Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World

STEWARDSHIP Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World BY CAROL MILLER everal strategies are available for reducing accumu- results from either human or natural causes, and the man- lated forest fuels and their associated risks, including agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire and S naturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man- extinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). In agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanical some cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres- and chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina- sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppression tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is response to a wildfire, with features of the landscape being a more limited set of fuels man- used to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU is agement activities that are the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro- appropriate in wilderness (Bryan tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areas 1997; Parsons and Landres 1998; outlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001). Nickas 1998). Naturally ignited The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos- wildland fires is the commonly sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases, preferred fuels management strat- certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro- egy in wilderness (Miller 2003), tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently, with management-ignited pre- there has been discussion about effectively dissolving the scribed fire being considered in distinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing all some cases (Landres et al. 2000). wildland fires with an appropriate management response Carol Miller. Restoring the ecological role of fire (AMR) (USDA and USDI 2005c). to wilderness has proven difficult, The use of naturally ignited wildland fires to achieve as the majority of lightning-caused ignitions in wilderness resource objectives on federal lands began in the 1960s are suppressed for myriad biophysical and social reasons (Aplet, this issue). At that time, these fires were called Pre- (Morton et al. this issue; Miller and Landres 2004; Parsons scribed Natural Fires (PNFs); a policy change in 1995 and Landres 1998). This article discusses fire management introduced the new terminology of Wildland Fire Use options currently available to managers of wilderness in the (WFU). Since the early 1970s, when policies were first United States and speculates how these might change with implemented to use natural ignitions, well over 1 million nationally and globally important influences. acres (404,858 ha) have been allowed to burn by either PNF or WFU in national parks and national forests, with Wildland Fire Use in U.S. Wilderness the vast majority of PNF or WFU occurring within desig- Wilderness fire managers in the United States have a range nated wilderness. Over the past 35 years, WFU has been of options for responding to unplanned (naturally or acci- implemented with varying degrees of success in wilderness. dentally caused) ignitions, and the appropriate response In recent years there has been increased application, and should be based on ecological, social, and legal conse- the expectation by managers is that it will continue to in- quences of the fire (USDA and USDI 2001). U.S. federal crease (Miller and Landres 2004). There is also increasing fire policy currently distinguishes two types of wildland application of WFU outside wilderness, and a significant fire that can result from unplanned ignitions: wildfire and portion of the total area burned by WFU during the fire Wildland Fire Use (WFU). Wildfire is unwanted fire that season of 2005 occurred outside designated wilderness. 18 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 Information collected through tele- with that fire—along with any changes phone and email interviews in 2003 in resources or weather—for the re- indicate that at least 29% of wilderness mainder of the fire season. units in the United States have the necessary authorization for WFU in approved Forces of Change land and resource management plans To anticipate the future of WFU in U.S. (LRMPs) and fire management plans wilderness, one needs to consider the (FMPs) (unpub. data) (see figure 1). The dynamic human and ecological environ- percentage of areas with authorization for ments within which any wilderness area WFU has likely increased in the past two resides. Many factors can be expected to years as the FMP process has continued restrict or expand the range of options (e.g., USDA and USDI 2005b). Further- available to fire managers, but two of the more, all federal lands in Alaska have strongest influences will likely be human strategies equivalent to WFU, but the ter- development patterns and climate. minology of WFU is not necessarily used. Rural areas, particularly in the west- More than half of the wilderness units in ern United States, have seen dramatic Alaska have a written FMP that explicitly increases in human populations dur- allows WFU, but those that don’t are not ing the past few decades. Much of this included in the 29% figure. increase has resulted in the creation and Figure 1—Status of authorization for WFU in US wilderness areas. Not surprisingly, there is a tendency expansion of the wildland-urban inter- for managers of larger wilderness areas face (WUI), where wildland vegetation revisions of management plans will ever to have the WFU option (see figure 2). and houses intermingle (Radeloff et al. authorize the strategy. Where WFU is Because fires are more likely to escape 2005). As housing densities increase already an option, wilderness fire man- from a smaller wilderness area, local and and the WUI continues to expand, the agers will find it increasingly difficult regional staff may consider WFU an potential threats to life and property and costly to mitigate the risks posed infeasible strategy in those smaller areas, from wildland fire increase (Hammer by WFU. The result could be fewer and WFU is less likely to be authorized et al. 2004). Where WFU is not yet an decisions to exercise the WFU option. in the plans. Oftentimes, the consider- option, the continued expansion of the The impact of encroaching human able effort involved with revising and WUI casts serious doubt on whether development will be felt most intensely updating a plan is not seen as worthwhile if there is little opportunity for WFU. However, even in many wildernesses where the fire management plan allows for WFU, the majority of lightning ignitions are suppressed (Morton et al., this issue). Where the potential for fire to escape the wilderness boundary is high and when fire behavior can be expected to be erratic or of high inten- sity, managers may feel less comfortable making the WFU decision (Miller and Landres 2004; Doane et al. 2005). Fur- thermore, there is an inherent difference in the longevity of a typical suppression fire versus a WFU event. Suppression fires typically have a life- time of days or a couple of weeks, Figure 2—Size distribution of wilderness units with the necessary authorization for WFU in approved LRMPs and FMPs whereas the WFU decision requires compared to size distribution of all wilderness areas. commitment by a manager to living International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 19 tation is problematic for the fire man- concern over expected behavior and ager because the prevailing wind risk of escape, managers may become direction—which influences direction even more reluctant to make the of fire spread—is west-east. In these WFU decision in a warmer and drier kinds of settings, the decision to imple- climate. Finally, under drier condi- ment WFU may be especially difficult. tions, we can expect individual fires Forecasts about future climate in- to be larger, and perhaps more often clude warmer temperatures in winter spread out of a wilderness. and summer, with an unprecedented rate of warming (IPCC 2001). This is The Prescribed Fire Option likely to lead to increased drought, Because of the risks involved, WFU longer fire seasons, and more area may not be feasible in all wildernesses burned (McKenzie et al. 2004). Snow- (Parsons 2000), and in such cases, melt will occur earlier at high elevations, management-ignited prescribed fire bringing more area within a wilderness may be a viable option (see figure 3). Figure 3—Because of the risks involved, WFU may into the fire season for a longer period Changes in housing development pat- not be feasible in all wildernesses, and in such cases, management-ignited prescribed fire may be a viable of time. All of these forecasted changes terns and climate that present increased option. Photo by U.S. Forest Service. will compound the challenges currently challenges for the application of WFU faced by wilderness managers. Wilder- may make prescribed fire an attractive by managers of smaller wilderness ar- ness managers may find it more difficult option to wilderness managers (see eas, where there is a higher likelihood to handle the increased load of fire ac- figure 4). However, for philosophical, of fires escaping. Managers of wilder- tivity that can be expected under a future ecological, and practical reasons, the ness with certain shapes and geographic climate. Longer fire seasons will require use of prescribed fire in wilderness will orientations will also face additional longer-term commitments to managing likely be limited. Philosophically, pre- challenges. For example, wilderness a WFU, potentially stretching the com- scribed fire represents a manipulation areas situated along mountain ranges fort level of many managers. Fire that is inconsistent with the “untram- in the western United States are typi- intensities and spread rates increase with meled” intent of wilderness described cally oriented north-south, as are the dry conditions (Catchpole et al.

Load more