Wilderness Litigation State Wilderness in US Wilderness Restoration Mexico, Europe INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1

FEATURES SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, continued EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD 3 Wilderness Is on the Move! WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE BY VANCE G. MARTIN 32 Wilderness Restoration From Philosophical Questions about Naturalness to SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS Tests of Practical Techniques 4 The Need for Wilderness Litigation BY DAVID N. COLE BY JON DETTMANN

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION STEWARDSHIP 33 El Triunfo RAVE: Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition 7 U.S. Forest Service Litigation BY JAIME ROJO The Wilderness Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: 1989–2004 BY ROBERT W. MALMSHEIMER, CORALINE FALCO, INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES AMANDA M. ANDERSON, DENISE M. KEELE, and 38 PAN Parks Perspectives for a Wilder Europe DONALD W. FLOYD BY VLADO VANCURA, ZOLTÁN KUN, and MYLÈNE VAN DER DONK 15 Wilderness and Accessibility BY JANET A. ZELLER WILDERNESS DIGEST 19 State-designated Wilderness in the United States: 43 Announcements A National Review BY BLAKE M. PROPST and CHAD P. DAWSON 47 Book Reviews 47 American Wilderness: A New History 25 Searching for Solitude in the Wilderness EDITED BY MICHAEL LEWIS of Southeast Alaska Reviewed by John Shultis BY MARY EMERICK and DAVID N. COLE 48 Rebel on the Road: And Why I Was Never Neutral BY MICHAEL FROME Reviewed by John Shultis SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 28 Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Sierra Nevada Mountain Wilderness Lakes and Streams BY ROBERT W. DERLET, JAMES R. CARLSON, and JOHN R. RICHARDS On the Cover FRONT: Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus DISCLAIMER mocinno) male at nest hole—Rapid Assessment The Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and fea- Visual Expedition (RAVE), El Triunfo Biosphere tured articles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or Reserve, Sierra Madre range, Chiapas, Mexico. especially informative articles to renew thinking and dialogue Photo © Thomas Mangelsen among our readers. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. IJW neither endorses nor rejects them, but invites comments from our readers. INSET: Coffee worker in Ejido Santa Rita, El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve. Photo © Patricio Robles Gil —John C. Hendee IJW Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

EDITORIAL BOARD Perry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA H. Ken Cordell, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Athens, Ga., USA Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Boulder, Colo., USA Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF John C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITOR Chad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONAL Gordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Michael Tarrant, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One Forestry key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and envi- Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. Fax: (315) ronmental education; wilderness-related science and research from all 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness worldwide. Business Management and Subscriptions: The WILD Foundation, Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, P.O. Box 20527, Boulder, CO 80308, USA. Telephone: (303) 442-8811. Fax: announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encour- (303) 442-8877. E-mail: [email protected]. aged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the website: www.ijw.org. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/ libraries. Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North America, encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be add $20. Back issues are available for $15. signed by the author.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright Website: www.ijw.org. © 2008 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa) FEATURES EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

Wilderness Is on the Move!

BY VANCE G. MARTIN

he year 2008 holds exciting prospects for wilder- Nahanni National Park to ness internationally, with progress already protect mountains and karst- Thappening or imminent in many countries. lands totalling about 33,000 The U.S. presidential race is the most diverse and sq km; a new national park exciting in decades. Because of the many domestic wilder- on the East Arm of Great ness bills held in abeyance during the past eight years, or Slave Lake of 33,000 sq km; others simply in process, if the voters opt for change we Ramparts National Wildlfe may well see significant progress on U.S. wilderness in the Area, 15,000 sq km to pro- next few years. tect wetlands for migratory The potential for wilderness in the United States and birds; and the sacred lands of elsewhere is also driven by the increased attention to cli- Sahoue Edacho peninsulas mate change and global warming. Large wilderness areas in Great Bear Lake of 8,500 have an important place in this debate, because of their sq km. Designated wilder- Vance G. Martin key role in stabilizing, moderating, and regulating plane- ness in a matrix of protected tary climate. One of the best examples of new potential for area classifications, and more protection is the “avoided deforestation” movement, espe- is expected in 2008.” cially in the tropical and boreal forests. Political consensus In Europe, although the areas involved are smaller and action are needed, and the next U.S. president will be than in Canada, they represent perhaps an even more presented with many new and significant international important change in dealing with age-old attitudes and opportunities. One indicator of this momentum is the now land management practices. We report in this issue on the famous statement that helped end the stalemate in the superb PAN Parks initiative that is applying excellent cri- Bali (Kyoto Protocol) meetings in December 2007, when teria and designating wilderness in core zones of parks the U.S. delegation was asked by the representative from across the continent, in cooperation with government Papua New Guinea to “help lead or get out of the way.” authorities. Australia has a new prime minister. Alec Marr, director Latin America is full of wildlands spirit, enthusiasm, of The Wilderness Society in Australia, tells it like it is: “The and progress. The Latin American Protected Areas Rudd government already have commitments to the pro- Conference that meets every 10 years convened in tection of wild rivers and World Heritage listing for Cape Bariloche, Argentina (see the Wilderness Digest), with an York, and strong commitments to the protection of overflow group of more than 2,000 people, surpassing the northern Australia. We have a strong list of objectives to organizers expectations (and even some of the facilities). achieve with this new administration.” In Guyana, following up on a 2004 declaration in The big news is from Canada, as reported in this issue’s which the government gave the Wai Wai people 1.54 mil- Wilderness Digest. Harvey Locke gives more details: “The lion acres (625,000 ha) of tropical forest, the Wai Wai Government of Canada, working with First Nations and themselves declared their lands a protected area under NGOs, recently agreed to protect large areas of spectac- ular wilderness in the Northwest Territories: expanding Continued on page 14

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 3 FEATURES SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

The Need for Wilderness Litigation

BY JON DETTMANN

here is a good amount of cynicism about the legal ated the judicial branch, authorizing it to hear cases arising system these days. But the truth is, we have been under those laws. Tcynical about litigation for centuries. “The first This basic governmental structure has a vital implica- thing we do,” Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, more than tion for wilderness. In Article IV, the Constitution vested 400 years ago, “let’s kill all the lawyers.” The line has a Congress with the power to regulate federal lands. The U.S. certain humor—for some, even allure—yet today. Just Supreme Court has found this legislative authority to be so imagine a civilization without lawyers, without litigation. broad as to be virtually limitless. In the Court’s words, “nei- If we have a dispute, we could talk it through; resolve it ther the courts nor the executive agencies [can] proceed like human beings, without the need for a messy lawsuit. contrary to an Act of Congress in this congressional area of How amicable, how nonlitigious life would be! national power.” Wilderness advocates are not immune from this view. Under this authority, there are any number of approaches Both within and beyond the conservation community, Congress could have taken to preserve certain federal lands there are frequent accusations that those who want to as wilderness areas, and more broadly, to create the National uphold wilderness protections—often to the detriment of Wilderness Preservation System. For example, Congress other interests—are too litigious, too willing to run into could have largely turned the issue over to the executive court over any little issue. The general argument goes that branch, similar to what the Organic Act did with the National it puts the agencies that steward our public lands in a Park System. By so doing, Congress would have taken itself tough spot. Make any move and run the risk of getting out of the business of wilderness preservation. Such a law sued, don’t make a move and get sued as well—damned if would only have conveyed a general intent that there be you do, damned if you don’t. Surely there is a better way, lands preserved as wilderness, but would have left it to the they say. Surely we can all sit down and resolve these agencies to figure out how to implement that intent. issues like civilized human beings. Such a law would also have largely taken the judicial But in the case of wilderness—indeed, especially in branch out of play. Because of the doctrine of sovereign the case of wilderness—such a view is shortsighted, if not immunity, citizens can sue the federal government only outright blind. We should not shy away from lawsuits as a when Congress has passed specific legislation allowing means of defending wilderness over any concern that liti- them to do so. For litigation over federal public lands, that gation, in and of itself, is bad. The reasons why begin with law is the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which the design of our political system. In the U.S. Constitution, allows citizens to sue federal agencies in order to chal- the framers established a government of three branches, lenge administrative decisions that are either unsupported each one balanced to keep the other two in check. Article or unlawful. Under the APA, Congress authorized if not I created the legislative branch, vesting it with the authority encouraged litigation against federal agencies as a means to make laws. Article II created the executive branch, of insuring that they are faithfully executing the laws for charging it to faithfully execute those laws. Article III cre- which they are responsible.

4 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 But some laws lend them- Act. It is hard to find a clearer selves better to litigation under definitive statutory command the APA than others. For example, than, for example, there shall be courts have commonly viewed no use of motor vehicles in wil- the Organic Act as a law that derness. It is often far more gives the National Park Service appropriate for a court to inter- broad discretion to manage the pret and enforce such language National Park System as it sees fit. against the agency than it is for Because of the broad discretion parties, acting in the name of granted by law, there are very compromise, to sit down with few cases in which a plaintiff has the agency in order to privately successfully overturned a negotiate their own interpreta- National Park Service decision Figure 1—Signing of the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964, by tion. under the Organic Act. President Lyndon Johnson. Litigation enables a broader The Wilderness Act of 1964 public accounting of the issues as (P.L. 88-577), however, is a much on the executive branch, as well as an well as a broader understanding. different statute (see figure 1). It does important protection for the wilder- One challenge of a law such as the not grant agencies a broad range of ness system. Wilderness Act is not so much the discretion to manage wilderness as The involvement of all three words on the page as it is the rationale they see fit. With the Wilderness Act, branches in wilderness stewardship behind them. The meaning of “no Congress got directly into the busi- should never be seen as one that motor vehicles” is obvious to everyone, ness of wilderness itself. In fact, the hamstrings or punishes those agen- but the reason why may not be. It Act is a remarkable federal lands cies that steward our wilderness requires an understanding of both the statute because it provides specific system. Our government is, after all, interworkings of the act’s terms, as well and clear directives on what wilder- an enterprise of human beings, who as the philosophies and ideals under- ness is and how a system of wilderness by their nature are not perfect, have lying those terms—as the draftsman of is to be created and maintained. For their own opinions, and can reason- the act, Howard Zahniser (see figure 2), established areas, the Act imposes a ably disagree. Our system of put it, the need for wilderness itself. statutory structure with detailed government seeks to resolve conflict Wilderness litigation can remind us of requirements—such as no vehicles, by creating a forum for intelligent, the why. In his essay, “The Need for no structures, and no commerce— civilized debate moderated by a Wilderness Areas,” Zahniser (1956) along with a strict, overarching judge vested with the power of the recognized that within the many les- mandate to preserve wilderness char- sovereign. The whole idea of litiga- acter. These directives effectively tion is to allow two disagreeing remove the discretion that land man- parties to come to a neutral authority agement agencies might normally that reviews the evidence and decides enjoy. the case. The whole point of the judi- The benefit of this approach is cial branch is to resolve conflict, not that it puts wilderness squarely within to create it. the checks and balances of the three What better opportunity is there branches. The legislative branch to advocate for the values of wilder- passed a law directing how the exec- ness than through the judicial process? utive branch is to preserve wilderness. What more reasoned approach exists The executive branch must faithfully by which wilderness advocates can air execute that law. To the extent that it their disagreements with agencies to fails to do so, the judicial branch must an authority that is obligated to follow step in to mend the breach. Take out and enforce the law as it is written? that last step, and the balance is lost, Such a forum lends itself particularly Figure 2—Howard Zahniser wrote the first draft of the wilderness bill in 1956. and along with it, an important check well to a statute such as the Wilderness

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 5 JON DETTMANN is an attorney with The involvement of all three branches in Faegre and Benson in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a member of the board wilderness stewardship should never be seen as of directors of Wilderness Watch; e-mail: one that hamstrings or punishes those agencies [email protected]. that steward our wilderness system. REFERENCES Zahniser, Howard. 1956. The Need for Wilderness Areas. The Living Wilder- sons of wilderness were “the lessons of or unclear, then that is a strong signal ness 59: 37–43. history—a stimulus to patriotism of the that the legislative branch needs to U.S. Public Law 88-577, The Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 890. noblest order—for in the wilderness revisit those protections so that wil- the land still lives as it was before the derness will also exist in perpetuity. pioneers fashioned it and from it the As for whether there can be too civilization we know and enjoy.” The much wilderness litigation, the practi- Declaration of Independence itself rec- calities of litigation are an effective if RENEW ognized that our self-evident not overreaching deterrent. Lawsuits rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of are difficult. They require an immense or happiness—are derived from the state investment of time and resources, and of nature. By litigating wilderness no matter the issue, they are always Subscribe issues, we are protecting a system of difficult to win. Plaintiffs must all be lands—and specifically, the wilderness careful to consider the merits of every to the character of those lands, be they for- lawsuit in advance, to determine ests, mountains, deserts, or plains—that whether the issue at stake is worth allowed our system of government to fighting for, whether there are suffi- International occur in the first instance. cient resources to see it through to the last appeal, and whether a good or bad outcome will enhance or inhibit the Journal of Over time wilderness greater aspects of the cause. No one who takes litigation lightly will Wilderness litigation acts as a advance their mission, either by continuous test of rushing to the courthouse for any the Act itself. minor dispute, or refusing to do so for WWW.IJW.ORG any dispute. It is still wise to be wary of litigation, and even of lawyers. But we Likewise, every judicial decision, should do so in the right way, one that Be informed no matter how minor, helps to build bears in mind the vital importance of upon a greater body of law. Lawsuits the judicial branch to matters of wil- by the leading over wilderness are never limited to derness preservation. Wilderness the issue at hand. No lawsuit is an needs litigation. Without it, the very experts on island. Rather, each one seeks an inter- resource we seek to protect is des- what is pretation of the Act that will exist in tined for the same fate as Henry VI. perpetuity, one that can be applied to happening or distinguished from related issues as Acknowledgment they arise, throughout the entire wil- This article was adapted from an article internationally derness system. Over time wilderness of the same title by Jon Dettmann pub- litigation acts as a continuous test of lished in the Wilderness Watcher with Wilderness the act itself. If federal courts find the newsletter, April 2007, 18(1): 1, 3–4. Act’s protections to be lacking, infirm, IJW

6 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP U.S. Forest Service Litigation The Wilderness Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: 1989–2004

BY ROBERT W. MALMSHEIMER, CORALINE FALCO, AMANDA M. ANDERSON, DENISE M. KEELE, and DONALD W. FLOYD

Abstract: We located and analyzed all U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land management litigation based on the Wilderness Act (TWA) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) from 1989 to 2004. The agency was slightly more successful in WSRA cases than in TWA cases, but it was less likely to lose and more likely to settle a WSRA case than a TWA case. Cases were geographically dispersed throughout the country. Plaintiffs initiated most TWA litigation, and all WSRA litigation, to limit Forest Service management activities. The research provides managers with the first evaluation of USFS wildlands and rivers litigation.

Introduction eral courts to try to reverse Management of the United States’ wildlands and rivers is in management outcomes (Wenner the public interest. Yet it was not until 1964 that Congress 1982; Clarke and McCool 1996). officially recognized in the Wilderness Act (TWA) the neces- Although TWA and the WSRA sity of “securing for the American people of present and have served as the basis for some future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of of this litigation, we have almost wilderness” (16 USC §2a), and not until four years later in no information about cases based the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) that Congress on these two preservation stat- sought to preserve “selected rivers or sections thereof in utes. This article addresses this their free-flowing condition” (16 USC §1b). deficiency by examining all TWA Robert W. Malmsheimer. These special use statutes posed challenges for federal and WSRA litigation initiated land management agencies. Although the Forest Service, from 1989 to 2004 involving one Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish U.S. land management agency, the USDA Forest Service. and Wildlife Service had developed agency-specific restric- After discussing our limited knowledge of these cases tions for wildlands and rivers before these statutes were and explaining the methods we used to locate and analyze enacted, these agencies managed most of their lands these cases, we examine case characteristics and offer according to their multiple-use or resource protection/ recre- explanations for the Forest Service’s success. Our analysis ation use mandates (Hendee and Dawson 2002). Additional provides wildlands and rivers managers with the first over- decision-making statutes, such as the National Environ- view of Forest Service TWA and WSRA litigation. mental Policy Act (NEPA), and substantive statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted after 1970 fur- The Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ther complicated agencies’ management of these lands. Although U.S. federal land management agencies had desig- Parties dissatisfied with federal land management nated some of the lands under their management as “wild” agency management decisions have increasingly used fed- and “wilderness” prior to 1964, the Wilderness Act (16

PEER REVIEWED

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 7 U.S.C. §1131-36) provided: (1) a uni- vestiges of primitive America.” locate and analyze cases and their final fied federal land management • Scenic Rivers, which are “still lar- disposition documents. However, their classification scheme for these lands; gely primitive and … undeveloped, article on Forest Service litigation notes (2) a process for adding additional but accessible in places by roads.” only two things about wildland and lands into the National Wilderness • Recreational Rivers, which are river litigation based on TWA and the Preservation System (NWPS); and (3) a “readily accessible by road or rail- WSRA: (1) the number of these cases, systemwide congressionally mandated road” with some development and/ and (2) the Forest Service’s win, loss, management framework (Coggins et or evidence of impoundment or and settlement rates in these cases. al. 2002; Hendee and Dawson 2002). diversion (16 U.S.C. §1272 [b] This study addresses the deficiencies in In addition to including a number of [1-3]). previous research and expands upon compromises on mining, motorized the basic TWA and WSRA findings of equipment and vehicles, grazing, com- Similar to NWPS lands, WSRS rivers Keele et al. (2006). mercial enterprises, fire control, and are managed by the federal land man- other activities in wilderness areas, the agement agency that administered Methods act provided that all NWPS lands those lands before their WSRS desig- We analyzed all cases based on TWA “would continue to be managed by the nation (Coggins et al. 2002). Today, and WSRA legislation and in which the same agency that administered [those the four major federal land manage- U.S. Forest Service was a defendant in a lands] ... before [their] wilderness des- ment agencies administer more than lawsuit challenging a land manage- ignation” (Coggins et al. 2002, p. 1110; 10,300 miles (16,612 km) of the fed- ment decision from January 1, 1989, to Hendee and Dawson 2002). Today, the erally managed WSRS, 4,388 miles December 31, 2004. We located cases four major federal land management (7,077 km) of which are managed by initiated from 1989 to 2002 by using agencies administer more than 105 mil- the Forest Service (33% of the feder- the Keele et al. (2006) database. We lion acres (42.5 million ha) of ally managed WSRS). also used their methods to locate cases wilderness, 33% (34.8 million acres; initiated in 2003 and 2004. Since Keele 14.1 million ha) of which is managed Previous Litigation Research et al. provided a detailed explanation by the Forest Service (Scott 2004; Researchers have examined cases based of their methods, we only summarize Hendee and Dawson 2002). on TWA and the WSRA as part of their methods for this research. This Congress enacted the Wild and broader examinations of environmental approach provides the highest proba- Scenic Rivers Act to: (1) address “the and/or natural resource litigation (e.g., bility of documenting cases. It utilized apparent inadequacy of state systems Wenner 1982; Jones and Taylor 1995; the best resources available and repre- for preserving and protecting rivers, Alden and Ellefson 1997; Baldwin sents the most complete list of Forest especially in the West”; (2) control fed- 1997; Malmsheimer et al. 2004). Other Service land management cases based eral water development; and (3) researchers and commentators have on TWA and the WSRA yet assembled. increase congressional control over analyzed selected TWA and WSRA Our TWA and WSRA constraint the federal land management agen- cases (e.g., Cutler 1972; Thompson did not limit our analysis to cases cies (Fairfax et al. 1984, p. 422). The act 2003; Ryan 2005). However, all of based solely on these acts; it simply preserves designated rivers and their these studies have been based upon an required that the plaintiff claimed “immediate environments” for their analysis of published judicial opinions, that the Forest Service violated at “free-flowing” characteristics, includ ing rather than an analysis of the final out- least one of these statutes. Many water quality. Land management comes of cases. As Keele et al. (2006) cases litigating TWA or the WSRA also agencies administer Wild and Scenic noted, research based on published involve a legal claim based on at least Rivers System (WSRS) rivers and judicial opinions creates two problems: one other statute, such as the National adjoining lands according to one of (1) it does not locate every case based Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). the system’s three river classifications: on researchers’ search criteria, and (2) Additionally, any litigation about • Wild Rivers, which are “generally it often does not analyze the final out- Wilderness areas or Wild and Scenic inaccessible except by trail, with come of cases. Rivers that was not directly based on watershed or shorelines essen- Keele et al. (2006) addressed this TWA or WSRA legislation were not tially primitive and [unpolluted] problem by developing and using a included in this study (e.g., boundary waters … [which] represent three-step cross-checking method to disputes).

