Legislative Auditor's Conclusion:

DNR's long-term approach to wildfire prevention and preparedness is supported by science and best practices. The approach requires coordination with other entities and can reduce fire severity, which may impact costs to suppress fires.

 

  
   
   

January 2021

Executive Summary

In 2019, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) directed its staff to review the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) wildfire prevention and preparedness activities and related expenditures. The study directive also required a review of research to identify whether there is evidence to show how effectively the activities reduce the negative impacts and costs of wildfire.

DNR has a strategic, science-based approach to prevention and preparedness

DNR developed long-term wildfire and forest health plans that provide a strategic approach to prevention and preparedness. The approach is grounded in science and the planned activities (e.g. thinning, chipping, prescribed fire) are consistent with science and best practices. Plans address:

  • Prevention - activities that are aimed at reducing the number of human caused fires.
  • Preparedness - activities that are intended to improve forest health and help communities adapt to wildfire. For this report, preparedness does not include suppression-related activities to control or extinguish fires (e.g., training, placing staff and equipment near anticipated fires).

Since the plans were developed in 2017 and 2018 and have 10-20 year timelines, DNR is still in the early stages of implementation. To date, DNR has identified 33 initial priority areas in eastern Washington (yellow areas on map) to focus forest health efforts, and activities have begun in these areas.

Map displaying land ownership in Washington state and DNR's 33 priority areas in eastern Washington.

Source: JLARC staff analysis of DNR data.

DNR spent a total of $70 million on preparedness and prevention in fiscal years 2018-2020. More detail is available in Appendix B.

DNR is one of many partners that must work together to achieve prevention and preparedness goals

Statute requires DNR to assess and treat one million acres of forest land in eastern Washington by 2033. DNR manages only 500,000 acres within its priority areas, so meeting this goal will require working with other federal, state, private, and tribal entities.

Landscape preparedness activities are coordinated through formal agreements and collaboratives. DNR also provides financial and technical assistance to small forest landowners.

Community preparedness and prevention activities (e.g. Firewise USA®A program that encourages residents of wildfire-prone areas to take voluntary actions to reduce wildfire risks to their homes and neighborhoods., Community Wildfire Protection Plans) involve conservation districts, community groups, fire agencies, and local governments. Research suggests that community preparedness can increase firefighter safety and reduce loss to private property.

Currently, DNR cannot systematically show how much it has spent on forest health treatments in a specific area. However, DNR is developing a new system that could provide this information.

DNR currently uses multiple systems to track prevention and preparedness information needed to meet statutory reporting requirements. These systems are unable to connect activity location and cost, so DNR cannot easily show how much it has spent on preparedness activities in the specific priority areas. This makes it difficult to know if the agency's spending is consistent with its plans and goals.

However, as required by law, DNR is developing a monitoring strategy to track forest health accomplishments. One component of the broader monitoring strategy is a forest health tracking system. The system will include maps, activity type, and project level information, such as location, funding, and costs. DNR plans to provide public access to the tracking system in 2021.

Research indicates that preparedness activities can reduce fire intensity and severity, and may decrease suppression costs for individual fires

JLARC staff worked with consultants to review more than 300 peer reviewed articles, guidance documents, and published reports about fire ecology and management (see Appendix A for bibliography). Research, which is generally applicable to eastern Washington forests, suggests that fuel reduction projects that combine thinning and prescribed fire effectively reduce fire intensity, fire severity, and have other ecological, public safety, and economic benefits. DNR is taking steps to increase its use of prescribed fire.

  • Fire intensity measures a fire's energy, usually in terms of temperature or flame length.
  • Fire severity refers to the effects of fire on forest material, such as percent of trees that burned or died.

Graphic depicting fire intensity and severity before and after fuel reduction activities. Fire is more intense and severe before fuel reduction activities than after.

Source: JLARC staff depiction based on diagrams created by the U.S. Forest Service.

There are many factors that influence overall fire suppression costs, and the relationship between prevention, preparedness, and suppression spending is too complex for a simple equation (e.g. a dollar spent in one area equates to reducing suppression costs by $X). However, research models predict that preparedness activities may reduce suppression costs for individual fires.

Committee Action to Distribute Report

On January 6, 2021 this report was approved for distribution by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. Action to distribute this report does not imply the Committee agrees or disagrees with Legislative Auditor recommendations.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Report Details

1. DNR has a strategic, science-based approach

DNR’s wildfire and forest health plans provide a strategic approach to fire prevention and preparedness. The approach is grounded in science and the planned activities are consistent with best practices.

Terms used in this report

For purposes of this report, we use the following terms to describe DNR's activities:

  • Prevention activities are aimed at reducing the number of human caused fires.
  • Preparedness activities are intended to improve forest health and help communities adapt to wildfire. Preparedness does not include suppression-related activities that extinguish or control the spread of fire (e.g., training, placing staff and equipment near anticipated fires).

In 2019 and 2020, the Legislature considered bills that would create a new funding source for the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) wildfire suppression, prevention, and preparedness activities. DNR stated that the proposal would reduce "wildfire damage and cost by investing in proven wildfire prevention and preparedness strategies."

The bills did not pass and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) directed its staff to:

  • Review the Department of Natural Resources’ wildfire prevention and preparedness activities and related expenditures.
  • Identify whether there is evidence to show how effectively the activities reduce the impacts and costs of wildfire.

DNR developed long-term wildfire and forest health plans

While there are many factors that contribute to wildfire, there is broad agreement among many scientists and land managers that historic forest management practices and fire suppression policies at the federal and state level have led to an unnatural buildup of fuelsThese include grasses, shrubs, woody debris, and small trees. on the landscape. Dense, unhealthy forests create fuels that make fires harder to control and more expensive to suppress.

DNR developed long-term forest health plans, as required by state and federal law. It also developed a 10-year plan to address wildfire. The plans set forth strategies to achieve healthy forests, resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities, and safe wildfire response. Since the plans were written in 2017 and 2018 and have 10-20 year implementation timelines, DNR is still in the early stages of implementation.

Exhibit 1.1: DNR's plans provide a strategic approach to achieve prevention and preparedness goals
Forest Health Strategic Plan and Implementation Strategy
Image of DNR's 20-Year Forest Health Plan: Eastern Washington (2017) 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan: Eastern Washington (2017)

Overarching framework for addressing forest health needs on all forest lands in eastern Washington, regardless of ownership. 		Image of DNR's Strategy to Restore Forest Health on State Lands in Eastern Washington (2017) Strategy to Restore Forest Health on State Lands in Eastern Washington (2017)

Implements the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan on DNR-owned lands.
Wildfire Strategic Plan and Forest Action Plan
Image of Washington State Wildland Fire Protection 10-Year Strategic Plan (2018) Washington State Wildland Fire Protection 10-Year Strategic Plan (2018)

Strategy and implementation plan to address wildland fire issues across the state. Aligns with the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. 		Image of Forest Action Plan (2017) Forest Action Plan (2017)

Strategy for using DNR’s forestry programs to address threats to forest resources and advance federal goals. DNR published an update in the fall of 2020, after the field work for this study was complete.
Source: JLARC staff analysis of DNR planning documents.

DNR used a scientific approach to identify 33 initial priority areas for preparedness activities in eastern Washington

StatuteRCW 76.06.020 defines healthy forests as sound in ecological function, sustainable, resilient to insects, diseases, fire, and other disturbances, and able to meet landowner objectives. DNR's Forest Health Plan identifies priority areas to focus forest health treatments, as state law requires (see Exhibit 1.2).

  • DNR identified 33 initial priority areas in eastern Washington based on data that includes fire risk, wildland urban interface, drinking water, wildlife habitat, climate change, timber volume, and aquatic resources. DNR's methodology is included in the Plan. DNR plans to identify additional priority areas each biennium.
  • After identifying priority areas, DNR conducted landscape evaluations to assess forest health conditions and determine treatment needs. The evaluations summarize vegetation changes compared to historical conditions, current fire and drought risk, and wildlife habitat needs. This information is used to identify specific actions needed to move the landscape into a more ecologically resilient condition and reduce fire risk.
Exhibit 1.2: The 33 priority areas in eastern Washington cross multiple ownership boundaries
Map displaying land ownership in Washington state and DNR's 33 priority areas in eastern Washington.
Source: JLARC staff analysis of DNR data.

DNR compiled agency and partner data about forest health treatments into a database. The database includes information from 2017 through 2019 and shows that treatments took place on state, federal, and private land in the 33 priority areas. Treatments include fuel reduction projects such as thinning, chipping, piling and burning vegetation.

DNR is developing a tracking system to monitor forest health accomplishments, as described in Section 3.

Activities identified in DNR's plans align with federal guidance and best practices

DNR's plans and activities are consistent with national guidance. For example, the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management StrategyFederally mandated strategy that sets national-level direction for fire preparedness and management across all lands. has three goals: restore and maintain resilient landscapes, create fire adapted communities, and respond to wildfires safely and effectively. DNR's Wildfire Strategy adopts the same goals and identifies similar activities such as fuel reduction treatments, prescribed fire, reduction of human-caused ignitions, and community action. DNR's Forest Health Plan provides an approach for creating healthy, resilient landscapes in eastern Washington.

