Progress in Wilderness Fire Science: Embracing Complexity

ﬁre & fuels management Progress in Wilderness Fire Science: Embracing Complexity

Carol Miller and Gregory H. Aplet

Wilderness has played an invaluable role in the development of wildland fire science. Since Agee’s review of ened to WFU, or simply “fire use” (Philpot the subject 15 years ago, tremendous progress has been made in the development of models and data, in et al. 1995). Although the practice of WFU understanding the complexity of wildland fire as a landscape process, and in appreciating the social factors that was not limited to wilderness, the vast ma- influence the use of wilderness fire. Regardless of all we have learned, though, the reality is that fire remains jority of these fires occurred in wilderness an extraordinarily complex process with variable effects that create essential heterogeneity in ecosystems. areas or national parks. In 2009, a change in Whereas some may view this variability as a management impediment, for others it provides a path forward. federal fire policy guidance (Fire Executive As research has shown, embracing fire in all its complexity and expanding its use can help reduce fuels, restore Council 2009) eliminated WFU as a sepa- resilient landscapes, and contain costs. Wilderness fire science will continue to play an important role in rate category of fire—any natural fire could understanding opportunities for using fire, its role in ecosystems, its risks and benefits, and the influence of risk be managed for multiple objectives, includ- perception on decisionmaking. ing ecological benefits. This change has spawned references to “AMR (appropriate Keywords: wilderness, wildland fire use, prescribed natural fire, risk management response) fires,” “multiobjec- tive fires,” or simply “managed wildfire” to refer to any fire managed for its ecological ben- ilderness holds unique scientific stone National Park in 1972. The US efits. Throughout this article, we use the term value as a reference or bench- Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest “wilderness fire” to emphasize its historical mark for change because re- Service wilderness fire program was W roots in wilderness, whether the fire occurs searchers can study ecosystems that are less launched in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilder- affected by modern human activities. Early ness in 1972. Slowly, other parks and wilder- there or not. Furthermore, we present wilder- observations of wilderness fire and its impor- ness areas adopted the practice of allowing ness fire as essential for responsible land stew- tant role in sustaining ecosystems led di- some natural ignitions to burn with limited or ardship and as a sustainable strategy for achiev- rectly to the Leopold Report (Leopold et al. no interference (e.g., Gila Wilderness in 1975, ing long-term land management objectives. 1963) and the Wilderness Act of 1964, both Scapegoat Wilderness in 1981, and Glacier The history of wilderness fire can be of which recognized the role of natural eco- National Park in 1994). found in several compilations and summa- logical processes, including fire, in shaping The terminology of wilderness fire has ries (Lotan et al. 1985, Brown et al. 1995, primitive wilderness landscapes. Shortly changed many times (Hunter et al. 2014). van Wagtendonk 2007). In 1999, as part of thereafter, new federal policies allowed the Originally referred to as “let burn,” wilderness a major conference on wilderness science, use of natural fires in wilderness. The earliest fire came to be known as “natural fire manage- Agee (2000) reviewed the state of knowledge wilderness fire programs in the National ment” and, for more than a decade, as “pre- of wilderness fire and the progress since the Park Service began at Sequoia and Kings scribed natural fire.” A federal policy review in first such review 15 years earlier (Kilgore Canyon National Parks in 1968, at Yosem- 1995 emphasized the work done by fire and 1986). In his survey, Agee covered the his- ite National Park in 1972, at Saguaro Na- renamed it “wildland fire use for resource torical evolution of wilderness fire science, tional Monument in 1971, and at Yellow- benefit,” which in practical use was short- the impact of the Yellowstone fires of 1988,

Received January 27, 2015; accepted June 12, 2015; published online August 20, 2015. Afﬁliations: Carol Miller ([email protected]), Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. Gregory H. Aplet ([email protected]), The Wilderness Society, Denver, CO. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge our respective institutions for supporting the writing of this review. This article uses metric units; the applicable conversion factors are: meters (m): 1 m ϭ 3.3 ft; kilometers (km): 1 km ϭ 0.6 mi; hectares (ha): 1 ha ϭ 2.47 ac.

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 1 the drivers of wilderness fires and fire re- explicit model of fire growth that could be MTBS has quantified burn severity—a mea- gimes, the value and status of models, and used to predict spread of wilderness fires sure of ecological change—for all known the importance of monitoring. (Finney 1994). In noting the importance of fires larger than 405 ha. These data allow the In this article, we review progress in wil- these models, Agee (2000) lamented that the study of variability and patchiness resulting derness fire science in the 15 years since Ag- data required by these newer models were from fires, and because these data are consis- ee’s (2000) review. A state-of-knowledge re- insufficient for most places. Since then, the tently produced, they are well-suited to view is timely and relevant as we celebrate 50 availability of remotely sensed satellite data, broad geographic investigations (Dillon years of the Wilderness Act, and as the prac- particularly from Landsat, has led to the de- et al. 2011) (Figure 1). In addition, these tice of wilderness fire appears poised to ex- velopment of large-scale data sets; the spatial data are superior to many fire perimeter data pand from wilderness to the broader land- data that were once lacking now exist. sets (e.g., Kolden and Weisberg 2007, Sha- scape. We begin by examining recent Vegetation and fuels data are critical in- piro-Miller et al. 2007) and can be used to progress and then look to the future and at- puts to fire growth modeling tools such as investigate influences on area burned, fire tempt to chart a direction for fire manage- FARSITE. Their increased availability since size, and fire spread (e.g., Haire et al. 2013, ment that capitalizes on the lessons learned 2000 is largely due to substantial investments Morgan et al. 2014, Parks et al. 2015). As from the first 50 years of wilderness fire sci- in the LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Re- with LANDFIRE, MTBS data are readily ence. Most of the science we cite and the source Management Planning Tools) project accessible and available at a 30-m resolution. (Rollins and Frame 2006). LANDFIRE data lessons we glean come from the western Like LANDFIRE, criticisms include the United States; this is a direct reflection of the include landscape-scale geospatial products heavy reliance on remotely sensed data over historical geography of wilderness fire. describing vegetation, fuels, topography, and field-based data. Nevertheless, MTBS has fire regimes at a 30-m resolution. Despite be- been a boon for fire research in wilderness, Recent Progress in Wilderness ing criticized for inaccuracy and a simplistic where field-based data collection is espe- Fire Science characterization of vegetation condition (see, cially time-consuming and challenging. From Agee’s (2000) review, we gleaned e.g., Aplet and Wilmer 2005, Krasnow et al. Another new data resource for wilder- four general themes that captured the major 2009), LANDFIRE data have the advantages ness fire research is the Moderate Resolution research needs for wilderness fire science at of being consistently derived and readily avail- Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) fire that time: (1) the limitations of models and able for download. In addition to being widely detection points (NASAMCD14ML prod- data availability; (2) the complexity of fire used for operational incident management uct, Collection 5, Version 1). These satellite (especially recognition of patchiness and (Ryan and Opperman 2013), the wall-to-wall synergistic interactions); (3) the landscape coverage of these data greatly facilitates inves- data contain the date and location of actively context of wilderness and accounting for fire tigations at large landscape scales that are di- burning pixels since 2000. Although they rectly relevant to wilderness fire and its man- are at a coarse spatial resolution (pixel size of as a landscape process; and (4) the sociolog- 2 ical and institutional barriers to expanded agement (e.g., Black and Opperman 2005, 0.25 km ), they have a fine temporal resolu- wilderness fire. Here, we review progress in Miller 2007, Keane and Karau 2010). tion (two sensors, twice a day) and can be each of these areas and attempt to capture The Monitoring Trends in Burn Sever- used to develop consistent spatiotemporal 1 lessons relevant to expanding the benefits of ity (MTBS) project (Eidenshink et al. fire progression information that is often wilderness fire into the future. 2007) is a particularly valuable and recent lacking for remote wilderness fires. Spatial contribution to wilderness fire science. Us- interpolation methods can link 30-m pixels Models, Tools, and Data ing Landsat data dating back to 1984, within a fire perimeter to an estimated day of During the past 50 years, the improved ability to predict fire behavior and fire effects has been an important advance for wilder- Management and Policy Implications ness fire science. At the time of Agee’s review, models could predict tree mortality at The past 50 years of wilderness fire science has shown the benefits that accrue from fires that burn on the stand scale (e.g., Reinhardt et al. 1997). their own terms and under less-than-extreme conditions. Fuel loads are lower, fire behavior is moderated, Individual-based gap models (e.g., Keane et fire sizes are limited, forest structural diversity and wildlife habitat are improved, and fuel breaks are al. 1990, Miller and Urban 1999), state- created that can help in the management of today’s long-duration fires. Although improvements in and-transition vegetation models (e.g., Ar- modeling and data have increased our ability to support decisionmaking and incident management, baugh et al. 2000), and individual growth- inadequate monitoring and poor reporting of management activities hinder wilderness fire research. To and-yield models (e.g., Dixon 2002) were incorporating fire to allow the study of long- effectively justify and support wilderness fire, we will need to adapt existing tools and develop new term successional dynamics, all at the stand approaches for evaluating the long-term risks and benefits of wilderness fire. Although current Federal scale. Still relatively new were models that Wildland Fire Policy (Philpot et al. 1995, Douglas et al. 2001) provides the rationale and flexibility to could simulate landscape-scale fire-vegeta- expand wilderness fire use, achieving its full potential will require bureau policies that overcome the tion dynamics, and these varied in complex- numerous institutional barriers that continue to constrain decisionmakers. Incentives are needed to ity (Keane et al. 1996, Mladenoff and He encourage fire use by managers who have received advanced training and employ skilled and well-staffed 1999, Roberts and Betz 1999, Kurz et al. fire use management teams. Even with adequate policies, uncertainties and complexities associated with 2000, Keane et al. 2002, Chew et al. 2004). climate change and risks accompanying an expanding wildland-urban interface will continue to challenge Also new on the scene was FARSITE (Fire this expansion. Area Simulator), a spatially and temporally

