Hubbry Logo
Controlled burnControlled burnMain
Open search
Controlled burn
Community hub
Controlled burn
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Controlled burn
Controlled burn
Controlled burn
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Prescribed fire in ponderosa pine forest in eastern Washington, United States, to restore ecosystem health
Firing the woods in a South Carolina forest with a custom made driptorch mounted on an ATV. The device spits flaming fuel oil from the side, instantly igniting the leaf litter.
A prescribed burn in a Pinus nigra stand in Portugal
Near Holmen, Wisconsin
An aerial view of a controlled burn in Helderberg Nature Reserve in South Africa bordering the city of Cape Town. In South Africa controlled burns are important for maintaining the ecological health of indigenous fynbos as well as reducing the intensity of future burns.

A controlled burn or prescribed burn (Rx burn) is the practice of intentionally setting a fire to change the assemblage of vegetation and decaying material in a landscape. The purpose could be for forest management, ecological restoration, land clearing or wildfire fuel management.[1] Controlled burns may also be referred to as hazard reduction burning,[2] backfire, swailing or a burn-off.[3]

Controlled burns are conducted during the cooler months to reduce fuel buildup and decrease the likelihood of more dangerous, hotter fires.[4] Controlled burning stimulates the germination of some trees and reveals soil mineral layers which increases seedling vitality.[5] In grasslands, controlled burns shift the species assemblage to primarily native grassland species.[6] Some seeds, such as those of lodgepole pine, sequoia and many chaparral shrubs are pyriscent, meaning heat from fire causes the cone or woody husk to open and disperse seeds.[7]

Fire is a natural part of both forest and grassland ecology, and cultural burning has been used by indigenous people across the world for millennia to promote biodiversity and cultivate wild crops, such as fire-stick farming by aboriginal Australians.[8] Colonial law in North America and Australia displaced indigenous people from lands that were controlled with fire and prohibited from conducting traditional controlled burns.[9] After wildfires began increasing in scale and intensity in the 20th century, fire control authorities began reintroducing controlled burns and indigenous leadership into land management.[10][11]

Uses

[edit]
Pile burn

Forestry

[edit]

Controlled burning reduces fuels, improves wildlife habitat,[12] controls competing vegetation,[13] helps control tree disease and pests,[14] and perpetuates fire-dependent species.[5][15] To improve the application of prescribed burns for conservation goals, which may involve mimicking historical or natural fire regimes, scientists assess the impact of variation in fire attributes.[16] Parameters measured are fire frequency, intensity, severity, patchiness, spatial scale and phenology.[17]

Furthermore, controlled fire can be used for site preparation when mechanized treatments are not possible because of terrain that prevents equipment access.[18][19] Species variation and competition can drastically increase a few years after fuel treatments because of the increase in soil nutrients and availability of space and sunlight.[20]

Many trees depend on fire as a way to clear out other plant species and release their seeds. The giant sequoia, among other fire-adapted conifer species, depends on fire to reproduce.[7] The cones are pyriscent so they will only open after exposure to a certain temperature. This reduces competition for the giant sequoia seedlings because the fire has cleared non-fire-adapted, competing species.[21][22] Pyriscent species benefit from moderate-intensity fires in older stands; however, climate change is causing more frequent high intensity fires in North America.[23] Controlled burns can manage the fire cycle and the intensity of regenerate fires in forests with pyriscent species like the boreal forest in Canada.

Eucalyptus regnans or mountain ash of Australia also shows a unique evolution with fire, quickly replacing damaged buds or stems in the case of danger[citation needed]. They also carry their seeds in capsules which can be deposited at any time of the year [citation needed]. During a wildfire, the capsules drop nearly all of their seeds and the fire consumes the eucalypt adults, but most of the seeds survive using the ash as a source of nutrients. At their rate of growth, they quickly dominate the land and a new, like-aged eucalyptus forest grows.[24] Other tree species like poplar can easily regenerate after a fire into a like-aged stand from a vast root system that is protected from fires because it is underground.[25]

Grassland restoration

[edit]

Native grassland species in North America and Australia are adapted to survive occasional low intensity fires.[26] Controlled burns in prairie ecosystems mimic low intensity fires that shift the composition of plants from non-native species to native species.[6] These controlled burns occur during the early spring before native plants begin actively growing, when soil moisture is higher and when the fuel load on the ground is low[27] to ensure that the controlled burn remains low intensity.

Wildfire management

[edit]

Controlled burns reduce the amount of understory fuel so when a wildfire enters the area, a controlled burn site can reduce the intensity of the fire or prevent the fire from crossing the area entirely.[28] A controlled burn prior to the wildfire season can protect infrastructure and communities or mitigate risks associated with many dead standing trees such as after a pest infestation when forest fuels are high.[29]

Northern California fire crews start a backfire to stop the Poomacha fire from advancing westward.[30]

Agriculture

[edit]
See also: Stubble burning

In the developing world, the use of controlled burns in agriculture is often referred to as slash and burn. In industrialized nations, it is seen as one component of shifting cultivation, as a part of field preparation for planting. Often called field burning, this technique is used to clear the land of any existing crop residue as well as kill weeds and weed seeds. Field burning is less expensive than most other methods such as herbicides or tillage, but because it produces smoke and other fire-related pollutants, its use is not popular in agricultural areas bounded by residential housing.[31]

Prescribed fires are broadly used in the context of woody plant encroachment, with the aim of improving the balance of woody plants and grasses in shrublands and grasslands.[32][33][34][35]

In Northern-India, especially in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, unregulated burning of agricultural waste is a major problem. Smoke from these fires leads to degradation in environmental quality in these states and the surrounded area.[36]

In East Africa, bird densities increased months after controlled burning had occurred.[37]

Greenhouse gas abatement

[edit]

Controlled burns on Australian savannas can result in a long-term cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One working example is the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement, started to bring "strategic fire management across 28,000 square kilometres (11,000 sq mi) of Western Arnhem Land" to partially offset greenhouse gas emissions from a liquefied natural gas plant in Darwin, Australia. Deliberately starting controlled burns early in the dry season results in a mosaic of burnt and unburnt country which reduces the area of stronger, late dry season fires;[38][39] it is also known as "patch burning".

Procedure

[edit]
Firefighters light, then extinguish a controlled burn in response to the 2020 Creek Fire in California.

Health and safety, protecting personnel, preventing the fire from escaping and reducing the impact of smoke are the most important considerations when planning a controlled burn.[40] While the most common driver of fuel treatment is the prevention of loss of human life and structures, certain parameters can also be changed to promote biodiversity and to rearrange the age of a stand or the assemblage of species.

To minimize the impact of smoke, burning should be restricted to daylight hours whenever possible.[41] Furthermore, in temperate climates, it is important to burn grasslands and prairies before native species begin growing for the season so that only non-native species, which send up shoots earlier in the spring, are affected by the fire.[6]

Ground ignition

[edit]
A Burn Boss watches a back fire (which was lit first) as it moves towards a head fire (which was lit afterwards). This image demonstrates that head fires move with the wind and faster so by lighting a slower moving back fire first, the more intense head fire will burn towards blackened ground and put itself out instead of challenging the burn break.
A controlled burn in Niagara Falls, Ontario where the Burn Boss is watching a back fire (lit first and in the background) move towards a head fire (in the foreground)

Back burning or a back fire is the term given to the process of lighting vegetation in such a way that it has to burn against the prevailing wind. This produces a slower moving and more controllable fire. Controlled burns utilize back burning during planned fire events to create a "black line" where fire cannot burn through. Back burning or backfiring is also done to stop a wildfire that is already in progress. Firebreaks are also used as an anchor point to start a line of fires along natural or man-made features such as a river, road or a bulldozed clearing.[42]

Head fires, that burn with the prevailing wind, are used between two firebreaks because head fires will burn more intensely and move faster than a back burn. Head fires are used when a back burn would move too slowly through the fuel either because the fuel moisture is high or the wind speed is low.[40] Another method to increase the speed of a back burn is to use a flank fire which is lit at right angles to the prevailing wind and spreads in the same direction.[40]

Grassland or prairie burning

[edit]

In Ontario, Canada, controlled burns are regulated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and only trained personnel can plan and ignite controlled burns within Ontario's fire regions or if the Ministry of Natural Resources in involved in any aspect of planning a controlled burn.[43] The team performing the prescribed burn is divided into several roles; the Burn Boss, Communications, Suppression and Ignition.[40] The planning process begins by submitting an application to a local fire management office and after approval, applicants must submit a burn plan several weeks prior to ignition.[43]

