Using Fire to Increase the Scale, Benefits, and Future Maintenance of Fuels Treatments
Abstract
The USDA Forest Service is implementing a new planning rule and starting to revise forest plans for many of the 155 National Forests. In forests that historically had frequent fire regimes, the scale of current fuels reduction treatments has often been too limited to affect fire severity and the Forest Service has predominantly focused on suppression. In addition to continued treatment of the wildland urban interface, increasing the scale of low- and moderate-severity fire would have substantial ecological and economics benefits if implemented soon. We suggest National Forests identify large contiguous areas to concentrate their fuels reduction efforts, and then turn treated firesheds over to prescribed and managed wildfire for future maintenance. A new round of forest planning provides an opportunity to identify and overcome some of the current cultural, regulatory, and institutional barriers to increased fire use that we discuss.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The current scale of fuel treatment is far less than required to achieve landscape resilience.
“Additionally, the current scale of fuel treatment is far less than required to achieve landscape resilience (North et al. 2012).”
From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as North et al. 2012
Restoration activities such as mechanical fuels reduction in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada can cost $300 to $1200 or more per acre, excluding administrative planning costs.
“Restoration activities, such as mechanical fuels reduction, in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada can cost anywhere from $300 to $1200 (or more) per acre, excluding administrative planning costs [4].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
High costs of forest restoration and lack of markets for biomass have posed major barriers to accomplishing mechanical fuels reduction treatments at the pace and scale needed for California's forested landscapes.
“The high costs of forest restoration and lack of markets for biomass therefore have posed major barriers to accomplishing mechanical fuels reduction treatments across the landscape at a pace and scale needed to achieve resiliency among California's forested landscapes.”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
Widespread high-severity wildfire and insect-induced mortality have increased substantially, threatening California's critical watersheds, carbon stores, recreation opportunities, and other ecosystem services.
“Widespread high-severity wildfire and insect-induced mortality have increased substantially, threatening California's critical watersheds, carbon stores, recreation opportunities, and other ecosystem services the state's forestlands provide [4,5].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
Restoration work involving thinning and mechanical fuels reduction is often expensive and uneconomical due to the unmerchantable nature of biomass material in traditional forest products markets, and the scale of restoration projects is a fraction relative to the overall need.
“However, this work is often expensive and uneconomical due to the unmerchantable nature of biomass material in traditional forest products markets, and the scale of restoration projects taking place is a fraction relative to the overall need [2,4].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The fire frequency‐severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression in California forests
Steel, Z. L., Safford, H. D., & Viers, J. H. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00224.1 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management
Calkin, D. E., Thompson, M. P., & Finney, M. A. (2015) · Forest Ecosystems · doi:10.1186/s40663-015-0033-8 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns
Coppoletta, M., Merriam, K. E., & Collins, B. M. (2016) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/15-0225 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Self-citationTaylor, A. H., Trouet, V., Skinner, C. N., & Stephens, S. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1609775113 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Self-citation<scp>U.S.</scp> federal fire and forest policy: emphasizing resilience in dry forests
Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M., Biber, E., & Fulé, P. Z. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1584 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Self-citationChanging spatial patterns of stand-replacing fire in California conifer forests
Stevens, J. T., Collins, B. M., Miller, J. D., North, M. P., & Stephens, S. L. (2017) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.08.051 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Self-citationMallek, C., Safford, H., Viers, J., & Miller, J. (2013) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es13-00217.1 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Fry, D. L., Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M., North, M. P., Franco-Vizcaíno, E., & Gill, S. J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088985 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationCollins, B. M., Lydersen, J. M., Fry, D. L., Wilkin, K., Moody, T., & Stephens, S. L. (2016) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.09.010 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Self-citationSwezy, C., Bailey, J., & Chung, W. (2021) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en14092696 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“Widespread high-severity wildfire and insect-induced mortality have increased substantially, threatening California’s critical watersheds, carbon stores, recreation opportunities, and other ecosystem services the state’s forestlands provide [4,5].”
Background
- Authors
- North, M., Collins, B. M., & Stephens, S.
- Affiliations
- US Forest Service (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Forestry
- Published
- 2012-10-13
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 392-401
- ISSN
- 0022-1201 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2047602601
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 14.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forestry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- prescribed burning, fuel reduction, national forests, forest management planning, fire use, fire severity, wildland-urban interface, fire suppression, fire regimes, forest maintenance, institutional barriers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