2 Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 has been used to identify when and where ignitions starting in a wilderness setting are least likely to escape wilderness and affect the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (Scott et al. 2012, Barnett 2013) (Figure 2). As the fire management community has embraced risk as a framework for making decisions (Wildland Fire Executive Council 2009), these new modeling platforms have found utility in fire risk analysis. Quantita- tive risk analysis approaches take advantage of fire behavior modeling tools to estimate likelihood, fire effects models to estimate susceptibility, and valuation techniques to estimate net value change (Finney 2005). In the wilderness context, however, this framework remains problematic for several rea- sons. One is that values related to wilderness character are difficult, if not impossible, to Figure 1. Remote sensing data derived from satellite imagery have greatly advanced our quantify. Another is that it is easier to quan- ability to conduct research on wilderness fires. Shown here are consistently derived and tify short-term risks than long-term conse- readily available data describing categories of burn severity as differences in the Normal- quences of management. Indeed, incor- ized Burn Ratio index between prefire and postfire images. Data shown are from the MTBS1 porating the long-term risks and future project for a fire in 1988 in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. opportunity costs that accrue after suppression decisions has proven to be a nontrivial burning and associated weather information derness areas as natural benchmarks. For ex- challenge (Houtman et al. 2013, Miller and (Parks 2014). ample, one recent study revealed patterns in Ager 2013). In 1999, the lack of good weather infor- anthropogenic influences on wildland fire Today, knowledge of fire behavior and mation was perceived as a barrier to accurate probability corresponding with large wilder- fire effects continues to be hindered by a lack forecasting of fire behavior as well as to re- ness areas in the western United States (Pa- of monitoring information and a lack of ac- construction of historical events (Agee risien et al. 2012), and another pointed to curate records. Monitoring of fire effects 2000). Certainly, weather data have im- stronger fire-climate relationships in wilder- over time has been inconsistent. Although proved, both as a result of deploying more ness compared with those in human-domi- MTBS has helped enormously, it is a poor weather stations and improved modeling nated areas (Parks et al. 2014). substitute for field-based fire effects moni- and interpolation, but it is not clear that our In addition to the increased availability toring such as that instituted by the National ability to forecast weather or future fire be- of these landscape-scale data, new algo- Park Service (National Park Service 2003). havior has improved concomitantly. Im- rithms and platforms have operationalized Inconsistent and poor reporting of fire man- provements in weather forecasting would no the application of fire behavior models. agement activities in wilderness, combined doubt improve the confidence that manag- FlamMap, for example, maps fire behavior with the logistical challenges of working in ers will need to allow fires to burn, but lim- characteristics at a landscape level, allowing remote settings where research activities itations in predictive ability may not be the spatial variability in fire behavior to be ex- must conform to wilderness character, leave barrier to wilderness fire that it was once per- amined (Finney 2006). FARSITE, as previ- wilderness underexploited as a natural labo- ceived to be. Today, approaches using his- ously mentioned, simulates spatially and ratory. Continued suppression in most wil- torical weather to model probabilistic out- temporally explicit fire growth as an expand- derness areas further compromises its value comes (e.g., Finney et al. 2011a, 2011b) ing fire front (Finney 2004). Two other as a natural benchmark. Although wilder- may provide sufficient decision support for modeling tools, FSPro (Finney et al. 2011b) ness designation has been used to infer the wilderness fire. and FSim (Finney et al. 2011a), support fire influence of wilderness fire management Researchers have been making better incident management decisions and na- (Haire et al. 2013, Morgan et al. 2014), we use of historical weather data to study the tional fire management strategic planning still cannot answer how well we are manag- drivers of past fires and fire regimes. In par- and budgeting. Although not specifically ing fire as a natural process or the degree to ticular, gridded weather and climate prod- geared to supporting decisions to allow fires which ecosystems have been affected by past ucts derived from meteorological station to burn, these tools have been used in a few suppression (Collins and Stephens 2007). data (e.g., Daly et al. 2000) have been crucial cases to justify and support wilderness fire. for investigating the geography of fire and For example, FARSITE has been used to Complexity and Variability of Fire the drivers of fire regimes. These data have quantify the effectiveness of wildland fire as A handful of early fire histories been used to tease out the complex influence a fuel treatment (Cochrane et al. 2012) as (Heinselman 1973, Habeck 1976, Kilgore of climate on fire regimes from other bio- well as the ecological restoration opportuni- and Taylor 1979) showed the important role physical variables (e.g., topography) and ties that are lost when fires are suppressed that fire has played in a few high-profile wil- have recently highlighted the value of wil- (Miller and Davis 2009, Miller 2012). FSim derness ecosystems and served as the early

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 3 Figure 2. Fire behavior modeling tools can be adapted for spatial risk assessments and decision support for wilderness fires. These maps were developed for the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness with model output from FSim, which generates perimeters for many thousands of simulated fires occurring under statistically generated weather streams (Finney et al. 2011b). On the left is a map of burn probability, or likelihood of fire, a key component of risk. The map on the right was derived from FSim output using methods from Barnett (2013) to depict the probability that ignitions will escape the wilderness. Fires that ignite in the large interior zone shown in dark green have little chance of spreading beyond the wilderness boundary. (Courtesy of Kevin Barnett.) impetus for the wilderness fire program. regimes, we still base classifications on fre- ing characteristic HRV, climate change, Subsequent fire history studies have in- quency and severity (e.g., LANDFIRE); changing land use patterns, and restrictive cluded a broader array of ecosystems and such discrete classifications no longer seem air quality regulations have now drawn its locations and shown how varied the role of adequate to capture the wide ranging role utility into question. fire can be, even within a single forest type of fire in ecosystems (Table 1). The late 20th century saw the scale of (e.g., Beaty and Taylor 2001, Taylor and At the time of Agee’s writing, a mul- ecological investigations evolve from the Skinner 2003, North et al. 2005, Collins tiparameter “historical range of variability” stand to the landscape. In 1985, at the time and Stephens 2007, Scholl and Taylor (HRV) of the ecological process of fire held of Kilgore’s state-of-knowledge review, fire 2010). We have learned that fire can func- promise as a guidepost to assist management ecology was focused on the stand scale. By tion very differently due to specifics of re- (Morgan et al. 1994). The idea behind HRV the time of Agee’s 2000 summary, research- gional climate, ignition availability, and lo- was that the best models of sustainable eco- ers were studying fires at landscape scales. cal topography (Heyerdahl et al. 2001, systems are the dynamic, disturbance-influ- For example, large landscape-scale fire his- Kellogg et al. 2008, Falk et al. 2011). All this enced ecosystems of the past. Sustaining tory studies in wilderness were increasing variability can make it difficult to character- ecosystems into the future requires sustain- our understanding of the drivers of fire re- ize the ecological role of fire. ing ecological processes, such as natural dis- gimes (e.g., McKenzie et al. 2000, Heyer- Defining what we mean by a “charac- turbances, that governed those ecosystems dahl et al. 2002, Rollins et al. 2002), and teristic fire regime,” both as a description historically (Aplet and Keeton 1999). In variability and patchiness had been accepted and a prescription, has become much more practice, applying the HRV concept has as core principles of landscape ecology sophisticated but remains an intellectual proven challenging. For example, Fire Re- (Turner 1989). As more fires have burned challenge (Krebs et al. 2010). Through the gime Condition Class (FRCC) (Hann and since then, inside and outside wilderness, 1980s, the mean or median value of fire fre- Strohm 2003) was developed to describe the importance of variability and patchiness quency was commonly used to describe the ecosystem departure from a characteristic has become impossible to ignore. For exam- role of fire. However, as Agee (2000) and disturbance regime, but its characterization ple, before 2000, mixed-severity fire was rec- others (e.g., Sugihara et al. 2006) have of “HRV” as a static distribution of vegeta- ognized but typically regarded as an aberrant noted, the fire regime has multiple parame- tion structural stages fails to account for eco- category of fire. With the increased preva- ters, including frequency, intensity, season- system dynamics, or even a range of histori- lence of fires on the landscape, the evidence ality, and extent. Although we now recog- cal conditions (Aplet and Wilmer 2005). of a mixture of fire severities and patch sizes nize the multiparameter nature of fire Even if we were more successful in describ- is everywhere.

