Berkeley Forests

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.