As wildfires grow more frequent and severe, a fundamental question confronts western communities, land managers, and policymakers: Are our investments in fire fuel reduction treatments actually working?
A firefighter stands in a smoldering forest following a wildfire. Photo: Yasunori Matsui, National Park Service
Each year, wildfires cost the U.S. more than $3 billion to fight1—and far more to recover from. As insurers retreat from high-risk areas, communities absorb the toll: repeated evacuations, destroyed homes, rising health costs, and the quiet erosion of community life that no ledger can capture.
The pressure to act has never been greater—but so are the uncertainties. Fuel treatments are costly—$200 to $1,700 an acre²,³ depending on terrain and method—and they require steady upkeep. Even when hundreds of thousands of acres are treated, it can feel like bailing out the ocean as megafires consume millions.
Firefighters help visitors understand the role of wildfire. Photo: National Park Service
The stakes are high. Invest poorly, and we waste scarce resources while communities remain exposed. Underinvest, and losses escalate. Yet waiting for perfect information carries its own risk: each year of hesitation narrows the window for meaningful action as unplanned fires grow.
So what do we actually know? Do fuel treatments deliver measurable protection? Do the benefits justify the costs? Where do they work best, and why? Most importantly, what lessons from the past decade should guide the next ten years of investment?
These aren’t academic questions—they’re strategic choices that will determine whether we learn to live with fire or remain trapped in a costly cycle of loss and recovery.
As wildfires grow larger and more frequent, communities across the West face a new reality at the edge of fire. Photo: Caleb Cook / Unsplash
Sunlight filters through smoke above an Idaho valley during the Napias Creek Fire in Idaho. Photo: Eric Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / National Interagency Fire Center
Between 2015 and 2024, strategic wildfire investments across the American West underwent a real-world test. Federal agencies, state governments, Tribes, and private landowners implemented fuel treatments across millions of acres, while wildfires burned through many of those same landscapes – creating an unplanned but invaluable experiment in landscape-scale fire management.
This collision of investment and reality comes during what scientists now call the Pyrocene—an era defined by fire. Wildfires are growing larger, burning hotter, and inflicting greater harm than at any point in modern history.
Our previous analysis, The Cost of Delay, used fire behavior modeling to demonstrate the potential protective value of strategic investment through forward-looking fire behavior modeling. It showed how $138.9 million in targeted treatments could prevent over $1 billion in losses across seven high-risk communities if wildfire struck under modeled scenarios.
This analysis takes a different approach. Rather than modeling optimized treatments for a hypothetical future fire, we examined what a decade of real-world treatments—pursuing goals from community protection to ecosystem restoration—actually accomplished. The question shifted from what investments could do, to what they did: how much hazard was reduced where treatments were applied?
Using data created by Pyrologix, a Vibrant Planet company, scientists analyzed this decade of activity through historic wildfire and treatment records, paired with simulations from WildEST and FSim. By comparing wildfire risk in “fire-only” landscapes (shaped by past fires alone) with “fire + treatment” landscapes (shaped by both fires and fuel work), they quantified how the last ten years of treatment reduced baseline hazard across the West.
Fire crews conduct a prescribed burn in Grand Canyon National Park to reduce hazardous fuels and maintain forest resilience. Photo: National Park Service
The central question: What value did a decade of strategic action actually create, and what does this evidence teach us about building on documented success?
To answer this question systematically, we analyzed a decade of treatments and fire activity across eleven western states—from Arizona ponderosa pine to Montana's lodgepole forests to California's mixed conifers. The west-wide analysis reveals a consistent pattern: treatments change how fire behaves, but their effectiveness depends on where and how they're applied.
To see these dynamics on the ground, we focused on five counties with extensive treatments and significant wildfire activity between 2015 and 2024: Coconino (AZ), Flathead (MT), Gunnison (CO), Idaho (ID), and Siskiyou (CA). Together, these landscapes represent the diversity of western ecosystems and management approaches. Together: more than 800,000 acres of fuel treatments and over two million acres during the study period.
What We Analyzed
A park ranger shares information about wildfire management and prescribed burns in Yosemite National Park. Photo: National Park Service
Each County Report Card evaluates four outcome areas:
We also report the investment context – treatment costs†, modeled damage reduction‡ (expected structure protection when fire occurs), and the balance between acres treated and acres burned. This isn’t an ROI calculation—we recognize that treatment costs can’t be directly compared to avoided losses as if they were business investments with predictable returns. Instead, these metrics reveal where investments have measurably reduced baseline hazard, and where the scale of fire activity continues to outpace our response.