4 Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 Table 1. Comparison of the fire regime classification developed by the USDA Forest of burned areas to constrain the extent of Service (Hardy et al. 1998) using only fire frequency and severity to the extended subsequent fires depended on time since ini- definition offered by Krebs et al. (2010). tial fire and fire weather. These studies provide valuable quantitative information for USDA Forest Service fire regimes Determinants of an extended definition of fire regimes fire managers who are looking to opportu- nistically use these previously burned areas Fire Regime I: 0–35 yr frequency, low severity Factors affecting the condition of fires Fire Regime II: 0–35 yr frequency, stand ● Fuel characteristics (quantity, flammability, connectivity, (also known as “burn scars”) as fuel breaks in replacement severity compactness, classification...) the safe and effective management of subse- Fire Regime III: 35–100ϩ yr frequency, ● Meteorology (fire weather...) quent wilderness fires. mixed severity ● Causes of fires (ignition sources...) ● Fire Regime IV: 35–100ϩ yr frequency, stand Anthropogenic conditions (fire policy and legislation, Fires can also reduce the ignitability of a prescribed fire, burning motives and techniques...) landscape, whereby the resulting burned replacement severity ● Synergisms (logging techniques, exceptional droughts...) Fire Regime V: 200ϩ yr. frequency, stand area is left with insufficient fuels to support replacement severity Factors affecting when, where, and which fires burn ● Temporal distribution (chronology, duration, fire-free the ignition of subsequent fires. Reduced fire interval, fire rotation, seasonality...) occurrence lessens the need for initial attack ● Spatial distribution (extent, fire size, shape of fires, ignition points, area burned per decade...) resources and continued suppression opera- ● Fire characteristics (vegetation type, vegetation layer, fire tions, leading to cost savings and lower ex- behavior, intensity...) posure to risk in subsequent years. Although Factors affecting immediate effects ● Ecological severity (mortality, depth of burn...) not yet widely studied, this effect has been ● Severity for society (costs, damage, victims...) noted in a simulation study (Miller 2012), The USDA Forest Service system is useful in its simplicity but leaves out a number of factors responsible for the complexity of fire regimes. in at least one recent fire history study (Scholl and Taylor 2010), and in a study of Ecologists have long recognized the po- tions for studying and quantifying these contemporary ignitions and climate (Lutz tential for fire to interact synergistically with effects. et al. 2009). Mid- to lower elevation dry forests that other ecological disturbances (White and The burned area created by a fire can historically experienced frequent fires have Pickett 1985), but as Agee (2000) noted, we temper the burn severity of a subsequent fire been particularly affected by fire exclusion lack the ability to quantify or predict these and help restore landscapes that are resilient (Noss et al. 2006). In some cases, it appears synergisms. Despite intensive study of some to frequent, low-severity fires. Holden et al. that natural fire can be reintroduced to these of the largest insect outbreaks ever observed (2010) studied areas burned twice by fire ecosystems after a long period of fire exclu- over the past 15 years, not much has across a range of vegetation types in the Gila- Aldo Leopold Wilderness Complex in New sion, even if fuels have accumulated to haz- changed. As reviewed by Jenkins et al. ardous levels and vegetation structure has (2014), we have seen increasing synergies Mexico and found that the second fire tended to burn at lower severity than the changed. A study in the Bob Marshall Wil- and interacting effects with other distur- derness in Montana recently showed that bances (insects and disease) since 2000, es- initial fire. Parks et al. (2014) confirmed this, finding substantially lower burn sever- these unlogged, fire-excluded forests possess pecially as climate strongly mediates each of ity for previously burned areas in this same a “latent resilience” to reintroduced fires and these processes. Our ability to predict these study area as well as for the Frank Church suggested that a viable prescription for res- effects, however, remains elusive (Hicke Wilderness in Idaho. In the Illilouette Creek toration may be simply to allow lightning- et al. 2012). basin of the Yosemite Wilderness, a mix of ignited fires to burn (Larson et al. 2013). A similar suggestion was made after a study Fire as a Landscape Process: factors influenced the severity of reburns comparing historical fire sizes and frequency Self-Limiting Effects and Resilience (van Wagtendonk et al. 2012), but reburn with those observed in the modern fire use Wilderness fires over recent decades severity was consistently lower where fires had been allowed to burn in the past. The period (Collins and Stephens 2007). De- have revealed important long-term land- study also revealed emerging complexities: spite initial concerns about potential mortal- scape-scale effects and provided numerous where fire severity was high, a vegetation ity of large ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) anecdotal observations by managers that type change often occurred that would per- trees after fires in 2003 in the Bob Marshall landscapes are less flammable after a fire, at petuate subsequent high-severity fires. Wilderness (Keane et al. 2006), researchers least until vegetation regrows and fuels accu- The burned area created by a fire can act found less mortality than expected when mulate again. Ecological theory posits that as a fuelbreak that limits the progression, they followed up 6 years later (Leirfallom this pattern-process dynamic confers ecosys- and therefore the extent, of subsequent fires. and Keane 2011). This resistance of large tem resilience to subsequent fires and other Results from four different wilderness areas fire-adapted trees has also been seen in the disturbances (Peterson 2002). A number of (Gila-Aldo Leopold, Frank Church, Selway- Southwest in the Gila and Saguaro wilder- recent studies are providing support for Bitterroot, and Bob Marshall) show that ness areas. There, Holden et al. (2007) landscape ecological theory and quantifying previous fires limit the progression of subse- found that long fire-free intervals do indeed the self-limiting effects of fire in terms of the quent fires but that this effect diminishes alter forest structure, but with repeated fires, severity, extent, and occurrence of subse- with time since the initial fire and with fire small diameter trees can be killed without quent fires. Although these self-limiting ef- weather (Teske et al. 2012, Parks et al. significantly affecting the density of the larg- fects are certainly not unique to wilderness, 2015). In the Yosemite Wilderness, Collins est trees. Other work has shown that forest wilderness contains the majority of observa- et al. (2009) similarly found that the ability structure can be restored with fires that burn

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 5 intensely enough to kill trees (Fule´ and Laughlin 2007).