On the day of the controlled burn, personnel meet with the Burn Boss and discuss the tactics being used for ignition and suppression, health and safety precautions, fuel moisture levels and the weather (wind direction, wind speed, temperature and precipitation) for the day. On site, local fire control authorities are notified by telephone about the controlled burn while the rest of the team members fill drip torches with pre-mixed fuel, fill suppression packs with water and put up barricades and signage to prevent pedestrian access to the controlled burn. Driptorches are canisters filled with fuel and a wick at the end that is used to ignite the lines of fire. Safe zones are established to ensure personnel know where the fire cannot cross either because of natural barriers like bodies of water or human-made barriers like tilled earth.[40]

Controlled burn in Hokkaido, Japan

During ignition, the Burn Boss relays information about the fire (flame length, flame height, the percent of ground that has been blackened) to the Communications Officer who documents this information. The Communications Officer relays information about the wind speed and wind direction so the Burn Boss can determine how the direction of both flames and smoke and plan their lines of fire accordingly. Once the ignition phase has ended in a section, the suppression team "mops up" by using suppression packs to suppress smoldering material. Other tools used for suppression are RTVs equipped with a water tank and a pump and hose that is installed in a nearby body of water. Finally, once the mop up has finished, the Burn Boss declares the controlled burn over and local fire authorities are notified.[40]

Slash pile burning

[edit]

There are several different methods used to burn piles of slash from forestry operations. Broadcast burning is the burning of scattered slash over a wide area. Pile burning is gathering up the slash into piles before burning. These burning piles may be referred to as bonfires. High temperatures can harm the soil, damaging it physically, chemically or sterilizing it. Broadcast burns tend to have lower temperatures and will not harm the soil as much as pile burning,[44] though steps can be taken to treat the soil after a burn. In lop and scatter burning, slash is left to compact over time, or is compacted with machinery. This produces a lower intensity fire, as long as the slash is not packed too tightly.[44]

The risk of fatal fires that stem from burning slash can also be reduced by proactively reducing ground fuels before they can create a fuel ladder and begin an active crown fire. Predictions show thinned forests lead to a reduction in fire intensity and flame lengths of forest fires compared to untouched or fire-proofed areas.[45]

Aerial ignition

[edit]
Airplane in Western Australia performing aerial ignition

Aerial ignition is a type of controlled burn where incendiary devices are released from aircraft.[46]

History

[edit]

There are two basic causes of wildfires. One is natural, mainly through lightning, and the other is human activity.[47] Controlled burns have a long history in wildland management. Fire has been used by humans to clear land since the Neolithic period.[48] Fire history studies have documented regular wildland fires ignited by indigenous peoples in North America and Australia[49][50] prior to the establishment of colonial law and fire suppression. Native Americans frequently used fire to manage natural environments in a way that benefited humans and wildlife in forests and grasslands by starting low-intensity fires that released nutrients for plants, reduced competition for cultivated species, and consumed excess flammable material that otherwise would eventually fuel high-intensity, catastrophic fires.[51][8][52][53]

North America

[edit]
See also: Native American use of fire in ecosystems

The use of controlled burns in North America ended in the early 20th century, when federal fire policies were enacted with the goal of suppressing all fires.[50] Since 1995, the US Forest Service has slowly incorporated burning practices into its forest management policies.[10]

Fire suppression has changed the composition and ecology of North American habitats, including highly fire-dependent ecosystems such as oak savannas[54][55] and canebrakes,[56][57] which are now critically endangered habitats on the brink of extinction. In the Eastern United States, fire-sensitive trees such as the red maple are increasing in number, at the expense of fire-tolerant species like oaks.[58]

Canada

[edit]

In the Anishinaabeg Nation around the Great Lakes, fire is a living being that has the power to change landscapes through both destruction and the regrowth and return of life following a fire. Human beings are also inexorably tied to the land they live on as stewards who maintain the ecosystems around them. Because fire can reveal dormant seedlings, it is a land management tool. Fire was a part of the landscapes of Ontario until early colonial rule restricted indigenous culture in across Canada.[59] During colonization, large scale forest fires were caused by sparks from railroads and fire was used to clear land for agriculture use. The public perception of forest fires was positive because the cleared land represented taming the wilderness to an urban populace. The conservation movement, which was spearheaded by Edmund Zavitz in Ontario, caused a ban on all fires, both natural wild fires and intentional fires.[60]

In the 1970s, Parks Canada began implementing small prescribed burns however, the scale of wildfires each year outpaces the acreage of land that is intentionally burnt.[11] In the late 1980s, the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario began conducting prescribed burns on forested land which led to the created of a prescribed burn program as well as training and regulation for controlled burns in Ontario.[14]

In British Columbia, there was an increase in the intensity and scale of wildfires after local bylaws restricted the use of controlled burns. In 2017, following one of the worst years for wildfire in the province's history, indigenous leadership and public service members wrote an independent report that suggested returning to the traditional use of prescribed burns to manage understory fuel from wildfires.[29] The government of British Columbia responded by committing to using controlled burns as a wildfire management tool.[28]

United States

[edit]

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality began requiring a permit for farmers to burn their fields in 1981, but the requirements became stricter in 1988 following a multi-car collision[61] in which smoke from field burning near Albany, Oregon, obscured the vision of drivers on Interstate 5, leading to a 23-car collision in which 7 people died and 37 were injured.[62] This resulted in more scrutiny of field burning and proposals to ban field burning in the state altogether.[63][64]

With controlled burns, there is also a risk that the fires get out of control. For example, the Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire, the largest wildfire in the history of New Mexico, was started by two distinct instances of controlled burns, which had both been set by the US Forest Service, getting out of control and merging.[65]

The conflict of controlled burn policy in the United States has roots in historical campaigns to combat wildfires and to the eventual acceptance of fire as a necessary ecological phenomenon. Following colonization of North America, the US used fire suppression laws to eradicate the indigenous practice of prescribed fire. This was done against scientific evidence that supported prescribed burns as a natural process. At the loss to the local environment, colonies utilized fire suppression in order to benefit the logging industry.[66]

The notion of fire as a tool had somewhat evolved by the late 1970s as the National Park Service authorized and administered controlled burns.[67] Following prescribed fire reintroduction, the Yellowstone fires of 1988 occurred, which significantly politicized fire management. The ensuing media coverage was a spectacle that was vulnerable to misinformation. Reports drastically inflated the scale of the fires which disposed politicians in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana to believe that all fires represented a loss of revenue from tourism.[67][68] Paramount to the new action plans is the suppression of fires that threaten the loss of human life with leniency toward areas of historic, scientific, or special ecological interest.[69]

There is still a debate amongst policy makers about how to deal with wildfires. Senators Ron Wyden and Mike Crapo of Oregon and Idaho have been moving to reduce the shifting of capital from fire prevention to fire suppression following the harsh fires of 2017 in both states.[70]

Tensions around fire prevention continue to rise due to the increasing prevalence of climate change. As drought conditions worsen, North America has been facing an abundance of destructive wildfires.[71] Since 1988, many states have made progress toward controlled burns. In 2021, California increased the number of trained personnel to perform controlled burns and created more accessibility for landowners.[72]

Europe

[edit]

In the European Union, burning crop stubble after harvest is used by farmers for plant health reasons under several restrictions in cross-compliance regulations.[73]

Muir burn in UK showing smokestack
Muir burn in UK

In the north of Great Britain, large areas of grouse moors are managed by burning in a practice known as muirburn. This kills trees and grasses, preventing natural succession, and generates the mosaic of ling (heather) of different ages which allows very large populations of red grouse to be reared for shooting.[74] The peat-lands are some of the largest carbon sinks in the UK, providing an immensely important ecological service. The government has restricted burning to the area but hunters have been continuing to set the moors ablaze, releasing a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere and destroying native habitat.[75]

Africa

[edit]

The Maasai ethnic group conduct traditional burning in savanna ecosystems before the rainy season to provide varied grazing land for livestock and to prevent larger fires when the grass is drier and the weather is hotter. In the past few decades, the practice of burning savanna has decreased because rain has become inadequate and unpredictable, there are more frequent occurrences of large accidental fires and Tanzanian government policies prevent burning savanna.[76]

Australia

[edit]

Indigenous Australians have an extensive history of traditional burning practices[77][78] including cool burning[79] or fire-stick farming. These practices were often suppressed during colonial rule, and the continuing struggle for land rights mean that Australian fire activity looks different today than before colonial intervention.[80][81][82] However, the return of land rights to indigenous communities and changing governmental attitudes to indigenous practices[80] have led to an increase in prescribed burning in Australia in recent history.[83][84]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Controlled burn

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A controlled burn, also known as a prescribed fire or prescribed burn, is the planned and supervised application of fire to in a specific area under defined environmental conditions to attain precise objectives, including the reduction of wildfire fuels, restoration of native plant communities, and control of or pests. These fires mimic historical natural and human-ignited fire regimes in ecosystems adapted to periodic burning, countering the effects of long-term fire exclusion policies that have amassed excessive and heightened the risk of high-severity . Indigenous groups across fire-prone regions, such as North American tribes, have utilized controlled burning for millennia to cultivate landscapes, promote sources like berries and game habitats, and maintain ecological balance, practices disrupted by colonial suppression but now increasingly integrated into contemporary strategies. Ecologically, prescribed fires recycle nutrients, stimulate seed germination in fire-dependent species, enhance , and support by creating varied successional stages that benefit from to large herbivores. Despite their efficacy—studies showing reduced wildfire intensity and smoke emissions in treated areas—controlled burns face challenges including occasional escapes due to unpredictable , which, while rare (comprising less than 1-3% of ignitions), have sparked debates over implementation protocols and public perceptions of versus long-term resilience gains.

