Journal of Wilderness

INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

DECEMBER 2005 VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3

FEATURES SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 3 Is Eastern Wilderness ”Real”? PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE BY REBECCA ORESKES 30 Social and Institutional Influences on SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS Wilderness Fire Stewardship 4 Florida Wilderness BY KATIE KNOTEK Working with Traditional Tools after a Hurricane BY SUSAN JENKINS 31 Wilderness In Whose Backyard? BY GARY T. GREEN, MICHAEL A. TARRANT, UTTIYO STEWARDSHIP RAYCHAUDHURI, and YANGJIAN ZHANG 7 A Truly National Wilderness Preservation System BY DOUGLAS W. SCOTT EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION 39 Changes in the Aftermath of Natural Disasters 13 Keeping the Wild in Wilderness When Is Too Much Change Unacceptable to Visitors? Minimizing Nonconforming Uses in the National Wilderness Preservation System BY JOSEPH FLOOD and CRAIG COLISTRA BY GEORGE NICKAS and KEVIN PROESCHOLDT

19 Developing Wilderness Indicators on the INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES White Mountain National Forest 42 Wilderness Conservation in a Biodiversity Hotspot BY DAVE NEELY BY RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER, FRANK HAWKINS, SERGE RAJAOBELINA, and OLIVIER LANGRAND 22 Understanding the Cultural, Existence, and Bequest Values of Wilderness BY RUDY M. SCHUSTER, H. KEN CORDELL, and WILDERNESS DIGEST BRAD PHILLIPS 46 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

26 8th World Wilderness Congress Generates Book Review Conservation Results 48 How Should America’s Wilderness Be Managed? BY VANCE G. MARTIN edited by Stuart A. Kallen REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

FRONT COVER The magnificent El Carmen escaprment, one of the the “sky islands” of Coahuilo, Mexico. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil/Sierra Madre.

INSET Ancient grain grinding site, Maderas del Carmen, Coahuilo, Mexico. Photo by Vance G. Martin. International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

EDITORIAL BOARD Perry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USA Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada Steve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA H. Ken Cordell, Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga., USA

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

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

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

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and Forestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380, worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230. reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are E-mail: [email protected]. encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the managing editor. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/ Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author. All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright World Wide Website: www.ijw.org. © 2005 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

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

2 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 FEATURES

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

Is Eastern Wilderness “Real”?

BY REBECCA ORESKES

ately I’ve been at several meetings or events and lis- the landscape, people had made a choice to move from ex- tened to people talk about “real” wilderness. They ploitation to protection. Humans had made a conscious L were making a distinction between what they saw choice to change their relationship with the land. as large, wild areas with few people both in the western The East is in many ways where the U.S. National Wilder- United States and elsewhere, versus wilderness in the East, ness Preservation System was born. From Bob Marshall’s areas surrounded by human populations, long ago impacted roots in the Adirondacks, to Howard Zanhiser’s cabin in by human use. These are smaller areas, usually struggling the Adirondack woods where he created the Wilderness to find a semblance of balance between human use and the Act, the eastern United States has helped forge the nation’s idea of self-willed land. wilderness ethic. In those early years of the wilderness It reminded me of when people talk about “real jobs.” movement, the East served as a cautionary tale against ram- After working seasonally for many years, in the mountains, pant exploitation. Now, eastern wilderness symbolizes that on farms, as a cross-country ski patrol, it took me a long some recovery can come with careful stewardship. The East time to get a “real job,” which I understood to be one with continues to be filled with wilderness stewardship chal- benefits and year-round commitments. Once I got one of lenges. Still, amidst a rising population and increasing those jobs it didn’t seem any more or less “real” to me. I impacts to the natural environment, islands of wilderness guess I never have quite understood the distinction. represent our changing relationship to the land. The references to “real” wilderness got my head spin- This issue focuses on and celebrates wilderness steward- ning. I did what I usually do when my mind is spinning: I ship in the eastern United States and around the world, took a walk in wilderness. Eastern wilderness. I walked by from Doug Scott’s history of wilderness designation to a myself, getting wet from rain-soaked trees and grasses that discussion of how Madagascar proposes to address some of overhung the trail, past moose tracks and marten scat, by a its wilderness stewardship dilemmas. This issue is full of free-flowing river that sang not for my benefit but because tales about the struggles of designating and caring for wilder- of its own nature. It all seemed pretty real to me. ness and attests to the rich history of people and their The area I walked in, as is the case with many eastern relationship to wilderness. Eastern wilderness certainly wildernesses, was not untouched by humans. It had been seems real to me—and to the millions of people who live logged; railroads had once crisscrossed its landscape, al- near it. After all, our relationship with the land is as real though most people could not tell today. In the history of and as meaningful as we make it. IJW

The First 10 years of the International Journal of Wilderness on CD!

$95 Regular Price $70 IJW Subscriber Price, Save 25%! $50ea. When you buy 10 or more

Orders to: The WILD Foundation • Phone: 805-640-0390 • Fax: 805-640-0230 On line: www.wild.org

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 3 FEATURES

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

Florida Wilderness Working with Traditional Tools after a Hurricane

BY SUSAN JENKINS

Clearing up after one hurricane is an immense task. Clearing up after three hurricanes—hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne—can seem insurmountable. In November of 2004, the national forests in Florida requested assistance from wilderness and traditional tools experts throughout the Forest Service. An assessment team was assembled to determine the best and most sensitive approach to reopening the Florida National Scenic Trail and Juniper Run through some of the most unique and protected habitats in Florida. Despite the dangerous conditions posed by hundreds of downed trees along the trail and in the waters of the run, the team was tasked with devising a safe plan that would not require the use of any motorized or mechanized equipment in accordance with the values detailed in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The team was highly successful. Not only were the Florida National Scenic Trail and Juniper Run safely reopened, but traditional tool skills that were instrumental in the settlement of Florida long ago were rejuvenated and found to be just as useful and relevant today as they were in our past. The following article is a firsthand account and interpretation of the effort as written by recovery team member Susan Jenkins, a wilderness ranger from Idaho who came to Florida to participate in the work.

—Michelle Mitchell, USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Florida

anuary comes in cold and damp on the Florida Na- day, we have traveled less than a hundred yards. But this is tional Scenic Trail and the Juniper Springs Canoe Run. a unique chance to see the amazingly different country. J Both are found in the Juniper Prairie Wilderness on There is no doubt that this is a beautiful and unique the Ocala National Forest. It is a different world here. place. As we travel from one end of the wilderness to the The mornings are freezing but the day quickly warms. other, we encounter a landscape shifting from small ponds Walking along the tall grasses, we are soaked with sweat. and lakes to swamps, runs, and prairies. Vegetation varies The 75-degree weather feels stifling, and the humidity soaks as this complex countryside changes from hardwood to us as though we are breathing under tepid water. It is not longleaf islands historically shaped by fire. The Juniper even hot or really humid yet. Canoe Run is canopied by live oaks with Spanish moss Days later we are jumping out of canoes into swamp hanging from its branches. As we work to clear the water- muck to our chests. We are too cold to rest during the day. way, alligators and water moccasins become a daily Methane gases bubble up and the stench is … interesting. happening that takes a while to get used to. There are tick Our frustration mounts when saws bind repeatedly as em- checks at night, and the chiggers and mosquitoes are biting bedded sand in both oak and bay trees dull the cutting every warm evening. teeth. In the middle of the run the tension and binds within Different and incredibly beautiful. Many of us work the trees change as the current pulls the limbs back and between two large wildernesses encompassing 3 million forth as we saw beneath the surface. We can’t even saw into acres (1.2 million ha) with one gravel road between them. the palms as the pith repeatedly pinches the steel. Our But this country becomes more valuable as there is so little sharpened axes chip and ring as they strike the downed left. In a single afternoon we drive around the entire oaks covering the trail and waterways. At the end of the perimeter of the Juniper Prairie Wilderness. You have so

4 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 many visitors, and there is not much most positive outcomes of its passage wildland remaining. … How do you is that certain skills that may otherwise plan and deal with the management have vanished have been kept alive. decisions needed to preserve some- This is one of the benefits of wilderness. thing so unique? It is easy for any of Some individuals believed that us- us to see why people come from as far ing traditional tools would not be a away as Venezuela and Germany to be viable alternative when reopening the a part of the Florida Trail Association’s impacted trails and canoe runs. Oth- efforts to work in this wilderness. ers saw the recovery efforts in a Figure 1—Florida Trail Association members Megan Griffin and Sara Griffin of Tallahassee demonstrate one way to use the Outdoor enthusiasts and winter hik- different light. This was an opportu- crosscut saw with the help of Dr. Don Jastad. Photo courtesy of ers are aware of the destruction nity to reopen the trails and canoe runs Florida Trail Association. hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jean, and and to revitalize skills that had not Ivan inflicted on nearly all segments of been a part of the maintenance of the skills are still alive, and many quickly the Florida National Scenic Trail Florida Trail for many years. Florida’s developed an emotional involvement (Florida Trail). In October, after the last forest-related culture is filled with ex- in just knowing that these means are of the storms had passed, it was esti- amples of traditional tool use. Crosscut being used to accomplish the jobs at mated that 80% of the 1,400-mile trail saws, axes, and rigging equipment hand. As often happens, when com- (2,258 kilometers) was either closed or such as hoists and winches figured plex recovery projects are initially laid under assessment for damages. But the strongly into logging operations, road out, individuals look at the sheer volunteers and land managers that care and trail construction, and the build- amount of work to be done. Many for this trail are innovative and dedi- ing of structures. The Wilderness Act compare tool options for the job rather cated. Despite having to deal with requires the use of nonmotorized than comparing the tools within the repairs to their own homes and prop- means in designated wilderness except context of the work to be done. erty as a result of the storms, people in fire-related emergencies, law en- A chain saw is definitely faster and came out in force to rebuild sections of forcement, and medical emergency easier to use than a crosscut saw. How- the trail and remove blowdown that situations. We tried to develop an edu- ever, in the heavy blowdown that we blocked trail access. In four months, cational context and recovery plan that have encountered from high winds, we volunteers from the many different allowed for the work to be accom- have seen that only a small percent- chapters of the Florida Trail Associa- plished safely and efficiently while age of the work involves sawing. Most tion (FTA) had cleared most of the trail. fully meeting the directives of the act. of the job lies in moving the materials Bridges, boardwalks, and campsites In other places, we sometimes en- after the sawing has been finished. In were cleaned and repaired. counter resistance to the use of hand addition to working within Juniper The nine-mile (14.5 km) section of tools as a means of performing trail main- Prairie Wilderness, our crews were the Florida Trail within the Juniper tenance for accomplishing trail and asked to clear downed trees from the Wilderness called for some creative restoration work. Many people believe nonwilderness portions of Alexander thinking and problem solving. This is that chain saws and motorized rock drills Canoe Run where chain saws are a the only section of the Florida Trail are the only effective means for opening viable method for accomplishing passing through designated wilderness and reconstructing mountain pathways. work. We brought power saws along, that was affected by the hurricanes. Trail Our work in Florida has been viewed in but we were unable to use them effec- users, volunteers, and land managers a different light. And the feedback we tively, as most of the sawing had to be realize that the Juniper Prairie is a rare received from managers and wilderness done under water in order to clear the setting in Florida’s national forests. And, visitors will increase our resolve when run to a depth allowing for outboard like the wilderness areas in the west- we return to our jobs out west. motors. We quickly returned to hand ern states, a different type of As we visited with hikers from tools and cleared the run in a few days. management approach is called for. The Florida and all over the world while Initial examination of the Florida use of traditional (non motorized) tools cutting the hiking trails, we were over- Trail and Juniper Canoe Run showed has been a keystone for managing wil- whelmed with the positive responses. impacts from the hurricanes that derness since 1964, when the People told us how important it was seemed horrendous, with trees piled Wilderness Act was enacted. One of the to know that traditional hand-tool into huge jackstraws. With a seemingly

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 5 traditional crosscut saw and ax skills along with skyline logging techniques will continue to play an important part in trail and bridge maintenance and restoration in backcountry areas. With a never-ending need to continue trail maintenance, there will be plenty of time to perfect technique. The training was geared toward teaching and reviving skills; however, it was also about learning how these tools coupled with unlimited imagination can be used to solve all sorts of trail construction and Figure 2—Juniper Springs run in the Juniper Prairie Wilderness located in Florida (USDA Forest Service). reconstruction problems in the back- Photo by Deborah Caffin. country. As trainers, the best feedback we can receive is seeing overwhelming task ahead, a recovery management employees and volun- ideas and thoughts taking root in program was put in motion. Land teers to embark on a four-day training participants. By the end of the train- managers from the national forests in program with classroom and practi- ing, what began as a four-day session Florida and the Nez Perce and cal sessions. Learning about traditional stretched into five, and FTA volun- Clearwater National Forests in Idaho tools is more than just learning how teers from around the state began to designed a plan to promote stronger to swing an ax or run a saw in the reevaluate methods of construction partnerships among local forests, his- woods. Good tool usage is part skill for future Florida National Scenic torical societies, and the FTA in order and physical ability, but efficient work Trail projects using the traditional to complete the work in an economic takes place when planning and layout tool skills they had learned. IJW fashion. Long-term plans were devel- are present in the working process. SUSAN JENKINS was formerly a oped to promote these partnerships The practical sessions were de- wilderness ranger on the Nez Perce and cooperation into the future. signed to let everyone involved learn National Forest in Idaho and is now on the Upon arrival in Florida, tool train- how to use the hand tools and rigging Tongass National Forest in Alaska. E-mail: ers from the western regions of the equipment to their full advantage. Par- [email protected]. U.S. Forest Service met with local land ticipants quickly understood that

From BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT on page 45

RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER, Ph.D., is FRANK HAWKINS is technical director SERGE RAJAOBELINA is the secretary president of Conservation International and for Conservation International in general of Association Fanamby, a is a prominent primatologist, herpetologist, Madagascar. Originally from the UK, he conservation organization in Madagascar. and wildlife conservationist with more than has lived in Madagascar for nearly 20 E-mail: [email protected]. 30 years of field experience. He also serves years, starting out with research on the as chairman of IUCN’s Primate Specialist conservation biology of birds. He has OLIVIER LANGRAND, Ph.D., is senior vice Group, IUCN’s Regional councillor for also worked on the biogeography, president of Conservation International’s North America and the Caribbean, and conservation, and distribution of Africa and Madagascar Division. He has has a long history of professional involve- Malagasy carnivores and primates. 20 years of experience in international ment in Madagascar. Email: biodiversity conservation program [email protected]. planning, and management, and is an expert on the birds of the southwestern Indian Ocean islands.

6 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

A Truly National Wilderness Preservation System

BY DOUGLAS W. SCOTT

oday the National Wilderness Preservation System the legislation. As first introduced in 1956, the bill named includes 166 units east of the Rocky Mountains, each federal land unit involved. Later, generic language T comprising some 4,245,000 acres (1.7 million hect- replaced this long list of forest, park, and refuge units, but ares)—nearly 9% of all designated wilderness in the 49 states the original list demonstrates that the sponsors always in- other than Alaska (www.wilderness.net, accessed April 8, tended a nationwide wilderness system. The list included 2005). In this article, “east” means the half of the continental the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)–administered Boundary United States east of the Rockies and embraces a wide vari- Waters Canoe Area (Minnesota) and Linville Gorge (North ety of forest types, prairie grasslands, wetlands, and swamps. Carolina); national wildlife refuges, including Moosehorn Those who conceived and enacted the Wilderness Act (Maine), Okefenokee Swamp (Georgia), and Wichita Moun- envisioned a single system of areas held to one definition tains (Oklahoma); and national park areas, including and stewardship mandate nationwide. They laid down two Everglades (Florida), Great Smoky Mountains (Tennessee and fundamental ideas: Georgia), and Shenandoah (Virginia) (U.S. Senate, 1956). All involved were aware that these and other eastern units 1. Wilderness areas will be diverse in size and wildness. In involved lands disturbed by past human impacts. Aldo Leopold’s words, “In any practical [wilderness] pro- During Senate debate, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), gram the unit areas to be preserved must vary greatly in responded to concern that there would be reason: size and in degree of wildness” (Leopold 1949, p. 189). for fear or trepidation on the part of Senators representing Eastern States that forest areas within their States … could not … become a part of the wilderness system. I 2. The defining concept of wilderness was never some ideal deny it. … If the distinguished senior Senator from of pure, virgin nature. The framers of our national wilderness policy welcomed opportunities to preserve such areas, but their wilderness definition embraces lands with past human impacts. One founder of The Wilder- ness Society, Harvey Broome, wrote to Peter J. Hanlon on May 18, 1962: “A wild area is not necessarily a virgin area, but is one without roads and mechanized means of transportation… .” (The Wilderness Society archives, Western History Collection, Denver Public Library). Broome was addressing the suitability of the Shining Rock Wilderness (North Carolina), now a unit of the wilderness system.

