10Wilderness Ecosystems

Introduction 191 Identifying wilderness ecosystems 203 Man's Historic Role in Wilderness 191 Characterizing wilderness ecosystems 204 Ecosystems and Their Characteristics 192 Successional characterization of ecosystems 204 Dynamics of Ecosystems 195 Levels of detail for inventorying and monitoring 208 Human influences on ecosystem dynamics in wilderness 197 Literature Cited 210 Natural versus man-influenced ecosystems 2tX1 Ecological Knowledge in Interpreting and Managing Wilderness 202

Introduction ecosystem considerations. (See chapter 12.)Manage- ment of large ungulates (bighorn sheep,elk, or caribou) This chapter considers major features of wilderness or predators, such as grizzly bears,inevitably must be ecosystems of concern to managers and contrasts them based on ecosystem concepts. (See chapter 11.) Even the with ecosystems significantly altered by modern man. limits of human use under the naturalness constraint of The emphasis is on the dynamic nature of ecosystems, the Wilderness Actphysical carrying capacityrests their strong internal linkages and the ways various on ecosystem concepts. (See chapter8.) Finally, the human activities have affected and continue to affect the entire notion of regulated human use and management "naturalness" of wilderness ecosystems. Only when of wilderness so as to not distort naturalness, the idea of ecosystem dynamics, including interrelationships with man as an integral but not dominant partof wilderness, man, are fully understood can an assessment of the is an ecosystem concept. consequences of alternative management strategies be Some readers without natural science backgrounds made. may find this chapter difficult readingfor it contains a Some readers may think that ecosystem concepts are cram course in ecology. However,the basic ecological only marginally related to wilderness management concepts discussed are essential forunderstanding the because so much of the previous material concerns implications of the subsequent chapters on fire and people management. However, there is a large body of wildlife. literature to remind us that ignorance of ecosystem conceptsinternal linkages among environment, plant, and animal, and successional dynamicslies at the root Manc Historic Role in Wilderness of many wilderness and park management problems. One point should, perhaps, be dealt with at the Concern about fire-control policies throughout much of outsetis man an integral component of the wilder- the West (e.g., Kilgore 1973, Habeck 1970, and Habeck ness? Are man and his influences natural or unnatural? and Mutch 1973) and in the Lake States (Heinselman The answer to this is clearly relative rather than absolute. 1973, Wright 1974, and Frissell 1973) is based on Primitive man unquestionably played a role in shaping This chapter was written by Jerry F. Franklin, the wilderness landscapes of North America induding Principal Plant Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Forest those formally recognized today as components of the and Range Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg. National Wilderness Preservation System. He burned and hunted, raised crops, and built settlements. With rare

191 exceptions (man's role in extinction of Pleistocene for a natural process such as wildfire or predation mammals may be one of these), however, aboriginal Because of the pervasive and powerful nature of the man did not exist in sufficient numbers nor did he have forces we generate (and sometimes command) it is the technology to control and direct the forces ofnature. critical that we understand their effects as a guide to He was an influencing factor, but only one ofmany, and minimizing them and, in the case of management, use negative feedback mechanisms existed which kept his these forces to mimic natural forces or processes no populations and impacts in check For example, when longer present. resources were exhausted or depleted or when climatic changes occurred, primitive man generally diedor moved on He could not dominate his environmentnor Ecosystems and Their Characteristics could he delay or alter these negative feedbacks. An ecosystem includes all the organisms of an area, Thissituationhas changed with theriseof their environment, and a series of linkages or interactions technological civilization Current human technology has between them. As Odum (1971) summarizes, "The grown extremely powerful and, in the short term, is ecosystem is the basic fundamental unit in ecology, since capable of buffering man from the effects ofstrong it indudes both organisms...and abiotic environments, negative feedback. "Natural" human influences might be each influencing the properties of the other and both considered those which have been elements in the necessary for the maintenance of life ...... long term evolution of the presettlement ecosystems The abiotic environment includes climatic conditions present for hundreds, thousands, and even tens of such as temperature and moisture regimes and inorganic thousands of years. The impacts of modern man are not substances supplied by mineral soil. The organisms this type. The wilderness ecosystems we are concerned indude autotrophs and heterotrophs. Autotrophic with herethose in designated wildernessdid not organisms are the green plants which provide the evolve under the influence of these forces and are not ecosystem's entire energy base by fixing solar energy and adapted to them. Uncontrolled, modern man's influen- using simple inorganic substances to build up complex ces alter the historical direction and rate of ecosystem organic substances. Heterotrophic organisms (animals, evolution The contrast between primitive and modern microbes, and fungi, for example) utilize these complex man in the ability to control and alter natural forces and substances as a food base and rearrange or decompose ecosystems is so great it does not require elaboration them. Heterotrophs can be divided into (1) ingestors Modern technology has allowed us to impact every single (macroconsumers, biophages) that feed on live mate- point on the globe (consciously or unconsciously) and rialsbear, deer, squirrels, butterflies, and slugs, for influence even the most basic and powerful natural example, and(2)decomposers(microconsumers, forces such as climate. Finally, our technology allowsus to saprophages) such as bacteria, fungi, and some insects avoid, delay, or control the negative feedback mecha- that feed on dead material such as leaf litter, fallen logs, nisms which kept primitive man in check. Nature will and feces. probably exact her full price for each act of modern man A wilderness ecosystem has a series of attributes but the feedback is typically neither as direct nor as rapid which are fundamentally the same as those in any other (at least in so far as we perceive it) as it was for primitive ecosystem. First, at a given point in time there is a man In most instances we have overcome the negative particular compositon and structure. That is, there is an feedback of nature with modern technology, at least in array of plant and animal species in various proportions. the short run Each biological component contains given amounts of To conclude on this point it can perhaps be said that biomass or energy, nutrients, and other materialsthe man is a natural part of wilderness but, because of their compartments or states recognized in computer models recent origin, strength, pervasiveness, and ability to of ecosystems (fig. 10-2). The elements are spatially buffer rapid feedback, the technological forces at his arranged to produce an ecosystem we recognize as forest control are not. We cannot accept modern manor or meadow or savanna. more specifically the forces he controlsas a "natural" Within this ecosystem variouspro cesses- component of wilderness. In an historical context, they photosynthesis, transpiration, consumption (by inges- are not natural. Legally, tolerance to them is restricted by ters), decompositionare going on These processes are the Wilderness Act. Nevertheless, modern technology is driven by environmental factors (the driving forces of impacting the wilderness and wifi increasingly do so. We ecosystem models) such as moisture supply, tempera- will use technology to manage wildernessto perpetu- ture, and sunlight. Not all processes are carried out ate or create desired conditions, sometimes to substitute exclusively by organisms, however; weathering of parent

192 ,$ø. 193 the deciduous (lower left), (upper left) right), to the muon-like landscape of Craters of the Moon right), to the muon-like landscape of Craters of lands of the Gila Wilderness, N. Mex. NH, forests of the Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness, (lower Wilderness, Idaho currently in, or pending designation in, the National Wilderness currently in, or pending designation in, the National from the semiarid Preservation System. These ecosystems range Figure 10-1.Many different kinds of ecosystems are represented Figure 10-1.Many different kinds of ecosystems PRIMARY PRODUCTION

STEMS AND BRANCH

EP IPHYTE5 1. 1 7.0 CURRENT FOL(LArC 0.4 FINE ROOTS 0.05 TO 20 2.3 0.6 P OUL 2.9 i-I CONSUMERS I- L LAN(iL 10.05 ROOTS I 9 - - - - 1.4- I LOG LITTER SMALL WOOD FOLIAGELITTER DEAD ROOTS 5.0 LITFER

1.4 0.9 0.4 1. 0.7 0.4 L85 R FINE LITIERTER ANDAND R R R MICROFLORA 3.65 0

1.5 L 85 R ROOTING ZONE ORGANIC MAilER 0

SUBSOIL R' RESPIRATION DECOMPOSITION ORGANIC MATFER

Figure 10-2.Any ecosystem, such as a forest or meadow, contains a number of individual components çxsessing given amounts of biomass, energy, nutrients, or other materiaL Each of these components is linked to others in the same system. materials, erosion, and evaporation are examples of influences on ecosystems when he alters the paths and essentially physical processes. Likewise, not all environ- rates of these flows. As an example, can you imagine mental or abiotic. factors are the cIssical climatic what would happen to a forest ecosystem if, somehow, influences of light, temperature, and moisture. Fire and decomposition rates (breakdown of dead organic matter flood are examples of periodic driving forces. with the release of energy and nutrients) were The linkages or flows (fig. 10-2) between parts of an significantly reduced? ecosystem are characteristics of special importance to There are short-term fluctuationsdiurnal, seasonal, resource managers. Energy, water, nutrients, and other and annualin rates of each process whether it is substances do not remain indefinitely in any one place or photosynthesis, herbivoty (ingestion of plant materials state. They are transferred through the ecosystem along by animals), or water runoff. Ecosystem science has a series of flow pathways. Organic materials are generally progressed further in simulating these relatively short- degraded or broken down into simpler substances as they term dynamics than it has in approximating longer term flow from primary producersto consumers and changes (see, for example, US. NatL Comm., Inter. Biol decomposers. Materials are ultimately recycled within Program (1974). However, long term changes in the system or lost from it by leaching, volatilization, or ecosystem states, processes, flowpaths and rates are also other processes. Environmental factors are important in occurring. These are changes associated with successional controlling the rates at which the flows take place; development of the ecosystems.' biologic composition and spatial arrangement largely determine the flow paths. These fundamentals are extremely important, for man exerts his most profound

194 To summarize and relate these ecosystem characteris- ment of habitat for large ungulates, such as elk, might tics to the real world, let's look at them in the context of a necessitate that the relevant ecosystem be defined as a lodgepole pine stand. This stand has a complement of large river basin And, of course, the entire wilderness plant and animal species of varying abundance which can be the ecosystem unit for many planning and define its biological composition (e.g., lodgepole pine, management activities. Determining the size of the dwarf hucldeberry, fungus, squirrel, Stellers jay). These ecosystem unit or the number to be recognized in a organisms and their parts have a spatial arrangement wilderness will depend on management's objectives (see defining the stand structure (e.g., an overstory canopy, chapter 8) and the kinds of problems facing the shrub layer, litter layer, rooting zone). By combining manager. elements of composition and structure we can define the major boxes or compartments (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, primary or plant consumers, secondary consumers or Dynamkof Ecosystems predators) each containing a certain amount of biomass, There are two basic concepts about ecosystems for a nutrients, and water. Flows or transfers of energy or land manager to keep continually in mind. First is the materials are taking place from one compai [silent to interrelatedness of all the parts; that is, you can not do anotherfrom the leaves and branches to animals by just one thing for any given action ramifies to a greater grazing, for example, or from live green plants to the or lesser degree throughout the whole ecosystem. Such decomposing organisms by litter fall. Processes and linkages are typically responses for extensive, unexpect- transfer ratesarelargely controlled or driven by ed, and sometimes undesirable effects of a given activity. environmental or abiotic factors such as temperature and One example is the accumulation of pesticides in food moisture availability. All of the elements of the lodgepole chains leading ultimately, not to the demise of the target pine stand are linked together by the paths of energy and material flowtree, bird, deer, nematode, bacterium. pest, but rather to declines in organisms high in the trophic chain, such as brown pelicans, peregrine falcons, Changes in composition, structure, climate, and so forth will alter the rates and/or paths of energy and material and bald eagles Another is the subtle and complex interactions of red alder with a forest soil that lead to flow. Therefore, the basic functions carried out by the ecosystem are expressed in terms of production of changes in total soil nitrogen, nitrates, soil acidity, Actinomycete populations, and, ultimately, the ability of organic matter (energy fixation) and use and conserva- a root rot such as Phellinus to survive (Trappe 1972). tion of water and nutrients. One attribute of ecosystems we have not considered is The second outstanding attribute isthe dynamic the size or, more generally, how the boundaries of an character of an ecosystem over long time periodsas ecosystem are defined. Basically, an ecosystem can be as opposed to short-term cyclical changes. These longer large or as small as we want it to be, depending on our term trends are often referred to as successional2 objectives. It can be an aquarium, forest stand, watershed, changes. Long-term plant succession is a familiar concept an entire park or wilderness, a biome, or the entire world. for land managers and particularly important for those It is necessary only that the area have the characteristics who propose to manage or maintain natural landscapes. defined by Odumconstituent organisms interacting It suggests there is no one answer to the question, "what with their environment, energy flow, material cycles. should a wilderness look like?" The ecosystem of any Scientists often find a watershed a useful unit for given wildernessif allowed to remain naturalis continually changing. ecosystem study because it is relatively easy to define the physical boundaries and to measure many of the flows The dassical successional sequences are described as into and out of the ecosystem; it also incorporates both either primary or secondary (Daubenmire 1968) (fig. terrestrial and aquatic elements and allows study of their 10-3). Primary succession is normally considered a much interaction In summary, an ecosystem can be of widely slower process than secondary succession because it varying size depending on the objectives of the work involves amelioration of extreme site conditions by In wilderness management the size of the ecosystem gradual alterations brought about by the organisms. An unit of interest will also vary. In some cases it might be an individual stand or community such as a meadow. When Odum (1971) defines succession as an orderly process of community development locating camping areas or determining carrying capacity, involving changes in species structure and community processes with time. It is directional and predictable and results from mcclificarion of the physical environment by it might be a small lake basin or watershedor the the community. Succession culminates in a stabilized ecosystem with maximum biomass and linkages between organisms per unit of energy flow. Daubenmire (1968) describes "heavy use areas," "trail corridors," or "subalpine zone" as succession as any unidirectional change that can be detected in changes in proportions of described for planning purposes in chapter 8. Manage- species in a stand or the complete replacement of one community by another.

195 A. Thuja occidentalis Juffiperus virginiana-Rhas-Vaccin)um t P)cea mariana Larix laricina Andropogon v)rginicus-A. ternarius

Polytr)chum ohioense Aronia-Salix-Nemcpanthus-oetala glandulosa $ t Cladonia leporina-Selaginella rupestris Chamaedaptine calyculata t Grimmia laevigata... - - Verrucaria nigrescens-- Parmelia conspersa Carex Ias)ocarpa )float)nq mat) t Rock surface Nuphar-Nymphaea f Potamogeton t Chara )in water up to 5.5 m deep)

Quercas a)ba-Q. stellata Quercus a)ba-Q. rubra Pond bottom fairly stable at 200 years) I f Pinus echinata P)nus taeda )stand closes at 10-15 years) I t Summ)ts of Slopes and swales low ridges and knolls

Andropogon virginicus 3rd year P)nos seedlings become established) t Aster pilosas-Ambrosia arfem)siifolia 2nd year) f Conyza canadens)s-D)gitaria sanguinalis (1st year)

Abandoned tield

Figure lO-3.--Classical successional sequences are described as either primary or secondary. In A, thecommon sequences of dominants in pond succession found in an area in lower Michigan is shown; in B, the principal stages of succession in shallow depressions in granite rock found in eastern North Carolina is outlined; and in C, successional trends in the Piedmont plateau are shown (Taken from Daubenmire 1968). example of primary succession is a lake filling in and are replaced in turn by shrubs and ultimately, a stand of being replaced consecutively with marshes, shrub-fields, shade-intolerant, pioneer tree species. In time, tree and finally forests. Another illustration is colonization species that are more shade tolerant seed in under the and development of vegetation on bare rock surfaces, canopy and reproduction of intolerant trees fails in the sand or talus. Secondary succession can be seen in the shaded environment. Over several centuries the stand fairly rapid changes following cutting or burning ofa proceeds through a gradual compositional change to a forest or removal of grazing animals from a depleted stable climax forest composed of shade-tolerant species range. capable of perpetuating themselves indefinitely. Secondary succession has been extensively described This is a useful concept based on the assumptions of: (Daubenmire 1968). For example, following fire or Orderly progression toward a stable climax following a dearcutting, forest lands are dominated by opportunistic, disturbance; gradual elimination of less shade-tolerant shade-intolerant herbaceous species (fireweed) which competitors by more tolerant species; and, often, the

196 necessity for a hardier pioneer species to prepare the way or geomorphological processes(such as mass soil for less hardy species. This classical view of forest movements)very few of our natural ecosystems ever succession may, then, be viewed as being largely reach a stable climax state. Therefore, an important dependent upon intrinsic processesamelioration or corollarytothedynamic successional natureof preparation of severe sites by pioneering species and ecosystems is that periodic disturbances of some type their eventual elimination by the less hardy climax almost inevitably intercede before an endpoint or climax species through competition. state isreached. In the Lake States, most of the As a concept, forest succession is based largely on ecosystems in the West, and interiorAlaska, fire is the inferences drawn from size- or age-class distributions, primary disruptor and it occurs at fairly frequent however, and many situations do not fit classical concepts intervals thereby initiating new successional sequences when examined closely. For example, the assumption as will be explained more fully in chapter 12. In the that pioneer trees must precede climax tree species, redwood region, both flood and fire have been intrinsic making the environment more suitable for the latter, environmental elements which periodically altered the simply does not hold in many situations. Given an ecosystem (which in no way suggests they areessential adequate seed source, both tree species can often invade a for perpetuating redwood itself). Hurricanes function as bared area simultaneously and the stand structure 100 periodic disrupters (or rejuvenators) of forest ecosystems years laterreflects differing growth or competitive in much of the eastern temperate forest, as do typhoons abilities, not necessarily later arrival of the smaller in Japan and strong winter winds along the northern tolerant species or its dependence on site amelioration by Pacific coast. Pathogens (for example, mountain pine the pioneer species. Age structure analyses are showing beetle, lodgepole needleminer, dwarfmistletoe, and stem more and more that inferences drawn from size cankers) are the periodic disturbers of some wildland structure analyses can lead to erroneous conclusions ecosystems such as some lodgepole pine foreststhat about successional developments. escape fire. Likewise, we encounter some forests where there is no What is important is the realization that ecosystems change in the composition of the tree species over time. are adapted to a particular setof disruptions. The Some ponderosa or lodgepole pine forests are of this patterns of disturbance are as much a partof the wild type. In these situations, only one tree species is capable landscape as a successional sequence or trajectory. of surviving, and if it happens to be intolerant, then To summarize, long term ecosystem dynamics are the regeneration of the species must await openings in the consequence of normal successional processes(coloniza- canopy as the stand grows older. For example, even in tion, competition, site alterations by organisms, etc.) and the renowned Douglas-firregionofthePacific patterns of periodic disruption (caused, forexample, by Northwest there are dry habitats where Douglas-fir is fire, insect, disease, storm, and avalanche). Through both the main pioneer and climax tree. knowledge of these successional forces and relevant The important things to remember are these: There ecosystem characteristics,the trajectory or general are a variety of processes involved in forest succession direction of natural change over time is apparent to the including opportunity (seed source), site amelioration, wilderness manager. The job of wilderness management and competition; and a climax species can be tolerant or is often to insure that the dynamics of the ecosystem and intolerant depending on the site. the resulting successional changethe natural trajectory Bearing all of these qualifications in mind, it is still of the ecosystemproceed without disruption or useful to think of successional change as a reasonably distortion by man. If the trajectory is to be altered by ordered sequence of plant species culminating in a stable human intervention it should be as a consequence of or climax (self-perpetuating) type over much of our conscious choice and with full understanding of the wildiland. Such changes occur regardless of the causes. consequences. Thus, an ecosystem can be considered to have a trajectory or general direction of change over time. If the system is destroyed or set back in the sequence by a disturbance it Human Influences on Ecosystem Dynamics in will presumably begin evolving again toward the same Wilderness end point or climax state provided the climate has not The mosaic of ecosystems in a wilderness reflects the changed, the site has not been significantly degraded, and basic environmental conditions (soil, macroclimate and the same organisms are available to reinvade the site. microclimate), the array of organisms available for The factis,of course, that because of periodic occupying the sites, and the pattern of disturbances disturbancesfire, flood, storm, avalanche, pathogens, types, time, and areal extent. If any of these arealtered by

197 modern man, then the mosaic will be altered toan physically altered due to compaction and accelerated unnatural state to a greater or lesser degree. erosion, and changes in water table level can also occur. What are some of the changes which modernman Exotic plant species, introduced with livestock and has brought about in wilderness areas? A visible and horsefeed, may take advantage of the altered conditions well-known example isfire controL Fires at some to establish themselves. Animal pathogens may be interval are a natural feature of almost all of our forest introduced into native ungulate populations (just as the ecosystems. It has been argued that western coniferous white man brought measles to the Indian) with forests have actually evolved in such away as to increase catastrophic resultssuch as when scabies, a disease of flammability and insure periodic burning. Certainly native sheep, was introduced into bighorn sheep many of the species of great interest to us depend upon populations. fire for their perpetuationgiant sequoia (Kilgore Some of the changesaddition of exotic species and 1973), Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine on some sites site degradationcan be particularly significant because (Habeck and Mutch 1973, Cooper 1960) red and white they can permanently alter the potential of the site, that pine in the Lake States (Frissell 1973), and the dosed- is, its ability to return to its original natural state. An cone (serotinous) pines of the West such as knobcone outstanding example of the effects of grazing on the pine (Vogl 1973). (See chapter 12.) ecosystem is found in the sagebrush-bunchgrass and Pa- Elimination of fire, when periodic low-intensity fires louse prairie types of eastern Washington and Oregon are naturally part of an ecosystem's environment, can (Daubenmire 1970). Heavy grazing by large herbivores have catastrophic consequences. First, a successful fire reduces the vigor of and can eliminate the bunchgrass control program will change the composition of the dominants such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho forests, in many cases. Succession will proceed further fescue. Cheatgrass or Kentucky bluegrass invades and before disruption than it would under natural conditions. once these exotic species occupy habitat vacated by native Not only will the plant composition of the forest change plants there is no evidence that the native species can but the suitable habitat for many animal species will also ever again successfully recolonize the sites. Grazing can be altered with consequent changes in the animal thus bring about permanent changes in ecosystems even composition of an area. Within a forest community, in the absence of site degradation. changes will also take place in stand structure and in Modern man has alteredand continues to alter paths and rates of material flow. Organicmatter and wilderness ecosystems by eliminating or reducing nutrients accumulate in slowly decomposed woody plant populationsofspecificspecies. The best known material on the forest floor. Continuity develops between examples are the elimination of predatory animalsfor the crown and ground fuels as the density of saplings and example,wolverine,grizzlybear,cougar,raptor. poles increases. One result is likely to be not justa loss of Populations of such species have been eliminated from earlier successional communities and less toleranttree some wildernesses, reduced in others. In any case, the species, but ultimately a catastrophic fire to which the composition of these ecosystems is not what it was ecosystems in the area are not adapted. originally. It should be noted that in terms of some The coniferous forests on the western slopes of the ecosystem functionstheir ability to fix energy and Cascade Range offer an interesting contrast withmost conserve nutrientsthe loss of such organisms may not other coniferous forest regions. Here, fire appears notto be particularly significant. However, in terms of a have been primarily a chronic or frequent disturber of human's perception of a tract as a pristine landscape, the the forests; rather, infrequent catastrophic fires, often loss is very significant. Further, loss of some predators, affecting large areas, seem to have been the rule. such as the wolf, can have significant ecological impacts Grazing by domestic animals is another influence in when they, as natural controls on large herbivore wilderness ecosystems introduced by modern man. populations, are lost3 although the report "Wildlife Concentrated grazing by sheep or cattle (or even large Management in the National Parks" concludes that wild ungulates, such as elk or mountain goats, introduced to regions where they are not native) is not part of the natural regimen under which many of our wilderness It should also be noted that because predators high on the trophic chain are, relatively, meadows and savannas have evolved. Consequently, so strongly affected by human activities, they are very gocxl indicators of the degree of they are often poorly adapted to it. When large-scale naturalness of a particular area. This is not always the case; chronic perturbation of an area by pollutants such as SO compounds and ozone can appear first in the compositional grazing is introduced, changes in the composition of the changes in plants or animals or even rates of productivity or decomposition. Nevertheless, meadows occur due to preferential feeding on, and/or because of the direct impacts of human activities on large predators (such as, hunting, elimination of dangers) plus their position at the end of long food chains, they are often sensitivity of, some plant species. The site may be among the first organisms affected.

198 and can be Figure 10-4.Wilderness ecosystems can be ranked according to their ability tosustain use impacts. Many ecosystems are quite fragile alpine country, easily impacted. Examples include: (upper left) propased wilderness in the SanJuan Islands Refuge, Wash.; (upper right) high resilient, Beartooth Primitive Area; and (lower left) the desert country of the DesertGame Range Wilderness, Nev. Other ecosystems are quite such as the eastern hardwxxls found in such areas as (lower right) theMonongahela National Forest, W. Va

"...predation alone can seldom be relied upon to cedar, and white pine blister rust on western whitepine. control ungulate numbers ...... (Leopold et al. 1969). Balsam woolly aphid, an insert introduced from Europe, Losses of species are not confined to higher animals, has reduced the vigor and attractiveness of subalpinefir however. Plant species have also been eliminated or and Pacific silver fir in many parts of their range andhas drasticallyreducedinsomeareas.Theselosses effectively elüiiinated them in some axas. For example, significantly alter the ecosystem's structure and its basic subalpine firis now essentially absent from many functions of energy fixation and nutrient conservation. locations in the southern Oregon Cascade Range. P. Disregarding grazing and fire, losses in plant species are lateralis,a root rot introduced onhorticultural stock, is most frequently caused by human introduction of exotic easily spread by spores transported along roads,trails, pathogens. Outstanding examples which affect designat- and streams. Port-Orford-cedar has [K) resistance tothis ed wildernesses include the nearly complete loss of pathogen and infected stands are suffering 100-percent American chestnut to chestnut blight and substantial mortality. Only the isolation of some stands and the fact losses of whitebark and other five-needled pines to white that the spores may possibly be short lived (viablefor pine blister rust. Exotic pathogens of this type can have only a few years) offer any hope of survival of the species extremelyprofoundeffects on otherwisepristine in its natural habitat, certainly it will never again have the landscapes for, once introduced, they are uncontrollable importance it once did in the virgin stands of the white and, if the host species lack significant genetic or other southern Oregon Coast Ranges. The effects of mechanisms forresistance, effects(alterations) are pine blister rust, another introduced pathogen, arewell essentially permanent. known to the forest managers of the northern Rocky Consider the effects of balsam woolly aphid on Pacific Mountains. The blister rust probably causesrelatively coast true firs, Phytopthora root rot on Port-Orford- little mortalityinlarge mature trees but can be 199 devastating in young stands and will greatly reduce the California wildernesses). Miller (1973) described the importance of western white pine in future forests. aaelerated mortality of ponderosa pine in the San Whitebark pine is extremely susceptible to this pathogen Bernardino Mountains as an example of the type of (the most susceptible of all five-needled pines) and both damage that can occur. young and old trees may be eliminated in infected areas. Natural Vecus Man-Influenced Ecosystems Besides introducing pathogens, man has purposely A key feature of wilderness ecosystems and a focal added specific organisms to pristine landscapes in order to make them more attractive recreationally. The point of the Wilderness Act isnaturalness"freedom from significant influences of modern technological introduction of sport fish to originally barren lakes and man. Can the ecologist define naturalness or is it a streams is an outstanding example here. There can be no quality, like solitude, which is largely in the eye of the question that when fish intmductions of this type are beholder? successful the affected aquatic ecosystem is significantly At the outset we must recognize there are no changed. An entirely new compartment may be added (if a fish at the same trophic level was not previously completely unaltered ecosystems left on this planet. The effects of modern man and his products are pervasive. present). Native fish may be displaced or eliminated This is as true in the Antarctic, where DDT is found in entirely; hence, the native brook trout in Great Smoky Mountains is now found only in high, isolated streams. the tissues of penguins, as it is in Central Park in New In any case, alterations in the composition of other York City. None of the world remains unaltered and the organisms and paths and rates of energy and nutrient examples given in the previous section should make it dear that even in areas we perceive as pristine, modern flows are to be expected. There are many other examples man has already had a significant impact. mostly involving exotic game or food species; managers' attitudes towards exotic pests as opposed to introduced Human activities can affect several key attributes of ecosystems. First, they can affect the functional ability of fish and game species are, to put it mildily, philosophically inconsistent. the ecosystem, the capacity to perform key actionsto fix and cyde energy, conserve and cyde nutrients, and There are a number of other human impacts which provide suitable habitat for an array of inhabiting species. have altered the dynanics and states of wilderness Second, they canaffectthe strncture, orspatial ecosystems. There are the direct effects of human use, arrangement of the parts, of the ecosystemwhether it although these tend to be concentrated in relatively small is a savanna, meadow, even-aged or uneven-aged forest, areascompaction of soil, destruction or alteration of or some othertype.Third, they canaffect the vegetation at camping sites. Although heavily impacted composition and population structure, thatis,the locations may be small relative to the total area, they may number of species and their relative abundance as well as be among the most popular, aesthetic, and frequently the densities and age- and size-class distributions of visited.Clearly, input of human wastes can reach individual species. Finally, human actions can alter the sufficient levelsinlocal areas to cause significant basic successional pa#erns, or trajectories, characteristic pollution; health problems probably become a manage- of a given site. ment consideration before the effects of eutrophication The ecological significance of human activity is based in such cases. on the magnitude and permanence of its effects. In In wilderness in the East, past human activities have assessing its importance, one needs to know if the sometimes included logging, road building, and dearing change in one of the four attributes (function, structure, of land for agriculture. Modern man is introducinga composition, dynamics) is very large or small and if it is variety of substances (plastic and other refuse; petroleum transient or essentially permanent. As will be seen, it is products in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area where the changes in structure and composition which are most motors are allowed) by his activity in wilderness and, on easily perceived by the manager and visitor; although a far larger scale, by activities outside of the wilderness. changes in function and dynamics may be more Pollutants present in the atmosphere may be deposited important in the long run, they are often very difficult to in rain or as dust or brought in by migrant organisms. identify until they have progressed beyond correction Pesticides and SOx compounds are such materials. In a The human activities which bring about changes in fewcases,sourcesof atmospheric pollutionare ecosystem attributes can be placed in a relatively few sufficiently dose to wilderness to directly affect air quality general categories: and cause pathological effects on organisms (e.g., damage (1)Introduction of an exotic organism such as to trees in the Los Angeles basin and several southern chestnut blight, a sport fish, or cheatgrass;

200 Elimination of a native organism such as grizzly more aware of large animals of this type, their absence is bear, American chestnut, or wolf; more likely to be perceived as an unnatural influence. Addition of materials, especially foreign substan- Logging has been a factor in some wildernesses in the ces such as a pesticide or SOx compound; East producing profound changes in the structure of Removal of materials, especially energy- or forest ecosystems quite aside from the roads that were nutrient-richsubstances,as in grazing and requiredforaccess.Composition andecosystem logging or by erosion; functioning were also drastically altered. Many aspects of Physical alteration of site, for example, trail or system function, such as conservation of nutrients, road construction and compaction of soil from quickly recovered to near prelogging levels as succession recreation use; proceeded, however. These ecosystems are returning to Alteration of the natural patterns and level of approximations of their former structure and composi- disturbance, for example, control of natural fires tion at a slower rate but, barring site degridtion, will or insect epidemics; and generally recover. This is not to say that such logged Alteration of the basic environmental regime of areas will ever have exactly the same composition and the site, for example, by weather modification species population structure; conditions (environmental projects, reduction of the ozone layer, or addition and biological)are never exactly the same at the of noise, none of which has its origin within the initiation of a successional sequence as they were before wilderness itself. disturbance. Itis probable that the duration of the Any of the activities induded in these seven categories logging impacts on structure and composition are can have profound effects on ecosystem function, substantially less in the moderate, summer-wet forest structure, composition, and dynamics. But the signifi- environments of the Appalachian Mountains with their cance of the alteration, as measured by its magnitude and rapid vegetative regrowth than would have been the case permanence, may be far different from the degree to in much of the more arid western coniferous forest. which it is sensed as unnatural by the layman. The Logging disturbance, and especially dearcutting, is following are some examples. perceived by all visitors as highly unnatural and, of Introduction of the chestnut blight resulted in course, it is. Nonetheless, in many habitats, while effects permanent elimination of the American chestnut. The are long term, they are not necessarily permanent in hardwood ecosystems of which it was a part underwent a terms of composition, ecosystem functions, structure, or permanent change in composition and population successional trajectory. structure, not only as a result of the loss of a dominant Interferences in patterns of natural disturbances, for tree but also because of adjustments in animal species example, fire control programs are much more subtle in dependent upon it for food. Alterations also occurred in their effects. Yet they are equally unnatural, leading (if rates of energy and nutrient cycling, forest structure and successful)to permanent alterationinecosystem successional sequences as the ecosystems adjusted and function (for example, paths and rates of nutrient other species filled the gaps. Despite these changes, cycling), composition, and successional trajectory. Effects visitors to forests from which chestnuts have been are gradual and, initially, not as drastic and noticeable as eliminated do not typically perceive these as unnatural or loggingimpacts. Yet they may be much more man-altered ecosystems. Likewise, presence of planted profouna sport fish is rarely perceived as an unnatural influence It would appear that the ecologist can provide some although the effects on the structure and function of the measurements of the naturalness of the landscape. These largely unseen lake, pond, or stream ecosystem may be measurements are based on the degree to which modern significant and permanent. man has altered the functional abilities (energy fixation On the other hand, visitors are more likely to be aware and nutrient conservation) of the ecosystems, their of the elimination of grizzly bears and wolves from many composition and structure, the successional trajectories wildernesses. Composition(thediversity of these and the historic pattern of natural disturbances. The ecosystems) has been changed permanently but the larger and more permanent the alteration, the greater its effect on their structure and functionisprobably significance as an unnatural influence. relatively minor.4 However, because visitors are much This also suggests that recreationists, managers, and ecologists will not necessarily see eye-to-eye on an area's The relative importance of the ecological role of the wolf to overall ecosystem function was probably highly variable; in ecosystems with large populations of large ungulares such degree of naturalness or, more likely, unnaturalness. as mxae or carilxre its role has been considered critical in many other areas it probably Ecologically, a dramatic but transient disturbance such as was not Current ecological theory suggests that, in general, predator populations are not the major factor controlling prey population levels a road might be judged less of an unnatural influence 201 than permanent loss of a plant or animal species which are extremely valuable for determining environmental might not be apparent to the untrained eye. and ecological baselines in each biotic region in which Thus, ecological and sociological perceptions of the they occur. Not only is there more naturalness to be lost naturalness of wilderness can differwidely. This in wilderness than elsewhere but also there are greater perspective can lead to the condusion that, in ecological opportunities to maintain, and learn from, this environ- terms, as far as naturalness is concerned, there is not as mentopportunities which might be just as important sharp a distinction as many have assumed, between the a loss if they disippear. It can be argued that because previously impacted wildérnesses in the East and the these are our most natural environments we need to more primitive areas in the West Exotic species have minimize both broad, external impacts (such as pollutant been introduced and native dominants have been lost in inputs via the atmosphere or dimatic changes due to both areas. And it is an open question whether the weather modifications) and specific activity impacts wildernessareasinthe West have been more within the area (such as predator reduction, fire control, permanently changed and are more unnatural after and grazing of domestic livestock). Because wildernesses nearly 70 years of fire control programs and extensive are the most unaltered landscapes in each biotic region, it grazing than the forestsites of the Appalachian seems important to at least maintain each area level of Mountains which were logged 50 or more years ago. naturalness, and the naturalness of some could stand to Ecologically, the most significant human alterations of be enhanced. natural ecosystems are not necessarily the most obvious. What a visitor perceives as natural may have been profoundly and permanently altered. The degree of Ecological Knowledge in Interpniting and naturalnessinecological termsis a function of Managing Wilderness knowledge about ecosystem factors and, f quantfied, will oftendiffer from the layvisitor's perception of Knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem dynamics is naturalness. important for wilderness managers; the key question is This conclusion should not obscure the fact that we what information is needed and how does the manager have purposely selected as our wikiernesses those tracts go about getting and using it. There are some general of land within each biotic region which both the ecologist principles by which a manager should be guided: and laymen view as among the most natural and (1) In developing a management plan for a unaftered by modern technology. For this reason, they wilderness, key ecological data are essential, although the

Figure 10-5.Sixty years of natural ewkgical change is illustrated in these two photos of Red Buttes near Maroon Lake on West Maroon Creek in a new wilderness study area near the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, Cob. Left, taken in 1916; right, taken 1976.

202 detail needed may vary with management objectives and manager. Itisabsolutely essential to management problems. These data includeatleasta general planning and operations to know what ecosystems are knowledge of the ecosystems and their properties: (a) present, where they are, and the direction and rate at What kinds of ecosystems are present? (classification); which they are changing. There will be a great deal of (b) where are they located? (distribution, mapping); (c) variation in the detail needed based on management what are their biological and physical characteristics? objectives and problems and available manpower, (e.g., characterizations of biotic composition, climate, money, and technology. There will also be significant etc.); (d) what are their dynamic properties? (rates and philosophical differences among professionals about the directions of change or successional trends); and (e) what appropriate techniques and emphases. are the key factors affecting the dynamics? Certainly, we can agree at the outset that, in a given Periodic monitoring of changes within, anti at the wilderness, we want to know the vegetation types or ecotones between, key ecosystems is essential to assess communities and their locations. As examples we have their naturalness. Inventories which provide essential the timber and range type maps of the forester and range descriptivedataat one point in time must be manager. General classifications and maps of this type supplemented by repeated measures over time to arearrivedat through relatively simple standard monitor change. procedures such as mapping on aerial photographs with The levels of ecological inventory and the needed appropriate ground checking. It is important to realize monitoring will vary with the ecosystem. The most that indexing the communities as to location, most often important considerations are the rate at which the by mapping, is essentiaL The best statistically designed, ecosystem is likely to change and its importance in the point-sample inventory or survey of a wilderness can tell total wilderness landscape. In addition, each ecosystem you a particular vegetation type is present and its extent must be considered in terms of the specific objectives for with a quantitative error term, but nothing about where management of that wilderness and the current it is or how it is spatially oriented with regard to other conditions and assumptions about the future which communities. This has been a traditional problem with combine to identify problems (see chapter 8). Features many timber inventories, leaving the manager with the requiring intensive levels of inventory and monitoring knowledge he has x-acres of stands suitable for thinning indude meadows, lakes and streams, and some animal but no idea of their locations. components, for example. These are ecosystems or In wilderness and other natural areas the ecologist will elements which can change relatively rapidly and are usually begin with ground sampling of the communities focal points of visitor interest and use. Forest ecosystems, using some design which may be statistical or subjective. on the other hand, often provide a landscape background Aerial photos are often used to locate stands of different and usually undergo relatively slow changes. types. The stand data collected are subjected to statistical The best ecologist and ecological information in and/or subjectiveanalyses, and a classification or the world do not substitute for clear management ordination of the communities will be the final product. objectives. The wilderness manager must decide what This initial stratification can be used as a basis for the ecological objectives of the management will bethe mapping of the community types on aerial photographs degree of naturalness desired. Many alternatives are or topographic maps or for establishing relationships available such as maintenance of status quo, return to between environmental factors (slope, aspect, soil type, presettlement condition, and perpetuation of a particular landform, elevation) and vegetation. species, ecosystem, or community mosaic. Ecological Knowledge of the existing vegetative communities or information can tell the manager what is present, how it covertypesisessential,but thisisnot enough is changing and, possibly, why. Such information can also information to monitor and assess the naturalness of indicatebiologicallyfeasible options or potentials, change. The wilderness manager needs a stratification of constraints and dangers, and alternative management his landscape into basic environmental or habitat units. strategies. But the manager must decide what is desired Existing vegetation may or may not provide a good in types and distribution of ecosystems; ecological index to areas which vary in basic environmental and information will then indicate if that is attainable, and if ecosystem characteristics. Perhaps an example will make so, the necessary management actions to achieve it. the contrast between habitat type and cover type (or existing vegetation) dearer. There are many types of Identifying Wilderness Ecosystems ponderosa pine forest in western North America. A There can be no argument that, at some level of detail, survey of existing communities may establish that there ecological inventoryisessentialto the wilderness is a ponderosa pine/shrub community. In fact, this

203 community may occur in several habitats, distinctive in landform data for a complete ecosystem classification. their environmental conditions. As a consequence, on Also, in the classification process some information is one, the pine forest is climax while on another it is lost about an individual stand as it is lumped into a type subject to replacement by more tolerant species due to with other similar but not identical stands. Mapping better moisture conditions. must follow the classification to make it useful in land The point here is that the wilderness manager needs planning,it cannot be carried out until the initial to know both the kinds and distribution of existing dassification is completed. communities and the basic habitat types. Approaches to An alternative approach has been developed by identifying and classifying the basic habitat types or Kessell (1977 [in press]) in Glacier National Park in environmental mosaic of a landscape are many and which gradient models of the vegetation and fire fuels diverse, however, and here is where ecologists often part arecombined withahectare-by-hectareresource companyamong themselves and with other special- inventory using aerial photographs and topographic ists. maps in a computerized storage and retrieval system. By Remember, at this point, that the objective is to means of sampling, community characteristics (compo- identify natural landscape units which are relatively sition and structure of the vegetation, nature of the fire homogeneous in biological and physical characteristics. fuels,etc.)are related to six gradients: Elevation, This allows the manager to categorize hislands topographic-moisture, time since last burn, primary according to their use potential, management problems, succession, alpine wind exposure, and specific subdrain- and response to various natural or artificial perturbations age. Once the gradient models are constructed, the or treatments. To do this, knowledge of both the existing inventory process proceeds. Topographic and fire history communities and the basic environmental mosaic maps and aerial photographs are used to determine the (habitat types) is needed. location of each hectare of ground on the six gradients. In the Western United States major emphasis is on This information is stored in a computer and, when the use of stable or near-climax vegetation to identify combined with the gradient models, predicts what the habitat types.' Pfister (1975) has outlined the philos- characteristics of the community are within that hectare. ophy, potential use, and current progress of this Depending upon the data collected in the field survey, a approach which is based upon the concepts developed wide range of information, from fire fuel loadings to and demonstrated by R. Daubenmire in the northern number of trees per hectare by species, can be generated Rocky Mountains (Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968). This approach was developed specifically to produce The self-perpetuating tree species and selected understo- real-time, fire-behavior models upon which managers ry species are used to stratify the landscape into basic could base fire-control decisions. habitat types. This can be termed the use of potential This approach isthe first direct application of natural vegetation for identifying the environmental vegetation gradient models to management inventory mosaic. Obviously, when a wilderness is occupied largely and decisionmaking. The key element is the computer- by successionally advanced communities, a map of ized data storage and retrieval system which makes it existing vegetation provides a good index to the possible to handle the tens of thousands of information environmental mosaic. However, where communities bits associated with a hectare-by-hectare inventory of a are mainly early successional types, maps of existing large wildland area. Obviously, the manager must have community types may look very different from those of available (and know how to operate) a computer habitat type or potential natural vegetation. terminal if the system is to be fully utilized, although The habitat-type approach works well for stratifying computer-generated maps can partially overcome this broad areas into relatively homogenous units. Inferences limitation An inventory of this intensity and detail may about environmental conditions and the potential and not be needed to fulfill all management objectives. limitations of the types for various uses can be accurately Finally, an important concern is the accuracy of the and quickly drawn and easily extrapolated across the gradient models upon which the predictions of stand landscape. Nevertheless, there are limitations. The conditionsare highly dependent. The successional current or existing vegetative cover may not receive gradient, which in the broadest application must relate sufficient attention In addition,itisnecessary to current stand condition to time since last disturbance, is a integrate the habitat-type classification with soils and particularly difficult problem. Factors of history (chance), availability of seed source, and intensity of disturbance fordifferent 'habitat type is defined as the collective area which is presently or potentially can play majorrolesin providing occupied by the same plant association or climax community. successionalpatterns under similar environmental

204 conditions. Nevertheless, as a flexible and comprehen- dassification The types of data valuable for management sive inventory system, Kessell's approach offers an interpretations of the ecosystem units include the alternative to the habitat-type approach. following: In the Eastern United States the emphasis has been Floristiccomposition,including measures of on using data on existing vegetation, combined with importance (e.g., frequency and cover of understory and soils, landform, slope and aspect, to provide the basic density of trees by size classes) rather than simply landscape classification (e.g., Ohmann and Ream 1971a, presence and absence; 1971b, Ohmann et al. 1973). Reasons for using this Faunistic composition, such as permanent and approach in the East include the early successional nature transient vertebrates and information on how each uses of many of the communities (i.e., the difficulty of and depends upon the particular ecosystem. Numerous identifying climax types and relating seral types to studies have shown the value of relating faunistic them), the tendencies toward broader, more gradual composition and utilization to major vegetation types ecotones between types (less discrete communities, more (see Ohmann et al. 1973, Thomas et al. 1976); in this gradual gradients in moisture and temperature), and way the character and potential of animal habitation and tradition (philosophy and sampling methods). It also utilization can be rapidly extrapolated over broad areas. appears the dassification and mapping of soils in In any case, because of large fluxes in populations, biologically meaningful ways is more possible in the East absolute data on densities are probably of a much lower than in the rugged mountains of the West. order of priority than relative abundance and thorough Experience suggests that an ecosystem dassification species lists. should ultimately be based on vegetation, soils, and Envimnmental features and controls such as landform. The vegetation component should consider temperature,moisture, and snow regimes. These both the dominant and less conspicuous species because indexes of nutrient status range from very crude the dominants define the existing community while less approximations (extrapolations from climatic situations conspicuous species are often more sensitive indicators of or inferences from vegetative composition) to detailed environmental conditions. The relative emphasis on analyses. Some characterization of the environmental each componentvegetation, soils, and landformin regime of an ecosystem unit is essential to understanding developing the environmental, or habitat-type, dassifica- its behavior and management potential An example of tion will vary from area to area depending on the relative one approach to environmental characterizationis contribution each can make in a particular landscape. offered by Zobel et at (1976). Physical and chemical In the West, the habitat-type approach, with some characterizations of the soil may be induded here if not modification to recognize existing communities or cover separately handled as part of a soil survey (mapping unit types, appears well suited for stratification of wilderness characterization) effort. tracts.Thedirect-gradient-analysisapproachalso Rates of key processes such as productivity and appears to offer substantial promise, but it will require decomposition The objective here isto obtain a measure further testing in areas other than Glacier National Park. of the "metabolic rate" of each ecosystem unit. Again, It is essential, however, that this approach be combined very crude indices may be applied because definitive data with adoption of a computerized data storage and on processes such as productivity and decomposition are retrieval system. Both habitat-type and direct-gradient difficultand expensivetoobtain. A siteindex approaches will benefit from stratification into relatively measurement (tree height at an index age such as 100 homogenous (climatically and geomorphically) large years) is sometimes a useful index for a forest ecosystem. drainages with greater use of soils when subdividing Clipping can be used in herbaceous communities to major units. In the East, various approaches utilizing obtain some estimate of productivity. In any cise, it is existing vegetation, soils, and landform are probably desirable to get some feeling for rates of energy fixation suitable; Obmann and Ream's (1971a) community strat- and nutrient cycling in major ecosystems because this ification is a good example. information provides insights into the rapidity with which areas will recover from various disturbances. Site Characterizing Wilderness Ecosystems productivity or growth potential is a key element in The inventory of the ecosystems in a wilderness is recovery. only the beginning. Each ecosystem type must, to some degree, be characterized biologically and physically. A Successional Characterization of Ecosystems good deal of information, but probably not enough, will Characterizing the rate and direction of change in the have been gathered while obtaining the samples for the ecosystem units is particularly important. The objective

205 is to be able to forecast expected changes in composition Age-class analyses can add considerably to size-class and structure of an ecosystem type over a unit of time analyses in interpreting successional trends. Size and age and with alternative patterns of disturbance (e.g., none, are by no means perfectly correlated and the small frequent fire, heavy grazing). incense-cedar saplings and dominant Douglas-firs in a A variety of techniques can be used. In forests, one of hypothetical stand may be the same age. The increasing the simplest is size-class analysis of the tree species numbers of stand-agestructuredataaregreatly present The general concepts are well known, for improving our interpretations of stand development. A example, the tree species well represented in reproduc- study of two Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands on tion size classes are considered likely candidates for late southern Utah plateaus (Harley, Schmidt, and Blake successional or climax status(Daubenmire 1968). 1975) showed that both speciesare climax with Dominants which are failing to reproduce are, on the Engelmann spruce essentially an all-aged species and other hand, typically considered to be pioneer or seral subalpine fir uneven-aged species (wavelike pattern of species. The contrasting interpretations are illustrated in reproduction) (fig. 10-6). Similarly Viers has demon- table 1. strated the all-aged characteristic of coast redwood on the

Table 10-1.Examples of size-class distributions (stand tables) and their interpretation A:Numbers of trees by size class and species in 15-by-25 m plot at Santiam Pass in central Oregon Csc.ade Range'

Size dass (diameter in cm) <5 Species lmtall 5-10 10-30 30-50 50-70 70-90 Subalpine fir (dead) 4 2 Lcalgepole pine (dead) 2 1 Pacific silver fir 3,720 15 4 9 1 Mountain hemlock 8 2 3 19 6 1 Western white pine 1

1Two early successional species (subalpine firarid lodgepole pine) have been poorly and will apparently be replaced by abundantly reproducing Pacific silver eliminated while the longer-lived western white pine is still present but failing fir (from Franklin and Mitchell 1967). to reproduce. Mountain hemlock currently dominates but is reproducing very

B:Population of trees on 1 hectare near Lake Itasca, Minn.2

Size class (diameter in cm) Species 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 > 40 Sugar maple 220 86 35 6 Basswood 175 81 7 11 3 Eastern hophoroheam 460 20 33 American elm 47 16 55 Northern red oak 14 7 3 -3 White ash 100 10 3 But oak 17 7 439 Quaking aspen 94 55 43 Paper birch 453 50 7 3 Eastern white pine 260 3 3 Balsam poplar 7 Yellow birch 4 White spruce 3 Bigtooth aspen 2 Slippery elm 30 The first seven species are interpreted as climax species or permanent Approximate maximum size of the species in this region. occupants, the next five as seral species or disappearing relics of an earlier Root or stem-base suckers, no seedlings. successional stage, and thelastthree as unsuccessful invaders (from Daubenmire 1968).

206 ENGELMANN SPRUCE '--u SUBALPINE FIR

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 + 10-YEAR AGE CLASSES

Figure 10-6.Stand age-class distribution of Englemann Spruce and Subalpine fir in Deer Hollow study location, Utah. (From Hanley, Schmidt, and Blake 1975). northern California coast (due to limited but regular slope, aspect, soil, landform, etc.). Rates of primary establishment of reproduction while associated Douglas- succession on new land surfaces can be obtained by fir typically reproduces in pulses following major stand looking at community development on a series of land disturbances).6 surfaces that differ in age. This was carried out very Historical analyses, such as reconstruction of the fire effectively on glacial tills at Glacier Bay. Rates of soil history of a wilderness from stand ages and records,can development have also been studied using similar provide major insights into rates of successional change chronosequences of land surfaces, such as, age sequence and the disturbance factors which formed and controlled of mudflows in northern California (Dickson and the landscape mosaic (Heinselman 1973)! Fire-scar Crocker 1953a, 1953b, 1954). analysis can be a particularly useful part of such a study. Modern computer techniques are being developed Old journals, books, newspapers, photographs, and which will allow simulation of successional changes over interviews with longtime residents of regions also can be decades or even centuries and with different types and usefuL intensities of disturbance. The use of computer-based Data on successional rates can be obtained by looking simulations will probably be limited to a very few at a series of natural stands which are of different ages wilderness tracts for the near future although the but occupy the same basic environment (as indicated by potential is substantial and the capabilities exist. The availability of money is the limiting factor. Forest-stand 6Viers, Stephen. 1976. Personal communication. simulators predict changes in composition, biomass, and 7Care must be taken in using these historical records as a basis for future fire management programs, however. Ahlgren (1976) has suggested, for example, that structure, due either to the dynamics of the ecosystem or reinncxiocnon of fire in lake States forests will rarely provide suitable conditions for reestablishment of successful red and eastern white pine stands which would be one to disturbances of various types (e.g., a fire of specific objective of such a reintroduction. Buildup of aspen stands, presence of white pine blister intensity; destruction of selected portions of the stand by rust, and lack of abundant pine seed trees are offered as reasons. Ahlgren concludes that these species, at least, cannot be restored by natural means (including fire restoration an insect, disease, or wind). They are analogous to the programs) to their previous positions. various stand simulation and management alternative

207 models, such as RAM which currently is used on the by environmental conditions on a site, such as the National Forests. Hubbard Brook forest simulator (Botkin, Janak, and Two general types of simulation models are available: Wallace 1973). This model matches the environmental The regional landscape model which simulates probable conditions on the site with the known environmental changes in the relative proportions of various conimuni- tolerances and optima of potentially inhabiting species to ty types over time and under alternative disturbance introduce (reproduce), grow, and remove (as mortality) patterns, and the stand simulation model which trees in the stand. The basis for the growth prediction is simulates changes in environmental conditions, compo- an optimum growth curve for each species. Appropriate sition, structure, and biomass within an individual stand. reductions from this curve are made when the light, soil, and temperature conditions experienced by each tree are Regional models (which could apply to a wilderness) less than optimum. Growth is also limited by maximal require (1)a classification scheme which separates diameters and heights. Reproduction, in the Hubbard ecosystems into important and definable categories; (2) Brook model is a probabalistic (stochastic) process of tabular data for the area of interest which defines the introducing seedlings based on environmental (especial- initial conditions, for example, acreages by the defined lylight)conditionswithinthestand. Deathis ecosystem categories; and (3) data on the rate at which conditioned by occurrence of both minimal growth and an ecosystem is changing from one category to another. maximal species age. The long term successional Such models have been developed for the western Great patterns simulated by this model fit very well with those Likes and Georgia Piedmont regions (Burgess and developed by experienced ecologists in the area in which O'Neil 1975). The compartment model and results of a it was applied (fig. 10-8). One particular advantage of 40-year simulation are illustrated in figure 10-7. the stand-level model is the opportunity to simulate For simulating dynamics in wilderness ecosystems, ecosystem behavior if only a part of a stand (say a single the best stand simulator is probably one which is driven species) is disturbed with the remainder left intact. The

ORNL-DWG 74- 3078 N U ORNL-DWG 74- 7653 R SHORTLEAF PINE 540 OAK WPLAND) LP

SHORTLEAF PINE 480

SHORTLEAF PINE- OAK (LOWLAND) 420

WHITE OAK-RED OAK- HICKORY 0.077233 360

31 LOBLOLLY PINE- WROH HARDWOND (UPLAND) 300

LOBLOLLY PINE

240 LOBLOLLY PINE- SWEETGUM- HARDWOOD (LOWLAND) 0.01818 YELLOW POPLAR Sp 180 SYP

RIVER RIRCH- SUGHNRERRY- SYCAMORE 0.03686 H ELM-S. ASH 120

NS 60 LPH SPO SEA 0 1961 1972 2002 TIME (YEARS)

Figure 10-7--Compartment model and simulation of change in forest type in Georgia Left, annual natural succession is shown, with coefficients indicating the percentage land area in donor compartment transferred to recipient department. Number in lower right of each compartment is percent of undisturbed plots. Right, the change in forest type in North-Central Georgia is simulated for the period 1961-2002. Species abbreviations along right margin: LP, loblolly pine; WROH, white oak-red oak-hickory; SP, shortleaf pine; SYP, sweetgum-yellow poplar; NS, non-stocked; LPH, loblolly hardwoods; SPO, short-leaf pine-oak; SEA, sugarberry-American elm-greenash. (From Burgess and O'Neill 1975).

208 3500 A wilderness ecosystems will vary. The manager needs at least a crude understanding of the ecosystems over the 3000 general landscape and their characteristics. However, he 2500 needs much more detailedknowledge ofinitial conditions and frequent updating on changes in certain 2000 locations, particularly where human activities concen-

1500 trate and/or when rapid biologic or physical changes occur, either from human or natural causes. 1000 Subalpine meadows are the cbisic example of

500 ecosystems for which detailed information might be needed, particularly in heavily used areas. Documented instances of compositional changes and rapid tree 0 10 12 14 th 18 20 invasion of meadows are abundant. Some of these have been ascribed to natural causes such as tree invasion in the subalpine meadows of the Pacific Northwest (Franklin et al. 1971) resulting from climatic change. More often, man and domestic livestock are responsible. Lodgepole pine has invaded Sierranand Rocky 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Mountain meadows as a result of reduced wildfire, YEARS SINCE CLEARCUT Ix 102) grazing by livestock, changes in the meadow moisture regime (due to erosion and/or trail trenching), and Figure 10-8.Long-term prediction of average basal area for six dimatic change. Grazing, trampling, and compaction species under constant dimate and good, well-drained soils; (a) have altered meadow composition in many wildernesses. includes those species more typical at lower elevations: S, sugar maple; Meadows, margins of lakes and ponds, and timberline 0, beech; , yellow birch. (b) indudes those species more typical of forests are examples of fragile ecosystems particularly higher elevations: , balsam fir;0,red spruce; ,white birch. Each line represents the average of 100 plots. (From Botkin, Janak, and likely to be heavily impacted by visitors. They should Wallace 1973.) receive special attention in inventory and, especially, monitoring programs. The initial state (e.g., composi- effects of a loss of an individual species, such as in an tion) of these ecosystems needs to be known in greater insect or disease epidemic, can therefore be simulated. detail. Greater numbers of permanent sample plots and These models are mentioned here because they photo points are appropriate and they should be illustrate a class oftool" which will be available to remeasured more frequently than heavily forested and develop wilderness management information integrat- lightly used ecosystems. ing large amounts of ecological datato simulate An example of a pioneering effort in monitoring such successional trends in stands and landscapes under a sensitive areas (and of the value of such an effort) is varietyofnaturaldisturbancesand management Thornburgh's (1962) study of the Image Lake area in the regimes. As tools, they are comparable to the wilderness- Glacier Peak Wilderness. Significant deterioration of the use simulation model described in chapter 14 for vegetation was apparent at that time. Thornburgh developing information on acceptable levels of visitor provided lists of use-susceptible and use-resistant species use under different criteria. The most challenging step in and recommended exdusion of livestock from the area. formulating either the stand or regional simulation Remeasurements of 25 permanent transects made in models is development of the data on transfer rates 1966 and 1971 have served as a basis for management birth and death rates in the former and rates of change programs to rehabilitate damaged sites and control types from one community to another in the latter. Data on and intensity of use allowed in the lake basin. Shifts in the frequency and intensity of natural disturbances (e.g., impact areas from the vicinity of the lake shore to higher fire or windthrow) are also challenging and difficult to benches (use of the immediate lake shore area was develop but essential to realistic simulations of various restricted) were detected by continuous monitoring. management alternatives. Similar studies at other locations in the North Cascades National Park and research on techniques for rehabilitat- Levels of Detail for Inventorying and Monitoring ing damaged sites (such as seeding native plants or using It was mentioned earlier that the level of resolution or plug transplants) have been a major spinoff from the detail appropriatein inventorying and monitoring Image Lake study.

209 Fgure 10-9.Alpine meadows and lake shorelines are particularly sensitive to impact because of easily damaged vegetation and short growing seasons which limit the restoration of damaged areas. Upper Florence Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, Wash., shows considerableevidence of human use. (Note trail on the left)

Depending on the objectives, there are many possible stations for an ecosystem type in areas which will be techniques for monitoring ecosystems. For purposes of disturbed leaving you without a control; (3) ecotones this discussion we are thinking mainly of monitoring between different types of vegetationsuch as, forest biological changes, such as changes in vegetation and meadoware sensitive locations for monitoring composition and structure, on permanent plots or biological changes; and (4) permanently locate or transects. Inferences drawn from the initial inventory on reference monitoring sites on the ground; document rates and directions of change are useful, but they are no their location and the techniques used in detail. substitute for observing actual changes on permanent, With the great emphasis on meadows and similar long term samples. areas of special visitor attraction, the need for monitoring We won't attempt to outline the many possible of changes in forest ecosystems is often overlooked. It is strategies for setting up a series of permanent plots, important that at least some monitoring be carried out in points, and photo pointsformonitoring. Some forested areas over long periods to identify actual, not principles apply, however: (1) Sample more intensively inferred, trends in forest structure and composition and remeasure plots more frequently in areas where Representative sites for major forest ecosystem types are changes are likely; (2) when sampling areas likely to be obvious choices for permanent plots. Careful documenta- heavily impacted, have comparable control monitoring tion and referencing of plot location are critical because of sites for the same ecosystems in areas which have little or the long time spans and difficulty of relocating plots in no visitor use, that is, don't put all your monitoring forested landscapes. Frequency of remeasurement wifi

210 depend on objectives and likely rate of change. Seral immediate management problem areas; such sites forests of short-lived species (e.g., aspen and alder) and obviously have high priority but perpetuate a tendency to fire types where fire intervals are (or were) frequent lose perspective on monitoring and baseline data needs obviously require more frequent attention than the over the wilderness as a whole. No other natural conifer forests in wetter parts of the Pacific Northwest resourcemanagers would evertoleratesuch an which are composed of long-lived species and have long inadequate inventory base in their programs. In timber return intervals for fire. When dealing with forest (or management programs, for example, there are extensive even shrub-dominated) ecosystems, itis extremely systems of continuous inventory plots, comprehensive important to pay close attention to entries or 'births" of stand examinations, simulation models, and complex new individuals. data storage and retrieval systems. Certainly, this type and intensity of inventory and monitoring isnot A final word on the present state of monitoring, or advocated for wilderness. But it should make the baseline data collection, in wilderness is in order. At best, wilderness manager aware of the total inadequacy of past it is woefully inadequate; in most areas, it is essentially efforts and the imperative for improving a data base in absent. What little monitoring is being done is generally the future. Even provision for periodic high quality aerial not part of a systematic, comprehensive plan Documen- photography of wilderness tracts, something sorely tation is poor. Most work is focused on 'sores" which are lacking for many areas, would be a major improvement.

Literature Cited

Ahigren, Clifford E. Dickson, B.A., and RL Crocker. 1976. Regeneration of red and white pine following wildfire and 1954. A chronosequence of soils and vegetation near Mount Shasta, logging in northeastern Minnesota. J. For. 74(3):135-140. California. ifi. Some properties of the mineral soils. J. Soil Sci. Botkin, Daniel B., James F. Janak, and James R. Wallis. 5 (2) 173-191. 1972. Some ecological consequences of a computer model o,f forest Franklin, Jerry F., and C.T. Dyrness. growth. J. Em!. 60(3):849-872. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Burgess, Robert L, and Robert V. O'Neill, eds. Serv. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-8, 417 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 1975. Eastern deciduous forest biome progress report September 1, Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oregon 1973 to August 31, 1974.252 p. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Franklin, Jerry F., and Russell G. Mitchell. Environariental Sciences Division Pub!. 751 (EDFB-IBP 1967. Successional status of subalpine fir in the Cascade Range. 75-11). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-46, l6p. Pac. Northwest For. Cooper, C.F. and Range Exp. Sm, Portland, Oreg. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwest- Franklin, Jerry F., William H. Moir, George W. Douglas, and Curt ern pine forestssince white settlement.Ecu!. Monogr. Wlberg 30(2): 120-164. 1971. Invasion of subalpine meadows by trees in the Cascade Daubenmire, R Range, Washington and Oregon. Arctic and Alpine Res. 1968. Plant communities. 300 p. Harper and Row: Evanston and 3(3):215-224. New York. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr. Daubenmire, R. 1973. The importance of fire as a natural ecological factor in Itasca 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. State Park, Minnesota. Quaternary Res. 3(3):397-407. Tech. Bull 62, 131 p., illus. Wash. Agric Exp. Sin., College of Habeck, James R Agriculture, Washington State University, Pullman. 1970. Fire ecology investigations in Glacier National Park. 80 p. Daubenmire, R, and Jean B. Daubenmire. Department of Botany, University of Montana. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Habeck, James R, and Robert W. Mutch. Idaho. Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn Tech. Bull. 60, lO4p. Wash. Agric. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Exp. Sm., College of Agriculture, Washington State University, Quarernary Res. 3(3):408-424. Pullman Hanley, Donald P., Wyman C. Schmidt, and George M. Blake. Dickson, B.A., and R.L Crocker. 1975. Stand structure and successional status of two spruce-fir 1953a. A chronosequence of soils and vegetation near Mt. Shasta, forests in southern Utah. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-176, California.I.Definition of the ecosystem investigated and 16 p. Intermr. For, and Range Exp. Sm, Ogden, Utah. features of the plant succession. J. Soil Sci. 4(1):123-141. Heinselman, Miron L Dickson, B.A., and RL Crocker. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe 1953b. A chronosequence of soils and vegetation near Mt. Shasta, Area, Minnesota. Quarernary Res. 3(3):329-382. California. II. The development of the forest floors and the Kessell, Stephen R. carbon and nitrogenprofilesofthesoils.J.SoilSci. 1977. Gradient modeling: a new approach to fire modeling and 4(1):142-154, resource management. In Ecosystem modeling in theory and

211 practice: an introduction with case histories. Charles Hall and Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-7, 3Op. North Central For. Exp. Sin, John Day, eds. Wiley, New York (In press.) St. Paul, Minn. Kessell, Stephen K Pfister, Robert D. 1977. Wildland inventories and fire modeling by gradient analysis 1975. Land capability assessment by habitat types. Proc. Soc. Am. in Glacier National Park Proc. Joint Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. For. Annu. Meet., Washington, D.0 p. 312-325. Conf.lntermt. Fire Symp., Oct. 1974, Missoula, Mont. No. 14. Sollins, P., CC Grier, K Crnock; Jr., F. Glenn, and R. FogeL Tall Timbers Res. Sm., Tallahassee, Fla (In press.) 1977. The internal nutrient cycle of an old-growth Douglas-fir Kilgore, Bruce M. stand in western Oregon. EcoL Moriogr. (In press.) 1973. The ecological role of fire in Sçrran conifer forests. Thomas,Jack Ward, RodneyJ. Miller, Hugh BlackJon E. Rodick, and Quaternary Res. 3(3):496-513. Chris Maser. Leopold, A. Starker, Stanley A. Cain, and Clarence M. Cottam. 1976. Guidelines for maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat in 1969.Reportsofthespecialadvisoty board on wildlife forest management in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and management for the Secretary of the Interior, 1963-1968. (No Washington. Proc. 41st North Am. WildL and Nat. Resour. pagination). Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.0 Conf. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.0 (In Miller, Paul L press.) Thornburgh, Dale. 1973. Exidant-introduced community change in a mixed conifer 1962. Image Lake report. 51 p. (Unpublished Masters thesis. forest. Am. Chem. Soc. Advances inChem. No. 122, p. 101-117, University of California, Berkeley.) illus. American Chemistry Society, Washington, D.0 Trappe, James M. Odum, Eugene P. 1972. Regulation of soil organisms by red alder: a potential 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 574 p. 3d Ed. W.B. Saunders biological system for control of Poria wei,i. In Managing young Company, PhiladrIphia. forests in the Douglas-fir region, Vol. 3, p. 35-51, Oregon State Ohmanri, Lewis F., arid KR Ream. University, Corvallis. 1971a. Wilderness ecology: a method of sampling and summariz- U.S. National Committee for the International Biological Program. ing data for plant community classification. USDA For. Serv. 1974. U.S. participation in the International Biological Program Res. Pap. NC-49, 14 p. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, 166. p. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.0 Minn Vogi, Richard J. Ohmann, Lewis F., and KR Ream. 1973. Ecology of knobcone pine in the Santa Anna Mountains of 197 lb. Wilderness ecology: yirgin plant communities of the California EcoL Monogr. 43(2):125-143. Boundary Waters Canoe Area USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. Wright, H.E., Jr. NC-63, 55 p. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn. 1974.Landscape development,forestfires,and wilderness Ohmann, Lewis F., Charles T. Cushwa, Roger E. Lake,James R. Beer, management. Science 186(4163):487-495. and Robert B. Brander. Znbel, D.B., WA McKee, G.M. Hawk and CT. Dyrness. 1973. Wilderness ecology: the upland plant communities, woody 1976. Relationships of environment to composition, structure, and browse production, and small mammals of two adjacent 33- diversity of forest communities of the central Western Cascades year-old wildfire areas of northeastern Minnesota. USDA For of Oregon. Ecol. Monogr. 46(2):135-156.

212

11 Wildlife In Wilderness

Introduction 215 Contradictory legislation 226 The Wilderness Wildlife Resource 216 Time and space factors 227 Categories of wilderness wildlife 216 Interdependericies 227 First management steps 217 People-wildlife conflicts 229 Wilderness-Wildlife Relationships 218 Hunting 229 Wildlife as a measure of wilderness quality 218 Fishing 231 Wildlife's role in the wilderness web 219 Research Needs 232 The wilderness role in wildlife preservation 219 A Case Study in Wilderness Wildlife Management Wilderness wildlife as an environmental baseline 221 Approaches 232 Recreational, economic, and esthetic values 221 Wilderness Management Objectives for Fish and Wildlife 235 Political values of wilderness wildlife 222 Wilderness Wildlife Management Guidelines 235 Wildlife-Related Problems in Wilderness Management 223 Conclusions 243 Multiple agencies and missions 224 Literature Cited 244 Funding constraints 226

"Great Wilderness has two characteristics: deal with wildlife as it promotes or restricts management Remoteness and the presence of wild animals options.' insomethinglikepristine variety and Wildlife is but one aspect of the composite wilderness numbers" resource as is vegetation, water, or scenery. As pointed Lois Crisler (1950) in Arctic Wild. out in chapter 7, one basic principle is that wilderness management be comprehensive and not focused on any one aspect of the wilderness resource at the expense of Introduction other components. Thus, we do not speak of wildlife management in wildernessbut of wilderness manage- Many wildlife species and wilderness go together. ment relating to wildlife. But, within this constraint of a Ecologically, they are symbiotic; culturally, they are firmly comprehensive perspective, there are functional prob- linked in the minds of people. But wildlife in wilderness lems and issues such as those involving wildlife. A major isa source of some of the more controversial and complex issues in wilderness management because of goal of this chapter is to propose wilderness manage- laws that pertain to wildlife in the National Forests, ment objectives and guidelines to maintain or restore Parks, and Wildlife Refuges in which wilderness is located. Thus, any wilderness management text must For contributions to this chapter we are indebted to the many reviewers listed in the preface, and particularly to: Roger Contor, Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park; Laurence Jahn, Vice President of the Wildlife Management Institute; Robert This chapter was written by John C. Hendee and McCabe, Chairman, Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clay Schoenfeld, Joint Professor of Wildlife Ecology and President, The Wildlife Society; Shetyl Stateler Smith, USDA Forest Service Land and Journalism, Use Planning Team, Sandpoint, Idaho. An expanded book version of this chapter is the Universityof Wisconsin- Schoenfeld, Clay, and John C. Hendee. 1978. Wildlife Management in Wilderness, Madison. Wildlife Management Institute by Boxwrtxl Press. 170 p. illus.

215 and thus assure the natural place of wildlife in classified small," noi just the grizzly, wolf, sea turtle, whale, and areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System. eagle. We write from a perspective suggesting the reciprocal For purposes of this chapter we define wilderness importance of wilderness and wildlife values and the wildlife as those species naturally found in classified or need for appropriate management to protect and proposed areas of the National Wilderness Preservation enhance those values. In the following, we (1) define the System. While not wishing to slight the small creatures, wilderness wildliferesource,(2)discuss important our focus is on those larger mammals, birds, and fish that wilderness/wildlife relationships and values, (3) identify dearly reflect the characteristics of classified wilderness some of the wildlife-related problems in wilderness naturalness, solitude, and relative absence of permanent management, and (4) provide a manager's perspective human activity. While it may be true esthetically that on some wilderness-wildlife issues, contributed by Roger sala?nanders andbutterfliesareasimportant in Contor of the National Park Service. Finally, (5) we wilderness as mountain lions and eagles, as a practical propose some wilderness management objectives for matter the ungulates and carnivores at or near the top of wildlife, and (6) we condude with recommended their food chains serve as indicators of the health of management guidelines we think are necessary to attain lower trophic levels. The relative stability of a pine those objectives. marten population in turn reflects the stability of the vegetative components of the particular wilderness ecosystem (Koehler et al. 1975). Hence, our greater emphasis on dominant species. The WWdenzess Wild1fèResource From anecologicalperspectivea number of Categories of Wilderness Wildlife definitions of wilderness wildlife have been suggested. Wilderness wildlife may be usefully categorized as (1) Dasmann (1966) defined wilderness species as those wilderness-dependent wildlife, (2) wilderness-associated that are "obligate members of a climax community or wildlife, and (3) common wildlife found in wilderness. wilderness area." Among his illustrations of wilderness As a practical matter, we recognize the difficulty of species were the passenger pigeon, caribou, musk-ox, pinpointing the status of any particular species within bighorn sheep, and grizzly bear. Hochbaum (1970) any single categoryat least for the entire NWPS- would include many species of migratory waterfowl, like because of overlap, regional and local variation, and swans and geese, which require wilderness wetlands for exceptions that don't fit neatly into compartments. nesting purposes. Starker Leopold (1966) identified the However, these three categories are useful for discussion, following North American ungulates as associated at least, because they suggest something about the primarily with climax forage types: caribou, bighorn relationship of the species to the unaltered habitat found sheep, mountain goat, musk-ox, bison, peccary, tapir, and in wilderness. brocket. Wilderness-dependentwildlifeincludesspecies Aldo Leopold (1933) considered wilderness wildlife as vulnerableto human influence, whose continued species harmful to or harmed by economic land uses. He existence is dependent on and reflective of the relatively named seven species that met this criterionwapiti, wild, undisturbed habitat characteristics of classified or caribou, bison, grizzly, moose, mountain sheep, and proposed wilderness. Wolves, grizzly bear, pine marten, mountain goat. Each of us might enlarge this list in his and wolverine are a few examples, although sometimes own way, adding perhaps brown and polar bear, whales, even these species are found in modified environments. musk-ox, puma, wolf, wolverine, sea turtle, passenger Inspection of lists of threatened and endangered species pigeon, some species of seals, some warblers, condors, suggests that more than a hundred species of mammals, and eagles, for example. Durward Allen (1966) labeled birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians may appearat the cougar, grizzly, and wolf as the tnie wilderness least seasonallyin classified or proposed areas of the animals because they are capable, wide-ranging, and at NWPS. Considering any particular area, many locally or odds with the livestock industry. regionally rare species might be dependent on the From an esthetic perspective, Michael Frome (1974) continued naturalness of their habitat and thus be placed argues that any wilderness wildlife list should not be in the wilderness-dependent category. For example, in or limited to large birds and mammals and that other near proposed wilderness areas in Idaho's Panhandle wildlife forms such as insects and snails are also National Forests are such locally or regionally rare indispensable in the wilderness cyde of life. He points speciesasgrizzly bear, mountain caribou,native out that our proper concern is"all creatures great and cutthroat trout, Canada lynx, wolverine, mountain goat,

216 Richardson's blue grouse, fisher, marten, peregrine their natural role. In fact, these common species, since falcon, bald and golden eagles, osprey, mountain sheep, they are adaptable to more modified environments, may and northern white-tailed ptarmigan.2 reveal through their natural place in the wilderness Wildernesr-associated wildlife includes species com- scheme, the extentto which they have adapted monly associated (in fact and in human perception) with elsewhere. habitat characteristics of classified or proposed wilder- The foregoing categories may be useful to guide ness. This category indudes wildlife common in the high inventories of wilderness wildlife and the characteristics elevation habitat of the Western United States, which is ofnaturalhabitat on which they depend. This characteristic of much of the Wilderness System, and information is essential for management and is also speciesassociated with conditions characteristic of useful in assessing some of the values hinging on an Wilderness in the East such as southern swamps and area's proposed classification remaining roadless reserves or hardwood forests. A list of wilderness-associated species would be illustrative, not First Management Steps exhaustive, and would identify species linked with Managing all three categories of wilderness wildlife wilderness both by human perception and ecological will of necessity be an extensive rather than an intensive reality. operation. This is dictated not only by financial realities For example, a list of wilderness-associated species but by the terms of the Act calling for preservation of the would indude hoary, Olympic, and yellowbelly areas' wilderness characternaturalness, solitude, arid marmots; pika; heather moles, Clarks nutcracker, grey with man's imprint substantially unnoticeableeven jay, golden eagles, and grey-crowned rosy finches; deer, when managing for such other allowed purposes as bear, elk, moose, mountain sheep and goats; rainbow, endangered species preservation cutthroat, and golden trout, greyling and whitefish. There may be regional variationin the public's Later in the chapter we propose broad wilderness management guidelines for wildlife. But here we can perception of wilderness associated species based on relative wildness of the surrounding territory. For suggest some specific first steps that should be taken example, while black bear and bobcat are not strongly after any particular area is classified as wilderness. First in associated with wilderness in the West, they are more importanceisan inventory of all the wilderness- dependent species found in the area and the characteris- impressive indicators of wild conditions in the minds of easterners. Some other species commonly perceived as tics of the natural habitat on which they depend. wilderness-associated might also appear in the wilder- Wilderness management should assign a high priority to monitoring and preserving these natural conditions. In ness-dependentcategory(suchasmountain and many cases a good start on this inventory task may have woodland caribou, pine marten, fisher, wolves, southern bald eagle, grizzly and polar bears, Florida panther, beenaccomplishedduringthewildernessstudy eastern cougar, and others). preceding the area's dassification Common wildlife found in wilderness includes species Likewise, an inventory should be taken of the that happen to be found there but which also live in wilderness-associated species and their habitat. Lowest many other more modified environments. Their priority should be accorded an inventory of common relationship to wilderness is incidental. They are not species found in the wilderness. associated in fact or in human perception with especially We are not blind to the financial limitations that may wild places like wilderness. Some examples are deer, prevent the completion of these inventories by paid coyote, bobcat, raccoon, rabbits, muskrat, mink; a host of agency personneL But we callforinitiative and rodents like squirrels, field mice and rats; and many innovativenessby managerstosolicitvolunteers, species of birds including raptors, grouse, woodpeckers, cooperating educationalinstitutions, and interested sparrows, juncos, and thrushes. scientists and conservationists to join in the endeavor. Unlike the other two categories, the relationship Ultimately, the aggregation of inventories of wilderness- between these common wildlife species is not specific. wildlife species, dependent or associated with the habitat They are not dependent on wilderness nor do they enjoy of individual areas, will define more completely the role any real or perceived association with wilderness. But and relationship of wildlife to the National Wilderness when found in wilderness, they are not less important in Preservation System, and viceversa. Even more important, data for individual areas will be available for

2US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1975. Idaho Panhandle National identifying wilderness wildlife management needs and Forest land use plan, Part I. lOSp. On file at Northern Regional Office, Missoula, Mont] priorities.

