Wes Henry Steve Ulvi Securing an Enduring Wilderness in the National Park System: The Role of the National Wilderness Steering Committee

he National Park Service (NPS) can take great pride in the fact that it is responsible for the stewardship of more designated wilderness than any other federal land management agency.Since the passage of the Wilder- Tness Act in 1964, 46 separate units have been established in national park areas. These 44 million acres of designated wilderness comprise nearly 53% of the total NPS-managed acreage. Most of the legislation establishing NPS wilderness was passed during the 1970s and 1980s. The Alaska National Inter- est Lands Conservation Act in 1980 set aside an astounding 33 million acres in eight large park units. In addition, past presidents have recommended an addi- tional 19 wilderness areas to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the NPS has formally proposed wilderness for anoth- er 20 parks. By NPS policy no actions that would diminish the wilderness suit- ability of these proposed or recommended areas will be taken until after the pres- ident and Congress have made their decisions on wilderness designation. Although the modern era of wilder- ness stewardship began with the leg- islative establishment of designated NPS wilderness following the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the administrative commitment to wilder- ness as a supplemental responsibility for managers lagged, and the agency was frequently criticized for its short- comings. Similar criticism continued well into the 1990s (Sellars 2000). In response, the National Park Service convened several national task forces beginning in the mid-1980s in an attempt to identify its major wilder- the recommended solutions for the ness stewardship issues and to recom- issues identified by these task forces is mend solutions. the challenge of providing leadership Central to implementing most of for wilderness stewardship across the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 91 National Park System. It is a challenge although it is possible in the other because National Park Service wilder- agencies to do programmatic budget- ness is fundamentally different, espe- ing for wilderness management, it is cially when compared with wilderness more realistic for the National Park managed by agencies such as the U.S. Service to budget its resources by park Forest Service and the Bureau of Land rather than by program. Management (BLM). All of these factors point toward the In other agencies, wilderness is the likelihood and need for different outcome of an allocation decision approaches to providing leadership among largely consumptive uses, for wilderness stewardship in these whereas wilderness in the National agencies. Centralized program man- Park System is more about an alloca- agement and budgeting fit wilderness tion among largely non-consumptive stewardship in the Forest Service and uses. Moreover, where there is wilder- BLM, but are not functional in the ness in a national park, most of the National Park Service, where a differ- park becomes designated wilderness, ent approach has evolved. which is not correspondingly true of After the passage of the Wilderness wilderness in a national forest or BLM Act in 1964, the National Park Service district. The result of this is that most response was to establish a centralized national park staff members are program within the Planning Office to involved in some manner in wilder- conduct the mandated 10-year study ness stewardship, in contrast to the of national parks for the purpose of other agencies where more limited and making recommendations on their specialized staff are involved. And suitability for designation as wilder-

