregon, and Utah would
allow it to support wildland firefighting efforts in those areas where a cache was not
previously located.
4.3 Southern California Cache
The results from the initial model run assigned LSK essentially no shipments for all six
years of workload data. The results for three of the six years for the initial run assigned a
significant number of shipments to two alternative southern California cities, Porterville
and Three Rivers. These results indicate that the current LSK cache is not the most costeffective location in Southern California and that other locations could feasibly respond
to the workload managed by LSK in the past. Figures 5, 6, and 7 in Attachment 9 show
the model results for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004 and the proximity of the
locations. During the Sparks run, these locations that were removed from consideration
and the model assigned workload to LSK for only three of the six years. These years
were the same three years (2002-2004) that showed the significant workload for the two
alternative locations in the initial model run, which indicates that if either of these
locations were included in the Sparks run, they would have received LSK’s shipments in
those years. Table 3 below shows the model results for these three locations for each of
these runs.
U.S. Forest Service
23
NISC Optimization and Review
Table 3 – Model Results for Southern California Locations
Results from Initial Model Run
Three Rivers, CA
Porterville, CA
Ontario, CA (LSK)
Results from Sparks Run
Ontario, CA (LSK)
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
585
0
0
628
0
1
0
327
0
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0
1
0
510
510
510
Average
Annual Cost
(Model
Output)
$2,058,221.67
$1,042,470.69
$0.00
$2,388,209.00
Over the past few years, Southern California has experienced significant wildland fire
activity that has received national attention. The National Wildland Fire Agencies and
California’s State Fire Agency, CAL Fire, have a strong partnership throughout the State
of California. As a result, there is a political need to maintain a cache location in
Southern California to support wildland firefighting efforts, but the model results indicate
the best location for that cache may not be in Ontario. Another consideration for
locations in Southern California that cannot be modeled is traffic patterns. The relocation
of LSK may result in longer delivery distances, but not an increase in time required for
delivery as a result of less traffic around the new location.
Recognizing the need for a cache location in Southern California, there is scope for
further refinement/optimization of the cache locations. This could be accomplished by
running the model in the Sparks run set-up again and allowing Three Rivers and/or
Porterville to be optional location(s) during the model runs. Based on the data provided
by the initial and the Sparks run, it is probable that shipments would no longer be
assigned to LSK and would be more cost-effectively reallocated to another Southern
California location.
4.4 Next Steps
This study provides a good indication of what the optimal NISC system would look like
and demonstrates that the current system is relatively close to optimal in terms of
location. To get an even more realistic cost profile of the final optimized cache system,
the model could be revised to place minimum shipment restrictions on caches based upon
clearly defined roles for tiers of the system, as described above, and any additional realworld restrictions. The Sparks run was designed to optimize shipment costs among
available resources and this refinement will provide a clearer picture of how the
optimized system would operate in terms of both cost and workload. The refinement
would be further enhanced by collecting and incorporating 2008 workload data into the
model to validate the assumptions that were made during the initial design of the model.
The refinement would also require an update of 2008 costs.
Conducting a validation of the model would provide the opportunity to research the
actual costs of starting up a facility in Sparks, NV; Porterville, CA; or Three Rivers, CA.
Combining these two tasks will facilitate the timely implementation of any additional
recommendations.
U.S. Forest Service
24
NISC Optimization and Review
5 Conclusion
The results of the model developed during this Study showed that the NISC system is
generally operating in the correct locations and with the correct number of facilities. The
results indicated that reducing two existing Type 1 caches (RMK and SFK) locations into
a single Type 1 cache in a new location would increase the cost effectiveness of the entire
system. The results of this study provide a general idea of the workload impacts that the
recommendations would have, but an additional run of the model in which real-life
workload constraints were placed on the cache facilities that would remain in the system
would need to be conducted to understand the actual impacts the relocation would have
on workload. In addition, the results indicated that LSK is not located in a cost-effective
location, and should be evaluated for relocation to a different Southern California
location.
Going forward, the model developed for this study will be a lasting resource. This model
can be updated to include the latest NISC workload, and can be re-run as needed to
provide current results regarding the distribution of shipments and optimal locations. The
model can also be updated to include the most recent cost data (e.g., facilities, personnel,
shipments), and to reflect any changes in the NISC system. With a few design changes,
the model can also optimize results based on time, mileage, or a combination of these and
cost. With some additional data and redesign, the model can also study centralized
refurbishment or other cost optimization considerations.
U.S. Forest Service
25
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 1 – Current Cache Locations
Name
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
Code
CO-RMK
City
Lakewood
State
CO
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
Hurley
NM
Northeast Interagency Fire
Cache
MN-NEK
Grand Rapids
MN
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
OR-NWK
Redmond
OR
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
La Grande
OR
Wenatchee Interagency Support
Cache
WA-WFC
Wenatchee
WA
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
AZ-PFK
Prescott
AZ
Southern Area Incident Support
Cache
KY-SAK
London
KY
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
Missoula
MT
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
Boise
ID
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
MT-BFC
Billings
MT
Ontario Interagency Support
Cache
CA-LSK
Ontario
CA
Northern California Interagency
Support Cache
CA-NCK
Redding
CA
Coeur d'Alene Interagency
Support Cache
ID-CDK
Coeur d'Alene
ID
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 1-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 2 – Forest Service Data Call Correspondence from Chief
[This attachment provided in a separate document]
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 2-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 3 – Data Call Forms
[This attachment provided in a separate document]
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 3-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 4 – How the Model Works
1. The NISC Model runs in Access, responding to data drawn from data calls,
FireCode, ICBS, and prior studies.
2. The model is iterative, making assumptions about cache shipment workload
before each run, and modifying these assumptions automatically after each run.
Once the assumptions for the given run are within a fraction of a percent of the
outputs of the run, the model is complete. The starting assumption (first model
run) for each cache is the actual shipment workload for that fiscal year, or in the
case of potential caches, the average of the workload for all existing caches for
that fiscal year.
3. There are several input tables utilized by the model as it runs.
a. The table of existing and potential caches provides the names and
locations of the various caches and potential sites, as well as annual
operating costs, and costs for the personnel that would expand/decrease
with a shift in cache workload. Additionally, this table contains the current
assumption for shipment results for each cache, the actual results from the
previous model run, and the maximum number of shipments available to
the cache. Finally, this table contains a maximum roundtrip shipping
distance cap for each cache, based on the greater of the longest actual
shipment in the applicable fiscal year or 2,000 miles. For potential caches,
2,000 miles is used as the starting point for the current assumption for
shipment results. The cap is set at 10% above the starting shipment count.
Expansion costs for potential caches were based on the personnel manning
of CA-LSK, and facility costs were set at 40% of CA-LSK, since that was
determined to be a proper Type I cache size.
b. The shipment table contains all of the current (or estimated for fiscal year
2002-2006) shipments to which the caches must respond, including billing
rates for drivers and vehicles, and per diem rates. Also, the (estimated)
cost of each shipment as it was conducted in the applicable fiscal year is
included in this table, so that the model can use actual costs when
considering use of the same cache that was actually used for each
particular shipment.
c. The mileage ratio table provides a translation from straight-line roundtrip
miles to an estimate of the actual miles traveled for a given shipment, on a
cache-by-cache basis. This table was generated using the shipment data
provided for 2007, combined with calculations on the straight-line
roundtrip distance for each of those shipments. The average value was
used for each cache. When a particular cache is used by the model to
perform a shipment, the straight-line distance calculated by the model is
transformed into an estimated actual roundtrip distance by the factors in
this table. For potential caches, an average ratio of 1.7 was used.
d. The billing hours and miles traveled table has averaged the billing hours
per mile traveled for the different vehicle types utilized by the Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 4-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Service. This table has one value for each vehicle type, averaged across all
caches. This will translate the roundtrip mileage into billing hours in the
model results, for costing and per diem purposes.
e. The regional issues to shipments ratios table provides the ratio of number
of issues to a given region to number of shipments to that region, for the
applicable fiscal year. As described earlier in the report, these ratios
account for the fact that shipments often have multiple issues, and thus
travel further than the estimated roundtrip distance from cache to incident.
The additional mileage assumed for each extra issue on a shipment is 100
miles.
f. The Cache Artificial Expansions tab contains, for every cache, additional
supervisory and administrative position costs which would be incurred if
that cache were to expand by certain predetermined percentages and
savings if the cache were to shrink by certain percentages. For the
purposes of the model, the expansion of the cache is determined by
number of shipments. Each cache has a different set of percentages and
costs at those percentages. Potential caches are again modeled after CALSK. This table also includes the current expansion/reduction in cache
workload indicated by the previous model run, as well as the current
assumption for expansion/reduction.
4. The first step that the model takes when run is to calculate the cost of every
possible shipment and cache combination, using the data from the aforementioned
tables. This is done in several stages, and the only limitation to whether or not a
cache can handle a certain shipment in this step is the distance, which must be less
than the maximum response distance. Local pickups are handled differently and
will be described in the next step.
a. The model takes every shipment from the shipment table, and matches
each one up to every cache from the cache table. Using a function that
calculates distance based on latitude and longitude points, combined with
the ratios from the mileage ratio table, it puts the cache, shipment, and
mileage information into the All Possible Responses table if the resultant
mileage is less than the maximum allowed for that cache.
b. Using the calculated mileage, vehicle type, and average billing hours per
mile for that vehicle type, the model next calculates the billing hours for
each of these possible shipments and puts those into the table. It is at this
point that the mileage is increased using the issues to shipments ratio for
the applicable destination region. The mileage is increased by 100 miles *
(ratio – 1) to account for multiple issue shipments.
c. Using the original billing rates for each of the shipments, from the
shipments table, the model calculates personnel billing costs for each
possible shipment and puts those into the table.
d. Using the billing hours, and the per diem rates from the original shipments
in the shipments table, the model assigns per diem costs based on per diem
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 4-2
NISC Optimization and Review
days calculated as follows: 12-18 billing hours = 1 per diem day. 18-24
billing hours = 1.5 per diem days and so on in 6 hour increments. Less
than 12 billing hours results in 0 per diem days. Per diem costs are loaded
into the table after calculation.
e. Using the original vehicle use rate from the shipments table and the
calculated miles traveled vehicle usage costs are calculated for all possible
shipments, and loaded into the table.
f. Finally, a support cost (“Shipment Factor”) is calculated based on the total
annual cache costs and the estimated shipment results for that cache, for
all shipments. These Shipment Factors are equal to the total annual cache
costs divided by the estimated number of shipments. This represents all of
the cache operating costs, divided across the cache’s workload, i.e. its
shipments. As the shipments change in the model results, the shipment
assumptions change for the next run, and the Shipment Factors change
with them.
g. The support cost is modified by the expansion/reduction of the cache,
using the cache table and the cache artificial expansions table. The cache
table contains a field that represents the cost of a 100% expansion in cache
operations. This field is multiplied by the actual expansion/reduction
assumption for the current model run, and is added or subtracted from the
total annual cache costs as the shipment factor is calculated. Also, if the
percentage is above or below the specific percentages detailed in the
artificial expansions table, those costs are also added or subtracted from
the total annual cost as applicable. In this way, if a cache is assumed to be
operating with a reduced shipment workload, the model also reduces
personnel costs to account for this workload assumption, giving a cache
cost more appropriate to the anticipated workload.
h. All of these costs are added together to calculate the total shipment cost
for each possible shipment. As a result of the inclusion of all possible
responses in this table, the original caches will have all of their original
shipments as possibilities. In these cases, the original calculated shipment
costs (plus the shipment factors) are used as the costs for those shipments.
This accomplishes two objectives: in the event of local pickups, which
would not be local pickups for another cache (assumed), this prevents the
adding of the multiple issue factor to the shipment costs. It is assumed that
a pickup has only one issue. Also, it reduces model runtime as the
calculations for these shipments are already done.
5. With all the possible combinations of shipment and cache in one table, the model
sorts this table by shipping distance, in ascending order. The purpose of this is to
make certain the model attempts to minimize distance and cost together, instead
of just cost at the expense of distance.
6. From the sorted list of shipments, the model extracts a list of the shipment ID
numbers, which establishes the order in which the model will now select the
lowest cost option for each shipment.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 4-3
NISC Optimization and Review
7. In order of the shipment ID selected above, the model looks at each shipment, and
selects the shipment and cache combination that resulted in the lowest cost in step
4. As each shipment is selected, the model tracks that one additional shipment has
been assigned to the appropriate cache. Once the model has assigned a number of
shipments to a particular cache equal to the maximum allowed number of
shipments for that cache, it no longer considers that cache for further shipments.
In this way, no cache exceeds the preset maximum capacity.
8. Once all shipments are assigned, the model produces a summary table that shows
the number of shipments for each cache (with at least one shipment), the ratio of
shipments in the model results to the shipments in the shipment table, and the
current assumption of how much the cache would expand or shrink from the
artificial expansions table.
9. The final steps the model takes are refining the assumptions for the next run.
a. The shipment assumption is adjusted by 1/75 of the difference between the
model results and the current assumption. For example, if the model
assumption was 100 shipments for a cache, and the model results assigned
175 shipments, then the assumption for the next run would be 100 + 75/75
or 101 shipments instead of 100.
b. The expansion assumption is adjusted by 1/40 of the difference between
the model results and the current assumption. This is a smaller ratio than
the shipment assumption because it operates on a smaller scale (-100 to
100) than the shipments (0 to 1,000 or more). These values were adjusted
until a stable model resulted.
c. The supervisory and administrative expansion costs, which are always
calculated in advance of the model run, are revised in the artificial
expansion table based on the expansion assumption resulting from the
just-completed run of the model.