The activities in DNR's plans also are consistent with best practices identified in scientific literature. For example, research shows that activities such as thinning, chipping, and prescribed fire reduce the fuels that allow fires to grow and spread. More information is in Section 4.

Exhibit 1.3: DNR's plans identify a variety of prevention and preparedness activities for itself and its partners
Graphic shows pictures of prevention activities such as fire danger rating systems, burn ban notices, and public education; landscape preparedness activities such as mechanical thinning, chipping, piling and burning, and prescribed fire; and community preparedness activities such as rules and regulation, developing local plans, and creating defensible space.
Source: JLARC staff analysis.

DNR spends more on preparedness activities than prevention

DNR spent a total of $70 million on preparedness and prevention in fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Of this, $63 million was spent on landscape preparedness activities such as forest health and fuel reduction.

Sources include state, federal, and non-appropriated funds. State budget provisos and federal grants have directed more funding to preparedness (e.g., forest health, hazard reduction) than to prevention (e.g., public education).

DNR uses unique accounting codes to differentiate prevention and preparedness spending from other DNR activities including wildfire suppression. The codes also provide details about its spending, such as the type of activity (e.g., forest health, prevention education), specific projects, and the region where funds were spent.

Additional detail for fiscal year 2020 is in Appendix B.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Report Details

2. DNR must work with other entities

DNR is one of many partners that must work together to achieve prevention and preparedness goals

There are 22 million acres of forest land in Washington. Landowners include the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), State Parks, Tribes, and private forest landowners.

Federal, tribal, and private landowners collectively own more Washington forest land than DNR, which owns about three million acres. Landowners may have objectives prioritized differently for their land, such as emphasizing timber revenue or recreation opportunities.

State law directs DNR to treat one million acres and coordinate with others

Statute sets requirements for DNR's forest health treatments and interagency collaboration. For example:

  • DNR must aim to complete forest health treatments on one million acres in eastern Washington by 2033 (RCW 76.06.200). DNR identified 33 initial priority areas to focus treatments. It plans to identify additional areas each biennium (see Section 1). Because DNR owns or manages only 500,000 acres within these areas, it will need to work with others to accomplish the Legislature's goal.
  • DNR must coordinate with other parties to monitor forest health and provide education or technical assistance (RCW 76.06.030). Additional stakeholders include city and county governments, non-forest landowners, other residents, community groups, and businesses.
Exhibit 2.1: There are multiple landowners and other stakeholders in each of the 33 priority areasAreas identified by DNR as a focus for forest health treatments.
Map showing multiple land owners within one of DNR's 33 priority areas.
Source: JLARC staff analysis of DNR data.

Landscape preparedness is coordinated through formal agreements, collaboratives, and assistance programs

As described below, DNR and federal agencies use the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), a Shared Stewardship agreement, and forest collaboratives to coordinate landscape preparedness across state and federal land.

  • The GNA is an agreement signed in 2017 that allows DNR to plan and implement forest health treatments on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management. The federal agencies reimburse DNR. There are 46 GNA projects completed or underway in Washington.
  • The Shared Stewardship agreement, signed in 2019, encourages larger, more targeted restoration efforts based on the state's Forest Action Plan (see Section 1). The USFS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife participate. There are currently no projects completed or in progress.
  • Forest health collaboratives help DNR, federal agencies, Tribes, conservation groups, and others reach non-binding agreements about forest management on federal forest land. Two of the nine Washington forest collaboratives also address other public and private land.

Financial and technical assistance is available to small private forest landowners

DNR provides free forest stewardship consultations to private forest landowners across the state. In eastern Washington, DNR offers a landowner assistance program to help small forest landownersThose with less than 5,000 acres. improve forest health and resilience to wildfire. Through the program, DNR and the landowner share the cost of approved forest health treatments (e.g., thinning, chipping, pruning). DNR aims to have 80% of landowner assistance projects located within the priority areas.

Other agencies also support the work of small forest landowners. For example, conservation districts provide technical assistance and can help connect DNR with interested landowners. A 2019 agreement between DNR, USFS, conservation districts, Washington State University Extension, and other partners clarifies responsibilities for information sharing, technical assistance, funding, and administration.

Community preparedness and prevention activities involve conservation districts, community groups, fire agencies, and local governments

Many communities in the wildland urban interface (WUI)Pronounced as "woo-ee." take steps to prepare for wildfire. The WUI is the area where homes are built near or among lands prone to wildland fire. Research suggests that fire in the WUI is a key driver of suppression costs. Research also suggests that community preparedness can increase firefighter safety and reduce loss of private property (see Appendix A for bibliography).

Residents, government agencies, and private organizations share responsibility for prevention and preparedness in the WUI. For example:

  • Prevention: DNR and fire agencies offer wildfire prevention education. They also establish and communicate burn restrictions.
  • Defensible space and home hardening: Residents can create defensible spaceArea in which vegetation and debris has been cleared or reduced to slow the spread of fire. and use fire-resistant materials on homes. Conservation districts, fire agencies, and DNR provide information through print materials, web sites and social media, and public meetings. Many fire agenciesFire agencies are responsible for structure protection in the WUI. and conservation districts conduct home assessments and provide assistance. DNR and conservation districts also help communities receive formal recognition through Firewise USA®A program that encourages residents of wildfire-prone areas to take voluntary actions to reduce wildfire risks to their homes and neighborhoods..
  • Regulations: Local governments adopt and enforce building codes, including those specific to the WUI.
  • Information sharing: Groups called fire adapted community learning networks and coalitions connect stakeholders so that they can share best practices, resources, and lessons learned. Members include fire agencies, conservation districts, DNR, residents, and others.
  • Planning: Local governments may develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) to identify and prioritize local needs for hazard mitigation, community preparedness, and structure protection. Participants have included conservation districts, federal agencies, emergency management, forest collaboratives, businesses, residents, and nonprofit conservation groups. DNR, local fire agencies, and local governments must agree to the CWPP. There are 62 plans in Washington reflecting the needs of counties, cities, towns, and other communities.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Report Details

3. Treatment costs for specific areas not currently available

Currently, DNR cannot systematically show how much it has spent on forest health treatments in a specific area. However, it is developing a tracking system that could provide this information.

State law and federal grants require DNR to report forest health treatments, including acres and costs

Each biennium, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) must submit two reports to the Legislature. They both must identify areas prioritized for forest health treatments, report progress on completing the treatments, and estimate the work and costs for the next biennium. The Legislature passed these requirements in 2017 and the next reports are due in December 2020.

  1. One report focuses on state lands (RCW 79.10.530).
  2. The other addresses the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan (see Section 1). In addition to the requirements above, DNR must report on the treatments completed in the preceding biennium, the costs, and treatment outcomes (RCW 76.06.200).

Federal grant agreements also require DNR to submit annual progress reports on the acres treated and associated costs.

DNR collects financial and spatial data

DNR collects the information it needs to fulfill its reporting requirements and make management decisions about where to direct its spending on landscape preparedness.

  • DNR maintains financial data in the state accounting system and in spreadsheets that track landowner assistance projects. The data includes information such as amount spent, fund source, and project. The data allows DNR to report the amount spent from federal grants or state appropriations, as well as overall costs (see Section 1 and Appendix B).
  • DNR stores spatial data in a separate database. The spatial data includes the specific location and information about the types of forest health treatments completed. This data can be mapped with the other spatial information to show whether the treatment took place within a priority area. DNR began collecting this data for treatments conducted in 2017 through 2019. Currently, it allows DNR to show the treatments at specific locations and whether those locations overlap with priority areas.

DNR's systems currently do not link financial and spatial data, so it is unclear how much has been spent on treatments in specific priority areas

The financial and spatial data systems do not currently share a set of common unique identifiers that could be used to link treatment location and costs. Further, data quality issues in the spreadsheets and database (e.g., null fields, inconsistent name and date conventions) hinder efforts to create the link manually. As a result, DNR cannot systematically show the cost of treatments at specific locations or know whether its spending is consistent with its plans and goals.

DNR reports that it is working to correct this problem with proposed data standards, beginning with landowner assistance projects. DNR intends to complete this work by June 2021 for projects completed since 2017.

Exhibit 3.1: DNR has proposed data standards to link financial and spatial data by June 2021
Graphic showing how unique identification number could link spatial and financial data to show how much DNR has spent on treatments at specific locations including whether the treatment is within the priority areas.
Source: JLARC staff analysis.

DNR is developing a forest health tracking system to monitor forest health accomplishments from multiple entities. DNR plans to include treatments and costs.

As required by state lawRCW 76.06.030, DNR is developing a monitoring strategy to track forest health treatments, outcomes (e.g., changes to forest condition), and effectiveness over time.

One component of this is a forest health treatment tracking system. The system includes information from the spatial database described above, as well as data from other state, federal and private landowners. The tracking system will include information about where treatments are located and basic information about each treatment, such as treatment type, objectives, and completion date. The system is intended to provide a multiparty view of forest health treatment activities that does not currently exist.

DNR began developing the tracking system in September 2018. It plans to make the data and maps viewable on its web site in 2021. At that time, the tracking system will:

  • Include a map of project locations.
  • Filter projects by completion stage and type.
  • Provide available project-level information such as project name and number, project description, start and completion dates, location, organization and contacts, funding and cost, grants and agreements, and photos.