SEE THE RESULTS
The interactive map below shows how a decade of treatments and wildfires unfolded across five western counties. As you scroll, fires and fuel treatments appear year by year, revealing where mitigation investments and fire activity occurred on the landscape. On the left, Report Cards present the modeled outcomes: where treatments reduced hazard, where they protected people and infrastructure, and how they affected firefighter operational conditions. Together, these views show the relationship between strategic fuel reduction and a decade of fire activity.
This section is optimized for desktop and tablet. On mobile, use the county summaries below.
Over the past decade, Coconino invested heavily in wildfire mitigation—treating more than half a million acres to reduce fuels, restore forest structure, and re-establish the role of beneficial fire. Roughly three-quarters of a million acres burned during the same period. This dual reality highlights two key truths about life in fire-adapted forests: first, fire will always be an integral part of these landscapes, and second, the distinction between beneficial and detrimental fires lies in their severity.
Treatments in Coconino worked—and at a meaningful scale. Communities, infrastructure, and watersheds saw clear net benefits, reduced flame lengths, and tens of thousands of acres moved into more workable conditions for firefighters. The takeaway for taxpayers and residents: strategic mitigation delivers value, but to keep pace with the Fire Era, we need sustained, well-placed work around communities and along critical corridors so these gains compound where they matter most.
| Metric | Value | What It Shows |
|---|---|---|
| People | 4,445 acres | Reduced risk to communities and essential services |
| Infrastructure | 2,646 acres | Reduced risk to communication and utility infrastructure |
| Water Resources | 23,728 acres | Reduced risk to drinking water |
| Flame Length | -35% (17→11 ft) | Lower fire intensity—easier to suppress, safer for responders |
| Firefighter Safety | +78% | More opportunities for crews to safely engage fire |
| Avoided Damage | $36M | Estimated structural losses prevented under future fire scenarios |
Note: Damage reduction values represent modeled future savings if fire occurs, not realized savings from past fires. Excludes suppression, health, and water benefits.
Context: Coconino County spans 12M acres in northern Arizona. Analysis compares 2025 Fire-Only vs Fire+Treatment scenarios using WildEST modeling.
Flathead sits at the edge of Glacier National Park and is no stranger to fire. Over ~40,000 acres of treatments have been applied across forests and communities, and the data show clear protection gains despite large fires in recent years.
In Flathead, decades of investment are helping fire behave as a partner, not a threat. Flame lengths dropped nearly by half in treated areas, protecting people, structures, and forests alike. When treatments are placed near communities and critical systems, they guide fire back into its natural, beneficial role—reducing damage while sustaining forest health. Continued work will help reinforce this positive fire dynamic across the larger landscape.
| Metric | Value | What It Shows |
|---|---|---|
| People | 882 acres | Reduced risk to communities and essential services |
| Infrastructure | 134 acres | Reduced risk to communication and utility infrastructure |
| Water Resources | 49 acres | Reduced risk to drinking water |
| Flame Length | -47% (7→4 ft) | Lower fire intensity—easier to suppress, safer for responders |
| Firefighter Safety | +37% | More opportunities for crews to safely engage fire |
| Avoided Damage | $3.29M | Estimated structural losses prevented under future fire scenarios |
Note: Damage reduction values represent modeled future savings if fire occurs, not realized savings from past fires. Excludes suppression, health, and water benefits.
Context: Flathead County spans northwestern Montana near Glacier National Park. Analysis compares 2025 Fire-Only vs Fire+Treatment scenarios using WildEST integrated wildfire risk modeling across the full range of weather conditions.
High in Colorado’s central Rockies, Gunnison’s forests and headwaters define the landscape. Treatments here were relatively modest in footprint (~13,700 acres) but reveal important contrasts across assets: strong protection for people and water, weaker signals for infrastructure.
Gunnison’s treatments delivered the steepest flame-length reductions of any county analyzed—cutting fire intensity by ~80% and nearly tripling workable acres for firefighters. The data show clear protection for people and water, but weaker results for infrastructure, underscoring that placement matters as much as acres treated. Targeting work along power corridors and community edges can translate these strong local results into broader protection.
| Metric | Value | What It Shows |
|---|---|---|
| People | 141 acres | Reduced risk to communities and essential services |
| Infrastructure | 38 acres | Reduced risk to communication and utility infrastructure |
| Water Resources | 590 acres | Reduced risk to drinking water |
| Flame Length | -80% (27→5 ft) | Lower fire intensity—easier to suppress, safer for responders |
| Firefighter Safety | +195% | More opportunities for crews to safely engage fire |
| Avoided Damage | $3.0M | Estimated structural losses prevented under future fire scenarios |
Note: Damage reduction values represent modeled future savings if fire occurs, not realized savings from past fires. Excludes suppression, health, and water benefits.
