Over 40 years of wildfire-ignition data across 11 western U.S. states showed that national forest areas classified as “roadless” didn’t burn more than national forest land with roads, further fueling discussion around the Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ intent to repeal the 2001 “Roadless Rule.”
Rollins has stated that the nation’s protected forests need to be opened to new road construction, development and logging in order to reduce the risk of wildfires. Rollins has also labeled the rule as an “absurd obstacle to properly managing our forests.”
Researchers out of Oregon State University explicitly cited the USDA’s wildfire-based claims for repealing the 2021 Roadless Rule as the reason behind why they analyzed four decades of fire research. Previous studies have highlighted the ecological benefits of roadless areas, including the conservation of biodiversity and supporting clean air and water quality, and the researchers argue those benefits are why it is important for decision-makers to critically evaluate proposed rationales for overturning the Roadless Rule.
Their study, published on Sept. 8, compiled fire severity and extent data to evaluate fire patterns across developed lands, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and wilderness. The fire severity data was sourced from the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity program, an interagency effort between the US Geological Survey and Forest Service that uses Landsat satellite imagery to map the extent and severity of all large fires from 1984 to the present.
The researchers found inventoried roadless areas burned at an estimated 1.13 times the annual rate of developed lands between 1984 and 2023. The annual burn rate of inventoried roadless areas dropped to 0.89 times the annual rate of developed lands when measured between 2014 and 2023.
“Our analysis indicates that IRAs across western states’ NFS land are not associated with a significantly greater rate of burning – or a greater rate of moderate and high-severity fire – relative to roaded or developed lands,” the researchers said in the study. “It is possible that burn rates in IRAs [inventoried roadless areas] are stabilizing as fires encounter previously burned areas with less fuel to burn. However, it is more likely that there is simply no consistent, quantifiable difference between patterns of fire in IRAs and the roaded and developed portion of the NFS landscape at the spatial and temporal scales we evaluated.”
The researchers did identify a landscape with a very high burn rate, but it would be unaffected by the Roadless Rule’s repeal. Congressionally designated wilderness areas burned at almost double the annual rate of inventoried roadless areas or developed lands, which they attributed to significant constraints on suppression resource availability during fire seasons and the low prioritization remote wilderness areas receive for both initial attack and containment.
An “After-Action Review” of Los Angeles County’s response to the disastrous Eaton and Palisades Fires found that numerous gaps remain in the recovery and repopulation process.
The County’s Board of Supervisors commissioned the review, and consultant agency McChrystal Group conducted it through system reviews, official interviews, and public surveys. The consultants recommended multiple systems or resources the County should implement across six focus areas, including communications, recovery, repopulation, shelter, public health, and volunteer and donations management.
Numerous survivors of the Eaton and Palisades Fires confronted a fractured and confusing recovery process in the aftermath of the disaster, according to the report. The many jurisdictional distinctions across LA County led to unclear and inconsistent information about recovery needs.
That issue was compounded by the outpouring of support from multiple different organizations and nonprofits, which made it difficult for residents to “sort through the noise.” Even at county-operated Disaster Recovery Centers, which consultants said helped consolidate services for residents, survivors had to repeatedly verify identity, residence, ownership, or eligibility depending on whether they were applying for FEMA assistance, replacement records, insurance claims, or other support programs.
“The evacuation and repopulation process was chaotic and deeply stressful … residents had to make decisions with incomplete or conflicting information … there was little on-site guidance about safety, documentation, or next steps,” according to a respondent to the public survey featured in the report by consultants. “Los Angeles County could improve this process by providing more consistent and centralized communication, clearer timelines and criteria for … reentry, and on-the-ground support teams.”
This feedback led consultants’ recommendations to largely focus on the streamlining of disaster operations before the next tragedy happens. The recommendations, sorted by cost and time to implement, included:
Near-Term (Low to Moderate Cost)
Standardize recovery governance and operating procedures.
Formalize agreements with nonprofit and community-based partners.
Improve public information systems, resident intake processes, accessibility and multilingual communications.
Strengthen grant identification and reimbursement management capabilities.
Mid-Term (Moderate Cost)
Establish dedicated recovery coordination and grants management positions.
Expand disaster case management and community navigation services.
Implement integrated recovery data and case-tracking systems.