8 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 Using a three-step cross-checking 10 (34.5%). The Forest Service was administrative jurisdictions: agency methodology, cases were located with more than twice as likely to lose a boundaries and court boundaries (e.g., the assistance of the Forest Service’s TWA case and more likely to settle a Malmsheimer et al. 2004; Keele et al. national litigation coordinator and WSRA case, than in all land manage- 2006). Since Forest Service administra- three electronic databases. We read and ment cases Keele et al. (2006) tive boundaries do not correspond coded two documents: (1) the docket examined that were initiated from with court boundaries, particularly U.S. sheet, and (2) one of the following: (a) 1989 to 2002, where it won 58%, lost Court of Appeals boundaries (the most for cases decided by the court, the judi- 21%, and settled 18%. prevalent court boundaries used by cial opinion(s), or (b) for settled cases, researchers), examining spatial trends the court-approved settlement. For Case Location based on both types of boundaries cases that were appealed to the court of Most natural resource agency litigation provides a more robust analysis (see appeals, we read and coded these docu- research has focused on two types of figures 1 and 2). ments at all court levels. We coded final disposition of each case into three mutually exclusive categories: win, loss, or settlement. For cases whose final disposition was a judicial decision (rather than a settlement), we coded cases in which the court found that the Forest Service had done anything incorrectly as a Forest Service “loss,” since the case at least partially altered or delayed a Forest Service land management decision. We coded cases with judicial decisions finding that the Forest Service had not done anything incorrectly as a Forest Service “win.” We coded the case a “settlement” if the parties agreed to a Figure 1—U.S. Court of Appeals Circuit geographic boundaries (Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/). court-ordered stipulated agreement to settle their dispute.

Results Of the 888 Forest Service land management cases during this 16-year period, 52 (5.9%) cases contained a TWA and/ or a WSRA challenge. Twenty-six (2.9%) of these were based on TWA and 29 (3.3%) were based on the WSRA; three cases included claims based on both acts. If we had only examined published judicial opinions, we would have located only 24 cases, and not 52 cases. The Forest Service won 10 (38.5%) TWA cases, lost 11 (42.3%), and settled five (19.3%). The agency did slightly better in WSRA cases, winning 14 Figure 2—U.S. Forest Service region geographic boundaries (Source: www.fs.fed.us/contactus/regions.shtml). (48.3%), losing five (17.2%), and settling

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 9 Applying this analysis to TWA- the public domain after the public Forest Service. This was based in part based cases reveals that during this lands east of the 100th meridian were on the prevalence of litigation 16-year period plaintiffs sued the disposed of by the General Land involving the Boundary Waters Canoe Forest Service in every Forest Service Office (Cubbage et al. 1993), most Area Wilderness. Interestingly, the region, except Region 10 (Alaska) (see Forest Service–managed NWPS lands Forest Service lost four of these cases table 1). Most claims originated in the are located in the two U.S. Circuit and won only two. Region 8 (five cases) and Region 9 (six Court of Appeals’ circuits that cover Plaintiffs also initiated cases cases). Although these regions encom- the western United States: the Ninth based on the WSRA in all Forest pass large areas of the United States, (70.2%) and Tenth (23.8%) Circuits. Service Regions, except Region 10 they contain the smallest amount of Although more than a third of TWA (AK) (see table 1). However, cases Forest Service–managed NWPS cases were based in the Ninth Circuit; were concentrated in four regions: acreage. The Forest Service did partic- there was only a single Tenth Circuit Regions 3, 6, 8, and 9. Region 8 con- ularly poorly in Region 9, winning only case (see table 2). The Eighth Circuit tained seven cases, more than 24% of one case and losing five cases. contained six cases, more than 23% cases despite containing 9% of the Since most lands managed by of cases despite containing less than WSRS managed by the Forest Service. the Forest Service were reserved from 3% of the NWPS managed by the The Forest Service won more than half of its Region 6 (66%) and Region 8 (71%) cases, and it settled all but Table 1. Number of TWA-based and WSRA-based Forest Service land one Region 3 case. management cases from 1989–2004 based on Forest Service Region More WSRA (13) cases were Millions of NWPS Hundreds of miles decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of acres managed by of WSRS managed Appeals and the district courts under Forest Servicea Number of by Forest Serviceb Number of (% of NWPS TWA cases (% of WSRS WSRA cases its jurisdiction, than by any other cir- Forest Service managed by (% of managed by (% of cuit (see table 2). The Forest Service Region Forest Service) TWA cases) Forest Service) WSRA cases) won six of its Ninth Circuit cases, lost Region 1: 4.7 3 4.7 1 two cases, and settled five cases. Northern (13.3%) (11.5%) (10.7%) (3.4%)

Region 2: 4.8 1 0.6 1 Purpose of Cases Rocky Mountain (13.6%) (3.8%) (1.5%) (3.4%) We used the Keele et al. (2006) clas- Region 3: 2.7 2 0.9 5 sification scheme to understand the Southwest (7.6%) (7.7%) (2.1%) (17.2%) purpose of the litigation, whereby Region 4: 6.1 1 2.6 1 they classified each case’s purpose as Intermountain (17.2%) (3.8%) (6.0%) (3.4%) either for “less resource use” or Region 5: 4.5 2 10.9 3 “greater resource use.” This classifi- Pacific Southwest (12.7%) (7.7%) (25.0%) (10.3%) cation system provides simple Region 6: 4.7 3 11.8 6 Pacific Northwest (13.3%) (11.5%) (27.0%) (20.7%) measurement for determining liti- gants’ purpose for suing the agency Region 8: 0.7 5 3.9 7 Southern (2.0%) (19.2%) (9.0%) (24.1%) and one that can be applied more consistently, and has been subject to Region 9: 1.4 6 8.2 5 Eastern (4.0%) (23.1%) (18.8%) (17.2%) less criticism, than “type of litigant” schemes (e.g., environmental interest, Region 10: 5.8 0 0 0 Alaska (16.4%) commodity interest, etc.) used in other research (e.g., Jones and Taylor 1995; National Casesc — 3 0 0 (11.5%) Malmsheimer et al. 2004). Consistent with the Keele et al. (2006) finding aNWPS acreage by Forest Service Region is available at: http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=advSearch. that 75% of cases are for less resource bWSRS miles by Forest Service Region calculated from data available at: http://www.rivers.gov/publications.html#agency-mileage. use, most wildlands and rivers cases cThese cases were adjudicated by the District Court for the District of Columbia because they address national were initiated by plaintiffs who issues, such as challenges to Forest Service regulations, rather than location-specific controversies. wanted the Forest Service to limit the

10 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 use of resources. In fact, the purpose of all 29 WSRA cases was for less Table 2. Number of TWA-based and WSRA-based Forest Service land resource use. The percentage of TWA- management cases from 1989–2004 based on U.S. Court of Appeals Circuits based cases mirrored the Keele at el. Millions of NWPS Miles of WSRS percentages: 77% of cases were for less acres managed by managed by a b resource use and 23% of cases were for Forest Service Number of Forest Service Number of (% of NWPS TWA cases (% of WSRS WSRA cases greater resource use. Examples of the Court of managed by (% of managed by (% of latter included cases where the plain- Appeals Circuit Forest Service) TWA cases) Forest Service) WSRA cases) tiffs requested that courts set aside 0.2 0 0.2 0 Forest Service decisions to (1) amend First (0.5%) (0.1%) a wilderness management plan that 0.1 0 0 0 provided fewer opportunities for com- Second (0.3%) mercial outfitters than the previous 0.009 0 1.4 0 management plan, and (2) restrict Third (0.02%) (3.1%) motorboat use in an area adjacent to a 0.3 0 0.7 3 Fourth (0.8%) (1.5%) (10.3%) wilderness area. Additional classification of the purposes of the cases is 0.04 0 0.4 1 Fifth (0.1%) (1.0%) (3.4%) complex and beyond the scope of this article (e.g., 12 of 26 TWA cases 0.2 1 6.4 4 Sixth (0.5%) (3.8%) (14.7%) (13.8%) involved some aspect of motorized vehicle use or access). 0.08 1 0 0 Seventh (0.2%) (3.8%)

1.0 6 2.4 2 Statutory Basis Eighth (2.9%) (23.1%) (5.5%) (6.9%) We did not limit our analysis to 24.8 9 30.2 13 cases based solely on TWA and the Ninth (70.2%) (34.6%) (68.7%) (44.8%) WSRA. Our selection criteria only 8.4 1 1.3 4 required that the plaintiff claimed Tenth (23.8%) (3.8%) (3.1%) (13.8%) that the Forest Service violated at 0.2 3 0.8 2 least one of these statutes in a land Eleventh (0.7%) (11.5%) (1.8%) (6.9%) management case. District of — 3 — 0 Every previous study examining Columbia (11.5%) the statutory basis of Forest Service aNWPS acreage by Forest Service Region is available at: cases has failed to examine whether http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=advSearch. bWSRS miles by Forest Service Region calculated from data available at: the agency violated specific statutes. http://www.rivers.gov/publications.html#agency-mileage. For example, although Keele et al. (2006) provided information on the (2) two of the three statutes (and which Forest Service violated. The Forest statutory basis of litigation, they failed statutes specifically), or (3) one statute Service lost on a TWA claim in eight to determine the specific statutes the (and which one specifically). Our anal- (73%) of the 11 TWA-based cases they agency violated. For example, if the ysis presents the first statute-specific lost. Conversely, judges only found Forest Service lost a case where the analysis. that they violated NEPA in two cases, plaintiff claimed that the Forest Service Besides TWA, plaintiffs alleged and NFMA and WSRA in one case— violated TWA, the National Environ- the Forest Service violated four other despite the fact that the agency lost mental Policy Act, and the National statutes in more than three cases (see 11 TWA-based cases. Forest Management Act (NFMA), Keele table 3). By comparing how the Forest The same analysis of the six stat- et al.’s (2006) analysis told us that the Service fared on each specific statute utes involved in three or more WSRA Forest Service violated at least one of with how it fared overall in TWA-based cases reveals something different these statutes; however, we do not cases (see the last row of table 1), we (see table 4). In WSRA-based cases, know if the court decided the Forest can determine which statutes judges judges were more likely to find that Service violated: (1) all three statutes, were more likely to determine the the Forest Service violated NEPA

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 11 rather than the WSRA: judges found compared to judges only finding it cases, where plaintiffs made NEPA the Forest Service violated NEPA in violated WSRA in two (40%) of the and NFMA claims in more than half of four (80%) of the five cases it lost, five cases it lost. Unlike TWA-based the cases resulting in settlements, these two statutes were the basis of Table 3. Number and statutory outcome of TWA-based Forest Service land plaintiffs’ claims in fewer than 40% of management cases from 1989–2004 based on statutory basis of litigation; all WSRA-based cases that resulted in table only lists statutes litigated in three or more cases. a settlement.

Number Number Number of cases and percentage and percentage Number and Discussion with a claim of cases won of cases lost percentage of The small number of TWA-based and Statute based on Statute by Forest Service by Forest Service cases settled WSRA-based cases is not surprising The 26 13 8 5 given the Keele et al. (2006) findings. It Wilderness Act (50%) (31%) (19%) is interesting to note that by extending National 18 12 2 4 their analysis by two years, we located Environmental (66%) (11%) (22%) Policy Act eight additional TWA cases (31% of all TWA cases) and only two additional National Forest 9 5 1 3 Management Act (56%) (11%) (33%) WSRA cases (7% of all WSRA cases). It is surprising that there were fewer TWA Wild and Scenic 3 2 1 — Rivers Act (67%) (33%) cases than WSRA cases, and this indicates the need, and opportunity, for Clean Water 3 2 — 1 Act (67%) (33%) more scholarship on the WSRA cases and legislation. Baseline: all 26 10 11 5 TWA-based (39%) (42%) (19%) Our research would have revealed litigation much less about WSRA cases if we had relied only upon published cases, since Table 4. Number and statutory outcome of WSRA-based Forest Service land there were fewer than half as many management cases from 1989–2004 based on statutory basis of litigation; published Forest Service WSRA cases table only lists statutes litigated in three or more cases. (eight) as published Forest Service TWA cases (17). Since judicial rules Number Number direct judges to publish a case if it Number of cases and percentage and percentage Number and with a claim of cases won of cases lost percentage of establishes a new rule of law or consti- Statute based on Statute by Forest Service by Forest Service cases settled tutes a significant contribution to the

Wild and Scenic 29 17 2 10 legal literature, the prevalence of pub- Rivers Act (59%) (7%) (34%) lished cases based on TWA may National 19 11 4 4 indicate that judges believe that TWA Environmental (58%) (21%) (21%) cases are more important or ground- Policy Act breaking than WSRA (see Malm - sheimer National Forest 15 11 1 3 et al. 2004). At the very least, it indi- Management Act (73%) (7%) (20%) cates that Forest Service land Endangered 6 2 — 4 Species Act (33%) (67%) management litigation has set more precedents for future TWA cases than Clean Water 5 4 — 1 Act (80%) (20%) WSRA cases. It also substantiates the Keele et al. (2006) observation that Migratory Bird 4 3 — 1 Treaty Act (75%) (25%) researchers, administrators, and managers interested in truly under- The 3 2 1 — Wilderness Act (67%) (33%) standing how litigation affects land management need to base their anal- Baseline: all 29 14 5 10 WSRA-based (48%) (17%) (35%) yses and conclusions on both published litigation and unpublished cases.

