Synthesis

Eastern Fire Forum - August 25-27, 2026

This document synthesizes key insights from the Eastern Fire Forum, highlighting the distinct ecological, societal, and institutional characteristics of the region, critical research gaps and potential new directions, and urgent policy steps necessary to advance wildfire planning, response, and future resilience. With special attention to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the document first synthesizes what makes Eastern wildfire unique and identifies research needs that were identified and prioritized at the Eastern Fire Network (EFNet) meetings at Penn State University. Subsequently, it synthesizes findings and recommendations from the Goddard Forum that involved a field visit to a burn area in the Michaux State Forest and a science-policy forum held in Camp Hill near the state capital in Harrisburg.

Characterizing Eastern Wildfires

Eastern wildfires are distinct due to a combination of mixed hardwood - coniferous forest types, fractured land tenure, dense populations in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), relative lack of public awareness of wildfire, and jurisdictional complexity. Unlike the expansive public lands of the western United States, the eastern landscape is highly fragmented with patchwork private and public (mostly state and local municipal) ownership, which complicates unified command and multi-jurisdictional coordination. Furthermore, a seasonal fire regime largely controlled by leaf-off/leaf-on dynamics of deciduous tree species, localized winds, and compound disturbances (such as invasive species, pest outbreaks, and storm-related blowdowns) create novel ecosystem dynamics with unpredictable fire behaviors that differ sharply from the western U.S. By implication, fuel models, risk metrics, and management approaches developed in the West may not translate well to the East.

Core Research Priorities

Fuels mapping emerged as a dominant research need.  Existing fuel models may be too coarse or lack validation in the East, where complex characteristics especially influencing understory vegetation are poorly represented (e.g., deer impacts, WUI intermix, live and dead fuel moisture, invasive species). Researchers and practitioners should collaborate to develop localized, high-resolution, and validated fuel maps and predictive flammability thresholds. Further, research should be advanced to improved models for estimating fire spread in the context of complex WUI fuels.

There is a vital need to expand fire occurrence data, standardize local-to-federal reporting, and investigate the large-scale ecological effects of fire regimes on public health, air and water quality, and carbon dynamics. Participants emphasized the need for greater communication and research around smoke management, including the roles of lower-atmosphere dynamics, smoke transport, smoke characterization (Rx vs. wildfire), and exposure differences. Participants noted this was an opportunity for closer partnership between the fire management and public health communities.

Participants noted that there is not an appropriate ecological reference condition to guide wildfire management.  Many forests are already fundamentally different from pre-colonial systems, and reflect past land use history and disturbance patterns. Historical analogues may be of little utility under changing climate conditions, raising the question of managing for novel ecosystems. In particular, flash droughts, forest mortality, insects and pathogens, wind extremes, shifting vegetation, and compounding events were noted as particular concerns.

Additionally, jurisdictional complexity (federal - state as well as state-county-municipal), the active role of civil society (land trusts, habitat and taxa conservation organizations), and private landowners presents a distinct research need when addressing wildfire preparedness, response coordination, costs, capacity, and liabilities.

Capacity Needs Across State Agencies and Volunteer Fire Departments

Operational capacity is severely constrained by structural, financial, and logistical roadblocks across all levels of response. The Pennsylvania State Fire Academy can help provide basic wildland fire training but will require additional human and financial resources to be able to support operational capacity and other future needs. Additional capacity needs beyond training must be addressed by jurisdictional agencies.

• Training and Pathways to Certification: The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), other state agencies, and volunteer fire departments (VFDs) face significant capacity and training limits. Prescribed fire (see also below) requires a balance between public safety and fire use. In terms of training, participants discussed the adherence to National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) standards (defined in the Prescribed Burning Practices Act as “to the greatest extent practical”) and proposed exploring alternative training curriculums—such as those used by Tall Timbers or The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
• The Volunteer Crisis: Local fire departments are crippled by an aging workforce with no clear succession pipeline. The intense time commitment required for training (roughly a month) deters recruitment. Consequently, new personnel often meet qualification metrics on paper but lack the depth of field experience necessary to stay safe, even during low-complexity fires.
• Skyrocketing Infrastructure Costs: The financial viability of local response is eroding rapidly. The cost of essential equipment like fire engines has jumped drastically into the millions of dollars, growing disproportionately relative to local tax bases and making it impossible for small, independent departments to sustain baseline equipment needs.
• Strategic Planning Paradigms: A critical concern was raised regarding whether current wildfire preparedness, planning, and tactical deployment are overly reliant on historical, past scenarios rather than adapting to future, climate-driven projections.

