A Regional ManagementStudy Template for 

Learning About 

Postwildfire Management

B.T. Bormann, J.A. Laurence, K. Shimamoto, J. Thrailkill, J. Lehmkuhl, 

G. Reeves, A. Markus, D.W. Peterson, and E. Forsman

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-777

November 2008

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

B.T. Bormann is a research forest ecologist, J.A. Laurence is a program manager,

G. Reeves is a research fisheries biologist, and E. Forsman is a wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; J. Lehmkuhl is a research 

wildlife ecologist and D.W. Peterson is a research forester, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1133 N Western 

Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801; K. Shimamoto is Forest Supervisor and A. Markus 

is a wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FremontWinema National Forest; and J. Thrailkill is a fish and wildlife biologist, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, 

Portland, OR 97266.

Cover

Burned landscape of Mike’s Gulch recovering after the 500,000-acre 2002 Biscuit 

Fire. This roadless area was recently logged by helicopter. 

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
Abstract

Bormann, B.T.; Laurence, J.A.; Shimamoto, K.; Thrailkill, J.; Lehmkuhl, J.; 

Reeves, G.; Markus, A.; Peterson, D.W.; Forsman, E. 2008. A managementstudy template for learning about postwildfire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-777. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

The concept of management studies—implemented by managers as normal 

business to meet priority learning needs—is applied to a priority regional 

question: how to manage after a large wildfire to better meet preexisting or new 

societal needs. Because of a lack of knowledge and studies, deciding how to 

manage after wildfire is fraught with uncertainty. We have developed the concept 

of a network of management studies with a rigorous experimental design to fill 

this need. Details on how to implement this generic landscape-scale management 

study on future wildfire areas are provided. We emphasize documenting 

expectations, conceptual modeling, scaling for major questions, analyzing for 

similarity, and monitoring cost-effectively. The design compares a wide range 

of management strategies at the landscape scale. Replication and blocking are 

used to better attribute results to individual strategies. Examples of more specific 

prescriptions for each of the strategies are provided, and the Tripod Fire in eastern 

Washington in 2006 is used as an example of how to apply the similarity analysis 

technique. A typology is also presented to define approaches and reduce confusion 

over terminology that has hindered the debate about how to implement adaptive 

management.

Keywords: Adaptive management, options forestry, management studies, 

management experiments, postwildfire management, salvage logging, landscapes, 

monitoring.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Background­­—Knowns and Unknowns

4 Learning Design

5 Determine the Appropriate Scale

5 Define Management Strategies

7 Develop a Conceptual Model of Outcomes and Expectations for Each Strategy

11 Select Experimental Areas and Structure the Study

12 Analyze for Similarity and Power

13 Seek Independent Input With a Credible Review

13 Implement and Moitor the Management Study

16 Learning Implementation

17 Metric Equivalents

17 Literature Cited

20 Appendix 1: Trial Types

23 Appendix 2: Example Prescriptions

25 Appendix 3: Example Similarity Analysis
A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Introduction

The executives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 11 other federal 

agencies in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) adopted an adaptive-management 

framework that included a deliberate process to decide on key questions and to 

seek answers to these questions1 using the concept of regional management studies 

(management experiments in Bormann and Kiester 2004). We define management studies as experimental designs applied to a management project to produce 

scientifically and operationally valid conclusions about the project and prescriptions 

used (see app. 1 for a classification of other types of studies, field trials, and experiments). Regional management studies address the key questions across multiple 

locations within the region. The template for the first regional management study 

follows from the first key question posed and approved by the regional federal 

executives:

What are the effects—across a range of feasible strategies—of managing after wildfire to meet specified broad management objectives on 

federal lands in the Pacific Northwest?

After large wildfires, implementing a range of postfire management strategies 

as a study—rather than using a single firewide strategy—will benefit managers and 

society by:

o Widening the range of acceptable options for future decisions.

o Hedging bets through diversification in light of high uncertainties and possible climate change.

o Connecting to a wider range of constituency ideas and views and their scientific bases.

o Demonstrating on-the-ground effects of multiple strategies for all to see 

and learn about together.

Postwildfire management objectives differ according to the standards and guidelines specified for each of the land allocations present in Forest Service land and 

resource management plans and BLM district plans. Each of these plans was amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), east-side screens, or both. In developing 

postwildfire management strategies for these different land allocations, multiple 

objectives are involved and require an integrated management strategy. For example, integrated strategies might address such concerns as restoring wildlife and 

riparian habitat, reducing future fire risks, and attending to myriad other possible 

1 See: www.reo.gov/library/riec/2005/2089riecnote06012005.htm.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

issues (meadow restoration, scenic values, recreation, etc.). Paying for restoration 

with timber-sale receipts and providing economic benefits to local communities are 

other legitimate objectives that could be addressed. Regardless of objectives, what 

is appropriate and possible to implement is limited by variable fire effects and local 

site conditions (across and between forests and districts). Therefore, all strategies 

require site- and needs-specific actions that are coordinated through time and space.

Regional management studies have not been attempted before in this form and 

will require changes in the roles that managers, decisionmakers, and researchers 

play. Regional decisionmakers have officially adopted an adaptive-management 

framework and key questions. Subregional decisionmakers can further facilitate 

management studies by incorporating learning as an official need in National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, accepting random allocation of 

treatments, and funding effectiveness monitoring as the studies unfold. Adding 

a learning objective to the purpose and need in the decision documents can help 

explain the purpose of the management study and increase the chances that these 

commitments will be met over time. Wording for a learning objective can flow 

directly from the key question (above). 

Background—Knowns and Unknowns

A strong case can be made that postwildfire management lacks rigorous, integrated 

scientific evidence on which it can be based. The heated debate among different 

camps of constituents and scientists supports this case. Before about 1995, burned 

forests on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest were often aggressively “salvaged” 

to capture economic benefit otherwise delayed until a forest could grow back. 

Beschta et al. (1995) called for a new look at the reasons for salvage logging, and 

several courts took this report as a justification to halt logging (even though the 

report called for up to a 50 percent harvest). As the balance of multiple uses shifted 

in the 1990s from economics toward environmental issues, arguments arose that 

environmental benefit could be gained through postwildfire logging. For example, 

in response to the court rulings, Sessions et al. (2004), for the 500,000-acre Biscuit 

Fire, described how logging, planting, and intensive vegetation management could 

replace large trees and habitats based on them more quickly than natural succession, and capture economic value as well. Donato et al. (2006a) questioned the 

assumptions of this report and of pending legislation—which in turn prompted 

more debate (Baird 2006, Donato et al. 2006b, Newton et al. 2006). The debate 

continues, and will not likely be resolved until more definitive evidence is obtained. 

A comprehensive review (McIver and Starr 2001) found only 21 studies worldwide 

that examined the effects of postfire logging. Two-thirds of those studies had 

deficiencies in experimental design that limited the robustness of their conclusions 
A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

for general application. One-third of the studies had limited value because they had 

no untreated control to compare with managed sites. Seven of the remaining 14 

studies with untreated control plots were case studies in the sense that treatments 

were not replicated across a range of conditions, hence limiting the scope of inference to other locations. Petersen et al. (in press) had similar findings and expanded 

on them by evaluating the larger literature on wildfire and postwildfire harvesting. 