10. Then, the model is run again using the new, automatically updated, assumptions,
until the assumptions and results are within a fraction of a percent. This was done
for all six fiscal years (2002-2007).
11. Using the results from these runs, it was determined that Sparks, NV was the most
effective and viable new cache location, and the model was run again for all 6
fiscal years with just Sparks, NV as a potential cache and no other potential new
locations were considered.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 4-4
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 5 – Potential Cache Locations
Alabama
Anniston
Daviston
Decatur
Eufaula
Heflin
Montgomery
Talladega
Tuskegee
Arkansas
Clarksville
Danville
Dardanelle
Fort Smith
Garfield
Harrison
Hector
Hot Springs
Jasper
Jessieville
Manila
Marianna
Mena
Russellville
Turrell
Little Rock
U.S. Forest Service
Arizona
Camp Verde
Chinle
Chino Valley
Coolidge
Flagstaff
Globe
Hereford
Mesa
Page
Payson
Phoenix
Prescott
Rimrock
Sacaton
Safford
Scottsdale
Tucson
Whiteriver
Yuma
California
Antioch
Arcadia
Bakersfield
Barstow
Calipatria
Clovis
Danville
Davis
Delano
El Cajon
Eureka
French Camp
Goleta
Indio
Los Banos
Mammoth Lakes
Martinez
Moreno Valley
Nevada City
Oakland
Paicines
Petaluma
Placerville
Porterville
Redding
Riverside
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
South Lake Tahoe
Susanville
Thousand Oaks
Three Rivers
Twentynine Palms
Vallejo
Ventura
Whiskeytown
Willows
Yreka
Attachment 5-1
Colorado
Bayfield
Boulder
Canon City
Colorado Springs
Commerce City
Craig
Delta
Durango
Estes Park
Fort Collins
Fruita
Glenwood Springs
Golden
Grand Junction
Gunnison
Idaho Springs
La Junta
Lakewood (Denver)
Montrose
Morrison
Pueblo
Salida
Steamboat Springs
Florida
Gainesville
Ocala
Olustee
Tallahassee
Georgia
Andersonville
Chatsworth
Clarksville
Columbus
Dry Branch
Eatonton
Fort Oglethorpe
Gainesville
Kennesaw
Macon
Plains
NISC Optimization and Review
Iowa
Prairie City
West branch
Idaho
Boise
Burley
Coeur d'Alene
Emmett
Idaho Falls
Lapwai
Mountain Home
Nampa
Pocatello
Sandpoint
Twin Falls
Indiana
Bedford
Chesterton
Columbus
Madison
Seymour
Vincennes
Kentucky
Frankfort
Lexington
London
Louisiana
Bentley
Homer
Natchitoches
Pineville
Provencal
Shreveport
Winnfield
Minnesota
Grand Rapids
U.S. Forest Service
Missouri
Columbia
Diamond
Independence
Republic
Rolla
Springfield
St. Louis
Mississippi
Boyle
Brooksville
Cruger
Forest
Grenada
Jackson
Jackson
Natchez
Oxford
Pearl
Tupelo
Vicksburg
Yazoo city
Montana
Anaconda
Bigfork
Billings
Bozeman
Butte
Great Falls
Hungry Horse
Huson
Lewiston
Livingston
Marion
Miles City
Missoula
Whitehall
North Carolina
Asheville
Flat Rock
Greensboro
Nebo
Pisgah Forest
Raleigh
North Dakota
Berthold
Bismarck
Devils Lake
Dickinson
Moffit
Pingree
Valley City
New Mexico
Alamogordo
Albuquerque
Aztec
Carlsbad
Cloudcroft
Dexter
Farmington
Gallup
Grants
Holloman AFB
Las Cruces
Las Vegas
Los Alamos
Portales
Roswell
Ruidoso
Santa Fe
Silver City
Socorro
Taos
Tijeras
Watrous
Attachment 5-2
Nevada
Boulder City
Carson City
Elko
Fallon
Las Vegas
Reno
Sparks
Washoe Valley
Winnemucca
Ohio
Cincinnati
Nelsonville
Oklahoma
Ardmore
Elk City
Idabel
Oklahoma City
NISC Optimization and Review
Oregon
Ashland
Baker City
Bend
Central Point
Corvallis
Cottage Grove
Dufur
Estacada
Eugene
Glide
Hood River
Idleyld Park
Klamath Falls
La Grande
Medford
North Bend
Parkdale
Pendleton
Portland
Prineville
Redmond
Rhododendron
Roseburg
Salem
Sandy
Sherwood
Sweet Home
The Dalles
Vale
South Carolina
Columbia
U.S. Forest Service
South Dakota
Columbia
Fort Pierre
Huron
Madison
Nemo
Rapid City
Spearfish
Yankton
Tennessee
Bristol
Cleveland
Gatlinburg
Greeneville
Knoxville
Murfreesboro
Nashville
Paris
Ripley
Stanton
Unicoi
Union City
Wartburg
Texas
Abilene
Amarillo
College Station
Decatur
El Paso
Fritch
Lufkin
Umbarger
Zavalla
Utah
American Fork
Brigham City
Cedar City
Ephraim
Heber City
Logan
Ogden
Pleasant Grove
Price
Provo
Richfield
Salt Lake City
Vernal
Wyoming
Casper
Cheyenne
Cody
Evanston
Green River
Jackson
Lander
Rawlins
Rock Springs
Sheridan
Worland
Virginia
Charlottesville
Covington
Harrisonburg
Marion
Roanoke
Washington
Amboy
Burbank
Cathlamet
Cheney
Cle Elum
Colville
Mountlake Terrace
Naches
North Bend
Olympia
Pasco
Richland
Ridgefield
Spokane
Vancouver
Walla Walla
Washougal
Wenatchee
Attachment 5-3
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 6 – Five-Year Cost Summaries for Current Cache Locations
[This attachment provided in a separate document]
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 6-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 7 – Expanded Personnel Costs
Expanded Staffing Summary
The following table provides the total personnel costs for different categories for Fiscal Year 2007.
*NEK currently uses State Employees and details from other caches to perform material handling duties.
*Only five locations currently use Small Engine Mechanics: CDK, GBK, NEK, NRK, and NWK.
*Driver costs have been removed from the expanded staffing because the model will calculate the expansion/decrease
in transportation costs for each cache. Including driver type positions with the expanded staffing costs will be double
counting the personnel costs associated with transportation. Similarly, the hourly workload associated with
Government personnel drivers for each cache has been removed from the total personnel hours.
*AD costs below reflect the costs for Fiscal Year 2007 for the Cache System for Material Handlers and Mechanics
Only. The total costs represented in this table were obtained from a combination of the NISC Center Manager Data
Call and a report from a USFS financial data system.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
RMK
SFK
NEK
NWK
LFK
WFC
PFK
SAK
NRK
GBK
BFK
LSK
NCK
AKK
Federal Staff Costs*
(Material Handler and
Small Engine Mechanic
Type Positions only)
$112,631.04
$190,011.39
N/A
$793,693.81
$103,904.61
$176,157.32
$245,556.80
$55,263.05
$668,183.48
$613,494.44
$102,406.24
$419,778.77
$325,716.66
$825,853.72
15
CDKt
$0.00
$301,736.00
$0.00
AD Hires
(Material Handler
and Mechanic
Positions Only)
N/A
$14,321.50
$29,164.90
$328,034.17
$79,554.87
$5,139.20
$62,384.60
$21,712.94
$10,693.44
$1,384,239.17
$39,647.00
$131,342.51
$290,666.00
Not Reported
(TBD)
$0.00
$4,632,651.32
$360,791.15
$60,948.97
$2,396,900.30
Cache
State
Employees
Federal Militia
Employees
$0.00
$0.00
$57,307.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,748.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$60,948.97
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subcontract
Employees
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$125,181.57
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$137,729.57
$0.00
$262,911.14
*Includes Personal Liability Insurance Costs (Factor of 0.007)
t
Beginning in 2008, CDK will no longer be hiring AD staff. All temp workforces will be state employees.
Inflation Rates
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
U.S. Forest Service
2.99%
2.90%
3.20%
3.40%
3.40%
Attachment 7-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Expanded Management Cost Calculations
The following tables show the number of positions that are to be added/removed at each change in workload level, and
the cost implications of those changes for each cache. These tables were developed by the Team in Boise, ID on
10/6/2008.
Lead Material Handlers
Number of Govt. Lead Material Handlers Added from Current
1
25%
50%
75%
100%
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2
SFK
3
NEK
4
NWK
1.00
5
LFK
0.50
0.50
0.50
6
WFC
1.00
1.00
1.00
7
PFK
8
SAK
9
NRK
11
BFK
12
LSK
13
NCK
15
CDK
1.00
-50%
-75%
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-1.00
-1.00
-2.50
-3.00
-4.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
1.00
25%
10
-25%
RMK
50%
75%
GBK
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
1.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.00
Number of Temp Lead Material Handlers Added from Current
25%
1
50%
RMK
2
SFK
3
NEK
4
NWK
5
LFK
6
WFC
75%
100%
1.00
1.00
7
PFK
1.00
1.00
8
SAK
1.00
1.00
9
NRK
11
BFK
1.00
1.00
1.00
12
LSK
1.00
2.00
2.00
13
NCK
1.00
1.00
2.00
15
CDK
10
U.S. Forest Service
GBK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
25%
50%
75%
100%
1.00
1.00
1.00
-25%
-50%
-75%
-15%
-30%
-45%
Attachment 7-2
NISC O
Costs of Govt. Lead Material Handlers Added from Current
25%
50%
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
1
RMK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2
SFK
$44,766
$44,766
$44,766
$44,766
$0
$0
$0
3
NEK
$0
$60,889
$60,889
$60,889
$0
$0
$0
4
NWK
$54,648
$54,648
$54,648
$109,295
$0
$0
$0
5
LFK
$0
$27,196
$27,196
$27,196
-$27,196
-$27,196
-$27,196
6
WFC
$0
$53,081
$53,081
$53,081
$0
$0
$0
7
PFK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$49,351
-$49,351
8
SAK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9
NRK
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$135,266
-$162,320
-$216,426
11
BFK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
12
LSK
$0
$0
$0
$52,740
-$52,740
-$52,740
-$52,740
13
NCK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$55,246
-$55,246
15
CDK
$0
$0
$0
$54,107
$0
$0
$0
25%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
10
GBK
$0
$0
$0
$51,287
-$25,644
-$51,287
-$51,287
Costs of Temp Lead Material Handlers Added from Current
25%
50%
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
RMK
$0
$0
$22,075
$22,075
$0
$0
$0
SFK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
NEK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4
NWK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
LFK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
WFC
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
PFK
$0
$0
$20,156
$20,156
$0
$0
$0
8
SAK
$0
$0
$20,633
$20,633
$0
$0
$0
9
NRK
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
BFK
$0
$22,098
$22,098
$22,098
$0
$0
$0
12
LSK
$0
$21,540
$43,080
$43,080
$0
$0
$0
13
NCK
$0
$22,563
$22,563
$45,127
$0
$0
$0
15
CDK
$22,098
$22,098
$22,098
$22,098
$0
$0
$0
25%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
$0
$20,947
$20,947
$20,947
$0
$0
$0
1
2
10
U.S. Forest Service
GBK
Attachment 7-3
NISC O
Total Costs of Lead Materials Handler Additions/Deletions
25%
50%
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
1
RMK
$0
$0
$22,075
$22,075
$0
$0
$0
2
SFK
$44,766
$44,766
$44,766
$44,766
$0
$0
$0
3
NEK
$0
$60,889
$60,889
$60,889
$0
$0
$0
4
NWK
$54,648
$54,648
$54,648
$109,295
$0
$0
$0
5
LFK
$0
$27,196
$27,196
$27,196
-$27,196
-$27,196
-$27,196
6
WFC
$0
$53,081
$53,081
$53,081
$0
$0
$0
7
PFK
$0
$0
$20,156
$20,156
$0
-$49,351
-$49,351
8
SAK
$0
$0
$20,633
$20,633
$0
$0
$0
-$216,426
9
NRK
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$135,266
-$162,320
11
BFK
$0
$22,098
$22,098
$22,098
$0
$0
$0
12
LSK
$0
$21,540
$43,080
$95,820
-$52,740
-$52,740
-$52,740
13
NCK
$0
$22,563
$22,563
$45,127
$0
-$55,246
-$55,246
15
CDK
$22,098
$22,098
$22,098
$76,205
$0
$0
$0
10
GBK
25%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
$0
$20,947
$20,947
$72,234
-$25,644
-$51,287
-$51,287
Number of Assistant Cache Managers Added/Removed
25%
50%
1
RMK
25%
$0
$0
2
SFK
$0
$0
3
NEK
$0
$0
4
NWK
1.00
$0
$0
5
LFK
1.00
$0
$0
6
WFC
1.00
$0
$0
7
PFK
$0
$0
8
SAK
9
NRK
11
BFK
12
13
15
CDK
10
GBK
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
$0
$0
-1.00
$0
$0
-1.00
$0
$0
LSK
$0
$0
NCK
$0
$0
-1.00
25%
U.S. Forest Service
50%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-1.00
-30%
-45%
25%
50%
-1.00
-1.00
$0
$0
Attachment 7-4
NISC O
Cost of Added / Removed Admin Positions
25%
1
50%
75%
100%
-25%
RMK
-50%
-75%
-$58,910.92
-$58,910.92
2
SFK
-$35,303.77
-$79,936.56
-$79,936.56
3
NEK
-$24,102.14
-$68,734.93
-$68,734.93
4
NWK
-$22,241.55
-$77,529.72
5
LFK
-$19,878.68
-$19,878.68
6
WFC
-$22,241.55
-$22,241.55
7
PFK
-$44,632.80
-$44,632.80
8
SAK
9
NRK
-$71,993.95
-$71,993.95
11
BFK
-$71,993.95
-$49,752.40
-$49,752.40
12
LSK
-$60,878.53
-$60,878.53
13
NCK
-$49,752.40
-$49,752.40
15
CDK
-19,312.00
-19,312.00
25%
10
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
GBK
-45%
-$14,144.00
Cost of Decreasing Grade Levels of Management Positions
-50%
-75%
1
RMK
25%
-$28,275.17
-$28,275.17
2
SFK
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
3
NEK
-$24,881.32
-$24,881.32
4
NWK
5
LFK
6
WFC
7
PFK
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
8
SAK
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
9
NRK
11
BFK
12
LSK
13
NCK
15
CDK
-15%
-30%
-45%
10
GBK
25%
U.S. Forest Service
50%
50%
75%
75%
100%
100%
-25%
Attachment 7-5
NISC O
Total Cost Effect of Changes to Personnel Costs
25%
50%
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
1
RMK
$0.00
$0.00
$22,075.01
$22,075.01
$0.00
-$87,186.09
-$87,186.09
2
SFK
$44,766.02
$44,766.02
$44,766.02
$44,766.02
-$35,303.77
-$106,473.36
-$106,473.36
3
NEK
$0.00
$60,889.00
$60,889.00
$60,889.00
-$24,102.14
-$93,616.26
-$93,616.26
4
NWK
$54,647.58
$54,647.58
$54,647.58
$176,922.52
$0.00
-$22,241.55
-$77,529.72
5
LFK
$0.00
$27,195.64
$27,195.64
$109,020.62
-$27,195.64
-$47,074.32
-$47,074.32
6
WFC
$0.00
$53,081.34
$53,081.34
$134,906.31
$0.00
-$22,241.55
-$22,241.55
7
PFK
$0.00
$0.00
$20,155.95
$20,155.95
$0.00
-$120,520.43
-$120,520.43
8
SAK
$0.00
$0.00
$20,632.81
$20,632.81
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
-$26,536.80
9
NRK
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$274,887.60