Subject to funding, the tracking system will eventually replace the spreadsheets and include data for forest health treatments statewide and ongoing monitoring.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Report Details

4. Preparedness can reduce fire intensity, severity

Research indicates that preparedness activities can reduce fire intensity and severity, and may decrease suppression costs for individual fires

JLARC directed its staff to evaluate whether research identifies certain types of activities that affect the negative impacts and costs of wildfire. Staff worked with expert consultants to review more than 300 peer reviewed articles, guidance documents, and published reports about fire ecology and management (see bibliography in Appendix A).

Research suggests that removing fuels from the landscape has reduced the intensity and severity of individual fires

Landscape preparedness activities such as thinning, chipping, and prescribed fire can reduce or alter the fuels on the ground (surface fuelsThese include grasses, brush, and wood debris.), increase gapsReferred to as the canopy distance. between trees, and increase distance from the forest floor to its canopy. The goal of these activities is not to stop all fires, but to make it more difficult for a fire to move from the ground into the canopy and then spread from canopy to canopy. This has been shown to decrease the fire's intensity and severity.

  • Fire intensity measures the fire's energy, usually in terms of temperature or flame length. For example, a high intensity fire is hotter than a low intensity fire.
  • Fire severity refers to the effects of fire. It reflects the loss or change in forest material, such as the percent of trees that burned or died.
Exhibit 4.1: Preparedness activities reduce fuels on the landscape

Graphic depicting fire intensity and severity before and after fuel reduction activities. Fire is more intense and severe before fuel reduction activities than after.

Source: JLARC staff depiction based on diagrams created by the U.S. Forest Service.

Prescribed fire is a best practice for removing surface fuels

Fuel reduction projects are most effective when they combine thinning and the removal of surface fuels. When appropriate, prescribed fireThe controlled application of low to moderate intensity fire under specific weather conditions to meet management objectives. is one way to reduce surface fuels, and is generally less labor intensive and costly than other methods.

Research that is generally applicable to forests in eastern Washington shows that fires are less severe in areas that have been treated with thinning and prescribed fire compared to similar areas without these activities.

  • Researchers studied areas burned during the 2014 Carlton Complex fire in north-central Washington. They found that areas with fuel reduction treatments that included thinning and prescribed fire burned with less severity even when there was high wind and temperatures.
  • Computer models that simulate the effect of fuel reduction activities confirm the effectiveness of thinning combined with prescribed fire for reducing fire intensity and severity in forests like those in eastern Washington.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is taking steps to increase the use of prescribed fire in Washington. For example, DNR's planning documents provide goals and strategies for the use of prescribed fire. At the Legislature's direction, DNR conducted a prescribed fire pilot project (2016 HB 2928) and is developing a certification program for prescribed fire (2018 HB 2733).

Exhibit 4.2: Thinning and prescribed fire reduced fuels and fire impacts

Pictures showing dense forest before forest health treatment, removal of trees through forest thinning and prescribed fire, and forest with increased space between trees when the forest health treatment is complete.

Picture showing two sides of the forest after the 2015 Lime Belt Fire. The portion treated with prescribed fire prior to 2015 burned less than the side that had not been treated with prescribed fire prior to 2015.

Source: JLARC staff analysis. Photographs taken by Justin Haug, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Research indicates landscape preparedness may have ecological, public safety, and economic benefits

By reducing fire intensity and severity, fuel reduction activities can provide ecological benefits and improve public safety. The activities can also provide economic opportunities. The research cautions that these types of benefits are often site-specific and the experiences from one location may not directly apply to another.

Ecological: Research has found that fuel reduction can improve habitat for some species (e.g. deer, elk) and preserve water sources that could be affected by high severity fire.

Public safety: Fuel reduction activities may modify a fire's behavior, allowing firefighters safer access and improved suppression opportunities. Less intense and severe fires produce less harmful air quality impacts and smoke emissions than more severe fires.

Economic: Landowners and management agencies often hire contractors to perform fuel reduction activities such as thinning and chipping. This may provide jobs in rural economies and marketable timber products.

Models predict that preparedness activities may reduce suppression costs for individual fires

The relationship between prevention, preparedness, and suppression spending is complex. Without extensive and detailed information on costs and benefits, it cannot be simplified to an equation (e.g. a dollar spent on preparedness equates to reducing suppression costs by $X). This cost and benefit information is often unavailable or unknown.

Instead, researchers use two key methods to evaluate the effect of fuel reduction activities on fire suppression costs: case studies and computer simulations.

  • Case studies compare actual suppression costs in areas with and without fuel reduction activities. This approach is uncommon and some researchers show reduced suppression costs in areas with past fuel reduction activities, while others find no significant relationship.
  • Computer simulations assess the effect of fuels on fire growth, behavior, and size, and the subsequent effect on suppression response and costs. The simulations suggest that preparedness activities that reduce fuels may lower suppression costs for individual fires when they occur in a treated area.

DNR's ability to relate prevention, preparedness, and suppression spending is further complicated by the agency's data systems (see Section 3 and below).

DNR's systems cannot yet identify costs for individual fires

JLARC directed its staff to evaluate DNR's progress in implementing the recommendations from the 2018 JLARC report Wildfire Suppression Funding and Costs. The three recommendations instructed DNR to:

  • Refine its collection of key data elements.
  • Improve the accuracy and reliability of the key data elements.
  • Develop a systematic and verifiable way to identify the costs of individual fires.

DNR concurred with each recommendation and has taken some steps towards implementation. However, it did not meet the implementation deadlines, and as of August 2020, DNR reports that implementation is "in progress."

Preparedness activities are among many factors that may influence overall suppression costs

Rising suppression costs have led researchers to study the factors driving suppression costs. It is important to note that a small percentage of fires each year typically account for a large percentage of suppression costs.

Some of the many factors that affect suppression costs include:

  • Fire size and behavior: costs increase with fire intensity and severity and the area burned is often correlated with annual suppression costs.
  • Development in the wildland urban interface (WUI): there is wide recognition among fire managers and researchers that increased development in the WUI has led to higher suppression costs.
  • Climate and weather: long term climatic patterns that increase temperature, produce drought, and lengthen the annual fire season increase fire suppression costs. Specific weather patterns that produce high winds and low relative humidity can also increase fire severity and suppression costs.
  • Fuels: the widespread buildup of forest fuels on the landscape makes fires more intense, severe, and costly to suppress.
  • Fire management decisions: resource allocation and suppression strategies can affect costs.

Some of these factors may be influenced by DNR's and other entities' preparedness activities (e.g. fuel reduction, community preparedness), while others, such as suppression management decisions and weather patterns, are not.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Report Details

Appendix A: Literature review methodology

Staff and consultants reviewed more than 300 sources

JLARC staff worked with two consultants to review fire ecology and management literature. Collectively, we reviewed more than 300 documents and worked with subject matter experts to reach the conclusions in Section 4. A list of sources is available in the table below.

Sources include peer reviewed articles, guidance documents, and published reports

