Catastrophic wildfire has become an epidemic across the western United States, severely burning thousands of acres of forest and costing many millions of dollars annually. An average of 443,307 acres burned each year between 1993 and 2001 in Arizona and New Mexico alone. These fires are costly: suppression and emergency rehabilitation costs for these fires are estimated at $399 per acre, for a yearly total of over $176 million (unpublished data, K. Gebert, USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana).

The majority of the lands burned in these fires were composed of severely degraded forests, classified as condition class 3, that are unnaturally dense with woody fuels. Today researchers estimate there are approximately 12,047,672 acres of condition class 3, lands within the nine western states that support significant acreage of ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests (Snider et al. 2003), suggesting that the future will likely bring more catastrophic wildfires with exorbitant price tags for fire suppression and postfire rehabilitation.

Restoration efforts have proven to be highly effective in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. During the summer of 2002, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire alone burned 467,066 acres in Arizona. As seen in the photo above, the untreated landscape in Gatewood Canyon sustained devastating damage from the wildfire, while the Chuck Box area, which had previously been thinned of many small-diameter trees, remained unharmed.

Costs for suppressing the Rodeo-Chediski Fire totaled $43 million to $50 million (Snider et al. 2003). Additional costs include $40 million for long-term rehabilitation, $90 million for reforestation, $129 million for home and property losses, and $2.5 million for emergency public assistance. The losses of city and county revenue from tourism are still to be calculated, as are the costs of short-term job losses, lost recreation opportunities, damage to water supplies, habitat destruction, loss of endangered species, and destruction of riparian habitat. Nor do these figures include such intangibles as the emotional devastation experienced by those who lived through the fire.

With figures such as these, some researchers are beginning to ask: How can we afford not to implement restoration-based hazardous fuel reduction and thinning treatments?

One objective of forest restoration is to reduce fuels by removing many of the small-diameter trees that can easily spread wildfire from the ground into tree canopies. These small-diameter trees, though, have limited utility and often cost more to remove than they can be sold for (Lynch and Mackes 2003). Restoration costs vary widely, but researchers at the ERI estimate as a very rough guideline that it costs $300 per acre to minimally thin a stand, $400 per acre for modified restoration, and $500 per acre for “full restoration” treatments such as those implemented in Fort Valley and Mount Trumbull. If a viable market for small-diameter trees can be established, restoration efforts may be paid for by the timber products they produce. Efforts are underway in a variety of places in the Southwest to establish a market for these products. Even without such a market, though, economic analysis suggests that it would be a good investment for society to spend up to $505 an acre for restoration treatments, because this outlay will avert future costs in fire suppression and rehabilitation (Snider et al. 2003).

As Lynch (2001) suggests, it is not always easy to compare fire suppression costs to forest restoration costs because it is impossible to predict when or where catastrophic fires will occur. Restoration definitely costs money now, while fire suppression might cost much more – but later. Current trends, though, indicates that unnatural, stand-replacing fires in ponderosa pine forests are only becoming larger and more common. As is true of many other efforts to achieve environmental health that require payment now for benefits later, forest restoration treatments are an investment in the future.

References:

• Lynch, D.L. 2001. Financial Results of Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration in Southwestern Colorado. Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings 22:141-148.
• Lynch, D.L. and K. Mackes. 2003. Costs for reducing fuels in Colorado forest restoration projects. In: USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P 29. pp. 167–175.
• Snider, G.B., D.B. Wood, and P.J. Daugherty. 2003. Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Restoration-Based Hazardous Fuel Reduction, Treatments vs. No Treatment. NAU School of Forestry Research Progress Reports, Progress Report #1 June 13, 2003.