In 1947, leaders of The Wilderness Society set in motion the campaign that led to the enactment of the Wilderness Figure 1—Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness in New Jersey (Fish & Wildlife Service). Photo by Robert Johnson. Act. Howard Zahniser, the society’s executive director, drafted

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 7 Florida wishes to introduce Senator Kuchel spoke with particular tabulation of the acreage of the wilder- proposed legislation creating a authority as one of the 10 original co- ness areas to be immediately protected. wilderness out of any of the sponsors of the wilderness bill in June Chairman Aspinall characterized these area owned by the Govern- ment of the United States in his 1956, the second most senior Repub- areas, which became statutorily desig- own State, let him do so. … lican member of the Committee on nated wilderness in the 1964 act, as That would be precisely what Interior and Insular Affairs, which having been “administratively desig- would be required of him if the approved the bill in 1961, and the nated as having wilderness proposed wilderness legisla- committee’s most senior Republican characteristics.” He explained how tion were enacted into law. when it reapproved the bill in 1963. closely his committee reviewed these (Kuchel 1961, p.16919) In its final form, the law immediately new areas before approving them: designated four eastern areas, including Parenthetically, I note for the the Shining Rock Wilderness (North record that 2 years ago when our Committee on Interior and Carolina) that the Forest Service estab- Insular Affairs was considering lished administratively in May 1964. The wilderness legislation there entire area showed fading evidence of were only 6,822,400 acres of extensive railroad logging and slash fires land [administratively] desig- that occurred between 1906 and 1926 nated as “wilderness,” “wild” and (USFS 1993). After visiting the area, “canoe” and that the increase of 2,317,321 acres that has taken Harvey Broome, then president of The place since then has been ac- Wilderness Society, wrote to Peter J. complished by the Department Figure 2—Aerial view of Cedar Keys Wilderness in Florida (Fish Hanlon on May 18, 1962: of Agriculture after coordina- & Wildlife Service). Photo courtesy of Fish & Wildlife Service. The fact that it has been cut- tion with the Committee on over and burned-over is unfor- Interior and Insular Affairs.” tunate, but areas of this size are (Aspinall 1964, p. 16,846) limited in number in the east and … it is desirable to set such The framers of the Wilderness Act aside as there is opportunity. … designed a practical law applicable to the The need is so great in the east and southeast that it is fortu- realities of land use history. Senator nate that Shining Rock is be- Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM), lead spon- ing considered … and in fifty sor of the Wilderness Act and chairman or one hundred years it will of the Senate committee, carefully ex- reach a high degree of restora- plained the two-sentence definition: tion. (The Wilderness Society The first sentence is a defini- archives, Western History Col- tion of pure wilderness areas, lection, Denver Public Library) where “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled In including this and the other wil- by man.” … It states the ideal. derness areas immediately designated The second sentence defines in the act, the floor leader in the House the meaning or nature of an of Representatives noted that his “com- area of wilderness as used in the proposed act: A substantial mittee, in effect, was reviewing each of area retaining its primeval these areas individually” (Aspinall character, without permanent 1964, p. 16846), finding that each had improvements, which is to be been defined with precision and met protected and managed so all of the criteria of the soon-to-be-en- man’s works are “substantially acted law—including areas in both the unnoticeable.” The second of these definitions of the term, giv- East and West that had a history of ear- ing the meaning used in the act, lier human impacts. As the House of is somewhat less “severe” or Figure 3—Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont (USDA Forest Representatives debated the Wilderness “pure” than the first.” (Anderson Service). Photo by John Romanowski. Act, Shining Rock was included in a 1961, p. 2), emphasis added.

8 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 In 1964, eastern areas qualified as law and the intent of the Con- wilderness according to both the For- gress of the United States. est Service and Congress. Yet six years (Saylor 1973, p. 849) later the agency opposed congressional Senator Henry Jackson (D-WA) designation of new wilderness areas in warned his colleagues that West Virginia with similar land use his- a serious and fundamental tories of decades-old logging. In 1971 misinterpretation of the Wil- the USFS associate chief speaking be- derness Act has recently fore the Sierra Club’s Biennial gained some credence, thus creating a real danger to the Figure 4—“Snowshoer” on Baker Peak in Big Branch Wilderness Wilderness Conference on September in Vermont (USDA Forest Service). Photo by George Wuerthner. 24 noted that “areas with wilderness objective of securing a truly national wilderness preserva- characteristics as defined in the Wilder- tion system. It is my hope to was out of step with the other agencies ness Act are virtually all in the West” correct this false so-called working correctly under the Wilderness (Roth 1988, p. 39). For its own politi- “purity theory” which threatens Act criteria. Presidents recommended cal reasons, the agency hierarchy the strength and broad appli- new wilderness areas in national parks adopted a new “purity” interpreta- cation of the Wilderness Act. and national wildlife refuges in the East, tion—that no land with a history of (Jackson 1973, p. 754) and Congress steadily added these areas human disturbance, east or west, could Senator Frank Church (D-ID), to the wilderness system—lands with qualify as wilderness. This purity in- leader of the Senate debate on the a history of land use impacts, such as terpretation was consciously evolved by Wilderness Act, observed that “the ef- refuge wilderness areas, including Great agency leaders (Costley 1972). fect of such an interpretation would Swamp (New Jersey, 1968), Seney The USFS quietly drafted an alter- be to automatically disqualify almost (Michigan, 1970), and Wichita native to the Wilderness Act to everything, for few if any lands on this Mountains (Oklahoma, 1970). establish a system of wild areas within continent—or any other—have es- Wilderness advocates and their the land of the national forest system caped man’s imprint to some degree” congressional allies responded to the and peddled it on Capitol Hill. Their (Church 1973a, p. S737). Church Forest Service legislation with a bill (S. 3699, 92nd Congress, 2nd ses- pointed out that the Wilderness Act counter bill, the proposed Eastern sion) was described as necessary itself “placed three eastern areas into Wilderness Areas Act. At hearings, because eastern areas “do not meet the National Wilderness Preservation Senator Church emphasized the threat the strict criteria of the Wilderness System [that] … had a former history the purity misinterpretation posed to Act” (Aiken 1972, p. 20570). Mem- of some past land abuse,” explaining, the vision of a single nationwide sys- bers of Congress who championed “This was by no means a so-called tem of wilderness areas, telling the the Wilderness Act resolved to turn grandfathering arrangement. It was, Forest Service: “If we [adopt your back this misinterpretation. Repre- and is, a standing and intentional pre- interpretation] we will be saying, in sentative John Saylor (R-PA), lead cedent to encourage such areas to be effect, that you can’t include a compa- sponsor of the Wilderness Act in the found and designated under the act rable area in the West in the wilderness House, challenged those: in other eastern locations” (Church system. That is the precise effect of who tell us [the act] is too narrow, too rigid, and too pure in 1973a, p. S738). your approach, because you will have its qualifying standards to al- In launching their purity inter- redefined section 2(c) of the Wilder- low any formerly abused lands pretation, the Forest Service hierarchy ness Act” (Church 1973b, p. 31). or lands with present abuse that can be restored with time. I fought too long and too hard, and too many good people in The framers of the Wilderness Act designed this House and across this land fought with me, to see the Wil- a practical law applicable to the realities derness Act denied application … by this kind of obtuse or of land use history. hostile misinterpretation or misconstruction of the public

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 9 In the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act most recently the Gaylord Nelson one. In fact, this law has no sec- (Public Law 93-622) signed by Presi- Wilderness in Apostle Islands Na- tion one, reflecting a clerical error dent Gerald Ford on January 3, 1975, tional Lakeshore (Wisconsin) signed back when “cut-and-paste” meant Congress designated 16 new wilder- by President George W. Bush in De- just that. Dropped on the cutting ness areas totaling 206,988 acres cember 2004. room floor was the short title “East- (83,800 hectares) of national forests ern Wilderness Areas Act,” the title lands east of the Rockies. The final leg- 2. Our National Wilderness Preser- of the Senate-passed bill and the islation adopted some elements of the vation System is wildly diverse. version approved by the House Forest Service–inspired bill, but did The wilderness system, still a work committee. The word Areas in this not alter the definition and intent of in progress, already fulfills Aldo title signals that this was simply the Wilderness Act. Congress had Leopold’s vision that in any practi- one more law designating addi- flatly repudiated the most serious cal wilderness program, the areas tional areas within the one-system threat to the vision of a nationwide will be diverse in both size and de- structure of the Wilderness Act. wilderness system. gree of wildness. Of the smaller areas Had the title been “Eastern Wilder- Understanding the legislative his- nearer population centers, Leopold, ness Act,” some might argue it tory of the Wilderness Act and the Bob Marshall, and the other implied a separate legal regime for Eastern Wilderness Areas Act helps founders of The Wilderness Society wilderness areas in the East. reinforce seven important lessons: observed that “although one cannot obtain in them the adventure, the 4. Congress, not the agencies, de- 1. The National Wilderness Preserva- dependence on competence [for sur- cides what lands are suitable as tion System is just that—national. vival], and the emotional thrill of the wilderness. Federal agencies pro- Wilderness areas east and west are extensive wilderness, they are the vide recommendations on proposed subject to the same criteria and stew- closest approximation to wilderness wilderness legislation. But executive ardship mandate. The Forest Service conditions available to millions of branch recommendations are not now administers 121 wilderness ar- people” (The Wilderness Society definitive; recommendations also eas comprising some 1,950,000 acres 1935, p. 2). come from other interested parties. (789,473 hectares) east of the As exemplified by the Eastern Wil- Rockies. Widened to all agencies, 3. There is no “eastern wilderness derness Areas Act, Congress acts as there are 166 wilderness areas com- act.” The law signed January 3, a “court of appeals” to which citi- prising 4,245,000 acres (1.7 million 1975, has no short title, which zens may appeal when they feel an hectares) in that region, including would usually be found in section agency’s political leadership is mis- interpreting the act or taking an unsatisfactory position on the dimensions of a proposed area.

5. Purity: “A misperception exists—let’s get rid of it.” The purity theory is demonstrably at odds with the congressional intent of the Wilderness Act. Congress has designated many wilderness areas with a history of human impacts, whether over an entire area (as is true of the Gaylord Nelson Wilder- ness designated in 2004) or in a portion, as is typical in lower el- evation valleys or plateaus in the West where some evidence of ear- Figure 5—Shenandoah Wilderness in Virginia (National Park Service). Photo courtesy of National Park Service. lier human impact can almost

10 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 invariably be found. Nonetheless, the purity theory is raised periodi- The purity theory is demonstrably at odds with the cally by agency personnel, interest groups, or members of Congress congressional intent of the Wilderness Act. who do not know this history or are unsympathetic to new wilderness designations. I like the advice particular effort to protect wilder- statement every agency wilderness one Forest Service official offered ness areas near where people live, steward and every wilderness advocate at an agency workshop in 1983: beginning with the1968 designa- should keep readily at hand: “Understand that there is one, and tion of the San Gabriel Wilderness The Wilderness Act establishes only one, National Wilderness adjacent to Pasadena, California. that an area is qualified and suitable for designation as wil- Preservation System as established Today the system includes the derness which (i) though man’s by Congress. The Wilderness Sys- Sandia Mountain Wilderness works may have been present tem is dynamic and diversified and the Pusch Ridge Wilderness, in the past, has been or may throughout our Nation. … A literally on the city limits of Albu- be so restored by natural influ- misperception exists—let’s get rid querque and Tucson, respectively. ences as to generally appear to of it” (Joy 1983, p. 6). For the same reason, where the have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the opportunities for protecting wilder- imprint of man’s work substan- 6. Restoration is an important ness areas are so constrained, as in tially unnoticeable, and (ii) issue for wilderness managers. the eastern half of the country may, upon designation as wil- Given the fact that no wilderness where federal lands are so rare, derness, contain certain preex- area is or could be utterly “pure,” Congress has shown a consistent isting, nonconforming uses, administrators are presented with strong interest in securing near- improvements, structures, or installations, and Congress has challenges concerning possible the-people wilderness areas. reaffirmed these established active steps to restore what some policies in the designation of perceive to be more “natural” eco- Conclusion additional areas since enact- system function. My own view is The rich legislative history document of the Wilderness Act, that east or west, great hesitation mented by the framers and champions exercising its sole authority to is needed in decisions to actively of the Wilderness Act is reinforced in determine the suitability of such areas for designation as manipulate a wilderness environ- the legislative history of more than 120 wilderness.” (Public Law 98– ment in the name of restoring what laws adding new lands to the wilder- 322, Section 101[a][5]) IJW we might perceive as more natural ness system. This history consistently ecosystem function. A fundamen- demonstrates that in its broad pur- REFERENCES tal underpinning of wilderness pose and fine details, this is a practical Aiken, George. 1972. Congressional Record, philosophy and the Wilderness Act law thoughtfully shaped by practical June 13, 20570. is that in these areas we meet people. As in the eastern wilderness Anderson, Clinton P. 1961. Wilderness Act: Hearings before the Senate Committee nature on its terms, with humil- debate, we have an obligation to sus- on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 174. ity—including the humble tain their practical vision and not 87th Congress, 1st session, February awareness that ecological “certain- wander into misinterpretations that 27–28. Aspinall, Wayne. 1964. National Wilderness would hamstring the building of the ties” we perceive today may prove Preservation System. Congressional Record, wrong with greater knowledge in National Wilderness Preservation July 30, 16846, bound edition. the future. As Howard Zahniser System. Church, Frank. 1973a. The Wilderness Act put it, in wilderness we should be In statutory language in the Ver- applies to the East. Congressional Record, January 16 (daily edition). “guardians, not gardeners” (Zahniser mont Wilderness Act of 1984, Church, Frank. 1973b. Eastern wilderness 1963, p. 2). Congress chose to remind us of its areas: Hearing before the Subcommittee on long, consistent application of the fun- Public Lands on S. 316. Senate Committee 7. Congress has worked to get damental features of the Wilderness on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93rd Con- gress, 1st session, February 21. wilderness closer to urban popu- Act. It is a concise statement not lim- Costley, Richard J. 1972. An enduring resource. lations. Congress has made a ited to Vermont or the East—a American Forests (June): 8.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 11 and the National Forests. College Station, TX.: Intaglio Press. Saylor, John. 1973. Legislation to save eastern wilderness. Congressional Record, January 11, 849. The Wilderness Society. 1935. The Wilderness Society: Reasons for a Wilderness Society. Dated January, 21, 1935 in The Wilderness Society archives, Western History Collection, Denver Public Library. U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Area History (text on official map) of the Shining Rock Wilderness and Middle Prong Wilderness, Forest Service Recreational Guide R8-RG 23, revised June 1993, Pisgah National Forest, NC. U.S. Senate. 1956. S. 4013, 84th Congress, 2d session, June 7. U.S. Senate. 1972. S. 3699, 92nd Congress, 2d session, June 13. www.wilderness.net. 2005. accessed April 8, 2005. Zahniser, Howard. 1963. Guardians not gar- Figure 6—Ellicott Rock Wilderness in North Carolina and South Carolina (USDA Forest Service). Photo courtesy of USDA deners (editorial). The Living Wilderness Forest Service. (Spring–Summer): 2.