-$301,940.85
-$356,047.37
11
BFK
$0.00
$22,098.27
$22,098.27
$22,098.27
$0.00
-$49,752.40
-$117,379.75
12
LSK
$0.00
$21,540.00
$43,079.99
$95,819.61
-$52,739.62
-$113,618.15
-$113,618.15
13
NCK
$0.00
$22,563.50
$22,563.50
$45,126.99
$0.00
-$104,998.00
-$104,998.00
15
CDK
$22,098.27
$22,098.27
$22,098.27
$76,204.79
$0.00
-$19,312.00
-$19,312.00
25%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
10
GBK
$0.00
$20,946.83
$20,946.83
$72,234.12
-$25,643.64
-$118,914.63
-$133,058.63
Total Cost Effect of Workload Changes to Personnel Costs with Liability Insurance Costs
25%
50%
75%
100%
-25%
-50%
-75%
1
RMK
$0.00
$0.00
$22,229.53
$22,229.53
$0.00
-$87,796.39
-$87,796.39
2
SFK
$45,079.39
$45,079.39
$45,079.39
$45,079.39
-$35,550.90
-$107,218.67
-$107,218.67
3
NEK**
$0.00
$60,889.00
$60,889.00
$60,889.00
-$24,270.85
-$94,271.57
-$94,271.57
4
NWK
$55,030.12
$55,030.12
$55,030.12
$178,160.97
$0.00
-$22,397.24
-$78,072.43
5
LFK
$0.00
$27,386.01
$27,386.01
$109,783.76
-$27,386.01
-$47,403.84
-$47,403.84
6
WFC
$0.00
$53,452.91
$53,452.91
$135,850.66
$0.00
-$22,397.24
-$22,397.24
7
PFK
$0.00
$0.00
$20,297.04
$20,297.04
$0.00
-$121,364.07
-$121,364.07
8
SAK
$0.00
$0.00
$20,777.23
$20,777.23
-$26,722.55
-$26,722.55
-$26,722.55
9
NRK
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$276,811.81
-$304,054.44
-$358,539.70
11
BFK
$0.00
$22,252.96
$22,252.96
$22,252.96
$0.00
-$50,100.67
-$118,201.41
12
LSK
$0.00
$21,690.78
$43,381.55
$96,490.35
-$53,108.79
-$114,413.48
-$114,413.48
13
NCK
$0.00
$22,721.44
$22,721.44
$45,442.88
$0.00
-$105,732.99
-$105,732.99
15
CDK
$22,252.96
$22,252.96
$22,252.96
$76,738.22
$0.00
-$19,447.18
-$19,447.18
25%
50%
75%
100%
-15%
-30%
-45%
10
GBK
$0.00
$21,093.46
$21,093.46
$72,739.76
-$25,823.15
-$119,747.04
-$133,990.04
*When expansion table of the model is filled, Overhead percentage are automatically added.
**Liability Insurance Costs do not affect State Positions, therefore only a portion of the total costs will include liability
insurance.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 7-6
NISC O
Attachment 8 – Initial Model Run Detailed Results
Actual Number of Shipments Input into Model
Cache Name
Cache
Code
Max. Num.
Shipments
2007
2006*
2005*
2004*
2003*
2002*
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
CO-RMK
198
79
191
107
122
273
740
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
151
151
476
306
297
589
706
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
MN-NEK
815
582
769
585
616
681
869
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
OR-NWK
1371
1094
957
716
599
1194
1883
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
1136
568
383
383
127
239
351
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
WA-WFC
692
627
674
246
646
723
355
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
AZ-PFK
661
347
661
657
546
472
966
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
KY-SAK
994
530
994
645
318
471
712
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
1396
1228
639
553
276
1590
491
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
2086
1925
2086
1325
1457
1955
2823
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
MT-BFC
434
204
434
86
103
339
256
CA-LSK
510
204
336
251
479
598
640
CA-NCK
977
649
934
473
727
928
1001
ID-CDK
364
243
329
169
175
361
128
N/A
852
679
705
465
463
744
852
Ontario Interagency
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
Cache
All Potential Locations
*Shipments for years prior to 2007 were determined by applying the issue to shipment ratios from 2007 to the actual
issues for each cache.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 8-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Cache
Code
Max. Num.
Shipments
2007
2003
2002
CA-NCK
977
977
977
977
MN-NEK
815
815
815
815
23
852
747
0
0
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
KY-SAK
994
727
4
994
Central Point, OR
Sparks, NV
Whiteriver, AZ
Northern Rockies Cache
8
19
22
MT-NRK
852
852
852
1396
0
0*
0
1396
747
747
747
1396
852
852
852
0
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
WA-WFC
692
692
692
0
La Grande Fire Cache
Jackson, WY
OR-LFK
30
1136
852
1136
747
0
747
145
852
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
AZ-PFK
661
0
0
661
OR-NWK
1371
79
260
1371
ID-CDK
364
364
364
34
10
36
4
9
1
18
16
27
6
1
42
32
14
11
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
0
747
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
523
0
628
162
0
0
0
747
747
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
572
852
852
852
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MT-BFC
434
0
80
0
17
852
0
0
327
Cache Name
Northern California
Interagency Support
Cache
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
Winnemucca, NV
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
Cache
Lufkin, TX
Idaho Falls, ID
Three Rivers, CA
Tallahassee, FL
Casper, WY
Price, UT
Taos, NM
Cedar City, UT
Los Alamos, NM
Page, AZ
Heber City, UT
Chinle, AZ
Bend, OR
Nampa, ID
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
Porterville, CA
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 8-2
NISC Optimization and Review
Cache
Code
ID-GBK
Max. Num.
Shipments
2086
Ontario Interagency
Support Cache
CA-LSK
510
0
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
CO-RMK
198
1
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
151
0
Cache Name
Great Basin Cache
Year
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Total
Six-Year Annual Average
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 8-3
2007
3
Estimation of Savings
$6,932,964.64
$30,238,499.36
$30,138,073.58
$23,957,141.68
$15,010,678.71
$23,486,403.52
$129,763,761.50
$21,627,293.58
NISC Optimization and Review
Summary of Savings by Year For Initial Model Run
Operating Costs for 2007 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Yuma, AZ
Goleta, CA
Olustee, FL
Pocatello, ID
Devils Lake, ND
Sparks, NV
Elko, NV
Elk City, OK
Cedar City, UT
Vernal, UT
Jackson, WY
Chinle, AZ
Idaho Falls, ID
Vincennes, IN
Ephraim, UT
Heber City, UT
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-4
Actual Costs
Input
$1,233,160.73
$716,249.21
$634,586.94
$2,490,449.07
$911,645.33
$972,972.68
$980,555.62
$1,006,511.90
$2,535,785.52
$4,650,382.23
$1,055,633.12
$1,833,897.45
$1,381,172.01
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$966,766.62
$1,011,998.66
$933,287.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$910,798.83
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$944,532.08
$933,287.66
$978,265.41
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$38,087,223.90
Initial Model
Output
$1,114,976.45
$0.00
$981,014.92
$2,403,193.08
$1,817,265.35
$1,488,683.54
$0.00
$1,411,706.11
$4,461,018.35
$3,741,881.51
$0.00
$0.00
$3,357,738.85
$1,885,694.78
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,333,136.92
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,252,102.49
$0.00
$1,905,846.92
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31,154,259.26
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from 2007
Actual Costs
$118,184.28
$716,249.21
($346,427.98)
$87,255.99
($905,620.02)
($515,710.86)
$980,555.62
($405,194.21)
($1,925,232.83)
$908,500.72
$1,055,633.12
$1,833,897.45
($1,976,566.84)
($1,071,478.57)
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$966,766.62
$1,011,998.66
$933,287.66
($1,321,138.25)
$1,011,998.66
$910,798.83
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
($3,285,081.51)
$944,532.08
($972,559.25)
$978,265.41
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$6,932,964.64
Operating Costs for 2006 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Page, AZ
Whiteriver, AZ
Yuma, AZ
Goleta, CA
Olustee, FL
Nampa, ID
Pocatello, ID
Forest, MS
Natchez, MS
Devils Lake, ND
Valley City, ND
Los Alamos, NM
Boulder City, NV
Sparks, NV
Winnemucca, NV
Elko, NV
Elk City, OK
Oklahoma City, OK
Bend, OR
Central Point, OR
Cedar City, UT
Vernal, UT
Jackson, WY
Chinle, AZ
Idaho Falls, ID
Vincennes, IN
Ephraim, UT
Heber City, UT
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-5
Actual Costs
Input
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$648,432.71
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$963,984.59
$979,059.18
$999,684.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$1,376,447.24
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$966,766.62
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$933,287.66
$731,464.25
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$910,798.83
$793,154.00
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$740,277.06
$933,287.66
$978,265.41
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$49,040,700.30
Initial Model
Output
$0.00
$0.00
$581,323.00
$1,700,513.18
$0.00
$1,360,621.00
$1,038,492.22
$998,021.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,146,981.00
$0.00
$1,457,219.00
$728,155.00
$1,223,871.54
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,476,746.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,451,118.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,866,958.00
$1,339,291.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,171,103.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,261,788.00
$18,802,200.94
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from 2006
Actual Costs
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$67,109.71
$782,433.73
$907,816.69
($396,636.41)
($59,433.04)
$1,663.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
($91,347.89)
$1,833,200.79
($80,771.76)
$86,061.21
($568,700.62)
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$966,766.62
($464,747.34)
$1,011,998.66
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$933,287.66
$731,464.25
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
($439,119.34)
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$910,798.83
$793,154.00
($854,959.34)
($327,292.34)
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
($430,825.94)
$933,287.66
$978,265.41
$877,065.50
($384,722.50)
$30,238,499.36
Operating Costs for 2005 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Whiteriver, AZ
Forest, MS
Natchez, MS
Devils Lake, ND
Valley City, ND
Los Alamos, NM
Boulder City, NV
Sparks, NV
Elko, NV
Central Point, OR
Cedar City, UT
Tuskegee, AL
Clarksville, AR
Coolidge, AZ
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Kennesaw, GA
Idaho Falls, ID
Pearl, MS
Socorro, NM
Roseburg, OR
Price, UT
Provo, UT
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-6
Actual Costs
Input
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$648,432.71
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$963,984.59
$979,059.18
$999,684.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$1,376,447.24
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$933,287.66
$933,287.66
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$967,020.99
$899,554.41
$899,554.41
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$899,554.41
$933,287.66
$877,065.50
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$43,638,863.53
Initial Model
Output
$0.00
$0.00
$608,275.00
$0.00
$1,762,680.00
$0.00
$1,295,357.00
$1,149,792.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,142,787.22
$1,210,884.00
$738,379.34
$618,041.99
$1,826,461.81
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,068,790.59
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,079,341.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$13,500,789.95
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from 2005
Actual Costs
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$40,157.71
$2,482,946.91
($854,863.31)
$963,984.59
($316,297.82)
($150,107.83)
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$233,660.02
($396,667.79)
($83,208.42)
$90,978.60
($881,929.73)
$877,065.50
$877,065.50
$933,287.66
$933,287.66
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
($56,791.92)
$967,020.99
$899,554.41
$899,554.41
$944,532.08
$1,203,154.06
$899,554.41
($1,146,053.34)
$877,065.50
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$30,138,073.58
Operating Costs for 2004 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Page, AZ
Whiteriver, AZ
Mammoth Lakes, CA
Placerville, CA
Three Rivers, CA
Delta, CO
Ocala, FL
Miles City, MT
Grants, NM
Ruidoso, NM
Los Alamos, NM
Sparks, NV
Central Point, OR
Madison, SD
American Fork, UT
Cedar City, UT
Charlottesville, VA
Montgomery, AL
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-7
Actual Costs
Input
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$648,432.71
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$963,984.59
$979,059.18
$999,684.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$1,376,447.24
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$1,158,176.25
$1,158,176.25
$1,158,176.25
$1,068,220.83
$910,798.83
$1,011,998.66
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$955,776.57
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$1,000,754.25
$899,554.41
$40,569,134.15
Initial Model
Output
$0.00
$0.00
$929,982.46
$0.00
$0.00
$922,728.54
$1,323,732.88
$0.00
$851,344.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,259,897.43
$1,189,260.65
$503,698.46
$633,701.81
$1,659,354.92
$1,512,474.92
$0.00
$0.00
$2,209,145.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,185,323.15