Definition and Principles

Core Definition and Objectives

A controlled burn, also termed a prescribed burn or prescribed , constitutes the deliberate application of to a specified land area by qualified personnel under defined weather, fuel, and topographic conditions to attain predetermined objectives. This method ensures the fire remains confined to planned boundaries, minimizing risks to adjacent areas while leveraging 's ecological role. The foremost objective is hazardous fuel reduction, which diminishes the volume of dead , litter, and growth that accumulates in fire-suppressed landscapes, thereby curtailing the potential scale and intensity of . Such interventions protect human settlements by creating defensible spaces and lowering lengths and rates of spread in subsequent , as evidenced by analyses showing prescribed burns can reduce intensity by up to 40% in treated areas. This approach counters the effects of over a century of fire exclusion policies in regions like the , where fuel loads have escalated dramatically since the early . Additional objectives include ecosystem restoration, where burns replicate historical fire cycles essential for fire-adapted species, enhancing by stimulating of serotinous seeds and favoring native over invasives. They also improve habitats by promoting availability and structural diversity, while suppressing disease vectors and recycling nutrients through ash deposition, which boosts and plant vigor. In silvicultural and contexts, controlled burns facilitate timber stand regeneration and capacity enhancement.

Scientific Foundations of Fire Ecology

Fire ecology is the study of fire's role as a recurrent ecological that influences dynamics, composition, and evolutionary adaptations across biomes. In fire-prone landscapes, such as savannas, , and coniferous forests, fire acts as a keystone disturbance, preventing dominance by shade-tolerant and maintaining heterogeneity. Empirical observations from long-term monitoring in North American ponderosa forests show that historical fire frequencies of 5–25 years sustained open-canopy structures, with suppression since the early leading to denser stands vulnerable to fires. Fire-adapted traits, including serotiny in Pinus banksiana where cones release up to 80% more seeds post-fire and epicormic sprouting in eucalypts, demonstrate evolutionary convergence under frequent low-intensity burns. Fire regimes—defined by return interval, intensity (measured in kilowatts per meter), seasonality, and patchiness—dictate ecological outcomes, with data from and records indicating mean intervals of 10–100 years in most flammable ecosystems. Low-severity surface fires recycle nutrients by combusting litter, releasing 20–50% of as ash while minimizing volatilization losses, thereby enhancing in systems like where frequent burns correlate with higher herbaceous productivity. High-intensity regimes, rarer in crown-fire ecosystems, trigger pulsed recruitment but risk if intervals exceed adaptation thresholds, as evidenced by post-1988 Yellowstone fire recovery where lodgepole pine regeneration exceeded pre-fire densities via serotinous seedbeds. Biodiversity in fire-dependent habitats relies on regime fidelity; meta-analyses of 100+ studies reveal that deviations, such as fire exclusion, reduce diversity by 30–50% in grasslands through buildup and competitive exclusion. Animals exhibit behavioral adaptations, like the pyricarnivory of badgers foraging in post-burn patches for increased prey , underscoring fire's cascading trophic effects. Controlled burns emulate these regimes to counteract anthropogenic suppression, restoring causal linkages between fire, , and microbes that drive rates up to twice historical levels in restored sites.

Applications

Wildfire Prevention and Fuel Management

In fire-adapted ecosystems, prolonged fire suppression policies since the early 20th century have resulted in unnatural fuel buildup, elevating the risk of high-severity wildfires that exceed historical norms. Controlled burns counteract this by intentionally igniting low-intensity fires to consume excess surface fuels, ladder fuels, and dense understory vegetation, thereby disrupting fuel continuity and moderating potential fire behavior. This approach mimics natural fire regimes, where frequent, low-severity burns historically prevented fuel accumulation in landscapes like western U.S. coniferous forests. Empirical evidence from multiple studies affirms the efficacy of prescribed fire in fuel management. In Californian coniferous forests, prescribed burns have been shown to reduce fuel loads, leading to smaller wildfire sizes and lower severity in subsequent uncontrolled fires. Similarly, analyses across treated landscapes indicate wildfire severity is significantly lower in areas subjected to prescribed fire compared to untreated controls, with potential severity reductions tied to decreased fuel availability. Quantitative assessments highlight substantial . A 2023 study reported that fuel treatments including achieved severity reductions of 62% to 72% relative to untreated areas, based on modeled behavior in treated versus control sites. Low-intensity prescribed fires alone can diminish overall by approximately 60% for periods extending several years, primarily through the elimination of fine fuels that propagate rapid spread. In the U.S. West, targeted prescribed burns in strategic locations have demonstrated potential to curb development and associated smoke emissions, as evidenced by comparative burn severity data from treated and untreated zones. A 2024 meta-analysis of over 30 years of data further corroborates that prescribed fire, particularly when integrated with mechanical thinning, reliably attenuates intensity across diverse forest types, though standalone burning proves most cost-effective in reducing surface fuels. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and , endorse prescribed fire as a core strategy for hazard reduction, citing decades of field observations and modeling that link fuel treatments to enhanced suppression success and minimized ecological damage from megafires. Despite these benefits, widespread adoption remains constrained by regulatory approvals, weather dependencies, and public concerns over smoke, underscoring the need for expanded implementation to match escalating threats driven by variability and land-use changes.

Ecosystem Restoration and Biodiversity

Controlled burns facilitate restoration by reinstating historical fire regimes in fire-adapted landscapes, where fire suppression has led to degradation through fuel accumulation, proliferation, and loss of native . In such systems, prescribed fires recycle nutrients, reduce litter layers that inhibit , and create heterogeneous patches that support diverse successional stages. For instance, in the grasslands, woody encroachment has reduced native habitats by expanding tree cover across 44 million acres between 1999 and 2018, but targeted prescribed burns have reversed this trend by halting invasion at woodland-grassland boundaries. These burns enhance by promoting regeneration of fire-dependent and suppressing competitors. A 14-year study in the Canyons , covering 137,000 hectares, applied large-scale, intense prescribed fires across 65% of the area (222,000 acres), resulting in an 85% increase in grassland bird richness in treated zones compared to untreated areas. In ecosystems of the , frequent low-intensity burns maintain diverse understories by favoring herbaceous plants and reducing competition, thereby supporting associated . Similarly, in Midwestern grasslands and oak savannas, burns on thousands of acres annually—such as 18,863 acres treated by in in 2024—suppress woody shrubs and invasives, fostering native plants like wild lupine and habitats for including Kirtland’s warbler and . In temperate and boreal forests, effects on are more variable, with systematic reviews indicating positive impacts on richness (Hedges’ g = 0.397 across 63 studies) and herbaceous plants in broadleaf forests (Hedges’ g = 0.956), but no consistent changes in woody plants, trees, fungi, birds, or beetles due to high inter-study heterogeneity. Benefits often emerge in contexts mimicking natural return intervals, such as every 2–5 years in some grasslands or 3–7 years in forests, though excessive frequency can diminish specialist . Restoration success hinges on site-specific factors like burn intensity, season, and pre-burn conditions; short-term reductions in sensitive taxa, such as epiphytic lichens, may occur, necessitating long-term monitoring to ensure net gains in resilience and .

Agricultural and Land Management Uses

In agricultural practices, controlled burns are utilized to manage crop residues, suppress weeds and pests, and recycle nutrients into the , thereby enhancing and subsequent yields. For example, in and systems, prescribed fires remove dead material, reducing carryover and promoting vigorous regrowth of desirable . In , such burns control woody encroachment and , fostering higher diversity and improving palatability for ; research indicates that timely burns can increase production through natural fertilization effects from ash deposition and altered competitive dynamics among plants. In and broader contexts, prescribed burning maintains open grasslands by curbing brush invasion and stimulating native vegetation regeneration, which supports efficiency and quality. Post-burn often exhibits elevated nutritive value, with studies documenting higher concentrations of key minerals such as , , , and in burned areas during late spring and summer compared to unburned controls. Late-spring prescribed fires, in particular, have been linked to improved body weight gains in yearling treated rangelands, attributed to enhanced quality and availability. These applications extend to integrated systems like , where burns in pine stands reduce competing hardwoods and exotics, optimizing understory for while preserving timber . Overall, such practices yield economic benefits through cost-effective vegetation control relative to mechanical alternatives, though outcomes depend on precise timing, fuel loads, and weather conditions to avoid overburning or risks.