Jackson, Henry. 1973. Congressional Record, Congressional Record, September 5, 16919, DOUGLAS W. SCOTT, a wilderness January 11, 754. bound edition. advocate since the late 1960s, is policy Joy, Charles R. 1983. One National Wilderness Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. director of the Campaign for America’s Preservation System—Resolving the percep- New York: Oxford University Press. Wilderness, 2820 E. Madison St. #303, tion of eastern, western, and Alaskan wilder- Public Law 93-622. 1975. Eastern Wilderness Seattle, WA 98112, USA ness. Transcript of a talk at the University of Areas Act, 88 Stat. 2096, January 3. Idaho Wilderness Workshop, Moscow, ID, Public Law 98–322. 1984. Vermont Wilderness ([email protected]), and author of The October 12, 1983 (author’s files). Act of 1984, June 19, 98 Stat. 253, Section Enduring Wilderness: Protecting Our Natural Kuchel, Thomas. 1961. Establishment of 101(a)(5). Heritage through the Wilderness Act National Wilderness Preservation System. Roth, Dennis M. 1988. The Wilderness Movement (Golden, CO.: Fulcrum Publishing, 2004).

From ALDO LEOPOLD on page 30

this research, Leopold Institute scien- wilderness fire stewardship. Scientists Healthy Forests Initiative) by provid- tists developed a simple monitoring have assessed public support for pre- ing land managers with the tool to measure and monitor change scribed fire in wilderness with a survey information needed to restore and in trust levels among participants in of visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilder- maintain natural fire regimes in wil- the forest’s collaborative planning pro- ness Complex. In addition, a derness while protecting both local and cess for fuels treatment. Scientists, 10,000-acre (4,016 ha) prescribed national values across the landscape. managers, and the public are actively burn in the Scapegoat Wilderness is This type of research will be critical in collaborating to incorporate results serving as a case study for a focused the future for understanding trade-offs from these research efforts into man- assessment of public response to pre- made by decision makers at the inter- agement decisions. scribed fire by members of the public face between wilderness and The use of management-ignited residing in wilderness-proximate nonwilderness lands. IJW prescribed fire in wilderness in the communities. Northern Rockies offers another ex- Scientists at the Leopold Institute KATIE KNOTEK is a research assistant in social science at the Aldo Leopold cellent opportunity for Leopold seek to be responsive to national ini- Wilderness Research Institute, Box 8089, Institute scientists to better understand tiatives on fire and fuels management Missoula, MT 59807, USA. social and institutional influences on (e.g., the National Fire Plan and the

12 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

Keeping the Wild in Wilderness Minimizing Nonconforming Uses in the National Wilderness Preservation System

BY GEORGE NICKAS and KEVIN PROESCHOLDT

Introduction Forty years after passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, it is increasingly clear that, despite the best intentions of the law, many lands within the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System (NWPS) are degrading. One of the greatest emerging challenges to protecting the wild character of these lands is the preponderance of special provisions or nonconforming uses that have been included in subsequent wilderness bills. These provisions not only allow activities within wilderness that are inappropriate and degrade individual areas, but more importantly the cumulative impact of these special provisions threatens to diminish the core values that distinguish wilderness from other public lands. l to r: Co-authors George Nickas and Kevin Proescholdt. Overview: Wilderness Has Its Own Meaning and Worth A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man To understand the manner in which wilderness conditions and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby are being eroded and wilderness character degraded, we recognized as an area where the earth and its com- must first understand what wilderness is, what wilderness munity of life are untrammeled by man, where man character means and symbolizes, and then we can deter- himself is a visitor who does not remain [emphases mine what standards are necessary for protecting wilderness added]. (1964 Wilderness Act, Sec. 2[c]). as a unique resource. By law, wilderness is to remain in contrast to mod- 1. Wilderness—legal definition. The statutory definition ern civilization, its technologies, conventions, and for wilderness in the United States is found in Section contrivances. This intent is underscored in Section 4(c) 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. The framers of the act in- of the act, expressly prohibiting commercial enterprises tended that the first sentence of this section would and permanent roads. With only very narrow excep- establish the meaning of wilderness: In testimony before tions it prohibits temporary roads, motor vehicles, the final Senate hearing on the wilderness bill in 1963, motorized equipment, motorboats, aircraft landings, the bill’s chief author, Howard Zahniser, testified that “the mechanical transport, structures, or installations in wil- first sentence defines the character of wilderness…In this derness. These incompatible activities are prohibited definition the first sentence is definitive of the meaning because allowing their intrusion blurs the distinction of the concept of wilderness, its essence, its essential between wilderness and modern civilization, dimin- nature—a definition that makes plain the character of ishing wilderness character and the unique values that lands with which the bill deals, the ideal.” set it apart.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 13 mans will interact with wilderness, include outstanding opportunities what our relationship will be with for solitude and primitive and un- these special places. In wilderness, confined recreation, and the Congress clearly intended that associated experience of freedom, human activities and technologies self-reliance, risk, adventure, discov- will not dominate or develop the ery, and mystery. Wilderness is a landscape, and will not manipu- place set apart—both physically and late natural processes. psychologically—from modern civilization and its commercial and 2. Wilderness Character—what the Figure 1—Jetboat on the Main Salmon River, Frank Church-River material distractions. of No Return Wilderness. Motorboat use has increased law seeks to preserve. The Perhaps the best attempt to dramatically since Wilderness designation. Photo courtesy of overarching statutory mandate in the Wilderness Watch. define and embrace all these aspects Wilderness Act is to preserve the of wilderness character came in the wilderness character of each wilder- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ness within the NWPS. Numerous 2001 Draft Wilderness Stewardship courts have found that preserving Policy. This policy stated in part: wilderness character is the purpose Preserving wilderness character of the Wilderness Act. See, for ex- requires that we maintain the ample, Wilderness Watch v. Mainella wilderness condition: the natu- (2004, 11th Circuit Court of Ap- ral, scenic condition of the land, biological diversity, biological peals) and High Sierra Hikers Assn. v. Figure 2—Water truck filling desert bighorn sheep guzzler in the integrity, environmental health, North Maricopa Mountain Wilderness. Photo courtesy of Bureau Blackwell (2004, 9th Circuit Court and ecological and evolutionary of Land Management. of Appeals). This principal tenet of processes. But the character of the law is described in Section 4(b): wilderness embodies more than Each agency administering any a physical condition. … The area designated as wilderness character of wilderness refo- shall be responsible for preserv- cuses our perception of nature ing the wilderness character of and our relationship to it. It the area and shall so administer embodies an attitude of humil- such area for such other purity and restraint that lifts our poses for which it may have been connection to a landscape from established as also to preserve its the utilitarian, commodity ori- wilderness character. (1964 Wil- entation that often dominates derness Act, Sec. 4[b]) our relationship with nature to the symbolic realm serving Figure 3—Guzzler under construction in the North Maricopa Preserving wilderness charac- Mountains Wilderness. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land other human needs. We pre- Management. ter includes protecting the natural serve wilderness character by and scenic qualities of the land- our compliance with wilderness Congress also specified that scape, natural soundscapes, and legislation and regulation, but also by imposing limits upon wilderness would be untrammeled, the free play of ecological and evo- ourselves.” (2001, p. 3714) meaning free of the human intent lutionary processes. Wilderness to manipulate, alter, control, or character also includes the absence How Nonconforming Uses subjugate nature. In wilderness, of those things that diminish it, Are Degrading Wilderness the forces of nature would be al- such as human-built structures, The unique values that characterize lowed to shape the landscape and roads, bridges, campsites, highly lands within the National Wilderness the interplay of plants and animals developed trails, motor vehicles, Preservation System are being steadily without intentional human inter- mechanized equipment, crowding, degraded. The reasons can be broadly ference. In this definition, mining, and livestock grazing. categorized as (1) increased motorized use, Congress defined the core quali- Like personal character, wilder- (2) commercialization, (3) manipulation ties of wilderness. It also provided ness character involves intangible of natural processes, and (4) chang- statutory direction for how hu- qualities as well. These components ing types and levels of recreational use.

14 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 Special provisions in new wilderness stewardship responsibilities (see, e.g., bills exacerbate these problems and are Pinchot Institute for Conservation becoming paramount in the overall 2001). Given the lack of commitment threats to wilderness nationwide. to or understanding of good stewardship on the part of some managers, Nonconforming Uses exceptions in wilderness bills often re- Diminish Wilderness sult in far more damage to wilderness Character character than the writers and support- Nonconforming uses diminish an area’s ers of these exceptions anticipated. wilderness character and the opportu- The Central Idaho Wilderness Act nity for present and future generations (CIWA), which designated the River Figure 4—Cowboy camp in the Emigrant Wilderness; the so- to experience the unique benefits of of No Return Wilderness (later named called Congressional Grazing Guidelines allow for supporting authentic wilderness. Section 4(d) of the Frank Church-River of No Return activities including fences, line cabins as part of livestock grazing operations in Wilderness. Photo by George Nickas. the Wilderness Act is titled “Special Wilderness), is a case in point. When Provisions.” These so-called noncon- that law was passed in 1980 there were forming uses are compromises that eight airplane landing strips in the using the main Salmon River. The up- diminish wilderness character, but were wilderness in public use on national per 40 miles (64.5 kilometers) of nonetheless written into the original forest land. Under the Wilderness Act, designated Wild River received less than law. These special exceptions are quali- the Forest Service had the authority one jetboat trip per day in 1978. Today, fied to various degrees so as to provide to close any or all of the landing strips the Forest Service permits 18 commer- federal wilderness managers with the and was moving in that direction on cial companies unlimited trips for ability to regulate these uses to mini- at least two. A special provision in hauling rafters, hunters, anglers, and mize their impacts on wilderness. CIWA prohibited the Forest Service sightseers up and down the entire length With the exception of honoring pri- from closing any landing strip “in of the 85-mile-long (137-kilometer- vate existing rights and for fire regular use on national forest lands” long) Salmon River. In 2003 the agency management, the Wilderness Act re- at the time of designation without the also tripled (to 40 boat-days per week) quires that the other activities be express approval of the state of Idaho. the amount of private jetboat use al- administered to protect wilderness char- This provision effectively precluded lowed during the summer season. There acter. For instance, the exception for closing any of the existing strips and are no limits on off-season trips. In short, commercial services allows for commer- in fact has resulted in far worse con- special provisions in the CIWA have al- cial outfitting and guiding only to the ditions. Under pressure from pilots lowed the largest contiguous wilderness extent the services are both necessary and and the state, the Forest Service re- in the lower 48 states, an area that should proper for realizing wilderness benefits cently recognized four more meadows provide the ultimate wilderness experi- and done in a manner that protects the as additional historic landing strips, in- ence, to instead be riddled with landing wilderness character of the areas. In creasing the total number to 12. strips and unlimited airplane and jetboat other words, whereas the Wilderness Act Furthermore, the landing of airplanes use. It is also important to note that allowed for some nonconforming activi- in the wilderness has exploded to much of the motorized use occurs in ties, the law also provided managers with more than 5,500 each year, much of it order to facilitate commercial services the tools they needed to ensure that the for practicing touch-and-go landings (outfitting and guiding), a Wilderness impacts from these exceptions would be and for “bagging” airstrips—activities Act exception that itself is limited to the rare and carefully controlled. Unfortu- that have nothing to do with access- degree that the activity is both necessary nately, the good intentions of the law are ing the area for wilderness purposes. and proper in a wilderness context. not always being realized on the ground. Another special provision in CIWA One of the most widespread The responsibility for regulating the prohibited the Forest Service from re- examples of the unanticipated conse- uses allowed by special provisions falls ducing motorboat use on the main quences of special provisions is the to federal agencies that have often not Salmon River to a level below that which Congressional Grazing Guidelines been supportive of good wilderness occurred in 1978. Forest Service reports (CGG) that Congress first included in stewardship. All four agencies are fall- prepared at the time indicate there was a Colorado national forest wilderness ing woefully short in meeting their a relatively small number of jetboats bill in 1980. The Guidelines have been

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 15 grazing operations was rare or nonex- in order to protect domestic livestock istent. To many, the impact of the CGG (Forest Guardians v. Animal & Plant seemed very minor at the time. In the Health Inspection Serv., 2002, No. 01- late 1990s, as part of an appeal chal- 15239, U.S. Court of Appeals for the lenging a U.S. Forest Service decision Ninth Circuit, 309 F.3d 1141). allowing motorized access to a line These examples represent just a few shack on the Mazourka Allotment in of the threats presented by special pro- the Inyo Mountains Wilderness in Cali- visions in wilderness bills, and they also fornia, neither Wilderness Watch nor highlight the unintended consequences the Forest Service was able to identify that arise from making such exceptions. Figure 5—Airplanes and outfitter camp in the Arctic Wildlife a single instance where the Forest Ser- Most managers have been unable or Refuge Wilderness. Some commercial outfitters take advantage of provisions in the Alaska wilderness bill to conduct aircraft- vice had permitted motorized access in unwilling to regulate or limit these non- intensive hunting operations. Photo courtesy of US Fish and a Wilderness for grazing purposes. conforming uses. Thus even when Wildlife Service. That situation is changing because discretionary safeguards have been in- many of the wildernesses added to the cluded in legislation, they have proven included in most national forest and system in the past two decades, par- ineffective for protecting wilderness Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ticularly those in the Intermountain character from the harm that results wilderness bills since that time. Live- West and the desert Southwest, are ex- from special provisions. stock grazing was “grandfathered” into tensively grazed by cattle or sheep. This array of nonconforming uses the 1964 Wilderness Act, which pro- Ranchers have become increasingly decreases the recognizable core quali- vided that, subject to reasonable accustomed to using off-road vehicles ties that define wilderness across the regulation, livestock grazing shall be in these areas. The BLM in particular, system. It brings about a gradual de- allowed to continue in those areas which now administers about one- cline in the overall wilderness standards where it was an established use. The quarter of all wildernesses, has proven that govern the NWPS. Some noncon- 1980 grazing guidelines opened the woefully lenient in allowing ranchers forming uses in wilderness may seem door to a variety of more abusive uses. to drive off-road vehicles in wilderness. small, or of little impact in a National The guidelines authorized ranchers to For example, in administering the Wilderness Preservation System that use motor vehicles and equipment and Steens Mountain Wilderness in eastern encompasses more than 660 areas and to develop new “improvements” for Oregon, the BLM allows ranchers un- 106 million acres (42.9 million hect- certain livestock management activi- restricted use of motor vehicles for ares). But each nonconforming use ties provided there were no “practical tending their cattle. The Congressional violates the ideal and integrity of wil- alternatives” and where such activities Grazing Guidelines are more restrictive derness and diminishes the wilderness cannot “reasonably and practically be than the BLM’s implementation of them character and symbolic value of all wil- accomplished on horseback or foot.” on Steens Mountain. However, environ- derness areas in the system. The The CGG have been incorporated in mentalists have been unsuccessful in cumulative impact of hundreds of non- the Forest Service Manual at FSM trying to prevent unlimited driving, conforming uses is significant. 2323.22 and can be viewed at whereas local congresspeople have con- www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/ sistently pressured the BLM to interpret Precedence in 2320.1-2323.26b.txt. the Guidelines in the most lenient fash- Nonconforming Uses Most wilderness advocates at the ion. The BLM relies on ambiguous Nonconforming uses allowed in one time felt the impact of the guidelines language in the Steens Act to justify its wilderness bill are replicated—and would be minor and result in motor actions. often expanded—in subsequent wil- vehicle incursions only under the most Further damage to wilderness can derness bills. Once an exception is rare of circumstances. Most wilderness be traced to the guidelines. In 2002 a made in one bill, it becomes harder areas designated prior to 1980 had little federal court, relying on the grazing to exclude similar exceptions in fu- or no domestic livestock grazing within guidelines, ruled that the Department ture wilderness bills. Whereas some their borders. In those wildernesses of Agriculture was justified in killing may argue that there are no binding with substantial livestock grazing, the a large number of mountain lions in precedents, that each bill is a unique use of motor vehicles as part of those the Santa Teresa Wilderness in Arizona situation, history argues otherwise.