217 Wildem&cs-Wildlife Relation)s Leopold experienced the same feelingthat eliminat- ing wildlife diminishes wildernessafter the demise of As we have said, wilderness and wildlife go together. an old grizzly, the last of its kind roaming the Arizona The crucial ways in which they do so provide a high country. When a government hunter shot the bear framework for wilderness wildlife management and for bounty, Leopold wrote a benediction: suggest both management directions and constraints. (Mount) Escudilla still hangs on the horizon, but when you see it you no longer think of Wildlife as a MeasureofWildeiijess Quality bear. It'sonlya mountain now (Leopold The distribution and numbers of its various wildlife 1949). species can be a measure of the naturalness of a The extent to which wildlife is used as a wilderness wilderness. Wildlife reflects ecological conditions and criterion isstriking. Asked to describe the Alaskan their changes over time, so wildlife can serve as a wilderness, John P. Milton (1972) used wildlife species as monitor of wilderness qualityin fact and in human one of his parameters. It is caribou that carry "the soul of perception. the Alaskan wilderness," says Milton They require Culturally, for many people the concept of wilderness freedom and vast space in which to range. When they isfrequently linked to some form of wildlife. For migrate "it is as if the land itself grows restless." The wolf example, when the Muries wrote of their American elk and the wolverine also carry "the very essence" of studies in Wyoming, they called their book Wapiti wilderness in them, he goes on They are the first species Wilderness. Likewise, Andy Russel entitled his book on to vanish from wilderness under human pressure. Too, Canadian wildernessGrizzly Country. In William the Yukon Flats and Delta are the source for a vast Faulkner's novel, The &ar, it is literally Old Ben, the circulation of migratory waterfowl throughout North bear,thatrepresentsthedisappearing American and South America; destroy the living heart of these wilderness, cornered in places like Mississippi's Big flyways "and the pulse of the wilderness will cease." In Bottom. The presence of particular kinds of wildlife brief, Milton condudes, Alaska's wildlife "the veryweb always suggests the comparative absence of human of wilderness that graces the space, the openness, the influence and the existence of primitive harmonies. silence of the North." Simply knowing that suchwildlifeispresentis The wolf, to Hochbaum (1970), perhaps more than important to the meaning of wilderness. "If key wildlife any other species, is "a criterion of wild country." "The is removed, although everything else remains visibly the wild laughing tremolo of the reverberating choruses" of same, the intensity of the sense of wildernessis the common loon is, to Sigurd Olson (1963): diminished" (Nash 1970). the crowning symbol of lake country, the sound that more than any other typifies the The emerging land ethic of Aldo Leopold, early rocks and waters and forest of wilderness. spokesman for "designated" wilderness, expanded from Appropriately enough, the loon is distinctly intolerant of wildlifeto wilderness, and then on tothe total human activity. Lakes attracting boat traffic tend to lose environment. He dates the moment of evolution quite nesting boons. ''ildlife, to Bucbheister (1963), is: precisely. As described in A Sand County Almanac the crowning symbol of wilderness: a beach (Leopold 1949), the incident occurred about 1920 during without sanderlings is an empty beach; a Leopold's Forest Service days in the Southwest. Shots mountain without eagles may lose none of its rang out from the rimrock, and, Leopold writes: height above sea level, but it will be less We reached the old wolf in time to watch a inspiring to men who wonder about the ways fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized of eagles then, and have known ever since, that there These examples suggest the importance of wildlife as was something new to me in those eyes an indicator of wilderness quality in human perception something known only to her and to the We previously pointed out the importance of wildlife, as mountain. I was young then, and full of a quality indicator from an ecological standpoint. The trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer concept of certain wildlife serving as wilderness indicator wolves meant more deer, that no wolves species has been proposed as a means of assessing would mean hunter's paradise. But after human impact on ecosystem reserves, a case in point seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither being grizzly bear and mountain caribou in Glacier the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a National Park in British Columbia (Hamer 1974). view. Particularly, carnivores at the top of their food chain may

218 serve as indicators of the stability of lower trophic levels. whole region The alligators, conserving energy and But the environmental barometer value of wildlife is not living on their own fat, largely ignore the boarders; the limited to carnivores. Other species sensitive to human refugees sustain life on the gator hole's remaining fish, influence and requiring unaltered habitat also serve such insect life, and vegetation, and live side by side in a a function. For example, the Big Thicket National relative state of truce. 'When the rains finally return, it is Preserve in Texas owes much of its appeal not only to from these gator-made oases that the various species go the fact that it contains a virgin cypress grove but also to forth to repopulate the Everglades (Carr 1973). the possibility that it is one of the last refuges of the One of the best examples of wildlife's role in a natural ivory-billed woodpeckernot sighted for 10 years, yet ecosystem has been recorded during several years of still believed by some to exist in this 300,000-acre study by Durward Allen (1974), appropriately summar- remnant ecosystem (Farney 1974). ized recently in an article titled "Of Fire, Moose and Wolves." Here, the principal predator, the wolf, insures Wildl:fec Role in the Wilderness Web the survival of moose by controlling the size and vigor of Wild lifeis one of the inseparable parts of the the herd, thus keeping it within carrying capacity of its composite wilderness resource. In fact, it is biologically range. essential to much wilderness as we know it. Wildlife plays a vital role in the development and maintenance of The Wilderness Role in Wildlife Preservation the skin of soil and vegetation that covers wilderness Wilderness may be crucial to the survival of some topography: wildlife species, particularly those with highly specialized Wildlife directly affects the soil and vegeta- habitat needs. While many species with an affinity for tion mantle in key ways: Dispersal, planting, wilderness conditions may in fact hammer out survival and germination ofseeds;fertilization; in less pristine habitats, they live most naturally in conversion of dead plants into organic matter wilderness. more usable by living plants; pollination; and The Alaskan brown bear, for example, "requires all of modification of vegetation and soil (Talbot the ingredients of the Alaskan wilderness to survive" 1970). (Troyer 1973). Another example, the northern spotted Illustrative is the symbiotic relationship of the saguaro owl, is one of several species absolutely dependent on the cactus and whitewinged dove. To spread pollen from one mature Douglas-fir forest stands characteristic of some cactus to another, saguaros depend considerably on wilderness in the Pacific Northwest. Such species have whitewings attracted by nectar. The whitewings come evolved into specialists requiring the stability and mosaic back to eat the resulting fruit, and then deposit the which only old-growth forests can provide (Meslow and saguaro seeds beneath distant mesquite trees, which in Wight 1975). The wild flamingo is another species that turn provide the shade essential to young saguaros. The requires remote stretches of undisturbed country during saguaro also has a partnership with the Gila woodpecker. the breeding season To be sure, a civilized version lives The pulpy saguaro provides housing for woodpecker in the Hialeah race track, but the true wild bird needs nests; the woodpecker in turn lives off the beetle larvae great open areas in the Caribbean in which to nest and other insects which carry diseases that could in time (Buchheister 1963). In the Great Smokies black bears overcome the cactus. may den 30,40, or even 60 feet above the ground which The Everglades Wilderness owes many debts to the requires overmature trees whose existence is guaranteed alligator; none is more important than the benefits that in very few places not given wilderness protection.3 Pine accrue from the alligator's relentless search for water in marten survival during Western winters requires climax the dry season. Alligators seek low places where the spruce-fir communities older than 100 years with a water table lies just below the surface and work either to canopy cover greater than 30 percent. As a barometer of deepen the existing water hole or to excavate a new one, the health of a coniferous forest wilderness ecosystem, breaking the caked earth with their powerful tails and the marten may be unsurpassed (Koehler et al. 1975). shoveling away the debris with their broad snouts. On the other hand, of course, the presence of pine During the worst droughts, alligators have been known marten in a particular area does not necessarily signify to dig their way down through 4 feet of compacted mud wilderness. In Mount Rainier National Park, for and peat before coaxing water from the porous substrate. example, the pine marten has been noted hanging Such gator holes, found throughout the parched Glades, attract many thirsty creatures ranging from otters to tEvison, Boy! March 1976. Personal correspondence. [Mr. Evison is superintendent, herons, and soon become biological microcosms of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park]

219 around ranger stations, raiding kitchens and garbage age in large areas of the world which have similar cans, and living in attics.4 Likewise, grizzly bears can habitats" (Ciiacy-Wantrup and Phillips 1970). become habitues of campground dumps, although under Although legally classified wilderness is not always natural conditionsthey serveasa barometer of essential for the survival of the species, it may be wilderness conditions. extremely beneficial. In classified wilderness, species can Wilderness can serve as essential seasonal habitat. For at least work out their destinies under the most natural instance, the extensive Arctic wilderness provides conditions available in the country. summer breeding grounds for much of the continental The Wilderness Acts, by greatly limiting habitat population of whistling swans, white-fronted geese, management flexibility, may ultimately restrict condi- snow geese, brandt, eiders, and scaup (Pimlott 1974). tions most beneficial to the largest number of game Wilderness in the West helps play seasonal host to herds species. But, on the other hand, wilderness areas may of biggame animals seeking summer range in the high offer a vegetative condition that eventually may be meadows. Such wilderness can function as a wikilife missing or limited on private and other public lands. In bank For example, between 1892 and 1962 many of the some regions, they may well offer islands of habitat that elk ranges of the West were restocked with over 10,000 otherwise would not be available, particularly for wildlife surplus elk live-trapped in Yellowstone, one of our species dependent on old-growth forests, since these are greatest wilderness-type National Parks (Leopold, AS. increasingly being preempted for intensive uses. In the et al. 1969). East, particularly, designated wilderness may provide Even more significant, though less obvious, is the role habitat to accommodate the needs of some species on at of wilderness as a hidden trove of those recessive genes least a seasonal basis. Wild turkeys, for example, may necessaryforgeneticadaptability in the face of benefitfromtheavailabilityof mature woods, environmental change. These recessive traits represent a particularly if suitable stands are absent outside the stock of variability which can be brought into play, wilderness. Deer also may benefit in winter, if adequate sometimes within a single generation. Who is to say stands of mature trees otherwise are missing from their what obscure wilderness species harbors the genes mobility range. Migratory or mobile species will be best mankind will ultimately call on for his survival? A equipped to take advantage of such habitat, should it vaccine for leprosy distilled from the armadillo, quinine satisfy their seasonal needs (Poole 1976). and cortisone derived from certain jungle plants, a type In spite of the obvious benefits wilderness provides of rubber from the guayule plant, potential help for many species, it is hazardous to generalize about the hemophilia gleaned from the blood of the manatee, the wilderness role in wildlife preservation in general, since thrifty beefalo developed from bisonsuch contribu- environmental conditions favorable to one species may tions are already with us. Classified wilderness in be highly unfavorable to another. David Smith (1973) particular protects habitats which have been modified puts it in this way: but little from the conditions under which their biotic Animal populations are ultimately controlled communities evolved. No ecologist can yet judge the by the vegetation on which they most directly total consequence of destroying the habitat of a single or indirectly feed. The larger herbivorous species, and hence of destroying that species. We simply mammals and birds which indude most do not know enough. The function of wilderness as a game species thrive best feeding on low reservoir of genetic variability can be crucial Wilderness vegetation. Therefore, low, young forests wildlife investment in a biological currency we actually have far more game than tall, old, and cannot specify, a hedge against a biological need we magnificientones.Thisobservationis cannot name" (Ghiselin 1973-1974). sometimes extended to statements that old For example, the extinction of the Tule Elk would forests are biological deserts, but it might be result in the irreversible disappearance of a valuable gene more correct to call them game deserts. Old pool The Tule is a dwarf subspecies, reduced to some 400 forests probably support as much or more animals in three areas of California, which has adapted animal life as young ones, but there may be a itself to a semiarid environment with great variations in higher proportion of small birds, squirrels, climate and topography. There may be a strong demand insects, and other organisms that inhabit the in the future for such an animalas "a converter of for- high foliage canopy or the soil. The old forest usually has a more diverse fauna than the young, thus it is more intriguing for the 4Partridge, Clayton, April 15, 1976 Personal correspondence. [Mr. Partridge has worked as a wilderness ranger in Mt. Ranier National Park] birdwatcher but less so for the hunter.

220 Wilderness Wild1i)e as an Environmental Baseline ecosystems, we will have taken a giant step toward better The wilderness-wildlife web can provide a mean understanding of the whole structure and function of datum plane for collecting and assessing evidence nature (Odum 1969). suggestive of human influence on the planet. As The history and stability level of a natural ecosystem indicators of comparable biological change caused by can be studied only when none of the dominant water and air pollution and measurement of environ- components have been artificially removed or signifi- mental health, wilderness ecosystems have no substitute. cantly disturbed in an unnatural way. Such systems have Wilderness provides a standard against which the matured through ages beyond our reckoning. If we are to alteration of developed lands can be measured. Leopold learn how natural communities really work and survive, (1949) frequently stated the case for wilderness as a we must continue ongoing research and establish many model of ecological perfection: "A base-datum of more long-range studies in undisturbed wilderness normality, a picture of how healthy land maintains itself laboratories. One noted ecologist has defined and as an organism." Wild places, Leopold said, reveal "what summarzied the potential contributions of wilderness the land was, what it is, and what it ought to be." and wildlife: Evolution operates there without hindrance from man, a biological standard of comparison for providing "standards against which to measure the measuring those other biotic communities effects of violence." Each biotic province, he declared, which are much more influenced by man, a "needs its own wilderness for comparative studies of reservoir and holding ground for genetic used and unused land." material, and a dynamic and complex natural Thus the wilderness-wildlife web has intrinsic value as laboratory for the development of modern a natural laboratory where relationships among species ecological theory and knowledge (Spurr and habitat can be observed and studied. Several 1963). flourishing national magazines as well as TV series and specialsattesttothe importance of popularized Recreational, Economic, and Esthetic Values wilderness-wildlife ecology as a means of widespread As will be pointed out in chapter 13, recreational use vicariousenjoyment and environmental education of wilderness has increased rapidly in recent years, faster (Schoenfeld 1971; 1976). More fundamental are the than other forms of outdoor recreation The presence of scientific reports, based on the population dynamics of wildlife is surely part of the wilderness lure. Many people wilderness inhabitants, that would be impossible in the come simply to view or photograph native species in absence of designated areas serving as living wilderness- natural settings. In season, others come to hunt or fish wildlife laboratories. For example, a careful survey under primitive conditions Millions of Americans enjoy throughout the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in wilderness wildlife vicariously by appreciating it through Minnesota has shown that some 500,000 acres have friends, stories, and photos, through television and never been significantly affected by modern civilization movies; or simply by knowing that it is there. Even those Because of its large size and undisturbed character, this who have never been within sight of real wilderness... virgin forest is a unique laboratory for the study of large- have at least some vision of its enchantment, scale ecological processes (Wright 1974). Another prime due in part to the rich profusion of books example of major ecological research that can be celebrating its beauty in picture and poetry accomplished in a definitive way only in a large natural and to a strong instinct for maintaining area is the study of the habitat and behavior of the moose some residual hold upon a more primitive life and timber wolf, conducted over the past 18 years at Isle (Robinson 1975). Royale by Durward Allen (Allen 1974). Mech and The number of artides on wilderness wildlife listed in Pimlott on wolyes, Geist on wild sheep, Hornocker and the Readers Guide to Periodical literature more than associates on mountain lions, McClelland on forest doubled from 27 in 1971 to 55 in 1975. ecosystems, Koehier and associates on pine marten, Peek The value of incidental contact with wildlife to on moose, Herrero on bear-human interactions, the outdoor recreation experiences is indicated by a study in Craigheads and Cole on grizzlies, Keith on grouse, which 96 percent of all campers interviewed said that the Raveling on geesesuch studies are representative of opportunity to see wildlife in their natural setting added basic research that requires long-time investigations in to their outdoor experience (Lime and Cushwa 1969). relatively undisturbed ecosystems. If we can discover how The fact that many people are not deliberately seeking to measure the rate of activity or metabolism in free- contactwithwildlifeinwilderness makeslittle living individuals of populations in intact wilderness difference; the incidental contactthe chance observa- 221 tion under natural conditionscan enrich immeasura- is precarious. Is it worth the costs of trying to save it? bly the many satisfactions that accme to wilderness After all, there are abundant mountain caribou in Alaska. users from their overall experience: Somethingaboutsightingwildlifeand Political Values of Wilderness Wildlife watching it changes the atmosphere. There is In our kind of society, wilderness preservation could a suppressed air of excitement, a pleasant not have come to pass in the absence of a viable political tension, and a keenness of looking forward constituency. While this constituency has been composed to the morrow (Russell 1971). of many groups, for 100 years sportsmen have played an For some, even danger call be an important positive importantrole,spurredbytheirrecognitionof aspect of the wilderness experience, either by direct wilderness as a fish and wildlife refuge (McHenry and confrontation with wildlife and the elements, or simply Van Doren 1972). by knowing that the possibility exists. It was the Northwoods Walton Club and the new Can we quantify this lure of wilderness wildlife? outdoor magazine, Forest and Stream, that took the lead Should we try? The California condor is an endangered inthe pioneer New York State campaign that species. Only an estimated 60 birds are left How much is culminated in setting aside the Adirondacks Forest the condor worth? That is a difficult question to answer Preserve in 1885. The major 132-million-acre expansion because most condor conservation benefits are extra- of U.S. National Forests came during the Presidency of a market; that is, they aren't subject to direct dollar founder of the Boone and Crockett Club, that vigorous exchange, yet they are no less real. exponent of hunting, Theodore Roosevelt, who believed As Bishop (1972) has pointed out, many people forest conservation and game conservation to be receive satisfaction each year from seeing the live synonomous. It was the Boone and Crockett Club that condors, from viewing them in pictures and movies, and urged the passage of the Yellowstone Park Act of 1894, from reading about them in books, newspapers, and designed to protect Yellowstone wildlife from poachers magazines. Many people who will never see a condor or and establishing the precedent of the National Parks as otherwise benefit directly from its continued existence game preserves (Reiger 1975). still support efforts to save it and pay something each Within the U.S. Forest Service the concept of inviolate year to express this preference through activities of the wilderness tracts bloomed at a meeting in Denver in National Audubon Society. The Audubon Society has 1919 between Arthur H. Carhart, a Service landscape supported three research projects to study the bird and its architect who supplemented his income writing artides problems. Condor affairs receive the full-time attention and books about biggame hunting, and Aldo Leopold, a of one National Audubon Society employeeas well as forester and ardent hunter.The remarkable array of U.S. considerable amounts of time from other personneL National Wildlife Refuges has largely been identified by Concern about the birds has led to extensive research and sportsmen groups and, where lands were purchased, management activities at the Federal and State levels of paid for in part with revenues from special waterfowl government. hunting stamps. When a Wilderness bill was first It is impossible to say what the condor is worth today introduced in Congress in 1956, among its charter relative to other goods and services, and who cansay supporters were the National Wildlife Federation and what it will be worth in years to come. No doubt the the Wildlife Management Institute (Mercure and Ross world could survive without the bison, without the heath 1970). hen, without the condor, without the grizzly, and without The desire to save wildlife threatened with extinction you-name-it. There are direct costs in trying to preserve or associated with the wilderness of particular areas has themand immeasurable costs in losing them. Where been a major impetus in the proposal for or classification do we stop? of individual wildernesses. Today, if you want to block a Suppose, for instance, we want to try to save the last dam, a highway, a mine, or a ski resort that threatens any mountain caribou herd in the lower 48 Statesabout 20 part of wilderness, you will usually find hunters, fisher- animals in the Selkirk Mountains north of Priest Lake, men, and other wildlife supporters at your side. Idaho. The forest habitat must be managed for lichen Take the recurring struggle on Idaho's Salmon River, production, which means restrictions on timber harvest. for example. Leading the array of conservation groups Poaching andharrassment must beeliminated, opposed to damming and developing the river were the particularly in winter ranges, which means closing roads National WildlifeFederation,the NationalRifle and apprehending violators (Freddy 1973). At best, the Association, the Wildlife Management Institute, Trout future of this small, peripheral herd of mountain caribou Unlimited, and every sportsmen's club in the State.

222 Figure 11-1 Carried out in an appropriate style, fishing can be an important part of an overall wilderness experience. An angler tries his luck at Johnson Lake in the Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness, Mont.

Why? Any dam on the Salmon River would wipe out frameworka philosophy emphasizing wildlife uses one of the most important remaining spawning areas carried out in such a way that they are consistent with for steelhead and salmon in the entire Columbia River wilderness values. drainage. The proposed solution? A 2.3-million acre River of No Return Wilderness that protects deer, elk, Wildlife-Related Problems in Wilderness moose, coyote, fox, and 112 bird species, as well as the Management anadromous fish (Trueblood 1973). Heading the River of No Return Wilderness Council, not so incidentally, The necessity to manage human use and influences to was Ted Trueblood, native Idahoan and Associate Editor preserve wilderness naturalness and solitude has been of Field and Stream. emphasized in earlier chapters. This need extends to To be sure, sportsmen are not always enthusiastic wildernesswildlife,asthe Wildlife Management about a particular classified wilderness. They exhibit Institute (1975) recently stressed: considerable concern about the ultimate levels of hunting Man and his activities can so interrupt and fishing to be allowed in National Forest wilderness. Wilderness wildlife's natural cycles and sys- And there is concern in the heavily populated East that tems that only through deliberate interven- classification of Wilderness there may restrict wildlife tion can mankind assure the survival of key management for maximum game production. These species of wildlife America can retain and pressures demonstrate the need for a basic philosophy expand its rich Wilderness wildlife heritage fittingimportant wildlifeusesintoa wilderness only if it applies scientifically sound facts to 223 the management of all species and if its will soon contain Bureau of Land Management areas. citizens harmonize their activities with the Each wilderness administrative agency owes its existence systems of Wilderness. and its missions to particular national needs expressed Some of the most difficult wilderness management through various Congressional acts, many of which issues involve wildlife because there is no dassified or predate and take precedence over the Wilderness Acts. proposed wilderness that is not a part of a larger Federal Each agency responds to different sets of pressure agency jurisdiction with a wildlife-management mission groups. Each has a differentset of philosophical that predates the Wilderness Acts. The situation is traditions, a particular management legacy, and different further complicated by the legal tradition dating back to kinds of professional personneL These are important the Magna Cartathat most fish and wildlife fall under influences that directly and subtly shape management State authority. There are differences of opinionover policy for wilderness within each agency. Perhaps most how far the State's legal authority extends to Federal important, wilderness and wilderness-wildlife manage- lands, but a 1976 Supreme Court decision upheld the ment are subordinate to other pressing concerns in all right of Congress to legislate control of wild horses and agencies. Money is scarce for wilderness management burros on Federal landsKleppe vs. State of New and in even shorter supply for wilderness wildlife man- Mexico 1976. Wilderness may become another testing agement. ground for determining legal authority over wildlife if The Forest Service, while pledged to multiple use, has controversy grows about the allowable extent of fish important timber production responsibilities that are a stocking and if pressure for expanded wilderness central mission of the agency. Under itsresource hunting continues. Some think Federal jurisdiction over utilization legacy, the Forest Service has been accused of wildlife would prevail in such a test (Robinson 1975). being "less than totally enthusiastic" about creating Wilderness is affected by a variety of constraints that wilderness out of its Western roadless areas and about apparently conflict with the goals of naturalness and establishing wilderness in the East (Risser 1973). But, as solitude set forth in the Wilderness Acts. For example, noted in chapters 4, 5, and 6, the Forest Service estab- hunting and fishing are established activities in most lished the first wilderness areas by administrative fiat National Forest wildernesses and in some National beginning in the 1920's, and there is much more Wildlife Refuge Areas. Legislation succeeding the dassified wilderness in the National Forests than in any WildernessActrequirespreservationofcertain other jurisdiction. However, whileit continues to threatened or endangered species in some wildernesses, support wilderness preservation, the Forest Service has implying the use of manmade devices and alterations, if been "more cautious about it than most preservationists necessary. Furthermore, ecological trends stimulated by have desired" (Robinson 1975). previous management, such as the unnatural influence made on vegetation by the exclusion of fire, may be Wilderness management on the National Forests is reflected dramatically in current wilderness wildlife also complicated by geographic and administrative populations Geographic realities dictate that migrating dispersal. For example, a designated Forest Service wildlife populations such as deer or elk may spend only Wilderness may encompass multiple planning units; part of their yearly cycle in wilderness. ranger districts and regions in two or more National Such factors affecting wildlife in wilderness make it Forests. That same Wilderness may also abutt proposed one of the most difficult elements of wilderness man- wilderness, a National Park, and State and private lands. agementyet one of the most important. In this section Such cases really do exist. Millions of largely inaccessible we discuss some key wildlife-related problems in acres are involved. If it all sounds complicated, it is. The wilderness management. boundaries may signify different restrictions governing such variables as allowable party size, types of fires Mu1t,ble Agencies and Missions permitted, and whether dogs, firearms, or fires are even A recognition of the varying legal missions of the four allowed. Wilderness wildlife management also reflects wildernessmanagement agenciesisbasicto an this imprecision created by the extensive geographic understanding of wildernesswildlife management space and widespread administrative organization. possibilities and constraints. As outlined in previous The National Park Service, dating 'back to the chapters, the National Wilderness Preservation System Congressional Act of 1916 which created it, has focused includes classified wilderness under the jurisdiction of the on preservation of native animal life as one of the specific Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the purposes of the parks. This intention is expressed in a National Park Service, and, as a result of 1976 legislation, frequently quoted passage of the Act: 224 . which purpose is to conserve the scenery protectionists look upon the refuges as places and the natural historic objects and the to enjoy the spectade of masses of water wildlife (italics ours) therein and to provide birds, without disturbance by hunters or by for the enjoyment of the same in such private landowners; they resent any hunting manner and by such means as will leave them at alt State fish and game departments are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future pleased to have the Federal budget support generations. wildlifeareasinthestatesbut want In implementing this Act, the newly formed Park maximum public hunting and fishing on Service developed a philosophy of wildlife protection, these areas. The General Accounting Office which in that era was indeed the most obvious and in Washington seems to view the refuges as immediate need in wildlife conservation. Thus, the parks units of a duck factory that should produce a became refuges, the animal populations were protected fixed quota of ducks per acre or a bird-days from hunting, and their habitats were protected from per duck stamp dollar. The Bureau of fire (which in some areas turned out to be detrimental to Outdoor Recreation sees the refuge system as some species). For a time predators were controlled to 29 million acres of public playgrounds. The protect the "good" animals from the "bad" ones Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes the (Leopold, A.S. et aL 1969). The net preservationist policy primaryimportanceofprotectingand frequently produced gross overpopulation problems perpetuating migratory waterfowl, as subjects with respect to browsing species. of hunting and as objects of great public National Park Service policy has evolved to an interest (Leopold, A. S. et aL 1969). emphasis on the protection of natural processes, with National Wildlife Refuges: purposeful management of plant and animal communi- more often than not have been developed ties as an essential step in preserving wildlife resources, from areas misused in the past by drainage, but without bias in favor of particular species or climax lumbering, burning, and overgrazing, and vegetation However, its legacy of providing human needing restoration to become first-class enjoymentsparks are for peopleis a continuing wildlife habitat. Such refurbishing is accom- influence on its wilderness management. Recently one plished mainly with dams, dikes, and fences, Park Service official, Roger Contor5, said that statement and through farming programs to produce needs extending to "Parks are for people who enjoy special and supplemental wildlifefoods. seeing wildlife." Since too many people means habitat Management may also employ irrigation desecration, that goal will require an easing of people systems, regulate livestock grazing to provide pressures in many places. habitat for more successful wildlife use, soil The Fish and Wildlife Service manages several conservation practices, forestry programs, or different types of areas: Wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, rough fish-controlto name a few of the game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl practices carried out (U.S. Department of the protection areaseach with particular management Interior 1974). constraints and options. Until recently the game ranges While some FishandWildlifemanagement were administered in collaboration with the Bureau of "oldtimers" continue to resist the restrictions wilderness Land Management. dassification would place on their management, many Nearly everyone has a slightly different view of what other wildlife managers have come to view wilderness as the National Wildlife Refuge System is, or should be. complementary to a comprehensive wildlife manage- This was illustrated in the Leopold Committee report: ment program. Most duck hunters view the (waterfowl) The Bureau of Land Management administers the refuges as an essential cog in the perpetuation Public Domain which indudes more land than the of their sport. Some see the associated public National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and National Forests shooting grounds as the actual site of their combined. The Federal Land Policy and Management sport. A few resent the concentration of birds Act of 1976 grants wilderness management authority to in the refuges and propose general hunting to BLM and call for an inventory, within 15 years, of drive the birdsout.Bird watchers and roadless areas 5,000 acres or larger and roadless islands and recommendations as to which units are suitable or 'Speech by Roger Contor, Superintendent of Rcxky Mountain National Park, to a unsuitable for wilderness classification Congress will National Wildlife Federation Winter Summit Group, Estes Park, Gilo. Summarized in Conservation News: CN4-15-75, p. 8-11. undoubtedly dassify significant amounts of BLM land

225 potentially suitable as wilderness (see chapters 5 and 6). has been a fiscal attitude in all wilderness agencies that In the interim the Agency is committed to managing wilderness management is low priority, being concerned such lands to preserve their wilderness character until with relatively low-density, inaccessible areas of minimal Congress acts. BLM had already established a primitive use; and that in times of scarce Federal money such areas system managed for wilderness purposes and has management can be postponed. developed a planning process to guide their manage- Moneyforwilderness-wildlifemanagementis ment (see chapter 8). These areas may ultimately particularly searce. For example, by its own admission become the first BLM-managed wildernesses after their the Forest Service has less than 1 percent of its current review under provisions of the new Act. budget directlyavailableforwildlife management The BLM is thus, by virtue of Congressional intent anywhere (MiGuire 1975). The lack of money literally and the resources it administers, assured of a major controls wilderness management for wildlife because wilderness management role. Reconciling wilderness- fiscal realities dictate possibilities. The current hope is wildilife problems will be a major part of this challenge that funding will improve for Forest Service manage- for an agency faced with its traditional emphasis on ment activity as provisions of the Forest and Rangeland commercial livestock grazing and a popular view of Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the public domain as a source of extractive resources such as National Forest Management Act of 1976 are imple- minerals and timber. In particular, BIM wilderness mented. managers may facedifficult conflicts arising from competition for forage by domestic livestock and Contradictory Legislation wilderness wildlife. All this is not meant as criticism of the wilderness The aims of the Wilderness Act are threatened by old managing agencies. It is merely to help explain the and new statutes passed by Congress. Laws favoring different influences inherited by each Agency that will be mining,endangeredspecies,water management, reflected in their wilderness management emphasis and nationaldefense,economicdevelopment,timber directions for wildlife. At this juncture, that there are production, energy exploitation, transportation, and divergent wilderness-wildlife management policies and general human welfare can conflict directly and indirectly practices may be all to the good. A practice possible to with wilderness management in general and wilderness initiate only under existing Forest Service traditions may wildlife in particular. prove adaptable in National Park Wilderness, while the For example, mining, legally allowed in National BLM may quietly borrow a technique from an adjacent Forest, BLM, and some National Park and Wildlife Wildlife Refuge. Conversely, a form of wilderness Refuge wilderness, could have a substantial impact on management tolerated by one agency on one area may wildernesswildlife.Unavoidable sedimentationin seem invidious to another and will not automatically be streams would affect fish, and the legally allowed means copied throughout the NWPS. The National Wilder- of access could harm wildlife. Such impacts can be ness Preservation System, like any ecosystem, can profit minimized only by the most careful administering of from this diversity. Wilderness-wildlife management legal mineral extraction within a wilderness manage- must make the best of the diversity inherent in multiple ment framework supported by strict environmental agencyresponsibilities,whileatthe same time standards. continuing to search for optimum homogeneity in Sheep and cattle, allowed by the Wilderness Act to wilderness-wildlife management standards. Hopefully, graze in some National Forest and potential BLM the general orientation expressed in the following wilderness, consume forage otherwise available for quotation can be established: wildlife, and this commodity use is also accompanied by When we designate a piece of land as pressures for predator control in the affected areas. wilderness we are saying in effect that this Water impoundments exist in some wildernesses and areaishands-off to human beings but can be established by Presidential order in othersan business as usual for you critters who make obvious local impact on the naturalness of fish and your homes here (Hammond 1974). wildlife distributions. But wilderness designation can automatically help some wildlife species. For example, Funding Constraints the red-cockaded woodpecker nests only in trees infected Wilderness management is not adequately funded to by redheart fungus diseasetrees that would be meet its goals of preserving naturainess and solitude in removed in any forest stand improvement operation the face of increasing demands for use. As a result, there (Trefethen 1975).

226 The National Wildlife Refuge Act and the Wilderness capacity of the core territory? How much total area Act suggest contradictory wildlife management empha- would have to be managed to provide viable range for a sis. Under the Wilderness Acts, managerial freedom to speciesfor example, grizzly or bison? What manage- manipulate vegetative cover to perpetuate, improve, or ment practices would be required? alter an area's value to species or associations of species is Suppose the objective is to save a remnant population hobbled legally and even more restricted politically. On of grizzlies in a proposed wilderness. According to the other hand, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Biologist Albert W. Erickson (1975), suppression of (PL93-205) directs agencies to make sure no actions are natural fires would have to stop, prescribed fires would taken that would "jeopardize the continued existence of have to be set, or both. Otherwise natural succession will such endangered species and threatened species which is overtake the pioneer and shrub stages the grizzlies determined by the Secretaiy... tobe critical," no matter usually prefer. Some roads in the periphery of the where they are, induding in wilderness. Conforming to wilderness would need to be dosed to restrict human this law may require management techniques (e.g., intrusion But here wilderness preservation and the vegetative manipulation, otherwise disallowed) for a husbandry of an endangered species can go hand in certain endangered species that would otherwise not be handif the area in question is big enough to sustain a in keeping with pristine wilderness. The Historic reproducing population of grizzlies, and if fire can be Preservation Act and related executive orders also lead introduced as a wilderness management measure. the agencies to engage in some activities that may be viewed by some as contrary to Wilderness System Interdepdenaes intentsuch as preserving or refurbishing historic Few wildernesses are large enough to be self- structures that would otherwise be removed or allowed regulatory ecological units; rather, most are ecological to deteriorate. If excessive recreation use is drawn to such islands subject to direct or indirect modification by attractions, this can increase wildlife harrassment in the activities and conditionsinthe surrounding area surrounding locality. (Leopold, AS. et al. 1969). As pointed out in chapter 7, no wilderness exists in a vacuum. It is alwayssurrounded Time and Space Factors by and/or abutts something that can markedly affect In the case of certain rare or endangered wildlife wilderness management for wildlife within the area. species particularly, time is not on the side of the One example is the elk situation in several western wilderness manager. The forces of a technological society areas. The elk's summer range can be wellwithin a are moving with such velocity that the manager cannot wilderness, but in the late fall the herd typically drifts opt to let the normal recovery processes of nature work down to winter range in valleys that are outside the their slow pace. Saving an endangered species may wilderness boundaries. Here the elk may be hunted recpiire actions otherwise incompatible with allowing under State regulations and/or fed artificially to the end natural processes full sway. For example, it is hardly a that, whatever the net result, natural processes are short case of letting nature take its course when you rob a drcuitecL wildlands whooping crane nest and bequeath the eggs to A National Elk Refuge was created in Jackson Hole in a sandhill crane in order to establish a new whooping 1913 to perpetuate an elk herd whose winter range was crane population with a different migrational pattern, largely exprupriated for cattle ranching. To hold elk on but the experiment is being conducted to try to help save the Refuge, a program of hay feeding was begun which the whooper from extinction One of the most difficult became a fixed ritual. The elk streamed down from the questions surrounding a species unable to compete and proposed wilderness in south Yellowstone and the thus facing imminent extinction is whether this is a Tetons and from adjacent National Forest wilderness to result of natural processes which, in wilderness, ought to gather on the feeding grounds where they spent all continue. winter without making any effort to find natural forage. The wilderness manager also has space problems. Our The daily arrival of the hay sled signaled the only activity; larger wilderness wildlife species require a lot of home namely, a jostling among the animals to be first in line as range, to which wilderness boundaries may not be the bales were dropped. Tourists rode among them on related. Certainly some of the "vest-pocket" wilderness sleighs. These elk lost their independence and fear of areas are too small to contain the home ranges of some mantheir wildness. species. Can adjacent habitat be managed in such a case Fortunately, in this instance corrective action has been so as to develop a natural fence that will contain and launched. A cooperative program is well underway protect the animal? If so, what then is the carrying among the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, 227 Figure 1 1-2--Some animals, such as elk and deer, migrate seasonally to high wilderness meadows for summer range but may winter in nonwilderness lowlands. These elk graze on summer range in the upper Madison River drainage on the Gallatin National Forest near Yellowstone National Park, Mont. the Forest Service, and the State of Wyomingto firing over the Game Range. The Border Patrol and the rehabilitate the Jackson Hole herd by breaking the hay Agricultural Research Service both require road access on habit Limited hunting on the Refuge is eliminating the occasion. And previously there was a program of coyote earliest arrivals and pushing the main herd back into the poisoning, ostensibly to protect the native bighorn hills where good winter forage is available. The aim isto (USD1 FWS nd.). The area wouldn't seem very wild to wean the herd totally from artificial foods, precluding the the conquistadors who named it, but it's some of the need for a feeding program using hay or food pellets. wildest left in the Southwest. And all such compromises Perhaps the most pervasive external influencesare with externalinfluencesarenecessaryto honor simply the kaleidoscopic activities of humanson the overriding legal commitments while retaining the periphery of wildernesses, none of them particularly possibility of wilderness classification, for this area at massive by themselves, yet all of them together often least. making a significant impact on wilderness ecosystems. Natural processes like windstorms, wildfire, outbreaks Sometimes these influences are in the form of estab- of disease, floods, insects, droughts, avalanches, and the lished rights and uses that predate an area's classification activities of predators are among nature's tools for and arethus continued under provisions of the creating and maintaining the mosaic of wilderness. Wilderness Act, or else they have already resulted in Wilderness wildlife species are particularly responsive to impacts. the changes that follow inexorably in the wake of nearby For example, although the Cabeza Prieta Game fire, plant disease, and predator controls. The absence of Range in Arizona is relatively free of human disturbance, fire eliminates those species that require early stages of a variety of impacts compromise its wilderness character, plant succession For example, fire prevention and con- but must be retained in the current proposal for trol in Glacier National Park since1910has resulted in a dassification of a wilderness within its boundaries. Water decrease in elk and deer numbers as forest replaces developments, necessary for the conservation of desert pioneer shrub. Whitetails have dedined in numbers bighorn sheep and Sonoran pronghorn antelope, include from an estimated2,205in1946to220 in 1957 wells with windmills and rock tank catchments. Military (McClelland1975). operations associated with the Williams Bombing and Wilderness may host insects and diseases intolerable Gunnery Range include air-to-air gunnery and missile to surrounding lands, and the control of pests and disease 228 in adjacent areas can disturb the naturalness of nearby 1971, Craighead et al. 1974, Gilbert 1976). In Alaskan wilderness. For example, DDT spraying to inhibit wilderness, the presence of the brown bear will deter spruce budworm in areas adjacent to what is now the many potential users. How toand even whether to proposed Yellowstone Wilderness produced widespread make wilderness safe for both native wildlife species and mortalityamong mountain whitefish,trout,and human visitorsisnot the least of the wilderness longnose suckers in the Yellowstone River (Cape 1969). manager's wildlife problems. The fish kills were merely the data that were measurable Cole (1974)reportsatleast partial success in and worthy of notice, but they may have reflected managementinvolvinggrizzliesand humans in damage to the ecosystem ultimately far more serious and Yellowstone National Park By eliminating unnatural widespread. foods such as garbage, regulating hiking and camping, Predator control not only suppresses predator species and eliminating individual rogue bears, hazards to but can lead to an eruption of their prey. Predator control backcountryvisitorshave been reducedwithout on public and private lands outside wilderness can push deterring either grizzly reproduction or all human the target animals into the preserved area as a protected satisfactions. It should be noted that not everyone is haven An obvious unnatural chain of events will follow. pleased with the results. The potentially undesirable impact of such a strategy on the grizzly population has People-Wildlife Conflicts been called into question (Craigheads and Varney 1974; As mentioned earlier, recreational use of wilderness Craigheads 1971). Moreover, one disappointed visitor has increased recently faster than most other kinds of exclaimed last year"...We drive 2,000 miles to this outdoor recreation Furthermore, wilderness visitation is Park and we haven't seen a single bear." But, bear unevenly distributed and usually concentrated along trails feedingeven though it might lure them out of the atparticularly popular locations(see chapter13). backcountry for the pleasurable viewing of peopleif Overuse in spots is an increasing problem in wilderness, carried out anywhere near wilderness can totally defeat a even in some areas where total use is not an issue. At goal of keeping wilderness wildlife wild. heavily used locations, conflicts occur between users Human pressure on wildlife can be subtle. In the case pursuing different activities, many of which involve of the mountain sheep, for example, Geist (1975) wildlife. reports that because knowledge of home range is passed For example, solitude and tranquility, the essence of on from generation to generation through the dominant wilderness for one visitor, may be degraded by the rifle rams and, if a sheep population is forced out of its range shot of another for whom wilderness quality is linked to and, especially, if the big rams are lost, the knowledge of a set of deer or elk horns. For the vicarious user who the home range will be lost and the sheep population never gets there, the thought of people doing anything at will be adversely affected. Even if people merely startle a all in wilderness may be objectionable and the prospect of wild animal repeatedly, such disturbance increases the overuse and unnatural impacts may be intolerable. cost of living to the animal by causing it to expend Fishermen at a high lake may resent the intrusion of additional energy, whichitthen must replace by hikers swimming or skipping stones along the shore. consuming more. In a rigorous northern environment, Human impacts on naturalness in wildlife can be highly where neither the animals nor the range can afford the visible. Where wilderness camps are habitually used by extra toll, the effects may be very harmftil indeed (Geist people, such species as chipmunks, jays, mice, and bears 1971a, 1971b). For example, in the Sangre de Cristo may likewise become habitual scroungers of food and Range in Colorado, human pressures have forced garbage. On the other hand the presence of people can mountain bighorns into lambing ranges at higher reduce opportunities to see wildlife Chester (1976) elevations, where extended bad weather can lead to an 80 reports that in the Gallatin Range of Yellowstone percent incidence of pneumonia in lambs and a steady National Park there is an inverse relationship between decline in the population of the herd (Woodward, intensity of human use and the frequency of wildlife Gutierrez, and Rutherford 1974). Likewise, human observation disturbance is suspected as a limiting factor for bighorns Whatever the form of wilderness use, it has the in the Sierra Nevadas (Dunaway 1976). potential not only to mar the wilderness experience but actually to degrade wildlife habitat and affect wildlife Hunting habits. In turn, wilderness wildlife can threaten human Hunting and fishing are more than a quest for game safety as indicated by the people-grizzly conflict in U.S. and provide sportsmen with a variety of satisfactions and Canadian National Parks (Herrero 1970, Craigheads (Hendee 1974). For hunting and fishing in the

229 wilderness, many of these satisfactions may be strongly near temporary yet lavish camps set up by outfitters to tied to an overall wilderness experience. Evoking cater to hunters with preferences for something more memories of his days as a wilderness wanderer, it was than true wilderness living conditions. perhaps inevitable that Andy Russell (1971) would link At its best, however, in wilderness where it is legal, rod, gun, and wildiands: hunting can offer a popular and healthy outdoor activity It was wild, free country laced together by under quality conditions, iitis carried out under crystal streams between the low, folded ridges regulations that protect wilderness from overuse and buttressing the feet of the mountainsall insure wilderness-dependent experiences. In the final basking under summer skies and glittering analysis wilderness hunting controls game populations cokily in the bitter winds of winter; it was a and can help keep game species from destroying habitat frontiera land of boots and saddles, guns for themselves and other species in the absence of and fishing rods, the smell of pines and grass, natural controlshealthy habitat being the key to and the dean, warm feel of the sun in healthy wildlife. Unquestionably, hunting pressure can everything. cause significant population declinesthe caribou in In terms of hunting today, the National Wilderness North America, for example (Bergerud 1974). On the Preservation System offers diversity. No hunting is other hand, in the Cache National Forest elk herd in allowed at all in any National Park Wildernessor in northern Utah, a heavy increase in hunting in 1968-71 some National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. (Of course in did not result in a population decline evidenced in many cases the same migratory wildlife that use such 1958-66 at lower hunting pressure. Obviously, factors wilderness part of the year are hunted when theymove other than hunting are at work to produce population outside the protected area.) Hunting is allowed, however, fluctuations in this herd (Kimball and Wolfe 1974). in National Forest and BLM wilderness and insome An attitude of many people, which seems to grow National Wildlife Refuge wildernessa controversial with urbanization,isan outspoken antipathy to practice to some people who fearits impact on huntinganywhere (Applegate 1973; Hendee and naturalness, but certainly not to the States whowere Potter 1976). This attitude regards nearly any killing of guaranteed the continuation of hunting on such lands wild creatures as destructive and inhumane (although under terms of the Wilderness Act, and not to themany there has been little objection to fishing on the same sportsmen and their organizations who supported the basis). On the other hand, the Allen Committee Report Act because of this very provision emphasized that biological facts have to be considered: One might argue whether sport hunting by humans is Inproductivepopulationsof'resident' consistent with the wilderness concept in general,or wildlife there are compensatory relationships even with the naturalness" required by the Wilderness between man-caused and natural mortality Act. However, for wilderness managers where hunting one is not added to the other. Thus, a game is allowed, such conjecture may be moot. On a positive crop can be taken under properly adjusted note, wilderness hunting is a traditional activity and may regulations, year after year, without diminish- offer one of the most ecologically pure experiences. Here ing the population Among migrant species, man, away from roads or comfort-and-convenience less is known of mortality relationships, and facilities, can experience himself as man the predator the job of regulation is more complex. While under the most natural conditions. A large contingent of errors may occur, means of avoiding them hunters and game managers feel that the finest quality steadily improve. Agencies administering hunting experiences are to be found in the opportunity hunting and fishingare comrnittedto to track and stalk game in wilderness without artificial protecting the resource. All will agree that the diversions such as roads, dearcuts, or cultivated crops, taking of wildlife should employ the least and to blend with the wildest setting possibleon a quiet wasteful and most humane methods availa- vigil during the hunt. For them, hunting is a wilderness- ble. Traditionally, hunting as a total expe- dependent activity. In fact, the popularity of some early rience involves environmental satisfactions: fall, highcountry deer seasons, such as in Washington room to roam, quiet, solitude. Hunting at its State, results in undue pressures in some wilderness best can cultivate an increasing outdoor locations for brief periods. For example, Buck Creek Pass sophistication in the individual. He impmves in the Glacier Peak Wilderness is no place to find solitude his knowledge and enjoyment of nature in all the first weekend in September when the early high hunt its aspects. He refines his sporting standards, begins. Nor are locations in several western wildernesses induding recognition that quality is poorly 230 measured by the size of the bag (Allen et al. deleterious to the survival of bighorn sheep, for example, 1973). it may well be producing strains of mallards and Canada geese better able to adjust to unnatural environments. Any buildup of shooters poses a particular threat to Second, we could assume that wildlife management large and conspicuous birds. Wanton gunnery needs lessons learned in man-modified environments are more serious attention by lawnmakers, enforcement directly applicable to wilderness, and we would again staffs, and the judiciary And hunting has a crucial probably be wrong. Wilderness is unique as a relatively biogenetic aspect. Attempts to preserve or restore large unaltered environment, and the potential irreversibility units of primitive ecosystems frequently must presup- of our management mistakes, no matter how well pose that important endemic components will be intentioned, is scarey. Except for a geographic fluke, for missing and that numerous exotics, both plant and instance, wildlife managers would have wiped out the animal, will be present. The vertebrates most commonly wood bison (Cowan 1966). absent and difficult, if not impossible, to provide for are the large carnivorescougar, grizzly, and wolf (Allen FWing 1966). We say, of course, that human hunters can Fishing in wilderness streams, particularly in high substitute for these natural predators. But do they? The wilderness lakes, is likewise a source of concern and wolf, for example, tends to cull calves and superannuated potentialcontroversy. Wildernessfisheriesare an females. Hunters try to select prime males. What this important issue for managers because most recreational means is not clear, but it is an important long-range use of roadless areas centers on lakes and streams, question to those concerned with true naturalness in particularly high lakes (Brown and Shomaker 1974). At wilderness. The genetic integrity of game species may be lakes in some heavily used areas, such as the Alpine in jeopardy where they exist under primary control by Lakes Wilderness in Washington, the physical impact of the gun and without biologically adequate attention from human use at high lakes has become obvious and natural enemies. Yet, without some form of cropping, managers have proposed manipulating thehigh lake ungulates particularly, can eat themselves out of house fisheries to decrease human use and impact. However, and home. studies of use at seven lakes in that region (Hendee et al. Is man, acting as a predator himself, applying a strong 1974) indicate that only about 40 percent of the visitors selective force to hunted species that may be bringing to the lakes actually fished, only 40 percent of the parties genetic changes in the survivors? (Leopold 1966.) If so, contained fishermen, anglers fished an average of less to what end? Does the bighorn hunter harvest only the then 2 hours per day, and 40 percent of them caught no slow-witted or does he take the sentinel ram who is the fish. An equally important finding non-fishermen spent custodian of the herd's traditions? We could be playing just as much time at the lakeshore as anglers. Other Russian roulette and not know it.Certainly, heavy studies (Kennedy and Brown 1974; Hoagland 1973; hunting unquestionably affects animal patterns and Carpenter and Bowhis 1976) and baseline data presented makes it less easy to study natural behavior. James Peek in chapter 13 confirm that, on the average, only about reports good evidence that hunting has influenced elk half the visitors to wilderness high lakes actually fish. movement patterns in wilderness situations.6 Geist has Obviously, any policy designed to relocate western observed that prolonged and extensive ungulate hunting wilderness visitors by manipulating the fisherythat is, will indeed alter the biology of the species affected (Geist attractingorrepellingvisitorsby regulating the 1971). A 4-year study in the Big Creek region of Idaho availability or opportunity to catch fishcan affect only showed that cougars harvested much higher percentages partoftheuse.At some locations,of course, of the elk and deer in poor condition than did human redistributing even part of the use may go a long way hunters. The old and the young, not the prime toward solving an over-use problem. In a unique specimens, were selected in the natural predation wilderness such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Weddle 1970). where fishing is a central attraction, fishing regulations We can make two major mistakes with respect to this could substantially help to lessen the impact stemming whole issue. First, we could assume that all species react from the large motorboats and much paraphernalia that similarly to hunting in all places, and we would probably are traditional in the portions of the BWCA open to be wrong. While hunting pressure may in fact be motorized boating (Lucas 1965).7

°Peek,James. March 1976. Personal correspondence. [Dr. Peek is associate professor of Merriam, Lawrence C March 22, 1976. Personal correspondence [Dr. Merriam is wildlife management at the University of Idaho.] Professor of Forestry at the University of Minnesota.]

231 Clearly, fishing on wilderness waters is an important fishing trendsthese human dimensions of fish and activity for many visitors. But fish management in wildlife programs suffer from a lack of rigorous study wilderness is controversial, particularly when it involves and basic data (Hendee and Schoenfeld 1973). nonindigenous species such as eastern brook trout, which have been widely introduced to western high lakes where fisheries are maintained through periodic aerial stocking. A Case Study in Wilderness Wildlife Artificial stocking of wilderness high lakes distorts the Management Appmaches naturalness of the affected aquatic ecosystem, and the use of aircraft for stocking can invade the solitude of affected In the real world, wilderness managers are forced to users. But aerial stocking is strongly supported by many deal with some of the problems and issues that have sportsman groups and by the American Fisheries Society been discussed. Some of their efforts are noteworthy. (1975) which declared its position in a recent resolution: Followingisadiscussion of wildernesswildlife Whereas,the US. ForestService has management directions for some wilderness-related interpreted the Wilderness Act, 1964, to species in western National Parks, by Roger Contor, at mean that aerial fish stocking of wilderness the time Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National area lakes, which were not stocked prior to Park and formerly Deputy Regional Director of the 1964,isan activityprohibited by the Midwest Region of the Park Service in Omaha. Before Act; now, therefore, be it resolved, that that, he was Superintendent of North Cascades National the American Fisheries Society urges the US. Park Mr. Contor's statement expresses a management Forest Service to modify its existing interpre- perspective on selected wilderness-wildlife problems tation of the Act and to permit the use of consistent with his training and experience as a front- aircraft as a means for fish stocking of lakes in line National Park administrator, but not necessarily national Wilderness areas. expressing National Park Service policy. Implicit in Mr. The National Park Service is under similarpressure Contor's comments is a view that the problems of (Wallis 1976). At its 1976 annual meeting in Louisville, wildlife in wilderness are interdependent with the larger Ky., the National Wildlife Federation deplored the setting in which the wilderness occurs. curtailing of artificial stocking of indigenous species and The age-old bear problem in the West is, called on the National Park Service to cooperate fully of course, not the wild bear but the bear that withStatefisheriesagencies"torestorefishing has lost his fear of humans through repeated opportunities for the benefit of the public."8 encounters with them, or through being introduced to human food left deliberately or Research Need unintentionally by humans. The problem What we don't know about wilderness wildlife would, bear does not get that way overnight. It as the saying goes, fill a book. In all too many cases the sometimes takes 2 or 3 years for a bear to wilderness wildlife manager must fly by the seat of his change from an alert, timid animal which is pants.Fishand wildliferesearchin generalis almost never seen by a human to one underfunded,particularlythose deep-digging basic aggressive enough to rip open camping gear studies that must undergirdallapplied research. or physically approach a human for a Nongame species are distinctly underrepresented in the handout. In many instances an alert manager literature of fish and wildlife ecology. Comprehensive can prevent this progressive education of basic research is needed to exam ne all the plant-animal bears by taking action to (1) eliminate relationships in total natural ecosystems. Likewise, disposal of garbage where bears can find it; studies that will test alternative management practices in (2) encourage campers to hang their camping keeping with Wilderness Act constraints. gear suspended to trees by ropes so that bears And since wilderness wildlife management is in large cannot reach it while they are away; (3) part people management, we need more behavioral physically reverse the familiarization trend by research to support the effort. Users and use trends, the use of chemical repeilants or electric nonconsumptive values, access opportunities, wildlife fencesaroundareasofattraction;(4) economics, political-legal issues, information-education, tranquilize or trap the animals and relocate them in distant areas as soon as they lose their

'F.olution adopted by the affiliated representativof the National Wildlife fear of humans; and (5) occasionally destroy Federation at their 40th Annual meeting March 1976, Louisville, Ky. an animal whose behavior is irreversible and

232 who has not only become a dangerous maintaining natural ecosystems with a major nuisance but may be influencing other bears element of that ecosystem missingan to become hazards. effective predatory influence. As a barometer of naturalness, the bear is As mentioned previously, grizzly bears are unexcelled. It is almost abnormal to see a bear not truly effective predators on an elk in the wild. Any time bears have become population even though they do take a familiar enough to permit themselves to be number of old, dying animals and a few of the seen frequently, the naturalness of the area newborn calves. Only in the Madison River has deteriorated. It is a thrill to most people drainage of Yellowstone does the grizzly merely to see a bear track in the moist soil of approach the role of an effective predator, the trail, or to see other evidence of his and in this case he maybe a predator on what presence. The rare experience of surprising a is basically an unnatural population Elk truly wild bear is a thrill which the wilderness probably did not confine themselves to the traveler can anticipate but may seldom deep snow country of the west side of realize. Yellowstone prior to being forced into this The rate of physical encounters with area by the activities of modern man. grizzly bearsin some of our northern But the elk is one of the superlatives of National Parks is growing much faster than native American wildlife and provides strong human use of the backcountry. The more satisfaction to those who are able to observe it such bear-human encounters take place, the under wilderness conditions. To optimize the more rapidly the bear loses its fear of man. use of wilderness by both elk and humans, The potential for that bear to actually attack a careful controls must be enforced to provide human is greatly increased. The dilemma to living space for elk populations. They need managers of parks having grizzly populations undisturbed areas to breed, rest, feed, bear is one which challenges the basic preservation theiryoung. A designated-sitetypeof and use concept of National Park manage- overnight wilderness use has proven effective ment. inRocky Mountain National Parkto All indications point to strong public minimize the stress of increasing human use support for the preservation of grizzlies in in wilderness. Elk populations apparently can the United States. In grizzly territory then, it tolerate human activity within their general is the public rather than the bears which must summer range areas if the human activities yield f we want to keep the grizzly. The most remain consistent. Elk are not disturbed by logical way toeliminate the increasing distant views of humans camped around a frequencies of bear-human encounters is to certain lake or meadow consistently each greatly restrict human use in known grizzly night of the summer. It is when the humans habitat. Fortunately, grizzly bears tend to deviate from their normal travel pattern and occupytheir home ranges under fairly wander into the elk living space that the elk consistent patterns, and it is not too difficult are disrupted. to determine the areas from which human It is incumbent that managers of National use must be restricted.Relatively large Park wilderness units continue to explore parties, guided by persons familiar with the possible ways of reintroducing wolves into elk bears'habits and locations, can permit habitat to reestablish a proper predator-prey people to observe the bears under safe relationship. The barriers to such reintroduc- conditions without actually producing en- tions are manifold, but it is hoped they will counters. Terrain and vegetative cover will not always prevail. In the meantime, man- confound this goal in areas such as Glacier agers of National Park wilderness are faced National Park However, in the open rolling with three alternatives for proper elk man- area of Yellowstone National Park it will be agement: (1) Control population growth by much easier. maintaining National Park boundaries that Another problem: Managers of National indude only summer elk range and by public Parks having significant elk populations are hunting.(2) Utilize"naturalregulation" universallyfaced with the problem of permitting vegetation conditions on elk

233 winter range inside National Parks to control Nationwide, bighorn populations have productivity and allow the population to exist been greatly reduced. Any additional stress in balance" with carrying capacity of the placed upon them by unwarranted human environment. This approath is now being disturbanceisunfortunate. Whether big- tested in a number of areas. There must be a horns can evolve resistance to the many complete ecosystem or it may have undesira- diseases and parasites which were brought ble effects upon other species which are into North America by Old World domestic diminished in numbers and vigor with the sheep remains a critical question. Whether productivity of the elk herd. (3) Periodically because of their rarity or other qualities, conduct live-trapping programs on the fall- bighorn appear to rank second only to grizzly winter range area to reduce the excess bearsin the preference scale of serious populations;however,areaswhere elk wildlife observers. Fortunately, itis quite surplus are welcome as transplants are possiblefor park managers to provide becoming fewer in number and ultimately opportunities to watch bighorn from an this may not be a viable alternative. undisturbing distance. In many cases, the In addition to channelling human use in sheep can be observed from the road or from wilderness areas so that elk populations are an adjacent mountain ridge, or from carefully disturbed as little as possible, other manage- guidedparties.Itistheuncontrolled ment measures are occasionally needed to photographer working at dose quarters who prevent undesirable disturbance of elk. In causesthe greatstressin the bighorn highvisitor-use,"wildernessthreshhold" populations and causes them to abandon sections of National Parks, it may become essential habitat areas. increasingly necessary to protect certain elk Bighorn overpopulation does not appear viewing areas from off-road travel by humans to be a problem now nor is it expected tobe during the breeding and calving periods. The for many decadesin thefuture. Most tendency of some photographers to pursue populations are lucky to hold their own Any elk relentlessly has caused many herds to surplus in a thrifty bighorn population should abandon meadow areas near roads and be utilized as a source for reintroduction of parking areas. Only by providing protection individuIs into former bighorn habitat. High from such stress can managers encourage the density populations appear to be particularly return of the elk to suitable habitats and susceptible to disease. Bighorns are also locations where they can be seen and enjoyed highly subject to space and food competition by the visiting public. from elk and other herbivorous wildlifeand Fortunately, the public has shown a great in some cases from domestic animals which willingness to honor such restrictions when graze the same range. In recent years, land adequate explanation for the purpose of the managers have become increasingly aware of action is given. It appears that the public is this critical need and significant steps have more willing to yield their right to wildlife been taken to improve conditions for wild benefits than most managers realize. sheep, particularly in or adjacent to the Inyo Along with mountain goats, bighorn National Forest in Gilifornia. sheep possess the distinction of being the Several State wildlife departments have most predictable of large wildlife. Once a made strides in increasing distribution of person learns their resting, bedding, feeding, bighorns through live trapping and reintro- and traveling areas, it becomes very easy to duction programs. These programs, plus find these animals on a thy-to-day basis even medicinal treatment to combat the effect of though their population may be low in a lungworm and other parasites and diseases, given area. This is both a blessing to persons have recently demonstrated that it is possible wishing to locate the animals for purposes of for man to help a bighorn population survive. observation and photography, and a torment National Park managers should be alert for to the animals which may thus have little any possibilities of cooperative efforts with privacy in their lives. State agencies in this endeavor.

234 In contrast to bighorn sheep, the mountain as criteria for choosing and evaluating management goat is a relatively healthy, thriving, problem- policies and actions. They are targets reflecting the free animal which provides great observation synthesis of legal requirements of the Wilderness Act potentialforparkvisitors.Becauseit and a wilderness-wildlife management philosophy. generally does not require separate summer and winter ranges it is being introduced by PROPOSED WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT various State wildlife departments to moun- OBJECFIVES FOR FISH AND WllI)LIFE tains previously not occupied by goats. This poses an immediate confrontation with any To seek natural distribution, numbers, and interactions of National Park in the vicinity, it being Park indigenous species of wildlife. Service policy to resist the invasion of exotic To allow natural precesses, as far as possible, to control species into a National Park area. National wilderness ecosystems and their wildlife. Park wilderness managers may find them- To keep wildlife wild, their behavior altered as little as selves faced with the task of live-trapping possible by human influence. mountain goats for removal. Mountain goats To permit viewing, hunting, and fishing where such may also provide additional stress on native activities are (1) biologically sound, (2) legal, and (3) bighorn populations through competition for carried out in the spirit of a wilderness experience. space and foodespecially where bighorn To favor the preservation of rare, threatened, and winter at high elevations. National Parks endangered species dependent on wilderness conditions facing the possible invasion of mountain whenever appropriate. goats at the moment are Yellowstone and To seek the least possible degradation of the qualities that Rocky Mountain. Some National Forests make for wildernessnaturalness, solitude, and absence of permanent visible evidence of human activitywithin share the same problem. the constraints of all overriding legislation applicable to wildlife in a particular wilderness.

Wilderness Management Objectives for Fish and Wildlife Wilderness Wildlaffe Management So far in this chapter we have (1) Defined wilderness Guidelines wildlife; (2) identified and advocated the importance of To achieve these proposed objectives, we recommend wildlife values and relationshipsto the National a number of management directions, guidelines, and Wilderness Preservation System; (3) discussed some policies. In some cases the proposed direction applies to related management problems; and (4) illustrated these wildlife the wilderness management principles set forth topics with a manager's views on wilderness-wildlife in chapter 7. In other cases, it extends to wilderness many management for some major species common to oftheprinciplesrecommended inthe Leopold National Park wilderness in the Rocky Mountains. Committee Report on wildlife management to the In this concluding section our purpose is to (5) Secretary of Interior (Leopold, et al. 1969), and the Allen recommend objectives for wildlife in the National Committee Report on North American Wildlife Policy WildernessPreservation System, and (6)suggest (Allen et al. 1973). guidelines for the wilderness-wildlife managementwe The followingguidelinessuggest management see as necessary to meet those objectives. A basic theme direction, but they shouldn't displace the overriding of this book is that wilderness management must be theme that a wilderness philosophy or ethic, based on an goal-oriented and that dear management objectives for appreciation of all affected values, is an acid test for all all aspects of wildernessinduding fish and wildlife proposed wilderness-wildlife management actions. A must be spelled outin area plansto guideall basic wilderness management framework is that only management actions (see chapter 8). necessary actions to achieve established wilderness Although details of wilderness management for objectives are justified and they must employ the wildlife will vary according to location and agency, we minimum methods and techniques required (Church think the following broad objectives are applicable to the 1977). entire wilderness system regardless of agency jurisdic- 1. Respect overriding legislation. A fundamental tion. These objectives are statements of conditions requiremeht of wilderness management for wildlife is to sought with respect to wildlife in wilderness; they serve recognize the different legal requirements that may 235 apply in cLissified wilderness under the jurisdiction of ment for wildlife must be tailored to the unavoidable different agencies. The Wilderness Act states in Section constraints placed by laws on the administrative Agency 4(a) concerned, while embracing the broad principles of the The purposes of this Act are hereby declared Wilderness Act.Itis extremely important that a to be within and supplemental to the statesmanlikecommunicationprevail among the purposes for which national forests and units wilderness managing agencies, State fish and wildlife of the national park and national wildlife agencies, and wildlife conservation groups, so that refuge systems are established and adminis- everybody concerned can at least acknowledge where tered. they disagree on wilderness-wildlife management issues, Section 4(b): interpretations of the law, and advisable policy. This is a Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each major, current challenge, particularly critical as it relates agency administering any area designated as to different purposes, philosophies, and perspectives of wilderness shall be responsible for preserving State Fish and Game departments as compared to those the wilderness character of the area and shall of the Federal Wilderness management Agencies. so administer such area for such other 2. Allow natural processes to shape wilderness habitat. purposes for whichit may have been A fundamental concept is that classified wilderness is a established as also to preserve its wilderness place where naturerollsthedice, and resulting character. (emphasis ours) naturalness, whatever its characteristics, is wildemess. The only direct reference to wildlife in the Act states that Artificial habitat manipulations that are desirable for fish Nothing in this Act shall be construed as and wildlife management on nonwilderness lands and affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of waters are not consistent with either the Wilderness Act the several states with respect to wildlife and or the wilderness ethic that should guide its implementa- fish in the national forests. tion. When there are legal exceptions to the natural The most obvious example of overriding legal process criterion, the most natural practices and tools requirements are those that permit hunting in National should be used in a manner exerting the minimum Forest, BLM, and some National Wildlife Refuge impact on wilderness naturalness and solitude. wildernesses. However, because of overriding legislation Wilderness means natural. Where there is vegetation, prohibiting hunting in the National Parks, it is not it should reflect natural conditions. The distribution, allowed as a general rule in National Park wildemesses. abundance, and diversity of plant cover should be In certain situations, hunting has been temporarily substantially unaltered by man and his influence. Lakes allowed in particular National Parks to control excessive and streams should reflect undisturbed watersheds and populations which were threatening their own habitat channels. Animal life should approach natural numbers and that of other animals. and species. Where harvest is permitted, it should be well Within some units of the National Wildlife Refuge within biologicallimits.Wilderness managers are System, both dassified and proposed as Wilderness, guardians, not gardeners, and their task is to assure the superseding legal rights also override specific wilderness conditions that permit natural processes to operate purposes. Becausetheserefugeswerespecifically freely. Where it is clear that these processes for one established to preserve habitat for particular wildlife reason or another have been compromised, the manager species, management activities usually disallowed in may have to mimic or simulate natural processes, but wilderness may be necessary to protect some species and only as briefly and naturally as possible. For example, to habitat. In the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in southern eliminate exotic species or introduce fire where it has Arizona, specific and prior rights granted for other been unnaturallysuppressed. The often-expressed purposes (such as the Border Patrol and Williams concept that wilderness should be a°vignette of Gunnery Range) must be honored for wilderness prin-itive America' should not suggest a static picture of dassification to be considered. Similarly, fish stocking in a pre-European settlement landscape, maintained in National Forest wilderness lakes has been carried out by suspended animation by whatever techniques are State wildlife agencies pursuing their legal right to needed. Wilderness, rather, should be the place where a manage the fishery resource. vignette of natural but dynamic forces characteristic of Overriding legal requirements impinge on wildlife early America operate as freely as possible. Ecological more than on any other aspect of wilderness. These legal change will be inevitable and constant, its velocity requirements must be respected and this will require dependent on the ecosystem involved. Necessarily, there some compromises in naturalness. Wilderness manage- will be times in its succession when a wilderness will not

236 be a particularly good habitat for some wildlife species dispersing into new or restored habitat (Geist 1971). nor particularly appealing to visitors. Although he hasn't actually triedit, Geist believes One National Park manager described a naturalness mountain sheep could be encouraged to use salt licks that strategy to us as follows:9 are progressively moved into new territory, thereby The National Park Service is now in the establishing migratory routes which would be followed business ofreserving' natural processes (in by succeeding generations (Geist 1971). Parks as well as in their wilderness). We The natural processes criterion certainly precludes should intervene only to the extent necessary artificial control of predatory animals, insects, or plant to counteract the unavoidable effects of past diseasesunless they threaten resources outside the mistakes, the impacts of currendy accepted wilderness. Where and when insect or disease blights human use, beyond those that primitive man strike,they should simply run their course as a might have exerted, and the impacts of contribution to a constantly changing natural ecosystem. influences originating outside the parks. Most Where predators are present, they are permitted to of our management must be of people, and of follow their natural instincts. Where the predators are their effects on park ecosystems. present in insufficient numbers, however, prey popula- The committee on North American Wildlife Policy tions may erupt to where they threaten unnaturally the (Allen et al. 1973) pointed out that by encouraging continued existence of a natural environment. In such a natural processes, case, predatory species must be imported, their prey It will often be possible even to restore a cropped, or both. We must recognize, however, that not 'damaged' wilderness to a high standard. only are predators difficult to reestablish, but loss of the Native animals that have disappeared may be predator influenceis only one disruption of game reintroduced. The effects of minor grazing or ecosystems; disruption of natural migratory patterns and forest cutting will be erased, over time, by population distributions may be more disturbing to the plant succession.Fire and other natural system (Craighead et al. 1973). disturbances can initiate new cydes of plant and animal life,as they did before the It isn't always easy to decide what is natural. Consider a coming of modern man. The capacity of life hypothetical wilderness in Maine, noted for its moose. It communities toregenerate enlarges the is likely that logging long ago helped to create the possibilities for 'natural' wilderness. lingeringhigh-qualitynaturalmoosehabitatby Consider the example of the Boundary Waters Canoe providing those stages in plant succession preferred by Area. In 1948 about 14 percent of this area was privately large ungulates. It is ironic that this natural habitat (and owned, and about 45 resorts plus some 100 individual the habitat-dependent moose) would be eliminated cabins were located in what was to be designated in 1964 with the cessation of logging in order to satisfy one of the as wilderness (Lucas 1972). Only a few private properties conditions of naturalness prescribed by the Wilderness now remain and the canoeist paddling Basswood Lake Act. The moose could probably be saved by introducing today cannot now discern the shores where the Peterson prescribed (unnatural) fires, in lieu of logging, to create Lodge entertained 50 guests at a time in 1955. But the seral plant communities (Peek et al. 1976). loons know things have changed; they have returned to Although our knowledge of natural processes is Hoist Bay. So, to some extent at least, you can turn back inadequate, we do know there is a vital connection the dock! between diversity and numbers of wildlife and habitat However, it will not always be so easy to restore mix in wilderness. And we recognize that fire has been wildlife species to wilderness. Habitat regeneration is the great renewer of forest areas, the creator of variety of very slow in alpine or desert regions and buildup of cover type on a large scale. On a smaller scale, diversity of depleted populations can take many years. Studies habitat has been instigated by insect, disease, windtbrow, indicate, for example, that the social structure of cougars and stagnation (Cowan 1966). Where fire has been is such that pioneering into new habitat is slow if suppressed from its natural role, diversity and numbers minimum populations are not present nearby (Seiden- of wildlife are retarded. To achieve the goal of natural sticker et al. 1973). Likewise, for hereditary reasons, the distributions and numbers of native wildlife in wilder- North American mountain sheep appear incapable of ness, fire must be allowed play a more prevalent and thus a more natural role in wilderness ecosystems. In some

9Evison, JloycL 1976 Personal wrrespondence [Mr Evison isSuperintendenc,Great cases, prescribed fire must be artifically introduced to Smoky Mountains National Park] make up for past fire prevention and control.

237 Figure 11-3.In some National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness, legislation establishing the Refuge or Game Range and superceding Wilderness designation within it, may call for management measures to insure the survival of particular species.Upperleft: a tharcos rock tank catchment in the proposed Cebeza Prieta Game Range Wilderness, Ariz., helps insure the survival of Desert Bighorn;lowerleft, a 'guzzler"; andlower right, a water flue in the Desert National Wildlife Range, Nev. provides vital water for wildlife.

And, again, we must not be too quick to define natural. problem of risking a wilderness burn or insect blight that An Adirondack forest, by virtue of natural plant might move out to commercial forest. succession may have recovered from logging a hundred 3.Use minimum impact tools where natural years ago, and in some ways be more natural today than a processes must be supplemented or simulated. Because it Rocky Mountain forest never logged but held for the past is surrounded by nonwilderness regions, wilderness is 75 years in suspended plant succession by efficient fire subjected to less natural processes than if the whole prevention and control programs. Because wilderness continent werestillwilderness. For example, the fire may be the most effective and appropriate habitat wilderness thatwould naturally be wnsed by a management tool, fire management and wilderness- holocaust maybeinsulatedby afire-suppression wildlife management must go hand in hand. program in asurrounding National Forest. The As a practical matter, of course, because of the impact wilderness ecosystem that would ordinarily enjoy of technology, natural chance may have insufficient time balanced predator-prey relations is distorted by game- and opportunity to influence the character of wilderness, protection policies in a surrounding National Park or by particularly in the East where areas typicilly are small predator-control practices on an adjoining Bureau of and scatterecL Fire and insect control actions can be Land Management area. To minimize these influences, expected on surrounding lands to protect economic humans must sometimes interfere to simulate or values there, and few wilderness administrators may supplement retarded influences even though some voluntarilyshoulder the resultingpublic relations naturalness will be lost.

238 Wilderness managers may at times have to mimic problems may make the program counterproductive.10 naturalprocesses suchasby prescribed burning, Furthermore,(Cowen1966)pointsoutthatin substituting human hunters for natural predators,or reintroductions too little attention undoubtedly has been even, in very special cases, employing hand tools to paid to the possibility of transporting disease organisms disturb vegetation as a substitute for such natural features to the host (Cowan 1966). if indeed some subspecies or asthe bison-built prairie wallows thatwere 'the strains of animals are delicately attuned to life in specific propagation sites of a host of native flowers and forbs local environments, one may question the utility of that fed antelope and prairie chicken" (Leopold, A. S.et trapping and shifting these populations in an effort to al.1969). Otherwise, the wildernessmanager may restock underpopulated ranges (Leopold 1966). In short, merely preside over unnatural monotypes. wilderness is no place to experiment without the most Whatever management tool or practice is deemed judicious caution. essential, it must represent the minimum departure The opposite problem, that of exotics invading from the natural process for which itsubstitutes. wilderness, is a knotty one, particularly in the case of such Department of Interior policy is very clear in this regard, vigorous species as starling, tamarisk, Eastern brook setting forth "the minimum tool rule." trout in Western lakes and streams, and Japanese The (Wilderness) manager shoulduse the honeysuckle. The problem is critical when the invading minimum device necessary to successfully, species displaced an indigenous but endangered one. For safely, and economically accomplish the example, the greenback trout in Rocky Mountain National Park was forced out in part by the introduction objective.Economicfactorsshouldbe considered the least important of the three of the aggressive Eastern brook trout." criteria. The chosen tool or equipment should For some plant and animal species, there is probably be the one that least degrades wilderness no satisfactory way of getting rid of them once they are values temporarily or permanently (Reed established. The elimination procedures would be worse 1972). than their presence in terms of the wilderness outlook From another perspective, at some point they may be That Forest Service policy calls for only minimum, considered virtually indigenous. necessary actions has also been recently darified (Weaver 4. Favor Wilderness-Dependent Endangered Species. and Cutler 1977). It is in attempting to comply with the Endangered What constitutes the minimum tool will, ofcourse, Species Act that the wilderness manager may come vary with the situation and the terrain. For example, in a dosest to subverting natural processes. For example, to program to rescue rare bighorn sheep by providing a restore a breeding population of eagles to a wilderness dependable water supply, the choice may be betweena may require installing artificial rest platforms. (But if the windmill and a rock catchment. Nor does management platforms are constructed of rough-hewn lumber and need to be extensive to be effective. Criticalareas which not of aluminum, the eagles will rapidly take care of may determine bird or animal numbers are often a small camouflaging them.) Given the small amount of habitat fraction of total range (Leopold, A.S.et al. 1969). left for certain wilderness-dependent species, is it wise to Restoring once-indigenous species by transplanting is let natural processes further jeopardize a threatened or a controversial wilderness management option since it endangered species? And if not, what intrusions on the can affect the whole wilderness vegetation-ungulate- wilderness are acceptable in trying to preserve them? In carnivore complex. Allen (1966) recommends that resolving such conflicts, wilderness managers should "available ranges should not be left unstocked if thereare begin by respecting applicable overriding legislation, breeders to spare" and he cites successful transplants of which may require efforts to save such species, but do trumpeter swans, pronghorns, sage grouse, turkey, and only what is necessary and follow the minimum tool rule, bighorn sheep. On the other hand,some wood bison in as called for earlier. But this is hardly adequate help. Canada have been rendered genetically impure by the For example, in the original Gila Wilderness, the rare introduction of plains bison (Allen 1966). One wildlife native Gila trout has survived only because dams outside biologist reviewer of this chapter suggested that bighorn the wilderness or natural stream barriers inside have sheep captured in British Columbia or other loccitions prevented competing species or interbreeding trout should not be reintroduced into vacant ranges in the °Dunaway, David J.1976. Personal correspondence. [Mr. Dunaway i5 wildlife Sierra Nevod until we know more about the various biologist in the Forest Service Regional Office, San Francisco.] subspecies. Otherwise forage, disease,. and predation °Contor, Roger (see footnote 5).

