Blending Indigenous and western science: Quantifying cultural burning impacts in Karuk Aboriginal Territory.

The combined effects of Indigenous fire stewardship and lightning ignitions shaped historical fire regimes, landscape patterns, and available resources in many ecosystems globally. The resulting fire regimes created complex fire-vegetation dynamics that were further influenced by biophysical setting, disturbance history, and climate. While there is increasing recognition of Indigenous fire stewardship among western scientists and managers, the extent and purpose of cultural burning is generally absent from the landscape-fire modeling literature and our understanding of ecosystem processes and development. In collaboration with the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources, we developed a transdisciplinary Monte Carlo simulation model of cultural ignition location, frequency, and timing to simulate spatially explicit cultural ignitions across a 264,399-ha landscape within Karuk Aboriginal Territory in northern California. Estimates of cultural ignition parameters were developed with Tribal members and knowledge holders using existing interviews, historical maps, ethnographies, recent ecological studies, contemporary maps, and generational knowledge. Spatial and temporal attributes of cultural burning were explicitly tied to the ecology of specific cultural resources, fuel receptivity, seasonal movement patterns, and spiritual practices. Prior to colonization, cultural burning practices were extensive across the study landscape with an estimated 6972 annual ignitions, averaging approximately 6.5 ignitions per Indigenous fire steward per year. The ignition characteristics we document align closely with data on historical fire regimes and vegetation but differ substantially from the location and timing of contemporary ignitions. This work demonstrates the importance of cultural burning for developing and maintaining the ecosystems present at the time of colonization and underscores the need to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to restore ecocultural processes in these systems.

Growing convergence research: Coproducing climate projections to inform proactive decisions for managing simultaneous wildfire risk.

We apply a convergence research approach to the urgent need for proactive management of long-term risk associated with wildfire in the United States. In this work we define convergence research in accordance with the US National Science Foundation-as a means of addressing a specific and compelling societal problem for which solutions require deep integration across disciplines and engagement of stakeholders. Our research team brings expertise in climate science, fire science, landscape ecology, and decision science to address the risk from simultaneous and impactful fires that compete for management resources, and leverages climate projections for decision support. In order to make progress toward convergence our team bridges spatial and temporal scale divides arising from differences in disciplinary and practice-based norms. We partner with stakeholders representing US governmental, tribal, and local decision contexts to coproduce a robust information base for support of decision making about wildfire preparedness and proactive land/fire management. Our approach ensures that coproduced information will be directly integrated into existing tools for application in operations and policy making. Coproduced visualizations and decision support information provide projections of the change in expected number of fires that compete for resources, the number of fire danger days per year relative to prior norms, and changes in the length and overlap of fire season in multiple US regions. Continuing phases of this work have been initiated both by stakeholder communities and by our research team, a demonstration of impact and value.

Wildfire and climate change adaptation of western North American forests: a case for intentional management.

Forest landscapes across western North America (wNA) have experienced extensive changes over the last two centuries, while climatic warming has become a global reality over the last four decades. Resulting interactions between historical increases in forested area and density and recent rapid warming, increasing insect mortality, and wildfire burned areas, are now leading to substantial abrupt landscape alterations. These outcomes are forcing forest planners and managers to identify strategies that can modify future outcomes that are ecologically and/or socially undesirable. Past forest management, including widespread harvest of fire- and climate-tolerant large old trees and old forests, fire exclusion (both Indigenous and lightning ignitions), and highly effective wildfire suppression have contributed to the current state of wNA forests. These practices were successful at meeting short-term demands, but they match poorly to modern realities. Hagmann et al. review a century of observations and multi-scale, multi-proxy, research evidence that details widespread changes in forested landscapes and wildfire regimes since the influx of European colonists. Over the preceding 10 millennia, large areas of wNA were already settled and proactively managed with intentional burning by Indigenous tribes. Prichard et al. then review the research on management practices historically applied by Indigenous tribes and currently applied by some managers to intentionally manage forests for resilient conditions. They address 10 questions surrounding the application and relevance of these management practices. Here, we highlight the main findings of both papers and offer recommendations for management. We discuss progress paralysis that often occurs with strict adherence to the precautionary principle; offer insights for dealing with the common problem of irreducible uncertainty and suggestions for reframing management and policy direction; and identify key knowledge gaps and research needs.

Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions.

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.

Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driven wildfires.