12 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 The results of our geographic The Forest Service is less likely of wildlands and rivers land manage- comparison of TWA and WSRA cases to lose and more likely to settle a ment litigation that is not otherwise differ from other researchers’ results. WSRA case than a TWA case. The available. It provides Forest Service The Forest Service regions encom- prevalence of settlements in both administrators and policymakers with passing the eastern United States TWA and WSRA cases demonstrates new information on which they can (Regions 8 and 9) experienced more their importance as a conflict man- base policy decisions. TWA litigation than any other region, agement tool in wildlands and rivers This research examines only land and more WSRA cases than any other litigation—a finding that would not management litigation based on TWA region except Regions 3 and 6. Both be possible without examining both and the WSRA; it does not examine Malmsheimer et al. (2004) and Keele et published and unpublished cases, all litigation concerning wilderness al. (2006) found considerably more since settlements are never the sub- areas or WSRS rivers, since litigation Forest Service cases in Region 6 than ject of published cases. Our statutory regarding these resources can be (and any other region. Other Forest Service analysis demonstrates that although often is) based on statutes other than research based on U.S. federal court we expect variance in how successful TWA and WSRA, and can involve circuits found that most litigation plaintiffs are under some statutes nonland management issues, such as occurred in the Ninth Circuit (e.g., Jones than others, it is not possible to pre- quiet title claims. However, even and Taylor 1995; Malmsheimer et al. dict that variance without an analysis with this limitation, it is also impor- 2004). We found that although there based on each statute. For example, tant to note the relative lack of were more TWA and WSRA cases in the in TWA-based Forest Service litiga- TWA-based and WSRA-based litiga- Ninth Circuit than any other circuit, tion the agency is more likely to lose tion. Given the millions of acres of TWA and WSRA litigation regularly occurred in other circuits. Most TWA-based and all WSRA- Parties dissatisfied with federal land manage- based Forest Service land management ment agency management decisions have litigation involved lawsuits where plaintiffs were seeking to limit the use increasingly used federal courts to try to of wildlands or rivers. The TWA finding reverse management outcomes. is not surprising. Keele et al. (2006) had found more than three “less resource use” cases for every one “greater on plaintiffs’ TWA violation allega- federal wilderness and the thousands resource use” case, and although direct tions than claims based on other of miles of WSRS rivers, the rela- comparisons with research that opera- statutes, whereas in WSRA-based tively low thresholds required to tionalized this concept by classifying cases, the agency is less likely to lose initiate litigation against federal litigation based on the type of litigant, on plaintiffs’ WSRA violation allega- agencies, and the litigious nature of such as “environmental interests” or tions than on claims based on other U.S. society, the most remarkable “commodity interests,” is especially statutes. finding of this research may be that troubling in recreation-based cases, litigation based on TWA and the the fact remains that all of these studies Conclusion WSRA against the Forest Service was reveal a significant minority of cases This research only examines one of initiated (on average) less than twice initiated by commodity interests (e.g., the agencies that administers TWA a year during these 16 years. Jones and Taylor 1995; Malmsheimer and the WSRA, and cannot be general- et al. 2004). The lack of any WRSA ized to other agencies. However, the Acknowledgments “greater resource use” cases demon- robustness of the case location and This research was funded by McIntire- strates that although environmental analysis methods ensure that it is the Stennis Research and grants from interests regularly use the WSRA to most comprehensive examination of USDA Forest Service. We are grateful challenge Forest Service land manage- TWA and WSRA litigation yet com- for the assistance of the USDA Forest ment decisions, interests concerned in pleted for any one agency. It provides Service, Office of General Counsel, increasing the use of these rivers have Forest Service land managers with a Carla Gamarra, Benjamin Walsh, and failed to do so. comprehensive overview of 16 years Beth Gambino-Portuese. IJW

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 13 Scott, Doug. 2004. The Enduring Wilderness: Protecting Our Natural Heritage through Litigation based on TWA and the WSRA against the Wilderness Act. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. the Forest Service was initiated (on average) less Thompson, Benjamin. 2003. Center for Biological Diversity v. Veneman: The than twice a year during these 16 years. Ninth Circuit clarifies an administrative duty arising under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Tulane Environmental REFERENCES Andrew P. Buchsbaum. 1984. Federalism Law Journal 17: 217–28. Alden, Anne-Marie, and Paul V. Ellefson. and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Wenner, Lettie. 1982. The Environmental 1997. Natural resource and environ- Now you see it, now you donʼt. Decade in Court. Bloomington: Indiana mental litigation in the courts: A review Washington Law Review 59: 417–70. University Press. of parties, statutes and circuits involved. Hendee, John C., and Chad P. Dawson. 2002. Staff Paper Series Number 125. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and ROBERT W. MALMSHEIMER is an asso- University of Minnesota—Minneapolis, Protection of Resources and Values, 3rd ed. ciate professor at the SUNY College of Department of Forest Resources. Golden, CO: The WILD Foundation and Baldwin, Pamela. 1997. Federal Land Fulcrum Publishing. Environmental Science and Forestry, Management: Appeals and Litigation. Jones, Elise C., and Cameron P. Taylor. Syracuse, New York; email: rwmalmsh @ Congressional Research Service Report 1995. Litigating Agency Change: The for Congress, 97-274. Washington, impact of the courts and administrative esf.edu. DC: Library of Congress. appeals process on the Forest Service. Clarke, Jeanne N., and Daniel C. McCool. Policy Studies Journal 23(2): 310–36. CORALINE FALCO is a public management 1996. Staking Out the Terrain: Power Keele, Denise M., Robert W. Malmsheimer, and Performance among Natural Donald W. Floyd, and Jerome Perez. intern at the New York State Office of the Resource Agencie, 2nd ed. Albany: 2006. Forest Service land manage- State Comptroller in Albany, New York. State University of New York Press. ment litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Coggins, George C., Charles F. Wilkinson, Forestry 104(4): 196–202. AMANDA M. ANDERSON is a research and John D. Leshy. 2002. Federal Malmsheimer, Robert W., Denise Keele, and Public Land and Resources Law, 5th ed. Donald W. Floyd. 2004. National forest project assistant at SUNY ESF in Syracuse, New York: Foundation Press. litigation in the US Courts of Appeals. New York. Cubbage, Frederick, W., Jay OʼLaughlin, Journal of Forestry 102(2): 20–25. and Charles S. Bullock, III. 1993. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. DENISE M. KEELE is an assistant professor Forest Resource Policy. New York: John 2007. State-by-state mileage chart, Wiley and Sons. http://www.rivers.gov/publications. at the University of Illinois at Springfield in Cutler, Malcolm C. 1972. A study of litiga- html(accessed October 31, 2007). Springfield, Illinois. tion related to management of Forest Ryan, Katherine D. 2005. Preservation pre- Service administered lands and its vails over commercial interests in the DONALD W. FLOYD is a professor at the effect on policy decisions. PhD diss., Wilderness Act: Wilderness Society v. Michigan State University. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. University of New Brunswick in Freder- Fairfax, Sally K., Barbara T. Andrews, and Ecology Law Quarterly 32:539–73. icton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Continued from WILDERNESS IS ON THE MOVE!, page 3

traditional management in late which will convene in Mexico in focuses on the El Triunfo Biosphere 2007—an important step in pro- November 2009 (www.wild9.org). Reserve. tecting a key part of the (very wild) Mexico has the fifth highest biodiver- Your work, commitment, and Guyanas Shield region. sity index of any country in the world news are an important part of this In late 2007, Mexico’s minister of and is an ideal place for this first international effort. Please keep in environment, Juan Elvira, in a private WWC in Latin America. Therefore, as touch, and let us know your concerns meeting clearly informed Patricio WILD 9 is planned and implemented, and results. Thank you! IJW Robles Gil and me that President the IJW will feature more wildland Felipe Calderon is completely dedi- news from the region. This issue has VANCE G. MARTIN is president of The cated to his green agenda, and will an article from Mexico, showcasing WILD Foundation (www.wild.org) and an personally endorse WILD 9, the 9th the expertise of many scientists, pho- IJW editorial board member; email: World Wilderness Congress (WWC), tographers, activists, and writers, that [email protected]. 9th World Wilderness Congress 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, MesoAmerica www.wild9.org • www.wild.org

14 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness and Accessibility

BY JANET A. ZELLER

he National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) battery powered ensures an opportunity for challenge, solitude, and wheelchair at home Tself-renewal for each person who is willing to make as my manual chair the effort it will take to pursue those goals. Through the is lightweight and Wilderness Act we all have the right, regardless of ability, to folds nicely into a enjoy a wilderness experience in an area untrammeled by canoe. It takes the modern motorized and mechanized civilization. The effort it help of my friends takes each of us to visit a Wilderness area is an essential part to get me over the of this experience. People with a wide range of significant rough terrain, in Janet Zeller. Photo by N. Menschel. disabilities value their right to that same opportunity to and out of my tent challenge themselves and, thereby, to gain the unique and sleeping bag, experience wilderness offers, either on their own or with the up the hill to the toilet, and so forth. Whereas in my daily assistance of family or friends. life I often chafe at needing assistance, on a wilderness trip For me, the time that I spend in wilderness is my it is simply part of a team effort with a mutual goal of a renewal, despite the fact that I now use a wheelchair. In the shared experience and therefore it is worth it to me. years before the accident, spending time in silent, self- It was not a “wheelchair accessible” area, but as a quad- reliant areas of wilderness was an essential part of my life. riplegic, I couldn’t have been happier to be there. I was back A part that I was afraid I had lost. My memory of my return in wilderness. The part of me I was afraid I had lost had been to wilderness is a touchstone for me. The sun was a golden found. From that point disk slipping lower on the horizon while sending a red on, I knew I could once beam across the surface of the lake toward me. The tow- again do whatever I set ering pines around me were becoming black silhouettes my mind to. against a sky of quickly deepening pastels. The only sound Even before a wheel- was the gentle lapping of the lake against the shore. It was chair became my means sunset in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness of mobility, spending (BWCAW), on the Superior National Forest in northern time in wilderness Minnesota (see figure 1). involved planning and As we paddled and portaged our canoes to get to a careful preparation. remote and primitive campsite, we saw otters, moose, and Indeed, that process and lots of birds, including loons with their wobbly calls as we the anticipation of the watched them dive and then reappear in the distance. The coming trip have always only sounds were the dipping of paddles and quiet con- been important aspects versations within the awesome beauty and majestic silence of the experience. Now of this Wilderness. That night, away from the lights of my wilderness trip starts development, we saw the incredible blanket of stars by identifying friends, spread across the sky. an organization, or an Our tents were pitched in the clearing near the camp- outfitter that shares my Figure 1—Sunset in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo by J. Zeller. fire, and up the hill was a primitive pit toilet. I had left my love of these remote

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 15 lands and is willing to pro- would be allowed to be vide the extra physical used inside a mall, court- assistance I will need (see house, and so forth. figure 2). Although I receive A mechanized device, a lot of help, I still have to including such a device work to the full extent of powered by battery, that my ability, and that effort complies with both portions makes reaching our desti- of this definition is consid- nation incredibly fulfilling ered to be a “wheelchair,” for me. and may be used anywhere After spending time in foot travel is allowed in the a Wilderness area, the effort NWPS, providing the device I have made, the sense of Figure 2—Canoeing in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness with the help of is used for the transporta- accomplishment, and the friends. Photo by J. Zeller. tion of an individual. This time I have spent in the definition is broad enough unmatched peace of wil- programs. That is the ADA Title V, to allow for the inclusion of derness, refill that wilderness-shaped Section 507c, which states: new mobility device designs as they space within me, and my spirit is Federally Designated Wilderness are developed, if the device is designed renewed. I take that refreshed spirit IN GENERAL—Congress solely for use by a person who has back to my daily life and work. reaffirms that nothing in the mobility impairment for their locomo- I am not alone in this revelation. Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair tion, and is suitable for use in an In their study, McAvoy, Holman, use in a wilderness area by an indoor pedestrian area. Anyone whose Goldenberg, and Klenosky (2006) individual whose disability requires disability requires use of a wheelchair, confirmed that people with disabili- its use. The Wilderness Act requires as defined above, may use that device ties transfer the outcomes they gain no agency to provide any form of in the NWPS for their locomotion (see in wilderness into their daily lives. special treatment or accommoda- figure 3). tion or to construct any facilities or This simple definition has Legal Direction on Wheelchair Use modify any conditions of lands proven to be both flexible and effec- But how can I use a wheelchair in within a wilderness area to facilitate tive. One of its greatest strengths is wilderness, isn’t it a mechanized such use. that it evaluates only the device used device? Yes, it is. However, for some (2) Definition—for the pur- by a person, and does not evaluate people who have mobility impair- poses of paragraph (1), the term the person. That is important because ments, a “wheelchair” is their means wheelchair means a device of daily mobility; it is their footwear. designed solely for use by a mobility As a result, Congress developed a impaired person for locomotion, carefully crafted limited allowance for that is suitable for use in an indoor what is essential for a person’s basic pedestrian area. physical function, while remaining sensitive to the reasons the use of This is a two-part definition. In mechanized devices is prohibited in the first part, “designed solely for use Wilderness areas. This solution had to by a mobility-impaired person” be consistent with the protection of means that the original design and wilderness character and the wilder- manufacture of the device was only ness experience, which both underlie for the purpose of mobility by a the Wilderness Act’s prohibition of person who has a limitation on their mechanized devices. In order to meet ability to walk. The second part of this need, one section in the Americans the definition states that the device with Disabilities Act (ADA) was devel- must also be “suitable for indoor Figure 3—Hikers in the Northeast Passage. Photo by K. Belson. oped to apply to federal agency pedestrian use,” meaning the device

16 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 it is unlawful to ask a person about renewal that wilderness the existence of a disability, as that is offers to each person confidential medical information. seeking that more difficult NWPS recreational oppor- Other Types of Devices Would tunity. Make It Easier Although flexible, this definition It’s Worth It appropriately continues to preclude People with disabilities go the use in Wilderness of off-highway to wilderness for the same vehicles or other motorized devices variety of reasons as do that do not meet the criteria of both people without disabilities Figure 4—Learning how to back down the hill for safety. Photo by G. Lais. parts of the legal definition of a (Lais et al. 1992), including “wheelchair.” That is as it should be. to challenge themselves. the wilderness experience that is the The law was tightly written to ensure Kris Gulden, of Virginia, had been highlight for Kris. that the minimum necessary require- very active in outdoor recreation David Klingen Smith, of Colorado, ment was utilized. There are devices before a spinal cord injury resulted in has cerebral palsy, which makes that might make it easier for a person her paraplegia (see figure 5). With the walking difficult. David learned that who has some limitations to their disability, simply managing daily activ- paddling is the easiest way to access a ability to walk long distances or over ities using her wheelchair consumed Wilderness area. However, once he rough ground. However, the use of her energy. For several years she reaches the destination he still has to such mechanized devices would go thought about the recreation she was deal with the rough terrain on land. beyond the minimum necessary missing, but was apprehensive about David says, “It’s a challenge, but you requirement. A study by Lais et al. how she could function outdoors with can get there and once there you can (1992) confirmed that the vast her disability. She learned of Wil- see all there is to see.” majority of people who have disabili- derness Inquiry, an outfitter whose Liebe Gray, of Los Angeles, has ties are not seeking to expand motto is bringing people together in multiple sclerosis (see figure 6). She mechanized use to make access to the wilderness. All of their trips are has been an avid hiker and camper for Wilderness areas easier. inclusive, people with and with out dis- years. During the past two years, her Wilderness is not about what is abilities working together to reach a disability has increased to the point at easy, wilderness is about “solitude or a common goal. That made sense to which she must rely on a wheelchair primitive and unconfined type of rec- Kris. She knew that although she for her mobility. Nevertheless, she has reation,” as stated in the Wilderness couldn’t carry gear, she could help continued her wilderness adventures. Act, and the challenge it takes in order with the camp cooking and in other It has gotten more difficult and now to experience those outcomes (see ways. Kris says it takes more effort for a requires more assistance. but Liebe figure 4). If a person is seeking easier person with a disability to overcome says, “It’s about life, whatever it takes I access, there are a wide range of other the obstacles en route, but “I want to want to experience all of it.” federally managed lands to choose live life and have new experiences. from where motor vehicles are allowed, With teamwork we all succeed.” The Balance between Accessibility and and yet the look and feel of the area assistance she needed served to bind Untrammeled NWPS may be the same as in the NWPS. The the group together in a mutual effort Currently there are 54 million people result of adhering to that tightly to ensure they all reached their goal. It in the United States who have a written ADA legal direction within the is the working together and sharing of disability. The population is also NWPS, and other areas not designated for motor vehicle use, is that the person who is dependent on a mobility For some people who have mobility impairments, device for locomotion is not denied a “wheelchair” is their means of daily mobility; the opportunity to enter those areas, and can do so without impinging on it is their footwear. the challenge, solitude, and self-

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 17 receiving Federal financial not fully participate in the BWCAW assistance or under any program camping experience without the use or activity conducted by any of a motor on a watercraft, he/she Executive agency. would not meet the essential eligibility requirements for operation Ensuring that no person within the Wilderness area. The agency is denied the opportunity to would instead refer the person to areas participate in any program or where he/she can use a motor on a activity that is open to all watercraft. Those lake areas adjacent other people is the corner- to the BWCAW are similar to those stone of the concept of equal within the BWCAW boundaries; how- Figure 5—Kris Gulden and her mom. Photo by G. Lais. opportunity. Note the law is ever, they allow for the use of motors. written in the negative. A The different form of access is the per- aging, and the U.S. Census Bureau person can’t be denied the son’s choice. Were he/she allowed to tells us that by 2030 more than 80 mil- opportunity to participate just use a motor in the Wilderness area, lion people in the country will be over because they have a disability. For that action would fundamentally alter 65. If you live long enough, you may example, if permits are available for the wilderness experience. The law join the minority of people who have the dates I want to visit the BWCAW, expressly prohibits any fundamental disabilities. With increasing numbers just because I use a wheelchair, I alteration to a program, solely because of people who have disabilities, how cannot be denied the same opportu- the participant has a disability. do federal agencies meet the need for nity everyone else has to apply for accessibility, while ensuring all aspects one of those permits. However, I am If We Build It of the wilderness experience remain also not entitled to any advantage in Under the Architectural Barriers Act untrammeled? The 1973 and 1968 obtaining one of those permits, just (ABA) of 1968, any facility that is laws provide the guidance. because I use a wheelchair. constructed, altered, or leased by a Section 504 of the Rehabilitation The Code of Federal Regulations federal agency or with federal dollars Act of 1973 states: (CFR) for the federal agencies (7 CFR is required to be accessible. If a deci- No otherwise qualified person 15e for the USDA Forest Service and sion is made for environmental with a disability in the United States 43 CFR part 17 for the USDOI agen- reasons to place a structure, such as a … shall, solely by reason of his cies) provides the important details pit toilet riser, in the NWPS, that riser disability, be excluded from partici- for how to implement Section 504 of must be 17 inches (43 cm) to 19 pation in any program or activity the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The inches (49 cm) in height to comply two-agency CFRs are virtually iden- with the accessibility requirements. tical, and both define a person who is Unless there are sturdy walls sur- qualified to participate in a program rounding that toilet riser, there is no or activity as “an individual with a dis- need for grab bars. Please note that at ability who meets the essential the same time it is important not to eligibility requirements for participa- overbuild facilities in the name of tion in that program or activity” (7 CFR accessibility. The key is that all facili- 15e.103(4) iii and 42 CFR part12. 202[k] ties, wherever they are located, are to [4]). That means a person who has a be designed to be appropriate to the disability must be able to participate setting and accessible. under the same rules and requirements as do those participants It’s About Choice without a disability. The wide range of recreation opportunities provided by land management Applying Section 504 agencies is the essential component of For example, if due to the camper’s Figure 6—Liebe Gray. Photo by S. Talbot. disability, a person feels he/she could Continued on page 24

18 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

State-designated Wilderness in the United States: A National Review

BY BLAKE M. PROPST and CHAD P. DAWSON

Introduction In recent decades, the word wilderness has been used to designate, define, label, or market many public and private land areas and programs—it has various connotations and denotations. In fact, at times, it is difficult for the public to distinguish between what is implied to be wilderness and what is so designated by law. On one hand, some tourism marketing materials use the word wilderness to imply a state of naturalness and, thereby, sell the prospective nature-oriented tourist on a lodging accommodation or travel destination. For example, the Disney Wilderness Blake M. Propst and Chad P. Dawson. Photo by D. Kuehn. Preserve was established in 1992 through the cooperative actions of The Walt Disney Company, Greater Orlando State-owned wilderness areas is a category of wilder- Aviation Authority, The Nature Conservancy, and several ness that can be confusing and, at times, misleading as to public agencies, but the management and allowable whether an area is a wilderness in name only or by objec- types of use do not support wilderness character or expe- tive criteria and legal designation. The state of South riences. On the other hand, the public has grown to Carolina has the Mountain Bridge Wilderness, which is part appreciate and use the legislatively designated National of Jones Gap State Park and managed as a park. The state Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) in the United of Tennessee has the Bridgestone/Firestone Cen tennial States that now includes more than 107 million acres (43.3 Wilderness provided by a private donation and managed million ha) since the passage of the Wilderness Act of by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, but it does 1964. The concept and use of primitive and wilderness not have administrative or statutory protection as a wilder- areas goes back well before 1964 and is part of the ness and does not appear to be managed as a wilderness. American heritage and experience. We recognize that there are many types of protected areas Protected areas labeled as wilderness exist in various that are similar to wilderness, but may be labeled by other types of ownership, from federal and state lands to private names such as nature areas. For example, some Tennessee- and tribal lands. An example of a private land area man- state areas formerly known as “pocket wilderness” areas aged as wilderness is the Grandfather Mountain area in have been renamed as “state nature areas.” North Carolina (Johnson 1996). An outstanding example Several studies have investigated state legislation to of a tribal wilderness area is the Mission Mountains Tribal protect state-owned lands as wilderness over the last three Wilderness on the Flathead Indian Reservation in west- decades and have reported on the status of those efforts central Montana (McDonald 1995). and the development of wilderness management programs

