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.