1. How is science like sausage?
The product is often good
but the process for creating it is messy and complicated
Peer Review

2. Interpretation of model data
Model is giving us results that are consistent with expected behavior and theory
Model is giving results that are surprising or suspect?
Model code has error in it
Model not correctly designed, assumptions are wrong
Model is too simplistic, process too complex to model
Model is giving us new insights, discovery of new knowledge
What is the process that could produce this outcome?
What other information (external to model) can support this?

3. Findings may challenge our beliefs for better or worse

4. Current State of this Research
Some of the data we show may contain errors
Some of the interpretations we make may be wrong and are subject to change

6. Constraints and preferences (thinning)
Federal
Moist mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole pinefer
Slope<30%
Excludes wilderness
Excludes unsuitable/roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting and roosting habitat
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Time since disturbance >14 yrsExcludes owl nesting habitat
Federal
Mix mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Time since treatment > 14yrs
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Slope >30%
Excludes wilderness,
Excludes unsuitable and roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting habitat
Federal
Moist mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole pinefer
Slope<30%
Excludes wilderness
Excludes unsuitable/roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting and roosting habitat
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Slope >30%
Excludes owl nesting habitat
Federal
Moist mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole pinefer
Time since treatment > 14yrs
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Slope >30%
Excludes wilderness,
Excludes unsuitable and roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting habitat
Federal
Moist mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole pinefer
Slope<30%
Excludes wilderness
Excludes unsuitable/roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting and roosting habitat
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Slope >30%
Excludes owl nesting habitat
Federal
Moist mixed conifer
Dry mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole pinefer
Slope<30%
Excludes wilderness
Excludes unsuitable/roadless areas
Excludes owl nesting and roosting habitat
Tree size >10’’ dbh
Excludes open conditions, single canopy
Slope >30%
Excludes owl nesting habitat
Management group: PP, DMC, LP, MMC
Basal area > m2/ha
Multilayer canopy
Federal WUI
Fire hazard
Preferences

7. Current Management Allocations

8. Timber Management Allocations

9. Managed Natural Ignitions
Must meet these criteria:
Ignitions that were historically suppressed
Natural ignitions
Energy Release Component (ERC)<=60
Within good fire zone (red) and > 2km from the WUI
Imposed burning conditions:
Windspeed: 5-10 mph
Burn period: 8 hrs for every day of ERC<=60 up to 5000 mins.
One managed fire per simulation year
Areas approved for good fires - green area. What’s excluded:
Orange area: Everything Lauren Miller said + Everything inside the DNF that is not federal + every IDU with more than 1 dwelling + Silvis WUI
White area: a full 2 km buffer of the orange area
Windspeed was randomly sampled between 5-10 mph

10. Fire Management Allocations

11. Persistent Shade Tolerant Environment
Environmental Variables
Precipitation
Temperature
Elevation
Slope
Aspect
Landscape Position Index
Solar Radiation
Datasets
Warm Springs Reservation Timber Inventory (Hagmann et al. 2014)
Tree Establishment Data (Merschel and Heyerdahl)
General Land Office Data (Christy, J.A. L. Riibe, E. Blue7 G. Davidson 2016)

12. HRV Management Allocations

13. Wildlife Management Allocations

14. Comparison to Current Policy
Timber Management +
Increased harvest area and volume removed
Maintained Current Policy allocations
Fire Management ++
Increased prescribed fire
Allowed managed fire in last 25 years
Historical Range of Variability +++
Largest increases in harvest and prescribed fire for 50 years
Allowed managed fire for 50 years
Prohibits management in historical shade tolerant environments
Wildlife Habitat ~
Maintains current management rates
Emphasis treatments in adjacent forests

16. Key Overall Messages (Subject to Change)
Wildfire is an uncommon event given fire suppression
Can’t really predict when and where the big high severity fires will happen
Most treatments will not encounter a wildfire
Effectiveness of treatments on reducing area of high severity wildfire is most likely in years with lots of fire
The hazard condition of the entire landscape may be a better measure of effectiveness of different treatments than estimates of effects on fire occurrence
Other benefits of resilient forests besides lower HS fire risk

17. Key Messages (subject to change)
Managed fire increases the amount of high-severity fire on the landscape in most years
But the proportion of high-severity fire in fires is lower with managed fire
Large fires probably will still occur but their size and amount of high severity can be reduced by management and fire
It takes time and lots of management to change a large landscape and differences between scenarios may not be that large

18. Mean (n= 15) simulated area of high-severity fire in fire-frequent PVTs
5,000 ac
1200 ac

19. Cumulative Area of High Severity Fire (Fire Frequent PVTs)
Mean of 15 replications
74,000 ac
50,000 ac
Area (1000 ha)
Percent of Fire Frequent Landscape
12,000 ac

20. Reductions in the area of high-severity fire in extreme fire years
Year 43 Rep 1
Year 2 Rep 9
Depends on…
Fire weather
Spatial intersection of fire and treatment
Temporal intersection of fire and treatment
Treatment type
Even under the HRV scenario there were large patches of HS fire in extreme fire years, but management, prescribed fire, and natural fire reduced HS area by ~52%
Year 27 Rep 8
Year 36 Rep 14

21. Reductions in the area of high-severity fire in extreme fire years
Depends on…
Fire weather
Spatial intersection of fire and treatment
Temporal intersection of fire and treatment
Treatment type
Even under the HRV scenario there were large patches of HS fire in extreme fire years, but management, prescribed fire, and natural fire reduced HS area by ~52%

22. Area of High Severity Fire Potential (Hazard)
500,000 ac
Area (1000 ha)
Percent of Fire Frequent Landscape
300,000 ac

23. Mean Percent of Wildfire in High Severity Condition
in Fire Frequent Landscape for Two Scenarios
Percent of Fire Frequent Landscape

24. Maps of cumulative (over 50 years) 1 2 3
Maps of cumulative (over 50 years)
simulated wildfires and managed fires
for 6 different fire lists (replications)
under current management.
Fires in forests in red
Fires in arid lands in pink 4 5 6
Wildfires
Managed fires

25. Trends in Forest Structure

26. Timber Production By Scenario
Cubic Meters

27. Trends in Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl and White-headed Woodpecker
Area (1000s acres)
Area (1000 Acres )
Percent of Area
Percent of Area

28. Cumulative Smoke Production for Wildfire (1000 Mg) and Prescribed Fire (Mg)
in Entire Landscape

34. Did an environment historically support shade tolerant and relatively drought intolerant species?
1a. Annual precipitation < 31” = Absent
1b. Annual precipitation > 31”  2
2a. Elevation < 4430 feet and mean annual maximum temperature > 47°F = Absent
2b. Elevation < 4430 feet and mean annual maximum temperature < 47°F = Present
2c. Elevation > 4430 feet  3
3a. Precipitation < 34” = Absent
3b. Precipitation > 34”  4
4a. Percent slope > 34 = Absent
4b. Percent slope < 34  5
5a. Mean annual maximum temperature between 52-55°F = Present
5b. Mean annual maximum temperature < 52°F or > 55°F = Absent