Cost-Effectiveness of Linear Fuel Breaks in Wildfire Management: A Case Study from Southern Idaho

Across the western United States, wildfires have increased in both size and frequency, underscoring the need for cost-effective strategies to mitigate risk and support fire suppression efforts. Linear fuel breaks (LFBs)—strips of land where vegetative fuels are removed or modified—are intended to reduce flame lengths, slow fire spread, and improve access and safety for fire crews. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to expand its network of LFBs in the Great Basin by over 17 000 km. However, uncertainties remain regarding their effectiveness in reducing wildfire-related impacts. To address this knowledge gap, we estimate avoided wildfire costs attributable to fuel breaks in the Twin Falls BLM District of south-central Idaho. Our analysis focuses on the 2019 Pothole fire, which was contained in part due to the presence of LFBs. By developing a counterfactual simulated scenario in which the fire did not intersect the fuel breaks and using historic data on suppression expenditures, postfire rehabilitation costs, and grazing-related forage losses, we estimate the net economic benefits associated with fuel break presence. This case study provides actionable insights for land managers by quantifying the potential cost savings from fuel break infrastructure. Our findings indicate that in the northern Great Basin, LFBs may significantly reduce wildfire management costs, supporting their strategic deployment as part of a broader landscape-scale fire mitigation approach.