Context: Gunnison County sits in Colorado’s central Rockies, encompassing high-elevation forests and headwater systems. Analysis compares 2025 Fire-Only vs Fire+Treatment scenarios using WildEST wildfire risk modeling across the full range of weather conditions.
Idaho County is the largest in the state and one of the most fire-active in the Northern Rockies. Treatments covered ~64,000 acres, yet more than three-quarters of a million acres burned in the study period.
Across Idaho County’s 2.15 million forested acres, treatments improved conditions for people, infrastructure, and water at 20–270:1 benefit ratios, shortened flames by 30%, and added 7,300 new workable acres for firefighters. But with 777,000 acres burning in the same period, these results underscore a scale challenge: treatments are enabling functional fire locally, but remain a fraction of what’s needed to shift the full landscape toward resilience. Expanding the pace and coverage of effective work is the clearest path toward durable coexistence with fire.
| Metric | Value | What It Shows |
|---|---|---|
| People | 416 acres | Reduced risk to communities and essential services |
| Infrastructure | 121 acres | Reduced risk to communication and utility infrastructure |
| Water Resources | 2,319 acres | Reduced risk to drinking water |
| Flame Length | -30% (14→10 ft) | Lower fire intensity—easier to suppress, safer for responders |
| Firefighter Safety | +32% | More opportunities for crews to safely engage fire |
| Avoided Damage | $9.3M | Estimated structural losses prevented under future fire scenarios |
Note: Damage reduction values represent modeled future savings if fire occurs, not realized savings from past fires. Excludes suppression, health, and water benefits.
Context: Idaho County covers over 8,500 square miles of central Idaho wilderness and rural communities.
Siskiyou sits at the crossroads of California and Oregon fire corridors. With one of the largest treated acreages of any county analyzed, Siskiyou’s investments reflect both local risk and its importance for regional fire resilience.
Siskiyou’s extensive treatment network—covering more than 147,000 acres—reduced flame lengths by ~35%, improved firefighter safety across ~11,000 acres, and delivered 20–26:1 protection ratios for people, infrastructure, and water. Even amid the region’s large wildfires, treated forests burned more moderately, suggesting fire is beginning to function more naturally again. The goal isn’t to stop fire, but to steward it—using treatments to guide it back into its ecological role while protecting the people and places that depend on these forests. The lesson is clear: treatments matter, but scaling them to keep pace with fire is the defining challenge.
| Metric | Value | What It Shows |
|---|---|---|
| People | 1,570 acres | Reduced risk to communities and essential services |
| Infrastructure | 618 acres | Reduced risk to communication and utility infrastructure |
| Water Resources | 5,106 acres | Reduced risk to drinking water |
| Flame Length | -35% (6→4 ft) | Lower fire intensity—easier to suppress, safer for responders |
| Firefighter Safety | +17% | More opportunities for crews to safely engage fire |
| Avoided Damage | $3.9M | Estimated structural losses prevented under future fire scenarios |
Note: Damage reduction values represent modeled future savings if fire occurs, not realized savings from past fires. Excludes suppression, health, and water benefits.
Context: Siskiyou County lies in northern California’s Klamath region, encompassing both rural communities and vast National Forest lands.
Each county tells the same core story in its own way: strategic, well-placed treatments consistently reduced flame length and structural exposure. Yet the degree and character of that success vary with terrain, fuels, and design. Understanding those differences—how and why outcomes diverge—is the key to scaling resilience across landscapes.
Across five counties—from Coconino's ponderosa pine forests to Siskiyou's mixed conifers—the evidence reveals a consistent pattern with important nuances. Treatments changed how fire behaved on the landscape. Where fuels were strategically reduced, flames stayed lower, risk to structures dropped, and firefighters gained safer operational zones. Communities saw measurable protection, infrastructure vulnerabilities decreased, and watersheds showed net benefits.
A prescribed burn in Grand Teton National Park helps restore natural fire cycles and protect nearby forests and communities. Photo: National Park Service
But the data also teaches us about placement and context. Some counties delivered strong returns across all objectives—people, infrastructure, and water. Others showed mixed results: excellent community protection but weaker watershed benefits, or vice versa. These variations aren't failures—they're signals about how terrain, fuel types, treatment intensity, placement, and local conditions shape outcomes. They remind us that where we invest matters as much as how much we invest.
What stands out most clearly is this: treatments aren't about stopping fire. Fire will always move through these forests—it's part of how they function. Treatments change fire's character or behavior. They convert high-severity crown fires that sterilize soil and destroy watersheds into low-intensity surface fires that recycle nutrients, clear undergrowth, and maintain forest resilience.