They concluded that postwildfire logging may lead to different outcomes depending 

on the biophysical setting of the forest, pattern of burn severity, and operational 

aspects of tree removal. They found that such logging on federal lands is typically 

confined to a small proportion of the total burned area, and major effects at small 

scales (especially soil and water) are low or undetectable at large scales. For example, stand-scale impacts of postfire logging on habitat for cavity-nesting birds might 

occur at the stand scale across hundreds of salvaged acres in large burned areas, but 

the impact on large-scale population viability may be negligible if the logged area is 

a small portion of the burned area. 

Recognizing these and other uncertainties, most papers on postfire management call for well-designed experimental studies. Lindenmayer and Noss (2006) 

recognized the paucity and uncertainty of current knowledge and argued for studies 

to learn if postfire logging can be ecologically sound. Hutto (2006) argued that 

...the implementation of an adaptive-management cycle that is tightly 

coupled with a solid monitoring program will be needed to determine 

whether any level of salvage logging is compatible with the retention of 

the unique ecological values associated with severely burned forests. So 

far, there are practically no data bearing on the effects of alternative styles 

of partial salvage logging because there has been neither the will nor the 

financial support needed to gain such knowledge. 

McIver and Starr (2001) argued that replicated and controlled experiments are the 

foundation of good science, and are clearly needed to inform adaptive management 

of burned areas and reduce uncertainty in decisionmaking. 

Each large wildfire presents an opportunity to implement local management 

studies as part of a regional study network from which the knowledge base for 

implementing scientifically sound postfire management can be expanded. Peterson 

et al. (in press) concluded that the lack of data from replicated, long-term studies 

forces managers to infer uncertain impacts from the individual effects of fire and 

postwildfire harvesting. They also called for the establishment of a network of 

long-term (15 years) experimental studies. This set of papers represents a broad 

spectrum of viewpoints and constitutes a scientific consensus for learning how to 

improve postwildfire management. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Learning Design

We start with the premise that a range of management strategies can be identified 

that, when properly modified for a local project, can meet different objectives and 

apply across different complex sets of stands (landscapes) to provide learning that 

responds to the identified uncertainties. Further, we presume that if the management study can be implemented in a number of postwildfire situations, the power 

of inference will increase substantially. We also assume that experimental areas

(units in scientific jargon) can be found that have initially similar postwildfire 

conditions, where any of the strategies could be applied so that random assignment 

of strategies is possible. Boundaries and scales of the areas chosen depend on the 

question being asked and the strategies being compared. Random assignment is 

needed to increase the chance that strategy effects can be attributed to the strategy 

and not to chance alone. A learning design requires six steps, with steps 1 to 4 not 

necessarily completed in any specific order (fig. 1). These are evaluated below for 

a study on postfire management that can be generically applied on certain Forest 

Service or BLM land burned by a wildfire. Some steps will take shape as they are 

applied to specific projects. 

Figure 1—Steps in designing management from a white paper developed for the Regional Interagency Executive Committee, August 2006.

Key agency decisions

and actions

DESIGN

PHASE

IMPLEMENT AND

MONITOR PHASE

Iterations

6. Seek independent input

with blind review

5. Analyze for similarity and power

4. Structure the experiment

3. Select sites

1. Determine appropriate scale

2. Define strategies and expectations

Track progress

Install strategies

Analyze and draw conclusions

Priority question

Designbased

feedback

Regional Management Study Template

Broader

evaluative and

interpretive

feedback

Key agency decisions

and actions

DESIGN

PHASE

IMPLEMENT AND

MONITOR PHASE

Iterations

6. Seek independent input

with blind review

5. Analyze for similarity and power

4. Structure the experiment

3. Select sites

1. Determine appropriate scale

2. Define strategies and expectations

Track progress

Install strategies

Analyze and draw conclusions

Priority question

Designbased

feedback

Regional Management Study Template

Broader

evaluative and

interpretive

feedback
A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Determine the Appropriate Scale

The first determinant to see if a wildfire qualifies to be included in the regional 

management study is the size of the fire (area within perimeter). Based on experience to date, we set a minimum area of 25,000 acres, to account for the needed 

scale for planning, land-use allocations not allowing salvage logging, and the 

large variability typical of these federal forest landscapes. Once this minimum 

is achieved, an initial analysis of the variability in fire intensity can help further 

specify if a minimum scale was achieved. The concept is to select a size that will 

include a variety of burn intensities (often associated with prefire stand structure 

and aspect). This can be visualized as picking a cookie cutter that, when applied 

randomly, will be large enough to include a variety of burn intensities. Capturing 

variability associated with key disturbance processes by recognizing variance in 

process across the landscape is important for any long-term experiment.

Define Management Strategies

We propose four generic strategies that are based on the philosophies underlying 

the debate about postwildfire management on federal lands. By working with 

strategies that link to various constituent groups, the uncertainties associated with 

the various perceived “correct” courses of action may be addressed. Strategies 

do not represent uniform prescriptions for entire areas. Because areas include 

much variability, individual prescriptions will need to be written for subareas, for 

example, those with and without commercially harvestable dead timber. A sample 

of prescriptions is given in appendix 2. The prescriptions are written to feasibly 

achieve the stated broad objectives (at least in some peoples’ thinking and with 

some scientific rationale) and at the same time comply with legal, regulatory, and 

policy mandates.

Strategies include two “bookend” and one or more intermediate strategies. 

These strategies would be considered for large areas burned in wildfire anywhere 

on BLM and Forest Service lands in Oregon or Washington (not including wilderness or other congressionally designated or inventoried roadless areas). 

Bookend strategy: natural recovery—

A “nature knows best” philosophy leads to a strategy that emphasizes unaided 

recovery or minimal intervention. There would be no salvage or fuel treatments 

in the experimental area. Fuel management zones might be applied in adjoining 

areas to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and fire suppression used only to protect 

surrounding areas. Roads would not be decommissioned and other actions would 

not be undertaken unless required (for example, waterbars and culvert removals for 

water protection or road or campground safety). This strategy is based on strong 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

constituent beliefs and a scientific rationale (Beschta et al. 2004, Lindenmeyer and 

Noss 2006). It also reflects a strategy for managing with minimal federal funding 

and no reinvestment of sale receipts. 

Bookend strategy: aggressive intervention—

An optimistic “humans can benefit nature” philosophy leads to a strategy emphasizing active restoration and support for the local economy by salvaging dead trees, 

planting and tending stands, and reducing fuels (see app. 2). In this strategy, managers use specific guides where required, but otherwise look for aggressive interventions to achieve broad objectives. The strategy calls for the following actions: 

o Manage leave trees and down wood in accordance with the forest or district 

plan at the landscape or fire scale (and models such as DecAID). 

o Maintain or accelerate development of habitat for desired species and 

reduce invasive plants. 

o Reduce fuels widely across the experimental area—for example, on the 

east side of Oregon and Washington, reduce the time before prescribed fire 

could be implemented. 

o Where plans so direct, replant and tend salvaged areas to produce latesuccessional habitat as quickly as possible, including site preparation, planting, culturing, and fire suppression as needed to produce large-diameter 

conifers relatively early in stand development. 

o Implement other recovery activities, such as riparian planting, replacing 

culverts, decommissioning roads, planting hardwoods and other conifers, 

and restoring savannah and meadows on a case-by-case basis. 