16 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 Three noteworthy examples of pro- they are often unable or unwill- visions that have become troublesome ing to do so. MOUs are not precedents for other bills include (1) the legally enforceable unless they Congressional Grazing Guidelines dis- are incorporated into statutes, cussed above, (2) motorized access for as is the case in a growing num- state fish and game departments, and ber of wilderness bills. (3) access to private land inholdings There are now permanent (nonfederal lands) within wilderness. roads in some wildernesses Special language allowing for vehicle used for constructing, operat- use for wildlife management first ap- ing, and maintaining artificial peared in the 1984 Wyoming water developments, called Wilderness Act. The exception was very “guzzlers,” which are designed narrow and for a specific purpose: al- to artificially inflate the num- lowing motorized access to a specific bers of bighorn sheep and Figure 6—Non-conforming uses of motorboats and truck portages degrade the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in location in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness other game species. In various Minnesota. Photo by Kevin Proescholdt. for capturing bighorn sheep. The pro- forms, this exception for mo- vision applied only to a 6,000-acre torized uses for fish and wildlife that a landowner has a right to (2,409-hectare) addition to the management has been continued in access or exchange. If he is offered either, he has been accorded all Fitzpatrick Wilderness in order to allow several subsequent wilderness desig- the rights granted by the statute. occasional motorized access for captur- nations, including the Los Padres If you offer land exchange, the ing and transporting bighorn sheep. The Condor Range and River Protection landowner has no right of access trapping program had been conducted Act (1992), the California Desert Pro- under 5(a). (43 Op. Attorney Gen. 243, 269, 1980) for many years to transplant bighorns tection Act of 1994, the Clark County from the Wind River Mountains to other Conservation of Public Land and Natu- It was an excellent solution to a prob- mountain ranges throughout the West ral Resources Act of 2002, and the lem with dangerous potential to degrade where Rocky Mountain bighorns had Lincoln County Conservation, Recre- wilderness. Within the 106-million-acre been extirpated. ation, and Development Act of 2004. (42.9-million-hectare) NWPS, there are Six years later, Congress greatly ex- Access to inholdings that are sur- well over one-half million acres panded motorized access and other rounded by wilderness provides a third (202,345 hectares) of inholdings in wilderness-damaging activities under example of how precedents are unex- thousands of widely scattered individual the guise of wildlife management in 39 pectedly set when damaging provisions parcels. By giving land managers the new wildernesses designated in the are included in a wilderness bill. The authority to offer an exchange rather Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. The framers of the Wilderness Act antici- than allow harmful access, the act as- Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 pated the potential conflict between sured that the right decision for referred to a memorandum of under- wilderness protection and the desires of wilderness could be made every time. standing (MOU) between the BLM, the private landowners wanting access to Yet, here again, special provisions in new Forest Service, and the International their inheld lands. In those cases where bills have begun to erode the protections Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen- the desired access is incompatible with ensured by the Wilderness Act. cies as guidance for the types of wilderness protection, the 1964 act of- A provision inserted into the Alaska activities that should be allowed in wil- fers the inholder “adequate access” or National Interest Lands Conservation derness. The MOU allows for predator an “exchange for federally owned land Act (ANILCA) in 1980 dealt the first control, constructing artificial water in the same state of approximately equal blow to the protections afforded in Sec- sources, poisoning streams, stocking value” (Section 5[a]). An opinion from tion 5(a). That provision states that the nonnative fishes, and, in many cases, the U.S. attorney general in 1980 con- secretary of agriculture “shall provide the use of motor vehicles and motor- cluded that wilderness managers such access to nonfederally owned land ized equipment in carrying out these retained the right to deny access that within … the National Forest System … activities. Although the federal land would be harmful to wilderness and adequate to secure the reasonable use managers retain authority to regulate could offer an exchange instead: and enjoyment thereof.” Whereas every or limit any activity under the MOU, The language of 5(a) indicates other provision in ANILCA applies only

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 17 to Alaska, the reference to “National Protecting Wilderness from other uses such as logging Forest System” led the Forest Service Character in Legislation or ATVs. In the 60,000-acre to conclude that the provision applies It is imperative that wilderness advo- (24,096-hectare) Rattlesnake area to all national forest lands, including cates oppose the use of special that borders Missoula, Montana, wilderness, in the lower 48 states. The provisions in new wilderness bills. Congress designated the lower half U.S. Department of Agriculture has Forty years of experience in implement- of the area, which is popular for day codified this interpretation in its regu- ing the Wilderness Act have shown that hiking, mountain biking, and horse- lations applying to all national forest the special provisions in various wil- back riding, as the Rattlesnake wildernesses. For its part, the BLM has derness bills are leading to serious National Recreation Area and the also applied the access language of degradation to both the Wilderness more remote upper half as the Rattle- ANILCA to all lands under its jurisdic- ideal and to the Wilderness condition. snake Wilderness. tion. Whether or not the agencies have • Avoid nonconforming uses in new correctly interpreted this special pro- wilderness designations. Wilder- Conclusion vision in ANILCA, it has severely ness advocates should keep proposals Wilderness advocates must ensure that hampered the ability to protect wilder- for designating new wildernesses special provisions in new wilderness bills ness by offering a land exchange in lieu clean of nonconforming uses, while and incompatible uses in existing wilder- of allowing potentially harmful access. working to remove such provisions nesses are not allowed to further degrade It is important to note, however, that from bills introduced in Congress. the wilderness character of NWPS units. the courts have not yet ruled on the • Keep wilderness bills brief and We must seize opportunities to stem the question of whether this section free of special management lan- erosion of wilderness standards and the (1323[a]) of ANILCA effectively guage, even if the intent of the gradual degradation of the system that is amended the Wilderness Act. language is simply to reiterate the occurring due to special provisions in As with other special provisions, the provisions of the Wilderness Act. wilderness legislation. By taking an “access” exception in ANILCA is being The simplest and most straightfor- aggressive stance against new noncon- repeated in subsequent bills. In 1994 the ward way to address this problem forming uses we can ensure that we pass California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) is to eschew special language and on to future generations the “enduring included access language nearly identi- instead include a statement saying resource of wilderness” that the framers cal to ANILCA, thereby ensuring that this the area is to be managed in accor- of the Wilderness Act sought to preserve weakening provision would apply to the dance with the Wilderness Act. and that future generations deserve to 69 areas and millions of acres of wilder- • Minimize the impacts of any new inherit. IJW ness designated by the CDPA. Subsequent nonconforming uses in wilder- REFERENCES laws designating Wilderness in Oregon ness legislation. Phase out the Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2001. Ensur- and Nevada have included variations of nonconforming uses over time. Con- ing the Stewardship of the National Wilder- the language used in the CDPA. gress included motorboat phaseouts ness Preservation System: A Report to the As a result of access provisions infor specific lakes in the 1978 Bound- USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Man- agement, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Na- cluded in the above-mentioned laws, ary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness tional Park Service, US Geological Survey. the BLM and Forest Service have be- Act. Limit the impacts from noncon- Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute. gun approving motorized access (and forming uses allowed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Draft related road development and improve- Wilderness Act that might not be Wilderness Stewardship Policy (Jan. 16, 2001). Federal Register, Vol. 66(10). ments) to inholdings for a variety of phased out over time. Examples of inappropriate uses in wilderness. These such use include livestock grazing GEORGE NICKAS is the executive director include weekend camping and stargaz- and some commercial services. Place of Wilderness Watch, P.O. Box 9175, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. E-mail: ing (Palen-McCoy Wilderness, CA), the nonconforming uses outside of [email protected]. building and operating a horse breed- the wilderness boundary if possible. ing and dude ranch (Mt. Tipton • Consider alternative designations KEVIN PROESCHOLDT is a member of the board of directors of Wilderness Watch and Wilderness, AZ), campground develop- if special provisions that compro- the director of wilderness and public lands ment (Kalmiopsis Wilderness, OR), and mise the ability to manage the area for the Izaak Walton League of America, commercial outfitting and guiding as wilderness can’t be avoided and 1619 Dayton Avenue #202, St. Paul, MN (Steens Mountain Wilderness, OR). if protection is needed for an area 55104, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

18 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

Developing Wilderness Indicators on the White Mountain National Forest

BY DAVE NEELY

Introduction To help get a Wilderness stewards across the United States face a wide array handle on the wide of challenges in meeting the mandates of the Wilderness Act. range of possible The seemingly contradictory requirements to manage an area selections, potential for use and keep it untrammeled, ensure solitude, and provide indicators have been for primitive and unconfined recreation; protect and manage traditionally grouped for natural conditions, and keep the imprint of humans’ work into two categories substantially unnoticeable are a tall order to meet regardless characterized as bio- of location. In the eastern United States, with its dense urban logical or biophysical and suburban population, a long history of agricultural and and social. Initially Article author Dave Neely industrial development, relatively small parcels of public this division seems to lands—and even smaller parcels of wilderness—make these make sense, allowing us to think on one hand of impacts challenges increasingly difficult. Providing an enduring on the land resulting from human use and on the other resource of wilderness in the face of a growing, developing hand of experiential impacts caused by interactions with population and high or increasing recreation use sets the people. However, this grouping neglects the true complexity stage for difficult management decisions. Even the tools to of interactions between people and their internal and manage people and their impacts on wilderness have effects external environments. In addition, restrictive management themselves. In this context, each management action becomes actions tied to either purely biophysical impacts or purely a trade-off of sorts, compromising one value for the other social can be problematic. Our publics have often shown toward the lofty goal of maintaining wilderness character. an unwillingness to accept limits on recreational use of The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning wilderness based on social indicators alone. At the same approach has served managers well through the years by time, it can be extraordinarily difficult to make the case systematically clarifying the acceptable point of compromise that significant effects on the overall health of a wilderness between legitimate and sometimes conflicting uses of ecosystem result primarily from recreation impacts and, wilderness. We can clearly describe to the public just how therefore, require limits on recreation use. much impact, or change, we can tolerate by identifying After wrestling with the limitations of these groupings, measurable indicators and the standards that serve as the Wilderness Planning Group on the White Mountain thresholds, and management actions needed when those National Forest (WMNF) began thinking about types of standards are exceeded. For LAC to work, good indicators indicators in slightly different ways for a modified LAC must be selected that are clearly observable, measurable— process we used to shape the wilderness management portion often by seasonal employees rather than trained of our revised WMNF Land and Resources Management Plan. researchers—and defensible as representative of overall This process helped us come to terms with which indicators change in wilderness conditions. to emphasize in the WMNF plan document.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 19 (1) concern for the overall health of at a mountain summit, or an the ecosystem; (2) concern for the encounter with a backcountry ranger. social experience of an area; and (3) These indicators are categorized as concern for the condition of the local distinct from others because they are landscape and the quality of the social strictly a measure of how people experience dependent on the directly affect other people, and the condition of the landscape (see figure primary concern is for the human 1). This led us to develop our three experience in terms of type, quality, indicator categories: biophysical and frequency of interaction with indicators, social indicators, and others. aesthetic indicators. Aesthetic indicators measure Figure 1—The Great Gulf Wilderness on a clear day. Photo by Rob Esty, USFS. For the WMNF plan, biophysical human impacts on the land, but— indicators include measures of human unlike the broad-scale biophysical impact on the land in terms of the category—are measures of how direct overall biological health and quality of human impacts on the immediate the large-scale environment—our landscape affect the human experience effects on the ecosystem as a whole. of the wilderness. These impacts are Many of these impacts arise from usually local in scope, constrained to actions and events that occur outside an immediate area, and result of wilderness; for example, our local primarily from recreation use. As air quality concerns stem largely from something of a combination of the first automobile and industrial emissions, two groups, they measure a social and high or increasing pH levels in impact to a biophysical resource and wilderness streams are most are concerned with the resulting Figure 2—Fire damage in the Sandwich Range Wilderness— before. Photo by Karen Clarey, USFS. influenced by acidic precipitation experience of that impacted resource. rather than local point-source Those common recreation impacts pollution. These indicators were managers face on a day-to-day basis— considered distinct from others trash in a campsite, proliferation of because the primary concern is for the campsites around a pond, a boulder health and quality of ecosystems and charred by campfires (see figure 2 and ecosystem components—watersheds, 3), or graffiti carved into a tree—fall airsheds, wildlife and vegetative into this category. With these populations—rather than for the indicators the primary concern is for quality of the human experience based the human experience as it derives on those components. While recog- from the health and quality of the nizing that an unhealthy ecosystem immediate, local landscape. This has an effect on the human wilderness distinction is made, in part, based on Figure 3—Fire damage in the Sandwich Range Wilderness— experience, we should be concerned a belief that whereas excessive soil after. Photo by Karen Clarey, USFS. with polluted water, or acid rain, or compaction due to heavy campsite use endangered species for many reasons or proliferation of campsites around a LAC Indicator Selection above and beyond the effect on human pond are indeed problematic, these We asked ourselves a basic question recreation experience in a particular impacts are unlikely to have an effect with each indicator: What is our wilderness. on the overall health and productivity primary concern? Or, in other words, Our social indicators include of the soil or the quality of water across why are we concerned with human-to-human impacts, but only the wilderness ecosystem. Even the monitoring this impact? We impacts resulting from immediate oft-cited problem of human waste discovered that we ended up with contact, such as meeting multiple disposal seems unlikely to affect water three basic answers, and these parties throughout the day along a quality generally within a watershed provided the basis for our categories: trail, encountering a large, loud group and is not on the scale of regionwide

20 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 acid rain deposition. With these types quality; water quality; presence of of recreation impacts, the concern threatened, endangered and sensitive seems to be very local and immediate species; and presence of nonnative in nature, and perhaps the greatest invasive species. Social indicators effect is on the experience of sub- selected were (a) trail use levels, (b) sequent wilderness users (see figure 4). destination use levels, and (c) visitor As such, the driving management perception of crowding and quality of rationale to mitigate them stems from experience. Aesthetic indicators the human experience. selected were (a) campsite density, (b) From a practical, management campsite size, and (c) presence of litter perspective these groupings have and human waste. Figure 4—Campsite impacts, Sandwich Range Wilderness. Photo several benefits. Generally, the large- by Karen Clarey, USFS. scale concerns covered in the Conclusion biophysical category have solutions This process of indicator categorization outside the scope of federal wilderness helped us clarify our efforts in the LAC managers’ authority (e.g., enforcement approach of defining standards and of the Clean Air Act, increased fuel management actions. We also efficiency standards in vehicles, recognized that each category seemed operation of coal-fired power plants) to tie directly to language from the (see figure 5). Direct management of Wilderness Act, and this served as a human-to-human social interactions means to confirm that we were indeed can be ineffective, have little public monitoring important aspects of support, may need to be heavily wilderness character. Our selection of bureaucratic to have any measurable biophysical indicators relates to effect, and may be inconsistent with language in the Wilderness Act about Figure 5—A clear day in the Presidential Range–Dry River Wilderness. Photo by Dave Neely, USFS. the unconfined aspect of the providing an area that retained its wilderness experience. The aesthetic “primeval character and influence” and indicators were believed to be more was “protected and managed so as to of the population of the United States, definable, be measurable by field staff, preserve its natural condition and and are within a four-hour drive of and include obvious impacts that the which…generally appears to have been Montreal and Sherbrooke, Quebec. public generally supports mitigating. affected primarily by the forces of We believe that the LAC planning The tools to address these issues—the nature” (Section 2). Our selection of process and the sections of the management actions triggered by social indicators relates to language in Wilderness Management section of exceeding the standards—were the Wilderness Act about ensuring our draft WMNF Land and Resources viewed by the planning team as “outstanding opportunities for solitude Management Plan will ensure the reasonable, effective, and usually quite or … unconfined type of recreation” continued opportunity to experience consistent with wilderness values. (Section 2). Our selection of aesthetic wilderness character within these With these observations as our indicators relates to language in the small, heavily visited wildernesses for starting point, we were able to select Wilderness Act about maintaining areas years to come. IJW indicators that we felt served the LAC “without permanent improvements … process for our small, heavily used with the imprint of man’s work DAVE NEELY is the assistant district ranger for recreation and wilderness on the eastern wildernesses. Biophysical substantially unnoticeable” (Section 2). Androscoggin Ranger District, White indicators are actually covered in the The five wildernesses on the White Mountain National Forest, 300 Glen Road, overall monitoring section of our Mountain National Forest are within Gorham, NH, 03581-1399, USA. E-mail: WMNF Forest Plan, and include air a one-day drive of nearly one-quarter [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 21 STEWARDSHIP

