We’re Not Doing Enough Prescribed Fire in the Western United States to Mitigate Wildfire Risk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-organized, written, and reasoned analysis of trends in prescribed fire use…an analysis much needed to keep this issue moving forward. I think the author does an excellent job of staying on task (others have strayed with varying success into policy and social challenges) and sticks with presenting the absolute numbers and trends by region and agency. This is an important paper for documenting trends in Rx burning and with minor revisions should be published.
While the author rightly focuses on the trends to assess whether regions and agencies are responding to the best available science, it might help provide context for the reader to have a table with absolute ha values of fire-dependent forest in each region and for each region the % ownership by the different agencies and private. Trends matter but it also helps to know where most of the fire prone forests are and who manages them.
I was looking for a little more explanation in the discussion about the high acreage burned and the increasing % change (figures 2b and 2d) in the Eastern GACC. These were a surprise to me and I think other readers would also be interested in what’s behind the numbers (is some of it that the eastern GACC includes Midwest areas where oak stands are being burned?).
In the discussion’s 3rd paragraph (lines 180-189), I think it’s worth noting with perhaps just one sentence, that more rugged topography and extreme fire weather also make Rx fire more challenging to implement in the western U.S.
Minor suggested edits:
Line 57. Suggest separating the clause about infrequent Rx fire escape into a new sentence.
Line 79. ‘of fire’ could be deleted.
Line 99 replace ‘;’ with a period and start the new sentence “I utilized…”
Line 102: define GACC
Author Response
Reviewer 1
This is a well-organized, written, and reasoned analysis of trends in prescribed fire use…an analysis much needed to keep this issue moving forward. I think the author does an excellent job of staying on task (others have strayed with varying success into policy and social challenges) and sticks with presenting the absolute numbers and trends by region and agency. This is an important paper for documenting trends in Rx burning and with minor revisions should be published.
Thank you!
While the author rightly focuses on the trends to assess whether regions and agencies are responding to the best available science, it might help provide context for the reader to have a table with absolute ha values of fire-dependent forest in each region and for each region the % ownership by the different agencies and private. Trends matter but it also helps to know where most of the fire prone forests are and who manages them.
I agree that it is useful to see the land ownership across regions and have added a table in supplementary. Regarding identifying the location of fire-prone forests, there are two assumptions embedded in this that are problematic, in my opinion. First, focusing on fire-prone forests suggests that prescribed fire should only be used in fire-dependent and/or fire-prone forests. As much of the recent research and fire management literature suggests, prescribed fire is a tool than can be used across any vegetated ecosystem to reduce fuels and fire risk, beyond just the places where fire has been excluded from high-frequency, low-severity systems. Second, it’s also important to dispel the myth that only forests can benefit from prescribed fire, when in reality, much of the prescribed fire completed in the US is outside of forests, often in grasslands. I have added some text in the discussion to this effect to clarify.
I was looking for a little more explanation in the discussion about the high acreage burned and the increasing % change (figures 2b and 2d) in the Eastern GACC. These were a surprise to me and I think other readers would also be interested in what’s behind the numbers (is some of it that the eastern GACC includes Midwest areas where oak stands are being burned?).
This is a good question, so I reviewed the state level data available in the Historical Wildfire summaries. Some of this is oak burning in the upper Midwest, but some of it seems to be associated with increased tribal burning on larger reservations (e.g., in northern Minnesota).
In the discussion’s 3rd paragraph (lines 180-189), I think it’s worth noting with perhaps just one sentence, that more rugged topography and extreme fire weather also make Rx fire more challenging to implement in the western U.S.
While this is a commonly discussed reason for less prescribed fire in the West, I have unable to find any empirical or more in-depth analysis of this in the literature; it seems to be an idea that has been perpetuated based on anecdotes, whereas the social perceptions differences have considerable documentation in the literature. I have expanded this discussion slightly to include this contrast.
Minor suggested edits:
Line 57. Suggest separating the clause about infrequent Rx fire escape into a new sentence.
Change made as suggested.
Line 79. ‘of fire’ could be deleted.
Change made as suggested.
