In this age of climatic and financial uncertainty, it becomes increasingly important to balance the cost, benefits and risk of wildfire management. In the United States, increased wildland fire activity over the last 15 years has resulted in drastic damage and loss of life. An associated rapid increase in fire management costs has consumed higher portions of budgets of public entities involved in wildfire management, challenging their ability to fulfill other responsibilities. Increased public scrutiny highlights the need to improve wildland fire management for cost effectiveness. This book closely examines the development of basic wildfire suppression cost models for the United States and their application to a wide range of settings from informing incident decision making to programmatic review. The book also explores emerging trends in suppression costs and introduces new spatially explicit cost models to account for characteristics of the burned landscape. Finally, it discusses how emerging risk assessment tools can be better informed by integrating management cost models with wildfire simulation models and values at risk. Economics of Wildfire Management is intended for practitioners as a reference guide. Advanced-level students and researchers will also find the book invaluable.

Forests, rangelands, and other open spaces provide a broad array of ecological benefits, including critical habitat for protected species, drinking water, wood products, carbon storage, and scenic and recreational opportunities. Large, destructive wildfires threaten these values and communities adjacent to these lands. Large investments in wildland fire suppression and fuel reduction activities are being made throughout the United States in ongoing efforts to reduce human and ecological losses from wildfire (USDA and USDI 2001; Public Law 108-148 2003; Sexton 2006). Managing these investments is a challenge to multiple Federal, State, and local agencies as decision makers attempt to reduce wildfire risk over extensive areas while balancing public expectations with finite budgets (Agee 2002; Dicus and Scott 2006; Johnson and others 2006; Sexton 2006; Winter and Bigler-Cole 2006). Landscape-scale changes in vegetation structure and fuel loadings must be accomplished in order to significantly alter wildfire behavior, reduce wildfire losses, and achieve longer-term fire resiliency (for example, Agee and others 2000; Finney 2001; Peterson and others 2003; Graham and others 2004). However, the most efficient way to achieve these long-term landscape goals remains unclear, and there are different perceptions on the relative role and effectiveness of management activities versus natural and managed wildfire to reduce fuels (cf. Agee 2002; Finney and Cohen 2003; Reinhardt and others 2008). The FLAME Act of 2009 requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Interior to submit to Congress a Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy. In this report, we explore the general science available for a risk-based approach to fire and fuels management and suggest analyses that may be applied at multiple scales to inform decisionmaking and tradeoff analysis. We discuss scientific strengths and limitations of wildfire risk assessment frameworks, including the benefit of broad scalability as demonstrated by four recent case studies. We further highlight the role of comparative risk assessment, which extends the analysis to include the decision space available to managers and stakeholders to allow them to explore the tradeoffs between alternative courses of action. We identify scientific limitations of the analytical protocol and discuss questions of how to better address climate change, smoke modeling issues, and socioeconomic vulnerability, and how to better quantify treatment effectiveness. Key challenges are: achieving a balance between retaining analytical flexibility at regional and sub-regional planning scales while simultaneously retaining data and methodological consistency at the national scale, and identifying and aligning regional and national priorities to inform multi-objective strategy development. As implementation proceeds, the analytical protocol will no doubt be modified, but the contents of this report comprise a rigorous and transparent framework for comparative risk assessment built from the best available science.

Reviews have been conducted by Federal oversight agencies and blue ribbon panels to identify causal factors of the unprecedented fire suppression costs and to suggest possible modifications to Federal fire management policy and strategies (USDOI, USDA 2004; USDAOIG 2006; GAO 2007, 2009). Agency and panel member reviews have found that Federal agencies with wildland fire responsibilities are not able to quantify the value of fire management activities in terms of reducing wildfire risk to social, economic, and ecological values. In response, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council's (WFLC) monitoring strategy asked: What are the trends and changes in fire hazard on Federal lands? Fire risk assessment requires an understanding of the likelihood of wildfire by intensity level and the potential beneficial and negative effects to valued resources from fire at different intensity levels. This monitoring study was conducted to meet three broad goals: (1) address the WFLC monitoring question regarding fire hazard on Federal lands; (2) develop information useful in prioritizing where fuels treatments and mitigation measures might be proposed to address significant fire hazard and risk; and (3) respond to critiques by Office of Management and Budget, General Accounting Office, and Congress that call for risk-based performance measures to document the effectiveness of fire management programs. The results of this monitoring study are useful for project planning to quantify the potential effects of proposed actions in terms of reducing risk to specific resources of concern. Developing decision support tools that utilize an appropriate risk management framework would address many of the issues identified within government oversight reports. Specifically, the Office of Inspector General (USDAOIG 2006) reviewed USDA Forest Service (FS) large fire costs and directed that the "FS must determine what types of data it needs to track in order to evaluate its cost effectiveness in relationship to its accomplishments. At a minimum, FS needs to quantify and track the number and type of isolated residences and other privately owned structures affected by the fire, the number and type of natural/cultural resources threatened, and the communities and critical infrastructure placed at risk." The application of fire risk and fire hazard analyses has been demonstrated at the watershed and National Forest scales (Ager and others 2007). There, specific details regarding probabilities of fire and fire intensity are linked with specific resource benefit and loss functions (Ager and others 2007). Expanding these detailed analyses to regional and national scales to provide consistent risk assessment processes is complicated by the required data specificity and difficulty in developing loss-benefit functions for the range of human and ecological values. The research effort described in this report is designed to develop, from a strategic view, a first approximation of how both fire likelihood and intensity influence risk to social, economic, and ecological values at the national scale. The approach uses a quantitative risk framework that approximates expected losses and benefits from wildfire to highly valued resources (HVR). The information gathered in this study can be summarized in tabular and map formats at many different scales using administrative boundaries or delineations of HVR such as built structure density. The overall purpose of the analysis is to provide a base line of current conditions for monitoring trends in wildfire risk over time. Future analyses would be used to determine trends and changes in response to fuel reduction investments, climate shifts, and natural disturbance events (e.g., bark beetles) between the timeframes analyzed. Monitoring data could be used to address national and regional questions regarding changes in fire risk and hazard as a result of investment strategies or changing conditions.