Fuels & Fuel Treatments

Journal article icon

Adapting western US forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions

View story map.

Forests in western North America are shaped by fire and — for the past century or more — by the absence of it. After more than a century of fire exclusion and under a rapidly changing climate, fire behavior has changed, and damage from wildfire is increasing. With more than a century of forest and fire science to build on, scientists, managers, and communities are refining management options for reducing risks to communities and ecosystems.

Journal article icon

Fuel reduction treatments reduce modeled fire intensity in the sagebrush steppe

View article.

This study used the Fuel and Fire Tool fire behavior modeling program to test whether treatments impacted potential fire behavior. Prescribed fire initially removed 49% of the total fuel load and 75% of shrubs, and fuel loads remained reduced through Year 10. Mowing shifted fuels from the shrub canopy to the ground surface but did not change the total fuel amount. Prescribed fire and mowing increased herbaceous fuel by the second posttreatment year and that trend persisted through Year 10. Tebuthiuron treatments were ineffective at altering fuel loads. Imazapic suppressed herbaceous vegetation by 30% in Years 2 and 3 following treatment. The modified fuel beds in fire and mow treatments resulted in modeled flame lengths that were significantly lower than untreated control plots for the duration of the study, with shorter term reductions in reaction intensity and rate of spread. Understanding fuel treatment effectiveness will allow natural resource managers to evaluate trade-offs between protecting wildlife habitat and reducing the potential for high-intensity wildfire.

Webinar, video, audio icon

An Indigenous framework to guide research and restoration in fire-adapted landscapes

Webinar recording.

Description: Worldwide, Indigenous peoples are leading the revitalization of their/our cultures through the restoration of ecosystems in which they are embedded, including in response to increasing “megafires.” Yet, despite growing recognition that just and effective conservation is only possible through partnerships with, or led by, Indigenous peoples, decolonizing approaches to restoration have received insufficient attention. Further, reconciliation will be incomplete without Indigenous-led restoration of Indigenous lands, knowledges, and cultures. In this webinar, we will introduce the concept of “walking on two legs” to guide restoration scientists and practitioners in advancing the interconnected processes of Indigenous-led restoration and reconciliation in Indigenous territories. As an action-oriented framework articulated by Secwépemc Elder Ronald E. Ignace, “walking on two legs” seeks to bring Indigenous knowledges into balance with western scientific knowledge in service of upholding an Indigenous stewardship ethic that is embedded in Indigenous ways of relating to land and embodies principles of respect, reciprocity, and responsibility. Grounding our discussion in the context of fire-adapted ecosystems of western Canada and unceded and traditional Secwépemc territory, Secwepemcúl̓ecw, we will share two case studies of collaborative and Indigenous-led research and restoration to demonstrate how “walking on two legs” provides a pathway to uphold respectful relationships with Indigenous peoples, knowledges, and territories through Indigenous-led restoration.

Presenters: Marianne Ignace,  Director, Indigenous Languages Program and First Nations Language Centre, Simon Fraser University

Sarah Disckson-Hoyle, PhD candidate and Public Scholar, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia

Journal article icon

Fuel reductions reduce modeled fire intensity in sagebrush steppe

View article.

This study presents 10 years of data on fuel accumulation and the resultant modeled fire behavior in prescribed fire, mowed, herbicide (tebuthiuron or imazapic), and untreated control plots in the Sagebrush Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP) network in the Great Basin, USA. Fuel data (i.e., aboveground burnable live and dead biomass) were collected in each treatment plot at Years 0 (pretreatment), 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 posttreatment. We used the Fuel and Fire Tool fire behavior modeling program to test whether treatments impacted potential fire behavior. Prescribed fire initially removed 49% of the total fuel load and 75% of shrubs, and fuel loads remained reduced through Year 10. Mowing shifted fuels from the shrub canopy to the ground surface but did not change the total fuel amount. Prescribed fire and mowing increased herbaceous fuel by the second posttreatment year and that trend persisted through Year 10. Tebuthiuron treatments were ineffective at altering fuel loads. Imazapic suppressed herbaceous vegetation by 30% in Years 2 and 3 following treatment. The modified fuel beds in fire and mow treatments resulted in modeled flame lengths that were significantly lower than untreated control plots for the duration of the study, with shorter term reductions in reaction intensity and rate of spread. Understanding fuel treatment effectiveness will allow natural resource managers to evaluate trade-offs between protecting wildlife habitat and reducing the potential for high-intensity wildfire.