Author Year Title
Abrams, J., Huber-Stearns, H., Gosnell, H., Santo, A., Duffey, S. and Moseley, C. 2020 Tracking a governance transition: identifying and measuring indicators of social forestry on the Willamette National Forest
Abrams, J., Nielsen-Pincus, M. Paveglio, T. and Moseley, C. 2016 Community wildfire protection planning in the American West: homogeneity within diversity?
Absher, J.D., Vaske, J.J. and Shelby, L.B. 2009 Residents’ responses to wildland fire programs: a review of cognitive and behavioral studies
Abt, K.L., Butry, D.T., Prestemon, J.P. and Scranton, S. 2015 Effect of fire prevention programs on accidental and incendiary wildfires on tribal lands in the United States
Agee, J.K. and Huff, M.H. 1986 Structure and process goals for vegetation in wilderness areas
Agee, J.K. and Skinner, C.N. 2005 Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments
Agee, J.K., Wright, C.S., Williamson, N. and Huff, M.H. 2002 Foliar moisture content of Pacific Northwest vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior
Agee, J.K., Bahro, B., Finney, M.A., Omi, P.N., Sapsis, D.B., Skinner, C.N., Van Wagtendonk, J.W. and Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000 The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management
Agee, J.K. 1998 The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes
Agee, James K 1993 Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests
Ager, A.A., Finney, M.A., Kerns, B.K. and Maffei, H. 2007 Modeling wildfire risk to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in Central Oregon
Ager, A.A., Vaillant, N.M. and Finney, M.A. 2010 A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure
Ager, A.A., Vaillant, N.M. and Finney, M.A. 2011 Integrating fire behavior models and geospatial analysis for wildland fire risk assessment and fuel management planning
Alexander, M.E. and Cruz, M.G. 2013 Are the applications of wildland fire behaviour models getting ahead of their evaluation again?
Alexander, M.E. and Yancik, R.F. 1977 The effect of precommercial thinning on fire potential in a lodgepole pine stand
Alexander, M.E. 1988 Help with making crown fire hazard assessments
Alexandre, P.M., Stewart, S.I., Keuler, N.S., Clayton, M.K., Mockrin, M.H., Bar‐Massada, A., Syphard, A.D. and Radeloff, V.C. 2016 Factors related to building loss due to wildfires in the conterminous United States
Allen, C.D., Savage, M., Falk, D.A., Suckling, K.F., Swetnam, T.W., Schulke, T., Stacey, P.B., Morgan, P., Hoffman, M. and Klingel, J.T. 2002 Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective
Andrews, P.L., Loftsgaarden, D.O. and Bradshaw, L.S. 2003 Evaluation of fire danger rating indexes using logistic regression and percentile analysis
Andrews, P.L. 1982 Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior characteristics (Vol
Andrews, P.L. 2018 The Rothermel surface fire spread model and associated developments: A comprehensive explanation
Arkle, R.S., Pilliod, D.S. and Welty, J.L. 2012 Pattern and process of prescribed fires influence effectiveness at reducing wildfire severity in dry coniferous forests
Arno, S.F. and Brown, J.K. 1991 Overcoming the paradox in managing wildland fire
Bagdon, B. and Huang, C. 2016 Review of Economic Benefits from Fuel Reduction Treatments in the Fire Prone Forests of the Southwestern United States
Baker, W.L. 1994 Restoration of landscape structure altered by fire suppression
Barnett, K., Parks, S.A., Miller, C. and Naughton, H.T. 2016 Beyond fuel treatment effectiveness: Characterizing Interactions between fire and treatments in the US Forests
Barnwell J. 2015 Congress: Land swaps, new wilderness, but no wildfire funding bill
Bayham, J., Belval, E.J., Thompson, M.P., Dunn, C., Stonesifer, C.S. and Calkin, D.E. 2020 Weather, Risk, and Resource Orders on Large Wildland Fires in the Western US Forests
Berry, A.H. and Hesseln, H. 2004 The effect of the wildland-urban interface on prescribed burning costs in the Pacific Northwestern United States
Black, A.E. and Sutherland, E.K. 2004  Wildland fire use: The other treatment option
Boerner, R.E., Huang, J. and Hart, S.C. 2009 Impacts of Fire and Fire Surrogate treatments on forest soil properties: a meta‐analytical approach
Bolding, M.C., Kellogg, L.D. and Davis, C.T. 2006 A productivity and cost comparison of two non-commercial forest fuel reduction machines
Bradley, T., Gibson, J. and Bunn, W. 2006 Fire severity and intensity during spring burning in natural and masticated mixed shrub woodlands
Bremer, L.L., Auerbach, D.A., Goldstein, J.H., Vogl, A.L., Shemie, D., Kroeger, T., Nelson, J.L., Benítez, S.P.,Calvache, A., Guimarães, J. and Herron, C. 2016 One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership
Brenkert-Smith, H., Champ, P.A. and Flores, N. 2012 Trying not to get burned: understanding homeowners’ wildfire risk–mitigation behaviors
Brillinger, D.R., Preisler, H.K. and Benoit, J.W. 2006 Probabilistic risk assessment for wildfires
Brown, J.K. and Arno, S.F. 1991 The paradox of wildland fire
Brown, R.T., Agee, J.K. and Franklin, J.F. 2004 Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place
Buckley, M., N. Beck, P. Bowden, M. E. Miller, B. Hill, C. Luce, W. J. Elliot, N. Enstice, K. Podolak, E. Winford, S. L. Smith, M. Bokach, M. Reichert, D. Edelson, and J. Gaither 2014 Mokelumne watershed avoided cost analysis: Why Sierra fuel treatments make economic sense
Byram, G.M. 1959 Combustion of forest fuels
Byram, G.M. 1966 Scaling laws for modeling mass fires
Calkin, D.E., Cohen, J.D., Finney, M.A. and Thompson, M.P. 2014 How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface
Calkin, D.E., Gebert, K.M., Jones, J.G. and Neilson, R.P. 2005 Forest Service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends
Campbell, J.L. and Ager, A.A. 2013 Forest wildfire, fuel reduction treatments, and landscape carbon stocks: A sensitivity analysis
Campbell, J.L., Harmon, M.E. and Mitchell, S.R. 2012 Can fuel‐reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions?
Campbell, R.M. and Anderson, N.M. 2019 Comprehensive comparative economic evaluation of woody biomass energy from silvicultural fuel treatments
Caprio, A.C. and Swetnam, T.W. 1995 Historic fire regimes along an elevational gradient on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada
Carey, H. and Schumann, M. 2003 Modifying wildfire behavior-The effectiveness of fuel treatments
Carter, M.C. and Foster, C.D. 2004 Prescribed burning and productivity in southern pine forests: a review
Catchpole, E.A., Catchpole, W.R. and Rothermel, R.C. 1993 Fire behavior experiments in mixed fuel complexes
Champ, J.G., Brooks, J.J. and Williams, D.R. 2012 Stakeholder understandings of wildfire mitigation: A case of shared and contested meanings
Champion, H.G. 1950 Forest Terminology
Charnley, S., Kelly, E.C. and Fischer, A.P. 2020 Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West
Chazdon, R.L. 2008 Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands
Christiansen, J.R. 1969 Forest-Fire Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes of Residents of Utah County, Utah, With Comparisons to Butte County California
Churchill, D., Larson, D., Dahlgreen, M., Franklin, J., Hessburg, P., and Lutz, J. 2013 Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring
Clark, A.M., Rashford, B.S., McLeod, D.M., Lieske, S.N., Coupal, R.H. and Albeke, S.E. 2016 The impact of residential development pattern on wildland fire suppression expenditures
Cleaves, D.A., Haines, T.K. and Martinez, J. 2000 Influences on prescribed burning activity in the National Forest System
Cleaves, D.A., Schuster, E.G. and Bell, E.F. 1996 Fire management expenditures by the USDA Forest Service: trends and recommendations for controlling costs
Cochrane, M.A., Moran, C.J., Wimberly, M.C., Baer, A.D., Finney, M.A., Beckendorf, K.L., Eidenshink, J. and Zhu, Z. 2012 Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments
Cohen, J.D. 2004 Relating flame radiation to home ignition using modeling and experimental crown fires
Collins, B.M., Everett, R.G. and Stephens, S.L. 2011 Impacts of fire exclusion and recent managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixed‐conifer forests
Collins, B.M., Kramer, H.A., Menning, K., Dillingham, C., Saah, D., Stine, P.A. and Stephens, S.L. 2013 Modeling hazardous fire potential within a completed fuel treatment network in the northern Sierra Nevada
Collins, B.M., Stephens, S.L., Roller, G.B. and Battles, J.J. 2011 Simulating fire and forest dynamics for a landscape fuel treatment project in the Sierra Nevada
Collins, B.M., Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J. and Battles, J. 2010 Challenges and approaches in planning fuel treatments across fire-excluded forested landscapes
Combrink, T., Cothran, C., Fox, W., Peterson, J. and Snider, G.B. 2013 Issues in Forest Restoration: Full Cost Accounting of the 2010 Schultz Fire
Cooper, C.F. 1961 Controlled burning and watershed condition in the White Mountains of Arizona
Cooper, H.M., Hedges, L.V. and Valentine, J.C. 2019 Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis
Covington, W.W. and Moore, M.M. 1994 Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: changes since Euro-American settlement
Cram, D.S., Baker, T.T. and Boren, J.C. 2006 Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona
Cram, D.S., Baker, T.T., Fernald, A.G.,Cibils, A.F. and VanLeeuwen, D.M. 2015 Fuel and vegetation trends after wildfire in treated versus untreated forests
Cron, R.H. 1969 Thinning as an aid to fire control
Cruz, M.G. and Alexander, M.E. 2010 Assessing crown fire potential in coniferous forests of western North America: a critique of current approaches and recent simulation studies
Debano, L.F., Neary, D.G., Folliott, P.F. 1998 Fire’s Effect on Ecosystems
Deeming, J.E. 1972 National fire-danger rating system
Dellasala, D.A., Williams, J.E., Williams, C.D. and Franklin, J.F. 2004 Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science
Demchik, M.C., Abbas, D., Current, D.,Arnosti, D., Theimer, M. and Johnson, P. 2009 Combining biomass harvest and forest fuel reduction in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota
Dickinson, M.B. 2001 Fire effects on trees
Dombeck, M.P., Williams, J.E. and Wood, C.A. 2004 Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes
Donovan, G.H., Prestemon, J.P. and Gebert, K. 2011 The effect of newspaper coverage and political pressure on wildfire suppression costs
Duclos, P., Sanderson, L.M. and Lipsett, M. 1990 The 1987 forest fire disaster in California: assessment of emergency room visits
Dunn, C.J., Thompson, M.P. and Calkin, D.E. 2017 A framework for developing safe and effective large-fire response in a new fire management paradigm
Ecological Restoration Institute 2013 Efficacy of hazardous fuel treatments: A rapid assessment of the economic and ecologic consequences of alternative hazardous fuel treatments: A summary document for policy makers
Edmonds, R.L. and Marra, J.L. 1999 Decomposition of woody material: nutrient dynamics invertebrate/fungi relationships and management in Northwest forests
Eidenshink, J., Schwind, B., Brewer, K., Zhu, Z.L., Quayle, B. and Howard, S. 2007 A project for monitoring trends in burn severity
Ellefson, P.V. and Miles, P.D. 1985 Protecting water quality in the Midwest: Impact on timber harvesting costs