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 19 above (Alaska, California, Maryland, Protected areas labeled as wilderness exist in Michigan, Missouri, New York, and various types of ownership, from federal Wisconsin), one did not meet the criteria listed (Minnesota), and one was and state lands to private and tribal lands. removed in 1989 (Florida—due to legislative sunset). No new state-level (Cutler 1971; Trumbly and Gray 3. prohibition of resource develop- wilderness programs were identified 1984; Stankey 1984; Peterson 1996; ment of all types, such as timber that met these six criteria. Dawson and Thorndike 2002). The harvesting, road building, and Most natural area and wild area purpose of this study was to conduct mining; type programs did not meet the cri- an assessment of the state-designated 4. size guidelines for establishment teria for being included due to small wilderness areas and related programs of an area and to support the size, lack of opportunities for solitude (e.g., wild areas, wildlands, etc.) in the protection and stewardship object- or primitive and unconfined recre- United States and provide a summary ives for the area; ation, and other reasons. Nonetheless, of the wilderness or wilderness-type 5. recognition of other values of the they are important protected area programs that included state-owned area that are consistent with man- programs; they simply do not meet lands that were legislatively or admin- agement of the area as wilderness, the criteria for this study. istratively designated and are similar such as historic, cultural, scenic, The seven state wilderness pro- in concept to the national legislative or scientific values; and grams that met the six criteria did so definition of wilderness. 6. development of management with variable success and in diverse plans to formally define area ways, so there is no common legal or Criteria for a objectives and to guide managers programmatic approach to report. State Wilderness Program in activities and decision making Most of these programs were weakest Stankey (1984) conducted a national that fosters those objectives. on the sixth criteria requiring some survey of state land managers to evidence of management plans being locate and identify the state wilder- Our search for states that have developed and implemented; many ness programs that were established state-designated wilderness started have draft management plans in and to compare them to the wilder- with the programs and legislation need of completion or older plans in ness definition and required conditions previously reported (Cutler 1971; need of updating. set up for establishing and managing Trumbly and Gray 1984; Stankey The state of Alaska has designated federal lands under the 1964 1984; Peterson 1996; Dawson and some zones in state parklands as Wilderness Act. He developed five Thorndike 2002) and then expanded Wilderness (see figure 1) and an entire criteria to test if a state-designated to include an Internet search of all 50 parcel of state land as a state wilder- program was comparable to the fed- state land management agency web- ness park. In Alaska, wilderness areas eral program or not. We have adopted sites to see if any additional states were administratively designated in those five criteria and added a sixth had designated wilderness areas or 1972, and one state wilderness park, criterion to conduct a 2007 study of programs since the previous studies. Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park, state-designated wilderness areas We contacted, by mail or telephone, was legislatively designated in 1972. and programs in the United States: representatives in each state that was There has only been limited adminis- 1. formal designation of state- identified with a Wilderness Area or trative wilderness designation since owned lands by state statutory Program to obtain additional infor- 1972. The state wilderness park defini- or administrative authority; mation on their Wilderness Areas or tion, located in Alaska State Statute 2. objectives for designation are to Programs. 41.21.990, contains no size criteria but protect and preserve natural emphasizes the protection of wilder- conditions and ecological pro- State Wilderness Programs ness values. Wilderness areas were cesses and to provide primitive Compared to the nine state programs defined by the 1982 Alaska recreation opportunities (e.g., in previous research, seven state wil- State Park System and Statewide nonmotorized access, minimal derness programs were still in Framework report to be of a size that development of facilities); existence and met the criteria listed maintains the area’s wilderness

20 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 character and emphasizes values similar to the U.S. Wilderness Act. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is responsible for management. Management plans have been written for each of the state parks containing wilderness areas and the state wilderness park to give management directions and list special provisions. The state of California legislatively established the California Wilderness Preservation System (CWPS) in 1974 by California Public Resources Code 5093.30. This statute designated the first of two state wil- Figure 1—Looking into the Chugach State Park Wilderness from Crow Pass, Alaska. Photo by Chad Dawson. derness areas in California and designated Sinkyone Wilderness designations began in 1973. All state The state of Michigan includes State Park as the only stand-alone wildlands are internal units within wilderness areas in the High component of the system. The other state parks, state forests, and wildlife Conservation Value Areas program components of the CWPS are zones management areas. Wildlands are (see figure 2). The program started in within other state parks called “clas- defined by Natural Resources Article 1972 when the Wilderness and Natural sified internal units.” Wilderness §5-1201, Annotated Code of Maryland Areas Act 241 was passed, and desig- areas are defined by the enabling and can be classified as Type I, II, or nations began the same year (it was legislation that closely resembles the III. Each type of state wildland has recodified in 1994 as Act 451 Part U.S. Wilderness Act definition, different definitions located in the 351). Wilderness area nominations are including the 5,000 acre (2,024 ha) same legislation and each has varying approved by the Wilderness and size criterion and other important extents of management. The defini- Natural Areas Advisory Board or the wilderness values. Each state agency tion contains a specific size director of the Department of Natural with jurisdiction over any area desig- requirement for Type I, but not Types Resources. Wilderness areas also can nated as a wilderness area is II or III, although it does recognize be designated by a Natural Resource responsible for management. General the importance of preserving areas Commission Resolution. When areas management guidelines for state wil- that protect wilderness characteris- are proposed for legal wilderness des- derness areas can be found in tics and values. The Maryland ignation, it must be managed as such Division 5 of the California Public Department of Natural Resources is even during the review phase. The Resources Code. Specific manage- responsible for management. General definition for wilderness areas in the ment guidelines for individual management guidelines for state Wilderness and Natural Areas Act wilderness units can be found in the wildlands can be found in statutes that designate those areas or the Maryland Wildlands Act in the general management plan for and in Annotated Code of the state park within which the wil- Maryland, Department of derness is located. Natural Resources Article, The state of Maryland has a Title 8. Specific manage- wildlands preservation system, which ment guidelines for is considered Maryland’s counterpart individual state wildlands to the National Wilderness Pres- are in the statutes that des- ervation System. The Maryland ignate those areas and in the Wildlands Preservation System was management plans for the legislatively established by the state area in which the wild- Figure 2—Young hikers in the Porcupine Mountain Wilderness of Michigan. Photo by Kim Ramm. Maryland Wildlands Act in 1971 and land is located.

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 21 contains language similar to the U.S. Wilderness Act; however, only 3,000 acres (1,215 ha) are required for state wilderness designation. Each state agency with jurisdiction over state lands containing wilderness areas is responsible for management. Man- agement guidelines can be found in the Wilderness and Natural Areas Act and in management plans for the state-managed area in which the wilderness area is located. The state of Missouri has designated some state lands as wild areas. The Missouri Wild Areas Program was administratively established by the Missouri Department of Natural Figure 3—Whitney Wilderness in the New York State Adirondack Park. Photo by Chad Dawson. Resourcesin 1977 and designations began in 1978. All wild areas in wild forest lands. The Adirondack process for the management and use Missouri are internal units within state Park Agency (APA) is legislatively of Wisconsin Department of Natural parks and have an administrative level mandated by the APA Act to preserve Resources (DNR) managed properties. of protection. The definition of wild the natural resources of state lands, The classification of a Wild Resources areas is located in the Division of State and the APA has administratively des- Management Area (WRMA) is set forth Parks (DSP) Policy N-06 and is similar ignated some lands within the in Chapter 44 of the Wisconsin to the U.S. Wilderness Act definition, Adirondack Park as wilderness. Administrative Code (WAC). The defi- except it does not include a specific Similarly, the Department of Envi- nition of a WRMA contains language size criterion and instead refers to a ronmental Conservation (DEC) has similar to the U.S. Wilderness Act, but “sufficient size as to make practicable administratively designated some does not contain a size criterion, its preservation and use in an unim- lands within the Catskill Park as wil- except related to the designation of paired condition.” General derness. Designations began in 1972 wilderness lakes (five or more acres). management guidelines are included in the Adirondacks and 1985 for the Management directions are located in in the DSP Policy N-06: Wild Areas and Catskills. The same wilderness defini- Chapter 44 of the WAC and in the the Wild Areas Procedures. The DSP tion is used for both parks and is master plan for the state area within Policy N-06 states that a management similar to the U.S. Wilderness Act which the WRMA is located. There is plan for each wild area will be devel- definition, except the size criterion, currently only one WRMA in the state, oped, describing site-specific values which requires a minimum of 10,000 the Manitowish WRMA, which was and objectives. Only two wild area acres. The DEC is responsible for man- previously called the Manitowish management plans have been com- agement, and general management Wilderness, and is located within a pleted, and a third one is on the guidelines are in the Adirondack Park state forest. The DNR is responsible for process of being written. The Division State Land Master Plan and the Catskill management and is considering clas- of State Parks is responsible for oper- Park State Land Master Plan. Specific sifying other areas as WRMAs when ating and maintaining the program. management guidelines can be found current DNR land management plans The state of New York has desig- in the unit management plans devel- are updated. nated some state land within the oped for each wilderness area. Adirondack Park (see figure 3) and the The state of Wisconsin adminis- States with Wilderness Areas Not Catskill Park as wilderness areas. Article tratively established one wilderness Qualifying as a Wilderness Program XIV, § 1 of the New York State area in 1973, and then updated their Five states have designated one or Constitution states that state forest state land classification policies in two wilderness areas and make preserve lands shall be forever kept as 2001 to create a uniform planning important contributions to the state

22 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 and national wilderness preservation camping is allowed, but by bedroll The state of Oklahoma has the efforts. These efforts do not meet only and no tents). McCurtain County Wilderness Area several of the six criteria listed above The state of Maine has Baxter that was designated by Title 29, the to be labeled as a program in this State Park and the Allagash Wilde- Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code, study. rness Waterway that were established §7-701 of the Oklahoma Sta tutes in The state of Minnesota legisla- by state statute. Baxter State Park was 1918. Access is restricted to permit tively designated 18,000 acres (7,287 established in 1962 by Title 12, only and is not used for recreational ha) of state land as wilderness in 2003 Chapter 211 of the Maine Revised purposes. The statute does not give a under legislation adopted in 1975 Statutes Annotated (MRSA) and is wilderness definition or provide for (now coded as Minnesota Statues managed to be forever kept wild and future designations, but does list pro- 2006, Chapter 86A.05, subdivision 6). remain in a natural wild state. hibited uses. It is managed by the These state forest lands are an Although it is intended for those per- Oklahoma Department of Wildlife inholding within the Boundary Waters sons who enjoy the wilderness, there Conservation. Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), a is no wilderness definition or unique federally designated wilderness area. management guidelines, and it is Conclusion The definition for state wilderness managed by the Baxter State Park Seven of the nine original state wil- areas in the Minnesota-state statute Authority. The Allagash Wilderness derness programs reported by Stankey contains language similar to the U.S. Waterway was established in 1966 by (1984) have grown from 42 areas and Wilderness Act; however, there is no Title 12, Chapter 220 of the MRSA, but 1.5 million acres (630,000 ha) to 84 size criterion. The Minnesota state does not have a wilderness defini- areas and over 2.95 million acres (1.1 statute contains management guide- tion, although unique management million ha) by 2007 (see table 1). lines for the area; however, the state guidelines are listed for the waterway. Florida no longer has a wilderness lands are using the management A restricted zone along the waterway program and Minnesota did not meet directions and special provisions of is defined to protect and develop the all the criteria set by this 2007 study the BWCAW, and there is no state wil- maximum wilderness character of the as a state wilderness program. There derness management plan. watercourse. are four other states (Hawaii, Maine, The state of Hawaii has one wil- Ohio, and Oklahoma) with one or derness preserve on the island of Kauai State-designated two wilderness areas designated and and one wilderness area on the island under management. Thus, there are a of Hawaii. The Alakai Wilderness wilderness areas total of 91 wilderness areas in 12 Preserve was administratively desig- and programs are states encompassing over 3.2 million nated in 1981 and the South Kona acres (1.3 million ha) as state-desig- Wilderness Area was legislatively des- important contributions nated wilderness. ignated in 2003, with a sunset provision to the total wilderness Although the state wilderness for December 31, 2007. Neither Title areas have grown in number and 13 of the Department of Land and protected in the total acreage, it has been a very lim- Natural Resources Code establishing United States. ited expansion and not at the growth Alakai nor Chapter 6 of the Hawaii rate of the NWPS. Outside of Alaska, Revised Statutes establishing South The State of Ohio has the Shawnee California, and New York, the state Kona contains a wilderness definition, Wilderness Area, which is part of the wilderness programs are not well but they do specify management direc- Shawnee State Forest and was estab- known by the public and are small tions unique to each area. Interestingly, lished by Title 15, Chapter 1503 of the state land management program the state of Hawaii has a Natural Areas Ohio Revised Code Annotated in 1988, efforts. However, state designated Reserve System established in 1970 by and is the state’s only wilderness area. wilderness areas and programs are Chapter 195 of the Hawaii Revised The statute gives a wilderness defini- important contributions to the total Statutes that contains a definition and tion similar to the Wilderness Act and wilderness protected in the United unique management guidelines, which states permitted and prohibited uses. States, especially in some states with are stricter than the wilderness man- The area is managed by the Ohio very little federal land in the NWPS. agement guidelines (e.g., overnight Department of Natural Resources. These state wilderness programs and

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 23 areas complement the NWPS with REFERENCES Washington, DC: Sierra Club. Dawson, C. P., and P. Thorndike. 2002. additional areas under stewardship Cutler, M. R. 1971. Preserving wilder- State-designated wilderness programs ness through state legislation. In and management for wilderness pro- in the United States. International Action for Wilderness, ed. E. R. Journal of Wilderness 8(3): 21–26. tection for present and future Gillette (pp. 104–112). Twelfth Johnson, R. 1996. Grandfather Mountain: Biennial Sierra Club Wilderness generations. IJW A private U.S. wilderness experiment. Conference, Sept. 25, 1971. International Journal of Wilderness 2(3): 10–13. Table 1. States with Wilderness programs and states with one McDonald, T. 1995. Mission Mountains or two Wilderness areas, but no program, in 2007 Tribal Wilderness Area of the Flathead Indian Reservation. International Journal of Wilderness 1(1): 20–21. State Year Number Total Peterson, M. R. 1996. Wilderness by state Established of Areas Acreage mandate: A survey of state-designated wilderness areas. Natural Areas Journal States with Wilderness Programs 16(3): 192–97. Stankey, G. H. 1984. Wilderness preserva- Alaska 1972 5 1,133,400 tion activity at the state level: A California 1974 11 475,725 national survey. Natural Areas Journal Maryland 1971 30 43,733 4(4): 20–28. Michigan 1972 4 57,733 Trumbly, J. M., and K. L. Gray. 1984. The Missouri 1977 11 22,993 California Wilderness Preservation New York 1972 22 1,214,217 System. Natural Areas Journal 4(4): 29–35. Wisconsin 1973 1 5,939

Subtotal 84 2,953,740 BLAKE M. PROPST is an MS student at States with Wilderness Areas, but no program the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Minnesota 1975 1 18,000 Hawaii 1981 2 30,857 Forestry at Syracuse. Maine 1966 2 204,733 Ohio 1988 1 8,000 CHAD P. DAWSON is a professor at Oklahoma 1918 1 14,087 SUNY–ESF and the managing editor Subtotal 7 275,677 of IJW; email:[email protected]. TOTAL 91 3,229,417

Continued from WILDERNESS ACCESSIBILITY, page 18

access for all people. Each visitor has REFERENCES the right to choose the type of recre- How do federal Lais, G., L. McAvoy, and L. Frederickson. 1992. Wilderness Accessibility for ation experience they are seeking and agencies meet the People with Disabilities: A Report to the then select the area they prefer, in President and Congress of the United which that activity and means of need for accessibility, States on Section 507(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: access are allowed. Information must while ensuring all National Council on Disability. be clearly provided concerning desig- McAvoy, L, T. Holman, M. Goldenberg, aspects of the and D. Klenosky. 2006. Wilderness nated use of motor vehicles, terrain, and Persons with Disabilities trails, and so forth so each person can wilderness Transferring the Benefits to Everyday select the most appropriate setting to Life. International Journal of Wilderness experience remain 12(2): 23–31. meet his/her needs. In addition, all untrammeled? facilities constructed or purchased by a federal agency or with federal dol- JANET A. ZELLER is the national lars are to be of an accessible design uniqueness and distinct means of accessibility program manager for the and appropriate to the setting. It is access to the full range of outdoor U.S. Forest Service located in the important that all of us, regardless of recreation opportunities and experi- headquarters office in Washington, ability, work together to protect the ences, including to the NWPS. IJW DC; email: [email protected].

