Berkeley Forests

In this report, we present a summary of disparate but related and potentially complementary efforts to plan and monitor fire resilience California. We interviewed agency scientists and managers, academic researchers, consultants, and nonprofit researchers to better understand the range of efforts underway as of 2024. Based on their feedback, we synthesized the design criteria behind these efforts to place them in context with each other, for the purpose of identifying opportunities for synergy between efforts and to better understand their differences. In the short term, the goal was to support technical staff in making methodological and data choices that lead to better-understood alignment between results, choosing similar data sources and methods where possible, and articulating where and why results may inevitably differ. In the long term, the goal was to provide the background needed to inform policy-makers about how to explain seemingly-contradictory results to broader audiences. We found that the degree to which monitoring and assessment efforts are aligned was related to key design choices and considerations that may vary due to differing logistical reasons or policy questions. Some patterns emerged: the similarity or difference in the results of different efforts we reviewed depended on the type of effort and its intended products - while some only generated data, others focused on analyses of existing data, and still others produced combinations thereof. The overall purpose of the effort (e.g. monitoring, assessment, planning) determined which key design considerations were important in developing that effort. Most efforts we reviewed covered multiple topic areas of resilience; few focused on e.g. only carbon or only forest health. Efforts were typically stratified by land ownership (e.g. federal vs private) rather than ecosystem type (e.g. forest vs shrubland). The geographical coverage of an effort could determine what data sources were available, and landscape-level versus project-level focus influenced how results were analyzed and presented, including whether project effectiveness was directly addressed. Data sources and metrics varied for various logistical reasons, and had different strengths and weaknesses (e.g. simulated versus remotely sensed empirical results). Final presentation choices reflected all the key design choices, as well as the intended audience. Some efforts were ephemeral analyses associated with a current policy or management priority while others were long-term, comprehensive efforts; that said, even ephemeral efforts provide potential approaches for analysis, and may provide important results for policymakers.

The California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force (Task Force) has developed regionally-adapted resources to lessen wildfire risk to communities and enhance broader statewide ecosystem resilience. This includes a large set of metrics intended to support a wide range of organizations in prioritizing, planning and/or implementing management actions. The Science Advisory Panel to the Task Force (SAP) was asked to provide expert advice to inform the selection of a subset of “core” metrics for reporting outcomes and progress towards resilience goals. We used survey tools to collect and synthesize the scientific expertise of the SAP as well as other experts regarding existing “Regional Resource Kit” (RRK) metrics as well as potential suggested metrics. This report summarizes the survey process and results. We used two rounds of surveys to collect expert opinion on metrics. Round 1 asked respondents to 1) identify criteria for core metrics, 2) identify metrics from the Regional Resource Kits (RRKs) that were believed to be inadequate based on those criteria, and 3) recommend additional metrics not included in the original set. Round 2 asked respondents to rate the resulting set of 115 metrics. The Round 1 results indicated that selecting a useful set of core metrics depended on their intended application (e.g., planning vs.reporting), the intended audience (e.g., policy makers, scientists, and/or the public), and resilience outcomes (e.g., immediate wildfire risk reduction versus long-term ecological health). In Round 2 we asked respondents to rate each metric on how well it measured each of three broad, overlapping resilience goals identified by the Task Force: 1) reducing wildfire risk, 2) improving ecological integrity, and/or 3) supporting social and/or cultural wellbeing. The Task Force specified the purpose for the metrics: reporting progress to policymakers and the public. Therefore, respondents also evaluated three attributes for each metric: 1) how realistic it was to remeasure (i.e., feasibility), 2) how easy it was to explain to wide audiences (i.e., understandability), and 3) how well it represented the process of interest (i.e., sensitivity). In addition, respondents identified relevant region(s) of California (Sierra Nevada, Southern California, Central Coast, and Northern California) for each metric. For the 115 metrics collectively considered in Round 2 (81 from the RRKs and 34 novel metrics), 66 received an average rating of greater than 4 out of 5 on one or more of the three resilience goals (reduce fire risk, improve ecological resilience, support social/cultural wellbeing). Of these, 13 metrics were rated above 4 out of 5 for two of the three goals, and only “probability of high-severity fire” was rated that highly for all three. Metrics on topics relating to vegetation structure and composition as well as fire behavior and history were most abundant in the RRKs and in our list of highly rated metrics. Topics relating to air quality, water supply, economics, community readiness, environmental justice, and community wellbeing were less abundant in the RRKs and not as highly rated in our surveys; these topic areas could benefit from further expert feedback and development. Top-rated metrics already present in the RRKs included: probability of high severity fire, damage potential in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), standing dead and ladder fuels, vegetative stress during extreme drought, tree mortality, and shrub resilience. Metrics that are not yet in the RRKs but do exist elsewhere include Cal EnviroScreen scores and areas of low potential shrub regeneration. Highly rated novel metrics suggested by the survey respondents include (among others): health outcomes related to air quality/smoke and insurance availability/price. Some considerations for proceeding with selection of core metrics arose through this process. First, metrics selected (and targeted desirable ranges for these metrics) might be ecosystem specific. Second, the tradeoff between the logistical aspects of the metrics (feasibility of remeasurement, understandability) with their scientific accuracy and value needs to be evaluated with the target audience in mind. Third, many metrics can address resilience across multiple topic areas and therefore framing this overlap carefully is important when determining how to track progress towards resilience goals.

The Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) was a joint forest management assessment by the University of California, the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin, state and federal agencies, and the public. SNAMP was created in response to uncertainty about forest fuels management in the Sierra Nevada and the controversy resulting from the United States Forest Service’s 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework that established the current legal boundaries for management prescriptions in the Sierra Nevada national forests. Broadly, SNAMP was formed to learn how to apply adaptive management as required in the 2004 Framework, with an emphasis on engaging the public in a meaningful way.  More specifically, SNAMP was designed to assess the efficacy of forest fuels management on potential fire behavior and the impacts of that management on three essential natural resources: forest ecosystem health, wildlife, and water, while incorporating participation by all interested stakeholders, including the public.

In this report, we present a summary of disparate but related and potentially complementary efforts to plan and monitor fire resilience California. We interviewed agency scientists and managers, academic researchers, consultants, and nonprofit researchers to better understand the range of efforts underway as of 2024. Based on their feedback, we synthesized the design criteria behind these efforts to place them in context with each other, for the purpose of identifying opportunities for synergy between efforts and to better understand their differences. In the short term, the goal was to support technical staff in making methodological and data choices that lead to better-understood alignment between results, choosing similar data sources and methods where possible, and articulating where and why results may inevitably differ. In the long term, the goal was to provide the background needed to inform policy-makers about how to explain seemingly-contradictory results to broader audiences. We found that the degree to which monitoring and assessment efforts are aligned was related to key design choices and considerations that may vary due to differing logistical reasons or policy questions. Some patterns emerged: the similarity or difference in the results of different efforts we reviewed depended on the type of effort and its intended products - while some only generated data, others focused on analyses of existing data, and still others produced combinations thereof. The overall purpose of the effort (e.g. monitoring, assessment, planning) determined which key design considerations were important in developing that effort. Most efforts we reviewed covered multiple topic areas of resilience; few focused on e.g. only carbon or only forest health. Efforts were typically stratified by land ownership (e.g. federal vs private) rather than ecosystem type (e.g. forest vs shrubland). The geographical coverage of an effort could determine what data sources were available, and landscape-level versus project-level focus influenced how results were analyzed and presented, including whether project effectiveness was directly addressed. Data sources and metrics varied for various logistical reasons, and had different strengths and weaknesses (e.g. simulated versus remotely sensed empirical results). Final presentation choices reflected all the key design choices, as well as the intended audience. Some efforts were ephemeral analyses associated with a current policy or management priority while others were long-term, comprehensive efforts; that said, even ephemeral efforts provide potential approaches for analysis, and may provide important results for policymakers.