This strategy is also based on strong constituent beliefs and a scientific 

rationale (Sessions et al. 2004, citing Helgerson et al. 1992 and Harrington and 

Tappeiner 1997). Many actions would be funded by reinvestment of sale receipts. 

Aggressive intervention could include a rapid removal of small-diameter trees 

killed in the fire preceding subsequent removal of larger dead trees if permitted by 

law. An example prescription is described in appendix 2. 

Intermediate strategy: 50/50 intervention—

Based on a working-forest philosophy, this strategy would have intermediate

intensities of salvaging dead trees, planting and tending conifers, and reducing 

fuels. This treatment is included to establish a midpoint between the bookend 

strategies. If permitted by law, 50/50 intervention could include rapid removal of 

small-diameter trees killed in the fire, perhaps in lieu of removal of larger dead 

trees later. 
A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Intermediate strategy: local innovation—

Based on a working-forest philosophy, this strategy would employ local innovations 

with intermediate intensities of salvaging dead trees, planting and tending conifers, 

and reducing fuels. Innovations may focus on important local issues (for example, 

landscape-scale riparian management, fire risks to persons or property, facilitating future fire attack, and costs of road maintenance). One possibility would be to 

implement, in one experimental area per block, a version of what might have been 

applied on the entire area. Perhaps this could be described as the grand compromise 

including some patches of aggressive intervention and some natural-recovery management. A second possibility would be to focus on mimicking American Indian 

management through frequent underburning to favor specific plants and trees. 

Unless a bookend or 50/50 strategy acts as a meaningful comparison, additional 

local innovation strategies may be required to address specific questions—for 

example, a riparian strategy with salvage in the riparian areas of streams unlikely to 

contribute to aquatic objectives compared to salvage in the riparian areas of streams 

likely to contribute to aquatic objectives perhaps with logs added to streams. Local 

innovation would at least have the constituency of the local management community on which the strategy ideas are based. Ideally these would be developed with 

nonfederal partners. 

Develop a Conceptual Model of Outcomes and Expectations for 

Each Strategy 

The goal is to achieve a future forest condition (defined in current plans) by managing postwildfire landscapes to benefit local economies over time, by reducing risks 

for catastrophic wildfires, by achieving as many other of the multiple uses as possible (such as water, wildlife, and recreation) in an efficient and sustainable manner, 

and by learning about the advantages and disadvantages of alternative management 

treatments. Evaluating success starts with a conceptual model to develop an initial 

understanding of the desired future condition, the various management strategies 

to be compared, the specific questions to be interpreted, the monitoring variables 

needed for this interpretation, and a rudimentary understanding of short- and longterm factors driving responses (fig. 2). As a management-driven study, managers 

will focus on monitoring that will tell them if the approach worked. Researchers 

may be more interested in why approaches worked or not and, thus, measure various drivers, but this is not required in a management study. The conceptual model 

(fig. 2) serves as a general template to facilitate discussion and adaptation to local 

conditions. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

To tie monitoring of the management strategies to the key question (What are 

the effects—across a range of feasible strategies—of managing after wildfire to 

meet specified broad management objectives on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest?), a series of general monitoring questions are posed that link to the project 

decision (to be modified as needed for individual projects): 

o Did local economies benefit by recovering value from burned trees, new 

jobs, and by using receipts for restoration activities?

o Were risks of future high-intensity fire to nearby communities reduced? 

o Was a full range of multiple uses achieved and sustained? 

o How can burned areas be managed to meet multiple terrestrial and aquatic 

objectives after a wildland fire on a landscape scale?

The general questions are then subdivided into six specific effectiveness subquestions. These subquestions seek to specify how well objectives were met by quantifying any differences in what was expected to happen and what actually happened 

using predetermined quantitative metrics. 

How does each strategy affect:

1. Numbers of jobs created

2. Receipts used for restoration

3. Landscape-scale risks of future high-intensity fire

4. Regeneration success and plant succession

5. Watershed condition

6. Habitat trajectories

Figure 2—Conceptual model to be specified each time the management study template is applied. 

Result: actual

future condition

Specifying variables

to monitor (example)

Actual volume

New stand

characteristics

Δ Fire risk

Δ Productivity

Δ Erosion

Watershed condition

(upslope and in-channel)

Visuals

Interpreting whether

specified outcomes are

being achieved

Did local economies benefit?

Were fire risks reduced?

Were the full range of

multiple uses achieved and

sustained?

Which strategies worked

well?

Natural

recovery

Understanding factors influencing the

outcome (example)

Short term: vegetation and fuel management,

logging system, timber sale prep., stumpage

and bid, protests, legal costs, regulatory action.

Long term: succession, episodic disturbances

(including fire), nutrients.

Conceptual Management strategies

Model

Feedback mainly through

broad adaptive-management

framework

Goal: achieve

desired future

condition

Aggressive

intervention

Local (optional)

intervention

Intermediate

intervention

Monitoring

Result: actual

future condition

Specifying variables

to monitor (example)

Actual volume

New stand

characteristics

Δ Fire risk

Δ Productivity

Δ Erosion

Watershed condition

(upslope and in-channel)

Visuals

Interpreting whether

specified outcomes are

being achieved

Did local economies benefit?

Were fire risks reduced?

Were the full range of

multiple uses achieved and

sustained?

Which strategies worked

well?

Natural

recovery

Understanding factors influencing the

outcome (example)

Short term: vegetation and fuel management,

logging system, timber sale prep., stumpage

and bid, protests, legal costs, regulatory action.

Long term: succession, episodic disturbances

(including fire), nutrients.