Large wildfires (>50,000 ha) are becoming increasingly common in semiarid landscapes of the western United States. Although fuel reduction treatments are used to mitigate potential wildfire effects, they can be overwhelmed in wind-driven wildfire events with extreme fire behavior. We evaluated drivers of fire severity and fuel treatment effectiveness in the 2014 Carlton Complex, a record-setting complex of wildfires in north-central Washington State. Across varied topography, vegetation, and distinct fire progressions, we used a combination of simultaneous autoregression (SAR) and random forest (RF) approaches to model drivers of fire severity and evaluated how fuel treatments mitigated fire severity. Predictor variables included fuel treatment type, time since treatment, topographic indices, vegetation and fuels, and weather summarized by progression interval. We found that the two spatial regression methods are generally complementary and are instructive as a combined approach for landscape analyses of fire severity. Simultaneous autoregression improves upon traditional linear models by incorporating information about neighboring pixel burn severity, which avoids type I errors in coefficient estimates and incorrect inferences. Random forest modeling provides a flexible modeling environment capable of capturing complex interactions and nonlinearities while still accounting for spatial autocorrelation through the use of spatially explicit predictor variables. All treatment areas burned with higher proportions of moderate and high-severity fire during early fire progressions, but thin and underburn, underburn only, and past wildfires were more effective than thin-only and thin and pile burn treatments. Treatment units had much greater percentages of unburned and low severity area in later progressions that burned under milder fire weather conditions, and differences between treatments were less pronounced. Our results provide evidence that strategic placement of fuels reduction treatments can effectively reduce localized fire spread and severity even under severe fire weather. During wind-driven fire spread progressions, fuel treatments that were located on leeward slopes tended to have lower fire severity than treatments located on windward slopes. As fire and fuels managers evaluate options for increasing landscape resilience to future climate change and wildfires, strategic placement of fuel treatments may be guided by retrospective studies of past large wildfire events.

Fuel treatments and landform modify landscape patterns of burn severity in an extreme fire event.

Under a rapidly warming climate, a critical management issue in semiarid forests of western North America is how to increase forest resilience to wildfire. We evaluated relationships between fuel reduction treatments and burn severity in the 2006 Tripod Complex fires, which burned over 70,000 ha of mixed-conifer forests in the North Cascades range of Washington State and involved 387 past harvest and fuel treatment units. A secondary objective was to investigate other drivers of burn severity including landform, weather, vegetation characteristics, and a recent mountain pine beetle outbreak. We used sequential autoregression (SAR) to evaluate drivers of burn severity, represented by the relative differenced Normalized Burn Ratio index, in two study areas that are centered on early progressions of the wildfire complex. Significant predictor variables include treatment type, landform (elevation), fire weather (minimum relative humidity and maximum temperature), and vegetation characteristics, including canopy closure, cover type, and mountain pine beetle attack. Recent mountain pine beetle damage was a statistically significant predictor variable with red and mixed classes of beetle attack associated with higher burn severity. Treatment age and size were only weakly correlated with burn severity and may be partly explained by the lack of treatments older than 30 years and the low rates of fuel succession in these semiarid forests. Even during extreme weather, fuel conditions and landform strongly influenced patterns of burn severity. Fuel treatments that included recent prescribed burning of surface fuels were particularly effective at mitigating burn severity. Although surface and canopy fuel treatments are unlikely to substantially reduce the area burned in regional fire years, recent research, including this study, suggests that they can be an effective management strategy for increasing forest landscape resilience to wildfires.

Wildfire, Smoke Exposure, Human Health, and Environmental Justice Need to be Integrated into Forest Restoration and Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Increasing wildfire size and severity across the western United States has created an environmental and social crisis that must be approached from a transdisciplinary perspective. Climate change and more than a century of fire exclusion and wildfire suppression have led to contemporary wildfires with more severe environmental impacts and human smoke exposure. Wildfires increase smoke exposure for broad swaths of the US population, though outdoor workers and socially disadvantaged groups with limited adaptive capacity can be disproportionally exposed. Exposure to wildfire smoke is associated with a range of health impacts in children and adults, including exacerbation of existing respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, worse birth outcomes, and cardiovascular events. Seasonally dry forests in Washington, Oregon, and California can benefit from ecological restoration as a way to adapt forests to climate change and reduce smoke impacts on affected communities. RECENT FINDINGS: Each wildfire season, large smoke events, and their adverse impacts on human health receive considerable attention from both the public and policymakers. The severity of recent wildfire seasons has state and federal governments outlining budgets and prioritizing policies to combat the worsening crisis. This surging attention provides an opportunity to outline the actions needed now to advance research and practice on conservation, economic, environmental justice, and public health interests, as well as the trade-offs that must be considered. Scientists, planners, foresters and fire managers, fire safety, air quality, and public health practitioners must collaboratively work together. This article is the result of a series of transdisciplinary conversations to find common ground and subsequently provide a holistic view of how forest and fire management intersect with human health through the impacts of smoke and articulate the need for an integrated approach to both planning and practice.