Line 99 replace ‘;’ with a period and start the new sentence “I utilized…”
Change made as suggested.
Line 102: define GACC
Done.
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal: Fire
Manuscript Number: fire-504874
Manuscript Title: We’re not Doing Enough Prescribed Fire in the Western US to Mitigate Wildfire Risk
The manuscript reports on aggregated data on the use of prescribed fire in the US since 1998. The topic is of critical importance to natural resource social scientists (across numerous disciplines), natural resource managers, and state/federal policy makers. The analysis is simple and clearly presented. The author clearly uses the data to support her findings, which are noteworthy. The manuscript would make a nice contribution to the literature. I only have a few minor suggestions for the author before the paper be accepted for publication in Fire.
Line 26: Delete “across the US” as it’s redundant with the first part of the sentence
Line 56: Insert “which” between “smoke” and “can”
Line 79: Delete “of fire” both times it appears on this line
Line 93: Geographic Area Coordination Centers need to be defined somewhere in the first half of this paragraph
Line 130: Define “(GACC)” the first time it is used in the figure label
Line 190: BIA needs to be defined in the body of the paper; currently it is only defined in the title of Table 2
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The manuscript reports on aggregated data on the use of prescribed fire in the US since 1998. The topic is of critical importance to natural resource social scientists (across numerous disciplines), natural resource managers, and state/federal policy makers. The analysis is simple and clearly presented. The author clearly uses the data to support her findings, which are noteworthy. The manuscript would make a nice contribution to the literature. I only have a few minor suggestions for the author before the paper be accepted for publication in Fire.
Thank you for your helpful suggestions!
Line 26: Delete “across the US” as it’s redundant with the first part of the sentence
Done – thank you for catching this.
Line 56: Insert “which” between “smoke” and “can”
Done – thank you for catching this.
Line 79: Delete “of fire” both times it appears on this line
Done – thank you for catching this.
Line 93: Geographic Area Coordination Centers need to be defined somewhere in the first half of this paragraph
Done – thank you for catching this.
Line 130: Define “(GACC)” the first time it is used in the figure label
Done – thank you for catching this.
Line 190: BIA needs to be defined in the body of the paper; currently it is only defined in the title of Table 2
Definitions have been added in methods.
Reviewer 3 Report
Kolden has written an interesting note on the currents trends of prescribed fires in the US. Overall, analyses and presentation are sound and the main conclusions appears undebatable (but see below). I have a few comments that the author may consider to further improve the paper.
1. I think the trends can be put into context of the overall management of natural resources in the US. Im thinking for example on Stankey et al 2005 (Adaptive management of natural resources: …..) and ongoing programs, eg in the western states.
2. L18-19. “due in part to sociocultural barriers,” Not sure I see strong evidence for this. There are certainly other aspects that may be much more important, but not discussed in this paper: funding, prioritize, logistics etc. I dont think “ sociocultural barriers” should be highlighted so strongly in the abstract.
3. Many may say that if wildfires increase, the need for prescribed fires decrease. How would you respond to that?
4. Title. A strong statement and if this is not an opinion/forum paper (I dont hink it is), then I would suggest put is as a question instead ("Are we doing.....).
Minor comments
L29-30. That fire can increase C sequestration may be true, but C is lost in the fire so the net benefit is limited to some specific systems.
Resilience to wildfire may increase with prescribed fires. But here it is written as resilience in general.
Figure 1. I would recommend splitting it up into two panels as one panel implies causation.
L116. Should be “Results” as discussion has its own section?
Figure 2, a-b. Put millions/thousands in the axis name. Actually, it should be “Area prescribed fire (millions of hectares)” - Variable name (unit).
It would be interesting to know how these area numbers stand in comparison to other countries in the world.
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; }Author Response
Kolden has written an interesting note on the currents trends of prescribed fires in the US. Overall, analyses and presentation are sound and the main conclusions appears undebatable (but see below). I have a few comments that the author may consider to further improve the paper.
Thank you!
1. I think the trends can be put into context of the overall management of natural resources in the US. Im thinking for example on Stankey et al 2005 (Adaptive management of natural resources: …..) and ongoing programs, eg in the western states.
