Climate Change Invasive Species Visitor Displacement Mexico, India INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

AUGUST 2009 VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2

FEATURES SCIENCE and RESEARCH EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES 23 Displacement in Wilderness Environments 3 Wilderness in a Word … or Two … or More A Comparative Analysis BY VANCE G. MARTIN BY JOHN G. PEDEN and RUDY M. SCHUSTER

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH 4 The Hidden Wildness of Mexico INSTITUTE 30 WILD9 and Wilderness Science BY JAIME ROJO BY GEORGE (SAM) FOSTER

STEWARDSHIP EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION 7 The Nature of Climate Change 31 A Profile of Conservation International Reunite International Climate Change BY RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER, CLAUDE Mitigation Efforts with Biodiversity GASCON, and THOMAS BROOKS Conservation and Wilderness Protection BY HARVEY LOCKE and BRENDAN MACKEY

14 Key Biodiversity Areas in Wilderness INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES BY AMY UPGREN, CURTIS BERNARD, ROB P. 35 Mountain Ungulates of the Trans-Himalayan CLAY, NAAMAL DE SILVA, MATTHEW N. Region of Ladakh, India FOSTER, ROGER JAMES, THAÍS KASECKER, BY TSEWANG NAMGAIL DAVID KNOX, ANABEL RIAL, LIZANNE ROXBURGH, RANDAL J. L. STOREY, and KRISTEN J. WILLIAMS WILDERNESS DIGEST 41 Announcements 18 Alien and Invasive Species in Riparian Plant Communities of the Allegheny River Islands Book Reviews Wilderness, Pennsylvania 45 Roadless Rules: The Struggle for the Last BY CHARLES E. WILLIAMS Wild Forests BY TOM TURNER

45 Yellowstone Wolves: A Chronicle of the Animal, the People, and the Politics BY CAT URBIGKIT

Disclaimer On the Cover The Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and featured articles in IJW, are a FRONT: Green parakeet flock (Aratinga holochlora) forum for controversial, inspiring, or especially at the Sotano de las Golondrinas cave, San Luis Potosi, informative articles to renew thinking and Mexico. Image courtesy of Jaime Rojo © —International dialogue among our readers. The views League of Conservation Photographers expressed in these articles are those of the INSET: Zapotec woman from the sustainable coffee authors. IJW neither endorses nor rejects cooperative in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, Mexico. them, but invites comments from our readers. Image courtesy of Jaime Rojo © —International League —John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief of Conservation Photographers

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 1 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 Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., 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; 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; Karen Ross, The Wilderness Foundation, Capetown, 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; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Greg Friese, Emergency Preparedness Systems LLC, Plover, Wisc.; 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, Washington, D.C.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Christopher Jones, Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Christopher Monz, Utah State University, Logan, Utah; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Goshen College, Wolf Lake, In.; Kevin Proescholdt, Izaak Walton League, St. Paul, Minn.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, USGS, Fort Collins, Colo.; 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 key Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and environ- Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. mental education; wilderness-related science and research from all Fax: (315) 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 Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, Foundation, 717 Poplar Ave., Boulder, CO 80304, USA. Telephone: announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encour- (303) 442-8811. Fax: (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 organiza- Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are tions/libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $12; outside encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed North America, add $24. Back issues are available for $15. by the author.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright © Website: www.ijw.org. 2009 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 • 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 in a Word … or Two … or More

BY VANCE G. MARTIN

uring 30 years of negotiating, cajoling, persuading, experience, and contain biologically and otherwise verbally wrestling about wilderness important characteristics. Dwith people from more than 80 nations, I long Latin countries, despite sharing ago came to a basic operating reality—the word is important a similar root language, clearly are in so much as it gets the job done. What’s more important not bound by it. is the goal of protecting and sustaining wild nature. The “Old World” shows wide In many cases the word is extremely important, for variation … after all, it’s Europe! In example in those nations and jurisdictions that have a legal French, area sauvage rather speaks construct for the word wilderness (United States, Canada, for itself. In Romania, as Erika VANCE G. MARTIN in Mali. Photo courtesy of The South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, The Stanciu told us in the December WILD Foundation. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, etc.) (Kormos 2008 IJW, the word is salbaticie, 2008). Further, in the context of the International Union for capturing in one word both the sense of wild animals as well Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) World Commission on that of a deserted, isolated place unaffected by human civili- Protected Areas and its protected area categories, the word zation. The root of that word comes from the Latin adjective wilderness is very important because it acts as an interna- silvaticus, itself originating from the word silva, or forest. tional standard. And in Italy, the mother-state of Latin itself, guess what? But when advocates, policy makers, planners, and man- Area wilderness is used freely, has even made it into provin- agers apply the standards and criteria to new jurisdictions or cial law and the dictionary, thanks to the lifetime dedication locales, they need to have an interest in communication, an of Franco Zunino and his Associazione Italiana per la ear for language, and a heart for culture. The goal of pro- Wilderness. tecting and sustaining wild nature—its qualities, services, What of the new world, outside Canada and the United solitude, and serenity—is achieved through finding common States? Virtually all the other countries speak Spanish—with ground with people of different cultures, religions, politics, the notable exception of Brazil, plus a smattering of coun- persuasions, and employment. tries here and there that speak French and English. Simply When considering wilderness, I marvel at some of the importing the word wilderness from the large, gringo linguistic differences. Zapovedniki in Russian literally means neighbor al norte has never been an option for the countries “forbidden area,” clearly a product of a Marxist, central-state al sud. Despite that, the wilderness concept is on the move era of thinking and policy making. It wouldn’t play well in in Latin America. The name of choice settled on by practi- California, but it gets the job done in Russia. In Iceland, the tioners is tierras silvestres—you can figure that one out by words are ósnorti∂ ví∂erni, which mean something like yourself—and it is the lead term as WILD9—the 9th World “untouched land.” This is used in spite of the fact that most Wilderness Congress—convenes in Mexico’s Yucatan, of Iceland has been or is still impacted by sheep grazing. But November 6–13, 2009. (www.wild9.org) it gets the job done in Iceland, where the awesome landscapes clearly communicate wilderness quality, convey a wilderness Continued on page 6

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 3 FEATURES SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

The Hidden Wildness of Mexico

BY JAIME ROJO

s a child I was filled with images and ideas of the biodiversity and culture of Mexico. Jaguars, bighorn A sheep, blue whales, or harpy eagles harmoniously blended with the ethnic groups of Lacandons, Huichols, or Seris in a collage whose main theme was diversity. As I studied this country more, I dreamed the sounds of its pri- meval forests, the endless stars of its desert nights, and the burning heat of the mountain escarpments. At that time, I didn’t have a name to describe that force, or presence, which kept me aware and dreaming through many nights. Today, I do, but it was a couple of decades before I understood what this was all about. I grew up in Spain, and during my childhood’s endless Figure 2—White-eared hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis), Neovolcanic Axis, Mexico. Photo © by Jaime Rojo. summers, the torrid olive groves or the ancient dehesas— cattle-managed Spanish oak woodlands—in which I would wander for hours in search of insects or birds seemed to me to experience the rural world and the wildest side of my the ultimate wilderness, the last frontier. I was raised in country. Those wonderful years shaped my life, and I will Madrid, the capital city of Spain, but was lucky enough to never forget them. have parents who were passionate for nature and allowed me Relative Landscape Scale Years later I had the opportunity to come to Mexico and fulfill my childhood dreams. I have now lived in Mexico for five years, and I am still humbled by the untamed nature that is hidden in every corner of this incredible country. The best part is that, after having traveled through much of its lush forests and scarped sierras, I feel I have only seen “the tip of this iceberg.” Certainly, the size of the country has much to do with that impression. Call it a matter of perspective, but when you have grown up in a region in which 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) is a huge hunting finca (ranch)—or where Doñana National Park, the crown jewel of protected areas in Spain, has 53,000 hectares (131,000 acres) and is one of the biggest wintering sites for birds in Europe—it Figure 1—Morning mist in a pine forest at the Neovolcanic Axis, Morelos. Photo © by Jaime Rojo. is overwhelming both to learn that Mexico’s Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve is more than 2.5 million hectares (6.3 million acres),

4 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 about 5% of Spain’s total land area, and to spend your first Christmas in Mexico has embarked on a pioneering crusade to this new country with a group of establish and consolidate a legal framework to ranchers in northern Mexico whose properties together account for 0.5 protect its many and diverse wilderness areas. million hectares (1.2 million acres). Imagine my surprise when I dis- important job as it develops its national remains in some sectors an attitude of covered that many Mexican wilderness policy. Under the leader- “why burden ourselves with another conservation colleagues don’t think ship of Ernesto Enkerlin, head of the imported gringo concept such as this?” that wilderness still exists in Mexico. It National Commission for Protected And finally, and probably most impor- is true that the country has had many Areas (CONANP), Mexico has tant, Mexico’s land tenure is millennia of human occupation. Some embarked on a pioneering crusade to complicated, with more than 90% of of the most outstanding civilizations establish and consolidate a legal frame- its land under private or communal of Mesoamerica have flourished here, work to protect its many and diverse property regime. This creates tough and its modern, still-increasing popu- wilderness areas. lation is more than 110 million But the challenges to habitants. Let’s do basic math: almost doing this can sometimes one-third of the total population is seem overwhelming. First, the crowded into just three cities—Mexico wilderness concept does not City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey— actually exist in the Spanish- that together account for less than speaking world—numerous 0.6% of the national territory. That possible translations are used, leaves more than 99% of the country and their meaning or accep- to the other 75 million people—almost tance varies according to the all of whom reside in numerous smaller audience. Second, not cities. But, forget about these calcula- everyone in the conservation tions, because my most important world is happy with the new point is the concept of relativity. look of the protected area Figure 3—Volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi), La Cima, Distrito Federal. Photo © by Jaime Rojo. The more I learn about the con- policy in Mexico. There cept of wilderness the better I understand its flexibility and adaptability. In Mexico, I have met people for whom camping on one of the surrounding little volcanoes, with the glow of the immense Mexico City underneath, is the wildest experience they dream about. I have met others for whom Mexico is not enough and constantly dream of the open spaces of Africa or Alaska. And you would be surprised to find out how often people yearn for the “real nature” that we have in Spain.… I’ve actually been told that!

Wilderness Policy in Mexico All these perspectives are valid. But sometimes there is a need to be strict Figure 4—Coatimundi (Nassua narica), El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas State, Mexico. Photo © by when considering wilderness, espe- Jaime Rojo. cially now when Mexico is doing an

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 5 Mexico. For example, for Continued from EDITORIAL decades Mexico has had a PERSPECTIVES, page 3 powerful but obsolete agrarian reform program El Noveno Congreso Mundial de that considered nonfarmed Tierras Silvestres, as it is called, will be or nonranched lands as “idle the first completely bilingual WWC, lands” and, therefore, sub- and it’s about time. For wilderness to ject to distribution for the win, and continue with its role in miti- use of the people. In the past gating climate change, providing few years, colleagues have irreplaceable ecosystem services, and worked to modify the providing its singular sense of wild Figure 5—Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Santuario de la Mexican Constitution so spirit in our world, it needs to be in Mariposa Monarca “Piedra Herrada,” Mexico State. Mexico. Photo © that “conservation” is con- by Jaime Rojo. many different languages. After all, sidered a legal use of the diversity is a key element of wilderness. land. If this is finally The IJW greets and welcomes del- approved, it will open up many more egates to WILD9, where this issue will opportunities for protected areas and be available free to all participants. To conservation land use in Mexico. mark the occasion we have a Soul of the Also, for those who don’t know, Wilderness on Mexico’s remarkable wil- WILD9, the 9th World Wilderness derness characteristics, and a pioneering Congress, will take place from feature article on the important role of November 6–13, 2009, in the city of wilderness in mitigating climate change Mérida, Yucatan—el corazón del (a central theme of WILD9). In addi- Figure 6—Local ejidatario trained as guide and reserve mundo Maya—and it is already tion, other articles from North America warden, Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary, Michoacan State. gaining momentum that will certainly Photo © by Jaime Rojo. and Asia combine with articles on sci- enhance the political and social con- ence and stewardship to round out a ditions to make things easier for diverse issue. wilderness advocates in Mexico. After all we’ve mentioned here Coming is the day when the about wilderness words, here’s some- majestic mountains and canyons of the thing else that’s interesting. The word western Sierra Madre will no longer be wilderness is not happening in Latin seen just as the home for the narco; the America, true. But when Spanish high-biodiversity Sonoran and speakers talk about the WILD9, they Chihuahuan Deserts will no longer always refer to it as WILD Nueve! It referred to as “hostile and barren does the job.... lands”; and the scarce, critically impor- Figure 7—Emma Díaz Gutierrez, Oaxacan biologist, orig- tant mangroves of the Gulf of California References inally from the indigenous communities of Sierra Norte, will be easily off-limits to resort or Kormos, C. F., ed. 2008. A Handbook on and supervisor of the sustainable shade coffee planta- shrimp farm development. The day is International Wilderness Law and tions, San Juan Yagila, Oaxaca. Photo © by Jaime Rojo. Policy. Golden, CO: Fulcrum coming when Mexicans will proudly Publishing. conditions for wilderness advocates, speak of their tierras silvestres—using the term promoted by WILD9 to refer VANCE G. MARTIN is the president of the including CONANP, when policy WILD Foundation and an executive board to the wilderness of Mexico and Latin decisions are required. member for IJW; email: [email protected]. Nevertheless, after the govern- America—as a valued part of their rich ment of Mexico announced at the 8th national heritage, an irreplaceable gift World Wilderness Congress (Alaska to their children, and an asset admired 2005) its commitment to develop its by the entire world. wilderness policy, a series of events JAIME ROJO is the executive director for favored a new wilderness paradigm in the WILD9 Secretariat.

6 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 STEWARDSHIP

The Nature of Climate Change Reunite International Climate Change Mitigation Efforts with Biodiversity Conservation and Wilderness Protection

BY HARVEY LOCKE and BRENDAN MACKEY

or the good of the climate, the time has come for a shift or disappear. These changes are already underway, and major initiative to reunite climate change mitigation they threaten many wildlife species. Fefforts with biodiversity conservation and wilderness protection. Recent scientific research has shown clearly that Carbon Dioxide protecting primary ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and The general problem that has led to rapid climate change is peatlands (whether they be tropical, temperate, or boreal) that we humans are releasing carbon dioxide (and other keeps their carbon stocks intact, avoids emissions from greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere faster than natural deforestation and degradation, and is a necessary part of processes can remove it. A certain amount of heat in the solving the climate change problem (Lyssaert et al. 2008; atmosphere is good and gives us a livable climate, but now Lewis et al. 2009; Phillips et al. 2008; Keith et al. 2009). the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmo- This new understanding provides a way to make important sphere is causing a rise in global temperature with disastrous advances to mitigate both climate change and the biodiver- consequences. sity extinction crisis. The cause of the rapid climate change we are now expe- Climate change has emerged as the leading environ- riencing is primarily the result of two main kinds of human mental issue of our time with good reason (IPCC 2007a). actions: burning fossil fuels and clearing or degrading nat- The rapid rise in Earth’s temperature threatens human well- ural ecosystems. These activities release carbon dioxide into being in several ways: rising sea levels will render millions the atmosphere from places on or under the Earth’s surface homeless, populations of malaria-bearing mosquitoes will where it was previously stored harmlessly or sequestered as reach millions of African people who live in areas that were one of a number of forms of carbon we call fossil fuels. The once too cool for these insects, and there will be an increase burning of carbon-dense oil, coal, and gas stocks is widely in the frequency of extreme climatic events such as droughts, known as the primary source of carbon dioxide. fires, floods, and hurricanes. Freshwater will get scarcer in some areas, which will lead to increasing tensions and poten- tially armed conflict about access to this basic resource. It is even possible that we could experience “climate surprises”— rapid, large-scale, and difficult-to-predict changes in the climate system that we know have occurred in the geological past. For example, ocean currents such as the North Atlantic Gulf Stream could change, rendering the climate of western Europe cooler and less agriculturally productive. Climate change also threatens other forms of life with which we share Earth. Coral reefs are bleaching, thus destroying critical fish habitat; climate shifts will result in the extinction of populations of many temperature-sensitive species such as mountain-dwelling pikas; and the habitats of Figure 1—Boreal forest in the Nahanni, Canada. Photo by Harvey Locke. other species such as cold-water trout and polar bears will

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 7 there is no coordinated attack on both root causes. The ongoing destruction of the world’s remaining natural habitats and associated biodiversity, and the climate change problem are being treated as two distinct and largely unrelated problems. This current state of affairs is clearly off course. But it was not always so.