24 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

Searching for Solitude in the Wilderness of Southeast Alaska

BY MARY EMERICK and DAVID N. COLE

ur group of wilderness long-distance transportation routes. Barges hum past on campers perched on the straits and floatplanes bring visitors to remote bays. Othe rocks, enjoying the Forest Service wilderness ends at the mean high tide level. sounds of the nearby waterfall That means that the long skinny fjords that dead-end at and the tide stealing in across glaciers and imposing sculpted walls are not wilderness. the flats. Granite walls soared Instead they provide marine highways for sightseeing thousands of feet in the air; ice- cruise ships and private yachts, motorized fingers that bergs floated by on their way extend scores of miles, deep into the heart of the wilder- from calving glacier to the open ness. Although the use on the water is not within the sea. Loons called, and a rustling wilderness boundary, the experience of visitors on shore is in the woods across the channel directly affected by that use. meant that a bear or deer might In the lower 48 states, many wildernesses abut trans- step out onto the beach at any Mary Emerick. Photo by James portation corridors where one can hear and observe moment. We were more than 30 Boyce. motorized traffic. However, in those places, trails lead deep miles (48 km) by boat into the into the wilderness, where visitors can easily get away and Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wil- find quiet and solitude. In southeast Alaska, things are dif- derness, and it was easy to feel that we were far removed from ferent. There are not many trails, so few visitors penetrate civilization. The possibilities for discovery were endless. This was the “southeast Alaska experience” that has been mar- keted to visitors and that some think will always be here due to wild weather, big seas, and an abundance of bears. Suddenly a gleaming white behemoth heaved into view, spewing amplified natural history information from loudspeakers. As the giant cruise ship powered by only a few hundred yards from camp, brightly clad visitors pointed their cameras and waved vigorously at us. A large wake barreled across the channel. Kayaks and zodiacs were launched, with chattering occupants aiming for shore. In an instant, solitude vanished (see figure 1).

Marine Highways Perhaps we should not have been so surprised and dis- Figure 1—Campers and cruise ships, Sawyer Island. Photo courtesy of the Juneau mayed. Here in southeast Alaska, the oceans are Ranger District.

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 25 past the first half-mile of rain-soaked, this essential and unique quality? Is We found litter and user-created trails junglelike interior. Use is concen- the natural quiet disappearing from in previously pristine spots, indi- trated on the rocky shores and islands the wilderness areas in southeast cating people are fanning out from where access is relatively easy—and Alaska? Can anything be done to pre- the areas that are commonly used. solitude is increasingly hard to find serve it where it does exist? These anecdotes provide clear evi- (see figure 2). dence that things are changing. Solitude can generally be assured Wilderness Other marine wildernesses, most for those hikers who are brave and Solitude Monitoring Project notably those managed by the strong-willed enough to ascend the In an attempt to find out about soli- National Park Service, such as Glacier cliffs into the heart of the wilderness. tude, the Regional Wilderness Bay and Isle Royale National Parks, However, even here, more and more Solitude Monitoring Project was have addressed water use by regula- small planes are landing on the remote launched, spearheaded by Forest tion, including limiting large cruise lakes that dot the high country in an Service wilderness personnel Mary ships and establishing no wake and attempt to avoid the more congested Emerick, John Neary, and Kevin quiet zones. But the Forest Service coast. Guides are clamoring for access Hood. Along with Dr. David Cole, does not control the tidelands. So to places where they won’t run into Forest Service research geographer what can be done? The first step is to other people. User groups who object with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness document what is going on. How are to seeing other parties have Research Institute, we conducted opportunities for solitude changing? exchanged heated words. field trips in the South Baranof and Is there a problem? If so, how bad is The Wilderness Act defines a Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wildernesses it? wilderness area, among other things, in the summer of 2007. Our group The task of monitoring opportu- as possessing outstanding opportuni- struck up conversations with sight- nities for solitude is difficult because ties for solitude. Generally, as visitors seers and hikers, paddled, hiked, solitude is such an ambiguous term. we expect to see and hear very few boated, and flew, and ultimately Walk around your office and ask and people when we make the effort to developed a draft protocol for col- you will get many different answers. enter wilderness, yet anyone who has lecting information that can be used Seeing just one other person is unac- tramped a popular trail in lower-48 to assess trends in opportunities for ceptable to some visitors. Others will wilderness areas has encountered wilderness solitude. accept the presence of many cruise multiple groups and endured a night Our talks with visitors—long- ships if it means that they can camp of camping near other parties. The time guides, locals, and repeat or hike where they want. Our pro- wildernesses in Alaska have stood out visitors—struck a chord with many. tocol does not attempt to monitor as touchstones for natural quiet and Everywhere we went, people agreed solitude per se. Rather it monitors solitude. But are we in danger of losing that there were more: more jet skis, those things most likely to affect more helicopters, more opportunities for solitude—motor- people on shore, and more ized boats, aircraft, and crowds of boats at anchor. “You used people—things that emerged from to be the only one in this our conversations with visitors and bay,” was the common our years of personal experience. refrain. Others told us they After much discussion, we boiled avoid areas they used to the protocol down to a few elements visit and go to new ones that could be readily monitored. We where they won’t meet decided to conduct monitoring in others. Try camping near two different situations: (1) while the beach at the back of camping at popular destinations, and long, thin bay, with five (2) while traveling. Most of the boats running generators events to be recorded are interactions and pointing binoculars at with boats. Because the sights and Figure 2—The oceans are transportation corridors: Gut Bay, South Baranof your camp, and you will sounds of a skiff have much less Wilderness. Photo by Mary Emerick. get the idea (see figure 3). impact than a cruise ship whose

26 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 Figure 3—Typical campsite in Endicott Arm, Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness. Figure 4—A visitor experiences solitude in the South Baranof Wilderness. Photo by Photo by David Cole. Mary Emerick. loudspeakers can be heard for three tude of impact on solitude as occasional passage of a motorboat or miles (4.8 km), boats were classified follows: the encounter of other visitors hiking by size as follows: • Low—not disruptive (e.g., boat was so unexpected that it tended to • 250+ passenger cruise ship passing in the distance) bother us more than if we were con- • 16–249 passenger ship • Medium—somewhat noisy or in stantly exposed to it. • 6–15 passenger ship close proximity, noticeable Development of the protocol has • 1–5 passenger ship • High—loud, very close, disrup- allowed us to produce a snapshot in • Kayak, canoe, rowboat tive (e.g., jet ski, plane takeoff, time with which we can measure boat generator running all changing conditions and a framework We also recorded a class for the night). for defining opportunities for solitude. distance of the boat from the observer. There has been widespread accep- Distance seemed important because Preliminary Observations tance for this effort among our partners the normal commerce of a barge After just one season of using our and local users—a sense that “it’s chugging along three miles (4.8 km) protocol, we have hard data to back about time.” It will not be easy to pre- away is less bothersome than a jet ski up our initial impressions. We were serve opportunities for solitude that screaming by at close range. We were heartened to find that opportunities are being lost due to uses that occur also interested in the nature of for solitude are still readily available outside of the wilderness boundary; encounters with people associated in many areas. Some locations had perhaps it is impossible (see figure 4). with boats. If there were any verbal fewer than 15 minutes of disruption Nevertheless, we believe it is our exchanges, this was recorded. If within a 24-hour period. However, at responsibility as wilderness stewards people camped onshore, we noted attractions such as Endicott Arm, to document what is happening in the number of people as well as with a majestic glacier at its end, the this wild, remote, and unique part of whether they were within our imme- sights and sounds of people were the world. IJW diate use area and whether a verbal nearly constant during daylight exchange took place. hours. At Fords Terror, visitors MARY EMERICK is a wilderness man- We counted aircraft if they were trooped on foot and paddled by kayak ager on the Sitka Ranger District in the flying below a height of 1,000 feet so close to our camp that we could Tongass National Forest in Alaska; (305 m) above ground level. If so, they hear their conversations. From a email: [email protected]. were classified as flying, landing, or human perception perspective, we taking off. Encounters with people on were surprised to observe that where DAVID N. COLE is a research geogra- aircraft were recorded the same way the hum of motorboats was nearly pher at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness they were for boats. Finally, we made constant, we learned to tune the Research Institute, Missoula, Montana; a subjective assessment of the magni- noise out. In less popular bays, the email: [email protected].

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 27 SCIENCE and RESEARCH Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Sierra Nevada Mountain Wilderness Lakes and Streams

BY ROBERT W. DERLET, JAMES R. CARLSON, and JOHN R. RICHARDS

Abstract: In the Sierra Nevada Mountain wilderness backcountry, debate has occurred regarding the impact of cattle, pack animals, and humans on microbial contamination of the watershed. Using coliform bacteria as a marker, we hypothesized that water from high alpine watersheds with more frequent human or animal use patterns would have increased risks for presence of potentially harmful microbes. We analyzed 80 water samples from alpine wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California for risk of coliform bacteria. The study found coliform bacteria at 92% of cattle sites and 56% of pack animal sites (horses and mules). In contrast, coliform bacteria were found in 18% of human day use areas, and 14% of backpacker sites. Wild sites, without human or domestic animal impact, had an 18% prevalence of coliforms. Differences in prevalence of coliform bacteria between these sites were statically significant. Heterotrophic bacteria counts were also increased in cattle and pack animal use areas. This study suggests that wilderness usage by cattle and pack animals affects water quality.

Introduction The Sierra Nevada Mountains watershed provides 50% of California’s freshwater for domestic use (Carle 2004). Much of this watershed encompasses roadless, remote backcountry wilderness areas at high elevations that putatively should have outstanding water quality. Melting snow must pass through a fragile ecosystem prior to runoff into low- land reservoirs. This ecosystem, primarily granite or Robert W. Derlet. John R. Richards. metamorphic rock, has little buffering capacity, and therefore small amounts of environmental pollution may have a significant impact on biotic life. Debate has occurred years, deposition of rate-limiting substances such as phos- regarding the impact of cattle, pack animals, and humans phates and nitrates from human activity, domesticated on contamination of the watershed, and the cattle industry animals, and air pollution from the central valley of California has pressured the USDA Forest Service to expand cattle has resulted in increasing eutrophication, with changes in grazing tracts (USDA Forest Service 2006). Over the past 50 phytoplankton species and biomass (Goldman 2000).

PEER REVIEWED

28 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 Preliminary single year data suggests University 2006; Rendtorff and that the biomass of heterotrophic and Kashgarian 1967). Day hike areas, pathogenic microorganisms are those wilderness areas where increased in areas of cattle grazing or humans may visit by day but not heavy use by pack animals as a result stay overnight, could receive up of deposition of manure either directly to 0.3 lbs (0.15 kg) of human or that is washed into lakes and waste/person/day. Unvisited areas streams (Derlet and Carlson 2004, receive unknown amounts from 2006). Furthermore, the likelihood of birds and wild animals. Therefore, finding pathogenic microorganisms risk at each sampling site was decreases in areas where domesti- defined as (1)Wild: areas rarely cated animals are not found, even visited by humans or domestic when humans use these areas. animals: the prevalence of coli- Coliform bacteria have been forms here established as indicators of fecal pollu- provides a background from Figure 1—Study area and sample collection sites throughout the Sierra tion of watersheds (American Public indigenous mammals or birds; (2) Nevada Mountain range. In some cases, a dot represents more than one Health Association 1998). The findings Day Hike: day use areas where sampling site because some sites were too close to individually display. of coliforms indicates that the water- humans would traverse but not shed carries a risk for waterborne camp overnight and where domes- permitted, and at the deepest point diseases such as entero-invasive E. coli, ticated animals do not traverse: from streams less than 3.9 inches (10 Giardia, Salmonella, Campylobacter , coliforms here would indicate that even cm) depth. Temperature, elevation, and Yer senia species and other micro- limited human use impacts wilderness dates and times were recorded at the bial pathogens, some that can survive area; (3) Backpacker: areas used by time of collection. Bacteria were for extended periods in the environ- humans to camp but where livestock counted, then harvested and subjected ment (Byappanahalli et al. 2003; Harvey and horses do not traverse; (4) Pack to bacterial analysis using standardized et al. 1976). The objective of the cur- Animal: areas that have horse or mule techniques. Samples in which coli- rent study was to confirm studies from traffic; and (5) Cattle Grazing tracks. forms are found are reported as positive prior years that risk-stratify areas in the The risk designation of each site or negative. Results of heterotrophic watershed and compare the preva- was made based on usage patterns with counts reported as colony forming lence of coliforms. Understanding the assistance of the National Park and units of bacteria (CFU)/100 ml water. factors that impact the water quality USDA National Forest Service. These techniques are described in from these areas is important for land Collection sites were located within detail elsewhere (Derlet and Carlson management decisions. national parks, wilderness areas, and 2004). Total bacteria counts are pre- proposed wilderness area additions: sented as mean values and 95% Methods Yosemite (n=36), Kings Canyon confidence intervals. The Chi-square A total of 80 sites from lakes and (n=17), Emigrant (n=14), Carson test was used to calculate differences streams in wilderness areas in the (n=6), and Hoover and proposed between risk groups, and ANOVA for Sierra Nevada of California were risk- Hoover additions (n=7). A location temperature and elevation. stratified based on the primary map is shown in figure 1. Cattle are not terrestrial usage by either cattle, pack allowed to graze in national parks, so Results animals, human or nonimpacted “wild all cattle risk sites were collected out- Wilderness water collection sites and natural” areas. These areas were side national park borders. During July, ranged from 4,996 to 10,997 ft (1,523 selected, as each has different rates of August, and September of 2005, water to 3,352 meters) in elevation. Water fecal pollution into wilderness. Cattle was collected in duplicate at each of temperatures ranged from 42.8° F to excrete 99- 147 lbs/day (45–67 kg/day) the 80 sites in sterile test tubes and 71.6° F (6°C to 22°C). Coliforms were of manure, a horse or mule (pack Millipore coliform samplers and trans- found in 18% (2 of 11) of Wild sites, animal) 44-66 lbs/day (20–30 kg/day), ported to the university laboratories. 18% (2 of 11) of Day Hike sites, and and a healthy human 0.2 to 0.3 lbs/day Water was sampled from within 3.9 15% (3 of 21) of Backpacker sites. In (0.10 to 0.15 kg/day) (Ohio State inches (10 cm) from the surface, where contrast, coliforms were found in 56%

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 29 (14 of 25) of Pack Animal sites and 92% Discussion (11 of 12) of Cattle Grazing tracks. Chi- The results of this study square analysis revealed that the Wild, were similar to a smaller Day Hike and Backpacker versus Cattle study performed in or Pack Animal areas were significant 2004 that examined 60 (p≤ 0.01). No correlation could be lakes or streams sites in made between water temperature and the Sierra backcountry elevation. Table 1 compares the results (Derlet and Carlson from Yosemite and Kings Canyon 2006). In that 2004 National Parks to the USDA Forest study, 100% of water Service Wilderness areas (see figure 2). collected below Cattle Of the 53 national park sample sites, Grazing watersheds Figure 2—Bench Lake, Kings Canyon National Park. Photo by R. Derlet. 30% (16/53) were positive for coliforms, grew coliforms and 80% compared with Forest Service wilder- of Pack Animal sites had ness areas, where 60% (16/27) were coliforms found. In There are few other studies that positive. Of the 16 positive Forest addition, 7% of Backpacker sites and have attempted to analyze the risk for Service wilderness samples, 11 were 7% of Wild sites yielded coliforms, finding pathogenic microorganisms from cattle sites, and 5 from stock similar to the current study. Day in the high Sierra by risk stratifying sites. Hiker sites were not included in that each sample site (Silverman and With regard to heterotrophic bac- analysis, but based on the current Erman 1979; Suk et al. 1987). In the teria, all samples grew normal aquatic study, have the same risk profile as 1970s, Silverman et al. performed an bacteria including Pseudomonas, Wild and Backpacker sites. It is not analysis of several lakes in Kings Ralstonia, Serratia, Proteus, and non- possible to find sites exclusively used Canyon National Park (Silverman et pathogenic strains of Yersinia. Mean by pack animals, as these sites were al. 1979). They found that water from bacterial counts and 95% confidence also used by backpackers (see figure lakes and streams with higher human intervals are: Wild areas: 1,400 3), therefore some of the coliforms activity tended to have a higher prev- (500–2,300) CFU/100ml; Day Hike found at these sites could have origi- alence of coliforms. However, the areas: 2,300 (1,400–3,200) CFU/ 100ml; nated from human waste. Against this study did not differentiate between Backpack sites 3,300 (2,400– 4,200) possibility, Backpack sites had no backpacker only versus backpacker CFU/100ml, Pack Animal use areas more coliforms than Wild sites. The and pack animal traffic. A retrospec- 4,800 (3,600–6,000) CFU/100ml; and Wild sites essentially served as con- tive review of the data shows that sites below Cattle Grazing areas 9,800 trol sites that measured background backpacker-only areas had little coli- (7,800–11,800) CFU/100ml. coliform levels. form contamination. For example, Dragon Lake in Kings Canyon is Table 1. Comparison of National Park and located up a steep granite embank- Forest Service areas by riska ment off-trail and, although has human presence, it rarely sees visits Number of Sites with Coliforms/Total Sites by Category by pack animals. This lake had no coliform contamination in the Wild Day Backpack Pack Cattle Total Silverman study. Hike Animal Sites The finding that Backpacker sites Kings Canyon NP 0/0 0/2 1/6 3/9 N/A 4/17 had a low level of coliforms similar to Yosemite NP 2/10 2/7 2/10 6/9 N/A 12/36 that found at Wild or Day Hike sites is consistent with a prior study N.F. Wilderness 0/1 0/2 0/5 5/7 11/12 16/27 (Derlet and Carlson 2006). One Totals 2/11 2/11 3/21 14/25 11/12 32/80 might expect coliform levels to be Percentages 18% 18% 14% 56% 92% 40% high, as areas sampled have use by aEach risk category and area data show the number of sites positive for coliforms divided by total sites in the hundreds of backpackers in season. risk area. For example, in Kings Canyon NP, 3 of 9 pack animal sites tested positive for coliforms. However, unlike for cattle and pack