Social and Institutional Barriers to Wilderness Fire Social science investigations related to fire tend to focus on the built environment where humans most frequently interact with and are affected by fire (McCaffrey et al. 2013). Only a few studies of wilderness visitors have examined human relations with fire in the wilderness context (Stankey 1976, McCool and Stankey 1986). However, some very useful social science research has investigated the factors in- fluencing the decision to suppress or allow a fire to burn. Surveys and interviews support the conventional wisdom that the location and timing of ignitions are important factors considered by managers when they assess the short-term risks of fire (Doane et al. 2006, Figure 3. Ignited by lightning in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, the 2013 Gold Pan fire Williamson 2007): ignitions closer to the approached the historic Magruder Ranger Station adjacent to the Wilderness. Despite wilderness boundary and early in the fire sea- burning under extremely dry conditions and growing to over 40,000 acres, fires from son are more likely to be suppressed. Lack of previous years had reduced fuel loads so that the Gold Pan fire did not pose a serious threat public support for wilderness fire is also cited to the Ranger Station. Photo by Steve McCool. by managers as an obstacle to allowing fire to burn, and whereas there does appear to be tension between the public’s support for wil- research has demonstrated desirable results. necessary to be effective is infeasible (North derness fire and community protection con- Fuel loads are lower, fire behavior is moder- et al. 2012, 2015). One way out of this un- cerns (Winter 2003, Kneeshaw et al. 2004), ated, fire sizes are limited, forest structural tenable situation is to focus efforts on ex- trends in attitudes of wilderness visitors sug- diversity and wildlife habitat are improved, panding a third kind of fire, wilderness fire: gest increasing support for the use of fire in and fuel breaks have been created that can the kind we could put out because the wilderness (Knotek 2006). help in the management of today’s long-du- weather is less than extreme, but we choose Research has also revealed the strong in- ration fires (e.g., Figure 3; Holden et al. not to. fluence of factors internal to the federal 2007, Collins et al. 2009, Parks et al. 2014, Climate change increases both the chal- agencies (Steelman and McCaffrey 2011). 2015). lenges and the importance of maintaining or Decisions to allow fires to burn are subject to The success of wilderness fire stands in restoring fire regimes. What has been con- much higher levels of scrutiny than decisions stark contrast to the more typical response, sidered extreme fire danger in the past will to suppress, and a variety of institutional fac- where fire is suppressed unless it cannot be become more the norm by the middle of this tors influence the use of fire in wilderness, due to weather. Initial attack is successful century (Brown et al. 2004). Fire seasons including insufficient internal human re- 98% of the time; however, the 2% of igni- will lengthen and involve more landscape source capacity, lack of internal agency sup- tions escaping initial attack burn under the area (Miller et al. 2011). In an attempt to port, concerns about career advancement in most extreme conditions, exhibit the most avoid extreme fire behavior and adverse fire the event of a negative outcome, and inade- extreme fire behavior, and have the greatest effects, managers may be increasingly in- quate individual commitment to using nat- ecological and economic impacts (Calkin et clined to suppress fires. However, wilderness ural fire (Doane et al. 2006, Williamson al. 2005). Under these conditions, fire be- fires have taught us that when fires are al- 2007, Black et al. 2008). The daunting im- havior can be explosive, producing large lowed to burn under less-than-extreme plication of these constraints, barriers, and patches of uncharacteristically severely weather, they produce more heterogeneous disincentives is that the success of a wilder- burned vegetation (e.g., Graham 2003). The and desirable conditions (Collins et al. ness fire program may hinge on the beliefs, current situation, as aptly described by For- 2009, Collins and Stephens 2010, Meyer commitment, and risk aversion of an indi- est Service Deputy Chief Jim Hubbard 2015). Furthermore, ecosystems where fire vidual line officer. (pers. comm., Oct. 16, 2002) is one in has been allowed to occur naturally may be which “we have two kinds of fire…the kind better prepared to cope with a changing cli- Extending the Benefits of we put out and the kind we get out of the mate (Allen et al. 2002). Forests whose tree Wilderness Fire way of.” Strategic fuels management cou- densities have been reduced by previous fires Collectively, the foregoing suggests a pled with a high initial attack success rate may be less vulnerable to drought and insect need for an expansion of wilderness fire and can perhaps exclude damaging effects of fire attacks (Guarín and Taylor 2005, Fule´ the science to support decisions to use it. from human communities, but implement- 2008), and the heterogeneity in forest Where wilderness fire has been encouraged, ing fuels management at the scales that are structure and composition resulting from

6 Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 past fires may limit the extent of insect- scribed barriers. Among the changes needed when opportunities exist for wilderness fire. caused mortality (Bentz et al. 2009). are increased recognition of the importance For example, existing risk analysis tools have As noted earlier, social science research of fire in land and resource management recently been used to determine where igni- has revealed a number of cultural and proce- plans, new incentives and performance mea- tion opportunities can be exploited (Scott et dural obstacles to wilderness fire. Much of sures to encourage managers to use fire, en- al. 2012, Barnett 2013). These approaches the wilderness fire management expertise hanced training for fire managers in the use can generate maps that show “windows of that developed over the past 40 years has of fire and the establishment of highly opportunity” that can be used during the been lost due to retirement, and the staff that trained and well-staffed fire use manage- size-up of new incidents. Even a small wil- is now in charge may not be as experienced ment teams, and incentives for air quality derness area may have a short window of or comfortable with managing a fire that regulators to facilitate the use of fire to opportunity late in the fire season. Further- might burn for weeks or months. Whether achieve ecosystem and long-term public more, these approaches could reveal where training can fill this experience void remains health benefits. Furthermore, more re- changes to landscapes from past fires present to be seen (Kobziar et al. 2011). An expand- search, especially social science research, is new opportunities for wilderness fire. For ing WUI will expose more people to fire. needed to determine how to overcome example, in Colorado, the 35,000-ha High Concerns about damage to inholdings and these barriers. Park Fire in 2012 may have created oppor- infrastructure, and procedural requirements tunities for wilderness fire in the 3,700-ha of smoke management remain serious disin- Risk Analysis: Framing a Cache La Poudre Wilderness, previously centives. Concerns about decisionmaker lia- Wilderness Fire Research thought to be too small to manage fire. bility and lack of professional incentives to Agenda Where opportunities for wilderness fire are promote fire can also be barriers to restoring The concept of risk has become central lacking, this information can help inform and maintaining fire-resilient landscapes to fire management to the point that it now the ongoing unresolved debate about restor- (Calkin et al. 2011, Steelman and Mc- serves as a framework for a national cohesive ing natural fire regimes with prescribed fire Caffrey 2011). strategy for fire management (Wildland Fire in wilderness (Knotek et al. 2008). To capitalize on the benefits of wilder- Executive Council 2014). Some of the earli- 2. Study the effects of the “third kind of ness fire, it will be necessary to look beyond est studies about wildland fire risk focused fire” that burns under less-than-extreme condi- the boundaries of wilderness and address on how managers and homeowners perceive tions. The few fires that we choose not to put concerns at the landscape scale. Arno and and assess risk (e.g., Gardner et al. 1987, out and instead allow to burn for long dura- Brown (1989) proposed a three-zone fire Cortner et al. 1989). In recent years, we have tions can provide us with empirical data that management strategy, in which landscapes seen an increasing sophistication in how fire are otherwise unavailable. As discussed ear- would be segregated into a wilderness fire risk is assessed (Miller and Ager 2013). Risk lier, we have made considerable progress in zone, a residential zone (i.e., WUI), and a is understood to be composed of likelihood our understanding of fire as a landscape pro- zone in between where fuels should be man- (or probability of occurrence), intensity, and cess, especially where we have had the op- aged through forestry. Aplet and Wilmer effects, which can be positive or negative. As portunity to observe reburns and interacting (2010) expanded on this idea to argue for such, it is an expectation of loss or benefit fires. When fires burn under a wide variety restoration forestry beyond the WUI and a (Finney 2005). of weather and landscape conditions, they are likely to have a wider range of ecological dramatic expansion of the wilderness fire This conception of risk might provide a zone to include all areas sufficiently distant effects, and research suggests that these ef- framework for realizing the benefits of ex- from communities that fire is not an imme- fects fall within the natural range of varia- panded wilderness fire in the future. For ex- diate concern. tion (Meyer 2015). Although this recent em- ample, managing fire in a landscape context Extending the benefits of fire beyond pirical work has yielded very valuable and requires understanding the likelihood of fire wilderness is now well supported by federal useful information, more settings and more and its expected behavior across landscapes. fire policy, which states, fires need to be examined. Although research Quantifying effects as positive or negative often focuses on the conditions that drive rapid requires understanding the consequences of Fire, as a critical natural process, will be in- spread or extreme fire behavior, we can use tegrated into land and resource manage- fire under different conditions, including fires that burn under more moderate condi- ment plans and activities on a landscape less-than-extreme weather. And, expanding scale, and across agency boundaries. (Phil- tions to learn what drives the quiescent periods wilderness fire will require understanding and pot et al. 1995, p. 5, Douglas et al. 2001, p. during a long-duration fire. Similarly, patches 23) addressing perceptions of risk among manag- of high-severity fire understandably garner a ers and the public. We use this framework to The 2009 Guidance for implementation of lot of attention, but the less severely burned or offer the following research agenda for wilder- Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy al- unburned patches are equally, if not more, im- ness fire science: lows that any fire “may be concurrently portant features to study as they potentially managed for one or more objectives and ob- 1. Use our understanding of the likelihood serve as refugia critical for postfire recovery jectives can change as the fire spreads across of fire and its expected behavior across large (Kolden et al. 2012, Berry et al. 2015). the landscape” (Fire Executive Council landscapes to identify opportunities for wilder- 3. Develop better methods for a full, bal- 2009, p. 7) thus providing managers with ness fire. Risk analysis tools are commonly anced accounting of risks and benefits. We more flexibility than ever to encourage fire used to map where fire is likely to cause dam- have yet to populate a complete “balance where it is achieving objectives. Actually re- age or harm and to quantify those damages. sheet” for fire and are therefore unable to alizing the promise of federal policy, though, However, these same tools can be adapted weigh the benefits and costs of wilderness will require overcoming the previously de- for a different use: to identify where and fire against the benefits and costs of suppres-