Understanding the Cultural, Existence, and Bequest Values of Wilderness

BY RUDY M. SCHUSTER, H. KEN CORDELL, and BRAD PHILLIPS

sense of self-identity and is aided by wilderness symbols (Hammond 1985). Present-day culture is also evolving through wilderness. The phenomenon of wilderness activities reshaping culture is represented by the popularity of wilderness recreation. In addition, many basic cultural traditions shape our society and are of high value. A parent teaching a child to fish or how to make a campfire is a culturally rich experience. Wilderness is a means to pass cultural and family traditions between generations. Cultural value was measured in the NSRE by an individual’s response to the following statement: Article co-author Rudy M. Schuster Wilderness is important because nature and wildlands are important symbols of American culture. Introduction Existence value is the satisfaction felt by an individual A deeper understanding of public values regarding the just knowing that wildlands exist (Cordell et al. 2003a). National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) is of An individual may express existence value for the resource interest to researchers and managers. Wilderness values without having visited the wilderness in the past or have were defined in the National Survey on Recreation and the future intentions to visit. Originating from economic con- Environment (NSRE) (Cordell, Betz, and Green 2002; cepts, existence value was first described as the amount Cordell, Tarrant, and Green 2003a; Cordell, Tarrant, and one would be willing to pay to preserve wilderness, re- Green 2003b) and it is conducted periodically by the U.S. gardless of visitation (Blomquist and Whitehead 1995). The Forest Service in part to track public attitudes toward the current definition has been expanded to include an altruis- natural environment and public lands (Cordell et al. 2003a). tic desire to preserve the wilderness for the good of The NSRE has provided a rich quantitative examination of humanity and the spiritual well-being that may result from wilderness value trends since 1995 using a module of wilderness existence. Finally, it was conceptualized that wilderness value questions. Eighteen separate wilderness intrinsic meaning could be expressed as part of the exist- value questions have been developed and used. This article ence value of a resource. Existence value was measured in focuses on three values in particular: (1) cultural, (2) the NSRE using the following statement: It is important existence, and (3) bequest values. just knowing that wilderness exists. Cultural value refers to the importance of wilderness as a Bequest value encompasses elements of both cultural and source of symbols affecting human culture. The development existence values in that it is the value derived from being of American heritage can be linked to wilderness and nature able to hand down natural resources to future generations so (e.g., Native Americans, pilgrims, pioneers, cowboys). An they can also experience wilderness values (Mountford and appreciation of national origins is important for an individual’s Kepler 1999; Rolston 1985). Bequest value was conceptual-

22 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 ized as having an element of steward- or building highways. To date, Others, such as Ted, a 58-year-old ship or responsibility for the resource. Congress has added over 660 attorney, while recognizing potential Bequest value was measured in the wilderness areas to the NWPS to threats to the quality of wilderness, protect wildlife, scenery, water, NSRE by asking how important it was and recreation opportunities, saw no urgency regarding the ques- to the individual knowing that future and to keep these areas wild and tion of quantity. generations will have wilderness areas. natural. Notwithstanding my perception that human beings are just Exploratory Study Although participants were instructed voracious animals that con- In an attempt to better understand to answer the interview questions with sume everything in sight like these three wilderness values, quali- the NWPS in mind, references to des- army ants, I still think that America’s wilderness is simply tative in-depth interviews (Rubin and ignated wilderness were rare. Frequent so vast that I don’t think that Rubin 1995; Taylor and Bogdan 1998) references to activities not allowed in it’s ever going to be expended. were conducted to explore the origi- federal wilderness areas, such as driv- … In other words, I just don’t nal wording of the NSRE questions. ing automobiles, suggested a lack of see even America at its most Each participant was read the intro- understanding of the NWPS. How- aggressive ever really exhaust- duction to the wilderness module used ever, the results may still accurately ing wilderness as a resource. on the NSRE and the value statements. measure wilderness values. Respon- Responding negatively or positively Interviewees were asked to elaborate dents may value all types of wilderness to the amount of designated wilderness on what they understood the value to and other protected or otherwise un- had an impact on how respondents mean. Interviews were conducted in developed areas in the same ways. viewed their responsibility toward future the spring of 2004 and ran approxi- When analyzing data concerning generations. Participants that sensed mately 30 to 60 minutes in length. cultural, existence, and bequest val- peril to wilderness resources were more Fifteen interviews were conducted. ues the following three themes likely to refer to intrinsic wilderness val- This exploratory research used a pur- emerged: preservation of wilderness, ues and view their bequest as not just a posive sampling method through modern society’s connection to wilder- gift, but also as a responsibility. For posting calls for participants on the ness, and off-site inspirational use of example, Derek, a 22-year-old student, Internet, in newsletters of volunteer wilderness. Interviewees used these expressed the following: organizations, and at local libraries. themes to provide context for how It should be something that The current study attempted to pull a social values were realized from wil- preserves it, as I preserved it diverse sample that was not dependent derness. Thus, the themes provide for them. They should preserve on recreation participation. context for understanding the values it for their children. Because the NSRE wilderness mod- and support their existence. On the other hand, Jennifer, a 39- ules specifically address federal year-old real estate agent, who wilderness values, the respondents’ Preservation of Wilderness remarked that wilderness is not in peril understanding of context was exam- Although participants were not explic- because nothing “terribly stupid is go- ined. Each participant was read the itly asked questions regarding the ing to happen anytime soon,” saw the following paragraph, similar to one amount of wilderness in the United bequest simply as an opportunity for from the NSRE survey, providing an States, all expressed opinions on the future generations to enjoy the same overview of the NWPS: matter. The range of responses to this recreational experiences as she has: The purpose of this interview is issue bore most directly on existence My kids and grandkids should to help us understand how and bequest values. Some, such as have the opportunity to see these American citizens value wilder- Mike, a 51-year-old business consult- things and not lose them forever. ness, and the benefits people re- It’s just a great experience that I ceive from these areas. When we ant, lamenting a quickly diminishing would want to have continued. talk about wilderness we mean wilderness resource, felt uncomfort- federal land that the Wilderness able endorsing only an existence value. When they felt that wilderness re- Act of 1964 allowed Congress to We have to work hard to keep sources were threatened, respondents preserve as part of the NWPS. existing wilderness areas and to These lands cannot then be used add new wilderness areas. It’s spoke of an ongoing, bequeathed re- for purposes such as timber har- not enough to know that sponsibility, as well as the intrinsic vesting, developing ski resorts, they’re there. worth of wilderness. When immediate

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 23 know that that could be your outlet or your place to look Respondents expressed that wilderness had intrinsic forward to going to. It’s a preserved option. worth and directly linked the value of wilderness to Using wilderness as a source of in- society as a source of inspiration, means of spiration or an object of meditation was the value most often expressed in understanding human relations to nature, response to the existence value state- and a cultural symbol. ment. As Ted stated: It provides an opportunity for inspiration that’s rare enough. I mean, I’m guilty of being a threats were not perceived the respon- more because we’re not in couch potato, but I think it’s a dents referred to enhanced recreational regular contact with it. We way to simply remind people opportunities for their children and don’t know how to deal with it that there’s more to life than as we did 100 or 200 years ago. MTV and the Super Bowl. grandchildren. Both viewpoints stated I think the image has changed. that preserving wilderness for future Barbara explained that if you put your head in there generations was extremely important. The loss of cultural significance was [wilderness], you’re more Modern Society’s more important to the majority of re- peaceful. Connection to Wilderness spondents than the diminishing knowledge of the natural world. Con- Derek even described the meditative The concern that contemporary soci- cern for a societal disconnection to experience he was having during the ety has lost touch with wilderness wilderness, coupled with the ability of surfaced in reference to all three val- interview: each interviewee to name cultural sym- For a second there I thought ues and was expressed in two different bols derived from wilderness, revealed of being miles away from ev- ways. Several respondents indicated the personal importance of wilderness erything else and being at that society is no longer connected to peace and all that other stuff as a source of cultural symbols. its biophysical roots. Jim, a 38-year- we use nature for. old minister, spoke of this severance from the natural world: Off-site Inspirational Use All 15 respondents referred to such off- I took my son down south [to of Wilderness site use at various points in the wilderness] so he could see The off-site use of wilderness as a source interview. Many interpreted the exist- how things are. That every- of inspiration was common to all of the ence value statement by referring to thing ain’t mainstream, noth- respondents. Many used this idea to re- such use. Regardless of whether this ing but cars. I think that’s what was applied to existence value or not, our kids are missing. Missing spond to the existence value statement. that connection with nature it- All respondents expressed that it is im- however, the majority of respondents self… . It was the first time he’d portant to simply know that wilderness reported a powerful off-site inspira- ever seen a real horse. He said, exists, whether or not they actually ever tional component of wilderness. “Dad, look at that big ol’ dog!” visit it. Several explanations were given. “That ain’t no dog, boy!” First, an intrinsic value of natural sys- Cultural Value When read the statement “Wilderness Derek agreed: tems and organisms was recognized by The whole frontiersman ideal some. Second, the off-site use of natural is important because nature and was pivotal … and even in the areas as sources of inspiration, visual- wildlands are important symbols of early 20th century that sort of ization, or objects of meditation was American culture,” six participants’ adventurous frontier spirit per- important to many. Finally, the statement initial responses were negative or am- sisted. But recently, as we’ve was often interpreted to encompass op- bivalent. However, respondents moved away from wilderness, readily provided symbols from nature I think we’ve lost touch with tion value, as with Steve, a 34-year-old what it really means. … I guess retail store manager: and wildlands relating to American we don’t really have a picture It’s very important to know traits during the interviews. Initial of what the wilderness is any- that it’s there. It’s great to negativity appeared to be based on the

24 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 perceived society–nature disconnect participants to preserve wilderness for to see these things and not lose them for- previously discussed. Respondents future generations was regarding rec- ever.” In general, the salience of interpreted the cultural value state- reational opportunities and the wilderness value and respondents’ per- ment as referring to the value that opportunity for spiritual inspiration. ception of the current state of wilderness society as a whole places on wilder- was best expressed through a quotation ness, not their own personal valuation. Conclusion from Mike “We have to work hard to keep The interview data indicated that the existing wilderness areas and to add new Existence Value initial responses to the NSRE questions wilderness areas. It’s not enough to know For nine of the 15 participants, exist- differed little from the intended mean- that they’re there.” IJW ence value was interpreted as meaning ing. Overall, the results of this project that wilderness can provide spiritual suggest that the wilderness value ques- REFERENCES or personal inspiration without hav- tions used on the NSRE are understood Blomquist, G. C., and J. C. Whitehead. 1995. Existence value, contingent valuation, and ing to visit the area. Because existence by the public and are valid indicators natural resource damage assessment. value encompasses a variety of off-site of the underlying constructs they were Growth and Change 26: 573–89. use values, the interpreted meaning intended to represent. However, minor Cordell, H. K., C. J. Betz, and G. T. Green. 2002. Recreation and the environment as cultural comports with the researcher-intended modifications may improve validity of dimensions in contemporary American so- meaning of existence value as the sat- the NSRE instrument. Future use of the ciety. Leisure Sciences 24: 13–41. isfaction one feels that a wilderness cultural value question or similar ques- Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green. exists regardless of whether one visits tions should include modified wording 2003a. Is the public viewpoint of wilderness shifting? International Journal of Wilderness the area. Respondents did not refer to to direct the respondent to consider 9(2): 27–32. other components of the theoretical personal values. Existence value was Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green. underpinnings of existence value (in- often interpreted as having a compo- 2003b. PVF: A scale to measure public values trinsic worth and altruism). This nent of option value. In addition, the of forests. Journal of Forestry 101(6):24–30. Hammond, J. L. 1985. Wilderness and heritage statement was interpreted as intended. existence value statement was most of- values. Environmental Ethics, 7(summer): However, respondents’ interpretation ten interpreted as relating to spiritual 165–70. was narrower in scope than the theo- or meditative values, which were only Mountford, H., and J. H. Kepler. 1999. Financ- ing incentives for the protection of diversity. retical definition of the construct. one component of its multidimensional The Science of the Total Environment 240: definition. Finally, recreation and other 133–44. Bequest Value direct-use values were the most fre- Rolston, H. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environ- Most participants spoke of bequest quently cited reasons for preserving mental Ethics 7(spring), 23–48. Rubin, H. J., I. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Inter- value as a gift carrying responsibility. wilderness for future generations. viewing: The Art of Having Data. Thousand Interviewees indicated that future de- Respondents expressed that wilder- Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. velopment options should not be ness had intrinsic worth and directly Taylor, S. J., and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduc- exercised and that future use should be linked the value of wilderness to society tion to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, vol. 3. New York: consistent with current value systems. as a source of inspiration, means of John Wiley & Sons. Thus, participants made it clear that the understanding human relations to nature, bequest of wilderness was of the holis- and a cultural symbol. Respondents RUDY M. SCHUSTER, Faculty of Forest and tic wilderness and not simply of noted a concern that contemporary soci- Natural Resource Management, State undeveloped land for future use. The ety has lost touch with wilderness. This University of New York, College of Environ- mental Science and Forestry, 211 Marshall bequest of wilderness was seen as the disconnect resulted in the loss of an Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY bequest of cultural ideas to future gen- important cultural symbol and a dimin- 13210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. erations by interviewees who expressed ishing knowledge of human biophysical H. KEN CORDELL, Project Leader and discontent concerning societal discon- roots. Respondents perceived the impor- Senior Scientist Outdoor Recreation, nect with nature. Although all tance of preserving wilderness for future Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry respondents regarded ecosystem ben- generations and that future generations Sciences Laboratory, Office 238, 320 efits of wilderness as important in other had an ongoing, bequeathed responsibil- Green Street, Athens, Georgia, USA 30602. questions, such benefits were not re- ity to preserve it. This sentiment was best BRAD PHILLIPS, former graduate student, State ferred in relation to the bequest expressed by Jennifer: “My kids and University of New York, College of Environ- question. The reason given by most grandkids should have the opportunity mental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 25 STEWARDSHIP

8th World Wilderness Congress Generates Conservation Results

BY VANCE G. MARTIN

life Refuge and global warming. The following is a summary of the 8th WWC’s major practical accomplishments, with more details available at www.8wwc.org or through [email protected].

New Wilderness and Protected Areas • Cemex, one of the world’s largest producers of cement, announced the designation of the El Carmen Wilderness Area, including critical biodiversity habitat owned by the corporation in northern Mexico. In cooperation with their partners, Sierra Madre, Conservation International, Birdlife, The WILD Foundation, and others, Cemex is creating a wilderness management plan for the Maderas del Carmen “Sky Island” and its stunning escarpment as part of a sig- Figure 1—A traditional opening to the 8th WWC, by Alaska natives. Photo by Carl Johnson. nificant new protected area initiative called the El Carmen-Big Bend Conservation Corridor Initiative. This project will involve up to 10 million acres (4 million ha) he 8th World Wilderness Congress (WWC) met for (including private ranches, corporate land, and govern- almost two weeks in 2005 from late September to ment land on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border). Cemex T early October in Anchorage, Alaska, including has purchased more than 175,000 acres (70,280 ha) of new several pre-Congress training sessions and seven days of conservation land, creating key corridors, and has entered plenary and concurrent sessions. The atmosphere was into agreements with adjoining private landowners for an tangibly spirited and synergistic, and replete with enthusi- additional 60,000 acres (24,095 ha) of new land under astic, collaborative, and positive action. The Congress conservation management, including wilderness. achieved its conservation objectives and generated addi- • The Bonobo Peace Forest Initiative in the Democratic Re- tional results: new protected areas (private sector, native, public of Congo—a joint project of Vie Sauvage and the and national); new wilderness legislation; increased gov- Bonobo Conservation Initiative (Washington, D.C.), ernmental and organizational cooperation for new initiatives includes conservation agreements with local communi- and networks; scores of professionals specifically trained ties and concessionaires covering more than 5 million acres in wilderness management, information and communica- (20,000 square kilometers) of habitat in one of the largest tions; new funding for targeted projects; and strong blocks of contiguous rain forest left on Earth, and home to integration of conservation writers and photographers with scientists, managers, educators and policymakers. The 8th WWC involved 1,200 delegates from 60 nations and emphasized the role of native peoples in protecting wilderness and wildlands. It tackled contentious issues such as the proposed oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wild-

26 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 the bonobo, the smallest of the government protected areas, private endangered great apes. It includes sector designations, or indigenous con- core wilderness areas as well as com- servation initiatives. The Global munity-managed forest reserves and Environment Facility, associated with sustainable development zones. the World Bank, has also endorsed the initiative as important to the protection The Wild Planet Fund of biodiversity, especially in tropical countries and key desert habitats. New funding for a proactive global wildlands initiative was announced, (Note: look for a special edition of IJW with Cemex partnering with The in August 2006, dedicated to The Wild WILD Foundation to launch the Planet Project). Wild Planet Fund, the funding mechanism for The Wild Planet New Wilderness Legislation Project. “We will explain and quan- Ernesto Enkerlin, (president of tify the economic, biological, and CONANP, National Commission for Figure 2—Ian Player from South Africa delivers a passionate social benefits of intact wilderness, Protected Areas in Mexico) announced speech about wilderness. Photo by Carl Johnson. and communicate this information that wilderness will be a new official cat- to the public and to decision mak- egory of Mexico’s protected area National Oceanic and Atmospheric ers more effectively,” said Cyril framework, with the capability of being Administration (NOAA), and others un- Kormos, vice president for policy for applied on all types of land, including veiled new and improved inventories The WILD Foundation and head of corporate, federal, communal, and other and definitions to address the protec- The Wild Planet Project. private lands. This is the first such legal tion as “wilderness” of marine and The project includes: compilation of use of the term wilderness as a protected freshwater systems around the world. the latest information on mapping wil- area category in all of Latin America. Native Lands and derness in terrestrial, marine, and Wilderness Council freshwater systems; reviewing manage- Freshwater and Also part of The WILD Planet Project, ment techniques for wilderness Marine Wilderness indigenous people from 25 nations protected areas; and conducting a com- Under The WILD Planet Project, a con- around the world formed the Native prehensive assessment of how sortium of organizations, including Lands and Wilderness Council and set wilderness areas are designated via Conservation International, The initial goals for the group. This process— funded by the Christensen Fund, Ford Foundation, WILD, and others—passed a resolution to continue meeting and will produce a handbook to encourage and informing tribal communities around the world on managing their lands as wilderness. “The purpose of the Native Lands and Wilderness Council is to form an indigenous group to guide the use and management of tribal wildlands, and to demonstrate unequivocally that we are an important part of conserving wildlands globally,” said Terry Tanner, work project coordinator with the Con- federated Salish and Kootenai Tribe in Montana. Tanner cochaired the initial Council with Grand Chief Herb Norwe- Figure 3—Attendees shared stories of their local wilderness areas. Photo by Carl Johnson. gian of the Deh Cho First Nations

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 27 combination of life skills, hospitality, and conservation skills for a minimum of one year on a residential campus adjacent to Parks and Reserves for eventual employment with conservation-related companies and agencies.