Global Conventions for an Integrated Solution The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were both negotiated at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992. UNFCCC seeks to Figure 2—Increased fires from human activities will make natural forests more vulnerable to climate limit emissions of carbon dioxide and change. Photo by Vance G. Martin. other greenhouse gases that cause dan- gerous levels of climate change. The The second human action that released from burning fossil fuel or CBD seeks to halt the loss of biodiver- releases large amounts of carbon clearing and degrading natural ecosys- sity through protected areas and other dioxide into the atmosphere is the tems will continue to interact with the means. Both conventions have been conversion and degradation of natural atmosphere for many thousands of charged with development goals for forests and other carbon-dense ecosys- years before it is incorporated into the poorer countries. Their respective tems. A substantial amount of carbon sediment at the bottom of the ocean implementation mechanisms include dioxide is stored in natural ecosystems, through deposition and weathering the Kyoto Protocol and the Program of especially forests, wetlands, and peat- processes (Archer 2005). Work on Protected Areas. lands, which act as a vital buffer It is obvious that efforts to address regulating the atmospheric level of climate change should go toward iden- carbon dioxide. There is the equivalent tifying sources of carbon release and of more than 7 trillion tons of carbon then rapid action to prevent or reduce dioxide stored in forests and other ter- such release. We need to do two things restrial ecosystems such as wetlands simultaneously: (1) achieve deep cuts and peatlands. Humans are depleting in emissions from using fossil fuel as a these green carbon stocks (Mackey et major source of energy, and (2) protect al. 2008a) and releasing the carbon the carbon stored in forests and other dioxide into the atmosphere at an ecosystems by leaving them undis- alarming rate: about half the world’s turbed. Both tasks are important, as forests have already been cleared, and about 70% of the total historic increase rates of land conversion and degrada- in greenhouse gas levels in the atmo- tion continue to increase (Millennium sphere due to human activity is from Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Shearman burning fossil fuel, and about 30% is et al. 2009). Similarly, about half of from deforestation. And, on an the world’s wetlands have been ongoing basis, about 18% of annual degraded in the last century (Finlayson global emissions comes from dis- Figure 3—Central highlands forest, Victoria, and Davidson 1999). Unfortunately, turbing forests (IPCC 2007b). Australia. Photo by Peter Halasz. around 25% of the carbon dioxide Despite the scientific evidence,

8 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 the same NGOs make much of the fact that the United States has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Even in Canada, which is a signatory to both conventions and which houses the CBD Secretariat, the CBD has a very low profile. Further, many environmentalists working on climate change are fearful that allowing for the protection of nature in the Kyoto Protocol rules will undermine efforts at reducing emissions from wealthy countries that burn fossil fuels. The separation of the UNFCCC and CBD is bad for the goals of both conventions, but current structures Figure 4—High altitude mammals such as this pika in Yoho National Park, Canada, have few options and mindsets are preventing them as their habitat warms. Photo by Harvey Locke. from working together. Both climate change and the extinction crisis are Sixteen years after these two trea- to both conventions often assign getting worse, and to date efforts have ties were developed together as responsibilities for the conventions to failed to meet even modest goals of complementary strategies to safeguard different departments, with CBD slowing the rate of change and loss, let the future of life on Earth, a strange efforts being under-resourced and alone turning things around. Science thing has happened—they have become ignored compared to much better has now made clear that the protection separated. Politicians, policy experts, resourced climate change programs of natural ecosystems—and especially technicians, financiers, entrepreneurs, that are focused on fossil fuel emis- primary forests and other wildlands scientists, Nongovernmental organiza- sions. Since the United States is not such as wetlands and peatlands—will tions (NGOs), and the general public yet a signatory to the CBD, many U.S. help achieve climate change goals. consider the two conventions as NGOs are either unaware of it or This separation of the conventions addressing unrelated problems. Whereas simply ignore its potential. Ironically, must end. the importance of forests is acknowledged by both treaties, the UNFCCC process has yet to accept the significance of the carbon stored in natural forests and other ecosystems such as wetlands and peatlands, the resilience provided by their biodiversity, and the need for whole-of-ecosystem carbon accounting. Consequently, programs can occur under the Kyoto Protocol that actually harm the goals of the CBD—such as clearing natural forests to plant palm oil for biofuels. And no credit is given under the Kyoto Protocol for protecting wildlands and the vast stocks of biomass carbon they store. Unlike UNFCCC and the Kyoto Figure 5—Lowland forest in the lower Kikori catchment, Gulf Province, Papua New Guinea. Photo by Protocol, the CBD gets scant atten- Rocky Roe Photographics and UPNG Remote Sensing Centre. tion. Governments that are signatory

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 9 particular, large, old span elevations and altitudes—are the trees and disturbing best strategy to allow terrestrial species dead biomass and soil to adapt and ecosystems to remain carbon, must be recog- resilient to climate change (World nized as part of the Conservation Congress 2008; Heller climate change solution and Zavaleta 2009). The Program of in economically devel- Work on Protected Areas under the oped as well as CBD recognizes these tools. developing countries. Unfortunately, attempts to edu- Similarly, wetland con- cate people about the important roles servation is important played by healthy natural ecosystems to prevent release of in mitigation and adaptation are being Figure 6—Mt. Albert Strickland Ridge, North East Highlands, Tasmania. Photo greenhouse gases undermined by various climate change by Geoff Law. (CUIBA 2008). And myths. One widespread myth is that the vast peatlands in old growth forests are not helpful in Nature Protection for Climate northern boreal ecosys- mitigating climate change because Change Mitigation and tems have been shown to be cooling they are sources rather than sinks of Adaptation the climate through the uptake of carbon dioxide. This view of primary There is widespread agreement that to carbon and will continue to do so if forests has led some commentators to address climate change, both mitiga- left undisturbed (Frolking and Roulet argue that they should be cut down tion and adaptation are necessary. In 2007). Wilderness and intact habitat and replaced with younger trees that climate change parlance, mitigation conservation efforts are good for the absorb carbon dioxide from the atmo- means efforts to prevent or reduce climate as well as for biodiversity and sphere at a faster rate than old trees. release of carbon dioxide into the associated ecosystem services. This argument is wrong for a number atmosphere, and adaptation means In addition to mitigation, intact of reasons. For a start, it ignores the coming to grips with the fact that cli- natural ecosystems and wildlands are fact that old forests have very large mate change is underway and that critical to adaptation efforts. In dif- stocks of carbon in place. Mobilizing some harmful climate change is now ferent regions and in different ways, and releasing this carbon into the unavoidable. Adaptation involves climate change will place stress on eco- atmosphere through deforestation and doing what we can to adjust to the systems and the environmental services degradation creates a carbon debt that changes, as well as doing our best to they provide, especially the provision takes hundreds of years to recover anticipate what things will be like in of food and freshwater. Many commu- through new plantings (Righelato and the future, and putting plans in place nities, especially in poorer countries, Spracklen 2007). Furthermore, the with that in mind. will be affected. Intact, natural ecosys- underlying assumption is simply In a forest ecosystem, carbon is tems with their biodiversity fully incorrect because mature and very old stored in living and dead biomass and functioning are more resilient to natural forests in boreal, temperate, in the soil. In the tropics, more of the stresses than degraded lands. Healthy and tropical forests have been shown organic carbon is stored in the living ecosystems will prove an invaluable to be more likely to be sinks than trees. In boreal forests, there is propor- resource for helping communities sources (i.e., actively sequestering tionally more found below ground due adapt to unavoidable climate change. more carbon dioxide than they emit) to slower decomposition rates. Leaving extensive wild areas intact will (Luyssaert et al. 2008). In other words, Temperate forests store large amounts enable those natural processes to primary forest, and especially old of carbon in living trees, dead biomass, operate by which species can adapt growth forest, should be kept intact and the soil. Most of the living bio- and persist through changing condi- for the good of the climate. mass carbon is found in big, old trees. tions (Fischlin et al. 2007; Mackey et Protecting mature, primary forest in al. 2008b). Connectivity conservation Biodiversity and Natural all biomes (tropical, temperate, or initiatives—vast systems of protected Ecosystems boreal) from human activities that areas connected by conservation man- Efforts under the climate change con- deplete carbon stocks by removing, in agement in the intervening lands that vention will have perverse effects unless

10 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 they recognize biodiversity and natural tems is great. If these activities had ecosystems. Under the UNFCCC pro- Wilderness and unanticipated negative effects it cess at present, the role in mitigation intact habitat would be nearly impossible reverse of natural ecosystems and wildlands, them. The real solutions—reducing including primary forests and wet- conservation efforts emissions from burning fossil fuel lands, is not acknowledged. This are good for the and prevention of deforestation and worldview is manifested in several of climate as well as for degradation of natural ecosystems the key decisions and rules that have and wilderness areas—are more pro- been developed since this convention biodiversity saic but have a high probability of came into effect. The Kyoto Protocol and associated success with no negative consequences definition of forest is blind to biodi- to Earth’s natural systems. versity and does not distinguish ecosystem services. between a natural primary forest, a Nature Conservation heavily logged forest, and a monocul- tilizing the ocean with nutrients to The UNFCCC process needs a funda- ture plantation. This is self-defeating stimulate plankton growth. Another mental reorientation that integrates because the current carbon stocks of a idea involves sending particles into CBD goals. The word biodiversity does forest ecosystem vary enormously the upper atmosphere as “albedo even not warrant a mention in the Bali depending on its condition as the enhancers” to reflect the sun’s warming Action Plan. Although biodiversity result of land-use history (Gibbs et al. rays back into outer space. These does get a mention in the decision text 2007; Mackey et al. 2008a.). kinds of solutions assume Earth is a to some of the Kyoto Protocol, that There is the potential for per- simple, linear system—like a clock— process is very clearly not designed to verse outcomes from active mitigation amenable to conventional engineering focus on its conservation (see discus- efforts. Some renewable energy tech- thinking. But, Earth is a complex sion below). The concept of nologies could fragment wilderness adaptive system, driven by nonlinear ecosystem-based management—which areas, leading to further deforesta- feedbacks, and full of climate sur- implies biodiversity—is on the adaptation, degradation, and associated prises. The risk to biodiversity and tion agenda. But when nature is emissions. Road infrastructure the goals of both the CBD and cli- discussed during climate change nego- designed to serve windmills, or new mate change treaty from such tiating sessions, it is usually in the hydroelectric reservoirs and associ- large-scale meddling with natural sys- context of impacts, not mitigation. ated power-line corridors, perturb natural ecosystems, release green carbon, reduce the resilience of ecosystems, and disrupt the natural processes that enable species to adapt to and persist in the face of climate change. Such outcomes would be self- defeating. Renewable energy facilities should be located in already disturbed areas of which there is no shortage. Similarly, there is increasing talk of “geoengineering” to address climate change (Victor et al. 2009). Instead of relying on emissions reduc- tions only, geoengineering would endeavor to cool the climate by human intervention on a planetary scale. One idea is to attempt to increase oceanic uptake of carbon Figure 7—Old growth forest, Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada. Photo by Harvey Locke. dioxide from the atmosphere by fer-

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 11 The lack of focus on mitigating or poor countries. Indeed the current Emissions from Deforestation and impacts through protecting natural rules tend to the opposite in wealthy Forest Degradation in Developing carbon-rich ecosystems can be seen in countries—“The mere fact of carbon Countries [REDD]). This is an the approach taken to land manage- presence [shall] be excluded from important step in the right direction ment in wealthy countries. Under the accounting” (LULUCF Decision 16/ to protect carbon stored in the nat- Kyoto Protocol, land management CMP. 1). However, if we are serious ural ecosystems of poorer countries. issues for such countries are considered about mitigating the second largest However, discussions to date are under the policy theme of “Land Use, source of emissions then we need to focused on a narrow subset of issues Land-Use Change and Forestry” find ways of avoiding emissions and such as how current rates of emis- (LULUCF) (Kyoto Protocol, Article maintaining carbon stocks in all sions can be reduced, implying that significant deforestation and degradation must occur before financial rewards can be received. Such deforestation and degradation is clearly important to reverse. But, where are the rewards for nations who have already been doing the right thing by protecting their primary forests? Often they struggle to adequately resource their protected areas with adequate enforcement that is critical to prevent their carbon stocks from being disturbed by illegal activities such as logging. A key issue being debated is which approaches and mechanisms should be adopted to fund REDD action. Very Figure 8—Upper Florentine, Australia. Photo by Rob Blakers. prominent are discussions concerning the potential to use carbon credit 3.3). Wealthy countries are required countries. This can be done through schemes whereby wealthy countries under Article 3.3 to report on emis- public policy with no exchange of can offset some of their industrial sions from deforestation, but under funds because it is in the interests of emissions through the transfer of funds Article 3.4 reporting on emissions wealthy nations to act by protecting from rich to poor countries—the from forest management is optional. their own natural ecosystems to pre- proposition is that emitters from The definition of forest adopted by the vent climate change, or it can be done wealthy countries will be able to offset Kyoto Protocol is very general and through financial incentives such as a percentage of carbon dioxide emis- allows for outcomes such as permitting “payment for ecosystem services” sions from factories and utilities by a biodiverse natural forest to be con- (Costa 2009; Costa and Wilson paying poor countries to keep an verted to a monoculture plantation, 2000). equivalent amount of green carbon in even though in reality deforestation place through reducing the rate of and degradation (i.e., depletion) of REDD—A Necessary but deforestation and degradation. carbon stocks has occurred (Mackey et Insufficient First Step Although it is essential to find mecha- al. 2008a). Recently a fledgling effort has been nisms that can finance nature Consistent with the Kyoto launched that recognizes the mitiga- protection in developing countries, it Protocol’s focus on reporting changes tion value of reducing the rate at is not clear that such purchased offsets in emissions, current rules do not which emissions are released from will be the most efficient, fair, and emphasize the mitigation value of deforestation and degradation in ecologically appropriate. We need to protecting intact carbon stocks in tropical forests (i.e., United Nations reduce fossil fuel emissions and green natural ecosystems in either wealthy Collaborative Program on Reducing carbon emissions simultaneously—one

12 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 is not really a substitute for the other. politicians and NGOs in all countries these ideas now and to join us at In developing countries that are to show leadership in recognizing that WILD9 (www.wild9.org). struggling to eliminate poverty and the climate change problem, the biodi- provide the basic needs for all their versity extinction crisis, and the References people, rich countries could and destruction of wilderness have the same Archer, D. 2005. Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in root cause and that coordinated, holistic geologic time. Journal of Geophysical should be helping by exploring all Research 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/ options, including through integra- solutions are required. 2004JC002625. tion of the UNFCCC and CBD as Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Programme of Work on Protected part of their international cooperation A Call to Action Areas, COP 7 Decision VII/28 Kuala activities. For example, wealthy coun- Large-scale nature conservation is a Lumpur, February 9–20, 2004. Costa, P. M. 2009. Compensation for carbon tries could use the Program of Work first-order climate change strategy for stock maintenance in forests as an under the CBD to transfer funds to both mitigation and adaptation. alternative to avoiding carbon flows. poorer countries for programs aimed Keeping green carbon stored in large Unpublished report, Oxford Centre for Tropical Forests, Environmental Change at protecting their natural ecosystems. intact natural landscapes is a mitigation Institute, University of Oxford, UK. This can be justified because of the strategy. Connectivity conservation is Costa, P. M., and C. Wilson. 2000. An other multiple and reinforcing bene- equivalence factor between CO2 an adaptation strategy. Both are needed. avoided emissions and sequestration— fits to climate, biodiversity, and Such action is necessary to address the Description and applications in forestry. sustainable livelihoods that result. biodiversity extinction crisis and pre- Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5: 51–60. Tradable “carbon credits” is but one serve the ecosystem services such as CUIBA. 2008. Declaration on Wetlands, of a range of approaches that should freshwater on which all humans rely. It Scientific Advisory Committee of the be tested as we work toward finding 8th INTECOL Wetland Conference, is time to take a holistic view of the Cuiba, Brazil, www.cppantanal.org.br/ sustainable solutions. CBD and UNFCCC by bringing them intecol/eng/sections.php?id_section21. A major concern with current back together to ensure that actions Finlayson, C. M., and N. C. Davidson. 1999. Global Review of Wetland Resources discussions of REDD is the narrow under the one help the other, rather and Priorities for Wetland Inventory. focus on the tropics. The result is that than cause harm. We must ensure that Summary Report. Report to the Bureau the large amounts of carbon stored in the carbon already stored in primary of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) from Wetlands International undisturbed temperate and boreal eco- forests, wetlands, peatlands, and other and the Environmental Research systems are not being considered in intact ecosystems stays there. The Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Australia. Ramsar COP7 DOC. 19.3, the REDD process because most of UNFCC and the CBD should be seen www.ramsar.org/cop7/cop7_doc_ these forest biomes are located in as two parts of an inseparable whole. 19.3_e.htm. wealthy countries. We need immediate The need for a coherent strategy Fischlin, A., G. F. Midgley, J. T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. global action to protect carbon-rich to address climate change that simulta- Rounsevell, O. P. Dube, J. Tarazona, ecosystems wherever they occur. neously keeps in place the green carbon and A. A. Velichko. 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. The Convention on Biological stored in natural wild ecosystems and In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Diversity (2009) process has estab- meets emissions reduction goals will Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contri- lished an Ad Hoc Technical Expert be a major focus of WILD9, the 9th bution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Group on Biodiversity and Climate World Wilderness Congress in Mérida, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is exploring the relation- Mexico, in November 2009. Change, ed. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and ships between actions under the two We have no illusions that the C. E. Hanson (pp. 211–72). Cambridge, conventions. Although this is an message from WILD9 alone will be UK: Cambridge University Press important initiative, it is a technical sufficient to return international Frolking, S., and N. T. Roulet. 2007. Holocene radiative forcing impact of northern working group informing the CBD efforts to protect our environment to peatland carbon accumulation and and through it the UNFCCC process, their Rio Earth Summit origins. But, methane emissions. Global Change Biology 13: 1079–88. and needs to be complemented by new we can all add our voices to the Gibbs H. K., S. Brown, J. O. Niles, and J. A. thinking in the policy arena. growing international call for a more Foley. 2007. Monitoring and estimating Current activities such as REDD integrated approach. We encourage tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environmental and the CBD Ad Hoc Technical Expert anyone interested in the future of our Research, Letters 2: 1–13. Group are necessary but not sufficient. climate and the fate of wild nature to There is a pressing higher level need for begin disseminating and debating Continued on page 40