Prescribed Fire and Associated Legal, Policy, and Insurance Gaps

Expanding prescribed fire is essential for landscape resilience, yet current policy restrictions and training requirements create some barriers to private lands burning.

• Liability and Statutory Constraints: Liability laws for prescribed burners vary by state and while they act to foster safe and effective burning in some, they can act as deterrents in others, particularly for private lands burning. While the certified prescribed burn manager (CPBM) program in Pennsylvania offers liability protections for certified burners, strictly limiting CPBMs to burning grasslands constrains the opportunity for prescribed fire to be used on wooded properties. Given that 70% of the forestlands in Pennsylvania are privately owned, this constraint has a large-scale impact. There are concerns by landowners, private consultants, and other organizations that this limitation is unwarranted based on several years of safe and effective burning by private landowners and consultants in forestlands in many other states. DCNR, however, must balance prescribed fire needs with that of public safety. And statutory constraints for training standards to follow as closely as possible to that of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) presents a policy barrier for burners outside of agencies. Given that the Pennsylvania burn law states the many benefits of prescribed burning, e.g., wildlife habitat, biodiversity and the reduction of fuels and risk to wildfire to life and property but also challenges the ability for prescribed fire to be effectively used to any real degree on private forestlands highlights a potential policy failure. There seems to be disagreements among stakeholders and members of the prescribed fire council on this issue and discussions over potential policy solutions seems warranted.  Possible solutions that were brought up include, but are not limited to, 1) prescribed fire assistance on private lands by the DCNR or other state agencies (i.e., the state burning on private lands), 2) allowing CPBMs to conduct low-complexity burns in wooded units, 3) creating a moderate-level CPBM program that would balance the safety of conducting moderate-complexity burns with that of making the training more feasible, and 4) legislative action to change the burn law be less restrictive than the NWCG standards.
• Insurance Limitation: The availability of affordable insurance is a regional bottleneck. Partners like TNC are becoming more cautious to burn with state partners without ample insurance given the maximum liability claim limits against the state under sovereign immunity tort law.
• Capacity and Scale Thresholds: Pennsylvania burns approximately 15,000 acres annually under prescribed fire. Though a notable achievement following the 2009 Prescribed Burning Act, there is concern about capacity to put enough fire on the ground to achieve meaningful fuel reduction or ecosystem management. While annual burning varies widely across states, the current scale of burning likely is not achieving landscape-scale needs, particularly on private lands. Given the fire-history record in Pennsylvania and the increasing evidence of widespread cultural use of fire by indigenous communities, constraints on burning may limit the ability to overcome a century of fire-exclusion and a large-scale fire deficit.  With the potential for future climatic factors to interact with forest health issues and increase wildfire potential, this may be even a more pressing issue when looking to manage for future resiliency.  Eastern states with strong liability protections and achievable certification training standards have increased capacity for burning. For example, Florida safely utilizes prescribed fire on >2 million acres annually to achieve ecological and wildfire mitigation goals. While burning at that scale may not be necessary in Pennsylvania, and unlikely given more restrained burn windows, it highlights how policies implemented to support burning can be very successful, even in states with high populations, significant wildland-urban-interface, and very flammability ecosystems.     

Other Potential Wildfire Risk Topics Needing Policy Attention

Beyond traditional forest management, municipal and social factors present escalating ignition risks that require creative legislative interventions.

• Backyard Waste Burning: It was reported that debris burning stands as the number one cause of wildfires in Pennsylvania. To counter this, policy and resources should be considered to mitigate these risks, including consideration of improved waste management systems in rural areas.  
• Transient Encampments: Population expansion and unhomed individuals living in encampments within heavily wooded areas have made open campfires a rapidly growing source of accidental ignitions, although data are limited. Accidental burning in wooded areas can also increase wildfire risk. Mitigation of human-caused ignitions, such as from untended campfires, will be critical, especially during drought conditions.
• Zoning and Mapping Gaps - WUI Expansion: Improvement in mapping zones of higher fire risk could improve local-level planning, including zoning considerations in the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface).  Currently, national-scale wildfire risk maps lump the state into a generic "low risk" category, which is unhelpful for local planning.