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 7 sion. A full accounting of the risks and ben- was to reduce uncertainty in our under- (Agee 2000). As Miller (2014, p. 24) con- efits would help ensure that every decision, standing of fire to improve the ability of cluded recently: including those that defer risk into the fu- managers to predict fire effects and fine-tune The past 50 years have shown that the de- ture and forgo the potential benefits of wil- prescriptions. Reducing uncertainty would cision to allow a fire to burn has always been derness fire, is justified. Conceptually, the provide managers with the confidence they a difficult one to make. As environmental risk framework can accommodate such a need to predict fire behavior and expand the and social trends complicate the context for comprehensive and balanced accounting of wilderness fire management over the next use of wilderness fire. Although much has 50 years, this decision will only get more fire. Practically, however, this remains a been learned about fire behavior and fire ef- difficult. The future of wilderness fire man- challenge. We need innovative econometric fects in the ensuing years, we may be no agement programs may now depend on approaches that can quantify the long-term adding to the knowledge that has developed closer to the elusive predictions. Instead, it over the past 50 years with research as opportunity costs and benefits of manage- seems that the more we learn, the more com- well as an unwavering commitment by in- ment as well as the short-term ones. plex the story becomes. All this complexity dividuals to managing this keystone natural process. 4. Investigate how people perceive and re- leaves us challenged to describe an appropri- act to fire risk. Embracing wilderness fire re- ate fire regime for a particular wilderness or The success of wilderness fire and wil- quires that we see beyond the present mo- the likely ecosystem responses to fire. Fire derness fire science depends on supporting ment and choose to accept some level of risk science once focused on increasingly precise and rewarding those managers who stand up now in favor of deferring that risk to the characterizations of fire return intervals and and make the tough decisions. Science will future. Unfortunately, we understand very the tidy categorization of fire regimes, but play an important role in developing the little about how risk is perceived and used in we now understand fire to be highly variable tools to support those decisions, but science making choices. Among managers, we need in space and time, leaving the manager with alone cannot solve the problem. to understand a lot more about what moti- a host of questions and imagined scenarios. vates fire management decisions. Among Endnote Indeed, Agee (2000, p. 17) observed, members of the public, we need to under- 1. For more information on the data from the stand how their perceptions and attitudes Natural resources science often does not MTBS project, please see www.mtbs.gov. vary and what changes in conditions or pol- provide specific answers to operational icies affect those perceptions. problems. At best, it may provide limits or Literature Cited boundaries on uncertainty, or it may in- AGEE, J.K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A state- Conclusion crease the uncertainty of the manager’s do- of-knowledge review. P. 5–22 in Wilderness in main. This may be very pleasing to a scien- a time of change conference, Cole, D.N., S.F. In the 15 years since Agee last summa- tist, but it may leave the manager with a McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin rized the state of wilderness fire science, longer list of what might go wrong. (eds.). USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Re- much has changed while much remains the Uncertainty does present challenges to search Station, Missoula, MT. ALLEN, C.D., M. SAVAGE, D.A. FALK, K.F. SUCK- same. Agee exhorted scientists and managers the manager who is looking for simple an- to conceive of wilderness not as an island but LING, T.W. SWETNAM,T.SCHULKE, P.B. STA- swers, but for others, it presents a path for- CEY,P.MORGAN,M.HOFFMAN, AND J.T. as part of a linked landscape; today, we un- ward. If there is one thing we have come to KLINGEL. 2002. Ecological restoration of derstand wilderness to be part of a larger appreciate in the past 15 years, it is that al- southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A landscape, which is affected by the process of though there are characteristic patterns of broad perspective. Ecol. Applic. 12:1418– 1433. fire. Agee also called on scientists to incor- fire effects for different vegetation types and porate patchiness into models of fire behav- APLET, G., AND B. WILMER. 2005. The wildland biogeographical regions, fire and fire effects ior; current landscape fire models can reflect fire challenge: Protecting communities and re- are highly heterogeneous (see, e.g., Romme storing ecosystems. George Wright Forum the heterogeneity of burning conditions and 2005). Rather than trying to achieve greater 22(4):32–44. resultant patchiness that their antecedents control over fire or feeling bewildered by the APLET, G.H., AND B. WILMER. 2010. The poten- could not. Indeed, the understanding of fire tial for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Ex- physical complexity of fire, we might instead as a heterogeneous process at all scales is one ploring opportunities to expand the use of fire of the great advancements of the past 15 embrace the lessons of the first 50 years of as a natural change agent. Fire Manage. Today 70(1):36–39. years. Even so, fire management practices to- wilderness fire: the imprecision of wilderness APLET, G.H., AND W.S. KEETON. 1999. Applica- day do not appear to match our ecological fire yields precisely the heterogeneity that is essential to ecosystem resilience. By accept- tion of historical range of variability concepts understanding. Few managers are keen to to biodiversity conservation. P. 71–86 in Prac- manage long-duration fires that grow being this imprecision, managers can promote tical approaches to the conservation of biological yond jurisdictional boundaries, exhibit un- the heterogeneity that will become increas- diversity, Baydack, R.K., H. Campa III, and precedented fire behavior, or leave behind ingly important in an era of changing cli- J.B. Haufler (eds.). Island Press, Covelo, CA. ARBAUGH, M., S. SCHILLING,J.MERZENICH, AND fire effects that span the entire spectrum of mate and increased fire activity. J. VAN WAGTENDONK. 2000. A test of the stra- severities. Regardless of our current state of tegic fuels management model VDDT using Since the establishment of the first wil- knowledge, decisions to allow fire will be historical data from Yosemite National Park. derness fire programs, fire science has ma- made as they always have been—by individ- P. 85–89 in The joint fire science conference and tured and has expanded in its study of fire uals who believe it is the right thing to do for workshop proceedings: ‘Crossing the millennium: behavior across variable landscapes and re- the resource. These decisions have taken a Integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management, gions and the resulting variability in fire re- tremendous amount of courage, and wilder- 1999 June 15–17, The Grove Hotel, Boise, ID, gimes. Consistent through this transition, ness fire science owes its success to those Neuenschwander, L.F., K.C. Ryan, and G.E. though, was the belief that the role of science managers who have made these difficult calls Gollberg (tech. eds.). University of Idaho and