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 13 STEWARDSHIP

Key Biodiversity Areas in Wilderness

BY AMY UPGREN, CURTIS BERNARD, ROB P. CLAY, NAAMAL DE SILVA, MATTHEW N. FOSTER, ROGER JAMES, THAÍS KASECKER, DAVID KNOX, ANABEL RIAL, LIZANNE ROXBURGH, RANDAL J. L. STOREY, and KRISTEN J. WILLIAMS

iven that the primary threat to biodiversity is the targets in wildernesses destruction of natural habitats, the foremost con- presents particular diffi- Gservation response must be to protect the places culties. Nevertheless, work where threatened biodiversity is found. Indeed, the estab- on the identification of lishment of protected areas has long been a cornerstone of key biodiversity areas in conservation, and this cornerstone was recently reinforced wilderness regions, by a specific mandate from the Convention on Biological including the five high- Diversity’s Program of Work on Protected Areas (Secretariat biodiversity wilderness to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2009). However, areas (see article in this this raises the question of how to identify places as targets for issue on Conservation such site-level conservation. More than two decades ago, International), has been techniques for the identification of Important Bird Areas proceeding apace for sev- Amy Upgren courtesy of Amy Upgren (BirdLife International 2009; Osieck and Morzer-Bruyns eral years now, and key 1981) were developed to address this question, implicitly biodiversity areas have recently been defined in the Amazon, based on vulnerability and irreplaceability, the core princi- the Guiana Shield, New Guinea, the Mexican section of the ples of systematic conservation planning (Margules and North American deserts, and in parts of the Miombo- Pressey 2000; Sarkar et al. 2006). Over the last decade, as Mopane wilderness in southern Africa. comprehensive assessments of biodiversity beyond birds have become available (Stuart et al. 2004; Schipper et al. Symposium Summary 2008), these techniques have been generalized to facilitate In June 2008 we organized a symposium entitled Site Level the identification of key biodiversity areas as targets for site Conservation Targets in High-biodiversity Wilderness Areas: conservation for additional taxa (Eken et al. 2004; Progress with Key Biodiversity Identification at the Langhammer et al. 2007). Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation annual The identification of key biodiversity areas in wilderness meeting in Paramaribo, Suriname. The goals of the sympo- regions presents a number of specific challenges. First and sium were to review and draw comparative lessons from foremost, the low sampling intensity of biodiversity in these efforts to identify key biodiversity areas in the world’s wil- often remote areas means that biological data are sparse, derness areas. Here, we summarize the major findings from biased geographically toward access routes such as roads and this symposium. rivers, and in some cases taxonomically based on research The symposium addressed several of the main chal- preferences. These data are also globally dispersed among lenges in identifying key biodiversity areas in wildernesses natural history institutions. Moreover, extensive tracts of and potential solutions to those challenges. One of the larger intact habitat and biophysical homogeneity, combined with challenges is data scarcity, which has been managed through a lack of formal land management structures in many the validation of all existing data. This was accomplished by regions, means that the delineation of site conservation collecting, cleaning, and compiling datasets from multiple

14 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 sources, as well as by documenting locality point and habitat decisions, which local experts then reviewed. Data accuracy issues are also a concern in wildernesses because many collections only have generalized descriptions of species localities. In New Guinea, this issue was handled by establishing a protocol in which vague species points without a clear locality, as well as those older than 50 years, were only considered to identify potential habitat for a species, as opposed to known habitat triggering a key biodiversity area. Reliable species locations and natural history descriptions were used to generate “ecological logic” (the hypotheses of species-hab- Figure 1—Pitaya cactus and sea, Isla Danzante, Gulf of California. Photo © by Patricio Robles Gil. itat relationships) for relating point locations to maps of vegetation, altitude, soil, landform, and other criteria In more fragmented areas, key biodi- extensive protected areas network, to characterize and delineate proximal versity areas often protect remaining with 36% of the land area in 19 areas of known and potential habitat. intact habitat. In wilderness areas, con- national parks and 33 game manage- In other cases, such as in the Venezuelan tiguous habitat makes it difficult to ment areas. This vast network of section of the Guiana Shield, biolog- delineate site-scale conservation tar- protected areas was used for the initial ical data from museums and scientific gets, and a lack of formal land selection of key biodiversity sites, collections were geo-referenced and management units can add to this since it represents existing land man- used to analyze gaps and threats (www. challenge. One approach to over- agement units in the contiguous wilderness. Protected areas are often a useful starting point for identifying It makes good conservation sense that key biodiversity areas, since they fre- key sites for biodiversity protection quently have the best species locality data in a region. From this beginning, in wildernesses are large. the key biodiversity areas network in Zambia is being expanded to include simcoz.org.ve). Imprecise data and coming these obstacles, employed in sites for the conservation of all species data gaps also highlighted survey and the Amazon and the Guiana Shield, of significance in the country’s wilder- research priorities for future work. was to combine species data with maps ness. By incorporating anthropogenic Data scarcity and accuracy remain of soil types, topography, forest types, and physical features of the landscape, challenges for conservation in wilder- and logging concessions to delineate in addition to biodiversity data, in ness areas, but through the key biodiversity areas. In addition, wildernesses throughout the world, aforementioned techniques we can at socioeconomic data were used to guide we were able to delineate distinct sites least partially compensate for these the delineation process, to avoid areas for conservation in areas of contig- data issues and proceed with the iden- that are already heavily utilized or uous habitat. tification of sites for conservation. sociopolitically complex, and to incor- One example of how to identify The existence of large tracts of porate existing protected areas into the key biodiversity areas where species intact habitat in wilderness areas poses key biodiversity area network. As data are extremely sparse was in New another challenge to drawing site another example, the Miombo- Guinea, where we carried out habitat boundaries for key biodiversity areas. Mopane wilderness of Zambia has an delineation for each species in the

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 15 tive solutions were required to identify key biodiversity areas in New Guinea. As progress has been made on identifying key biodiversity areas in wildernesses, we have recognized that the spatial extent of “sites” in wilderness regions can often be much larger than traditionally conceived elsewhere in the world, a scale of conservation to which the recent establishment of the 4.25 million hectare (10.5 million acre) Grão-Pará Ecological Station in Pará, Brazil, bears testament. In an analysis of the size of key biodiversity areas in wildernesses compared to Figure 2—School of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Gulf of California. Photo © by Patricio Robles Gil. those in biodiversity hotspots, our results showed a general trend of fewer region categorized as Critically isfactorily and are too small to allow but larger site-scale targets in wilder- Endangered or Endangered on the for the conservation of key biodiversity ness areas. Looking at key biodiversity International Union for Conservation area trigger species. We therefore devel- areas for birds, for example, demon- of Nature (IUCN) Red List, refining oped a fine-scale planning unit based strates that there are 29 sites in the extent of occurrence with ecological on watershed subcatchments. As a Congo Basin wilderness, covering data. In this way, key biodiversity areas partial solution, draft boundaries based 9.3% of the region, with a mean size were identified near collection points on planning unit clusters were refined of 5,586 sq km (2,156 sq. mi.). By where we are confident that the species through comparisons with language comparison, the Guinean Forests of occurs, and also in areas where the spe- groups and other sociopolitical con- West Africa hotspot holds 91 sites, cies probably occurs. Additional texts (e.g., land use intensity, village covering 9.6% of the region, with a complications relating to site delinea- locations, administration units) within mean size of 660 sq km (255 sq. mi.). tion and manageability arise from which some ties of kinship and These differences result from the much communal ownership of most land. common interest may exist, thus cre- greater ecological and socioeconomic Actual management units in New ating manageable units of an adequate uniformity of wilderness areas. The Guinea are vague and often based on size for the conservation of trigger spe- “first cut” delineation of areas in the the local ethnic group or community, cies and a starting point for mid- to high-altitude regions of New but these areas cannot be mapped sat- consultation. These and other innova- Guinea, based on the highest priority

Figure 3—Panoramic view of El Cajon, Northern Sierra Madre, Sonora. Photo © by Patricio Robles Gil.

16 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 trigger species (critically endangered and endangered), contrasts with this trend, where high levels of endemism and extreme habitat diversity in parts fragmented by human land use preferences supports small-scale targets. As data for additional trigger species are incorporated (i.e. vulnerability, restricted range, and other irreplaceability criteria), these areas may be amalgamated into larger areas. As discussed earlier, survey efforts are much more biased in wilderness areas, and survey densities are much lower, which we would expect would result in the identification of smaller Key Bio- diversity Areas (KBAs). That our Figure 4—Jaguar (Panther onca), Mayan forests of Calakmul, Campeche. Photo © by Patricio Robles Gil. results reveal wilderness KBAs to be larger than expected suggests that this is less of a problem than feared. It conservation is fundamental. In the References: makes good conservation sense that Guiana Shield of Venezuela, for Bird Life International. 2009. Important Bird Areas (IBAs). In BirdLife in Action. key sites for biodiversity protection in example, Rapid Assessment Programs Retrieved April 17, 2009, from http:// wildernesses are large. were conducted on five key biodiver- www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/. sity areas, with important consequences Eken, G., et al. 2004. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience for the conservation of these sites in 54: 1110–1118. The foremost alliance with indigenous communities, Langhammer, P., et al. 2007. Guidelines for the Identification and Gap Analysis of conservation mining companies, and governmental Key Biodiversity Areas as Targets for response must be institutions. Protecting biodiversity, Comprehensive Protected Area however, is not the only benefit of Systems. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN. IUCN–WCPA Best Practice Protected to protect the places conserving key biodiversity areas. The Area Guidelines Series 15. benefits of conserving these areas are Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. where threatened Systematic conservation planning. also critical to people. These include Nature 405: 243-53. biodiversity is found. provisioning services, such as com- Osieck, E.R., and M. F. Morzer-Bruyns. merce based on nontimber forest 1981. Important Bird Areas in the European Community. Cambridge These lessons from the identifica- products and the safeguarding of clean (United Kingdom): International Council tion of site-scale conservation targets water sources; regulating services, for Bird Preservation. Sarkar, S., R. L. Pressey, D. P. Faith, C. R. in wilderness areas will be useful as including climate regulation through Margules T. Fuller, D. M. Stoms, A. conservation planners seek to strategi- the reduction of emissions from trop- Moffett, K. Wilson, K. J. Williams, P.H. cally protect the most important sites ical forest destruction; and cultural Williams, and S. Andelman. 2006. Biodiversity Conservation Planning within the world’s surviving wilder- services, which can range from the Tools: Present Status and Challenges nesses. Identifying key biodiversity maintenance of spiritual practices to for the Future. Annual Review of educational opportunities. By initi- Environment and Resources 31: areas in wildernesses provides an 123-159. opportunity for proactive conservation ating proactive conservation in Schipper, J., et al. 2008. The status of the investments by protecting the most wilderness areas, we can ensure that world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat and knowledge. important sites for biodiversity conser- both biodiversity and human well- Science 322:225-230. vation before threats to these areas being are preserved in these Secretariat to the Convention on Biological intensify and more habitat and species extraordinary places even if or when Diversity. 2009. Programme of Work. are lost. Working with local communi- development encroaches upon their ties and stakeholders on such proactive wilderness status. Continued on page 48

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 17 STEWARDSHIP

Alien and Invasive Species in Riparian Plant Communities of the Allegheny River Islands Wilderness, Pennsylvania

BY CHARLES E. WILLIAMS

conservation, have made riparian area conservation and res- toration high priorities for ecosystem managers in many landscapes (Verry et al. 2000; Naiman et al. 2005). As in numerous ecosystems worldwide, a major challenge to the conservation and management of riparian areas is invasion by alien plant species, which can alter ecosystem structure and function in undesirable ways (Williams 1996). High native plant diversity in riparian habitats is largely associated with natural disturbance, particularly flooding and scour by seasonal and storm-related flood pulses, which creates regeneration micro-sites and mediates resource competition among species (Naiman et al. 1993, 2005; Naiman and DeCamps 1997). Frequent natural or anthropogenic

Charles Williams disturbances, however, can also create conditions conducive to alien plant establishment (DeFerrari and Naiman 1994; Pyle 1995; Planty-Tabacchi et al. 1996; Stohlgren et al. Introduction 1998). At the other extreme, alien plant invasions of riparian Riparian areas are ecotones—transition areas—between ter- areas can be facilitated by altered hydrologic regimens caused restrial and aquatic ecosystems. As such, riparian areas by dams and diversions, which diminish flooding and scour possess features and processes influenced by adjacent ecosys- and stabilize geomorphic surfaces, allowing some invasive tems as well as those unique to riparian habitats (Naiman species to not only establish but to dominate. and DeCamps 1997; Verry et al. 2000; Naiman et al. 2005). Riparian areas are among the most diverse, dynamic, and Allegheny River Islands Wilderness productive of ecological systems, performing many valuable The Allegheny River Islands Wilderness (ARIW) in the ecological functions in the landscape (Naiman et al. 1993, Allegheny National Forest of northwestern Pennsylvania was 2005; Naiman and DeCamps 1997). In many regions of the established in 1984 (United States P.L. Law 98-585) to pro- world, riparian areas are hotspots of biodiversity: species vide river-based recreational opportunities and to protect the richness of certain organisms, such as vascular plants, often unique vegetation and riparian environments of the islands. far exceeds that of adjacent upland habitats (Naiman et al. Several of the larger islands within the ARIW support riv- 1993, 2005; Stohlgren et al. 1998). The important ecolog- erine forests dominated by large-stemmed silver maple (Acer ical functions of riparian areas, and their value in biodiversity saccharinum) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) (Walters

18 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 of the Allegheny River in the study area, diminishing seasonal peak flows and creating more stable flows across the year (Walters and Williams 1999; Colwell and Stoudt 2002). Previous research identified three broadly defined plant community types in the ARIW (Williams 2008): (1) a floodplain scour community dominated by native herbaceous plants such as blue vervain (Verbena hastata), small-spike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus); (2) a silver maple– (Acer saccharinum) sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) floodplain forest dominated by native herbaceous plants such as white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quin- quefolia), and ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris); and (3) a sycamore– Figure 1—Location of the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania and the seven islands of the bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)– Allegheny River Islands Wilderness. slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) floodplain forest community dominated by native and Williams 1999; Cowell and Dyer and drainage with elevation. Kinzua herbaceous plants such as southern 2002). These ARIW forests are consid- Dam, 15 miles (25 km) upstream, broadleaf enchanter’s nightshade ered to be among the finest examples began flood control operations in 1966 (Circaea lutetiana), white snakeroot, of mature riverine forests in and has altered the hydrologic regimen and Virginia knotweed (Polygonum Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States (Smith 1989). To date, few studies have been done on the vegetation of the ARIW, but most have suggested that alien and invasive plant species are an important threat to the integrity of the plant communities of the ARIW and are a significant management concern (Walters and Williams 1999; Cowell and Dyer 2002; Colwell and Stoudt 2002; Williams 2008). The ARIW consists of seven islands (368 acres; 149 ha) located in Pennsylvania’s Middle Allegheny River watershed between the city of Warren (Warren County) to the north and the borough of Tionesta (Forest County) to the south (see figure 1). Relief across Figure 2—A view looking upstream from No Name Island toward the foot of Baker Island, Allegheny the islands ranges from 3 to 10 feet (1 River Islands Wilderness, Pennsylvania. Photo by Charles E. Williams. to 3 m), and soil types vary in texture

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 19 vide baseline data on the composition The relative invasive status of all and distribution of the alien and inva- alien and invasive plant species encoun- sive flora of riparian plant communities tered during surveys of the ARIW was within the ARIW, and a summary of determined from ranks given to the the study is presented here as an example species using the U.S. Invasive Species of the threat of alien and invasive plant Impact Rank or I-Rank (NatureServe spread in riparian ecosystems. 2008). I-Ranks are derived from evaluating a species’s ecological impact, its Study Summary current distribution and abundance, Six survey sites were located in a strati- its trend in distribution and abun- fied random manner on each of the dance, and its management difficulty seven river islands of the ARIW: one (Morse et al. 2004). Additional data site each on the head and toe of an on invasive status, plant growth form island; one each on the flanks of an (e.g., graminoid, herb, shrub, vine, or island; and two in the island interior, tree), and life history characteristics for a total of 42 sites across islands. (e.g., annual, biennial, or perennial) Plants within survey sites were invento- were obtained from the USDA Plants ried using a time-constrained search database (USDA, NRCS 2008). Figure 3—A large silver maple (Acer saccharinum) on King Island, Allegheny River Islands Wilderness, method (Goff et al. 1982; Williams et A total of 41 alien and invasive Pennsylvania. The invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris al. 1997, 1998; Williams 2005). plant species was tallied from the 42 arundinacea) dominates the herbaceous layer in this image. Photo by Charles E. Williams. Scientific and common names follow sample sites across the seven islands of NatureServe (2008). Native or alien the ARIW. Alien and invasive species status for plant species follows Rhoads accounted for 17.8% of the total sur- virginianum). The floodplain scour and Block (2000). veyed flora. The floodplain scour community is typically associated with One-way analysis of variance was community supported the greatest low-lying heads, toes, and flanks of used to examine differences in alien number of alien and invasive plant spe- islands where flooding and scour are plant species richness across commu- cies (36 species; 18.9% of the common disturbances. Tree cover in nity types using sample sites as community flora), followed by the silver this community is sparse to absent, observations. Data were transformed maple–sycamore forest community (23 resulting in a relatively open, light-rich (square root (X + 0.5) for count data) species; 16.8% of the community flora), environment. The silver maple–syca- prior to analysis to ensure homoge- and the sycamore–bitternut hickory– more floodplain forest and the neity of variances. Fisher’s exact test slippery elm forest community (14 sycamore–bitternut hickory–slippery was used to examine potential differ- species; 12.4% of the community flora). elm communities generally occur on ences in the frequency of common Ten alien and invasive plant species more elevated geomorphic surfaces, alien and invasive plant species (those (24.4% of the alien and invasive flora) such as low terraces, that are located with > 30% occurrence across sample occurred across all three of the commu- above high-energy scour zones. Tree sites) across community types. For all nity types. Mean alien and invasive cover is moderate in these two commu- statistical analyses, significance was plant species richness did not differ nities, creating medium to light shade. accepted at P < 0.05. Statistical anal- significantly among community types A series of studies were conducted yses were conducted using SYSTAT (floodplain scour community: mean = August of 2000 through 2006 to pro- version 7.0 (Wilkinson 1997). 7.8 species per site; silver maple–sycamore forest community: mean = 6.5 species per site; sycamore–bitternut A major challenge to the conservation and hickory–slippery elm forest commu- management of riparian areas is invasion by alien nity: mean = 5.1 species per site). Five of the eight most widespread plant species, which can alter ecosystem alien and invasive plant species dif- structure and function in undesirable ways. fered significantly in frequency of occurrence across the three river island

20 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 communities. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and climbing bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara) occurred most frequently in the floodplain scour community; reed canarygrass was also prevalent in the silver maple–sycamore forest community. Both dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis) and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) occurred most frequently in the two floodplain forest communities. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) was most prevalent in the sycamore– bitternut hickory–slippery elm forest community. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), touch-me- not bittercress (Cardamine impatiens), and creeping Jenny (Lysimachia num- mularia) were present but were not Figure 4—A young sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) forest on R. Thompson Island, Allegheny River significantly associated with any spe- Islands Wilderness, Pennsylvania. Photo by Charles E. Williams. cific river island plant community. The summary of I-Ranks for alien ARIW plant communities—with species in the ARIW. Perhaps the most and invasive plant species encountered high potential for ecological daunting is the large reservoir of alien during surveys of the ARIW includes impact and the greatest difficulty and invasive species within the Allegheny 26 species with high to low I-Ranks for control, such as reed canarygrass River corridor that can serve as sources and 15 species whose status was and garlic mustard. for reinvasion of treated sites (Williams unknown or not yet assessed. Ten spe- 2. Abundant species—found in most et al. 1997). Rhizomes and stem frag- cies had a high I-rank (24.4% of the or all ARIW plant communities— surveyed flora), 9 species had a medium with medium to high ecological I-Rank (22.0% of the surveyed flora), impact potential and high to mod- and seven species had a low I-Rank erate difficulty for control, such as (17.1% of the surveyed flora). Four dame’s rocket and creeping Jenny. species are listed as noxious weeds in 3. Species with high ecological Pennsylvania (USDA, NRCS 2008). impact potential found in a single ARIW plant community, such as Management Implications purple loosestrife (Lythrum sali- The alien and invasive plant assemblage caria) vary in difficulty of control of the ARIW includes a range of species but their limited abundance and with varied ecological impact potential, distribution within the ARIW distribution across plant communities, provides an opportunity for tar- and difficulty of control. Grouping spe- geted control within specific plant cies by their frequency of occurrence communities. This category across ARIW plant communities and should not be considered a watch- by I-Rank produces three categories of list but instead as a group of species differing in abundance, ecolog- species for which early contain- ical impact potential, and possible ment may be possible. Figure 5—The alien invasive herb, purple loosestrife success in control. (Lythrum salicaria) is largely confined to floodplain Several factors will complicate con- scour communities in the Allegheny River Islands 1. Widespread alien and invasive Wilderness. Photo by Charles E. Williams. plant species—found in all three trol efforts for alien and invasive plant

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 21 River consisted of seasonal spikes, especially in the spring, high flows associated with storm events, and low flows occurring from June to October (Walters and Williams 1999; Colwell and Stoudt 2002). The relatively stable flows of today’s regulated river have diminished the potential for extensive and intensive scouring and flooding. A possible effect of altered flow regimen is the spread of invasive and alien plant species whose populations may have been held in check by past flooding and scouring. For example, stable flows may have promoted the dominance of certain invasive species, such as reed canarygrass, to the exclusion of disturbance-dependent native species (Walters and Williams 1999; Colwell and Dyer 2002). Therefore, integrated control strategies for alien and invasive plant species in the ARIW must address the influence of present-day hydrologic regimen on target species as well as control protocols for specific species on the islands and surrounding river corridor.