The California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force (Task Force) has developed regionally-adapted resources to lessen wildfire risk to communities and enhance broader statewide ecosystem resilience. This includes a large set of metrics intended to support a wide range of organizations in prioritizing, planning and/or implementing management actions. The Science Advisory Panel to the Task Force (SAP) was asked to provide expert advice to inform the selection of a subset of “core” metrics for reporting outcomes and progress towards resilience goals. We used survey tools to collect and synthesize the scientific expertise of the SAP as well as other experts regarding existing “Regional Resource Kit” (RRK) metrics as well as potential suggested metrics. This report summarizes the survey process and results. We used two rounds of surveys to collect expert opinion on metrics. Round 1 asked respondents to 1) identify criteria for core metrics, 2) identify metrics from the Regional Resource Kits (RRKs) that were believed to be inadequate based on those criteria, and 3) recommend additional metrics not included in the original set. Round 2 asked respondents to rate the resulting set of 115 metrics. The Round 1 results indicated that selecting a useful set of core metrics depended on their intended application (e.g., planning vs.reporting), the intended audience (e.g., policy makers, scientists, and/or the public), and resilience outcomes (e.g., immediate wildfire risk reduction versus long-term ecological health). In Round 2 we asked respondents to rate each metric on how well it measured each of three broad, overlapping resilience goals identified by the Task Force: 1) reducing wildfire risk, 2) improving ecological integrity, and/or 3) supporting social and/or cultural wellbeing. The Task Force specified the purpose for the metrics: reporting progress to policymakers and the public. Therefore, respondents also evaluated three attributes for each metric: 1) how realistic it was to remeasure (i.e., feasibility), 2) how easy it was to explain to wide audiences (i.e., understandability), and 3) how well it represented the process of interest (i.e., sensitivity). In addition, respondents identified relevant region(s) of California (Sierra Nevada, Southern California, Central Coast, and Northern California) for each metric. For the 115 metrics collectively considered in Round 2 (81 from the RRKs and 34 novel metrics), 66 received an average rating of greater than 4 out of 5 on one or more of the three resilience goals (reduce fire risk, improve ecological resilience, support social/cultural wellbeing). Of these, 13 metrics were rated above 4 out of 5 for two of the three goals, and only “probability of high-severity fire” was rated that highly for all three. Metrics on topics relating to vegetation structure and composition as well as fire behavior and history were most abundant in the RRKs and in our list of highly rated metrics. Topics relating to air quality, water supply, economics, community readiness, environmental justice, and community wellbeing were less abundant in the RRKs and not as highly rated in our surveys; these topic areas could benefit from further expert feedback and development. Top-rated metrics already present in the RRKs included: probability of high severity fire, damage potential in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), standing dead and ladder fuels, vegetative stress during extreme drought, tree mortality, and shrub resilience. Metrics that are not yet in the RRKs but do exist elsewhere include Cal EnviroScreen scores and areas of low potential shrub regeneration. Highly rated novel metrics suggested by the survey respondents include (among others): health outcomes related to air quality/smoke and insurance availability/price. Some considerations for proceeding with selection of core metrics arose through this process. First, metrics selected (and targeted desirable ranges for these metrics) might be ecosystem specific. Second, the tradeoff between the logistical aspects of the metrics (feasibility of remeasurement, understandability) with their scientific accuracy and value needs to be evaluated with the target audience in mind. Third, many metrics can address resilience across multiple topic areas and therefore framing this overlap carefully is important when determining how to track progress towards resilience goals.

In this report, we present a pilot of outcome reporting for wildland and wildland urban interface (WUI) fire resilience treatments. We focus on the contributions of vegetation treatments towards reducing vegetation stress and wildfire risk as key management objectives, while also reporting on potential co-benefits of habitat and water protection (additional potential co-benefits are beyond the scope of this pilot). We identified treatments that could impact relevant vegetation characteristics using data from the California Interagency Treatment Tracker System (ITS) from October 2020 through December 2024. Based on the availability of other data sources in 2025 (largely datasets updated as of 2024), we were able to calculate how frequently the treatments were implemented in areas identified as high priority according to the different management objectives; we also estimated the potential efficacy of the treatments in reducing vegetation stress and wildfire risk. We found that, statewide, treatments since late 2020, in aggregate, do not appear to have been targeted towards the most drought-vulnerable forested areas, but where treatments were implemented in those areas (in late 2020 through late 2024), the treatments did have a potentially meaningful reduction in drought-vulnerability. Between late 2020 and late 2024, treatments in shrublands have not resulted in increased grass-dominated areas; and, since late 2020, treatments within shrublands have targeted roadside areas, which may then be mowed to reduce ignition potential. Potentially beneficial (low-intensity) fire increased moderately statewide inside treatments, but increased more within fire footprints. Despite no overarching policy requirements or large-scale cross-organization planning, treatments within the WUI, road corridors, and especially in areas adjacent to utility corridors were collectively preferentially implemented in high wildfire hazard areas. The aggregated treatment extent in the WUI modestly reduced potential high severity fire, and in areas adjacent to utilities and roads moderately reduced it. Though in general treatments may not have been designed to specifically improve habitat or water resources, their locations were also somewhat concentrated in high priority areas. Finally, when evaluating only areas within treatments where we could observe a change in canopy cover via remote sensing imagery, reduction in tree drought vulnerability and reductions in potential wildfire severity are meaningful, and more similar to impacts of fires - but potentially without the other detriments of fires.