Other Specialized Applications

Controlled burns find application in military training areas to enhance operational readiness and environmental management. On U.S. installations, such as Fort Hood, , prescribed fires are conducted to reduce fuel loads, improve visibility for maneuvers, and suppress like eastern redcedar, thereby maintaining open landscapes essential for and vehicle exercises. Similarly, at , , dormant-season burns from January to March target grassy areas to prevent encroachment and support habitat for like red-cockaded woodpeckers. These operations require detailed burn plans specifying weather thresholds, such as wind speeds below 10 mph and above 25%, to minimize escape risks while achieving dual and ecological goals. Indigenous cultural burning represents another specialized use, where controlled fires are ignited to fulfill spiritual, ceremonial, and stewardship objectives tied to ancestral landscapes. In regions like and the , tribes such as the employ low-intensity burns to propagate culturally significant plants like for basketry or to clear areas for traditional gathering, often beginning with rituals involving wormwood torches and prayers. These practices, distinct from agency-led prescriptions, aim to restore pre-colonial fire regimes while asserting , as evidenced by collaborative efforts in where Mono Lake Paiute burns have reduced fuel accumulation and enhanced production since 1999. Empirical monitoring shows such burns decrease intensity by up to 50% in treated areas compared to untreated ones, supporting both cultural continuity and landscape resilience. In select infrastructure contexts, controlled burns mitigate risks around utility corridors and archaeological sites, though these overlap with broader fuel management. For instance, burns along power line rights-of-way in fire-prone states like remove ladder fuels to prevent arc-induced ignitions, with Pacific Gas & Electric conducting over 1,000 acres annually under strict permitting to avoid equipment damage. Regarding cultural resources, prescribed fires are calibrated to minimize subsurface damage to artifacts, as experimental burns in national parks demonstrate that low-severity fires alter soil chemistry minimally if duff layers remain intact, allowing managers to protect sites like prehistoric hearths during larger treatments.

Procedures

Planning and Regulatory Requirements

Planning for controlled burns, also known as prescribed fires, necessitates the development of a detailed, site-specific burn plan that serves as the primary implementation document. This plan outlines the project's objectives, such as fuel reduction or habitat restoration, along with assessments of fuel loading, , vegetation types, and potential fire behavior under varying conditions. It specifies acceptable weather parameters—including , , relative humidity, and fuel moisture content—to ensure the fire remains within prescribed boundaries, as well as required resources like personnel, equipment, and contingency measures for escapes. The plan must be approved by the responsible agency administrator, who evaluates risks against benefits, often incorporating standardized templates from bodies like the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). Regulatory requirements vary by jurisdiction but universally emphasize safety, environmental protection, and legal compliance, with federal lands subject to oversight from agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In the United States, prescribed burns on public lands must adhere to policies like USFS Manual 5140 for hazardous fuels management, which mandates pre-burn environmental reviews, smoke dispersion modeling to minimize impacts on air quality, and coordination under the (NEPA) where applicable. State-level permits are typically required for private or state lands, issued by forestry commissions or departments—such as the Georgia , which mandates firebreaks, monitoring, and notification to adjacent owners prior to ignition. Air quality regulations, enforced by bodies like the , demand registration, smoke management plans, and adherence to seasonal burn windows to avoid violations of federal Clean Air Act standards. Personnel qualifications form a core regulatory element, requiring certified burn bosses or managers with documented training and experience— for instance, Louisiana mandates at least five prior burns supervised for certification, while federal programs emphasize NWCG qualifications like Single Resource Boss or higher. Public involvement includes notifications to nearby communities, evacuation plans if needed, and post-burn reporting to track outcomes and compliance. Non-compliance can result in fines or liability, underscoring the emphasis on verifiable documentation and interagency coordination to mitigate risks from escapes or smoke incursions. International practices, such as in Australia or Europe, similarly require permits and ecological assessments but adapt to local ecosystems and laws, prioritizing empirical fire regime data over generalized models.

Ignition and Execution Techniques

Ignition of controlled burns primarily utilizes ground-based and aerial methods to initiate under predetermined conditions. The handheld drip torch, dispensing a ignited mixture of and , serves as the most prevalent ground ignition tool, enabling precise application in accessible terrains. Aerial techniques involve helicopters deploying ignition spheres—plastic balls containing and a glycol initiator—that ignite upon impact, facilitating burns in remote or rugged landscapes where ground access is limited. Less common methods include vehicle-mounted es for linear ignition or manual fusees for spot ignitions in fine fuels. Execution techniques focus on firing patterns that manipulate fire behavior relative to , , and characteristics to ensure and desired ecological effects. Backfires, ignited along the downwind perimeter, propagate slowly against , consuming fuels at lower intensities and creating a blackened adjacent to firebreaks. Flank fires burn perpendicular to the wind from the sides, exhibiting intermediate spread rates and heat outputs, often employed to link backfires with head fires or to widen burn widths progressively. Head fires, lit upwind or parallel to wind flow, advance rapidly with higher intensities, typically introduced after securing flanks to consume remaining fuels efficiently without escaping lines. Specific patterns such as strip-head firing involve parallel ignition lines upwind to generate controlled wavefronts, while spot firing scatters ignitions across the unit for patchy burns mimicking natural variability. Ring firing encircles unburned areas with simultaneous ignitions from multiple personnel, accelerating consumption in compact zones but requiring vigilant monitoring to prevent inward convergence issues. Selection of patterns depends on objectives like reduction intensity or patchiness, with combinations—such as initiating backfires followed by flanking and restrained head fires—commonly used to optimize safety and efficacy across varying conditions.

Monitoring, Suppression, and Post-Burn Assessment

During prescribed burns, monitoring focuses on behavior, parameters, and dispersion to ensure conditions remain within the burn prescription. behavior variables such as rate of spread (measured in chains per hour or meters per second), flame length (in feet or meters), and spread direction (head, backing, or flanking) are observed using techniques like Fire Behavior Observation Circles (FBOC) in forests or Intervals (FBOI) in grasslands, often with stopwatches, pin flags, or video analysis for accuracy within ±1 foot for flames under 10 feet. monitoring includes hourly recordings of temperature (e.g., 30–85°F), relative (25–55%), and direction (0–20 mph midflame), and moistures (e.g., 1-hour fuels 6–14%), employing belt weather kits, Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS), or sling psychrometers to detect deviations prompting adjustments or halts by the burn boss. effects monitors (FEMOs) track real-time intensity, consumption, and tree scorching, while impacts are assessed for dispersion and thresholds using on-site observations and models. Suppression in prescribed burns emphasizes prevention through holding actions rather than reactive , with dedicated holding crews securing firelines using tools like pumps, hoses, and wet lines to the fire perimeter. Contingency plans address spot fires or escapes by preparing for initial attack suppression, including widening firebreaks, deploying additional resources, or igniting backfires to create black zones, with coordination involving local fire departments if the fire exceeds unit boundaries and transitions to status. These plans outline roles, triggers (e.g., spotting beyond firebreaks), and escalation to full suppression tactics like construction or aerial water drops, minimizing escape risks which, though rare, can occur due to wind shifts or unpredicted behavior. Post-burn assessment evaluates achievement of objectives through immediate, short-term, and long-term monitoring of fire effects. Immediately after extinguishment (within 2 weeks to 2 months), burn severity is mapped via visual codes for substrate (e.g., deeply charred ) and vegetation (e.g., foliage consumed), using point intercept methods, transects for char height (±1 meter accuracy under 10 meters), and load reduction estimates (e.g., 50–80% consumption). Short-term evaluations (weeks to months) measure crown scorch percentage (±10%), grass regrowth, and responses via cameras or plots, while long-term assessments (1–10 years) track tree mortality, vigor (e.g., 3–5 years for ponderosa pine), and recovery through permanent plots remeasured at intervals. Data from pre- and post-burn photos, density frames, and software like FMH.EXE inform statistical analysis of changes, verifying goals such as reduction or enhancement against baselines.