Acknowledgments I thank Beth Brokaw, Pat and Peggy Kearney, April Moore, and Billy Moriarity for assistance in surveying Figure 6—Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is one of the most widespread and difficult to vegetation in the Allegheny River control of the alien and invasive plant species that occur in the Allegheny River Islands Wilderness. Photo by Charles E. Williams. Islands Wilderness. This project was supported in part by the USDA Forest ments of species such as Japanese issues affecting control strategies include Service, Allegheny National Forest. knotweed can be dispersed long dis- restrictions on the type of control efforts The author was a faculty member in tances by water and provide a continuous that are permitted on the islands of the the Department of Biology, Clarion source for reinvasion of islands (Bimova ARIW due to wilderness designation, University of Pennsylvania, when et al. 2004). Other species have seeds logistic constraints associated with much of this research was undertaken. that are dispersed by water (e.g., purple island access, and environmental restric- loosestrife) or are contained in fleshy tions on herbicide use due to close References Bimova, K., B. Mandak, and I. Kasparova. fruits dispersed by birds (e.g., multiflora proximity to water. 2004. How does Reynoutria invasion fit rose) (LaFleur et al. 2007). A control Finally, it must be recognized that the various theories of invasibility? strategy that focuses only on sites within the ARIW exists in a hydrologically Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 495–504. the ARIW without addressing alien and altered riverscape (Walters and Williams Cowell, C. M., and J. M. Dyer. 2002. invasive species sources or invasion foci 1999; Colwell and Dyer 2002; Colwell Vegetation development in a modified in the Allegheny River corridor will not and Stoudt 2002). The historic flow succeed (Williams 1996). Other key regimen of the unregulated Allegheny Continued on page 47

22 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Displacement in Wilderness Environments A Comparative Analysis

BY JOHN G. PEDEN and RUDY M. SCHUSTER

Abstract: A comparative analysis was conducted to determine how previous experience and stress appraisal influenced the potential for displacement in two wilderness environments. Visitors in the High Peaks and Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas were surveyed by mail in the summer of 2004. Stress appraisal scores were low, as was the likelihood of displacement. However, inter-site displacement was more likely among first-time Pemigewasset visitors than repeat Pemigewasset visitors. Social and managerial stressors exhibited a significant and positive influence on intra-site, inter-site, and temporal displacement in both study areas. Managerial stressors exhibited the strongest overall influence on displacement.

Introduction Wilderness has long served as a refuge for those seeking to escape the stresses of daily life. Visitation in the National Wilderness Preservation System has increased dramatically since the Wilderness Act was passed, and direct human impacts are now considered a viable threat to wilderness character (Cole 2001; Hendee and Dawson 2002; Oye 2001). Concerns about increasing rates of visitation and associated impacts on biophysical and social conditions have John G. Peden Rudy M. Schuster resulted in numerous attempts to measure visitor satisfaction (Manning 1999). Inconsistent results led to questions about coping responses influence the short- and long-term out- the dominant paradigms employed in recreation satisfaction comes that impact future human-environment transactions. research (Stewart and Cole 2001; Williams 1989). Williams Stress-coping research provides wilderness managers argued for a transactional approach that accounted for the with a better understanding of the personal and situational participant’s role in creating quality experiences. Researchers factors that influence visitors’ perceptions of biophysical, have responded by applying a transactional stress-coping social, and managerial conditions. For example, White, framework (Lazarus and Folkman 1984) to wilderness envi- Virden, and van Riper (2008) reported that visitors with ronments (Miller and McCool 2003; Peden and Schuster higher levels of experience use history (EUH) were more 2008; Schneider and Hammitt 1995; Schuster, Hammitt, sensitive to recreation impacts. Peden and Schuster (2008) and Moore 2006). These studies assume that (1) personal found no relationship between EUH and stress appraisal but and situational factors influence the appraisal of wilderness reported that place attachment was associated with higher environments; (2) the appraisal process results in coping levels of social and managerial stress. Such findings raise responses designed to mitigate sources of stress; and (3) questions about the effects that personal and situational

PEER REVIEWED

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 23 characteristics may have on other experience outcome that often results suitable substitutes. In the absence of aspects of the wilderness experience. in use limitations and other forms of alternative sites, visitors must change Stress-coping research also provides direct management that can further the timing of their visit or find another insights regarding behavioral and emo- perpetuate the displacement of visitors way to cope with undesirable condi- tional responses to the wilderness (Cole 2001; Spring 2001). tions. Despite the frequency of environment. The latter is particularly A review of the literature revealed temporal displacement, changes in the important since visitors often indicate that displacement is generally spatial location of use appear to be a common high levels of satisfaction despite the or temporal in nature (Hall and Cole response to negative appraisals of wil- presence of crowding and other 2007; Hall and Shelby 2000; derness environments. Schneider stressful conditions (Hall and Cole Schneider 2007). Spatial displace- (2007) noted that rates of spatial dis- 2007; Johnson and Dawson 2004; ment refers to changes in location of placement may be as high as 86%. Manning 1999; Williams 1989). Such use, and may occur within the respec- Although the literature clearly dis- findings seem to suggest that visitors tive area (intra-site) or between areas tinguishes between intra-site and are able to cope with negative impacts. (inter-site). For example, visitors that inter-site displacement, previous However, personal and situational appraise a designated campsite as studies have typically employed a sub- characteristics may result in favorable crowded may move to another camp- stitution typology that does not experience outcomes despite the pres- site within the area or leave in favor of account for differences between these ence of stress in the wilderness another wilderness with fewer people. strategies (Hall and Shelby 2000; environment (Cole 2004; Schuster et Temporal displacement refers to Miller and McCool 2003; Shelby and al. 2006). The use of coping strategies changes in the timing of use; visitors Vaske 1991). Distinguishing between serves as a warning that management respond to undesirable conditions by intra-site and inter-site displacement intervention may be necessary in order hiking earlier or later in the day, will allow managers to determine to maintain the quality of the wilder- returning at a different time of the where new impacts are occurring and ness experience (Hall and Cole 2007). week, or a different time of the year. where they are likely to be concen- Absolute displacement occurs when trated. Furthermore, different Displacement visitors leave an area and do not wilderness conditions are likely to The term displacement refers to altered return (Hall and Cole 2007; Miller result in different types of displace- patterns of visitation that result from and McCool 2003). Hall and Cole ment (Hall and Shelby 2000). negative appraisals of biophysical, (2007) reported that absolute dis- Biophysical impacts, for example, social, and managerial conditions placement is rare, and that visitors are occur early in the succession of use and (Becker 1981). As stated by Becker, likely to respond to negative appraisals tend to be unevenly distributed “displacement is a move away from an of wilderness environments through throughout the site (Blahna and Reiter unacceptable situation rather than a emotion-focused coping responses or 2001). Although temporal displace- move toward an optimal one” (1981, temporal displacement. ment would be unlikely to mitigate p. 262). Wilderness managers have Previous studies have suggested most biophysical impacts, both intra- expressed concerns that increasing visi- that temporal displacement occurs site and inter-site displacement would tation rates and associated impacts to more frequently than spatial displace- seem like logical responses to such biophysical, social, and managerial ment (Hall and Shelby 2000; Johnson conditions. Understanding when spe- conditions will lead to displacement and Dawson 2004, Manning and cific types of displacement are likely to (Hall and Cole 2007; Hall and Shelby Valliere 2001). Although Hall and occur, and the underlying reasons for 2000; Oye 2001; Schneider 2007). Of Cole (2007) claimed that there has such behavior, will help agency per- particular concern is the possibility been insufficient research to conclude sonnel develop more effective that unsatisfied visitors will abandon that one form of displacement is more management strategies. more heavily used sites in favor of common than another, results of a As previously noted, displacement lesser known and more pristine areas recent study in Oregon and Washington implies a move away from undesirable (Hall and Cole 2007; Oye 2001; were consistent with previous research. conditions. Such changes can occur Schneider 2007). In such instances, Hall and Cole explained their findings during the on-site visit, or as an antici- relatively undisturbed areas begin to by arguing that spatial displacement is patory response that is based on the lose their wilderness character, an dependent upon the availability of evaluation of previous wilderness

24 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 experiences. Displacement that occurs protected wilderness area in the state literature and interviews with visitors on-site represents an attempt to cope of New Hampshire. This 45,000 acre in both study areas. Visitors were also with undesirable conditions. Dis- (18,220 ha) wilderness is surrounded asked to specify age, gender, number placement that occurs after the by an additional 77,000 acres (31,170 of previous visits and hours traveled conclusion of the on-site visit repre- ha) of public land managed by the to reach the site. sents an experience outcome that U.S. Forest Service. The High Peaks influences future appraisals of the and Pemigewasset are characterized by Results wilderness environment. This distinc- mountainous terrain that is popular Of the 533 visitors contacted in the tion is important because on-site with hikers and backpackers. field, 508 (95%) agreed to participate opportunities for temporal displace- Wilderness visitors were system- in the survey study. A total of 396 ment and inter-site displacement are atically contacted by the researchers at mail questionnaires were returned for limited; visitors can travel earlier or trailheads and designated campsites a response rate of 78%. Twenty-four later in the day, or they can leave the within each study area. The sampling questionnaires were omitted due to site entirely. Personal and situational frame included both weekdays and incomplete responses, and six ques- factors such as previous experience, weekends. The purpose of the study tionnaires were returned as place attachment, and the availability was explained and contact information nondeliverable. An additional 31 of substitute sites may limit the feasi- was obtained from those who agreed respondents reported that they did bility of such responses. to participate. The survey was distrib- not experience stress during their uted by mail according to a modified visit, and were excluded from partici- Purpose and Methods Dillman procedure (Dillman 2000). pation in the remainder of the study. The current study used a stress-coping The final adjusted response rate was framework to determine how previous Wilderness has long 66% for the combined data set (n = experience and stress appraisal influ- 335). There were 176 respondents in enced the potential for displacement served as a refuge the High Peaks (69%) and 159 in the in two wilderness environments. In for those seeking to Pemigewasset (63%) who were used contrast to previous studies, displace- in the following analyses. ment was conceptualized as an outcome escape the stresses The average age of respondents as opposed to a coping response. The of daily life was 36 in the High Peaks and 40 in following research questions were the Pemigewasset. There were more addressed: Respondents rated 20 stressors repeat visitors (75% in the High 1. Are first-time visitors more likely on a scale from 0 (Not a Problem) to Peaks and 79% in the Pemigewasset) to be displaced than repeat visi- 5 (Serious Problem). Potential stres- than first-time visitors. Males were tors? sors were identified through interviews more prevalent than females in both 2. Does stress appraisal influence the with visitors in both study areas. study areas (66% in the High Peaks likelihood of displacement? Respondents were also asked to indi- and 70% in the Pemigewasset). High 3. Does the likelihood of displace- cate whether they were likely to alter Peaks visitors traveled longer to reach ment vary between study areas? future visitation patterns in response the site (41% > 4 hrs.) than 4. What types of displacement are to sources of stress experienced during Pemigewasset visitors (22% > 4 hrs.). likely to occur with the respective the visit. Intentions were measured Stress appraisal scores were low in study areas? with a nine-item scale that ranged both study areas. Mean scores ranged from -2 (Strongly Disagree) to 2 from .13 (disagreements among the Data collection took place in the High (Strongly Agree). Questions that per- group) to 1.16 (trail conditions) (see Peaks and Pemigewasset Wilderness tained to temporal and inter-site table 1). The likelihood of displace- Areas during the summer of 2004. The displacement were adopted from pre- ment ranged from -1.65 (I am unlikely High Peaks is a 192,685 acre (79,010 vious research (Hall and Shelby 2000; to return to the High Peaks/ ha) wilderness managed by the New Manning and Valliere 2001; Miller Pemigewasset at all) to -0.10 (I am York State Department of Envi- and McCool 2003). Those that likely to return to the High Peaks/ ronmental Conservation. The addressed intra-site displacement were Pemigewasset at a different time of Pemigewasset is the largest federally developed through a review of the the year) (see table 2).

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 25 Principle components factor anal- Table 1—Means for stress appraisal in the High Peaks and ysis was used for data reduction Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas purposes and factor scores were com- Stress appraisal indicatorsa Combined High Peaks Pemigewasset puted according to the procedure recommended by Watson and Trail conditions 1.16 1.51 .77 Niccolucci (1992). Stress appraisal Insects .97 .99 .96 variables factored into five dimensions, Weather .97 1.11 .81 two of which were consistent between Too many people .94 .93 .96 study areas (see table 3), and the other Difficulty finding site .74 .76 .72 three dimensions were dropped from Impacts (litter, fire rings, etc.) .63 .60 .67 further analysis. The two-dimension Designated sites too close together .59 .68 .50 scale accounted for 57% of the total Difficulty hanging food .59 .86 .30 variance, and reliability scores were Campsite/parking fees .56 .59 .54 acceptable for both dimensions. For Behavior of other visitors .51 .56 .46 additional information refer to Peden Poorly marked trails .50 .48 .52 and Schuster (2008). Bear encounters .38 .68 .05 Factor analysis of the nine-item Concerns about accidents .36 .42 .30 displacement scale resulted in a three- Confusing rules/regulations .31 .30 .33 factor solution that accounted for Fitness/health/injuries .30 .31 .29 77.5% of the variance, and Cronbach’s Lack of Water .26 .22 .31 alpha was .77 or higher for all three Rules not adequately enforced .25 .27 .22 factors (see table 4). However, one Concerns about getting lost .24 .29 .18 variable (I am likely to use a different Negative interaction with mgmt. staff .19 .20 .18 access point on my next visit) cross- Disagreements among the group .13 .18 .09 loaded on the intra-site and inter-site a Measured on a six-point scale; 0 = Not a Problem/Not Applicable to 5 = Serious Problem. factors and was dropped from subsequent analyses. Kruskall-Wallis tests indicated Table 2—Means for displacement variables in the High Peaks that inter-site displacement was more and Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas likely among first-time Pemigewasset Displacement indicatorsa Combined High Pemigewasset visitors than repeat Pemigewasset visi- Peaks tors. Intra-site displacement and I am likely to return to (wilderness temporal displacement did not vary area) at a different time of the year. -.10 -.14 -.06 between comparisons groups in either I am likely to use a different access study area (see table 5). point on my next visit to (wilderness area). -.14 -.15 -.12 Spearman’s correlations suggested I am likely to avoid certain trails/ that stress appraisal increased the like- summits within (wilderness area). -.17 -.13 -.23 lihood of temporal, intra-site, and I am likely to avoid certain inter-site displacement in both study campsites within (wilderness area). -.20 -.15 -.26 areas. Stress appraisal exhibited the I am likely to go to a different strongest influence on intra-site dis- wilderness area in (name of region). -.28 -.36 -.19 placement. Correlations were greatest I am likely to return to (wilderness in the Pemigewasset, and managerial- area) at a different time of the week. -.33 -.40 -.24 related stressors exhibited the strongest I am likely to go to a different wilderness overall influence (see table 6). area outside of (name of region). -.38 -.39 -.36 Mann-Whitney tests revealed no I am likely to return to (wilderness area) at a different time of the day. -.44 -.45 -.42 significant differences in the potential for displacement between study areas. aMeasured on a five-point scale; -2 = Strongly Disagree to 2 = Strongly Agree. However, Friedman tests indicated