239 from contaminating the Gila's habitat.'2 Question: In a black bear population In such cases there is no substitute species-contaminated stream in the Gila, do you for overt enforcement. construct stream barriers and poison existing introduced 6. Encourage angling styles that are part of and fish populations in order to restock Gila trout and thus compatible with wilderness experiences. Fishing is a husband an endangered species? And if you do opt for traditional recreation activity in most wildernesses, and this much manipulation as being necessary, as a its status, under the direction of State fish and wildlife minimum tool do you blast a cliff into the streambed to agencies, is reaffirmed by the Wilderness Act. Fishing, form a natural-appearing barrier that can fool visitors, or like hunting, can achieve its finest quality in wilderness, do you make the barrier out of rock masonry that is can be a scarce wilderness-dependent experience, and can dearly identifiable as unnatural? Clearly, there are be a means by which many recreationists realize esthetic overtones to such decisions. Sensitivity and case- wilderness values. Wilderness is a place where one can by-case judgment are needed. indulge in the primitive myth that one can live off the Where necessary, "special protection can be given to land. Catching a few fish and eating them in camp with diminishing species by designating areas where entry is family or friends contribute to the overall quality of many exduded; coastal sea mammals and birds are in obvious a wilderness experience, and is a goal of many users. Our need of more inviolate areas that include their feeding view is that fishing, if carried out in a manner consistent and breeding grounds" (Allen et al. 1973). On the with wilderness values, is a very acceptable wilderness California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Area in the Inyo activity. National Forest, Calif., there is no entrance or passage Managers should enconarge the use of techniques and without permission, no discharge of firearms, and no equipment that do not degrade the environmentfor grazing of any kindall in the interests of preventing example, the use of artificial lures that simulate naturally stress on an endangered species during such critical occurring foods. (The use of natural bait itself causes too periods in its life cyde as breeding, lambing, and winter much worm-digging, rock turning over, and log and foraging. stump destruction.) Fishing regulations for wilderness should encourage a focus on the overall wilderness 5. Manage for indigenous species kept wild. Certainly experience as opposed to fishing just to catch as many wilderness-wildlife management should be limited to fish as possible. At certain locations, regulations might native plants and animals. In classified wilderness, for indude catch-and-releaserequirements, the use of example, Gambel quail in a desert wash should be barbless hooks, or perhaps a requirement that all fish observed in the shade of mesquite, not tamarisk. A taken must be cooked and eaten at the site. Naturalness visitor to proposed wilderness in the crater of Haleakala of the experience, not the bulging creel, should be National Park ought to see mamane trees and silver emphasized. swords, not feral goats (domestic but gone wild). Artificial stocking of certain high lakes in many Carrying the point further, artificiality in any form must western states was initiated years ago to transport to be minimized: Wildlife should be native and wild. Forage suitable waters the species barred from entering by relationships in wild animals should be natural. No natural barriers. Some of these lakes are now classified artificialfeeding practices are fitting in designated wilderness and their stocking and the methods used wilderness, and their, tolerance in adjacent areas must continue as established uses under the Wilderness Act. take into account the possible impact of subsidized Yet today, the practice of artificial stocking, and the species on wilderness naturalness, e.g., winter-fed elk methods used, are among the most controversial that will migrate in the summer to wilderness. wilderness management issues. There is no question that Sometimes, of course, although he wishes it were artificialstocking compromises the naturalness of otherwise, the manager of wilderness-type terrain is wilderness, particularly the specific aquatic ecosystems stuck with trying to manage an introduced species. For that are affected. example, a big wildlife problem for the Superintendent At a minimum, we believe management of each of Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the individual wilderness should strive to retain most of its immigrant wild pig. On National Forests in the same waters the way nature willed them, whether as naturally region a significant wildlife management problem is the barren waters or with naturally reproducing fisheries, human poacher and his dogs, who together threaten the without artificial stocking. Artificially-stocked fisheries would seem tolerable in classified wilderness only where the practice is clearly established and political realities '2Kn, John, 1976. Personal correspondence. [Mr. Koen is director of recreation, Southwest region, US. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Albuquerque] dictateitscontinuance. Any artificialstocking of

240 wilderness lakes must be based on comprehensive more natural lakes or drainages less able to withstand planning that takes account of overall wilderness use and human impact. But such decoy tactics might best be the capability of individual lakes to sustain human emphasized in recreation areas adjacent to dassified impact. Where stocking is allowed, naturalness goals wilderness. The long-range policy question is whether dictate that only indigenous species and established, low- any artificial stocking in designated wilderness is too impact methods should be used. We feel that aerial harsh a compromise with naturalness. stocking of high lakes could be restricted to locations We are recommending a restrictive posture on any where it has become dearly established and where it is further expansion of artificial fish stocking in wilderness. carried out in a manner to minimize its impact on This topic is controversial; so is our recommendation. wilderness qualities and the experiences of visitors. An opposing view was expressed to us by Richard Alternate methods for stocking fish should be explored Stroud. Executive Vice President of the Sport Fishing during the negotiation of a politically feasible solution to Institute:14 the fish stocking issue by wilderness managers, users, and as the mountain lacking the grizzly State fish and game managers. becomes just a pile of rocks, so, too, a high Fishery-management objectives can often be met in elevation lake without fish life becomes just a wilderness without the intensive management practices big puddle. Perhaps in no other aquatic and stocking that are applicable elsewhere. Qnality ecosystemowing to extreme water clarity fishing can indeed be provided by natural means in many and sharpened human perceptionis the locations: Witness the situation in Yellowstone National visual impact of fish life as important as in Park, where naturally productive fisheries are main- high mountain lakes. The naturalness of the tained through the use of carefully controlled daily and aquatic ecosystem is only an illusion, lacking possession catch limits as well as through restrictions on representativenessofalltrophiclevels. bait, lures, and size limits. Introduction of fish life corrects an error of The presence of fish in wilderness waters must be natureovercomes an unnaturalness, if you related first to its natural role in the ecosystem. will...I strongly disagree with the "let When we manage a fishery for maximum nature roll the dice" philosophy. Strictly sustained yield to fishermen, we may be followed, it would predude introduction of depriving certain wild animals the level of any fish into any barren lakes. .. Ido not food supply that is naturaL A Wilderness lake believe that discriminate stocking of selected may be an unusually productive lake for fish, fishlesswaters compromises Wilderness but it may have to be that way to support the values. On the contrary, I contend the results osprey and eagle pairs that nest along its enhance these values...I cannot support a shores, or the bears that feed on fish runs in leave-it-aloneorientationinWilderness feeder streams. If we don't leave nature as fisheries management. It implies a negative, much alone as possible in Wilderness, it do-nothing management philosophy that is won't be done anywhere else.13 based on questionable and arbitrary notions Itisimperative that wilderness managers and of naturalness that are altogether too sim- interested publics fully participate with State fisheries plistic...I urge, rather, the current position managers in developing wilderness fisheries manage- of our Board of Directors of the Sport Fishing ment programs. The planning and management of Institute. "To permit state fish conservation wilderness fisheries should include the development of a agencies to carry out desirable fish stocking of full range of alternative fishing opportunities outside of remote waters by aerial means which, when the wilderness to relieve pressures and allow a focus in completed, leaves the visible environment wilderness on forms of fishing that are dependent on the unaffected and which is necessary if quality wilderness setting. The most defensible rationale for the fishing experiences are to be readily available manipulation of fish populations in some high lakes may for optimum use and enjoyment by the public be the usefulness of the practice as a diversionary in Wilderness Areas." management tool. Managers might continue to stock a This view, backed by a strong political constituency of previously stocked lake to divert fishermen from other sportsmen, suggests thatartificialfish stocking in wilderness will be carried on to some degree for many

'Alien, Durward 1976 Personai corrpondeae. [Dr Alien i pnifessor of Wildlife Ecology at Purdue University] Strord, Richard 1976 Personal correspondeixe.

241 years. This makes it all the more important that fish rather than prime male breeders with trophy horns stocking programs be a part ofand.not apart from (Morgan 1973). overall wilderness management plans so an optimum Plinking can be especially damaging in wilderness balance can be struck between that practice and all the where there may be few witnesses to dissuade an armed affected wilderness values. visitor from yielding to the temptation of a live target, 7. Favor hunting methods and conventions that such as whistling marmots in a timberline boulder field. foster wilderness-dependent experiences. It is essential Where such actions occur, and where other visitors have that wilderness hunting be scientifically managed to been disturbed by nonhunting gunfire, managers may insure that the natural ecosystem is not impaired. It want to consider limiting guns in wilderness except should be just intensive and selective enough (with during hunting season Plinking is definitely not a regard to age and sex) to protect the natural behavior and wilderness-dependent activity. It causes noise pollution dynamics of game population We agree with Fox and and anxiety to wilderness animals and users alike, and Fox (1976) that harvest should mimic as closely as can inflame antihunting sentiment by nonhuntervisitors possible the pattern of kill by natural predators; that who categorize any gun toter as a hunter. there should be no hunting of predators near the top of However, one of our reviewers provided an articulate the food chain, such as wolves and grizzlies, and that counterargument to restricting guns: hunting should not be permitted where either a lack of Prohibition of guns is going to be controver- knowledge or lack of regulatory staff makes it uncertain siaL Firearms can be useful for signaling, that hunting can maintain a healthy ecosystem and its protecting against the occasional rattlesnake associated wildlife. that threatens a child, or warding off a grizzly. Evidencesupportsthe need forcareful game Many visitors choose to carry a firearm management in wilderness to preserve naturalness. simply because it enhances the wilderness Protecting against unwanted influences of hunting and experience. Education and information on other human disturbance is especially critical for sensitive appropriate use is probably a more useful or endangered species. To protect the genetic spark of approach than prohibition" the bighorn sheep, perhaps hunting regulations should Where it is allowed in wilderness, hunting must be of encourage the taking of females and yearling males, such a quality that it does not degrade the wilderness resource or the experience of other users. It should permit satisfactions thatalthough linked to hunting depend on wilderness for their realization (Hendee 1974). Wilderness-quality hunting may mean different things to different people, but let's say itisthe opportunity to pursue the recreation under biologically sound and ethical rules, in a manner pleasing to oneself and one's fellow hunters, acceptable to most nonhunters, and in keeping with wilderness criteria of naturalness, solitude, and contrast with civilization. It is not realistic to expect that all wilderness hunters would voluntarily restrict themselves to muzzle loaders or bow and arrows. But conforming to a wilderness ethic implies restrictions on extravagant base camps or walkie-talkies that crackle messages from canyon to canyon Wilderness is the one place the hunter can confront game on its terms, and this opportunity should be encouraged for those who can appreciate the unique values of such an experience. 8. Promote wilderness-wildlife research using ap- propriate methods. The need for management, the feasibility of management methods, and evaluation of results must be based upon continuing scientific research. Figure 11-4.Wilderness wildlife guidelines proposed in this book emphasize hunting and fishing as important wilderness recreation activities where it is (a) biologically sound, (b) legal, and (c) carried 'Peek,James Maich 1976 Per xnderke [Dr Peek is asseeiatepiofmor out in the spirit of a wilderness experience. of Wildlife, Universisy of Idaho]

242 There is a need for applied research in all phases of communications by wilderness managers, and modern wilderness-wildlife and fisheries management. This cameras, canoes, and camping gear on the part of challenge calls for a concerted endeavor by scientists in visitors, why should the wildlife researchers have to the Federal Agencies, the States, and universities. "Active revert to outmoded techniques, so long as he leaves no management aimed at preservation of natural commu- lasting imprint on either the landscape or the wildife nities of plants and animals demands skills and know!- resource."6 edge not now in existence. A greatly expanded research We have only begun to investigate the relationships program, oriented to management needs, must be and the natural mechanisms that work within our developed" (Leopold, A. S. et al. 1969). Early in this natural ecosystems. Many wildlife research opportunities chapter we called for inventory of wildlife species and are essentially wilderness-dependent; they require vast, their habitatasa firststep to guide wilderness natural areas that may ultimately exist only in wilderness. management for wildlife. While inventory is related to It would be foolhardy to deny competent scientists the research we are calling here for more rigorous analysis, opportunity to learn from those processes that have evaluation, and study to determine probable consequen- developed through millions of years and which have ces in the welfare and behavior of wilderness wildlife in proved their durability by survivaL response to alternately changing conditionsnatural or due to man's inadvertent or deliberate influence. Another important topic for research is wildlife- Conclusions related human behavior. As the North American Policy Committee states (Allen et al. 1973): We recommend the foregoing guidelines as necessary Our most neglected and crucial research to achieve the proposed wilderness-wildlife manage- needs are those concerning human social ment objectives. We emphasize, however, that these behavior. The biologist alone, the social guidelines are intended to supplement, and not substitute scientist alone, the economist alone cannot for, wilderness-management principles suggested in deal with these questions. Their combined chapter 7 and elsewhere in the book. effort is required, and it must do great things. It seems unrealistic to seek one monolithic wilderness- wildlife management pattern; wilderness management Thus, the need for wildlife-related wilderness research is needs to be tailored to the unavoidable constraints on the based on both ecological and human behavior issues the latter as it relates to environmental and social administrative Agency concerned and focused on needs of individual areas, while yet embracing the broad impacts and wildlife-related wilderness experiences. principles in the Wilderness Act. For this reason, In using wilderness as a wildlife research laboratory, sensitive and preceptive wilderness-wildlife manage- however, the scientist is under thesame constraints as ment is essential on the part of all assigned agencies. We everybody else not to degrade its naturalness or solitude. are encouraged by the recent development of "Policies While some instrumentation in support of basic and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in ecologicalresearch may benecessarytorecord Wilderness and Primitive Areas," by the Land Resources accuratelythescientific parameters of wilderness, Committee of the International Association of Fish and physical structures are not in keeping with wilderness Wildlife Administrators(1976).'7 These guidelines criteria, nor are such techniques as painting big markings represent the type of down-to-earth suggestions that are on live trapped animals for later observation from an needed by Forest Service and BLM land managers as well obtrusive helicopter. Even investigations of wilderness as by State fish and wildlife personnel In broad terms the users must be discrete and sensitive to the values that are JAFWA direction is compatible with the strategies affected by the research processnotwithstanding the outlined in this chapter. The IAFWA policies and long range contribution of such studies. guidelinesespouse a minimum-tool approachto We must recognize, however, that radiotelemetry and management, emphasize the need for area-specific plans aircraft, used with discretion, are invaluable means, to adapt the broad guidelines to local situations, and sometimes the only means, of obtaining data on the suggest a focus on indigenous species and on the need to natural distributions and behavior patterns of large wilderness species. These resources merit and deserve '6PJames. March 1976. Personal corresçxandence. [Dr. Peek is associate professor the understanding that can only be gained through al Wildlife at the University of Idaho.] judicious programs of marking and observation. One '7lnternational Association or Fish and Wildlife Administrators. 1976. Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in Wilderness and Primitive Areas. reviewer of this chapter wrote to us: 'if we allow radio Washington, D.C. 23 p. mimeo.

243 fit all practices to the wilderness environment. While not The case for a comprehensiveas opposed to as comprehensive nor as restrictive as could be desired, functionalapproach does not downgrade wilderness the IAFWA statement is a significant step forward. In management for wildlife; indeed we believe that wildlife our opinion, its single most important lack is the should receive much stronger consideration in wilder- expression of a clear wilderness philosophy or ethic to ness planning and management. We are merely guide its application. Federal wilderness area supervisors emphasizingthatonly by managing wildlifein may have to assume a 'policeman posture" over wilderness, not in and of itself, but as an ingredient of the wilderness quality when negotiating wildlife manage- natural ecosystem whose integrity hinges on and ment practices with State fish and game departments. contributes to the wildlife resource, can the wildlife Some key potential conflicts in it appear to us to be in its manager contribute soundly to wilderness preservation. provisions for clearing log jams in spawning streams, Finally, we wish to emphasize the importance of stocking barren lakes, maintaining existing fish and wildlife in the wilderness web. The real ecological game management facilities, provision for commercial justification for an occasional retreat to wilderness is the trapping, and controlling problem animals. Hopefully a opportunity it provides to acquire a perception of the wilderness philosophy can be integrated into the oneness of our world. Wilderness affords the opportuni- IAFWA guidelines as a constraint on their interpretation ty to view the natural processes by which the land and and application. Too liberal an interpretation could the living things upon it have achieved their characteris- compromise wilderness values A guiding wilderness tic forms and by which they maintain their existence; to ethic is needed as policies are applied to meet the needs become aware of the incredible intricacies of plant and of individual areas. animal communities; to sense intrinsic beauty and This chapter has sought to set the stage for such a contrasts with creeping degradation in many nonwilder- process. It has also sought to remind readers of the ness settings. These things add up to the great lesson of interdependency of wilderness and wildlife man-environment interdependency: That insects, birds, Wildlife is only one component of the wilderness- fish, mammals, water, soil, trees, plants, and people are wildlife resource and cannot be considered separately. all part of the same schemean intricately woven fabric. Wildlife uses, such as sport fishing or hunting, must be Snip one thread and the entire doth begins to unravel; governed not just by the surplus capacity of fish and stitch up one tear and you begin to repair the whole. game but by the impact of such uses on the naturalness of Exposure to wilderness, however casual or however relationships among all components of the wilderness intense, directly or vicariously, can be a doorway to the resource. More specifically, while a particular lake may ecological understanding of our utter interdependence have the capacity to support a certain level of fishing with our environment and with life everywhere, to the pressure, the acceptable level of that use must also be development of a culture that will secure the future of an measured against the aggregate impact of fishermen and environment fit for life and fit for living, and to an other users on the vegetation and soil around the lake or appreciation of all those amenities that are inexorably along the stream. linked to the inner prosperity of the human spirit. literature Cited Allen, Durward. 111-117. John Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, eds. Wildlife 1966. The preservation of endangered habitats and vertebrates of Management Institute, Washington, D.0 North America In Future environments of North America, p. Bergerud, Arthur T. 22-37. F. Fraser Darling and John Milton, eds. The Natural 1974. Decline of caribou in North America following settlement.J. History Press, Garden City, N.Y. Widi Manage. 38(4):757-770. Allen, Durward. 1973. Report of the committee on North American wildlife policy. Bishop, Richard C In Proceedings of the 38th American wildlife and natural 1972. Conceptual economic issues in conserving the California resource conference, Washington, D.C., March 18-21, 1973, p. condor. In Western agricultural economic association proceed- 152-18 1. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. ings, Logan, Utah, July 23-25, 1972, p. 119-122. Utah State Allen, Durward. University Press, Logan, Utah. 1974. Of fire, moose, and wolves. Audubon 76(6):38-49. Brown, Perry J., and John H. Schomaker. Applegate, James. 1974. Final report on criteria for potential campsites: Suppt N. 32 1973. Some factors associated with deer hunting by New Jersey to Project 12-11-204-3. 50 p. Utah State University Institute residents. In Human dimensions in wildlife programs, p. for Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Ogden, Utah.

244 Buchheister, Carl W. Frome, Michael 1963. Wilderness and wildlife. In Tomorrow's wilderness, p. 1974. A place for wild animals, wild plants. Defenders of Wildlife 76-83. Franwis Leydet, ed. Sierra Club, San Francisco. News 49(3):194-200. Cape, Oiver B. Freddy, Dave. 1969. Effects of DDT spraying on the Yellowstone River system. 1973. The Selkirk carIbou. 18 p. mimeo. Wilderness Research In Readings in conservation ecology, p. 325-343. George W. Center, University of Idaho, Moscow. Cox, ed. Appleton-Cenrury-Crofts, New York Geist, Valerius. Carpenter, M. Ralph and Donald R. Bowhis. 1971a. Is big game harassment harmful? Oilweek 22(17):12-13. 1976. Attitudes towards fishing and fisheries management of users Geist, Valerius. in Desolation Wilderness. Calif. Fish and Game 62(3):168-178. 197 lb. Mountain sheep. 383 p. University of Chicago Press, Carr, Archie. Chicago. 1973. The everglades. Time-Life Books, New York 184p. Geist, Valerius. Chester, James. 1975. Mountain sheep and man in the northern wilds. 248 p. 1976. Human-Wildlife relationships in the Gallatin Range, Cornell University Press, ithaca, N.Y. Yellowstone National Park Draft paper in the author's files. Ghiselin, Jon Church, Frank 1973-74. Wilderness and the survival of species. Living Wilderness 1977. Wilderness in a balanced land use framework Wilderness 37(124):22-27. Resource Distinguished Lecture, University of Idaho Wilder- Gilbert, Bil. ness Research Center, March 21, 1977. 18 p. Reprinted as 1976. The great grizzly controversy. Audubon 78(1):62-69. "Whither Wilderness" in American Forests,July l977,p. 11-12, Hamer, J.D.W. 38-41. 1974 Distribution abundance and management implications of the Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., and William E. Phillips. grizzly bear and mountain caribou in the Mountain Creek 1970. Conservation of the California nile elk. Biol. Conserv. Watershed of Glacier National Park, B.0 164p. MS. thesis, 3(1):23-32. University of Calgary, Alberta. Cole, Glen F. Hammond, John L. 1974. Management involving grizzly bears and humans in 1974 The role of wilderness areas in wildlife management. Pac. Yellowstone National Park Bioscience 24(1):1-11. Wilderness J. 1(6):1O-11. Cowan, Ian McTaggert. Hendee, John C. 1966. Management, response, and variety. In Future environments 1974. A multiple satisfactions approach to game management. of North America, p. 5 5-59. F. Fraser Darling andJohn Milton, Wild!. Soc. Bull. 2(3):104-112. eds. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. Hendee, John C., and Clay Schoenfeld, eds. Craighead, Frank, Jr., John Craighead, and Joel Varney. 1973. Human dimensions in wildlife programs. 193p. Wildlife 1974 A population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Bull. Management Institute, Washington, D.0 40. 20 p. University of Montana School of Forestry, Missoula, Hendee, John C., Roger N. Clark, and Thomas E. Dailey. Mont 1974. Fishing and other recreation behavior at roadless high lakes: Craighead, John J., and Frank C Craighead. some management implications.33p.mimeo. (Paper 1971. Grizzly bear-man relationships in Yellowstone National presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Park. Bioscience 21(16):845-857. Honolulu, Hawaii, Sept. 8, 1974.) [In publication process as Craighead, JohnJ., Frank C. Craighead,Jr., Robert L. Ruff, and Bart USDA Forest Service Research Paper, PNW Forest and Range O'Gara. Experiment Station, Portland, Oreg.] 1973. Home range and activity patterns of nonmigratory elk of the Hendee, John C., and Dale Potter. Madison drainage herd as determined by radiotelemetry: Wildi. 1976. Hunters and hunting: management implications of research. Monogr. No. 33. SOp. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.0 In Proceedings, recreation research applications workshop Crisler, Lois. (Asheville, N.C, Sept. 15-18, 1975). US. Dep. Agric., Misc. 1958. Arctic wild. 301 p. Harper and Row, New York PubI. 28802, p. 137-161. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn, Asheville, Dasmann, Raymond F. N.0 1966. Wildlife biology. 231 p. Wiley, New York Herrero, Stephen Dunaway, David J, 1971.Humaninjuryinflictedbygrizzlybear.Science 1976. Human disturbance as a limiting factor of Sierra Nevada 170(3958):593-598. bighorn sheep. 15 p. niimeo. (Paper presented at First North Hochbaum, H. Albert. American Wild Sheep Conference, April 14-15, 1971,Colorado 1970. Wilderness wildlife in Canada. In Wilderness: the edge of State University, Fort Collins, Cob.) knowledge. p. 23-33. Maxine E. McCloskey, ed. Sierra Club, San Francisco. Erickson, Albert W. Hoagland, John F. 1975. Management of the grizzly bear in the Thompson Falls area 1973. A description of anglers and angling in two use areas of the and adjacent environs. 30 p. mimeo. Wildlife Management Uinta Mountains. 99 p. MS. thesis. Utah State University, Associates, Bellevue, Wash. Logan, Utah Farney, Dennis. Kennedy, James, and Perry J. Brown 1974 The big thicket. Defenders of Wildlife News 49(3):175-179. 1974. Attitudes and behavior of fishermen in Utah's Uinta Fox, Irving K and Rosemary J. Fox. Primitive Area. 13 p. mimeo. (Paper presented to annual 1976. Wilderness preservation in the north. 20 p. mimeo. meeting of American Fisheries Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, Sept Macmillan Planetarium, Vancouver, B.C. 8, 1974)

245 Kimball, John F., Jr., and Michael L Wolfe. Peek, James M., David L Ulricb, and Richard J. Mackie. 1974. Population analysis of a northern elk hen±J. Wildi. Manage. 1976. Moose habitatselection and relationshipsto forest 38(2): 161-174. management in north-eastern Minnesota. WildI. Monogr. No. Koebler, Gary M., William K Moore, and Alan K Taylor. 48.65 p. Wildlife Society, Washington, D.0 1975. Preserving the pine marten Western Wildlands 2(3):31-36. Pimlott, Douglas Leopold, A. Starker. 1974TheArcticoffshoregamble.LivingWilderness 1966. Adaptability of animals to habitat change. In Future 33(127): 16-24. environments of North America, p. 66-75. F. Fraser Darling Poole, Daniel A. and John Milton, eds. The Natural History Press, Garden City, 1976. Wilderness values and wildlife management. 20p. mimeo. N.Y. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.0 Leopold, A. Starker, Stanley A. C.air, and Clarence M. Cottam. Reed, Nathaniel P. 1969. Report of the special advisory committee on wildlife 1972. Memorandum. June 24, 1972. 4 p. US. Dep. of Int., Park management for the Secretary of the Interior. 14 p. Wildlife Serv., Washington D.0 Management Institute, Washington, D.0 Reiger, John F. Leopold, Aldo. 1975. American sportsmen and the origins of conservation. 39 p. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. 226 p. Oxford, N.Y. Winchester Press, New York Lime, David W., and Charles T. Cushwa Risser, James. 1969. Wildlife esthetics and auto campers in the Superior National 1973. The Forest Service and itscritics. Living Wilderness Forest. USDA For. Serv. Research Paper NC-32, 8p. illus. 37(122):6-15. North Central For, and Range Rap. Stn, St. Paul, Minn. Robinson, Glen 0. Lucas, Robert C 1975. The Forest Service. 337 p. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. 1965. The importance of fishing as an attraction and activity in the Russell, Andy. Quetico-Superior area. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note LS-61, 3p. 1971. Trails of a wilderness wanderer. 297 p. Knopf, N.Y. Lake States Exper. Stn,, St. Paul, Minn. Schoenfeld, Clay. Lucas, Robert C 1971. Everybody's ecology. 316 p. Barnes, N.Y. 1972. Wilderness perception and use. in Politics, policy, and natural Schoenfeld, Clay. resources, p. 309-323. Dennis L. Thompson, ed., McMillan, 1976. Environmental education and wildlife policy. Z2p. mimeo. New York (Paper prepared for council on environmental quality national M&lelland, B. Riley. symposium on a national wildlife policy. Washington, D.0 1975. Wildlife influences on aesthetic values in Glacier National October 1, 1976.) Park Western Wildlands 2(3):23-30. Seidenstricker, John C., IV, Maurice G. Hornocker, Wilbur V. Wiles, McGuire, John K and John P. Messick 1975. The Forest Service program for the nations renewable 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive resources. 658 p. US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., Washington, D.0 Area WildtI%'[onogr. No.35. 60 p. Wildlife Society, McHenry, Robert and Charles Van Doren. Washington, D.0 1972. A documentary history of conservation in America. 442 p. Smith, David Praeger Publishers, New York 1973. Appendix L: Maintaining timber supply in a sound Mercure, Dell,ert V., Jr., and William M. Ross. environment. In Report of the President's advisory panel on 1970. The Wilderness Act a product of Congressional comprom- timber and the environment. p. 396-426. US. Government ise. In Congress and the environment, p.47-64. Richard Cooley Printing Office, Washington, D.0 and Geoffry Wandesforde-Smith, eds. University of Washing- Spun, Stephen H. ton Press, Seattle, Wash. 1963. The value of wilderness to science. In Tomorrow's Meslow, E. Charles, and Howard M. Wight. wilderness, p. 59-75. Francoise Leydet, ed. Sierra Club, San 1975. Avifauna and succession in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Francisco. Northwest. In Proceedings of the symposium on management Talbot, Lee M. of forest and range habitats for nongame birds, p. 190-196. 1970. An international view of wilderness. In Wilderness: the edge Dixie R Smith, ed. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Tech. Bull WO- of knowledge, p. 16-22.Maxine E. McCloskey, ed. Sierra Club, 1. Washington, D.0 San Francisco. Milton, John P. Trefethen, James B. 1972. The web of wilderness. Living Wilderness 35(16):14-19 1975. An American crusade for wildlife. 409 p. Boone and Crockett (Special Alaska issue.) Club, New York Morgan, James K. Troyer, WilL 1973 Slamming the ram into oblivion Audubon 75(2':16-19. 1973 Alaska's brown bear. Living Wilderness 73(126):32-37. Nash, Roderick Trueblood, Ted. 1970. Wild-deor-ness. In Wilderness: the edge of knowledge,p. 36. 1974 Struggle on the Salmon Living Wilderness 38(126):15-24. Maxine McCloskey, ed. Sierra Club, San Francisco. US. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Odum, Eugene P. 1974 The national wildlife refuge system. 8p. Washington, D.0 1969. Relationships between structure and function in the US. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. ecosystem. In Readings in conservation ecology, p.6-20. George [nd.] Cabeza Prieta wilderness proposal, Cabeza Prieta game W. Cox, ed. Appleton-Centuiy-Crotts, New York. range. Vip. Washington, D.0 Olson, Sigurd. Wallis, Orthello L 1963. Listening point. 242p. Knopf, N.Y. 1976. Management of high country lakes in the national parks of

246 California l7p. mimeo. (Paper presented to High Mountain Wildlife Management Institute. Lakes Symposium by California/Nevada Chapter American 1975. Placing American wildlife management in perspective. 64p. Fisheries Society and California Trout, Fresno, Jan. 29, 1976.) Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.0 Weaver, James, and M. Rupert Cutler. Woodward, Thomas N., RJ. Gutierrez, and William H. Rutherford. 1977. Wilderness policy: a colloquy between Congressman Weaver 197k Bighorn ram production, survival, and mortality in south- and Assistant Secretary Cutler. J. For 75(7):392-394. central Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(4):771-774. Weddle, Ferris. Wright, Herbert E., Jr. 1970. Secrets of the mighty cougar. Nat. Wildi. 8(6):58-62. 1974. The Boundary Waters. Living Wilderness 38(125):9-16.

247 Fire has been an historic force shaping the character of the wilderness. The restoration of fire to its historic natural role is one of the major challenges in wilderness management today. Here a fire burns in the Payette National Forest in Idaho.

248 12Fire In Wilderness Ecosystems

Introduction 249 No fire-control program 265 Lightning and Man as Fire Sources in the Primeval Management of lightning-caused fires 265 Wilderness 250 Prescribed fire 265 The Natural Role of Fire in Ecosystems 250 Mechanical manipulation of vegetation Fire as an agent that terminates and renews succession 250 and fuels 266 Fire as a controller of plant community composition 251 Restoring Fire to Wilderness Ecosystems 267 Fire as a controller of the scale of the vegetation mosaic 251 Objectives 267 Fire as a regulator of fuel accumulations 251 The need for historical data 267 Fire as a controller of forest insects, parasites, and pathogens 252 Safety 267 Fire as a controller of nutrient cycles and energy flow 253 Definition of fire management and managed fires 267 Prcxluctivity, diversity, and stability of the ecosystem in 253 Managed lightning-caused fire versus prescribed fire 268 relation to fire 253 The Wilderness Fire Management Plan 269 Wildlife habitat and fire 254 Objectives or Introduction 269 Fire Occurrence and Behavior - a Few Principles 254 Descriptions and maps of Landscape Units 269 Seasonal and climatic factors 255 Fire histoiy and natural fire regime 269 Major drought episodes 256 Fuels 269 Interactions with the fuels mosaic 256 Weather regime 269 Natural fire barriers 256 Potential impacts outside the wilderness 269 Topographic and landform factors 256 The action plan 269 Fire size and intensity as ecological variables 256 Line responsibility 269 Fire-Dependent Ecosystems in the American Wilderness 256 Cooperation 270 The Sierra-Nevada region of California 257 Information program 270 The California-Oregon coast ranges region 257 Literature 270 The coast redwoods region 257 Approvals 270 The Cascades range of Oregon and Washington 257 The Effect of Area Size on Fire Programs 270 The Intermountain region and the Southwest 258 Avoiding Adverse Impacts of Suppression Activities 270 The Rocky Mountain region 259 Examples of Wilderness Fire Management Programs and 270 The Lake Superior region 260 Supporting Research 271 The Boreal Forest region 262 Sequoia-Kings and Yosemite National Parks, California 271 The Eastern Deciduous Forest, Appalachian, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho and Montana 272 Gulf Coast regions 263 Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, Wyoming 272 The Everglades, wetlands, prairies, and deserts 263 Teton Wilderness, Wyoming 273 Factors that Control Natural Fire Regimes 263 Trends and Future Needs 273 The continental pattern of lightning-fire regimes 264 Wilderness Fire Programs and Ecological Knowledge 273 Fire Policy Alternatives and their Consequences 264 Literature Cited 274 Fire exclusion 265

Introduction forest, grassland, and tundra fires are part of the natural environmentas natural and vital as rain, snow, or In the primeval wildernesswhere the earth and its wind. In Minnesota, for examplefire has clearly been community of life are untrammeled by manperiodic associated with such typical postfire pioneer trees as jack pine, aspen, and black spruce for more than 40,000 years. This chapter was written by Miron L. Heinselman, adjunct The evidence is found in charred wood and cones in professor, Department of Ecology and Behavioral Biology, glacial deposits and from charcoal stratigraphy of University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, and retired Principal Plant Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest laminated bottom sediments of Lake of the Clouds in the Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Rosendahl 1948; Minnesota. Heinselman and Roe 1963; Swain 1973). The oldest

249 evidence may predate man in North America. pine, which open in the heat of crown fires; the Nevertheless, our western, urban-based society has persistent, semidosed cones of black spruce; the thick, perceived fire only as a destroyer and has attempted to fire-resistant bark of giant sequoia, redwood, Douglas-fir, protect the wilderness from it. ponderosa pine, red pine, many other pines, western An enlightened biocentric approach to wilderness larch, oaks, and other trees; the root suckering of aspens; management must allow for the natural role of fire to the the sprouting from the root crown of birches, oaks, maximum possible extentconsistent with the safety of redwood, and many other trees and shrubs; and the light, people and adjacent nonwilderness resources. This windborne seeds of aspens, pines, spruces, and birches. chapter explores our current knowledge of fires role and Mutch (1970) has hypothesized that fire-dependent the alternatives in working with this important variable plant communities burn more readily than nonfire- in wilderness programs. dependent communities because natural selection has favored the development of flammable foliage. This theory recognizes that plants that have survived fires lightning and Man as Fire Saurces in the over evolutionary time periods may have selected Primeval Wilderness flammable properties that contribute to their perpetua- tion in a fire environment. Such plants and communities Unlike Europe, the Mid-East, and much of Asia, most actually depend on periodic fire for survivaL Many ani- of North America had very sparse human population mals also are not only adapted to surviving fires, but also and little agriculture or industry until 150 to 300 years depend on the early stages of plant successions following ago. Paleo-lndians apparently existed over much of the fires for some of their habitat needs. In this sense, the continent from late-glacial times, and in the more recent animal components of many ecosystems are also fire past Indians, traders, trappers, hunters, prospectors, and dependent. stockmen had camps within some present wildernesses. But these people did not fell trees or cultivate crops to any appreciable extent. They all used fire, however, and The Natural Role of Fire in Ecosystems many forest and prairie fires were set, accidentally or An ecosystem can be called fire dependent if periodic deliberately. Historical research (Day 1953; Little 1974; perturbations by fire are essential to the functioning of Weaver 1974) suggests that Indians in the Northeast the system. A full recognition of fire's role is only now and along the Pacific Coast burned the forests on a pervading ecological theory, but it seems clear that many considerable scale. The recidess use of fire by settlers, of the forest, grassland, and savanna ecosystems of the prospectors, and early loggers is well known. primeval American wilderness were fire dependent.' In But lightning is also a cause of fire inmost of the same such ecosystems, fire initiated and terminated vegeta- regions where forest fires are easily set by man The tional successions; controlled the age structure and relevant questions then are: In primeval times, did man species composition of the vegetation; produced the add significantly to the area burned and alter the natural mosaic of vegetation types of the landscape; affected cyde and timing of fires? Or, did he serve mainly as an insect and plant pathogen populations; influenced alternate source of ignition? We can never fully answer nutrient cycles and energy flows; regulated the biotic these questions, but recent data on lightning-fire productivity, diversity, and stability of the system; and occurrence and other evidence suggest that lightning is determined the habitats available to wildlife the primary fire starter in many regions. For example, The scale of fire effects and the specific ways fire despitetoday'smuch higher human population, influences the natural system depend on the kind of fire lightning ignitions still account for most of the total area regime characteristic of given ecosystems. The following burned in Alaska, northern Canada, the Selway- fire regimes apply mainly to forests, but a modified Bitterroot and Pasayten Wildernesses, and many other scheme might be used to describe the regimes of prairie, areas (Habeck and Mutch 1973; Rowe and Scotter 1973; savanna, shrubfield, or tundra ecosystems. The impor- Viereck 1973; Fahnestock 1975; Johnson and Rowe tant elements of a fire regime are: (1) Fire type and 1975). intensity (crown or surface fire), (2) size (area) of typical Evolutionary adaptation to reproduction after fires significant fires, and (3) frequency or return intervals and the survival of individirnis during fires is in itself typical for specific land areas and for major fires in a evidence that many plants long have existed in a fire environment. Examples include the persistent, dosed 'See, for example, Clements 1910; Maissurow 1935; Spurr 1954; Ahlgren arid Ahigren (serotinous) cones of jack pine, lodgepole pine, and pond 1; Cooper 1961; Hartesveldt 1964; Ioudrs 1970; Kozlowski and Ahlgren 1974.

250 region. In subsequent discussions, six kinds of fire agent that periodically renewedsuccessions. In the giant regimes will be distinguished: sequoia forest there was short-interval renewal of 0 = No (or very little) natural fire. understory successions, while the overstory was renewed 1 Infrequent, light surface fires (more than 25- on a millenial time scale. In the casesof jack pine and year return intervals). lodgepole pine, fire wiped the entire slate dean and reset 2 Frequent, light surface fires (1- to 25-year return the successional dock every 50 to 200 years. intervals). 3 =Infrequent, severe, surface fires (more than 25- Fire as a Contmller of Plant Community Composition year return intervals). Fire influences the species composition of plant 4 = Short return interval, crown fires (25- to 100- communities in the following ways: (1) It triggers the year return intervals). release of seeds (jack pine, lodgepole pine, pond pine, 5 = Long return interval, crown fires (100- to 300- and others). (2) It stimulates flowering and fruiting of year return intervals). many plants. (3) It alters seedbeds (whenliner and 6 = Very long return interval, crown fires (over 300- humus are replaced with bare soil, ash, or thin humus, year return intervals). this favors the germinatkn and survival of most pines, Historically, combinations of these regimes were Douglas-fir, giant sequoia, laith, some species of spruce, typical of many regions. Regimes also varied according to aspen, birch, and many other trees, shrubs,and herbs.). vegetationtypesand physiographicsiteswithin (4) It stimulates vegetative reproduction of many woody biogeographic regions. For example, the jack-pine type and herbaceous species when the overs tory is killed. (5) It of ecosystems in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was reduces competition for moisture, nutrients, heat, and subject to regime 4 or 5 on most sites, as opposed to a 2 light.(6)Itselectively eliminates parts of a plant or 3 and 5 regime for red pine. With this background,let community (surface fire or partial overstory kill). (7) Fire us examine the natural role of fire in more detail. frequency(returninterval)influences community composition and controls overstory age for vegetation Fire as an Agent that Terminates and Renews types reproduced by crown fires (e.g., jackpine, lodgepole Succession pine, black spruce). Taken together, these mechanisms In much of the original North American wilderness, it give fire important controlsometimes the dominant was fire more than any other factor that periodically influenceover plant communities. eliminated or set back oldforests and reset the successional dock The nature oftheseperiodic Fire as a Contmller of the Scale of the Vegetation disturbances depended on the fire regime typical of the Mosaic vegetation and physiography within each climatic Viewed from a high-flying aircraft or mountaintop, region For example, the giant sequoia forests of the the vegetation of naturally forested areas often appears Sierras usually experienced light or moderate surface as a patchwork or nwsaic. This patternalso appears on fires at short intervals (4 to 15 years) that kept down vertical airphotos and on spacecraft imagery. What one invading shrubs, true firs, and incense cedar. They sees are contrasting forest-age classes,successional stages, scarred but seldom killed the giant sequoias. Perhaps and vegetation types created by recurring forest fires over once in a thousand years, fuel and weather permitted the centuries. Their scale depends on past fire size and on local crown fires that wiped out groups of giant sequoias the kind of fire regime in specific areas. Scale is also and created the large openings necessary for their heavily influenced by the physiographic base on which reproduction (Biswell 1961; Hartesve!dt 1964; Kilgore fire does its work Steep and broken terrain often shows 1973). This history contrasts sharply with that of jack more complex patterns than level,gently rolling, or pine in the boreal forest and of lodgepole pine in the uniformly gradedterrain, becausefire and other Rockies. There, on many sites, the regime was a crown important environmental factors are more varied in fire or severe surface fire covering large areas at return behavior and effects on complex slopes. In regions where intervals of 50 to 200 years. Such fires killed most or all of fires are typically large crown or severe surface fires, such the trees, prepared the soil for reseeding, eliminated as the boreal forest, individual patchesof the mosaic may competitors, and opened the dosed cones of the pines to cover many thousands of acres in dynamic patterns.Yet reseed the area.2 Fire was the common element in these the mosaic as a whole changes little over time; the otherwise unlike examples. In both cases, it was the patcheslikethepiecesina kaleidoscopeare periodically rearranged by fire and succession (Wright 2See, for example, Gements 1910; Heinselman 1973; Rowe and Soxter 1973; Ixspe and Gruell 1973 and Heinselman 1973; Wright, H.E. 1974). 251 Figure 12-1 Periodic fires help renew ecological succession, control insects and pathogens, and create new food for browsing wildlifeall natural processes are influenced by fire. This series of photos of an area on the Flathead National Forest, Mont, taken in 1929,1945,1950, and 197 3, show how succession reclaims even areas badly burned.

The average time required for a natural fire regime to Fire as a Regulator of Fuel Accumulations burn over given ecological land units or an entire large In most northern conifer forest ecosystems, the nature reserve can be called the natural fire rotation production of plant biomass exceeds decomposition for (Heinselman 1973). This time period is somewhat hundreds of years following the initiation of new analogous to the forester's term "rotation." For the succession Production increases with temperature, Boundary Waters Canoe Area, the natural fire rotation precipitation, and fertility, but so does decomposition. averages about 100 years. But, like all averages, natural Decomposition rates decrease and net accumulation fire rotations are complexcach vegetation type and increases northward or with increasing elevation, other physiographic site tends to have its own characteristic factors being equal (Bray and Gorham 1964; Heinsel- return interval. This means that some areas will be man 1974). Cool, dry, summer climates also inhibit skipped by fire for very long periods, while others may decomposition of standing dead timber. The net result is burn over several times. The fire rotation concept is that plant materials accumulate throughout the forest: In useful as a tool for comparing the role of fire in different the trunks, branches, and leaves of living trees and ecosystems, but it requires better fire history data than shrubs; in dead standing trees and shrubs, fallen logs, and are now available for most wildernesses. uprooted root systems; and as accumulated twigs,

252 needles, leaves, mosses, rotting wood, and other organic influenced by fire frequency and intensity. In the absence debris making up the litter and humus layers of the forest of fire or in long intervals between fires, nutrient cycles floor. All of these materialsare potential fuel (The and energy flow can be partially or severely blocked by trunks of large, living trees seldom burn, unless bare, dry incomplete decomposition of biomass. Accumulating wood is exposed in rotted-out areas, old fire sctu-s,or biomass builds up fuel loads, which make lightning similar defects.) ignitions and high-intensity burns increasingly probable When fire occurs, all materials combustible under the over time (Wright and Heinselman 1973). When fires prevailing conditions are reduced to ash, and the fuel occur, some or most of the nutrients in the forest cyde is completed. However, if many living trees are biomass are unlocked and released as ash.4 Some kified but unburned, which happens in crown fires in nitrogen is volatilized. But often there is no major loss of dense timber, new fuel is created by the fire itself in the nutrients from the watershed because revegetation form of snag forests. At first the arrangement of snags is quiddy utilizes the released nutrients (Wright, RB. unfavorable for carrying fire. But as the snags gradually 1974; Bradbury et al. 1975; MColl and Grigal 1975). fall, they may create a new peak in fuel buildup if their density is sufficient and decomposition is slow. In the Pmduainty, Diversity, and Stability of the &osystem North Cascades this fire-created secondary fuel peak may in Relation to Fire come 30 to 60 years after a crown fire (Fahnestock 1975), Vegetation production is heavily linked to complete but in the Lake Superior region, most snags fall within 20 nutrient cycling, and fire recycles nutrients that might years and snag fuels are unimportant after 30 years. In otherwise not move. It also influences soil temperatures some ecosystems, succession may introduce a less and local climates. Periodic, light surface fires or severe flammable understory of shade-tolerant broadleaf trees fires at long intervals prevent the accumulation of beneath pines, but in many other regions, succession nutrients, dry matter, and energy in organic soil layers, introduces flammable conifers such as fir, cedar, or spruce reducepeatformation,and preventpermafrost which then serve as ladder fuels to increase the crown- encroachment (Heinselman 1974). Recurrent burns fire potential. In general, the trend is toward increasing might be necessaryto maintain longterm system fuel buildup with elapsed time following fire.3 reproductivity in many ecosystems.' Fire prevents systemwide succession to species- Fire as a Control/er of Forest Insects, Parasites, and impoverished dimax stands by maintaining a mix of Pathogens successional stages in the vegetation mosaic. The spatial There are many fascinating interactions between fire scale of the mosaic is determined by fire size, type of fire and native forest insects and pathogens. For example, regime, and natural fire rotation. Return intervals, fire, or the lack of it, regulates the total vegetative mosaic intensity, and fire size together determine the pattern of and the age structure of individual forest stands. These in stand ages and successional stages. These are the major turn influenceinsect populations. When extensive factors determining ecosystem diversity on a gross scale, stands of balsam fir or lodgepole pine reach maturity, both for plant and animal communities. Fire also might outbreaks of the spruce budwormor mountain pine be crucial in setting parkland/forest and grassland/forest beetle can kill trees and create fuel concentrations that boundaries in the western mountains and forest/tundra make large-scale fires possible. Such fires then terminate boundaries in the far north (Wright and Heinselman the outbreak by eliminating the host trees untilnew 1973). standsattainsusceptibleages.Firestemporarily The dynamic, fire-created mix of successional stages, eliminate such plant parasites as mistletoeon black communities, and stand ages in the vegetation mosaic spruce, lodgepole pine, and other species (Irving and might be essential to the stability of the system as a French 1971; Alexander and Hawkesworth 1975). They whole.6 Unnaturalfireexclusion could cause fuel can also sanitize forests against other pathogens for a accumulations leading to large, intense fires followed by time. unnatural effects on regeneration. An aged, near-climax ecosystem might also be particularly susceptible to insect Fire as a Controlkr of Nutrient Cycles and Energy Flow and disease outbreaks and to blowdowns. Its animal

In fire-dependent ecosystems, fire is a major factor in 4See, for example, Grigal and MCOU 1975; Vitousek and Reiners 1975; Foster and nutrient cycling and energy flow. Rates and pathwaysare Morrison 1976. 5See, for example, Loucks 1970; Wright and Heinselman 1973; Vitousek and Reiners 1975. 3See, for example, Dodge 1972; Heinselman 1973; Rowe and Scotter 1973; Biswell 6See, for example, Loucks 1970; Wright and Heinselman 1973; Wright, RE. 1974; 1974; Weaver 1974; Kilgore and Sando 1975. Vitousek and Reiners 1975.

253 populations would certainly be less diverse and probably exist, not hypothetical, undisturbed systems that do not less stable. occur in the real world. Early students of fire and its ecological role often emphasized succession and the climax hypothesis. They Wildlife Habitat and Fire defined a climax community as one that has attaineda In fire-dependent ecosystems, fire controls the scale of dynamic, steady-state equilibrium between the environ- the vegetation mosaic through fire size, intensity, and ment and biota and istherefore self-perpetuating. frequency; it influences the relative abundance of plant Climaxisattained only when species of earlier communities and successional stages. These determine successionalstages have been replaced by shade- habitat patterns for all herbivores, thereby regulating enduring dimax speciesin afullcycle ofself- their numbers to the extent that populations are habitat reproduction Proponents of this theory suggested that limited. For example, fire increases foods for herbivores climax forests are somehow more diverse, productive, dependent on forage or browse plants that proliferate in and stable than pioneer forests that follow fires. early postfire succession.8 It also increases yields of many The evidence neglected by these early workers is that berry-producing shrubs, thereby enlarging the food the time required for such a convincing case of dimax is supply of bears and many birds. Fire eliminates some longer than the average time between fires for most forage plants characteristic of old forests for 50 to 100 stands in many western and northern conifer forest yearsnotably tree lichens and ground lichens in the ecosystems. For the giant sequoia forest, it would be north. Lichens are used by barren-ground and woodland more than 3,000 years. For most Douglas-fir, ponderosa caribou on winter ranges (Scotter 1964, 1971), but pine, and sugar pine forests it would be 500 to 1,000 caribou also use sedges and other plants on burns and can probably shift winter ranges in response to changes in years; and even for jack pine and lodgepole pine it would the vegetation mosaic (Bergerud 1974; Johnson and be 200 to 300 years. Because fire almost always returned Rowe 1975). Fire regulates many insect populations, to these forests before climax status was attained, we some of which are important food sources for birds such cannot be sure what vegetation might develop on typical fire-free sites for these species. as warblers and woodpeckers. In some cases, whether fire increases or decreases food availability will depend on Recent writers point out that, in many temperate and the relationship of prey and predator. Carnivores are boreal forest ecosystems, periodic fire perturbations were dependent on herbivores and therefore they also depend part of the natural environment and essential to the on the fire-created vegetative mosaic. For example, more maintenance of species diversity, productivity, and frequent fires in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area might longterm system stability.7 favor moose and deer and thereby lead to increases in Where does this leave climax theory? In the light of wolf populations. On the other hand, a lower fire level in present knowledge, the climax concept is not particularly that area might favor red squirrels and pine marten usefuL (Heinselman 1973). Yet, in another sense the fire-dependent vegetation itself might be considered dimax, because with periodic perturbations by fire it has maintained a quasi-stability Fire Occunence and Behavior - A Few for thousands of years, as demonstrated by studies of the pollen rain .in such ecosystems (Swain 1973; Wright, Principles H.E. 1974). But what patch size should be considered in Before considering the place of fire in wilderness deciding whether the forest mosaic as a whole is stable? programs, it is important that we understand fire's If one looks at the vegetation of a vast region such as the essential ingredients. Yellowstone plateau, there has been stability over 1. Fuel. Fuel must be adequate, sufficiently dried, and thousands of years in the presence of fire. But if we are properly arranged. Even heavy fuel loads might not talking about patches on the scale of individual stands of produce a moving, self-perpetuating fire if they are lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir, which sometimes cover discontinuous or poorly arranged, or if their energy whole watersheds, then the steady-state climax is almost availability is marginal for the prevailing weather. Fuel never attained before fire intervenes. The lesson is that chemistry is an important factor in energy yields. Crown we need to understand natural systems as they actually fires usually require adequate ground fuels beneath the

7See, for example, bucks 1970; Heinselman 1973; Wright and Heinselman 1973; 8See, for example, Heinselman 1970; Loope and Gruell 1973; Rowe and Scotter 1973 Wright, HE. 1974; Vitousek and Reiners 1975. Vieredc 1973; Bendell 1974.

254 stand and some ladder fuels to carry fire up into the But in the Lake States and the boreal forest, midsummer crowns.9 fire behavior is often sluggish because green ground Weather. Suitable burning weather is character- vegetation acts as a heat sink. In conifer forests with little ized by one or more factors that promote drying of ground vegetation, this is unimportant, however, and available fuels: (1) Low relative humidity (often below 30 under prolonged drought even the current year's green percent), (2) a precipitation-free period of sufficient vegetation can become cureda normal occurence in duration to reduce the moisture content of fine- and summer-drought climates. medium-size fuels to the critical level, and (3) sufficiently The annual climatic regime also has much to do with high current and antecedent temperatures. In level the expected occurrence of wildfires and therefore the terrain, some wind isgenerally required to make recommended timing of safe, prescribed burning. Most wildfires spread rapidly. In mountainous terrain, fires North American wildernesses have snowcover from create their own draftsuphill. early fall through late spring or early summer. Except for The National Weather Service routinely forecasts fire this common element, seasonal patterns, which vary weather in all major forest regions. Such evaluations are significantly from one to another, fall into one of three based on many variables. (For an example of the major types. (See USDA 1941; Schroeder and Buck extensive literature which has been developed around 1970). this complex science, see Schroeder and Buck 1970.) Wet winters and dry summers characterize the An ignition source. Fuel loads can be heavy and maritime climates of the Pacific coast and the Cascade weather conditions hazardous, but if ignition sources are and Sierra Nevada ranges from Washington to lacking, there will be no fire. The major natural source is California. Winters are not very cold; summers are clear, lightning. If thunderstorms are not accompanied by warm, and dry. Much of the total annual precipitation in heavy rain, fires can result from strikes in snags, organic the mountains is snow, which accumulates to great layers, or trees with dry rot or flammable crowns. The depths. Occasional summer thunderstorms do occur, probability of lightning ignitions can often be forecast, expecially over the mountains, and they usually carry and the continental pattern of lightning fires has been mapped (Schroederand Buck1970). On many very little rainfall. Mid-to-late summer is the wildfire season in the mountains. wilderness travel routes, man is also an ignition source. Prescribed (controlled) fires can be set anywhere fuels Dry winters and wet summers are typical of the are suitable if the weather is right. Once ignited, weather Northeast, the Great Lakes, the Midwest, most of the and fuels regulate the fire's progress. For maintaining Canadian boreal forest region, and the eastern ranges of controlof thefire,there must be suitablefuel the Rocky Mountains from Alberta to New Mexico. discontinuities in key areas. These climates are continental with cold winters and For given burning conditions, fires spread through significant snow accumulation but relatively light total continuous fuels at predictable rates which have been snowfall. Summers are characterized by frequent frontal quantified (Rothermel 1972; Frandsen 1973). However, rainstorms. Thunderstorms are common from spring much of the progress of fires can be due to long-distance through fall, particularly in midsummer. Most storms spotting ahead of the main flame front. On steep terrain, are accompanied by enough rain to extinguish lightning advance fires will spread downhill because of rolling logs, ignitions, but some dry storms occur in most years. heated boulders, and other debris. Paper birch is a major Lightning occurrence decreases northward, but some cause of spotting because of its thin, flammable bark. lightning-caused tundra fires occur even beyond the arctic tree line in Alaska and Canada. Prolonged summer Seasonal and Ciimatk Factors droughts occur at intervals of 5 to 30 years. The seasons are important in fire behavior because of The Intermountain Westfrom interior British their influence on vegetative development and the Columbia south through eastern Washington and curing of grasses, sedges, and leaves. In the north, spring Oregon, all of Idaho, and extreme western Montana to and fall are generally favorable for rapid surface-fire Utah, Nevada, and Arizonahas characteristics of both spread because green ground fuels are at minimum, and the Pacific maritime and continental climates. Winter cured fuels are abundant. If these seasons are normally snowfall and snowpacks are moderate to heavy, and rainy, as in much of the Pacific Northwest, this is not so. occasional periods of frontal summer rainfall occur. Extended summer dry periods are frequent, however, 9See, for example, Fahnesaxk 1970; Van Wagner 1968; Brown 1971, 1974; anddrythunderstormsare common. Lightning Rothermel 1972; Sando and Wick 1972; Kilgore and Sando 1975. occurrence decreases northward.

255 The Southeastern States, the deep South, and the Gulf Natural Fire Barriers Coasthave complexclimates,with considerable Many landscape features limit fire spread: Nonflam- maritime precipitation derived from the Gulf of Mexico mable vegetation types, lakes, rivers, streams, seepages, and the Atlantic Annual precipitation is heavy and well swamps, barren rock areas, snowfields, timberlines of distributed over the year, but temperatures are high, and high mountains, and fresh burns where fuels have been short droughts create burning conditions. Sustained exhausted. The effectiveness of barriers is related to their snowcover is rare except in the higher Appalachian condition and size, to adjacent fuels, and to prevailing Mountains. Winter fires are possible in most areas weather conditions. Under extreme burning conditions, because vegetation is cured and snowcover is usually with high winds or fire-generated convection columns or lacking. Thunderstorms are very frequent, but most whirls, natural barriers can fail because of long-distance lightning ignitions are extinguished by rainfall, and the spotting (Countryman 1964; Haines and Updike 1971). vegetation of many areas is not very flammable except for the southern pine regions of the Coastal Plain and Thpograpbic and Landform Factors Piedmont Fire movements are strongly related to slopes, soil, and geology of local landforms. Fires tend to move Major Drought Episodes upslope. Their movements are also influenced by aspect In some regions of the ecologically significant fire, (compass bearing), steepness of slopes,soils and conflagrations in primeval times evidently occurred landform variablesall of which affect soil moisture, during infrequent major droughts. Fire weather is not fertility, vegetation types, and local wind patterns. In average weather, at least in the North. Large-scale or general, the steeper south- and southwest-facing slopes severe surface and crown fires that regenerated large and infertile or dry landforms are particularly fire prone. areas might have occurred largely during regional or Heavier forest stands of moist and fertile sites also bum, subcontinental drought anomalies. It is dear from tree- but only after longer drying periods and return intervals. ring studies of fire-scarred pines, Douglas-fir, giant Fire Size and Intensity as Ecological Variables sequoia, and redwood that surface fires burned many areas in many different wilderness regions at dosely Most lightning-caused fires are small and soon go out. spaced intervals.'° Certainly all of these fires did not occur However, some develop into surface fires that burn over in major drought years. But we need to know more about hundreds or even thousands of acresscarring trees, the likelihood that some regions experienced weather significantly changing the understory vegetation, killing suitable for large-scale crown fires chiefly at long occasional trees or groups of trees, recycling nutrients, intervals during major droughts. and reducing surface fuels. An occasional blaze develops into a major crown fire, killing whole forests over large areas. But, even in such crown fires there are usually Interactions with the Futh Mosaic skipped areassomehow favored by the vagaries of Given ignitions and fire weather, fires are still wind, topography, and fuelcommonly on north constrained by the fuels mosaic. Natural fuels are related slopes; around lakes or streams; in draws, canyons, or to vegetation types because the various trees, shrubs, and swamps. These by-passed areas are important as sources ground-layerspecies vary widely in crown form, of plant propagules for recolonization of the burn. We flammability or fuel chemistry, and litter characteristics. might think it is the small, relatively undamaging fires For example, most long-needle pines produce a loosely that are best for the wilderness. But in some ecosystems, arranged needle straw. Stand age is related to both fuel infrequent but large crown fires covering thousands of availability and flammability. Old stands usually contain acres are responsible for an area's distinctive character dead material, both down and in standing snags. Also, in and typical vegetation mosaic Wilderness managers old stands, succession to shade-tolerant species can must providesafelyfor some burns of this character, generate understories of fir, cedar, hemlock, or spruce or such ecosystems cannot be maintained in their truly species with dense, long crowns that serve as ladder fuels. natural state. Old forests are also likely to have sustained insect, mistletoe, or fungal attacks and blowdownsali of which generate fuels. Fire-Dependent &osystems in the American Wilderness

° See Fritz 1931; Spurt 1954; Frissell 1973; Heinselman 1973; Houston 1973; Kilgore A review of the natural, fire-dependent ecosystems of 1973; Loope and Gruell 1973. important wilderness regions will help focus on the

256 urgency of positive fire management programs and on resistant pines and sequoias(Biswell1959, 1961; the necessity of recognizing differences in fire history and Hartesveldt 1964; Kilgore 1970, 1972, 1973; Dodge fire effects. 1972; Weaver 1974). The Sierra-Nevada Region of Califonüa The California-Oregon Coast Range Region This high-mountain country contains some of the Another string of wilderness areas has been set aside world's best known nature reserves and the most in the coastal mountains from southern Oregon to magnificent conifer forests on earth. Includedare the southern California. Induded are the Kalmiopsis, Marble Sequoia-Kings Canyon, Yosemite, and Mt. Tassen Na- Mountain, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel, Ventana, San Rafael, tional Parks; the John Muir, Sierra, Minarets, Hoover, San Gabriel, Cucamonga, San Gorgonio, San jacinto, and Mokelume, Desolation, Caribou, and Thousand Lakes Agua Tibia Wilderness Areas; and the Salmon-Trinity Wilderness Areas; and the Emigrant Basin and High Alps Primitive Area. Some areas have a chaparral or Sierra Primitive Areas. Much of the country is alpine, but oak-madrone, coulter and digger pine vegetation at wherever forests occur fire has been a vital environmen- lower elevations. Higher elevations, where present, tal factor. In the south, the westside forests between support ponderosa, Jeffrey, and lodgepole pine forests, 3,000 and 8,000 feet include groves of giant sequoia and and sometimes white fir, incense cedar, and other vast forests of sugar, ponderosa, and Jeffrey pines; species. The climate is winter-wet/summer-dry, and Douglas-fir; incense cedar; and white and California red snow accumulates at the higher elevations. Summers are firs. At higher elevations throughout the area there are long, dry, and hot in the south, but lightning ignitions do stands of lodgepole, western white, and whitebark occur. Schroeder and Buck (1970) indicate about 5 to 20 pines; and mountain hemlock. The climate is winter- ligntning fires per million acres per year. The vegetation wet/summer-dry, and much of the precipitation is snow, of the chaparral-oak-madrone-digger pine zones is which accumulates to 7 to 15 feet and may remain on the extremely flammable, and in nature was probably subject ground into June in high-elevation forests. Dry lightning to periodic, high-intensity fires that killed most of the storms occur infrequently, but ignitions are common vegetation Attempted fire exdusion has created very because of the dry summers. Schroeder and Buck (1970) difficult fire control problems in the chaparral and show 21 to 40 lightning-caused fires per million acres per related vegetation zones (Vogl 1967; Dodge 1972; year. At intervals of several years, episodes of dry Biswell 1974; Weaver 1974). The natural fire regime in thunderstorms combined with unusual dryness cause the ponderosa-Jeffrey pine zones was probably similar to widespread fires. This climatic pattern has resulted ina that in the Sierras. history of light surface fires at intervals of 4 to 15 years in giant sequoia and ponderosa-sugar pine stands, with The Coast Redwood Region crown fires or surface fires severe enough to kill stands or Several small de facto wilderness areas occur within portions of stands at very long intervals (perhaps 300 to the new Redwoods National Park and in some of the 1,000 years or more) (Show and Kotok 1924; Biswell larger Cdifornia State Redwoods Parks. This region is 1959, 1961; Wagener 1961; Hartesveldt 1964; Kilgore within the coastal fog belt of northern Californiaa 1973). Many giant sequoias bear impressive multiple fire winter-wet/summer-dry climate, mitigated by fog drip. scars, some of them thousands of years old. Most Elevations are slight, and snow, when it does fall, soon individual fires were small because the terrain is broken melts.Lightning-causedignitionsoccur,although and the vegetation varied. Ligntning-caused fires are also summer thunderstorms are not common. The redwoods common in the high country, but seldom crown or were dearly subject to intermittent firesmany of the become large because of the open character of the forest largest veterans bear deep fire scars hundreds of years and fuel discontinuities caused by exposed bedrock, old. The natural fire regime was probably one of long- boulder fields, wet meadows, lakes, and snowfields interval, severe surface fires. Redwood sprouts from the (Kilgore and Briggs 1972). The giant sequoia and mid- root crown, and many groups of trees are sprouts from elevation pine forests were unquestionably kept open fire-killed individuals (Fritz 1931; Stone 1965; Stone and and structured by frequent periodic surface fires in Vasey 1968; Stone, Grah, and Zinke 1969). primeval times. Fire protection over the last 70 years has caused unnatural fuel accumulations and invasions of The Casaidec Range of Oregon and Washington true firs and incense cedar beneath the pines and The Cascades are dominated by a series of spectacular sequoias. These conditions are setting the stage for geologically recent volcanic peaks, many now included in unnatural conflagrations that could kill even the fire- wilderness areas or National Parks. Designated areas

257 include the North Cascades, Mt. Rainier, and Crater Lake interval crown fire or severe-surface-fire regime for the National Parks; and the Glacier Peak, Pasayten, Goat Pasayten. Fire control has not yet significantly affected Rocks, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. fuels or disrupted the age structure of the forest. Posthre Washington, Three Sisters, Diamond Peak, Mountain snags stand intact for 20 to 30 years, and fallen snag fuels Lakes, and Alpine Lakes Wilderness Areas. Well- peak 30 to 60 years after fire. watered, lower elevations on the west side, where included, support magnificent stands of Douglas-fir, The Intermauntain Region and the Southwest western hemlock, western redcedar, grand fir, and in the Between the Cascades-Sierra ranges and the main south also ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar. Rocky Mountain system there is a discontinuous series of On the drier east side, ponderosa pine and lodgepole more isolated ranges having a vegetation and fire history pine dominate at lower elevations, and cedar and somewhat different from either province. This region hemlock are rare or missing. Higher elevations support a extends from eastern Washington, Idaho, and extreme complex of vegetation types ranging from stands of western Montana south to Arizona and New Mexico. lodgepole or western white pine, to forests of noble fir or Designated reserves with significant forests indude the silver fir, and nearer timberline, Engelmann spruce, Cabinet Mountains,Seiway-Bitterroot,Eagle Cap, subalpine fir, alpine larch, Alaska yellow-cedar, white- Strawberry Mountain, Sawtooth, Mt. Baldy, Gila, and bark pine, and mountain hemlock. These forests are Chiricahua Wildernesses; the Salmon River Breaks, complex and variedintheir physiographic and Idaho, Blue Range, Gila, and Black Range Primitive altitudinal distributionsand probably also complex in Areas; and the north rim of Grand Canyon National their pattern of past fire occurrence (Franklin and Park Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir occur at lower Dyrness1969,1973).Theclimateiswinter- elevations throughout the region, as does Engelmann wet/summer-dry, and much of the precipitation occurs spruce at higher elevations. In the north, the better as snow, which accumulates 10 to 20 feet in depth and watered, low-elevation west slopes support western persists into July in high-elevation forests. Summer larch, western white pine, western hemlock, western weather is mostly dear and dry, but thunderstorms do redcedar, and grand fir, and the higher elevations occur, and lightning ignitions are frequent. Schroeder support lodgepole, whitebark, and limber pines; alpine and Buck (1970) indicate an occurrence rate of 11 to 40 larch; subalpine fir; atid mountain hemlock (Dauben- lightning fires per million acres per year. Late summer is mire1952; Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968; the normal wildfire season At intervals of several years, Franklin and Dyrness 1969; Habeck and Mutch 1973). major episodes of lightning ignitions may coincide with Quaking aspen occurs sparingly throughout, and in severe summer drought, causing widespread outbreaks Arizona and New Mexico there are also some blue such as the Wenatchee fires of 1970. spruce, white (concolor)fir, and Chihauhua pine. On well-watered west slopes the natural fire regime Grassland, meadow, and shrub communities are often seems to have been mostly one of large-scale but very interspersed with forest. long-interval crown fires or severe ground fires. Return The climate retains some Pacific maritime influence, intervals were perhaps 150 to 500 years or more for tending toward heavy snow winters and dry summers in various sites. Extensive, even-aged stands of Douglas-fir the north, with a greater percentage of the precipitation attest to past fires, and many fire boundaries are still occurring as late summer rains in Arizona and New evident. The lower elevation, eastside ponderosa pine Mexico. Summer thunderstorms are frequent over the forests probably had a regime of frequent, light surface entire region, and lightning ignitions are extremely fires. Detailed fire-history work is still needed in this common because of the frequency of prolonged region, especially for westside ecosystems. East of the droughts. Schroeder and Buck (1970)indicatea Cascade Crest, Fahnestocku has documented a lightning- lightning-fire occurrence rate of 20 to 60 fires per million caused-fire occurrence rate of 13 fires per million acres acres per year for most of the region, but the rate exceeds per year in the Pasayten Wilderness from 1910 to 1969. 60 per million acres in the Arizona-New Mexico Ligntning caused 88 percent of recorded fires, and 78 mountains. A study of lightning-fire occurrence in the percent of the area burned. Two fires, each exceeding White Cap drainage of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 20,000 acres, accounted for 59 percent of the lightning- indicated an occurrence rate of about 70 fires per million caused burn area. This history suggests a long-return- acres per year for that local situation (Habeck and Mutch 1973). In Idaho and eastern Oregon, the fire season is

°Fahnestock, George F.1975. Fires, fue1and flora as factors in wilderness June through September; but in New Mexico and management. Unpublished paper, 31 p., Seattle, Wash. Arizona, May and June are the major fire months

258 because of a tendency toward greater rainfall with July The natural vegetation includes forests of lodgepole and August thunderstorms. pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and quaking Throughout thisregion the natural history of aspen at middle to upper elevations, and in the Canadian ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stands has been one of Rockies also a scattering of white spruce, black spruce, small and repeated, light to moderate surface fires at paper birch, and balsam poplar, plus isolated groves of average return intervals of about 6 to 15 years. These Douglas-fir along the warmer slopes of the lowest river fires were severe enough to kill back most of the valleys. In the north, whitebark pine and alpine larch Douglas-fir regeneration, thin out overdense ponderosa occur near timberline, but southward limber pine pine saplings, and occasionally kill out individuals, replaces these species. In Montana and British Columbia, clumps, or small groves of aged ponderosa pine or west-facing slopes with a maritime influence may Douglas-fir. Such a history maintained the parklike support localareas of western hemlock, western ponderosa pine stands originally characteristic of lower redcedar, western white pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, elevations throughout the region (Cooper 1961; Weaver and ponderosa pine. In Utah and Colorado, white 1961, 1974; Habeck and Mutch 1973). (concolor) fir occurs on moist, upper elevation sites, and At higher elevations, on some north slopes, and blue spruce is found along streams and benches. At lower farther north on slopes with more maritime climates, elevationsthe lodgepole pine forests merge with the fire regime has often been one of long-interval (150 scattered stands of Douglas-fir, and from Montana to 300 years), severe surface fires or crown fires that southward they merge also with ponderosa pine in some killed out whole stands on individual slopes or drainages localities. Valleys, flats, and benches are often occupied by and regenerated such areas to relatively even aged stands nearly treeless, grassy parks, meadows, or sagebrush of western white pine, western larch, and lodgepole pine grasslands. Near and above timberline, there are (Weilner 1970; Aldrich and Mutch 1972). In some areas extensive meadows, nearly treeless old burns, and alpine these stands also contain mixtures of western redcedar, tundra communities (Daribenmire 1943; Oosting and western hemlock, and grand fir. It is not clear how much Reed 1952; Horton 1956; Rowe 1959; Marr 1961; of the northern intermountain region had the first kind Habeck 1968; Day, R.J. 1972; Stringer and La Roi 1970; of fire regime as opposed to the last, but both were Loope and Gruell 1973). present. Fire suppression in the last 60 years has The climate is more continental than in the preceding probably altered fuels and vegetation most in areas that regions, with long, very cold winters at the higher were subject to periodic light surface fires. The heavy- elevations, and warm summers with considerable fuel, long-interval, crown-fire-regime areas, and higher rainfall, much of it coming in thunderstorms. Snow elevation forests have probably not been affected so accumulationsaresubstantial because of sustained much because many areas would not have burned in this freezing weather, but depths and water content are much period in any case. less than in the Sierras or Cascades, and most forests are free of snow by May or early June. Brief or extended The Rocky Mountain Region summer droughts are frequent, especially northward. The Rocky Mountain system, as discussed here, Lightning ignitions are common, but most fires are includesall of the easiern Front Ranges and the extinguished by rains that accompany the thunder- secondary western ranges west to, but excluding, the storms. Lightning-fire occurrence ranges from about 2 to Intermountain and Southwest Region. It extends from 15 fires per million acres per year (Schroeder and Buck Jasper National Park in the Canadian Rockies south to 1970). Lightning occurrence decreases northward, but Colorado. Designated reserves include Jasper, Banff, summer droughts tend to increase northward, giving the Yoho, Kootenay, and Waterton National Parks in highest fire occurrences in Montana and Colorado. Some Canada; Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Rocky fires occur in most years, but it is the infrequent, severe Mountain National Parks in the United States; the Bob summer droughts that lead to major fire episodes. Marshall, Mission Mountains, Scapegoat, Gates of the Extensive, relatively even aged forests of lodgepole Mountains, Anaconda-Pintlar, North Absaroka, South pine and quaking aspen attest to past fires. Burn Absaroka, Teton, Washakie, Bridger, Mt. Zirkel, Rawah, boundaries are often distinct because of abrupt changes Eagle Nest, Maroon Bells-Snowmass, West Elk, La in stand ages and species (Clements 1910; Patten 1969; Garita, and Weminuche Wildernesses; and the Spanish Taylor 1969; Day, R.J. 1972; Habeck 1970; Loope 1971; Peaks, Absaroka, Beartooth, Cloud Peak, Glacier, Popo Loope and Gruell 1973). Some lodgepole forests are 150 Agie, High Uintas, Flat Tops, Uncompahgre, and to 350 years old, however, indicating that return intervals Wilson Mountains Primitive Areas. can be very long in this region (fire wntrol has only been

259 effective for 30 to 60 years). Cone serotiny in lodgepole In sunimary, the two dominant fire regimes inmost variesmost stands in the Yellowstone-Grand Teton of the primeval Rocky Mountain wilderness were (1) region have open cones, while in the Canadian Rockies, long-return-interval (perhaps 100 to 300 years) crown Colorado,and elsewhere most conesareclosed fires or severe surface fires in most of the continuous (Clements1910; Loope and Gruell1973). Some forests of lodgepole pine, spruce-fir, and associated Yellowstone Park stands have developed multiple-age species; and (2) shorter return interval (perhaps 5 to 60 structures through creeping surface fires, or in some years), light to moderate surface fires in lower elevation cases through stand breakup due to long periods without Douglas-fir, aspen, and ponderosa pine stands, in grassy fire. In the Grand Teton region, the Canadian Rockies, parklands, and in adjacent, open, lodgepole pine groves. and elsewhere subalpine fir is now invading lodgepole pine stands, perhaps on an unnatural scale due to fire The Lake Superior Region exclusion (Day, R.J. 1972; Loope and Gruell 1973). Fir The ancient Laurentian highlands surrounding Lake contributes to fuels and provides ladder fuels that Superior contain several reserves that include the last facilitate crown fires, but if such fires occur these areas major remnants of the old Northwoods" Included are will revert to nearly pure lodgepole pine. Isle Royale and Voyageur's National Parks; Quetico Outbreaks of the native mountain pine bark beetle Provincial Park, Ontario; the adjacent Boundary Waters (Dendroctonus pondemsae) in old lodgepole pine stands Canoe Area (BWCA) in Minnesota; and Porcupine have occurred sporadically over the centuries. Since 1960 Mountains State Park in Michigan This is spectacular large areas have been attacked in the Grand Teton- lake country, and together these areas contain several Yellowstone region, killing 10 to 45 percent of the trees thousand small- to medium-sized lakes, largely in in many stands. Fire exclusion may be accelerating such glacially dammed bedrock basins. All areas have had attacks because an excess of older stands is slowly being some logging, but more than a million acres of virgin created. This insect has influenced lodgepole ecosystems country still remain, largely in the BWCA-Quetico area for millenia, and is simply another factor in the natural and on Isle Royale. fuels cyde (Loope and Gruell 1973). The forests are transitional between the original white Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir stands often pine-northern hardwood forests of the Northeast and occur in valleys, coves, and around lakes and streams boreal forests of northern Ontario. All areas still contain where they escape most fires, but many stands are also some eastern white pine and red pine, although many dearly of fire origin (Day, RJ. 1972; Loope and Gruell older stands were cut between 1890 and 1940. Boreal 1973). Most quaking aspen stands were fire maintained elements predominate in the BWCA and Quetico, where through root suckering, but fire exclusion has prevented extensive stands of jack pine, black spruce, and white their renewal for 60 years, and many stands that might spruce-balsam fir alternate with quaking aspen and have burned are now decadent (Gruell and Loope 1974). paper birch. The Porcupine Mountains and Isle Royale Fire has also been a factor in maintaining meadow and also contain forests of sugar maple, yellow birch, red grassland communities in the parks of river valleys and maple,basswood,redoak,and American elm, flats. Ancient, fire-scarred Douglas-firs occurring in intermingled with white pine, white spruce, balsam fir, groves or as scattered individuals along the margins of and northern white-cedar, and in the Porcupines also these local grasslands tell of their fire history fromJasper with eastern hemlock Sugar maple and hemlock are Park in the north to the Yellowstone-Grand Teton absent from the BWCA, Quetico, and Voyageur's; and Region in the south (Stringer and La Roi 1970); red maple, yellow birch, and basswood are much less Houston 1973; Loope and Gruell 1973; Tande 1975). common there. There are many peat bogs supporting Fires apparently burned these grassland, meadow, and stunted black spruce and tamarack. Northern white- sagebrush areas, and crept into the Douglas-fir groves cedaris prominent around many lakeshores and around their margins, at intervals of about 6 to 60 years drainages, and black ash, elm, and balsam poplar occur over at least the past 400 years. The average return along streams (Cooper 1913; Graham 1941; Rowe 1959; interval in Yellowstone Park for several sites ranged Horton and Bedell 1960; Ohmann and Ream 1971; from 17 to 41 years (Houston 1973). Both lightning and Krefting, Hansen and Meyer 1970; Heinselman 1973; Indian ignitions were probably involved, but lightning Grigal and Ohmann 1975). alone is dearly a major ignition factor. Fire exclusion is The climate is continental, with long, cold winters and now allowing the invasion of lodgepole pine in many of short, warm summers. Annual precipitation averages these open areas and thereby eliminating much valuable about 28 inches, 64 percent falling as rain during the May wildlife habitat. through September growing season Annual snowfall

260 Despite (30 years of fire control, most virgin stands still contain overstory elements dating from the last fire, the major exception perhaps being some of the northern hardwood forests of Isle Royale and the Porcupine Mountains. Virgin jack pine, black spruce, and aspen- birch forests usually date very closely from the last fire, and most jack pine stands here have dosed cones. Some stands of red and white pine and spruce-fir contain groves or scattered trees of two or more age classes,each dating from separate fires. The time of origin of red and white pine stands commonly ranges up to lOor 15 years afterdatedfires,indicatingextendedperiodsof regeneration. Red pine stands frequently show multiple firescars, proof that moderate surface fires were common in that type. In the BWCA and Quetico the areas burned most intensely are large uplands distant from natural firebreaks such as lakes and streams. Jack pine, black spruce, and aspen-birch types dominate such sites. The mineral soil areas burned least intensely are swamp edges, ravines, lakeshores, islands, lower slopes, and the east, northeast, or southeast sides of large lakes. White pine, red pine, white spruce, cedar, and fir are relatively more abundant there. However, on Isle Royale andinthePorcupine Mountainsthe northern hardwoods occupy certain high ridges and jack pine is rare. This differenceis related to the local climatic influenceof LakeSuperior, where the northern hardwoods forest reaches its northern limit. Wildlife Figure 12-2 Firea natural component of many wilderness habitat patterns and use are also strongly fire controlled ecosystemsis one of the most significant factors affecting the (Mech 1966; Hansen, Krefting, and Kurmis 1973; composition of plant and animal life, This map shows the fire histoiy in a portion of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minn ,marking the Heinselman 1973). bit-tb of existing forest stands Fires dating into the late 1600's have The natural fire regime of most coniferous forests was been mapped one of long-interval crown fires or severe surface fires. Return intervals for most jack pine, black spruce, spruce- averages only about 70 inches, but the ground is fir, and associated aspen-birch areas were probably 50 to snowcovered from mid-November to April because of 150 years. However, many red and white pine sites had a sustainedlowtemperatures.Thunderstormsare regime of light to moderate surface fires at return common from May through September. Lightning intervals of 20 to 40 years, combined with long or very ignitions are frequent, but most are extinguished by rains long interval crown fires or severe surface fires. These accompanyingthe storms. Dry storms do occur, killed much of the stand at intervals of 150 to 300 years however, and lightning-fire occurrence is about 1 to 5 and resulted in new regeneration. Most of the area fires per million acres per year (Schroeder and Buck burned and most stand origins in the BWCA in the last 1970). The fire season is from May through October, 300 years can be accounted for in about a dozen fire years with peaks in May and late September when the (Heinselrnan 1973). This history suggests that most of vegetation is cured. Fast-moving crown fires are most theecologicallysignificantfiresoccurredduring frequent in spring and fall (Haines and Sando 1969; infrequent periods of severe drought. There were many Sando and Haines 1972). Summer fires may occur in other fires, but they account for only small areas. The coniferous stands, especially in July and August during natural fire rotation for the BWCA as a whole is about extended drought. 100 years. This is still the only region where studies of The primeval vegetation was strongly fire dependent charcoalstratigraphyinannuallylaminatedlake (Maissurow 1935; Spurr 1954; Ahlgren 1959a, 1959b, sediments have been combined with pollen analysis to 1974; Frissell 1973; Heinselman 1973; Swain 1973). document the pre-Columbian fire regime (Swain 1973; 261 Wright, H.E. 1974). This work shows that periodic The lightning-fire occurrence rate is reported to be less forest fires have occurred in the region for at least 9,300 than one fire per miffion acres per year (Schroeder and years. Buck 1970), but subregional variations probably exist. The Boreal Forest Region Lightning is a major cause of fire in the more remote This vast region stretches from Quebec and Labrador regions, and individual fires often bum vast areas. In the across northern Canada to interior Alaska (Rowe 1959; 7 years 1961 through 1967,44 percent of all fires in the northern Canadian territories were lightning caused, and Helmers 1974). Only a few forested naturereserves having wilderness qualities have yet been designated, but they accounted for 78 peitent of the total area burned great areas are still de facto wilderness, and more (Rowe and Scotter 1973). In the Mackenzie valley, reserves may be established. Present reserves where the lightning is the major cause of all fires (Rowe et aL 1974). forests are protected from exploitation include Riding In a 40,000-square-mile study area northeast of Ft. Smith, Mountain, Prince Albert, Wood Buffalo, and South Northwest Territory, on the wintering ground of the Nahanni River National Parks in Canada; and Mt. Beverley caribou herd, lightning caused 85 percent of all McKinley National Park in Alaska fires from 1966 to 1972, and accounted for 99.9 percent of the area burned (Johnson and Rowe 1975). In the The forests are relatively simple for so vast a region. Alaskan interior, fires still burn an average of 1 million Jack pine, from Quebec to Alberta and lodgepole pine, acres yearly, and for the period 1940 to 1969, lightning from Alberta into the Yukon, are the only pines. White ignitions accounted for 78 percent of the area burned and black spruce cross the continent. Balsam fir occurs (Hardy and Franks 1963; Barney 1971; Viereck 1973). from Quebec to western Alberta, but is replaced by subalpine fir from there into the Yukon. Northern The typical, natural fire regime is one of long-interval white-cedar occurs only from Quebecto Manitoba, but crown fires or severe surface fires, killing most of the tamarack crosses the cuntinent. Quakingaspen, balsam stands in given areas. Black spruce, jack pine, lodgepole poplar and paper birch are virtually the only broadleaf pine, and aspen-birch forests all regenerate promptly in trees, and all cross the continent. The pines and fir response to such a regime; and vast, even-aged forests of generally disappear in the forest-tundra transition region these species are common wherever they occur. Some and are absent from interior Alaska. The limit oftrees is jack pine and lodgepole pine areas also experience generally attained only by the two spruce, tamarack, and moderate surface fires that do not kill all of the stand, as here and there by stunted aspen, birch, or balsampop- near Fort Simpson, Northwest Territory (Rowe et aL lar. Large and small lakes and boggy peatlands abound. 1974). The return intervals for many vegetation types Thick humus accumulations occur on many upland sites. are probably in the 80 to 150 year range (MacLean and Moss or lichen ground cover that ignites readily when Bedell 1955; Horton 1956; Rowe 1970; Rowe and dry occurs in most spruce and inmany pine stands Scotter 1973; Viereck 1973; Rowe et aL 1974). On the (Rowe 1959; Ritchie 1962; Rowe and &orter 1973; winter range of the Beverley caribou herd, fires burned Viereck 1973). an average of 0.9 percent of the area annually from 1966 The climate is characterized by long, very cold winters to 1972 (Johnson and Rowe 1975). Most of the area and a winter-dry/summer-wet precipitationpattern. burned in given subregions probably burns during major Annual precipitation decreases northwestward from 35 droughts which recur at intervals of 10 to 40 years to 45 inches in northern Quebec to only 10 to 15 inches (MacLean and Bedell 1955; Rowe and others 1974). in the Yukon and interior Alaska. Snow accumulations There has been debate about how much the arrival of are generally light, especially in the northwest, but snow Europeans has changed the fire regime and whether any covers the ground from mid-October to May. Summers changes have affected the vegetation and the winter are normally cool, with occasional light rains, but range of caribou (Lutz 1956; Scotter 1964; Rowe and extended droughts with long periods of warm, clear Scotter 1973; Viereck 1973; Bergerud 1974;Jobnson and weather do occur, especially in the northwest. The long Rowe 1975). Areas near settlements dearly did see an days of these northern latitudes permitsevere drying, early increase in fires, and recently a decrease due to fire and there may be little cooling or humidity increase controL But the evidence now indicates that most of the during the short nights of June andJuly. Thunderstorms more remote country isstill an essentially pristine are much less frequent than in southern climates, but environment, with little change in fire regimes and few lightning ignitions nevertheless occur because ground other human impacts that could have altered the fuels and arboreal lichens ignite readily during droughts. vegetation (Viereck 1973; Johnson and Rowe 1975).