Empirical Benefits and Evidence

Reduction in Wildfire Severity and Spread

Controlled burns reduce severity and spread primarily by decreasing loads and continuity, which lowers lengths, rates of fire spread, and the likelihood of fires transitioning from surface fires. This occurs because prescribed fires consume fine fuels, ladder fuels, and under low-intensity conditions, creating barriers that interrupt fire propagation and limit the buildup of extreme heat and production in subsequent . Empirical models and field observations confirm that such treatments can decrease fire intensity by reducing available combustible material by 30-70% in treated stands, depending on type and burn frequency. A 2024 meta-analysis of over 50 studies on fuel treatments in fire-prone forests demonstrated that prescribed burning, particularly when combined with mechanical thinning, significantly lowered wildfire severity in areas treated more than 10 years prior, with effect sizes persisting longer than standalone burning or thinning. The analysis quantified reductions in metrics like scorch height and tree mortality, attributing efficacy to disrupted fuel ladders that prevent vertical fire spread. In southeastern Australia, fuel reduction burns during extreme weather events similarly decreased wildfire severity by altering surface fuel consumption patterns, as evidenced by remote sensing data from multiple fire seasons. In the United States, a 2025 study of 2020 wildfires across the western states found that prescribed fires conducted prior to these events reduced burn severity by 16% within overlapping perimeters, based on differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) indices from ; this equated to lower soil heating and vegetation loss in treated zones. Smoke emissions were also curtailed, with per-acre particulate matter reductions supporting broader suppression efficacy. Complementary in ecosystems showed prescribed burns decreasing sizes by up to 40% through load reductions of 50% or more, validated via pre- and post-fire inventories. Low-severity prescribed fires further exemplify this by sustaining reductions in risk for 5-10 years, with one analysis indicating up to 60% lower probability of high-intensity burns due to modified fuel moisture dynamics and patch mosaics that fragment continuous . However, effectiveness diminishes if burns are infrequent or mismatched to local fire regimes, as untreated can accumulate rapidly in suppression-dominated landscapes; studies emphasize the need for repeated applications every 2-5 years in mesic forests to maintain suppression benefits. Regional variations exist, with some Australian assessments noting limited direct protection for structures despite landscape-scale severity reductions, highlighting the importance of integrating burns with defensible space measures.

Ecological and Biodiversity Outcomes

Controlled burns replicate historical fire regimes in fire-adapted ecosystems, such as savannas, , and certain forests, thereby fostering and preventing the dominance of shade-tolerant or that suppress biodiversity under fire suppression policies. In ecosystems like the U.S. , prescribed burning creates heterogeneous patches that halt woody plant encroachment, restoring native and associated ; a 2022 study in Ecological Solutions and Evidence found that large-scale, intense controlled burns increased cover by reducing invasion, thereby enhancing suitability for species dependent on open landscapes. For plant communities, controlled burns stimulate post-fire regeneration through mechanisms like of seeds and removal of duff layers, promoting fire-cued in species such as serotinous pines and many shrubs; in eastern U.S. oak-hickory forests, repeated prescribed fires over 20 years have been shown to favor regeneration by controlling mesophytic competitors, as documented in a U.S. Forest Service investigation. Similarly, in coastal sandplain grasslands, these burns maintain native plant diversity by curbing succession to woody vegetation, with monitoring indicating sustained species richness in treated areas compared to untreated ones. Wildlife benefits arise from increased structural diversity, including edges between burned and unburned patches that support nesting, foraging, and escape cover; research highlights improvements in for both game and non-game when unburned refugia are incorporated into burn plans. A 2021 field study in temperate dry forests across a 36-year chronosequence revealed that prescribed positively shaped communities by promoting early-successional favored by insectivorous and ground-nesting , while diversity recovered to pre-burn levels within a . In , low-severity prescribed burns have empirically boosted metrics, including and small abundance, aligning with California Department of Fish and Wildlife findings on diversity enhancement. However, outcomes vary by burn timing, intensity, and type; a of temperate and boreal forests indicates that while prescribed burning generally supports in fire-prone systems, frequent or off-season burns can reduce floral and faunal diversity by disrupting phenological cycles or exceeding tolerances. Variable fire return intervals, rather than uniform application, maximize overall by accommodating with differing fire dependencies, as synthesized in U.S. Forest Service literature reviews. Long-term monitoring underscores that benefits accrue when burns are integrated into frameworks, countering the biodiversity losses from prolonged fire exclusion.

Economic and Public Health Advantages

Controlled burns offer economic advantages primarily through reduced expenditures on wildfire suppression and enhanced resource management. In the southern United States, prescribed burning has been estimated to yield suppression cost savings exceeding $65 per acre treated by mitigating fuel accumulation that exacerbates uncontrolled fires. The operational costs of conducting prescribed burns average $11.37 per acre, often lower than alternative mechanical fuel reduction methods, making them a cost-effective proactive strategy when conditions permit safe implementation. Empirical analyses of fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, demonstrate statistically significant reductions in wildfire suppression expenditures, with benefits accruing from decreased fire intensity and spread upon encountering treated areas. In applications, controlled burns can positively impact by promoting regeneration of commercially valuable and reducing from fuels, though outcomes vary by stand and treatment frequency. For instance, assessments across U.S. national forests indicate that repeated prescribed fires maintain or enhance sawtimber volume and value over time, offsetting initial treatment costs through sustained . Agricultural uses, such as in improvement or slash disposal, similarly lower long-term land preparation expenses by naturally nutrients and controlling , though site-specific data underscore the need for tailored application to maximize returns. Public health benefits stem from diminished exposure to severe wildfire smoke, as controlled burns preempt larger, more polluting blazes. A 2025 Stanford-led study modeling fire behavior found that prescribed burns substantially lower wildfire intensity, thereby cutting particulate matter emissions and associated respiratory risks during uncontrolled events. By reducing overall fuel loads, these treatments have been shown to abate potential smoke exposures across populations, including in rural and environmental justice communities, with simulations indicating up to significant fractions of preventable PM2.5 impacts from avoided megafires. Organizations like the American Lung Association highlight that, under optimal conditions, prescribed fire safeguards lung health by substituting manageable smoke episodes for the prolonged, high-volume pollution from unchecked wildfires. This causal link holds in peer-reviewed evaluations, where proactive burning correlates with decreased fire size and intensity, yielding net reductions in acute health burdens despite localized smoke during burns themselves.

Risks and Limitations

Potential for Escapes and Uncontrolled Spread

Despite their planned nature, prescribed burns carry an inherent risk of escaping containment boundaries and transitioning into uncontrolled wildfires, primarily due to unpredictable shifts in , loading, or operational errors. The U.S. Forest Service reports that escapes occur in less than 1 percent of prescribed fires, yet these incidents can result in substantial , , and resource suppression costs. A review of federal data from 2012 to 2021 identified 43 documented escapes out of approximately 50,000 prescribed fire projects nationwide, highlighting the low but non-negligible probability. In , analysis of escaped prescribed fires from 1991 to 2020 indicates a persistently low escape probability, though the spatial and temporal patterns suggest higher risks during periods of or high wind, with consequential burned areas far exceeding the intended burn units in affected cases. Notable examples underscore the potential for rapid escalation. In April 2022, two separate prescribed burns in New Mexico's Santa Fe National Forest escaped control amid windy conditions, merging into the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon , which became the largest in state history, scorching over 341,000 acres and destroying more than 1,000 structures at a cost exceeding $2 billion in suppression and recovery. Similarly, the 2012 Lower North Fork in originated from an escaped prescribed burn, fueled by sudden wind gusts that propelled embers across containment lines, resulting in three fatalities, the destruction of 55 homes, and over 9,000 acres burned. Such escapes often stem from underestimation of fire behavior variability, including acceleration due to backing fires encountering unburned fuels or spot fires igniting beyond firebreaks. Federal after-action reviews, such as those compiled by the Wildland Fire Center, document patterns where most escapes occur in (May and June), correlating with emerging dry conditions that amplify spread rates beyond pre-burn models. While rigorous pre-burn planning mitigates risks—through weather monitoring, contingency resources, and holding patterns—the causal chain from ignition to potential catastrophe remains a core limitation, necessitating ongoing refinements in predictive modeling and on-site adaptability.

Environmental and Health Drawbacks

Smoke from controlled burns contains fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and other pollutants that temporarily degrade air quality, posing risks to respiratory and cardiovascular health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions. Exposure to this smoke has been linked to increased hospital admissions for respiratory issues and elevated mortality risks, even at lower intensities compared to wildfires. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate associations with eye irritation, exacerbated , and cardiovascular events, underscoring that while emissions are managed, they still impose acute health burdens in downwind communities. Environmentally, controlled burns release carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds, contributing to and regional , though typically at lower volumes than uncontrolled wildfires. Ash residues can introduce and contaminants into and waterways, potentially elevating and loads in adjacent post-burn. Fires alter soil hydrophobicity, reducing infiltration and increasing and rates in the short term, which may degrade local through heightened during subsequent rains. These effects vary by burn severity and , with steeper slopes showing amplified risks, though recovery often occurs within months to years under favorable conditions.