$1,431,347.92
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$16,611,992.46
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from
2004 Actual Costs
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
($281,549.75)
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$41,256.05
($344,673.70)
$999,684.17
$1,722,694.49
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
($883,450.19)
($375,044.44)
$151,472.46
$75,318.78
($714,822.84)
($567,942.84)
$1,158,176.25
$1,158,176.25
($1,050,968.76)
$1,068,220.83
$910,798.83
$1,011,998.66
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
($173,324.49)
($419,349.26)
$955,776.57
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$1,000,754.25
$899,554.41
$23,957,141.68
Operating Costs for 2003 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Whiteriver, AZ
Placerville, CA
Three Rivers, CA
Craig, CO
Durango, CO
Idaho Falls, ID
Shreveport, LA
Miles City, MT
Nebo, NC
Valley City, ND
Taos, NM
Los Alamos, NM
Sparks, NV
Central Point, OR
Roseburg, OR
Provo, UT
Cedar City, UT
Jackson, WY
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-8
Actual Costs
Input
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$648,432.71
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$963,984.59
$979,059.18
$999,684.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$1,376,447.24
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$1,158,176.25
$1,158,176.25
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$955,776.57
$1,011,998.66
$899,554.41
$899,554.41
$933,287.66
$944,532.08
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,000,754.25
$967,020.99
$922,043.24
$40,434,200.98
Initial Model
Output
$0.00
$0.00
$624,269.46
$1,524,723.97
$719,659.56
$1,011,683.00
$0.00
$534,527.93
$2,166,885.00
$3,697,923.99
$632,409.71
$1,676,784.06
$1,567,604.43
$527,037.35
$599,746.19
$424,886.67
$1,095,971.57
$0.00
$1,907,298.33
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,232,991.57
$1,351,433.93
$1,397,725.06
$0.00
$0.00
$1,292,412.90
$1,437,547.57
$25,423,522.27
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from 2003
Actual Costs
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$24,163.25
$958,222.94
$188,157.13
($47,698.41)
$979,059.18
$465,156.24
$407,153.79
$924,745.55
$423,223.40
$156,416.73
($191,157.19)
$287,178.87
$55,424.73
$284,133.92
($151,439.49)
$1,158,176.25
($749,122.08)
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$955,776.57
$1,011,998.66
$899,554.41
$899,554.41
$933,287.66
($288,459.49)
($339,435.26)
($385,726.40)
$1,011,998.66
$1,000,754.25
($325,391.91)
($515,504.33)
$15,010,678.71
Operating Costs for 2002 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
Lufkin, TX
Tallahassee, FL
Tucson, AZ
Whiteriver, AZ
Placerville, CA
Porterville, CA
Durango, CO
Grand Junction, CO
Miles City, MT
Moffit, ND
Ruidoso, NM
Santa Fe, NM
Taos, NM
Fallon, NV
Sparks, NV
Central Point, OR
Columbia, SC
Cleveland, TN
Price, UT
Cedar City, UT
Harrisonburg, VA
Casper, WY
Evanston, WY
Jackson, WY
Total
U.S. Forest Service
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Attachment 8-9
Actual Costs
Input
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$648,432.71
$2,482,946.91
$907,816.69
$963,984.59
$979,059.18
$999,684.17
$2,574,038.79
$4,622,669.54
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$1,376,447.24
$814,216.21
$655,170.92
$709,020.59
$944,532.08
$944,532.08
$1,158,176.25
$1,158,176.25
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$955,776.57
$933,287.66
$933,287.66
$933,287.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$922,043.24
$899,554.41
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
$922,043.24
$922,043.24
$922,043.24
$44,088,640.70
Initial Model
Output
$0.00
$0.00
$540,406.00
$2,458,347.00
$841,854.35
$0.00
$952,051.00
$1,151,973.00
$0.00
$1,516,028.53
$0.00
$0.00
$1,340,164.00
$334,471.62
$0.00
$926,723.00
$0.00
$1,214,115.00
$0.00
$1,042,470.69
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,286,474.00
$0.00
$1,516,756.00
$1,268,211.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,260,359.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,577,509.00
$0.00
$1,374,324.00
$20,602,237.18
NISC Optimization and Review
Savings from
2002 Actual Costs
$1,229,948.00
$714,532.69
$108,026.71
$24,599.91
$65,962.34
$963,984.59
$27,008.18
($152,288.83)
$2,574,038.79
$3,106,641.01
$1,055,633.11
$1,833,200.79
$36,283.24
$479,744.59
$655,170.92
($217,702.41)
$944,532.08
($269,582.92)
$1,158,176.25
$115,705.56
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$1,011,998.66
$955,776.57
$933,287.66
$933,287.66
($353,186.34)
$1,011,998.66
($504,757.34)
($256,212.34)
$922,043.24
$899,554.41
($293,338.01)
$967,020.99
$967,020.99
($655,465.76)
$922,043.24
($452,280.76)
$23,486,403.52
Attachment 9 – Maps of Results from Initial Model Run
Figure 2 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2007 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 3 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2006 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-2
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 4 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2005 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-3
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 5 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2004 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-4
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 6 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2003 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-5
NISC Optimization and Review
Figure 7 – Map Showing Results from Initial Model Run for 2002 Workload
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 9-6
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 10 – Sparks Model Run Detailed Results
Actual Shipment Input for Sparks Run
Actual Shipments Input Into Model
Cache Name
Cache
Code
Max. Num.
Shipments
2007
2006*
2005*
2004*
2003*
2002*
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
CO-RMK
198
79
191
107
122
273
740
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
151
151
476
306
297
589
706
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
MN-NEK
815
582
769
585
616
681
869
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
OR-NWK
1371
1094
957
716
599
1194
1883
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
1136
568
383
383
127
239
351
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
WA-WFC
692
627
674
246
646
723
355
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
AZ-PFK
661
347
661
657
546
472
966
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
KY-SAK
994
530
994
645
318
471
712
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
1396
1228
639
553
276
1590
491
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
2086
1925
2086
1325
1457
1955
2823
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
MT-BFC
434
204
434
86
103
339
256
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
510
204
336
251
479
598
640
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
977
649
934
473
727
928
1001
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
364
243
329
169
175
361
128
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
Sparks
852
679
705
465
463
744
852
Cache
*Shipments for years prior to 2007 were determined by applying the issue to shipment ratios from 2007 to the actual
issues for each cache.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-7
NISC Optimization and Review
Actual Model Results from Sparks Run
Model Results – Number of Shipments Per Cache
Cache Name
Cache
Code
Max. Num.
Shipments
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
CO-RMK
198
0
0
0
0
1
198
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
151
0
0
0
0
0
0
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
MN-NEK
815
815
815
815
815
815
815
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
OR-NWK
1371
1371
1371
766
804
1371
1371
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
1136
1136
1136
1136
0
0
1136
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
WA-WFC
692
692
692
2
692
692
692
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
AZ-PFK
661
135
661
661
661
661
661
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
KY-SAK
994
727
994
994
994
994
994
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
1396
1396
75
26
0
1396
838
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
2086
0
1596
1
130
1427
2086
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
MT-BFC
434
71
434
0
0
434
434
510
510
977
977
364
352
747
852
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
510
0
1
0
510
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
977
977
977
977
977
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
364
364
364
364
156
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
Sparks
747t
747
747
747
747
Cache
t
Increased max shipments in 2002, due to the significantly higher workload to the cache system.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-8
NISC Optimization and Review
Adjustments for Reported 2007 Shipping Data
Evaluation of the final model results identified a number of shipments that may have had incorrect mileage reported. Investigation into the issue showed two
possible causes:
1. FIRECODE data contained an error for some incident locations where the same location was used multiple times and
2. some caches may have misreported transportation mileage.
The model was designed to calculate straight-line roundtrip costs using latitudes and longitudes of locations; therefore the data adjustments identified below do
now have an impact on the model results. The costs calculated below only need to be added to the transportation costs calculated for 2007 to accurately reflect
the costs incurred by each cache.
Total Number
of Shipments
Reported for
2007
79
Number of
Questionable
Shipments
Percent of Total
Number of
Shipments
Total Affected
Mileage for
Questionable
Shipments
7,053.58
1
No Apparent Errors in Reported Data
Shipments were calculated from issue data, therefore no errors present.
3
Shipments were calculated from issue data, therefore no errors present.
2
Attachment 10-9
$0.84
$1.16
$0.79
$1.45
$0.63
$1.07
$0.94
$0.83
$9,039.73
$22,692.98
$11,212.03
$30,254.29
$15,143.94
$404.08
$60,368.67
$174,452.88
$2.92
$1.18
$5,271.11
$26,875.95
$12.75
$362,111.01
Average Cost per Mile
CO-RMK
37
46.84%
1
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
582
61
10.48%
11,573.32
OR-NWK
1094
42
3.84%
14,523.76
OR-LFK
568
73
12.85%
14,064.90
WA-WFC
627
106
16.91%
21,850.08
AZ-PFK
347
46
13.26%
26,317.58
KY-SAK
530
6
1.13%
421.70
MT-NRK
1228
266
21.66%
62,520.38
ID-GBK
1925
786
40.83%
200,461.97
2
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
204
17
8.33%
2,092.43
CA-NCK
649
99
15.25%
26,676.99
3
ID-CDK
Totals
8431
1539
18.25%
387,556.68
**These costs will be added to the total transportation costs identified as being input into the model for 2007.
U.S. Forest Service
$0.95
Estimated Cost to
Add into
Transportation
Costs**
$6,395.34
NISC Optimization and Review
Final Input Costs for Model
Transportation Costs
CO-RMK
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
OR-NWK
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
AZ-PFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
CA-LSK
CA-NCK
ID-CDK
Facility
Operating Costs
$1,110,181.23
$554,750.01
$404,012.16
$2,092,598.55
$721,966.17
$755,725.12
$848,645.92
$593,347.17
$1,877,285.28
$3,737,487.71
$693,448.35
$1,695,017.35
$1,065,777.89
$418,357.44
U.S. Forest Service
2007
$129,374.78
$161,499.18
$239,614.48
$420,543.40
$200,891.15
$247,501.82
$147,053.60
$413,568.78
$718,868.82
$1,087,347.22
$362,184.73
$144,151.13
$342,270.02
$395,858.75
2006
$291,936.47
$444,609.74
$183,657.70
$916,562.32
$226,865.33
$516,414.39
$295,817.86
$949,006.99
$569,208.53
$3,140,196.40
$1,320,215.20
$573,886.85
$1,309,862.68
$494,021.27
Attachment 10-10
2005
$127,052.84
$342,369.91
$130,540.98
$713,615.50
$229,133.31
$50,085.02
$138,432.18
$715,494.23
$1,018,249.46
$2,221,371.79
$308,556.01
$267,505.49
$511,715.30
$320,344.16
2004
$120,600.91
$176,133.67
$137,667.75
$664,356.05
$46,813.60
$134,234.41
$101,963.49
$372,039.26
$397,112.30
$2,882,049.69
$176,357.90
$630,582.95
$763,264.41
$169,478.63
NISC Optimization and Review
2003
$302,694.15
$284,984.74
$131,238.63
$734,673.54
$123,690.74
$280,662.76
$85,866.08
$468,251.87
$1,129,928.81
$2,512,075.49
$352,353.23
$607,749.62
$538,024.57
$83,816.57
2002
$729,384.11
$401,931.75
$385,606.31
$1,116,704.17
$125,668.81
$116,855.11
$266,323.33
$478,974.28
$720,372.39
$4,089,722.30
$576,344.22
$817,891.54
$819,803.52
$233,953.63
Summary of Savings by Year For Sparks Model Run
Year
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Total
Six-Year Annual Average
U.S. Forest Service
Estimation of
Savings
($1,245,791.60)
$2,726,879.19
$3,383,873.77
$964,219.06
($663,235.15)
($1,296,391.59)
$3,869,553.69
$644,925.61
Attachment 10-11
Note: Costs highlighted in yellow represent the base operating cost for the
cache when no shipments were assigned to it (i.e. the cost of the cache
remaining open.) Calculations for these costs can be seen in Attachment
11. Shipments were moved between caches using the estimated cost per
shipment shown in the Shipment Matrix (Attachment 13).