Collaborative Professional Networks • The Wilderness Policy Council (a U.S. federal interagency group) con- vened the first Global Wilderness Seminar for Government Agencies, involving 150 participants, the result of which was a new network of government agency professionals and Figure 4—Professionals networked and built relationships across cultures. Photo by Carl Johnson. wilderness managers to share information and techniques in safeguarding (Canada) and Larry Merculieff, deputy Umzi Wethu—“our home”—will give or- wilderness on public lands. director of the Alaska Native Science phaned young people housing, training, Commission in Anchorage. and jobs in the ecotourism, hospitality, • A delegation of more than 25 Rus- and other industries. “We recognize that sians, principally from the Russian International League wilderness is a force for social change, Far East, met in numerous settings of Conservation and that this project can offer a safe and during several days of the Congress Photographers supportive environment to invest in for specific negotiations with their A new working group was initiated by young people in a way that is crucial to counterparts in Alaskan and U.S. 40 of the world’s finest conservation pho- families and governments in Africa,” said federal land management agencies tographers. The International League of Andrew Muir, executive director of the operating in Alaska. Their intent, Conservation Photographers (ILCP) will Wilderness Foundation. Umzi Wethu nurtured through several pre-Con- further environmental and cultural training centers will combine mentoring gress meetings organized by The conservation through photography and with the transformational power of wild WILD Foundation with the support will work on global campaigns to high- areas. Young people will be trained in a of the Trust for Mutual Understanding, light critical issues. As part of this process, more than 150 nature photographers gathered in Anchorage at the 8th WWC to determine how photographers can best contribute to the conservation community’s efforts in protecting wilderness, endangered species, and threatened cultures around the world. This initiative, coordinated by Cristina Mittermeier, will be a project of The WILD Foundation.

AIDS in Africa The Wilderness Foundation (South Africa), working with HOPE Worldwide and other partners, announced a new initiative to assist young people or- Figure 5—Larry Merculieff (Bering Sea Council of Elders) and Julie Cajune (Confederated Salish and Kootenai) at the Native Lands and Wilderness Council. Photo by Vance G. Martin. phaned by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

28 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 was to enhance protected area man- constraints, awarded through na- agement in Kamchatka and the tive groups and local conservation Russian Far East through better pro- organizations. fessional links with Alaska. The collaborative network was estab- • Provided free of charge to the lished, and a follow-up meeting will Alaska public: an international film occur in Kamchatka in 2006. festival in downtown Anchorage; the WILD Expo during the Con- • The Africa Wilderness Network was gress; and an extensive schedule established by the Zambezi Society of audiovisual presentations and (Zimbabwe) and the Wilderness lectures from many countries. Action Group (South Africa) in cooperation with the Wilderness Task • A juried art competition was initiated Force of the IUCN. and funded by The WILD Founda- • The World Wilderness Youth Net- tion, the result of which is a public work was established by the youth sculpture by Rachelle Dowdy, Alas- and young professionals in specific kan artist. This sculpture, consisting programs at the 8th WWC. An of four larger-than-life figures with anonymous donor agreed to fund animal heads and human torsos, was their first web portal and Internet displayed at the 8th WWC and will outreach efforts. be installed in central Anchorage, as a gift from 8th WWC to the people • The Conservation Writer’s Rendez- of Anchorage, to highlight both the vous (organized by Fulcrum, Inc) important and inescapable link drew 40 outstanding writers from between wildlife and people.

numerous countries and native com- Figure 6—Transboundary Conservation book launch with Cristina munities. It reviewed the history and Technical Information Mittermeier, initiator of the International League of Conservation accomplishments of conservation and Training Photographers. Photo by Carl Johnson. writing, mentored aspiring writers, • Numerous training programs oc- and outlined an agenda for increased curred before and during the 8th a multi-volume technical proceedings effectiveness of this important voice WWC. Thirty professionals from 21 published by the Aldo Leopold Wil- for wilderness. countries completed an accredited derness Research Institute (a significant Wilderness Management course. Fif- 8th WWC partner), a wilderness law Public Outreach in Alaska teen youth from six countries and policy handbook, a manual on na- The 8th WWC Executive Committee participated in numerous communi- tive management of wildlands for worked closely with development, cations and information trainings, indigenous communities around the conservation, and education organiza- worked as communications interns world, and more. tions in Alaska for two years prior to during the 8th WWC, and then es- the 8th WWC. Aware that wilderness tablished the World Wilderness Youth • Resolutions—Delegates worked is often a highly polarizing word in Network mentioned earlier. More than hard on, debated, and eventually ap- Alaska, the Executive Committee 200 scientists and managers partici- proved a targeted list of 49 resolutions developed numerous ways to out- pated in three days of almost 70 that addressed broad conservation reach to the local community to help concurrent technical sessions. Two concerns as well as specific areas and inform and educate Alaskans on the books were launched during the Con- issues needing international and lo- IJW values of wilderness and wildlands: gress—Transboundary Conservation cal attention and action. and The Alaska Reader (Fulcrum, VANCE MARTIN is president of The WILD • Partial and full scholarships to Inc.)—and numerous other publica- Foundation, a member of the IJW Editorial Alaskans, who wished to attend tions will be produced: an illustrated Board, and was chairman of the 8th WWC the Congress and had financial trade book aimed at the mass market, Executive Committee.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 29 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Social and Institutional Influences on Wilderness Fire Stewardship

BY KATIE KNOTEK

ne of the priority research areas at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute addresses O the “need for improved information to guide the stewardship of fire as a natural process in wilderness while protecting social and ecological values inside and outside wilderness.” This research topic area was developed with the knowledge that wildland fire, as a natural disturbance process, can preserve ecological conditions inside and outside wilderness ecosystems and, at the same time, influence societal values across the interface between wilderness and nonwilderness lands. Scientists at the Leopold Institute are studying how management across landscapes that include federally pro- social and institutional factors influence the way fire man- tected wilderness. Recently, the planning phase of a agers and the public evaluate trade-offs in the stewardship landscape-level fuels treatment project on the Bitterroot Na- of fire as a natural process. Scientists map human values- tional Forest provided the opportunity for Leopold Institute at-risk to assist decision making for fire and fuels scientists to conduct a baseline assessment of personal and management, assess public trust in management agencies community values attached to the Bitterroot landscape, and their ability to manage fire and fuels, and investigate which extends from the valley floor to the crest of the public perceptions and management decisions regarding Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Using GIS technology, options for the use of fire and fuels treatment. Funding has Leopold Institute scientists mapped the spatial distribution been primarily through the National Fire Plan (U.S. De- of these values across the landscape, providing valuable partments of Agriculture and Interior), the Joint Fire social data for modeling efforts designed to evaluate social Science Program (a partnership of six federal wildland man- and resource trade-offs among alternative fuels treatments. agement and research organizations), and the Bitterroot In addition, a baseline measure of trust across communi- Ecosystem Management Research project (interdisciplinary ties adjacent to the Bitterroot National Forest helped team of U.S. Forest Service scientists, Bitterroot National scientists and managers to understand the factors that in- Forest and Northern Region managers, and the University fluence the relationship between the public and local land of Montana). managers regarding fire and fuels management. Based upon The Northern Rocky Mountains is a unique and valuable laboratory for investigating social issues related to fire Continued on page 12

30 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Wilderness In Whose Backyard?

BY GARY T. GREEN, MICHAEL A. TARRANT, UTTIYO RAYCHAUDHURI, and YANGJIAN ZHANG

Abstract: This study examined potential inequities in the distribution of National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) lands with respect to socioeconomic characteristics of residents in the contiguous United States. Using U.S. Bureau of Census data, we compared counties adjacent to wilderness areas with counties outside of wilderness on four socioeconomic variables (per capita income, occupation, education, and race) for 1980, 1990, 2000, and for changes from 1980 to 2000. Results show that counties adjacent to wilderness in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were composed of substantially fewer blue-collar workers, more whites, and higher-educated people. Such findings may imply that some social groups are receiving a disproportionate share of nonuse wilderness benefits than others. However, results of the trend analysis suggest this difference is beginning to narrow over time, as counties adjacent to wilderness gained white-collar occupations and nonwhite populations at a faster rate than counties not adjacent to wilderness. Implications for land use planning and decision models that incorporate human and ecological health concerns and involve mainstream environmentalists and social justice groups are discussed.

Co-authors, l to r: Gary Green on the Big Island in Hawaii, photo by Kim Mayer; Michael Tarrant in the southern Alps on the South Island of New Zealand, photo by Laura Sessions; Uttiyo Raychaudhuri; and Yangjian Zhang.

Introduction arguments over USDA Forest Service roadless areas. A de- Wilderness designation is a political compromise, with cade after the Wilderness Act was passed, Public Law 93-622, boundaries and locations determined by Congress in accord commonly known as the Eastern Wilderness Act (EWA, with the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) 1975), was enacted to provide population centers in the East (P.L. 88-577, 1964). Such compromises have continued with better access to the values and benefits that wilderness throughout the history of the NWPS, beginning with the provides (Hendee and Dawson 2002). EWA relaxed many deflation of Howard Zahniser’s drafts for wilderness desig- of the standards (including size and remoteness) required nation in the years preceding 1964, through to contemporary for designation that had previously kept most wilderness PEER REVIEWED

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 31 ditionally focused on inequities arising Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of from the location of locally undesirable Socioeconomic Characteristics for U.S. Counties land uses (LULUs) such as landfills, fac- Socioeconomic variable Mean Std. Dev. tories, and Superfund sites. Such research has suggested minorities and Per capita income 1980 $6050.00 1242.60 low-income populations receive a dis- Per capita income 1990 (adjusted) $7004.00 1698.04 proportionate level of pollution and Per capita income 2000 (adjusted) $8386.00 1904.78 associated negative health consequences Blue-collar occupation 1980 35.86% 9.83 as compared to more affluent white Blue-collar occupation 1990 32.44% 8.95 populations (see for example, Boerner Blue-collar occupation 2000 30.45% 7.93 and Lambert 1995; Bullard 1994; Com- Attended college 1980 24.52% 9.22 mission for Racial Justice, United Attended college 1990 35.27% 11.06 Church of Christ 1987; Mohai and Attended college 2000 42.63% 11.21 Bryant 1992). Our study focuses on the White population 1980 88.54% 15.07 opposite end of the spectrum by exam- White population 1990 87.46% 15.38 ining how environmental justice (as a White population 2000 84.75% 16.04 study of equitability) applies to positive or locally desirable land uses (LDLUs). areas in the West. Similarly, recommen- residents of counties adjacent (versus Recent studies have recognized that dations by the Southern Appalachian not adjacent) to wilderness in the con- environmental justice applies both to the Man and the Biosphere Cooperative in tiguous United States. Studies such as places where we play (e.g., rivers and 1996 for additional wilderness in the East this one are important in recognizing mountains) as well as areas in which we received widespread public support, but who may be receiving a greater share live and work (Di Chiro 1998; Salazar such efforts have been thwarted by legal of the use and nonuse values of wil- 1998; Porter and Tarrant 2001; Tarrant and arguments and political interests. Former derness. Using U.S. Census Bureau Cordell 1999). Indeed, precedence for President Bill Clinton’s Roadless Plan, data, counties adjacent to wilderness environmental justice, Title VI of the Civil under reconsideration (i.e., shelved) by areas were compared with counties Rights Act of 1964, recognizes that injus- the current Bush administration, repre- outside of wilderness on four socio- tice applies to the distribution of both costs sents another example of how political economic variables (per capita and benefits associated with government the wilderness process is. Furthermore, income, occupation, education, and environmental actions. Title VI provides as grassroots/ community voices continue race) for 1980, 1990, 2000, and for that “no person in the United States shall, to play a prominent role in decisions changes from 1980 to 2000. on the ground of race, color, or national about land uses (Dennis 2001) and es- origin, be excluded from participation in, pecially wilderness designation (O’Neill Framework for the Study be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 2002), the nature of local communities, Following Executive Order (12898, to discrimination under any program or and their influence on land use decisions, Federal Register, 1994) all federal agen- activity receiving federal financial assis- must be addressed. Such concerns are cies with environmental responsibilities tance” (in Foreman 1996, p. 23). As such likely to be exacerbated with increasing were mandated to address the environ- there are increasing calls for environmen- numbers of people moving to undevel- mental justice implications of their tal justice research to examine the oped areas of the country, a process policies and practices. Environmental environmental “goods” as well as “bads” known as exurbanization (Champion justice refers to the concept that the gov- in order to ensure that all populations re- 1989). Thus, an initial step in the pro- ernment has a responsibility to ensure ceive an equal share of government benefits cess is to understand how these that individuals and groups are treated and costs (Salazar 1996; 1998). The study communities are changing. fairly in the administration and practice of environmental goods in the context of Using a framework of environmen- of environmental statutes and regula- this study refers to federally protected tal justice, this study examined tions without discrimination based on wilderness areas, and how these areas are potential inequities in the spatial dis- race, ethnicity, and/or socioeconomic perceived as LDLUs. tribution of NWPS lands with respect status (Floyd and Johnson 2002). The Wilderness is a locally desirable land to socioeconomic characteristics of study of environmental justice has tra- use. People value natural areas for the