8 Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 the International Association of Wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natu- OR, Andrews, P.L., and B.W. Butler (comps.). Fire, Moscow, ID, and Fairfield, WA. ral fire area. Ecosystems 12:114–128. USDA For. Serv., Proc. RMRS-P-41, Rocky ARNO, S.F., AND J.K. BROWN. 1989. Managing COLLINS, B.M., AND S.L. STEPHENS. 2007. Man- Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. fire in our forests: Time for a new initiative. J. aging natural wildfires in Sierra Nevada wil- FINNEY, M.A., I.C. GRENFELL, C.W. MCHUGH, For. 87(12):44–46. derness areas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5(10):523– R.C. SELI,D.TRETHEWEY, R.D. STRATTON, BARNETT, K.M. 2013. Escape probability: An al- 527. AND S. BRITTAIN. 2011a. A method for ensem- ternative risk metric to support and evaluate wil- COLLINS, B.M., AND S.L. STEPHENS. 2010. Stand- ble wildland fire simulation. Environ. Model. derness fire management decisions. MSc thesis, replacing patches within a “mixed severity” fire Assess. 16:153–167. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 60 p. regime: Quantitative characterization using re- FINNEY, M.A., C.W. MCHUGH, I.C. GRENFELL, BEATY, R.M., AND A.H. TAYLOR. 2001. Spatial cent fires in a long-established natural fire area. K.L. RILEY, AND K.C. SHORT. 2011b. A simu- and temporal variation of fire regimes in a Landsc. Ecol. 25:927–939. lation of probabilistic wildfire risk components mixed conifer forest landscape, southern Cas- CORTNER, H.J., J.G. TAYLOR, E.H. CARPENTER, for the continental United States. Stochastic cades, California, USA. J. Biogeogr. 28:955– AND D.A. CLEAVES. 1989. Fire managers’ risk Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2011:1–28. 966. perceptions. Fire Manage. Notes 50(4):16–18. FIRE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. 2009. Guidance for BENTZ, B., J. LOGAN,J.MACMAHON, C.D. DALY, C., G.H. TAYLOR, W.P. GIBSON, T.W. implementation of federal wildland fire manage- ALLEN,M.AYRES,E.BERG,A.CARROLL, ET AL. PARZYBOK, G.L. JOHNSON, AND P.A. PASTERIS. ment policy. 20 p. Available online at www. 2009. Bark beetle outbreaks in western North 2000. High-quality spatial climate data sets for nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/ America: Causes and consequences. University of the United States and beyond. Trans. ASAE GIFWFMP.pdf; last accessed June 5, 2015. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 42 p. 43(6):1957–1962. FULE´, P.Z. 2008. Does it make sense to restore BERRY, L.E., D.A. DRISCOLL, J.A. STEIN,W. DILLON, G.K., Z.A. HOLDEN,P.MORGAN, M.A. wildland fire in changing climate? Restor. Ecol. BLANCHARD, S.C. BANKS, R.A. BRADSTOCK, CRIMMINS, E.K. HEYERDAHL, AND C.H. LUCE. 16(4):526–531. AND D.B. LINDENMAYER. 2015. Identifying the 2011. Both topography and climate affected FULE´, P.Z., AND D.C. LAUGHLIN. 2007. Wild- location of fire refuges in wet forest ecosys- forest and woodland burn severity in two re- land fire effects on forest structure over an al- tems. Ecol. Applic. In press. doi:10.1890/14- gions of the western US, 1984 to 2006. Eco- titudinal gradient, Grand Canyon National 1699.1. sphere 2(12):art130. Park, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 44:136–146. DIXON, G.E. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to BLACK, A., AND T. OPPERMAN. 2005. Fire effects GARDNER, P.D., H.J. CORTNER, AND K. WIDA- the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA For. planning framework: A user’s guide. USDA MAN. 1987. The risk perceptions and policy For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RMRS- Serv., Forest Management Service Center, response toward wildland fire hazards by urban 163WWW, Rocky Mountain Research Sta- Fort Collins, CO. 226 p. home-owners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 14:163– tion, Fort Collins, CO. 63 p. DOANE, D., J. O’LAUGHLIN,P.MORGAN, AND C. 172. MILLER. 2006. Barriers to wildland fire use: A BLACK, A.E., M. WILLIAMSON, AND D. DOANE. GRAHAM, R.T. 2003. Hayman Fire case study: preliminary problem analysis. Int. J. Wildl. 12: 2008. Wildland fire use barriers and facilita- Summary. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. 36–38. tors. Fire Manage. Today 68(1):10–14. RMRS-GTR-115, Rocky Mountain Research DOUGLAS, J., T. MILLS,D.ARTLEY,D.ASHE,A. BROWN, J.K., R.W. MUTCH, C.W. SPOON, AND Station, Ogden, UT. 32 p. BARTUSKA, R.L. BLACK,S.COLOFF, ET AL. R.H. WAKIMOTO. 1995. Proc.: Symposium on GUARÍN, A., AND A.H. TAYLOR. 2005. Drought 2001. Review and update of the 1995 federal fire in wilderness and park management, 1993 triggered tree mortality in mixed conifer for- wildland fire management policy. US Depart- March 30–April 1; Missoula, MT. USDA For. ests in Yosemite National Park, California, ments of Interior, Agriculture, Energy, De- Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320, Inter- fense, and Commerce, Environmental Protec- USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 218(1–3):229–244. mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. tion Agency, Federal Emergency Management HABECK, J.R. 1976. Forests, fuels and fire in the 300 p. Agency, and the National Association of State Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. P. 305– BROWN, T.J., B.L. HALL, AND A.L. WESTERLING. Foresters, Washington, DC. 89 p. 353 in Proc. Annual [14th] Tall Timbers fire 2004. The impact of twenty-first century cli- ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Re- EIDENSHINK, J., B. SCHWIND,K.BREWER, Z.L. mate change on wildland fire danger in the search Council fire and land management sym- ZHU,B.QUAYLE, AND S. HOWARD. 2007. A western United States: An applications per- project for monitoring trends in burn severity. posium. Missoula, MT. Tall Timbers Research, spective. Climatic Change 62:365–388. Fire Ecol. 3(1):3–21. Inc., Tallahassee, FL. CALKIN, D.C., M.A. FINNEY, A.A. AGER, M.P. FALK, D.A., E.K. HEYERDAHL, P.M. BROWN,C. HAIRE, S.L., K. MCGARIGAL, AND C. MILLER. THOMPSON, AND K.M. GEBERT. 2011. Prog- FARRIS, P.Z. FULE´,D.MCKENZIE, T.W. SWET- 2013. Wilderness shapes contemporary fire ress towards and barriers to implementation of NAM, A.H. TAYLOR, AND M.L. VAN HORNE. size distributions across landscapes of the west- a risk framework for US federal wildland fire 2011. Multi-scale controls of historical forest- ern United States. Ecosphere 4(1):article 15. policy and decision making. For. Policy Econ. fire regimes: New insights from fire-scar net- HANN, W.J., AND D.J. STROHM. (2003). Fire re- 13:378–389. works. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9(8):446–454. gime condition class and associated data for CALKIN, D.E., K.M. GEBERT, J.G. JONES, AND FINNEY, M.A. 1994. Modeling the spread and fire and fuel planning: Methods and applica- R.P. NEILSON. 2005. Forest Service large fire behavior of prescribed natural fires. P. 138– tions. P. 397–434 in Fire, fuel treatments, and area burned and suppression expenditure 143 in 12th Conference on fire and forest mete- ecological restoration, 2002 April 16–18, Fort trends, 1970–2002. J. For. 103(4):179–183. orology, 1993 October 26–28, Jekyll Island, GA. Collins, CO, Omi, P.N., and L.A. Joyce (eds.). CHEW, J.D., C. STALLING, AND K. MOELLER. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. USDA For. Serv., Proc. RMRS-P-29, Rocky 2004. Integrating knowledge for simulating FINNEY, M.A. 2004. FARSITE, Fire Area Simula- Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. vegetation change at landscape scales. West. tor—Model development and evaluation. HARDY, C.C., J.P. MENAKIS, D.G. LONG, J.K. J. Appl. For. 19:102–108. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-4 Re- BROWN, AND D.L. BUNNELL. 1998. Mapping COCHRANE, M.A., C.J. MORAN, M.C. WIM- vised, Rocky Mountain Research Station, historic fire regimes for the western United BERLY, A.D. BAER, M.A. FINNEY, K.L. BECKEN- Ogden, UT. 47 p. States: Integrating remote sensing and bio- DORF,J.EIDENSHINK, AND Z. ZHU. 2012. Es- FINNEY, M.A. 2005. The challenge of quantita- physical data. P. 288–300 in Natural resources timation of wildfire size and risk changes due tive risk analysis for wildland fire. For. Ecol. management using remote sensing and GIS, Pro- to fuels treatments. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21:357– Manage. 211:97–108. ceedings of the 7th Biennial Forest Service Re- 367. FINNEY, M.A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap mote Sensing Applications Conference, 1998 COLLINS, B.M., J.D. MILLER, A.E. THODE,M. fire modeling capabilities. P. 213–220 in Fuels April 6–10; Nassau Bay, TX. American Photo- KELLY, J.W. VAN WAGTENDONK, AND S.L. STE- management—How to measure success: Confer- grammetry and Remote Sensing Society, PHENS. 2009. Interactions among wildland ence proceedings, 2006 March 28–30, Portland, Bethesda, MD.