Scenario Planning Exercises and Drills

To resolve operational friction points before a crisis occurs, multi-partner simulation exercises must be institutionalized.

• Tabletop Simulations: Conducting regular tabletop exercises and scenario plays is vital to helping multi-jurisdictional professionals uncover latent structural kinks and coordination gaps.
• Reactivating Historical Models: Agencies should look to previous successful frameworks. For example, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) has effectively used comparative simulation models. Years ago, PEMA executed a comprehensive tabletop exercise using the Michaux State Forest as a disaster template; stakeholders strongly advocate for repeating these exercises regularly to stress-test response times and communication plans.

Legislative Changes for Wildfire Code

Systemic coordination errors during incidents often trace back to fragmented authorities and a lack of standardized support mechanisms.

• Bifurcated Chains of Command: Initial attack phases are frequently plagued by an unclear, fractured chain of command. Responsibilities are split across local 911 dispatchers, county fire chiefs, and DCNR's 20 separate districts, leading to unstandardized, relationship-dependent labor recruitment during emergencies.
• Interoperability and Communication Failures: The lack of established interoperability across agencies remains a severe liability. Responders encounter stark disparities in communications equipment, juggling incompatible radio frequencies (P25, 800mhz, CB, and walkie-talkies) alongside confusing, non-standard professional jargon that can stymie real-time coordination.
• Community Standards: Incentives should be considered for supported public education and preparedness programs around wildfire mitigation.  For example, FIREWISE safety standards and community awareness groups could be strengthened within the Commonwealth to guide public education programs.

DCNR Internal Policy Needs

DCNR should consider better aligning its internal management, public information operations, and land acquisition strategies to build long-term climate resilience.

• Inholding Purchases: DCNR should review its internal agency policies regarding the purchase of private inholdings. Prioritizing the strategic acquisition of these interior properties can actively minimize the future need for complex emergency responses in high-risk zones.
• Public Information Officer (PIO) Capacity building: There is an urgent need to increase on-the-ground experience and specialized training for DCNR PIOs. Public messaging during active incidents is often too slow or bogged down by jargon, creating dangerous public confusion surrounding evacuation boundaries, containment metrics, and smoke risks.
• Ecological Alignment: Internal policies should explicitly connect wildfire planning with the improvement of State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) species habitats, ensuring that fuel reduction and ecological restoration work in tandem.

Filling Policy and Legislative Gaps: Comparative Regional Lessons

To more effectively address systemic policy challenges for wildfire planning, response, and resilience, Pennsylvania can review its existing policies and protocols, and consider changes and innovations that may have parallels with frameworks in other eastern states:

• Training and Capacity: Expanding capacity for wildfire response and prescribed burning remain a key challenge for the Commonwealth.  Recent changes such as the establishment of the Certified Prescribed Burn Manager (CRPM) program provide pathways for professionalism and training and is an emerging strength.  Continued assessment of the success of this program should be pursued, alongside considerations of how to best scale or strengthen it. At the same time, new strategies should be pursued to strengthen capacity for emergency response as well as to strengthen public awareness and participation.  One example raised was holding “fire festivals” as is done in other states to cultivate public buy-in.  

Acknowledgments

EFNet is funded through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Fire Science Innovations through Research and Education (FIRE) program, a collaboration among NSF, NASA, DOD SERDP/ESTCP and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to advance wildland fire research.

For Further Information

• Christopher Scott, Goddard Chair and Professor, Dept. of Ecosystem Science & Management, Penn State University, cascott@psu.edu

• Erica Smithwick, Distinguished Professor of Geography, Department of Geography, Penn State University; Principal Investigator of the Eastern Fire Network (EFNet), smithwick@psu.edu

• Jesse Kreye, Associate Professor, Dept. of Ecosystem Science & Management, Penn State University, juk1097@psu.edu

• Michael Kern, Chief, Division of Forest Fire Protection, Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, mikern@pa.gov

• Meredith Seltzer, Director of Climate & Sustainability, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, mseltzer@pa.gov

• Richard Seager, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University; co-PI of the Eastern Fire Network (EFNet), seager@ldeo.columbia.edu

• Kevin Robertson, Fire Ecology Research Scientist, Tall Timbers Research Station, krobertson@talltimbers.org