Operational and Logistical Challenges

Personnel shortages represent a primary operational hurdle in executing controlled burns, as agencies like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) maintain only approximately 60 qualified prescribed fire managers nationwide, limiting the scale and frequency of operations. Broader staffing deficits exacerbate this, with thousands of unfilled positions across the agency as of 2025, diverting personnel from prescribed fire duties to priorities. Training gaps further compound the issue, as inadequate experience with behavior modeling and contingency planning contributes to rare but impactful escapes, with less than 1% of the roughly 4,500 annual prescribed fires in the U.S. evading control despite high overall success rates. Logistical mobilization challenges arise from narrow weather windows, which constrain burns to specific conditions of , , and to ensure , often resulting in few viable days amid competing suppression demands. variability is narrowing these windows in regions like the western U.S., with analyses showing reduced opportunities from 2000 to 2022 due to shifting meteorological patterns, further straining . Dispatch centers face 30% vacancy rates, hindering timely ordering and deployment, while a 9% "unable to fill" rate for prescribed fire resource requests from 2020 to 2022 underscores systemic bottlenecks in engines, crews, and support. Funding and incentive disparities add logistical friction, as prescribed burns lack hazard pay or full overtime compensation afforded to suppression efforts, reducing crew willingness to participate during fatigue-prone seasons. Restricted contracting flexibility limits external acquisition, and institutional biases toward reactive over proactive burns result in underutilization of available capacity, with hotshot crews available for fuels work only 28% of the time due to exhaustion and local priorities. These factors collectively impede scaling operations, as evidenced by average burn sizes remaining modest at 100 acres in the western U.S. from 2018 to 2022.

Historical Context

Pre-Modern and Indigenous Practices

across multiple continents employed deliberate fire-setting practices for millennia to shape landscapes, enhance resource availability, and mitigate the risk of uncontrolled blazes, predating European colonization and modern by thousands of years. These methods involved small, low-intensity fires under controlled conditions—such as during cool, moist seasons—to create patterns of burned and unburned patches, which promoted ecological diversity and reduced fuel accumulation that could fuel catastrophic events. Archaeological and paleoenvironmental evidence, including charcoal layers in sediments and tree-ring data, indicates that such practices were widespread, with human-arrived regimes in showing a shift to frequent, smaller burns around 65,000 years ago, contrasting with rarer, high-intensity natural fires prior to Aboriginal settlement. In , Native American groups, including ancestors of the Jemez Pueblo in the Southwest, integrated into land stewardship to maintain open forests, prairies, and savannas suited for , gathering, and agriculture. For instance, ethnographic accounts and dendrochronological studies reveal that tribes like the and in conducted cultural burns every 2–5 years to clear fuels, encourage growth of acorns, basketweaving materials, and deer habitats, while preventing the dense thickets that exacerbate spread. Empirical analysis of forest structure at pre-colonial sites shows thinner tree densities and higher compared to post-suppression landscapes, attributing this to anthropogenic 's role in mimicking natural disturbance cycles without the intensity of lightning-ignited events. Australian Aboriginal communities practiced "," a system of frequent, opportunistic ignitions documented in oral traditions and corroborated by long-term sedimentary records spanning over 130,000 years, which demonstrate a human-induced reduction in fire severity through patchwork burning that preserved nutrients and supported like yams and grasses. This approach, applied across diverse biomes from savannas to woodlands, created refugia for and minimized continental-scale infernos, with studies estimating that pre-colonial fire mosaics limited blaze sizes to under 1,000 hectares on average. Pre-modern non-indigenous societies in and also utilized controlled burning variants, such as rotational swidden (slash-and-burn) agriculture emerging around 10,000–3,000 years , where forest clearings were fired to enrich soils with ash for 2–3 years of cropping periods allowed regeneration. In the , historical records from the describe communal burns on commons to renew pastures and control pests, though overuse sometimes led to soil degradation, highlighting the necessity of spatial and temporal planning inherent in sustainable applications. These practices, while agriculturally focused, paralleled indigenous techniques in leveraging fire's causal role in nutrient cycling and vegetation succession, as evidenced by and charcoal proxies in ancient soils.

Era of Fire Suppression Policies

The era of fire suppression policies in the United States began in earnest following the catastrophic 1910 wildfires, which scorched approximately 3 million acres across , , and Washington, killing at least 87 people and destroying timber resources critical to the young U.S. Forest Service (USFS). These events, fueled by , high winds, and slash debris, convinced USFS leadership that aggressive intervention was essential to preserve forests as economic assets for timber production and watershed protection. In response, doubled the USFS in 1911 and enacted to professionalize , marking the institutionalization of suppression as the dominant over earlier tolerance of low-intensity burns. By the 1930s, suppression efforts intensified amid the Great Depression-era focus on resource conservation, culminating in the USFS's 1935 adoption of the "10 a.m. ," which mandated that all reported wildfires be controlled by 10 a.m. the following morning to minimize spread and damage. This directive, issued under Chief Forester Ferdinand Silcox, emphasized rapid response using ground crews, lookouts, and early detection systems, reflecting the prevailing scientific and managerial view that fire was an unmitigated threat to and sustained yield forestry. The policy extended to federal lands managed by the , where suppression had been practiced since 1886 in Yellowstone to protect scenic and recreational values, though parks initially allowed some natural burns in remote areas until stricter enforcement post-1910. Public support for suppression was bolstered by the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention Campaign, launched in 1942, and its iconic mascot , introduced on August 9, 1944, with the slogan "Care will prevent 9 out of 10 forest fires." Smokey's messaging, disseminated via posters, radio, and film, targeted human-caused ignitions—responsible for about 90% of fires at the time—and reinforced the cultural narrative of fire as an enemy to be prevented and extinguished, aligning with wartime resource conservation efforts during . By the mid-20th century, this approach had expanded nationwide through cooperative agreements with states under the Weeks Act of 1911, employing thousands of firefighters and investing heavily in equipment, though it presupposed unlimited resources for containment without considering long-term ecological dynamics. The policy persisted as orthodoxy until challenges emerged in the 1960s and 1970s from ecological studies highlighting fire's natural role.

Revival and Modern Implementation

The revival of controlled burns in the United States gained momentum in the mid-20th century, as ecological research demonstrated that fire suppression policies had led to excessive fuel accumulation, increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Early efforts included The Nature Conservancy's first prescribed burn in in 1962 at Helen Allison Savanna, marking a shift toward intentional fire use for habitat restoration. By the 1970s, national parks began adopting "let-burn" policies for natural ignitions under favorable conditions, influenced by studies recognizing fire's role in ecosystem dynamics. This period saw a broader policy evolution, with the U.S. Forest Service expanding prescribed fire programs to counteract a century of aggressive suppression that began intensifying after the 1910 Great Fire. Indigenous practices, suppressed by laws such as California's 1850 ban on , experienced resurgence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, particularly after severe wildfires highlighted the need for proactive management. Tribes like the partnered with agencies such as the USGS to reintegrate traditional low-intensity burns, conducting culturally prescribed fires since the 2010s to reduce fuel loads and enhance . Major events, including the 1988 Yellowstone fires and the 2020 western U.S. megafires, accelerated adoption by providing that treated landscapes suffered less severe burns. In modern implementation, controlled burns are meticulously planned by certified professionals, incorporating weather forecasts, fuel moisture assessments, and containment strategies to achieve objectives like fuel reduction and enhancement. Techniques include ground-based ignition with drip torches or fuses, and aerial methods using helicopters for plastic sphere dispensers in remote areas, applied under strict prescriptions to minimize escape risks. The U.S. Forest Service conducts approximately 4,500 prescribed fires annually, treating over 325,000 acres in record years like fiscal 2023, while national efforts exceeded 10 million acres of and in 2020 for the first time. Globally, similar revivals have occurred, such as in where Indigenous fire management reduced savanna fire emissions by up to 50% in treated areas since the 1990s, informing policies post-2009 Black Saturday fires. In and other regions, prescribed burning has been integrated into to mimic natural regimes, though adoption lags behind due to regulatory hurdles and urban proximity concerns. Recent U.S. reforms, including Forest Service safety reviews post-2022 escapes, emphasize training and liability protections to scale operations amid growing threats.

