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 neces- sary 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 ig- nitions 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. 1998). in the 1964 Wilderness Act (Nickas adjacent populated valleys. This orien- If WFU decisions are limited now by 1998). Ecologically, prescribed fires may not be an adequate substitute for natural fire (Baker 1994). Finally, pre- scribed fire will not be a practical option for many wilderness areas that are typi- cally difficult and costly to access. The implementation of prescribed fire in wilderness is fundamentally dif- ferent from WFU implementation. To meet the requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, prescribed fires must undergo some form of public review, but this review can be done on a case-by-case basis and so prescribed fire use does not have to be approved in the LRMP or FMP. Even so, as of 2003, 42% of wilderness units had the authorization for prescribed fire explicit in their management plans. Figure 4—The impact of encroaching human development will be felt most intensely by managers of smaller wilderness areas, where there is a higher likelihood of fires escaping. Photo by U.S. Forest Service. This is probably because many wilder- ness fire managers do not feel

20 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 comfortable conducting prescribed burns in wilderness unless the fire man- WFU is the management of naturally ignited agement plan explicitly prescribes it. wildland fires to protect, maintain, and enhance Conclusion resources in predefined areas outlined in How we steward wilderness fire in a changing environment requires that fire management plans. we recognize our management options may be changing. The combination of increasing development and a warmer some of the barriers and disincentives across the north central United States. Land- scape and Urban Planning 69: 183–99. climate is likely to make the decision for WFU (Doane et al. 2005). IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scien- to implement WFU more difficult in WFU is arguably one of the most ef- tific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I the future. It is more important than fective fuels management strategies we to the Third Assessment Report of the Inter- ever for the wilderness management have, but it needs to be integrated with governmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. community to fully exploit available other fuels management strategies on Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. options now. Management actions surrounding lands, and in some cases, Maskell, and C. A. Johnson. Cambridge, UK, taken today will influence the range in wilderness. As WFU becomes more and New York: Cambridge University Press. of options that will be possible in the difficult to implement, wilderness man- Landres, P., M. W. Brunson, L. Merigliano, C. Sydoriak, and S. Morton. 2000. Natural- future, widening or narrowing the fu- agers will need to identify if, when, and ness and wildness: The dilemma and irony ture decision space for WFU. where WFU needs to be supplemented of managing wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- The option of WFU needs to be with prescribed fire or other fuel ma- ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and made available in many areas where it nipulations. As such, we can expect the Management, comp. D. N. Cole, S. F. doesn’t currently exist. In many cases, debate about when and where pre- McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, this requires not only the revision and scribed fire is appropriate in wilderness 377–81. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5. update of FMPs, but also revision of to intensify in the future. Although this Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. LRMP. The recent trend in fire man- debate may not be easily resolved, it will McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and agement planning efforts of extending play a key role in shaping future stew- P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, the WFU option to lands outside wil- ardship of wilderness. IJW and conservation. Conservation Biology 18: derness, especially in the western 890–902. REFERENCES Miller, C. 2003. Wildland fire use: A wilder- United States, will improve the ability Baker, W. L. 1994. Restoration of landscape ness perspective on fuel management. In of managers to more fully realize WFU structure altered by fire suppression. Con- Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Resto- objectives. In many cases, improved servation Biology 8: 763–69. ration: Conference Proceedings, ed. P. N. Bryan, D. C., ed. 1997. Conference proceed- Omi and L. A. Joyce, 379–85. April 16– cooperation across agencies will also ings: Environmental Regulation and Pre- 18, 2002, Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings be necessary. The management flex- scribed Fire: Legal and Social Challenges. RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest ibility of allowing a WFU fire to cross Tampa, FL, March 14–17, 1995. Tallahas- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. political boundaries essentially in- see, FL: Center for Professional Development, Miller, C., and P. B. Landres. 2004. Exploring In- Florida State University. formation Needs for Wildland Fuels and Fire creases the effective size of wilderness Catchpole, W. R., E. A. Catchpole, B. W. But- Management. RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins, and makes it easier for a wilderness ler, R. C. Rothermel, G. A. Morris, and D. J. CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest manager to make the WFU decision. Latham. 1998. Rate of spread of free-burn- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. ing fires in woody fuels in a wind tunnel. Where WFU is already an option, Nickas, G. 1998. Wilderness fire. Wilderness Combustion Science Technology 131: 1–37. Watcher 10: 1, 4–5. managers need support and incentives Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C. Omi, P. N. 1996. Landscape-level fuel manipu- for implementation (Aplet, this issue). Miller. 2005. Barriers to wildland fire use in lations in greater Yellowstone: Opportuni- Fire management decisions made to- USDA Forest Service wilderness areas as ties and challenges. In The Second Biennial perceived by wilderness fire managers. Con- Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Eco- day have great potential to keep future tribution No. 1006, College of Natural Re- system, 7–14. September 19-21, 1993, management options open because sources Experiment Station, University of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. today’s fires can serve as tomorrow’s Idaho, Moscow. Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoring strategic firebreaks on the landscape. Hammer, R. C., S. I. Stewart, R. L. Winkler, V. natural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- C. Radeloff, and P. R. Voss. 2004. Charac- ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- Increasing the implementation of WFU terizing dynamic spatial and temporal resi- will mean helping managers overcome dential density patterns from 1940–1990 Continued on page 13