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2007 Workload
Cache Name
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
Ontario Interagency
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
Cache
Total
U.S. Forest Service
Revised
Model
Output
Cache Code
CO-RMK
$1,239,556.01
$0.00
$0.00
$1,239,556.01
NM-SFK
$716,249.19
$0.00
$0.00
$716,249.19
MN-NEK
$643,626.64
$760,850.00
$760,850.00
($117,223.36)
OR-NWK
$2,513,141.95
$6,099,215.00
$6,099,215.00
($3,586,073.05)
OR-LFK
$922,857.32
$1,688,759.00
$1,688,759.00
($765,901.68)
WA-WFC
$1,003,226.94
$1,290,454.00
$1,290,454.00
($287,227.06)
AZ-PFK
$995,699.52
$671,521.82
$671,521.82
$324,177.70
KY-SAK
$1,006,915.95
$1,151,015.00
$1,151,015.00
($144,099.05)
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
$2,596,154.10
$4,824,834.93
$2,749,677.00
$0.00
$2,749,677.00
$1,173,899.00
($153,522.90)
$3,650,935.93
MT-BFC
$1,055,633.08
$1,506,230.00
$1,506,230.00
($450,596.92)
CA-LSK
$1,839,168.48
$0.00
$982,445.00
$856,723.48
CA-NCK
$1,408,047.91
$1,941,075.00
$1,941,075.00
($533,027.09)
ID-CDK
$814,216.19
$867,460.00
$867,460.00
($53,243.81)
$0.00
$1,942,519.00
$1,942,519.00
($1,942,519.00)
$21,579,328.22
$20,668,775.82
$22,825,119.82
($1,245,791.60)
19
Initial Model
Output
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2007
Workload
Actual Costs
Input
Attachment 10-12
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2006 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Actual Costs
Input
Revised
Model
Output
Initial Model
Output
Rocky Mountain Incident
CO-RMK
$1,402,117.70
$0.00
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
$999,359.75
$0.00
Northeast Interagency
MN-NEK
$587,669.86
$582,108.49
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
OR-NWK
$3,009,160.87
$4,542,907.00
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
$948,831.50
$1,687,352.30
Wenatchee Interagency
WA-WFC
$1,272,139.51
$1,070,635.54
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
AZ-PFK
$1,144,463.78
$2,183,154.00
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
KY-SAK
$1,542,354.16
$1,643,843.00
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
$2,446,493.81
$2,060,185.29
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
$6,877,684.11
$4,396,757.66
Billings Interagency Fire
MT-BFC
$2,013,663.55
$1,306,907.00
Cache
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
$2,268,904.20
$1,680,048.90
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
$2,375,640.57
$1,800,246.00
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
$912,378.71
$879,657.78
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
19
$0.00
$1,937,176.15
Cache
Total
$27,800,862.07 $25,770,979.12
Revision: The one shipment the model assigned to LSK was moved to Sparks
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-13
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2006
Workload
$0.00
$1,402,117.70
$0.00
$999,359.75
$582,108.49
$5,561.37
$4,542,907.00
($1,533,746.13)
$1,687,352.30
($738,520.80)
$1,070,635.54
$201,503.97
$2,183,154.00
($1,038,690.22)
$1,643,843.00
($101,488.84)
$2,060,185.29
$4,396,757.66
$386,308.52
$2,480,926.45
$1,306,907.00
$706,756.55
$982,445.00
$1,286,459.20
$1,800,246.00
$575,394.57
$879,657.78
$32,720.93
$1,937,783.82
($1,937,783.82)
$25,073,982.88
$2,726,879.19
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2005 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Actual Costs
Input
Initial Model
Output
Revised
Model
Output
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2005
Workload
Rocky Mountain Incident
CO-RMK
$1,237,234.07
$0.00
$0.00
$1,237,234.07
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
$897,119.92
$0.00
$0.00
$897,119.92
Northeast Interagency
MN-NEK
$534,553.14
$736,831.46
$736,831.46
($202,278.32)
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
OR-NWK
$2,806,214.05
$4,148,085.99
$4,149,457.55 ($1,343,243.50)
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
$951,099.48
$1,743,451.89
$1,743,451.89
($792,352.41)
Wenatchee Interagency
WA-WFC
$805,810.14
$747,854.90
$632,056.00
$173,754.14
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
AZ-PFK
$987,078.10
$1,322,336.88
$1,322,336.88
($335,258.78)
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
KY-SAK
$1,308,841.40
$1,630,424.25
$1,630,424.25
($321,582.86)
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
$2,895,534.74
$1,195,570.48
$1,195,570.48
$1,699,964.26
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
$5,958,859.50
$3,773,639.54
$1,173,899.00
$4,784,960.50
Billings Interagency Fire
MT-BFC
$1,002,004.36
$0.00
$649,999.00
$352,005.36
Cache
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
$1,962,522.84
$0.00
$982,445.00
$980,077.84
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
$1,577,493.19
$4,498,172.45
$4,498,172.45 ($2,920,679.26)
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
$738,701.60
$1,564,548.78
$1,564,548.78
($825,847.18)
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
19
$0.00
$2,198,637.92
$0.00
Cache
Total
$23,663,066.52 $23,559,554.55 $20,279,192.75
$3,383,873.77
Revision - The two shipments the model assigned to WFC were moved to LaGrande. The one shipment the model
assigned to GBK was also moved to La Grande.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-14
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2004 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Actual Costs
Input
Rocky Mountain Incident
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
Wenatchee Interagency
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
Great Basin Cache
Billings Interagency Fire
Cache
Ontario Interagency
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
Cache
Total
CO-RMK
$1,230,782.14
$0.00
$0.00
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2004
Workload
$1,230,782.14
NM-SFK
MN-NEK
$730,883.68
$541,679.91
$0.00
$928,848.00
$0.00
$928,848.00
$730,883.68
($387,168.09)
OR-NWK
$2,756,954.60
$5,136,331.02
$5,136,331.02
($2,379,376.43)
OR-LFK
WA-WFC
$768,779.77
$889,959.53
$0.00
$922,644.00
$825,909.00
$922,644.00
($57,129.23)
($32,684.47)
AZ-PFK
$950,609.41
$1,712,997.00
$1,712,997.00
($762,387.59)
KY-SAK
$965,386.43
$2,049,538.00
$2,049,538.00
($1,084,151.57)
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MT-BFC
$2,274,397.58
$6,619,537.40
$869,806.25
$0.00
$1,933,621.75
$0.00
$863,675.00
$1,933,621.75
$649,999.00
$1,410,722.58
$4,685,915.65
$219,807.25
CA-LSK
$2,325,600.30
$2,363,095.00
$2,363,095.00
($37,494.70)
CA-NCK
$1,829,042.30
$2,253,649.00
$2,253,649.00
($424,606.70)
ID-CDK
$587,836.07
$954,221.54
$954,221.54
($366,385.46)
$0.00
$1,782,508.00
$1,782,508.00
($1,782,508.00)
$23,341,255.38
$20,037,453.32
$22,377,036.32
$964,219.06
U.S. Forest Service
19
Revised
Model
Output
Initial Model
Output
Attachment 10-15
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2003 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Actual Costs
Input
Initial Model
Output
Rocky Mountain Incident
CO-RMK
$1,412,875.38
$1,120,652.70
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
$839,734.75
$0.00
Northeast Interagency
MN-NEK
$535,250.79
$666,289.00
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
OR-NWK
$2,827,272.09
$3,390,041.00
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
$845,656.91
$0.00
Wenatchee Interagency
WA-WFC
$1,036,387.88
$1,004,750.00
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
AZ-PFK
$934,512.00
$1,831,276.00
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
KY-SAK
$1,061,599.04
$1,394,019.00
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
$3,007,214.09
$2,110,680.00
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
$6,249,563.20
$6,536,446.13
Billings Interagency Fire
MT-BFC
$1,045,801.58
$1,259,359.00
Cache
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
$2,302,766.97
$2,245,938.00
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
$1,603,802.46
$1,710,383.00
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
$502,174.01
$534,910.00
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
19
$0.00
$1,356,652.00
Cache
Total
$24,204,611.14 $25,161,395.83
Revision - The one shipment assigned to RMK by the model was moved to Sparks.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-16
Revised
Model
Output
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2003
Workload
$0.00
$1,412,875.38
$0.00
$839,734.75
$666,289.00
($131,038.21)
$3,390,041.00
($562,768.91)
$825,909.00
$19,747.91
$1,004,750.00
$31,637.88
$1,831,276.00
($896,764.00)
$1,394,019.00
($332,419.96)
$2,110,680.00
$6,536,446.13
$896,534.09
($286,882.93)
$1,259,359.00
($213,557.42)
$2,245,938.00
$56,828.97
$1,710,383.00
($106,580.54)
$534,910.00
($32,735.99)
$1,357,846.15
($1,357,846.15)
$24,867,846.28
($663,235.15)
NISC Optimization and Review
Operating Costs for 2002 Workload
Cache Name
Cache Code
Actual Costs
Input
Initial Model
Output
Revised
Model
Output
Rocky Mountain Incident
CO-RMK
$1,839,565.34
$1,860,601.00
$0.00
Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
NM-SFK
$956,681.76
$0.00
$0.00
Northeast Interagency
MN-NEK
$789,618.47
$752,134.00
$752,134.00
Fire Cache
Northwest Area Incident
OR-NWK
$3,209,302.72
$2,389,887.00
$2,389,887.00
Support Cache
La Grande Fire Cache
OR-LFK
$847,634.98
$1,824,789.00
$1,824,789.00
Wenatchee Interagency
WA-WFC
$872,580.23
$1,298,416.00
$1,298,416.00
Support Cache
Southwest Area Prescott
AZ-PFK
$1,114,969.25
$1,283,026.00
$1,283,026.00
Incident Support Cache
Southern Area Incident
KY-SAK
$1,072,321.45
$1,143,453.00
$1,143,453.00
Support Cache
Northern Rockies Cache
MT-NRK
$2,597,657.67
$5,523,492.89
$5,523,492.89
Great Basin Cache
ID-GBK
$7,827,210.01
$5,078,676.00
$5,151,237.06
Billings Interagency Fire
MT-BFC
$1,269,792.57
$1,552,407.00
$1,552,407.00
Cache
Ontario Interagency
CA-LSK
$2,512,908.89
$2,555,594.00
$2,555,594.00
Support Cache
Northern California
Interagency Support
CA-NCK
$1,885,581.41
$2,088,364.00
$2,088,364.00
Cache
Coeur d'Alene
Interagency Support
ID-CDK
$652,311.07
$1,464,993.60
$1,464,993.60
Cache
Sparks, Nevada - New
19
$0.00
$1,598,513.00
$1,716,733.85
Cache
Total
$27,448,135.81 $30,414,346.49 $28,744,527.40
Revision - The 198 shipments the model assigned to RMK were split between GBK and Sparks.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 10-17
Savings from
Actual Costs
for 2002
Workload
$1,839,565.34
$956,681.76
$37,484.47
$819,415.72
($977,154.02)
($425,835.77)
($168,056.75)
($71,131.55)
($2,925,835.22)
$2,675,972.95
($282,614.43)
($42,685.11)
($202,782.59)
($812,682.53)
($1,716,733.85)
($1,296,391.59)
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 11 – Calculation of Facility Baseline Costs
The following pages contain summaries of the estimated baseline costs for the caches to
remain open at the revised standard workload level. The revised standard workload
levels are equivalent to the percentage the six-year average of the model results is from
the 2007 workload level (as shown in Table 1 in the report). Modification of standard
workload levels primarily affects personnel costs, and a detailed explanation of any
corresponding personnel changes is also provided. The estimate baseline cost assumes
the cache will have no shipping workload and therefore needs no hiring of seasonal staff.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-18
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for La Grande for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
122%
Increased
Workload
Line 1
Personnel Costs
$205,800
$342,472
Line 2
Line 3
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable
Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$800
$649,228
$800
$441,541
$1,441
$0
$2,397
$0
$1,441
$2,397
$0
$135,000
$0
$135,000
$135,000
$135,000
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$280,446
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$79,555
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$0
$200,891
$0
$0
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$232,341
$229,341
N/A
$304,143
$298,143
$3,000
$0
$24,696
$6,000
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$41,097
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$880,524
$825,909
3a
3b
3c
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
3d
3e
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the
revised staffing profile in the table below.
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
This calculation assumes the workload to
be zero; therefore no AD staff was hired.