262 The Eastern Deciduous Forest, Appalachian, and Gulf because frequent light surface fires were abundant there Coast Regions (Komarek 1974). Lightning fires still do occur in pine and pine-hardwood forests in Great Smoky Mountains Many small- to medium-sized wilderness units have been designated or are under study in the Appalachian National Park and adjacent areas, but most fires are Mountains from Maine, New Hampshire, and New surface fires that do not greatly change the forest York south to South Carolina, and in scattered other composition (Barden and Woods 1973). The pine component of such forests may have been maintained in localitiesthroughout the Southeast and Midwest. Already protected are Baxter State Park in Maine, the past by crown fires or very severe surface fires that occurred only at long intervals in exceptional droughts. Adirondack State Park in New York, the Great Smoky The lightning fire season in the southern Appalachians Mountains National Park, and the following wilder- is April through August, with 40 percent of all fires nesses under Forest Service jurisdiction: Presidential Range-Dry River, Great Guif (New Hampshire); occurring in May (Barden 1974). Bristol Cliffs, Lye Brook (Vermont); Dolly Sods, Otter Delilrate burning by Indians and early settlers was Creek (West Virginia); Rainbow Lake (Wisconsin); widespread. Essentially all areas outside reserves have Linville Gorge (North Carolina);Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock also had their forest cover modified by commercial (North Carolina,Tennessee); James RiverFace logging, fuelwood cutting, or land clearing at some time (Virginia); Caney Creek; Upper Buffalo (Arkansas); during the past 400 years. Thus the influence of man has Beaver Creek (Kentucky); Ellicott Rock (Georgia, North been more intense here than in other areas of North Carolina, South Carolina); Gee Creek (Tennessee); America. Both the American chestnut and the American Cohutta (Georgia, Tennessee); Sipsey (Alabama); and elm have largely been eliminated by introduced fungi. Bradwell Bay (Florida). There are also several forested Fire-history studies based on tree-ring and fire-scar wildlife refuges with wilderness status. The vegetation of evidence are difficult to conduct because most of the this large region is too diverse and complex to treat here, evidence has been lost through cutting or rapid tree but in general itis largely a mixture of broadleaf growth. For most of these areas, the ecosystem hardwoods, including sugar and red maples, yellow birth, management problem is thus largely one of restoration, beech, many oaks and hickories, tulip poplar, ash, elm, and natural fire may not be very important. Where fire cherry, Several other hardwoods, several pines (especially was important, detailed local studies will beessential to eastern white pine and shortleaf), eastern hemlock, and elucidate its role. in the high mountains and the northeast also balsam fir, Fraser fir, red spruce, and northern white-cedar. In The Everglades, Wetlandc, Prairies, and Deserts addition, parts of the coastal plain support large areas of Wilderness units have already been established or the southern pines (longleaf, loblolly, slash). proposed for a wide spectrum of chiefly nonforest The dimate varies considerably from north to south wetland, prairie, or desert grass and shrub ecosystems. and alsolocally because of the influence of the Many of these units are within the National Wildlife Appalachians and the ocean. However, from the fire- Refuge System or the National Park System, but there occurrence standpoint, five generalizations apply: (1) are also several Forest Service units withdesert shrub Precipitation is abundant (35 to 75 inches annually) and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire was a vital factor in well-distributed through the seasons; (2) temperatures many of these ecosystems(see Robertson1962; are relatively high and severe, short term droughts do Humphrey 1974; Komarek 1974; Vogl 1974). A review occur; (3) winter snowcover is variable and of short of the many varied local situations is beyond the scope of duration except in the higher and northern mountains; this chapter. Managers must carefully study the natural (4) thunderstorms are frequent, but most are accompan- role of fire in each area, and where evidence indicates ied by enough rain to extinguish lightning ignitions; (5) important effects, a fire management program is decomposition of forest fuels and humus is rapid because indicated. of the mild and humid climate. These climatic patterns probably produced a natural fire regime that involved infrequent dormant-season surface fires in the deciduous Factors that Control Natural Fire Regimes hardwoodforests,and perhaps somewhat more frequent, but still very long-return-interval fires in most An understanding of certain basic factors will help fire conifer-hardwood and conifer forests. The southern managers develop policy and can guide interimpolicies coastal plain pine region is dearly an exception, however, where the natural regimes is poorly known.

263 Lightning. Occurrence is most frequent in the and a production/accumulation balance that provides South, especially over the southwestern mountains and rapid replacement of light, flammable fuels, but prevents in the southeastern states, and decreases northward heavy accumulations, especially in the presence of more or less systematically, but some thunderstorms do periodic fires. Crown fires and severe ground fires that occur to the northern timberline and even in arctic kill stands might be mostly the result of man-caused fuel tundra regions. The probability of lightning-caused accumulations, but even in these regions, before man's ignition is related to seasonal climatic patterns and influence became significant, fuels and weather probably thunderstorm characteristics. Other factors being equal, did combine to produce violent fire behavior in local areas with heavier total precipitation and summer areas at very long intervals. rainfall climates will experience fewer ignitions fora In the Cascades, the higher elevations of the Rockies, given amount of thunderstorm activity than areas with the higher elevations and higher precipitation areas of lighter total precipitation and/or winter-wet/summer- the Intermountain Region, the northern Lake Superior dry climates. Region, and the Boreal Forest, the natural lightning fire Fuel production. The amount of fuel produced regime is chiefly one of long-return-interval crown fires influences both the probability and severity of fires. In or severe surface fires, with return intervals on most sites general, total biotic production is higher in the South and in excess of 75 years and inmany areas inexcess of 200 to at lower elevations and decreases northward and with 300 years. Such fires tend to be large in area, although fire increasing elevation. Total annual precipitation often size varies widely with the local physiographic setting. obscures this trend, however. When temperature and These regime characteristics are due to combinations of precipitation are integrated, the highest areas of fuel reduced lightning occurrence (as in the boreal forest), production can be identified, and such areas are now well low annual production but high net-accumulation of known. fuels, or climates that are normally too moist for effective Fuel accumulation. Independent of production, fuel ignitions (west slopes of Cascades, Lake Superior Region, tends to increase northward, with increasing elevation many places in the Rockies). At the lower elevations, in and decreasing moisture. Itisrelatively greater in the drier portions of these regions, where droughts are summer-dry as opposed to summer-wet climates common; and in the most flammable vegetation types, because decomposition increases both with temperature, light to moderate surface fires with return intervals of 5 and available moisture (up to the point of oxygen to 40 years occurred in some areas, but these are not deficiency, at which the moisture trend is reversed). typical patterns for most of these regions. Elevation. The life zones of high mountain ranges In the Eastern Deciduous Forest, lightning-caused integrates the temperature gradient caused by elevation, fires probably occurred only at rather long intervals, slope, and aspect, and are a guide to the effective during the dormant season, usually only in the most temperature regime. A few thousand feet of elevation flammable types (such as oak or oak-pine) and then were can be equivalent to several hundred miles of latitude in not very severe in most cases. This is so because total the resultant effect on fire regimes. precipitation is high; summer rains are usucilly abundant; Other Factors. Precipitation patterns and tempera- and the warm, humid summers promote rapid decay of aires, when integrated with lightning occurrence, fuel forest fuels. In addition, the litter of most broadleaf production, and fuel accumulation results in a systematic deciduous treesislessresistant to decay and less and understandable distribution of natural, lightning- flammable than that of most conifers. There are caused fire regimes. These regimes can be summarized exceptions, but for this reason also, many broadleaf as follows. deciduous forests probably had less lightning-caused fire than would conifer forests in the same physical setting. The Continental Pattern of lightning-Fire Regimes In the California mountains, at the lower elevations ot the Intermountain Region, in the Southwest, and in the Fire Policy Alternatives and their Southern Pine Region of the Gulf States, the natural Consequences lightning-fire regime is one of frequent light to moderate surface fires, with a return interval of usually not longer There are five theoretic'Jly available policy alterna- than 5 to 25 years. Such fires tend to be relatively small in tives with respect to fire: (1) Fire exdusion, (2) no fire- area (if there have not been unnatural fuel accumulations control program, (3) management of lightning-caused due to fire exdusion). These characteristics are the result fires, (4) prescrIbed fire, (5) mechanical manipulation of of high lightning occurrence during favorable weather, vegetation andfuelsCombinations are obviously

264 possible, but itis useful to describe each separately. fire lines in Alaska is a good example of the kind of Failure to pursue a conscious policy will still result in the lasting environmental damage that can occur from fire unintended or haphazard implementation of one or suppression (Viereck 1973). Unless there is good reason more of these same options. to believe that fire is not a significant factor in the ecosystem, fire exdusion should be rejected except as an Fire Evclusion interim measure. A fire-exclusionpolicyrequiresthe immediate suppression of all fires, regardless of cause, location, or No Fire-Control Program expected damage. It might fail in application, but if the A no fire-control program is the opposite of fire policy requires prompt suppression, without exceptions, exdusion Itis even less acceptable, unless fire is then the objective is to exdude fire from the ecosystem. essentially impossible in the ecosystem. The reason is Until vely recently, this has been the standard policy in thatsuch a program endangers human life and most wildernesses and National Parks, and it remains propertyinduding lives and property beyond wilder- the policy in many. At the very least it is often defensible nessboundaries.Responsiblemanagement must as a holding action until the expertise and equipment to provide for the safety of persons and propertycertainly implement a more desirable option are available, or until outside the wilderness, to say nothing of visitors and a rational judgment concerning the best alternative can Agency personnel within the area. Some fire protection be made. However, if it is known that an ecosystem was people might believe thatfire ecologists advocate strongly fire dependent, then managers must recognize complete cessation of fire control, but actually no that fire exclusion is really a powerful form of vegetation informed and responsible person would be so callous. manipulation It requires personnel, machines, and large This option must be rejected outright. inputs of scarce management funds. In most areas, fire exclusion is really a large-scle ecological experiment Management of Lightning-Caused Fires because, if the natural system was fire dependent, we A policy of managing lightning-caused fires rests on have no way of foretelling the ultimate consequences. If the belief thatthey are natural and desirable in the policy succeeds, there will probably be major changes wilderness ecosystems. Such a policy attempts to restore in both vegetation and wildlife populations and perhaps such fires to their natural status safely by protecting lives also major breakdowns in the productivity, diversity, and and property, and by minimizing unacceptable effects on stability of the ecosystem. wilderness resources due to unnatural fuel accumulations. Another problem resulting from a policy of fire The approachissimply one of avoidingdirect exclusion is a buildup of forest fuels. We do not really manipulation as much as possible by allowing nature to know the extent of the fuel accumulation problem, select the time, place, vegetation, and fuels for fires because in most ecosystems it is not dear how long fuels through lightning ignitions. The management involves would continue to increase without fire. But in the kinds selective fire control based on both safety and ecological of ecosystems we are discussing here, fire was one of considerations.12 This is a new and viable approach to the nature's ways of reducing fuels and recycling biomass and fire problem for many areas and we will be discussing it nutrients. With both lightning and man as sources of further. ignition, one wonders if fire exdusion is really a viable option in such ecosystems. Perhaps, in following a policy Prescribed Fire of exclusion, we are only setting the stage for a major The goal of a prescribed-fire policy is the restoration of conflagration which could not only be dangerous to the natural fire regime through the substitution of human life and property, but disruptive to the very deliberate ignitions for lightning-caused fires. It is based ecosystems we are purportedly protecting. Fire exdusion on the assumption that the ecological effects of fire will often requires the use of bulldozers or other heavy line- be the same, whether man or lightning caused. This building equipment,aircraft, smoke jumpers, and assumption is not totally valid, however. While it might retardants. When major fires threaten lives or property be possible, through skillful firing, to create significant outside the wilderness, managers are tempted to use all burns that dosely resemble lightning-caused fires, it available techniques, regardless of the consequences to might also be possible to burn in seasons when lightning wilderness resources. Fire exdusion, if practiced too long, never occurs, or at doser than natural intervals. These can therefore force managers to inflict major damage on circumstances should not alone preclude the use of the landscape in the name of saving the wilderness from fire. Recent experience with the erosion of tractor-built 12Se Kilgore 1972, Habrek and Mutch 1973; Agee 1974; Daniels 1974.

265 Figure 12-3.Efficient fire control using pack strings, helicopters, smoke jumpers, and aerial fire-retardant lx)mbing has contributed to less than natural levels of fire in some wildernesses.

prescribed fire. The basic reason for this option is the 1964). Vegetation removal need not be commercially belief, often valid, that fires can more often be managed motivated, and no product or biomass must necessarily safely if the time and place of ignitionare selected in be moved from the site. (In fact, it would be illegal to sell advance, thus allowing time to ready personnel and the timber in either a wilderness or National Park under equipment, work with weather forecasts, make fuel present U.S. statutes.) assessments, and prepare lines (Kilgore 1970; Heinsel- There are several ecological problems with this man 1971a, 1973; Agee 1974). This option is also approach, however. First, if the vegetation is felled explored below in greater detail. mechanically, it is not dear how the forest biomass can be recyded promptly. If fire is used after cutting, the safety Methanical Man:ulation of Vegetation and Futh problem still remains. A more basic concern is that the Another policy rejects fire, both lightning caused and ecological effects of mechanical manipulation are subject prescribed, as an unacceptable or unsafe agent of change, to a manager's decisions, his skills, and his knowledge. and substitutes mechanical manipulationse.g., harvest Theoretically, itis possible to simulete many of the of the forest, soil disturbance, plantingfor the periodic, effects of fire by mechanical means, but the result is natural perturbations caused by fire. Safety is usually artificiala simiihtion And, in wilderness, naturalness given as the reason for favoring this option (Kaufert is a prime objective.

266 The extentof ecosystem controlinvolvedin on preservation of the natural physical and biotic mechanical manipulation can best be seen through an wilderness resources (Hendee and Stankey 1973). example. Consider an attempt to reproduce an old lodgepole pine-Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest. The Need for Historical Data The manager would have to decide how large an area to The objective requires a careful effort to determine cut, which trees to fell and which to leave, how to prepare what the natural role of fire actually was. In general, this the soil, whether to seed or plant, which species and what seed sources to use, how much seed, and when to sow. means that the manager should have the dearest possible definition of the presettlement fire regime. His Furthermore, it is not dear how the ecological or esthetic information should indude the following: effects of standing snags would be simulated, nor how Causes of past fires. stumps could be avoided. Seasonal, geographic, and long-term patterns of An important criticism of such widespread control is lightning ignitions. thatthescientificvaluesassociated with natural Character of past firesi.e., their type, intensity, vegetation would be lost when virgin forests are heavily ecological effects, and return intervals. manipulated. As a method of restoring vegetation Characteristic return intervals for specific vegeta- already altered by commercial logging, the method tion types and physiographic situations. might have some merit. The question of degree of Typical sizes of burns. mechanical manipulation is also involved. What about a Fire exclusion programsextent of their applica- minimal amount of cutting in advance of prescribed tion and degree of success. burning to reduce fuels, to prepare firelines, to fell snags Natural fuels mosaicbefore and during fire or birch trees to avoid long-distance spotting? These are protection questions that must be weighed carefully and spelled out If specific historical information cannot be obtained, in management plans. Once a little manipulation is managers must reconstruct the probable situation begun, it is easy to conclude that more would be better. At through inferences from literature and from studying the some point the whole concept of natural ecosystems is natural vegetation, climate, and geographic setting. sacrificed, and a managed forest is substituted. If carried veryfar,thisalternative becomes silviculture, not wilderness preservation. Silviculture has its placebut Safety not in wilderness management. Fires are dangerous. The intelligent manager will never allow his enthusiasm for restoring the ecosystem to override safety considerations. In recent years most Restoring Fire to Wilderness Ecosystems fire fatalities have been sustained by firefighters. Great care must be exercised to build personnel safety into all Objectives fire management plans, but there is also potential danger A basic theme of this book is that dearly established in any fire to wilderness visitors, nearby residents, objectives underlie management actions. Fire restoration travelers, and in some cases even to nearby towns and is dearly a situation where understanding the objective villages. Visitors can be directed away from fire areas or must precede planning or implementation The basic evacuated if necessary. Closure of fire areas is possible. objective for most fire-restoration situations can be But the responsibility for keeping fires away from simply stated as: To restore fire to its natural role in the homes, vilbges,roads, powerlines,structures, and ecosystem to the maximum extent consistent with safety commercial forests outside the wilderness is absolute. of persons, property, and other resources. Note that the Wilderness fire programs that jeopardize the lives or goal is not to produce any specific mix of vegetation property of people not involvedinthe use or types, to create desirable wildlife habitat, to reduce fuels, management of an area will not be tolerated by our to improve esthetics, or to attain related specific benefits. societyand rightfully so. Some of these benefits might accrue from a successful Endaves of development within major nature program, but the objective is to restore the naturalness of reserves, such as those in Yellowstone orJasper National the environment and let natural processes take over. Parks, present special problems that must be realistically This will help to produce an ecosystem "where the earth faced. For example, in some areas it might be possible to and its community of life are untrammelled by man." use managed lightning-caused fires in the backcountry, Such an objective is in keeping with a biocentric focus for but only prescribed fire somewhat nearer the enclaves, wilderness management, which places strong emphasis and chiefly mechanical manipulation in their immediate

267 vicinity. In many cases the only other safe approach fire should be allowed to proceed naturally until it reaches would be to phase out such enclaves. its own final perimeter. Enhancement of natural fires might also be justified in some cases simply to get it Definition of "Fire Management" and "Managed over with sooner, to cut costs, or to reduce the duration Fires" of smoke production. In another sense, though, the Wildernessfire managementisthedeliberate distinction between prescribed fires and natural fires can reintroduction of fireto achieve stated wilderness become blurred. For even where managers rely on objectivesinanaturally fire-dependent ecosystem lightning ignitions, they must have the option of through the execution of technically sound plans under suppressing certain perimeters, or even the entire fire, if specific prescriptions. they anticipate unacceptable safety problems or resource Management fires can be either naturally caused damage. (lightning or volcanic ignition) or prescribed burns, Another aspect of prescribed burning that must be depending on the fire plan for specific areas. But all fires faced is the possibility of artifically modifying fuel in that do not meet preplanned criteriaand this includes advance of burning to achieve desired results. The only all man-caused fires other than deliberately ignited tenable position is that modification should be used only management burnsare wildfires and should be if burning unnatural fuel accumulations (caused by fire suppressed. Not only is it unacceptable to allow careless- exclusion) would otherwise cause unacceptable ecological ness to dictate wilderness fire effects, but such fires also effects or safety problems. Usually such fuels can be tend to have unnatural location patterns. reduced in stages with several light burns. Snag felling, cutting of paper birch trees (to avoid spotting) and other Managed lightning-Caused Fire Versus Prescribed advance treatments of fuels are questionable actions in Fire wilderness and should be prohibited unless essential to The basic objective of wilderness fire programs is to assure the success of prescribed fires. return fire to its natural role as an environmental factor. The natural ignition pattern is a vital key to restoring Natural ignitions, natural fire patterns, and fire behavior the natural vegetation mosaic This is why lightning are preferred over human ignitions and heavily directed fire behavior. Fire programs are really needed only if there is concern (1) about safety or (2) about unnatural ecosystem effects due to prior fire exdusion. Unfortu- nately, one or both concerns are often justified. The guiding principle in choosing between a managed lightning-fire program, prescribed burning, or some combination should be this: If not precluded by safety or ecologicalconcerns, managed lightningfiresare preferred. However, safety concerns might dictate that only prescribed fires will be used near the wilderness perimeter, near enclaves of development, in very small wildernesses, in high visitor-use areas, and in ecosystems where it is known that natural fires tend to be high- intensity crown fires or severe and fast-moving surface fires. If it appears that unnatural fuel accumulations might cause fire to kill overstory trees and it is unlikely that natural fires will be large or fast moving enough to reduce the fuels, prescribed fires can be used to do the job. Combinations of lightning fire and prescribed fire for certain problem situations often make the most sense. It is also possible to enhance the area or movement of a lightning fire by skillful firing of key perimeters. Such work might be justified when a fire is obviously doing a safe job or reducing unnatural and potentially dangerous fuels. The key here is the word unnatural. If the fuels are Figure 12-4.Lightning is nature's primaty source of ignition in believed to be unaffected by past human action, then the wilderness ecosystems.

268 ignitions are preferred. If we let nature choose the time, Fuel the place, and fuels, then a natural ecosystem should A workable classification of the important fuel types result. If prescribed burning is used exclusively, the in the area should be given or established if not already ignition patterns are crucial. One possibility is to identify available. Descriptions of fuel types, based on field work defensible burning blocks bordered by natural fire if possible, should be induded. Fuel loading and rate-of. barriers, and then to randomly select the blocks to be spread estimates should be given. Maps of at least the fired each year. Another approach is to wait for lightning more hazardous fuel areas might be included. ignitions in such blocks, extinguish the resulting fires and then reignite them under favorable circumstances. Weather Regime A concise summary of important weather variables and of historic fire weather for the specific area is needed, The Wilderness Fire Management Plan along with descriptions of safe-but-workable burning Wilderness fire plans should include someor all weather and "red flag" unacceptable conditions. of the following elements which have been synthesized from plans, proposals, guidelines, and other Forest Potential Impacts Outside the Wilderness Service and National Park Service writings.'3 A discussion of potential problem areas in control, and of other impacts on resources (e.g., smoke abatement) or Objectives or Introduction values outside the wilderness is needed. The objectives for the total wilderness fire program should be dearly spelled out and related to other The Action Plan objectives of the wilderness unit and the managing Following the same planning heirarchy explained in Agency. chapter 8, the fire management plan must be aimed at achieving dearly-stated objectives for fire within the Descnittions and Maps of Landscape Units wilderness and set forth the policies and actions that Planning must be tied to on-the-ground conditions must be carried out to attain those objectives. relevanttofirebehavior,control problems, and Guiding principles and decisionsthat influence ecological effects. For this purpose it is often useful to prescriptions and action plans should be explicit. These identify significant landscape units on large-scalemaps might include (a) goals (e.g., restoration of the natural and/or aerial photographs, Standard ecological land fire regime); (b) scope of prescriptions (e.g., will they be units(ELU's),habitattypes, vegetation types, or limited to protecting life and property, or will they physiographic units are concepts that can usually be used. extend to protecting resources adjoining the wilderness Mapping units should have reasonable homogeneity boundary); and (c) decisions that establish priorities and with respect to their gross vegetation, expectedrange of guide actions (e.g., will fires be limited to lightning- fuels, and major physiographic variables (e.g.,topog- caused ignitions, or will prescribed or visitor-caused raphy, climate, geology, soils). burns be acceptable? Under what conditions?). Prescriptions that define action should be tied to Fire History and Natural Fire Regime landscape units (and, in some cases, to specific fuel or Historical data, fire-scar chronologies, stand-origin vegetation types); specify seasons or dates and the data, and pertinent publications, maps, and photographs Buildup-Index (BUT) or other measures of antecedent should be summarized. The detail is less important than conditions under which burning will be permitted; and the manager's concept of the kind of naturalfire regime define acceptable limitsforfuel moisture, relative to be restored. Return intervals for fires in key vegetation humidity, windspeed, and temperatures. If prescribed types and landscape units should be given if known, and burning is involved, both lower and upper limits must be the character of ecologically significant fires described specified and based on restoration of the natural (typical fire size, behavior, intensity). Differences in fire ecosystem and avoidance of unacceptable risks. Only regimes and effects between landscape units should be upper limits that will avoid serious control problems described. need be set for managed lightning-caused fires. if tco conservative, they can be changed later. For the management of lightning-caused fires the plan must °See Aldrich and Mutch 1972, 1973; Kilgore and Briggs 1972; Habeck and Mutch 1973; Agee 1974; Daniels 1974; Gunzel 1974; Moore 1974; Mutch 1974; Van define three general sets of conditions: (1) Conditions Wagtendonk 1974; Kilgore 1975; Reese et al. 1975. under which a fire will only be put under competent

269 technical observation, (2) conditions under which a fire involved in implementing the plan, with researchers, will be suppressed, and (3) conditions under which and with other agencies. The aim should be to portions of a fire might be observed, while other maximize the information and experience gained from portions will be selectively suppressed. There must be each fire. This is also the place to take note of special dear language to the effect that all fires will be programs or plans based on boundaries with other suppressed if they jeopardize human life, valuable agencies or other nations. cultural resources, or species of endangered wildlife, or if they threaten to exceed prescriptions or to escape from Information Program predetermined zones or from the wilderness unit unless Steps to inform and secure the cooperation of the there are cooperative agreements with another agency public and the agency's own staff should be detailed that provide for such cases. Prescriptions should be here. It is vital that the public understand that, rather summarized in chart form for dispatching purposes. than abandoning the area to the vagaries of wildfire, the A section should indude a narrative flow chart or table agency has an effective fire control program (Stankey and a map that integrates prescriptions into pre-attack or 1976). Possibilities for using management firesin ignition and control plans. The chart should be educational programs concerning wilderness resources immediately available to the fire dispatcher, all aerial and natural ecosystem processes can also be described. observers and lookouts, and key supervisory personnel. Literature The narrative should cover preattack items for each The plan should indude key references on the climate, landscape unit. Maps should identify key features and geology, vegetation, ecosystem types, wildlife, and fire locations of specific actions such as potential control-line history for the region, plus fire control guides, equipment locations,burnoutareas, accessroutes, campsites, manuals,and othernecessaryinformation.Such helispots, airfields, and air-tanker sources. This part of literature should be on hand at headquarters. the fire plan should include travel times, a communica- tions plan, and equipment availability and locations. Also Approvak neededare dear statementsof policyon line- The plan should be reviewed and signed by the construction equipment and standards, use of retardants, appropriate officials. and fuel modification in advance of burning. For prescribed burning, both long-range and annual plans are needed, the latter prepared during the off-season and The Effect of Area Size on Fife Programs based on progress toward long-range objectives and the Other factors being equal, large and well-blocked-in previous yeais experience. wildernesses presentfarfewer problems infire The safety plan should specify protective measures for management than small, narrow, irregular, or poorly fire crews, supervisory personnel, visitors, threatened blocked-in areas. But some fires tend to become very homes, villages, facilities, and other property under given large and intense, as in the North Cascades, the boreal contingencies,indudingwildfiresnotrelatedto forest, or the BWCA, so that area size alone can not management fires. always assure containment. In such areas, very large crown fires and severe surface fires that could cover tens Line Responsibility of thousands of acres are unacceptable. Here, fire size Line officers with responsibility for executing the plan might often have to be held below natural upper limits, should be identified. It should be dear which decisions are because even a large, designated wilderness is really only made by whom, and who their alternates are. Obviously a a fragment of the primeval ecosystem. Prescribed fires key decision is the initial decision to suppress or not might be necessary near the boundaries of large units, suppress a given lightning-caused ignition. As fires and throughout the area for small units. proceed, there will be additional important decisions on whether, when, where, or how to take suppression measures. If time permits, using a committee of Avoiding Adte Impacts of Suppression designated specialists can be a good approach to making Activities such decisions. Necessary suppression work and prescribed burning Cooperation must be carried out with great sensitivity to wilderness This section should spell out cooperative arrange- values. The guiding principle should be that the least ments with staff people who might not be directly damaging equipment and methods will be employed,

270 Figure 12-5.Lookouts were once the main surveillance method to detect wilderness fires. Today, however, many lookouts are being phased out in favor of aerial surveillance carried out only when fire danger is high Left: Wiley Park lookout, Seiway-Birterrooc Wilderness, Mont Right: Firescan, an infrared detection device supplements visual observation. consistent with safety. This means handlines instead of agent in ecosystem restoration programs. Fire manage- bulldozers, and minimal use of saws and axes. This ment programs were not long in appearing. means avoiding fire control techniques that, in the past, did more damage to the ecosystem than the fires they Sequoia-Kings and Yosemite National Parks, were intended to suppress. Frequently a little advance Calfomia planning will identify natural fire barriers where fires can The first designation of a Natural Fire Management be suppressed with little or no permanent evidence. Zone in forested western wilderness and the first breakthrough in prescribed burning in the West came in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in 1968. Farnples of Wilderness Fire Management Beginning then, lightning-caused fires were allowed to Programs and Supporting Research burn under surveillance unless safety problems or resource damage was anticipated, in a special manage- Wilderness fire management and research programs ment zone above 8,000 feet in the Middle Fork Kings have been underway in numerous National Parks, River drainage. This zone was gradually expanded and wildernesses, and related reserves for several years. A now encompasses about 590,000 acres, or roughly 70 few examples will help identify the state of the art,as percent of these Parks. The forests are generally open well as provide contacts and literature sources. The and subalpine, and much of the terrain is extremely rocky beginnings can be traced in part to the so-called Leopold or above timberline. Some 97 fires occurred within this Committee's 1963 report on 'Wildlife Management in zone up to 1975, burning 7,800 acres. Partial suppression the National Parks" (Leopold et al. 1963). While not was needed for only a few fires, and no serious problems aimed directlyatfireproblems,itidentified the have developed (Kilgore and Briggs 1972; Agee 1974; ecosystem changes resulting from the elimination of Van Wagtendonk 1975). natural fire as a key element influencing National Park In 1969, starting in the Redwood Mountain Area, wildlife habitat. In 1965 a National Park Service directive prescribed burningto reduce unnaturalfuels and called for implementing the Leopold Report, particularly invading shade-to!erant understory trees began in the for areas in the natura! category in several of the large lower elevation mixed-conifer forests, induding some parks (Baker 1965) and expressly encouraged the use of giant sequoia groves (Kilgore and Biswell 1971; Kilgore fire, induding prescribed fire, as an appropriate natural 1972, 1975). Initially some cutting and piling of small

271 trees and litter was used to avoid control problems and testthe most severe fire weather in decades produced unnatural overstory damage. Similar work was done six lightning fires in 1973. One, the Fritz Creek Fire, later on a 20-acre unit of the Mariposa Grove of giant burned 1,200 acres under prescription within the unit, sequoias in nearby Yosemite National Park Later, more but caused a 1,600-acre fire outside the unit. Full-scale extensive understory precribed burning in mixed suppression was taken on this escape, but the Fritz Creek conifers was carried out without significant modification Fire was allowed to burn inside the wilderness. The unit of fuels in both the Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon boundary, where crossed, was a small stream, the north areas. This type of burning is now part of a large-scale side being inside the unit, and the south (a north slope) operational program.'4 outside. No important resource damage occurred, and no In 1972 a Natural Fire Zone was also established in developed areas were involved, but this example Yosemite. By 1975 it included 480,000 acres. The fire illustrates the difficulty of holding fires along an exterior control staff believes that essentially any fire within this wilderness boundary where continuous fuels extend zone can safely be allowed to burn because of preva outside the wilderness. Nevertheless, considering the fuel, vegetation, and physiographic factors f specified severe fire weather, the White Cap program was a weather and fuel prescriptions are met. success. In 1975 the study was expanded to indude the An additional 132,000 acres were in a "Conditional adjacent 135,000-acre Bear Creek drainage to the north Fire Zone," an area of restricted burning because of the on the Nez Perce National Forest. This raised the total fuel accumulations generated by previous fire exclusion. area under fire management to about 200,000 acres. As these fuels are reduced, it is hoped that parts of the Again, cooperation between managers and research Conditional Zone can become areas in the Natural Fire people helped provide a solid technical base for this Zone. In the remainder of the Park; which indudes most effort.16 of the park's developments, a full-scale fire suppression Grand Teton and Yelloutone National Parks, program is in effect, but prescribed burning is being used Wyoming to reduce fuels in critical areas (Van Wagtendonk 1975). Certainly some of the success of the Sequoia-Kings These two Parks have related ecosystems and Canyon and Yosemite fire management programs can problems, and dose but not common boundaries. Their be credited to the extensive research available when total area is almost 2-½ miffion acres, much of it de facto these programs began and to the continued cooperation wilderness. A strong fire research base has shown that of research and management.'5 both areas have fire-dependent ecosystems.'7 Yellow- stone now has two Natural Fire Management Zones Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho and Montana encompassing 340,000 acres in total: The Mirror Plateau This Forest Service wilderness is the largest unit of the Unit in the northeast, and the Two Ocean Plateau Unit National Wilderness Preservation System (1,238,000 in the southeast. Both have been operational since 1973, acres), and the first unit having operational experience but so far few fires have occurred. Grand Teton has a with a sizable Wilderness Fire Management program. more complex zoning scheme, with a 125,000-acre The program began in 1970 in the 100-square-mile Natural Fire Management Zone in the main Teton White Cap Study area on the Bitterroot National Forest. Range and a 22,000-acre Conditional Fire Zone in a Five ecological land units were involved in the initial sagebrush grassland in the southeast of the Park where area: shrubfield, ponderosa pine savanna, ponderosa lightning fires may be allowed to burn on decision of a pine/Douglas-fir (south slope), north slope communi- fire committee. All lightning and man-caused fires are ties, and subalpine. Prescriptions were prepared for each suppressed in the developed remainder of the Park ecological land unit based on field investigations of fuels, (134,000 acres), but prescribed fires are permitted where plant communities, landforms, and fire spread and appropriate. intensity potentials. A detailed management plan called Several lightning fires have occurred since the plan's for selective suppression of fires, depending on weather inception, the largest being the 2,700-acre Waterfall conditions and fire locations. The study plan was Canyon fire in 1974. This fire, located in the Natural Fire approved in 1972. It was immediately put to a difficult Zone on the west shore of Jackson Lake, was allowed to burn from its ignition by lightning on July 14 through

I4S Agee 1974; Kilgore 1975; Van Wagtendonk 1975. 'See Biswell 1961; Hartesveldt 1964; Harteaveklt and Harvey 1967; Weaver and 16See Mutch 1970, 1974; Habeck 1972, 1973; Aldrich and Mutch 1972, 1973; Habedc Biswell1;Kilgore 1970, l971a, 1971b, 1972,1973; Kilgore and Biswell 1971;Kilgore and Mutch 1973; Daniels 1974; Moure 1974 and Briggs 1972; Cotton and Biswell 1973; Agee 1974; Kilgore and Sando 1975; Van See Patren 19® Taylor 1969 Houston 1971,1973; Loupe 1971; Loupe and Gruell Wagtendonk 1975 1973

272 the busy tourist season until finally extinguished by fall extent of this problem have been shown by Stankey rains and snows in December, It burned slowly in an area (1976). To overcomethislegacy from past fire of old Engelmann spruce and other forest types, and no prevention campaigns, slogans, and posters that told an significant suppressive action was taken. On some days incomplete story, new and innovative educational work smoke was heavy in Jackson Hole and partially obscured withthe media and schoolsisneeded. Careful views of the spectacular Teton Range across Jackson distinctions must be made between wilafires, which still Lake. T ooil opposition to the fire developed, and the must be suppressed in all cases, and management fires; problem was aired on national television. The National and between urban air pollution and the necessary Park Service stoutly defended the fire as natural, and as combustion of forest fuels in wilderness fire programs part ofitsinnovative new ecosystem restoration (Hall 1972). To make these distinctions, the public must program. Considerable public support for the fire was have accurate knowledge. Stankey's (1976) findings received, but this fire illustrates the difficulty in gaining suggest that wilderness users will respond positively public support for natural fires, particularly where they when the factual knowledge of fire'snatural role are visible in residential, commercial, or esthetically increases. important areas. Public reluctance to accept natural burns We need more fire management experience with is a legacy from 50 years of fire prevention campaigns severe surface fires and crown fires of substantial size, the that condemned all fires (Stankey 1976). kind that were characteristic of many of our more northern and high-elevation conifer forests. We need to Teton Wilderness, Wyoming know, for example, what the characteristic sizes of such A fire management plan has been prepared for this fires were and whether fires of modest size were as 560,000-acre National Forest Wilderness, which adjoins effective as large fires in rejuvenating the local ecosystem. both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks Experts in fuels, fire behavior, fire control, and fire (Reese et al. 1975). A long, common boundary with ecology need to learn more about the probability of Yellowstone Park's Two Ocean Natural Fire Area will quiescent periods during intense fires when further not have to be defended by either agency when the plan enlargement of the burn could easily be restricted by is implemented. Lightning-caused fires will be allowed to suppression along key perimeters. We need to revise our burn under surveillance if they meet certain prescrip- definition of threshold conditions for crowning and rapid tions, with the option of limited or total suppression at fire spread in well-chosen examples of key ecosystems. any time. The initial decision to declare a fire a natural Such experience can often be gained in the remote fire and allow it to burn will be made by the District portions of our largest wilderness units without fear of Ranger. boundary transgressions. Perhaps we canalsolearnmore aboutthe Trends and Future Needs management of crown fires and high-intensity surface fires through designed burning trials in wildernesses The necessity of restoring fire to fire-dependent where natural fire barriers provide adequate protection. ecosystems in wildernesses, National Parks, and related The pioneering work of Van Wagner (1968, 1971) nature reserves is now widely recognized. The trend shows the potential of such studies. Prescribed fires can toward active fire management programs is strong, and also be the safest approach, both from the human safety more areas are initiating programs each year. Wilderness andecologicaldamagestandpoint,forreducing fire management is complex and demanding work, unnatural fuel accumulations built up because of fire requiring high professional competence and intimate exdusion beneath stands of ponderosa pine, giant knowledge of the specific ecosystem and land unit to be sequoia, redwood, sugar pine, red pine, and similar managed. More people trained in ecology and forestry, species. Once reductions have been accomplished, it with understanding of fire behavior and an interest in should be possible to rely again on natural ignitions. preservation management, will therefore be needed in the near future. The need for natural fire programs in wilderness is Wilderness Fire Programs and Ecological generally understood by informed supporters of parks Knowledge and wilderness but not among people who have been indoctrinated since childhood with the negative aspects Wilderness fire management is important not only of fire. To such people all fire is bad, all smoke is because it can maintain the natural landscapes and biota pollution, and most fires kill wildlife. The existence and of wilderness as a cultural and recreational resource, but

273 also because it can maintain large-scale functioning State land and 1,500 acres of private land. The lack of ecosystemsthatwill contributeto basic scientific information on fuel conditions and weather, coupled knowledge. We do not yet fully understand the role of with a fire management plan that did not cover the periodic major perturbations, such as fire, in ecosystems. Refuge's wilderness lands, resulted in severe criticism of We need to know more about how such events regulate the agency's decision to allow the fire to bum (Popovich nutrient cydes, energy flow, and biotic productivity, and 1977). If wilderness managers fail to adequately prepare about the need for periodic disturbance in maintaining theirwildernessfiremanagement plans,severe the diversity and stability of whole systems. And we need consequences of public and political criticism might to understand the questions of frequency, scale, and seriously cripple future uses of fire for management spatial distribution of perturbations as they relate to purposes. changes in animal habitats and to the dispersal and Our understanding of natural ecosystems as systems is reproduction of plants. For these purposes, programs still in its infancy. Future scientists will require complete, that allow natural lightning-caused ignitions and restrict functioning, large-scale natural ecosystems as laborato- the spread of fires as little as possible will be best. ries to get at the questions just raised, and at many more Prescribed fire is preferable to eliminating fire from the not yet asked but perhaps more important. The answers system; but to preserve scientific values, natural fire is are certain tobe vital to man's future, and fire is certain to best. emerge as a crucial element. Many of the most We also need to know much more about the evolution widespread natural ecosystems of the earthinduding in plants of special adaptations to fire. And we need to most conifer forests, savannas, and grasslandswere know more about the possibility that long-term fire fire dependent. And many of our most important exclusion could eliminate some plants and animals from domestic plants and animals and useful forest trees the biota, or cause unexpected and undesired expansions evolved in such ecosystems. It is chiefly in our larger of certain species (e.g., the expansions of balsam fir and wildernesses and National Parks where some of these the spruce budworm in northeastern North America). ecosystem questions canbe met (see Wright, H. E. 1974) The costs of inadequate ecological knowledge in the because man is rapidly converting the rest of our planet lack of clear fire management objectives could be a loss of to cultivated or grazed fields, exploited forests, mine public acceptance of fire as a management tool. As an dumps, highways, and urban areas. The value of natural example, a fire in 1976 on the Fish and Wildlife Service's wilderness will surely increase in the next few decades Seney National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness in Michi- And we might soon discover thatit holds many gan burned nearly 72,000 acres, induding 16,000 acres of unexpected secrets. literature Cited

Agee, J. K Ahigren, I. F., and CE. Ahlgren 1974. Fire management in the National Parks. Western Wildlands 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. Bot. Rev. 26(4):483-533. 1(3):27-33. Aldrich, D. F., and it W. Mutch. Ahlgren, CE. 1972. Ecological interpretations of the White Cap drainage: a basis 1959a. Some effects of fire on forest reproduction in northeastern for wilderness fire management. Draft Fire Management Plan, Minnesota. J. For. 57(3):194-200. Bitterroot National Forest, US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., 84 p. Ahigren, CE. Aldrich, DF., and KW. Mutch. 1959b. Vegetational development following burning in the 1973. Wilderness fire management planning guidelines and northern coniferous forest of Minnesota. Proc. Soc. Am. For., inventory procedures US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., North. Reg., San Francisco, Calif., p. 21-22. Ahlgren, CE. 35 p., Appendices. 1960. Some effects of fire on reproduction and growth of Alexander, M. E., and F. G. Hawkesworth. vegetation in northeastern Minnesota. Ecology 41:43 1 145. 1975. Wildland fires and dwarf mistletoes: a literature review of Abigren, CE. ecology and prescribed burning. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. 1970. Some effects of prescribed burning on jack pine reproduction Rep. RM-14, l2p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Sm., Fort in northeastern Minnesota. Univ. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sm., Misc Collins, Cob. Rep. 94, For. Series 5, 14 p. Baker, H. W. Ahlgren, CE 1965. Guidelines for resources management in the areas in the 1974. Effects of fires on temperate forests: North Central United natural category of the National Park System. USD1, NatL Park States. In Fire and ecosystem. Chapter 6, p. 195-223. T. T. Serv., .memorandum on the implementation of the Leopold Kozlowski, and CE. Ahigren, eds. Academic Press, New York. Report, 9 p. (processed), October 14, 1965.

274 Barden, L.S. Gx)per, C F. 1974. Ughtning fires in southern Appalachian forests. Ph.D. thesis, 1961. The ecology of fire. Sci. Am. 204(4):150-160. University of Tennessee, 65 p. (typescript). Cooper, W. S. Barden, L S., and F. W. Woods. 1913. The climax forest of Isle Royale, Lake Superior, and its 1973. Characteristics of lightning fires in southern Appalachian development. Bot. Gaz. 55(1):1 44, 115-140, 189-235. forests. In Annu. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. No. 13, p. Cotton, L, and H. Biswell. 345-361. 1973. Forestscape and fire restoration at Whitaker's Forest. Nat!. Barney, RJ. Parks and Conserv. 47(2):10-15. 1969. Interior Alaska wildfires, 1956-1965. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Countryman, CM. Serv., Pac. Northwest For, and Range Exp. Sm., 47p. 1964. Mass fires and fire behavior. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. Barney, RJ. PSW-19, 53 p. Pac. Southwest For, and Range Exp. Sin., 1971. Wildfires in Alaska-some historical and projected effects Berkeley, Calif. and aspects. In Fire in the northern environment: symposium Daniels, 0. L proceedings. Fairbanks, Alaska, 1971, p. 51-59. 1974. Test of a new land management concept: Fritz Creek 1973. Beaufait, W. R Western Wildiands 1(3):23-26. 1960. Some effects of high temperatures on the cones and seeds of Daubenmnire, K F. jack pine. For. Sci. 6:194-199. 1943. Vegetation zonation in the Rocky Mountains. Bot. Rev. Bendeli, J. F. 9(6):325-393. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. In Fire and ecosystems. Daubenmire, R. F. Chapter 4, p. 73-138. T. T. Kozlowski, and CE. Ahlgren, eds. 1952.Forestvegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent Academic Press, New York. Washington anditsbearing on concepts of vegetation Bergerud, A. T. dassification. Ecol. Monogr. 22(4):301-330. 1974. Decline of caribou in North America following settlement.J. Daubenmire, R. F., and J. B. Daubenmire. Wild!. Manage. 38(4):757-770. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Biswell, H.H. Idaho. Wash. State Agric. Exp. Sto. Tech. Bull. 60, 104 p. 1959. Man and fire in ponderosa pine in the Sierra Nevada of Day, G.M. California. Sierra Club Bull. 44(7):41 53. 1953. The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern forest Biswell, H.H. Ecology 34(2):329-346. 1961. The big trees and fire. Nat!. Parks 35(163):11-14. Day, RJ. Biswell, H H. 1972. Stand structure, succession, and use of southern Alberta's 1974. Effects of fire on chaparraL In Fire and ecosystems. Chapter Rocky Mountain forest. Ecology 53(3):472-478. 10, p. 321-364. T. T. Kozlowski, and C. E. Ahigren, eds. Dodge, M. Academic Press, New York 1972. Forest fuel accumulation-a growing problem. Science Biswell, H. H., H. R. Kallander, Roy Komarek, R.J. Vogi, and H. 177(4044):139-142. Weaver. Fahnestock, G.R 1973. Ponderosa fire management: a task force evaluation of 1970. Two keys for appraising forest fire fuels. USDA For. Serv., controlled burning in ponderosa pine forests of central Arizona. Res. Pap. PNW-99, 26p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Tall Timbers Res. Sm., Misc. Pub!. No.2,49 p. Stn., Portland, Oreg. Bradbury, J. P., 5. Tarapchak, J. C B. Waddington, and R. F. Wright. Foster, N. W., and I. K Morrison. 1975. The impact of a forest fire on a wilderness lake in 1976. Distribution and cycling of nutrients in a natural Pinus northeastern Minnesota. Verh. International Verein. Limnol. banksi4na ecosystem. Ecology 57(1):l 10-120. 19:875-883. (Proc. mt. Union LimnoL) Fowells, H. A. Bray, J. K, and E. Gorham. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. US. Dep. Agric., 1964. Utter production in forests of the world. In Advances in Agric. Handb. No. 271, 762 p. ecolo. res., 2:101-157. Academic Press, New York Frandsen, W. H. Brown, J. K 1973. Effective heating of fuel ahead of spreading fire. USDA For. 1971. A planar intersect method for sampling fuel volume and Serv., Res. Pap. INT-140, l6p. Intermt. For, and Range Exp. surface area. For. Sci. 17(1):96-102. Stn, Ogden, Utah. Brown, J. K Franklin, J. F., and CT. Dyrness. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. USDA 1969. Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv., For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-16. Intermt. For. and Range Res. Pap. PNW-80, 216 p. Pac. Northwest For, and Range Exp. Stn, Ogden, Utah. Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg. Buckman, RE. Franklin, J.F., and CT. Dyrness. 1964. Silvicultural use of prescribed burning in the Lake States. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington USDA For. Proc. Soc. Am. For., Denver, Cob., p. 38-40. Serv., Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-8,417 p. Pac. Northwest For, and Clements, F. E. Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oreg. 1910. The life history of lodgepole burn forests. U.S. Dep. Agric., Frissell, S. S. For. Serv., Bull. 79, 56 p. 1973. The importance of fire as a natural ecological factor in Itesca Cooper, CF. State Park, Minnesota Quaternary Res. 3(3):397-407. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure and growth of southwestern Fritz, E. pine forests since white settlement. Ecol. Monogr. 30:129-164. 1931. The role of fire in the redwood region.J. For. 29(6):939-950.

275 Graham, S. A. Heinselman, M. L 1941. Climax forests of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Ecology 1969.Diary ofthecanoecountry'slandscape.Naturalist 22(4):355-362. 20(1):2-13. (J., Nat. Hist. Soc. Minn.) Grigal, D. F., and J. G. Mc(lall. Heinselman, M. L 1975. Litterfail after wildfire in virgin forests of northeastern 1970. Preserving nature in forested wilderness areas and national Minnesota. Can. J. For. Res. 5(4):655-661. parks. Nad. Parks and (lanserv. 44(276):8-14 Grigal, D. F., and L F. Ohmann. Heinselman, M. L 1975. Classification description, and dynamics of upland plant 1971a Restoring fire to the ecosystems of the Boundary Waters communities within a Minnesota wildernessarea. Ecol Canoe Area, Minnesota, in 10th Annu. Tail Timbers Fire EcoL Monogr. 45(4):389-407. Conf. Proc. Fredericron, N. B., 1970, p. 9-23. Gruel, G.E., and L L Loope. Heinselman, M. L 1974. Relationships among aspen, fir, and ungulate browsing in 197 lb. The natural role of fire in northern conifer forests. p.61-72. Jackson Hole, Wyoming. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Inrermt. in Fire in the northern environment. C W. Slaughter, R.J. Reg. Misc. Pap., 33 p. Barney, and G.M. Hansen, eds. Symp. Proc., Fairbanks, Alaska Gunrel, LL US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Pac Northwest For. and Range 1974. National polky change-natural prescribed fire. Fire Manage. Exp. Sm., 275 p. 35(3):6-8. Heinselman, M. L Habeck,J.R 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Area, Minnesota. Quat. Res. 3(3):329-382. Ecology 49(5):872-880. Heinsehnan, M. L Habeck,J.R 1974. Restoring fire to the canoe country. Naturalist 24(4):21-31. 1970. Fire ecology investigations in Glacier National Park. Dep. Heinselman, M. L Botany, University of Montana, 80 p. (processed). 1975. Boreal peatlands in relation to environment. p. 93-103. In Habeck; J. R Coupling of land and water systems. A. D. Hasler, ed. Springer- 1972.Fireecologyinvestigationsinthe Selway-Bitterroot Verlag: New York; 309 p. Wilderness. University of Montana, US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Heinselman, M. L, and E. I Roe. PubL R1-72-001, 119 p. 1963. A record of some pleistocene trees and shrubs from Itasca Habed J. R County, Minnesota. For. Sci. 9(3):336-337. 1973. A phyrosociological analysis of forests, fuels and fire in the Helmers, A. E. Moose Creek Drainage, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Univer- 1974 Interior Alaska (includes reprinting the map "Major sity of Montana, US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Contract No. Ecosystems of Alaska"). Naturalist 25(l):16-23. 26-2952, Rep., 113 p. Hendee, J. C, and G. H. Stankey. 1973.Bioentricityinwildernessmanagement.Bioscience Habeck; JR. and RW. Mutch. 23(9):535-538. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Horton, K W. Quat. Res. 3(3):408-424. 1956. The ecology of lodgepole pine in Alberta and its role in forest Haines, D. A., and R W. Sando. succession. Can. Dep. North. Affairs and NatI. Resour., For. 1969. Climatic conditions preceding historically great fires in the Branch Tech. Note 45, 29 p. North Central Region. USDA For. Serv., Rca. Pap. NC-34, 19 Horton, K W., and G. H. D. Bedell. p. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn. 1960. White and red pine ecology, silviculture, and management. Haines, D. A., and G. H. Updike. Can. Dep. North. Affairs and NatL Resour., For. Branch Bull. 1971. Fire whirlwind formation over flat terrain. USDA For. Serv., 124, 185 p. Res. Pap. NC-71, l2p. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Houston, D. B. Mim 1971. Ecosystems of National Parks. Science 172:648-651. Hall, J. A. Houston, D. B. 1972. Forest fuels, prescribed fire, and air quality. US. Dep. Agric., 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology For. Serv., Pac. Northwest For, and Range Exp. Sm., Portland, 54(5):llll-1117. Oreg. 44 p. Humphrey, R R 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. in Hansen, H. L, LW. Krefting, and V. Kurmis. 1973. The forest of Isle Royale in relation to fire history and Fire and ecosystems. Chapter 11, p. 365-400. T.T. Kozlowski, and CE Ahigren, eds. Academic Press, New York wildlife. Univ. Minn. Agric Exp. Sm. Tech. Bull 294, Forestry Irving, F. D., and D. W. French. Series 13, 43 p. 1971. Control by fire of dwarf mistletoe in black spruce. J. For. Hardy, CE., and J. W. Franks. 69(1):28-30. 1963. Forest fires in Alaska USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. INT-5, Johnson, E. A., and J. S. Rowe. 163 p. Intermt. For, and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 1975. Firein the subarctic wintering ground of the Beverley Hartesveldt, RJ. caribou herd. Am. MidI. Nat. 94(l):l-14. 1964. Fire ecology of the giant sequoias: controlled fires may be one Kaufert, F.H. solution to survival of the species. Nat. Hist. 73(10):12-19. 1964. Controversy in canoeland. Am For. 70(1O):24-27, 78-82. Hartesveldt, KJ., and H.T. Harvey. Kilgore, B. M. 1967. The fire ecology of sequoia regeneration. In Tall Timbers 1970. Restoring fire to the Sequoias. Nat!. Parks and Conserv. Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. 7:65-77. 44(277):16-22.

276 Kilgore, B. M Mart, j. W. 1971a The role of fire in managing red fir forests. Trans. North 1961. Ecosystems of the east slope of the Front Range in Colorado Am. WildL and Nat. Resour. Conf. 36:405-416. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Biology No. 8, 134 p. Kilgore, B. M. MCCOII, J. G., and D. F. Grigal. 197 lb. Response of breeding bird populations to habitat changes in 1975. Forest fire: effects on phosphorus movement to lakes. a giant sequoia forest. Am. MidI. Nat. 85(l):135-152. Science 188(4193):1109-1111. Kilgore, B. M. Mech, L D. 1972. Impact of prescribed burning on a sequoia-mixed conifer 1966. The wolves of Isle Royale. Fauna of the NatL Parks of the US., Fauna Series, 210 p., US. Government Printing Office forest. In Anna Tall Timbers Fire EcoL Conf. Proc.p. 345-375. Kilgore, B. M. Moore, W.R 1973. The ecological role of fire in Sierran conifer forests-its 1974. From fire control to fire management. Westeth Wildiands application to National Park Management. Quaternary Res. 1(3):11-15. 3(3):496-513. Mutch, R W. Kilgore, B. M. 1970. Wildland fires and ecosystems-a hypothesis. Ecology 1975. Restoring fire to National Park wilderness. Am. For. 51(5):1046-1051 81(3):16-19. Mutch, R W. Kilgore, B. M., and H. H. Biswell. 1974. I thought forest fires were black! Western Wildlands 1971. Seedling germination following fire in a giant sequoia forest. 1(3):16-21. Calif. Agric. 25(2):8-10. Ohmann, L F., and R R Ream. Kilgore, B. M., and G. S. Briggs. 1971. Wilderness ecology: virgin plant communities of the 1972. Restoring fire to high elevation forests in California J. For. Boundary Waters Canoe Area USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. 70(5):266-271. NC-63, 55 p North Cent. For. Exp. Sin., St Paul, Minn. Kilgore, B M., and R W. Sando. Qsting, H.J., and J. F. ReecL 1975. Crown-fire potential in a sequoia forest after prescribed 1952. Virgin spruce-fir forest in the Medicine Bow Mountains, burning. For Sci. 21(1):83-87. Wyoming. EcoL Monogr. 22(2):69-91. Komarek, E. V. Patten, D.T. 1974 Effects of fire on temperate forests and related ecosystems: 1969. Forest succession in Yellowstone National Park Nail Parks Southeastern United States. In Fire and ecosystems. Chapter 8, 43(264):21-22. p. 25 1-277. T. T. Kozlowski, and C. E. Ahlgren, eds. Academic Popovitch, Like. Press, New York 1977. Up in flames-Taking heat on the Seney. J.For. Kozlowski, T. T., and CE. Ahgren, eds. 75(3):147-150. 1974. Fire and Ecosystems. 542 p. Academic Press, New York Reese, J. B., F. R Mohr, RE. Dean, and T Klabunde. Krefting, LW., H. L Hansen, and M P. Meyer. 1975. Teton wilderness fire management plan. Draft, February 1970. Vegetation type map of Isle Royale National Park US. Dep. 1975, US. For. Serv., Teton NatL For., 57 p. and appendices. Inter., Bur. of Sport Fish and Wildi. Ritchie,J.0 Leopold, A. S., S A. Cain, I. N. Gabrielson, CM. Cottam, and T. L 1962. A geobotanical survey of northern Manitoba. Arctic Inst. Kimball North Am., Tech. Pap. No.9, 47 p., maps. 1963. Wildlife management inthe National Parks. Living Robertson, W. B. Wilderness 83:11-19 1962. Fire and vegetation in the Everglades. InArinu. Tall Timbers little, C Fire EcoL Conf Proc. 2:67-80. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests: Northeastern United Rosendahi, CO States. In Fire and ecosystems Chapter 7, p 225-250. T. T. 1948. A contribution to the knowledge of the pleistocene flora of Kozlowski, and CE. Ahlgren, eds. Academic Press, New York Minnesota. Ecology 29(2):284-315. Loope, L L Rothermel, R C 1971 Dynamics of forest communities in the Grand Teton 1972. A mathematical mcxlel for predicting fire spread in wildland National Park Naturalist 22(1):39-48. fuels. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. INT-115, 40p Intermt. For. Loope, L L, and G.E Gruell. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 1973 The ecological role of fire in the Jackson Hole Area, Rowe, J. S. northwestern Wyoming. Quat. Res. 3.(3):425-443. 1959. Forest regions of Canada. Can Dep. North. Affairs and NatI. Loucks, 0. L Resour., For. Branch Bull. 123, 71 p 1970. Evolution of diversity, efficiency, and community stability. Rowe, J. S. Am. Zool. 10(1):17-25. 1970. Spruce and fire in northwest Canada and Alaska. In Tenth Tall Timbers Fire EcoL Conf. Proc. 10:245-254. Lutz, H.J. Rowe, J. S., J. L Bergsteinsson, G. A. Padbuiy, and R. Hermesh. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of Alaska. US. 1974 Fire studies in the Mackenzie Valley. Can. Dep. Indian and Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 1133, 121 p. North. Affairs, INA PubL No. QS-1567-000--EE-A1, 123 p. MacLean, D. W., and G. H D. Bedell. Rowe, J. S., and G. W. Scotter. 1955. Northern day belt growth and yield survey. Can. Dep. North. 1973. Fire in the boreal forest. Quaternary Res 3(3):444-464. Affairs and Nail Resour., For. Branch Tech. Note No. 20. Sando, RW., and D.A. Haines. Maissurow, D.K 1972. Fire weather and behavior of the Little Sioux fire. USDA For. 1935. Fire as a necessaiy factor in the perpetuationof white pine.J. Serv., Res. Pap. NC-76, (Ip. North Cent. For. Exp. Sm., St Paul, For. 33(4):373-378. Minn

277 Sando, RW., and C.H. Wick. Van Wagtendonlç Jan 1972. A method of evaluating aown fuels in forest stands. USDA 1974 Refined burning prescriptions for Yosemite National Park For. Serv., Res. Pap. NC-84, lop. North Cent For. Exp. Stn.,St US. Dep. Inter., Nan. Park Serv., Occas. Pap. No. 2, 21 p. Paul, Minn Van Wagtendonk, Jan Schroeder, M.J., and CC Buck 1975. Wilderness fire management in Yosemite National Park 1970. Fire weather-a guide for application of meteorological UnpubL manuscr., prepared for proc. 14th Biennial Wilderness information to forest fire control operations. US. Dep. Agric., Conf., New York City, 1975, 19 p. (typescript). Agric. Handb. 360, 229 p. Viereck, LA. Scotter, G. W. 1973Wildfireinthetaigaof Alaska. QuaternaryRes. 1964. Effects of forest fires on the winter range of barren ground 3(3):465-.495. caribou in northern Saskatchewan Can. Wildi Serv., Wildi Vitousek, P.M., and W. A. Reiners. Manage. Bull., Series 1, No. 18, 111 p. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis Scotter, G. W. Bioscience 25(6):376-381. 1971. Wildfires in relation to the habitat of barren-ground caribou VogI, RJ. in the taiga of northern Canada. In 10th Annu. Tall Timbers 1967. Fire adaptations of some southern California plants. In 7th Fire Em! Conf. Proc. Fredericton, N. B., 1970, p. 85-105. Annu. Tall Timbers Fire EcoL Conf. Proc. p. 79-109. Show, S. B., and E. I Kotok VogI, RJ. 1924. The role of fire in the California pine forests. US. Dep. Agric. 1974 Effects of fire on grasslands. in Fire and ecosystems. Chapter Bull. 1294, 80p. 5,p.139-194. T.T. Kozlowski, and CE. Ahlgren, eds. Spurr, S. H. Academic Press, New York 1954. The forests of Itasca in the nineteenth century as related to Wagener, W. W. fire. Ecology 35(l):21-25. 1961. Past fireincidence in Sierra Nevada forests. J. For. Stankey, G. H 59(1O):739-748. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: an investigation of knowledge and Weaver, H. beliefs. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. JNT-180, lip. Intermt. For. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicukural factor in the ponderosa and Range Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah (In press) pine region of the Pacific slope. J. For. 41:7-14. Stone, E. C 1965. Preserving vegetation in parks and wilderness. Science Weaver, H. 150(37o1):126l-1267. 1961. Ecological changes in the ponderosa pine forest of Cedar Stone, E.C, and RB. Vasey. Valley in southern Washington. Ecology 42(2):416-420. 1968. Preservation of coast redwood on alluvial flats. Science Weaver, H. 159(3811):157-161. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests. Western United States Stringer, P. W., and G. H. LaRoi. In Fire and ecosystems. Chapter 9, p. 279-319. T. T. Kozlowski, 1970. The Douglas-fir forests of Banff and Jasper National Parks, and CE. Ahigren, eds. Academic Press, New York Canada. Can. J. Bot. 48(l0):1703-1726. Weaver, H., and H. Biswell. Swain, A.M. 1969. How fire helps the big trees. NatL Parks 43(262):16-19. 1973. A history of fire and vegetation in northeastern Minnesota as Weilner, CA. recorded in lake sediment. Quaternary Res. 3(3):383-396. 1970. Fire history in the northern Rocky Mountains. In The role of Tande, G. F. fire in the Intermountain West: syoiposium proceedings. 1975. A fire history of the Athabasca River Valley around Jasper Intermt. Fire Res. Counc. and Univ. Mont., p.42-TM. Townsite, Jasper National Park, Alberta. Unpublished prelim. report, 9 p., plus fire history manuscr. maps. Wright, HE fires,and wilderness Taylor, D. L 1974. Landscape development, forest 1969. Biotic succession of lodgepole pine forests of fire origin in management. Science 186(4163):487-495. Yellowstone National Park PhD. thesis, University of Wright, H E., and M. L Heinselman. Wyoming, 320 p. 1973. The ecological role of fire in natural conifer forests of western U.S. Department of Agriculture. and northern North America: Introduction. Ojasternary Res. 1941. Climate and man. US. Dep. Agric Yearb. 1941, 1248 p. 3(3):317-328. Van Wagner, CE. Wright, R. F. 1968. Fire behavior in a red pine plantation: field and laboratory 1974. Forest fire:impact on the hydrology, chemistry, and evidence. Can. Dep. For, and Rural Dev. PubL 1229. sediment of small lakes in northeastern Minnesota Interim Van Wagner, CE. Rep. No. 10, Univ. Minn., Limnological Res. Cent., 129 p. 1971 Fire and red pine. In 10th Annu. Tall Timbers Fire EcoL (based on Ph.D. thesis of author, University of Minnesota, Conf. Proc. Fredericton, N. B., 1970, p. 211-2 19. 1974).

278 Estimates of wilderness use by recreationisrs are based on çrmits, trail registrations, or guesses The most accurate wilderness use data comes from mandatory visitor permit systems Here a wilderness ranger checks a permit displayed on a backpack in Rocky Mountain National Park

280 13Wilderness Use And Users: Trends And Projections

The Importance of Understanding Wilderness Use 281 Wilderness Recreational Use: A Closer Look 287 Wilderness Use: An Overview 281 Use measurement methods 287 Wilderness dependency 281 Units of measurement 289 Public recreational use 282 Current levels of use 290 Commercial recreational use 282 Character of use 291 Indirect recreational use 282 Distribution of use 2 Scientific use 283 User characteristics 304 Educational use 284 Use Trends 307 Therapeutic use 284 Use Projections 308 Personal development 284 Liteniture Cited 309 Commodity use 284

Wilderness has been preserved becausesociety of wilderness and related resources and discuss the believes it has values that justify putting it off limits to amount of each use. Because information is scanty for all development. Most of these values are based on some uses except recreation, and because recreation is a very kind of use. This is clear in the Wilderness Act, which important use, we will devote a special section of this states that wilderness is to be preserved for "use and chapter to a review of the amount, character, and enjoyment as wilderness" by 'the American people of distribution of wilderness recreational use and the present and future generations." characteristics of users. Trends in use and projections and speculation about future use will complete the chapter.

The ImportanceofUnderstanding Wilderness Use Wilderness Use: An Overview An understanding of wilderness use is an essential Wildern Dependency foundation for any consideration of wilderness manage- Different kinds of wilderness use vary in their ment. Not only do most wilderness values stem from dependency on wilderness conditions. Commodity uses, wilderness use, but so do most threats to wilderness, and, suchasgrazing or mining, take placein some as a result, most management problems as well. In wildernesses but do not depend on or require wilderness chapters 14 and 15, where use management is discussed, conditions. This is true of certain recreational uses, also. we willdeveloptheideathat most wilderness Somerecreationforexample,campersplaying managementisuse management. Wilderness-use volleyball in a wilderness meadowjust takes place in a managementisinherently complex and difficult; wilderness, without depending on the wilderness without in-depth knowledge of the character of use, its qualities of the environment. Other activitiesfor management is impossible. This is particularly true if example, observing the results of natural ecological management seeks to minimize regimentation and rely processes on the landscape, experiencing solitude and instead on light-handed, subtle approaches. isolation, and facing the challenges of traveling and living There are many kinds of wilderness use that reflect a in an undeveloped areaclearly do require wilderness variety of values. This chapter first will identify the uses settings. Other activities, such as observing wildlife, are

281 intermediate and for some people can be enhanced by certainly depend on roadiless land, and probably on large the wilderness setting, even if not dependent on it. blocks of it. Specialized transportation (horses, rafts, etc.) This concept of wilderness dependency is basic to is the essential key service the outfitters offer and roads managing wilderness use. In chapter 7 we set forth as would essentially eliminate the need for specialized oneofseveralprinciplesof management that transportation However, it seems to us that unmodified wilderness-dependent activities should be favored over ecosystems are not necessary for most uses involving those that can be carried on outside wilderness. We will commercial outfitters. Much of this use would also attempt to evaluate the degree of wilderness dependency benefit from a somewhat greater development of of different uses as they are discussed; but, with present facilities (corrals, improved campsites, etc.) than might knowledge,thismustbealargelysubjective, be appropriate in dassified wilderness. impressionisticand, therefore, debatableevaluation. There are no overall figures on the extent of commercial recreation in wilderness. Outfitter use varies Public Recreational Use from none in some wildernesses (most eastern areas and The most obvious wilderness use is recreational. It is some smaller western areas) to a majority of the use in so prominent that it is often the only use people think of. others (particularly on dangerous, whitewater rivers such Wilderness use and recreational visitation are usually as the Colorado, Middle Fork of the Salmon, and Selway treated as synonyms. On-site recreational use certainly where special equipment and knowledge are essential). involves the largest numbers of direct wilderness users, In general, outfitters and guides play a more important has great impacts and poses severe management rolein larger wildernesses where horse travel is challenges. common. However, even in two of the largest Recreational use is itself a broad categoly including wildernesses, the Bob Marshall in Montana and the many diverse activities. People take all sorts of hikes Selway-Bitterroot in Montana and Idaho, studies show short, day hikes, long backpacking trips, and everything only a minority of the visitors employ outfittersabout in between Some ride horses. Others walk, leading pack one-third in the Bob Marshall and one-sixth in the animals. They float rivers in boats, canoes, and rafts. In a Selway-Bitterroot (Lucas 1978).Still, outfitting is a few places with special regulations, some visitors use sizable industry. In 1975 there were 51 outfitters licensed boats with outboard motors, jet boats, and airplanes for to take parties into the Bob Marshall Wilderness, for access. People come in all sorts of groupsfamily, example, and 45 in the Selway-Bitterroot. friends, or groups sponsored by varied organizations and a few travel alone. Indirect Recreational Use The wilderness dependency of different recreational Besides direct, on-site recreational use of wilderness, uses varies from high to low. Roadless recreation areas there are several important types of indirect use. Millions (rather than unmodified, wilderness ecosystems) would of people who never set foot in wilderness nevertheless provide acceptable and often preferable settings for a derivesatisfactionfromexperiencingwilderness large part of this use. Recreational use of wilderness, indirectly through the experiences of other people. This which totaled over 10 million visitor-days in 1975, will be vicarious use can come about through reading, looking at discussed later. photos and films, listening to lectures and accounts by others of their experiences, or while staying at resorts or Commercial Recreational Use recreation areas which are near wilderness. Usually In addition to public visitoruse, thereisalso vicarious use is not thought of as a use of wilderness, and commercial recreational use of wilderness. Outfitters and yet in a sense it is, and probably a major use. Without guides accompany some visitors, adding to as well as wilderness, the base for these vicarious experiences facilitating the use of wilderness; this use usually involves would be gone. Accounts of historical encounters with travel by horse or boat. Other types of outfitting wilderness provide a substitute, but only a very limited businesses involve only equipment rentalthe visitors one; they lack the immediacy of the assurance that one go on their own without guides. This is common in could actually visit the area. canoeing areas where rentals vary from just a canoe on Many people value keeping open the option to visit up to all camping equipment. In parts of the California wilderness. Whether or not they ever actually visit a Sierras burros are rented. In contrast, few businesses wilderness, it is worth something to them to know they anywhere rent horses for do-it-yourself wilderness travel, could. For many others, the simple fact that wilderness or backpacking equipment, or ski-touring gear. The types exists has value even without the visitation option. As of commercial recreation occurringin wilderness Kmtilla (1967) pointed out, some people who derive

282 satisfaction from the knowiedge that wilderness still same research purposes, as well as other purposes of exists "would be appalled by the prospect of being their own (Dyrness et al. 1975; Schmidt and Dufour exposed to it." Existence and option values have been 1975), but, because of their smaller size, they are often defined and measured in preliminary efforts (Fisher and exposed to outside influences, and large-scale, long term Krutilla 1972; Tombaugh 1971; Cicchetti and Freeman ecological processes are usuliy better represented in 1971). wilderness (see chapter 6 for further discussion on these Many people also want to leave wilderness for their topics). Research on some mammals with large home heirs or for posterity in general. This amounts to keeping ranges such as grizzly bears, wolves, and mountain lions future options open beyond one's own lifetime and has is especially dependent on wilderness. been labeled bequest value (Kmti1b 1967). All of these Certain types of environmentsparticularly high uses seem to be dependent on wilderness to a high mountainsare well represented in classified wilder- degree. ness, with the result that subjects for certain research Clawson(1963) pointed out that a recreation often are locited in wilderness. Glaciers are a notable experience has not only an on-site phase, but also four example of this situation off-site phases: Anticipation, travel to, travel from, and Wilderness can also provide a good setting for some recollection It seems likely that compared to most other kinds of social and psychological research. The isolation types of recreation, wilderness visits have particularly of small groups of people and their dose interdepend- long and well-developed anticipation and recollection ence in the face of the challenges of wilderness travel phases. Planning frequently starts well in advance, and provide unusual and valuable research opportunities. experiences are often relived afterwards. Sociologist William Burch (1974) believes "questions Some wildernesses are dosed to all direct, on-site concerning the structure and function of small groups recreational use. Specifically, this is true of some Fish and and their relation to larger wholes seem naturally Wildlife Service wilderness,especially some small adapted to wildiand situations." islands. In addition to the indirect, vicarious use these No one keeps a record of scientific use of wilderness, areas provide, they also provide breeding grounds that and there is some difference of opinion as to its extent. produce many birds and, in some cases, other wildlife But, for example, in the Glacier Peak Wilderness in that are observed and enjoyed outside the wilderness. Washington there have been at least six formal studies in Any estimate of the amount of indirect use clearly the past decade and several additional informal studies. A would be very difficult to make and none is available. bibliography of nearly 350 studies on the Sierra Nevada Sales of wilderness-related books are substantial, and range in California in progress between 1970 and 1973 films with nature-wilderness themes draw crowds. was recently prepared, and many of these studies were Several popular TV programs are based on nature and either on classified wilderness, National Park backcoun- wilderness. We would speculate that the number of try, or other undeveloped, lands (Stanley 1974). Some vicarious and other indirect users is probably greater than sort of central register of wilderness research projects is the number of actual visitors. needed both to document this use and trends in it, and Sckntfic Use also to improve the quality of research by increasing One of the major values of wilderness is its potential scientists' awareness of similar or related studies and for scientific use. Wilderness serves as a laboratory, facilitating communication between investigators. particularly for ecology and other biological sciences, A related scientific value and potential use is based on because of the relatively natural, unmodified conditions the gene pooi within wilderness. In wilderness, the there and the opportunity to study natural processes natural genetic diversity of native plants and animals is operating in large areas. As the rest of the world becomes preserved (Ghiselin 1974; Seagrave 1976). Outside more developed and modified by man, the contrast wilderness this diversity is often reduced as species between wilderness and nonwilderness increases and the become extinct and as common species are selectively value of such areas for research is enhanced. For example, bred for greater uniformity, increased yield, and other the High Uintas Primitive Area in Utah was called "a specific characteristics. It must be pointed out, however, perfect outdoor laboratory" for a study of radioactive that the wilderness system is very short on representa- fallout"because they[the Uintas] remain almost tion of many types of environments and ecosystems undisturbed year after year" (Pendleton 1968). This such as grasslands and low elevation forestsand this scientific use depends substantially on wilderness. There severely reduces the gene pool value. As a result, much of are also research natural areas which serve some of the this particular use must depend on nonwilderness lands.