The Stankey et al. GTR is not one I was familiar with, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Because this is a Research Note and has a word count limit, I sought to focus on the main points of interest regarding geographical and agency trends, rather than look at the 10,000-foot level conceptual framework for why prescribed fire isn’t being adopted more widely. In future work on this problem, the Stankey et al. synthesis will be of great use in addressing this.
2. L18-19. “due in part to sociocultural barriers,” Not sure I see strong evidence for this. There are certainly other aspects that may be much more important, but not discussed in this paper: funding, prioritize, logistics etc. I dont think “ sociocultural barriers” should be highlighted so strongly in the abstract.
Change made as suggested.
3. Many may say that if wildfires increase, the need for prescribed fires decrease. How would you respond to that?
My initial response is this: vegetation grows back. In a fire-adapted or fire-dependent system, there will always be a need for prescribed fire (see Smith, Kolden, and Bowman 2019, Nature Ecology and Evolution).
Haugo et al. (2019) specifically investigated this in the Northwest by quantifying the fire deficit and asking whether the recent massive wildfire seasons have put a dent in that deficit. The answer was unequivocally that they have not. While estimates of pre-European settlement annual area burned in the US vary widely, they are generally in the 20-40m acre/yr range for CONUS. Even with considerable land conversion due to agriculture, the “large” wildfire seasons that have come close to 10m acres/year in the last decade still fall far short.
4. Title. A strong statement and if this is not an opinion/forum paper (I dont hink it is), then I would suggest put is as a question instead ("Are we doing.....).
I appreciate the suggestion, but I feel the results support the title.
Minor comments
L29-30. That fire can increase C sequestration may be true, but C is lost in the fire so the net benefit is limited to some specific systems.
This has been modeled specifically to understand the trade-offs, particularly by Matt Hurteau and colleagues, and they have found that a large proportion of western US forests benefit from prescribed fire and have a net positive sequestration. C loss in wildfire has been grossly overestimated by emissions modelers who didn’t understand that most C is not emitted immediately because live trees don’t combust 100% (Stenzel et al., forthcoming).
Resilience to wildfire may increase with prescribed fires. But here it is written as resilience in general.
This has been modified to read ‘ecological resilience.’
Figure 1. I would recommend splitting it up into two panels as one panel implies causation.
Since the text does not support causation through any sort of analysis, but rather lets the reader interpret the data as they might, I’m not sure how this implies causation (it would definitely have a high R value, but as noted, correlation does not imply causation). A research note is also meant to be fairly short with efficient figures.
L116. Should be “Results” as discussion has its own section?
Thank you for catching the error.
Figure 2, a-b. Put millions/thousands in the axis name. Actually, it should be “Area prescribed fire (millions of hectares)” - Variable name (unit).
Change made as suggested.
It would be interesting to know how these area numbers stand in comparison to other countries in the world.
I agree, it would be interesting. Unfortunately, no other country in the world keeps fire records like the US. Even wildfire area burned is only readily available for a few other countries, much less prescribed fire.
Reviewer 4 Report
Notes/comments to Editor and Author: 1. Given the emphasis on BIA/Tribal. Include a bit more on how many of the tribes across the nation who are burning (used on the est. of area) are Fire Dependant Cultures (see Stewart 2002 Forgotten Fires) who historically adapted to fire prone ecosystems and created diversified cultural fire regimes. 2. Address BIA administered vs. Public Law 280 Self Governance tribal jurisdictions. Q: How many tribes have Admin. control/Self Gov. and therefore Culturally (in their Land Resource Management plans) desire more active Forestry/Timber management and associated Rx fire use (cite)? Strommer, G.D. and Osborne, S.D., 2014. The history, status, and future of tribal self-governance under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Am. Indian L. Rev., 39, p.1. Rasmussen, K., Hibbard, M. and Lynn, K., 2007. Wildland fire management as conservation-based development: an opportunity for reservation communities?. Society and Natural Resources, 20(6), pp.497-510. Cultural language concern/issue: Delete/replace "untapped" this is very concerning to tribes who still perceived non-tribal researchers/scientists as just wanting to extract and exploit their intellectual property. Suggestion: "...remains underutilized in collaborative partnerships with tribes." The Federal lands don't include Military/DOD and this should be noted in the Methods, analysis, results table
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Notes/comments to Editor and Author:
1. Given the emphasis on BIA/Tribal. Include a bit more on how many of the tribes across the nation who are burning (used on the est. of area) are Fire Dependant Cultures (see Stewart 2002 Forgotten Fires) who historically adapted to fire prone ecosystems and created diversified cultural fire regimes.