There are no shipments incurred for the
baseline cost calculation for Revised
Model Results.
Assume this cost would increase by a
minimum of 30%
Assume this cost would double.
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
Attachment 11-19
Staffing Profile of La Grande at Revised Standard Workload Level
Number of FTE*
(In-scope Work)
Estimated Base
Staffing at 122%
Position
Grade
2007 Workload
Estimated Annual
Position Title
Increase in
Type
Level
Level
Cost of Position(s)
Workload on
Average
Cache Manager
FT
GS-09
1.000
GS-11
1.000
$81,825.00
Assistant Cache Manager
FT
GS-09
1.000
$67,627.00
Supply Clerk
Seasonal**
GS-04
0.498
FT
GS-04
1.000
$39,757.00
Lead Materials Handler
Seasonal**
WL-05
0.498
FT
WL-05
1.000
$54,391.00
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Estimated Annual
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Cost of Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Material Handler
FT
WG-05
0
4,160
2.000
$98,872.00
Temp**
WG-05
4,245
8,320
8.000
$161,528.00
AD**
N/A
4,967
7,970
N/A
$127,998.20
Total Personnel Cost
$342,472.00
Incurred for Base
Operations
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is assumed to be zero,
therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-20
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Southern Area for Revised Model Results
Line 1
Personnel Costs
$284,559
55%
Increased
Workload
$250,674
Line 2
Line 3
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable
Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility
Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$30,449
$657,522
$30,449
$211,581
$1,992
$1,755
$0
$0
$1,992
$1,755
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
$0
$111,092
$0
$111,092
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$93,000
$18,092
$0
$0
$464,124
$0
$0
$44,939
$93,000
$18,092
$0
$0
$8,705
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$5,616
$413,569
$0
$8,705
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$80,314
$47,475
N/A
$90,029
$52,223
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$8,000
$24,839
$34,147
$8,000
$29,807
$30,081
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$1,006,677
$522,785
Actual FY
2007
3a
3b
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the revised
staffing profile in the table below.
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-21
This calculation assumes the workload to
be zero; therefore no AD staff was hired.
Assumes a 55% increase
There are no shipments incurred for the
baseline cost calculation for Revised
Model Results.
Assume this cost would increase by a
minimum of 10%
Assume a 20% increase
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Staffing Profile of Southern Area at Revised Standard Workload Level
Number of FTE*
Position Title
Cache Manager
Assistant Cache Manager
Supply Clerk
Lead Materials
Handler/Warehouse
Worker
Position
Type
Grade
Level
2007 Workload
Level
FT
FT
FT
AD**
Seasonal**
GS-11
GS-09
GS-07
N/A
WL-05
1.000
1.000
1.000
1236.5 Hours
-
(In-scope Work)
Estimated Base
Staffing at 55%
Increase in
Workload on
Average
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.500
Estimated Annual
Cost of Position(s)
$81,825.00
$67,627.00
$55,288.00
$25,174.00
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Estimated Annual
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Cost of Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Warehouse Worker
FT
WG-05
2,394
2,080
1.000
$45,934.00
Temp**
WG-05
0
2,080
2.000
$37,556.00
AD**
N/A
1,754
2,270
N/A
$24,606.80
Total Personnel Cost
$250,674.00
Incurred for Base
Operation
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is
assumed to be zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-22
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Northern Rockies for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
$981,694
22%
Decreased
Workload
$386,291
$17,737
$1,393,338
$6,872
$0
$17,737
$413,293
$2,704
$0
$6,872
$2,704
$0
$39,000
$0
$39,000
$0
$39,000
$0
$39,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,049,721
$85,315
$60,949
$0
$1,748
$0
$33,595
$0
Subcontract Employees
$125,182
$0
Refurbishment Contracts
$109,378
$85,315
Transportation Costs
$718,869
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
Training Costs
N/A
$297,745
$229,425
$11,000
N/A
$286,274
$217,954
$11,000
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$57,320
$117,803
$57,320
$46,355
$0
$0
$2,510,572
$863,675
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
3b
3c
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
3d
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
3e
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
3f
3g
Line 4
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-23
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the revised
staffing profile in the table below.
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
This calculation assumes the workload to be
zero; therefore no militia staff were hired.
This calculation assumes the workload to be
zero; therefore no state staff were hired.
This calculation assumes the workload to be
zero; therefore no AD staff was hired.
This calculation assumes the workload to be
zero; therefore no contract staff were hired.
Refurb contracts assumed to decrease by
22%
There are no shipments incurred for the
baseline cost calculation for Revised Model
Results.
Assume this cost would decrease by 5%
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Staffing Profile of Northern Rockies at Revised Standard Workload Level
Position Title
Cache Manager
Assistant Cache
Manager
Lead Supply Tech
Supply Tech
Lead Materials
Handler/ Warehouse
Worker
Position Type
Grade
Level
Number of FTE*
(In-scope Work)
Estimated Base
Staffing at 22%
Decrease in
Workload on
Average
1.000
1.000
0.500
1.500
-
FT
FT
GS-12
GS-09
2007 Workload
Level
1.000
1.988
FT
FT
Seasonal**
FT
AD**
Seasonal**
GS-06
GS-05
GS-05
WL-05
N/A
WL-05
0.958
0.356
0.000
4.000
249.000
0.170
Estimated
Annual Cost
of Position(s)
$98,072.00
$67,627.00
$22,242.00
$81,160.50
-
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of
Hours
Hours for
Number
Estimated
Grade
Required for
Position Type
2007
of
Annual Cost of
Level
Adjusted
Workload
Positions
Position(s)
Workload
Level
Level
Material Handler
FT
WG-05
4,160
2.000
$98,304.00
Temp**
WG-05
14,549
9,360
9.000
$180,675.00
Seasonal
WG-05
897
500
N/A
$8,630.00
Detail**
State**
N/A
80
N/A
Militia**
GS-06
834
N/A
-
Supervisory Small
Engine Mechanic
Small Engine Mechanic
Contract**
N/A
5712
3024
N/A
$50,984.64
AD**
N/A
934
900
N/A
$9,756.00
FT
WS-05
93
-
0.000
-
Contract**
AD**
FT
Seasonal**
Seasonal Detail
& Militia**
N/A
N/A
WG-07
WG-06
GS-06
1385
301
2,037
0
2,526
301
2,037
2,526
N/A
N/A
0.979
N/A
N/A
$6,321.00
$41,127.03
$47,028.53
Total Personnel Cost
$386,290.53
Incurred for Base
Operation
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the
workload is assumed to be zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-24
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Great Basin for Revised Model Results
$933,203
55%
Decreased
Workload
$421,012
$10,000
$10,000
$3,809,723
$692,366
$6,532
$2,947
$0
$0
$6,532
$2,947
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
$0
$920,310
N/A
$80,000
$0
$420,155
N/A
$0
Equipment Lease
$840,310
$420,155
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
$0
$2,683,135
$0
$0
$89,370
$0
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
$1,397,188
$0
$0
$0
$198,600
$0
$89,370
$1,087,347
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$199,746
$198,524
N/A
$179,894
$178,672
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$1,222
$0
$111,984
$1,222
$0
$50,521
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$4,864,911
$1,173,899
Actual FY
2007
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Material and Supply Costs
Line 3
Other Specifically Attributable
Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility
Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-25
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the revised
staffing profile in the table below.
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost
Secondary Facility is not needed with a
decrease in workload
Assumed that a 50% decrease in workload
would decrease the amount of equipment
that needed to be leased by 50%
This calculation assumes the workload to
be zero; therefore no AD staff was hired.
Refurb contracts assumed to decrease by
55%
There are no shipments incurred for the
baseline cost calculation for Revised
Model Results.
Assume this cost would decrease by a
minimum of 10%
This cost is directly correlated to Line 1 Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Number of FTE*
Position Title
Supervisory General
Supply Specialist (Cache
Manager)
General Supply Specialist
Supply Technician
Supply Clerk
Accounting Technician
Material Handling
Supervisor
Material Handling Lead
Traffic Management
Specialist
Transportation/Fleet
Management Assistant
Vehicle Operator/Driver
Staff Assistant, Site &
Facilities Management
(In-scope Work)
Position
Type
Grade
Level
2007 Workload
Level
FT
GS-12
0.567
Estimated Base
Staffing at 55%
Decrease in
Workload on
Average
0.600
FT
FT
Temp**
AD**
FT
FT
GS-11
GS-07
GS-04
N/A
GS-07
WS-06
0.844
0.783
0.320
978 Hours
0.333
1.074
0.750
0.250
-
$41,466.00
$13,822.00
-
FT
AD**
WL-05
N/A
1.462
20387.25 Hours
0.500
9174.26 Hours
$25,644.00
$161,100.01
FT
GS-09
0.761
0.750
$50,721.00
FT
GS-08
0.705
-
Seasonal**
FT
WG-08
GS-07
0.091
0.498
0.100
0.500
Estimated
Annual Cost of
Position(s)
$58,843.00
$5,866.00
$27,644.00
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number
Hours
of Hours
Estimated
Position
Grade
Required for
Number of
for 2007
Annual Cost of
Type
Level
Adjusted
Positions
Workload
Position(s)
Workload
Level
Level
Material Handler
FT
WG-06
2,995.37
2,080.00
1.000
$50,917.00
WG-05
8,946.35
4,160.00
2.000
$93,292.00
Seasonal**
WG-05
3,056.26
1,040.00
1.000
$23,245.00
AD**
N/A
64,327.00
28,197.15
N/A
$452,846.23
Small Engine Mechanic
FT
WG-08
4,140.65
2,080.00
1.000
$58,663.00
Total Personnel Cost
$421,012.00
Incurred for Base
Operation
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the
workload is assumed to be zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-26
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Northern California for Revised Model Results
Line 1
Personnel Costs
$596,109
24%
Increased
Workload
$411,429
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$42,000
$669,845
$4,173
$0
$42,000
$39,489
$2,880
$0
$4,173
$2,880
$0
$0
Actual FY
2007
3b
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
3c
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$640,072
$0
$0
$290,666
$0
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$8,849
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$7,136
$342,270
$0
$8,849
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$25,600
$21,600
N/A
$27,760
$23,760
$4,000
$0
$71,533
$4,000
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$49,371
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$1,379,487
$542,289
3d
3e
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-27
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the
revised staffing profile in the table
below.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
Assumes a 24% increase
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
Assume this cost would increase
by 10%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Staffing Profile of Northern California at Revised Standard Workload Level
Number of FTE*
Position Title
Cache Manager
Assistant Cache
Manager
Supply Technician
Lead Materials Handler
(In-scope Work)
Position
Type
Grade
Level
2007 Workload
Level
FT
FT
GS-11
GS-09
1.000
0.980
Estimated Base
Staffing at 24%
Increase in
Workload on
Average
1.000
1.000
FT
FT
GS-06
WL-05
1.631
0.990
1.631
1.000
Estimated Annual
Cost of Position(s)
$81,825.00
$67,627.00
$81,146.00
$55,246.00
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Estimated Annual
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Cost of Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Material Handler
FT
WG-05
4,174
5,200
2.500
$125,585.00
Seasonal**
WG-05
2,080
2,600
2.500
$62,582.50
Temp**
WG-05
3,037
3,640
3.500
$71,806.00
AD**
N/A
18,700
23,188
N/A
$360,425.84
Total Personnel Cost
$411,429.00
Incurred for Base
Operations
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is assumed to be
zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-28
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Southern California for Revised Model Results
Line 1
Personnel Costs
$734,789
39%
Decreased
Workload
$345,869
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$10,000
$876,688
$5,144
$0
$10,000
$585,072
$2,421
$0
$5,144
$2,421
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
$0
$550,000
$550,000
$0
$550,000
$550,000
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
N/A
$0
$0
$307,544
$0
$0
$131,343
N/A
$0
$0
$19,551
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$32,050
$144,151
$0
$19,551
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$14,000
$6,000
N/A
$13,100
$5,100
$8,000
$0
$88,175
$8,000
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$41,504
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$1,709,651
$982,445
Actual FY
2007
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-29
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the
revised staffing profile in the table
below.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
Assumes a 39% Decrease
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
Assume this cost would Decrease
by 15%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Number of FTE*
Position Title
Cache Manager
Assistant Cache
Manager
Supply Clerk
Supply Technician
Lead Materials Handler
Position
Type
Grade
Level
2007 Workload
Level
FT
FT
GS-11
GS-09
1.000
1.000
FT
FT
FT
GS-05
GS-07
WL-06
1.000
1.000
1.000
AD**
N/A
3520.5 Hours
(In-scope Work)