Conceptual Management strategies

Model

Feedback mainly through

broad adaptive-management

framework

Goal: achieve

desired future

condition

Aggressive

intervention

Local (optional)

intervention

Intermediate

intervention

Monitoring
A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Table 1—Examples of simplified expectations of the effects of three strategies on managing for multiple 

objectives after wildfire (to be modified to fit with NEPA needs)

Expectations Aggressive intervention Natural recovery 50/50 intervention/natural

Creating jobs and receipts

Economics More jobs, costs, and Fewest jobs, net revenues Intermediate jobs, revenue

 revenue from timber sales

Risks of future high-severity fire (needs more of a landscape perspective)

Dead fuels Fewest because of salvage Highest because no salvage Intermediate

 and fuel reduction or fuel reduction 

Live fuels Highest resulting from High hardwood fuels, Intermediate

 branches of new conifers some that hinder crown fires

Likely future fire Extensive crown fires more High fire risk near term, lower Lowest risk assuming

 behavior likely until at least age 60 later because of more diverse underburning is successful

 because of fuel ladders vegetation patterns

Regeneration success and plant succession

Time to 10 conifers Fastest, if all fires are con- Slowest because no planting Intermediate

 per acre in late- trolled in the next 60 years; but increasing through time

 successional reserves intermediate otherwise with natural regeneration

Competing species Fewest because of vegeta- Most without vegetation Intermediate

 tion management management

Exotic plants Intermediate because of Intermediate because of Intermediate because of 

 direct control and new highest initial leaf area, underburning and control

 openings and no control efforts

Snag effects Less shade for emerging Higher shade for emerging Intermediate shade for

 plants plants emerging plants

Erosion, sediment delivery, and nutrient recovery

Woody debris More in near term by More in the long run as Intermediate near term

 felling trees to meet mini- snags fall to the ground and long term

 mum number per acre

Erosion and sediment More as a result of logging Lowest because of lack of Intermediate because of

 and vegetation control disturbance disturbance and log dams

Soil productivity Intermediate Highest because of nitrogen Lowest from nutrient losses

 fixers and deeper rooting from repeated burning

Restoring burned habitats

Landscape habitat Best assuming no fires in Slower initially but best Best assuming another intense

 extent and patterns the next 60 years assuming future low- fire in the next 60 years

 intensity fires

Attain large conifer Faster when all fires are Slower initially but may Faster with a high-intensity

 diameter controlled in the next 60 catch up if high-intensity fire before 60 years, other-

 years; slower otherwise fires controlled wise intermediate

Maintain plant diversity Least because of faster Intermediate, with or without Most because of more variety

 shade-out of shrubs if fire in disturbance patterns and

 fires are controlled planted pines

Have multiple canopy Faster after subsequent More likely to have single Intermediate

 layers thinning, if medium and layer where conifers shade

 intense fires are controlled out competitors

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Posing each of these questions is followed by recording expectations, to help 

evaluate and interpret future monitoring data. The more detailed and quantitative 

these expectations are, the better that measures can be defined and success measured. Table 1 illustrates simplified, semiquantitative expectations. Uncertainties 

are emphasized; for example, when applying predictive models, uncertainties can 

be disclosed partly by expressing predictions as a range rather than a point estimate.

(1) How does a strategy affect the numbers of jobs created? To answer this 

question, collect and analyze all possible economic data associated with the recovery project, including information from the timber sales, purchasers, contractors, 

and all forest staffs. The primary unit of measure will be estimates (with uncertainties) of the numbers of jobs created per acre of experimental area (by strategy). 

(2) How does a strategy affect the availability of receipts for restoration? To 

answer this question, collect and analyze all receipt information including KnutsonVandenberg Act (KV) plans and ways the receipts were spent. The primary unit 

of measure will be estimates (with uncertainties) of receipts available after timber 

sales (by strategy). 

(3) How does a strategy affect landscape-scale risks of future high-intensity 

fire? Expectations of fire risks can be quantified using fire and fuel models for each 

strategy (e.g., Finney 1998). Models will require data on intensity, extent, location, and vertical and horizontal patterns of fuels. Additionally, consider effects 

on improved fire attack for future fires (access and fuels in areas likely used for 

burnouts). Tests of the models will ultimately require evaluating future wildfire 

behavior. The primary unit of measure will be estimates (with uncertainties) of 

risks modified by changes in ease of attack (by strategy). 

 (4) How does a strategy affect revegetation success and natural succession?

Metrics for determining success will vary with underlying philosophy and specific 

goals. Conifer planting and tending is usually intended to produce conifer stands 

quickly. Lack of planting is intended to allow natural succession to proceed unaltered. With or without planting, actual vegetative composition, stand structure, fuel 

loading, resistance to fire, and various habitats vary through time. Fire and other 

disturbances will interact with these successional pathways differently, depending 

on conditions at the time of the disturbance—thus long-term outcomes become 

highly uncertain. For example, nitrogen-fixing shrubs may outcompete conifers 

early on, delaying conifer establishment, but these shrubs may play an important 

role in long-term growth of conifers and in habitat development. Use standard 

required reforestation surveys,2 certification, and record-keeping protocols to monitor succession on each strategy. 

2 Memo requiring surveys on planted wildland fire areas.
11

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

 (5) How does a strategy affect watershed condition including erosion, sediment delivery, and nutrient recovery? Strategies affecting the extent and methods 

of logging may alter rates of erosion, sediment delivery, and nutrient recovery. 

Alternate road management practices (e.g., adding or removing culverts, waterbars, 

and access) may affect sediment production and capture. Vegetation establishment, 

composition, and management may interact with erosion and nutrient recovery. 

Cover of nitrogen-fixing plants is a measure of nitrogen recovery. Snags and down 

wood may interact with vegetation, food chains, habitat quality, erosion, and 

nutrient recovery. Erosion will be evaluated in its simplest form by placing a few 

silt fences in each experimental area in similar landforms below areas to be salvage 

logged (or not, for the natural recovery strategy). The primary unit of measure will 

be estimates (with uncertainties) of soil accumulation behind silt-fences and foliar 

chemistry of regenerating conifers (by strategy). 

(6) How does a strategy affect habitat trajectories? Expectations for habitat 

development result from many interactions including snag and down wood retention, vegetation management, plant succession, erosion, nutrient recovery, and new 

disturbances. Therefore, expectations are best expressed as a range of possible 

outcomes. Actual habitat development trajectories can be compared to this range. 

Select Experimental Areas and Structure the Study

Experimental design concepts are well developed and many resources are available (e.g., Hinklemann and Kempthorpe 1994, Moore and McCabe 2005). Here, 

we blend a randomized-block design with practical aspects of a large-scale study 

of postwildfire management led by managers. Consultation with knowledgeable 

researchers or statisticians is desirable for each application of a management study 

because other designs may better fit local conditions. 

In the burned perimeter, the interdisciplinary team must select 1,000- to 3,000-

acre parcels as potential experimental areas (experimental units). This landscape 

scale is needed to assess management success because management is typically 

applied at these scales. The landscape scale may also be required to evaluate other 

desired responses, including wildlife and streams. Landscapes, by definition, 

encompass substantial variability. Therefore, a variety of prescriptions will be 

applied across the area, where each prescription is driven by subarea variation but 

all prescriptions contribute to the landscape strategy. The variety of subareas mandates substantial subsampling for many responses, thus a remote-sensing approach 

may be required to avoid excessive expense. 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

At a minimum, areas need to encompass a range of burn intensities with and 

without harvestable dead timber. Typically a satellite-based change analysis product 

is available (BARC or ΔNBR) to identify severity classes. The selection of experimental areas typically needs to consider land allocations, watersheds, roads, spatial 

patterns of disturbance, and other variables that will help define areas where any of 

the chosen strategies can be applied. Boundary characteristics may be constrained 

by the strategies chosen. For example, if fuel management zones are desired around 

any area perimeters, then roads and ridges accessible from roads should be used 

as the perimeter where possible. If a local innovation strategy is chosen that has a 

riparian focus, all area perimeters may have to be limited to watershed boundaries. 