26 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 that displacement strategies varied placement was more likely to occur Discussion within the High Peaks Wilderness (p = than inter-site displacement and tem- The current study used a stress-coping .000) and suggested that intra-site dis- poral displacement (see table 7). framework to determine how previous experience and stress appraisal influ- Table 3—Factor loadings for stress appraisal variables in the enced the potential for displacement High Peaks and Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas in two wilderness environments. Inter- site displacement was more likely to Stress appraisal indicatorsa Social factor Managerial factor occur among first-time Pemigewasset Both High Pemi Both High Pemi Peaks Peaks visitors than repeat Pemigewasset visi- Behavior of other visitors .763 .760 .708 tors. Previous experience did not Rules not adequately enforced .666 .682 .582 influence the likelihood of inter-site Too many people .666 .553 .706 displacement in the High Peaks Impacts (litter, fire rings, etc.) .660 .571 .737 Wilderness. Furthermore, temporal Designated sites too close together .520 .530 and intra-site displacement strategies Negative interaction with mgmt. staff .823 .791 .788 did not vary between first-time and Confusing rules/regulations .760 .699 .586 repeat visitors in either study area. Campsite/parking fees .563 .417 .706 These findings may be partially attrib- Disagreements among the group .463 .594 utable to the geographic characteristics Difficulty finding site .452 of the Adirondacks and White Cronbach’s Alpha α=.73 α=.74 α=.67 α=.64 α=.57 α=.60 Mountains. High Peaks visitors trav- Eigenvalue 2.54 3.03 2.40 2.32 2.24 2.17 eled longer to reach the site and may % variance explained 16.91 15.93 12.64 15.44 11.77 11.44 have had fewer available substitutes aMeasured on a six-point scale; 0 = Not a Problem/Not Applicable to 5 = Serious Problem. than Pemigewasset visitors. The High

Table 4—Factor loadings for displacement variables in the High Peaks and Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas Temporal factor Intra-site factor Inter-site factor Displacement indicatorsa Combined High Pemi Combined High Pemi Combined High Pemi Peaks Peaks Peaks I am likely to return to (wilderness area) at a different time of the day. .841 .816 .876 I am likely to return to (wilderness area) at a different time of the week. .870 .859 .879 I am likely to return to (wilderness area) at a different time of the year. .840 .861 .696 I am likely to avoid certain trails/summits within (wilderness area). .826 .859 .780 I am likely to avoid certain campsites within (wilderness area). .839 .874 .756 I am likely to use a different access point on my next visit to (wilderness area). .547 .664 .530 .621 I am likely to go to a different wilderness area in (name of region). .834 .832 .820 I am likely to go to a different wilderness area outside of (name of region). .911 .926 .893 Cronbach’s Alpha α=.85 α=.84 α=.86 α=.77 α=.76 α=.75 α=.84 α=.83 α=.88 Eigenvalue 2.35 2.32 2.38 1.98 1.91 1.98 1.87 2.05 1.86 % variance explained 29.36 28.99 29.75 24.72 23.84 24.80 23.43 25.60 23.76 aMeasured on a 5 point scale ranging from -2 (Strongly Disagree) to 2 (Strongly Agree)

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 27 areas on the White Mountain National Table 5—Differences in displacement factor scores between Forest. The nearby Great Gulf and first-time and repeat visitors Presidential Range–Dry River Factor EUH n Mean rank p Wilderness Areas are adjacent to Mt. High Peaks Washington—the highest peak in the Temporal First-time 44 94.95 .332 state of New Hampshire. Unlike many repeat 132 86.35 of the wilderness areas in the Intra-site First-time 44 86.90 .810 Adirondacks, the Great Gulf and repeat 132 89.03 Presidential Range–Dry River Inter-site First-time 44 94.36 .378 Wilderness Areas are well-known and repeat 132 86.55 easily accessible to day hikers and over- Pemigewasset night backpackers. Temporal First-time 34 81.32 .850 Social and managerial stressors repeat 125 79.64 influenced the likelihood of temporal, Intra-site First-time 34 85.94 .396 intra-site and inter-site displacement repeat 125 78.38 in both study areas. Although these Inter-site First-time 34 99.24 .006a relationships appeared to be stronger repeat 125 74.77 in the Pemigewasset, subsequent anal- aSignificant at α ≤ .05. yses found no significant differences in the likelihood of displacement between Table 6—Rank correlations between study areas. However, intra-site dis- stress appraisal factors and displacement factors placement was more likely than temporal displacement and inter-site Stress appraisal Both High Pemi indicators Peaks displacement within the High Peaks Social factor Wilderness; a finding that is inconsis- Temporal .275a .222a .331a tent with previous research (Hall and Intra-site .308a .283a .340a Cole 2007; Hall and Shelby 2000; Inter-site .238a .223a .245a Manning and Valliere 2001). This dis- Managerial factor crepancy is not surprising given that Temporal .318a .217a .423a the current study was designed to mea- Intra-site .389a .329a .461a sure differences between intra-site and a a a Inter-site .353 .303 .404 inter-site displacement; furthermore, aSignificant at α ≤ .000. multiple indicators were used to com- pute stress appraisal and displacement Table 7—Differences in displacement factor scores factor scores for use in subsequent within the High Peaks Wilderness analyses—a method that has not been Factor Mean rank p used in previous research. Intrasite—temporal Negative ranks 161.5 .001bd In general, the evidence suggests Positive ranks 151.0 that existing wilderness conditions Intersite—temporal Negative ranks 162.9 .149 within the High Peaks and Pemigewasset Positive ranks 148.9 Wilderness Areas were unlikely to result Intersite—intrasite Negative ranks 146.7 .012cd in displacement. When displacement Positive ranks 168.1 does occur it is likely to take place bBased on negative ranks. within the boundaries of the High c Based on positive ranks. Peaks Wilderness. Managerial stressors dSignificant at α ≤ .05 such as negative interaction with agency Peaks is the most well-known and ence of Mt. Marcy—the highest peak staff, parking fees, and confusing regu- heavily visited wilderness area in the in the state of New York. The lations appear to be the primary Adirondacks, due in part, to the pres- Pemigewasset is one of six wilderness concerns. High Peaks visitors were more

28 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 likely to avoid problematic access actual changes in visitation. Researchers Journal of Leisure Research 32: 435–56. points, campsites, and trails on future should also investigate the influence of Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. visits than to change the timing of use personal and situational factors such as Wilderness Management: Stewardship or the site itself. Although this may previous experience and place attach- and Protection of Resources and Values, 3rd ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum indicate that High Peaks visitors are ment. Peden and Schuster (2008) Publishing. capable of coping with existing condi- reported moderate levels of place Johnson, A. K., and C. P. Dawson. 2004. An exploratory study of the complexities tions, a lack of suitable substitutes my dependence, place identity, and place of coping behavior in Adirondack limit the feasibility of temporal and familiarity within the High Peaks and Wilderness. Leisure Sciences 26: inter-site strategies. Although there is Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas. Attach- 1–13. Lazarus, R. S., and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, some evidence to suggest that first-time ment to these sites may have been great appraisal, and coping. New York: Pemigewasset visitors may rely on inter- enough to limit the likelihood of Springer Publishing Company. displacement as an outcome of the Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor site displacement as a response to Recreation: Search and Research for stressful appraisals of the wilderness wilderness experience. Satisfaction, 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon environment, the percentage of first- State University Press. Manning, R. E., and W. A. Valliere. 2001. time visitors within the Pemigewasset is Acknowledgments Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes relatively small (21%). This research was funded by and consequences of crowding and the McIntyre-Stennis Cooperative conflict among community residents. The current findings appear to be Journal of Leisure Research 33: attributable to low levels of stressors Forestry Research Program and sup- 410–26. within the High Peaks and Pemigewasset ported by Rebecca Oreskes of the Miller, T. A., and S. F. McCool. 2003. Coping with stress in outdoor recreational set- Wilderness Areas. However, effective White Mountain National Forest, tings: An application of transactional coping strategies may have influenced and Kris Alberga of the New York stress theory. Leisure Sciences 25: State Department of Environmental 257–75. the results (Hall and Cole 2007; Oye, G. 2001. A new wilderness recreation Schuster et al. 2006). A noted limita- Conservation. strategy for national forest wilderness. tion of this research is that visitors were International Journal of Wilderness 7: 13–15. asked about the likelihood of displace- References Becker, R. H. 1981. Displacement of recre- Peden, J. G., and R. M. Schuster. 2008. ment as opposed to actual displacement ational users between the lower St. Assessing the transactional nature of behaviors. Furthermore, the study Croix and Upper Mississippi rivers. wilderness experiences: Construct Journal of Environmental Management validation of the wilderness hassles employed a post-hoc assessment that 13: 259–67. appraisal scale. Environmental allowed visitors to cope with on-site Blahna, D. J., and D. K. Reiter. 2001. Management 42: 497–510. Schneider, I. E. 2007. The prevalence and conditions before the questionnaire was Whitewater boaters in Utah: Implications for wild river planning. significance of displacement for wilder- administered. If coping efforts were International Journal of Wilderness 7: ness recreation management and successful, it follows that stress appraisal 39–43. research. International Journal of Cole, D. N. 2001. Balancing freedom and Wilderness 13: 23–27. scores should be low, along with the protection in wilderness recreation Schneider, I. E., and W. E. Hammitt. 1995. necessity for displacement. As a result, use. International Journal of Wilderness Visitor responses to on-site recreation conflict. Journal of Applied Recreation it will be important to continue moni- 7: 12–13. ———. 2004.Wilderness experiences: What Research 20: 249–68 toring visitors’ perceptions of conditions should we be managing for? Schuster, R. M., W. E. Hammitt, and D. in the High Peaks and Pemigewasset, International Journal of Wilderness 10: Moore. 2006. Stress appraisal and 25–27. coping response to hassles experi- along with the potential for displace- Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet enced in outdoor recreation settings. ment as an outcome of the wilderness Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Leisure Sciences 28: 97–113. Shelby, B., and J. J. Vaske. 1991. Resource experience. Future studies should 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. and activity substitutions for recre- employ a repeated measures design that Hall, T. E., and D. N. Cole. 2007. Changes in ational salmon fishing in New Zealand. documents displacement that occurs the Motivations, Perceptions, and Leisure Sciences 13: 21–32. Behaviors of Recreation Users: Spring, I. 2001. If we lock people out, who due to an on-site coping response, Displacement and Coping in Wilder- will fight to save wilderness? along with anticipated changes in future ness. Research Paper RMRS-RP-63. International Journal of Wilderness 7: 17–19. visitation patterns (i.e., an experience Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Stewart W. P., and D. N. Cole. 2001. Number outcome). This can be accomplished Service, Rocky Mountain Research of encounters and experience quality in through intercept surveys that occur Station. Grand Canyon backcountry: Consis- Hall, T., and B. Shelby. 2000. Temporal and tently negative and weak relationships. within the wilderness boundary and a spatial displacement: Evidence from a follow-up mail survey that investigates high-use reservoir and alternate sites. Continued on page 46

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 29 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

WILD9 and Wilderness Science

BY GEORGE (SAM) FOSTER

he U.S. Forest Service recognizes the leadership responsibility it has had in wilderness stewardship Tscience since the mid-1960s. I am the director of one of seven research stations within the Forest Service, and the one with national responsibility for wilderness science. The Rocky Mountain Research Station has responsibility for a broad science program to support public lands stewardship across 12 interior west states. Our wilderness science program extends across the station, and is centered at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute (ALWRI) in Missoula, Montana. We are excited to be participants and leaders in planning and facilitating the 9th World Wilderness Congress in tional applied science related to developing management Mexico later in 2009. Although several of our scientists will tools and monitoring protocol. Among these expanded areas be present at the Congress in a variety of roles, it is our sci- of research and coordination of knowledge was science to entific leadership that is our calling. Dr. Alan Watson of the understand the role of wilderness in larger social and eco- ALWRI is on the Congress Executive Committee, repre- logical systems, as well as understanding relationships people senting science and public lands stewardship, among his have with and values people place on wilderness. The panel many talented and diverse international peers. Alan is also brought focus on science that improves understanding of the co-chair, with Dr. Joaquin Murrieta-Saldivar of the Sonoran contributions of wilderness to the ecological processes, ser- Institute, of the Symposium for Science and Stewardship to vices, and integrity of larger landscapes. In addition, science Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values at the Congress. This can use wilderness and similarly managed lands as laborato- is a task Alan has taken on before. We’re helping to ramp up ries to understand the causes and consequences of the science part of the symposium. environmental change, minimally confounded by other Dr. Dave Parsons, our ALWRI director, reported in the influences. December 2007 issue of IJW that in early 2007 Forest Service This brings us to the 9th World Wilderness Congress. wilderness research and development had been subjected to a It is our sincere hope to continue facilitating the sharing of peer panel review by outside experts. Although our role in knowledge about new and important science to support generating four decades’ of science to support managers was management decision making and protection activities in commended, there is a need for additional work. wilderness and create science information and application The peer review panel realized that for many compel- tools that help us understand the role of wilderness in ling reasons, our wilderness research program has crept into larger landscapes. We hope to demonstrate the scientific new areas over the past 10 years. This was due to expressed demand from the wilderness community, beyond the tradi- Continued on page 47

30 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

A Profile of Conservation International

BY RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER, CLAUDE GASCON, and THOMAS BROOKS

onservation International (CI) is a global conservation organization with a twist. Uniquely, the Corganization is committed to predicting, measuring, and holding itself accountable for the benefits to human well-being—across a wide range of dimensions—of all the biodiversity conservation work that it conducts or supports. The rationale is that although biodiversity conservation as a human enterprise is successfully making small-scale gains in a number of places, the aggregate global trend remains negative because most of human society does not (l to r) Russell A. Mittermeier, Claude Gascon, and Thomas Brooks realize why preventing biodiversity loss is so important to themselves, their families, and their nations; to future gen- in 1988. There are 34 such hotspots globally, typified by erations; and to the global eradication of poverty. regions such as Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands, In terms of global strategy, CI works in those regions the Philippines, the South American Atlantic Forest, and holding the greatest concentrations of biodiversity (specifi- Mesoamerica. The reason why conservation in the hotspots cally, regions holding more then 1,500 plant species found provides disproportionately high human well-being benefits nowhere else in the world); in all of these, we demonstrate is that the hotspots are home to many of the world’s poorest that conservation delivers great benefits to human well- people, who are most dependent on the maintenance of being. Many of these regions are highly threatened and have “free” services from nature, such as the flow of clean water. already lost 70% or more of their historical habitat cover. In addition to the biodiversity hotspots, CI works in the five These regions are known as biodiversity hotspots, based on regions that hold similar concentrations of biodiversity, but a concept developed by the British ecologist Norman Myers still remain largely intact as wilderness (see below). CI was established in 1987. It now has about 1,000 staff members, of whom perhaps 300 are based at a global head- quarters in Arlington, Virginia, USA, with the rest distributed among about 30 field offices through the biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas. We have presence on the ground in 18 of the hotspots and four of the high-biodiversity wilderness areas. The organization’s annual budget is around $150 million annually. Of this, maybe a third is actually invested in partner organizations outside of the regions where CI works on the ground, notably in 10 hotspots where CI has no field presence itself. Examples of such regions include the Caucasus, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean. Figure 1—A buriti palm swamp (Hypsiboas buriti [DD]) in Amazonas State, Brazil. Photo by A. Upgren. Such investment in partners is possible by the presence within CI of two major conservation finance mechanisms.

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 31 mobilize civil society How does CI measure its success around biodiversity on the ground? We develop our targets conservation. The six for conservation outcomes—and the partners have recently human well-being benefits that would renewed their commit- be delivered by meeting these—at three ment to a second phase interlinked levels of ecological organi- of the fund. The second zation. The finest of these is the species major financial mecha- level: extinction rates have been driven nism, the Global by human activities 1,000 times above Conservation Fund, is a the natural level through Earth’s his- $100 million fund tory, and so we strive to reduce these as established by the far as possible. To guide our species

Figure 2—The Miombo woodland, a two-storied woodland with an open or Gordon and Betty level targets we rely wholly on the lightly closed canopy. Photo by L. Roxburgh. Moore Foundation in authoritative International Union for 2002, and invests in Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red developing sustainable List of Threatened Species. Second, The first, the Critical Ecosystem financing for protected areas of par- because the predominant threat to bio- Partnership Fund, was launched in ticularly high priority for conservation. diversity is the destruction of natural 2000 and is a partnership among six CI also hosts Verde Ventures, a loan habitats, we aim to safeguard sites of organizations: the governments of facility for supporting private enter- global biodiversity conservation signif- France and Japan, the Global prise for conservation, and is developing icance, known as “key biodiversity Environment Facility, the World Bank, several new finance mechanisms, areas.” Finally, we know that although the John D. and Catherine T. including a Global Marine Fund and a the establishment of protected areas is MacArthur Foundation, and CI itself. Carbon, Conservation, and the essential foundation for conserva- The fund invested $150 million across Community Fund, which aims to tion, we also know that it is not 18 hotspots over its first decade of mobilize climate change mitigation sufficient, and so we develop a third operation, using these resources to finance for conservation. level of targets at the scale of landscapes and seascapes, known as “biodiversity conservation corridors,” to maintain the broad ecological processes on which biodiversity depends. Each of these levels of conservation delivers distinct and massive benefits to human well-being. Species level conservation provides sustainability to numerous provisioning services to people: timber, fisheries, bushmeat, medicinal plants, pets, and ornaments. Species conservation also delivers a tremendous option value: the retention of features from which human well-being benefits have not yet been identified (e.g., potential cures for cancer) and for which the phylogenetic diversity among species maybe a surrogate. Meanwhile, site and corridor level conservation deliver

Figure 3—A waterfall in the Guiana Shield. Photo by A. Rial. enormous regulating benefits to humanity. These include the storage of