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 9 HEINSELMAN, M.L. 1973. Fire in the virgin for- low-severity fire in the eastern Cascade Range Area, Montana. USDA For. Serv., Res. Note ests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Min- of Washington, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 23:227– RMRS-RN-42, Rocky Mountain Research nesota. Quat. Res. 3:329–382. 240. Station, Fort Collins, CO. 5 p. HEYERDAHL, E.K., L.B. BRUBAKER, AND J.K. KILGORE, B.M. 1986. The role of fire in wilder- LEOPOLD, A.S., S.A. CAIN, C.M. COTTAM, I.N. AGEE. 2001. Spatial controls of historical fire ness: A state-of-knowledge review. P. 70–103 GABRIELSON, AND T.L. KIMBAL. 1963. Wildlife regimes: A multiscale example from the inte- in National wilderness research conference: Is- management in the national parks. P. 1–8 in rior West, USA. Ecology 82:660–678. sues, state-of-knowledge, future directions, 1985 Transactions 28th North American wildlife and HEYERDAHL, E.K., L.B. BRUBAKER, AND J.K. July 23–26, Fort Collins, CO, Lucas, R.C. natural resources conference. Crater Lake Insti- AGEE. 2002. Annual and decadal climate forc- (ed.). USDA For. Serv., Res. Note INT-RP- tute, Crater Lake, OR. ing of historical fire regimes in the interior Pa- 475, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, LOTAN, J.E., B.M. KILGORE, W.C. FISCHER, AND cific Northwest, USA. Holocene 12(5):597– UT. R.W. MUTCH. 1985. Proceedings: Symposium 604. KILGORE, B.M., AND D. TAYLOR. 1979. Fire his- on fire in wilderness and park management, HICKE, J.A., M.C. JOHNSON, J.L. HAYES, AND tory of a sequoia-mixed conifer forest. Ecology 1983 November 15–18; Missoula, MT. USDA H.K. PREISLER. 2012. Effects of bark beetle- 60(1):129–142. For. Serv., Gen Tech Rep INT-182, Inter- caused tree mortality on wildfire. For. Ecol. KNEESHAW, K., J.J. VASKE, A.D. BRIGHT, AND mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Manage. 271:81–90. J.D. ABSHER. 2004. Acceptability norms to- LUTZ, J.A., J.W. VAN WAGTENDONK, A.E. HOLDEN, Z.A., P. MORGAN, AND A.T. HUDAK. ward fire management in three national for- THODE, J.D. MILLER, AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2010. Burn severity of areas reburned by wild- ests. Environ. Behav. 36(4):592–612. 2009. Climate, lightning ignitions, and fire se- fires in the Gila National Forest, New Mexico, KNOTEK, K. 2006. Trends in public attitudes to- verity in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Fire Ecol. 6(3):77–85. wards the use of wildland fire. In Third inter- USA. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 18:765–774. HOLDEN, Z.A., P. MORGAN, M.G. ROLLINS, AND national fire ecology and management congress MCCAFFREY, S., E. TOMAN,M.STIDHAM, AND B. K. KAVANAUGH. 2007. Effects of multiple proceedings, 2006 November 13–17, San Diego, SHINDLER. 2013. Social science research re- wildland fires on ponderosa pine stand struc- CA [DVD]. Washington State University, lated to wildfire management: An overview of ture in two southwestern wilderness areas, Pullman, WA. recent findings and future research needs. Int. USA. Fire Ecol. 3(2):18–33. KNOTEK, K., A.E. WATSON, W.T. BORRIE, J.G. J. Wildl. Fire 22(1):15–24. HOUTMAN, R.M., C.A. MONTGOMERY, A.R. WHITMORE, AND D. TURNER. 2008. Recre- MCCOOL, S.F., AND G. STANKEY. 1986. Visitor GAGNON, D.E. CALKIN, T.G. DIETTERICH,S. ation visitor attitudes towards management- attitudes toward wilderness fire management pol- MCGREGOR, AND M. CROWLEY. 2013. Allow- ignited prescribed fires in the Bob Marshall icy—1971–84. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. ing a wildfire to burn: Estimating the effect on Wilderness Complex, Montana. J. Leis. Res. INT-357, Intermountain Research Station, future fire suppression costs. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 40:608–618. Ogden, UT. 7 p. 22:871–882. KOBZIAR, L.N., M.E. ROCCA, C.A. DICUS,C. MCKENZIE, D., D.L. PETERSON, AND J.K. AGEE. HUNTER, M.E., J.M. INIGUEZ, AND C.A. FARRIS. HOFFMAN,N.SUGIHARA, A.E. THODE, J.M. 2000. Fire frequency in the interior Columbia 2014. Historical and current fire management VARNER, AND P. MORGAN. 2011. Challenges to River basin: Building regional models from fire practices in two wilderness areas in the southwest- educating the next generation of wildland fire history data. Ecol. Applic. 10:1497–1516. ern United States: The Saguaro Wilderness Area professionals in the United States. J. For. MEYER, M.D. 2015. Forest fire severity patterns and the Gila-Aldo Leopold Wilderness Complex. 107(7):339–345. of resource objective wildfires in the southern USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- KOLDEN, C.A., J.A. LUTZ, C.H. KEY, J.T. KANE, Sierra Nevada. J. For. 113(1):49–56. GTR-325, Rocky Mountain Research Station, AND J.W. VAN WAGTENDONK. 2012. Mapped MILLER, C. 2007. Simulation of the conse- Fort Collins, CO. 38 p. versus actual burned area within wildfire pe- quences of different fire regimes to support JENKINS, M.J., J.B. RUNYON, C.J. FETTIG, W.G. rimeters: Characterizing the unburned. For. wildland fire use decisions. Fire Ecol. 3(2):83– PAGE, AND B.J. BENTZ. 2014. Interactions Ecol. Manage. 286:38–47. 102. among the mountain pine beetle, fires, and fu- KOLDEN, C.A., AND P.J. WEISBERG. 2007. Assess- MILLER, C. 2012. The hidden consequences of els. For. Sci. 60:489–501. ing accuracy of manually-mapped wildfire pe- fire suppression. Park Sci. 28(3):75–80. KEANE, R.E., S.F. ARNO, AND J.K. BROWN. 1990. rimeters in topographically dissected areas. MILLER, C. 2014. The contribution of natural fire Simulating cumulative fire effects in pon- Fire Ecol. 3(1):22–31. management to wilderness fire science. Int. J. derosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. Ecology 71: KRASNOW, K., T. SCHOENNAGEL, AND T.T. VE- Wildl. 20(2):20–25. 189–203. BLEN. 2009. Forest fuel mapping and evalua- MILLER, C., J. ABATZOGLOU,T.BROWN, AND KEANE, R.E., S. ARNO, AND L.J. DICKINSON. tion of LANDFIRE fuel maps in Boulder A.D. SYPHARD. 2011. Wilderness fire manage- 2006. The complexity of managing fire-de- County, Colorado, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. ment in a changing environment. P. 269–294 pendent ecosystems in wilderness: Relict pon- 257:1603–1612. in The landscape ecology of fire, McKenzie, D., derosa pine in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. KREBS, P., G.B. PEZZATTI,S.MAZZOLENI, L.M. C. Miller, and D.A. Falk (eds.). Springer, New Ecol. Restor. 24(2):71–78. TALBOT, AND M. CONEDERA. 2010. Fire re- York. 312 p. KEANE, R.E., AND E. KARAU. 2010. Evaluating gime: History and definition of a key concept MILLER, C., AND A. AGER. 2013. A review of re- the ecological benefits of wildfire by integrat- in disturbance ecology. Theory Biosci. 129(1): cent advances in risk analysis for wildfire man- ing fire and ecosystem simulation models. Ecol. 53–69. agement. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. 22:1–14. Model. 221:1162–1172. KURZ, W.A., S.J. BEUKEMA,W.KLENNER, J.A. MILLER, C., AND B. DAVIS. 2009. Quantifying the KEANE, R.E., R.A. PARSONS, AND P.F. HESSBURG. GREENOUGH, D.C.E. ROBINSON, A.D. consequences of fire suppression in two Cali- 2002. Estimating historical range and varia- SHARPE, AND T.M. WEBB. 2000. TELSA: The fornia national parks. George Wright Forum tion of landscape patch dynamics: Limitations Tool for Exploratory Landscape Scenario 26(1):76–88. of the simulation approach. Ecol. Model. 151: Analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 27:227– MILLER, C., AND D.L. URBAN. 1999. A model of 29–49. 242. surface fire, climate, and forest pattern in the KEANE, R.E., K.C. RYAN, AND S.W. RUNNING. LARSON, A.J., R.T. BELOTE, C.A. CANSLER, S.A. Sierra Nevada, California. Ecol. Model. 114: 1996. Simulating effects of fire on northern PARKS, AND M.S. DIETZ. 2013. Latent resil- 113–135. Rocky Mountain landscapes with the ecologi- ience in ponderosa pine forest: Effects of re- MLADENOFF, D.J., AND H.S. HE. 1999. Design cal process model FIRE-BGC. Tree Physiol. sumed frequent fire. Ecol. Applic. 23:1243– and behavior of LANDIS, an object-oriented 16:319–331. 1249. model of forest landscape disturbance and suc- KELLOGG, L.-K.B., D. MCKENZIE, D.L. PETER- LEIRFALLOM, S.B., AND R.E. KEANE. 2011. Six- cession. P. 125–162 in Advances in spatial SON, AND A.E. HESSL. 2008. Spatial models for year post-fire mortality and health of relict pon- modeling of forest landscape change: Approaches inferring topographic controls on historical derosa pines in the Bob Marshall Wilderness and applications, Mladenoff, D.J., and W.L.