Estimated Base
Staffing at 39%
Decrease in
Workload on
Average
1.000
1.000
Estimated
Annual Cost of
Position(s)
$90,099.30
$74,464.86
0.500
1.000
$24,572.60
$60,878.53
-
2,150 Hours
$37,754.00
-
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Estimated
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Annual Cost of
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Material Handler
FT
WG-05
7,161
4,160
2.000
$95,854.00
Temp**
WG-05
10,012
6,240
6.000
$123,096.00
AD**
N/A
4,378
2,670
N/A
$42,884.62
Total Personnel Cost
$345,869.29
Incurred for Base
Operations
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is assumed to be
zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred workload.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-30
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Northeast for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
19% Increased
Workload
Line 1
Personnel Costs
$218,551
$148,774
Line 2
Line 3
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
$11,250
$381,115
$11,250
$103,265
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$1,530
$0
$1,041
$0
$1,530
$1,041
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
$0
$7,568
N/A
$0
$7,568
N/A
$7,568
$0
$0
$342,267
$0
$57,307
$37,786
$7,568
$0
$0
$64,906
$0
$55,909
$0
$0
$7,560
$0
$8,996
$239,614
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$29,750
$7,500
N/A
$29,750
$7,500
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
$2,250
$20,000
$26,226
$2,250
$20,000
$17,853
Line 5
Additional Costs
$0
$0
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
$637,142
$281,142
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
3f
3g
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-31
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the
revised staffing profile in the table
below.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
Refurb contracts assumed to
increase by 19%
There are no shipments incurred for
the baseline cost calculation for
Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Number of FTE*
Position Title
Cache Manager
Assistant Cache
Manager
Supply Technician
(In-scope Work)
Position
Type
Grade
Level
2007 Workload
Level
Estimated Base
Staffing at 19%
Increase in
Workload on
Average
FT
FT
GS-11
GS-09
1.000
0.866
1.000
1.000
$81,825.00
$67,627.00
FT
GS-05
1.335
1.500
$66,949.00
Estimated
Annual Cost of
Position(s)
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Estimated
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Annual Cost of
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Material Handler
AD**
Camp
3,506.25
2,173.00
N/A
$23,555.32
Crew
Warehouse
1,816.00
2,161.00
N/A
$34,705.66
Seasonal
WG-05
166.00
200.00
N/A
$4,034.00
Detail &
Militia**
State
N/A
2,368.00
2,818.00
N/A
$55,909.12
Total Personnel Cost
$148,774.00
Incurred for Base
Operation
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is assumed to be
zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-32
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Coeur D’Alene for Revised Model Results
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
3b
3c
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
3d
3e
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
3f
3g
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Actual FY
2007
40% Increased
Workload
$47,764
$47,764
$0
$760,681
$9,334
$9,000
$0
$176,078
$9,334
$9,000
$334
$334
$0
$6,043
$0
$8,460
N/A
N/A
N/A
$6,043
$0
N/A
$8,460
$0
$703,929
$0
$198,293
$106,581
$116,908
$0
$112,434
$0
$0
$3,196
$0
$4,474
$395,859
$0
N/A
$41,375
$41,375
N/A
$41,375
$41,375
$0
$0
$5,732
$0
$0
$5,732
$0
$0
$814,177
$229,574
Attachment 11-33
Notes
Personnel Cost corresponds to the
revised staffing profile in the table
below.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
Assumes a 40% increase
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
Refurb contracts assumed to
increase by 40%
There are no shipments incurred for
the baseline cost calculation for
Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Number of FTE*
(In-scope Work)
Estimated Base
Staffing at 40%
Estimated
Position
Grade
2007 Workload
Position Title
Increase in
Annual Cost of
Type
Level
Level
Workload on
Position(s)
Average
Assistant Cache
FT
GS-09
0.706
0.706
$47,764.00
Manager
State
N/A
0.523
0.523
$30,547.00
Finance Technician
State
N/A
0.523
0.750
$27,694.00
Warehouse Leader
AD
N/A
713 Hours
State Temp**
N/A
1.000
$22,098.00
Material Handling and Small Engine Mechanic Staffing Calculations Based on Workload Hours Required
Number of
Number of Hours
Estimated
Position
Grade
Hours for 2007
Required for
Number of
Annual Cost of
Type
Level
Workload
Adjusted
Positions
Position(s)
Level
Workload Level
Storekeeper
State
N/A
5,239.00
7,334.60
N/A
$141,404.00
Seasonal**
Warehouse Worker
AD**
N/A
5,198.00
7,277.20
N/A
$116,871.83
Mechanic and
State FT
N/A
2,183.00
3,056.20
N/A
$54,193.00
Equipment Operator
Pump Mechanic
N/A
1,520.00
2,128.00
N/A
$33,612.00
State
Seasonal**
Total Personnel Cost
$47,764.00
Incurred for Base
Operation
*Number of FTE shown reflects the amount of time the positions perform cache specific workload.
**Temporary, Seasonal and AD staff are hired on an as needed basis. For the purposes of this calculation the workload is assumed to be
zero, therefore the costs associated with these positions is not incurred.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-34
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Wenatchee for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
$330,751
6% Increased
Workload
$330,751
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$3,600
$510,656
$2,315
$0
$3,600
$258,015
$2,315
$0
$2,315
$2,315
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
$24,700
$19,000
N/A
$5,700
$0
$252,641
$0
$0
$5,139
$0
$24,700
$19,000
N/A
$5,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$0
$247,502
$0
$0
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$231,000
$197,000
N/A
$231,000
$197,000
$9,000
$25,000
$39,690
$9,000
$25,000
$39,690
$0
$0
$884,697
$632,056
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-35
Notes
Personnel Costs assumed to
remain constant for workload
changes ±10%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Northwest for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
$1,075,690
9% Increased
Workload
$1,075,690
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$75,432
$1,199,969
$7,530
$0
$75,432
$587,846
$7,530
$0
$7,530
$7,530
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
$33,601
$0
$7,200
$26,401
$0
$1,089,713
$0
$0
$328,034
$0
$33,601
$0
$7,200
$26,401
$0
$477,590
$0
$0
$0
$0
$341,136
$420,543
$0
$477,590
$0
N/A
$69,125
$45,800
N/A
$69,125
$45,800
$18,300
$5,025
$129,083
$18,300
$5,025
$129,083
$0
$0
$2,480,174
$1,868,051
3b
3c
3d
3e
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
3f
3g
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-36
Notes
Personnel Costs assumed to
remain constant for workload
changes ±10%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Billings for Revised Model Results
Actual FY
2007
$265,111
3% Decreased
Workload
$265,111
Line 1
Personnel Costs
Line 2
Line 3
3a
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$3,000
$720,011
$1,856
$0
$3,000
$350,075
$1,856
$0
$1,856
$1,856
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
$56,767
$54,967
N/A
$1,800
$0
$473,641
$0
$0
$37,381
$0
$56,767
$54,967
N/A
$1,800
$0
$103,705
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$74,075
$362,185
$0
$103,705
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$187,747
$180,845
N/A
$187,747
$180,845
$6,902
$0
$31,813
$6,902
$0
$31,813
$0
$0
$1,019,935
$649,999
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-37
Notes
Personnel Costs assumed to
remain constant for workload
changes ±10%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Southwest for Revised Model Results
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Actual FY
2007
$446,744
6% Decreased
Workload
$446,744
Material and Supply Costs
Other Specifically Attributable Costs
Capital Equipment and Facility Assets
Major Maintenance and Renovation
Costs
Personnel Liability Insurance Costs
$501
$494,471
$3,127
$0
$501
$318,969
$3,127
$0
$3,127
$3,127
Equipment/Vehicle Replacement
Rental and Lease Costs
Main Facility Lease
Supplemental Facility Lease
Equipment Lease
Travel Costs
Subcontracts
Federal Militia Employees
State Employees
AD Hires
$0
$0
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$294,280
$0
$0
$62,385
$0
$0
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$118,777
$0
$0
$0
Subcontract Employees
Refurbishment Contracts
Transportation Costs
$0
$84,841
$147,054
$0
$118,777
$0
Utilities (included with O&M)
Other Attributable Costs
O&M Costs
N/A
$197,064
$134,050
N/A
$197,064
$134,050
$28,014
$35,000
$53,609
$28,014
$35,000
$53,609
$0
$0
$995,325
$819,823
Personnel Costs
Line 4
Training Costs
Cost Pools
Overhead Costs
Line 5
Additional Costs
Line 6
Total Cost of Cache Performance
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 11-38
Notes
Personnel Costs assumed to
remain constant for workload
changes ±10%
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost
This calculation assumes the
workload to be zero; therefore no
AD staff was hired.
There are no shipments incurred
for the baseline cost calculation
for Revised Model Results.
This cost is directly correlated to
Line 1 - Personnel Cost.
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 12 – Shipment Factors for Sparks Model Run
Starting Shipment Factors
The shipment factor corresponds to the non-transportation costs incurred by the cache to process a shipment.
Cache Name
2007
2006
2005
2004
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
$14,052.93
$5,812.47
$10,375.53
$9,099.85
Silver City Fire Cache
$3,673.84
$1,165.44
$1,812.91
$1,867.85
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
$694.18
$525.37
$690.62
$655.86
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
$1,912.80
$2,186.62
$2,922.62
$3,493.49
La Grande Fire Cache
$1,271.07
$1,885.03
$1,885.03
$5,684.77
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
$1,205.30
$1,121.25
$3,072.05
$1,169.85
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
$2,445.67
$1,283.88
$1,291.70
$1,554.30
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
$1,119.52
$596.93
$919.92
$1,865.87
Northern Rockies Cache
$1,528.73
$2,937.85
$3,394.73
$6,801.76
Great Basin Cache
$1,941.55
$1,791.70
$2,820.75
$2,565.19
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
$3,399.26
$1,597.81
$8,063.35
$6,732.51
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
$8,308.91
$5,044.69
$6,753.06
$3,538.66
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
$1,642.18
$1,141.09
$2,253.23
$1,465.99
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
$1,721.64
$1,271.60
$2,475.49
$2,390.61
Sparks, Nevada - New Cache
$1,490.43
$1,435.46
$2,176.34
$2,185.74
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Silver City Fire Cache
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
$545.04
$503.00
$543.80
$535.18
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
$1,849.85
$2,020.69
$2,849.37
$3,327.22
La Grande Fire Cache
$901.01
$1,055.30
$1,060.31
N/A
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
$1,121.13
$1,100.66
$266,688.34
$1,112.42
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support Cache
$3,441.73
$1,283.88
$1,290.25
$1,417.72
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
$876.89
$596.93
$661.73
$874.49
Northern Rockies Cache
$1,446.46
$8,530.12
$21,137.98
N/A
Great Basin Cache
N/A
$2,019.48 $1,487,296.39 $12,747.48
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
$6,989.20
$1,597.81
N/A
N/A
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
N/A
$988,383.18
N/A
$3,395.20
Northern California Interagency Support Cache
$1,460.91
$1,124.23
$1,864.65
$1,321.33
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
$1,604.79
$1,234.10
$2,270.09
$2,514.69
Sparks, Nevada - New Cache
$1,436.27
$1,402.89
$1,882.26
$1,882.39
*Note: Caches that were assigned zero shipments for a given year are noted as "N/A" as a shipment factor.
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 12-1
2003
$4,066.60
$941.85
$593.26
$1,752.60
$3,020.78
$1,045.26
$1,797.98
$1,259.76
$1,180.68
$1,911.76
$2,045.57
$2,834.48
$1,148.47
$1,158.88
$1,360.21
$860,898.21
N/A
$520.38
$1,695.23
N/A
$1,080.47
$1,538.81
$752.05
$1,257.59
$2,167.67
$1,741.50
$3,144.47
$1,124.76
$1,157.16
$1,354.75
2002
$1,500.24
$785.76
$464.92
$1,111.31
$2,056.88
$2,128.80
$878.52
$833.35
$3,823.39
$1,323.94
$2,708.78
$2,648.46
$1,064.71
$3,268.42
$1,187.79
$4,462.99
N/A
$488.32
$1,222.30
$1,104.76
$1,448.84
$1,079.94
$644.94
$3,087.57
$1,513.02
$2,010.72
$3,084.77
$1,077.31
$2,849.28
$1,187.79
Average
$7,484.60
$1,707.94
$604.04
$2,229.91
$2,633.93
$1,623.76
$1,542.01
$1,099.23
$3,277.86
$2,059.15
$4,091.21
$4,854.71
$1,452.61
$2,047.77
$1,639.33
$432,680.60
N/A
$522.62
$2,160.78
$1,030.34
$45,425.31
$1,675.39
$734.51
$7,091.94
$301,148.81
$3,084.81
$249,501.91
$1,328.86
$1,938.35
$1,524.39
NISC Optimization and Review
Table Showing How the Number of Shipments Affect the Shipment Factors
Cache Name
2007
Operating
Cost*
Model
Shipments
Input
Shipment
Factor
2007
Operating
Cost*
Model
Shipments
Output
Shipment
Factor
Rocky Mountain Incident Support Cache
Silver City Fire Cache
Northeast Interagency Fire Cache
$404,012.16
Northwest Area Incident Support Cache
$2,092,598.55
La Grande Fire Cache
$721,966.17
Wenatchee Interagency Support Cache
$755,725.12
Southwest Area Prescott Incident Support
$848,645.92
Cache
Southern Area Incident Support Cache
$593,347.17
Northern Rockies Cache
$1,877,285.28
Great Basin Cache
$3,737,487.71
Billings Interagency Fire Cache
$693,448.35
Ontario Interagency Support Cache
$1,695,017.35
Northern California Interagency Support
$1,065,777.89
Cache
Coeur d'Alene Interagency Support Cache
$418,357.44
Sparks, Nevada - New Cache
$0.00
*Note: Operating costs do not include transportation costs.