The number of areas available will constrain the experimental design. Generally, at least two additional areas are needed so that areas that are too dissimilar can 

be discarded. For the full design, we suggest that at least 18 areas are needed. For a 

minimal design of two strategies by three replicates, at least eight areas are needed. 

See appendix 1 for the tradeoffs of reducing strategies or replicates, or dropping 

randomization. With a single study, the population from which statistical inference 

can be drawn is the portion of the burned forest included in the study—that is, the 

population is chosen to determine if the strategies are effective in this one location. Although much will be learned that can influence decisions beyond this area, 

broad—even regional—statistical inference will come only after multiple studies 

are implemented as part of a regional management study. 

Analyze for Similarity and Power

Once selected, potential experimental areas form a population of areas whose similarity will be assessed so that similar areas can be grouped into blocks. An example 

is given for the 2006 Tripod Fire in north-central Washington (app. 3). 

The interdisciplinary team must decide on the priority of available geographic 

information system (GIS) layers from which similarity can be evaluated. A primary 

similarity variable can include the acres of harvestable dead timber (as percentage of whole area). Secondary variables can include acres of intact forest habitat, 

acres requiring different harvesting systems, acres of high and low fertility, acres 

on Forest Service or BLM land, acres with different slope and aspect, or acres of 

intervening private land. This secondary list of similarity criteria is determined by 

the interdisciplinary team to best fit the management objectives. Example secondary similarity variables include: 

• Potential for benefiting the local economy. Perhaps the best metric for 

assuring similarity among areas for this variable will be acres or percentage of total acres included in a planned timber sale. To have any chance 

of selling, an area will have to have enough acres that meet the standards 
13

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

for a timber sale, most likely including the minimum volume of dead trees 

per acre (perhaps as a function of likely yarding method and distance from 

roads). 

• Potential for reducing fire risk. Fire risk is evaluated by two methods. 

First we can use various fire models (e.g., Finney 1998) that analyze fuel 

distributions, topography, and other variables to estimate likely fire progression. We can also assess the ease of future firefighting by examining 

where fire lines or burnouts could be set quickly. This latter assessment 

would be based on an analysis of the road network combined with fireprogression estimates. 

• Potential for achieving habitat objectives. Many habitat models are 

based on standing live and dead trees—data available when using layers to 

describe the local-economy similarity variable.

Experimental areas are arrayed from lowest to highest values for variable. 

Qualitative evaluation across all of the variables usually points to a small number of 

logical blocks. If the similarity analysis does not find suitable areas, area perimeters 

might be redrawn or the fire could be abandoned entirely. Once areas are selected 

and the analysis of similarity is complete, strategies are assigned randomly within 

blocks. An example analysis is given in appendix 3.

Seek Independent Input With a Credible Review

Standard research protocols will be used to gain input from scientists and managers 

on site-specific study plans (those with detailed, locally adapted prescriptions). Protocol includes assigning an independent review coordinator, selecting a diverse set 

of reviewers, and reconciling review comments in a formal letter placed on file and 

made available to the public. The generic study plan has been reviewed in advance 

to reduce the time needed to review site-specific study plans. Time is always in 

short supply during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process following wildfire.

Implement and Monitor the Management Study

Install management treatments—

The opportunity to change the design is limited after peer review and the agency 

NEPA decision is signed. Major issues could require starting the process over. 

Some unanticipated factors may limit full installation of all blocks; when this 

happens, a decision is needed whether to go forward with the study. If a network of 

management studies is being built, keeping even a partial set of treatments and no 

replicates on one fire may still be valuable for the regional analysis (see app. 1). 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Determine how well the learning design was implemented—

The first outcome to be assessed will be how well the study was implemented. 

No implementation is ever perfect; the degree that the full design was achieved 

has consequences for the quality of evidence that it can produce (see app. 1). The 

assessment is to determine if additional investment of limited monitoring is warranted. To do this, the following data are needed:

o Acres and distribution of logging both completed and under contract

o Acres and distribution of fuel reduction

o Acres and distribution of planting (by species)

o Progress toward approving future underburning as needed

o Records for all other actions, such as grass seeding, burned-area emergency 

rehabilitation (BAER) treatments, meadow restoration, etc. 

o Polygons where salvage would have occurred in natural-recovery and intermediate-intervention areas

o Timber-sale contract inspection records 

o Remote-sensing data status and ground truthing needs 

o A GIS database with base layers and above information clipped for easy 

transfer to potential collaborators 

o Revisions to planned monitoring

o Opportunities for public outreach

o Opportunities for Joint Fire Science and Regional Office proposals sponsored by the Forest and written by PNW Research Station or university 

researchers

Monitor management treatments and track progress—

A detailed monitoring plan is needed to connect feasible measurements with 

the effectiveness subquestions. Monitoring plans need to address the difficulties 

of a limited budget, large response areas, and subsampling (see: http://www.

sawleystudios.co.uk/jnrj/StatisticalCheck/Sampling.htm). Without records of what 

was planned and accomplished, where actions occurred, and what was observed, 

management studies will fail by being forgotten or by being unknowingly compromised by subsequent management activity. Core records include the decision documents, the study and monitoring plans, detailed prescriptions for each management 

treatment, a detailed implementation report, and GIS layers. These records need to 

be readily available and held indefinitely. Long-term studies often require permanent effectiveness monitoring plots. Sampling strategies often need further review 

to evaluate whether they can answer the questions posed and whether adequate 

quality assurance and control measures are in place. One way to assure monitoring 
15

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

success is to define the manager-research partnership needed to insure that studies 

will be implemented and tracked properly. Roles and responsibilities need to be 

clearly listed in decision documents, study plans, or memoranda of understanding between agencies or groups. To the extent possible, partnerships should take 

advantage of the best skills of those involved. In many cases, researchers may have 

the lead in experimental design, peer review, data management, statistical analysis, 

and reporting. Management and regulatory line officers may have the lead in deciding on the question to be addressed and allocating resources for implementation and 

monitoring. Management specialists would likely take the lead in implementation 

and effectiveness monitoring. 

Monitoring landscape-scale management studies has special challenges. 

Typically small or even stand-scale research projects can be evaluated with groundbased monitoring. Landscapes will require remote sensing to sample significant 

proportions of treated and untreated areas within the experimental areas at close to 

a reasonable cost. The National Forest Management Act may still require ground 

monitoring of planted areas (regeneration surveys and certification), but monitoring untreated lands has little chance of attracting scarce monitoring funds. A wide 

array of remote-sensing techniques is available at varying costs and utility. Chosen 

techniques need to tie directly to the questions asked. 

Analyze results and draw conclusions—

Study-specific statistical interpretation is required and can be accomplished in 

various publications and public outreach venues. Publishing the results in peerreviewed literature is an important way to increase the credibility of the evidence 

in future decisions. Management studies also allow for a simpler form of interpretation, simply examining management treatments in the field. To the extent possible, 

public interpretation via road tours, organized field tours, interpretive signs, and 

trails would help to make results more accessible and valuable. A Web page might 

help get people (especially students) more involved in the study. 