283 Educational Use difficult to say whether such programs really depend on Wilderness i5 also used for educational purposes in wilderness or just roadiless, challenging country. The numbers of such users are probably a fairly small part of two major ways. First, dosely related to scientific use, is the use of wilderness for field trips; for subjects and study the total use of wilderness, but some areas receive areas for theses, dissertations, and other reports; and for substantial use. Visits are often long, and survival instructional examples. If the educational use relates to exercises in living off the land can have a heavy impact large-scale, long term ecological processes it is dependent on ecosystems. on wilderness to a high extent, but, for many other topics, Commodity Use other lands probably are more readily available. The second educational use is more akin to recreation Several on-site, commodity uses take place in, but do use; it is the use of the wilderness as a setting for teaching not depend on the particular qualities of wilderness. woodsmansbip and survival skills. Many universities Mining teach wilderness-travel skill courses, usually with field The 1964 Wilderness Act permits mining as one of trips. Some youth-serving organizations, such as the Boy these commodity uses, but agency regulations are Scouts, have taught outdoor living skills with their designed to minimize adverse impacts on the wilderness. application in wilderness as the pinnacle of achievement. Almost all mining claims are in National Forest There is considerable doubt that most of this use is really wilderness. Most National Parks are dosed to all mining, dependent on wilderness. What does seem to be needed but six Parks were established with special provisions is a fairly large, unroaded area. permitting mini.... Crater Lake National Park, Oreg.; Like scientific use, educational use is also not measured Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska; Mount for the wilderness system, but seven educational McKinley National Parlç Alaska; Organ Pipe Cactus organizations in the Pacific Northwest accounted for National Monument, Aria.; Death Valley National 13,000 visitor-days in eight wildemesses in Oregon and Monument, Ctilif. and Nev.; and Coronado National Washington in 1971.' In several of the wildernesses, the Memorial, Ariz All but Coronado National Memorial educational organizations' use accounted for about 5 are being studied for possible wildernessclassification, percent of the total use. but none contain classified wilderness now. Mining is there Therapeutic Use going on in Death Valley and Mt. McKinley, and has been mineral exploration, but no mining in Glacier Wilderness also provides a setting for therapeutic Bay and Organ Pipe. In 1976, Congress passed a law programs designed primarily to alleviate behavior or (P.L 94 429) dosing these six National Parks to new psychological problems rather than physical ailments. mining daims and placed all existing daims under strict, Delinquent and mentally disturbed people have been new regulations. The 1964 Wilderness Actpermits the taken on wilderness canoe trips, river float trips, and continuedstakingofclaimsinNational Forest backpacking. The participants seemed to benefit from wilderness only, until the end of 1983. However, since the isolation from outside pressures, the challenges and claims can be staked only on public domain lands, they the need for group support in meeting them, and are effectively limited to western wildernesseswhich are perhaps from qualities of the wilderness (Bernstein part of the public domain, and excluded from eastern 1972; Thorstenson and Heaps 1973; Lowry 1974). wildernesses which are not. In the East, almost all the Personal Development land in wildernesses was private land before it was acquired by the Federal Government. In many cases, the Other programs are something of a blend of therapy mineral rights were not acquired, however, and therefore and education, aimed at personal development and self- mining is a possible use, subject to restrictions to protect discovery. Working with people in a wilderness setting, the wilderness. But, if mining appeared to threaten the these programs are designed to build self-reliance, wilderness, the private mineral rightsin eastern personal understanding, awareness of other persons, wildernesses could be taken by condemnation (P. L persistence, and similar traits. Outward Bound Schools 93-622) if funds were available to compensate owners. are one well-known example of this type of program, but Actual, on-site commodity uses of National Forest there are many others (Kaplan 1974; Hanson 1973). It is wilderness appear rather limited, despite the controversy which surrounds them. Mining claims are numerous 'These figures are taken from an unpublished study by Ronald DidsJ Oltremari, D. just how numerous is hard to determine because, until Sheppard, and A, Wilw; Wilderness as a dasamoma preliminaiy report," 1972, on file at the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Seattle. recently, there was no requirement to notify the Forest

284 Service when claims were filed on National Forest land. mineral entry, which dosed them to filing mineral Claims were recorded in the county courthouse, along claims, before the BLM organic act (P. L 94-579) passed with many others on other lands. In 1960, the Forest (Foster 1976). That act brought BLM-administered land Service estimated there were over 7,000 claims in under the terms of the 1964 Wilderness Act which wilderness and primitive areas larger than 100,000 acres permits filing claims through 1983 on land not already (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission withdrawn No data on mining or mineral daims in 1962). However, in1974, there was no mineral potential BLM wilderness are available, but mining is a extraction from any National Forest wilderness or common use of BLM lands which might affect many primitive area. Permits for prospecting in wilderness areas to be studied for possible wilderness dassification. areas are required now, but only 10 were in effect in 1974. This low level of activity is consistent with mineral Logging surveys of wilderness and primitive areas (mentioned in Except for limited timber cutting necessaly for mine chapter 5) which have failed to turn up any major timbers, logging is allowed in just one wilderness, the mineral deposits. Restrictions on mining activity to Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) in Minnesota protect the wilderness make mining more difficult and an area which is an exception within the NWPS in a costly and probably have discouraged development. number of ways. Special restrictions protect shoreline The Bureau of Lind Management (BLM) policy for forests in the BWCA, and much of the area isdosed to primitive areas prohibited mining, except for existing cutting. About 200,000 acres which have never been rights. Some primitive areas were withdrawn from logged and about 200,000 acres previously logged, out of

Figure 13-1.Wilderness is valued for many reasons. The most prominent use is recreational, but the Wilderness Act provides for certain commercial uses, such as outfitter camps(upper left),scientific use(upper nght'and water development, such as this earthen dam, now breached, in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, Cob.(lowerloft); and, livestndt grazing, such as this sheep band in the Bridger Wilderness, Wyo. (lower right).

285 1,000,000 in the entire BWCA, are available for timber retained in wilderness. New devices will be placed in harvesting under current policies. Logging in the BWCA wilderness only if the Secretary of the Interior decides is controversial and lawsuits brought by environmental that essential information cannot be obtained from organizations resulted in injunctions against logging locations outside the wilderness and that the proposed which apply (in early 1977) to all areas outside existing device is the minimum necessaiy to successfully and timber sales areas until a new timber management plan safely accomplish the objective. and environmental impact statement are prepared. Most water impoundments for storage of irrigation Since World War II, logging in the Boundary Waters water that are in wilderness were built well before the Canoe Area has produced an annual average of about Wilderness Act. Typically, the dams are low and 40,000 cords of pulpwood, which is about 4 percent of constructed of local rock and timber, and shoreline the total pulpwood production for Minnesota.2 vegetation has had many years to adjust to the higher Water Storage water level Thus, many of the reservoirs are not conspicuously unnatural. No current inventory of these Water storage is another use permitted by the 1964 dams is available,3 but 73 were tallied in 1960, based on Wilderness Act, but again, only within National Forest incomplete data for National Parks and Forest Service units of the wilderness system. New water storage wilderness, wild, and primitive areas (Outdoor Recrea- projects require Presidential approval, but a number of tion Resources Review Commission 1962). Reservoirs small reservoirs built before enactment of the 1964 Act are concentrated in a few wildernesses (about 20); most exist and continue to be used. wildernesses do not have any such developments. Over The high mountains that make up so much of the one-half the reservoirs are in the Montana portion of the wilderness system store vast amounts of water in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness which has low dams on form of snow. A large proportion of the streamfiow in about 40 of the lakes, some built in the 1880's and 1890's the West originates in wilderness. Two uses related to before the area was even a National Forest, let alone a snow in wilderness are controversial First, in a few wilderness. But other wildernesses in Montana and places weather modification efforts have been attempted Idaho do not have dams. A few dams in the Boundary toincreasesnowfalls and theresulting summer Waters Canoe Area, built to facilitate log drives, are still streamfiows downstream, and weather modification has in place and maintain lake levels. Many more are been proposed for other wildernesses. Many people are abandoned and rotting away. Some of the wildernesses concerned because changing the weather inevitably in the California Sierras have small dams to control changes the ecosystemand wilderness exists primarily streamfiows; otherwise, streams go dry in late summer to allow natural processes to operate without modern with a resulting loss of fish. There are also a few high, man's influence. concrete dams used for generating electricity in the Second, whether natural or modified, snowpacks are Sierras. They were built before the Wilderness Act from measuredperiodicallytoforecaststreamfiow for the 1930's up to 1963, when the Rubicon River was irrigation and power generation and to estimate flood dammed in the Desblation Wilderness. danger. Some means of measuring snow depend on usinghelicopters,snowmobiles, or snow pillows Grazing (automatic snow-weight-recording devices connected to Grazing by domestic livestocksheep, cattle, and a radio transmitting stations). All these methods raise few horse herdsis also allowed by the Wilderness Act. questions of conflict with the wilderness concept. It is less common than it once was. Changes in the live- Differentwilderness-managingagencieshavere- stock business have reduced the economic attractiveness sponded somewhat differently to this conflict. In the of this sort of extensive grazing. Higher costs for herders National Forest wildernesses, except where helicopter andtransportationtodistant,wildernessranges; use was well established before the Wilderness Act, snow emphasis on intensive production of forage on better measurements are made without mechanized equip- lands; and more use of feedlots have all reduced demand ment. Electronic devices which measure and transmit for wilderness grazing. The fact that fees for grazing snow data are not permitted. The Department of the public land have been raised and are scheduled to in- Interior policy for National Park wilderness is to permit crease further probably contributes to a continuing existingwater-resourcemonitoring devicesto be decline in wilderness grazing demand. In 1974,206,000 Animal Unit Months (AUM's) of grazing took place in

2Fmm the Boundary Waters Came Area Management Plan and Environmental 3Personal communication fromW.J. Holman, Forest Service, Washington, D.C,June Statement, Superior National Frs ant, Duluth, Minn, 1974 1976.

286 National Forest wilderness. (One AUM equals one cow sampling difficult and costly. The 74,000 acre Mission or five sheep for 1 month.) This is about one-tenth of 1 Mountains Primitive Area has 19 access points. If the percent of all grazing of forest-rangeland areas.4 Figures main use season is considered to be about 100 days, then on grazing in Bureau of Land Management primitive there are 1,900 date/place combinations from which to areas and potential wilderness are unavailable, but sample. One person working full time could sample grazing of these lands probably is substantial; over 80 about 4 percent of these, and then only for about 6 or 7 percent of BLM land in the Western States (excluding hours per day. Stratified sampling that would concen- Alaska) is subject to grazing (Foster 1976). trate on more used times and places could increase the efficiency of sampling somewhat, but this would require some reasonably accurate information on use patterns to Wilderness Recreational Use: A Closer plan the stratification of the sample. Look In addition to entry-point sampling, traffic has been Much more is known about recreational use than the sampled at roadblocks on access roads (Lucas 1964). In other wilderness uses. It is also an important use and thus many areas one road serves many entry points and warrantsadetaileddiscussion. The discussion of results in much more use being sampled for the same recreational use will cover three main points: (1) effort. Amount, (2) character, and (3) distribution of use. Automatic electronic trail traffic counters have been Recreational use has been reported for many types of tried with varying success (Lucas, Schreuder, and James areas, induding wilderness, for many years. However, 1971). An improved model which projects an infrared use data are of very uneven quality, and some review of beam onto a reflector and registers a count whenever the methods used to measure wilderness use and their there is a sufficiently long interruption was tested (Tietz shortcomings is necessary background. 1973). The problems with such counters were illustrated in the test. Ten of the 19 counters, installed by field Use Measurement Methods personnel according to manual instructions, proved to be Wilderness-recreational use is one of the most difficult set up incorrectly and did not count accurately. Another types of recreational use to measure. The typical counter stopped working. The remaining counters wilderness has many access points. Some larger ones turned out to be quite accurate. However, at best, the have 70 or 80 entries, and even some of the smaller areas counters can indicate the number of large, moving have 15 or 20 accesses, usually distant from Ranger objects passing since the last time the counter was read. Stations and difficult to check Compared to developed They cannot indicate whether the objects were hikers, sites, use is light and variable (wilderness recreation is, by packhorses, elk, or cows; when they passed; or how they definition, low density). This makes it prohibitively dustered into parties or groups. There are counters that expensive to observe all entry pointssome would have print out counts and times but they are expensive. no use at all to observe on some days. Use is dispersed Length of stay or information about activities cannot be over such a wide area that it is nearly impossible to make obtained from the counters. Neither can direction (entry any sort of direct head count, as can be done in developed or exit) or route of traveL Automatic counters are being auto-access campgrounds. Therefore, a variety of indirect used ina number of wildernesses and provide ways of measuring wilderness use has been devised: information on trends in use. Sample observations, electronic counters, automatic Automatic movie cameras, set to expose one frame at cameras, estimates based on data from trail registers or preset intervals, say every 30 seconds, have been used by mandatory permits, or guessing.5 the National Park Service (Marnell 1977) to estimate use Observing a sample of trailheads on sample days has of several wild rivers. Other use-recording systems been tried (Lucas, Schreuder, and James 1971; Lucas and employ a movie camera triggered by a passing object Oltman 1971), but the highly variable use makes reliable which interrupts an infrared beam to film a few frames. Some of these cameras photograph a calendar dock in a This percentage is based on the estimate of 213 million AUM's on forest ranges (in corner of each frame to record the date and time of each all ownerships, not just National Forests) in 1970 in the Assessment (draft) for the Forest observation. Group size and type of boats can be and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 released by the US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, August 1975. determined. For protection of privacy, no identification Over a dozen studies of use estimation for wilderness and dispersed recreation are of individuals is ever made, andonly publicareas through reviewed by George A. James, 1971, Inventorying recreation use. In Recreation: symposium proceedings, p. 7&-95. US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., Northeast. For. Rep. Strc, which visitorspass are filmed, not campsites or Upper Derby, Pa. swimming areas.

287 Many estimates of wilderness use are based on the system has been in effect almost 10 years and visitor voluntary self-registration at trail registers. Trail registers awareness is high, but it might be lower in areas with provide much more complete information than traffic newer permit systems. In North Cascades National Park counters. Party size, method of travel, date of entry, in Washington, permits were required for overnight length of stay, some data on destination (or itinerary) backcountry visitors beginning in 1973. The first year and activities, and visitor residence are usually obtained. about 65 percent of all parties obtained permits, but this The problem, of course, is that some visitors do not rose to 86 percent in 1974.6 All but 2 percent of the register (Lucas 1975; Lucas, Scbreuder, andJames 1971; visitors accepted the concept of a permit system. Most Wenger and Gregersen 1964). Some kinds of visitors noncompliers said they were unaware of the require- especially horsemen, hunters, people making very short ment. Availability of permits at times and places visits, and lone individnilsare less likely to register convenient for visitors undoubtedly increases com- than others. Thus, the resulting registration data not only pliance. underestimate use, but also provide biased estimates of its As with trail registers, some types of visitors are less composition likely to comply than others. Data from the Boundary Efforts have been made to develop systems for basing Waters Canoe Area show that people on short visits, estimates on the trail register data (Lucas, Schreuder, and staying in resorts or campgrounds, or using motorboats James 1971). In effect, adjustment factors are applied to were low in compliance (Lime and Lorence 1974). In the raw data from the trail register cards to compensate for North Cascades, compliance was low for young adults, nonregistration It is necessary to observe a sample of visitors in one- or two-person parties, rural and small- registration behavior to develop the adjustment factors. town residents, groups made up of friends (rather than It appears (Lucas 1975) that registration rates may be families), and fishermen. Permit data could be adjusted highly variable among wildernesses and over time. This (this is done with Boundary Waters Canoe Area permit makes it essential to carefully check registration rates data), but usually the emphasis has instead focused on before using them as a basis for use estimates. Field raising compliance. checking registration is difficult and expensive, however, In most areas, commercial outfitters are required to and is rarely done. Electronic traffic counters or, probably report numbers of guests served, often as a basis for the better, automatic cameras might be useful and less costly fees they pay for their special use permits. sources of information on true total use to compare to A final way of estimating wilderness use is to make an registration data. Currently, use estimates based on trail educated guess, based on last year's report and an registers have a large, but usually unknown, margin of assumed rate of annual increase. Estimates might be error. modified in the light of any available observationshow The most accurate wilderness use data come from many cars were parked at a particular access compared to mandatory visitor-permit systems (Hendee and Lucas what is remembered from previous years (but probably 1973). Most National Park wildernesses, about 40 in at different times of the season and on different days of 1976, and over one-half ofall National Forest the week), changes in the number of guests reported by wildernesses (Lime and Buchman 1974) require visitors outfitters,wilderness rangers' impressions, unusual to obtain permits, a practice also common in Canadian weather, and so on Some wildernesses show wide wilderness-type areas. In almost all cases, permits must fluctuations in use from year to year. Often this comes be obtained from the managing agency. In a very few from the use of guessing, which is sensitive to changes in wildernesses, permits are issued by cooperators, suchas the person doing the guessing or in which observations resort employees. In a few National Forest wildernesses are used from year to year. in Oregon, permits are required but are self-issued by Individual wildernesses generally rely on one kind of visitors at trailheads. The visitor deposits one copy of the estimate: Permits, trail registrations, or guesses. Accuracy permit and carries another while in the wilderness. varies from good to very poor. Unfortunately, the Permits provide all of the information obtained from method used and the expected accuracy level are not trail registers, in addition to greater detail on planned reported. If adjustments are made for noncompliance on routes of travel permits or trail registers, they are often essentially Some visitors fail to get permits (Lime and h)rence guesswork; based on unsystematic spot checks, although 1974), just as some visitors do not register at trail registers. Compliance varies, although it is substantially 6Hays, John.1974.Mandatory backcountry permitsan investi8ationinto higher than for trail registers. It is high in most National noncompliance in North Cascades National ParkSummer 1974. Unpublished report on file at North Cascades National Park Superintendents Office, Sedro Wroley, Wash. Parks and in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area where 98284.

288 in a few areas more reliable checking is used for defined 15 minutes to 3 hours as one-fourth of a man- noncompliance adjustments. day, 3 to 5 hours as one-half 5 to 7 hours as three-fourths, Estimates of the use of the overall wilderness system, and over 7 hours as a whole man-day. This makes it however, are a mixture of all three types of estimates, impossible to convert visitor-days to man-days. A man- and the resulting level of accuracy is uncertain, but day could equal anything from two 12-hour visitor-days probably only fair to poor. Whether errors compensate to a little over one-half a visitor-day, almost a four-toone more than they accumulate is unknown variation. For aggregated data, probably about 1.5 visitor- Comparisons of visitor use over time are particularly days per man-day would serve as a rough conversion unreliable. Older estimates were mainly guesses, and as factor. more accurate methods were adopted, large changes in Recreation-Day.A recreation-day is the presence at reported use often occurred. Therefore, historical records a recreation area of one person for any part of a calendar of use trends (see fig. 13-10) must be treated cautiously. day, from part of an hour on up to all day. This is a Certainly, use data need not be perfect to be useful, and relatively new measure. any improvement adds to the management value of the Visit.A visit is the entry of a person into a reporting information Managers in many areas have worked hard unit, such as a wilderness. If the same person returns with considerable success in recent years to upgrade later, it is another visit. Visits used to be widely reported. wilderness use data. The issue of use data will reappear in The National Park Service still uses the visit unit chapter 14 on visitor management. There we recom- extensively, but the Forest Service no longer publishes mend a permit system as the best source of use data and data on visits. Sometimes group (or party) visits are used. suggest a well run, carefully monitored trail register This is simply the number of entries of groups. Occasion system as the next best choice. There we will also discuss is sometimes used as a synonym for visit. systems for summarizing data from permits or trail if length of stay is expressed in 12-hour units, then registers. visits multiplied by length of stay eqnils visitor-days. VisitorA visitor is a person who makes one or Units of Measurement more visits, usually during a year. The person is counted There are several units of measurement for recreation as a visit each time, but as a visitor only once. This is not a use.7 The main units of measure may be described as commonly used unit. Also uncommon is the group or follows. party visitor. Visitor-Day.A visitor-day is the presence of one Overnight stayAn overnight stay is the passing of person for 12 hours, or any equivalent combination (e.g., one night by a visitor within a Park or other reporting two people for 6 hours each or three people for 4 hours unit. An overnight stay occurs each night the visitor each) that equals 12 visitor-hours. (Visitor-hours are also remains in the Park. Itis essentially a night-time occasionally used.) The visitor-day is a standard federal headcount. It could also be described as a visitor-night. unit of measure, adopted in the 1965 use season, and This unit is used only by the National Park Service. For widely used. However, the National Park Service often an individual party, overnight stays could be converted uses several other units instead: Visits; overnight stays; approximately into visitor-days by multiplying by two and, sometimes for the entire National Park System, and adding one, on the assumption that each night is visitor-hours. None of these are reported by the Forest matched by the preceding day, plus the last day: Service, although visitor-hours can be easily calculated by Day Day Day multiplying visitor-days by 12. A few studies employ group -days (or party-days) as a unit of measure. These are identical to visitor-days but expressed in terms of groups or parties (synonyms) Night Night instead of individuals. Before 1965 man-days was the unit comparable to Equals 2 overnight stays or 5 visitor-days visitor-days. This was essentially one person for a day of In a few research studies, group- or party-nights are used. the week (or equivalent combination), but different Value of different units.This array of units is agencies had different guidelines for handling fractions probably confusing. Which of the units is best? As is so of days. For example, at one time the Forest Service often the case, the answer that depends." Specifically, it depends on the purpose for which the data are to be Most of the units of recreation-use measurement are explained in "A glossary of terms used. Often, several different units are relevant to a used by the Bureau of Ourdrer Recreation,' US. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdrer Recreation, 1975. 32 p. particular purpose.

289 For impact on camping areas and camper congestion, much more accurate descriptions of use of National Park the overnight stay or the group-night provides the most wilderness. relevant information. For an overall measure of solitude, the visitor-day is most appropriate. For ameasure of the Table 13-1.National Park backcountry overnight proportion of society using wilderness, the number of stays for Parks with wilderness or potential visitors is most useful. Visits are a partial substitute for wilderness, 1975, by States visitors, much easier to obtain, and give a general idea of total use and certain types of managerial workloads such National Park (NP), 1975 overnight as permit issuance. However, the great variation in the National Monument (NM), stays in kinds of use labeled visits makes this a difficult unit of or other category backcountiy measure to interpret. A brief visit of an hour or so counts Alaska the same as a 2-week stay. Visits can be used with visitor- Glacier Bay NM 1,133 days, if both are reported, to gain an idea of length of stay. Kaunai NM 741 Mr. McKinley NP 17,410 Different wilderness-management agencies do not Arizona use comparable terms to report use now. We would suggest that at least visits and visitor-days be regularly Chiricahua NM 0 Grand Canyon NP 158,380 reported annually for all wildernesses. Actually, visitor- Petrified Forest NM 160 hours would be preferable to visitor-days for clarity. The Organ Pipe Cactus NM 1,223 term "day" is subject to differing interpretationsa Saguam NM 3,904 calendar day (either 24 hours or any part of a day), an 8- California hour working day, and day-time (presumably this is what Death Valley NM 4,112 Kings Canyon NP 93,142 the 12-hour standard relates to). In contrast,a visitor- Lassen Volcanic NP 14,911 hour is unambiguous, and can easily be converted to any LavaBedsNM 51 sort of day desired. Pinnacles NM 0 Sequoia NP 110,420 We also recommend the overnight stay asa useful Yosemite NP 187,768 supplemental unit, although calling it a visitor-night Joshua Tree NM 858 would clarify its meaning. Point Reyes National Seashore 38,396 Colorado Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP 2,143 Current Levels of Use Colorado NM 159 How much is wilderness used? The Forest Service is Great Sand Dunes NM 411 the only agency managing wilderness Mesa Verde NP 0 toreport Rocky Mountain NP 56,700 use recreational separatelyforwildernessareas. Florida However, the National Park Service in 1975 reported Everglades NP 11,968 over2.3million overnight staysfor backcountry camping, defined as camping in minimally developed Hawaii areas not reached by roads. This would equal about 5 Haleakala NP 6,278 Hawaii Volcanoes NP 2,839 million visitor-days. For some parks this figure givesa Idaho good idea of wilderness camping use, but not dayuse, which is usually very substantial. But, the heaviest Craters of the Moon NM 122 backcountry camping is in areas with large reservoirs, Maryland such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, where motorboat Assateague National Seashore 8,058 campingrather than wilderness types of recreation Michigan is common. Reported backcountry overnight stays at all Isle Royale NP 12,039 areas which have parts included in wilderness proposals Montana totaled 1.8 million in 1975 (table 13-1). Probably about 1 Glacier NP 24,785 million of these overnight stays occurred on lands that North Dakota are, or soon might be, clissified as wilderness. This would Theodore Roosevelt equal about 2 to 2-½ million visitor-days of camper use of National Memorial Park 414 National Park wilderness and less than a million visits. New Mexico Planned revisions in Park Service procedures for Carlsbad Caverns NP 641 reporting use will eliminate these problems and enable Bandalier NM 5,622 290 Table 13-1.National Park backcountry overnight Visits have not been reported since 1969, but length-of- stays for Parks with wilderness or potential stay information indicates a little over 3 million visits in wilderness, 1975, by States (Continued) 1975. The number of visitors would be less, because many people make a number of wilderness visits each National Park (NP), 1975 overnight year. Visitors to the Desolation Wilderness in California National Monument (NM), stays in averaged about three trips a year to wilderness areas (not or other category backcountry just the Desolation), and Northern Rockies wilderness visitors averaged about three and a half trips (Lucas Oregon 1978) Visitors studied at three Washington and Oregon Crater Lake NP 1,022 areas averaged over six wildernessvisits per year South Dakota (Hendee and others 1968). So, the 3 million or so 1975 Badlands NM 338 National Forest wilderness visits were probably made by Texas around 1 million individuals Guadalupe Mountains NP 2,166 No usefiguresforFish and Wildlife Service Big Bend NP 21,835 wildernesses are available Some are closed to use, and Utah use is light in most areas. Arches NP 1,614 Itisdifficultto compare use of National Park Bryce Canyon NP 585 wilderness and backcountry with National Forest Capitol Reef NP 3,139 wilderness for several reasons: Use of different units, Cedar Breaks NM 0 Zion NP 9,217 differenttypesofreportingareas,and lackof Canyonlands NP 27,039 information on day use of National Park backcountry. Virginia Unpublished use figures for Yellowstone National Park Shenandoah NP 112,306 showed about 100,000 backcountry day-use visits in 1975, Washington and 65,000 overnight stays. This means that visitor-days of day use were roughly half or less of the total visitor- North Cascades NP 25,041 Olympic NP 119,695 days accounted for by overnight visitors (assuming about Mount Rainier NP 22,702 150,000 12-hour visitor-days for 65,000 overnight stays, Wyoming and around 70,000 12-hour visitor-days for 100,000 day- Grand Teton NP 32,787 users). If Yellowstone is typical, then all National Parks Yellowstone NP 44,387 were used at a level of 3 to 4 million visitor-days in their Kentucky-Virginia-Tennessee wilderness or backcountry portions during 1975. If day Cumberland Gap National use equaled overnight use, the estimate would be 4 to 5 Historical Park 3,187 million total visitor-days. Improved use figures for North Carolina-Tennessee National Park wilderness might drastically revise these Great Smoky Mountains NP 105,220 figures, and better figures for all wilderness managing Colorado-Utah agencies might change the comparisons markedly. Wild riverrecreationstatisticsarescarce. The Dinosaur NM 21,750 numbers of Colorado River runners through the Grand Florida-Mississippi Canyon were mentioned in chapter 2. In 1974, over Gulf Islands National 14,000 people went through the canyon. Several wild Seashore 0 rivers in National Forests also have reported use figures. Arizona-Nevada In 1974, visitor-days totaled 42,000 on the Eleven Point Lake Mead National River in Missouri; 45,000 on the Middle Fork of the Recreation Area 512,035 Salmon in Idaho; 142,000 on the Rogue River in Total 1,830,853 Oregon; and 164,000 on the Chatooga in North NOTE: See table 6-4 for proposed wilderness acreages Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

The 105 National Forest wilderness and primitive Character of Use areasreportedabout7.5millionvisitor-daysof recreational use in 1975. Table 13-2 gives the estimated Length of Stay use for each area. Use varies widely among the different Most wilderness visits are short. Many small- or areas. Use distributions will be covered in a later section. medium-sized wildernesses are predominantly day-use

291 Table 13-2.-Use intensities in National Forest wilderness and primitive areas, 1975, by States

Wilderness 1975 Visitor-days Gross Acres Visitor-days/Acre Alabama

Sipsey 7,600 12,000 0.63 Arizona Chiricahua W. 4,600 18,000 025 Galiuro W. 300 55,000 0.01 Mazatzai W. 12,400 205,346 0.06 Mt. Baldy W. 4,600 7,000 0.65 Pine Mountain W. 4,700 19,500 0.24 Sierra Ancha W. 7,300 20,850 0.35 Superstition W. 41,700 124,140 0.34 Sycamore Canyon W. 11,600 48,500 024 Blue Range PA 5,100 175,112 0.03

State Totals 92,300 673,448 0.13 Arkansas Caney Creek 3,800 14,433 026 Upper Buffalo 1,200 10,590 0.11

State Totals 5,000 25,023 020 California Agua Tibia 47900 16971 2.82 Caribou W. 61,700 19,080 323 Cucamonga W. 19,600 9,022 2.17 Desolation W. 256,100 63,500 4.03 Domeland W. 12.100 62,561 0.19 Emigrant Basin W. 134,800 106,910 126 Hoover W. 191,100 42,800 4.46 John Muir W. 1,378,000 504,263 2.73 Marble Mountains W. 208,500 214,543 0.97 Minarets W. 234,400 109,559 2.14 Mokelumne W. 45,800 50,400 0.91 San Gabriel W. 42,7(0 36,000 1.19 San Gorgonio W. 171900 34,718 4.95 San Jacinto W. 77,500 21955 3.53 San Rafael W. 45,200 143,000 0.32 South Warner W. 34,200 69,547 0A9 Thousand Lakes W. 7,700 16,335 0.47 Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel W. 21,700 111,091 020 Ventana W. 127,900 98,000 1.31 High Sierra PA. 4,900 10,247 0.48 Salmon Trinity Alps PA. 227,600 285,756 0.80

State Totals 3,351,300 2,026,258 1.65 Colorado La Garita W. 23,600 49,000 0.48 Maroon Bells-Snowmass W. 64,1(0 66,280 0.97 Mount Zirkel W. 32400 72,180 0.45 Rawah W. 29,000 26,797 1.08 Weminuche W. 181,400 405,031 0.45 West Elk W. 23900 62,000 0.39 Flat Tops PA. 36,800 102,124 0.36 Gore Range-Eagle Nest PA. 36,100 62,125 0.58 Uncompagbre PA. 50,100 69,253 0.72 Wilson Mountain PA 14,800 30,875 0.48

State Totals 492,200 945,665 0.52 Florida Bradwell Bay W. 1,200 22,000 0.05

292 Table 13-2.-Use intensities in National Forest wilderness and primitive areas, 1975, by States(Continued)

Wilderness 1975 Visitor-days Gross Acres Visitor-days/Acre

Georgia Cohutta W. 23,600 32,307 0.73 Ellicott Rock W.* 2,500 181 13B1

State Totals 26,100 32,488 0.80 Idaho Sawtooth W. 46,700 216,383 0.22 Seiway-Bitterroot W. 70,200 989,179 0.07 Idaho PA. 267,200 1,232,744 0.22 Salmon River Breaks PA. 13,200 217,185 0.06

State Totals 397,300 2,655491 0.15 Kentucky Beaver Creek W. 7,900 5,500 1.44 Minnesota Boundary Waters Canoe Area 1,090,100 1,034,852 1.05 Montana Anaconda-Pintlar W. 31,600 159,086 0.20 Bob Marshall W. 124,700 950,000 0.13 Cabinet Mountains W. 21,400 94,272 023 Gates of the Mountain W. 2,300 28,562 0.08 Mission Mountains W. 38,400 75,588 0.51 Scapegoat W. 15,300 240,000 0.06 Seiway-Bitterroot W.* 63,300 254,480 0.25 Absaroka PA. 15,600 64,000 024 Beartooth PA. 69,800 230,000 0.30 Spanish Peaks PA. 13,500 50,6% 027

State Totals 395,900 2,146,684 0.18 Nevada Jarbidge W. 7,300 64,827 0.11 New Hampshire Great Gulf W. 24,100 5,400 Presidential Range-Dry River W. 21,000 20,380 1.03

State Totals 45,100 25,780 1.75 New Mexico Gila W. 84,900 438,626 0.19 Pecos W. 129,400 165,000 0.78 San Pedro Parks W. 22,700 41,132 0.55 Wheeler Peak W. 8,200 6,051 1.36 White Mountain W. 21,300 28,230 0.75 Black Range PA. 17,200 169,984 0.10 Blue Range P.A.* 1,800 36,598 0.05 Gila PA. 14,700 132,788 0.11

State Totals 300,200 1,018,409 029 North Carolina Ellicott Rock W.* 8,700 342 25.43 Joyce Kilmer-Slick Rock W.* 25,200 15,000 1.68 Linville Gorge W. 38,500 7,655 5.03 Shining Rock W. 29,400 13400 2.19

State Totals 101,800 36,397 2.80

293 Table 13-2.-Use intensities in National Forest wilderness and primitiveareas, 1975, by States (Continued)

Wilderness 1975 Visitor-days Gross Acres Visitor-days/Acre Oregon

Diamond Peak W. 9,500 35440 027 Eagle Cap W. 72,700 292,700 025 Gearhart Mountain W. 700 18,709 004 Kalmiopsis W. 8,300 78,850 0.11 Mountain Lakes W. 11,400 23,071 0.49 Mount Hood W. 26,800 14,160 1.89 Mount Jefferson W. 74,400 100,000 0.74 Mount Washington W. 17,200 46,655 0.37 Strawberry Mountain W. 25,600 33,653 0.76 Three Sisters W. 63,600 196,708 0.32 State Totals 310,200 8395)46 0.37 South Carolina

Ellicott Rock W. 14,100 2,809 5.02 Tennessee

Cohutta W. 4,800 1,795 2.67 Gee Creek W. 2,600 2,570 1.01 Joyce Kilmer-Slick Rock* 2,200 3,832 0.57

State Totals 9,600 8,197 1.17 Utah

High Uintas PA. 1315)00 237,177 0.56 Vermont

Bristol Cliffs W. 2,500 6,500 0.38 Lye Brook W. 21,100 14,300 1.48

State Totals 2300 20,800 1.13 Virginia

James River Face W. 4,600 8,800 0.52 Washington

Glacier Peak W. 975)00 468,505 021 Goat Rocks W. 55,100 82,680 0.67 Mount Adams W. 52,100 42411 123 Pasayten W. 53,500 500,000 0.11

State Totals 258,600 1,093,5% 024 West Virginia

Dolly Sods W. 26,000 10,215 2.55 Otter Creek W. 18,200 20,000 0.91

State Totals 44200 30,215 1.46 Wisconsin

Rainbow Lake W. 2,200 6,600 0.33 Wyoming

Bridger W. 187,200 383,300 0.49 North Absaroka W. 17,000 359,700 0.05 Teron W. 46,6(X) 563,500 0.08 Washakie W. 34,000 714,300 0.05 Cloud Peak PA. 455)00 136,905 0.34 Glacier PA. 28,700 176,303 0.16 Popo Agie P.A. 33,700 71,320 0.47

State Totals 393,100 2,405,328 0.16 GRAND TOTALS 7,513,400 15,378,290 0.49 Areas marked with () are located in more than one State. Figures for the entirearea are given below. 294 Table 13-2.Use intensities in National Forest wilderness and primitive areas, 1975, by States(Continued)

'X'tldemess 1975Vsitor-day GrossAcis Vsior-days/ Acre

AREAS LOCATED IN MORE THAN ONE STATE (figures for entire wilderness) Blue Range P.A. 6,900 211,700 0.03 (Arizona-New Mexico) Cohutta W. 28,400 34,102 0.83 (Georgia-Tennessee) Ellicott Rock W. 25,300 3,332 7,59 (Georgia-South Carolina-North Carolina) Selway-Bitterroot W. 133,500 1,243,659 0.11 (Idaho-Montana) Joyce Kilmer-Slick Rock W. 27,400 14,033 1.95 (North Carolina-Tennessee) areas. Average length of stay, in calendar days, and There are a few unusual cases among these examples: percent of visits that were day use are available for some The Boundary Waters Canoe Area has a 10-person-per- areas (table 13-3). party limit and the San Gorgonio is used heavily by Among the areas for which this information is parties of 10 to 15 young people from nearby summer available, only the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana camps. But, the overall pattern is quite consistent. has little day use. Its size (about 1 million acres) and the Party size might be declining a little; more places have location of the wilderness boundary (many miles beyond restricted party size; and the larger, organized groups the trailhead in most places) screen out day users. Trips have generally become smaller as both managers and of a week or more account for less than one-tenth of all organization leaders have become concerned about the visits even in the very large wildernesses such as the impact of large groups on the environment and on other Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, the Bob visitors. The proportion of small, independent groups Marshall Wilderness, and the Seiway-Bitterroot Wilder- has increased rapidly in relation to large, organized ness in Idaho and Montana Visits in Washington and groups. Oregon averaged 2 to 3.5 days. This is typical for small- to medium-sized wildernesses. A study of the southern Appalachian trail also showed 53 percent of visitors on i-day trips (Murray 1974), and lengths of stay there averaged about 2.5 days. This area is not a dassified wilderness, but itissimilar and may suggest use characteristics for the new wildernesses in the Eastern United States. Probably, lengths of stay have been about the same for a number of years. Increased travel costs could lead to fewer and longer trips in the future. Party Size Parties of wilderness visitors are generally small; from one-half to three-fourths of the parties at all areas for which we have data are in the two- to four-person size range(table13-3). kne individualsusually are infrequent visitors, although National Park b'ackcountry likely to be alone as are campers are two to three times as Figure 13-2.Data on the amount, character, and distribution of people making visits to National Forest wildernesses. At recreational use are important information for managers. Lakes and most areas, parties of over 10 people accountfor about 5 streams are often favorite camping spots. Grassy Lake in the John percent of all groups. Muir Wilderness. Gilif. 295 Charaaerrtcs of use of National Park backcounty and National Forest WildernessandPrimitiveAreac Table 13-3. length of stay Percent (Percent of total) Party size (PercentMethod ofof traveltotal) (Percent of total Activities Family (Peitent of total)Types of group Boundary Waters Area (State) Year Aver-age' day-use I 2-4 5-10 Over 10 Hike Horse- withback stcx±Hike Other Fish Hunt raphy Swim Study Climbing FamilyFriendsFriend5zarionAlone tug- Nature Mountain with Organi-Club CanoeBob Marshall Area W.(Mont.)(Main.) 19701974 5.94.2 41.14 63 5170 27 70 31 3 NA NA59 6 97 4 61 34 58 11 28 0 - - 61 - -43 15 3027 11 2 81 CabinetSpeat MtnsW. W,(Mont.)(Mont) 1970 2.91.6 6741 56 6172 2018 14 4 9069 18 7 12 2 1 6162- - 11 6 4553 2015 2527 2 4036 1521 3329 58 57 SpanishMission Peaks Mrns.PA (Mont) 1970 1.8 63 8 57 27 6 72 20 7 1 41 16 53 9 29 4 38 13 35 4 10 Seiway-Bitter-motW.PA (Mont.) 19711970 3.01.7 62 5 57 32 5 97 2 1 0 74 2 56 18 31 2 46 17 29 2 5 JohnDesolation Muir W. W(Calif)(idaho-Mont.) 19721974 32 4048 9 726966 221218 756 9970 20 1 06 04 4842 16 1 5458 4617 5235 42 4033 1614 3437 73 10 6 YositeSan Gorgonio N.P. W.(Call)(C2f.) 1972 14 97 7153 1215 25 3 - - - Sequoia-KingsCanyon(Calif.) NP. 1972 13 75 7 5 ------Grand Teton N. P. - - Norri Cascades(Wyo.) 1974 62 - - 235 13 - - N.P. (Wash.) 1974 63 18 6 - - - - O}ympic N.P C Wash.) 1974 228 - - -14 72 - 9 5 Mount Rainier - - - - N.P. (Wash.) 1974 219 - 13 71 14 2 - - - Glacier Peak W. - - - Three Sisters(Wash.) W.(Oreg.) 1965 -8582 1518 - - 0 00 - - S. AppalachianTrail (Vu., - - - - Ga.) Tenn., NC, 19711970- -25 - - 53 - - 2BasedI Length only of stay on overnightis expressed campers; in ordinary no day-use calendar included days. - - - SOURCES:unpublished Liiros summaries 1978; Hendee, of permit data from agencyCarton, Marlow, files.and Brockman 1968; Murray 1974; Method of Travel Washington8 reported about 40 percent of the visitors The most common method of travel in almost all fished, and, also, that about 40 percent of the parties had areas is hiking (table 13-3). There are a few exceptions. members who fished. However, on the average, anglers Most visitsto the Boundary Waters Canoe Area fished less than 2 hours per day and about one-half (BWCA) are made in paddled canoes (in 1974, 56 caught no fish. About 80 percent of the fishermen percent of all visits). Some BWCA visitors use outboard- indicated they visited the lakes for reasons other than or motor-powered canoes (10 percent), while others use in addition to fishing. More than half gave reasons other motorboats (27 percent); a few hike (2 percent), and than catching fish or getting food as a reason for fishing. snowshoe or ski (1 percent). Snowmobile use was Similar condusions emerged from a study of fishing in permitted in the BWCA for a timein 1974,4 percent the Desolation Wilderness in California (Carpenter and of all visits were made by snowmobilebut their use Bowhis 1976). This less-than-central role for fishing was was terminated by the Chief of the Forest Service in also reported by BWCA visitors who paddle canoes, but 1976. The horsepower of outboard motors is generally mechanized visitors (motor canoeists and motorboaters) restricted in the BWCA, and all use of motors is limited concentrated heavily on fishing and assigned it great to specific zones. The BWCA is one of very few areas importance as a reason for their visits and as an influence where mechanized travel is permitted by the Wilderness on their satisfaction (Lucis 1965). Act. Established airplane access can be permitted to Photography and nature study are also major activities continue under the Act, and it is allowed in several areas, in most places, and swimming is also common in many especially the Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness and Idaho areas. These are all low-impact, nonconsumptive uses Prinutive Area, but not the BWCA, which has a unique that fit well into wilderness management objectives. policy banning low-elevation flights as a result of Hunting varies from minor to fairly common in the Executive Order 10092 signed by President Truman in National Forest wildernesses (it is generally prohibited 1949. in the National Parks). Mountain climbingis an About two-thirds of the Bob Marshall Wilderness infrequent use in most areas, induding all those in table visitors ride horses, which may also be the cicr in the 13-3, but common in a few areas. Idaho Primitive Area and Teton Wilderness which are Season of Use large areas with reputations as horse country, but data are lacking. Hikers predominate, however, in the Nation's Summer is the big use season. Some areas have largest wilderness, the Seiway-Bitterroot in Idaho and nationwide reputations as big-game hunting areas, but in Montana. the only two such areas studied (the Bob Marshall and Data are not yet available, but the wildernesses in the the Selway-Bitterroot) summer visitors still substantially Eastern United States are probably almost entirely hiker- outnumbered fall hunters. A few areas in the South, use areas, except for a few that lend themselves to Southwest, and at low elevations in (TiJifornia have canoeing, kayaking, or rafting. Horses are rare or absent winter or spring peaks in use. In the North and at higher altogether in most of these wildemesses. elevations in the mountains, winter use is light, but much Hikingandnonmotorizedboating(canoeing, more common than a decade or two earlier and growing. kayaking, rafting) in wildernesses have grown more Many areasexperience weekend peaks in use. rapidly than other travel methods in recent years. This Weekend peaking is especially sharp in the smaller, trend is strong, apparently in all areas. more accessible wilderness areas, and produces serious congestion and overuse in many places. An example of Activities moderate weekend peaking at the Desolation Wilder- Most wilderness visits are multi-purpose; typically ness in Gil ifornia is shown in figure 13-3. Other smaller, visitors participate in a variety of activities. Surveys of more accessible areas, such as the San Gorgonio and San visitors to seven wilderness-type areas indicated that, on Jacinto near Los Angeles, show much more severe the average, respondents participated in three activities weekend peaks. Data are not now available, but based on (table 13-3). In areas with fishing opportunities, one- similarities of size and location, we would expect that half or more of the visitors wet a line. However, (as many of the small, eastern wildernesses would also show pointed out in chapter 11) for many the fishing is sharp weekend peaks. somewhat incidental, rather than central. They spend a limited amount of time fishing, and pursue it as only one 8From an unpublished paper by John C Hendee, Roger N Clark, and Thomas E Dailey, "Fishing and ocher recreational behavior atmadless high lakes: some of a number of activities. For example, an observational management implications," presented to the 1974 American Fisheries Society Meeting, study at seven lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Honolulu, 1974 33 p

297 100

80

60

40

20

0 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 10 20 30 1020 31 10 20 30 1020 31 10 20 31 10 20 30 10 20 31 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT.

MONTH

Figure 13-3.Daily distribution of use in the Desolation Wilderness, Cilif. (From summarized wilderness permit information, five California Region Wildernesses, 1971, unpublished report by Gary H. EIsner, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif.)

Social Groups and Organization Sponsorship Similar results were reported for 1965 visitors to three In almost all areas, a large majority of the visitors are wildernesses in Washington and Oregon (Hendee and part of family groups (which sometimes include friends), others 1968). There, 48 percent of the group leaders said and about one-third to one-half of the groups in the areas they usually visited wilderness with family groups, 38 studied include children under 16. Most other visitors percent with friends, 8 percent with organizations, and 7 come with small groups of friends. Organization- percent alone. sponsored groups are not common, ranging from almost none in some areas to about one-tenth elsewhere. Organizations indude conservation and outdoor recrea- tion dubs such as the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, and American Forestry Association; youth groups such as Boy and Girl Scouts, young people's camps of all sorts, church and school groups. In 1976, the Wilderness Society "Way to the Wilderness" program sponsored 70 trips and the American Forestry Association "Trail Riders of the Wilderness" organized 41 trips. Most of these trips were by horseback. In the same year the Sierra Club sponsored about 300 hiking, hildng-with-packstock, horseback, and boat trips (almost two-thirds of which involved wilderness or similar areas); and local chapters of the dub sponsored many more outings. Examples of the types of groups visiting some wildernesses for which we have data are given in table 13-3. Family means related or married people, not Figure 13-4Most wilderness visitors are in small parties of family necessarily an entire family. A father and son would be or dose friends but some use is by organized groups. A patrol of Boy classified as family. Swurs hike into the Desolation Wilderness, Calif.

298 Family groups are a growing segment of the every campsiteis neither possible nor desirable. It is wilderness visitor population. This suggests two of the impossiblebarring total regimentationfor several important values of wildernesstemporary escape from reasons. People take trips of varying lengths; and, thus, pressures of the modern world and strengthening of the interior is not as heavily visited as the periphery. primary group bonds that can result from wilderness Also, we know most use is on trails or water routes living. which typically branch and diverge with the result that main trunks inevitably carry more people than branches. Visitor Residence Evenly dispersed use is undesirable for two reasons. Many wilderness areas draw visitors from all over the First, different parts of a wilderness vary in their ability to Nation The John Muir Wilderness in California, for absorb use. Some places are fragile; others more durable. example, had visitors from 43 States in 1972. Sequoia Second, "outstanding opportunities for solitude" (the and Kings Canyon National Parks had backcountry Wilderness Act's words) would be lost. The solitude visitors from 39 States in 1972. However, for every area experience would be homogenized. It might be a fairly for which data are available, the overwhelming majority high level of solitude if total use were similar to present of visitors are from the region near the wilderness. Over use, but it would be essentially the same everywhere for 97 percent of the 76,000 visits to the John Muir everyone. However, people vary in their definitions of Wilderness in 1972, 96 percent of the 17,000 Sequoia- solitude and in the value they place on it. With Kings Canyon backcountry visits, and 92 percent of the completely even use, persons who really prize solitude Yosemite visits were made by Californians. Residents of would be frustrated. At the same time, persons not Washington accounted for 74 to 78 percent of all visits to strongly motivated to seek solitude would encounter North Cascades, Olympic, and Mount Rainier National fewer visitors than they would willingly acceptin a Parks in Washington in 1974. From 58 to 85 percent of sense, solitude would be wasted on them. the visits to seven Forest Service wildernesses and We have no neat formula for an optimum distribution similar areas in Montana were made by Montanans. of use within a wilderness. No one has. We know that in About two-thirds of the BWCA visits are made by most areas present use is too unevenly distributed, and residents of Minnesota. One conclusion suggested by that redistribution to reduce the extremes is desirable. visitor-residence data is that energy shortages and higher Badly overused trouble spots are a common problem. travel costs are unlikely to reduce wilderness use We don't know how far we should try to go in the significantly. Residence data also indicated that, although direction of more evenly distributed use, but we know use wilderness is a national resource, from a recreational use could be too even. Some range of use intensities and viewpoint, wilderness is needed fairly dose to population associated variation in levels of solitude must be centers. maintained. This issue of optimum use distributions will come up in many sections of this bookin discussions of Distribution of Use principles of management (chapter 7), carrying capacity The geographical distribution of wilderness use is very (chapter 9), and use management (chapters 14 and 15). uneventhere are many people in a few places and only a few are in many others. This unevenness is evident Area-to-Area Distribution of Use among wildernessesaswell as within individual Reported visitor use of individual wildernesses shows wildernesses whether we look at numbers of visits by substantial variation among different areas (tables 13-1 trailheads; flows of visitors over the trails, waterways, or and 13-2). Five National Parks each reported between cross country; or visitor use of camping areas. 100,000 and 200,000 overnight backcountry stays There is general agreement that such extremely Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Olympic, Shenandoah, and uneven use is undesirable. There is no agreement, Great Smoky Mountains, Lake Mead reported 500,000 however, as to what constitutes optimum distribution. overnight backcountry stays; but unlike the first five, We will discuss the problem of comparing use between most of them would not be defined as wilderness use. At areas below; but, briefly, areas vary greatly in their ability the other extreme, some areas (table 13-1) reported no to absorb use, and equal use of every area would be overnight use. All of the heavily used National Park disastrous. areas are dose to large population centers. The problem of determining optimum distribution The most heavily used National Forest units are the within a wilderness is much more complicated. It is dear John Muir Wilderness in California and the Boundary that an even distributionthe same amount of use on Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) in northern Minnesota, every acre, or of every mile of the trail system and of both of which reported more than 1 million visitor-days

299 of use in 1975about 32 percent of the total Forest leads to their discovery. Some managers of eastern Service visitor-day usage of wilderness reported for that wildernesses believe this trend is underway. year. On the other end of the scale, use in the Galiuro By themselves, visitor totals give us little information Wilderness in Arizona was only about 300 visitor-days. regarding pressure on the resource. For one thing areas The reasons for such different drawing power are vary in size. For example, the use in the BWCA is poorly understood. The most heavily used National distributed over 1 million acres; the Galiuro covers only Forest wildernesses are almost all located relatively dose 52,000 acres. Although total use in the Pecos Wilderness to large population concentrations, as was also true for in New Mexico and the Bob Marshall Wilderness is the National Park areas. California, Minnesota, Southern about the same, the Bob Marshall is about 6 times as Appalachian, and New England wildernesses receive the large as the Pecos. To aid in comparing areas and most intense recreational-use pressure (table 13-1). In indicating pressure, acreage and use figures for all Clifornia in 1975, 12 of 21 wildernesses had over 1 National Forest areas have been expressed in use per visitor-day per acre (twice the national average). Three unit area (table 13-2). had over 4 visitor-days per acre. The BWCA in As table 13-2 suggests, between different areas there Minnesota also exceeded 1 visitor-day per acre. In the are large differences in the degree of visitor congestion as Southern Appalachians,Ellicott Rock Wilderness, well as in pressure on the soil, vegetation, water, and located in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, wildlife. Some of this variation may be acceptable and had over 7 visitor-days per acre. Another North Carolina desirable, but the extremes may be questioned. area (Linville Gorge) had 5 per acre. The one wilderness Although table 13-2 contributes to an understanding in Kentucky, and one each in Tennessee and West of inter-area differences in use pressure, it still gives a far Virginia, had over 1 visitor-day per acre. In New from complete picture of congestion and of opportuni- England, the Great Gulf Wilderness in New Hampshire ties for solitude which are required by the Wilderness had 5visitor-days per acre, and the other New Act. In addition to size, at least two additional factors Hampshire wildernesses exceeded 1, as did another should be considered in describing levels of wilderness wilderness in Vermont. Only four areas in the United congestion The first variable is length of season. In the States outside California, Minnesota, the Southern northern Rocky Mountains or Cascades, the main use Appalachians, and New England had over 1 visitor-day season might be less than 2 months (because of trails per acre: 1 each in Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and blocked by snow or streams too high to ford). In the New Mexico. milder regions of the country, the season is much longer. Tncation near many people makes heavy use possible, For instance, the Salmon River in Idaho, only about but a reputation as an attractive area is also necessary if 2,000 feet above sea level, is used almost year round. heavy use is to actually occur. This reputation must be Therefore, adding a length of season variable to the basedto some extent on actualattractions and measure of annual use per unit of area has the effect of recreational opportunities, but these are not the only producing even higher use levels during the main season factors determining an area's appeal. Personalities and than table 13-2 might suggest. For instance, the 1 historical accidents probably play an important role. million visitor-days of use in 1975 in the BWCA were Publicity in national magazines and guidebooks has not distributed evenly over an entire yearabout 90 contributed to the popubrity of some wildernesses (and percent of the visitor-days came between mid-May and some particular trails in specific wildemesses). Some the first of September. people have speculated that just dassifying an area as Second, the proportion of usable or effective acreage is wilderness attracts extra use. The identity that a name not the same in all wildernesses. Although all wilderness gives an area, and the word wilderness, might also acreage is available in the sense that it provides at least a stimulate use. If this is trueand the very limited backdrop for the recreationist and space for isolation, evidence to date is insufficient to decide9use could only a portion is used directly by the visitor. The amount escalate in the new eastern wildernesses as chssification of land available for distribution of use is affected by steepness of slope; type of vegetation; and area of lakes, streams, and wet, boggy soils. On the San Jacinto 'Prior to enactment of the 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act, the Scapegoat Wilderness in Wilderness in southern C2lifornia, for example, it was Montana was the only area designated as a wilderness without any previous special estimated that of the 690 acres in one travel zone dassification Reported visitor-day totals for the Scapegoat were: 1973-16,4(X) (1973 was the area's first year as a wilderness); 1974-19,700, and 1975-15,300. Figures prior to (management area), approximately 400 acres were 1973 were not kept for the area because it was not a separate unit. Even allowing for the unavailable for use because of excessive steepness, type of low accuracy of these use estimates, there dearly has not been any explosion of use after wilderness dassification.

300 Table 13-4.-Trail and ently-point density in selected National Forest Wildernesses and National Parks

Entry points1 Trail miles Number per Number per Wilderness (State) Acres Number 1,000 acres Number 1,000 acres

Great Gulf (New Hampshire) 5,400 13 2.41 25 4.63 Rainbow Lake (Wisconsin) 6,600 10 1.52 21 3.11 Hercules Glades (Missouri) 12,315 22 1.79 34 2.72 Linville Gorge (North Carolina) 7,655 12 1.57 19 2.48 Shining Rock (North Carolina) 1300 4 0.30 30 2.21 Lye Brook (Vermont) 14,300 9 0.63 31 2.17 Pews (New Mexico) 165,000 38 0.23 267 1.62 Desolation (Caiifornia) 63479 22 0.35 99 1.56 Anawnda-Pintlar (Montana) 159,086 30 0.19 207 1.30 Doily &xls (West Virginia) 10,215 8 0.78 12 1.17 Yosemite Nat. Park (UIifornia) 2646700 67 0.10 650 1.01 Glacier Nat. Park (Montana) 2927,500 81 0.09 801 0.86 Shenandoah Nat. Park (Virginia) 79,019 104 1.32 68 0.86 Idaho (Idaho) 1,232,744 43 0.03 1,057 0.86 Bob Marshall (Montana) 950,000 47 0.05 818 0.86 High Uintas (Utah) 237,177 21 0.09 199 0.84 Bridget (Wyoming) 383,300 41 0.11 315 0.82 Selway-Bitterroot (Idaho-Montana) 1,243,659 87 0.07 916 0.74 Sawtooth (Idaho) 216,383 26 0.12 152 0.70 Mission Mts. (Montana) 73,945 23 0.31 48 0.65 Teton (Wyoming) 563,500 24 0.04 318 0.56 Beartooth (Montana) 230,000 20 0.09 62 0.27 1 Entry points are defined as trails crossing the wilderness boundary. Acreage figures for Glacier and Yosemite National Parks refer to areas proposed for classification as wilderness.

vegetation, and the presence of excessively wet meadows. Intra- Wilderness Use Distribution Other areas are even more rugged and the proportion of Use within any particular wilderness is likely to vary as the area usable might be much smaller. For example, we much as use between wilderness areas. For instance, in would estimate that considerably less than 10 percent of the BWCA in 1974, about 70 percent of the user groups the area in the Mission Mountains Primitive Area in entered through only 7 of the area's 70 entry points. In Montana is potentially usable. Managers of the John Muir Wilderness in California estimated only 2 percent fact, two entry points accounted for one-third of all of the area was actually used directly. groups entering the area. In the Mission Mountains in Usable acreage also is influenced by the degree of Montana over 90 percent of the groups entered at only 2 development of access and travel routes. Most wilderness of the area's 19 trailheads (Liics, Schreuder, and James travel is restricted to the existing trail systems or areas 1971). directly adjacent to trails. (Trail and cross-country travel Figure 13-5, which shows the use pattern in the will be discussed further in the next section.) Some areas Spanish Peaks Primitive Area in Montana for the 1970 are well supplied with an intricate trail network while season, is representative of the spatial distribution of use other areas have only sketchy, sparse trail systems. Miles in most wildernesses. Mosttrailuseisheavily of trail and numbers of entry points (which relate more concentrated along some rather short segments of the dosely to capacity than does gross area) on a per-1,000- trail system-for instance, on the trail leading into Lava acre basis, vary considerably among the sample of areas Lake near the eastern edge of the area, which is only a induded in table 13-4. The Great Gulf Wilderness has little over 2 miles long. Nearly two-thirds of the area's about 80 times as many entry points on an area basis as use is day use which accounts for the concentration on does the Idaho Primitive Area, and the Desolation short in-and-out routes such as the Lava Lake trail. But Wilderness has 12 times as many as the Idaho area. And, most of the trail system has only a trickle of use, an the Great Gulf Wilderness has 17 times as dense a trail average of less than one party every 2 days of the use network as the Beartooth Primitive Area. season. Campsite use is also uneven. It seems to be

301 SPANISH PEAKS PRIMITIVE AREA 1970 RECREATIONAL USE JUNE 14-NovEMBER13 HIKs O,U.Y * * * GROUP TRAIL USE CAMPING INTENSITY

W B

Figure 13-5.Distribution of recreational use, Spanish Peaks Primitive Area, Mont. 1970.

heaviest at some of the larger lakes that are reasonably short segment had all the use. In the Spanish Peaks, the accessible. use is relatively concentrated (index number 53), but two The heavy concentration of use along only a few trail larger areas that have been studiedthe Bob Marshall miles is shown in figure 13-6. Trail segments are ranked and Selway-Bitterrootshowed even more concentrat- from the most to the least used. Total travel, in ed use (index numbers 85 and 67, respectively). Horse cumulative visitor-miles, is graphed against cumulative use tends to be more concentrated than hiking use. trail miles. For the entire trail system, the 10 percent of Horse parties go farther, but they tend to stay on main trail miles with the heaviest use accounted for about half trails. As a result, areas with heavy horse use have more of all visitor-miles. One can determine the percent of concentrated total-use patterns. The Bob Marshall, the total use concentrated on any proportion of the trail only area studied where a majority of visitors travel by network-30 percent of the trail miles get a little over 70 horse, also shows the most concentrated use. The percent of all use, and 92 percent of the trail system Desolation Wilderness in California (index number 60), accounts for all use. The index number expresses how an area about the same size as the Spanish Peaks but much the curve rises above the 45° diagonal which with about 20 times as much use, showed a somewhat represents an even use distribution. The higher the index more concentrated use distribution than the Spanish number, the more concentrated the use. The index's Peaks. One might expect that users, in an attempt to value can vary from 0 (the 45° diagonal) to 100, the avoid crowds, would disperse more evenly. However, number which would describe a situation in which one this does not happen The dense trail network in the

302 100 it is estimated that fewer than 20 percent of the visitors to most areas do any cross-country traveling. And, an even smaller percentage of the total distance covered in 80 the wilderness is off-trail travel. The specific amount of

70 60

60 CONCENTRATION INDEX (CI) 40 CI(Al A+B) x 100 lo.soIlal5) x 100 50 53

20 40 For example, the 10% of the total miles with the heaviest use accounted for 30 50% of all visitor-miles of use.

20 CUMULATIVE TRAIL-MILES (PERCENT)

Figure 13-5 Trail use concentration, Spanish Peaks Primitive Area, 10 Mont, 1970 0 , W4x<1 Desolation might also lead one to expect use to disperse more evenly, but this does not happen either. Uneven use seems universal and apparently is not self-correcting. DISTANCE TRAVELLED, ROUND TRIP The pattern of short trips, both spatially and temporally, is characteristic for most wildernesses. This (Based on a 1970-7 1 survey of 2, 264 visitors condusion is illustrated in figure 13-7, which summar- to eight wilderness and backcountry areas izes visitor trail travel for eight Montana and Idaho in Montana and Idaho.) wildernesses and backcountry areas. Only about 14 percent of the visitors traveled over 20 miles round trip Figure 13-7.Distance traveled per trip, eight Montana and Idaho in the wildernessa statistic which refutes the notion Wildernesses. that wilderness trips are typically long safaris. Only about 2 percent of the visitors traveled over 50 miles. An effective way of describing wilderness congestion resulting from use concentration is to measure the number of other parties a group could be expected to meet per hour or day in a given portion of the wilderness. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, data from trip diaries during the summer use season in 1971 (Lime 1975) revealedwidevariation in frequency of encounters at different lakes. Groups reported the number of other parties they saw on individual lakes AVERAGE NUMBER OF GROUPS ENCOUNTERED PER 8-HOUR PERIOD each day and the number of hours spent on the lake. Visitors to some lakes encountered more than 40 times 24+ F4-12 as many groups as did visitors to other lakes. Often, only 16-24 O-U .I2-16 one or two portages separated very heavily and lightly ---PORTACE --BWCA congested lakes. This distribution of encounter levels is illustrated, for a small portion of the area, in figure 13-8. Figure 13-8 Mean number of groups encountered per 8-hour Use patterns in most wildernesses are strongly trail period in a segment of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minn., related. From studies of Forest Service wilderness areas, 1971.

303 cross-country travel depends on the motives, interests, stream), (3) location within 700 feet of a trail, (4) and experience of the visitors, as well as on the terrain availability of at least 500 square feet of level land (4 and vegetation in the area. Visitors are almost locked into percent or less slope), and (5) availability of firewood trails in steep, heavily forested country, especially in areas within 300 feet characterized by abundant downed trees. This describes About one-half of the campsites were within 50 feet of most areas in the Northern Rockies and much of the the shoreline of a lake or stream, almost two-thirds were Cascades and the East. Alpine, plateaulike areas, and within 100 feet, and 85 percent were within 200 feet. open desert country, on the other hand, open up cross- Camping so dose to water causes problems, which will country opportunities. be discussed in other chapters, but it is also obvious that Campsite use is also usually very uneven. In the sites dose to water are highly attractive, and getting Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Merriam and others people to change their selection of campsites may not be (1973) reported 23 campsites varied from 28 to 1,138 easy. total visitor-days of use over 5 years. Six sites totaled under 200 visitor-days each, and 11 were over 600. User Characteristics Western wilderness shows similarly uneven campsite The Stereotype use. Many potential campsitesa majority, in fact, in A common stereotype of wilderness visitors pictures most areasshow no evidence of ever having been used them as young, athletic, wealthy, leisured, and big-city at all (Brown and Schomaker 1974). In the Desolation dudes." This stereotype is common in discussions as Wilderness, the most popular 16 percent of the camps diverseas Congressional testimony on wilderness accounted for one-half of all use. The least used one-half classification proposals and barroom arguments in small accounted for only 18 percent of all use. The same type of towns near wilderness. analysis shown in fig. 13-6 for trail use can be applied to The stereotype is largely a myth (Stankey 1971), campsite use concentration. It appears fhat campsite use, resting on casual observation of small, biased samples, although uneven, is less concentrated than trail use. and, most pernicious of all, selective perception We all A study (Brown and &homaker 1974) showed that tend to see and remember what we expect or want to see. the most frequendy used campsites in the Spanish Peaks Thus, stereotypes are self-perpetuating. The only cure is Primitive Area (Montana) and the Bridger Wilderness a dose of hard facts, which we will atteiiipt to provide by (Wyoming) sharedthe same characteristics:(1) presenting what is known, from scientific surveys, about Proximity to both water and fishing opportunities, (2) the characteristics of wilderness visitors. scenic and water views (but usually of a lake, not a Age Wilderness visitors tend to be young, younger than the general population; and, yet, all age groups are at least fairly well represented (table 13-5). Data from areas studied show large proportions of children and young adults most places (from 30 to 57 percent are 25 or younger), and almost as many older adults (30 to 50 percent are 26 to 45 years of age), also, especially in some of the areas with above-average proportions of visitors traveling by horse. Age distribution for the general American population is also included in table 13-S for comparison All of these age figures refer to individual visitors. A number of studies have been based on party leaders or persons registering for the entire party. A study comparing party leaders and other party members (Jubenville 1971) concluded that; although attitudes were similar, socioeconomic characteristics differed signifi- candy. For example, party heads tend to be older (Hendee.et aL 1968). Figure 13-9.Water, lakes, and streams are the focal point for much The data are inadequate to determine if the age activity on wilderness trips. structure of wilderness visitors is changing over time.

304 (Percent Tableof total) 13-5.Characteristics of wilderness visitorsAge (Percent of total) Income Ocupation2 (PercentEducation of total) (yrs)3 Area (State) Year 15- 1 2516- 3526 - 4536 - 5546 - overand56 Under5,000 9,9(J)5,000 10,000 14,99924,999 15,000- 25,000 over - - and Pmf.-Tech. dentStu- House- Skilled wife Labor . 8-0 12 -9 1613 - overand17 BoundaryBob Marshall WatersCanoe W. Area (Minn.) 1960 dollars 0 21 54 25 Scapegoat W.(Mont.) 1970 13 4 2917 2521 2425 1113 10 8 11 6 4230 2329 2914 14 7 -2230 - 2516 89 95 4 4336 3329 1831 Cabinet Mtns. W.(Mont.) 1970 8 40 22 12 12 6 12 45 28 12 4 19 30 9 9 3 48 32 15 SpanishMission Peaks Mtns. (Mont.)PA. PA. 1970 26 29 17 17 8 3 17 29 26 17 11 30 33 7 8 2 31 35 29 Seiway-Bitterroot(Idaho-Mont.)(Mont.) W. 19711970 49 2427 2524 2019 14 11 9 1215 3732 2526 1716 1011 2640 2220 9 12 9 43 2938 2833 2635 S.Desolation Appalachian W.(Calif.) Trail 19711970-1972 29 28 18 12 10 2 1011 16 23 28 21 3839 2638 79 73 0 18 4440 4236 U.S.Four FamiliesCalif. W. &(Va, Individuals Tenn., NC., Ga) 19701975 3427 242915 2118 2612 14 4 - - 20 - - U.S.US. FamiliesIndividusLsl 1970 31 17 12 11 11 18 19 32 27 - - 22 - - 25 54 - - 21 - - - 2Only3Based1Esta the four on years most of common schooling types completed of uccupations to date for are visitors shown 16 Others years areold usuallyor over, 10except percent for theor less.Boundary Waters from US. Census data in which age and education figures are defined slightly differently. - - - Canoethe Area most SOURCF.Swhich common is based type Lucasupan of user, data 1964; andfrom the peopleLucas most who comparable1978, had completedMurray to visitors 1974;their toeducations, Vauxother wildernesses. 1975. and only for paddle canoeists, - - - - - Changes in birth rates, the degree to which individual Income comparison, unfortunately, cannot be simple, wilderness visitors continue to visit wilderness as they as is indicated by the indusion of two sets of national age, and the age groups from which most new visitors income averages in table 13-5. The first, calculated by are recruited will interact in complex ways over the years Vaux (1975), indudes both families andunrelated, single to produce an answer to this question persons who constitute an economic unit, while the Physical Ability second is for families. Wilderness visitors look quite affluent compared to Vaux's data for individuals and The only study of physical condition as related to families combined, but quite similar to families. In fact, wilderness use (Wiesner and Sharkey 1973) conduded most wilderness visitors are part of a family economic that college men who visited wilderness were neither unit and the questions in most surveys have asked about stronger nor more fit than those who did not, but that family income. Therefore, it seems most appropriate to they had, in comparison with other college men, more compare the income distribution of wilderness visitors to favorable attitudes about exercise and parents who were families, rather than to Vaux's families and individuals, more physically active. As a barrier to participation, lack which includes large numbers of widows, bachelors, and of interest was more critical than lack of ability. other single people in the comparison Sex Earlier studies of wilderness visitors' income (Stankey Wilderness has sometimes been viewed as a male 1971) show the same moderate overrepresentation of sanctuary. Perhaps at one time it was, but now about higher incomes in a wide variety of areas. The idea that one-fourth of the visitors are female. The larger, horse- high incomes are necessary to visit wilderness does not oriented wildernesses average less female visitation; the fitthefacts,however.Typical expendituresfor smaller, hiking areas a little more. wilderness visits are low, usually under $10 per person Residence per day (Stankey 1971; Lucas 1978). Most wilderness visitors are from urban areas, as are most Americans. However, because visitors do not Occupation typiccilly travel long distances to visit wilderness, the size Persons in professional-technical occupations and of the urban areas they come from depends largely on studentsform themajority ofvisitorsto most the sizes of cities in that region Thus, about 60 percent of wildernesses (table 13-5). Generally, from 20 to 60 the visitors to Montana wilderness come from small- to percent of the visitors of working age (beginning medium-sized towns (5,000 to 100,000 people), and a between 16 and 18, depending on the study) are in little over 20 percent are rural In southern California, by professional or technical work The professions most contrast, with much larger cities within the region, over often encountered are in the fields of education, research, 90 percent come from cities with over a million people. social service, and religion, rather than law, medicine, and An earlier study (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review engineering. Usually almost one-fourth of adults and Commission 1962) reported 90 to 96 percent urban young adults are students, although a few areas have visitors to the Mt. Marcy area (a State wilderness-type reported low figures' for studentsdown to 4 percent in area in New York), the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in the Middle Fork of the Flathead in Montana, an Minnesota, and the High Sierra in California. unclassified, roadlless wilderness study area where many Although current residence is overwhelmingly urban, visitors enter at a central airstrip. several studies (Hendee et al 1968; Burch and Wenger Housewives and skilled laborers usually are the next 1967; Lucas1978; Outdoor Recreation Resources most common professions, each comprising about one- Review Commission 1962) show considerably more tenth of the total. Other occupational categories are not ruralbackgroundforwildernessvisitorsduring well represented. Blue-collar workers, other than skilled childhood. How much of this is a reflection of the general craftsmen, account for only about 5 percent of all visitors, rural-to-urban movement of population and how much a suggestion that a rural background tends to create and farmers are usually well under 5 percent. The occupational breakdown of wilderness visitors is interest in wilderness cannot now be determined. strikingly different from that of the general population Income Most wildernessvisitorsarein occupationsthat Wilderness visitors are above average in income (so emphasize working with people, ideas, or abstractions are almost all types of outdoor recreationists), but only rather than working with things. The contrast between moderately o inmost places. Income data from recent their working environment and the wilderness is strong, studies are given along with U.S. averages in table 13-5. and this could be one important appeal of wilderness. It 306 has been termed the escape or compensatory hypothesis. statistics are generally available, records kept by staff Familiarity and the social setting or personal community members in certain National Parks provide some also might play a role in shaping preferences for information on Park backcountry use trends. These will wilderness recreation (Burch 1969). be presentedlater.Since1946, National Forest wilderness use has increased enormously (fig. 13-10). Education From 1946 to 1964, man-days increased over seven The most distinguishing characteristic of wilderness times, and visits almost as much. During this period, visitors is high educational levels (table 13-5). All studies United States population grew 35 percent From 1965 to agree on this (Hendee et al. 1968). Two-thirds of the 1975, visitor-days (the new unit of measure) increased 66 BWCA paddling canoeists who were no longer in school percent while visits probably nearly doubled (data gaps were college graduates, and one-fourth had done prevent precise calculations). Population grew only graduate work (Licis 1964). Educational levels were about 10 percent in this period. Visits in 1975 were at even higher in the Mt. Marcy (New York) and High least 15 times as numerous as in the late 1940's. Sierra areas (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Cilifornia's heavily used National Forest wildernesses, Commission 1962), but this sample was based on party all on a permit system, showed an average 16 percent leaders. In the seven Montana areas, over one-third of annual increase in the 1970 to 1975 period. Crowding the persons 16 or older had graduated from college and congestion, and even use-rationing in several areas, (many were still in school, which lowered the average). have not yet produced a leveling off of California About one-fourth had done graduate work or were still wilderness use. in graduate schools. The last 25 or 30 years have been a period of great Does advanced education somehow help develop an growth for outdoor recreation. However, wilderness use interest in the natural world and primitive recreation? has grown even faster, exceeding the general rate of Or are certain types of people drawn to both university increase. This is shown when, to avoid the problem of education and wilderness by some sort of innate shifting units of measure, National Forest wilderness use curiosity? One can only speculate. is expressed as a percentage of total recreation use and Conservation Organization Membership also of developed campground use within the National Forests. Between 20 and 30 percent of the visitors to areas National Forest recreation use of wilderness as a studied belong to a conservation group or outdoor percent of total recreation use of the National Forests, recreation activity club (Hendee and others 1968; Liics and use of National Forest campgrounds: 1978). This compares to less than 10 percent of car campers (Hendee, Gale, and Harry 1969). About 40 Total Gimpground percent of the dub members (about one-tenth of all Year Use Use visitors) belong to a wilderness-oriented organization (Mao-days Base) such as the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and National 1946 1.2 5.1 Parks and Conservation Association. 1951 1.8 - (NA.) 1956 2.0 - (NA.) The Stereotype Reconsidered 1961 1.9 72 1964 2.1 90 The facts about wilderness users' characteristics are well established. In fact, the profile of the wilderness (Visitor-days Base) visitor is dearer than that of most other recreationists. 1965 2.8 13.3 1970 3.4 16.9 The characteristics are quite similar from area to area, 1974 35 18.9 even in different parts of the country. The stereotype has 1975 3.7 19.9 little basis in fact and should be discarded once and for al The interesting thing is that wilderness is still in- creasing its share of National Forest recreation. The 16 Use Trendi new eastern wildernesses show up in the use figures for Because of weaknesses of wilderness-use figures, the first time in 1975, but they totaled only about 200,000 caution must be used in analyzing use trends over time. visitor-days and have only a minor effect on trend The older records are probably less accurate than the statistics. more recent figures, but indicate broad trends. The National Park figures for backcountry camping As far back as figures go, the overall trend is strongly have been kept only since 1972; but they show a 31 upward. Although only National Forest wilderness-use percent growth from 1972 to 1973, an 11 percent

307 inflation, this growth is substantialan indication of growingpublicinterest in backpacking and related recreation / VISITOR-DAYS

- Use Projections If the view of past trends is blurred, the view of the ChANGE IN UNITS OF MEASURE futureis even murkier. Only two wilderness use 3 projections have been made, and neither is recent. The Wildiand Research Center (ORRRC 1962) projected AVAILABLE wilderness man-days of use in 2000 to be 9.6 times the

VISITS 1959 level. The Forest Service also made unpublished planning projections for essentially the same period and predicted about the same increase. This 40-year increase I94 5O '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 YEAR sounds very large, but it represents an annual increase of Figure 13-10.Use of National Forest wilderness and primitive just under 6 percent. From 1960 to 1975 the average areas, 1946 to 1975 annual increase has been 7.1 percent. From 1946 to 1959, the average annual increase was almost 15 percent. Wilderness use was projected based on projections of growth from 1973 to 1974, and an 8 percent increase population, incomelevels,and relatedfactorsin from 1974 to 1975. For comparison, total overnight stays conjunction with information on relationships of these for the National Parks increased 6 percent, 0 percent, and characteristics to wilderness use. This techniqueis 9 percent for the same three periods. From 1967 to 1972, probably better than merely extrapolating from the past, backcountry camping in Yosemite National Park went from about 78,000 to 221,000 overnight visits-184 percent more.'° From 1967 to 1974, overnight stays in the backcountry of Shenandoah National Park quad- rupled and reached 120,000." In the last 10 years, backcountry use of Rocky Mountain National Park increased 730 percentwhile total use of the Park grew a substantial but much smaller 73 percent.'2 Sales of wilderness-related outdoor equipment are high and have increased rapidly in the 1970's, which also reinforces the validity of the upward trend in use estimates. For example, sales of one major backpacking equipment supplier(Recreational Equipment, Inc., Seattle and Berkeley) increased 25 to 38 percent during each of the first 3 months in 1975 compared to the same periods in 1974.'This firm has grown from one employee and annual gross sales of $85,000 in 1955 to 600 employees and sales of $22,000,000 in 1975." Sales for another large outdoor equipment company, Eddie Bauer,mc,went from $22 million in 1974 to $27 million in 1975, a 22 percent increase.'3 Even after allowance for

20Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Press telease, 'National Park Service extends backcoimrry protection plan" June 24, 1973 From presentation by Superintendent Rohert R Jawbsen at 20th Meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference, June 22, 0975 2 From National Parb,r and Conservation Magazine, Febniary 1976, p 21 0 From Marples Business Roundup, No 655, Maith 26,1975 (a business newsletter Figure 13-11.Winter use of wilderness is increasing and offers a wvering the Pacific Northwest) 0Smith, A R 1976 Mountain dlin*ter pushing for Alpine Lakes Bill In the Everett chance for extremely low impact use Ski touring in the Selway- (Washington) Herald, February 9, 1976 Bitterroot Wilderness, Mont,

308 but it has two serious flaws. One, the relationship of future growth is still substantial. Many of the qualities of participation to population characteristics is not well typical visitors reflect overall changes in America's understood. There is available now a good deal of populationwe are becoming more urban, better descriptive information which has just been reviewed. educated, more affluent, and more of us are white-collar But, causal connections are uncertain, as we indicated for workers. All of these changes point to continued growth education, for example. Second, projections of the in wilderness use. However, we are also becoming older, population and its characteristics themselves are not very and this could temper growth somewhat (Marcin and reliable. Projections of wilderness use, like many other Lime 1975). Growth could be dampened, also,if types of outdoor recreation, also must take into account rationing becomes more widespread. However, if the the fact that capacity is limited. Projection must have wilderness system grows with the addition of new areas, some upper limits; 500,000,000 visitor-days in 1 year is this will add to reported use. dearly impossible, for example. Wilderness use has not spurted recently as part of an These problems have apparently discouraged anyone environmental fad. In fact, the most rapid recorded else from making projections of wilderness use.15 We growth was in the late 40's and 50's. But, if growth slows will not peer into the crystal ball for any magic numbers, down or stops entirely, this does not necessarily imply a either. However, it appears to us that the potential for decline in the value of wilderness. The numbers game can be a dangerous trap. Stable use would not reduce the

5One limited exception is the study by Cicchetti, Seneca, and Davidson (1969) that need for professional wilderness management. It would projects 24 types of ecreational activities, using data from the Bureau of the Census only make the challenge a little less overwhelming. national lecreaoon surveys (in 1960-61 and 1965). One of rheir activities is 'remote camping," projected to decline either 17 or 39 percent by 2tt, depending on differing assumed decreases in areas providing opportunities for remote camping and resulting Among the co-authors, the author primarily responsible for preparation of this chapter crowding. In contrast, hiking is projected to about triple in the same period. was Robert C Lucas. literatureCited

Bernstein, Arthur. Dyrsness, CT., Jerty F. Franklin, Chris Maser, Stanton A. Cook, 1972.Wildernessasa therapeutic behavior setting. Ther. James D. Hall, and Glenda Faxon RecreationJ. 6(4):160-161, 185. 1975. Research natural area needs in the Pacific Northwest: a Brown, Percy J., and John H. Schomaker, contribution to land-use planning. USDA For. Serv. Gen Tech. 1974 Final report on criteria for potential wilderness campsites. Rep. PNW-38, 231 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Conducted through Institute for Study of Outdoor Recreation Sta, Portland, Oreg. and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Supplement No. 32 to 12-11-204-3. 50 p. Fisher, Anthony, and John V. Krutilla. 1972. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based Burch, William B.., Jr. recreation facilities. Nat. Resour. J. 12(3):417 444. 1969. The social cimes of leisure: competing explanations. J. Leisure Res. 1(2):125-147. Foster, John D. Burch, William R, Jr. 1976. Bureau of land management primitive areasare they 1974 In democracy is the preservation of wilderness. Appalachia counterfeit wilderness? Nat. Resour. J. 16(3):621-3. 40(2):90-101. Gbiselin, John Burch, William R., Jr., and Wiley D. Wenger, Jr. 1973-74 Wilderness and the survival of species. Living Wilderness 1967. The social characteristics of participants in three styles of 37(124):22-27. family camping. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-48, 29p. Hanson, Robert A. Pac Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oreg. 1973.Outdoorchallengeand mentalhealth.Naturalist Carpenter, M. Ralph, and Donald R. Bowhis. 24(1):26-30. 1976. Attitudes toward fishing and fisheries management of users in Desolation Wilderness, California. Calif. Fish and Game Hendee, John C, William R. Carton, Jr., Larry D. Marlow, and C 62(3): 168-178. Frank Brockman Cicchetti, Charles J., and A. Myrick Freeman ifi. 1968.WildernessusersinthePacific Northwesttheir 1971. Option demand and consumer surplus: further comment. characteristics, values, and management preferences. USDA Quart. J. Econ. 85(8):528-539. For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-61, 92 p. Pac Northwest For. and Ciccherti, Charles J., Joseph J. Seneca, and Paul Davidson. Range Exp. StPortland, Oreg. 1969. The demand and supply of outdoor recreation ?sOlp. Bureau Hendee, John C, Richard P. Gale, and Joseph Harry. of Economic Research, Rutgers, the State University, New 1969. Conservation, politics, and democracy. J. Soil and Water Brunswick, NJ. Conserv. 24(6):212-215. Clawson, Marion Hendee, John C, and Robert C Lueas. 1963. Land and water for recreation: opportunities, problems, and 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a necessary management policies. 144 p. Rand McNally & Co., Chicago. tooL J. For. 71(4):206-2. 309 Jubenville, Alan. Marnell, Leo F. 197 1. A test of differences between wilderness lcueation party 1977. Methods for counting river recreation users. p. 77-82. In leaders and party members. J. Leisure Res. 3(2):116.-119. Proceedings,riverrecreation management and research Kaplan, Rachel. symposium, 455 p. Jan 24-27, 1977. USDA For. Serv., North 1974 Some psychological benefits of an outdoor challenge Central For. Exp. Sm., St. Paul, Minn. program. Environ and Behav. 6(1):1O1-116. Merriam, L C, Jr., and others. Krutilla, John V. 1973. Newly developed campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57 (4) :777-786. Area: a study of 5-years' use. Stn. Bull. 511. For. Series 14.27 p. Lime, David W. Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 1975. Sources of congestion and visitor dissatisfaction in the Murray, Judith Buddey. Boundary Waters Canoe Area, p. 68-82. In Third Boundary 1974 Appalachian trail users in the southern National Forests: Waters Canoe Area Instit. Proc, Duluth, Minn., May 9, 1975. their characteristics, attitudes, and management preferences. 102 p. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-116, 19 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Lime, David W., and Roland G. Buchman. Stn, Asheville, N.0 1974 Putting wilderness permit information to work. J. For. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 72(10):622-626. 1962. Wilderness and recreation-a report on resources, values, Lime, David W., and Grace A. Lorence. and problems. (ORRRC Study Report 3)352 p., illus. US. 1974 Improving estimates of wilderness use from mandatory Government Printing Office, Washington, D.0 travel permits. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-101, 7p., illus. Pendleton, Robert C North Central For. Exp. Sm, St. Paul, Minn. 1968. Wilderness is not recreation alone-scientific studies prove Lowry, Thomas Power, ed. the value of wilderness. Naturalist 19(4):28-31. 1974 Camping therapy: its uses in psychiatry and rehabilitation Seagrave, Sterling. 138 p. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IlL 1976. Scientists learn from wild plants. Bioscience 26(2):153-154, Liicis, Robert C 156. 1964. Recreational use of the Quetico-Superior Area. USDA For. Schmidt, Wyman C, and W. P. "Buster" Dufour. 1975. Building a natural area system for Montana. Western Serv. Res. Pap. [5-8., 49 p., illus. Lake States For. Exp. Stn, St. Paul, Mum. Wildiands 2(1):20-29. Stankey, George H. Lucas, Robert C. 1971. Myths in wilderness decision making. J. Soil and Water 1965. The importance of fishing as an attraction and activity in the Conserv. 25(5):183-188. Quetico-Superior Area. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note LS-61, 3 p. Stanley, John. Lake States For. Exp. Stn, St. Paul, Minn. 1974. Research projects in the Sierra Nevada, 1970-1973. 32 p. Lucas, Robert C Sierra Club, San Francisco. 1975. Low compliance rates at unmanned trail registers. USDA Tietz, John G. For. Serv. Res. Note INT-200, 6p. Intermt. For. and Range 1973. Project record: trail traffic counter accuracy test, ED&T 1977 Exp. Stn, Ogden, Utah. Trail Traffic Counter. 37 p. USDA For. Serv. Equip. Develop. Lucss, Robert C Center, Missoula, Mont. 1978. The characteristics of visitors to wilderness and related areas Thorstenson, ('hrk T., and Richard A. Heaps. in the Northern Rockies and California Sierras. USDA For. 1973. Outdoor survival and its implications for rehabilitation Ther. Serv. Res. Pap. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden Utah. Recreation J. 7(1):31-33. (In press.) Tombaugh, Larry W. 1971. External benefits of natural environments, p. 73-77. ln Lums, Robert C, and Jerry L Oltman. Recreation: symposium proceedings, 211 p. USDA For. Serv. visitors. Leisure Res. 1971. Survey sampling wilderness J. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa 3(1):28-43. Vaux, H.J., Jr: Loms, Robert C, Hans T. Schreuder, and George A. James. 1975. The distribution of income among wilderness uses.J. Leisure 1971. Wilderness use estimation: a pilottest of sampling Res. 7(1):29-37. procedures on the Mission Mountains Primitive Area. USDA Wenger, Wiley D., Jr., and Hans M. Gregerson For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-109, 44p. Intermt. For, and Range 1964. The effect of nonresponse on representativeness of Exp. Sm, Ogden, Utah. wilderness-trail register information USDA For. Serv. Res. Martin, Thomas C, and David W. Lime. Pap. PNW-17, 2Op. Par. Northwest For. and Range Exp. St., 1976. Our aging population structure: what will it mean for future Portland, Oreg. outdoor recreation use? p. 42-53. In Proceedings of the national Wiesner, Robert K, and BrianJ. Sharkey. symposium on the economics of outdoor recreation, 163 p. New 1973. Some characteristics of wilderness backpackers. Percept. and Orleans, Nov. 11-13, 1974. Motor Skills 36(3):876-878.