10 Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 Baker (eds.). Cambridge University Press, management policy and program review.USDe- USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. INT-180, Inter- Cambridge, UK. partment of the Interior and US Department mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 17 p. MORGAN, P., G.H. APLET, J.B. HAUFLER, H.C. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 45 p. STEELMAN, T.A., AND S.M. MCCAFFREY. 2011. HUMPHRIES, M.M. MOORE, AND W.D. WIL- REINHARDT, E.D., R.E. KEANE, AND J.K. BROWN. What is limiting more flexible fire manage- SON. 1994. Historical range of variability. J. 1997. First order fire effects model: FOFEM 4.0, ment—Public or agency pressure? J. For. Sustain. For. 2(1–2):87–111. user’s guide. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. 109(8):454–461. MORGAN, P., E.K. HEYERDAHL,C.MILLER, A.M. INT-GTR-344, Intermountain Research Sta- SUGIHARA, N.G., J.W. VAN WAGTENDONK, K.E. WILSON, AND C.E. GIBSON. 2014. Northern tion, Ogden, UT. 65 p. SHAFFER,J.FITES-KAUFMAN, AND A.E. THODE. Rockies pyrogeography: An example of fire at- ROBERTS, D.W., AND D.W. BETZ. 1999. Simu- 2006. Fire in California’s ecosystems. University las utility. Fire Ecol. 10(1):14–30. lating landscape vegetation dynamics of Bryce of California Press, Oakland, CA. 596 p. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 2003. Fire monitoring Canyon National Park with the vital attributes/ TAYLOR, A.H. 2010. Fire disturbance and forest handbook. Fire Management Program Center, fuzzy systems model VAFS/LANDSIM. P. 99 – structure in an old-growth Pinus ponderosa for- National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 123 in Spatial modeling of forest landscape est, southern Cascades, USA. J. Veg. Sci. 21: 274 p. change: Approaches and applications, Mlad- 561–572. NORTH, M., A. BROUGH, J.N. LONG,B.COLLINS, enoff, D.J., and W.L. Baker (eds.). Cambridge TAYLOR, A.H., AND C.N. SKINNER. 2003. Spatial P. BOWDEN,D.YASUDA,J.MILLER, AND N. University Press, Cambridge, UK. patterns and controls on historical fire regimes SUGIHARA. 2015. Constraints on mechanized ROLLINS, M.G., AND C.K. FRAME (TECH. EDS.). and forest structure in the Klamath Moun- treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels 2006. The LANDFIRE Prototype Project: Na- tains. Ecol. Applic. 13(3):704–719. reduction extent in the Sierra Nevada. J. For. tionally consistent and locally relevant geospatial TESKE, C.C., C.A. SEIELSTAD, AND L.P. QUEEN. 113(1):40–48. data for wildland fire management. USDA For. 2012. Characterizing fire-on-fire interactions NORTH, M., B.M. COLLINS, AND S. STEPHENS. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175, in three large wilderness areas. Fire Ecol. 8:82– 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Col- 106. and future maintenance of fuels treatments. J. lins, CO. 416 p. TURNER, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: The ef- For. 110(7):392–401. ROLLINS, M.G., P. MORGAN, AND T. SWETNAM. fect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. NORTH, M., M. HURTEAU,R.FIEGENER, AND M. 2002. Landscape-scale controls over 20th cen- 20:171–197. BARBOUR. 2005. Influence of fire and El Ninõ tury fire occurrence in two large Rocky Moun- VAN WAGTENDONK, J.W. 2007. The history and on tree recruitment varies by species in Sierran tain (USA) wilderness areas. Landsc. Ecol. 17: evolution of wildland fire use. Fire Ecol. 3(2): mixed-conifer. For. Sci. 51:187–197. 539–557. 3–17. NOSS, R.F., J.F. FRANKLIN, W.L. BAKER,T. ROMME, W.H. 2005. The importance of multi- VAN WAGTENDONK, J.W., K.A. VAN WAGTEN- SCHOENNAGEL, AND P.B. MOYLE. 2006. Man- scale spatial heterogeneity in wildland fire DONK, AND A.E. THODE. 2012. Factors associ- aging fire-prone forests in the western United management and research. P. 353–366 in Eco- ated with the severity of intersecting fires in States. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4:481–487. system function in heterogeneous landscapes, Yosemite National Park, California. Fire Ecol. PARISIEN, M., S. SNETSINGER, J.A. GREENBERG, Lovett, G.M., C. Jones, M.G. Turner, and 8(1):11–31. C.R. NELSON,T.SCHOENNAGEL, S.Z. DO- K.C. Weathers (eds.). Springer, New York. WHITE, P.S., AND S.T. PICKETT. 1985. Natural BROWSKI, AND M.A. MORITZ. 2012. Spatial 489 p. disturbance and patch dynamics: An introduc- variability in wildfire probability across the RYAN, K.C., AND T.S. OPPERMAN. 2013. tion. P. 3–13 in The ecology of natural distur- western United States. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21: LANDFIRE—A national vegetation/fuels bance and patch dynamics, Pickett, S.T., and 313–327. data base for use in fuels treatment, restora- P.S. White (eds.). Academic Press, Inc., San PARKS, S.A. 2014. Mapping day-of-burning with tion, and suppression planning. For. Ecol. Diego, CA. coarse-resolution satellite fire-detection data. Manage. 294:208–216. WILDLAND FIRE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. 2014. The Int. J. Wildl. Fire 23:215–223. SCHOLL, A.E., AND A.H. TAYLOR. 2010. Fire re- final phase in the development of the National PARKS, S.A., L.M. HOLSINGER,C.MILLER, AND gimes, forest change, and self-organization in an Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. C.R. NELSON. 2015. Wildland fire as a self- old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite, Na- Available online at www.forestsandrange- regulating mechanism: The role of previous tional Park, USA. Ecol. Applic. 20:362–380. lands.gov/leadership/WFEC/index.shtml; last burns and weather in limiting fire progression. SCOTT, J.H., D.J. HELMBRECHT, S.A. PARKS, AND accessed June 5, 2015. Ecol. Applic. In press. doi:10.1890/14-1430.1. C. MILLER. 2012. Quantifying the threat of WILLIAMSON, M.A. 2007. Factors in United PARKS, S.A., C. MILLER, C.R. NELSON, AND Z.A. unsuppressed wildfires reaching the adjacent States Forest Service district rangers’ decision HOLDEN. 2014. Previous fires moderate burn wildland-urban interface on the Bridger- to manage a fire for resource benefit. Int. J. severity of subsequent wildland fires in two Teton National Forest, Wyoming, USA. Fire Wildl. Fire 16:755–762. large western US wilderness areas. Ecosystems Ecol. 8(2):125–142. WINTER, P.L. 2003. Californians’ opinions on wild- 17:29–42. SHAPIRO-MILLER, L.B., E.K. HEYERDAHL, AND P. land and wilderness fire management. P. 84–92 PETERSON, G.D. 2002. Contagious disturbance, MORGAN. 2007. Comparison of fire scars, fire in Homeowners, communities, and wildfire: Sci- ecological memory, and the emergence of atlases, and satellite data in the northwestern ence findings from the National Fire Plan; ninth landscape pattern. Ecosystems 5:329–338. United States. Can. J. For. Res. 37(10):1933– international symposium on society and resource PHILPOT, C., C. SCHECHTER,A.BARTUSKA,K. 1943. management, Jakes, P.J. (ed.). USDA For. Serv., BEARTUSK,D.BOSWORTH,S.COLOFF,J. STANKEY, G. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: An in- Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-NC-231, North Central DOUGLAS, ET AL. 1995. Federal wildland fire vestigation of visitor knowledge and beliefs. Station, Bloomington, IN.

Journal of Forestry • MONTH 2015 11