Interpret to influence broad-scale decisions—

Results from individual studies or monitoring efforts may need to be interpreted 

in a broader, more integrated context. This would increase their utility for broadscale decisions, as well as decisions regarding the next generation of key questions. 

Although the concepts of meta-analysis (e.g., Johnson 2002) may prove valuable for 

evaluating multiple studies across the region, broader interpretation lies more in the 

realm of the regional adaptive-management framework rather than in the regional 

management studies alone. 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Learning Implementation

The number, intensity, and location of wildfires are not predictable in advance, 

leaving affected managers scrambling to respond to them. Adding a management 

study to their response may be perceived as an untenable burden. Advance preparation is therefore key to facilitating learning after wildfire. Here are a few steps that 

could be taken before wildfire:

o Develop boilerplate NEPA language—derived in part from this study 

plan—for easy addition to decision documents that include a management 

study (boilerplate could include general statements about learning needs 

and the uncertainties of postwildfire management).

o Train local decisionmakers and NEPA coordinators likely to encounter a 

major wildfire.

o Develop a regional list of GIS layers and available technical support teams 

that could be rapidly deployed to develop a design and analyze similarity.

More complexity of objectives in decision documents adds time to the NEPA 

process. A limited set of objectives, a focused analysis, and clear and concise writing will speed document preparation and reduce openings for successful appeals 

and litigation. Adding a learning objective will add time to the development and 

analysis of the project, but perhaps only slightly. Design and similarity analysis 

have been completed in about a month (Bormann et al. 2004), but likely could be 

shortened to a week—and may be concurrent to other NEPA steps. Project analysis 

may need to include alternatives with and without the design, but this is also true 

with a single project-wide strategy. Usually, the design will encompass elements 

of the preferred and no-action alternatives, and therefore adding the study is more 

about how practices from different alternatives are arrayed across the landscape. 

The addition of a learning design to a postwildfire project has several other 

attributes that may speed, rather than hinder, project initiation. Adding a management study will require a more thorough statement of the uncertainties. Legal 

challenges based on the scientific validity of the chosen alternative will likely have 

less standing with the courts when these uncertainties are up front. Further the act 

of trying a range of strategies is a clear response to these uncertainties, and may 

change the burden of proof. To argue for a single strategy, litigants would need to 

demonstrate that there are fewer uncertainties than were argued. 

Funding for postwildfire planning and management may be another hurdle for 

implementing management studies and monitoring them afterwards. A major issue 

on the Tripod Fire response was the need to move funds allocated for thinning and 

fuel reduction in unburned forests to timber-sale layout for burned forests. National 
17

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

funding allocation processes may need to be revisited in several ways: to relieve 

the local competition between ongoing management and postwildfire management, 

to better coordinate BAER activities with potential management studies, and to 

explore the possibility of adding regional management studies to the national Office 

of Management and Budget targets. This latter step may determine if these studies 

receive any implementation or effectiveness monitoring. 

Metric Equivalents

English units Metric equivalents

1 inch 2.54 centimeters

1 acre 0.405 hectare

100 trees per acre 247 trees per hectare

100 lineal feet per acre 75.3 meters per hectare

1 ton per acre 2.24 metric tons per hectare

Literature Cited

Baird, B.N. 2006. Comment on “Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and 

increases fire risk.” Science. 313: 615.

Beschta, R.L.; Frissell, C.A.; Gresswell, R.; Hauer, R.; Karr, J.R.; Marshall, 

G.W.; Perry, D.A.; Rhoads, J.J. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: 

recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging and other 

post-fire treatments on federal lands in the West. Portland, OR: Pacific Rivers 

Council. http://www.pacrivers.org. (May 2004). 

Beschta, R.L.; Rhoads, J.J.; Kauffmann, J.B.; Gresswell, R.E.; Minshall, 

G.W.; Karr, J.R.; Perry, D.A.; Hauer, F.R.; Frissell, C.A. 2004. Postfire 

management on forested public lands of the Western United States. Conservation 

Biology. 18: 957-967.

Bormann, B.T.; Darbyshire, R.L.; Miller, R.C.; White, D.E.; Delack, D.V.; 

Link, T.K.; Phillips, R.; Fairbanks, R. 2004. Appendix A. Plan for a 

landscape management study on restoring late successional forest habitat after 

the Biscuit Fire. In: Biscuit Recovery Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Medford, OR: Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest. 

Bormann, B.T.; Kiester A.R. 2004. Options forestry: acting on uncertainty. 

Journal of Forestry. 102: 22-27.

Donato, D.C.; Fontaine, J.B.; Campbell, J.L.; Robinson, W.D.; Kauffman, J.B.; 

Law, B.E. 2006a. Postwildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire 

risk. Science. 311: 352.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Donato, D.C.; Fontaine, J.B.; Campbell, J.L.; Robinson, W.D.; Kauffman, 

J.B.; Law, B.E. 2006b. Response to comment on “Post-wildfire logging hinders 

regeneration and increases fire risk.” Science. 313: 615.

Finney, M.A. 1998. FARSITE: fire area simulator: model development and 

evaluation. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Harrington, T.; Tappeiner, J., II. 1997. Growth responses of young Douglas-fir 

and tanoak 11 years after various levels of hardwood removal and understory 

suppression in southwestern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 96: 

1-11.

Helgerson, O.T.; Newton, M.; deCalestra, D.; Schowalter, T.; Hansen, E. 1992. 

Protecting young regeneration. In: Hobbs, S.D.; Tesch, S.D.; Owston, P.W.; 

Stewart, R.E.; Tappeiner, J.C., II; Wells, G.E., eds. Reforestation practices in 

southwestern Oregon and northern California. Corvallis, OR: Forest Research 

Laboratory, Oregon State University: 384-421. 

Hinklemann, K.; Kempthorpe, O. 1994. Design and analysis of experiments: 

Volume 1: Introduction to experimental design. New York: John Wiley and 

Sons. 495 p.

Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for post-fire 

salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 20: 

284-293.

Johnson, D. 2002. The role of hypothesis testing in wildlife science. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 66: 272-276.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Noss, R.F. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and 

biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology. 20: 949-958.

McIver, J.D.; Starr, L. 2001. A literature review on the environmental effects of 

postfire logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 16: 159-168.

Moore, D.S.; McCabe, G.P. 2005. Introduction to the practice of statistics. 5th ed. 

New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. 896 p.

Newton, M.; Fitzgerald, S.; Rose, R.R.; Adams, P.W.; Tesch, S.D.; Sessions, J.; 

Atzet, T.; Powers, R.F.; Skinner, C. 2006. Comment on “Post-wildfire logging 

hinders regeneration and increases fire risk.” Science. 313: 615.
19

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Perry, D.A. 1994. Forest ecosystems. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University 

Press.

Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K.; Aplet, G.H.; Dykstra, D.P.; Graham, R.T.; 

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Pilliod, D.S.; Potts, D.F.; Powers, R.F.; Stuart, J.D. [In 

press]. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

Sessions, J.; Bettinger, P.; Buckman, R.; Newton, M.; Hamann, J. 2004.