Long-Term (Higher Cost)
Create a permanent countywide recovery and resilience capability that integrates recovery planning, climate adaptation, community resilience, and cross-sector coordination under a common governance framework.
Establish dedicated funding reserves or recurring appropriations to sustain critical recovery functions between disasters.
“Prioritizing permanent capabilities that can be scaled during major incidents would improve operational readiness, accelerate recovery outcomes, enhance service considerations, and reduce the costs associated with repeatedly standing up temporary recovery structures after each climate-related disaster,” the consultants said in the report.
The Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday issued a final rule making the duties eligible for hazard pay for General Schedule employees and for Environmental Differential Pay for Federal Wage System employees. The final rule specifically authorizes a 25% differential for both classes of employees participating in the fireline during prescribed fires.
The rule will officially go into effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, according to the Office of Personnel Management. Officials originally submitted the proposed rule in April.
“This is the latest improvement to firefighter compensation, following the incident response premium pay and permanent pay reforms established last year,” the Service said in a social media post.
Hazard pay has historically not been eligible for GS employees when the “hazard” in question has already been taken into account in the position’s description, like firefighters fighting wildfires, according to the Office. That largely changed for firefighters in 2021 when a special exemption was added, allowing wildland firefighters working on a wildfire’s fireline to receive hazard pay. The rule change follows the same logic, allowing a GS or FWS employee working a prescribed fire’s fireline to receive hazard pay despite the classification of the employee’s position.
Previous research has shown that wildland firefighters conducting prescribed burns are often exposed to carbon monoxide, trace metals, and particulate matter at levels that exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s recommended exposure limit, which may cause both short-term and long-term negative health impacts. Some of the personal protective equipment that wildland firefighters use has been found to increase the risk of cancer, due to the equipment shedding carcinogenic compounds and harmful chemicals when exposed to high temperatures common on firelines.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife law enforcement officer died while helping evacuate residents threatened by the Railroad South Fire in Oklahoma, the Department of the Interior announced on Sunday.
The officer was identified at 38-year-old David Taylor of Scio, Oregon, according to a press release sent out by the department. Taylor was going door to door to help residents evacuate, and officials lost contact with him while he was assisting a family leave their home. Evidence recovered from the scene indicates he died during the evacuation effort.
“Everything we know about David’s actions demonstrates extraordinary courage and selflessness,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik said. “When people were in danger, David was there helping them get to safety. He remained committed to protecting others under the most dangerous circumstances. We mourn alongside his family, friends and colleagues, and we will never forget his service.”
Taylor worked for the Service at Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico before joining Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, officials said in the press release. He also had 20 years of naval service, serving on active duty in the U.S. Navy and continuing his military service in the Navy Reserve while he was a federal wildlife officer.
The release says more information will be released as it is confirmed.
The Railroad South Fire ignited between Indiahoma and Cache in Oklahoma at around 2 p.m. on Saturday, according to Comanche Nation Emergency Management. The fire burned 515 acres, destroyed five homes and two deaths including Taylor. The Comanche County/Lawton Emergency Management has lifted all evacuation orders for residents affected by the fire and authorities are investigating the cause.
Donations supporting victims and survivors of the fire can be directed to the following contacts, officials said:
Lenetta McClung Davenport at (580) 699-4893
Adra Tehauno-Martinez with the Comanche National Housing Authority at (580) 357-4956
Comanche Nation Emergency Management Hotline at (580) 919-1098
There is not much benefit in producing science that just sits on a shelf. Effective science must extend beyond publication and address real-world needs argues Lynn Johnston, a Forest Fire Research Specialist with Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Forest Service, in an editorial for the International Journal of Wildland Fire.
While reading journal articles in my roles as a wildland fire scientist and an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Wildland Fire, I find the papers that grab my interest and inspire deeper thinking are those that have a very strong connection between the science presented and the real-world benefits that can come from applying that science.
When studies articulate how results can be applied and what benefits may arise, readers are better able to understand the practical relevance and potential influence of the work. This is especially important in wildland fire research, where risk – defined as the combination of likelihood and impacts – is inherently tied to societal outcomes. Fire poses significant threats to human life, infrastructure and ecosystems, and effective decision-making relies on robust scientific support. Consequently, research that contributes to risk reduction carries particular importance.