U.S. Forest Service
582
1094
568
627
$694.18
$1,912.80
$1,271.07
$1,205.30
$444,211.05
$2,536,144.04
$1,023,541.76
$775,821.92
815
1371
1136
692
$545.04
$1,849.85
$901.01
$1,121.13
347
$2,445.67
$464,633.06
135
$3,441.73
530
1228
1925
204
204
$1,119.52
$1,528.73
$1,941.55
$3,399.26
$8,308.91
$637,495.60
$2,019,254.82
$0.00
$496,233.34
$0.00
727
1396
0
71
0
$876.89
$1,446.46
N/A
$6,989.20
N/A
649
$1,642.18
$1,427,307.06
977
$1,460.91
243
679
$1,721.64
$1,490.43
$584,141.87
$1,072,890.72
364
747
$1,604.79
$1,436.27
Attachment 12-2
NISC Optimization and Review
Attachment 13 – Mileage Analysis for Model Results
Actual Miles Traveled by Cache
Cache Code
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
AZ-PFK
364,461
565,284
287,780
250,990
246,185
564,532
CA-LSK
66,899
225,279
148,816
297,146
300,164
390,689
CA-NCK
220,977
838,519
308,409
296,298
516,014
485,826
CO-RMK
90,546
170,667
76,953
91,372
206,181
448,318
ID-CDK
55,022
81,335
46,211
38,187
63,420
46,128
ID-GBK
2,351,860
3,729,492
2,612,656
3,188,810
3,177,158
5,448,799
KY-SAK
1,222,368
1,852,293
1,042,613
438,481
836,446
602,264
MN-NEK
525,594
446,406
279,134
360,019
370,171
818,674
MT-BFC
93,464
259,612
48,013
43,457
116,217
118,062
MT-NRK
686,563
514,577
399,390
346,751
855,883
615,282
NM-SFK
213,188
662,162
269,727
182,388
365,871
493,488
OR-LFK
124,457
177,141
223,248
53,704
89,062
115,235
OR-NWK
431,267
549,798
400,838
360,494
520,849
980,044
WA-WFC
166,693
292,036
52,240
100,801
182,138
108,983
Miles Traveled by Cache in Sparks Model Run Results
Cache Code
Sparks
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
757,326
941,760
887,441
550,378
737,048
964,258
AZ-PFK
0
1,159,774
907,759
1,061,946
872,822
780,254
CA-LSK
0
157
0
438,805
344,476
1,077,946
CA-NCK
1,021,866
1,955,034
3,008,188
1,681,330
1,293,651
1,084,377
ID-CDK
187,749
265,692
185,875
120,945
134,680
401,274
ID-GBK
136
1,968,751
8,807
1,006,167
5,356,951
4,688,237
KY-SAK
1,857,044
1,711,290
4,043,967
3,913,443
3,884,031
3,337,077
MN-NEK
3,528,166
1,335,769
1,350,575
1,029,928
777,958
2,685,632
MT-BFC
156,281
274,964
0
0
210,545
530,502
MT-NRK
2,089,959
44,062
189,197
0
451,112
4,052,587
967,867
709,212
757,386
0
0
787,230
OR-NWK
1,187,318
979,454
1,934,627
2,170,595
831,261
1,680,240
WA-WFC
638,988
981,697
1,283
209,677
208,532
740,524
OR-LFK
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 13-1
NISC Optimization and Review
Cost Per Mile for Actual Mileage
Cache Code
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
AZ-PFK
$2.73
$2.02
$3.43
$3.79
$3.80
$1.98
CA-LSK
$27.49
$10.07
$13.19
$7.83
$7.67
$6.43
CA-NCK
$6.37
$2.83
$5.11
$6.17
$3.11
$3.88
CO-RMK
$13.69
$8.22
$16.08
$13.47
$6.85
$4.10
ID-CDK
$14.80
$11.22
$15.99
$15.39
$7.92
$14.14
ID-GBK
$2.05
$1.84
$2.28
$2.08
$1.97
$1.44
KY-SAK
$0.82
$0.83
$1.26
$2.20
$1.27
$1.78
MN-NEK
$1.22
$1.32
$1.92
$1.50
$1.45
$0.96
MT-BFC
$11.29
$7.76
$20.87
$20.02
$9.00
$10.76
MT-NRK
$3.78
$4.75
$7.25
$6.56
$3.51
$4.22
NM-SFK
$3.36
$1.51
$3.33
$4.01
$2.30
$1.94
OR-LFK
$7.42
$5.36
$4.26
$14.32
$9.50
$7.36
OR-NWK
$5.83
$5.47
$7.00
$7.65
$5.43
$3.27
WA-WFC
$6.02
$4.36
$15.43
$8.83
$5.69
$8.01
Cost Per Mile for Model Results
Cache Code
Sparks
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
$2.56
$2.06
$2.48
$3.24
$1.84
$1.66
AZ-PFK
-
$1.88
$1.46
$1.61
$2.10
$1.64
CA-LSK
-
$10,700.95
-
$5.39
$6.52
$2.37
CA-NCK
$1.90
$0.92
$1.50
$1.34
$1.32
$1.93
ID-CDK
$4.62
$3.31
$8.42
$7.89
$3.97
$3.65
ID-GBK
$0.00
$2.23
$428.48
$1.92
$1.22
$1.08
KY-SAK
$0.62
$0.96
$0.40
$0.52
$0.36
$0.34
MN-NEK
$0.22
$0.44
$0.55
$0.90
$0.86
$0.28
MT-BFC
$9.64
$4.75
-
-
$5.98
$2.93
MT-NRK
$1.32
$46.76
$6.32
-
$4.68
$1.36
OR-LFK
$1.74
$2.38
$2.30
-
-
$2.32
OR-NWK
$5.14
$4.64
$2.14
$2.37
$4.08
$1.42
WA-WFC
$2.02
$1.09
$582.90
$4.40
$4.82
$1.75
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 13-2
NISC Optimization and Review
Shipment Matrix – Estimation of Shipment Costs Between Caches
Attachment 14 – Sparks One-Time Facility Start-up Costs
CORMK
NMSFK
MNNEK
ORNWK
OR-LFK
WAWFC
AZPFK
KY-SAK
MT-NRK
ID-GBK
MTBFC
CA-LSK
CANCK
ID-CDK
Sparks
CO-RMK
X
$314.84
$473.41
$534.86
$462.51
$560.29
$323.64
$700.37
$407.94
$732.94
$277.31
$483.03
$552.43
$486.61
$473.21
NM-SFK
$314.84
X
$770.97
$647.86
$621.12
$730.18
$171.65
$848.86
$629.80
$530.19
$554.19
$338.95
$580.09
$689.77
$488.66
MN-NEK
$473.41
$770.97
X
$815.88
$713.75
$757.25
$795.68
$516.66
$587.46
$685.24
$438.26
$941.61
$910.82
$658.90
$859.14
OR-NWK
$534.86
$647.86
$815.88
X
$103.14
$134.86
$492.62
$1,208.66
$235.80
$152.24
$438.26
$443.23
$161.41
$192.70
$203.25
OR-LFK
$462.51
$621.12
$713.75
$103.14
X
$471.15
$109.06
$481.92
$1,118.12
$429.26
$91.04
$279.30
$472.16
$240.32
$106.94
WA-WFC
$560.29
$730.18
$757.25
$134.86
$471.15
X
$589.29
$1,192.14
$176.23
$200.07
$342.97
$566.33
$296.25
$98.36
$330.84
AZ-PFK
$323.64
$171.65
$795.68
$492.62
$109.06
$589.29
X
$967.13
$518.14
$393.80
$485.02
$183.52
$410.78
$564.76
$320.12
KY-SAK
$700.37
$848.86
$516.66
$1,208.66
$481.92
$1,192.14
$967.13
X
$1,016.33
$1,058.13
$849.26
$1,149.11
$410.78
$1,098.09
$355.26
MT-NRK
$407.94
$629.80
$587.46
$235.80
$1,118.12
$176.23
$518.14
$1,016.33
X
$154.99
$167.10
$552.01
$366.69
$83.16
$1,173.49
ID-GBK
$732.94
$530.19
$685.24
$152.24
$429.26
$200.07
$393.80
$1,058.13
$154.99
X
$248.06
$401.42
$228.70
$174.82
$201.97
MT-BFC
$277.31
$554.19
$438.26
$379.51
$91.04
$342.97
$485.02
$849.26
$167.10
$248.06
X
$573.60
$475.97
$249.44
$434.60
CA-LSK
$483.03
$338.95
$941.61
$443.23
$279.30
$566.33
$183.52
$1,149.11
$552.01
$401.42
$573.60
X
$312.32
$573.41
$240.53
CA-NCK
$552.43
$580.09
$910.82
$161.41
$472.16
$296.25
$410.78
$1,250.66
$366.69
$228.70
$475.97
$312.32
X
$344.54
$91.78
ID-CDK
$486.61
$689.77
$658.90
$192.70
$240.32
$98.36
$564.76
$1,098.09
$83.16
$174.82
$249.44
$573.41
$344.54
X
$354.47
Sparks
$473.21
$488.66
$859.14
$203.25
$106.94
$330.84
$320.12
$1,173.49
$355.26
$201.97
$434.60
$240.53
$91.78
$354.47
X
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 14-1
NISC Optimization and Review
The following is a summary of estimated one-time costs associated with the start-up of a new Forest Service facility. These costs are not
intended to encompass all annual operating costs.
Cost Per
Unit
Equipment and Supplies
Computer Equipment
Service Agreement/Extended Warranty on all
Computer Equipment purchased during Start-up
Miscellaneous Office Equipment (e.g. Printer,
Copier, etc.)
Videoconferencing Equipment
Office Furniture
Miscellaneous Office Furniture (Chairs, Tables,
Bookcases, Projector)
Office Supplies
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Travel
Travel to Sparks, NV for Coordination Purposes
- Cache Manager and Assistant Manager
Cabling Installation
Cisco Catalyst Express 500-24 PC port 10/0000
PoE Switch
Belkin 250' CAT 5e Horizontal UTP Bulk
Cable, Blue
Belkin RJ45 CAT 5e Patch Cable 10' Green
Belkin RJ45 Plug, 50 Pack
U.S. Forest Service
Number of
Units
Total Cost
Source
$1,510.33
5
$7,551.65
$188.34
5
$941.70
$699.00
1
$699.00
$9,454.00
1
$9,454.00
$3,469.00
$3,000.00
5
1
$17,345.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
1
$10,000.00
$792.12
8
$6,336.96
GSAadvantage.gov
$1,091.50
4
$4,366.00
Expedia.com and
Domestic Per Diem rates
$1,707.71
1
$1,707.71
CDW-G GSA Schedule
$33.91
3
$101.73
CDW-G GSA Schedule
$1.98
$17.37
13
1
$25.74
$17.37
CDW-G GSA Schedule
CDW-G GSA Schedule
Attachment 14-2
dell.com, hp.com, and
apple.com
dell.com, hp.com, and
apple.com
Staples.com
picturephone.com and
Staples.com
Unicor's Catalog
Unicor's Catalog
Based on LSK actual
costs.
Comments
Assumes 5 Offices Required
Assumes 5 Offices Required
Assumes 5 Offices Required
Supply costs for first-year of
operation included in cost
estimate.
New PPE purchased for each
new full-time employee.
Estimated two trips per person four days and three nights each.
NISC Optimization and Review
Hubbell Server Cabinet
Hubbell Cabinet Roof Fan
Tripp Lite CAT5e or CAT5 48 Port Rackmount
Patch Panel
Structured Cabling Technician (Hourly Rate)
Advanced Structured Cabling Technician
(Hourly Rate)
Communications Installation
T1 and Phone Lines - Install
T1 and Phone Lines - Router
T1 and Phone Lines - Equipment
T1 and Phone Lines - Office Wiring
T1 and Phone Lines - Service
Other Costs
Relocation of Staff
Furniture Set-Up Fee
Relocation of Material Handling Equipment
Training
Training - Staff
Training Materials
Uninflated Total One-Time Stand-Up Costs
Estimated Annual Operating Cost
U.S. Forest Service
Cost Per
Unit
$1,635.89
$372.06
$76.80
Number of
Units
1
1
1
Total Cost
Source
$1,635.89
$372.06
$76.80
CDW-G GSA Schedule
CDW-G GSA Schedule
CDW-G GSA Schedule
ECHO 24, Inc. GSA
Schedule
ECHO 24, Inc. GSA
Schedule
$45.00
24
$1,080.00
$51.30
24
$1,231.20
$500.00
$1,500.00
$5,000.00
$800.00
$1,886.00
1
1
1
1
1
$500.00
$1,500.00
$5,000.00
$800.00
$1,886.00
$50,000.00
2
$100,000.00
$3,458.65
1
$3,458.65
$480.93
24
$11,542.32
Original Equipment
Industries
Model Calculation and
Amount of Equipment
Reported at LSK.
$3,650.00
8
$29,200.00
Estimate
$1,000.00
1
$1,000.00
Estimate
(2007 Rate)
Comments
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Estimate
Relocation of Cache Manager &
Asst. Manager
Cost of Installation Assumed to
be 17% of Total Order.
Average of cost/shipment
between RMK/SFK and Sparks.
Includes Training Fees &
Associated Off-Site Travel
Costs.
$220,829.78
$1,011,998.66
Attachment 14-3
NISC Optimization and Review
U.S. Forest Service
Attachment 14-4
NISC Optimization and Review