Policy and Controversies

Debates on Suppression vs. Proactive Burning

The policy of aggressive fire suppression, dominant in the United States since the early 20th century following events like the 1910 Big Burn, aimed to extinguish all wildfires promptly to protect timber resources and human settlements, but this approach has been critiqued for disrupting natural fire regimes and leading to excessive fuel accumulation in forests. Suppression success rates exceed 95% for initial attacks on small fires, yet by preventing low-intensity burns, it has allowed dead wood, vegetation, and ladder fuels to build up, resulting in forests with fuel loads up to 10 times higher than historical norms in some western U.S. ecosystems. This accumulation contributes to "megafires"—wildfires exceeding 100,000 acres—with data showing that suppressed landscapes experience crown fires and higher burn severity under , as evidenced by a analysis indicating that suppression ensures wildfires ignite and spread under conditions favoring high-intensity behavior. Proponents of proactive burning argue that prescribed fires restore ecological balance by reducing fuel continuity and mimicking frequent, low-severity historical fires that shaped many fire-adapted ecosystems, such as ponderosa pine where intervals between burns averaged 5–25 years pre-suppression. Empirical studies support this, including a 20-year analysis finding that sites treated with prescribed burns or exhibited 40–60% lower severity and greater carbon stability compared to untreated areas, enhancing resilience to and stressors. Similarly, large-scale prescribed burns preceding the 2018 reduced subsequent severity by up to 50% even under extreme winds, demonstrating that proactive treatments create fire-resistant mosaics that limit spread. Critics of shifting from suppression to proactive strategies highlight risks like burn escapes—estimated at 1–4% of U.S. prescribed fires since 2000—and short-term smoke exposure, which can elevate particulate matter levels locally, though peer-reviewed modeling shows prescribed fire emissions produce 50–70% less harmful pollutants per acre burned than equivalent due to higher and . A 2020–2023 western U.S. assessment quantified that recent prescribed burns lowered overall burn severity by 16% and emissions by 101 kg per acre in , underscoring net benefits by averting uncontrolled blazes that release far greater toxins. Despite these data, debates persist over scaling proactive burns amid regulatory hurdles and public aversion to planned , with suppression advocates emphasizing immediate , though long-term evidence from fuel-treated landscapes indicates proactive management averts costlier, deadlier outcomes— expenditures reached $3.4 billion in 2022 alone, often futile against fuel-laden fires.

Regulatory Barriers and Government Failures

Regulatory frameworks, particularly the (NEPA) of 1969, impose extensive environmental impact assessments that significantly delay prescribed fire projects. For projects requiring an (EIS), the average time from initiation to prescribed burns is 7.2 years, while mechanical treatments average 5.3 years, rendering it challenging to scale up treatments to mitigate wildfire risks across vast landscapes. These delays stem from requirements for public comment periods, alternatives analysis, and litigation risks, which often exceed the urgency of accumulating fuel loads in fire-prone ecosystems. Air quality regulations under the further constrain controlled burns by classifying as a that can violate , leading to permit denials or seasonal restrictions. Although the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule allows prescribed fires to be exempted from penalizing state compliance if properly documented, implementation burdens and fear of regulatory penalties have historically deterred agencies from conducting burns, particularly in populated areas. In 2025, the EPA issued guidance urging states not to discourage prescribed burning to meet air standards, acknowledging that emissions dwarf those from controlled burns, yet prior enforcement inconsistencies perpetuated hesitation. Liability concerns and fragmented state-level statutes add layers of risk, with varying civil and criminal penalties for escapes, open burning bans, and inconsistent "right to burn" protections that fail to shield practitioners adequately. Federal land managers cite legal uncertainties and insufficient resources as primary impediments, compounded by a lack of internal incentives—such as rewards for successful burns versus severe repercussions for any unintended spread. Government policies prioritizing fire suppression over proactive burning have entrenched failures in implementation, fostering a "firefighter" culture that diverts personnel and funding from prevention amid escalating wildfire seasons. The U.S. Forest Service's decision in October 2024 to halt prescribed burns in California indefinitely, redirecting crews to active wildfires, exemplifies this reactive approach, which critics argue postpones fuel reduction and heightens future risks despite evidence that treated areas fare better in uncontrolled fires. Legacy suppression paradigms since the early 20th century have allowed fuel accumulation on 193 million acres of federal lands, with understaffing—exacerbated by events like the 2025 government shutdown—halting treatments entirely in some periods. In California, state-level refusals to expand controlled burns alongside inadequate forest thinning have been linked to intensified blazes, underscoring mismanagement despite available indigenous and scientific precedents for frequent low-intensity fires.

Integration of Indigenous Knowledge with Scientific Evidence

Scientific research has increasingly validated indigenous fire management practices, which emphasize frequent, low-intensity burns to create heterogeneous landscapes that reduce fuel continuity and mitigate large-scale risks. In the American Southwest, paleoecological and modeling studies demonstrate that pre-European indigenous regimes, characterized by regular cultural ignitions, diminished the sensitivity of fire occurrence to climatic drivers like , with simulated indigenous burning scenarios showing up to 30-50% lower probabilities under compared to fire-excluded baselines. Similarly, quantitative reconstructions in Aboriginal Territory, , using historical maps and tribal knowledge, estimate that cultural burning maintained open forests and meadows present at colonization, with ignition frequencies of 1-5 years in low-elevation areas aligning with of reduced canopy density and enhanced . In , empirical data from revived Aboriginal practices confirm their alignment with principles; a comprehensive of over 20 years of monitoring in the Kimberley region revealed that indigenous-led mosaic burning reduced the extent of high-intensity late-dry-season fires by 53% across 120,000 km², while lowering by 37% relative to unmanaged wildfires, as verified through satellite-derived burn scar mapping and fuel load assessments. These outcomes stem from of seasonal timing and patch burning, which scientific models corroborate as promoting grass-fueled cool burns over woody fuel accumulation, thereby buffering ecosystems against extreme fire weather. Collaborative frameworks integrating indigenous expertise with western methods, such as those in the U.S., have produced evidence that cultural burning enhances cultural like camas and while restoring pre-settlement vegetation structures, with field experiments showing improved nutrient cycling and reduced invasion by non-native species post-burn. However, effective integration requires empirical validation to adapt traditional practices to contemporary conditions, including altered and fragmentation, as uncalibrated application risks unintended ecological shifts absent site-specific data. Partnerships like the Tribe's with the U.S. Geological Survey exemplify this, where traditional burn prescriptions are tested against metrics of retention and plant regrowth, yielding preliminary findings of heightened landscape resilience without elevated rates.