The scale challenge, however, remains stark. Even in the most active landscapes, wildfire still reaches far more acres than management does. Yet where fire and treatments meet, the results are consistently positive—shorter flames, fewer structures lost, and larger areas where firefighters can work safely. This pattern holds across forest types, treatment strategies, and fire conditions, underscoring a core truth:
when investments are made strategically and at scale, treatments don’t compete with fire—they prepare the landscape to live with it.
Fire crews conduct a prescribed burn in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to reduce hazardous fuels and maintain fire-adapted forest conditions. Photo: National Park Service
The question ahead isn't whether strategic treatments work—the fire model outputs from these five counties demonstrates they do. The question is how to deploy them more strategically: deploying effective treatments where risk is highest, sustaining maintenance over time, and scaling investment to match the current reality of our modern Fire Era. Success looks different in every landscape, but the core principles translate: strategic placement, appropriate design, and long-term commitment deliver measurable value.
The path forward is one of continuity, not conflict. Restoring resilience — for people, water, forests, and infrastructure — means expanding the footprint of managed fire, not eliminating it. When fuel treatments and prescribed burns are planned strategically—around communities, along transportation and power corridors, and across key ecological zones—they lay the groundwork for fires that behave within their natural range of variability, allowing for wildfire defense of key assets and resources when needed. This is how landscapes heal: by combining human intention with fire’s ecological role. The outcome is a future where fires burn more safely, forests endure longer, and people can coexist with the process that has shaped these ecosystems for millennia.
A park ranger explains the role of prescribed fire in maintaining healthy forest ecosystems. Photo: National Park Service
The findings present a strong argument that strategic wildfire investments do deliver measurable protection. The pattern holds across different forest types, treatment approaches, and fire weather conditions.
The Cost of Delay story showed us what was at stake through forward-looking modeling—the mounting costs of inaction and the potential value of strategic investment. The Value of Action demonstrates what a decade of real-world implementation actually achieves when treatments meet fire on the ground. Our analysis of these treatments confirms what forest managers have long understood: well-placed, well-designed treatments change fire behavior in ways that protect what we value.
Still, the analysis also surfaces the challenge ahead. Success is uneven. Effectiveness varies by county, asset type, and—most importantly—how well treatments intersect with areas of highest fire probability. Some investments delivered outsized protection and avoided losses that exceeded their costs many times over. Others, often constrained by geography, timing, or intensity, showed modest returns.
The clearest lesson: scaling up isn’t just about doing more—it’s about doing more of what works, where it matters most.
Firefighters cool down hot spots following a prescribed burn at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Photo: Seth Ontiveros, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The question now shifts from whether strategic treatments deliver value to how we systematically deploy them at the pace and scale the Fire Era demands. What would it take to replicate the successes we've documented while learning from the mixed outcomes? How do different investment levels—informed by what worked and what didn't—shape future outcomes for community safety, economic resilience, water security, and forest health?
Low-intensity fire in Coconino National Forest reduces fuels while preserving mature trees — showing how well-placed treatments help forests live with fire. Photo: U.S. Forest Service / Wikimedia Commons
The next step will deepen this understanding by moving from modeled wildfire potential to observed outcomes—empirically evaluating how treatment footprints have interacted with real wildfires on the ground. This expanded analysis will also broaden the scope of what we measure, linking management actions not only to changes in fire behavior, but to impacts that touch people’s daily lives and regional economies—air quality (PM₂.₅), recreation, tourism, the stability of live trees, and the role of treatments in control lines for wildfire. Together, these metrics will offer a broader picture of how strategic investment shapes the health, safety, and prosperity of fire-adapted communities through tangible outcome metrics.
The opportunity is becoming clearer —we are getting better at knowing what works. The challenge is applying those lessons deliberately, persistently, and at a scale that matches the reality we're living in.
Our calculations leveraged Vibrant Planet’s risk reduction analysis methodologies, which combine fire behavior modeling, geospatial overlays, and resource and asset response functions to planned and unplanned disturbances to estimate potential effects from historical planned treatments. We summarize our data sources and steps below, with additional details available in the U.S. Forest Service’s General Technical Report RMS-GTR-31510.
Methodology adapted from Vibrant Planet’s planning workflows and ROI modeling practices. To learn more connect with us.
† Treatment costs from ReSHAPE/TWIG database; likely underreported as not all expenditures are consistently tracked in agency systems.
‡ Conditional, modeled reduction in future building damage within treatment footprints; not realized savings or annualized; excludes suppression, health, water, and other benefits. See Methods for details.