Covering how results of a study have relevance to the real-world is a standard part of a research paper. But this discussion should aim to be substantive, going beyond a perfunctory statement relegated to the closing lines of the discussion section. Statements along the lines of ‘the results of this study can be used in fire management’ are common, but when added to a paper as a placeholder for a more genuine and thorough discussion, they lack sufficient specificity to be actionable. Concrete guidance could include things such as specifically how the results can support adaptive or proactive risk reduction, who might find the work useful, what kind of decisions can the science inform and what other information is needed.
Communicating science through publication
Communicating the value of new results, approaches, and scientific knowledge in risk research is crucial. Scientific publishing plays a critical role in this – it is central to broadly sharing knowledge and ultimately advancing innovation and discovery. It brings a level of quality control to the scientific record as papers are vetted through the peer review process. It ultimately promotes transparency and reproducibility in science. Publishing is also very much ingrained in measuring academic achievement, which motivates researchers to publish for improved success in obtaining research funding and for career progression.
However, publication alone is insufficient to ensure uptake by practitioners and decision-makers. Even in a hypothetical situation where scientists have produced ‘the best’ model, or ‘complete’ knowledge, not much benefit will be produced if the science just sits on a shelf. Effective science must extend beyond publication, with research designed to address real-world needs and integrated into broader processes of application and implementation. In this context, publication should be viewed as one component of a larger knowledge-to-action continuum rather than the endpoint.
Fire risk information overload
Fire risk has long been a priority topic across the scientific community. Scanning through International Journal of Wildland Fire issues since its inception in 1991 shows early inquiries into weather and fire activity, fuel moisture and fire behavior, development of fire danger systems, fire spread modeling, fire impacts – much of this work ultimately is fueled by the need for understanding and managing wildland fire risk.
Looking at International Journal of Wildland Fire publications over the years, there has been an increase in the number of publications that use the term ‘risk’, easily keeping pace with the rapid increase in overall number of papers being published. Moreover, there has been a notable change around the late 2000s to early 2010s where the number of papers that focus on fire risk as a major component of the paper, have ‘risk’ in the title of the article, or use the term ‘risk’ in the more specific natural hazard risk analysis context become much more prevalent. What was once a relatively niche topic is now a dominant and widespread focus within the journal and across the broader literature.
Annual number of publications (including article types: research article, review, or research note) in the International Journal of Wildland Fire from 1991 to 2025. The term ‘risk’ may be used in many ways, this includes all uses found in title, abstract, or main text. *Note: the year 1999 has no data as there were no issues that year.
The information overload is expected to continue in the future. At the same time, technology and capacity for intensely data-heavy and sophisticated assessments and detailed modeling are rapidly developing. Availability of more and more data will enable real-time and dynamic risk assessments. This could lead to a level of support for decision making and planning that would have been unimaginable at the beginning of many current careers in the field.
Since there is so much fire risk science and much more to come, it is worth asking how much of this work is ultimately applied and whether the abundance of publications effectively addresses the problems relevant to end users. How is all this work used and who is using it? The reality is that science uptake and implementation cannot possibly hope to keep up with the rapidly growing body of research outputs. This means it is even more essential to effectively communicate research applications and strive for improved uptake and implementation.
Considerations when publishing
When focusing on putting out scientific papers, there are considerations that can set up research for success in implementation, such as:
Formally aligning research priorities with end-user priorities in research planning to strengthen relevance.
Capitalizing on insight from personal and professional connections built with end-users, science communicators, and boundary organizations.
Use of multiple ways of scoping and framing research topics to broaden potential impact.
Inclusion of communication, engagement, implementation, and knowledge exchange activities in research proposals.
Cover how scientific results can be used when drafting manuscripts in a specific and detailed way by including a thorough discussion, an example of implementation, a case study demonstrating use, or mentioning what next steps might lead to impact.
Going beyond the research paper
It is important to acknowledge that publishing science (and more broadly, the knowledge system of science) is just one tool available to share knowledge and reduce fire risk on the ground. To extend fire risk science beyond text on a page, various actions to promote the utility of science can be pulled from existing frameworks for knowledge exchange, best practices in implementation, and guides on technology transfer. One approach that can help close the research-practice gap is science communication using multiple strategies. Another key is to foster knowledge exchange opportunities. Significant benefits can be achieved through communication, collaboration, and reciprocal learning between researchers and end-users of science, especially when done early and often throughout the research process.