Elliot, William, and Pete Robichaud. 2005 Fuels planning: science synthesis and integration
Ellison, A., Coughlan, M.R., Kooistra, C. and Schultz, C.A. 2018 Accomplishing collaborative, landscape-scale restoration on forests without CFLRP or Joint Chiefs' projects
Ellison, A., Moseley, C. and Bixler, R.P. 2015 Drivers of Wildfire Suppression Costs
Engebretson, J., Hall, T., Blades, J., Olsen, C., Toman, E., and Prederick, St 2016 Characterizing Public Tolerance of Smoke from Wildland Fires in Communities across the United States
Englin, J., Boxall, P.C., Chakraborty, K. and Watson, D.O. 1996 Valuing the impacts of forest fires on backcountry forest recreation
Evans, A., Auerbach, S., Miller, L.W., Wood, R., Nystrom, K., Loevner, J., Aragon, A., Piccarello, M. and Krasilovsky, E. 2015 Evaluating the effectiveness of wildfire mitigation activities in the wildland-urban interface
Fernandes, P.M. and Botelho, H.S. 2003 A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction
Fight, Roger D. and Barbour, R. James 2006 Financial analysis of fuel treatments on national forests in the Western United States
Finney, M.A., McHugh, C.W. and Grenfell, I.C. 2005 Stand-and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires
Finney, M.A., Bartlette, R., Bradshaw, L., Close, K., Collins, B.M., Gleason, P., Hao, W.M., Langowski, P., McGinely, J., McHugh, C.W. and Martinson, E. 2003 Fire behavior, fuel treatments, and fire suppression on the Hayman Fire
Finney, M.A., Seli, R.C., McHugh, C.W., Ager, A.A., Bahro, B. and Agee, J.K. 2008 Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires
Finney, M.A. 2001 Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior
Fischer, A.P. and Charnley, S. 2012 Risk and cooperation: managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes
Fischer, A.P., Klooster, A. and Cirhigiri, L. 2019 Cross-boundary cooperation for landscape management: Collective action and social exchange among individual private forest landowners
Fitch, R.A., Kim, Y.S., Waltz, A.E. and Crouse, J.E. 2018 Changes in potential wildland fire suppression costs due to restoration treatments in Northern Arizona Ponderosa pine forests
Fites, J.A., Campbell, M., Reiner, A. and Decker, T. 2007 Fire Behavior and Effects Relating to Suppression, Fuel Treatments, and Protected Areas on the Antelope Complex: Wheeler Fire
Fontaine, J.B. and Kennedy, P.L. 2012 Meta‐analysis of avian and small‐mammal response to fire severity and fire surrogate treatments in US fire‐prone forests
Fontaine, J.B., Donato, D.C., Robinson, W.D., Law, B.E. and Kauffman, J.B. 2009 Bird communities following high-severity fire: response to single and repeat fires in a mixed-evergreen forest
Foxx, T.S. 1996 Vegetation succession after the La Mesa fire at Bandelier National Monument
Fulé, P.Z., Crouse, J.E., Roccaforte, J.P. and Kalies, E.L. 2012 Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior?
Fulé, P.Z., McHugh, C., Heinlein, T.A. and Covington, W.W. 2000 Potential fire behavior is reduced following forest restoration treatments
Gannon, B.M., Wei, Y., MacDonald, L.H., Kampf, S.K., Jones, K.W., Cannon, J.B., Wolk, B.H., Cheng, A.S., Addington, R.N. and Thompson, M.P. 2019 Prioritizing fuels reduction for water supply protection
Gebert, K.M. and Black, A.E. 2012 Effect of suppression strategies on federal wildland fire expenditures
Gebert, K.M., Calkin, D.E. and Yoder, J. 2007 Estimating suppression expenditures for individual large wildland fires
Glitzenstein, J.S., Streng, D.R.,Achtemeier, G.L., Naeher, L.P. and Wade, D.D. 2006 Fuels and fire behavior in chipped and unchipped plots: implications for land management near the wildland/urban interface
Goldman-Benner, R.L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G.,Kareiva, P., Kroeger, T. and Ramos, A. 2012 Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice
González-Cabán, A., Loomis, J., Sánchez, J.J., Rideout, D. and Reich, R. 2019 Do fuel treatment costs affect wildfire suppression costs and property damages? An analysis of costs, damages avoided and return on investment
González-Cabán, A. 1997 Managerial and institutional factors affect prescribed burning costs
Gorte, R. and Economics, H. 2013 The rising cost of wildfire protection
Government Accounting Office 2006 Update on federal agency efforts to develop a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire threats
Graham, R.T., Jain, T.B. and Loseke, M. 2009 Fuel treatments, fire suppression, and their interaction with wildfire and its impacts: The Warm Lake experience during the Cascade Complex of wildfires in central Idaho
Graham, R.T., McCaffrey, S. and Jain, T.B. 2004 Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity
Graham, R.T. 1999 The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests (Vol
Graham, R.T. 2003 Hayman Fire Case Study: Summary
Gude, P.H., Jones, K., Rasker, R. and Greenwood, M.C. 2013 Evidence for the effect of homes on wildfire suppression costs
Gude, P.R., Rasker, M., Essen, M.D. and Lawson, M. 2014 An empirical investigation of the Effect of the Firewise Program on Wildfire Suppression Costs
Halbrook, Jeff, Han-Sup Han, Russell T. Graham, Theresa B. Jain, and Robert Denner. 2006 Mastication: a fuel reduction and site preparation alternative
Hall, S.A. and Burke, I.C. 2006 Considerations for characterizing fuels as inputs for fire behavior models
Halofky, J., Peterson, D., and Harvey, B 2020 Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA
Hamins, A., Averill, J., Bryner, N., Butry, D., Gann, R., Davis, R., Madrzykowski, D., Maranghides, A., Yang, J., Bundy, M., Manzello, S, Gilman, J., Amon, F., and Mell, W 2013 Plenary – Reducing the Risk of Fire in Buildings and Communities
Han, H.S., Halbrook, J., Pan, F. and Salazar, L. 2010 Economic evaluation of a roll-off trucking system removing forest biomass resulting from shaded fuelbreak treatments
Han, H.S., Lee, H.W. and Johnson, L.R. 2004 Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho
Han, S.K., Han, H.S., Elliot, W.J. and Bilek, E.M. 2017 ThinTool: A spreadsheet model to evaluate fuel reduction thinning cost, net energy output, and nutrient impacts
Harbert, S., Hudak, A., Mayer, L., Rich, T. and Robertson, S. 2007 An assessment of fuel treatments on three large 2007 Pacific Northwest fires
Hardy, C.C. and Hardy, C.E. 2007 Fire danger rating in the United States of America: an evolution since 1916
Harold H.. Biswell, Harry R.. Kallander, Komarek, R., Richard J.. Vogl and Weaver, H. 1973 Ponderosa fire management: A task force evaluation of controlled burning in ponderosa pine forests of central Arizona
Harrod, R.J., Ohlson, P.L., Flatten, L.B., Peterson, D.W. and Ottmar, R.D. 2009 A user's guide to thinning with mastication equipment
Hartsough, B. 2003 Economics of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity and resulting damage to residual trees
Hartsough, B.R., Abrams, S., Barbour, R.J., Drews, E.S., McIver, J.D.,Moghaddas, J.J., Schwilk, D.W. and Stephens, S.L. 2008 The economics of alternative fuel reduction treatments in western United States dry forests: financial and policy implications from the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study
Hawbaker, T.J., Radeloff, V.C., Stewart, S.I., Hammer, R.B., Keuler, N.S. and Clayton, M.K. 2013 Human and biophysical influences on fire occurrence in the United States
Headwaters Economics 2014 The Firewise Program: Perspectives of Incident Commanders
Hessburg, Paul F., Russel G. Mitchell, and Gregory M. Filip. 1994 Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes
Hesseln, H. 2018 Wildland fire prevention: a review
Hood, S. and Wu, R. 2006 Estimating fuel bed loadings in masticated areas
Houtman, R.M., Montgomery, C.A., Gagnon, A.R., Calkin, D.E., Dietterich, T.G., McGregor, S. and Crowley, M. 2013 Allowing a wildfire to burn: estimating the effect on future fire suppression costs
Huang, C.H., Finkral, A., Sorensen, C. and Kolb, T. 2013 Toward full economic valuation of forest fuels-reduction treatments
Hudak, A.T., Rickert, I., Morgan, P., Strand, E., Lewis, S.A., Robichaud, P., Hoffman, C. and Holden, Z.A. 2011 Review of fuel treatment effectiveness in forests and rangelands and a case study from the 2007 megafires in central Idaho USA
Huff, M.H. and Everett, R.L. 1995 Historical and Current Forest Landscapes of Eastern Oregon and Washington: Part II: Linking Vegetation Characteristics to Potential Fire Behavior and Related Smoke Production
Hurteau, M. and North, M. 2009 Fuel treatment effects on tree‐based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios
Hurteau, M.D., Koch, G.W. and Hungate, B.A. 2008 Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets
Hutto, R.L. 2008 The ecological importance of severe wildfires: some like it hot
Ice, G.G., Neary, D.G. and Adams, P.W. 2004 Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed processes
Jain, T.B. and Graham, R.T. 2007 The relation between tree burn severity and forest structure in the Rocky Mountains
Jain, T.B., Battaglia, M.A., Han, H.S., Graham, R.T., Keyes, C.R., Fried, J.S. and Sandquist, J.E. 2012 A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States
Jain, Theresa Benavidez, and Russell T. Graham. 2004 Is forest structure related to fire severity? Yes, no, and maybe: methods and insights in quantifying the answer
Johnson, E.A. and Gutsell, S.L. 1994 Fire frequency models, methods and interpretations
Johnson, M., Peterson, D., and Raymond, C 2007 Managing Forest Structure and Fire Hazard – A Tool for Planners
Jolly, W.M., Cochrane, M.A., Freeborn, P.H., Holden, Z.A., Brown, T.J., Williamson, G.J. and Bowman, D.M. 2015 Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013
Jones, K.W., Cannon, J.B., Saavedra, F.A., Kampf, S.K., Addington, R.N., Cheng, A.S., MacDonald, L.H., Wilson, C. and Wolk, B. 2017 Return on investment from fuel treatments to reduce severe wildfire and erosion in a watershed investment program in Colorado
Kalies, E.L. and Kent, L.L.Y. 2016 Tamm Review: Are fuel treatments effective at achieving ecological and social objectives? A systematic review
Kalies, E.L., Chambers, C.L. and Covington, W.W. 2010 Wildlife responses to thinning and burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests: a meta-analysis
Kane, J.M., Varner, J.M. and Knapp, E.E. 2009 Novel fuelbed characteristics associated with mechanical mastication treatments in northern California and south-western Oregon
Keane, R.E. 2002 Cascading effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review (Vol
Keeley, J.E. and McGinnis, T.W. 2007 Impact of prescribed fire and other factors on cheatgrass persistence in a Sierra Nevada ponderosa pine forest
Keeley, J.E. 2009 Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage
Keenan, R.J. and Kimmins, J.P. 1993 The ecological effects of clear-cutting
Kennedy, M., Johnson, M., and Harrison, S 2019 Fuel Treatments Change Forest Structure and Spatial Patterns of Fire Severity
Kennedy, M., Johnson, M.M Fallon, K., and Mayer, D 2019 How big is enough? Vegetation structure impacts effective fuel treatment width and forest resiliency
Kennedy, M.C. and Johnson, M.C. 2014 Fuel treatment prescriptions alter spatial patterns of fire severity around the wildland–urban interface during the Wallow Fire
Kennedy, P.L. and Fontaine, J.B. 2009 Synthesis of knowledge on the effects of fire and fire surrogates on wildlife in US dry forests