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 21 research will help address the uncertain- treatment on private lands where the Management, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, ties and resulting fears that currently community protection challenge is W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 276–82. May 22– 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- prevent managers and the public from most acute. IJW P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, taking full advantage of WFU. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Policies should also support pub- REFERENCES Parsons, D. J., and P. Landres. 1998. Restoring fire Agee, J. K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A state- to wilderness: how are we doing? In Fire in Eco- lic education about the benefits of fire of-knowledge review. In Wilderness Science system Management: Shifting the Paradigm from to wilderness ecosystems and to in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5: Suppression to Prescription, ed. T. L. Pruden and people. Smokey Bear and other fire Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Man- L. A. Brennan, 366–73. Proceedings of the Tall prevention programs have proven the agement, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, no. 20. W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 5–22. May 22– Pyne, S. J. 1995. Vestal fires and virgin lands. effectiveness of public education. Simi- 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- In World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth, lar efforts aimed at increasing public P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 238–55. New York: Henry Holt. knowledge about fire, particularly ef- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Stoddard, H. L. 1935. Use of controlled fire in Arno, S. F., and C. E. Fiedler. 2005. Mimicking forts aimed at changing sensationalist southeastern upland game management. Nature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-prone Forests Journal of Forestry 33: 346–51. media coverage, could also mitigate in the West. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wakimoto, R. H. 1990. National Fire Management public fear and produce a society sup- Gregory, L. 2005. Following the Money: National Policy. Journal of Forestry 88(10): 22–26. portive of wilderness fire. A better Fire Plan Funding and Implementation. Wash- Weaver, Harold. 1943. Fire as an ecological ington, DC: The Wilderness Society. and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine understanding of fire ecology will be Kilgore, B. M. 1986. The role of fire in wilder- region of the pacific slope. Journal of For- necessary among the public, but es- ness: a state-of-knowledge review. In Pro- estry 41:7-15. pecially among air quality regulators, ceedings: National Wilderness Research Zimmerman, T., and D. Bunnell, 2000. The Fed- before policies can be developed that Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, eral Wildland Fire Policy: Opportunities for Future Directions, , 70–103, ed. R. C. Lucas. wilderness fire management. In Wilderness simultaneously address human health July 23–26, 1985, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- effects of smoke and sustain healthy Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: USDA For- ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and wildland ecosystems. est Service, Intermountain Research Station. Management, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and Finally, perhaps the most important W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 288–97. May 22– fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- policy step that can be taken is to ad- 22(6): 1–10): P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, dress public fear through necessary Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. H. Cottam, I. N. Rocky Mountain Research Station. fuel treatment work in and around Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wild- life management in the national parks. communities to lower fire danger. American Forests 69(4): 32–35, 61–63. GREGORY H. APLET is senior forest Only when people begin to feel safe Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilder- scientist in The Wilderness Society’s Denver in their homes will they warm to the ness. Scientific Monthly 30: 141–48. office, at 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 850, idea of expanded wilderness fire. Re- Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoring Denver, CO 80202, USA. natural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- [email protected]. sources are urgently needed to support ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- planning and implementation of fuel ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and

From WILDERNESS FIRE MANAGEMENT on page 21

ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and ment Policy. Washington, DC: United States DC: United States Department of Agricul- Management, comp. D. N. Cole, S .F. Department of Agriculture and United States ture and United States Department of the McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, Department of the Interior. Interior. http://www.fire.blm.gov/Stan- 276–82. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5. USDA and USDI. 2003. Interagency Strategy for dards/Redbk/Chapter08.pdf. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire USDA and USDI 2005c. Quadrennial fire and Rocky Mountain Research Station. Management Policy. June 20. Washington, fuel review report. Final content draft for Parsons, D. J., and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restor- DC: United States Department of Agriculture comment. May 20. ing natural fire to wilderness: How are we and United States Department of the Interior. doing? Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire USDA and USDI 2005a. Wildand Fire Use CAROL MILLER is a research ecologist, Ecology Conference, No. 20, 366–73. Implementation Procedures Reference studying how to steward fire as a process Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Guide. May. Washington, DC: United States Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005. Department of Agriculture and United States in wilderness, at the Aldo Leopold The wildland-urban interface in the United Department of the Interior. Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, States. Ecological Applications 15:799–805. USDA and USDI 2005b. Interagency standards Montana. She can be reached at USDA and USDI 2001. Review and Update of for fire and fire aviation operations. In Fire [email protected]. the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Manage- Management Planning, ch. 8. Washington,

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 13