32 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 carbon (e.g., 20% of greenhouse emis- found in the region. Three of these are sions are caused by tropical tropical humid forests. Far and away deforestation); maintenance of water the greatest concentration of biodiver- quantity and quality; pollination of sity lies in Amazonia, with no fewer crops by insects, birds, and bats; ame- than 30,000 plant species only found lioration of natural disasters such as within the region, 10% of all plant floods, mudslides, and tsunamis; and species on Earth. Also highly signifi- regulation of disease (e.g., malaria cant are New Guinea (with 10,000 transmission is much higher in defor- species unique to the island) and the ested regions). Finally, cultural Congo forest (3,000 species). One values—ecotourism, national symbols, high-biodiversity wilderness area com- Figure 4—A victoria crowned pigeon—Goura victoria— corporate logos, sacred sites—are pro- prises tropical dry forest and savanna: a lowland forest species of northern New Guinea. Photo vided across all three levels of the Miombo-Mopane woodlands of by R. James. conservation outcomes. southern central Africa, which holds nearly 5,000 plant species occurring High-biodiversity Wilderness nowhere else on the planet. The last per sq km (2.6 per sq. mi.). Although Areas high-biodiversity wilderness area is the still 80% pristine, the Amazon forests From the beginning, CI has had a two- North American desert complex, which face increasing pressures, in particular pronged strategy for global biodiversity holds more than 3,000 unique plant from commercial logging, ranching, conservation, working not just in the species. In all five regions, processes are and road development around its irreplaceable and threatened biodiver- now underway to identify site conser- southern “arc of deforestation.” In sity hotspots, but also in the equally vation targets on the ground. response to these threats, more than irreplaceable but still largely pristine We examined the status, signifi- 8% of the region has been formally high-biodiversity wilderness areas. In cance, threats, and conservation protected; in some Brazilian provinces 2002 the organization invested in a responses of each of these five high- this is much higher, approaching major analysis of our high-biodiversity biodiversity wilderness areas. Amazonia (Amazonas Province) and even wilderness area conservation strategy is the most biodiverse but also the exceeding (Amapá Province) 50%. (Mittermeier et al. 2002, 2003). Here, largest area, covering more than 6.5 Conservation of the other two we summarize these findings. million sq km (2.5 million sq. mi.), high-biodiversity wilderness tropical In total, ecoregions that retain at and spanning nine countries. forests—the Congo (1.7 million sq least 70% of their natural habitat in an Approximately 64% of the region lies km; 0.6 million sq. mi.) and New intact state cover 76 million sq km (29 in Brazil, with the remainder in the Guinea (0.8 million sq km; 0.3 mil- million sq. mi.), 52% of the Earth’s Guiana Shield of Venezuela, Guyana, lion sq. mi.)—is also of great land area. The fully intact portions of Suriname, and French Guiana, and in significance. The Democratic Republic these ecoregions alone cover 65 mil- the Andean foothills of Colombia, of Congo holds just under 60% of the lion sq km (25 million sq. mi.), 44% Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. The Congo forests, with the remainder of the land area. The reason that this Amazon is renowned for being home distributed across Angola, Cameroon, vast wilderness survives is simple: very to numerous indigenous groups, the Central Africa Republic, Congo, few people live in these regions. The including the Kayapó, Yanomami, and Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. The rural areas of these regions hold only Trio Indians, although its overall rural island of New Guinea is split roughly 83 million people, just 1.4% of the population density is only one person equally between two countries: global total, yielding an average rural population density of just 1.1 persons per sq km (2.8 per sq. mi.). Biodiversity conservation in the high-biodiversity However, only five of these regions wilderness areas provides for human not only retain their natural habitats largely intact, but also hold exceptional well-being and benefits, including concentrations of biodiversity, defined climate change mitigation. as more than 1,500 plant species only

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 33 Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation” into the global agreement to mitigate climate change currently under negotiation (see article in this issue by Locke and Mackey). This especially will be the case if compensation benefits not just countries with historically rapid deforestation (e.g., Indonesia), but also those with remaining high levels of forest cover but low deforestation (e.g., Guayana Shield countries). The benefits that biodiversity conservation in the high-biodiversity wilderness areas provide to human well-being go much beyond climate change mitigation. Maintenance of

Figure 5. Oya Mada Wa’a (Goodenough Island). Montane forests are the only known locality of the black forest water quality and quantity is impor- wallaby (Dorcopsis atrata). Photo by R. James. tant, although rather less so than in hotspots simply because there are so Indonesia (Papua Province) and Papua and totaling 1.4 million sq km (0.5 many fewer people in wilderness areas New Guinea. Both regions have higher million sq. mi.). Both regions have to use this water. Extraction of wild rural population densities than does human population densities of around products such as timber is a major Amazonia, at around five people per sq three people per sq km (8 per sq mi). industry, although it is currently largely km (13 per sq. mi.), and as a result The expansion of dryland agriculture unsustainable and so tragically under- more of their natural habitat has been and grazing are probably the most mines its own benefits. Much more lost—approximately 70% in both significant threats in both regions, encouraging are local enterprises in cases. Nevertheless, extensive conser- directly in terms of habitat use, and nonconsumptive use, such as ecot- vation efforts are underway in both indirectly through the erosion of ourism, that harness the cultural values regions. In the Congo these are largely their hydrological resources. of high-biodiversity wilderness for coordinated through major multina- Nevertheless, the conservation out- human well-being. Maybe most sig- tional initiatives such as the Congo look is quite bright in both cases, nificant of all is the fact that half of the Basin Forest Partnership, whereas in with 23% of the North American world’s languages are inextricably New Guinea they are necessarily much deserts and no less than 36% of the bound up with the conservation of the more local, implemented through local Miombo-Mopane safeguarded in high-biodiversity wilderness: the con- protection by tribes and villages. formal protected areas. servation of the biodiversity of these The other two high-biodiversity Effective conservation in these regions also maintains humanity’s cul- wilderness areas are in much drier regions is an imperative for biodiver- tural diversity. regions. The Miombo-Mopane spans sity but also for the numerous benefits 1.2 million sq km (0.5 million sq. that such conservation would provide Conservation International’s mi.) across nine countries: Angola, to humanity. Above all, conservation Future Botswana, the Democratic Republic in the high-biodiversity wilderness What is the long-term prospect for of Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, areas is essential for effective climate CI? We have delivered numerous local Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and change mitigation, given that 20% of conservation successes on the ground, Zimbabwe. The North American des- greenhouse gas emissions come from and in some cases it has been possible erts straddle the border of the United tropical deforestation. Exciting poten- to amplify these to national levels. States and Mexico, made up of the tial now exists for incorporating a One example is Madagascar, where Chihuahuan, Sonoran/Baja California, mechanism for compensating tropical Colorado Plateau, and Mojave deserts forest countries for “Reducing Continued on page 48

34 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Mountain Ungulates of the Trans-Himalayan Region of Ladakh, India

BY TSEWANG NAMGAIL

he Trans-Himalaya is a vast expanse of cold and arid Cashmere wool, or Pashmina, is the mainstay of the land encompassing the entire Tibetan Plateau and economy of the people of the harsh environment of eastern its marginal mountains, with an estimated area of Ladakh, where any other form of land use is less profitable. T 2.5 million sq km (965,000 sq. mi.). Ladakh is located at the However, as the needs and aspirations of the people have western tip of this huge plateau, and is the least inhabited increased, they have tended to increase the livestock popula- area in India, with fewer than three persons per sq km (0.4 tion (Namgail et al. 2007a), which makes the survival sq. mi.). The region supports an intact assemblage of prospects of many wild ungulates sharing resources with Pleistocene large herbivores (Schaller 1977). These herbi- them questionable. The western part of Ladakh, however, is vores underwent an adaptive radiation in the late Miocene, lower and fertile, and people there practice agriculture occupying the mountainous niches created in the aftermath complemented by livestock production, but wild ungulates of the collision of the Eurasian and the Indian plates and the in this region are not welcomed by farmers, whose crops are consequent rise of the Himalaya (Schaller 1977). damaged by the animals. Ladakh’s mammalian herbivores (20 species), belonging Although more localized surveys (often within pro- to six families, include eight wild ungulates: Tibetan gazelle tected areas) were carried out in the past to determine the (Procapra picticaudata), Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodg- status and threats to these mountain ungulates, there has soni), blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), Ladakh urial (Ovis vignei vignei), Asiatic ibex (Capra ibex siberica), Tibetan argali (Ovis ammon hodgsoni), Tibetan wild ass (Equus kiang), and wild yak (Bos mutus). The populations of these mountain ungulates have declined in the last century due to poaching and habitat loss associated with human endeavors. Most of the aforementioned herbivores are currently listed on the Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Ladakh urial and Tibetan antelope are also listed as endangered species on the Redlist of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Although several parts of eastern Ladakh, known as Changthang, have remained undisturbed wildland areas, others are being encroached upon by humans in recent years, and the herbivores inhab- Figure 1—Ladakh area of the Indian Trans-Himalaya, with the surveyed areas iting them face an array of threats associated with an demarcated. increasing demand on natural resources (Fox et al. 1994).

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 35 sq. mi.), was divided into four geo- interviewing local people to find out graphical zones: Nubra in the north, the presence/absence of animals. All the Zangskar in the south, Changthang in animals observed on the way to dif- the southeast, and Sham in the west. ferent places were also recorded. Given Within Nubra, the surveys largely the huge geographical area of Ladakh, focused on the areas between Khardong driving from place to place was the only and Hundar along the Shayok River, practicable way to survey the region for and Kyagar and Panamik along the mountain ungulates. The presence of Nubra River (see figure 1). Within an animal’s horns in an area was also Zangskar, Hanumil, Pishu, Pidmu, taken as the evidence of its occurrence Rinam, Karsha, Padum, Photoksar, there, which was further confirmed by Lingshed, Dibling, Yulchung, and interviewing people in a nearby village. Nyaraks were surveyed. Time was also Nature and extent of threats to various spent gathering information from the species were determined by interviewing areas between Padum and Pensi Pass. In villagers throughout the region. Changthang surveys mainly focused on Hanle, Chumur, Kuyul, and Demchog Mountain Ungulates Figure 2—A subadult male blue sheep observed in the areas. The surveys in the Sham zone There are eight wild ungulates in Zangskar Mountains. Photo by Tsewang Namgail. covered Panikhar, Sangkoo, Umba, Ladakh, out of which only six were Bodkharbu, Dha-Hanu, Lamayuru, observed during the surveys. Secondary been no apparent effort to understand Hemis Shukpachan, Domkhar, information was gathered on the other the patterns at a geographical scale, Skurbuchan, and Wanla. two species, namely the wild yak and which is crucial for prioritizing larger The surveys were carried out in Tibetan antelope. Due to the extinc- ecologically sustainable areas for the con- two phases. During the first phase, tion and colonization dynamics, servation of these threatened animals. Changthang (March 2005) and Sham currently there is a spatial variation in (April 2005 and June 2006) areas were the species richness of the mountain Field Surveys surveyed, and the second phase covered ungulates in the Indian Trans- Surveys were carried out between March Zangskar (July 2006) and Nubra Himalaya, with some valleys supporting 2005 and August 2006. The entire (August 2006). The surveys largely four to five wild ungulate species, Ladakh region (see figure 1), encom- involved driving to different areas and whereas others support only one spe- passing almost 80,000 sq km (30,888 observing mountain ungulates, and also cies. Below are the species-wise accounts of status and distribution of mountain ungulates in Ladakh. The Tibetan gazelle is a small antelope weighing about 15 kg (33 lbs.). It has a grayish-brown body and a short, black-tipped tail in the center of a heart-shaped white rump-patch. The animal is endemic to the Tibetan plateau (Schaller 1998). Within Ladakh, the species had a wide distribution in the early 20th century (Stockley 1936), but its range underwent a marked contraction in the last several decades due largely to illegal hunting and habitat degradation (Fox et al. 1991; Bhatnagar et al. 2006). Figure 3—A full-grown male blue sheep in its winter coat in the Shun Gorge of Zangskar. Photo by Tsewang Namgail. During the present survey, I counted 36 gazelles in six groups in and around

36 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 over 1 m. (3.5 to 4 ft.) at the shoulder, with the horn measuring 90 to 100 cm (35 to 40 inches). The Tibetan argali occurs widely on the Tibetan Plateau, but in small populations scattered throughout the area (Schaller 1998). In some areas, the population may be stabilized, whereas it is declining in others (Namgail et al. 2004; Namgail et al. 2007b). The species was thought to have gone extinct from the Hanle Valley 20 years ago, but the present survey in eastern Ladakh reported its occurrence there. Historically, the species was affected negatively by trophy

Figure 4—Two full-grown male Asiatic ibex in their rocky habitat in western Ladakh. Photo by hunting, as the argali has huge horns, Tsewang Namgail. but currently competition with domestic livestock has emerged as the the Kalak Tartar plateau, the last The blue sheep is a unique moun- single most important threat to the stronghold of gazelle in Ladakh. tain ungulate that is somewhere between animal (Namgail et al. 2007b). The Competition with domestic sheep and sheep and goat, as it displays character- most current estimate suggests that goats was found to be the most impor- istics of both. The blue sheep is widely there are not more than 400 argali left tant threat to the long-term survival of distributed on the Tibetan Plateau and in Ladakh (Namgail et al. 2009). the animal (Namgail et al. 2008). The the peripheral areas (Namgail et al. The Ladakh urial is a small wild current estimated population of the 2004). During the surveys, I observed sheep that is about 80 cm (31 in.) high species in Ladakh is fewer than 100 89 individuals in seven groups in the at the shoulder, and that weighs an animals (Namgail et al. 2008). Rong area between Liktse and Mahe. In average of 65 kg (143 lbs). The species The Tibetan wild ass, or kiang, is addition, I observed three groups near is endemic to Ladakh, where it has a the largest wild ass in the world, with Omachhu and Pishu village in Zangskar, peculiar distribution, occurring only some stallions standing 1.4 m (4.6 ft.) and five groups in western Ladakh. along two major rivers: the Indus and tall and weighing up to 400 kg (880 the Shayok. The population of the lbs.). It occurs all across the Tibetan Several species of animal declined in the last century due Plateau and peripheral areas. Presently, to trophy and meat hunting (Mallon the eastern part of Ladakh is the major large herbivores 1983). During the surveys, I observed stronghold of this animal in India. inhabiting Ladakh are the animals near Hemis Shukpachan During the present survey, I carried and Lamayuru villages in western out repeated transect counts between facing a precipitous Ladakh. Owing to its occurrence near Rongo and Hanle in eastern Ladakh. decline in their human habitations, the animal has On the first transect count, I tallied populations. born the brunt of human onslaught. 136 kiangs in the sedge meadows The two major valleys where urial along the Hanle River, and during the occur are also the areas with the highest second transect, I counted a maximum Conflicts with farmers due to crop human density, due to the fertile land of 133 kiangs. The now-sedentary damage and poaching for meat seem to along the river banks (Namgail 2006a). nomadic pastoralists, who currently be the major threats to blue sheep in The urial often descend to the agricul- practice agriculture, fence off land for Ladakh. It is the most abundant wild tural fields and damage crops, especially growing crops, which seems to be the ungulate in Ladakh, with an estimated in spring, and the farmers often retal- most significant threat to the animal. population of 11,000 individuals. iate. The current estimated population It is estimated that presently there are The Tibetan argali is the largest of the animal in Ladakh is 2,000 indi- about 2,000 kiangs in Ladakh. wild sheep in the world, standing just viduals.

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 37 The Tibetan antelope is a graceful animal adapted to the highlands of Tibet (Schaller 1998). The animal is confined to Aksai Chin and the Chhang Chhenmo areas of northeastern Ladakh. These areas are relatively inaccessible; however, interviews with local people and wildlife officials suggested that moderate numbers of antelope, not more than 200 individuals, occur in these areas. The Tibetan antelope is being slaughtered on the Tibetan plateau for its much- valued wool, known as Shahtoosh, which is one of the finest natural fibers in the world. Shahtoosh is smuggled Figure 5—Two adult Tibetan argali rams grazing in the Tsabra catchment of Gya-Miru, Ladakh. Photo out from Tibet to Kashmir in India by Tsewang Namgail. and woven into exquisite scarves and shawls, which are exported to the The Asiatic ibex is a majestic wild the past by both trophy and meat developed countries. There are 250 goat that is about 80 to 100 cm (31 to hunters (Fox et al. 1992), and the individuals of this endangered species 40 in.) high at the shoulder, and that present population is very sparsely in Ladakh. weighs an average of 60 kg (132 lbs). distributed. During the present sur- The wild yak is a sturdy and bulky The species is partial to rugged areas, veys carried out mostly during summer, ungulate with high lung capacity and a as it has strong and muscular legs that I saw 15 individuals near the Hemis thick coat, which are adaptations to help it negotiate steep cliffs (Namgail Shukpachan and a group of 13 indi- the high-altitude environment of 2006b). The species is the second most viduals near Hanupatta before the Tibet. The males have imposing, abundant wild ungulate in Ladakh Singge Pass. It is estimated that there stately horns. Although in the past the after the blue sheep (Namgail 2006b). are about 6,000 individuals in animal occurred in a wider area of The Asiatic ibex was hunted heavily in Ladakh. Ladakh, presently it is confined to the Chhang Chhenmo Valley. The historical distribution of the species was spread as far west as the Gya-Miru area, as indicated by the presence of several pit traps, targeted at wild yak, in the area. Species in the past suffered at the hands of trophy hunters, but competition with domestic livestock for the scarce rangeland resources is presently threatening the animal’s population in Ladakh. There is an estimated population of about 200 wild yaks in the region.

Recommendations Several species of large herbivores inhabiting Ladakh are facing a precipi-

Figure 6—A herd of Ladakh urial in the western part of Ladakh. Photo by Yash Veer Bhatnagar. tous decline in their populations. They face an array of threats from modern

38 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 developmental initiatives, poaching, and increasing human and livestock populations. Some species, such as the Tibetan gazelle, Tibetan argali, wild yak, and Tibetan antelope, are rare and need immediate attention from conservationists. Among these the former three had wider distributions in Ladakh, but presently they are confined to small pockets. The causes of their local extinctions are not known, and need to be studied so that further declines might be stemmed. During the present surveys it became apparent that there are fewer species in the western part of Ladakh and Nubra Valley and greater numbers in the Changthang region. Ecological studies need to be designed and exe- Figure 7—A typical blue sheep habitat with rugged terrain that is secured from predators such as the cuted to understand such spatial wolf and the snow leopard, which are less agile in steep cliffs. Photo by TR Shankar Raman. variation in species richness, so that area-specific conservation strategies can ical wildlife habitats and freeing them imperative to conduct environmental be developed. The populations of the from livestock grazing could reduce impact assessments, and projects mountain ungulates should be moni- pressure on the wild ungulate popula- should be allowed only if receiving no tored regularly, which will enable us to tions in the region. objection certificates from the conser- record the rate of decline or recovery in Creating conservation awareness vation agencies. their populations, and prioritize our through special education programs is A network of protected areas was tasks as we work to save these unique urgently needed. The local people need established in Ladakh in the late and threatened animals. Moreover, to be educated about ecosystems and 1980s. Unfortunately, most of these there is also an urgent need to study the their functions so that they appreciate do not harbor viable ungulate popula- conditions and carrying capacity of the and conserve them. Since the younger tions, and most of them have rangelands in the region. generations, especially the school chil- permanent snowfields or glaciers, The wild ungulates in the Sham dren, are the future potential stewards which are not usable by ungulate area cause crop damage. Although of the wild animals, they should be the wildlife. The limited labor force within compensation to farmers may serve as prime focus of environmental educa- the wildlife protection agencies is a an immediate solution, preventive tion programs. From a commercial major problem. The current strength measures should be worked out to point of view, the local people need to of the staff at the Department of reduce the overall level of crop damage realize that the unique biodiversity of Wildlife Protection, Leh, is not more in the long run. The wild ungulates in Ladakh, if preserved in its entirety, will than 30, and this team has the respon- eastern Ladakh, in contrast, were attract wildlife enthusiasts from across sibility of patrolling about 30,000 sq mainly threatened by increasing live- the world, thereby providing tourism km (11,583 sq. mi.). Under such cir- stock population. This is especially so business. cumstances, it is imperative that the after the increase in livestock popula- Several developmental projects, local communities provide help in tion in the wake of increased demand such as building roads to remote areas protecting wildlife. Furthermore, for cashmere wool (Namgail et al. and dams for electricity, are underway, given the region’s environmental and 2007a). The current rate of increase in but the impact of these projects on the geographical characteristics, it is desir- the livestock population is unsustain- wildlife is not being assessed. Since able to target smaller, ecologically able, and as such is detrimental to both Ladakh is increasing its number of significant areas for protection of the livestock and wildlife. Identifying crit- development projects every year, it is most endangered species.