Kent, L.L.Y., Shive, K.L., Strom, B.A.,Sieg, C.H., Hunter, M.E., Stevens-Rumann, C.S. and Fulé, P.Z. 2015 Interactions of fuel treatments, wildfire severity, and carbon dynamics in dry conifer forests
Kim, M.K. and Jakus, P.M. 2019 Wildfire, national park visitation, and changes in regional economic activity
Kim, Y.S. 2010 Ecological restoration as economic stimulus: A regional analysis
Kline, J.D. 2004 Issues in evaluating the costs and benefits of fuel treatments to reduce wildfire in the Nation's forests
Knapp, E.E., Varner, J.M., Busse, M.D., Skinner, C.N. and Shestak, C.J. 2012 Behaviour and effects of prescribed fire in masticated fuelbeds
Kobziar, L.N., McBride, J.R. and Stephens, S.L. 2009 The efficacy of fire and fuels reduction treatments in a Sierra Nevada pine plantation
Kolb, P.F., Adams, D.L. and McDonald, G.I. 1998 Impacts of fire exclusion on forest dynamics and processes in central Idaho
Koontz, T.M., Jager, N.W. and Newig, J. 2020 Assessing collaborative conservation: A case survey of output, outcome, and impact measures used in the empirical literature
Kopper, K.E., McKenzie, D. and Peterson, D.L. 2009 The evaluation of meta-analysis techniques for quantifying prescribed fire effects on fuel loadings
Kreitler, J., Thompson, M.P., Vaillant, N.M. and Hawbaker, T.J. 2020 Cost-effective fuel treatment planning: a theoretical justification and case study
Kreye, J.K., Brewer, N.W., Morgan, P., Varner, J.M., Smith, A.M., Hoffman, C.M. and Ottmar, R.D. 2014 Fire behavior in masticated fuels: a review
Kreye, J.K., Varner, J.M. and Knapp, E.E. 2011 Effects of particle fracturing and moisture content on fire behaviour in masticated fuelbeds burned in a laboratory
La Puma, I.P. 2012 Fire in the pines: A landscape perspective of human-induced ecological change in the pinelands of New Jersey (Doctoral dissertation
Liang, J., Calkin, D.E., Gebert, K.M., Venn, T.J. and Silverstein, R.P. 2008 Factors influencing large wildland fire suppression expenditures
Lickwar, P., Hickman, C. and Cubbage, F.W. 1992 Costs of protecting water quality during harvesting on private forestlands in the southeast
Lolley, M.R. and Bloomfield, B., undated Tieton Forest Collaborative - Using Conservation Action Planning for Collaborative Fire and Restoration and Planning
Loomis, J., Gonzalez-Caban, A. and Englin, J. 2001 Testing for differential effects of forest fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits
Loomis, J.B., Hung L.T and González-Cabán, A. 2009 Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: a scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households
Loreno, S., Fried, J., and Yost, A 2016 Applying management modeling to assess the feasibility of accelerating landscape restoration on federal forests in eastern Oregon
Low, G 2003 Developing strategies, taking action and measuring success. Landscape - scale conservation. A practitioner's guide
Lynch, D.L. 2001 Financial results of ponderosa pine forest restoration in southwestern Colorado
Macie, E.A. and Hermansen, L.A. eds. 2002 Human influences on forest ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface assessment
Malmsheimer, R.W., Bowyer, J.L., Fried, J.S., Gee, E., Izlar, R., Miner, R.A., Munn, I.A., Oneil, E. and Stewart, W.C. 2011 Managing forests because carbon matters: integrating energy, products, and land management policy
Maranghides, A., McNamara, D., Mell, W., Trook, J. and Toman, B. 2013 A case study of a community affected by the Witch and Guejito Fires: Report# 2: Evaluating the effects of hazard mitigation actions on structure ignitions
Martinson, E.J. and Omi, P.N. 2003 Performance of fuel treatments subjected to wildfires
Martinson, E.J. and Omi, P.N. 2013 Fuel treatments and fire severity: a meta-analysis
Mason, C., Lippke, B., Zobrist, K., Bloxton, T., Cedar, K., Comnick, J., McCarter, J., and Rogers, H 2006 Investments in Fuel Removals to Avoid Forest Fires Result in Substantial Benefits
McCaffrey, Sarah M. and Christine S. Olsen 2012 “Research perspectives on the public and fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions
McCandliss, D.S. 2002 Prescribed burning in the Kings River ecosystems project area: lessons learned
McIver, J., Stephens, S., Agee, J., Barbour, J., Boerner, R., Edminster, C., Erickson, K., Farris, K., Fettig, C., Fiedler, C., Haase, S, Hart, S., Keeley, J., Knapp, E., Lehmkuhl, J., Moghaddas, J., Otrosina, W., Outcalt, K., Schwilk, D., W., Skinner, C., Waldrop, ThomaT., Weatherspoon, C.., Yaussy, D., Youngblood, A., and Zack, S 2013 Ecological effects of alternative fuel-reduction treatments: highlights of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate study (FFS)
McIver, J.D., Adams, P.W., Doyal, J.A., Drews, E.S., Hartsough, B.R., Kellogg, L.D., Niwa, C.G., Ottmar, R., Peck, R.,Taratoot, M. and Torgersen, T. 2003 Environmental effects and economics of mechanized logging for fuel reduction in northeastern Oregon mixed-conifer stands
Mercer, D.E. and Zipperer, W. 2012 Fire in the wildland–urban interface
Meyer, G.A., Pierce, J.L., Wood, S.H. and Jull, A.T. 2001 Fire, storms, and erosional events in the Idaho batholith
Mhawej, M., Faour, G. and Adjizian-Gerard, J. 2015 Wildfire likelihood’s elements: A literature review
Miller, C. and Ager, A.A. 2013 A review of recent advances in risk analysis for wildfire management
Miller, C. and Urban, D.L. 2000 Modeling the effects of fire management alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed‐conifer forests
Minshall, G.W., Brock, J.T. and Varley, J.D. 1989 Wildfires and Yellowstone's stream ecosystems
Moghaddas, J.J. and Craggs, L. 2008 A fuel treatment reduces fire severity and increases suppression efficiency in a mixed conifer forest
Moghaddas, J.J., Collins, B.M.,Menning, K., Moghaddas, E.E. and Stephens, S.L. 2010 Fuel treatment effects on modeled landscape-level fire behavior in the northern Sierra Nevada
Moore, M.M., Wallace Covington, W. and Fulé, P.Z. 1999 Reference conditions and ecological restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective
Moreno, J.M. and Oechel, W.C. 1989 A simple method for estimating fire intensity after a burn in California chaparral
Mutch, R.W. and Quigley, T.M. 1993 Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems
Mutch, R.W. 1994 Fighting fire with prescribed fire: a return to ecosystem health
Naeher, L.P., Brauer, M., Lipsett, M.,Zelikoff, J.T., Simpson, C.D., Koenig, J.Q. and Smith, K.R. 2007 Woodsmoke health effects: a review
Nagy, R., Fusco, E., Bradley, B.,Abatzoglou, J.T. and Balch, J. 2018 Human-related ignitions increase the number of large wildfires across US ecoregions
Narayan, C., Fernandes, P.M., van Brusselen, J. and Schuck, A. 2007 Potential for CO2 emissions mitigation in Europe through prescribed burning in the context of the Kyoto Protocol
National Research Council 2000 Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest forest management
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 1998 Wildfire prevention strategies
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 2006 Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology
National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2014 Fire behavior field reference guide
Neary, D.G., Klopatek, C.C., DeBano, L.F. and Folliott, P.F. 1999 Fire effects on below ground sustainability: a review and synthesis
Nelson Jr, R.M. and Adkins, C.W. 1986 Flame characteristics of wind-driven surface fires
North, M., Brough, A., Long, J., Collins, B., Bowden, P., Yasuda, D., Miller, J. and Sugihara, N. 2015 Constraints on mechanized treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels reduction extent in the Sierra Nevada
North, M., Collins, B.M. and Stephens, S. 2012 Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments
North, M.P. and Hurteau, M.D. 2011 High-severity wildfire effects on carbon stocks and emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest
Noss, R.F. 1999 A citizen's guide to ecosystem management (No
O’Connor, C.D. and Calkin, D.E. 2019 Engaging the fire before it starts: a case study from the 2017 Pinal Fire (Arizona)
Omi, P.N., Martinson, E.J. and Chong, G.W. 2006 Effectiveness of pre-fire fuel treatments
Omi, P.N. 2015 Theory and practice of wildland fuels management
Parisien, M.A., Snetsinger, S., Greenberg, J.A., Nelson, C.R., Schoennagel, T., Dobrowski, S.Z. and Moritz, M.A. 2012 Spatial variability in wildfire probability across the western United States
Parkinson, T.M., Force, J.E. and Smith, J.K. 2003 Hands-on learning: its effectiveness in teaching the public about wildland fire
Parks, S.A., Holsinger, L.M., Miller, C. and Nelson, C.R. 2015 Wildland fire as a self‐regulating mechanism: the role of previous burns and weather in limiting fire progression
Parks, S.A., Miller, C., Nelson, C.R. and Holden, Z.A. 2014 Previous fires moderate burn severity of subsequent wildland fires in two large western US wilderness areas
Parks, S.A., Parisien, M.A. and Miller, C. 2011 Multi-scale evaluation of the environmental controls on burn probability in a southern Sierra Nevada landscape
Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P. and Unnasch, R.S. 2003 Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas
Perry, D.A., Hessburg, P.F., Skinner, C.N., Spies, T.A., Stephens, S.L., Taylor, A.H., Franklin, J.F., McComb, B. and Riegel, G. 2011 The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California
Peterson, D.L. 2005 Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the western United States
Peterson, J., Lahm, P., Fitch, M., George, M., Haddow, D., Melvin, M., Hyde, J. and Eberhardt, E. 2018 NWCG smoke management guide for prescribed fire
Prestemon, J.P., Butry, D.T., Abt, K.L. and Sutphen, R. 2010 Net benefits of wildfire prevention education efforts
Prestemon, J.P., Abt, K.L. and Barbour, R.J. 2012 Quantifying the net economic benefits of mechanical wildfire hazard treatments on timberlands of the western United States
Prichard, S., Povak, N., Kennedy, M., and Peterson, D 2020 Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large
Prichard, S.J. and Kennedy, M.C. 2012 Fuel treatment effects on tree mortality following wildfire in dry mixed conifer forests, Washington State, USA
Prichard, S.J., Peterson, D.L. and Jacobson, K. 2010 Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA
Quigley, T.M. and Arbelbide, S.J. 1997 An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Vol
Quigley, T.M., Starr, L., Daterman, G.E., Hayes, J.L. and Brown, S. 2001 A framework for addressing forest health and productivity in Eastern Oregon and Washington
Raymond, C.L. and Peterson, D.L. 2005 Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA
Reiner, A.L., Vaillant, N.M., Fites-Kaufman, J. and Dailey, S.N. 2009 Mastication and prescribed fire impacts on fuels in a 25-year old ponderosa pine plantation, southern Sierra Nevada
Reinhardt, E., Lutes, D. and Scott, J. 2006 FuelCalc: A method for estimating fuel characteristics
Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E. and Cohen, J.D. 2008 Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States
Reynolds, Richard T., Graham, Russell T., Reiser, M. Hildegard 1992 Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States