Looking to the lessons learned from past efforts in navigating published science to implementation in fire risk management can be very informative in guiding science implementation. There are many examples of implemented science – including various fire danger products, risk assessment systems, property hazard reduction programs, operational resource modeling, and air quality warnings. There’s quite a lot of work that focuses on what strategies were used and what challenges were faced. Just within this journal there are papers that review risk-based decision support tools in fire management (Miller and Ager 2013; Hyde et al. 2013), and papers that use expert surveys and interviews to identify barriers and facilitators in science implementation (Hunter 2016; Glenn et al. 2022; McFayden et al. 2022; Rapp et al. 2020; Varzeshi et al. 2026).
External to what has been done within the world of wildland fire, there is a huge amount of work in the broader field of science implementation and knowledge exchange. Research on dedicated, often interdisciplinary, knowledge exchange and translational science strategies can be applied in the fire risk science context. The same goes for work done in other fields such as medical or environmental science. Successful efforts to integrate science and society have shown us the benefits of co-production of tools and research, how crucial it is to have people functioning as knowledge brokers, the importance of boundary organizsations, trust as a systemic necessity in the collaborative process, and mutual learning within and between groups of players.
One thing to keep in mind is that individuals do not have to undertake all of these efforts simultaneously. Small steps toward better implementation of fire risk science absolutely counts. Creating long-term formalized knowledge exchange programs, building collaborative networks, and implementing large projects with continuous stakeholder engagement takes a whole lot of time and effort. All well-worth the effort, but easy wins might include using knowledge translation tools such as targeted evidence briefs of recent research, or even making connections with others interested in fire risk and having a casual conversation about the work.
Conclusion
The International Journal of Wildland Fire aims to publish impactful science that leads to benefit in the world of wildland fire. In support of that goal, I encourage the research community to clearly lay out potential benefits and meaningfully discuss the practical applications of a research project when writing papers.
That said, the impact of fire research can be dramatically bolstered through broader and more diverse forms of science communication and through knowledge exchange activities. Implementing research findings should be prioritized just as much as making the findings in the first place. Ultimately if the research isn’t fed into—and fed by—operations, planning needs, traditional knowledge and values, or local priorities, its potential impact remains limited. As researchers and practitioners reading this journal, there is a need to carefully consider how the science can lead to societal benefit. Particularly for topics related to fire risk, there is a certain moral duty associated with the application of science and its role in society. Thoughtfully applying the available abundance of new knowledge, tools, or approaches by distilling practical benefit from research papers has significant potential for reducing wildland fire risk.
Closing the gap between fire risk science and implementation should be prioritized and even incentivized. With the rapid rate of science being produced, the gap will widen unless there is conscious effort. Greater emphasis is needed on ensuring that published work not only advances knowledge, but also clearly supports its application in practice.
The first investigation report into a helicopter crash that left a pilot dead during Colorado’s Gold Mountain Fire on July 12 was released by the National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday.
The pilot, 56-year-old Nicholas Dale of Sooke, British Columbia, was the only person on board the Kaman K-1200 when it crashed while conducting water-bucket fire suppression flights during the fire, according to the NTSB preliminary report. The helicopter was equipped with a 660-gallon Bambi MAX Bucket with PowerFill Max (water bucket) suspended from the helicopter by a 150-ft-long line.
Dale completed five water bucket drops over the fire before the crash, which officials in the report called “unremarkable” because of the helicopter’s average maneuvers and the water bucket weighing about 3,000 lbs each time.
The helicopter’s final water bucket dip was extremely unusual, according to the report. The helicopter pitched up rapidly, causing the helicopter to roll right and the external load to increase in weight from 4,000 to 7,700 lbs. The helicopter was in an “extreme” right roll with its nose falling toward the water before the crash.
Officials recovered the crashed helicopter, water bucket, and video recording from the reservoir 10 days after the crash. Video did not immediately indicate a mechanical failure.
“The portions of the video that were reviewed, which included the final sequence of events, did not reveal any abnormal sounds or vibrations indicative of a rotorcraft system or engine malfunction during the flight,” officials said.