310 Wilderness management is essentially the management of humar use and influence. Management of visitors and their impacts is especially important for preserving the naturalness and solitude that distinguish wilderness from other settings Here a wilderness ranger suggests this party go to a lightly used kxation instead of a more popular area 14Visitor Management: Approaches To Managing Wilderness Use And Visitor Behavior

Objectives and Constraints 313 Visitor data 319 Aspects of Visitor Use Subject to Management 314 Visitor Management Tools and Techniques 323 Amount of use 315 Indirect visitor management 323 Distribution of use 315 Direct management techniques 327 Timing of use 316 Wilderness rangers 333 Party size 316 Litter control 333 Length of stay 316 Use simulation mcxlels 334 Behavior 316 Visitor Management in the Future 336 Information Needed for Visitor Management 317 Summary 337 Resource data 318 Literature Cited 337

Visitor management is a critically important paft of by the fottes of nature, with the imprint of man's work wilderness management. Infact, most wilderness substantiallyunnoticeable"and"hasoutstanding managementisvisitor management. The major opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined exception is the management of widespread ecological type of recreation." The Act goes on to prohibit processes to minimize or compensate for modern man's commercial enterprise, permanent or temporary roads, direct and indirect interference as discussed in previous structuresorinstallations,motorboats,motorized chapters on wilderness ecosystems, wildlife, and fire. equipment, aircraft, or mechanical transport (of any Even considering these exceptions, the genera li7ation other kind, presumably). The 1975 Act directed at holds true that most wilderness management is the eastern wilderness calls for mangement in accordance management of visitor use. with the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Act also contains some specific and limited exceptions to these constraints induding Existing Objectives and Omstraints private rights; emergencies involving the health and In many recreation areas, the management of visitors safety of people within a wilderness; fire, insect, and and their impacts might involve engineering or structu- disease control (under regulation by the Secretary); ral solutions. For example, sites could be hardened and mineral exploration until 1984 and mining; water protected by paving or planting nonnative, durable controlstructures(only when approved by the grasses; and visitor activity could be channeled by barriers President); access to private inholdings, valid mining and abundant regulatory signs. daims, and occupancies; commercial operations by However, this engineering approach has limited outfittersand guides;continuationofestablished applicability in classified wilderness. The framework for motorboat and aircraft use; and livestock grazing. visitor management is derived from wording in the Most important for our discussion here, the Act also Wilderness Act: wilderness is"undeveloped Federal land grants exceptionsto development restrictionsfor retaining its primeval character and influence, without administrative activities "... necessary to meet min- permanent improvements or human habitation imum requirements for the administration of the area managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and for the purpose of this Act." Thus, any management which generally appears to have been affected primarily exception to the Act's restrictions must pass a series of

313 stringent tests: It must be necessary to meet just the visitors' wilderness experiences and to protect the minimum requirements to manage the area for the wilderness resource. purpose of the Wilderness Act. The purpose, as In this chapter, we discuss various aspects of visitor use discussed in chapter 4, is to "... assurethat an increasing and their associated impacts, their potential for influence population,...expanding settlement, and growing by management, and the direct and indirect manage- mechanization does not occupy and modify all areas ment tools and techniques that might be applied. We within the United States... to secure. .. anenduring assess the effectiveness of each technique based on both resource of wilderness and to"preserveits research and management experience. In this attempt, wilderness character while devoting areas to we have been aided by correspondenceand conversa- reueational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, tions with many managers, including a large number and historical use of types consistent with wilderness. who reviewed drafts of this book Where appropriate, Management actions cannot be justified just because we recommend management directions we believe are they are convenient, economical, or because they are necessary to maintain wilderness values. effective ways of achieving nonwilderness goals, such as increasing streamfiows, or stopping natural erosion or increasing the use capacity of a wilderness recreation site. Aspects ofVisitor Use Subject to The constraints in administrative activities mean Management actions such as paving trails or fencing fragile meadows Of all the many aspects of wilderness visitors' use, are at least highly questionable if not illegal, in the which ones can management influence? To what extent opinion of many people. This is the position from which can different uses and their impacts bemodified, and we discuss wilderness management in this chapter and how? throughout the book We recognize, as pointed out in It is useful to think of a typology or classification of chapter 1, that there are others who feel this approach is undesirable visitor actions and their associated impacts, too pure and rigid.' and the managerial responses that are needed and Beyond the legal constraint, the spirit and ideal of justified (table 14-i): wilderness criesout against the frequent use of Illegal actions with adverse impacts. Examples are improvements, facilities, and structures in its manage- the illegal use of chain saws or motorbikes in wilderness, ment. A developmental approach seems self-defeating; disruptionof othervisitors' to try and save wilderness by changing it until it no withtheresulting experiences and soil and vegetation damage. The longer is wilderness makes no sense. managerial response would be law enforcement coupled Thus, we think wilderness managers must rely with dear communication of legal restrictions. primarily on the management of visitor use to control Careless or thoughtless violatzons of regulations unwanted impacts, through such measures as changing with adverse impacts. Here people usually know better, use levels and patterns and modifying visitor behavior. This is essential both for enhancing the quality of but don't care or don't think about the impact of their actions. Littering is an example, as are shortcutting trail switcbbacks, camping in closed areas, and building wood For example, see editorial, Approach wilderness addition with caution," The Oregon Statesman (Salem, 0mg.), August 6, 1975. fires where they are not permitted. The manager can try

Table 14-1.Five types of visitor actions, examples, and general management response

Type of visitor action Example Management response

1. Illegal actions Motorcycle violation Law enforcement 2. Careless actions Littering, Nuisance activity (e.g., shouting) Persuasion, education about impacts, rule enforcement 3. Unskilled actions Ditching tent Primarily education about low-impact use practices, some rule enforcement Uninformed actions Concentrated use Education-information Unavoidable impacts Human waste, physical impact of even Reduction of use levels to limit unavoidable careful use impacts; relocation of use to more durable site

314 to motivate visitors to cease such behavior by persuasion; Following this will be a detailed discussion of wilderness by making it easier to do the right thing or harder to do use management tools and how managers can influence the wrong thing; by management actions such as various aspects of use. providing litterbags or encouraging litter pickup through Amount of Use the use of incentives or direct appeals by rangers, or Clearly, managers can restrict numbers of visitors if physically blocking shortcuts; and by enforcing rules and regulations (which are less authoritative than laws) they believe their unavoidable impacts (type 5) exceed the physical or social carrying capacity. Use can be against these acts. restricted indirectly, for example, by dosing roads or not Unskilled actions with adverse impacts. Digging a maintaining trails; or directly, for instance, by rationing drainage ditch around a tent is an example of an impact the number of use permits issued. However, as we noted resulting from a lack of wilderness skills or knowledge. in chapter 9, the direct rationing of use should be a last Many once-recommended woodsman practicessuch resort after every other appropriate approach has been as building bough beds and pole shelters and burying exhausted. garbageare now inappropriate in wilderness because of their accumulated impact stemming from heavy use. Dittribution of Use Some are unnecessary with modern camping equip- As we notedinchapter13,wilderness use ment. Some practicesacceptableinareas outside distributionsaretypicallyuneven. Some ofthis wilderness are out of place within it. The manager's unevenness results from uninformed actions (type 4) of main response is to educate visitors about desirable users who possess limited knowledge of alternative practices, and, when necessary, to establish and enforce opportunities. However, sometimes concentrated use rules against such actions while always trying to educate reflects available trails (which can be relocated in the long visitors about why such rules are necessary. run), differencesinattractiveness of locations, or Uninformed behavior whichintensifiesuse proximity to population centers. Here, the impacts fall impacts. This kind of behavior is illustrated by large into our type5 categoryunavoidable minimum numbers of visitors who enter a wilderness at a few well- impacts. In either case, managers might try to alter the known access points during peak use periods when they distribution of use through the provision of information might have dispersed themselves over a number of to users. This information might indude the following: access points if they had been more informed about 1. Alternative nonwilderness opportunities: Several alternative places. Concentrated camping at conspicuous studies suggest that many wilderness visitors probably places is another example. No matter how skilled and would be better satisfied in areas with more facilities and careful they are, problems are created. The manager's managed more intensively for dispersed recreation than responseistoprovidepriorinformation about is wilderness (Hendee et al. 1968; Stankey 1973; Lucas alternatives available. 1973). These users are seeking primitive, roadless Unavoidable minimum impacts. Every party that recreation experiences but don't require or necessarily visits a wilderness causes some minimum, unavoidable want the completely undeveloped conditions provided in impacts by their mere presence. The party is there; other chissified wilderness. Managers, by providing informa- parties will see them and their solitude will be reduced. tion about roadless, but nonwilderness, locations can Visitors must step on plants, defecate, and urinate. often steer users to desired experiences, thus relieving Vegetation under a tent is compressed and damaged to pressures on legally cbssified wilderness as well as better some extent. Even with all the skill and knowledge meeting visitors' desires. possible, there remains a minimum, unavoidable level of At the same time, information about wilderness needs impact. Use can be shifted to areas best able to support it. to stressitscharacter and deemphasize recreation Trails, for example, can be relocated to more durable sites opportunities that are not wilderness dependent. For (discussed in chapter 15). When, after relocating use, the example, wilderness brochures have sometimes featured accumulation of unavoidable impacts is excessive, the photographs of proudly smiling fishermen displaying manager can only reduce or eliminate use; all other dozens of fish caught, hunters kneeling by trophy elk, options have been used up. deer, or sheep, or very large groups of visitorsthe We will refer to these five types of impacts in the wrong kind of image of wilderness, we believe. Isolation, following discussion of the specific aspects of visitor use solitude,and challengecouldbe portrayed with that managers can influence, with some mention of photographsof smallpartiesinnatural,typical general types of managerial responses. Then informa- surroundings (not necessarily in uniquely beautiful, tion needs for visitor management will be considered. scenic spots).

315 2. Other less used wildernesses: As indicated in impacted areas; or at least it can be in such areas. chapter 13, use intensity varies greatly from wilderness Furthermore, the grand wilderness adventure to the to wilderness. Sometimes a lightly used wilderness most remote possiblelocationseems particularly capable of absorbing more use is located near a heavily consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act and used area. Most visitors have only sketchy, word-of- with the philosophy of wilderness. On the other hand, mouth information about use levels from one wilderness when an occasional party stays for a long time at one to another. Managers might provide such information to popular campsite (a few parties almost homestead), it is enable those visitors particularly concerned with solitude unfair to other visitors and hard on the site. For this and relatively undisturbed conditions to more readily find reason, a reasonable limit on length of stay at any one them, while at the same time reducing impacts by campsite seems desirable. Time spent at a particular diverting use from heavily used areas. This approach locationnot total time in the wildernessis the factor might not shift enough use, however, and might need to with the greatest relationshipto undesirable use be supplemented by more direct controls. patterns. 3 Less used entry points, trails, and campsites within the wilderness: Chapter 13 pointed out how uneven and Changing behavior of wilderness visitors is a key to concentrated use typically is within any wilderness. A few visitor management that can reduce or eliminate much miles of trail and a few campsites usually account for a of the need to regulate and control visitor use. Some large proportion of all use. Information about less used managers with wilderness experience in different parts locations could help disperse users to them. More direct of the country believe there are substantial regional controls could be imposed through wilderness permits or differencesinvisitorbehaviorthatsuggestthat by onsite dispersal by wilderness rangers, although these undesirable behavior is not inevitable; people can learn measures should be viewed as last resort actions. and change and visitor behavior is susceptible to manager-directed change. Timing of Use Most wildernesses have short use seasons and many have sharp weekend and holiday peaks in use (chapter 13). Managers can try to shift use from peaks to low period, first by providing information about peak period and off-season use levels and use on weekdays compared to weekends, and finally by regulation, if necessary.

Party Size Large parties are not common in most wildernesses (chapter 13), but the few that exist have a serious adverse effect on other visitors' experiences (Stankey 1973). Managers can limit party size, and have in many places, but this technique needs to be supplemented with education and persuasion Frequently, large parties are sponsored by organizations that are easier to contact than independent users and that may be anxious to cooperate with wilderness managers. The average size of parties sponsored by such groups as the American Forestry Association, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club has dedined in recent years in response to concerns about the adverse impacts of large parties.

Length of Stay Length of stay can be regulated; but, in general, it Figure 14-1.Trails are an important influence on use distributions and visitor experiences. The ease of access and travel that trails offer doesn't contribute much to overuse. Few parties stay very tend to increase use. Fragile areas, often left without trails, hold down long (chapter 13) and much of the use associated with use and provide cross-country travelers with greater isolation. A trail longer stays either is in more remote, less used, and less crew at work in the John Muir Wilderness, (Tilif.

316 Three aspects of visitor behavior are relevant here; Impacts on Other Visitors behavior related to: (1) Resource impacts, (2) impacts on Visitor behavior, induding choice of activities and the the experiences of others, and (3) cooperation with way they are pursued, party size, and the selection of management. campsites, also affects other visitors' experiences. The Resource Impacts key to acceptable wilderness behavior is respect for other Resource impacts can be dramatically increasedor visitors' desires for isolation and solitude. Appropriate reduced depending on visitor behavior. Illegal and behavior requires knowledge of a largely unwrittenset of careless behaviors (types 1 and 2)may be more serious rules or norms for wilderness use. For example, visitors than inappropriate behavior by well-meaning, but who are sensitive to these norms will usually tryto camp unskilled, visitors (type 3). Unskilled behavior (type 3) is out of sight of others and hold down noise (for most common, however. information on how far different types of noise will travel in different settings and how Several kinds of behavior determineresource impacts. to minimize First, self-contained camping (the opposite of living off transmission of campsite noise by strategic lcx'ation of the land) is low impact. Proper equipment is the key. campsites, see Daily and Redman 1975). Extensive social Tents with aluminum or fiberglass poles eliminate the overtures beyond the courtesies of greeting and limited getting acquainted are usually not considered appropriate need to cut trees for tent poles. Tents doaway with the in wilderness camp areas, and most visitors respect need for pole and bough lean-to's. Airmattresses or one another's privacy. Littering and erection of campsite foam pads replace bough beds. Waterprooftent floors improvements, such as shelves, stools, racks, shelters, make drainage ditches obsolete. Campstoves mean no firewood gathering, no smoke, andno ashes. Fewer and rock fireplaces that are left behind are all examples of horses reduce impacts on trails, hitchingareas, and behavior that can detract from the quality of the forage. wilderness experience of others. A skillfulcamper leaves Camping and traveling skills can be upgraded to the campsite so unmodified it is difficult to tell it has been used reduce impacts. Visitors can learn to recognize and respect fragile soils and vegetation, avoid harassing Cooperation wildlife, use water without polluting it, properly dispose Finally, cooperation with management isa visitor of garbage (pack it in, pack it out), use campfires obligation This indudes such things as registeringat trail sparingly and only where wood is abundant, choose registers or obtaining a wilderness permit where it is suitable places for fires, and be safe with fire. required, and responding to otherrequests of manage- Horse use requires special skill and knowledge because ment whether itis to pack out litter or fill outa of thehorse'spotential for damaging soilsand questionnaire seeking information useful tomanage- vegetation. Most horses weigh over 1,000 pounds; their ment. It also indudes complying with rules, regulations, weight is supported on small hooves with iron shoes. A and laws pertaining to the use of thearea. horse can eat 20, 30, ormore pounds of grass and other Wilderness visitors generally seemvery cooperative. forage each day in a wilderness. Several booklets (Back Wilderness users and managers are usually united in Country Horsemen 1972; Miller 1973) andsome their concern for the resource. This is reflected by the agency brochures discuss how to minimize impacts while unusually high response of wilderness visitorsto using horses. Probably the main mistakemany visitors questionnaires seeking their views and their almost make is to leave horses tied too long ina small, often complete compliance with requests to pickup and carry vulnerable area. Tying horses totrees for long times, out some extra litter (Clark and Muth 1976). especially overnight, has killed trees, producedmanure concentrations, and detracted seriously from the beauty Information Needed for Visitor of campsites. Longtime picketing of horses inone area produces overgrazed cirdes. The animalcan hardly be Management held responsible for his natural behavior ofpawing, Professional management of visitors requires reliable stamping, eating, and defecating. The problem lies with base data just as much as timbermanagement, water the behavior of the visitors responsible for the horse, management, or any other type of resource manage- mule, or burro. In addition, use ofnew, light equipment ment. Much past management of wilderness visitors has reduces the number of animals neededto transport been based on the manager's personal experiences, camper gear, thereby further reducing the level of feelings, and intuition rather thanon systematically impact. collected information Professional judgmentmust

317 always be a major part of wilderness management; but, it conditions at each camping area? How much effect has should be based on reliable information about use, grazing had on meadows? Is water quality too low in resource conditions, likely user responses to manage- some places? Are trails eroding? This information is ment actions, and probable responses of the ecosystem to essential to identify places where use needs to be reduced management decisions. or changed in type, and to select locations where some of Guesswork is just not good enough for the challenge it might be diverted as well as where new facilities might of wilderness management now and in the future. be considered or where maintenance and repair are Research and managers' experience both indicate that needed. the best guesses about use levels and patterns and users' A variety of basic resource inventory techniques from attitudes are often very inaccurate; for example, in many the fields of range management, wildlife management, areas, during the first year that wilderness permits forestry, and ecology are available but only a few were used, sharp changes in use figures were produced, examples of these will be discussed here. Depending on both up and down. Field surveys have generally shown money available and the need for the information to that useisless evenly distributed than managers meet objectivesforthe wilderness,avariety of estimated, length of stay is shorter than thought, and information could be collecteddata about the condition there is less horse and more hiker use than believed. of trails and travel routes, campsites, forage areas, water Similarly, managers have commonly held assumptions near use areas, natural attractions, and so forth.This about visitors' attitudes on solitude, on facilities, and on would help identify critical spots that should be checked use controls that have often turned out to be wide of the regularly. At some interval, maybe 5 or 10 years, a mark (Hendee and Harris1970). Even campsite complete reinventory would probably be desirable. impactsa seemingly objective, readily observed condi- Without some systematic observation of resource tionproved to be less severe than managers thought conditions it will not be possible to say with any (see the discussion of campsite inventories in chapter confidence if conditions are improving or deteriorating. 15). Unsystematic observation and subjective recall are Because information is costly, it should be collected not reliable. systematically, should be related to specific objectives, and Information for resource management costs money to should be in a form that is easily used and that permits collect, and the benefits of better information must be comparisons between places and over time. The Code- compared to these costs(Herfindahl 1969). Poor A-Site system, discussed in chapter 15, is an example of wilderness management decisions based on inadequate systematic,readilyretrieved information collection. information can be very costly, and can even result in Photographic techniques provide other examples. Some irreversible damage. Information collection for infor- managers have established permanent photo points mation's sake can be a trap, and complete, pcise throughout the wilderness under their administration. A information is not a realistic goal. But a major upgrading photo point near the center of a campsite, for example, of base data about wilderness use and resources is the can be relocated later if the distances from three trees or essential first step to improved management. This rocks are carefully measured and the reference trees information is needed to develop management plans carefully identified on a sketch map. The next time, arcs and actions, to monitor the reactions of visitors and the are swung at the recorded distances from the trees and ecosystem, and to revise plans. Without this base data, their intersection marks the point closely. A stake can be the manager is flying by the seat of the pants; there is no driven just below the surface to help pinpoint the way to determine whether management is achieving its lcation. A series of photographs of areas such as objectives. Effective learning from experience is prevent- campsites, meadows, and other key locations, enables managers to quiddy determine changes that are Two categoriesof data are relevant to visitor occurring. If done properly, it is possible to measure such management: Resource data and visitor data. things as groundcover loss, soil erosion, tree vigor, changes in species composition, and other vegetation ResourceData damage (Walker 1968). Panoramasfull, 360° views Information about resource conditions is essentiaL For can be obtained by carefully levelling the cameraand example, how good or bad are physical-biological rotating it a specific amount before each photo is taken. An example of a campsite photographic panorama is on page 319. 2Collection of resource and visitor use information was a topic in the Anaconda-Pintlar Vertical photos, taken from about eye-level, can record Wilderness Plan (see chapter 8) for which separate objectives and distinct palicies and actions were identified. detailed conditions on sample areas. A 1-meter-square

318 Figure 14-2.Periodic rephotographingofwilderness camps and trails can provide an excellent record for measuring impact over time. This 360-degree panorama photoofa campsite in the Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness permits measuresofexisting impact as well as the spreadof impact over rime to be made. plot is covered nicely with a 28 mm lens on a 35 mm that prevailed prior to man's influence (for a good camera. Longer lenses might be used on a larger format example, see Gibbens and Heady 1964, and also figure camera. Percentage of the sample areas covered by 10-5, page 202 in this book.) vegetation, by bare soil, and by dead plant material can be measured and plant species identified. If carefully done, Visitor Data the same sample plots can be relocated and photo- A variety of visitor data can be used in management. graphed again to measure trends. First, there is basic information on use levels, patterns of A special technique has been developed to photo- use, and characteristics of use. This information is usually graph stereographictilly sample locations on trails that collected by area managers. Second, there is information permits accurate measurement of degree of erosion on the characteristics and behavior of visitors; on their (Rinehart, Hardy, and Rosenau 1978). Two photo- knowledge of appropriate ways of doing things; their graphs of a trail sample transect are taken from a desires and preferences; the satisfactions they get from distance of 15feet. The two photos are oriented use; their attitudes about conditions in the area and about identically, but one is taken 9 inches to the right of the other uses; and their feelings and probable reactions to other. An example ofapairof stereographic management actions, policies, or regulations. Such photographs of a trail is shown on page 320. When information is generally gathered by research scientists viewed through a stereoscope, the trail is seen in three rather than managers. All of these data change over time dimensions (3-D). (Some people can see "in stereo" and need to be measured periodically. Basic use data are without a stereoscope by relaxing their eyes and looking collected annually; other visitor information needs to be through the photographs as though focusing on a distant updated at longer intervals. object.) The ways of gathering basic use data were discussed in chapter13. Four approaches are possible. Direct Changes from year to year are readily observed in the detailed, 3-D photographs. The sample transect is observation of a sample of times and places is one approach, but costly and with low precision Automatic marked by tent stakes driven flush with the ground, and a string stretched between them marks the transect. counters have had mixed success, but, even when they perform well, they provide limited information Trail Closely spaced vertical measurements from the string to registers provide incomplete data that can be adjusted for the trail surface enable one to calculate the cross-sectional area below the string to determine the degree of nonregistrants if registration behavior is checked, but this again is costly. Mandatory permits provide the most entrenchment of the trail. The same cross-sectional area reliable and complete data on use (Hendee and Lucas also can be measured directly from the photographs (Rinehart, Hardy, and Rosenau 1978). 1973). Such photos, systematicillycollected over time, Permit Systems constitute an important bank of information and, in The costs of operating a permit system are substantial some cases, can help determine the natural conditions (primarily in salaries of people to administer it), but in

319 TRAIL SEGMENT #8

Figure 14-3.Stereo-pair photos permit the view to see impacts in 3-dimensions; estimates of the vokime of annual soil k)ss fmm this trail can be made directly from such photos. Place a stereo-viewer over this photo to see the derail that can be measured.

addition to obtaining sound use data there are other weighed against the many benefits. At lçast for heavily benefits (Hendee and Lucas 1973). The main additional used areas, the benefits seem large relative to costs. But benefit to both managers and visitors comes from the there are less obvious benefits from permits issued in contact between the two. This contact has the potential more lightly used areas. Even these areas have overused for communicating information about where and when spots that a permit system might help to identify and aid to go that could improve visitors' experiences and reduce in redirecting people to less used places. In addition to excessive impacts on the wilderness, and the potential helping redistribute use within a wilderness, permit data forimprovingvisitors'knowledge of regulations, also can aid in redistributing use between wildernesses. desirable behavior and practices, and hazards. The Encouraging some visitors to switch from popular to less benefits of communication are lost, however, if the visited wildernesses would be aided by reliable data on agency representatives, where permits are issued on a the use of all areas, not just the heavily used ones. If use of face-to-face or telephone basis, are not well informed and certain popular areas is controlled, some of the users skilled in public contacts or if written material used with turned away at one area will go to another nearby mail or self-issued permits is not well done, up to date, wilderness. The permit system provides a good check on and readable. A permit system that records who went this movement between areas and can help identify new where, and for how long, can also add a dimension of trouble spots quickly. safety to wilderness travel. The permit is necessary, of For some areas where use levels and environmental course, when direct regulation of use must be resorted to, impacts are not high enough to require rationing, the but this is not the only or even the main reason for a self-issued, mandatory permit may be an attractive permit system; it is unfortunate that many people view compromise. Seven National Forest wildernesses in permits and use rationing as inevitably linked. It is likely Oregon use this system. The standard Forest Service that a well-run permit system could reduce and delay the wilderness permit is available from a box near trailheads. need to regulate use. Visitors fill out a permit, take one copy, and deposit one. The costs of administering a permit system and the This appears to be by far the best way to gather accurate costs in the form of visitor inconvenience need to be use information because compliance is very good. Field

320 checks by wilderness rangers show 91- to 95-percent Bucbman 1974; EIsner 1972; Frayer and Butts 1974). compliance, compared to 50 to 60 percent in the same Data can be tabulated on the basis of location variables areas with agency-issued permits. This is also much (such as entry points or travel zones), by visitor better than trail registers. characteristics (such as residence of leader, length of stay, The self-issued permit is more convenient for visitors, group size, or method of visitor travel), or by time as it eliminates any need to drive out of the way to an variables (such as day of week, weeks of the season, or issuing office or to change travel schedules to get a months). These variables can also be combined into permit during office hours. It also is considered by most more complex tablesfor example, entry points used by managers to reduce administrative costs considerably. visitors from a nearby large urban area during the peak Personal contact is lost, but a well-designed map can give month. regulations and suggested practices, perhaps better than busy derks with little wilderness background. With self-issued permits, it is difficult to try to divert visitors away from overused areas. With agency-issued pern-iits, this is possible; but, unfortunately, it often is not done anyway because of a lack of well-informed, skilled people to issue permits. Contacts with wilderness WILDERNESS PERMIT rangers in the field are more effective in communicating U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service suggestions on wilderness behavior and reminders of regulations. Wilderness or Primitive Area If managers seek to redistribute use to achieve When signed below, this Permit authorizes (i..odtl management goals for solitude and use imparts, all lraamel persons registering might be sent information on use- problem areas during the off-season Many of them will (Add ressl make trips, or know people who will. (This approach lctv) Istatel Izip Codel to visit this Wilderness or Primitive Area was used in 1975 with some Boundary Waters Canoe and to build campfires iR accordance with applicable regulations, from to]2-t311415 Area visitors, as is described in more detail later.) The tMu I, lotyt (Mo)(Day) near-complete compliance withself-issued permit requirements would provide an excellent mailing list for The number of people in the group will be such information. The number of pack or saddle stock used will be lenter '0it no stuck mdi be oseal Use Summaries The place of entry will be Lacationt The trip will end at The permits or trail register cards provide raw data on LocatiOn)

I agree to abide by eli lows rules end regutotronr which apply to this a na, and to each party. Included are the size of the group, where the (000w the ruins of behavior listed an, yr attached so this permitI will do my best party leader lives, main method of travel, number of to see that everyone in my group does likewise. stock (horses, mules, or burros), date of entry, and either (Visit or's signaturel exit date or length of stay (fig. 14 4). Permits also usually i Datel provide information on entry and exit locations, travel I Datel Ii stoles Otticer's sigeatutel The visitor must have this permit in his itinerary, and camping locations by travel zones. Trail possession during his visit to the Wilderness register cards can also request some information on This section for optional use of issuing officer. itinerary and, at least, entry point. Planned travel route, duration, and location of camp Trovei Ways to organize this raw data for management Z000 (sue mapl24.2526.77 4Q-45 42'45 purposes are almost endless, and selectivity is essential. Nights of ore by There are a number of different basic units of measure of 46.47 5253 so-sn60.6 recreational use. These were defined and discussed in V/air or receicea white copy. chapter 13. No single measure is best; different units are Sood ye/In vu copy to the Farent Service Regional Office in San Franc/ova. Send pink copy to the Ranger Oiotrict whore the trip otarts. useful for different purposes. Number of group visits, cv GPO 7/i-isO R5.23t0.72 yea. 3/72 individualvisits,visitor-days, and group-nights are particularly useful for many important visitor manage- Figure 14 4.The standard wilderness permit used in all National ment decisions. Forest wilderness and National Park backcounny in California in 1975. Essentially the same form, with only minor variations, is used Tabulations can be made in different ways, depending elsewhere by the Forest Service and similar forms are used in on the management purpose being served (Lime and National Parks outside California.

321 Both the Park Service and Forest Service have done travel zones, entry points, and visitor origin. Other extensive analyses of wilderness permit data. The Park special tables can be produced on a custom basis when Service generally collects, analyzes, and stores data in needed for particular management planning purposes. individual parks while the Forest Service uses centralized The general, standard tables should enable a manager computer capabilitiesfor regional and nationwide to assess the overall situation and identify trends. The analysis. However, both agencies are interested in optional tables would usually be requested only for essentially the same kinds of information, and efforts are special problems and planning needs. It is important that underway to standardize permits and share information managers "use a rifle rather than a shotgun," and ask only derived from permit and registration data. Basic data for data needed to answer specific, relevant questions. A believed to be needed by management are distributed manager can flounder in too much information and fail annually in nine summary tables for each Forest Service to use it effectively. We must stress again the need for wilderness using permits from the central computer reasonably accurate basic use data. Tables based on center.3 The following user information is included: inaccurate data, resulting from careless field collection, 1. Mode of travel: are misleading no matter how neat and precise the Use for each of the three units of use manage- sheets of computer printout appear. ment: (1) Group visits, (2) individual visits, (3) Special Visitor Information visitor-days by primary mode of travel. 2. Residence of group leader: Permits seem the best source of basic use data, but they Use (for the three use-units listed above) both by cannot provide other needed information about visitors' State of residence and by 3-digit zip code sectional attitudes, knowledge, behavior, satisfactions, and so on. center for State or States within which the Also, permits necessarily are based on user plans and wilderness is located. expectations before the trip, rather than actual outcomes. 3. Persons present on each day for the whole For example, itineraries can shift and trip lengths can wilderness: change, and they often do. Special studies can get around In both table and graph form. this weakness. Here, again, there are a variety of possible 4. Groups present on each day for the whole approaches, and deciding which is best depends on the wilderness: questions being asked and the setting. The types of In both table and graph form. methods best suited to different situations are identified 5. Group size: well by Clark (1977). Three main research methods are Numbers of groups by group-size classes (group- surveys, observation, and diaries. size variation). Surveys generally involve questionnaires that collect 6. Length of stay variation: self-reported information in contrast to direct observa- For both groups and visits ranked by length of stay. tion of actual behavior. Visitorsare asked via a 7. Entiy point: mailed questionnaire, or a face-to-face or telephone For both groups and visits ranked by entry point. interview, to describe themselves, their behavior and 8.Travel zone: activities, their values, attitudes, ideas, and so on. Some Groups present on each day by zone for the entire thingsfor example, satisfactionsseem impossible to wilderness, with zone totals for: measure any other way. There can be problems, of Day-use groups (not staying overnight) course. Questions can be misunderstood, interviewers Camping groups can influence responses, memories can falter, assumed Total groups social pressure can color answers, samples can be poorly Visitor-clays. selected and unrepresentative, and so on. (Permit 9.Wilderness use (visits and visitor-days) by county, systems possess an additional advantage for surveys by State, forest, ranger district: providing a relatively unbiased list of visitors from which (This last table is primarily for other annual samples can be drawn for surveys.) The survey technique recreation reports). is valuable, but its proper use requires special skill and Almost 20 additional tables are also available on training.4 request. These give more detailed information on use by 4The design and conduct of social surveys ate described in Potter et at (1972). Surveys conducted or sponsored by federal agencies must be approved by the Office of 3The computer programs are part of the Forest Service RIM (Recreation Information Management and Budget under the terms of the Federal Reports Act (44 USC Management) System, at the Forest Service, Fort Collins, Cob. Computer Center 3501-35 12). Approval is granted only for studies passing rigorous review of the need for (FCCC). The original programs, developed by EIsner (1972), have been expanded and the information and scientific validity of the research plan and questionnaires or interview motlified. schedulev

322 Observation can be a systematic, scientific tool, as well to the enjoyment of the recollection phase of the trip. as a casual, everyday activity (Burch 1964; Campbell This might be part of the reason for high rates of return 1970). Detailed checklists of things to observe can be of mail questionnaires by wilderness visitors. prepared and used to structure the process. For things This review has concentrated on methods for readily observed, the technique is more objective and obtaininginformationaboutvisitors.Wilderness accurate than verbal recall. For example, if one were research needs are discussed in chapter 16. interested in how much time visitors actually spent fishing while camped at lakes (Hendee, Clark, and Dailey Visitor Management Tools and Techniques 1974), or whether they register at trail registers (Lucas Wilderness visitor management can employ a wide 1975), observation would be the most effective tech- range of tools and techniques. Gilbert et al. (1972) nique. pointed out the important distinction between direct and Although permits and trail register data are self indirect visitor management. Table 14-2 presents this reports, they also provide something likeindirect distinction with examples. Direct management empha- observation of certain behavior, such as choice of entry sizes regulation of behavior. Individual choice is restrict- point. ed, and managers exert a high degree of control over Diaries or visitor logs or self-reporting forms are a visitors. Indirect management emphasizes influencing or third useful technique. Visitors are given some sort of log modifying behavior. The individual retains freedom to book or recordkeeping form before they enter the choose. The manager controls visitors less completely, wilderness and are asked to record certain things, suchas thus allowing more variation in use and behavior. their travel times, numbers of encounters, or each day's Indirect management should be, as we argued in high point (Lime 1970). For detailed activity or chapter 7, the first choice, with direct management used experience information, where memory recall could be a only when indirect means cannot achieve management problem, this technique is a useful approach. Some of its objectives.Most wildernessuserspreferindirect applications can overlap potential use of observation and management (Stankey 1973), and the concept of surveys. For example, some visitors might be asked to wilderness as an undeveloped, free, open, and uncon- record the time they fished, as opposed to engaging in fined place accentuates the desirability of a management otheractivitiesatlakes. Using this self-reporting philosophy that is as indirect, unobtrusive, and subtle as technique, a larger sample can be obtained and the data possible. are gathered without an observer's possible intrusion on Our preference forindirect management isin visitors' solitude. However, some reporting inaccuracies accordance with the principle of minimum regimenta- can creep in, some visitors do not fill out the diary, and tion which was presented in chapter 7. It seems to us that those who comply have to put up with some paperwork. if heavy-handed management of people appears needed If where or how people fished was also important, then to achieve a management objective, the objective itself observation would usually be the better choice. needs to be reexamined. It may not be important enough In some cases, a combination of study techniques is to justify the loss of visitor freedom, because visitor possible and advantageous. For example, if the activity or freedom is also a wilderness management goal In any issue being studied can be observed, at least partly, and case, either regulation for regulation's sake, or regulation people also are asked about what they do as well as why, for administrative convenience, is unacceptable. then the two approaches can strengthen each other and Nevertheless, direct controls are necessary at specific insure against drawing unwarranted wnclusions. problem areas at some times, but they should be applied Special studies need to be conducted with sensitivity to in ways that permit as much visitor freedom as possible. the experience of the wilderness visitor. Conspicuous We stress that respecting visitor freedom is an essential observation or interviews inside the wilderness seem element in wilderness visitor management, and that all inappropriate tous. They are also poor scientific planned management actions must be tested in terms of procedures. Observation or interviews can modify the their effect on freedom. Controls should be applied with behavior they seek to describe, thus diminishing validity, maximum restraint, and only when and where they are and sampling people inside an area cannot yield a sample clearly justified. with definable statistical propertiesthe probability of any visitor being sampled is unequal and unknown. Indirect Visitor Management Techniques Interviews at entry or exit points or later at home seem Physical Alterations both more considerate and sounderscientifically. The concept of a wilderness as an undeveloped area, Interviews some time after the trip may even contribute with a very limited role for facilities, needs to be kept in

323 Table 14-2.Direct and indirect techniques for managing the character and intensity of wildernessuse

Type of Management Method Specific Techniques INDIRECF Physical Alterations Improve, maintain, or neglect access roads. (Emphasis on influencing or Improve, maintain, or neglect campsites. modifying behavior. Individual Make trails more or less difficult. retains freedom to choc)se. Build trails or leave areas trailless. Control less complete, more Improve fish or wildlife populations or take no action (stock, or allow variation in use possible) depletion or elimination). Information Dispersal Advertise specific attributes of the Wilderness. Identify range of recreation opportunities in surrounding area. Educate users to basic concepts of ecology and care of ecosystems. Advertise underused areas and general patterns of use.

Eligibility Requirements Charge constant entrance Ièe. Charge differential fees by trail zones, season, etc Require proof of camping and ecological knowledge and/or skills.

DIRECF Increased Enforcement Impose fines Increase surveillance of area (Emphasis on regulation of behavior, Individual choice Zoning Separate incompatible uses (hiker-only zones in areas with horse use). restricted. High degree of Prohibit uses at times of high damage potential (no horse use in high controL) meadows until soil moisture declines, say, July 1). Limit camping in some campsites to one night, or some other limit

Rationing Use Intensity Rotate use (open or dose access points, trails, campsites). Require reservations. Assign campsites and/or travel routes to each camper group. Limit usage via access point. Limit size of groups, number of horses. Limit camping to designated campsites only. Limit length of stay in area (rnax./rnia).

Restrictions on Activities Restrict building campfires. Restrict horse use, hunting, or fishing. Modified from 'Toward a Model of Travel Behavior in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,' C. Gorman Gilbert, George L. Peterson, and David W. Lime. 1972. Environment and Behavior 4(2):131-157.

mind, but many kinds of physical alterations do not without trails to hold down use. Trails can be built or conflict with these constraints. For example (table 14-2), rebuilt to be easy or hard, trail length from point A to B some alterations can be made outside the wilderness. can usually be varied considerably, bridges can be built to Access roads can be modified, and this would probably facilitate use, or trails can foul streams to reduce or divert alter use patterns substantially. The last few miles of a use. Some trails are too rough and rocky for horses, but road to an overused trail could be dosed and the trail hikers can scramble over them, unobtrusively separating lengthened to connect with a new trailhead. Studies these types of use. show substantial visitorsupport for such actions Trail design can markedly influence the quality of the (Stankey 1973). An improved road, extended further, experience for the people who hike or ride horses over leading to a large parking area could increase use if that them. A well-planned trail can lead travelers to changing were desired. A ramp for unloading horses from stock vistas or monotonously bore straight through dense trucks facilitates and encourages horse use. If a road runs forest. Trails can seek out varied vegetation, rock directly to a boat ramp on a lake that is an entry point toa outcrops, glimpses of water, and perhaps increase wilderness, use will be very different in both amount and chances of seeing wildlife. Trail layout can either increase type than if the road ends a quarter of a mile away and a or decrease visitors' awareness of other visitors. A trail portage trail leads to the water. can pass right by popubir campsites or, in many cases, Trails offer another acceptable, unobtrusive way to swing around, through trees or behind a ridge. A influence use patterns. Some areas can be deliberately left winding, up-and-down trail cuts down on observation of

324 other travelers just as long, straight, flat stretches important attraction for many wilderness visitors, and increase sightings. Carefully thought-out trail ioops or management actions that enhance fishing opportunities alternate routes can reduce encounters between users. can increase use. Because a lake without fish usually will Campsites in wilderness may not be so adaptable to get less use, surrounding meadows and camp areas will visitor management because most of them are essentially remain less impacted, and those visitors concerned more undeveloped. Still, there may be some cases where a with solitude than fishing would prize such places. But, manager might want to consider minimal intital clearing apart from any effects on visitors, the goal of preserving or development (a few wildernesses have fireplaces natural wilderness ecosystems would seem to rule out because of fire danger, many have fire rings, and some introducing species absent there in nature, even though have outhouses and hitching railsfor horses)to they may exist elsewhere in the same wilderness (see encourage people to camp there. Removal of facilities chapter 11). If the area were a nonwilderness, dispersed can reduce use or change the kind of use at a site. recreation area, then manipulating fish and wildlife Physical alterations affecting fish and wildlife can attractions would be a powerful and appropriate influence use, but serious questions about conflicts with technique. the basic wilderness goal of unmodified ecosystems must All these physical alterations can affect use without be considered (see chapter 11). Whether or not to stock any new rules or regulations. To most visitors,it would fish is probably the main question for the manager. not even be obvious that the area's managers were Many, if not most, high mountain lakes were naturally seeking to modify use. without fish, but many have been stocked in the past. In some, fish reproduce but, in many others, they do not and InformationDispersal periodic restocking is done. Other lakes that are capable Providing visitors with information that can influence of supporting fish have remained barren. Fishing is an where they go, what they do, and how they do it is a particularly promising indirect management method. Wilderness visitors are typically well educated (chapter 13), and they should be able to make good use of additional information in making decisions about their actions in wilderness. Information on alternative areas to visit, or alternative parts within a particular wilderness, could have a considerable effect on use. For all practical purposes, a place someone is unaware of does not exist; it is not part of that person's decision-space. The many articles in outdoor magazines on where to go and numerous guidebooks attest to the public's interest in such information. Thisinterest could be used to encourage use shifts. Conversely, articles that describe a supposed hot spot for fishing can accentuate overuse as well as attract users whose primaiy interest is focused on a daily limit of fish rather than on wilderness. In addition, information on use patterns might influence visitors who value solitude to change their travel behavior to avoid congestion. We know of a few attempts to use this approach, although they are so recent that their effectivenessisstill unknown. A brochure and map inform visitors to part of the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness in Montana about how much use each of 10 trailheads receive, which campsites are in poor condition, and how to find the trailheads In a similar effort, visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Figure 14-5 To minimize resource damage, trails should be located Minnesota (using the previous year's permits for a away from lakeshores and in the edge of the umber around meadows. mailing list) were mailed information on use pressures at Unplanned trails, merely established by use, are often located where excessive resource damage will occur, as in this meadow in the John different places and times which encouraged the choice Muir Wilderness, Calif of less used areas. Supplying visitors with a map showing

325 heavily used areas within the Rawah Wilderness in applied, in varying ways, to wilderness visitors. A test or Colorado did not lead to any significant changes inuse successful completion of a course in wilderness skills distributions, but the map was given to peopleat the might be required. The course might be a few hours long trailhead, too late perhaps to shift travel plans, and and conducted in a classroom, or last days or even weeks therefore it is still undear what effect such information in the outdoors. The idea is far from newJ.VK Wagar might have (Schomaker 1975). suggested the need for certifying outdoorsman skills in Information on attractions might also be used to try to 1940, but little has been tried. Some professional guides modify use distributions. These kinds of information must pass tests, but the general public does not (except need to be used with restraint and sensitivity, ofcourse. A for mountain climbers in a few places). Perhaps such a wilderness visitor should not be deprived of thesense of license requirement might be imposed only for heavily discovery, of uncertainty, and exploration bya flood of used areas, maybe only those where use is actually detailedinformationabouteveryaspectofthe rationed. In such places, permits might be issued only to wilderness.Furthermore,suchinformationcould visitors with licenses, and others could gain experience by stimulate use and create problems that wouldnot visiting other, less used areas, not necessarily dassified as otherwise occur. Some people feel guidebookscan be wilderness. Obviously, the details could be complicated, destructive (Lindrum 1976). Shifting use isa two-edged but the general idea is worth considering. Certainly, if sword: It can help or hurt. Infonriation is a very attractive skills, knowledge, and sensitivity to wilderness values tool, butit must be used carefully. Guidebooksor could be raised, more people could enjoy wilderness information that focus on a few areassuchas 100 Best without destroying it;direct controls would be less Hikes"may produce unwanted effects (overuse of the needed; and actual rationing could be at least postponed. areas described) compared to providing comprehensive Feesare another technique for modifying use. information on all places in a large region. Constant feesthat is, the same charge at all times and placeswould tend to reduce use. The degree of the Information on the ecosystem and how to care for it reduction would be some function of the level of the fee. could help reduce visitor impacts. Most wilderness A flat entry fee would probably reduce short stays more visitors are intelligent and well meaning, but most of them livein a very different environment from than long ones, while a per-day fee would probably not have this effect. Ideally, a fee would encourage people wilderness and might not realize how their actions affect who placed a low value on wilderness (those whose the ecosystem. Simple "do's" and "don'ts" are probably recreational interests lay mainly elsewhere) to seek an much less effective than a brief explanation of the alternative for which no fee or a lower fee was charged. problem and suggested visitor behavior. 'Don't tie However, persons who valued wilderness but whose horses to trees!" probably has less effect than a short incomes were low would also be discouraged. This is true, explanation of what happens when horses are left tied of course, for anything bought and sold, but the validity of for long in one place and some pointers on alternative, this income effect for public goods and services is less destructive ways of keeping horses around. With questioned by many people. The income effect could be some understanding of the problem, the visitor is more offset to some extent by free or lower priced entry likely to do the right thing, or if circumstances prevent permits for certain types of low-income visitors, such as doing the recommended thingas they sometimes inner-city Boy Scout troops. Credit might be earned dothe person has some basis for inteffigently choosing through work on trails, litter cleanup, or other service the next best thing. projects. Wilderness skills can be enhanced through informa- Variable fees would have a much more sensitive effect tion designed to reduce impacts on physical-biological on use. Fees could vary between places, high at heavily resources and other visitors, or to add to the quality of the used wildernesses and at overused entry points, and low visitors' experience. Dealing prudently with wilderness at seldom-visited areas. (This is similar to high-priced hazards (e.g., crossing large streams, avoiding avalanche theater tickets for front-row, center seats and loges, and dangers or grizzly bears) might be induded. inexpensive tickets for balcony seats.) Fees could be raised at peak periods and lowered or dropped entirely Eligibility Requirements during the off-season (Most resorts and motels have A person needs to demonstrate some knowledge and lower off-season rates.) Perhaps persons who had skill to drive an automobilea license is required. In qualified for a "wilderness license" could pay a reduced fee most states, young hunters must pass a course in hunter on the assumption they would have less impact on the safety to obtain a license. Similar requirements could be wilderness. Conceivably, a person's first visit in a year

326 could be cheaper than later, additional trips to encourage spatial zone. For example, parts of a wilderness may be spreading benefits more evenly. closed to horses or to camping. In a few wildernesses Obviously, there are many opportunities to influence with grizzly bears, some trails or drainages may be and manage wilderness visitation using fixed or variable temporarily closed after bear sightings or incidents. fees. However, most wilderness visitors object to fees, Zoning may also be temporal as well as spatial For and it seems unlikely that Congress will grant the example, high, moist meadows might be dosed to horses wilderness-administering agencies the authority to use until July 1. Length-of-stay limits can also be established fees as a wilderness management tool. Perhaps later, on a zone basis. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, for when all of the potential wilderness has been identified example, some heavily used peripheral zones have a 1- and either dassified or allqcated to other uses, the concept night camping limit. See chapter 8 for additional of wilderness user fees will seem more feasible. discussion of zoning in wilderness management plan- Another type of eligibility requirement relates to ning. physical alterations. This is the level of physical challenge presented by a wilderness. If the challenge is greatfew Rationing Use Intensity trails, steep and rough trails, no bridges, no horse- Several direct techniques can be used to control use handling facilities (corrals, hitch racks, and drift fences), intensity. A limit can be set on the number of parties or no campsite improvements, and no directional signs individuals entering per day or other time period at all or the demands on physical ability and skill are high. A certain entry points. Thereafter, travel itinerary is up to visitor must meet these requirements to be able to move each party; they can make it up as they go. The time unit through the wilderness (Hardin 1969; Leopold 1943). could be an hour (or several hours), which would spread use out more. This would be especially effective for river Dkea Management Techniques runners, for whom speed of travel is more uniform than Direct management techniques involve regulation for trail travelers. It could even be a week for a large area and restriction of individual choice. Management can with typically long stays, when it is recognized that a exercise a high degree of control, but generally with high good many parties take about 1-week trips in such areas administrative costs. To some extent, direct manage- and would like to begin and end around weekends. ment requires less knowledge of visitors, their behavior, Limits could also be placed on the number of persons and likely responses to management actions than does staying overnight; numbers entering would depend on indirect management. Some knowledge of use patterns the planned lengths of stay of parties already in the area. is needed; but, again, if use patterns are to be directly If use were at capacity, numbers leaving would determine controlled tofit management objectives,lessreal numbers admitted. Two examples of daily entry control, understanding of them is required. three of overnight use limits, and one mixture of the two This means that direct management isusually may help darify the techniques. somewhat easierthanindirect management, and The Forest Service permits only seven parties per perhaps demands less professional skill. Direct manage- ment does, however, possess more potential for day to float the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in confrontations, conflict, and controversy than indirect Idaho. Advance reservations are available and account for techniques. In any case, as we have explained before, we almost all use. A certain proportion of the permits are feel that direct techniques should be applied only after allocated to commercial guides; the others are reserved indirect methods have done as much as they can to solve for private parties. management problems. Unfortunately, it seems to us Entrance to Linville Gorge Wilderness in North that managers often leap directly from laissez-faire, Carolina, a small, very popular area, is limited to 100 uncontrolled activity to tight regulation rather than individuals per day for day use and 30 persons p day for adopting new controls only to the extent necessary, and overnight use. Party size cannot exceed 10 people. using indirect methods as effectively as possible before Reservations can be made up to 30 days in advance, employing direct management techniques. through the Ranger Station, by mail, telephone, or in person Zoning by Types of Use In the San Jacinto Wilderness in California, only Zoning is one common direct management technique overnight campers are limited. In the Meadows Unit, (chapter 3 referred to the use of zoning in wilderness in 100 campers per night are allowed, while in the larger other countries). In its simplest form, zoning is the Plateau Unit 300 are allowed. Day use is unrestricted. elimination or restriction of certain types of use in some One-fourth of the capacity is held for in-person requests

327 on the day of departure and three-fourths for advance much more cumbersome than assigning hunting reservations. permits for clearly defined hunting seasons. When Rocky Mountain National Parkalsolimits would applications close? When would applicants learn overnight camping (Fazio and Gilbert 1974). Permits of success or failure? Most visitors surveyed reject the are issued for 150 designated campsites and 63 for cross- lottery concept. country travel away from designated sites. The visitors All of these and other approaches to rationing use must determine where they will camp each night when reservations; lottery; first-come first-served; fees; and obtaining their permit and are expected to adhere to this skill/knowledge have different mixtures of advantages itinerary. Advance reservations can be made (prior to and disadvantages, which are reviewed in detail by 1975, a permit could be obtained only up to 24 hours in Stankey and Baden (1977). They summarize the likely advance). About 400 persons were turned away in one effects of each technique in a table reproduced here (table peak week in 1973; still most people, including those 14-3). turned away, said they thought use rationing was Each system benefits certain types of visitors at the necessary (Fazio and Gilbert 1974). expense of others (columns 2 and 3). Some are in wide The main access to Mt. Whimey in California, the use and others are untried (column 4). Visitor acceptance highest peak in the coterminous 48 States, is by a trail varies from low to high, with some question marks through the John Muir Wilderness. Only 75 overnight (column 5). Difficulty of administration varies, but only camperpartiesareadmitted each day. Advance queuing (first-come, first-served) seems likely to ever be reservations are made; however, the large number ofno- easy (column 6). shows (about 40 percent) allows a substantial number of Efficiency (column 7) indudes two concepts. First, users to gain entry on a first-come, first-served basis. Day how closely can use be matched to capacity? Second, how use is unrestricted. well does the system allocate permits to the people who Both numbers of overnight parties and dayusers place a higher value on the opportunity? The range is are limited in the San Gorgonio Wilderness in California. wide, from low to high. In the popular South Fork Basin, 23 overnight parties are The different systems control use (column 8) and permitted per night, and only 26 day-use parties may affect visitor behavior (column in different ways. enter (Hay 1974). Reservations are available. In addition Stankey and Baden (1977) provide five guidelines for to these quotas, experienced campers are permitted to managing wilderness rationing: use pioneer sites away from trails and established campsites when capacity has been reached (Stankey and Start with an accurate base of knowledge about use, Baden 1977). users, and impacts. Limited entry permits can be administered in a variety Use direct rationing only after less restrictive of ways. Some or even all could be available for advance measures have failed to solve the problems. reservations by mail, telephone, or in person. Often, Combine rationing techniques to minimize and some proportion of the available permits are held back equalize costs to managers and users. for last-minute arrivals on a first-come, first-served basis Ration, preferably, so the people to whom the (sometimes called queuing from the similarity to waiting experience is most valuable are more likely to get it. in line to be served). Usually these permits can be Monitor all rationing programs so their effective- obtained 1 day ahead of entry. There seems to be equity ness can be objectively evaluated. in a mixture of reservation and drop-in permits. People With free reservations, there are usually no-shows. who plan carefully far ahead, perhaps because of their Generally, if a reservation has not been picked up and need to schedule vacations and travel far from their used by a certain time, such as noon, it is released for use home to the wilderness, need some advance assurance by drop-in visitors. The Mt. Whitney trail has had about they will be able to visit the wilderness. Other people 40 percent no-shows; some other areas, such as the cannot or at least prefer not to plan so much, and operate Middle Fork of the Salmon River, have very few. Some in a spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment fashion. If they people might apply for a permit "just in case we decide live dose to the wilderness, they may react to last-minute we want to go," and this could be part of the problem. weather changes. A mixed system gives each type of Ifpermitsareissuedatseverallocations,a person a chance at a permit. communication system is needed in order to know when Limited permits could also be issued through a lottery, the limit has been reached. as is done for some big-game hunting permits. Handling Generally, public acceptance of controlled entry seems such a lottery for entries on various dates would seem to have been good, as shown both in studies (Hay 1974; 328 Table 14-3.Summary of impacts and consequences of alternative rationing systems

User Evaluation Criteria Rationing Clientele group Clientele group adversely Experience to date with use Acceptability of system system benefited by system affected by system of system in wilderness to wilderness users1

Request Those able and/or willing Those unable or unwilling Main type of rationing Generally high. Gcx)d ac- (Reservation) to plan ahead; i.e., persons top ahead; e.g., persons system used in both Na- ceptance in areas where with structured life stylec with occupations that do tional Forest and National used. Seen as best way to not permit long-range Park wilderness. ration by users in areas not planning, such as many currently rationed. professionals. Lottery No one identifiable grout No one identifiable group None. However, is a com- Low. (Chance) benefited. Those who ex- discriminated against. Can mon method for allocating amine probabilities of suc- discriminate against the un- big-game hunting permits. cess at different areas havc successful applicant to better chance. whom wilderness is very important Queuing Those with low opportun- Those persons with high Used in conjunction with Low to moderate. (First-come, ity cost for their time (e.g., opportunity cost of time. reservation system in San first-served) unemployed). Also favors Also those persons who Jacinto Wilderness. Also users who live nearby. live some distance from used in some National Park areas. The cost of time is Wildemesses. not recovered by anyone. Pncing Those able or willing to Those unwilling or unable None. Low to moderate. (fee) pay entry costs. to pay entry costs. Merit Those able or willing to in- Those unable or unwilling None. Merit is used to Not dearly known. Could (Skill and vest time and effortto to invest time and effort to allocate use for some related vary considerably depend- knowledge) meet requirements. meet requirements. activities such as technical ing on level of training mountain climbing and required to attain necessary river running. proficiency and knowledge level. Administrative Evaluation Criteria Efficiency-extent to which system can minimize Rationing Difficulty for problems of Principal way in which use How system affects system administrators suboptimization impact is controlled user behavior2

Request Moderately difficult. Re- Low to moderate. Under- Reducing visitor numbers. Affects both spatial and (Reservation) quires extra staffing, ex- utilization can occur be- Controlling distribution of temporal behavior. panded hours. Record- cause of no shows, thus de- use in space and time by keeping can be substantiaL nying entry to others. Al- varying number of per- location of permits to ap- mits available at different plicants has little relation- trailheads or at different ship to value of the experi- times. ence as judged by the ap- plicant Lottery Difficult to moderately dif- Low. Because permits are Reducing visitor numbers. Affects both spatial and (Chance) ficult. Allcxating permits assigned randomly, per- Controlling distribution of temporal behavior. over an entire use season sons who place little value use in space and time by could be very cumbersome. on wilderness stand equal number of permits available chance of gaining entry at different places or times. with those who place high value on the opportunity. Queuing Difficulty low to moderate. Moderate. Because system Reducing visitor numbers. Affects both spatial and (First-come, Could require develop- rations primarily through a Controlling distribution of temporal behavior. User first-served) ment of facilities to sup- cost of time, it requires use in space and time by must consider cost of time port visitors waiting in line. some measure of worth by number of persons per- of waiting in line. participants. mitted to enter at different places or times.

Based upon actual field experience as well as upon evidence reported in would directly impact the behavior of wilderness users (e.g., where they go, visitor studies (Stankey 1973). when they go, how they behave, etc.). 2This criterionisdesigned to measure how the different rationing systems

329 Table 14-3.Summary of impacts and consequences of alternative rationing systems (Continued)

Administrative Evaluation Criteria Efficiency-extent to which system can minimize Rationing Difficulty for problems of Principal way in which use How system affects system administrators suboptimization impact is controlled user behavior2

Pricing Moderate difficulty. Possi- Moderate to high. Impos- Reducing visitor numbers Affects both temporal and (Fee) bly some legal questions ing a fee requires user to Controlling distribution of spatial behavior. User must about imposing a fee for judge value of experience use in space and time by us- consider cost in dollars. wilderness entry. against costs. Uncertain as ing differential prices. to how well use could be fine tuned with price. Merit Difficult to moderately dif- Mcxlerateto high. Re- Some reduction in num- Affects style of camping (Skill and ficult Initial investments to quires users to make ex- bers as well as shifts in behavior. knowledge) establish licensing pro- pendlitures of time and ef- time and space. Major re- gram could be substantial fort (maybe dollars) to gain duction in per capita im- entry. pacu

I Based upon actual field experience as well as upon evidence reported in would directly impact the behavior of wilderness users (e.g., where they go, visitor studies (Stankey 1973). when they go, how they behave, etc.). 2This criterionisdesigned to measure how the different rationing systems

Fazio and Gilbert 1974; Taylor 1972), and managers' Whether a party is in the "wrong" campsite by choice experiences. or accident, it could be an uncomfortable experience. Some systems control travel routes or itineraries; for Apprehensions could nag visitors. If a ranger comes example, in Rocky Mountain National Park. Similar along, will he check their permit? Will he reprimand control of overnight visitorsis common in other them, make them move, issue a violation notice, or National Park wildernesses. Usually, capacities are what? If the camp quota is not full anyway, will the established for camp areas. Visitors applying for a permit ranger take this into account? If the ranger ignores the must indicate the camp areas they want to use each night. violation, is this fair to the party that reluctantly passed a This is checked against capacities and scheduleduse by lovely, empty campsite late in the day and pushed on other parties. If space exists at each place each night, the with aching feet until sunset to reach the campsite listed permit is issued for this itinerary, and the party is on their permit? We believe the system causes a serious expected to stick to it. If space is not available atone or loss of the sense of wilderness freedom and exploration more camps, an alternate route must be worked out. If for a fairly small gain. It appears to transplant the "rat this is possible, the permit is issued and the party is race" of most people's working world to the wilderness. obligated to adhere to the revised route. In addition, it seems to place the wilderness ranger in a This system, which is analogous to a reservation particularly uncomfortable enforcement role. system for a motel chain or airline, has the potential for Perhaps some compromise mixture might be matching use to capacity very closely. It has some serious considered for control of itineraries. Popular, heavily problems, however, particularly the loss of visitor used zones or groups of campsites might need to have freedom. For instance, at a trail junction, there isno controlled use,night by night, but parties going option to change plans because one way looks more elsewhere, or promising not to use specified main fascinating than the originally planned direction. An campsites could be turned loose. For example, Forest unexpectedly beautiful camp might beckon for a second Service managers require special permits (in addition to night, but if the schedule says "move," the party is general wilderness permits) for parties planning to supposed to go. camp at particular popular locations in the Pews Furthermore, many partiesfinditdifficult or Wilderness and San Pedro Parks Wilderness, both in impossible to stay on schedule. Plans are often too New Mexico. ambitious, and travelers find they run out of energy Thereisa danger with very site-specific use before they reach their scheduled destination Weather, management. Overuse problems may be only moved blisters, illness, a camera forgotten hanging in a treeall from one place to anotherif managers approach sorts of things can slow a party. management in an excessively fragmented way. Visitor

330 use patterns are interconnected, like an ecosystem, and The Shenandoah backcountry managers developed changing use at a few places can displace visitors to other, this system to cope with extremely heavy, rapidly perhaps undesired, places. Use management planning growing use that was severely damaging a limited and control needs to consider larger areas that function as number of designated camping sites, many with shelters, visitor use units, such as drainage basins in some areas, to and producing a "country fair" atmosphere rather than a avoid creating unintentional new problem areas. wilderness experience. They hoped it would provide Shenandoah National Park in Virginia considered a visitors freedom, assure opportunities for solitude, open reservation system for designated camping areas in the up (without deterioration) much of the Park, and permit Park backcountiythe controlled-itinerary systembut more use than would a site-reservation, controlled- rejected this approach, because the managers saw it as itinerary system. being unduly restrictive of visitors, cumbersome in The campsite-spacing rules seem particularly valuable unnecessaryuntilall implementation, and other because the visual isolation they produce is an important alternatives have been tested.5 They also felt, "that our value to most wilderness visitors (chapter 9), but, in the backcountry problems are not with people, per se, but are absence of specific reminders, guidelines, or sanctions, with a few destructive camping practices, some campers often select campsites in such a way that visual unthinking and some traditional, by backcountry users." isolation is impaired. Instead, Shenandoah National Park adopted an imaginative plan seems to us to incorporate much One interesting idea that has not been field tested ctIIs of the general approach advocated in this book. Permits for rationing use with the chance of obtaining a permit are required for overnight use; maximum, permitted proportional to the use intensity in any wilderness or party size is nine people. Visitors may camp where they zones within a wilderness"risk zoning," as it has been want to, as long as they meet several conditions: called (Greist 1975). In other words, for those areas Camp out of view and at least 250 yards from any where use intensities were relatively high, the chance of paved road or the Park boundary; getting an entry permit also would be high. Where use Camp out of sight and at least ½ mile from any intensity was low (and where managers wanted to keep automobile campground, lodge, visitor center, or any it low), the chance of getting a permit would be lower, other developments or facility (except a trail, unpaved too. The advantage of this system is that it requires users road, or trail shelter); to consider the costs associated with gaining entry and Camp off and out of sight of any trail or unpaved would, at least theoretically, accurately reflect the value road, and out of sight of any signs posting special no- placed on solitude by the user. Visitors who valued camping areas; solitude little would usually be able to enter a wilderness Camp out of sight of other camping parties, outside rather than frequently being denied entry to maintain and out of sight of any trail shelter except when high solitude levels that would be "wasted" on them. At "essential" during "severely unseasonable weather"; the same time, there would be places with high levels of Camp at least 25 feet away from any stream; solitude for those who prized it and who would rather No wood or charcoal fires may be built, and take an occasional trip in such areas than frequent trips to campstoves are encouraged; more crowded areas. Camp at the same site no more than two nights. If use controls are needed, we believe they should The plan was developed with extensive public usually be applied at entry points, rather than to involvement and seems to be well accepted as well as itineraries. With knowledge of normal use patterns and successtul in the eyes of Park officials.6 The managers feel route choices, entry quotas could be set to keep overnight this approach is particularly appropriate in the eastern use within about the same campsite capacities of the deciduous forest where visibility is usually limited, but we route-control system. For example, if Arrow Lake has a feel much of the system might have merit in many three-parties-per-night limit, and use-pattern analysis western areas as well. shows (1) virtually all Arrow Lake campers enter from the Deer Creek trailhead and (2) about 10 percent of the 'From a Shenandoah National Park information sheet, SNP-204a (no date, but probably early 1974 or lace 1973) SNP-204 gives the backcounrry camping regulations Deer Creek parties choose to camp at Arrow Lake, about Also based on correspondence and conversations with RolsertJacobsen, Superintendent, 30 parties per day could be permitted to enter at Deer Shenandoah National Park, Luray, Va The backcountty was classified as wilderness in 1976, shortly after this use management plan was put into effect Creek in order to keep use at Arrow Lake around 3 per 61975 Notes used by Superintendent Rohert R Jacobsen of Shenandoah National night. To keep use below 3 parties a greater proportion Park In Government use regulations along the Appalachian Trail workshop: panel presentation 20th meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference, Boone, N C, June 22, of the time, fewer partiesmaybe only 20 per day 1975 would be allowed to enter.

331 Figure 14-6.--Campsites are an important focal point for reaeation use of wilderness Studies indicatea large proportion of icucationists' time is spent in and around campsites, a fact that contributes to impacts and emphasizes the need for careful site location. Many campsites have become established dose to lakes such as this one at Upper Triple Lake in the Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Mont.

There would be some variation; on some nights four now to support a precise limit, but we know from or five parties might camp where only three were research that large groups detract more than small desired. But this happens with controlled itineraries also, parties from the enjoyment of other users (Stankey perhaps less often, but with the added cost of guilt and 1973). The physical-biological impacts of larger groups is worry for the campers. In Glacier National Park, where less dear, but it has been the focus of exploratory studies an itinerary system is in use, managers say most parties by the Sierra Club (I-Iartesveldt et aL 1971). Some were found to be off schedule after about the fifth day of variation in maximum party size based on the character travel Therefore, after 5 days, they have to come out and of an area and its use makes sense. For example, large obtain a new permit for long trips. Other areas report parties may be appropriate if large rafts are needed to higher conformity. run some rough, white-water rivers. But, there seems to be some consensus that party-size limits in the 6- to The wilderness travel simulation model discussed 12-person range are reasonable most places. later in this chapter is particularly useful in relating entry Some managers have controlled use intensity with a patterns to camp-use levels, especially when use from rotation system, a sort of shifting zoning plan Some different entry points overlaps. The simulator indicates deteriorated campsites are dosed for a time and then the likelihood that any use level of a particular campsite will be exceeded. reopened This technique also could be used (but has not been, to our knowledge) for certain trails or watersheds. Other direct restrictions, mentioned before, could be The object, of course, is to allow natural processes to applied to party size, to numbers of horses, andso on, to restore vegetation and other ecosystem components. control use intensity. We have heard of party-size limits This will be discussed in detail in the next chapter, which ranging from 8 up to 50. Knowledge is not sufficient deals with site management.

332 Restrictions on Activities and direct or do cleanup (the garbage-collector role); and Many specific activities can be prohibited to reduce or give emergency assistance (Kovalicky 1971). As field eliminate various adverse impacts. For example, wood managers, wilderness rangers can help solve site-specific fires can be prohibited, particularly where fuel is scarce, to problems (such as overuse of a popular camp area) by save picturesque, old dead trees and down logs. providing visitors with information and advice. In this Sometimes restrictions are adopted without enough way, wilderness rangers can reduce both the need for consideration of alternative possibilities for improving area-wide regulations and more direct controls. visitor behaviorfor example, rather than banning The National Parks have had wilderness rangers for fires, could visitors be educated and motivated to build some time, but they were rare until the 1960's in fewer and smaller fires, select firewood more carefully, National Forest wilderness. Now, aimost all wilder- locate fires properly, and clean up ashes better? The nesses and backcountry areas have wilderness rangers, choice for the manager really need not be limited to the although sometimes the large area patrolled by one status quo or prohibition of an activity. person permits only superficial coverage. But in some Some managers discourage travel off trails (while areas, great importance is placed on rangers as a major others encourage it!). Off-trail travel disperses use and management tooL For example, the very heavily used impacts and contributes to solitude, but some types of Desolation Wilderness in California now has nine terrain are easily damaged and travel across them can wilderness rangers working in an area of only about create new paths that persist. 65,000 acres. From all available evidence, wilderness In the Boundaty Waters Canoe Area, visitors are not rangers have proven to be very useful. Visitor surveys permitted to take bottles or cans with them (reusable also indicate they are well accepted by the public (Hendee containers are permitted). This regulation is reported to et al. 1968; Stankey 1973; Lucas 1978). have greatly reduced littering. One of the major problems concerning wilderness and backcountry rangers is training. There is much to Hunting and fishing regulations offer considerable learn to get ready for the short summer season such as scope for affecting activities, varying use intensities, and agency philosophy, enforcement procedures, informa- altering impact on the wildlife and fish component of the tion to provide visitors, the lay of the land, safety, ecosystem. The attractiveness of certain areas can be wilderness living, and so forth. Managers must be increased or reduced by varying the restrictiveness of selective in hiring wilderness rangers. Selectivity is seasons, bag limits, or both. Complete closure is also possible. Many talented young people compete for possible. wilderness ranger jobssome openings attracted as Several other management tools are neither direct nor many as 80 applicants each for the 1975 summer. Above indirect techniques. Rather, they are means of carrying all, candidates should be selected for their interest and out either type of management. One of the most ability to work with people as well as their kowledge and important is the wilderness ranger. concern for wilderness. Wilderness rangers are, in effect, people managers (see the section on litter control that Wilderness Rangers follows), and they are the agency's prime contact with Many management actions just discussed need to be the public. carried out by wilderness rangers. The wilderness ranger (by whatever name) is a specialist who patrols the litter Control wilderness during its use season. He or she (and many The "pack-it-in, pack-it-out" program is accepted as a wilderness rangers are females) often works during the necessary way of life in wilderness. Litter cleanup and summer only, or the summer and fall. A few are year- effortstofurtherreduce 'litteringare needed in round employees who work on wilderness data wilderness.Researchindicatesthatlitterdetracts preparation and management planning during the off- seriously from wilderness experiences (Stankey 1973; season Lee 1975), and is a user complaint identified in several Wilderness rangers can be used as versatile field studies. Many believe that a clean site is more likely to be managers, or, alternatively, only as backcountry garbage kept clean by users. Although supporting evidence is collectors. They can gather field data on resource scanty, it is an assumption worth using. The amount of conditions, use, and visitor actions; influence visitor garbage removed in concerted efforts can be truly behavior by suggestions,advice, and information; impressive. In the Pasayten Wilderness in Washington, enforce regulations; perform emergency trail repairs 160 mule loads (100 to 200 pounds each) and 10 (but not the trail crew's job of major maintenance); plan helicopter loads were removed in the summer of 1975.