Rhodes, J.J. and Baker, W.L. 2008 Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in western US public forests
Rideout, D.B., Loomis, J.B. and Omi, P.N. 1999 Incorporating non-market values in fire management planning
Rideout, D.B., Wei, Y., Kirsch, A. and Botti, S.J. 2008 Toward a unified economic theory of fire program analysis with strategies for empirical modeling
Rieman, B. and Clayton, J. 1997 Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and conservation of sensitive species
Ritchie, M.W., Skinner, C.N. and Hamilton, T.A. 2007 Probability of tree survival after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: effects of thinning and prescribed fire
Roberts, R.M., Jones, K.W., Duke, E.,Shinbrot, X., Harper, E.E., Fons, E., Cheng, A.S. and Wolk, B.H. 2019 Stakeholder perceptions and scientific evidence linking wildfire mitigation treatments to societal outcomes
Rocca, M.E., Brown, P.M., MacDonald, L.H. and Carrico, C.M. 2014 Climate change impacts on fire regimes and key ecosystem services in Rocky Mountain forests
Roussopoulos, P.J. 1975 Help in making fuel management decisions
Rummer, B. 2008 Assessing the cost of fuel reduction treatments: A critical review
Rummer, B. 2010 Tools for fuel management
Rummer, R.B. 2005 A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in western states
Safford, H.D., Schmidt, D.A. and Carlson, C.H. 2009 Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland–urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California
Sasser, E 2019 Smoke Ready Communities: Preparing for Smoke Events
Schmidt, D.A., Taylor, A.H. and Skinner, C.N. 2008 The influence of fuels treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade range, California
Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T.T. and Romme, W.H. 2004 The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests
Schroder, S.A.K., Tóth, S.F., Deal, R.L. and Ettl, G.J. 2016 Multi-objective optimization to evaluate tradeoffs among forest ecosystem services following fire hazard reduction in the Deschutes National Forest
Schultz, C., Santo, A., Huber-Stearns, H. and McCaffrey, S 2020 Strategies for Increasing Prescribed Fire Application on Federal Lands: Lessons from Case Studies in the U
Schultz, C.A. and Moseley, C. 2019 Collaborations and capacities to transform fire management
Schultz, C.A., Coelho, D.L. and Beam, R.D. 2014 Design and governance of multiparty monitoring under the USDA Forest Service's Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
Schultz, C.A., Mclntyre, K.B., Cyphers, L., Kooistra, C., Ellison, A. and Moseley, C. 2018 Policy design to support forest restoration: the value of focused investment and collaboration
Selig, M., D. Vosick, and J. Seidenberg. 2010  Four forest restoration initiative landscape strategy: Economics and utilization analysis
Shaffer, R.M., Haney, H.L., Worrell, E.G. and Aust, W.M. 1998 Forestry BMP implementation costs for Virginia
Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., M.J., and Ashton, P.M.S 1997 The Practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology
Snider, G., Daugherty, P.J. and Wood, D. 2006 The irrationality of continued fire suppression: an avoided cost analysis of fire hazard reduction treatments versus no treatment
Spyratos, V., Bourgeron, P.S. and Ghil, M. 2007 Development at the wildland–urban interface and the mitigation of forest-fire risk
Stephens, S.L. and Moghaddas, J.J. 2005 Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest
Stephens, S.L. and Ruth, L.W. 2005 Federal forest‐fire policy in the United States
Stephens, S.L., Burrows, N.,Buyantuyev, A., Gray, R.W., Keane, R.E., Kubian, R., Liu, S., Seijo, F., Shu, L., Tolhurst, K.G. and Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2014 Temperate and boreal forest mega‐fires: characteristics and challenges
Stephens, S.L., McIver, J.D., Boerner, R.E., Fettig, C.J., Fontaine, J.B.,Hartsough, B.R., Kennedy, P.L. and Schwilk, D.W. 2012 The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States
Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J.,Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Harrington, M., Keeley, J.E., Knapp, E.E., McIver, J.D., Metlen, K. and Skinner, C.N. 2009 Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western US forests
Stratton, R.D. 2009 Guidebook on LANDFIRE fuels data acquisition, critique, modification, maintenance
Stronach, N.R. and McNaughton, S.J. 1989 Grassland fire dynamics in the Serengeti ecosystem, and a potential method of retrospectively estimating fire energy
Sun, N., Wigmosta, M., Zhou, T., Lundquist, J., Dickerson‐Lange, S. and Cristea, N. 2018 Evaluating the functionality and streamflow impacts of explicitly modelling forest–snow interactions and canopy gaps in a distributed hydrologic model
Swetnam, T.W. and Baisan, C.H. 1994 Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700
Symons, J.N., Fairbanks, D.H. and Skinner, C.N. 2008 Influences of stand structure and fuel treatments on wildfire severity at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, northeastern California
Syphard, A.D., Radeloff, V.C., Keeley, J.E., Hawbaker, T.J., Clayton, M.K., Stewart, S.I. and Hammer, R.B. 2007 Human influence on California fire regimes
Syphard, A.D., Scheller, R.M., Ward, B.C., Spencer, W.D. and Strittholt, J.R. 2011 Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada, California
Taylor, A.H. and Skinner, C.N. 2003 Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains
Taylor, M.H., Sanchez Meador, A.J., Kim, Y.S., Rollins, K. and Will, H. 2015 The economics of ecological restoration and hazardous fuel reduction treatments in the ponderosa pine forest ecosystem
Tedim, F., Leone, V., Amraoui, M., Bouillon, C., Coughlan, M.R., Delogu, G.M., Fernandes, P.M., Ferreira, C., McCaffrey, S., McGee, T.K. and Parente, J. 2018 Defining extreme wildfire events: difficulties, challenges, and impacts
Thomas, C.W. and Koontz, T.M. 2011 Research designs for evaluating the impact of community-based management on natural resource conservation
Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D. and Fung, J. 2017 The costs and losses of wildfires
Thomas, D.S. and Butry, D.T. 2014 Areas of the US wildland–urban interface threatened by wildfire during the 2001–2010 decade
Thompson, M. and Anderson, N. 2015 Modeling fuel treatment impacts on fire suppression cost savings: A review
Thompson, M.P. and Calkin, D.E. 2011 Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review
Thompson, M.P., Bowden, P., Brough, A., Scott, J.H., Gilbertson-Day, J., Taylor, A., Anderson, J. and Haas, J.R. 2016 Application of wildfire risk assessment results to wildfire response planning in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA
Thompson, M.P., Liu, Z., Wei, Y. and Caggiano, M.D. 2018 Analyzing wildfire suppression difficulty in relation to protection demand
Thompson, M.P., Riley, K.L., Loeffler, D. and Haas, J.R. 2017 Modeling fuel treatment leverage: encounter rates, risk reduction, and suppression cost impacts
Thompson, M.P., Vaillant, N.M., Haas, J.R., Gebert, K.M. and Stockmann, K.D. 2013 Quantifying the potential impacts of fuel treatments on wildfire suppression costs
Thomspon, M., MacGregor, D., and Calkin, D 2016 Risk Management: Core Principles and Pracrices, and their Relevance to Wildland Fire
Tolhurst, K.G. 1995 Fire from a flora, fauna and soil perspective: sensible heat measurement
Tubbesing, C.L., Fry, D.L., Roller, G.B., Collins, B.M., Fedorova, V.A., Stephens, S.L. and Battles, J.J. 2019 Strategically placed landscape fuel treatments decrease fire severity and promote recovery in the northern Sierra Nevada
Turner, M.G., Hargrove, W.W., Gardner, R.H. and Romme, W.H. 1994 Effects of fire on landscape heterogeneity in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2012  Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms 
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2015 Wildland fire management: agencies have made several key changes but could benefit from more in- formation about effectiveness
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 2004 Fuels planning: science synthesis and integration
USDA Forest Service 2004 Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration: Economic Uses Fact Sheet
USDA Forest Service 2015 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 5-Year Report, FY 2010–2014
USDA 2012 Forest to Faucets
Vasilakos, C., Kalabokidis, K.,Hatzopoulos, J., Kallos, G. and Matsinos, Y. 2007 Integrating new methods and tools in fire danger rating
Veblen, T.T., Kitzberger, T. and Donnegan, J. 2000 Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in ponderosa pine forests in the Colorado Front Range
Venn, T.J. and Calkin, D.E. 2011 Accommodating non-market values in evaluation of wildfire management in the United States: challenges and opportunities
Wade, D.D. 1989 A guide for prescribed fire in southern forests
Wagner, C.V. 1973 Height of crown scorch in forest fires
Waldrop, T., and Goodrick, S. 2012 Introduction to prescribed fires in Southern ecosystems
Warziniack, T. and Thompson, M. 2013 Wildfire risk and optimal investments in watershed protection
Weatherspoon, C.P. and Skinner, C.N. 1996 Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests
Weaver, H. 1943 Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa-pine region of the pacific slope
Wells, C.G. 1979  Effects of fire on soil: a state-of-knowledge review (No
Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R. and Swetnam, T.W. 2006 Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity
Wiedinmyer, C. and Hurteau, M.D. 2010 Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions in the western United States
Willis, J., Roberts, S., and Harrington, C. 2018 Variable density thinning promotes variable structural responses 14 years after treatment in the Pacific Northwest
Wimberly, M.C., Cochrane, M.A., Baer, A.D. and Pabst, K. 2009 Assessing fuel treatment effectiveness using satellite imagery and spatial statistics
Winkel, G. 2014 Sustainable forest management on federal lands in the US Pacific Northwest-making sense of science, conflict, and collaboration
Wolk, BH, Stevens-Rumann, CS, Battaglia, MA, Wennogle, C, Dennis, C, Feinstein, JA, Garrison, K, and Edwards, G. 2020 Mulching: A knowledge summary and guidelines for best practices on Colorado’s Front Range
Wondzell, S.M. and King, J.G. 2003 Postfire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions
Wotton, B.M. 2009 Interpreting and using outputs from the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in research applications
Wright, C.S. and Agee, J.K. 2004 Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington
Wurtzebach, Z. and Schultz, C. 2016 Measuring ecological integrity: history, practical applications, and research opportunities
Yager, L.Y., HEISE, C.D., EPPERSON, D.M. and HINDERLITER, M.G. 2007 Gopher tortoise response to habitat management by prescribed burning
Yoder, J. and Gebert, K. 2012 An econometric model for ex ante prediction of wildfire suppression costs
Youngblood, A., Grace, J.B. and McIver, J.D. 2009 Delayed conifer mortality after fuel reduction treatments: interactive effects of fuel, fire intensity, and bark beetles
Youngblood, A. 2010 Thinning and burning in dry coniferous forests of the western United States: effectiveness in altering diameter distributions