I appreciate this suggestion, however, given that this is a Research Note with a word limit, my goal was limit the amount of detail and background like this that would exceed both the limit and the basic goal of the paper. The tribal piece is very important and very interesting, but I think it is beyond both the scope of the present paper and my ability to address the complexity appropriately given my limited background in understanding tribal fire use and issues of self-governance and sovereignty. I would be very interested in exploring this angle in a subsequent paper with someone who has much more in-depth expertise in this arena so that I do not misrepresent the tribal component; I am quite sensitive to not wishing to overstep my bounds of understanding as a white Western scientist. I also have tried to make clear that prescribed fire does not need to be limited to fire-prone ecosystems when addressing wildfire risk reduction; western science indicates that prescribed fire can be used to reduce fuels in any ecosystem with fuel, not just those that are fire-prone or fire-adapted. The general concept is also applicable to tribal fire use; Rasmussen et al. (the citation provided by the reviewer in the next comment) make clear that many tribes in the wetter regions of the Pacific Northwest used fire for land clearing, canoe building, and ceremonial purposes, even though the wet forests are not remotely fire-prone.
2. Address BIA administered vs. Public Law 280 Self Governance tribal jurisdictions. Q: How many tribes have Admin. control/Self Gov. and therefore Culturally (in their Land Resource Management plans) desire more active Forestry/Timber management and associated Rx fire use (cite)? Strommer, G.D. and Osborne, S.D., 2014. The history, status, and future of tribal self-governance under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Am. Indian L. Rev., 39, p.1. Rasmussen, K., Hibbard, M. and Lynn, K., 2007. Wildland fire management as conservation-based development: an opportunity for reservation communities?. Society and Natural Resources, 20(6), pp.497-510.
I appreciate this suggestion and these citations, but as noted previously, I have neither the space nor the expertise to go into depth here regarding tribal fire use and the complex relationship between tribes and the BIA given the long history and egregious acts committed by the US government upon the indigenous people on North America. I do appreciate the reviewer bringing the Rasmussen et al. citation to my attention, as I had not previously been aware of it, and I have edited the text in several areas of the paper to better reflect the language and results of that paper and have cited it accordingly.
Cultural language concern/issue: Delete/replace "untapped" this is very concerning to tribes who still perceived non-tribal researchers/scientists as just wanting to extract and exploit their intellectual property. Suggestion: "...remains underutilized in collaborative partnerships with tribes."
Thank you for this suggestion; change made as suggested.
The Federal lands don't include Military/DOD and this should be noted in the Methods, analysis, results table
Good point; change made as suggested.
Edits from the PDF:
Line 9: change made as suggested.
Line 28: this is highly specific beyond the scope of the opening paragraph.
Line 44: I appreciate the suggestion, but the phrase ‘intentional burning’ encompasses both of the suggested and more (and is not limited to the early colonial period)
Line 48: change made as suggested
Line 50: text was removed
Line 54: change made as suggested.
Line 101: I don’t know how TNC burning is accounted for, if at all, it is not elucidated in the Wildfire Reports and is beyond the scope of this paper to determine.
Line 113: same as previous
Line 138: For a Spearman’s Rho, rho is the metric reported (equivalent to when R is reported for a Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, even though researchers rarely actually say ‘Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient’).
Line 154: this has been described in the methods.
Line 171: unfortunately, Research Notes are short (2500 word limit) and this article already exceeds the word limit.
Line 172: additional text has been added addressing legal differences in responsibility.
Line 181: if that is the case, there is not empirical evidence to support this that I am aware of.
Line 185: text has been added to this affect.
Line 192: this text has been modified to better reflect this citation’s argument and findings.
Line 205: text modified