32 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 ecological services they provide as well and option values (such as federal pro- Census data from 1980, 1990, and as the social benefits that individuals tection of lands from future 2000 were used to examine trends in derive from them (Landres et al. 1988). development) are more accessible for population migration (i.e., changes in For a large majority of the American people who live nearby wilderness than socioeconomic characteristics across public, lands protected under the for urban residents. Furthermore, al- time) to/from wilderness counties in NWPS provide both use and nonuse though several values may have some the contiguous United States. The ob- values/benefits (Cordell, Tarrant, associated costs (e.g., noise and pollu- jectives were (1) to compare the McDonald, and Bergstrom 1998). Use tion from recreation/tourism traffic and socioeconomic characteristics of resi- values of wilderness comprise direct, peripheral housing development, etc.), dents of counties adjacent to indirect, and option values, whereas federally designated wilderness areas wilderness and those not adjacent to nonuse values are derived from preserv- arguably provide some of the highest wilderness in 1980, 1990, and 2000; ing lands in their pristine condition, level of environmental goods and there- and (2) to examine the change in so- and include existence, bequest, and fore warrant being addressed under cioeconomic characteristics of intrinsic values (Mountford and Kepler Executive Order 12898. Indeed, a ma- residents of counties adjacent to wil- 1999). Direct use values are wilderness jor impetus for wilderness preservation derness and those not adjacent to attributes and services that can be in this country was the protection of the wilderness from 1980 to 2000. traded, consumed, or used as an input Adirondack Preserve in New York to to commercial activities (e.g., expenses provide a vital watershed to nearby Methods associated with wilderness recreation populations (Nash 1967), and 88 USDA Wilderness-area shape files were equipment and travel). Indirect uses Forest Service wilderness areas have downloaded from the National Atlas concern those wilderness attributes and been designated the highest standard of the United States website (2002) services that provide value to the well- (Class 1) for air quality (Stokes 1999). and county data (shape files and at- being of humans through the As such, wilderness areas may be contribute information) was retrieved maintenance of natural systems (e.g., sidered one example of a locally from the Census CD Version 2.0 provision of clean air and water). Op- desirable land use; in other words, un- (GeoLytics 1998). Geographically dis- tion values are preferences people make like hazardous waste sites, industrial tinct units of all wilderness areas (n = to retain the option of having or using development, and/or residential sprawl, 993) and all counties (n = 3,111) wilderness attributes and services in the the environmental benefits of living near within the contiguous states were in- future. Existence values are the values wilderness probably outweigh the costs. cluded in the analysis. (Some that humans place on wilderness for its wilderness areas contain more than very existence, independent of any Objectives of the Study one physical/geographic land unit.) present or future on-site use of the area This study seeks to establish wilder- Shape files are digital vector-based (e.g., spiritual and symbolic aspects of ness as a land use that people desire polygons/representations of geo- wilderness). Bequest values represent in their backyards (Wilderness in My graphic entities with attached tables the value that people derive from main- Backyard, WIMBY). We compare the containing attribute information. In taining wilderness attributes and social and economic characteristics of the case of wilderness-area shape files, services for use or nonuse by future residents of counties adjacent to wil- only limited attribute information was generations. Intrinsic values are the derness (i.e., living with wilderness in available (e.g., name and geographic qualities that wilderness possesses in- their backyard) versus those in coun- coordinates). For county shape files, herently, regardless of human existence. ties that are not adjacent to wilderness. attribute information included per Whereas some of these values exist independent of one’s geographic prox- Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Change (from 1980 to 2000) imity to wilderness (i.e. they are widely in Socioeconomic Characteristics for U.S. Counties distributed across all segments of Ameri- Socioeconomic variable Mean Std. Dev. can society), many of the values accrue greater benefits to residents living on the Percent change in per capita income (adj.) 1980 to 2000 39.71% 20.19 fringe of wilderness than to distant resi- Percent change in blue-collar 1980 to 2000 -13.60% 16.49 Percent change in attended college 1980 to 2000 81.97% 32.08 dents. For example, clean air and water, Percent change in white population 1980 to 2000 -4.04% 16.51 scenic vistas, recreation opportunities,

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 33 capita income, race, education, and doctoral graduates) divided by the total 1980, 1990, 2000, and change from occupation. Attributes for feature type, population older than 25 years. Race was 1980 to 2000. Since population (and feature name, agency ownership, uni- categorized as percent of the total popu- not sample) data were used, signifi- form resource locator, state, and state lation white (including white Hispanics) cance tests were not applicable; rather, Federal Information Processing Stan- versus nonwhite (composed of African the T-statistic and effect sizes (ranging dard codes were retained. The American, Native American Indian, from 0 to 1.0) for both objectives were minimum map resolution included in Asian, and other). It was calculated as interpreted. (For comparative pur- the data is an area of 640 acres, (257 white population divided by the total poses, a T-statistic greater than 1.65 ha) or one square mile. Using ESRI’s population. implies a significant difference at the Arc/INFO GIS software, the data set Percent change in each of the socio- p = .05 level for sample data.) was checked for label errors, dangling economic variables (from 1980 to 2000) nodes, and intersections. Using the was computed as follows: (2000 value Results BUILD command thereafter, the poly- minus 1980 value)/1980 value. The The means and standard deviations of the gon topology was built for the data set. buffer distance was equal to 1,500 meters four socioeconomic characteristics for all Counties that included wilderness ar- (approximately one mile) and measured counties in the 48 states across 1980, eas, shared a boundary with a as the distance from the boundary of a 1990, and 2000 are shown in Table 1. wilderness area, or were within 1,500 census unit (county) to the boundary of From 1980 to 2000, per capita income meters (approximately 1 mile) of a the wilderness shape file. increased by almost 39.7%, blue-collar wilderness boundary were considered Data were spatially represented in occupation decreased by 13.6%, college “adjacent counties.” A 1,500-meter ArcView GIS software, version 3.2 (En- attendance increased by almost 82.0%, cutoff was used to be consistent with vironmental Systems Research Institute and the percent of white population de- previous studies of environmental jus- 1999) using the Albers Equal Area pro- creased by 4.0% (see Table 2). tice (see for example, Glickman 1994; jection in metric units. The buffer analysis Objective 1: Figure 1 shows the dis- Hamilton 1995; Kriesel, Centner, and in GIS enabled the creation of a 1,500- tribution of wilderness areas in the Keeler 1996; U.S. General Account- meter buffer around the polygon of each contiguous United States, whereas Figure ing Office 1995) in which a definition wilderness area and subsequent counties 2 displays counties by per capita income of proximity/adjacency was required. within (and outside) the buffer identified. for the change from 1980 to 2000. To- Per capita income was measured as a The problem of representing the whole gether with Table 3, the results show that continuous level variable in dollars. The census unit with just one average census counties adjacent (versus not adjacent) to consumer price index was used to ad- data was addressed. To solve this problem, wilderness differed considerably on at least just the 1990 and 2000 values for the county boundary was delineated using three of the four socioeconomic variables inflation (www.bls.gov). The 1990 ad- the interpolation method of GIS. The so- (occupation, education, and race) in justed value was reduced by a factor of cioeconomic variables of the new created 1980, 1990, and 2000. For all three time 0.63 from the actual 1990 value, and county were calculated from the census periods, counties adjacent to wilderness the 2000 adjusted value was reduced by block groups within the new created areas were more likely to be white, to a factor of 0.48 from the actual 2000 boundary. Data from the spatial analysis have attended college, and have slightly value. Occupation was categorized as was then exported to SPSS (Statistical higher per capita incomes, and were less percent of the total workforce classified Package for the Social Sciences 2001) likely to be in blue-collar occupations in blue-collar occupations (farming, con- version 11.0 for further statistical analysis. than counties not adjacent to wilderness. struction, production, transportation, The two objectives were tested us- With the exception of per capita income, and installation) versus white-collar and ing an independent sample T-test. The the effect sizes (a) were not only moder- service occupations. It was calculated as independent variable was dichoto- ate to large (greater than .10), suggesting number of blue-collar employees di- mous (i.e., 0 representing counties the differences are substantial, but also vided by total employees. Education was adjacent to wilderness, and 1 repre- (b) exhibited a consistent pattern in classified according to percent of the senting counties not adjacent to trends (from 1980 to 2000), suggesting population who had attended college for wilderness). The dependent variables that the differences are narrowing over at least one year and was computed as were per capita income, percent blue- time (see also objective 2). the total population who had attended collar occupation, percent attended Objective 2: Table 3 also displays the at least some college (from freshmen to some college, and percent white for percent change in each of the four socio-

34 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 economic variables from 1980 to 2000 aries), but also because the social and priate framework for such analyses. This by proximity to wilderness. Counties geographic characteristics of the states argument is based on the viewpoint that adjacent to wilderness exhibited greater of Alaska and Hawaii are so different many use and nonuse values of wilder- decreases in white populations and blue- from the rest of the country (much ness are realized by residents from all collar occupations (d = .11 and .20, more so than between the eastern and across the country (such as bequest val- respectively) and a lower increase in col- western contiguous United States). For ues and existence values). The lege attendance (d = .35) than counties example, including Alaska, which con- opportunities for receiving some of them not adjacent to wilderness. There was tains more than one-half of the NWPS (especially aesthetic values and indirect very little difference in per capita income lands and a tiny fraction of the U.S. values such as clean air and water) are (d = -.06). Whether these results show population, would have biased the arguably greater the closer one lives to (1) a trend in population migration pat- sample considerably. In sum, a valid the protected area. Furthermore, whereas terns and/or (2) that people currently argument could probably be made for we acknowledge that the designation of living in counties adjacent to wilderness either including or excluding both wilderness (or similarly protected) areas are less likely to seek blue-collar employ- states. We chose to exclude them and is not made on the basis of environmen- ment and/or to receive higher education limit our findings to the 48 contiguous tal justice, the environmental justice levels than people living in counties not states. Such exclusion is not unique in mandate requires governmental agencies adjacent to wilderness is unknown. recent studies of demographic trends (that include the US Forest Service, Na- and natural lands in the United States; tional Park Service, Bureau of Land Discussion for example, Cordell and Overdevest Management, and Fish and Wildlife Ser- Before discussing findings of the study, (2001) also limited their analyses of vice) to determine the costs and benefits of some limitations must be addressed. changing demographics and land pat- such land allocation decisions for peoples First, we chose to examine only wil- terns to the contiguous 48 states. of color and low income. derness in the contiguous (as opposed Second, we argue that residents of to the entire) United States in part be- adjacent counties benefit more from wil- Conclusions cause of the lack of comparable data derness than nonadjacent counties and It has been argued that the key factors sets (notably changing county bound- that environmental justice is an appro- that influence the spatial distribution

Table 3. T-test of Differences in Counties Adjacent to and Outside of Wilderness Areas in the United States

Outside of Adjacent to wilderness wilderness Socioeconomic variable Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. T-test Effect

Per capita income 1980 $6042.00 1230.72 $6096.00 1313.81 -0.83 -0.04 Per capita income (adj.) 1990 $6993.00 1673.21 $7072.00 1843.69 -0.90 -0.05 Per capita income (adj.) 2000 $8366.00 1851.55 $8509.00 2201.79 -1.46 -0.07 Percent change in per capita income 1980 to 2000 39.53% 19.77 40.83% 22.59 -1.24 -0.06 Blue-collar occupation 1980 36.09% 9.84 34.45% 9.65 3.23 0.17 Blue-collar occupation 1990 32.69% 8.94 30.91% 8.85 3.85 0.20 Blue-collar occupation 2000 30.78% 7.91 28.39% 7.75 5.86 0.31 Percent change in blue-collar 1980 to 2000 -13.15% 16.56 -16.43% 15.79 3.84 0.20 Attended college 1980 23.78% 8.55 29.03% 11.61 -11.22 -0.52 Attended college 1990 34.56% 10.58 39.61% 12.84 -8.94 -0.43 Attended college 2000 41.93% 10.83 46.95% 12.48 -8.77 -0.43 Percent change in attended college 1980 to 2000 83.54% 31.79 72.28% 32.21 6.81 0.35 White population 1980 88.12% 15.58 91.13% 11.12 -3.86 -0.22 White population 1990 87.01% 15.92 90.21% 11.17 -4.04 -0.23 White population 2000 84.46% 16.54 86.54% 12.41 -2.52 -0.14 Percent change in white population 1980 to 1990 -3.82% 17.41 -5.36% 9.16 1.81 0.11

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 35 geted (at least in the near future) for industrial, commercial, or residential development. One question this raises is whether people who benefit from their proximity to wilderness should bear a higher tax burden than those who receive fewer wilderness benefits. Although our results imply such a policy warrants reasonable consideration, clearly, one study alone is insufficient to substantiate these claims. Our article is based on the assumptions that (1) the environmental justice mandate applies to desirable as well as undesirable land uses, (2) wilderness is a locally desirable land use, and (3) the benefits of wilderness are typically greater at Figure 1—Distribution of wilderness areas in the contiguous United States the local (versus nonlocal) level (although some benefits occur independent of geographic distance, such as bequest values). Results show that unlike traditional environmental justice studies, income was not found to be a substantial explanatory factor in the location of wilderness areas. However, counties adjacent to wilderness in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were composed of significantly fewer blue-collar workers, more whites, and higher-educated people. Such findings may imply that some groups are receiving a greater share of nonuse wilderness benefits than others. Furthermore, results of the trend analysis (from 1980 to 2000) suggest the gap between wilderness and nonwilderness counties is Figure 2—Percent change in per capita income for counties in the contiguous United States, 1980 to 2000 narrowing in terms of (1) percent of white population (i.e., wilderness counties are of locally desirable and undesirable derived from wilderness. Although liv- becoming more nonwhite at a faster rate land uses are political and economic ing near wilderness does not ensure than nonwilderness counties), (2) percent (Bryant and Mohai 1992). If wilder- that local residents receive all the en- blue-collar (i.e., wilderness counties are ness lands are considered a desirable vironmental goods of wilderness, it becoming more white-collar at a faster land use and their designation and does provide local populations with rate than nonwilderness counties), and boundaries are politically determined, amenities such as clean air and water, (3) percent attended college (i.e., wilder- the environmental justice mandate easier geographic access to recreation ness counties are becoming more (Executive Order 12898) has implica- and solitude, and an undisturbed pris- educated at a slower rate than tions for understanding the potential tine environment in their backyard. nonwilderness counties). The question inequities associated with where wil- Furthermore, these amenities are pre- remains as to whether these findings rep- derness is located. A first step in this served using public tax dollars and, resent an environmental injustice. process is identifying who is likely to unlike private or some other public Environmental justice is under- receive a greater share of the benefits lands, wilderness is unlikely to be tar- stood as an act that will prevent people

36 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 from experiencing environmental jus- for a sustainable development model of affluent educated white members tice. To the extent that wilderness is highly desirable. concerned with the health of the designation favored local counties Social justice concerns in land use physical community, and environmen- composed of more white- (versus planning have only recently received tal justice groups have included mostly blue-) collar, more whites (than non- scientific attention. Social equity in the poor, working-class, and minority whites), and higher- (versus lower-) planning process was articulated in groups focused on the health of the educated people, there may be some Campbell’s (1996) triangle model, in social community, clearly the two cause for concern. (Although this has which the three basic and conflicting groups have at their core a similar clearly been tempered by the narrow- goals of planning (economic develop- goal—redressing the effect of human ing in trends from 1980 to 2000.) ment, environmental protection, and activities on ecosystem conditions. It Certainly, the decision to designate social equity) are represented. The act would be desirable to foster a more an area as part of the NWPS is a highly of balancing the three goals in a public unified front among people to advance contentious and political issue that re- process has been a source of conflict the implications of social and environ- quires local community input (for and tension and quite often has resulted mental justice and pave the way example, as part of the National Envi- in lopsided/biased preferences in the toward a better future. ronmental Policy Act, 1969 and balancing act. This is particularly pro- This study has been a macro-level National Forest Management Act, found and true in circumstances where analysis based on GIS and simple de- 1976). Although minority communi- certain parties/agencies as part of the scriptive statistics. Future research for ties (represented by low income and public process have more resources (fi- an improved and in-depth understand- people of color) have traditionally been nancial and political power) than other ing would presumably include more less influential than white affluent parties, resulting in situations where the micro-level analysis such as face-to-face communities in land use decisions distribution of environmental goods and interviews, including participatory (in part because of mistrust, lack of rep- the social goals have to be bargained and mapping and participant observation. resentation, and/or unsuccessful often results in the weaker population A detailed qualitative study would tease collaboration with government organi- being marginalized. Such considerations out the existing intangible, socially con- zations) (see for example, Dennis 2001; are at the heart of models of sustainable structed definitions of place and Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), much development and are clearly applicable attachment, which are historically and less is known about the effect of occu- to studies of environmental justice. The culturally constructed, and which have pation and education on the land use present study provides findings that sup- ultimately resulted in space and place decision-making process. Given the port the need for a more sustainable marginalization by minority groups strong correlations among income, oc- model of land use planning and desig- (Johnson et al. 2001). cupation, and education, powerful nation (with specific implications for One of the greatest challenges facing community groups (i.e., those with the wilderness areas). land managers and the NWPS is contin- greatest ability to influence and exhibit Interestingly, issues of environmen- ued development at the wilderness strong interest) in environmental issues tal injustice were not included in the boundaries, as these are areas associated are likely to include people with higher works of many classical writers of the with population explosion and migration. education and white-collar employ- environmental movement (e.g., Abbey, Views on how these areas should be used ment. It is unlikely, however, that there Carson, Leopold, etc.). Yet, today en- and managed should include an ap- has been any evidence of overt discrimi- vironmentalists share much in proach to integrating environmental and nation (i.e., intentional targeting of common with social/environmental social equity concerns by targeting efforts certain communities) in the distribu- justice advocates, and over the past aimed at sustainable development. In the tion of wilderness areas. Our results decade there have been increasing calls case of undesirable land uses, poor com- show only correlational support for for the two groups to unite ( 1995; munities are often forced to make the white-collar, white population, and Bullard and Wright 1992; Costner and no-win choice between economic sur- higher-educated counties and does not Thornton 1990; Dunlap and Mertig vival and environmental quality address deliberate actions on the part 1992). Although mainstream environ- (Campbell 1996). In the case of desirable of any federal agency to discriminate mental groups (such as Greenpeace, land uses, those without the political will in favor of one particular social group. the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Soci- or influence may be receiving a lower Based on the emerging trends, the need ety) have traditionally been composed share of the benefits of environmental