 

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Recommendations & Responses

No Legislative Auditor Recommendations

The Legislative Auditor did not issue recommendations for this study

The agencies involved with this study were given an opportunity to respond to the content of this report.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Recommendations & Responses

Department of Natural Resources Response

Picture of DNR's response

 

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Recommendations & Responses

Office of Financial Management Response

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) was given an opportunity to comment on this report. OFM responded that it does not have any comments.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

More About This Review

Audit Authority

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) works to make state government operations more efficient and effective. The Committee is comprised of an equal number of House members and Senators, Democrats and Republicans.

JLARC's non-partisan staff auditors, under the direction of the Legislative Auditor, conduct performance audits, program evaluations, sunset reviews, and other analyses assigned by the Legislature and the Committee.

The statutory authority for JLARC, established in Chapter 44.28 RCW, requires the Legislative Auditor to ensure that JLARC studies are conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, as applicable to the scope of the audit. This study was conducted in accordance with those applicable standards. Those standards require auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. The evidence obtained for this JLARC report provides a reasonable basis for the enclosed findings and conclusions, and any exceptions to the application of audit standards have been explicitly disclosed in the body of this report.

Committee Action to Distribute Report

On January 6, 2021 this report was approved for distribution by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. Action to distribute this report does not imply the Committee agrees or disagrees with Legislative Auditor recommendations.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

More About This Review

Study Questions

Image of Proposed Study Questions

 

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

More About This Review

Methodology

The methodology JLARC staff use when conducting analyses is tailored to the scope of each study, but generally includes the following:

  • Interviews with stakeholders, agency representatives, and other relevant organizations or individuals.
  • Site visits to entities that are under review.
  • Document reviews, including applicable laws and regulations, agency policies and procedures pertaining to study objectives, and published reports, audits or studies on relevant topics.
  • Data analysis, which may include data collected by agencies and/or data compiled by JLARC staff. Data collection sometimes involves surveys or focus groups.
  • Consultation with experts when warranted. JLARC staff consult with technical experts when necessary to plan our work, to obtain specialized analysis from experts in the field, and to verify results.

The methods used in this study were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.

More details about specific methods related to individual study objectives are described in the body of the report under the report details tab or in technical appendices.

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Contact

JLARC Authors

Casey Radostitz, Research Analyst, 360-786-5176

Rebecca Connolly, Research Analyst, 360-786-5175

Suzanna Pratt, Research Analyst, 360-786-5106

Jennifer Sulcer, Research Analyst, 360-786-5181

Valerie Whitener, Audit Coordinator

Keenan Konopaski, Legislative Auditor

21-01 Final Report: Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness, and Expenditure Review

January 2021

Contact

JLARC Members

Senators

Bob Hasegawa

Mark Mullet, Chair

Rebecca Saldaña

Shelly Short

Dean Takko

Lynda Wilson, Secretary

Keith Wagoner

Representatives

Jake Fey

Noel Frame

Larry Hoff

Christine Kilduff

Vicki Kraft

Ed Orcutt, Vice Chair

Gerry Pollet, Assistant Secretary

Drew Stokesbary

Washington Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Committee

106 11th Avenue SW, Suite 2500
PO Box 40910
Olympia, WA 98504-0910

Phone: 360-786-5171
Email: JLARC@leg.wa.gov
JLARC YouTube Channel