333 Fortunately, litter cleanup is one problem for which However, there has been no way to relate changes in research has provided some useful guidelines. Several total use or redistribution of use to the number of studies contributed to the design of the °incentive system encounters per party or to the amount of use of particular for litter control" Field tests in developed campgrounds places within a wilderness. The complexity of travel indicated litter levels were reduced tenfold and at one- routes, which characteristically overlap and intertwine, fifteenth the cost of standard procedures (Clark et al. and the variability in travel decisions are so great that 1972a, 1972b). Using the incentive system, rangers neither intuition nor analytic solutions (from use of a contact families with children and solicit the help of kids formula) are useful predictors of the level of use of critical to clean the campground in return for fire prevention locations or encounters. and environmental education type rewardsbadges, The rigid itineraries provide a more determinate comic and coloring books, and soon. Rangers can make a result, at least for use of camp areas and encounters few contacts and leave to carry out other duties while a between camping parties, but not for encounters young but enthusiastic crew cleans the campground; between parties while traveling on the trails. For many mom and pop can relax for a while and upon returning, reasons, discussed above, not all parties adhere to their the ranger knows he will have a keen and receptive itinerary, so results are not as determinate as they seem. group for whatever wisdom he might impart with the If use patterns and encounters resulting from any rewards. given total use level and entry-point distribution cannot An adaptation of the incentive system has been be predicted, experimentation through trial and error is developed for wilderness and backcountry (Clark and an apparent alternative. However, trial and error is not Muth 1976). It is actually an "appeal system" because it an effective approach. Itis very time consuming; has not proven feasible for wilderness rangers to carry a managers would have to try a policy for a year or more to supply of incentive rewards, kids are not as numerous, see how it worked. Results for any one year could be and many wilderness users objected to the notion of heavily influenced by uncontrolled outside factors such as rewardsa mere "appeal" for their help is all that is weather. Feedback about results is limited and may be necessary. This is partly because the "pack-it-out" norm distorted by a few, untypical experiences (usually bad has become accepted. The major problem in the "appeal experiences) which may be blown out of proportion. system" comes from wilderness rangers who (1) are Detailed information on use patterns and encounters either too reticent to appeal to users for help in cleaning would be available onlyifspecial,costlystudies up additional areas, or (2) actually think of themselves as monitored the area. It would not always be possible to wilderness garbage collectors who should be doing the create the use pattern the managers desired to test. For deanup. But, with wilderness rangers who think of example, if managers wanted to know the effect of a themselves as people managers, who make contact with doubling in use, there probably would be no practical way many visitors in their areas and are not afraid to appeal to cause this much use in the short run. At least three for help in litter cleanup or packing out sacked-up refuse, sorts of high costs could also result from a trial-and-error a dean wilderness is feasible. It can be achieved by approach to use management. Firct, serious, long-lasting applying the available "state of the art"; is anything less or even irreversible damage to resources might result really management? from tests of heavy use. Second, many visitor benefits could be sacrificed, either through testing excessive use Use Simulation Models levels that seriously reduced the quality of visitors' Redistributing and reducing wilderness use appear to experiences or through testing low levels of use that be necessary in many areas to achieve management resulted in many people being denied entrance. Finally, objectives. Managers, therefore, are using a variety of frequent, major changes in use policies could lead to techniques to try to lower use levels and shift use controversy and severe public relations problems. patterns, such as entry-point quotas, controlled itinerar- Systems that are too complex for analytic solutions ies, and information and persuasion to divert some use and not suited to real-world experimentation are often from critical sites. approached by simulation modeling. Simulation models However, allthe managerial actions, except the are simplified replicas of a particular, complex real-world establishment of rigid itineraries (which have other system, usually described so that it can be represented by problems previously discussed), suffer from a major flaw. a computer program. Simulation models areanalogous The manager's objective is to reduce use at overused to tabletop games that imitate various sports, such as locations and to avoid excessive levels of various types of footballandbaseball. They are used widelyin encounters between visitors (on trails and at campsites). engineering and business. For example, a simulation

334 model might be used to help decide, for an ocean port, probabilistic nature, the model has the capability of how different combinations of additional cranes and producing summaries of a series of replications or "runs" tugboats alter the efficiency of loading and unloading of any such scenario, providing average values of various ships. measures, such as the amount, character, distribution, Therefore, a wilderness travel simulation model was and timing of use. For example, the number of parties of developed by Resourcesforthe Future,Inc.,in each type using eachtrail segmentisprovided. cooperation with the Forest Service to provide a better Additional information is available on the number of way to formulate and evaluate use management policies encounters by type of encounter, by type of party (Lucas and Shechter 1977; Smith and Krutilla 1976; (dassified by mode of travel and by length of stay), and by Shechter and Lucas 1978). The simulation model individual trail segments and campsites. provides a practical way for managers to test use patterns The model is coded in the IBM-originated language quickly. Variability in visitor behavior is incorporated in GPSS, version V. (GPSS stands for General Purpose the model, but, in just a few minutes, use can be Simulation System.) The model to date has been simulated for a number of seasons to average out successfully operated on IBM's 360 and 370 series of variations. The model record and displays in appro- computers as well as Control Data Corporation's 6600 priate tables all the desired information on use and computer. A Users Manual (Shechter 1975) is available. encounters. Because the experimentation takes place in Managers choose the use patterns they are consider- the computer instead of the real world, the high social ing trying to achieve through management. In order to costs are avoided. Even the most extreme patterns can be try to bring use impacts and solitude levels into line with tested without damage to precious resources. management objectives for the area, they might be The wilderness use simulation model includes a considering actions designed to alter numbers of parties replica of an area's travel system (entry points, trails or entering at various trailheads or to reduce weekend water or cross-country routes, and campsites), and peaks, or they might be considering adding some new provides for different types of parties (size and travel trails or campsites. Managers can test use patterns on the method). The computer program for the model simulator and learn how closely the results agree with generates visiting parties who arrive at the area at their objectives. If the agreement is not close enough, the various simulated dates and clock times, enter at simulator's results will aid them in revising the use particular access points, select routes of travel and move pattern to come doser. We must stress the importance of along them. The simulated parties may overtake and management objectives. The simulator will determine pass slower parties moving in the same direction use distribution and encounter frequency for a particular (overtaking encounters), pass parties moving in the usepattern,but whetherthisisacceptableor opposite direction (meeting encounters), or pass by unacceptable must be a managerial decision based on parties camped in areas visible from trails or other travel management objectives. How the use pattern will be routes, such as rivers (visual encounters). Parties that stay shifted is also a managerial responsibility. Use might be overnight select campsites which they may share with rationed, a new trail might be built or another dosed, or other camping parties (camp encounters are recorded information supplied to visitors to change their location when they occur). On an ensuing day, camping parties choices. The simulator is not concerned with how the use leave the campsite and continue on their chosen routes, pattern is altered, but only with the consequences of the and eventually leave the area. alteration To make the model operational, data are needed on The simulatorisan aidtothe manager in the area and its use. The travel network must be known, decisionmaking; it does not make the decisions. It is a and something about how different types of visitors way to play "what if?", to tryout a potential management behave within ittheir patterns of arrival, various program before implementing it and to evaluate the routes followed and relative popularity of each, travel results to help decide whether to proceed or modify the speeds, and so on This information is supplied to the planned program. Both the programs to be tested and model in probabilistic terms; for example, there might the evaluation of results depend on the manager's be once chance in ten that a party entering at Deer Creek professional skill, not the computer. The simulation would select a route to Arrow Lake with a 1-night stay model should help put use modification programs on a there. sounder, more justifiable basis. The simulator provides detailed output information Applications of the simulator to test areas (the for each individual simulation of a particular use situation Spanish PeaksPrimitive Area in Montana, the or "scenario." Since part of the input data is of a Desolation Wilderness in California, and the Green and

335 Yampa Rivers in Dinosaur National Monument in not true of all scenarios. A manager probably would be Colorado and Utah) indicate that when the existing use more concerned about reducing or eliminating experi- situation was simulated, the resulting use patterns and ences of unsatisfactory quality than altering averages. In encounter experiences generally agreed with data from addition, changes at key trouble spots were even more visitor surveys, indicating validity of the model. Where pronounced. This also would probably be more relevant there were discrepancies, they stemmed primarily from to a manager's evaluation of the results of a scenario than oversimplification of certain data describing typical use overall averages. (for example, induding too few different travel routes to A somewhat simpler simulation model has been adequately reflect the variability of visitor movements), developed for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area that rather than inherent flaws in the simulation model itself. presents only information on numbers of parties These shortcomingscan be correctedinfuture camping per night in each travel zone, based on numbers applications of the model. entering at various access points (Gilbert, Peterson, and In the Desolation Wilderness (Shechter and Lucas Lime 1972; Peterson, de Bettencourt, and Wang 1977). 1978) and Dinosaur National Monument a variety of This has been used to help set entry point daily limits simulation scenarios were tested. Use was increased and that will not overtax available camping locations. decreased by varying amounts, and uneven distributions The use of computer-based simulation modeling in were made more even by shifting use from popular outdoor recreation management planning may arouse entries to less used access points and from heavily used fears of depersonali7ation. On the contrary, it may help weekends to weekdays. make it possible to maintain the traditional values of Some dear relationships, not all expected, emerged. visitor independence, flexibility, and spontaneity as well Changing the timing of visitor entries had little effect on as to protect resources and experience quality in theface use pressures or encounter levels. Changes in total use of growing demands on limited resources. (allother things remaining the same) produced proportionate results. For example, if total use doubles, use of any specific location doubles, on the average. In Visitor Management in the Future hindsight,thisnow seemsobvious.Encounters, expressed in per-party-per-day terms, also double in this As use problems increase or intensify in wilderness, example, which was not expected. managerswillbe constantlypressedto develop This predictable, proportional relationship provides a innovative techniques and tools to meet the challenge. convenient base for comparing results of more complex Increased refinement of many of the techniques and scenarios in which use is redistributed with an across-the- tools is needed to increase their effectiveness. board change with the same total use. Aimost all use As we look to the future, we also see increased efforts redistribution scenarios produced lower average encoun- to offset visitor impacts by improving the quality of ters per party per day than the same total use without visitor behavior. Much attention is now focused on the redistribution. Some use redistributions were more than need for a "wilderness ethic": an accepted code that 50 percent more effective in reducing average encounter governs the wilderness traveler's behavior so that some levels than equivalent across-the-board decreases in total of the current management headaches, such as litter, will use. For example, one entry point redistribution plan cease to exist. Efforts to develop an ethic have been made required only a 9 percent reduction in total use, but by conservation organizations (The Wilderness Society reduced averagetrailencounters 16 percent and ad.; Sierra Club 1967), by private individuals (Wilson encounters in camp by 13 percent. ad.; Petzoldt 1974), and by agencies (for example, Average encounters do not tell the whole story, Nezperce National Forest 1975). Many of these efforts however. The frequency of extreme encounter levels stress not only the proper ways of handling oneself in the (very high levels, especially, but sometimes also very low wilderness (e.g., how to set up a tent, build and put out and zero levels) changed substantially for different fires), but also appropriate behavior styles, such as scenarios. In the example given, the proportion of party- respectingthe privacy of others, refraining from days with high levels of solitude rose more than they shouting, and even choosing colors for dothing and tents would with an across-the-board cut in use, but this was that blend into the natural scene. To the extent that such desirable behavior becomes commonplace, the job of the

7McCool, Stephen F., and David W. Lime. 1976. The wilderness area travel simulator: wilderness manager becomes less demanding and the applications to river recreation management. Paper presented to Interagency Whitewater need for direct management controlsless urgent. Management Cunference, Salt Lake City, Utah, February 11, 1976. A revised version of this paper is included in Shechter and Lucas (1978). Education of wilderness visitors is a potentially powerful

336 as well as preferable tool in wilderness use management, management, as subtle and light handed as possible and it should play a larger role in the future. rather than direct regulation, can preserve the visitors' freedom and should be the manager's first choice. Trails and campsites are critical tools in influencing Summary use distributions and visitors' experiences (management This chapter has tried to make several main points. of trails and campsites and visitor impacts on them is First, use and minimal facilities to accommodate it (trails covered in chapter 15). A variety of other techniques, and campsites,in particular)are consistent with practices, and standards are available as tools for wilderness objectives. But, use must be managed. The achieving visitor management objectives. largest part of wilderness management is use manage- The issues discussed in this chapter all depend on ment. The only actions that seem justified for use what part of the recreation opportunity spectrum management are those necessary to achieve wilderness wilderness must serve. If few alternative categories of management objectivesestablished for an area- roadless but nonwilderness lands are available to meet induding the protection of natural conditions and roadlessrecreationneeds, then wildernessvisitor providing an opportunity for quality wilderness expe- management must be more diverse and some areas must riences. be more developed and more heavily used. If programs There are a range of visitor actions and associated for intermediate, semiwilderness, backcountry recreation impacts to be dealt with, and we pose a typology are developed by land management agencies, as we recognizing five of themactions that are illegal, strongly feel they should be, then management direction careless, unskilled, uninformed, and unavoidable impacts. forclassified wilderness shouldstress unmodified Several aspects of wilderness use can be influenced conditions, limited development, and opportunities for induding the amount, distribution, and timing of use; solitudeto be consistent with the narrower range of party size; length of stay and user behavior as it affects the environmental modification and recreation spectrum the resource and other visitors; and cooperation with that wilderness would then represent. management. We point to the need for basic data on wilderness use and the resource to help guide decisions Among the co-authors, the author primarily responsible for preparation of this chapter about what management actions are needed. Indirect use was Robert C. Lucas. literature Cited

Back Country Horsemen Dailey, Tom, and Dave Redman. 1972. Back country horsemen's guidebook. 60 p. Hungry Horse 1975 Guidelines for roadless area campsite spacing to minimize News. Columbia Falls. Mont. impact of human-related noises. USDA For. Serv., Gen Tech. Burch, William R., Jr. Rep. PNW-35, 2Op. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sin., 1964. A new look at an old friendobservation as a technique for Portland, Oreg. recreation research. US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., 19 p. Pac. EIsner, Gary H. Northwest For, and Range Exp. Sta, Portland, Oreg. 1972. Wilderness management ... a computerized system for Campbell, Frederick L summarizing permit information USDA For. Serv., Con. Tech. 1970. Participant observation in outdoor recreationJ. Leisure Res. Rep. PSW-2, 8 p. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn, 2(4):226-236. Berkeley, Calif. Clark, Roger N., Robert U Burgess, and John C. Hendee. 1972a. The development of anti-litter behavior in a forest Fazio, James R, and Douglas U Gilbert. campground. J. AppI. Behav. Anal. 5(1):1-5. 1974. Mandatory wilderness permits: some indications of success.J. Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and Robert U Burgess. For. 72(12):753-756. 1972b. The experimental control of littering.J. Environ. Educ. Frayer, W.E., and DB. Butts. 4(2):22-28. 1974 BUS: a processing system for records of back country camper Clark, Roger N., and Robert M.Muth. use. J. Leisure Res. 6(4):305-311. 1976. The appeal system for litter control in wilderness and Gibbens, Robert P., and Harold F. Heady. backcountry. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Res. Note. Pac. 1964. The influence of modern man on the vegetation of Yosemite Northwest For, and RangeExp.Stn,Portland,Oreg. (Inpress.) Valley. Manual 36, 44 p. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Clark, Roger N. California, Berkeley. 1977. Alternative strategies for studying river recreationists.p. 91- 100. In Proceedings, river recreation management and research Gilbert, Corman C, George L. Peterson, and David W. Lime. symposium, Jan. 24-27,1977.455 p. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., 1972. Towards a model of travel behavior in the Boundary Waters North Central For. Exp. Stn, St. Paul, Minn. Canoe Area. Environ Behav. 4(2):131-157.

337 Greist, David. Lucas, Robert C, and Robert Rinehart. 1975. Risk zoning: a recreation area management system and 1976. The neglected hiker. Backpacker 4(1):35-39. method of measuring carrying capacity.J. For. 73(11):711-714. Lucas, Robert C., and Mordechai Shechter. Hardin, Garrett. 1977. A recreational visitor travel simulation model as an aid to 1969. The economics of wilderness. Nat. Hist. 78(6):20.-27. management planning. p. 3 1-35. In State-of-the-art methods Hartesveldt, KJ., H.T. Harvey, and John Stanley. for research, planning, and determining the benefits of outdoor 1971. Wilderness impact studies. Sierra Club Bull. 56(4):10-11. recreation, compiled by Gary H. EIsner, (32 p. U.S. Dep. Agric., Hay, Edwards. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-20. Pac. Southwest For, and 1974.Wildernessexperiment:it'sworking.Am.For. Range Exp. Sta, Berkeley, Calif. Also Simulation & Games 80(12):26-29. 8(3):375-384. Hendee, John C, William R Catton, Jr., Larry D. Marlow, and C Miller, Bob. Frank Brockman. 1973. Suggestions for using horses in the mountain country. 13 p. 1968.WildernessusersinthePacificNorthwest-their Animal and Range Sciences Dept., Montana State University, characteristics, values, and management preferences. USDA Baseman. For. Serv., Res. Pap. PNW-61, 92 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Nezperce National Forest. Range Exp. Sm., Portland, Oreg. 1975. Environmental outfitting: methods and equipment for the Hendee, John C., and Robert W. Harris. outfitter sensitive to protecting the back country. lip. U.S. Dep. 1970.Foresters' perception of wilderness-user attitudes and Agric., For. Serv., Grangeville, Idaho. preferences. J. For. 68(12):759-762. Hendee, John C., and Robert C. Lucas. Peterson, George L, James S. de Bettencourt, and Pai Kang Wang. 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a necessary management 1977. A Markov-based linear programming model of travel in the tool. J. For. 71(4):206-209. Boundary Waters Canoe Area. p. 342-350. In Proceedings, Hendee, John C, Roger N Clark, and Thomas Dailey. symposium on river recreation management and research, Jan. 1974 Fishing and other recreation behavior at high lakes: some 24-27, 1977.455 p. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., North Central management implications. 25 p. mimeo. Paper presented to For. Exp. Sm., St. Paul, Minn. American Fisheries Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, Sept. 8. Petzoldt, Paul. Herfindahi, Orris C. 1974 The wilderness handbook 286 p. W.W. Norton and 1969. Natural resource information for economic development. Company, New York 212 p. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Potter, Dale R, Kathryn M. Sharpe, John C Hendee, and Roger N. Kovalicky, Thomas J. Clark 1971. The wilderness ranger concept. Naturalist 22(3):14-15. 1972. Questionnaires for research: an annotated bibliography on Landrum, Paul. design, construction and use. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. 1976. Are guidebooks destructive? Free Country Times (Univ. PNW-140, 80 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sm., Oregon Outdoor Program), Spring, p. 5. Portland, Oreg. Lee, Robert G. 1975. The management of human components in the Yosemite Rinehart, Robert P., Calm Hardy, and Henty Rosenau. National Park ecosystem. 134 p. The Yosemite Institute, 1978. Stereo photographs made in field with pivoting camera Yosemite, Calif. mount are used to measure wilderness trail conditions.J. For. (In Leopold. Aldo. press.) 1943. Flambeau: the story of awild river. Am. For. 49(1):12-14, 47. Shechter, Mordechai. Lime, David W. 1975. Simulation model of wilderness-area use. Resources for the 1970. Research for determining use capacities of the Boundary Future, Inc., Washington, D.0 172 p. (Available from National Waters Canoe Area. Naturalist 21(4):8-13. Technical Information Service, Springfield. Va Manual order Lime, David W. No. PB 251 635, Program tapes order no. PB 251 634) 1971. Factors influencing campground use in the Superior Shechter, Mordechai, and Robert C Lucas. National Forest of Minnesota USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. [1978]. Wilderness travel simulation as an aid to wilderness NC-60, 18 p. North Central For. Exp. Sm., St. Paul, Minn. management. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources Lime, David W., and Roland G. Buchman. for the Future, Inc., Baltimore. (In press.) 1974. Putting wilderness permit information to work J. For. Schomaker, John Henry. 72(10):622-626. 1975. Effect of selected information on dispersal of wilderness Lucas, Robert C. recreationists. Ph.D. diss., Colorado State University, Fort 1973. Wilderness: a management framework. J. Soil and Water Collins. 95 p. Conserv. 28(4): 150-154. Lucas, Robert C Sierra Club. 1975. Low compliance rates at unmanned trail registers. USDA 1967. The Sierra Club handbook David Brower, ed. 317 p. For. Serv., Res. Note INT-200, 6 p. Intermt. For. and Range Ballantine Pub. Co., New York Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah. Smith, V. Kerry, and John V. Krutilla. Lucas, Robert C. 1976. Structure and properties of a wilderness travel simulator. 173 1978.. The characteristics of visitors to wilderness and related areas p. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future. in the Northern Rockies and California Sierras. US. Dep. Inc., Baltimore. Agric., For. Serv., Res. Pap., Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sm., Stankey, George H. Ogden, Utah. (In press.) 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity.

338 USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p. Intermt. For. and Walker, Richard Range Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah. 1968. Photography as an aid to wilderness resource inventory and Stankey, George H., and John Baden. analysis. Professional paper submitted for MS. degree, Colorado 1977. Rationing wilderness use. USDA For. Serv ,Gen. Tech Rpt. State Universitv, Fort Collins 114 p. INT-198, 20 p. Interim. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Wilderness Society. Utah [ad] Off on the right feot: a guide to proper wilderness use. op. Taylor, Ronald B. Wilderness Society, Washington, D.0 1972. No vacancy in the wilderness. Sierra Club Bull 57(1):5-8. Wilson, Floyd. Wagar, J.V.K [ad] A code of conduct for those who visit wilderness. 4p. Floyd 1940. Certified outdoorsmen. Am For 46(11):490-492, 524-525. Wilson Wilderness Education Foundation, Denver, Cob.

339 One important wilderness management task is the inventoty of all established campsites and evaluation of their impacts Some sites might need to be relocated if they show excessive environmental damage or are located in particularly sensitive locations. information provided by this wilderness ranger on a Gale-A-Site inventoty card for a camp in the Seiway-Birterroot Wilderness, Mont., will be used in management planning

340 15 Site Management: Approaches To Managing Wilderness Campsites, Trails, And Visitor Impacts

Objectives 341 Site restoration 353 Campsites 342 Trails 355 Campsite inventories 342 Trail standards 355 Designation 345 Trail maintenance 357 Location 345 The Site Management Balancing Act 359 Facility development 346 Literature Cited 359

Trails and campsites are acceptable in wilderness and The alternative to striving to minimize use impacts is dearly compatible with the Wilderness Act. Theyare to adopt the sacrifice-area concept. In this the manager indispensable to recreational use of wilderness and tries to concentrate use on a few spots and accept the important tools for use management. It is also dear that sacrifice of these places to damage from heavy use in trails and campsites, and the visitor use theyserve, must order to save many other places from visitor pressures. be limited to avoid threatening the naturalness and We disagree with the sacrifice-area approach to solitude of an areathe qualities that distinguish wilderness-site management. Sacrificing parts of a wilderness. As was discussed in the previous chapter, wilderness to severe impacts seems to us to ignore the visitor use may need to be directly or indirectly modified Wilderness Act's definition of wilderness as a place to protect opportunities for solitude and to keep use where natural conditions are preserved, a place that has impacts to acceptable levels. In this chapterwe consider been affected primarily by the forces of nature, and a the locations directly impacted by visitorscampsites place where the imprint of man's work is substantially and trailsand management methods for keeping unnoticeable. The sacrifice-areapolicydashes with the physical, biological, and social impacts at acceptable philosophy and spirit of wilderness as we understand it. levels. It also seems insensitive to the quality of the visitor's experiences. On the other hand, research indicates that even light, Objectives limited use usually produces substantial impacts, while further use produces proporiionatelylessimpact Here, as for visitor use, management objectivesmust (Merriam et al. 1973). If wilderness is visited, as it usually reflect a balance. A reasonable network of simple, willbe, unmodified natural conditions cannot be narrow trails (with some areas left trailless) is acceptable maintained. Therefore, at least a hint of the sacrifice and desirable in a wilderness, as are lightly impacted, concept must be accepted. The sacrifice concept is an end minimally altered campsites. Some impact is inevitable, point on a continuum, while the dispersed, minimal- with recreational use. But, trails deeply eroded, churned impact approach is near the other end of the continuum. into bogs, greatly widened, or converted into multiple, The two approaches differ in degree, but are not two parallel trails are not acceptable. Neitherare dustbowl entirely separate approaches. The critical questions seem campsites with dead or dying treesas a result of visitor to be whether to accept severe site impacts on relatively impacts. The question is how to manage trails and few sacrifice areas or to disperse minimal impacts over a campsitesto minimize use impacts while making widespread area. We lean heavily toward the latter possible high-quality wilderness experiences. approach.

341 It is essential that physical-biological management of sound of other campsites, might be a major determinant use sites be integrated with visitor management. Actions of wilderness social carrying capacity. Resource damage to restore or relocate sites rarely will be effective unless isalso a serious problem with campsites. Visitors the use patterns and visitor behavior that caused the congregate at campsites, sometimes in large groups for original problem are also altered. On the other hand, long times, and extensive areas can be drastically altered. altering use patterns and behavior can produce only very A recent study indicates that campers at wilderness lakes slow recovery without some physical-biological manage- spent about 60 percent of their time right in camp which ment. For example, a severely eroded trail generally will suggests the importance of campsite location and the not revert to a more natural condition even if use is potential for resource damage (Hendee, Clarlç and drastically altered; a badly deteriorated campsite might Dailey 1974). recover very slowly unless some directresource Campsite Inventories management action to speed restoration is applied. The following discussion addresses campsites first, One of the most critical types of information for and then trails. management of any wilderness is a campsite inventory. This inventory provides basic information for making decisions about carrying capacity, for efforts to redirect use, for providing visitors with information,for planning Campsites wilderness rangers' work, for applying the wilderness Wilderness campsites play a very important role in travel simulation model, and for almost any other management. Chapter 9 pointed out that campsite planning activity. A campsite inventory ideally should isolation is particularly valued by many visitors. The indude sites already in use and potential sites that visitors number of campsites that offer seclusion, out of sight and might use if they were aware of them. Dispersing visitors

4t% 0

Figure 15-1.The need for recreation facilities in wilderness is a controversial topic. Facilities are generally limited to those absolutely essential to protect the resource, with facilities for comfort and convenience facilities normally prohibited. Upper left: 'Waliowa' type toilet; upper right: bridge of native materials; lower left: rustic sign used in National Park wilderness; lower right: primitive table placed to attract use away from sensitive locations.

342 to these potential campsites, as discussed earlier, could asked, 'What would you consider to be an ideal substantially raise the carrying capacity of many areas, campsite?" 45 percent answered "located on an island," therefore it is important to know the number of such 39 percent mentioned "flat tent spots available," 30 potential sites even though all of them would notand percent listed firewood availability, 27 percent cited a should notbe pressed into use. good landing area, and 24 percent wanted a campsite A campsite inventory system will be discussed shortly, "protected from wind." but first we need to consider the question of defining a More research is needed on the factors that determine wilderness campsite. Two sorts of characteristics seem campsite selection in different settingsfor example, essential (Brown and Schomaker 1974). First, a site must visitor preferences in areas with few or no lakes, with be usable Generally it must have a source of water and be desert vegetation, or along riversand the relation of neither too steep, too wet, or too small. In other words, it campsite choice to impacts on the environment, on other must possess certain physical characteristics to function visitors, and on the satisfactions of people using the sites as a campsite. Second, the site must be desirable as a (Lime 1971). Tests are needed to measure the results of campsite. In addition to being able to camp there, people programs to encourage campers to disperse and use must also want tO camp there. additional sites, many of which will not be near lakes. A study of wilderness campsite preference (Brown The Spanish Peaks study suggests that it will be difficult and Schomaker 1974) looked at existing sites in the to get many parties to voluntarily shift away from lakes. Spanish Peaks Primitive Area of Montana to identify This is particularly unfortunate because a recent study functional and desirable campsite characteristics. These (Dailey and Redman 1975) indicates that noise impacts sitesall had developed from repeated selection by between camping parties are greatest at lakes, where campers without any managerial interference with free noise carries far, whereas they are minimized by the choice. Sites in use reflected visitors' standards for usable background noise near streams. Recently, a campsite inventory system, Code-A-Site, anddesirablecampingplaces.Theinvestigators measured over 15 factors at each site, and concluded that was developedtocollect basic information about the minimum for an acceptable functional site was: 400 campsites along forest roads, in backcountry, and in square feet of level ground (4 percent slope or less), wilderness (Hendee etal.1976). Code-A-Site uses location on dry ground within 500 feet of water and 750 edgepunch cards (see fig. 15-2) and a codebook for feet of firewood. Horse-use sites required 800 square feet recordingbasic information about each campsite: location; capacity; available resources such as firewood, of level areas. Almost all horse-use campsites had forage areas averaging 3 to 4 acres, usually within 300 feet of water, forage, and scenery; measures and estimates of the camp. If horse users were required to feed their horses degree of environmental impacts; site facilities such as exclusively with prepared, packed-in feed, forage would toilet, table, fireplace, or makeshift, visitor-constructed cease to be a requirement. improvements; proximity to other sites;available activities and attractions; needed work at the site or other Brown and Schomaker (1974) also identified potential management recommendations; judgments about the but unused campsites that possessedatleastthe amount of use the site receives; a site map; and space for minimum functional characteristics. A comparison of recording other information a particular manager might potential sites which those campers chose to use sug- desire. gests which factors are important campsite attractions. Field tests indicate it takes from 5 to 20 minutes to Desirability seemed to depend mainly on a view of a code each campsite depending on the data desired and nearby lake (lakes are fairly common in the area). Ninety the training of data collectors. Ideally, Code-A-Site data percent of all sites in use had views of a lake (or a lake and are collected by wilderness rangers as they go about their a stream), and 4 percent had a view of a stream alone. normal duties. Only 6 percent lacked a view of water. Although there Code-A-Site was applied to several wildernesses were many potential sites near streams, few were in use. during its design and development; field testing indicated The proportion of potential campsites which were in use some conditions unexpected by managers. First, it was near lakes was much higher. found that managers generally underestimated the Campsite preference has also been studied in the number of sites that had been established. For example, Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) (Frissell and at one of the heavy use locations identified in the Glacier Duncan 1965). It was found that 63 percent of existing Peak Wilderness Management Plan, the Code-A-Site sites (all the result of visitor selection and use) were on inventory turned up twice as many sites as managers islands and 91 percent were in stands of pine. When estimated were there.

343 CR EC(XIAPP&OPTECAT)GOJTES S 000T0C)00C'00 000000 000000 000 DIN PC 05 C 0 TIlE PLEASE CODE - A - SITE (DISPERSED RECREOTION SITE NVENTORV) I 010l CONNTPV OS READ CODE BOOK PRIOR U S 0 A FOREST SERVICE PACOIC NORTHWE ST FOREST S RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION 0°C ARIA EXTRA *110* RAINS TO USING THIS CARD C' CC COOING CEO ro USE THIS AREA WHEN SPECIFICS ARE REQUIRED OR TO RECORD ADDITIONAL DATA C) -c CI LOCAL CI USE C i. D;0;k tccs t(0 5CD +OSAS co.-v\p C C P 0 ADS ctSceI -PS CON START III cmvi LUIC I -0-I FRIQIALTAC I 0* DUE N V I a 4coto(((cofr te Or USE 6" 1 L(5e c (i o- c 0 L* Ck*C c *S I RAIL> a YA'>c CO.I44f' I r NAVE OR No VI I .5 CINrI, L+ o± 4ID(1h ±UI+C&5i4e -A-> ELEVATION (Loa ccoUY> rS1JcI. - sea keC) L?L1- C C a DISTAN CE 6e CC FROM S 'o(c ook 4e,s ô( 0 TRAIL OR (2ôc IQ ROAD 0'O C 1 R 0 CC I c 4 FT I CC TAP P +r OF !&4c4e, EAI'O SO RE CC SITE T lEER ONE lIl-cccL CC- fl&4ue 00 '0A RORDEI I AREA> pr-c U rJIa Co -0-I CROWN I0 TI I NUll OlIVIA L1--i COVER lEN2 No WHY, 00 -0- INOTENNOTEN ON IrJ o 0? TEST IRINERSE SPACES a Cc 4N011...kOAW1/A! I0 TENTS VI ®;; 2*0C 0 G00050I SCH C M I' I IC CR00 50 TEN -N- DRAWING COVE P Co a CC VEHIClES USE NOV 10.1+ TO MAKE III PACT A ROUGH OP SKETCH /.G)' PREVIOUS SITE OF SITE USE ORIGIN VP'." 000ERAIE a a CURRENT L Cr,oe 4 Vt LIGHT STATUS SPECIAL PROBLEMS FOE USEE INDICATE >t SPECIFY ) NO YES-A- a POSSIBLE TENT IA) AND IV VEHICLE (0> SPACES 0 wE ON MA I IOWA S INS N OThER SITES INDICATE NORTH

R-te TO IL * I S

'*K I-c. I.,C.I, Er S JO UCIU P V -N- I e II SITE RESOURCES & OPPORTUNITIES

Figure 15-2.The Code-A-Site inventory system is a management tool for recording, storing, analysing, and using recreation site data. Here is a Code-A-Site edgepunch card for recording basic infonnation about campsites following codebook instructions.

A Second, site concentration was greater than was frequently, some type of table. Other impromptu realized. For example, in the eastern portion of the campsites are undesignated. They have simply devel- Three Sisters Wilderness in Oregon, 70 campsites were oped over the years as people have chosen them as found near a duster of three heavily used lakes (Green desirable places to camp. Some sites are obviously used Lakes). In a portion of the nearby Mt. Jefferson often and are distinguished by some loss of natural Wilderness, there were 15 campsites around Square vegetation, some bare ground at the center of the site, Lakelocated 1 mile inside the wilderness. In both areas, and one or more fire rings of loosely placed rocks. Others site concentration was intense near popular lakes yet might not reveal signs of use to anyone but an expert much of the surrounding wilderness had few sites in use. observer. UsisIly there are no facilities provided at Third, it became dear that because of dissimilar undesignated sites, although some have homemade management information needs in different wilder- facilities.Officially designated sites are common in nesses,standardized datacollection could not be National Park wilderness and in some National Forest prescribedFlexibilityinthe inventory systemis wilderness. The BWCA has over 1,000 designated necessary. In one wilderness, managers might want to campsites. Currently, BWCA users are encouraged to use know only site locations and their sizes in order to only these sites, and future plans call for requiring their determine the people-at-one-time (PAOT) capacity of use the wilderness. Elsewhere, managers might want to Other wildernesseshave both designated and identify sites with severe impacts or those that need undesignated sites. In some California wildernesses, for management attention for other reasonsimportant example, wood fires are permitted only at designated information for planning the work of wilderness sites, and camp stoves must be used elsewhere. rangers. Code-A-Site has also been used to make rough Whether single- or multiple-party campsite areas estimates of the amount of overnight use in a particular should be provided is another related question Most area by combining it with field judgments about the wilderness campsites accommodate only one party, in at amount of use each site received over a summer. least relative isolation from other campsites. However, Elsewhere, it has been used by managers and scientists as some camp areas have multiple, dustered sites, and a system for recording detailed and replicable measures resemble minimally developed road-accessible camp- of site impacts, measures that could be repeated in a few grounds. Visitor surveys suggest this cluster arrange- years to see the extent to which management efforts to ment isusually strongly disliked by most visitors reduce impacts were succeeding or failing.' (Stankey 1973). Finally, the site impacts were notas severe as Location managers had thought. For example, in the Three Sisters Wilderness only 11 percent of all campsites inventoried Where wilderness campsites should be located relative were judged to have severe impacts, and in the Mt. to trails and shores of lakes and streams is a question on Jefferson Wilderness only 5 percent. Use of many sites which opinions differ widely. Many managers believe apparently was not as great in these areas as managers camping dose to the shores of lakes and streams is had believed. undesirable and have prohibited camping near shore- These examples illustrate the basic nature of campsite lines for distances of from 25 to 200 feet. The reasons for inventory data and the variety of uses to which it can be such restrictions rest on the belief that resource damage put. Visitor management decisions must rest on data is more likely near shorelines because vegetation there is about theavailability of established and potential fragile;that,withoutlimitations,congestion and campsites, their location, attractions, and condition resulting adverse impacts will accumulate because most users are attracted to the water; and that environmental Designation damage is more noticeable and objectionable because of In some wildernesses, all or a portion of the campsites the importance most visitors attach to the shore zone. are officially designated. They may have a sign that Camping dose to water can also increase risks of water identifiesthemasofficiallysanctioned campsites. pollution from wash water and human wastes. Sometimes they are marked on maps. They may have Shoreline camping can also detract from visitor certain facilities, often a manufactured fireplace with a experiences. Camps dose to the shoreline of heavily used metal grate, perhaps a simple pit toilet, and, much less lakes convert public space, open to all, into private space, monopolized by the camping party (Hendee, Clark, and Dailey 1974). Camps on lakeshores are also conspicuous Monitoring site impacts is discussed in more detail in chapter 14 under Information Needs for Visitor Management: Resource Data across open water and capable of detracting from

345 solitude more than camps tucked away in the trees. When new campsites are being planned, whether this Noises carry easily to other parties around the lake involves designation and development or only identifica- because of the lack of sound-diminishing barriers and tion on maps to assist visitors in their route planning, because a lake surface minimizes the attenuation of location relative to water and to trails should be given sound (Dailey and Redman 1975). careful attention Durable sites, secluded from trails and However, despite all the reasons for limiting shoreline other campsites, set back from shorelines but still with a camping, there is overwhelming evidence that the most view and a feeling of reasonable proximity to the water popular campsites are dose to water. Also, in some areas, would seem to be the ideal for which to strive. lack of alternative potential campsites directs users to Poorly located campsitesthose causing unacceptable waterfronts. In rugged terrain, level land is often physical or social impactscould be dosed to use on a concentrated in narrow strips close to lakes and streams. site-by-site basis, rather than zoning all lands dose to In the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area camper preference water off limits to camping. This should be accompanied and, in some places, terrain limitations resulted in high by identification or designation of more acceptable concentrations of campsites near shorelines. Brown and alternative campsites, numerous enough to accommo- Schomaker (1974) found that 85 percent of the existing date the expected use of the critical area. campsites were located within 200 feet of lakes or The most restrictive technique is the assignment of streams, and nearly half were within 50 feet. Obviously, individual campsites by permit. Some National Parks use even a 50-foot setback requirement would prohibit use of a variation on this system, assigning campsites requested almost half of these established sites, and a 200-foot by visitors if possible. Campsite assignment might be requirement would wipe out all but a few sites. Managers necessary to meet management objectives in some considering camping setback requirements need a locations, but, as discussed in chapter 14, we feel such campsite inventory to evaluate the effect of "distance restrictive methods should be the manager's last resort. from shoreline" camping restrictions on the number of campsites eliminated. Facilily Development Some areas also prohibit camping within a specified How many and which campsite facilities should be distance of trails, as well as shoreline restrictions. In steep provided is another controversial topic As discussed in mountains, where trails often are squeezed between chapter 14, the Wilderness Act limits facility develop- steep slopes and lakes or streams, the waterfront and ment to certain specific purposes. There still are different trail no-camping zones can overlap and thus eliminate interpretations of what level of facility development is almost all camping places, perhaps unintentionally. justified in wilderness and under what conditions. In light of the above evidence, managers should think What functions could various facilities at wilderness carefullyabout imposing restrictions on campsite campsites serve? Resource protection is one possibility. locationEnforcing such restrictionsisadifficult Use control or modification of behavior is another. assignment for wilderness rangers, especially with so Visitor safety is a rather unlikely function of campsite many existing campsites conspicuously present to tempt facilities, except possibly to minimize risk of disease campers. But some things.can be done to combat site transmission from human wastes. (Safety is a more impacts at lakes. important consideration in trail location, design, and If use levels at lakes were kept low enough that most maintenance.) Visitor comfort and convenience might parties could camp out of sight and sound of other be one motive for facility development. However, the groups (as most visitors strongly prefer), the need for a wilderness concept of meeting nature on its own terms waterfront setback might largely vanish. On most small seems to rule out comfort and convenience as valid lakes in open country, for example, only one party at a justifications for facilities in wilderness. Visitor safety time could camp if the solitude objective (camping out of from natural ha7rds alsois not unequivocally an sight and sound of other groups) were to be met. In this objectiveinconsidering wildernessfacilities. The case, the conflict of public vs. private space would also be National Park Service, in its "Management Policies" minimized. states this well: Indirçct management techniques could also help. The visitor must accept wilderness largely on Visitors could be educated and encouraged to stay back its own terms. Modern conveniences are not from lakeshores where possible, to properly dispose of provided for the comfort of the visitor; and wastes, and generally to use low-impact camping the risks of wilderness travel, of possible techniques. dangers from accidents, wildlife, and natural

346 phenomena must be accepted as part of the beaches or into the water. The ashes are either spread wilderness experience. along upper bank areasafter the pan cools or, (National Park Service Management Policies sometimes, carried out Material that sinks can be VI-4, 1975). dropped in the river. However, if these systems are not Finally, what do visitors want and expect in the way of used carefully, the aggregate impact of fire use by wilderness facilities? Are they eager for them or not? campers might be greater than if a few semipermanent With these various considerations in mind, let's look at fire rings are left to localize camping impacts, particularly different facilities that might be found at wilderness in areas of heavy use. campsites. Obviously, management judgment is needed and Fireplaces solutions will vary depending on local conditions, but it must be remembered that objectives of the Wilderness Fireplaces are provided in some wildernesses. Designs Act include naturalness and "outstanding opportunities vary, but typical construction uses a steel grate, rocks, and for solitude" and generally prohibit "permanent im- mortar. Particularly in areas of high fire hazard (e.g., provements." southern California) many managers believe such Where managers have banned open fires, they have fireplaces reduce the risks of campfires spreading and avoided the problem of fireplace facilities. Backpacker igniting forest or brush fires. Some people question stoves serve cooking purposes well, and many visitors whether fireplaces reduce the risk of spreading fires. We now use them voluntarily. However, campfires have a know that every year wilderness rangers put out some long tradition and provide a social setting similar to the campfiresthat have been leftburning. Whether crackling blaze in a living room fireplace, in addition to fireplaces encourage visitors to leave campfires burning providing the warmth thatisneeded or desired or effectively contain fires and stop their spread is sometimes. Many visitors are reluctant to abandon unknown Even small, unimpressive fires can spread in building social fires. However, giving up such fires does duff to burn roots, and destroy trees, shrubs, and substantiallylower userimpacts. When firesare campsite beauty. foregone, one manager pointed out, 'stars are brighter, It might be thought that fireplaces are a convenience sunsets and sunrises take on more meaning, and a forvisitors.However, surveysindicate wilderness camper can take pride in 'leaving no trace." visitors who oppose constructed fireplaces outnumber Behavior based on a wilderness ethic and outdoor visitors who favor them more than two to one, which skills is the key in this situation as in so many others. A suggests that fireplaces are an unwanted improvement small, well-placed fire built with only a few rocks, or none for most visitors (Hendee et al. 1968; Lucas 1978). The at all, and only if firewood is not scarce, allowed to burn same studies indicate loose-rock fire rings are much more out before drowning with water to minimize ashes and acceptable to visitors. However, in some wildernesses, partly burned wood, causes only a fraction of the impact managers have decided that these fire rings are an of a large, thoughtlessly handled fire. undesirable mark of man and detract from the qnility of the wilderness. They alsofeel they attract parties Tables repeatedly to the same sites and increase resource Tables seem to us to be entirely a comfort and damage. These managers have wilderness rangers break convenience facility devoid of any resource protection up and scatter the fire rings, and they encourage visitors capability. Some managers believe tables could attract to use only a few rocks to support a portable cooking users to locations selected by managers and divert use grate, scattering the rocks when they leave camp. if ashes from more fragileor overusedsites.However, can also be concealed by being buried or scattered widely, wilderness user surveys indicate that only a few people the spot used for the fire can be very inconspicuous. A find tables desirable. Split-log tables are more acceptable possible compromise might be to break up some of the than plank construction (Hendee et al.1968; Lucis fire rings at sites where they are numerous, leaving one 1978). National Park Service policy prohibits tables. or two well-located rings for continued use. A procedure recommended in some places consists of Tent Pads digging up a chunk of sod; using the hole fora fireplace; Tent pads of wood, earth, or gravel are common in and, before leaving, replacing the sod to conceal all signs developed road-access campgrounds, and are found in of use. Along some wilderness rivers, users are urged to some nonwilderness hiking areas such as in the White carry fire pans (round, convex metal pans) to contain the Mountains of New Hampshire. As far as we know, they fire and prevent the spread of ashes along the sandy are not used in wilderness. Although their development

347 might be defended on the grounds of resource protection, we think it is more appropriate to provide campers with information on methods of setting up tents to protect wilderness values. In our opinion, tent pads seem to be self-defeating in terms of preserving natural conditions and the camping experience based on unaltered conditions. Visitor acceptance has not been studied in wilderness, but we would expect it to be low. Shelters "Adirondack" sheltersthree-sided cabins open in frontstill exist in some wildernesses and a few National Park backcountty areas under study for possible wilderness dassification. Generally, shelters are consid- ered inappropriate in wilderness, and have been re- moved in many National Park and Forest Service areas after their classification as wilderness. However, over half the visitors surveyed in three Washington and Oregon areas favored the existing shelters (Hendee et al. 1968). Some shelters might have historical values. An example is the former Image Lake Shelter in the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington Erected by a local Figure 15-3--Shelters are focal point for use and impact. Here conservation organization as a tribute to mountaineering visitors congregate at Avery Shelter in 3-sided Adirondack lean-to, at troops of World War II, it was removed because it Bigelow Col on Maine's Mt. Bieglow. attracted heavy use and thereby caused serious vegetation impacts. Other wildernesses indude structures such as old trappers' or homesteaders' cabins, some with improvements in wilderness. We recommend phasing historical significance. Many existing wilderness struc- out existing buildings and not developing new ones. tures need to be reviewed for possible inclusion under the National Register of Historical Sites as provided by Horse Facilities Federal law. Horse-holding facilities such as corrals and drift fences A few shelters and structures might be necessary to have been traditional in some western wildernesses, but administer some wildernessesin remote locations, a are being phased out in many areas as unnecessary, food or equipment cache cabin might be needed for use permanent improvements. Stock facilities vary, but all by wilderness rangers in a large wilderness, for example. are intended to avoid the frustrating and sometimes In addition, exceptions might be justified in Alaska, fruitless search for strayed horses. This experience has where severe weather, bear danger, and precedent are ruined many a wilderness breakfast and has even cited as reasons for maintaining public cabins. However, inspired colorful new additions to our language. Pole other persons still regard Alaskan cabins as comfort and corrals probably are the most secure way to keep stock convenience facilities. In general, public shelters and near camp. A pole hitching rail or hitching posts serve structures attract visitors (and often bears and other the same purpose. Drift fences, which cut across normal animals)andintensify problems associated with horse travel routes, usually valley bottoms, with a gate on concentrated use. Unless there is a reservation system, the trails, keep horses from returning towards home, as many more campers might arrive than a shelter can they often will try to do, None of these facilities directly accommodate, and the resulting impacts spread to protect resources; in fact, they all detract from the adjacent areas. Overflow campers often come without natural, unmodified character of the wilderness. The area tents, counting on using the shelter, and might be within a corral or around hitching rails or posts is usually tempted tobd bough shelters in bad weather. And not a sacrifice areait is devoid of vegetation, soils are every old cabin ma wilderness is automatically a valuable compacted, and dust or mud is thick historicalsite merely because of age. Shelters and However, these facilities can be less damaging than structures for public use are incompatible, permanent some alternative ways of holding stock, particularly tying

348 Figure 15-4 Makeshift facilities constructed by users often detract from the wilderness setting and should be discouraged. Left: John Muir Wilderness; right: Pole shelter left by hunters in a wilderness study area.

them to trees, which is vety destructive to ground packsaddles; they feel that others who use cross-buck vegetation and can kill the tree. Picketing (tying a horse saddles and diamond hitches are weak in the headand on a long rope fastened to a stake in a meadow), if not vice versa. The need for corrals is also strongly debated. done carefully, can produce round, overgrazed, and Certain ways of holding horses are characteristic of trampled areas. different geographical areas, perhaps for historical In many places, other ways of holding horsesare reasons rather than because of actual differences in need. encouragedtoavoidseriousimpacts. Hobbles Visitors generally disapprove of corrals and other something like leather handcuffsenable horses to hop horse-handling facilities; but, of course, most visitors are around and graze but are intended to keep them from hikers. However, even in areas where horse use traveling far. Some hobbled horses learn to hop faster predominates, opinions about horse facilities are very than a man can run, however. Bells on horses, especially divided (Hendee et aL 1968; Luccis 1978). on the leaders, can help in locating hobbled or loose stock Horse camping and trail riding are traditional uses of (but the noise of clanging bells can bother other visitors most western wildernesses. But conflicts do exist nearby). Some well-trained, experienced mountain between horsemen and hikers. Many managers are horses will stay dose even when turned loose. Another convinced that horse use is excessively damaging to the method, borrowed from the old horse cavalry, is the wilderness resource and have imposed regulations on picket linea taut rope is strung between two trees stock use. Horsemen, on the other hand, view many of padded with gunny sacks to prevent the rope from these regulations as unnecessary and discriminatory. damaging the bark and horses are tied to this picket line. Properly handled, they argued, stock need not be There will be some impact, but it will be removed from destructive of wilderness (Miller 1973). tree roots; and, if different places are used each time, a In view of these conflicts, we offer three observations. sacrifice area of concentrated impact will not develop. First, while we recognize that all use creates impacts Another option is the use of temporary corrals, either of (chapter 9), limited research suggests that stock use is poles temporarily tied in place only as long as needed,or proportionately more damaging to resources than of ropes (as used on the prairies by early cowboys). hiking. Two recent studies (Dale and Weaver 1974; Deciding what horse-use facilities to provide or Weaver and Dale 1977), found that trails used by both permit is not easy. Varied opinions are strongly held and hikers and horsemen were generally more deeply eroded rooted in old, cherished habits and folkways. For than those used by hikers alone, and that hiker impacts example, horsemen in certain regions pack with Decker on trails were significantly less than horse impacts on

349 both level and sloping sites. Horses were particularly Wilderness managers might want to try to separate damaging to soil and vegetation when coming downhill, stock users and hikers. As pointed out in chapter 9, most asthey tended to brace their forelegs and catch hikers prefer not to meet horse travelers. A recent study themselves with each step, exerting heavy pressures on in Yosemite National Park identified the presence of the trail surface. In addition, grazing by recreational stock horse manure as a particular annoyance of hikers (Lee unnaturallyaltersvegetationconditions,suchas 1975). If horsemen and hikers are to be separated, it is wildflower displays, which can reduce scenic quality, important to search for existing natural" separations or affect native animals that use the same areas, and zones. For instance, in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area perhaps change the behavior of a natural fire. Horse of Montana, most hiker use is concentrated in the manureisconspicuous and unattractive, and can northern and eastern portions of the area while most of introduce seeds that develop into nonnative plants. the horse use is in the southern and western portions. Second, although horse use does create management Any system of zoning to separate users should take problems, we feel it would be wrong to administratively advantage of natural divisions where they exist. Good use prohibit horse use of wilderness. Some wildernesses are data would be needed to identify horse- and hiker-use better suited to accommodating horse use than others. areas. In other places, where certain campsites tend to be For example, the Teton Wilderness in Wyoming (a used by horse parties, certain sites might be designated National Forest Wilderness east of Grand Teton. for horse use and others for hikers. (This system has National Park) is an area with large, open meadows with been tried in Rocky Mountain National Park) substantial forage, where most trails are not steep, and Finally, in those areas where stock use is permitted, distances are long. The area seems well suited to horse specialized facilities can be used to minimize conflicts use. Other areas, such as the Mission Mountains in between hikers and horsemen For instance, in the Montana, are small with steep trails and very little Sawtcoth Wilderness in Idaho, a special trailhead is maintained for horse users. It has corrals, hitching racks, forage; such an area is probably not well suited to horse use. The key, it seems to us, is to manage horse use and stock loading ramps and is located several hundred according to the capabilities of individual areas. This yards away from the trailhead normally used by hikers. If separate horse camps were established in the backcoun- means that in portions of some wildernesses, or perhaps in entire areas, horses would not be permitted, but in try, some separate horse facilities also might be used. others they would continue to be part of the scene. Toilets Careful planning can provide diverserecreational Toilets are one more controversial facility. Some view experiences. Closing certain areas to horses will provide outhouse toilets as a necessary feature at campsites, the kind of setting desired by those with strenuous arguing that health and esthetic problems will occur if objections to stock. Keeping other areas open will allow they are not provided. The counter argument is that if a horsemen continued opportunities to enjoy their style of toiletisneeded to prevent sanitation or esthetic use. problems, the site is already being used beyond its There are other options to consider for the use of capacity as wilderness, and that other waste disposal stock For many people, the enjoyment of their practices would be effective if use levels were lower. wilderness trip centers on their horse: caring for it, Outhouse pit toilets of varied designs are found at saddling it, and riding it during the day. For others, some popular campsites in a number of wildernesses. however, the horse or other stock animal is only a means Some are the traditional shed, complete with roof of transportation for the individual, his gear, or both. (sometimes of fiberglass). Others are only a box a few Drop" or spot" packing, which consists of using stock feet high. Toilets of this type are used in the BWCA and only for transportation to a campsite and then taking the the Pacific Northwestwhere they are called Wallowa animals out of the wilderness until the party is ready to Toilets. In the Sawtooth Wilderness, log walls about 5 leave, offers a wilderness-use opportunity for people feet high form a triangle open at one corner around a pit unable to hike or those who do not want the burden of toilet Toilets are numerous in some wildernesses. Many caring for stock. It also reduces the aggregate level of other areas have no toilets of any kind. Where toilets do stock impact on the resource. It is true that an extra not exist, a typical recommendation is that each visitor round trip usually is necessary (unless scheduling permits dig a small, shallow, individual hole for defecation, cover another party to be taken out on the return trip), but the it, and let natural biological decomposer organisms go to reduction in impacts around campsites and on forage can workthe so-called cat method (fig. 15-5). Research be great, particularly during long stays. data are lacking as to what method of human waste

350 WILDERNESS SANITATION HUMAN WASTE You are about to take a step beyond civiliza- Fortunately, nature has provided in the top 6 tion, a step into the rugged, untamed wilderness. or 8 inches ofsoila system of "biological While in the wilderness, you will be without the disposers" that works to decompose organic mate. modern conveniences to which you are accus- rial. Keeping this in mind, you should: tomed. You will be "roughing it"without lights, Carry with you a small digging tool. A light without refrigeration, and without plumbing. Here garden trowel is good. in this untamed country, you wi//be without even Select a suitable screened spot at least 50 feet the most basic sanitation facilities. There are no from any open water. garbage collections and no toilets. You will have to Dig a hole 8 to 10 inches in diameter, and no manage without these conveniences. deeper than 6 to 8 inchesto stay within the Disposing of waste and refuse is a most impor- "biological disposer" soil layer. Keep the sod tant part of your wilderness experience. Improper intact if possible. disposal of refuse will spoil and pollute these areas. After use,fill the hole with loose soil and If you handle sanitation properly, you will leave then tramp in the sod. the land clean and attractive for yourself and Nature will do the rest in a few days. others to enjoy. How do you do this? There are right and wrong ways to dispose of wastes in the wilderness. The CAMP WASTE proven methods of such waste disposal are de- scribed on the reverse side of this card. We ask Carry out cans, bottles, aluminum foil, and your cooperation in following them. anything else that will not burn. Cans are easier to carryif they are scorched and flattened. Burying is not satisfactory because the cans usually will be exposed by animal or frost action. Burn in your campfire a!: paper and other burnable material.

FS-66 OuTED STOlES IEPAITNENT OF 051ICUL1000 GPO 876267 FOREST SERVICI Figure 15-5.Forest Service information sheet on Wilderness Sanitation

disposal is best. It is uncertain which method poses less were safe for drinkingbut one careless individual could ha.zardto healthpit toilets or shallow burial (Sanks and cause a problem (MacFeters 1975). Temple 1975). Pit toilets, by concentrating human waste, Pit toilets are hard to maintain and keep clean, even in might actually increase the risk of polluting adjacent areas reached by roads; in remote wilderness settings waters. Biological decomposition is usiiilly much less they can become very unappealing. Vault style toilets effective with deep, concentrated fecal material than with toilets with a removable containerhave been used in shallow burial of waste matter. Environmental condi- some areas, with the containers removed by horse or tions are obviously critical, but no one really knows the helicopter. Removal can be a problem, however; often precise relationships. What works well at one location when the tank is full, the toilet is simply moved to a new might not work elsewhere, depending on elevation, soil location and a new tank is installed. In the Sawtooth type, soil temperature, moisture, and other variable Wilderness, instead of moving toilets when the pit fills, conditions. A study in Grand Teton National Park the material is dug out and reburied nearby. conduded that man's presence in the alpine zone has not With campsitesscatteredto achieve wilderness grossly affected the aquatic microflora or indicator solitude, itis difficult to locate the toilet in a central bacteria and that most streams in the higher country location where people will use it. People who camp far

351 from the toilet won't use it; alternatively, the toilet can adirectionsign saying toiletis a reminder of serve as a magnet and undesirably concentrate camping civilization and not consistent with the spirit of near it. Often, in an attempt to put the toilet out of sight, wilderness. Outhouses seem essential only to meet managers hide it so well that campers don't find it. management objectives for specific, individual locations Alternatively, toilets are sometimes marked so well that in the wilderness. Unfortunately, present knowledge the signs are a blight on the naturalness of the wilderness does not dearly identify the characteristics of such setting. locations although heavy use, if permitted, is dearly one Wilderness visitors are also divided on preference for importantfactor.Efforts should be continued to outhouses. Older surveys show considerable support. encourage appropriate individual waste disposal, which Hendee et al. (1968) found almost half the visitors to can help eliminate the need for toilet facilities. three areas in Washington and Oregon favored toilets, but the more wilderness-oriented visitors opposed them. Garbage Pits In the northern Rockies, around 40 percent of the Garbage pitsare an anachronism that almost visitors favored outhouses, almost as many opposed everyone rejects under today's use conditions. They are them, and the remainder were neutral (Lucas 1978). On purely a visitor convenience (and an improvement only the other hand, two-thirds of all visitors (induding day over outright littering), that imposes a substantial users)to the Desolation Wilderness in California adverse impact on the wilderness. Now, the nearly opposed outhouses as did three-fourths of the overnight universal recommendation is to burn all refuse that will campers there, despite heavy use (Lucas 1978). Given burn and pack the rest back for proper disposal outside this ambivalence and variation, the use of outhouses to the wilderness. modify use patterns seems quite unpredictable; they If fires are banned, this system encounters problems. mightattract some visitorsthe lesswilderness- Then everything must be packed out. This might be orientedand repel others. preferable anyway, if visitors will make the extra effort. Toilets, like other facilities, should be a tool for Careful meal planning could largely avoid the problem of achieving wilderness management objectives and not wet garbage, such as leftover oatmeal. It is debatable visitor comfort and convenience. If provided they must whether burning, burial, or scattering for animals is the be sensitively located by managers, for surely the best way to dispose of wet refuse that is difficult to pack presence of outhousesespecially when accompanied by out.

Figure 15- Litter can quickly accumulate in wilderness. Organized group deanups; the pack-it-in, pack-it-out program; and requesting the cooperation of users to pick up litter and haul out sacked gathag are examples of programs to control this problem. The photos show a during- and-after photo of a Sierra Club deanup effort in the Seiway-Bitterrooc Wilderness, Mont.

352 Water Pumps letting them know about alternatives. It is important to Hand operated water pumps are mentioned as get this information to the visitors before they enter the permissible facilities, "if necessary," in the National Park area so they can adjust plans. Violations are sure to be Service's Management Policies. However, the conditions more common if visitors learn of a closure only after they under which such facilities would be necessaryare not reach the campsite, probably weary and unsure of the described. Pumps apparently are rare in wilderness. This distance to the next site. might suggest that most managers view such major In New Hampshire, parts of a badly damaged site in permanent improvements as inconsistent with accept- Tuckerman Ravine,justoutsidethe Great Gulf ing wilderness largely on its own terms,a view we share. Wilderness, were fenced. This was a research study, (In at least one area, the Forest Service removeda pump rather than a management action (Fay 1975). The fence that existed before wilderness dassification.) It is true, of was only a single rope attached to metal fence posts. course, that in some areas, especially arid wilderness, Apparently, this symbolic fence was honored. Strings 12 water development (improved springs, a pipe from a to 15 inches high strung between stakes also successfully catch basin, wildlife "guzzlers," or pumps) could increase diverted users from revegetation sites at Image Lake in the carrying capacity for both people and wildlife. The the Glacier Park Wilderness and at Cascade Pass in same could be said for many types of development, but North Cascades National Park2. Similar methods might such modifications must always be carefully weighed be tried elsewhere, perhaps by stringing rope from against the wilderness quality of naturalness. A delicately existing trees around the site, along with posting signs adjusted natural ecosystem might become unbalanced. that the area is closed. For example, an artificial water source in an arid There are a range of possible restoration actions that wilderness could result in an increasean unnatural can accompany dosure: increasein deer, with resulting impacts on browse Restno other action. A site can be dosed to all species, which in turn could reduce the capacity of the use (or certain kinds of high-impact use, such as horse area to support other animals better able to survive with parties) for a time while nature, unaided, restores natural limited water. Predator populations might increase, and conditions. Unfortunately, damage can result from use theripplesof a smallalterationof the natural for only a short time (Frissell and Duncan 1965), but environment spread ever outward. In many ways, such restoration may be extremely slow (Merriamet al. 1973; environmental changes areanalogousto weather Willard and Marr 1971; Fay 1975).Becauseofthis,using modification in wilderness. rest alone to restore sites could mean that more sites would be resting than in use, and, certainly, that popular Site Restoration sites would be dosed and recovering far more of the time Restoration of acceptably natural conditionson than they would be open for use. campsites is a problem of major concern to wilderness Rest seedbedeparationnatural regeneration. managers. How much interference or manipulation by After dosure the soil can be hand cultivated to prepare a man isjustified in the attempt to restore natural receptive bed for native seeds and runners from plants in conditions? If the unnatural condition has resulted from the surrounding area. Some native plants spread mainly the impact of modern, man's actions, is further human by sprouting from roots, and they will not be helped by intervention acceptable to restorea more nearly natural this method if roots have been destroyed by use. Soil at condition? Even though most people probablyaccept heavily impacted sites around Image Lake in the Glacier this kind of intervention,some means are more readily Peak Wilderness in Washington was spaded. The accepted than others. manager feels it has been quite effective in furthering the Almost all actions to restore damaged campsites establishment of grass, shrub, and tree seedlings. involve temporary closure to provide rest andrecovery Restseedingplanting. The next step would be time for the area. This is easier said than done in to seed the impacted area, transplant plants, or do both. wilderness. It is usually impractical to havea ranger The objectives of wilderness would seem to dictate that present every day to enforce the dosure. The temptation to use a site marked as closed is great, and justifications or Mil1er, Joseph W., and Margaret M. Miller. 1973. Revegetation experiments in rationalizations are easy"a storm was buildingup and impacted subalpine plant communities at C scade Pass, North Cascades National Park 19 p. [Unpublished report prepared for the National Park Service. On file at no other site was within reach," or "it was getting dtirk Superintendents office, North Cascades National Park, Sedro Wooley, Wash.] and...," and so on. tSmith, Bernard A. 1976. Personal correspondence. USDA For. Serv., Darrington The most effective approach to dosure consists of Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Darrington, Wash. [On file at Forestry Sciences laboratory lnterrnountain Fotest and Range Experiment Station, helping visitors understand the reasons for dosures and Missoula, Mont.]

353 these seeds and plants be from locally occurring, native transplants near the site being revegetated. Native plants species. Over a period of several years, Miller and Miller4 could be propagated outside wildernessin plant have carried Out seeding-transplanting studies at Cascade nurseries, but as the Millers point out, this procedure Pass in North Cascades National Park Most transplants runs the danger of introducing nonnative weed species have survived in areas where visitors were excluded, but with transplants. only4 of 62 transplants and almost no seedlings survived Mulching with locally collected material has been used on a campsite used by just one party for a few days. Miller some places to condition soil and aid in survival of and Miller2 also conduded that seeding is possible only seedlings and transplants. on favorable locations, and even there it is extremely Fertilizing. Fertilizing alone might be used to slow in reestablishing a vegetation cover. Additional increase the vigor of remaining plants and hasten their research is needed to develop knowledge and techniques recovery, with or without rest. Fertilizermight be about how to carry out such horticultural practices under applied just once, to try to compensate for past impacts wilderness conditions. and get closer to some natural balance, or it might be Some managers have used readily available nonnative used repeatedly to increase the vegetation's ability to seeds of durable lawn grasses. Grass seeding with turf withstand use. Philosophically and ecologically, it is easier species probably isfairly effective in many places. to justify a one-shot application because continued use of However, a study of revegetation of a mine near the fertilizer could upset natural processes (by increasing border of the Beartooth Primitive Area, Mont., reported eutrophication of nearby waters, for example). Some feel higher plant densities on test plots seeded with native [hat nitrogen fertilizer alone would largely avoid this plants than introduced species (Brown and Johnston particular risk and still aid in vegetative recovery, but 1976). In contrast, in the Adirondack Mountains in New knowledge is lacking. One study (Beardsley and Wagar York (not part of the National Wilderness Preservation 1971) of a developed, road-access campground just System), seeding with red fescue and Kentucky bluegrass outsidethe Sawtooth Wilderness, conduded that (along with fertilizer) was quite successful in establishing fertilizer alone was ineffective. Without fencing, it was a vegetative cover (Ketchledge and Leonard 1971). After also ineffective in the White Mountains of New several years, native plants began to invade the sites Hampshire, but in fenced plots limited increases in plant again (Ketchledge and Leonard 1972). To us, this is an cover were produced in 2 years (Fay 1975). unacceptable practice in wilderness because of the impact Irrigation. Watering a dosed campsite might speed on naturalness. If the artificial seeding of nonindigenous recovery, but doing this under wilderness conditions plants is deemed necessary (after all other techniques would be difficult. If a gasoline engine pump were fail), we think this indicates that the physical carrying needed, it would constitute another nonconforming use. capacity of the site under natural, wilderness conditions Other methods for moving water, such as ditches, would has been exceeded and is reason for closing the area to be a defacement of the wilderness. However, the study by recreational use. Beardsley and Wagar (1971) did suggest that under the Transplanting native plants would probably speed up conditions in the Sawtooth area, water was the most recovery considerably, but it would be an expensive effective single agent contributing to plant recovery. practice (Brown and Johnston 1976). Furthermore, if transplants are collected in the wilderness, the impact is A combination of techniques. A site could be really only being shifted, not eliminated, although the allowed to rest along with seedbed preparation, planting, impact could be dispersed widely and made much less seeding, fertilizing, and watering, or any combination of conspicuous than the concentrated damage at the visitor- these. The Sawtooth study (Beardsley and Wagar 1971) use site. A great deal of transplanting has been done since found the greatest vegetative response was to a 1971 at Image Lake in the Glacier Peak Wilderness. The combination of seeding, watering, and fertilization, and managers condude thatithas been "reasonably recommended seeding and fertilizing if watering was not successful" in reestablishing vegetation but that there are possible. now "a great many plug holes around" where plants Eradication of nonnative plant species. In addition have been dug.3 Miller and Miller2 also express concern to dosure, more natural conditions might be sought by about theheavy,long-lastingimpact of digging trying to eliminate nonnative species often found at campsites, such as common dandelions which, following 4Miller, Joseph W., and Margaret Miller. 1975. Revegetation experiments on Cascade their introduction from Europe, have spread widely. This Pass, North Cascades National Park Sp. [Unpublished report prepared for the National could be very difficult, and reintroduction might occur, Park Service. On file at Superintendent's office, North Cascades National Park, Sedro Wooley, Wash.] especially if horses use the area. Hay carries weed seeds

354 (pelletized feed does not); horse manure also introduces guidelines for other areas are not now available, but seeds that are still viable. further study in a variety of environments seems Siterestorationisone challenge to wilderness warranted to develop them. managers that might tempt them to compromise the Where trail construction would have detrimental naturalness of wilderness. We think the introduction of impacts on the wilderness resource (because it produced nonindigenous species is never justified. We also ask serious erosion, for example, or brought too many managers to consider if carrying capacity has been visitors into critical wildlife habitat) and where an exceeded before more than a one-shot fertilization alternate location is not possible, trails should not be application is used to accelerate site restoration. Other, built. Such areas can be used for light cross-country traveL more extensive actionsseedhed preparation, seeding, planting, irrigatingneed to be considered cautiously. Trail Standards Their effectiveness and impacts are poorly understood at Trail-design standards specify tread width, grade or this time, and the advantages and disadvantages are slope, alinement, tread surface material, drainage, width difficult to compare. of trailside vegetation deared, extent of dearance of down trees or other obstructions, signs, and types and locations of bridges. Visitor surveys have indicated little Traik support for high-standard trails, but strong support for Trails are the main travel arteries in wilderness low-standard trails. Our discussions with wilderness studies show only about 15 to 20 percent of visitors travel managers indicate that this is the direction many are off trails at all in most areas, and then usually only for taking. We think this is a good sign because, in many short distances (Lucas 1978). But for these cross-country cases, wilderness trails have been built to excessively high hikers the solitude afforded by such opportunities is standards. extremely important. River use usually does not depend The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2323.1 ic and on trails, but in lake canoeing areas, portage trails are 7730.31) now calls for a maximum trail width of 24 short but vital connecting links between lakes and inches and trail locations that follow the natural contours navigable stretches of rivers. Trails also are used for of the land as much as possible and result in minimum wilderness administration. disturbance of soil and vegetation. Trails should appear The dependence of most travel on trails means that to be a part of the country rather than an intrusion on it. trails can be a powerful tool for directing use patterns and Bridges "will be provided only: a. When no other route for influencing the kind of experiences visitors receive. or crossing is reasonably available. b. Where the crossing Unfortunately, very few wilderness trails were built with during the primary season of public use: (1) cannot be either recreation or wilderness protection in mind (Liics safely negotiated afoot (2) cannot be safely forded by and Rinehart 1976). Almost all trails were built in the horses; b. where less formal devices are frequently 1920's and 1930's as an administrative transportation destroyed or damaged by flood waters; c. where essential system, especially in National Forest, but also in National for administrative purposes." Parks. Fire control was their main use; they were built for National Park Service management guidelines state horse and mule traffic to lookouts and fires. A few were simply that "narrow, unpaved foot and horse trails are built to facilitate prospecting, mining, or grazing of permissible." More detailedguidelinesarebeing National Forest lands. prepared. A wilderness trail policy is needed in all Redesign and relocation could substantially increase agencies, but the policy should allow for flexibility. The the recreational value of many of these trails and help objective should be to provide a range of travel reduce resource impacts. Some types of land are more opportunities in wilderness including full-standard trails vulnerable to damage from trail construction and use that meet minimum requirements for both horse and than others. For example, it seems important to route hiker use, some trails suitable for hikers only, and trails around wet meadows and away from lakeshores. minimally marked man ways or way trails, and Many factorsslope, parent material, soil, type of unmarked cross-country routes. However, excessively geologic land-forming process, vegetation, exposure, developed trails have no place in wilderness (Shaine elevation, and climatecan influence trail durability. 1972). This was true in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in A special question of appropriate trail standards arises Idaho where trails in some land types began eroding at where a National Scenic Trail, such as the Appalachian very gentle grades, while even steep trails eroded little in Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail established by Congress othertypes of locations (Helgath 1975). General (P.L 90-543), crosses a wilderness. Outside wilderness,

355 National Scenic Trails usually are built to a higher wilderness.Challenge ispartofa wilderness standard and intended for heavier use than are experiencechallenge is mentioned specifically in the wilderness trails. In some places, the problem can be 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act and implied in the 1964 avoided by locating the National Scenic Trail so it Actbut how much challenge? Large rivers cannot be bypasses the wilderness. The National Trails System Act forded by hikers and sometimes cannot be crossed safely states that "development and management of each by horses. Should hikers have to swim, perhaps using an segment of the National Trails System shall be designed air mattress to help float a pack? There are places, in to harmonize with and complement any established Alaska, for example, where that is just what travelers multiple-use plans for that specific area .....That must do. Probably most people wouldfavor bridges in provision seems to us to assign priority to wilderness these cases. Agency policies do, and almost all surveyed management objectives, but the question will need to be visitors do. However, in some cases, a possible alternate resolved in the future. route could make a bridge not essential.Wilderness use The need for trail surfacing with crushed rock or patterns can be modified substantially by provisionof curduroy (log surfacing of trails), and elaborate drainage bridges over large streams or by their absence. Use can be devices, can often be reduced or avoided by trail reduced and delayed until later in the summer in relocation In some terrain, soil moisture and drainage mountains where snowrnelt runoff is heavy in early -conditions that cannot be avoided pose a choice between summer. Depending on the situation andthe manage- quagmires or surfacing or even bridging if that particular ment objectives, use of bridges may or may notbe area is to be served by a trail. Although trail bridges and desirable. surfacing are permanent improvements and probably Where streams are small, and the worst that can show a "substantially noticeable imprint of man's work," happen to a hiker is wet feet, most managers and most wide, deep mudholes caused by man's travel over an visitors do not favor bridges, although many have been inadequately surfaced trail can be even more noticeable. built in such locations. The same is true to a more limited extent for bridges. Fords or, for small streams, stepping stones can Bridges range from elaborate suspension structures sometimes be found and a trail directed to them. that a string of padchorses can easily cross to a log felled while the horses Trails are necessary to allow reasonable recreation use across a creek that hikers can inch across ford the stream. A log flattened on tdp, perhaps with a of wilderness, but their development should be guided by the minimum standards needed to meet use objectives handrail for balance on one side, is a popular, simple and minimize threats to the naturalness and solitude of hiker bridge. Our view is that bridges, like trails, should wilderness. be built to the minimum standard that will meet wilderness use objectives. We think wet feet are not an Bi*lges unreasonable expectation for wilderness recreationists, Bridges pose a difficult management problem. In but we share the view of many managers and visitors wilderness,structuresareto be minimized, but that a bridge should be provided if safety, rather than wet recreational use and enjoyment is one purpose of feet, is the real issue.

Figure 15-7.Wilderness management may require the use of primitive work and travel skills. Aiso,there are important cultural values in the preservation of these skills. Left: moving through a western wilderness with a loaded packstring;right: working with crosscut saw and ada.

356 Signs Colorado, 30 percent of the visitors had a guidebook that Several kinds of signs are possible in wilderness: (1) had been published only the previous winter (Schomak- directional, (2) informational, (3) interpretive, and (4) er 1975). regulatory. They are used to different degrees by the ReguIato'y signs are essential in some cases to various Agencies, and there is also some variation within inform visitors of dosed campsites, restrictions on Agencies. Signs are a conspicuous mark ofman and thus certain types of use, fire restrictions, wilderness permit potentially in conflict with wilderness values. Visitor requirements, andsoforth.Signs marking the surveys in Washington and Oregon (Hendee et aL 1968) wilderness boundary serve to inform people where legal indicate general support for fairly simple, wooden restrictions apply. However, regulatory signs should be directional signs, but limited support for informational used only where and when necessary to meet visitor or interpretivesigns. About half thevisitorsto management objectivesthey are a too conspicuous wildernesses in the northern Rockies (Lucas 1978) reminder of civilization. In most cases, regulatory signs favored interpretive signs. can be at or near trailheads. In particular, we deplore fire prevention signs nailed to the trees in some areas we I. Directional signs givetraildestinations, and have visited. To us, they seem superfluous, conspicuous sometimes mileages, usually at trailbeads and junctions. reminders of civilization with its flood of advertising. Somedirectionalsignsmight benecessaryfor They seem out of place in wilderness and are probably recreational use, but accurate wilderness maps would ineffective anyway. Again, maps and informational reduce or eliminate this need. "Maps before signs" isa brochures could greatly reduce the need for signs. manager's operating rule we favor. The trend seems to be provision of a minima! number of directional signsat Trail Maintenance important or confusing trail junctions with thename of Maintenance is a major job with trails. They require the major destinations to which the trails lead but often much more time and attention than campsites. In most without distances indicated. Among wildernessmanag- areas, the biggest trail maintenance job is cutting out and ers there seem to be a growing consensus that to removing trees that fall across the trail. On some main preserve wilderness challenge and a sense of adventure trails, maintenance can be an almost continual operation and exploration, detailed directional signs and mileage where very few logs ever block trails for long. Other trails markers should be eliminated We endorse this thinking. might be cleared only once every few years. In some As withall other wilderness management tools, signs wildernesses, policy has shifted toward less intensive tiail must be related to specific management objectives for maintenance in order to offer challenges and restrict the the area. The fewest signs necessary tomeet these amount and kind of use. objectives is all that seems justified in wilderness. Hikers can usually cope with log-blocked trails Informational signs give functional informationto without great difficulty by crawling under, dimbing over, usersfor example, the location of camps, toilets, and or walking around the obstruction. Horses usually have water, or warning of unsafe water. Very few, if any, of more trouble; riders must often stop, get out a crosscut these signs are needed, and we encouragemanagers to saw or axe, and cut the log out or, if possible, detour carefully evaluate their necessity. around the obstacle. Some consider this all part of the Interpretive signs explain natural features and adventure, others view it as an intolerable inconvenience. nistorical sites. To us, they seem inappropriate in Surveys suggest most visitors will accept at least a few wilderness because other informational tools, suchas trees across trails. However, detours around some down maps, brochures, or guidebooks can accomplish the same logs can cause serious erosion and damage vegetation, things. Interpretive signs are not essentialto manage for especially if horses scramble up and down steep banks. wilderness purposes, and they are a conspicuous mark of This adverse effect must be considered in management man. decisions. Many wildernesses have had books prepared about Trail crews also prune back encroaching branches; their natural and historic qualities as well as publications dear large rocks out of the trail; repair erosion damage; giving information on trails, campsites, and attractions. and install or maintain bridges, ditches, drains, culverts, One study indicated that 100 percent of the visitors to the and water bars. Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington were interested Drainage is critical in controlling trail damage. A in an interpretive wilderness guidebook and 40percent poorly layed out trail can become a manmade drainage said they would pay as much as $2 for sucha book ditch when snow melts or after heavy rains. Water bars (Butterworth 1970). In the Rawah Wilderness in are a common device used in dealing with drainage

357 maintained with handtools for decades; but by the time the Wilderness Act became law in 1964, the chain saw had largely replaced handsaws. The Wilderness Act prohibited mechanical equipment except "to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act." Different Agencies and managers have drawn the line on chain saw use differently. In general, routine use of chain saws for maintenance has ended. Only when the job is unusually difficult or virtually impossible because of the size or number of trees are chain saws allowed, and then usually only with special approval from higher levels in the Agency. Some sketchy data suggest that the cost advantage is not always in the chain saw's favor, and perhaps some trail maintenance can be done as cheaply with handtools. The same controversy also involves some other power equipment such as very small bulldozers, gasoline- engine-powered rock drills for blasting, and portable rock crushers for surfacing trails which have been developed recently (USDA F'S 1975). Figure 15-8Trail construction and location is extremely important Early day handtools and horsedrawn ecpiipment are if the kind of erosion and impact shown here are to be avoided. still commonly used, but the gradual loss of oldtimers who had experience in operating and maintaining tools such as crosscut saws has limited their use (Oltman problems. Water bars are logs, boards, timbers, or rocks 1972). Some of these tools are simply no longer installed across a trail, usually on an angle and sloping produced, disappearing along with button shoes. out, that are intended to divert running water off the However, recent tests using handtools by specially trail. In effect, they are miniature diversion dams. But, trained, two-man maintenance crews have proven quite unless carefully installed to encourage rapid flow of successful (Oltman 1975). water, they often are buried in the sediment deposited The General Accounting Office (1970) investigated behind them and cease to function Unless securely the administrative use of motorized equipment in anchored, they also can be dislodged, particularly by wilderness and reported to Congress that cost cutting in horses. If not spaced dosely enough or located properly, wilderness management using labor-saving technology so much water can build up by the time the flow reaches would be possible. They also recommended Congress the water bar that it cannot be handled and overflows the providefurther guidance concerningthe use of bar. motorized equipment for administrative purposes in Often a trail dips and rises enough to divert running wilderness. The silence of Congress in response to this water before it can build up to destructive levels. This is report seems to indicate rejection of cost efficiency as a sometimes called a rolling grade, and should be sought in major criterion in wilderness management. The use of locating new trails. mechanized equipment in new trail construction is more In some areas, fiberglass liners buried beneath the trail easily justified than it is for trail maintenance (except in tread have been advocated as a way of permitting the special circumstances such as removal of very large trees, natural flow of water through boggy areas without or of numerous trees, such as can result from avalanches leading to erosion, water pollution, or vegetative damage or windstorms). When used for trail construction, (Dailey 1975). This engineering approach seems to us to however, such modern power machinery is not only an be less appropriate than improved trail design and intrusion, but also can produce higher standard trails relocation than are needed. Our viewisthat the less such The use of mechanized equipmentin particular, technology is used, the better. chain saw instead of handsawfor constructing and The old, traditional western trail crews rode horses maintaining trails is a hot issue. Most miles of existing and transported equipment on packhorses. In some trails were built more than a generation ago and places in recent years, backpacker crews have replaced

358 horse crews. Backpackers have less adverse impact on believe that most wilderness visitors want more than wilderness resources than crews with pack strings and this. Minimum facilities can enable people to enjoy can camp in many more places, often doser to the place wilderness as wilderness, but we must stress the "as where the work needs to be done. Using lightweight wilderness" qualification. Sensitivity to wilderness values, backpacking equipment, crews stay out and work trails careful planning, and restraint: All are necessary if for stretches of 5 days or longer (Oltman 1975). Trail wilderness is to be protected by site management rather work does need to be done in wilderness, and crews are than changed to something other than wilderness. As requireck Again, our view is that the method selected was pointed out at the end of chapter 14, if some areas should be the one with the least impact that will meet are not managed for roadless recreationbackcountry, management objectives. sernlwilderness, intermediate, whatever they may be calledthen at least some wilderness must be more developed and more heavily used, and the distinctive Site Management Balancing Act wilderness values of naturalness and solitude could be Wilderness site management calls for some of a diminished. tightrope walker's sense of balance. Our view is that only the minimum facilities needed to meet management Among the co-authors, the author primarily responsible for preparation of this chapter objectives are justified in wilderness, and we do not was Robert C. Lucas.

