Mokelumne watershed avoided cost analysis: Why Sierra fuel treatments make economic sense
Eric Winford, Sheri Lee Smith, Mark Reichert, Kristen Podolak, Mary Ellen Miller, Charles Luce, Barry Hill, Jim Gaither, Nic Enstice, David Edelson, David Edelson, Mark Buckley, Philip Bowden, Matthew Bokach, Nicole Beck | April 10th, 2014
High-severity wildfires in forests of California’s Sierra Nevada pose a serious threat to people and nature. Although proactive forest management can reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire, the pace and scale of fuel treatments is insufficient, given the growing scope of the problem. Using the upper Mokelumne River watershed as a representative case, we sought to answer the following question: Does it make economic sense to increase investment in fuel treatments to reduce the risk of large, damaging wildfires? Our analysis suggests that the economic benefits of landscape- scale fuel-reduction treatments far outweigh the costs of wildfire.
Keywords
climate change, economic analysis, forest management, modeling, risk assessment, upper watershed management