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 39 References ———. 2006b. Winter Habitat partitioning Namgail T., J. L. Fox, and Y. V. Bhatnagar. Bhatnagar Y. V., C. Mishra, and R. Wangchuk. between Asiatic Ibex and blue sheep in 2009. Status and distribution of near 2006. Decline of the Tibetan gazelle in Ladakh, northern India. Journal of threatened Tibetan argali Ovis ammon Ladakh. Oryx 40: 229–32. Mountain Ecology 8: 7–13. hodgsoni in Ladakh, India: effects of a Fox J. L., C. Nurbu, S. Bhatt, and A. Namgail T., S. Bagchi, C. Mishra, and Y. V. hunting ban. Oryx: 43: 288–291. Chandola. 1994. Wildlife conservation Bhatnagar. 2008. Distributional corre- Schaller G. B. 1977. Mountain Monarchs: and land-use changes in the lates of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra Wild Goat and Sheep of the Himalaya. Transhimalayan region of Ladakh, India. picticaudata in Ladakh, northern India: Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mountain Research and Development Towards a recovery programme. Oryx ———. 1998. Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. 14: 9-60. 42: 107–12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fox J. L., C. Nurbu, and R. S. Chundawat. Namgail T., Y. V. Bhatnagar, C. Mishra, and S. Stockley G. 1936. Stalking in the Himalayas 1991 The mountain ungulates of Bagchi. 2007a. Pastoral nomads of the and Northern India. London: Herbert Ladakh, India. Biological Conservation Indian Changthang: Production system, Jenkins. 58; 167–90. land use and socio-economic changes. Fox J. L., S. P. Sinha, and R. S. Chundawat. Human Ecology 35: 497–504. 1992. Activity patterns and habitat use Namgail T., J. L. Fox, and Y. V. Bhatnagar. TSEWANG NAMGAIL works with the of ibex in the Himalaya Mountains of 2004. Habitat segregation between Resource Ecology Group, Department of India. Journal of Mammalogy 73: sympatric Tibetan argali Ovis ammon Environmental Sciences, Wageningen 527–34. hodgsoni and blue sheep Pseudois University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Mallon D. 1983. The status of Ladakh urial nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Wageningen, The Netherlands, and with Ovis orientalis vignei in Ladakh, India. Journal of Zoology 262: 57–63. Biological Conservation 27: 373–81. Namgail T., J. L. Fox, and Y. V. Bhatnagar. the Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 Namgail T. 2006a. Trans-Himalayan large 2007b. Habitat shift and time budget of IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, herbivores: Status, conservation and the Tibetan argali: The influence of Karnataka, India; email: [email protected]. niche relationships. New York: Wildlife livestock grazing. Ecological Research Conservation Society, Bronx Zoo. 22: 25–31.

Continued from NATURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, page 13

Heller, N. E., and E. Zavaleta. 2009. Mackey, B., H. Keith, S. Berry, and D. L. Published Online: February 10, 2009, Biodiversity Management in the face Lindenmayer. 2008a. Green Carbon: 3:18PM DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–7429. of climate change: A review of 22 The Role of Natural Forests in Carbon 2009.00495.x. years of recommendations. Biological Storage. Part 1, A Green Carbon Victor, David, M. Granger-Morgan, Jay Apt, Conservation 142: 14–32. Account of Australia’s Southeastern John Steinbruner, and Katherine Ricke. IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Eucalypt Forest, and Policy Implications. 2009. The geoengineering option: A Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contri- Canberra, Australia, ANU E Press, last resort against global warming? bution of Working Group II to the Fourth epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_cita- Foreign Affairs 88(2): Assessment Report of the IPCC. tion.html. World Conservation Congress. 2008. IUCN Geneva, Switzerland: International Panel Mackey, G. B., J.E.M. Watson, and G. Hope. (World Conservation Union) motion on Climate Change. 2008b. Climate change, biodiversity 087 “Enhancing ecological networks ———. 2007b. Climate Change 2007—The conservation, and the role of protected and connectivity conservation areas” Physical Science Basis, Contribution of areas: An Australian perspective. and motion 099 “Biodiversity conser- Working Group I to the Fourth Biodiversity 9: 11–18. vation and climate change adaptation Assessment Report of the IPCC. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. and mitigation in national polices and Geneva, Switzerland: International Ecosystems and Human Well-being: strategies,” iucn.org/congress_08/ Panel on Climate Change. Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, assembly/policy/. Keith, H., B. G. Mackey, and D. B. www.millenniumassessment.org/ Lindenmayer, 2009. Re-evaluation of documents/document.356.aspx.pdf?. forest biomass carbon stocks and Phillips O. L., S. L. Lewis, T. R. Baker, K. J. HARVEY LOCKE is vice president for conser- lessons from the world’s most carbon- Chao, and N. Higuchi, 2008. The vation strategy at The WILD Foundation in dense forests. PNAS Early Edition; changing Amazon forest. Philos Trans Boulder, Colorado, and the strategic advisor HYPERLINK "http://www.pnas.org_ R Soc London Ser B 363:1819–1827. to the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0901970106" Righelato, R., and D. V. Spracklen. 2007. Initiative; email: [email protected]. www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_ Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by pnas.0901970106. saving and restoring forests? Science Lewis S. L., et al. 2009. Increasing carbon 317: 902. BRENDAN MACKEY is a professor of envi- storage in intact African tropical for- Shearman, P. L., J. E. Bryan, J. Ash, P. ronmental science at The Fenner School of ests. Nature 457:1003–1007. Hunnam, B. Mackey, and B. Lokes. Environment and Society, The Australian Luyssaert, S., L. Sebastiaan, E. D. Schulze, 2009. The state of the forests of Papua National University, Canberra, and he is A. Börner, A. Knohl, D. Hessenmo¨ller , New Guinea: Mapping the extent and B. E. Law, P. Ciais, and J. Grace, J. condition of forest cover and mea- chair of the IUCN Council’s Climate Change 2008. Old-growth forests as global suring the drivers of forest change in Task Force; email: Brendan.Mackey@anu. carbon sinks. Nature: 455: 213-215. the period 1972–2002. Biotropica. edu.au.

40 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements

COMPILED BY GREG KROLL

The National Wilderness Preservation System • Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness and National Scenic Grows by Two Million Acres Area Act (Virginia) with 55,000 acres (22,300 ha) On March 30, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law • Wild Monongahela Act (West Virginia) with 37,000 the largest conservation legislation in a generation, the acres (15,000 ha) Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The 1,200-page law is a collection of 170 separate lands, parks, In addition to the wilderness initiatives, the act provides for and conservation bills. It adds 2 million acres (810,000 ha) of the following: land to the National Wilderness Preservation System in nine • Establishes three new units of the National Park System, states. The following bills, included in the legislation, desig- a new National Monument, and four new National nated new wilderness areas (new wilderness acreage is listed): Conservation Areas • Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage • Codifies the Save America’s Treasures and Preserve Act (California) with 450,000 acres (182,000 ha) America historic preservation programs • California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act • Designates more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of new (California) with 190,000 acres (76,900 ha) additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers • Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness System Act (California) with 85,000 acres (34,000 ha) • Designates four new National Scenic or National • Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Historic Trails and enlarges the boundaries of several Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act (Colorado) existing units of the National Park System with 66,000 acres (26,700 ha) • Establishes 10 new National Heritage Areas • Owyhee Public Lands Management Act (Idaho) with • Formally establishes the National Landscape 517,000 acres (210,000 ha) Conservation System • Beaver Basin Wilderness Act (Michigan) with 11,739 • Addresses critical water resource needs on both the local acres (4,750 ha) and national level • Sabinoso Wilderness Act (New Mexico) with 15,000 • Ratifies water settlements in California, Nevada, and acres (6,070 ha) New Mexico • Copper Salmon Wilderness Act (Oregon) with 13,700 acres (5,500 ha) In spite of the act’s huge benefits to the National Wilderness • Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act (Oregon) Preservation System, some conservationists have expressed with 128,600 acres (52,000 ha) dismay over a few provisions, especially as they pertain to • Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and compromises in the Idaho, Utah, and Alaska wilderness Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act (Oregon) legislation. Perhaps of greatest concern, the act provides for with 23,000 acres (9,300 ha) an access road through designated wilderness in Izembek • Spring Basin Wilderness Act (Oregon) with 8,600 acres National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska (see the related Digest (3,480 ha) article in the December 2007 IJW). The road project • Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act (Oregon) with 31,000 requires an environmental impact statement by the Interior acres (12,500 ha) Department, and the interior secretary could still block the • Washington County Growth and Conservation Act proposal. Taxpayers have already spent $41 million addressing (Utah) with 256,000 acres (103,600 ha) alternatives to the Izembek road, including the purchase of

Submit announcements and short news articles to GREG KROLL, IJW Wildernss Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected]

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 41 a hovercraft, which can transport 56 one might surmise that getting live- mountain and take a breathtaking passengers in 10-foot waves. (Sources: stock producers to agree to allotment three-dimensional flight over its under- New York Times, March 31, 2009; retirement is the greatest challenge, water peaks and troughs.” To access Washington Post, March 20, 2009; persuading agencies to retire allot- Ocean in Google Earth, download the www.leaveitwild.org) ments presents its own set of challenges. latest version of Google Earth at earth. Allotment retirement has gone most google.com. It’s free. Grazing Allotments Retired in smoothly where specific forest plans The companion website, www. Forest Service Wilderness provide direction in dealing with protectplanetocean.org, the global web Thirty grazing allotments on Forest threatened and endangered species portal for ocean conservation, was Service lands surrounding Yellowstone such as wolves and grizzlies. developed by IUCN and its partners National Park (Wyoming, Montana, NWF considers sheep allotments to complement the Marine Protected Idaho) have been retired, thanks to the to be a higher priority than those for Area Layer in Ocean in Google Earth. Wildlife Conflict Resolution Program cattle because they create more conflict It provides an easy-to-use interface for sponsored by the National Wildlife with wildlife. Allotment retirements the public to upload their own photos, Federation (NWF). Three of those also benefit elk, deer, and bighorn videos, and stories about the oceans. allotments are in designated wilderness. sheep through additional forage; sensi- The uploaded content will be included Conflicts between livestock and wildlife tive alpine meadows that contain rare in the Google Earth Marine Protected on public lands are one of the leading plants face reduced risk; and hunters Area Layer, meaning that users can sources of mortality in wolf and grizzly and hikers no longer encounter directly contribute to the world’s first bear populations in the Greater domestic livestock in retired areas. multimedia map of the oceans. (Source: Yellowstone Ecosystem. Whereas some Since 2002, 552,000 acres (223,400 www.iucn.org/news_events/news/? environmental groups have tried to ha) have been retired in the Greater 2612/Dive-into-the-oceans-with- compel federal agencies to administra- Yellowstone Ecosystem, including Google-Earth) tively cancel troublesome leases, NWF allotments in the Absaroka-Beartooth has taken a different approach. Wilderness, the Washakie Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers Council Federal grazing leases have eco- and the Jedediah Smith Wilderness. Facilitates Interagency nomic value to ranchers who frequently (Source: www.nwf-wcr.org) Coordination sell these permits to one another. The The National Wild and Scenic Rivers concept of taking away a lease without Google Earth Identifies System was created by Congress in compensation has caused controversy Marine Protected Areas 1968 to preserve certain rivers with and ill will. Under the NWF program, Internet users can now travel in three outstanding natural, cultural, and rec- agreements to retire grazing allotments dimensions through the vast and reational values in a free-flowing are strictly voluntary. In areas that have largely unknown underwater world of condition. Rivers are classified as wild, prolonged and seemingly irresolvable the planet’s oceans, flying over and scenic, or recreational: conflicts with wildlife, it’s often diffi- around underwater seamounts or fol- • Wild River Areas—Those rivers cult for ranchers to profitably run lowing scientific research expeditions or sections of rivers that are free of livestock; hence, they may be ame- as they explore ocean depths. The impoundments and generally nable to retiring these “conflict” International Union for Conservation inaccessible except by trail, with allotments. NWF contacts ranchers of Nature (IUCN) has collaborated watersheds or shorelines essen- who hold leases on these allotments, with the Ocean in Google Earth tially primitive and waters and if the rancher is interested, NWF project to create the Marine Protected unpolluted. These represent ves- negotiates a price based on the amount Area Layer, which contains informa- tiges of primitive America. of forage available in the unit. The tion on more than 4,500 protected • Scenic River Areas—Those rivers rancher then waives his or her grazing sites spread around the globe. or sections of rivers that are free of permit back to the Forest Service, the According to IUCN director general impoundments, with shorelines Forest Service writes a decision letter Julia Marton-Lefèvre, “While on other or watersheds still largely primi- permanently closing the allotment, maps all you see of the oceans is a blue tive and shorelines largely and NWF provides the rancher with a surface, here you can see that Hawaii is undeveloped, but accessible in check. According to NWF, although actually the top of a massive undersea places by roads.

42 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 • Recreational River Areas—Those Mountains. Founded in 1949, the a survey at park entrances to better rivers or sections of rivers that are park encompasses an area of 286 square understand visitors’ attributes and readily accessible by road or rail- miles (741 sq km), incorporating dense motives for visiting the park. (Sources: road, that may have some forests on the mountains’ lower slopes, Juraj Švajda, Ph.D. at juraj.svajda@ development along their shore- as well as glacial lakes and mountain uniza.sk; www.iexplore.com/attractions/ lines, and that may have undergone streams. The High Tatras, the only Tatras_National_Park_(Tatransky_ some impoundment or diversion alpine mountain range in eastern narodny_park).jhtml; www. in the past. Europe and one of the smallest in the eco-computer.com) world, provides habitat for chamois For the first 25 years of the National (mountain goat), bear, and marmot. General Public Unaware of Wild and Scenic Rivers System, desig- The park’s visitation has increased Activities Allowed in nated rivers were managed differently a hundredfold over the last 60 years, Wilderness by each federal agency. In 1993, con- and there is concern that unregulated According to a study published in servation organizations issued a tourism will negatively affect critically 2000 by J. Mark Fly, Robert Emmet challenge to the land management endangered vertebrate and invertebrate Jones, and H. Ken Cordell, the general agencies to establish an interagency species. The park currently lacks a public does not appear to be very council to address wild and scenic year-round monitoring system for vis- knowledgeable about activities allowed rivers administration. This was accom- itor use in the most popular areas. in federally designated wilderness plished in 1995. The council, consisting Juraj Švajda, Ph.D., of the Institute of areas. The researchers surveyed 2,829 of representatives of the Bureau of High Mountain Biology, University of households in the Southern Land Management, National Park Žilina, assisted park staff in studying Appalachian Ecoregion of the United Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, visitor use patterns. To test the effec- States, a seven-state area stretching and U.S. Forest Service, addresses a tiveness of a proposed monitoring from Virginia to Georgia. The region broad range of issues, from manage- system, an Eco-Twin pyroelectric contains 49 separate wildernesses ment concerns on rivers presently in sensor was installed along a trail in the totaling 476,654 acres (192,895 ha). the national system to potential addi- Mengusovská Valley. Consisting of a About half the area’s residents live in tions listed on the Nationwide Rivers lens sensitive to infrared radiation rural communities and maintain Inventory, from state designations to emitted by the human body, the Eco- “active outdoor lifestyles.” The pur- the provision of technical assistance to Twin logger detects each time a person pose of the study was to assess public other governments and nonprofit passes, discerning between two people knowledge of wilderness practices and organizations. following each other closely. The Eco- current sentiment toward the need to As of 2008, the national system Twin functions even when the ambient designate more wilderness areas. protected more than 11,000 miles temperature is higher than that of a Along with other questions, (17,700 km) of 166 rivers in 38 states passing body, and avoids false counts researchers asked whether timber har- and Puerto Rico; this is a little more generated by vegetation movement, vesting and motor vehicles are allowed than one-quarter of 1% of the nation’s rain, or sun. in designated wilderness. Less than rivers. By comparison, more than The monitoring program exposed 10% of those interviewed answered 75,000 large dams across the country violations of seasonal closures as well both questions correctly, regardless of have modified at least 600,000 miles as illegal nighttime intrusions into the their income, education, gender, ethnic (965,000 km), or about 17%, of valley. Furthermore, it was determined origin, or rural/urban residence. When American rivers. (Source: www. that trail use was 50 times higher than asked if more public lands should be rivers.gov) the established carrying capacity. Based set aside as wilderness, however, 69% on these findings, the park has pro- agreed, whereas one in four did not. Visitor Management a posed decreasing daily visitation in the But only 14% strongly agreed that Major Concern in valley by 80%. As a result of this pre- more wilderness areas were needed. Tatransky` National Park liminary study, the park proposes to Unlike wilderness knowledge, this cat- Tatransky` National Park is the oldest install additional counters, set up video egory demonstrated a number of national park in the Slovak Republic cameras to assess forms of transport significant differences across sociode- and protects the High Tatras utilized by park visitors, and to initiate mographic groups. People with some

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 43 college education, Caucasians, urban Forestry and Conservation at the uni- threatened in southern Africa, 78 of residents and those whose job was not versity. Each of the four courses costs these are found in South Africa, the related to natural resources were more between $675 and $875, including most developed country in the region. likely to support setting aside more books. Students desiring academic Freshwater species provide food for wilderness than their counterparts. credit must pay an additional $135 local people, and some of them, such (Source: www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_ credit fee per course. For more infor- as the mollusks, help purify the p015_2/rmrs_p015_2_201_204.pdf) mation, visit wmdep.wilderness.net/. drinking water. The study shows that although 77% of species are not threat- Graduate Certificate in Southern Africa’s Freshwater ened with extinction, there is not Wilderness Management Now Species in Danger enough information for 16% of them Available Many freshwater fish, crabs, dragon- to determine their threat status. The University of Montana is now flies, mollusks, and aquatic plants are Three hotspots of species diversity offering a Graduate Certificate in at risk of extinction in southern Africa are highlighted in the report, including Wilderness Management, providing if its rivers and lakes are not protected the area where the upper Zambezi students and professionals with from developers, according to the meets the Kwando and Chobe Rivers training and expertise in key topics International Union for Conservation above Victoria Falls, the Komati and related to managing wilderness. of Nature (IUCN). A study by the Crocodile River tributaries of the Courses cover the history and philos- IUCN Species Program, in collabora- Incomati system in Mpumalanga, ophy of the wilderness system, tion with the South African Institute South Africa, and the Mbuluzi River wilderness law and policy, wilderness for Aquatic Biodiversity and the South basin, also in Mpumalanga, South recreation management, wilderness African National Biodiversity Institute, Africa, and in Swaziland. Many of ecosystem conservation and resource shows that 7% of species are known to southern Africa’s coastal drainages have monitoring, and wilderness planning. be regionally threatened or extinct. sites that contain species that only Taken together, these courses provide But this figure will skyrocket unless occur in that area, including the the necessary foundation for students freshwater species conservation is con- Kunene and Kwanza Rivers on the to pursue careers in wilderness man- sidered in development planning. west coast of Angola, and the Rovuma agement. Courses are offered as The results from the assessment of and Pungwe and Buzi systems on the traditional correspondence courses or 1,279 freshwater species in southern east coast of Mozambique. (Source: interactive online courses through the Africa show that the more developed a cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/the_ Wilderness Management Distance country is, the more species are threat- status_and_distribution_of_fresh- Education Program in the College of ened with extinction. Of the 94 species water_biodiversity_in_southern_africa)

Plan to be there!