92 The George Wright FORUM ness. The National Park Service had other things, called in general terms largely completed this planning effort for several activities relating to man- by 1978, when recommended wilder- agement of legislated wilderness areas. ness in over thirty parks was designat- The action plan for implementing the ed, and on-ground assessments and 12-Point Plan called specifically for studies were complete in more than 40 ensuring that designated, potential, other parks where wilderness propos- and proposed wilderness areas in the als and recommendations were devel- National Park System were managed oped. according to the principles of the As this wilderness study program Wilderness Act and, for Alaska, of the wound down, many of its staff and Alaska National Interest Lands resources were channeled into the Conservation Act. It also called for special studies in Alaska that helped to specific steps to improve coordination influence wilderness decisions that and consistency in management of all were made in the Alaska National wilderness areas; to monitor human Interests Land Conservation Act use, air quality, and noise trends in (ANILCA) of 1980. But there is no wilderness areas; to develop an initia- evidence that the agency had yet tive on interpretation and public infor- begun to think systematically about mation regarding wilderness areas; wilderness management in the nation- and to develop a systematic resource al parks. management strategy for such areas. And wilderness studies did not To implement these action steps, entirely disappear even after ANILCA the National Park Service convened a because many pieces of park legisla- task force of wilderness specialists tion in the 1980s created new parks from eight regions, key headquarters with “wilderness study” provisions. staff, representatives from the other Furthermore, some members of wilderness management agencies, and Congress supported wilderness stud- wilderness constituent groups. In the ies because they viewed wilderness as process of developing recommenda- the best means of ensuring that nation- tions, the task force systematically al parks in their states or districts reviewed management policies, major would be kept in their current natural wilderness management issues, and state without further development the intent of the Wilderness Act as (e.g., Cumberland Island National applied to the overall National Park Seashore, Guadalupe Mountains Service mission. The task force devel- National Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes oped six major recommendations National Lakeshore, etc.) together with implementation steps to But wilderness studies do not be completed over five years. These address the problems associated with were related to (1) designation of managing wilderness, and this was national and regional wilderness coor- becoming apparent within and with- dinators; (2) management techniques out the agency. In 1986, the NPS appropriate for wilderness; (3) wilder- director developed a 12-Point Plan for ness uses and capacity determination; the National Park Service that, among (4) education and training of wilder-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 93 ness management personnel; (5) edu- Wilderness Training Center and the cating the public; and (6) interagency Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research coordination and consistency. The Institute. primary recommendation for address- As a result, the NPS established a ing wilderness management leader- National Wilderness Steering ship in the agency was the establish- Committee (NWSC) in 1996, com- ment of wilderness coordinator posi- prising four superintendents together tions at headquarters and the regional with representatives from Alaska, nat- offices. ural resources, cultural resources, Despite this impressive program maintenance, interpretation/educa- management plan and agency efforts tion, and rangers (Figure 1). In addi- to implement it, including the naming tion, NPS established a collateral-duty of regional wilderness coordinators, wilderness coordinator position and agency efforts faltered after several funded an NPS position at the Carhart years and had largely dissipated by Training Center. Since that time, the 1989. This happened essentially NWSC has evolved into an increasing- because critical measures were never ly effective organizational entity for institutionalized and staff and funding improving wilderness stewardship in commitments were inadequate for sig- the National Park System. Task Force nificant progress to be made in imple- recommendations continue to be used menting the action plan. by the NWSC in development of their This lack of progress lead to the on-going work plans. The effective- formation of a second task force in late ness of the NWSC is evidenced by 1993 charged with revisiting wilder- some of the major actions it has taken: ness management issues across the • Development of Director’s Order 41: National Park System. The recom- Wilderness Preservation and Management mendations of this task force dealt • Development of Reference Manual 41: with wilderness leadership, conveying Wilderness Preservation and Management the wilderness message, developing •Participation in the Carhart Training partnerships, investing in NPS Center, including inauguration of on-site employees, improving wilderness wilderness training in parks planning, improving resource manage- • Establishment of the Director’s Order 41 ment and understanding, and address- Survey Database ing the backlog in the wilderness •Inauguration of an annual NPS wilderness review process. Major leadership rec- report • Development of a wilderness education ommendations focused mainly on the plan for the National Park System establishment of interdisciplinary • Completion of a wilderness planning wilderness steering committees at the handbook national and regional levels, establish- •Development of a wilderness resource ment of an interagency wilderness pol- book for NPS interpreters icy council, maintenance of a strong • Development of internet and intranet NPS wilderness coordinator in headquar- wilderness websites ters, and participation in the intera- •Inauguration of a White Paper Series on gency Arthur Carhart National wilderness management issues for inclu- sion in Reference Manual 41

94 The George Wright FORUM Figure 1. National Wilderness Steering Committee members and park staff discuss proposal for ecological restoration in wilderness to protect cultural resources at Bandelier National Monument. Photo by Jim Walters, National Park Service. • Making the new wilderness management ning, facilities, and lands (Sue Masica) text available on-line for issues related to wilderness science • Development of servicewide performance and planning. And in a promising goals development, the NWSC now has The reorganization of the NPS that committee liaisons from natural began in 2001 has also led to other resources and science, park planning opportunities to improve the agency’s and special studies, cultural resources, wilderness stewardship. The program and the associate regional directors for now has a full-time wilderness pro- operations. Further improvements in gram manager who reports directly to relationships with training and inter- the new associate director for visitor pretation programs are being and resource protection, Karen explored. The evolution of the NWSC Taylor-Goodrich. Under the reorgani- as an effective force for improving zation, this associate director now wilderness stewardship in the shares program leadership responsi- National Park System has been aided bilities with the associate directors for by the commitment of such able lead- natural resources, science, and stew- ers as Maureen Finnerty, Dick Ring, ardship (Mike Soukup) and park plan- Karen Wade, Doug Morris, Ernie

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 95 Quintana, and Don Neubacher. stewardship issues. The new White The associate directors for visitor Paper Series may be an excellent way and resource protection and for natu- to address critical stewardship issues, ral resources, science, and steward- and a number of them are now in the ship also sit as the National Park process of being developed. And final- Service representatives on the ly,at the request of Director Fran Interagency Wilderness Policy Mainella, the NWSC is developing a Council that was recently established wilderness action plan to strategically to address the full suite of interagency guide the agency’s course over the wilderness issues. next five years. The highest priorities for the The National Wilderness Steering NWSC will continue to be in ensuring Committee welcomes comments on its that wilderness stewardship training is effort to become an increasingly effec- available to Park Service managers and tive advisory body focused upon staff, to make wilderness stewardship achieving consistency in NPS wilder- information available to park staffs, to ness management objectives, tech- aid in the development of educational niques, and practices on both an materials for park visitors, and to be agency and interagency basis. responsive to field staff on wilderness

Reference Sellars, Richard West. 2000. The path not taken: National Park Service wilderness management. The George Wright Forum 17:4, 4–8.

Wes Henry, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW (10th Floor, Room 40), Washington, D.C. 20005; [email protected] Steve Ulvi, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve, 201 First Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701; [email protected] 3

96 The George Wright FORUM