The Gold Mountain Fire, which started burning on June 27, is 87% contained and has burned over 39,000 acres in the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests as of Thursday. An estimated 86 personnel are patrolling portions of the fire to check containment lines and watch for any other heat or fire activity.
With a big landscape, a limited budget and a diverse set of community objectives, how do we decide where, when and how fuel treatments are best undertaken to reduce wildfire risks?
Decision makers have a set of options – conduct a prescribed burn, mechanically reduce the fuel, introduce grazing, or use a herbicide. When deciding between these possible fuel treatment plans, each option, or combination of options, must be considered so that community objectives for risk reduction can be achieved with the resources available.
This decision point is the focus of a PhD study by Douglas Radford, from Adelaide University, in his article “Optimising fuel treatment plans to reduce burn probability: the importance of navigating context, priorities and trade-offs” in the International Journal of Wildland Fire.
Joint winner of the Best Student Paper 2025 in the International Journal of Wildland Fire.Read the full paper.
Radford explains that his work applies multi-objective optimisation to support decision-making for bushfire risk reduction – that is, where and how should we use prescribed burning to reduce risk? The optimisation approach was able to find solutions that improved the effectiveness of fuel treatment plans significantly (80 – 280% improvement).
“An important message here is that what makes a “good” decision will depend highly on how we collectively understand and define what our objectives are, and on how we navigate any trade-offs between those objectives,” Radford said.
“While optimisation and other “tech-based” approaches can help us to explore good decisions, the process of working alongside our communities to define what “good” looks like is values-based and cannot be out-sourced.”
Radford applied his case study to the Adelaide Hills of South Australia. By using a state of the art computational “metamodel” the study was able to run thousands of possible fuel treatments across a large area.
“My PhD project aimed to improve decision-support for land and fire management agencies. Further research will make this work more reflective of the multi-dimensional nature of fire its roles and the values of our communities.”
Radford is confident his algorithms are flexible and can be adapted to a wide range of objectives and constraints and therefore, can be used beyond South Australia.
“These approaches can be tailored to unique communities – human and environmental – in all sorts of contexts.
“We have started applying these tools in New South Wales and following a chance meeting at the IAWF Fire Behaviour and Fuels conference in Hobart this year, we’ve started exploring their applications in Canada too. I’m excited to see where we can go next!”
A drug marketed to wildland firefighters exposed to smoke or PFAS shows no evidence of being effective, leading the International Association of Firefighters and the Food and Drug Administration to warn against its use.
The drug, called glutathione, is marketed to fire fighters to remove toxins, but the IAFF says there are no scientific studies showing it can reduce forever chemical levels or relieve occupational exposures.
“Because glutathione is not an FDA-approved drug, consumers should be cautious about product safety and claims that glutathione can treat or prevent diseases,” the IAFF said in a safety advisory.
The association referenced a nationwide recall of the drug made on Aug. 5 by Victory Medical Center Pharmacy in Austin, Texas, after pharmacists found elevated bacterial endotoxin levels in the drug.
“There is reasonable probability that injectable products with elevated endotoxin levels could cause significant medical events including fevers, hypotension, inflammatory reactions, anaphylactic shock and death,” the pharmacy said in a risk statement shared by the FDA. “To date, Victory Medical Center Pharmacy has received reports of adverse events including fever, chills, severe headache, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, changes in blood pressure, body aches, and instances of injection site reactions.”
The IAFF also shared an FDA alert from 2019, warning compounders not to use the drug in injectable drugs due to patients who used the drugs experiencing adverse effects, also due to high levels of endotoxins. Patients reportedly experienced symptoms of varying degrees, including nausea, vomiting, lightheadedness, chills, body aches and sneezing, with one patient being hospitalized after experiencing low blood pressure and difficulty breathing.
“Accompanying the initial adverse event reports were endotoxin test results from a third-party laboratory, which FDA found concerning,” the FDA alert said. “All samples tested by an FDA laboratory were found to contain excessive bacterial endotoxin with some results as high as five times the appropriate limit, which the agency calculated based on the L-glutathione dose received by the patients.”
The Hawk Fire burning northwest of Reno, Nevada, triggered the evacuations of over 90,000 people on Sunday, according to fire crews working the incident.