Literature Cited Beardsley, Wendell G., and J. Alan Wagar. equipment in wilderness and similar areas. Department of 1971. Vegetation management of a forested recreation sire.J. For. Agriculture, Department ofInterior.B-125053. 44p. 69(10):728-731. Washington, D.C. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller Brown, Ray W., and Robert S. Johnston General of the United States. 1976. Revegetation of an alpine mine disturbance: Beartooth Helgath, Sheila F. Plateau, Montana. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-206, 8p. 1975. Trail deterioration in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. USDA For. Serv., Res. Note INT- 193, 15 p. Intermt. For. and Brown, Perty J., and John H. Schomaker. Range Exp. Stn, Ogden, Utah. 1974 Final report on criteria for potential wilderness campsites. Hendee, John C., William R. Carton, Jr., Lsrty D. Marlow, and C Conducted through theInstitutefor Study of Outdoor Frank Brockman Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Supplement 1968.WildernessusersinthePacific Northwesttheir No. 32 to 12-11-204-3, unpublished, 50 p. characteristics, values, and management preferences. USDA Butterworth, Stephan. For. Serv., Res. Pap. PNW-61, 92 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 1970. Development of model guidebooks for Glacier Park Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oreg. Wilderness. Master'sthesis, College of Forest Resources, Hendee, John C., Roger N. Clarlç and Thomas Dailey. University of Washington, Seattle, 70 p. 1974 Fishing and other recreation behavior at high lakes: some Dailey, Tom, and Dave Redman management implications. 25 p., mimeo. Presentation to 1975. Guidelines for roadless area campsite spacing to minimize American Fisheries Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, Sept. 8. impact of human-related noises. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Hendee, John C, Roger N Clark, Mack Hogans, Dan Wood, and Rep. PNW-35, 2Op. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sm, Russ Koch, Portland, Oreg. 1976. Code-A-Site: a system for inventory of dispersed recreational Dale, D., and T. Weaver. sites in roaded areas, backcountiy, and wilderness. USDA For. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-209, 33 p. Pac. Northwest For, and northern Rocky Mountain forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 11(2):767-772. Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oreg. Dailey, Durray. Ketchledge, ER, and RE. Leonard. 1975. Bridging the wet spots. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Eng. Field 1971. Progress report: high peak erosion studies. Adirondack Notes 7(10):6-9. Peeks 8(2):8-10. Fay, Stephan Ketchledge, E.H., and R.E. Leonard. 1975. Ground-cover vegetation management at backcouririy 1972. Progress report: high peak erosion studies Adirondack recreation sites. USDA For. Serv., Res. Note NE-201, 5p. Peeks 9(1):12-13. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn, Upper Darby, Pa. Lee, Robert G. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr., and Donald P. Duncan 1975. The management of human components in the Yosemite 1965. CampsitepreferenceanddeteriorationJ.For. National Park ecosystem. 134 p. The Yosemite Institute, 63(4):256-260. Yosemite, Calif. General Accounting Office. Lime, David W. 1970. Problems related to restricting the use of motorized 1971. Factors influencing campground use in the Superior

359 National Forest of Minnesota USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. Sanks, R, and KL Temple. NC-60, 18 p. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Mimi. 1975. Final report on liquid and solid waste disposal in US. forest Lucas, Robert C. lands. Report to Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sm. FS-INT 1978. The characteristics of visitors to wilderness and related areas Grant No. 7, 72 p. Montana State University, Bozeman. in the Northern Rockies and California Sierras. USDA For. Schomaker, John H. Serv., Res. Pap. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sm. (In press.) 1975. Effect of selected information on dispersal of wilderness Lucas, Robert C, and Robert Rinehart. recreationists. PhD. thesis, College of Forestry and Natural 1976. The neglected hiker. Backpacker 4(1):35-39. Resources, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, 95 p. MacFeters, Gordon A. Shame, Ben. 1975. Final report to the Park Service, Grand Teton National Parlç 1972. Trails in wilderness. The Wild Cascades,June-July, p.12-24. on microbial studies of a high alpine water supply used for recreation. Research Contract No. CX 12004 B025, 26 p., Stankey, George H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. mimeo. Montana State University, Bozeman. USDA For. Set-v., Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p. Intermt. For. and Merriam, LC, Jr., CX. Smith, DLE. Miller, Ching taio Huang, J.0 Tappeiner II, Kent Goeckermann, J.A. Bloemendal, and T.M. Range Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah. Costello. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973. Newly developed campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe 1975. Surfacing forest trails with crushed rock. Equip. Dev. and Area: a study of five years use. Z7p. Sm. Bull. 511,For. Series 14. Test Rep. No. 7700-5,13 p. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Equip. Agric. Exp. Sm., University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Dev. Cen., Missoula, Mont. Miller, Bob. Walker, Richard. 1973. Suggestions for using horses in the mountain country. 13 p. 1968. Photography as an aid to wilderness resource inventory and Animal and Range Sciences Dept., Montana State University, analysis. Professional paper submitted for MS. degree, Colorado Bozeman. State University, Fort Collins. 114 p. O1tman Jerry L Weaver, T., and D. Dale. 1972. Practices and problems in trail maintenance and construc- 1977. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcydes, or horses in tion. 81 p. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Equip. Dev. Center, meadows and forests. 12 p. J. App. Ecol. (In press.) Missoula, Mont. Oltman, Jerry L Willard, Beatrice E., and John W. Man. 1975. An evaluation: two-man backpacking crews for trail 1971. Recovery of alpine tundra under protection after damage by maintenance. 48p. US. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Equip. Dev. human activities in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. BioL Center, Missoula, Mont. Conserv. 3(3):181-190.

360 Perhaps one of the most important issues confronting wilderness managers is to insure that in their efforts to protect the wilderness resource, the freedom and spontaneity that characterizes the wilderness experience is not lost in a myriad of regulations and rules. Respect for visitors and restraint in the issuance of controls should govern management actions.

362 16The Future: Issues And Challenges In Wilderness Management

Controlling Impacts of Recreational Use 363 Alternatives toWild to Ease Use Pressures 372 Restraint in regulating wilderness use 363 Integrating Wilderness in the East into the NWPS 373 Respect for visitor freedom 364 Restoring Fire to Natural Levels in Wilderness 374 Equity in the imposition of regulations 364 Congressional Appropriations for Wilderness Manage- Improving Wilderness Administration 364 ment 374 Increasing Relevant Research 369 Condusion 375 Wilderness behavior research 369 Literature Cited 376 Wilderness resource research 371

In this final chapter, we review some of the major will require some restriction on recreation useat least topics, controversies, problems, and challenges we at certain times in particular locations within individual believeareparticularlyimportanttowilderness wilderness areas. This reality is recognized and accepted management, now and in the future. These topics by most managers and users; restrictions on visitor indude: (1) Controlling impacts of recreational use, (2) numbers and behavior are already in force in a few improving wilderness administration, (3) increasing wildernesses. relevant research, (4) providing alternatives to wilder- Techniques of visitor and site management have been ness, (5) integrating wilderness in the East into the discussed in chapters 14 and 15 following previous NWPS, (6) restoring fire to natural levels, and (7) material describing philosophical considerations (chap- securing adequate appropriations. ter1), legal constraints and mandates (chapter 4), proposed principles(chapter7),and a planning framework for implementing management actions Contmlling Impacts of Recreational Use (chapter 8). Our purpose here is to emphasize three Controlling the impacts of wilderness usesocial- points that we feel are essential to successful efforts to psychological and physical-biologicalis necessary to control user impacts: (1) Restraint in regulating use; (2) preserve the elements of solitude and naturalness respect for visitor freedom; and (3) equity in any use required under the Wilderness Act. The terms of the Act regulations imposed. aresubjecttodifferinginterpretationsalthough consistency of judgments is improving as Departmental Restraint in Regulating Wilderness Use Regulations,agencypolicy,andphilosophyare Because the regulation of visitor use is one of the most tempered with field experience. But the Act does not politicallyvolatilewildernessmanagementtasks, provide precise criteriafor defining or measuring restraintisneeded to make sure only necessary naturalness and solitude, the distinguishing wilderness restrictions are imposed. We believe that all wilderness characteristics managers are called upon to preserveat managementinduding visitor uscshould be gov- standards they must themselves determine. Nonethe- erned by the criteria of necessity and minimum less, the challenge to preserve these distinguishing regimentation. All actions should be necessary to meet wilderness qualities is fundamental There is no question area objectives, and clearly set forth in area management that meeting these legally required goals for classified plans that are developed with public review and areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System participation to test their acceptability. The actions

363 should entail the least possible regimentation that will variety of use-management techniques to distribute accomplish the desired end. impacts among various user groups. As a general rule, use impacts should first be handled Wilderness visitors have already been labeled as a where and when they occur before wilderness-wide privileged group by virtue of their typically high socio- restrictions are imposed. And, when widespread use economic standing (although as we point out in chapter restrictions are needed to meet area objectives, only the 13, this stereotype is not completely true). The ideaof a minimum essential regulation should be applieUse "police state wilderness system locked up for an elitist rationingthe direct restriction of entryshould be a minority," however mythical, could become a focal point lastresort.Yet, even when other strategiesare for anti-wilderness sentiment and help defeat essential conscientiously applied, visitor restrictions are nonethe- management programs. To minimize this possibility, less present and direct regulation will sometimes be wilderness managers need to be guided by sensitivity and necessary. Public acceptance and support for all visitor restraint in their efforts to regulate use. Regulations controls may depend on management's prior restraint should be employed only when they are dearly necessary, and its record of adhering to criteria of necessity and they produce minimal interference with visitor freedom, minimum regimentation in imposing use restrictions. and they are equitable in spreading impacts among various groups of users. Respect for Visitor Freedom The spectre of government control implicit in the regulation of wilderness visitation has threatening Improving Wilderness Administration overtonesin oursociety. Most people, including Wildernessisa favored personal,as well as wilderness users as well as many managers, don't like the professional, interest of many resource managers in the notion of government restrictions, particularly when Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife they restrict visitation to a category of public land that has Service, and Bureau of Land Management. All these been set aside in part to represent the antithesis of urban Agencies are making progress in developing manage- environments and their omnipresent controls on human ment programsfortheclassifiedand proposed activity. basictothe Freedom-related valuesare wilderness under their jurisdiction. However, there is wilderness systemsymbolically for the millions of much to be done. vicarious users and as an integral part of the wilderness philosophies,current experienceforvisitors.Respect for thesevalues Wildernessmanagement underscores the necessity of applying only the minimum, management capability, and interest vary not only them as necessary regimentation whenever use restrictions are among the four managing Agencies but within needed to control visitor impacts. well. This is to be expected in any new endeavor. Wilderness management is a very young speciality as Equity in the Imposition of Regulations Nash illustrated in chapter 2. It was not until 1964 that A recent blue ribbon commission identified the need legislation dearly defined wilderness and mandated a for an equitable system of rationing use of wilderness as framework for its management. The next several years one of the major forest policy issues facing the country were devoted to interpreting the Act anddeveloping (President'sAdvisory Panel on Timber and the regulations and guidelines. In addition, most of the first Environment1973). Evenifapplied only when Agencies'wilderness-related energies were at necessary and with minimum regimentation, there must devoted to the dassification processcarrying Out be the greatest possible equity in restrictions on use. reviews mandated by the Act and developing proposals Visitor management techniques vary in their impact on and recommendations to Congress for dassification of different categories of users, e.g., day users, overnight individual wildernesses. This continues to be a major campers staying one or two nights, organized groups, activity by all the Agencies although they are increasingly large parties, and small groups. Impacts of restrictions focusing on management of classified and proposed must be carefully considered in order to assess their areas to see that their wildernesscharacteristics are effects on various kinds of users and minimize any retained. systematic discrimination Many techniques can be In this decade wilderness management has emerged applied to manage use, but their effects on different user as a serious resource speciality. This new erais marked by groups vary (see chapter 14; Behan 1976; and Stankey severaltrends:The establishmentofwilderness and Baden 1977). On a broad scale, equity in the impacts management classes at several universities around the of restricting use may be achieved by applying a wide country; an increasing number of scholarly journal

364 Figure 16-1.The future quality of wilderness, both in terms of naturalness and as a setting for a special kind of recreational exr)erience, depends on management decisions made today. Left, Bridger Wilderness;right,Boundaiy Waters Canoe Area. artides on the topic; acceleration of relevant research; Wilderness Preservation System that is truly national more seasonal wilderness patrolmen hired under Improved wilderness administration will be a major increasinglyspecificjobdescriptions,qualification factor in safeguarding the investments of human effort requirements, and performance standards; establish- and natural resources represented by dassified wilder- ment of some professional wilderness management ness. Unfortunately, it is impossible to develop a formula positions within the agencies; increased concern for or point to any one thing that might insure meeting this wilderness in overall land-use planning processes; and challenge. What is involved is an entire system of preparation of wilderness management plans for management. individual areas. There is another trend that is perhaps Infigure16-2 we identify11 elements of a even more noteworthy: The increasing number of comprehensive wilderness administration system. These National, regional, and local meetings and conferences elements are concerned with actions of the management bringing together resource professionals to discuss agencies, relevant educational and research institutions, wilderness management problems and needs. As and the affected public All exist now to valying degrees mentioned in the preface, it was such a meeting in 1973 and mentioning them here does not mean to disparage that led us to prepare this text. It is significant thatmany current efforts. What is needed is their strengthening of these conferences indude participants from more than and integration Wilderness administration can be no one Federal Agency. It is our impression that such stronger than its weakest essential element, and across- meetings are becoming more professionaltopics and the-board efforts are needed to improve all of them. In discussion reflect management concerns that transcend particular, skillful administration is needed to knit all the individual agency policies and focus instead ona search elements together into a true wilderness management for optimum ways to preserve the wilderness resource system in each agency and to secure coordination and regardless of agency jurisdiction cooperation among the agencies and the public toward The future quality of the National Wilderness the common goal of preserving an NWPS that is truly Preservation System depends on continued professional national. Following is a brief review of the elements, growth inwilderness asa resource management their importance, and their interrelationships. speciality. This professional challenge is matched by the 1. Agency philosophy and National guidelines for administrative challenge of managing a far-flung system interpretingthe Wilderness Act,that give dear of areas with wide-ranging social and physical conditions management direction and constraints, are needed to while coordinating agency actions to provide a National guide development of management field programs. The

365 Agency philosophy and National guidelines giving clear management constraints 10 and direction. Public education to foster understanding of Wilderness-- 2 public involvement to strengthen management direction. Coordination between public agencies.

9 3 Research to develop basic knowledge Integration of Wilderness and solve Wilderness management problems. COMPREHENSIVE in agency land-use planning. WILDERNESS 8 MANAGEMENT 4 Professional training of Management plans for individual Wilderness management personnel-- Wildernesses that establish clear university courses; inservice, objectives as criteria for interagency, and citizen conferences. management actions.

7 5 Inspection and evaluation of management efforts Career ladders rewarding Wilderness management for accountability to management objectives expertise and providing other agency officials and feedback for: revision of managementplans. opportunities to learn about Wilderness.

6 Highly qualified, seasonal wilderness rangers.

Figure 16-2.Elements of a comprehensive administration system for the National Wilderness Preservation System. first decade following passage of the Wilderness Act was particularly where contiguous or nearby wilderness are a time of policy development for the agencies; the under different jurisdictions or where the management resulting management direction is now coming into of adjacent nonwilderness lands creates wilderness sharper and more consistent focus in agency manuals, impacts. Coordination and cooperation is emerging in field applications, and manager statements of policy and the form of joint wilderness use permits for adjoining philosophy. The current situation reflects an important areas under different jurisdiction, interagencyconferen- evaluation of early efforts, of trial and error. Careful ces, planning, and joint wilderness training programs to scrutiny of emerging management philosophy permits name a examples. both specialists and laymen to appraise the consequences 3. Integration of wilderness into agency land-use of NWPS classification, the kind of management actions planning is essential to coordinated management with- thereby indicated, and thus the consequences for the in the broader framework of the National Forest, affectedresources and people (see chapter 1for National Park, Wildlife Refuge, and BLM systems discussion of the importance of philosophy to manage- withinwhichallwildernessexists.Progressis ment). encouraging. All the agencies have developed and are 2. Coordination among agencies managing wilder- improving wilderness management planning proce- ness is improving but must be strengthened to help knit dures that are linked to their overall land-use planning the far-flung network of individual areas into a truly processes (see chapter 8). But land-useplanning is also a National System. Certainly there will be interagency relatively new andevolving process. Wilderness differencesin emphasisthatreflectvariation in management planning is challenged to keep abreastof viewpoints, overriding legislation, and local differences the evolution in land-use planning philosophies and in physical and social conditions. For example, hunting is methodologies so the most effective techniques can be prohibited in National Park wilderness but is allowed in applied to wilderness, and the resulting plans properly most wilderness managed by other agencies. Such coordinated with other land uses. diversity can be healthy. The need is for interagency Preallocation studies of areas proposed for wilderness communication and coordination to minimize problems dassification have important ramifications for overall of conflicting wilderness management approaches, land-useplanning. Whilecia. sificationissuesare

366 different from management issues in that they are management, such as those involving the interdepend- inherently political (see chapter 1), we think potential ency of wilderness with other land uses. We think it is management problems that may result from dassifica- necessary that a ladder of increasingly responsible tion decisions should be surfaced for consideration in wilderness management jobs be established within the land use studies. One way of doing this would be to agencies so expertise can be rewarded, but we think other indude wilderness management feasibility and potential resource management experience is also necessary to problems as one of the criteria for evaluating proposed properly develop individuals for wilderness- land-use alternatives in any wilderness study. Wilderness management leadership. Wilderness management does preservation will not be furthered by the dassification of not operate in a vacuum, independent of other resource areas that cannot be feasibly managed to meet wilderness concerns, and the selection and training of managers standards or by those that will command a dispropor- must reflect this interdependence. Effective wilderness tionate share of management manpower and money at management will require the integration of ideas, the expense of the rest of the NWPS. experiences, and perspectives from many interrelated resource and administrative specialities. Furthermore, in Management plans for individual wildernesses are recognition of the fact that wilderness management in all needed to establish dear objectives to guide management the agencies takes place within a broader resource and actions. Chapter 8 is devoted to wilderness-management administrative framework, it planningits importance and some suggestions on how is desirable that some to do it. Here we wish only to emphasize that wilderness- wilderness management jobs be available as stepping management plans are the vehides through which stonesto and from other resource management national direction is translated into objectives to be careersespecially for talented managers who will achievedthrough management policies and actions ultimately rise to broad leadership positions. Highly qualified seasonal rankers are needed since in individual wildernesses. We believe the key to better they are the first line of contact between agency plans is more dearly stated objectives that describe management, the wilderness resource, and its users. conditionsto be maintained or restored through Wilderness ranger (or patrolman, if you like) jobs are management. Such objectives are difficult to write and highly prized by college students, teachers, and resource should be derived with public participation if they are to management graduates unable to find professional, become accepted targets of management. However, once career employment intheirchosenfield. Some dearly stated, these objectives are the most important wilderness ranger positions can have 50 to 100 criteria for deciding what management actions will be applicantsunder the merit employment systems necessary,for subsequently judging the degree of governing Federal summer jobs. In some locations, management's success, and for determining needed agency managers have established volunteer positions changes in policies and actions. Wilderness management calling for wilderness patrolman duties without salary to can be no more effective than the direction charted in its expand the number of persons available to administer a underlying planning process. wilderness. The number of applicants typically vying for Career ladders are needed that reward wilderness- wilderness ranger-patrolman positions allows managers management expertise and also provide management to set high standards for qualification and performance officials headed for broader responsibility the opportuni- (see chapter 14). Managers should make the most of this ty to learn about wilderness. But the issue of providing opportunity, bearing in mind that wilderness manage- job opportunities in wilderness management and the ment to dateisessentially people management; assignment of personnel to jobswith increasing therefore, social skills as well as personal interest and responsibility is complex. resource knowledge should rate high on the list of The challenge is to create legitimate wilderness- desirable qualifications. management job opportunities at a variety of levels. In Evaluation of wilderness management efforts is general, a sequential ladder of positions might proceed necessarytoprovideaccountabilityforachieving from seasonal ranger to year-round management objectives and the feedback necessary for improvement coordinator, wilderness management planner, area or change. Each of the agencies operates under a system manager, and so forth to regional and national office staff ofinternal and external management evaluation responsibilities for wilderness. However, if only these through their planning processes. To provide necessary sequential jobs are featured in a professional's ccreer feedbackbothpositiveand negativewilderness ladder it could lead to a degree of specialization in management, in general, and in individual areas, should wilderness that could slight the broader aspects of be a focus for periodic inspection and evaluation-

367 review that utilizes data whenever available from provide a valuable pool of educational and research resource and use inventories and monitoring systems. specialists for teaching at training sessions. Interagency The rapid turnover of personnel makes it especially training conferences are particularly valuable because at important that lessons from experience are not lost. these forums a wide range of alternative viewpoints can Constructivelessonscan belearned from close surface, and professional discussions of wilderness examination of successes and failures; inspection and management issues that transcend agency differences evaluation are essential to any management system. We can take place. Some good wilderness conferences have favor an increased emphasis on jhe evaluation of been sponsored by citizen groups, but to date most of wilderness management to identify successes and failures these have focused on classification of additional areas. and, more importantly, the reasons for them. Ideally, As the attention of environmentalists increasingly such inspections and evaluation should be both internal encompasses managment issues, their conferences can and external. Other agencies and the affected public can become an additional valuable source of education for provide valuable input and stimulate an educational flow wilderness managers; and an opportunity for two-way of information about wilderness problems, achieve- communication between managers and affected citizens. ments, and the management policies and actions Research to develop basic knowledge and suggest associated with them. solutions to wilderness management problems is an Systematic collection of resource and use informa- essential element of improved management. Some of tion is basic to intelligent wilderness management the most advanced applications of wilderness manage- decisionmaking. Without a reliable data base feasible ment techniques have been derived from research. management objectives cannot be devised nor can Additional study, in close communication and coopera- management be accurately evaluated to see if objectives tion with management, is the most efficient way to are being obtained or if new direction is needed. develop the knowledge and techniques necessary to meet Resource and use information is thus an essential wilderness management objectives. In the next section element to implementing wilderness management and we provide some suggestions about what kind of as feedback to the system. Planning for the use of data research we think is required. Here we suggest only that needed to provide these inventory and monitoring research is a major key to developing the new knowledge functions are illustrated in chapter 8, and the kinds of necessary to advancing the state of the art in wilderness data required and available collection techniques are management. A coordinated program of wilderness- covered in subsequent chapters. The information that related research involving agencies, universities, and can be useful includes: The amount and kinds of research-endowment foundations must be an integrated wildernessrecreationuse; campsite locations and part of the overall management system. impacts; vegetation cover types and associated succes- sional processes evidenced by fire, insect, and disease; Public education and involvement to foster wildlife populations and their distributions; trail mileage understanding and support of wilderness are essential to and condition; existing facilities; nonrecreational uses improved administration Wilderness management is such as grazing, prospecting, mining, and ongoing ultimately constrained by the limits of public understand- scientific studies; water resource quality, development, ing, acceptance, and support. All the involved agencies and use; and cultural and historically important sites. must expend the effort to educate the public about the Ideally, such information is provided for in wilderness purposes of wilderness and their management pro- management plans, collected by field managers and grams, or meaningful support and involvement by the seasonal rangers following the plan's direction, and used public will be impossible. Public involvement has by administrators, and the interested public in evaluating become a way of life for resource managers in Federal management and the need for redirection. The resource agencies. The Wilderness Act requires public participa- and use information is also invaluable to scientists doing tion in the classification of individual wilderness areas, research to explain natural phenomena or to identify and and much oftheagency's experiencein public solve wilderness-management problems. involvement has focused on this process. The extension Training of wilderness management personnel of public involvement to wilderness management is through university courses, inservice sessions, and logical and feasible through the management-planning interagency and citizen group conferences is essential. process (see chapter 8). Wilderness management can be Universities can play a vital role here by offering assured of success onlyifitproceeds with the professional courses and programs related to wilderness understanding, support, and constructive input of an management. Universities also host conferences and informed and involved constituency.

368 This discussion of the 11 elements of a system for account for nonresponse which the research indicated improved wilderness administration has been necessari- was predictable for certain kinds of users (Wengerand ly brief, touching only on major items. The list of Gregerson 1964; Wenger 1964). In that era, these gross elements could surely be expanded as could some of the estimates of wilderness use provided by self-registration details necessary for their application. Our call is for the systems were badly needed and the kind of inaccuracies synergistic combination of all these elements to foster of the method that have been identified by more recent continued growth in the quality of management for the studies were not then criticaL (Lucas 1975; Lucas, National Wilderness Preservation System. This will Schreuder, and James 1971). For several years self- require the integration of efforts by all concerned registration was viewed as a promising management partiesthe agencies, universities, research institutions, tool and was used as a basis for estimating visitation to and the public. many wildernesses. Then several surveys of wilderness visitors indicated that many users would be receptive to mandatory visitor permits (Hendee and Lucas 1973). Increasing Relevant Research Applied studies and trial applications further tested and refined the wilderness permit idea, its feasibility for A coordinated program of relevant research involving visitor management, and the utility of the visitation data the agencies, universities, and research fcundations must be an integrated part of the overall wilderness- it provided (Eisner 1972; Frayer and Butts 1974; Lime management system. The need is for both applied and Buchanan 1974; Fazio and Gilbert 1974; Lime and research to find solutions to immediate wilderness Lorence 1974). Subsequently, in part responding to management problems and basic research to upgrade information provided by these studies, mandatory our scientific understanding of the resource and its use. permits have become a major wilderness visitor Among the many uses of such data is its utility for management tool (see chapters 13 and 14). The foregoing example illustrates how research can appraising the need for, and the potential consequences be valuable in developing management options, and also of, alternative management actions. But the challenge extends far beyond research in support of management; the need for cumulative researchrelated series of studies that build on one another to yield progressively scientific uses are a specifically mentioned purpose of the Wilderness Act and research should be encouraged to see more refined ideas and applicable information. The that those values are realized (see chapter 13). validity and applicability of research-based information In the following we suggest a framework for also depends on a wide scientific data base including organizing wilderness research into two major catego- studies in several locations and verification by several ries: Behavioral and resource. scientists using different methods. For example, the tendency of wilderness visitors to be, on the average, Wilderness Behavior Research more highly educated and of higher socioeconomic status A major theme of this book is that current wilderness than the general population is documented by numerous management is primarily people management, and studies, but most of them have been carried out in more specifically the management of recreational use. western wildernesses. The applicability of that generali- This reality has been reflected for nearly two decades in zation to the more recently established, and smaller areas calls for rcscarch that have assigned highest priority to of the Wilderness System in the East must be established studies of wilderness recreation behavior (Dana 1957; by additional study in those locations. Fisher 1960; Morse 1966; Lucas 1974).' The following framework identifies three major Applied behavioral research, including studies that categories (separate but interrelated) of needed wilder- have adapted and applied principles from more basic ness-visitor studies: (1) Social-economicwho they are, research to wilderness, has already been important to (2) values and behaviorwhy they visit wilderness; development of current management techniques. what satisfactions, values, and benefits they seek and A good example relates to the measurement of receive; and the kinds of behavior and activities they wilderness recreation use. Studies in the early 1960's engage in, and (3) management studiestestsof indicated that voluntary self-registration stations at management techniques to determine which are most wilderness trailheads could be used to routinely estimate successful in solving problems of wilderness visitation an area's use if total registrations were adjusted to under different conditions. (1) Social-economic studies. These include variables See also [1cas, Robert C 1972. Forest Service wilderness researchthe problem, such as sex, age, education, occupation, income, residence, research to date, and needed research US. Dep. Agric, For. Serv., Intermt. For, and Range Exp. Stn, Missoula, Mont 22 p. Mimeo. January 1972. the social structure of visitor parties, expenditures, and

369 travel distance. Survey methodologies suchas mail desired values to visitors. But, more information is questionnaires and personal and telephone interviews needed about how these values are enhancedor are needed to gather this information. Two problems diminished under particular wilderness conditions that plaguesuchstudies:Sampling and nonresponse. are capable of being influenced by management. There is Sampling involves the identification ofa complete also a need to strengthen the behavioral focus of this kind universe of visitors for a given wildernessso a of research by zeroing in more heavily on what people representative population can be studied. Previous actually donot just what they say they would do or how surveys of wilderness users have focused on summer use, they feelin response to wilderness situations and to the neglect of fall and winter use, and have conditions. concentrated on heads ofparties,thuslimiting (3) Visitor-management studies. Visitor- knowledge about all visitors (Jubenville 1971). Nonres- management studies are of high priority. Managers need ponse from the sample surveyed concerns the failure of to know how wilderness values and benefits can be sampled individuals to supply requested information optimized and how use distribution and impacts of use Response rates of surveys can vary from 40 to 90percent can be managed within tolerablelimits without although most wilderness studies report high levels of offsetting losses in values due to visitor regimentation. In response. Obviously, if data from half the visitors are summary, the basic question as posed by one high missing, a study's findings can be misleading. management official is: How can wilderness-recreation Demographic characteristics and other socioeconomic use be balanced with preserving the wilderness resource information is relevant to management. It indicates the itself (Peterson 1976)? kinds of people who benefit from directuse of wilderness; it gives dues about how to communicate Research is needed to help assess the consequences with these visitors by indicating where they live and the and publicacceptabilityofvarious management range of values they are likely to hold;ityields techniques that are applied in different locations and information useful for guiding other studies; itcan help under different conditions to solve wilderness problems. in estimating future demand from comparisons of For example, there are several possible approaches to typical visitor characteristics with future populations; and solving overuse problemsindirect use rationing, direct it provides information useful for wilderness allocation rationing, restrictions and regulations at certain sites or studies by indicating who might directly benefit from for entire areas, and so forth (see chapters 14 and 15). wilderness classification. Knowledge about the effects of the various techniques on (2) Visitor values and behavior studies. Why do visi- the amount and distribution of use and visitor reactions tors go to wilderness; how long do they stay; what can help managers to determine what methods to use as satisfactions, values, and benefits do they hope to get well as to evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques. (and which of these values actually materialize); what Relevant research developments include the wilderness- activities are pursued; what is the meaning of these use simulation model described in chapter14;a activities in relation to the overall wilderness experience; wilderness management planning framework (see what problems are bothersome or interfere with their chapter 8); the previously mentioned studies evaluating experience; what are their attitudes and preferences for the acceptability and utility of wilderness permits, the alternativewilderness management policies7This incentive system for litter control (see chapter 14), and information about wildernessvisitorsisbasicto studies indicating the management preferences of users successful management. It supplements information (}-Iendee et al. 1968; Stankey 1973). about observed and recorded behaviorpatterns and can All these behavioral research topics call for applied give valuable dues about how visitors mightreact to studythe use of scientific methods to solve people various management alternatives that managers think problems. However, as pointed out in chapter 13, might enhance values and control problems. And wilderness is also valuable as a scientific laboratory for previous study indicates that managers' perceptions of basic behavioral as well as ecological research. Wilder- wilderness-visitor values and behavior can be biased ness is a place where behavioral research can provide (Hendee and Harris 1970). insight into social unity and diversity by looking at the A growing body of research-based literature relatesto organization and function of intra- and intergroup user motives, values, and preferences. It should be processes and relationships in the relatively unstructured strengthened by more specific study aimed at determin- socialenvironment of wilderness(Burch1974). ing how user values and behavior are relatedto and Ultimately, the human benefits underlying wilderness affected by wilderness conditions. One objective of the designation may be clarified by wilderness behavior National Wilderness Preservation System is to provide research. Of course, behavioral research must operate 370 under the same constraints as resource research with Expand basic ecological knowledge. Research to studies dependent on wilderness conditions favored. expand basic scientific knowledge about ecological processes can leadto usefulapplicationin both Wilderness Resource Research wilderness and other settings. For example, long-term Studies are needed in several natural science studies of the ecological relationships between fire, disciplines to further knowledge of ecological processes moose, and wolves at Isle Royale National Park have in the natural laboratory of wilderness. The resource strikingly illustrated the vital, natural interdependencies research opportunitiesin the National Wilderness between moose habitat and its formative influences such Preservation System are substantial. From the stand- as fire and the predatory-prey relationshipkeeping point of freedom from man's direct influence, wilderness moose and habitat in balance (Allen 1974). Likewise, already contains a large share of natural areas, and it may studiesofnaturalfirerotationsare essentialto ultimately contain the most natural of the world's developing sound wilderness fire management policies remaining unimpacted areas. As the rest of the world to maintain natural conditions (see chapter 12). becomes progressively more modified by human There is a particular need for basic ecological research influence, the contrast between wilderness and other on the dynamics of landscapeswhere they are coming lands will enlarge as will the values of wilderness as a from and specifics of where they are headed. Such natural laboratory. Where else will there be opportuni- information is essential to understand the changing face ties to study large-scale ecosystem processes in areas with of wilderness ecosystems and to making intelligent a minimum of man-caused disturbances? Here, of course, choices about management actions that affect them. For thereisaninterdependence between wilderness example, studies in the Oregon and Washington management and research because the scientific values of Cascades, induding sites at Mt. Rainier National Park naturalness depend on the direction and effectiveness of and the Mt. Jefferson and Goat Rocks Wilderness, management in preserving the wilderness environment. suggest that coniferous trees invading meadows and There is a need for studies of the variety of physical diminishing certain esthetic values were probably the and biological components of the wilderness ecosys- result of temporary climatic variation and other natural temsuch as soil, water, vegetation, wildlife and the factors (Franklin et aL 1971). These findings not only ecological relationships among them. As a framework cast doubt on the assumed need for management action for such research, we advocate studies to (1) monitor to control the invasion that had been suspected of being wilderness naturalness,(2) expand basic ecological an unnatural phenomenon, but also indicated that knowledge, and (3) solve wilderness resource problems. removing the invading trees could be accomplished The following discussion of the framework is very without the likelihood of immediate reinvasion (see general and readers interested in more detail should chapter 10 for further details). consult chapters 10,11, and 12 on wilderness ecosystems, wildlife, fire, and the reference materials cited in those Studies of wilderness vegetative communities in the chapters. BWCA identified about half a million acres as truly (1) Morntor wilderness naturalness. It is impossible pristine and provided valuable information for charting to manage wilderness to preserve naturalness until we future vegetation management policies in the area. Less know what natural conditions are and their direction and directly applicable to wilderness management, but rates of change as dictated by ecological processes. Studies important for predicting water yields from wilderness, is to establish baselines of natural conditions in wilderness research on climatic variation and related effects in large are needed to compare and assess human influences undisturbed wilderness watersheds. Studies of glaciers, outside of wilderness, and also to help determine the most of which are located in classified or proposed wilderness, are expanding basic knowledge of these extentto which wildernessnaturalnessisbeing maintained. For example, studies of historical patterns of barometers of climatic change that have been such an plant succession and fire history indicate that exclusion of importantformativeinfluence on the American natural wildfire through efficient fire prevention and landscape.Because glacierstypicallyare found in suppression has led to unnatural conditions in some fire- wilderness,glaciologicalstudy may be wilderness dependent. dependent wilderness ecosystems(see chapter12, Ohmann and Ream 1971; Ohmann et al. 1973). Based in Solve wil4erness resource problems. A growing part on knowledge from such research, management number of wilderness resource management problems programs to restore fire to its natural role have been require new information fràm research for their initiated in several areas. solution Information from resource research has already

371 been important to management decisions in several to guide managementpolicyabout human waste areas. disposal in wilderness, a problem with both ecological Study of bighorn sheep in the Rocky Mountains and social (esthetic and health) dimensions. suggested that human influences forcing animals to The foregoing discussion is intended to be merely higher ranges increased the "cost of living' to these suggestive and general, not an analysis on which to build animals in the harsher climate, and adversely affect a research program. A comprehensive problem analysis survival of lambs leading to a decline in populations encompassingthe NWPS should be developed. (Geist 1971; Woodward et aL 1974). While solving this however,incorporating the input of agency and problem will require management of human-use university scientists from pertinent social, physical, and patterns, the prerequisite for such action is scientific biological sciences and managers from all the affected knowledge about the bighorn agencies. Studies need to be replicated in a number of Vegetation impacts from recreational use at Image areas representing the variety of conditions present in Lake in the Glacier Peak Wilderness and at Cascade Pass the NWPS. Diversity of areas is a major feature of the in North Cascades National Park have been studied to N'PS, and this diversity has been greatly increased by determine success of potential restoration methods.2 The the addition of wilderness in the Eastern United States. results of these studies, which indicate how slow and While basic principles emerging from studies in one difficult the restoration of high elevation vegetation region or wilderness may apply across the System, others impacts can be, have led to some recuperation on might be applicable only in certain areas or under damaged sites. Perhaps a more important result of these particular conditions. studies is a more cautious approach and a renewed determination by managers to prevent new impacts from occurring elsewhere. Alternatives to Wilderness toEase Use Fish stocking in wilderness is controversial but seems Pressures likely to continue in many places where it has already In chapters 1 and 7, we argued that wilderness, one become established (see chapter 11). To optimize the point along a continuum of environmental opportuni- benefits of stocking sought by anglers while minimizing ties, is interrelated with the other parts of this land-use the impacts on wilderness naturalness, it would be spectrum. Some of these other land uses can accommo- desirabletobasestockingdecisions on research date primitive, roadless recreation, but unless such areas identifying the kind of lakes and levels of stocking that are available as alternatives to wilderness, all roadless would yield the greatest benefits in wilderness as well as activity will ultimately be forced into classified wilder- elsewhere. Studies of high lakes in Washington indicate ness Studies of wilderness use have consistently re- substantial variationinproductivity due tolake vealed the presence of visitors whose expectations characteristics and stocking levels (Johnston 1972-73), and preferences are for roadless recreation, but not and variation in the importance of fishing to wilderness necessarily for wilderness. Some visitors seek experien- users (Hendee, Clark, and Dailey 1977). This kind of data could help guide the controversial practice of fish ces requiring comfort and convenience facilities that are largely prohibited by terms of the Wilderness Act and stocking in wilderness. the underlying philosophy and purposes that led to its A final example of a problem needing research passage (Hendeeetal. 1968; Stankey 1973; Merriam and concerns human waste disposal in wilderness. Early Knopp 1976). Some uses do not require outstanding guidelines called for burying human waste 6 inches in the solitude, and some visitors are mainly interested in ground to minimize the health hazard from pollution of activities that could be better provided elsewhere. The water and unesthetic impacts around heavily used areas. preferences of these visitors are legitimate and should be However, an alternative line of reasoning is that human accommodated at some point on the recreation waste should be left on the surface where bacterial action spectrumbut they cannot all be met in wilderness is greater and decomposition faster. Decomposition rates without creating overuse impacts and eroding wilderness probably vary widely between areas. Research is needed standards of naturalness and solitude. In addition, areas are needed that have been set aside specifically to serve roadless, nonwilderness users such as motorbikers, fly-in 2Miller, Joseph, and Margaret Miller. 1976. P.evegetation experiments at Cascade Pass, fishermen, or visitors wanting easy-to-follow trails and North Cascades National Park Presented at Resource Management and Research Workshop, sponsored by Forest Service and Nandnal Park Service, Seattle, Wash., April comfort and convenience facilities such as shelters and 28-29, 1976. cabins.

372 Seeing that such alternatives are made available to admitting areas in the East to theNWPSpointed to ease demands on formal wilderness is important to the their apparent defects: They were small, many had future quality of theNWPS.The problem can be sustained previous impacts from pioneer settlement and resolved only if all Federal agencies, separately and timber cutting, and some were receiving intensive collectively, identify the full spectrum of preferences for recreation use. Many felt that these areas did not meet recreation and other land uses they manage, and standards set forth in the Wilderness Act of 1964, and so cooperatively adopt implementing strategies. In addition they should be set aside in a separate, Eastern Wild Areas to theNWPS,land classifications, such as Wild and dassificationan action intended to protect theNWPS Scenic Rivers, can accommodate some primitive forms from depreciation. Whatever the merits of their of recreation and help ease pressures if their manage- arguments, the so-called Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 ment results in the attraction of wilderness-type uses. is now an accomplished fact. Further debate no longer However, a backcountry (or other roadless recreation serves any useful purpose. In fact, many resent any area concept) also needs to be implemented as a reference to Eastern Wilderness, thinking that the term supplement to wilderness for the purpose of meeting infers differences between wilderness in the East and roadiless, nonwilderness demands. In such areas, the West when itis supposed to be oneNWPS.The principal management goal would be to provide for challenge is to fully integrate these eastern areas, despite primitive recreational experiences rather than for the their somewhat different conditions, into a wilderness maintenance of natural ecological processes. How such system that is truly national. areas are createdlegislatively or through administra- The contrasts between wildernesses in the East and tive designation by agencies through their land-use West are strilting (Cermak 1975), One East-West planning processesis not as important as seeing that difference is the physical distance separating users from such opportunities are made available. Administrative wilderness areas. Unlike their western counterparts, designation does have a greater measure of security now people in the East typicallylive much doser to since provisions of the National Environmental Policy wilderness. There are only a few population centers in Act require preparation of an EIS and opportunities for the West comparably close to wilderness areas (Los public involvement before such designations can be Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Denver) but, because more implemented or changed. and larger wildernesses are near these cities, generally It may well be that the backcountry idea is not they are not subjected to pressures typical of the East. politic11y viable as a legislative proposalarousing the On the other hand, the dense vegetation in most suspicions of environmentalists and commodity users eastern wildernesses insulates people from sight and alike. This apparent status of the concept makes it all the sound of one another, thus increasing social carrying more important that the multiple-use agencies such as capacity and enhancing an area's ability to tolerate and the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management recover from physical impacts. The annual leaf fall from continuetheireffortsto provide some roadless, the deciduous vegetation that covers most wilderness in nonwilderness opportunities through their land-use the East replenishes the forest floor, covering impacts planning processes. and perhaps increasing the environmental as well as the aesthetic tolerance to use. The most striking contrast between eastern and IntegratingWilderness in theEast intothe western wilderness is size. In July 1975, the 66 classified NWPS western wildernesses averaged about 160,000 acres each Legislation, commonly referred to as the Eastern (see chapter 6). The 16 instant wildernesses in the East Wilderness Act (P.L 93-622), enactedJanuary 3, 1975, averaged only about 12,000 acresand many of the provides criteria for admitting areas in the Eastern proposed wildernesses in the East are much smaller, United States to theNWPSthat might have sustained several less than 5,000 acres. These areas are small prior human impact. This legislation, which was to enough to raise legitimate questions about how small an further the purposes of the Wilderness Act of 1964, area can be and still be managed to provide wilderness created 16 instant wildernesses in the Eastern United conditions and experiences. However, even though the States,totaling 206988 acres, and designated an small size of most wildernesses in the East (established additional 17 areas totaling 125,000 acres for study as to and proposed) does create management problems, their wilderness suitability (see chapter 4). For several experiences in these areas should furnish valuable years prior to passage of this Act, opponents to information about the feasibility of providing additional

373 wilderness-type experiences on small tracts of industrial appreciated by visitors. The need in many situations to or State lands in the East. restore fire to natural levels, by allowing some fires to In this and other ways, the problems introduced by the burn or even to prescribe burn, is now officially so-called Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 requires recognizedthe need for integrated fire management new management approaches and adjustments in think- (Kilgore 1976). The notion of fire management has ing, but we are convinced that they are not insurmount- replaced the older, more restricted focus on fire control able difficulties. Our view is that the National Wilderness The need for management to restore fire to its natural Preservation System has been enhanced by the addition role in wilderness ecosystems is recognized, but the of the 16 instant wildernesses and the possibility of more challenge is formidable. Successful fire management to come. They demonstrate the politicalviability, programs are now operating in several wildernesses that flexibility, and transferability of the wilderness concept. havefire-dependentecosystems.Wildernessfire Rather than being bound by ironclad and absolute management is technically and administratively complex criteria, it is applicable to regional needs and opportuni- and demanding. It requires the highest professional ties. The iiiclusion of smaller, heavily used and previously competence, adequate training, and intimate knowledge impacted eastern areas to the NWPS emphasizes the of the specific ecosystem and land unit to be managed. importance of applying a nondegradation concept in Wilderness fire management has inherent risks as wilderness management (see chapter 7). This principle well asthe rewards of progressing toward wil- recognizesthevariationin primeval qualitiesof dernessnaturalnessgoals. Even along overdue individual wildernesses, but emphasizes the need to wilderness wildfire that is allowed to burn will be prevent further degradation of naturalness and solitude accompanied by the need for a public education program existing in each area rather than letting all NWPS areas to reassure a concerned and fire-conscious public, and a deteriorate to some lowest common denominator. wilderness fire that gets away to nonwilderness land can Because of the management problems that will be have serious consequences for the agency and responsi- encountered in wildernesses in the East, there may be a ble officials (Popovich 1977). But, there is no chance of temptation to "rewrite the book" on the basis of these achievingtherequirednaturalnessof wilderness differences, but we feel it should be staunchly resisted. ecosystems if fire is not restored to natural levels. The The challenge is to incorporate these eastern areas into development of wilderness management programs for the NWPS, welcoming the diversity they offer, but all units of the National Wilderness Preservation System applying the same basic principles of wilderness needs particular emphasis in the immediate years ahead. management, modified only to the extent required by local circumstances. Congressional Appropriations for Wilderness Management Restoring Fire to Natural Levels in Wilderness Adequate management of the National Wilderness Preservation System will not be possible unless Congress One of the most controversial and important issues in appropriates the necessary funds. To date, Congress and resource management involves the role of fire on the agencies have assigned wilderness management a wildlands.Afterdecadesof vigorous prevention lower priority than many other programs involving campaigns to reduce man-caused fires, and development more intensive land uses. Since it involves relatively of efficientfire control organizations and modern inaccessible and little used land areas, particularly in technology to fight wildfires of all causes, management is times of scarce Federal money, such management can be now asked to consider that some fires are not bad. A postponed. The study of areas proposed for wilderness concept of "the friendly flame" has emerged to recognize dassification has so far been regarded as more important the important, natural role fire plays in wildland (Church 1977). Yet, as we stated early in this book (see ecosystems (see chapter 12). Fire is a natural agent chapter 1), in a few decades the classification of areas into important in terminating and renewing succession; the NWPS will be complete; the ultimate quality of the controlling plant community composition, the scale of NWPS depends on its management. the vegetation mosaic, insects, parasites, and pathogens; The conservative attitude toward financing wilderness and regulating fuel accumubtion, nutrient cydes, and management has not yet been critically damaging. In fact, energy flow. Fire is important in maintaining the natural large-scalefunding of early management schemes diversity necessaiy for wildlife and the visual diversity emphasizing trail construction, user facilities, camps,

374 stock facilities, and even serious proposals for hostels and philosophy, but we are not advocating an extreme sheltersmight have damaged theresources and orientation. We are calling for a biocentric emphasis, but jeopardized wilderness values. These early plans did not with common sense application and responsiveness to envision increased recreation use, the evolution of local conditions. We stress that wilderness management relatively purer standards, and the development of should not mold nature to suit people. Rather, it should sophisticated management methods and techniques. manage human use and influences so that natural Given the experience of the last decade, it seems likely processes are not altered. Managers should do only what that wilderness management is now in a position to use is necessaiy to meet wilderness objectives, and use only money and manpower to better advantage than ever the minimum tools, force, and regulation required to before. It seems important to reaffirm the necessity of achieve those objectives. wilderness management, the principle that wilderness The debate over how pure wilderness management cannot be preserved merely by its cIssification (draw a should be will continue but hopefully between narrower line around it and leave it alone), but depends instead on extremes than the polarized discussions in the past. It is acomprehensive, adequately funded, management increasinglyrecognizedthatwildernessareasare program to insure that the goals of the Wilderness Acts distinguished by levelsof relative naturalness and are approached and their objectives realized We outlined solitude not present in other areas, and that the challenge earlier the several elements we consider important in a of wilderness management istomaintain those comprehensive wilderness administration system and thresholds. Clearly, this cannot be done if wilderness strongly urge particular attention to such elements by areas are allowed to become mere recreation areas Congress in considering the necessary funding for such a without roads. There are many other wilderness values program. In particular, it is important that funding for at stake induding natural, cultural, historical, scientific, management recognize the need for research, planning, and gene pool values, besides the increasingly scarce and public involvement as essential elements to quality opportunity for human experiences in wilderness areas. management. Moreover, as new areas are considered for Wilderness management policiesare becoming addition to the Wilderness System, careful thought increasingly crystallized as Agency experience, public should be given to their money requirements for cost- review, and legislative and judicial guidelines combine to effective management to meet established wilderness provide feedback as to what is appropriate. We believe objectives.Often,wilderness managementisless much of the polarity over purity in management may expensive than management of alternative usesbut have its roots in what people believe or perceive the there will always be necessaiy expenses and they should policies to be, rather than what they actually are. be a visible consequence in all land-use studies that Management policies of the Forest Service were recently consider wilderness as one alternative. outlined in a discussion between Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Congressman James Weaver of Oregon Many commonly assumed prohibi- Conclusion tions (e.g., no toilets in wilderness) were, in fact, not In this chapter, we've highlighted some major issues substantiated by actual policy. Management, Assistant and challenges we think are important to wilderness Secretary Cutler noted, is guided by the principles management In singling out these items, we have risked embraced in the following questions: slighting other important topics. It is hoped that these Is it necessary to protect the resource and manage are adequately covered elsewhere in the book the use? Not singled out in this chapter, but thoroughly Is it the minimum action or facility required to discussed in chapter1,isthe question of overall accomplish the objective? wilderness management direction. The issue is how pure Does it protect the wilderness values? should wilderness management be? That is, what is the Does it pass a test of reason and common sense? proper emphasis between a pure or biocentric A wilderness management policy shaped by the management orientation emphasizing thenatural answers to such questions will, in our opinion, protect integrity of wilderness ecosystems, as opposed toan the wilderness resource in the long term and provide anthropocentric or human use and enjoyment orienta- equitable and reasonable opportunities for public use. tion? In dosing, we want to emphasize our optimism about Throughout this book we have stressed a biocentric, as the future of wilderness management and the quality of opposed to an anthropocentric wilderness management theinstitutionthat depends on itthe National

375 Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness didn't just We've been fortunate because we had the Leopolds, happen. Maybe it did once, but that was before man Zahnisers, Marshalls, Carharts, and many others to developed the will and capacity to change the face of the inspire, warn, and cajole us; the example of other landscape Today, in the United States, wilderness is a countries to give substance to their warnings; and time to product of past good fortune, foresight, hard workand act while the possibility of a wilderness system was still planning. attainable. We can no longer count on good fortuncnor do we need tobut we must increasingly rely on the other elements. We still need the foresight to look beyond material needs and desires; the restraint to say no to damors for short term uses and short-sighted policies that could irreparably damage the wilderness resource; the willingness to work hard, to collect and pore over data, and consider with colleagues and interested citizens the merits of alternativeactions. And, we need planningplanning carried out by qualifiedand committed people. Wilderness management is emerging as an increas- ingly important specialty in resource management that is attracting the attention of an enthusiastic and highly committed cadre of university students and professionals in the managing agencies. The future quality of Figure 16-3.In the long ron, education will be extremely mipor- wilderness management depends on their continued rant to increased professionalism in wilderness management Many efforts. universities now offer courses in wilderness management and offer students an opportunity to apply their knowledge to real world Among the co-authors, the authorpth ronsibk for preisratkxs of this chapter problems. was John C Hendee literature Cited

Allen, Durward. Fazio, James R, and Douglas L Gilbert. 1974 Of fire, moose and wolves. Audubon 76(6):38-49. 1974 Mandatory wilderness permits: some indications of success.J. Behan, R.W. For. 72(12):753-756. 1976. Rationing wilderness: an example from Grand Canyon. Fisher, Joseph L Western Wildlands 3(2):23-26. 1960. A frameworkforwildernessresearch.Nat. Parks Burch, William R, Jr. 34( 158): 11-13. 1974 In democracy is the preservation of wilderness. Appalachia Franklin, Jerry F., William H. Moir, George W. Douglas, and Girt 40(2):90-1O1. Wlberg. 1971. Invasion of subalpine meadows by trees in the Gictude Cermalç Robert W. Range, Washington and Oregon Arctic and Alpine Res. 1975. Wilderness in the east problems for research. In Pnxedings southern States recreation research applications workshop, 3(3):215-224 Frayer, WE, and D.B. Butts. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-9, p. 52-57. 1974 BUS: a processing system for records of backcountiy camper Asheville, N.0 302 p. use. J. Leisure Res. 6(4):305-311. Church, Frank Geist, Valerius. 1977. Followup with Senator Church Western Wildlands 4(3) 1971. Mountain Sheep. 383 p. University of Chicago Press. Fall. Hendee, John C, William R Catton, Jr., Larry D. Marlow, and C Dana, Samual. Frank Brockman 1957. Problem analysis; research in forest recreation US. Dep. 1968.WildernessusersinthePacific Northwesttheir Agric, For. Serv. 36 p. Washington, D.0 characteristics, values, and management plefeLences. USDA Eisner, Gary. For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-61, 92 p. Pac Northwest For. and 1972. Wilderness management... a computerized system for Range Exp. Stn, Portland, Oreg. summarizing permit information. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Hendee, John C, and Robert W. Harris. Report PSW-2. 8p. Pac. Southwest For, and Range Exp. Sm., 1970. Managers' perceptions of wilderness user attitudes and Berkeley, ('alif. preferences. J. For. 68(12):759-762.

376 Hendee, John C, and Robert C. Lucas. Ohmann, Lewis F., Charles T. Cushwa,RogerE. Lake,James R Beer, 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a necessary management and Robert B. Brander. tool. J. For. 71(4):206-209. 1973. Wilderness ecology: the upland plant communities, woody Hendee, John C, Roger Clark, and Thomas Dailey. browse production, and small mammals of two adjacent 33- 1977. Fishing at seven roadless High Lakes in Washington State. year-old wildlife areas of northeastern Minnesota. USDA For. USDA For. Serv. Pac Northwest For, and Range Exp. StaRes. Serv. Gea Tech. Rept NC-7. 3Op. North Central For. Exp. Pap. PNW (In press.) Sm., St. Paul, Minn Johnston, James M. Ohmann, Lewis F., and Robert R Ream. 1972-73. High Lake survey report Parr I, 175 p. and Part 11,375 p. 1971. Wilderness ecology: virgin plant communities of the On file Washington State Game Dept., Olympia, Wash. Boundary Waters Canoe Area USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. Jubenville, Alan, NC-63. 55 p. North Central Forest Exp. Sm., St. Paul, Minn. 197 1. A test of differences between wilderness recreation party Peterson, K Max. leaders and party members. J. Leisure Res. 3(2):116-119. 1976. The resources planning act: progress and promise. Western Kilgore, B.M. Wildlands 3(1):5-12. 1976. Integrated fire management in National Parks. p. 178-188. Popovich, Luke. Proceedings 1975 National Convention, Society of American 1977. Up in flames-taking heat on the Seney. J. For. Foresters, Washington, D.0 503 p. 75(3): 147-150. Lime, David W., and Roland Buchman. President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment. 1974. Putting wilderness permit information to work J. For. 1973. Final report. 541 p. US. Government Printing Office, 72(10):622-626. Washington, D.0 Lime, David W., and Grace A. [erence. Stankey, George H. 1974 Improving estimates of wilderness use from mandatory 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. permits. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-101. 7p. North Central USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper JNT-142. 6lp. Intermt. For, and For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn. Range Exp. Sm, Ogden, Utah. Lucas, Robert C Stankey, George H., and John Baden. 1974. Forest Service wilderness research in the Rockies: what 1977.Rationingwildernessuse:methods, problems, and we've learned so far. Western Wildiands 1(2):5-12. guidelines. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-192. 20 p. Lucas, Robert C Intermt. For, and Range Exp. Sin., Ogden, Utah. 1975. Low compliance rates at unmanned trail registers. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-200. 6 p. Intermt. For, and Range Wenger, Wiley D., Jr. Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah. 1964. A test of unmanned registration stations on wilderness trails: Lucas, Robert C, Hans T. Schreuder, and George A. James. factors influencing effectiveness. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. 1971. Wilderness use estimation: a pilottest of sampling PNW-16. 48 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sin., procedures on the Mission Mountain Primitive Areas. USDA Portland, Oreg. For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-109, 44p. Intermt. For. and Range Wenger, Wiley D., Jr., and H.M. Gregersen Exp. Sm., Ogden, Utah 1964. The effect of nonresponse on representatives of wilderness Merriam, LC, and TB. Knopp. trail register information USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-17, 1976. Meeting the wilderness needs of the many. Western 2Op. Pac Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sm., Portland, Oreg. Wildlands 3(2):17-22. Woodward, Thomas N., Rj. Guttierrez, and William H. Rutherford. Morse, William B. 1974 Bighorn lamb production, survival and mortality in south- 1966. Wilderness research-a start. Am. For. 34(6):32-33, 58-59. central Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(4):771-774

377 Photograph Credits 10.2--chart Chapter 1.- 10.3.-Chart (taken from Daubenmire 1968) Title.-F-505327 10.4.-Fish and Wildlife Service (George Devan), F-496794 (U. 1.1.-F-525029 Prater), Fish and Wildlife Service (David B. Marshall), F- 1.2.-National Park Service 334799 1.3-F-525030 10.5.-F-30925A (W. Hotchinson), F-525043 1.4-Russ Koch. 10.6-Chart (from Hanley, Schmidt, and Blake 1975) Chapter 2.- 10.7.-Chart (from Burgess and O'Neill 1975) Title.-F-436313 10.8-Chart (from Botkin,Janak, and Wallace 1973) 2.1.-John Hendee 10.9.-F-525045 (John Hendee) 2.2.-F-153950, F-525066, F-525031 Chapter 11.- 2.3.-Wilderness Society, National Park Service Title-Richard Behan Chapter 3.- 11.1.-F-499541 (W.E. Steuerwald) Title-Forest Service (International Forestry) 11.2.-F-508011 (George Woistad) 3.1.-Swiss National Tourist Office 11.3.-Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish 3.2.-Bob Rinehart and Wildlife Service Chapter 4.- 11.4-John Hendee Title-Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Library Chapter 12.- 4.1-Wilderness Society (Living Wilderness) Title.-F-499963 4.2.-National Park Service 12.1.-F-238971, F-431547, F-461075, F-52259 (U. Prater) 4.3.-Richard I. Walker, Richard I. Walker, F-525033. 122.-Map (and photo) by Miron Heinselman. 4.4.-F-525032 12.3.-F-496517, F-481141, F-525048. 4.5.-Norfolk and Western Railway 12.4-F-525050 (John Cossett) Chapter 5.- 12.5.-Richard I. Walker, F-525049 Title-Richard Behan Chapter 13.- 5.1.-National Park Service Tide-National Park Service 5.2.-map 13.1.-Richard I. Walker, F-525051, Richard I. Walker, F-525052. 5.3.-Richard Behan 13.2.-F-505238 5.4-Conrad Johnson 13.3-chart (from Gray H. EIsner 1971. Unpublished Report.) Chapter 6.- 13.4.-F-S 13480 (U. Prater) Title.-F-525034 13.5-Chart 6.1.-map 13.6-Chart 6.2.-Fish and Wildlife Service 13.7-Chart 6.3-chart 13.8-Chart 6.4.-National Park Service 13.9.-John Hendee 6.5.-F-505772 13.10-chart 6.6-John Bolane 13.11.-Richard L Walker Chapter 7.- Chapter 14- Title-Richard Behan Title.-F-525054 (John Hendee) 7.1.-F-525036 (Robert DeWitz) 14.1.-F-SOS 100 (U. Prater) 7.2.-F-525035 142.-F-525069 7.3.-F-498403 (Starr Jenkins), Richard Behan 14.3.-F-52S068 Chapter 8.- 14.4-Standard form Title.-F-456755 14.5.-F-SOS 196 (U. Prater) 8.1.-National Park Service 14.6.-Richard Behan 8.2.-F-510691 Chapter 15.- Chapter 9.- Title-Richard I. Walker Title.-F-525037 15.1.-F-525055, F-525056, National Park Service, F-52S057 9.1.-F-505253, F-525038 152.-FS form 9.2.-F-525039 15.3.-Adirondack Mountain Club (George Bellerose) 9.3.-F-525040 1S.4.-F-505274 (U. Prater), F-525O58 9.4.-F-525041 (Richard Spray) 15.S.-FS 9.5-Chart 15.6.-Richard I. Walker, Richard I. Walker 9.6-Chart 15.7.-F-525060, F-525061 9.7.-Chart 15.8.-F-525O62 9.8-Chart Chapter 16.- 9.9.-National Park Service Title.-F-525067 Chapter 10.- 16.1.-F-525063, F-525064 Title.-F-364903 (Jay Higgins) 16.2-Chart 10.1.-F-492883, F-525042, National Park Service 16.3.-John Monfils

378 INDEX

Affirmative action 65 Garbage pits 353 Aircraft 16,49,64, 71, 74, 84, 85, 297, 313 Horse facilities 348 Alaska 58, 103, 109, 116, 124, 125, 250, 255, 262, 265, 284, 348, 356 Shelters 348 Albright, Horace M. 32, 38 Tables 347 Anthropocentric (philosophy or perspective)16, 17, 21, 375 Tent pads 347 Australia 51-53 Toilets 350 Availability 1(X), 101 Water pumps 353 Federal Land Management and Policy Act 2,67, 119, 125, 154, 225, 285 Backcountry 6, 126, 152, 153, 267, 283, 331, 373 Fees 326-327, 328 Baseline measures 211, 221, 319, 328, 368, 371 Fire control 6, 8, 14, 20, 28, 53, 71, 179, 198, 201, 202, 224, 227, 250, 257, Bequest value 283 259, 260-262, 265, 274, 313, 355, 371 Biocentric (philosophy or perspective) 16, 18-21, 56, 79, 250, 263, 375 Fire-dependent ecosystems 198,250-254, 256-263, 265, 272-274 Biosphere reserve 132 Fire management 142, 153, 198, 237-238, 260-274, 374 Bob Marshall Wilderness 62, 63, 101, 120, 176, 259, 282, 295, 297, 300, 302 Fire management plans 267-274 Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) 16, 63, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78,85, Fire management policy 263-267 121, 173, 174, 176, 184, 200, 221,231,237,245,251,252,254,260,261, Fire occurrence 197, 249-274 270,285, 286, 288, 295, 297, 209,300,303,304,306,307,321,325,327, Fish and Wildlife Service 267,83, 105-108, 119, 12 1-123, 154,222,224-225, 333, 336, 343, 345, 350, 371 227, 236 Bridges 70, 327, 355-356 Fish stocking 17,200,231-232 236, 239, 240-241, 325, 372 Bureau of Indian Affairs 64,65,66 Fishing 50, 126, 147,222-224,231-232, 240,297, 325, 333 Bureau of Land Management 2, 67, 124, 125, 126, 152, 154-155, 158, 224- Fuels management 252-256, 266-267 225, 285, 287, 364, 366, 373 Funding 75, 77,91, 226, 374-375

California 5, 29-30, 31, 32,96-09, 127, 130, 145, 169, 174,200,234,240,251, Greeley, William B. 34,35 257,264, 27 1-272, 282, 283, 284, 286, 297, 209,300,301,306,307,327, General management plans 108, 152-153 328, 333, 335, 345, 347, 352 Goal-achievement framework 157-162, 235 Camera, use in management 287, 288 Great Britain 45,47 Campsites 17, 18, 39, 143, 174-175, 177, 184-186, 200, 220, 304, 317, 319, 328, 331, 335, 337, 341-355, 368 Habitat type 171, 203-205 Canada 53-55, 218, 250, 255, 259,260,262 Horse use 143-144, 174, 176, 179, 198,209,297,302,317,324,326, 348-350, Carrying capacity 16, 17, 33, 48, 126, 140, 142, 143, 168-188, 227, 342, 353, 354-355, 358-359 354, 373 Human sanitation 175, 346, 350-352, 372 Carhart, Arthur 13, 34, 35, 222, 276 Human values 11-16, 19-20, 82,87, 101, 140-141, 221, 364, 370 Catlin, George 11 Humphrey, Senator Hubert H. 64,66 Chapman, H. H 63 Hunting 50, 51, 146, 222-225, 229-231, 236, 242, 297, 333 Church, Senator Frank 21, 140 Cleveland, Treadwell,Jr. 33 Indicator species 182 Club membership 298, 307 Indirect management 144, 323-327, 337 Code-A-Site 319, 343-345 Insect and disease control 18,71, 85, 109-201,228-229,237, 238, 253 Computer simulation 207-209, 332, 334-336, 342, 370 International Biological Program 132, 194 Conflicts 50, 52, 54,68, 128, 139, 169, 177-178, 224, 226, 229, 239, 244 Inventories Contor, Roger 232 Campsites 160-161,342-344368 Crowding 17, 28-29, 176-178, 290 Resources 160-161, 203, 205, 217, 319, 368 Cultural relativity 45, 46,48,49 Cutler, Rupert 6, 105, 375 Japan 47-49

Dams 64,85, 225, 286 Kneipp, L F. 34, 35, 36, 61 De facto" wildemess 58,09, 1(X), 102, 109, 110, 111, 124, 125, 257, 262 Desolation wilderness 169, 178, 286, 291, 297, 301, 302, 333, 335, 336, 352 L-20 Regulation (also see Primitive Areas) 12, 35, 61-62, 79, 119-121 Direct gradient analysis 204-205 Leopold, Aldo 6,9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 35, 37, 52, 62,68, 216,218, 221, 222, 376 Direct management 144, 323, 327-328 Lightning 250, 255, 257-264, 268-269 Limits of acceptable change 181-186 East Africa 46, 55-57 Utter control 156, 177, 314, 333-334, 352 Educational values 68,82, 130, 132, 284 Livestock 6, 73, 174, 176, 179, 198, 209, 226, 286-287, 348-350, 354-355 Endangered American Wilderness Act 6 BLM 226, 287 Environmental modification 8, 16, 17,31,79,95, 115, 137-138, 145,353-354 Forest Service 15 3-154, 209,226, 286-287, 350 Everglades National Park 32, 75, 133 NIPS 350

Facilities 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 39, 70, 110, 137, 139, 161, 314, 315, 319, 337, Maine 130, 132 343, 345-353, 359, 368 Management objectives 1-2, 7, 142, 155-163, 170, 172, 180-181, 184-186, Fireplaces 347 235, 267, 367

379 Marsh, George Perkins 13, 14 Stahl,CarlJ. 13 Marshall, George I State wilderness 75, 86, 109, 125, 130-132 Marshall, Robert 1,6,9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 36, 37, 52, 62,63,66,68,79, 376 Stegner, Wallace 12 Maryland 131 Stock use 37, 107, 348-349 Mather, Stephen T. 32, 35, 38 Succession 17, 196-198, 200-207, 227, 250-254, 256 Michigan 110, 130-131 Suitability 82-83,88-89, 100-114, 122 Minimum or necessary tool 7, 21,70, 107, 144, 235, 236, 314,323,337, 356, Sumner, lowell 33, 38 359, 363-364, 375 Sweden 43, 50-5 1 "Minimum tool" 7, 21, 238-239, 356, 359, 375 Switzerland 43-45 Mining 65,66,71-73,77, 85, 86, 127, 129, 226, 281, 284-285 Motorboats 71,74, 84, 85, 176,200,231,297 Therapeutic use 281,284 Muir,John 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 31,68 Thoreau, Henry David 11, 12,48 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 67,70,84,89, 100, 111, 126, 153 Timber harvesting 35,73-74, 78,85, 100-103, 111, 126, 139, 373 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 94-95, 126, 153 Trail National Park Service 2, 14, 31-33, 38, 62, 67, 83, 105-109, 119, 121, 151- Construction 128, 161-162, 324, 355-358, 374 154, 224-225, 227, 232-235, 290-291, 345, 346, 355 Maintenance 161, 163, 324, 341, 355-358 National Trails 127-128, 355-356 Trail traffic counters 287-288, 319 National Wilderness Preservation System 2, 4, 9, 19, 20,22,67-68,69,82- Trail registration 287-288, 319 91, 115-126, 145, 169-170, 216,224, 365-367, 73-374 Trail shelters 138, 331, 348 Natural role of fire 8, 18; 197-198,201,207,237,249-265,271-273,371,374 Train, Russell E. 47 Naturalness 6, 17-19, 138, 145, 179, 180, 191-192, 200-201, 233, 236-238, 243, 371 U-i Regulation (also see Wilderness areas) 36, 62-63, 79,120 Nature Conservancy 133 U-2 Regulation (also see Wild areas) 36, 62-63, 79, 120 Need (for wilderness) 11-16, 30-36, 101, 134,220 U-3 Regulation (also see Roadless areas) 33, 36,62-63,79, 120 New study areas 77, 103, 121, 124-125 USSR 43, 51 New York 130, 13 1-132 U.S. Forest Service 2-6, 33-37,62-69,74,82-83,93-97,99-105, 107-112, 114- New Zealand 49-5 1 115, 119-126, 133-141, 152-154, 158, 163,222,224, 232,239,269,272, Non-degradation 5, 110, 145-146, 374 285, 322, 364, 373, 375 North American Wildlife Policy 235, 237, 243 Usedistribution Space 161,299-304, 315-316, 325-326, 337, 349-352 Olson, Sigurd 12, 15, 218 Time 298-300, 303, 316, 327, 337 Omnibus legislation 119, 123-124 Use measurement 158, 161,287-289, 319, 368-369 Outdoor recreation opportunity spectrum 2, 6, 20, 115, 132, 137-138, 170, Use projections 308-309, 334-336, 369-370 172, 372-373 Use restrictions 17, 28,66,70-74,84-86,90, 101, 107-108, 126,138-139, 143, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 12, 108,184,308 315, 326-333, 346, 363, 370, 375 Outfitters 71,74,84,282,288 Use statistics 291-296,321,368-369 Use trends 139,281,289, 307-308, 322 Personal development 12-13, 284 User characteristics 281, 304-307, 322-323, 369-370 Photo points 182,210, 318-319 Pinchot, Gifford 33 Vicarious use 16, 141, 221, 229, 244, 282-283 Predators 195, 198-199, 201, 216, 228-229, 231, 233, 237 Visitor impacts on: Prescribed fire 17, 28, 204, 227, 237, 255, 263, 265-266, 268-269, 271-272, Soil 7, 153, 161, 173-174, 179,200, 209, 314-315, 317, 341, 345, 350, 368 374 Vegetation 7, 140, 153, 161, 164, 173-174, 179, 200, 209, 314-315, 317, Preservation 1,6,8, 10-11, 14, 18, 31-33, 63-64, 79-80,82, 141, 179 341, 345, 348-350, 353-355, 368, 372 Primitive Areas 12, 35, 61-62, 66, 67, 69, 79, 83, 93-99, 119-121, 125, 126- Water 140, 153, 161, 173, 175, 179, 200, 317, 345 127, 154-155 Wildlife 139, 140, 153, 161, 175, 179, 229, 317, 372 Public involvement 2-3, 70, 84,95,96-99, 101, 102, 104, 151, 164-166, 368 "Purity" argument 21, 68-69,75, 184, 375 Wagar, J. V. K 32, 172, 326 Water quality 85,145,268,368 Questionnaires 322-323 Waugh, Frank 33 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16, 58, 109, 115, 128-129, 373 RARE I 103-105, 124 Wild areas 62-63, 120 RARE 1114, 105, 124 Wilderness Act (P1. 88-577) 1-6, 8-11, 15-16, 18-22, 38-40, 43, 52, 61-78, Retioning 17, 33, 143, 145, 184, 315, 327-332, 364, 370 82-87, 92-94,97,99, 100-112, 114-115, 119-122,124-126, 129, 137-138, Research natural areas 35, 132, 283 140-143, 145, 152-153, 155-157, 162, 166, 169, 178-179, 191,224, 227, Research needs 232, 242-243,273-274, 317-323, 343, 368, 369-372 230, 236, 240, 243, 281, 284-286, 297, 341, 346, 358, 363-368, 372, 374 Resources Planning Act (RPA) 134 Definition 9,82 Roads 37,69, 125, 139, 179,200,227 Creation of NWPS 82-86 Roadlessareas 4, 35, 62-63, 69-70, 75, 93, 103, 115, 124, 125-126, 130-132 Wilderness Act, Eastern (P.L 93-622) 2, 75-79, 87-91, 115, 121, 125, 134, 137, 141, 145, 178-179, 224, 227, 345, 373-374 Sactifice areas 13-15, 163, 165, 341, 348 Wilderness administration 16-17, 67, 82-83, 86,90, 121, 166, 313, 355, 358, Saylor, Representative John 19, 64,68 364-366,368-369 Scientific values 17, 19,44, 101, 132-133, 221, 273-274, 283 Wilderness classification 1-6,8-9,64,76,82-83,87,90,93-114, 119, 122, 364- Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness 5, 121, 169, 174, 272, 286, 297, 302, 325, 355 365, 368, 374-375 Sierra Club 1, 11, 30, 37-38,64, 124, 298, 307, 332 Wilderness-dependent 14, 33, 132, 138, 146-147, 184,217-219,239,281-282 Signs 158, 161, 163, 357 Wilderness ecosystems 17-18, 82, 103-104, 126, 140-158, 181-182, 191-211, Site rehabilitation 85, 35 3-354, 372 219-221, 226-228, 231, 234-244, 249-254, 256-274, 286, 325-326, 371, Solitude 6, 11, 18-20, 68-69, 82, 87, 128, 138, 143, 145, 156, 158, 162, 176- 373-375 186,217,223, 226, 229, 232, 243,281,290,299,300,331,337,341,346, Wilderness in the eastern US. 75-77, 86-91, 125-126, 130-132, 145, 297, 351, 355-359, 363, 372, 375 369, 372-374

380 Wilderness management plans 90, 126, 140-142, 15 1-167, 202, 269, 365, Wilderness study areas (also see New Study Areas) 76-77,83, 188-189, 101- 368, 370 110, 114-115, 124-126 Wilderness permits 28, 153-154, 287-288, 319-322, 326-335, 346, 369-370 Wildlife management 33,86, 101, 108, 198, 215-244, 254 Wilderness plannirg 108, 140-147, 151-167, 241, 369, 376 Wright, George M. 33 Wilderness policy 6, 8, 15-16, 20-21, 107, 140, 156, 162, 165, 236,264-267, 270, 346, 370, 375-376 Yellowstone National Park 11, 31-33, 39,43,45, 50, 71, 107, 121-122, 220, Wilderness, private 86, 90-91, 133-134 222, 227, 229, 233, 235, 241, 259-260, 267, 272, 291 Wilderness rangers 280, 288, 321, 330, 333, 347-348, 353, 365, 367 Yosemite National Park 11, 31-33, 50, 122, 177-178, 251-252, 271,290,308 Wilderness Sneiety 12, 14, 37, 104, 107,298, 336 Wilderness standards 9, 16,83, 100,102-112,125,130-132,142-145,156-157, Zahniser, Howard 63,64,69,68,100,376 164, 355-356, 372 Zoning 107, 129, 131, 159, 163-164,271-272, 327, 330-331, 346, 350

,U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1981-351-01] 381