Hastening the return of complex forests following fire: the consequences of 

delay. Journal of Forestry. 102: 38-45. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Appendix 1: Trial Types

The Northwest Forest Plan’s adaptive management framework calls for management experiments as one of a series of strategies to answer key questions. Because 

our experience has demonstrated much confusion about the name, we have changed 

it to management studies. “Experiment” connotes to most managers that the 

activity is fundamentally a research project that they are participating in, rather 

than a study for which they are taking the lead. Other confusion comes from within 

the research community, so here we develop a nonrigorous method of distinguishing between types of trials, with the goal of clearer communication. 

The first way to distinguish between field trials is by exploring whether the 

trial is motivated by management or research questions, and who is responsible 

for which aspect—we call this trial orientation. To determine the trial orientation, 

use this taxonomic key by answering questions and then summing checks in each 

column (fig. 3). Note that the sums of answers dictate the classification, not a single 

answer to a specific question. 

Although all management studies are initiated with the goal of achieving a high 

quality of evidence (by employing various experimental design elements), realities 

on the ground can limit what is possible. The generic, randomized block design 

calls for four local replicates or blocks of three to four management treatments, all 

randomly assigned. As specific limitations arise, the interdisciplinary team has 

choices in reducing the number of treatments, replicates, or random allocation. 

These choices have consequences in the quality of evidence that will come from the 

investment in learning, so we have developed a protocol for responding to potential 

limitations. Determining the quality of evidence can be very complex depending 

on the design chosen, and consulting a statistician is recommended. 

In general, cutting back on the number of treatments reduces the number of 

options examined. Cutting back on the number of replicates reduces the power of 

the comparison and the quality of the evidence produced (fig. 4). Thus, a decision 

to reduce treatments or replicates has different tradeoffs. The best path of reducing 

treatments or replicates while maintaining the highest possible quality of evidence 

is (treatment-rep): 4-4 to 3-4 to 2-4 to 4-3 to 3-3 to 2-3 to 4-2 to 3-2 and then to 2-2. 

If further limits arise that reduce replicates to one application, medium experimental quality can be maintained only when the two or more treatments are applied on 

other fires (the other fires become blocks). Maintaining medium quality is generally not possible without random allocation of treatments. Some scientists believe 

in an exception to this rule by using quasi-experiment, time-series analyses. This 

approach, however, depends on substantial pretreatment data to fully characterize 

variability “before” to compare with variability “after” treatment; these conditions 
21

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

are not usually available in forestry trials. Nonrandom comparisons are multiple 

treatments with two or more replicates, but without random allocation. This 

approach may appear to be a tradeoff between research desires and practical application because nonintervention treatments are conveniently located in protected 

land allocations. Nonrandom comparisons, however, are a poor tradeoff in that 

they will be more expensive and will have less quality of evidence than a simple 

demonstration. Many scientists also worry about the biases associated with choosing which treatment will go where, if they are not fully randomized. This array of 

field trial types is not all-inclusive in that an even higher quality of evidence is possible when long-term before-and-after measurement is added to randomly allocated 

trials.

Figure 3—A taxonomic key to classifying types of forestry field-trial orientations. Check one box per row, tally marks, and read off 

orientation below. Use orientation result to read off type of field trial (fig. 4).

Sum the score: sum A = ____ sum B = ____ sum C = ____

Some Researchers

combination

Independent agency 

scientists or researchers

Who interprets and 

reports the data?

Some Researchers

combination 

Managers or others 

under contract

Who collects and 

manages the field data?

Individual 

practices

Strategies, practices, 

or both

Comprehensive 

strategies

What’s the 

operational scale?

1 ha or smaller

plots within a stand

1 to 10 ha

(stand)

10 ha or larger 

(landscape)

What’s the experimental unit size?

Understanding 

patterns and causes and 

effects where possible

Effectiveness, 

cause and effect, 

and assumption testing 

Effectiveness of 

management 

strategy

What’s the type 

of question?

Researchers

alone 

Researchers 

and managers

Managers

alone

Who decided on 

the question?

A B C Trial orientation key

(check 1 box per row)

Sum the score: sum A = ____ sum B = ____ sum C = ____

Some Researchers

combination

Independent agency 

scientists or researchers

Who interprets and 

reports the data?

Some Researchers

combination 

Managers or others 

under contract

Who collects and 

manages the field data?

Individual 

practices

Strategies, practices, 

or both

Comprehensive 

strategies

What’s the 

operational scale?

1 ha or smaller

plots within a stand

1 to 10 ha

(stand)

10 ha or larger 

(landscape)

What’s the experimental unit size?

Understanding 

patterns and causes and 

effects where possible

Effectiveness, 

cause and effect, 

and assumption testing 

Effectiveness of 

management 

strategy

What’s the type 

of question?

Researchers

alone 

Researchers 

and managers

Managers

alone

Who decided on 

the question?

A B C Trial orientation key

(check 1 box per row)

0 0 6 Research (R) 

<3 <3 >2 Research-leaning (RL)

<3 >2 <3 Intermediate (X)

>2 <3 <3 Management-leaning (ML)

>4 <2 0 Management (M)

sum A sum B sum C Trial orientation

0 0 6 Research (R) 

<3 <3 >2 Research-leaning (RL)

<3 >2 <3 Intermediate (X)

>2 <3 <3 Management-leaning (ML)

>4 <2 0 Management (M)

To determine trial orientation, sum A sum B sum C Trial orientation

count the numbers of As, Bs, 

and Cs and read off the type
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Research 

(R) Research

Researchleaning (RL)

Intermediate 

(X)

Managementleaning (ML)

Mixed

Management 

(M) Management

Trial 

orientation*

Appropriation

source

R-V-m

RL-V-m

X-V-m

ML-V-m

M-V-m

Intervention 

(V)

Rep = 1 (with extensive before and 

after monitoring)

Not randomly allocated

R-E-h

RL-E-h

X-E-h

ML-E-h

M-E-h

Experiment 

(E)

Rep >1, Trt >1, 

and 

Rep + Trt >= 6

Randomly allocated

High (h)

R-E-m

RL-E-m

X-E-m

ML-E-m

M-E-m

Rep >1, Trt >1, 

and 

Rep + Trt <= 6

Medium (m)

Quality of evidence score

R-D-l

RL-D-l

X-D-l

ML-D-l

M-D-l

Demonstration 

(D)

Replicate (Rep) =1 

or 

Treatment (Trt) =1

Low (l) * Trial orientation is derived 

from the key to trial type 

Nonrandom 

comparison (N)

Rep >1

and 

Trt >1

R-N-l

RL-N-l

X-N-l

ML-N-l

M-N-l

Figure 4—The 25 types of forestry field trials based on trial orientation (fig. 3) and quality of evidence scores. The dark gray cells are defined as 

management studies by the regional executives. 
23

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Appendix 2: Example Prescriptions

Aggressive Intervention

Within commercial salvage units, conifers with less than 20 percent bright green 

crown will be considered eligible for salvage harvest, with no diameter limits, if 

not reserved for retention for habitat or other resource reasons. Approximately 2.5 

snags per acre >20 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) will be retained within 

harvest units. Snags will be retained in clumps every 5 to 10 acres. There would 

be limited harvest within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) to the extent 

that equipment can reach snags without entering the RCHA. Existing merchantable 

down wood within commercial salvage units may be removed to the extent that a 

minimum of 80 lineal feet per acre remains. Postharvest fuel treatment would occur 

on all units. Fuel treatment methods could include piling and burning, dead tree 

thinning and lopping, crushing, or mastication. Planting of tree seedlings will occur 

within all areas that experienced loss of stocking because of fire. Seedlings will be 

typically planted at between 150 and 250 trees per acre, which is anticipated to be 

the minimum planting density needed to result in approximately 100 trees per acre 

surviving their juvenile period. Other prescriptions, developed for subareas without 

commercial timber in the experimental area, would apply the aggressive intervention philosophy where possible. 