The wildfire, which ignited on Saturday morning and has since been determined to be human-caused, has burned over 15,000 acres as of Sunday evening. Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo declared a State of Emergency soon after the fire started on Saturday as the fire spread rapidly.
“This is an active and rapidly evolving situation, and I urge everyone in the affected areas to remain vigilant and follow the direction of local officials,” Lombardo said in a press release regarding the emergency declaration. “The state is fully engaged, and we are working alongside local authorities and first responders to deploy every available resource to protect lives, safeguard communities, and keep Nevadans out of harm’s way.”
Numerous communities are in GO NOW evacuation zones across the region, with local officials urging community members to check the Perimeter Map website for the latest evacuation updates. Officials have also closed numerous roads in the area, including highways and local streets. Winds up to 20 mph increased fire activity and drove fire movement Sunday afternoon into the evening, crews said.
Credit: Perimeter Map
Firefighters remained fully engaged on Sunday, working to extinguish hotspots and keep the fire south of U.S. 395, according to crews at the scene. Communities north of 396 are sandwiched between pending evacuations from the Hawk Fire to the south and the Bug & Stallion Fires to the north, which have burned over 93,000 acres and are 97% contained as of Sunday night.
The Washoe County School District canceled all school classes, except for Gerlach K-12 school, on Monday due to the ongoing fire. The district had just restarted classes for the new school year on Aug. 10.
“We understand that so many people in our WCSD family—students, families, and staff —are impacted,” the district said in a press release. “Over the next few days, we will continue to update our entire district family with information as it becomes available. We are grateful to our firefighters and first responders as they continue to battle this fire, and we thank our district personnel who are assisting with this effort.”
While many studies have established that fuel treatments are an effective wildfire mitigation tool, the gap in our understanding has been how a range of different treatments work together over many years across large areas to produce a desired outcome.
Research led by Boise State University PhD student Kendra Fallon, now a National Fire Ecologist for the US Wildland Fire Service in Boise, Idaho, looked at the combination of fuel treatments in Californian forests and found that 61 percent of treatment footprints that were intersected by wildfire were effective at modifying the fire behaviour, even under extreme weather conditions.
Joint winner of the Best Student Paper 2025 in the International Journal of Wildland Fire.Read the full paper.
Earlier studies on the effectiveness of fuel treatments have relied heavily on individual case studies that looked primarily at the single most recent fuel treatment in an area recently burnt by wildfire.
The researchers’ fused the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) data, which documents all land management activities (treatments), with the data in the interagency Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring system (FTEM) which flags the overlap of the most recent fuel treatment activity with a wildfire that intersects it. While FACTS includes all management activities, it also includes naturally caused wildfires that have been identified as ‘meeting objectives’. This approach summarizes all fuel treatments (combinations and individual treatments) across over 20 million acres (8 million hectares) of National Forest System lands in California, which has a long-standing record of fuel mitigation efforts.
By combining these two data sets over 1621 cases of fuel treatments between 1950 and 2022, they found 61 percent modified wildfire behaviour; although they note this may be an underestimation given that some of the more subtle signs of wildfire behaviour change are missed by novice observers and not captured in the data
The fuel treatment in these forests was mostly prescribed fire but also included some mechanized fuel removal or rearrangement using hand tools or large machinery, and in some cases, grazing or chemical spraying. Importantly, many areas had undergone more than one type of treatment.
“This bridges the scientific gap on how the sequence or combinations of multiple hazardous fuel treatments, rather than just the last treatment before wildfire, contribute to the treatment efficacy across large geographies.”
Fallon is optimistic that this methodology looking at fuel treatment success is transferable to other geographical areas that lack the extensive set of case studies available in California.
“While we focused our methodology on case studies from California, given the abundance of fuel treatment effectiveness studies in the state, the approach is applicable to other geographies,” she said.
“Motivated by the needs of wildland fire practitioners, this research developed a novel methodology for evaluating fuel treatment effectiveness. As a full-time wildland fire practitioner and non-traditional student, I sought to produce research that bridged the gap between current operational challenges and applied fire science.”
Kendra Fallon, Best Student Paper 2025 Joint Winner, International Journal of Wildland Fire