References

  1. https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire
  2. https://www.nps.gov/articles/what-is-a-prescribed-fire.htm
  3. https://dnr.maryland.gov/forests/Documents/prescribed_fire_fact_sheet.pdf
  4. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-024-00315-6
  5. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ecological-benefits-fire/
  6. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/features/tribal-and-indigenous-fire-tradition
  7. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/19091
  8. https://smokeybear.com/benefits-of-fire
  9. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snap/prescribed-fire-natural-areas.html
  10. https://woods.stanford.edu/news/study-shows-controlled-burns-can-reduce-wildfire-intensity-and-smoke-pollution
  11. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/05/1126912268/prescribed-burns-started-a-wildfire-but-experts-say-theyre-a-crucial-tool
  12. https://blog.aem.eco/unlocking-the-full-potential-of-controlled-burns
  13. https://research.fs.usda.gov/rmrs/fire/prescribed
  14. https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/11/why-is-prescribed-fire-important/
  15. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/su/su_srs054.pdf
  16. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/32483
  17. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.13403
  18. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-024-00272-0
  19. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb0355
  20. https://talltimbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/205-Christensen1993_op.pdf
  21. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/25970
  22. https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/fuel-treatments-reduce-wildfire-severity/
  23. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70038466
  24. https://research.fs.usda.gov/rmrs/articles/how-do-thinning-prescribed-fire-and-wildfire-affect-future-wildfire-severity
  25. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/low-intensity-fires-reduce-wildfire-risk-60-percent
  26. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/06/how-prescribed-burns-could-limit-megafires-in-u-s-west/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811272400197X
  28. https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-03/fact-sheet-prescribed-fire-nm-031523.pdf
  29. https://arkansasresearch.uark.edu/prescribed-fires-can-help-restore-biodiversity-to-great-plains/
  30. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12119
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12004097/
  32. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-landscapes/midwest/stories-in-the-midwest/midwest-fire/
  33. https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-018-0131-5
  34. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/crops-commercial-horticulture/fire-management-tool/
  35. https://www.benchmarklabs.com/blog/benefits-of-controlled-burns-agriculture/
  36. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/using-prescribed-burning-pasture-management/
  37. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/AAQTF-2000-Agricultural-Burning-Attachment-2.pdf
  38. https://www.noble.org/regenerative-agriculture/prescribed-burn/pros-and-cons-of-burning/
  39. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture-natural-resources-and-industry/agribusiness-farmers-and-ranchers/sask-ag-now/rangeland-management/prescribed-fire
  40. https://www.publish.csiro.au/WF/pdf/WF24009
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8494120/
  42. https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Landowner_Assistance/Benefits_of_Prescribed_Burning_low-res.pdf
  43. https://www.kansasbeef.org/on-the-farm/why-do-ranchers-burn-their-pastures
  44. https://extension.msstate.edu/newsletters/forage-news/2020/pasture-benefit-timely-prescribed-burn
  45. https://www.army.mil/article/233524/controlled_burns_improve_training_areas_prevent_wildfires_protect_endangered_species
  46. https://www.lejeune.marines.mil/Prescribed-Burn-Notice/
  47. https://tmd.texas.gov/texas-military-a-m-forest-service-to-perform-prescribed-burns
  48. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2025/Fall/Conservation/Good-Fire
  49. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/indigenous-fire-practices-shape-our-land.htm
  50. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2687
  51. https://www.doi.gov/wildlandfire/prescription-safety-burning-wildland-urban-interface
  52. https://www.nps.gov/articles/fire-and-archeology.htm
  53. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/download/40432.pdf
  54. http://www.nwcg.gov/publications/pms484
  55. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr043.pdf
  56. https://www.fws.gov/policy-library/645fw1
  57. https://gatrees.org/fire-prevention-suppression/prescribed-burn/
  58. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/prescribed-burning/about
  59. https://www.ldaf.la.gov/land/fire/prescribed-burning
  60. https://dnr.wa.gov/forest-resilience-division/prescribed-fire-program
  61. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Prescribed_Burning_338_CPS_10_2020.pdf
  62. https://dnrc.mt.gov/_docs/forestry/Wildfire/agreements-plans-guides/DNRC-Manuals/400-Prescribed-Fire-Manual/400Manual.pdf
  63. https://forestry.alabama.gov/Pages/Fire/Forms/Rx_Burning_Guide.pdf
  64. https://dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/rp_cpbm_guidebook_rxfire_south.pdf
  65. https://discover.pbc.gov/erm/Pages/trail-tales_rxfire.aspx
  66. https://www.frames.gov/catalog/15260
  67. https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/39692/file/PFT_Chapter%252010%2520Technique.pdf
  68. https://prescribed-fire.extension.org/types-of-fire/
  69. https://efire.cnr.ncsu.edu/efire/fire-techniques/
  70. https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/files/HMFSPrescribedBurn.pdf
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721021149
  72. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1965/upload/fire-effects-monitoring-handbook.pdf
  73. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pub/em-9388-prescribed-fire-basics-monitoring-evaluation
  74. https://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/air/documents/SmokeMonitoring.pdf
  75. https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/39690/file/pft_chapter_11_holding_and_contingencies.pdf
  76. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/prescribed-burning-spotfires-and-escapes.html
  77. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/prescribed-fire-for-habitat-management
  78. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/2008_nasiatka.pdf
  79. https://talltimbers.org/articles/assessing-your-fire-yes-you-should-do-a-post-burn-evaluation/
  80. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr191/rm_gtr191_146_151.pdf
  81. https://energyjustice.net/biomass/library/Carey-Schumann.pdf
  82. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025AV001682
  83. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-025-00413-z
  84. https://southernfireexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-1.pdf
  85. https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr224/psw_gtr224.pdf
  86. https://fulbrightreview.uark.edu/prescribed-fires-can-help-restore-biodiversity-to-great-plains/
  87. https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/articles/long-term-ecological-effects-prescribed-burning-and-mechanical-treatments-eastern-oak
  88. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/psv39n2_the-big-benefits-of-bringing-back-prescribed-fire.htm
  89. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.2308
  90. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Science-Institute/News/new-cdfw-research-shows-low-severity-wildfires-improve-biodiversity
  91. https://www.iawfonline.org/article/reduce-wildfire-risks-or-pay-more-for-fire-disasters/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550742423001240
  93. https://nrfirescience.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/psw_gtr261_070.pdf
  94. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/60365
  95. https://ag.purdue.edu/news/department/fnr/2020/12/saunders-prescribed-fire.html
  96. https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr173/psw_gtr173_06_cleaves.pdf
  97. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF003468
  98. https://www.lung.org/blog/costs-benefits-prescribed-burns
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563182/
  100. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106239
  101. https://kjzz.com/news/local/how-many-prescribed-burns-became-wildfires-review-2012-2021-fires-escaped-utah-hermits-peak-calf-canyon-little-twist
  102. https://agdatacommons.nal.usda.gov/articles/dataset/Temporal_and_spatial_pattern_analysis_of_escaped_prescribed_fires_in_California_from_1991_to_2020/30412747
  103. https://www.gao.gov/blog/fighting-fire-fire-forest-service-plans-increase-use-prescribed-fires
  104. https://www.kunc.org/news/2023-05-14/controlled-burns-help-prevent-wildfires-but-regulations-have-made-it-nearly-impossible-to-do-them
  105. https://lessonslearned-prod-media-bucket.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/2024-06/Prescribed%2520Fire%2520Reviews%2520and%2520Near%2520Miss%2520Incidents%25202005.pdf
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25947317/
  107. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-023-01032-4
  108. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c00890
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7932990/
  110. https://www.lung.org/getmedia/fd7ff728-56d9-4b33-82eb-abd06f01bc3b/pse_wildfire-and-prescribed-fire-brief_final_2022.pdf
  111. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/OpenBurning/Impacts.html
  112. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/33045
  113. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20108
  114. https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/wagenbrenner/psw_2022_wagenbrenner005_lucas-borja.pdf
  115. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/Rx-Fire-Strategy.pdf
  116. https://www.propublica.org/article/forest-service-staff-fire-season
  117. https://www.frames.gov/documents/usfs/USFS_20220908_National-Prescribed-Fire-Program-Review.pdf
  118. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106239.pdf
  119. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy22-prescribed-burns-report.pdf
  120. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00993-1
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464286705000185
  122. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/ancient-mud-reveals-australias-burning-history-over-past-130000-years-and-shows-way-through
  123. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2018733118
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112721006873
  125. https://ncei.noaa.gov/news/indigenous-land-and-historical-wildfire-management
  126. https://wwf.org.au/blogs/new-study-confirms-indigenous-fire-management-equals-success/
  127. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17567505.2024.2425246
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X20305162
  129. https://www.whpress.co.uk/CCH/1152_Starlander.html
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204614003429
  131. https://www.history.com/articles/great-fire-1910-wildfire-suppression
  132. https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/famous-fires/the-1910-fires/
  133. https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/light-and-seed-magazine/blazing-battles-the-1910-fire-and-its-legacy
  134. https://www.nifc.gov/sites/default/files/nwffd/LincolnBramwell_WildlandFirefightingHistory.pdf
  135. https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/u-s-forest-service-fire-suppression/
  136. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/silcox-letter-for-10-am-policy.pdf
  137. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-history-of-national-park-service-fire-policy.htm
  138. https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/smokey-bear/
  139. https://smokeybear.com/smokeys-story
  140. https://wffoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Weeks-Act-Cooperative-Fire-Control11890.pdf
  141. https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/federal-wildfire-policy/
  142. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/stories-in-mn-nd-sd/restoring-fire-to-native-grasslands/
  143. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2025/tribes-cultural-burning-california-wildfires/
  144. https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/embers-wisdom-yurok-tribe-and-usgs-partnership-culturally-prescribed-fire
  145. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/06/controlled-prescribed-burns-wildfire-intensity-smoke-pollution
  146. https://eos.com/blog/prescribed-burn/
  147. https://wildfiretaskforce.org/usfs-completes-record-setting-year-for-prescribed-fire/
  148. https://www.stateforesters.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-Prescribed-Fire-Use-Report.pdf
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718521000233
  150. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/67747
  151. https://www.umt.edu/news/2024/03/032524fire.php
  152. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949790624002003
  153. https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/12/12/twenty-year-study-confirms-california-forests-are-healthier-when-burned-or-thinned/
  154. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-025-00377-0
  155. https://www.clarity.io/blog/from-fire-suppression-to-fire-prevention-the-role-of-controlled-burns
  156. https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/01/13/lets-review-some-forest-service-nepa-stats/
  157. https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PERC-PolicyBrief-NEPA-Web.pdf
  158. https://www.perc.org/2022/06/14/does-environmental-review-worsen-the-wildfire-crisis/
  159. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-policy-guidance-help-prevent-catastrophic-wildfires-promote-use-prescribed
  160. https://cei.org/blog/one-way-for-government-to-improve-air-quality-remove-obstacles-to-prescribed-fires/
  161. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/10/16/epa-promotes-prescribed-fires-in-clean-air-guidance-00611581
  162. https://www.wlj.net/epa-revisiting-rules-to-increase-prescribed-burning/
  163. https://southernfireexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/Wonkka_SouthernFireExchangeWebinar.pdf
  164. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/prescribed-fire-understanding-liability-laws-and-risk.html
  165. https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/setting-fires-avoid-fires
  166. https://www.kqed.org/science/1994972/forest-service-halts-prescribed-burns-california-worth-risk
  167. https://cepr.net/publications/us-forest-service-decision-to-halt-prescribed-burns-in-california-is-history-repeating/
  168. https://westernpriorities.org/2025/10/forest-service-falls-behind-on-wildfire-prevention/
  169. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5080026-california-wildfires-government-failure/
  170. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq3221
  171. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.2973
  172. https://wwf.org.au/news/2024/worlds-largest-fire-study-proves-success-of-indigenous-fire-management/
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0378112721006873
  174. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/6/8/296
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.