Join Us www.wild9.org for www.wild.org

9th World Wilderness Congress 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, Mesoamerica

44 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews

Roadless Rules: Turner suggests the campaign for the Roadless Rule The Struggle for the Last Wild Forests “has been the most extensive national environmental campaign yet waged in the United States, combining grassroots By Tom Turner. 2009. Island Press. 192 pages. organizing in nearly every state; massive infusions of philan- $27.50 (paperback). thropic support; support from hunters, and anglers, religious leaders, scientists, and the outdoor recreation industry; Since the passing of the Wilderness Act in 1964, American relentless lobbying of Congress and the executive branch; land management agencies have occasionally been asked by and complex and extremely long-lived litigation that kept Congress to evaluate the existence of roadless areas for des- the [Clinton] rule in place in the face of hostile opposition” ignation as wilderness areas. The first Roadless Area and (p. 3). This sustained legal and lobbying battle seems to be Review and Evaluation (RARE I) process was completed by the norm in the 21st century, and in many ways is deeply the Forest Service in 1972. Conservation groups were out- disturbing. More comforting is the fact that the general raged by the agency’s omission of millions of acres of public—Democrats and Republicans alike—strongly and potential roadless areas, and after legal challenges, the Forest consistently supported the protection of wilderness via the Service completed the RARE II process in 1979. The result roadless rule, and their views were eventually accepted— of RARE II was equally controversial, and battles among the after much political and legal action (which still continues Forest Service, Congress, and special interest groups con- today)—in both the judicial and political arena. Roadless tinued to rage. Rules, although ultimately a success story for wilderness, also Roadless Rules tells the story of the next major process to reminds us that intense, long-term lobbying and legal chal- gauge roadless areas in the United States: President Bill lenges are required to succeed in certain political climates, Clinton’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) of and that challenges to “old” rules and regulations are always 2001, and subsequent efforts by the George W. Bush admin- just around the corner in a new political administration. istration to overturn this decision to ban road building in roadless areas of the national forests. Turner, a journalist and Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book editor; email: [email protected]. editor for Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm focused on environmental issues, faithfully describes the book as “a story of the interplay between litigation and public policy, with plenty of politics and vast dollops of community organizing Yellowstone Wolves: A Chronicle of the Animal, thrown in for good measure” (p. xiii–xiv). the People, and the Politics Turner discusses the role of the Pew Foundation and By Cat Urbigkit. 2008. McDonald and Woodward other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in helping Publishing. 373 pages. $29.95 (paperback) convince government bureaucrats and politicians to support a nationwide protection of nonroaded areas (i.e., the RACR). The legal battles resulting from the RACR, the rise The dedication and passion that the author demonstrates of the Bush administration’s Roadless Rules plan (which toward the central issue of this book—the introduction of attempted to give states the decision-making power over wolves in Yellowstone—very quickly become evident in roadless areas), and the legal battles arising from the Bush Yellowstone Wolves. She and her husband felt so strongly proposal are also described. Turner uses interviews with about the issue that they sued the government over their various stakeholders to buttress his account of the legal, plans, and as they couldn’t afford lawyers, studied law and bureaucratic, and political machinations surrounding the took the case on themselves. Indeed, such passion is in roadless area issue in the 21st century. evidence throughout the book that the objectivity of the

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 45 author is often compromised, espe- wolves continued to exist in Yellowstone Yellowstone Wolves provides a won- cially when she goes beyond before and during the reintroduction. derful example of how wilderness documenting published evidence and However, there doesn’t seem to be management issues such as the reintro- uses personal stories to buttress her clear proof that the wolves existed in duction of a predator quickly become arguments. However, notwithstanding large enough numbers to maintain a “wicked” problems, involving multiple the bias often shown—ironically, the coherent population, or that is was truths, conflicting science, bureau- same complaint the author has toward indeed the irremotus subspecies. cratic and political pressures, special the U.S. government—the book pro- It does seem evident that the U.S. interest groups, concerned members of vides a fascinating glimpse at the government had no interest in acknowl- the public, and the legal system. On nexus of politics, emotion, science, edging the existence of any subspecies, the wolf issue in Yellowstone, Urbigkit legal challenges, and entrenched posi- and indeed in 1977 reclassified four notes the government agencies have tions of various special interest groups subspecies of wolves into two species their own agenda, and change their that emerged over the decision to (Canis lupis and Canis refus), meaning policies and procedures to ensure this reintroduce wolves in Yellowstone that the irremotus subspecies was agenda is met. Although her passion National Park. removed from the endangered species for the topic may sometimes obscure The central position taken by the listing of 1973. Urbigkit suggests that her impartiality, Urbigkit provides a author is that the “reintroduction” of this action, and the later redefinition valuable service by highlighting the wolves in Yellowstone was deeply of the term population later, was to political nature of decision making flawed, as a subspecies of wolf (Canis allow for an experimental population and the troubling self-selection of sci- Lupis irremotus) native to the area had of Canadian wolves to be introduced ence to serve bureaucratic and political never been exterminated. Therefore, into the areas: the experimental desig- ends in wilderness, park, and wildlife the introduction of wolves from nation (created in 1982) allowed the management. Canada (subspecies Canus Lupis occi- government to manage the wolf popu- dentalis) was a grave error by the U.S. lation on their own terms (i.e., with Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book editor; government. The author, a newspaper greater control and flexibility). This email: [email protected]. reporter/farmer, accessed historic and increased control was needed due to government records that do seem to the controversial nature of wolf rein- provide evidence that low numbers of troduction in the region.

Continued from DISPLACEMENT, page 29

Journal of Leisure Research 33: Environmental Management 42: JOHN G. PEDEN is an assistant professor at 106–20. 647–657. Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Watson, A. E., and M. J. Niccolucci. 1992. Williams, D. R. 1989. Great expectations Georgia; email:jpeden@georgiasouthern. Defining past-experience dimensions and the limits of satisfaction: A review for wilderness recreation. Leisure of recreation and consumer satisfac- edu. Sciences 14: 89–103. tion research. In Outdoor Recreation White, D. D., R. J. Virden, and C. J. van Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the RUDY M. SCHUSTER is branch chief for Riper. 2008. Effects of place identity, National Outdoor Recreation Forum, policy analysis and science assistance at place dependence, and experience-use ed. A. H. Watson (pp. 422–38). Tampa, the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. history on perceptions of recreation FL: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. impacts in a natural setting. Rep. SE-52. Geological Survey in Fort Collins, Colorado; email: [email protected].

46 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 Continued from INVASIVE SPECIES, page 22 Continued from WILD9 AND WILDERNESS SCIENCE, page 30 riparian environment: Human imprints Smith, T. L. 1989. An overview of old- on an Allegheny River Wilderness. growth forests in Pennsylvania. Natural Annals of the Association of American Areas Journal 9: 40-44. value of wilderness to understand the Geographers 92: 189–202. Stohlgren, T. J., K. A. Bull, Y. Otsuki, C. A. causes and consequences of environ- Cowell, C. M., and R. T. Stoudt. 2002. Dam- Villa, and M. Lee. 1998. Riparian zones induced modifications to Upper are havens for exotic plant species in mental change and identify gaps in Allegheny River streamflow patterns the central grasslands. Plant Ecology knowledge worthy of focus. The call and their biodiversity implications. 138: 113–25. is out for abstracts for the Symposium Journal of the American Water USDA, NRCS. 2008. The PLANTS Database. Resources Association 38: 187–96. National Plant Data Center, Baton on Science and Stewardship to Protect DeFerrari, C. M., and R. J. Naiman. 1994. A Rouge, Louisiana. Available at plants. and Sustain Wilderness Values. multi-scale assessment of the occur- usda.gov (Accessed: November 9, rence of exotic plants on the Olympic 2008). Following the highest priorities iden- Peninsula, Washington. Journal of U.S. Public Law 98-585. Pennsylvania tified for this Congress, the request Vegetation Science 5: 247–58. Wilderness Act of October 30, 1984. specifically solicits presentations on Goff, F. G., G. A. Dawson, and J. J. Rochow. 98 STAT. 3100. 1982. Site examination for threatened Verry, E. S., J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. wilderness as a strategic element in and endangered plant species. Dolloff, eds.. 2000. Riparian the global response to climate change, Environmental Management 6: Management in Forests of the 307–16. Continental Eastern United States. including scientific, mitigation, and LaFleur, N. E., M. A. Rubega, and C. S. New York: Lewis Publishers. adaptation roles, with broad sub- Elphick. 2007. Invasive fruits, novel Walters, G. L., and C. E. Williams. 1999. theme examples of advancing our foods, and choice: An investigation of Riparian forest overstory and herba- European starling and American robin ceous layer of two upper Allegheny knowledge related to freshwater con- frugivory. Wilson Journal of Ornithology River islands in northwestern tributions of wildland protection, 119: 429–38. Pennsylvania. Castanea 64: 81–89. Morse, L. E., J. M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Wilkinson, L. 1997. SYSTAT 7.0. Statistics. transboundary connectivity benefits Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Chicago: SPSS. and threats, risks and benefits of nat- Species Assessment Protocol: Williams, C. E. 1996. Alien plant invasions ural and prescribed fire, land and Evaluating Non-Native Plants for Their and forest ecosystem integrity: A Impact on Biodiversity. Version 1. review. In Forests—A Global seascape disturbance issues, and NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Perspective, ed. S. K. Majumdar, E. W. human communities in transition in Naiman, Robert J., and H. DeCamps. 1997. Miller, and F. J. Brenner (pp. 169–85). relation to nature. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian Easton, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Science. We are excited and looking for- Systematics 28: 621–58. ———. 2005. Alien Plant Survey of Kinzua ward to facilitating new and Naiman, R. J., H. DeCamps, and M. E. Creek, Pennsylvania. Project report. McClain. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Warren, PA: Allegheny National Forest. far-ranging wilderness science and Conservation, and Management of ———. 2008. Survey of Sweet-scented sharing this science with other scien- Streamside Communities. New York: Indian Plantain (Hasteola suaveolens) tists, managers, invested parties, old Elsevier Academic Press. in the Allegheny River Islands Naiman, R. J., H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. Wilderness. Project report. Warren, wilderness hands, those only now 1993. The role of riparian corridors in PA: Allegheny National Forest. considering such protection, and the maintaining regional biodiversity. Williams, C. E., S. L. Possessky, E. V. Ecological Applications 3: 209–12. Mosbacher, and W. J. Moriarity. 1998. public. This symposium, as well as NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: Alien Plant Inventory: Tionesta Creek other essential elements of the An online encyclopedia of life [web and Allegheny River Islands Wilderness, Congress, will provide opportunities application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Allegheny National Forest, Pennsyl- Arlington, Virginia. Available at www. vania. Project report. Milwaukee, WI: for government representatives, man- natureserve.org/explorer (accessed USDA Forest Service, Eastern Regional agers, concerned citizens, scientists, November 9, 2008). Office. Planty-Tabacchi, A., E. Tabacchi, R. J. Williams, C. E., D. L. Rubino, and W. J. photographers, and youth to exchange Naiman, C. M. DeFerrari, and H. Moriarity. 1997. Alien Plant inventory: ideas, hopes, and commitments DeCamps. 1996. Invasibility of species- Clarion and Allegheny River Corridors, during “Seven Days That Will Change rich communities in riparian zones. Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania. Conservation Biology 10: 598–607. Project report. Milwaukee, WI: USDA the World.” See you in Mérida. Pyle, L. L. 1995. Effects of disturbance on Forest Service, Eastern Regional herbaceous exotic plant species on the Office. GEORGE (SAM) FOSTER is the director of floodplain of the Potomac River. the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain American Midland Naturalist 134: CHARLES E. WILLIAMS, Ph.D., is Upper Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado; 244–53. Allegheny watershed manager for the Rhoads, A. F., and T. A. Block. 2000. The email: [email protected]. Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Western Pennsylvania Conservancy; 40 W. Manual. Philadelphia: University of Main Street, Ridgway, Pennsylvania 15853, Pennsylvania Press. USA; email: [email protected].

AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2 International Journal of Wilderness 47 Continued from KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS, page 17

In Protected Areas. Retrieved April 17, NAAMAL DE SILVA works at the Center for DAVID KNOX works at the Center for 2009, from http://www.cbd.int/ Applied Biodiversity Science in Conservation Applied Biodiversity Science in Conservation protected/pow.shtml. International to identify targets for biodiver- International to identify targets for biodiver- Stuart, S.N., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. sity conservation in Asia and the Pacific; sity conservation in Africa and Eurasia; Fischman and R. W. Waller. 2004. email: [email protected]. email: [email protected]. Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide. MATTHEW N. FOSTER worked with ANABEL RIAL is a research associate at Science 306:1783-1786. Conservation International in the Center for the La Salle National History Museum and a Applied Biodiversity Science for the past member of the Venezuelan Ministry of AMY UPGREN works at the Center for seven years supporting programs and part- Science and Technology’s Program to Applied Biodiversity Science at ners in defining conservation targets; email: Promote Research. Conservation International to support the [email protected]. identification of targets for biodiversity LIZANNE ROXBURGH is the chair of the conservation in Latin America; email: ROGER JAMES is a biodiversity specialist Zambian Ornithological Society; email: [email protected]. for Conservation International; email: [email protected]. [email protected]. CURTIS BERNARD is a biodiversity analyst RANDAL J. L. STOREY is a GIS specialist with Conservation International Guyana; THAÍS KASECKER is a biodiversity analyst with the Australian government. email: [email protected]. from Conservation International Brazil’s Amazonia Program; email: t.kasecker@ KRISTEN J. WILLIAMS is an ecological ROB P. CLAY is the senior conservation conservation.org. geographer with Commonwealth Scientific manager for BirdLife in the Americas; email: and Industrial Research Organization in [email protected]. Australia; email: [email protected].

Continued from CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, page 34

CI’s strong presence was a key factor References CLAUDE GASCON is the executive vice- in facilitating and delivering the Mittermeier, R. A., C. G. Mittermeier, P. R. president for programs and science at Gil, J. Pilgrim, G. Fonseca, T. Brooks, “2010 Vision” of tripling the coun- Conservation International and the co-chair and W. R. Konstnat, 2002. Wilderness: of the Amphibian Specialist Group of the try’s protected area coverage. But Earth’s Last wild Places. Mexico City, IUCN Species Survival Commission; email: political turmoil in the country indi- Mexico: Agrupacion Sierra Padre, S.C. Mittermeier, R. A., C. G. Mittermeier, T. M. [email protected]. cates just how fragile such gains may Brooks, J. D. Pilgrim, W. R. Konstant, turn out to be: in order to ensure the G. A. B. da Fonseca, and C. Kormos. THOMAS BROOKS is a vice-president in the 2003. Wilderness and biodiversity con- Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at sustainability of such gains, and to servation. Proceedings of the National Conservation International, holds adjunct amplify them globally, we need con- Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. positions at ICRAF—the World Agroforestry tinual proof of why they are so 100: 10309–10313. Center at the University of the important for humanity. By providing RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER is the president Philippines–Los Baños, and the University this, we are confident that CI, along of Conservation International, a vice-presi- of Tasmania, and has authored 166 scietific with partner organizations such as dent of IUCN, and the author and editor of and popular publications; email: t.brooks@ The WILD Foundation, will eventu- more than 550 scientific and popular arti- conservation.org. cles and 17 books, including Megadiversity, ally staunch the biodiversity crisis, Wilderness, Hotspots Revisited, Trans- and as a result also contribute to the boundary Conservation and, most recently, solutions to numerous of the other A Climate for Life; email: r.mittermeier@ challenges facing humanity. conservation.org.

48 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2