CABNR's Quarterly Newsletter - Summer 2012
By Andrew Church
Resource Economists working to restore rangeland and reduce firefighting cost
Topaz Lake community wildfire, over Memorial Day weekend 2012
Researchers in the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station (NAES) are proposing innovative
ways to combat the future outbreak of rangeland fires while simultaneously rehabilitating
native landscapes.
According to the BLM, Nevada’s rangeland fires have burned an
average 381,000 acres per year over the last 20 years. The BLM attributes the growing
frequency and intensity of recent fires to the spread of invasive, non-native plant
species such as cheat grass, which seed early in the year before becoming dried
out and becoming fuel sources in the summer. Hotter, more frequent fires require
more firefighting resources and personnel to combat fire outbreaks. The allocated
Nevada BLM fire suppression budget alone is $14 million.
A NAES research team is
working to reduce both BLM expenditures on firefighting and to restore rangeland
habitat. Kimberly Rollins, associate professor in the Center for Resource Economics,
along with Michael Taylor and Robin Tausch, have investigated the cost-benefit ratio
of fire prevention strategies while proposing ways to apply these strategies by
building relationships between Nevada’s public and private sector.
“There are two
main goals of this research,” said Rollins. “The first is to demonstrate that it
is a good investment to adopt pre-fire fuel treatment measures on public lands.
The second is to utilize the collective knowledge of Nevada’s ranchers and producers
in order to implement these strategies.”
The team’s first study examines the sagebrush
steppe and mountain big sagebrush ecosystems in the Great Basin. In regions with
native shrubs and perennial grasses, the costs for pre-fire treatment are relatively
low. More importantly, Rollins states that for every dollar that is spent on fuel
treatment in this type of ecosystem, $13 are saved in fire suppression and post-fire
recovery. However, in areas infested with annual, invasive grasses, the cost-benefit
ratio is much lower, and the success rate for fire prevention also diminishes.
“Timing
is important,” said Rollins. “Treating fuels on ecosystems that contain native grasses
and shrubs can yield a 13-1 benefit ratio in savings. However, our research shows
that these returns only occur on lands that are relatively healthy. If we wait too
long, it will require much more resources to rehabilitate these ecosystems.”
Topaz Lake community wildfire, over Memorial Day weekend 2012
Rollins
says fuel treatment strategies have positive impacts on the water quality, soil
structure and wildlife habitats in targeted areas. They also help cut back on Nevada
BLM and Forest Service spending, but Rollins says public agencies cannot effectively
implement fuel treatment measures by themselves.
A second NAES study investigates
how Nevada ranchers could help assist in the fuel treatment of public lands. The
study analyzes the impact of wildfire on cattle operations in Nevada, the increased
range capacity for cattle on fuel treated areas, and the willingness of ranchers
to practice fuel treatment measures. The study indicates that if fuel treatment
measures were available to a rancher at no cost, the discounted profits received
by adopting these tactics would be almost $150,000.
But Rollins says that there
are several barriers that make ranchers reluctant to adopt these practices. The
minimum treatment cost of $20 per acre is perceived as too expensive for ranchers,
and federal land regulations are another deterrent.
Rollins believes partnerships
between Nevada’s public agencies and the private sector can help alleviate the costs
and help improve the regulatory structure that facilitates the preservation of public
lands. She suggests that ranchers could provide the extra manpower needed to help
implement fuel treatment tactics, while also providing intimate knowledge of the
range. Public agencies such as the BLM and the Forest Service can assist by subsidizing
treatment costs and by providing ranchers with the skills and technology to administer
treatment.
“We have individuals and families in the cattle industry who have an
intimate understanding of rangeland ecosystems, some of whom have been here for
generations,” said Rollins. “If they had agency support and funding, they could
be recruited to help rehabilitate Nevada’s landscapes. Using ranchers’ efforts doesn’t
require much additional funding/capital, as opposed to hiring more public agency
staff, who don’t know or aren’t as familiar with the land.”
The models that Rollins
and her team propose have implications beyond Nevada, and can be applied to various
ecosystems across the United States. Perhaps more importantly, Rollins says that
fostering cooperation between the public and private spheres of society can yield
greater impacts than working alone.
“It makes more sense to have a stronger public/private
relationship,” said Rollins. “Nevada’s ranchers and government agencies have common
goals. Both these parties have a vested interest in not only conserving public lands,
but also in using these lands in a sustainable way.”