30 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 animals, human waste is buried in REFERENCES the soil and undergoes decomposi- American Public Health Assoc- iation. 1998. Standard tion, unlike surface deposition by Methods for Examination of domesticated animals. We believe Water and Wastewater, 20th this may be an important reason for ed. Baltimore, MD: United Book Press Inc., sec. 9, p. 1. the finding. Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, S. The current study is important for Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream several reasons. First of all, it confirms and riparian ecosystems in the results found in a limited study, the western United States. conducted in the summer of 2004. It Journal of Soil and Water Conser vation 54: 419–31. also shows that within high alpine Byappanahalli, M., M. Fowler,D. wilderness areas, the quality of water Shively, and R. Whitman. 2003. Ubiquity and persis- differs depending on the usage pat- tence of Escherichia coli in a Figure 3—Upper Bubbs Creek watershed, Kings Canyon National Park. Photo tern. In addition, it provides further midwestern coastal stream. by R. Derlet. evidence that cattle grazing tracks Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69(8): 4549–55. result in significant contamination of Carle, D. 2004. Introduction to the watershed with coliforms and Water in California 2004. Berkeley: University of Calif- potential risk of pathogenic organ- ornia Press, pp. 1–32. isms. Although coliform contamination Derlet, R. W., and J. R. Carlson. below cow pastures has been 2004. An analysis of wilderness water in Kings Canyon, described in the literature (Ramos et Sequoia, and Yosemite al. 2006), actual documentation in the National Parks for Coliform and Pathologic Bacteria. Sierra Nevada wilderness is limited, Wilder. Environ. Med.15: and this study provides important 238–44. data for federal land management Derlet, R. W., and J. R. Carlson. 2006. Coliform bacteria in agencies. Furthermore, the finding of Sierra Nevada wilderness coliforms below areas where pack ani- lakes and streams: What is the impact of backpackers, pack mals have traversed waterways (see animals, and cattle? Wilder ness figure 4) suggests that management Environ. Med. 17: 15–20. Figure 4—Pack train, John Muir Wilderness. Photo by R. Derlet. decisions on wilderness stock should Goldman, C. R. 2000. Four decades of change in two human presence and occurrence of be reviewed to ensure a more pristine subalpine lakes. Verh. Internat. Verein. Giardia cysts in streams in the Sierra Limnol. 27: 7–26. watershed and, thus, ensuring accept- Nevada, California. J. Freshwater Ecol. Harvey, S., J. R. Greenwood, M. J. Pickett, 4(1): 71–75. able water quality for California’s and R. A. Mah. 1976. Recovery of USDA Forest Service. 2006. Environmental Yersinia enterocolitica from streams and largest water source. In addition to assessment: Rangeland allotments lakes of California. Appl. Environ. microorganisms, cattle and pack ani- Phase 1. Sonora, CA: Stanislaus Microbiol. 32: 352–54. National Forest. mals excrete large amounts of Ohio State University. 2006. Ohio live- phosphorus and nitrates, which stim- stock manure management guide. Bulletin 604–06: 1–9. Columbus: ROBERT W. DERLET is an MD at the ulate algae growth and have Ohio State University. University of California, Davis Medical detrimental effects on the environ- Ramos, M. C., J. N. Quinton, and S. F. Center, 4150 V Street, PSSB Suite ment (Belsky et al. 1999). Tyrrel. 2006. Effects of cattle manure on erosion rates and runoff water pol- 2100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA; High Sierra wilderness areas used lution by faecal coliforms. J. Environ. email: [email protected]. by cattle or livestock are at a higher Management 78(1): 97–101. Rendtorff, R. L., and M. Kashgarian. 1967. risk for coliform pollution of lakes and Stool patterns of healthy adult males. JAMES R. CARLSON, PhD, San Mateo streams than areas used exclusively Dis. Colon. Rectum 10: 222–28. Department of Health, San Mateo, CA. for day use or backpacking by humans. Silverman, G., and D. C. Erman. 1979. Alpine Lakes in Kings Canyon National Humans utilizing water in wilderness Park, California: Baseline conditions JOHN R. RICHARDS, MD, University areas for drinking and cooking pur- and possible effects of visitor use. J. Environ. Manag. 8: 73–87. of California, Davis. poses should be aware of the possible Suk, T. J., S. K. Sorenson, and P. D. presence of pathogenic bacteria. IJW Dileanis. 1987. The relation between

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 31 SCIENCE and RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Wilderness Restoration From Philosophical Questions about Naturalness to Tests of Practical Techniques

BY DAVID N. COLE

hen crafting the U.S. Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser selected the word untrammeled Wrather than undisturbed to describe wilderness (Harvey 2005). This reflected his belief that places that had been disturbed by humans should be considered for wilderness designation because impaired ecosystems could be restored. Like many others, he hoped that restoration could be accomplished simply by leaving the wilderness alone. This was reflected in his famous declaration that wilderness stewards should be guardians rather than gardeners. In recent decades, it has become increasingly clear that human impact from fire suppression to invasive species and air pollution has affected every acre of wilderness. Jackson 2007). If we restore past conditions, those com- Wilderness stewards must choose to be gardeners or munities are likely to be dysfunctional—no longer watch as native biodiversity is assaulted by these agents appropriate for future climates. If we choose to intervene (Cole 2000). in wilderness ecosystems we need to draw on something Although controversial, active management of wilder- other than the concept of naturalness and the notions of ness to restore ecosystems has been undertaken. Fires reference and benchmark to set targets and objectives. We have been ignited; lime has been dropped in streams; bio- need to recognize that we will be redirecting ecosystems agents have been released. Considerable attention has more than restoring them. Past conditions, even when been given to defining the historic range of variation in employing a range of variability, are no longer a proxy for ecosystem conditions—to define reference or benchmark well-adapted wilderness conditions. conditions—the objectives that define restoration success. Recognizing this, the Aldo Leopold Wilderness The idea is to restore conditions such that conditions in the Research Institute co-organized and cohosted a small future are within the bounds set by past wilderness eco- “Beyond Naturalness” workshop to consider these issues systems (Landres et al. 1999). and concerns. There was general agreement by workshop Global climate change, however, is making this participants that many of the traditional meanings of approach questionable. There is a strong consensus that naturalness no longer provide useful guidance for wilder- future climates will be “novel,” unlike those of the past, ness stewardship. Beyond that, there was considerable leading to no-analog communities (communities unlike any found today) and ecological surprises (Williams and Continued on page 42

32 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

The El Triunfo RAVE: Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition

BY JAIME ROJO

n April 2007, a group of five well-known conservation working to create awareness and photographers and a crew of camera people, writers, preserve the last wild places of I and technical assistants undertook a photographic Mexico. During many years, expedition to the cloud forests of El Triunfo Biosphere Patricio had tried with some suc- Reserve, in the Sierra Madre of Chiapas, Mexico. The objec- cess to create a team of tive was to raise the awareness of society on this photographers that would work in endangered ecosystem and to support with their images an area to obtain enough images to and commitment the activities of the El Triunfo Conservation achieve a successful communica- Fund, a local NGO that works to preserve the last remnants tion campaign, and this background of these forests in Mexico. led to what was to be a totally dif- Jaime Rojo © Fulvio Eccardi It began as a casual trip to photograph the nesting ferent concept of a conservation season of the quetzal, a highly valued, well-known bird in photography expedition. the El Triunfo forests. Mexican conservationist and photog- Patricio invited Fulvio Eccardi and Florian Schulz to rapher Patricio Robles Gil and his colleagues and friends join the expedition. Fulvio is an Italian born photographer Jack Dykinga—Pulitzer prize winner and one of the world’s and current vice president of El Triunfo Conservation Fund, masters in large format landscape photography—and Tom whose images of the quetzals and the cloud forests in El Mangelsen—one of the most respected and acknowl- Triunfo had helped to designate it as a Biosphere Reserve. edged nature photographers—had been longing to do a Florian is a young and committed German photographer trip together in Mexico with a conservation approach. El with interest in working on a conservation project in Mexico. Triunfo cloud forests are a silent wilderness crowned with As the project grew bigger, writers, technical assistants, a staggering trees of more than 200 feet (61 m) and home of doctor, and two camera people joined the group. the last populations of the quetzal in Mexico. These forests Patricio discussed the expedition idea with Cristina had captivated Patricio in the past, so he proposed to his Mittermeier, who is director of the International League of colleagues that they take a trip to the area. The El Triunfo Conservation Photographers (ILCP), a federation of top trip rapidly began to grow into something of greater conservation photographers who have demonstrated the importance, as often happens when you combine passion highest skills in photography, outstanding ethical stan- with commitment. dards, and a sustained commitment to conservation. Two factors were at work. Patricio was inspired by the Cristina was excited about the idea and endorsed the Rapid Assessment Program concept of Conservation project as a formal expedition of the ILCP. Together, they International, in which a group of very specialized scien- named the expedition concept a Rapid Assessment Visual tists travel to a region to develop a thorough baseline Expedition and that gave it a compelling acronym: RAVE. inventory of biodiversity. At the same time, he was frus- RAVE is a new concept in conservation marketing, an trated by the scarcity of nature photographs in Mexico. innovative communication tool created to respond to the Patricio is founder of Agrupación Sierra Madre and Unidos pressing needs of modern conservationists in their quest to para la Conservacion, two Mexican conservation NGOs protect Earth’s last natural values and wild places. The goal

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 33 This cloud cascade symbolizes the key role of El Triunfo cloud forests in water absorption and climate regulation in a region in which many villages in the lower valleys depend on the survival of this forests for their water supply. © Fulvio Eccardi

is to develop a fast and attractive scape, wildlife, macro), writers, and This humid, cold, and quiet eco- communication campaign to raise the camera people. system is the domain of organisms awareness of society about a specific El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve in whose origins date back to a remote region under serious threat. RAVE the southern Sierra Madre of Chiapas geological past. El Triunfo is one of aims to achieve a full visual and was the perfect environment to host the last biological refuges in Mexico media assessment of an area in a the first RAVE. Almost 255,000 acres and provides shelter to numerous short period of time by means of a (103,240 ha) in extent, El Triunfo is endemic species that had evolved multidisciplinary team that includes one of the biggest and better pre- separately from other members of specialized photographers (land- served extensions of cloud forest in their families. Centennial oaks and Mesoamerica, an ecosystem liquidambars covered in bromeliads highly threatened at a global and mosses are surrounded by scat- scale, as its original exten- tered patches of ancient tree ferns, sion has been reduced by which give these mountains a prehis- 60% in the last decades. toric mood. It is home to a large The breathtaking moun- biodiversity that includes 24% of the tains of El Triunfo are animal species registered in Mexico. reported to have one of the El Triunfo is a key region for migra- largest diversities of tree tory birds, a priority international species in North and Central conservation site, and the domain of American forests and to be the elusive horned guan—an The hard, sinuous and humid hike to the camp took 61/2 hours with 16 mules one of the largest areas of endemic, turkeylike bird of the high- carrying 55 bags of equipment and supplies. © Patricio Robles Gil forests remaining in Mexico. lands of Mesoamerican hotspot, and

34 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 the only surviving species of a very ancient lineage that dates back to possibly as much as 40 million years. It is also home for one of the last remaining populations of resplendent quetzals—sacred bird of the Mayas and described by ornithologist and artist Roger Tory Peterson as the most beautiful bird on the Americas. In addition to the biological diversity that makes El Triunfo a special place, these cloud forests provide important ecosystem services. As one of Mexico’s rainiest regions—with more than 250 days of rain every year—El Triunfo is the origin of many of the streams that irrigate the coast The Godman’s Montane Pitviper (Cerrophidion godmani ) belongs to a group of snakes in Central America which inhabit the cold and humid forests of the mountain areas. © Florian Schulz and heartland of the state of Chiapas and adjacent states such as Tabasco. The thick vegetative cover prevents sustained, thanks to conservation Hurricane Stan hit the region in 2005, water runoff, soil erosion, and land- programs encouraged by the Mexican floods ravaged the mountainsides slides. The rainfall in El Triunfo sustains government and alliances between that were unable to retain water due arable farming and cattle breeding corporations and NGOs, as is the case to illegal deforestation, and then soil that are downstream and contributes with Conservation International and sediments filled hydroelectrical dam to the generation of hydroelectric Starbucks. Such programs encourage impoundments and washed away power in the country. The Grijalva local owners to maintain traditional numerous roads and railways. Even River basin, fed by rainwater draining and more sustainable shade-grown after this disaster, unregulated land off the reserve’s hillsides, powers four coffee plantations that need shade development and illegal logging hydroelectric facilities that generate produced by the forest canopy to 40% of the country’s hydroelectric grow. The programs provide an power, or 1.4% of the total electricity opportunity for economic develop- produced in Mexico. ment, while preserving the habitat for El Triunfo plays a major role in many migratory birds of the the socioeconomic development of Americas. the region. It is one of the few places However, these magnificent where traditional organic shade- cloud forests face severe environ- grown coffee plantations have been mental threats such as fires, hurricanes, tropical storms, illegal RAVE aims to achieve logging, land use changes for agricul- ture and cattle, and plans to develop a full visual and a new road that would traverse the media assessment of region and fragment this valuable, wilderness ecosystem. Unfortunately, an area in a short many people, including high-ranking period of time by government executives in Mexico, do not recognize the relationship that a The Horned guan (Oreophasis derbianus) is among the means of a most extravagant bird species of this Mesoamerican healthy ecosystem has with mini- hotspot. This turkey-like endemic bird is considered the multidisciplinary team. mizing or preventing some natural descendent of an ancient lineage of cracids that goes disasters. For example, when back to 40 million years ago. © Patricio Robles Gil

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 35 hours in a cattle truck until, we reached Finca Prusia, where a group of 16 mules was waiting to help us carry the 55 bags of equipment and supplies. It took six hours to climb the steep and strenuous trail to El Triunfo campground. Once there, the working dynamic of the expedition was almost flawless. The photographers would depart early in the morning and spend all day working. Patricio assumed leadership and coordinated the different objectives necessary to obtain a full visual assessment of the area. The team even met with the coffee workers of the nearby ejidos (communal lands), El Triunfo is considered amongst the most diverse forest of all North and Central America. It has almost 2,300 plant species to document the struggle of a com- including some of the tallest trees in Mexico such as elms, oaks and liquidambars, and some isolated cedar patches in areas munity that loves the forest and of the Pacific slope. © Jaime Rojo sacrifices a better quality of life to is still common practice in the region. servation International, Unidos para la sustain the resource for future gen- The need for a conservation cam- Conservacion, and Reforestamos erations. After two weeks of work the paign in El Triunfo was even more Mexico. Reforestamos is a newcomer expedition headed back to Tuxtla compelling under the light of these on the Mexican conservation agenda Gutierrez, where a press conference threats, so the RAVE team started to and the environmental philanthropic was held at the Natural History work. The international recognition of branch of Grupo Bimbo—one of the Museum. El Triunfo and critical threats to it biggest bakery corporations in the A major turning point in a career attracted the participation of impor- world. It works to preserve and recover of a nature photographer is centered tant conservation institutions. A forested areas in Mexico and promote around personal commitment. fund-raising campaign was initiated, a forestry-related rural culture. The fed- Although it is always nice to photo- and soon the partners and supporters eral and local govern ments in Mexico graph wild nature, it is through the for the expedition were consolidated. supported the expedition hosting and subsequent campaign actions that Funding, both financial and in-kind, providing transportation for the par- conservation photographers are born. was obtained through different ticipants, helped to coordinate the This was why the ILCP endorsed this sources. Direct financial support came necessary permits to work and camp expedition, because all of the photog- from organizations such as the in the protected area, and set up some raphers involved had already National Geographic Society, Con- blinds to photograph the elusive demonstrated their commitment to quetzal in its nest. conservation in addition to their art. The final group of 13 The results of the trip include roughly people, including the five 30,000 photos and 30 hours of video photographers, two camera that are being used to develop a stra- people, three writers, two tegic international campaign to raise technical assistants, and a the awareness about the conservation doctor, met in Tuxtla Gutierrez needs of El Triunfo. Several articles on the morning of April 1, have been published in magazines in 2007. the trip started with a Mexico, the United States, and Spain, three-hour drive to and several more are being scheduled. From left to right: Florian Schulz, Jack Dykinga, Patricio Robles Gil, Tom Jaltenango—the last major A large format calendar has been pro- Mangelsen and Fulvio Eccardi, the first RAVE team. © Patricio Robles Gil village in the area—plus four duced, and it is already being

36 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 sold around the United States and in Mexico. A short TV documentary was edited and launched at the Jackson Beneath Waves of Fog … Hole Film Festival. The first fund- When the Mountain Speaks raising event, organized in Tuxtla Gutierrez by Fulvio Eccardi in late From the diary of María José Cruz-Guerrero de la Concha, October 2007, raised nearly a writer on the first RAVE US$500,000 for El Triunfo. All these conservation efforts are being chan- I started my way up the dense rites: identifying each detail and neled through the El Triunfo mountain guarded by young and finding the extraordinary in the Conservation Fund (www.fondoeltri- old trees well protected by a thick obvious; spending days hidden, unfo.org), a local nonprofit institution. mushy layer of recently fallen leaves. motionless inside a blind or strolling This fund was established in 2002 and The growing blend of the silence in in silence through the forest and partially financed by the Packard human voice and the subtle sound pausing to blend with the back- Foundation to provide the reserve with of our boots touching fertile soil ground for a while in those spots the financial resources necessary for was beginning to reach my soul; as that seem promising. projects and basic operational the climbing got steeper and my expenses and, ultimately, to ensure the nonathletic heart pounded faster, ✸ ✸ ✸ long-term conservation of the area. more intense was my immersion On a personal level, El Triunfo Among all of these results, one into that new dimension where the RAVE is a call to abandon any pro- has acquired a larger meaning. The eccentricities of urban life had no fessional option that does not first RAVE was a success for the pho- sense at all. I knew it would take us contribute to the reconstruction of tographers and for the conservation at least five to seven hours to get to the Earth. Memories of the cloud of El Triunfo. The RAVE is a new tool the camp: also, I was full aware of forest wild will also stay with me: for conserving wild nature, a model my scarce physical condition. fleas, ticks, and way too many mos- that can be replicated elsewhere on Nevertheless the excitement within quitoes. I am very fortunate: many the planet … and already is being me surpassed any weariness. It was conversations we had during the used. The second RAVE took place in a privilege to immerse myself into trip became a turning point in my mid-September in Balandra Bay, Baja this mystical cloud forest, hopeful life; deep experiences that usually California, and helped to prevent the of witnessing the quetzal’s flight or come once a year were an everyday land development of a wilderness the jaguar’s roar… along the Gulf of California. More activity on this trip; my soul was RAVEs are already being planned by ✸ ✸ ✸ healed and mental boundaries were erased; I was able to fully sense, a Patricio and the ILCP (www.ilcp. com/ The El Triunfo RAVE symbolizes a talent so basic but so easy to Projects/RAVE.htm). A new revolution diverse picture, including not only oversee living in a metropolis such has started in the field of nature pho- flora and fauna but also a human as Mexico City. tography—a new conservation sense. These photographers gave a opportunity. IJW special touch to this trip, all of them ✸ ✸ ✸ being unusual people who have JAIME ROJO honed his photography allowed themselves to be carried Now I question myself: “What skills in Mexico with Patricio Robles away by life’s peculiarities, making would happen if these spaces did Gil, the acclaimed Mexican conserva- every experience they have an not exist? How would we find our- tion photographer. Jaime was director incredible narrative of absolute yet selves?” Surely, our spirit would of conservation programs for unusual facts. slowly die, in absolute loneliness Agrupacíon Sierra Madre, a conser- and covered in deep longing, vation organization founded by ✸ ✸ ✸ searching constantly to return to Patricio, and is now the executive Nature photography is an art the wilderness that once existed in director for WILD 9—the 9th World and a science, blending different abundance. Wilderness Congress—that will convene in Mexico in 2009.