Webinar, video, audio icon

Accelerating the use of Rx fire through policy and partnerships

Webinar recording.

Passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Forest Service’s 10-year Wildfire Strategy signal a new era of historic investments in ecosystem restoration and wildfire risk reduction in the western U.S. But as initial projects and implementation plans are announced, the opportunities for community-based prescribed fire practitioners and advocates to engage in and inform the strategic expansion of prescribed fire continues to be unclear. In this session, we will:

  • Unpack the complex terrain of federal policymaking entities and venues that will influence federal wildfire and fuels reduction strategies.
  • Review RVCC’s and partners’ collective prescribed fire and cooperative burning advocacy interests and recommendations.
  • Identify opportunities for engagement, coalition-building, and advocacy using existing or new venues and strategies.
Webinar, video, audio icon

Effective communication about wildfire management: Observations from 20 years of fire social science research

Webinar recording.

Presenter: Sarah McCaffrey

Description: Fire management in the United States is currently facing numerous challenges. While many of these challenges involve questions about how to increase pace and scale of fuels treatments and adapt to longer, sometimes year-round, fire seasons and more frequent extreme fires, there is also a need to adapt wildfire communication efforts to changing fire management needs and practices. This presentation will discuss insights from two decades of fire social science research about a range of topics to consider in improving wildfire communication including issues with conflation of language (prevention is not mitigation), when more rather than less complex explanations may be merited, and the need to account for how fire fits in everyday lives. The presentation will draw from general Communication, Natural Hazards, and Risk Communication theory, as well as specific fire social science research findings, about topics and approaches that are more or less likely to resonate with the public.

Webinar, video, audio icon

Investing in Forest Infrastructure Virtual Conference

Conference recordings.

The Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership and Montana Forest Collaboration Network will cohost the 2022 virtual conference Investing in Forest Infrastructure. The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Title VIII of the Act includes appropriations for legacy roads and trails, wildfire risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, and Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership. The conference explores priorities stipulated by Congress, the role of collaborative groups in implementation, and expectations for the outcomes of the investments.

Synthesis/Technical Report icon

A mixed methods literature review and framework for decision factors that may influence the utilization of managed wildfire on federal lands, USA

View synthesis.

This review spanned 1976 to 2013 and used thematic coding to identify key factors that affect the decision to manage a wildfire. A total of 110 descriptive factors categories were identified. These were classified into six key thematic groups, which addressed specific decision considerations. This nexus of factors and decision pathways formed what we describe as the ‘Managed Fire Decision Framework’, which contextualizes important pressures, barriers, and facilitators related to managed wildfire decision-making. The most prevalent obstacles to managing wildfire were operational concerns and risk aversion. The factor most likely to support managing a fire was the decision maker’s desire to see the strategy be implemented. Ultimately, we found that the managed fire decision-making process is extremely complex, and that this complexity may itself be a barrier to its implementation.

Icon for Field Guide resources

Sustainable ranch management assessment guidebook: A communications tool for agencies, ranchers, and technical service providers

View guidebook.

This guidebook is to help the rancher and/or land manager use business planning and ecological monitoring to ensure the ranch or land is managed in a sustainable manner.

Synthesis/Technical Report icon

Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions

View synthesis.

This paper review science-based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes. As part of the review, we address common questions associated with climate adaptation and realignment treatments that run counter to a broad consensus in the literature. These include the following: (1) Are the effects of fire exclusion overstated? If so, are treatments unwarranted and even counterproductive? (2) Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard? (3) Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem? (4) Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)? (5) Can wildfires on their own do the work of fuel treatments? (6) Is the primary objective of fuel reduction treatments to assist in future firefighting response and containment? (7) Do fuel treatments work under extreme fire weather? (8) Is the scale of the problem too great? Can we ever catch up? (9) Will planting more trees mitigate climate change in wNA forests? And (10) is post-fire management needed or even ecologically justified?

Narrow your search

Stay Connected