Intermediate Intervention

Within commercial salvage units, only trees with zero visible green crown will be 

considered eligible for salvage harvest. No snags ≥25 inches d.b.h. will be harvested. Seventy percent of the merchantable snags <25 inches d.b.h. representing 

all size classes will be harvested. There would be no harvest within RHCAs. No 

existing down wood would be harvested. Postharvest fuel treatment would only 

occur in units where the projected fuel loading, when all the snags <9 inches d.b.h. 

have fallen, is above 40 tons per acre. Fuel treatment methods could include piling 

and burning, dead tree thinning and lopping, crushing, or mastication. In units that 

have tree species that are likely to produce natural regeneration (e.g. lodgepole pine, 

Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud.), the need for planting will be assessed in year 4 

after harvest. If the unit is not considered to be fully stocked, then it will be planted 

in year 4 to meet the legal requirement of the National Forest Management Act of 

having a fully stocked stand within 5 years after harvest. In units that have tree species that are not likely to produce natural regeneration (e.g. ponderosa pine, Pinus 

ponderosa C. Laws.), planting would occur immediately after harvest. Seedlings 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

will be typically planted at between 100 and 200 trees per acre, which is anticipated 

to be the minimum planting density needed to result in approximately 50 trees 

per acre surviving their juvenile period. Other prescriptions, developed for areas 

without commercial timber in the experimental area, would apply the intermediate 

intervention philosophy where possible. 

Local Innovation (Example)

If a riparian focus is chosen as the local innovation strategy, salvage units would be 

drawn to redirect from specific areas that have a high potential to influence stream 

function—to other areas with a low potential. Within watersheds greater than 1,000 

acres (but dependent on topography), avoid placing salvage units in key tributary 

watersheds that flow into unconstrained, wider reaches of the stream, especially 

those that enter the stream at close to a right angle. These key subwatersheds are 

thought to provide most of the wood and large sediment important to long-term 

stream productivity. Match the salvage target of the aggressive treatment by 

harvesting dead trees in the riparian buffers outside of the key tributaries. This 

strategy will require analyses to identify key tributary watersheds, using watersheds as experimental area boundaries, and using proportion of area as a primary 

determinent of similarity.
25

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Appendix 3: Example Similarity Analysis

We use the 2006 Tripod Fire in north-central Washington as an example. This 

similarity analysis mockup was not accepted by the Forest Service Tripod interdisciplinary team for a variety of reasons, probably including their initial decision to 

not include learning as a purpose and need along with timber production.

Step 1. Draw large-scale (1000-acre +) experimental polygons (areas)

We drew perimeters using natural boundaries relating to possible logging 

systems, landscape variability, and future fire attack logistics. We used ridges and 

roads mainly, and roadless boundaries and streams as little as possible to capture 

areas with significant moderate to severe mortality (fig. 5). We found 22 possible 

areas outside of the roadless areas (see fig. 6).

Step 2. Modify Design to Fit On-Ground Realities

Not all 22 areas will work for various reasons, including incompatibilities with 

other goals. The design can be scaled back as these areas are removed. This step 

was not completed in the mockup, but the design could drop to as few as six areas 

(two strategies and three blocks) and still qualify as a regional management study.

Step 3. Decide on Similarity Variables

Here, we used percentage of area with moderate to severe mortality as an 

example of a primary similarity variable. Secondary variables can be chosen 

and applied in sequence to produce blocks of similar areas. These may relate to 

management objectives, for example, wildlife, fish, threatened species, or timber 

production. The objective is to define areas in a block that are more similar to each 

other than they are to the areas in other blocks.

Step 4. Randomly Allocate Strategies Within Blocks

The aggressive, natural, 50/50, and local strategies would be assigned at random to the four similar areas in each block. That is, the A block (areas A2, A5, 

A20, A22) each would have an equal chance to be assigned one of the four strategies. This process continues with the other blocks.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-777

Figure 5— Example of how to draw initial area boundaries around forests with moderate to high mortality 

by using ArcGIS coverages of mortality, hillshade, streams, roads, and land-use designations. This example 

comes from the Tripod Fire, 2006. Areas 19 and 20 can be seen in figure 6. 

To create boundaries that

capture areas with

significant moderate to

severe mortality

(red and yellow are

transparent barc raster),

draw:

using roads,

ridges,

and roadless boundaries;

and avoid streams

as much as possible.

Step 1. Draw large-scale

(1,000 ac +) polygons

(areas). Here, areas 19

and 20 from figure 6.

To create boundaries that

capture areas with

significant moderate to

severe mortality

(red and yellow are

transparent barc raster),

draw:

using roads,

ridges,

and roadless boundaries;

and avoid streams

as much as possible.

Step 1. Draw large-scale

(1,000 ac +) polygons

(areas). Here, areas 19

and 20 from fig
27

A Regional Management-Study Template for Learning About Postwildfire Management

Roadless

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

F

F

Block letter (similar areas)Area number

% area with moderate to high mortality (barc256)

Average per block (%)

B

Reject 8 and 15 based on 

their outlier status. These 

areas would be managed 

outside the study.

F 8 46

F 15 51

E 16 53

E 6 55

E 11 60

E 12 62

D 14 65

D 1 66

D 10 71

D 7 72

C 9 74

C 18 74

C 13 76

C 19 77

B 3 79

B 4 81

B 21 84

B 17 85

A 22 86

A 2 87

A 5 87

A 20 90

F 8 46

F 15 51

E 16 53

E 6 55

E 11 60

E 12 62

D 14 65

D 1 66

D 10 71

D 7 72

C 9 74

C 18 74

C 13 76

C 19 77

B 3 79

B 4 81

B 21 84

B 17 85

A 22 86

A 2 87

A 5 87

A 20 90

A

22

87

82

75

68

56

X

X

Figure 6—The 22 areas chosen and their ranking based on the primary similarity variable (percentage of area 

with moderate to high mortality). Five groups (blocks) are made by arraying mortality from highest to lowest 

and rejecting two outliers. This process is continued with secondary and tertiary similarity variables. This 

example comes from the Tripod Fire, 2006.



Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300