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 37 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

PAN Parks Perspectives for a Wilder Europe

BY VLADO VANCURA, ZOLTÁN KUN, and MYLÈNE VAN DER DONK

Europe is without a doubt the continent where nature has been most affected by human influence. Indeed the rich biodiversity found in some parts of the “old” continent are very interconnected with, and dependent upon, human management. The European landscape has been shaped through thousands of years of human activity and it is part of our cultural, social and economic heritage. Due to this close relationship between nature and human development, it is some- times forgotten that there are remains—even if only in small fragments covering altogether no more than about 1% of all territory—of small, yet important, areas of what can be called “virgin,” “natural,” “wild,” or “wilderness” areas. These are areas where we can still find natural systems where man has had only minimum influence. PAN Parks voluntarily shares practical lessons learnt on how to approach a wilderness area management, how to allow for an area of sustainable use, and how to enable local communities to derive benefit from the wilderness area. (Miko 2007)

growing number of area management. This, in turn, increased the number of people are now protected areas listed; however, it did very little to increase Astart ing to value the management effectiveness of these areas. There was Europe’s natural heritage as growing evidence suggesting that the value of many of the much as its cultural heritage. world’s protected areas were under threat and that a signifi- Wilderness has been missing cant number of these areas were degrading and suffering from the image of Europe— significant biodiversity loss. Recognizing this as a major until recently. The vision of problem, the World Commission on Protected Areas stepped wilderness is a concept that in and developed Management Effectiveness Guidelines. reaches deep into the heart They highlighted strategies to help protected areas that had and emotions of most people. insufficient funding, internal management issues, and It is well known throughout Vlado Vancura social/community problems. Witnessing all of this, the the globe, but most Europeans World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) decided to make pro- do not realize, that they can tected area management effectiveness a key priority in their still find exceptional remnants of wilderness on their own already well-established Forest Programme. continent. These places are the PAN Parks. Developing the Concept Addressing a Need To address this priority, WWF devised Protected Area During the second half of the 1990s, the Word Conservation Network Parks (PAN), and since its early beginnings, the Union (IUCN) expanded their categories for protected wilderness concept became integral to this project. WWF’s

38 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 first priority was to align themselves aims to provide visitors with a with a partner that shared their vision high-quality experience based for improved management of Europe’s on the appreciation of nature protected areas. Following the IUCN’s (see figure 1). category expansion and a redefini- Principle 4: Sustainable tion, most protected areas had to Tour ism Development Strategy. incorporate education and recreation The Protected Area Authority into their regular activities. This made and its relevant partners in the partnering with a tourism company PAN Parks region aim at an obvious choice. achieving a synergy between The WWF found the perfect conservation of natural values partner in the privately owned Dutch and sustainable tourism by tourism company, Molecaten. In developing and jointly imple- Figure 1—A ranger on patrol in the Borjomi Kharagauli National Park, Georgia. Photo courtesy Vlado Vancura of PAN Parks. August 1999, two years after the initial menting a Sustainable Tourism launch of the project, the PAN Parks Development Strategy. Foundation was legally registered. Principle 5: Partnerships. The assumption at the beginning The backbone of the foundation PAN Parks’ tourism business partners was that most Europeans do not is its transparent certification process. are legal enterprises that are com- know that they can still find rem- If a protected area wants to become a mitted to the goals of certified PAN nants of wilderness on their continent. certified PAN Park, it must meet each Parks and the PAN Parks Foundation, An important element of the concept of PAN Park’s strict principles and cri- and actively cooperate with the local was to make it possible for people to teria. This process is aimed at defining PAN Parks group to implement the see primeval forests or visit moun- the quality standard that both pro- PAN Park region’s Sustainable Tourism tains where wolf, lynx, or brown bear tected areas and local business Development Strategy effectively. still roam freely (see figure 2). The partners must maintain in order to idea was to create certified PAN Parks become and remain certified. The veri- Wilderness—A Key Element of in Europe so people would not need fication process is a transparent PAN Parks Concept to travel to distant places. Today 10 third-party audit, and if a candidate is The goal identified at the beginning such certified parks are dispersed successful, the process provides stake- was very clear: to create a network of throughout Europe from the Arctic holders (i.e., donors and visitors) with the best-managed wilderness pro- Circle to the Mediterranean and are a guarantee that the protected areas tected areas in Europe. Wilderness providing very different opportuni- management objectives and activities protection became a driving force ties for recreation and tourism. are compatible with biodiversity pro- behind PAN Parks despite the fact A decade ago the first steps were tection and sustainable tourism. that, for political and historical rea- taken to realize a marriage between sons, the concept of wilderness has conservation and the tourism industry PAN Parks Principles been a bone of contention in in the most important wilderness areas Principle 1: Rich Natural Heritage. Europe. of Europe. This initiative, implemented PAN Parks are large protected areas, representative of Europe’s natural heritage, and protect international important wildlife and ecosystems. Principle 2: Nature Management. Design and management of the PAN Park aims to maintain and, if necessary, restore, the area’s natural ecological processes and biodiversity. Principle 3: Visitor Management. Visitor management safeguards the Figure 2—Wilderness means space for wildlife such as native bears and chamois. Photos courtesy of Leif Ostergren and the Majella National Park. natural values of the PAN Park and

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 39 untouched is often labeled as anti- tion framework. The campaign needs human and unfeasible in the densely to reinforce that wilderness is impor- populated continent. There are some tant to all Europeans, because European countries where the term is wilderness is part of our forgotten misinterpreted, or poorly understood, “common European heritage” and whereas in other countries, wilder- part of contemporary European iden- ness has no equivalent in the national tity (see figure 3). language. Wilderness is often under- The misperception, even pre- stood to be a thrilling holiday sented by conservationists, is that experience for which it is worth trav- Europe has no potential for wilder- eling to far lands, but that wilderness ness protection. Protecting wilderness experience cannot be explored in is much more a matter of societal and Europe. political will power, rather than the On the other hand, sustainable size of a wild area. Many Europeans development is a more recent and still believe that we have a right and widespread term that suggests an duty to modify, influence, and (mis)- acceptable activity, and the term has use nature in the same manner as was been adopted quickly by the public. done in the past. PAN Parks believes Figure 3—Local partners and a traditional welcome. Photo courtesy of Gavin Bell of PAN Parks. One way to promote wilderness in that Europeans need the opportunity Europe is to build on this acceptance to enjoy and experience the last rem- by the PAN Parks Foundation (PPF), by arguing that in some areas wilder- nants of European wilderness. awards protected areas that meet the ness protection is the best way to quality standards of conservation man- provide “sustainable use.” Over the What Is Wilderness? agement, the PAN Parks quality seal. In last few years in Europe we have Wilderness in the PAN Parks is a this project, tourism is seen as an observed a gradual shift in the atti- large area of land with its native plant opportunity rather than as a threat, and tudes of government and the public and animal communities and the eco- it is a means to give economic value to to wilderness. There are more systems intact and in an essentially wilderness-protected areas and to create European countries that take an natural state. PAN Parks wilderness support for conservation. interest in wilderness protection areas are those lands that have been The key conservation concern of through their national parks and their least modified by humans and repre- PAN Parks is to contribute to the core zones. PAN Parks is providing sent the most intact and undisturbed goals of the Convention on Biological the framework for developing a net- expanse of Europe’s remaining nat- Diversity through: work of European wilderness areas. ural landscapes. • developing a verification scheme Practically, a PAN Parks core/ that evaluates and improves the Europe and Worldwide Wilderness wilderness zone is at least 10,000 ha effectiveness of protected area Numerous worldwide wilderness (24,700 acres) in size, an area where management; assessments between 1987 and 2002 no extractive uses are permitted, and • providing a method to measure demonstrated that 25 to 50% of the where the only management inter- the costs and benefits of pro- Earth’s land surface remains wild. For ventions are those aimed at tected areas from a social and example, the assessment done by maintaining or restoring natural eco- economic point of view; and Mittermeier and others (2002) found logical processes. PAN Parks • providing communication tools that 46% of the planet is still wild. With wilderness areas are places where to improve the capacity and skills a very small amount of remaining wil- wildlife thrives, natural processes are of protected area managers. derness, Europeans do not aspire to allowed to function without human create vast wilderness areas such as interference, and people are occa- A Term of Contention are in Kamchatka, Africa, or Alaska. sional and respectful visitors. The The term wilderness generally evokes The wilderness challenge in goal of PAN Parks is to protect the defensive feelings in the European Europe is to adapt the concept of last islands of wild nature in Europe. mind. The idea to leave some land wilderness to a multicultural protec- Many of these parks are located in the

40 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 backyard of European cities with areas and generate support automobile access nearby, and can for them through stimulating accommodate people of all ages and sustainable nature-based fitness levels. Adventurous visitors tourism (see figure 5). PAN can take short- or long-distance hikes Parks works with local busi- and try canoeing or camping. nesses in rural areas, and by The wilderness concept distin- doing so creates support for guishes the PPF from other conservation, community conservation activities in Europe. It is involvement, and commit- used to market the destinations and ment to sustainable tourism to help create opportunities for expe- development of the region. riences linked to it, such as ”The Polish The PPF works to promote Wild East” or “Bear Tracking in the the certified parks (see Figure 4—Nature-based tourism includes relaxation in wild places. Photo Wilderness.” Although the wilderness table 1) as destinations to the courtesy of Pascal Languillon. concept and effective management European travel market. unify all PAN Parks, the range of opportunities offered in PAN Parks The Future of PAN Parks includes nature-based tourism with a A related goal of PPF is to lot to offer all ages and all interests apply the wilderness con- (see figure 4), such as dog sledding or cept in marine protected rafting at the Arctic Circle, ice climbing areas, such as the Archipelago in Fulufjället’s waterfall, survival activ- National Park in Finland ities among the peaks of Retezat that joined the PAN in late Mountain, or bear tracking in the 2007. The successful PAN Polish forests. Parks certification process in Peneda Geres National Biodiversity and Park in Portugal will dem- PAN Parks Wilderness onstrate that wilderness is Ironically, some of Europe’s biodiver- playing an important con- sity is dependent on human activities servation role in the Figure 5—Filming in the Retezat National Park Wilderness Area in Romania. and past or current impacts on eco- Mediterranean region. Photo courtesy of Tudor Predescu. systems. Some protected areas are However, the ultimate intensively managed (e.g., animal challenge is to explain the grazing, cutting vegetation), but benefits of being certified as a PAN Park Table 1. The size of wilderness some protected areas are not inten- (see table 2) and develop additional areas in Certified PAN Parks sively managed. PAN Parks works with support to make PAN Parks a sustain- this second group of protected areas able, self-financing organization that is National Park Park Wilderness Areas (ha) Areas (ha) where ecosystems are based on both recognized as the premium European Bieszczady 29,202 18,425 structure and function, instead of ecotourism/ wilderness brand and Fulufjället 38,414 22,140 overemphasizing structure and local serves as a global role model for conser- Oulanka 27,720 15,027 biodiversity at the expense of func- vation and economic benefit for Central Balkan 71,669 21,019 tion. PAN Parks looks to the protected areas, and their local com- Retezat 38,138 14,215 opportunities presented by natural munities and business partners. IJW Panajarvi 104,000 30,000 succession and ecosystem dynamics Rila 81,046 16,350 to protect global biodiversity. REFERENCES Mittermeier, Russell A., Cristina G Majella 74,095 16,200 Mittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil, Borjomi Kharagauli 76,000 50,325 Protection through Awareness John Pilgrim, Gustavo Fonseca, Archipelago 50,219 10,600 A core aim of PAN Parks is to raise William R. Konstant, and Thomas Brooks. 2002. Wilderness: Earth’s Last Total 590,503 214,301 awareness about European wilderness

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 41 Wild Places. Arlington, Virginia; Continued from WILDERNESS RESTORATION, page 32 Conservation International. 576 p. Miko, Ladislav. 2007. Protecting the Natural Environment. PAN Parks, European disagreement. At one extreme, we Spildie 2007). We also collaborated in Commission, Director of Directorate can avoid “playing God” by never the compilation of both experiential B, preface. intervening in wilderness ecosystems. and technical knowledge in a 394-page VLADO VANCURA is the conserva- At the other extreme is the belief that guide to wilderness site restoration tion manager for the PAN Parks intervention cannot be avoided and (Therrell et al. 2006). Up-to-date Foundation; website: www.panparks. that we must decide what we value in information on the institute’s restora- org; email: [email protected]. wilderness and work to protect it— tion research is available at http:// even if this involves actions as drastic leopold.wilderness.net/research/fproj- ZOLTÁN KUN is executive director of as assisted migration and transforma- ects/F008.htm. IJW the PAN Parks Foundation. tion of ecosystems to ones that are MYLÈNE VAN DER DONK works in compositionally and structurally dif- REFERENCES Cole, D. N. 2000. Paradox of the pri- tourism development with the PAN ferent from the present or past. meval: Ecological restoration in Parks Foundation. Concepts such as ecological integrity wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18: and resilience will need to supple- 77–86. Cole, D. N., and D. R. Spildie. 2007. ment—if not replace—the traditional Vegetation and Soil Restoration on Highly Table 2. Benefits of PAN Parks concept of naturalness. The ultimate Impacted Campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. The benefits of PAN Parks for the protected areas: workshop conclusion was that this RMRS-GTR-185. Fort Collins, CO: International recognition important issue cannot be ignored USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Independent audit but that it is not clear what path to Research Station. Easier access to sponsorship of conservation Harvey, M. 2005. Wilderness Forever: take. It is time for society to recon- Howard Zahniser and the Path to the and tourism project sider and/or better articulate the Wilderness Act. Seattle: The University Expertise exchange through a living network of Washington Press. Tools: purposes and values of wilderness Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. set priorities for building conservation now that we know more than we did Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use capacity in 1964 about the world and how it is of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological measure progress changing. Applications 9: 1179–88. employee adaptive management Whereas philosophical issues Therrell, L., D. Cole, V. Claassen, C. Ryan, improve nature management standards and M. A. Davies. 2006. Wilderness need to be addressed before under- control and monitor tourism, etc. and Backcountry Site Restoration Guide. support in lobbying decision makers taking large-scale wilderness Tech Rep. 0623-2815-MTDC. Missoula, restoration, small-scale restorations MT: USDA Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. The benefits of PAN Parks for the local communities: are less controversial. Success here Williams, J. W., and S. T. Jackson. 2007. Increased collaboration in park manage- largely turns on technical issues. In Novel climates, no-analog communities and ecological surprises. Frontiers ment this arena, the Leopold Institute has Small business promotion in Ecology and the Environment 5: been working to increase the success 475–82. Showcase for traditional crafts and culture Improved tourism facilities of efforts to restore recreation sites. Stronger government support We have been conducting long-term DAVID N. COLE is a research geogra- International recognition experiments that evaluate the effec- pher at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness New jobs and increased employment, etc. tiveness of commonly employed site Research Institute, Missoula, Montana; restoration techniques (Cole and email: [email protected]. The benefits of PAN Parks for the local business partners: Contact with European tourism companies More nature-based tourism If we restore past conditions, those communities Effective international marketing Support in development of tourism package are likely to be dysfunctional—no longer Training services appropriate for future climates. Prove responsible businesses Access experience of other businesses, etc.

