Van R. Kane

Interruption of frequent burning in dry forests across western North America and the continued impacts of anthropogenic climate change have resulted in increases in fire size and severity compared to historical fire regimes. Recent legislation, funding, and planning have emphasized increased implementation of mechanical thinning and prescribed burning treatments to decrease the risk of undesirable ecological and social outcomes due to fire. As wildfires and treatments continue to interact, managers require consistent approaches to evaluate treatment effectiveness at moderating burn severity. In this study, we present a repeatable, remote sensing–based, analytical framework for conducting fire‐scale assessments of treatment effectiveness that informs local management while also supporting cross‐fire comparisons. We demonstrate this framework on the 2021 Bootleg Fire in Oregon and the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire in Washington. Our framework used (1) machine learning to identify key bioclimatic, topographic, and fire weather drivers of burn severity in each fire, (2) standardized workflows to statistically sample untreated control units, and (3) spatial regression modeling to evaluate the effects of treatment type and time since treatment on burn severity. The application of our framework showed that, in both fires, recent prescribed burning treatments were the most effective at reducing burn severity relative to untreated controls. In contrast, thinning‐only treatments only produced low/moderate‐severity effects under the more moderate fire weather conditions in the Schneider Springs Fire. Our framework offers a robust approach for evaluating treatment effects on burn severity at the scale of individual fires, which can be scaled up to assess treatment effectiveness across multiple fires. As climate change brings increased uncertainty to dry forest ecosystems of western North America, our framework can support more strategic management actions to reduce wildfire risk and foster resilience.

This archive contains research data collected and/or funded by Forest Service Research and Development (FS R&D), U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a resource for accessing both short and long-term FS R&D research data, which includes Experimental Forest and Range data. It is a way to both preserve and share the quality science of our researchers.

Predicting wildfire behavior is a complex task that has historically relied on empirical models. Physics-based fire models could improve predictions and have broad applicability, but these models require more detailed inputs, including spatially explicit estimates of fuel characteristics. One of the most critical of these characteristics is fuel moisture. Obtaining moisture measurements with traditional destructive sampling techniques can be prohibitively time-consuming and extremely limited in spatial resolution. This study seeks to assess how effectively moisture in grasses can be estimated using reflectance in six wavelengths in the visible and infrared ranges. One hundred twenty 1 m-square field samples were collected in a western Washington grassland as well as overhead imagery in six wavelengths for the same area. Predictive models of vegetation moisture using existing vegetation indices and components from principal component analysis of the wavelengths were generated and compared. The best model, a linear model based on principal components and biomass, showed modest predictive power (r² = 0.45). This model performed better for the plots with both dominant grass species pooled than it did for each species individually. The presence of this correlation, especially given the limited moisture range of this study, suggests that further research using samples across the entire fire season could potentially produce effective models for estimating moisture in this type of ecosystem using unmanned aerial vehicles, even when more than one major species of grass is present. This approach would be a fast and flexible approach compared to traditional moisture measurements.

We review science‐based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes. As part of the review, we address common questions associated with climate adaptation and realignment treatments that run counter to a broad consensus in the literature. These include the following: (1) Are the effects of fire exclusion overstated? If so, are treatments unwarranted and even counterproductive? (2) Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard? (3) Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem? (4) Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)? (5) Can wildfires on their own do the work of fuel treatments? (6) Is the primary objective of fuel reduction treatments to assist in future firefighting response and containment? (7) Do fuel treatments work under extreme fire weather? (8) Is the scale of the problem too great? Can we ever catch up? (9) Will planting more trees mitigate climate change in wNA forests? And (10) is post‐fire management needed or even ecologically justified? Based on our review of the scientific evidence, a range of proactive management actions are justified and necessary to keep pace with changing climatic and wildfire regimes and declining forest heterogeneity after severe wildfires. Science‐based adaptation options include the use of managed wildfire, prescribed burning, and coupled mechanical thinning and prescribed burning as is consistent with land management allocations and forest conditions. Although some current models of fire management in wNA are averse to short‐term risks and uncertainties, the long‐term environmental, social, and cultural consequences of wildfire management primarily grounded in fire suppression are well documented, highlighting an urgency to invest in intentional forest management and restoration of active fire regimes.

This archive contains research data collected and/or funded by Forest Service Research and Development (FS R&D), U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a resource for accessing both short and long-term FS R&D research data, which includes Experimental Forest and Range data. It is a way to both preserve and share the quality science of our researchers.