42 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements

COMPILED BY GREG KROLL

8th WWC Science and Stewardship Proceedings Wilderness Institute. “This website will connect more Now Available people to the concept of wilderness,” said Roger Rivera, The proceedings of the sci- founding president of the National Hispanic Environmental ence and stewardship Council. “Wilderness is important for science, for outdoor symposium of the 8th recreation, and for personal renewal. Wilderness areas are World Wilderness Congress places where we can challenge ourselves, connect with the are now available online, earth, enjoy the wild, and make memories with our fami- where the entire document, lies.” The website was commissioned by the Interagency or individual papers, may Wilderness Policy Council, consisting of representatives be downloaded. The papers from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau generated at this sympo- of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and sium, the largest of multiple U.S. Geological Survey. symposia offered in con- junction with the Congress Sitio de Internet sobre Zonas Naturales Disponible held in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2005, have been organized en Español into nine major themes: (1) Alaska: past, present and Un nuevo sitio de Internet en español lanzado por el future; (2) connections between wilderness and communi- Servicio de Parques Nacionales de los EE.UU. presenta la ties; (3) values to local and distant societies of wilderness belleza e importancia de las zonas en estado natural de protection; (4) establishing priorities and developing poli- aquel país. El sitio interactivo, www.nature.nps.gov/views/ cies for wilderness protection; (5) wilderness stewardship index_wilderness_sp.htm, explora zonas naturales por challenges in a changing world; (6) encouraging steward- medio de actividades, mapas, información, videos y entre- ship through education: (7) place and spirit: commitment vistas. Un aspecto del programa “Views of National Parks”, to wilderness; (8) protecting ecological integrity of wilder- fue creado conjuntamente con el Arthur Carhart National ness; and (9) wilderness, water, and wisdom. The online Wilderness Training Center y el Wilderness Institute de la publication may be accessed at www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/ Universidad de Montana. “Este sitio de Internet conectará rmrs_p049.pdf, where printed copies and CD versions may a más personas con el concepto de zonas naturales”, dijo also be ordered. Roger Rivera, presidente y fundador del National Hispanic Environmental Council. “Las tierras naturales son impor- Wilderness Website Available in Spanish tantes para las ciencias, la recreación al aire libre y la A new Spanish language website launched by the U.S. renovación personal. Las zonas naturales son lugares National Park Service showcases America’s wilderness donde podemos asumir desafíos, estar en contacto con la areas. The interactive site, www.nature.nps.gov/views/ Tierra, disfrutar la vida silvestre y crear recuerdos para index_wilderness_sp.htm, explores wild places through nuestras familias”. El sitio de Internet fue encargado por el activities, maps, information, videos, and interviews. A Interagency Wilderness Policy Council, que está com- facet of the “Views of National Parks” program, it was puesto por representantes del National Park Service, developed in partnership with the Arthur Carhart National Servicio Forestal de Estados Unidos (U.S. Forest Service), Wilderness Training Center and the University of Montana’s Oficina de Administración de Tierras (Bureau of Land Submit announcements and short news articles to GREG KROLL, IJW Wildernss Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected]

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 43 Management), Servicio de Pesca y Yellowstone National Park. “The to help tackle important inner city Vida Silvestre de Estados Unidos (U.S. whole scale of the boreal landscape is issues such as youth development Fish & Wildlife Service) y el Servicio staggering for an American,” and healthcare. … .” Geológico de los Estados Unidos according to Joshua Reichert, man- The EUROPARC Federation is the (U.S. Geological Survey). aging director of the Pew Environment umbrella organization of Europe’s Group, which helped shepherd the protected areas. It unites national Canada Sets Aside projects. And Lutsel K’e Dene Chief parks, regional parks, nature parks, Vast Northern Wilderness Adeline Jonasson is equally pleased. and biosphere reserves across the Much of the Earth’s largest intact “We’re very happy with this,” she continent with the common aim of forest was formally withdrawn from said. “This area is the one our ances- protecting Europe’s unique variety of development in November 2007 by tors chose for us to live in. This will wildlife, habitats, and landscapes. the Canadian government, preserving preserve it for generations to come.” PAN Parks is an initiative that com- 25 million acres (10 million ha) of (Source: The Washington Post, bines nature conservation with wildlands in the Northwest Territories. November 22, 2007) sustainable tourism development to This swath of boreal forest, part of a create a network of the best-man- broad band of vegetation that circles European Resolution on Wilderness aged wilderness areas in Europe. a northern tier of the globe from Seeks Urgent Action There is currently a network of nine Canada to Siberia, will be protected The EUROPARC Federation and the certified PAN Parks stretching from to create a national park, a national PAN Parks Foundation have joined the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean. wilderness area, and a conservation forces in the publication of a (Sources: www.panparks.org; www. area administered by native commu- Resolution on Wilderness Areas, panparks.org/index.php?name=OE- nities. Native groups and which was drafted following an inter- DocManager&file=download&id=21 environmentalists have been working national roundtable meeting held in 28&keret=N&showheader=N) to designate these lands for years, the Czech Republic attended by some and the action by the Ministries of 300 protected area experts from 24 Rewilding Scotland Environment and Indian affairs will European countries. The resolution, In an attempt to establish “the biggest prevent mining, drilling, and most dated October 1, 2007, states, “We enclosed wilderness reserve in timber cutting in the areas. The region the undersigned organizations call Europe,” owners of Scotland’s Alladale has recently been subject to increasing upon the European Commission and Estate intend to create Britain’s first interest by diamond, uranium, and oil the [European Union] member states ecological game preserve. Philan- and gas developers. to take urgent action to protect thropist Paul Lister plans to turn the A 6.5 million acre (2.6 million ha) Europe’s remaining large areas of clock back more than 2,000 years on national park will be established on natural habitat with non-interven- his 23,000 acre (9,300 ha) property, the eastern shore of Great Slave Lake, tion management, also known as only 25 miles (40 km) from the bus- a glacier-carved body of water that is wilderness or wildland, which are tling city of Inverness. Besides home to grizzly bears and caribou, as threatened by inappropriately located planting more than 250,000 indige- well as the 400-member Lutsel K’e logging and development. … In addi- nous trees, including Caledonian Dene tribe. A 15 million acre (6 mil- tion to containing an irreplaceable pine, juniper, hazel, and round birch, lion ha) conservation area European natural heritage of biodi- Lister will reintroduce native lichens administered by the Akaitacho tribe versity and habitats, these areas can and grasses. He has secured his will buffer the new park. To the west, offer stronger sustainable economic, Dangerous Animals License from the a 3.7 million acre (1.5 million ha) social, cultural and environmental Highland Council, and according to national wildlife area will be created benefits—for local communities, Alladale’s general manager Hugh in the Ramparts region, where tow- landholders and society in general— Fullerton Smith, “as soon as the foot ering cliffs line the Mackenzie River, if left intact. Such benefits include and mouth regulations die down,” and where vital wetlands border the addressing climate change through Lester will begin the process of Ramparts River. carbon sequestration and flood miti- restoring an ecosystem with the The protected lands encompass gation, fast-growing nature-based introduction of elk from Sweden. In a an area 11 times the size of tourism opportunities, and potential plan that involves building 37 miles

44 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 (60 km) of electric fence, the longest strategies, in providing vital environ- indexnews/indexnews.htm [October in Europe, Lister hopes to reintro- mental services such as fresh water 2007]; www.iuch.org/ themes/wcpa/ duce the European gray wolf (hunted and recreational opportunities and in wcpa/packardalphabetical.htm [in to extinction in Scotland in 1743) mitigating impacts of climate change Spanish]) and bear, which was driven out 900 and natural disasters. Major threats to years ago. According to Lister, the and weaknesses of the regional pro- WCPA Bestows Two Awards at attempt to rewild the reserve takes tected areas system were also Latin American Parks Congress some of its inspiration from the reviewed, including remaining eco- Peruvian Dr. Carlos Ponce del Prado, Shamwari Game Reserve near Cape logical gaps in the region’s protected and Colombian Heliodoro Sanchez, Town, South Africa, where lion, area system. A huge disparity remains were recognized by the World leopard, buffalo, rhino, and elephant between the size of terrestrial pro- Commission on Protected Areas have been successfully reintroduced. tected areas systems, which now (WCPA) during the Second Latin At Alladale, he says, “there will be cover more than 10% of the region, American Congress of National Parks more wilderness and there will be no and the situation in the freshwater and Other Protected Areas, held at stalking or shooting.” (Source: The realm and in the region’s oceans. Latin San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, Observer, August 12, 2007) America is far from reaching global September 30–October 6, 2007. The goals of 10% coverage by 2012 for WCPA Packard Award was given to Dr. Latin America marine protected areas—less than Ponce posthumously, with a presen- Regional Parks Congress one half of one percent of the region’s tation to a group of Peruvian National From September 30 through October seas is protected. Park leaders. He was a university pro- 6, 2007, more than 2,200 delegates Participants indicated their con- fessor, director of Peruvian national from Latin America and beyond concern about the increasing impact of parks from 1969 to 1973, cofounder vened in Bariloche, Argentina, for the mineral and oil exploration in and of the Peruvian Foundation for Nature Second Latin American Congress on around protected areas, the potential Conservation (ProNaturaleza), and National Parks and Protected Areas. impact of the biofuel boom and con- cofounder of Conservation The Congress was hosted by the tinued agricultural expansion, International. Dr. Ponce was recog- Argentine National Park Admin- unchecked mass tourism and land nized for his professionalism as well istration and was cosponsored by speculation in and around parks, as his humanity. FAO, UNEP, and IUCN with strong sup- unsustainable levels of use of fish- Dr. Heliodoro Sanchez received port from many conservation and aid eries, wildlife and forest resources, the first-ever Kenton R. Miller Prize for agencies. The Congress focused on encroachment by poverty-stricken Innovation in Protected Area four main themes—biodiversity con- local communities, land tenure and Sustainability, consisting of a certifi- servation; advances and challenges use conflicts, forest fires, and large- cate and a check for US$5,000. The in knowledge and information on scale infrastructure development. impacts of his work have led to management of protected areas; The urgency of looking beyond the expanded protection of rapidly dis- capacity building; and governance, borders of individual parks and appearing mangrove ecosystems, equity, and quality of life. Keynotes, reserves and of addressing conserva- and the creation of new opportuni- symposia, and workshops addressed tion at the landscape and seascape ties for local communities to utilize the region’s considerable achieve- scale was also addressed. The these resources on a sustainable ments in consolidating a regional Congress ended with deliberations to basis. Dr. Sanchez is one of the prin- protected area system over the past reach consensus on the Bariloche cipal pioneers who initiated the decade. These included innovative Declaration, the official statement of planning and establishment of governance arrangements and the 2,200 participants that is intended national parks in Colombia, and funding sources and the growing role to serve as a road map for action to during his nine years as director of of civil society and local and regional consolidate the regional protected national parks he established the governments and private landowners area system over the next decade. National System of Protected Areas. in protected area management. There (Sources: Jim Barborak, He serves as professor of forestry at was also recognition of the role of Conservation International and www the District University of Bogotá, protected areas in poverty alleviation iucn.org/themes/wcpa/newsbulletins/ where he has taught for 22 years.

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 45 The Latin American Parks climate change, with some regions who risk the small chance of being Congress is held every 10 years. The facing the disappearance of current caught against lucrative gains from Bariloche Congress was attended by climatic conditions by 2100 or a tran- selling parts, especially paws and 2,200 individuals from 34 countries, sition to conditions not found on gall bladders. The world’s smallest and featured four symposia (with Earth in the previous century. species of bear, the sun bear, has accompanying workshops): conser- Countries where 90% or more of been classed as “vulnerable,” and the vation; knowledge; capacity building; the total protected territory has cli- giant panda remains in the “endan- and governance and equity. According mate conditions that will disappear gered” category on the IUCN Red to Dr. Kenton Miller, senior advisor globally or be transformed to novel List of Threatened Species. Polar to the WCPA, “it was a very signifi- climates are Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, bears, listed in 2006 as “vulnerable,” cant session for its inclusion of many Burkina Faso, Burundi, Colombia, are technically classified as marine young conservationists engaged in Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, mammals. parks and reserves around the region, Guyana, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Niger, Brown bears, the most wide- and for the involvement of indige- Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, spread ursid, are not listed as nous peoples, political leaders, Togo, Uganda, and Venezuela. The threatened globally because large scientists, non-governmental organi- study identified “refuge” countries numbers still inhabit Russia, Canada, zations, and government officials.” where protected areas face minimal Alaska, and some parts of Europe. According to Dr. Miller, one impor- risk from climate change, including Grizzly bears—brown bears living in tant initiative addressed the Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, interior North America—are consid- relationship between established Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Libya, ered “threatened” under the U.S. Protected Areas and the claims and Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Endangered Species Act outside of interests of indigenous peoples in the Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Alaska. Among the eight species of region, especially where such territo- Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, and bears, only the American black bear is ries overlap. (Sources: see article Somalia. (Source: http://conserva- secure throughout its range, which above titled “Latin America Regional tion.org/newsroom/pressreleases/ encompasses Canada, the United Parks Congress”) Pages/121007.aspx) States, and Mexico. At 900,000 strong, there are more than twice as many Severe Climate Change Bear Species American black bears than all the Threatens Protected Areas Threatened with Extinction other species of bears combined. Climate change affecting protected Six of the world’s eight species of (Source: www.iucn.org/en/news/ areas in some countries will be so bears are threatened with extinction, archive/2007/11/12_pr_bear.htm) severe that resulting environments according to recent assessments by will be virtually new to the planet, the World Conservation Union’s Wilderness Task Force to Meet at according to a study authored by (IUCN) Bear and Polar Bear Specialist IUCN Conference in Spain Sandy Andelman and presented at Group. Asia and South America are The triennial World Conservation the U.N. climate change talks in Bali, identified as the areas most in need Congress (WCC) of the World Indonesia, in December 2007. of urgent conservation action. At the Conservation Union (IUCN), meets Scientists from Conservation group’s meeting in Monterrey, in Barcelona, October 5–14, 2008. International, the University of Mexico, in November 2007, the Many thousands of conservationists Wisconsin, and the University of status of the seven species of terres- from the IUCN’s 147 member coun- Maryland analyzed the World trial bears was updated. Vulnerable tries will gather for all or part of the Protected Areas Database with 10 species include Asiatic black bears 10-day session packed with plenary global climate models and three dif- and sloth bears, both inhabitants of sessions, commission meetings, ferent scenarios examined by the Asia, and Andean bears (formerly workshops, trainings, and more. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on called spectacled bears) from the Wilderness Task force—an official Climate Change. They found that Andes Mountains of South America. part of IUCNs World Commission under the most likely scenario, more Although hunting bears is illegal on Protected Areas, and cochaired by than half the world’s protected terri- throughout southern Asia, bears Vance Martin (president, The WILD tory is vulnerable to impacts of suffer heavy losses from poachers Foundation) and Khulani Mkhize

46 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 (CEO Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife)—will New Publications from on Native Lands: The Native Lands and meet during the WCC, and is inte- The WILD Foundation Wilderness Council, edited by Julie grally involved in assuring that the Three new publications are available Cajune, Terry Tanner, and Vance wilderness protected area category during 2008 from the WILD Martin, is a compilation of case studies (1b) is maintained and strengthened Foundation as a follow-up from the specifically demonstrating how native as changes to the Framework for 8th World Wilderness Congress communities in many countries are Protected Areas are debated and (Alaska, 2005). A Handbook on specifically protecting wilderness on adopted by the General Assembly. International Wilderness Law and their ancestral lands. Wilderness, For more details on the Barcelona Policy, edited by Cyril Kormos (Fulcrum Wildlands and People: A Partnership for Congress, www.iucn.org/congress/ Publishing, 2008), is the first hand- the Planet, edited by Vance Martin and 2008/, and for the Wilderness Task book of its kind presenting a Cyril Kormos, present the edited ple- Force http://wtf.wild.org/. comparison of the many different nary proceedings of the 8th World ways in which wilderness is protected Wilderness Congress. Information and Is through legal and other policy means purchase are available at http://www. Coming! around the world. Protecting Wilderness wild.org/Store/Publications_Store.htm.

Book Reviews

American Wilderness: A New History relationship between humans and and nationalism; and the expansion Edited by Michael Lewis. 2007. wilderness. of industry, settlements, and agricul- Oxford University Press. 293 pp. Happily, there are many similari- ture and its impact on wilderness. $19.95 (paperback). ties between the old and new Again, these themes are also found in histories of wilderness. Many of the traditional histories, but different William Cronon’s book chapter “The same events (e.g., Wilderness Act), perspectives and epistemological Trouble with Wilderness” was an people (e.g., Thoreau, Muir), and stances are often taken in these new important watershed in the academic places (e.g., Hetch Hetchy) can be analyses. It was heartening to see history of the wilderness. The rift found in both histories. The primary many new authors in this book, between the “traditional” historians, difference between the two is that which suggests that the academic perhaps best reflected in Nash’s sem- these authors explicitly note the discourse on the history of wilder- inal Wilderness and the American effects of the temporal, spatial, and ness is still alive and well. Mind, and the “new” historians, such contextual realms in creating several The 15 chapters run in a roughly as Cronon and Callicott, who used a (often previously hidden) assump- chronological order. After a useful postmodern, constructivist perspec- tions in the changing conceptions of Introduction that clearly discusses tive to reexamine wilderness, has still wilderness. the break between traditional and not yet quite healed. Tension remains In the Introduction, Lewis notes (post-) modern historians, chapters between academics and advocates five themes in this book: a history of on a range of familiar issues are cov- who use a realist perspective versus the wilderness movement, an analysis ered, including conceptualizations of the new academics and advocates of how other groups (e.g., indigenous wilderness at first contact (both who have embraced the relativist peoples, backwoods settlers) were Spanish and British); the thorny rela- perspectives of the new historians. affected by the creation of protected tionship between farmers and However, as manifested in this edited areas; the change in ideas that shape wilderness; wilderness and conserva- book, it is clear that the postmodern and reflect the wilderness ideal (e.g., tion science; wilderness politics; historical perspectives help discover landscape painting, poetry); the link landscape painting and the represen- new perspectives on the complex between the wilderness movement tation of wilderness; the impact of

APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 47 various religious sects on wilderness reading and sympathizing with the their cause (Battle for the Wilderness ), thought; and Thoreau’s discussion of rising communist movement. One of one of the many books Frome has wilderness. Many authors provide new the few things he enjoyed at school published. He later entered academia, perspectives on issues, people, and (high school and, briefly, college) gaining his PhD at age 73. events that have long been debated in was working at the school news- Looking back, Frome notes that the wilderness literature, so much so paper. While working at various his life and career was largely based that I was often disappointed to come other jobs as a young adult, Frome on his unhealthy need to constantly to the end of many chapters! Lewis hungered to be a journalist, the type prove himself, a sensitivity incul- has assembled a highly recommended of journalist who would take on the cated in his childhood. He was book that provides additional post- issues of the day and fight for “the always “trying to prove something, modern analyses of the critical topics people.” He had just started his career never content with who, or where, I within the history of the wilderness as a journalist when Pearl Harbor was” (p. 271). Perhaps the greatest concept in past and present society. All was attacked: Frome soon joined the pleasure of the book is to feel the wilderness scholars and advocates Air Force and worked as a navigator, wisdom that has come with Frome’s should have a copy of this book. allowing him to see more of his aging, and the eventual peace and country and the world. contentment that developed late in Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book Eventually, after several news- his life. This book, then, is not an editor; email: [email protected]. paper jobs, Frome joined the analysis of Frome’s role in the rise of American Automobile Association the modern environmental move- (AAA) as the travel editor. It was here ment, or his place among the leaders Rebel on the Road: that Frome slowly became interested in American conservation. Although And Why I Was Never Neutral in national park, wilderness, and con- I was at first disappointed with By Michael Frome. 2007. Truman servation issues. However, Frome Frome’s unwillingness to describe State University Press. 346 pp. admits that the lack of any other the people and events that shaped $28.95 (cloth). writers covering these topics helped the modern environmental move- persuade him to continue writing on ment, as I continued reading the What a life Frome reviews in this these issues; it also appealed to his book, I became enamored with the autobiography! Born Michael Fromm ever-present desire to challenge the description of his remarkable life’s in 1920, the stigma of being born status quo. In 1966, he became a journey from a “frustrated, fright- poor, Jewish, and with a large facial magazine columnist for Americans ened, and unfulfilled” (p. 270) man birthmark seemed to generate a need Forests, and later wrote for Field and ashamed of his past, to one who has to constantly prove himself while Stream. He was fired from both posi- finally found contentment, and who challenging authority. He hid his tions for his unwillingness to wishes to share the joys of such a Jewish background and American- compromise, but this battle ethic also personal transformation. ized his name in response to the gained the respect of his peers. For flagrant prejudice of the times, and example, in 1972 The Wilderness Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book by the time he was a teenager was Society asked him to write a book for editor; email: [email protected]. Is Coming Plan to be there! www.wild9.org www.wild.org 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, MesoAmerica

48 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2008 • VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1