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 37 decisions. Regardless of either case, eco- graphic Trends and the Future of Natural Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time nomic segregation inevitably leads to Lands in the United States. Champaign, IL: for Discourse. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sagamore Publishing. Mountford, H., and J. H. Kepler. 1999. Financing environmental segregation, and unless Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald, incentives for the protection of diversity. The underrepresented communities engage in and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the public Science of the Total Environment 240, 133–44. the policy debate about environmental views wilderness. International Journal of Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American Wilderness 4(3): 28–31. Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. sustainability they will continue to receive Costner, P., and J. Thornton. 1990. Playing with National Atlas of the United States website. a greater share of the costs and less of the Fire. Washington, DC: Greenpeace. 2002. URL: http://nationalatlas.gov/ benefits of more affluent communities. Dennis, S. 2001. Natural Resources and the In- atlasftp.html. Ultimately, by demonstrating the costs formed Citizen. Champaign, IL: Sagamore O’Neill, J. 2002. Wilderness, cultivation, and Publishing. appropriation. Philosophy and Geography and benefits of land use decisions for both Di Chiro, G. 1998. Environmental justice from 5(1), 35–50. human and ecological communities the grassroots. In The struggle for ecologi- Porter, R. P. and M. A. Tarrant. 2001. A case study (whereby indicator species may include cal democracy, ed. D. Faber, pp. 104–36. of environmental justice and federal tourism both human as well as physical features), New York: The Guilford Press. sites in southern Appalachia: A GIS applica- Dunlap, R. E. and A. G. Mertig. 1992. American tion. Journal of Travel Research 40: 27–40. the two groups may find they are fight- Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Salazar, D. 1996. Environmental justice and a people’s ing for similar outcomes. The challenge Movement, 1970–1990. Philadelphia: Taylor forestry. Journal of Forestry 94(11): 32–38. is for land use planners to include such and Francis. Salazar, D. 1998. Environmental justice and natu- Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1999. ral resource management in the Pacific North- outcomes in models of sustainability and ArcView GIS: Using ArcView GIS. Redlands, west. Northwest Science Forum 72(1): 52–57. to determine how we might make land CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere. use choices that are in our collective (so- Federal Register, February 11. 1994. Executive 1996. The southern Appalachian assessment cial and environmental) best interest order 12898—Federal actions to address summary report. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest environmental justice in minority populations Service, Southern Region. (Yaffee 1994). IJW and low-income populations. Washington, SPSS, Inc. 2001. SPSS Advanced Statistics 11.0. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. SPSS: Chicago: SPSS, Inc. REFERENCES Floyd, M. F., and C. Y. Johnson. 2002. Coming to Stokes, J. 1999. Wilderness management priori- Boerner, C., and T. Lambert. 1995. Environmen- terms with environmental justice in outdoor rec- ties in a changing political environment. Inter- tal injustice. Public Interest 118: 61–82. reation: A conceptual discussion with research national Journal of Wilderness 5(1): 4–8. Bryant, B. 1995. Introduction. In Environmental implications. Leisure Sciences 25, 59–77. Tarrant, M. A., and H. K. Cordell. 1999. Envi- Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions, ed. B. Foreman, C. H. 1996. A winning hand? The ronmental justice and the spatial distribution Bryant, pp. 1–7. Washington, DC: Island Press. uncertain future of environmental justice. of outdoor recreation sites: An application of Bryant, B. P. and P. Mohai. 1992. Race and the Brookings Review 14(2): 22–25. geographic information systems. Journal of Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time GeoLytics, Inc. 1998. Census CD+ maps. East Leisure Research 31(1): 18–34. for Discourse. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Brunswick, NJ: GeoLytics, Inc. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Haz- Bullard, R. D. 1994. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Glickman, T. S. 1994. Measuring environmen- ardous and non-hazardous waste: Demo- Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, tal equity with geographic information sys- graphics of people living near waste CO: Westview Press. tems. Resources 116: 2–6. facilities. GAO/RCED-95-84. Washington, Bullard, R. D. and B. H. Wright. 1992. The quest Hamilton, J. T. 1995. Testing for environmental DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. for environmental equity: Mobilizing the Af- racism: Prejudice, profits, political power? Wondolleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Mak- rican-American community for social Journal of Policy Analysis and Management ing collaboration work. Washington, DC: change. In American Environmentalism: The 14: 107–32. Island Press,. U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970— Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wil- Yaffee, S. L. 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted 1990, ed. R. E. Dunlap and A. G Mertig, derness Management. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Owl. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 39–49. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Publishing. Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just Johnson, C., J. M. Bowker, and H. K. Cordell. GARY T. GREEN, Research Project cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of 2001. Outdoor recreation constraints: An Manager in Recreation, Wilderness, Urban sustainable development. Journal of the Ameri- examination of race, gender, and rural dwell- Forestry, and Demographic Trends can Planning Association 62(3): 296–312. ing. Southern Rural Sociology 17, 111–33. Research Unit, USDA Forest Service, 320 Champion, A. 1989. Counterurbanization: The Kriesel, W., T. J. Centner, and A. G. Keeler. Green Street, Athens, GA 30602-2044, Changing Pace and Nature of Population 1996. Neighborhood exposure to toxic re- USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Deconcentration. London: Edward Arnold. leases: Are there racial inequities? Growth Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of and Change 27: 479–99. MICHAEL A. TARRANT, 1-309 Daniel B. Christ. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the Landres, P., S. Marsh, L. Merigliani, D. Ritter, and Warnell School of Forest Resources, The United States: A National Report on the Ra- A. Norman. 1988. Boundary effects on wil- University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602- cial and Socio-economic Characteristics of derness and other natural areas. In Steward- 2152, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. ship across Boundaries, ed. R. Knight and P. New York: United Church of Christ. Landres, pp. 117–39. Covelo, CA: Island Press. UTTIYO RAYCHAUDHURI is at the Cordell, H. K. and C. Overdevest. 2001. Foot- Mohai, P., and B. Bryant. 1992. Environmental rac- University of Georgia and YANGJIAN prints on the Land: An Assessment of Demo- ism: Reviewing the evidence. In Race and the ZHANG is at Rutgers University.

38 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION Changes in the Aftermath of Natural Disasters When Is Too Much Change Unacceptable to Visitors?

BY JOSEPH FLOOD and CRAIG COLISTRA

ver the past decade, the forces of nature have in- hands-off approach should be followed, or does this suggest delibly altered some wilderness landscapes and, restoration of what has been changed by the forces of nature? O as a consequence, permanently changed how visi- The Wilderness Act of 1964 sets the tone for management ac- tors use these areas. Several critical questions confront tions that result in preserving or restoring natural conditions. managers: “Should management actions be implemented McCool and Lime (1988) argued that management actions, to protect what nature has reconfigured, or should manag- whether designed to preserve resources, enhance opportuni- ers restore campsites and trails to previous conditions?” Is ties, or reduce conflict, can negatively impact visitors. Researchers it appropriate for visitors who have visited a particular site have been divided between the hands-off versus the restoration over many visits, and find it either dramatically altered or approach to fostering a quality visitor experience. The manage- nonexistent, to manipulate the site to accommodate their ment community is divided between those who invite the expectations? A close review of two recent changes to wil- opportunity to create or enhance visitor satisfaction and expec- derness landscapes through the forces of nature in a national tations and those who do not. These concerns foster either a park and a national forest wilderness offers insight into this sense of pessimism or a desire for a better understanding of management dilemma. how management actions (or no action) influence the quality of On the morning of September 8, 2004, Hurricane Francis the visitor’s experience (Flood 2003b). blew into North Carolina. Linville Gorge Wilderness, located Research findings suggest new generations of wilderness in western North Carolina was a pristine and serene land- visitors may have different expectations about what scape. After sixteen inches (41 centimeters) of rain fell in the management actions are appropriate (Cole et al. 1997; Vaske span of 48 hours, the Linville River unleashed a twenty-foot et al. 1980; Watson and Cronn 1994). Visitors who have grown (6-meter) wall of water through the gorge, which devastated accustomed to a particular wilderness campsite, or wilderness everything in its path. In the spring of 1997, Yosemite Na- landscape, often experience upset or stress upon returning to tional Park experienced a similar scenario as the Merced River a drastically altered condition. It has been suggested that when swelled to flood stage, leaving behind a path of devastated visitors first visit an area, a form of benchmarking occurs (Flood cabins, roads, campgrounds, and trails. 2003a). This benchmarking influences how visitors evaluate There is no clear understanding of how catastrophic events site conditions during future visits. These factors may influence such as hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, fire, and mass flooding both visitor motivation and expectations as they plan to revisit alter wilderness landscapes and influence or change visitor ex- their favorite wilderness locations. periences in wilderness. Questions remain regarding ensuing management dilemmas: How, if at all, should managers play a Understanding Visitor Behavior role in controlling natural changes and restoring trails and camp- Social psychologists have documented that people use stan- sites to preexisting conditions? If we take direction from Section dards to evaluate a setting and what influences their 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577), wil- expectations for an experience. Different individuals may have derness “generally appears to have been affected primarily by different expectations for the same activity or setting. When a the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substan- situation is substandard to what a person defines as appropri- tially unnoticeable.” Does this suggest to managers that a ate or expected, the experience is more likely to be evaluated

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 39 ditions at a recreation site could create ern North Carolina. The 12,000-acre an expectation dilemma for some visi- (4,858-hectare) Linville Gorge Wilder- tors (i.e., the current situation does not ness, located on the Pisgah National match their previous benchmark). Forest, received 16 inches (41 centimeters) of rain over a period of several days. Two Examples of Landscape The runoff caused the Linville River to Changes from Flooding swell from a 7,000 to 35,000 cubic feet For decades, Yosemite National Park (198 to 992 cubic meters) per second managers have been challenged by the flow (http://steepness.bogsspot.com/ 1916 legislative mandate that defines 2004), and a 20-foot (6-meter) wall of Figure 1—The Bynum Bluff area in the Linville Gorge after the the park’s mission as “conserving the water moved, altered, or eliminated flood and during the postflood reinventory of campsites and trees. Photo by Joseph Flood. scenery” while “providing for the en- nearly everything in its path along the joyment” of the American public. As riverbank. One frequently visited area negatively (Vaske et al. 1980; Watson 17,000 visitors view El Capitan, spec- of the wilderness, Bynum Bluff camp and Cronn 1994). Vaske and others sug- tacular waterfalls, and giant granite rock area, was totally obliterated. While lo- gest that visitors with no prior formations each day, their very presence cal U.S. Forest Service managers closed expectations of a wilderness setting are creates significant impacts and de- much of the area for safety reasons and susceptible to accepting what they see mands on park resources. The sheer began rebuilding heavily damaged roads during their first visit as being appro- numbers of visitors have forced man- and trails, visitors were working inde- priate (i.e., benchmarking). Expectancy agers to address tough, controversial pendently and without authority to theory suggests that the determinants of challenges such as providing housing rebuild some lost campsites that were human behavior are the beliefs, expec- for park rangers and concessionaires, important to them. tations, and anticipation individuals and whether or not to eliminate poorly have concerning future events (Steers located campsites and trails built within Campsite Conditions in the and Porter 1987). Expectancy theory il- the flood plain. In the spring of 1997, Linville Gorge Wilderness lustrates how on-site conditions after a winter that created an exception- A campsite inventory database for the influence visitors’ experiences before and ally heavy snowpack high in the Sierra Bynum Bluff area had been conducted during a wilderness visit. Wilderness Nevada Mountains, a tropical storm on February 24–26, 2004, prior to the visitor behavior is goal directed and struck. It melted the snowpack and cre- flood, and there were approximately based on conscious decisions, and ated torrential rains that swelled the 150 trees and 16 campsites. After the Lawler (1973) suggests that people en- Merced River to flood stage. After sev- flood, only three undisturbed camp- gage in behaviors that provide positive eral days, the storm subsided, leaving sites remained intact. During a outcomes. Similarly, expectancy-valence hundreds of cabins, roads, camp- postflood reinventory process, re- theory (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) has grounds, wilderness campsites, and searchers found only 42 trees, four been used in wilderness settings to help sections of trails totally destroyed. visitor re-created campsites, and the understand how the role of expectation Whereas some local concessionaires three original sites that together cov- and on-site conditions influence the wil- indicated that the park was devastated, ered an area of 3,000 square feet (278 derness experience (Hall and Shelby others suggested that this “act of na- square meters) (see Figure 1). During 1993). The wilderness resource condi- ture” was needed to reset priorities for a second reinventory trip on April 1– tions selected by the visitor are the park. Rather than evaluating the 3, 2005, researchers observed that four remembered with the expectation that effects of the storm as an all-encompass- new visitor-created sites had been es- it will once again lead to their desired ing negative, managers chose to forgo tablished by moving debris (trees, wilderness experience during the next replacing or rebuilding many structures rocks, and large boulders) and using trip. Therefore, the conditions existing and campsites, while reestablishing surrounding sand and gravel for lev- during a visitor’s initial exposure to a more ecologically sound trail systems eling out the sites (see Figure 2). specific campsite or trail establish a in alternative routes and locations. Researchers estimated that the total of benchmark influencing subsequent vis- On September 8, 2004, Hurricane 10 sites covered an overall area of its (Flood 2003a). These theories suggest Francis left a path of debris, dislocation, 3,406 square feet (316 square meters), then that a drastic change in on-site con- and destruction across much of west- an increase of 406 square feet (38

40 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 square meters) in campsite area since after the occurrence of a the first postflood reinventory. natural disaster from both a visitor and a management Management Dilemma perspective. For example, If there were originally 16 campsites catastrophic flooding and now there are 10, should manag- events may be increasing in ers allow this activity or discourage it? coming years as meteorolo- Does the act of moving debris and gists and climatologists boulders, and leveling out sand and predict that global warming gravel constitute appropriate visitor will result in unusual and behavior or not? When do acts of na- dramatic changes in ture rule, and when should visitors be weather patterns world- told that acts of nature will dominate? wide. Rivers and streams Although this management dilemma may swell and flood, or Figure 2—Campsites constructed by campers in the Bynum Bluff area of Linville Gorge after the flood. Photo by Joseph Flood. demonstrates what can happen under evaporate, under unusual unusual catastrophic conditions, this weather conditions affect- author argues that visitors have often ing many popular campsites currently Flood, J. P. 2003b. Influence of benchmarking on altered wilderness campsites to best located along riverbanks and corridors wilderness visitor and manager perceptions of meet their needs and expectations. In or mountain valleys. Perhaps one ap- campsite conditions. Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 2002 Proceedings, Bolton many instances what managers have proach is visitor education about Landing, NY, April 13–16. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- done, or failed to do, may reflect some natural processes and conditions in 302. Newton Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, of an agency’s philosophy about wil- wilderness and how the forces of na- Northeast Research Station; pp. 165-172. derness management. Although there Hall, T., and B. Shelby. 1993. Wilderness moni- ture may drastically alter the toring. Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, has been a concerted effort by the landscape. Perhaps another approach and Three Sisters Wildernesses. Unpublished Arthur Carhart National Wilderness is to conduct in-depth studies, asking Tech. Rep. on file. Eugene, OR: USDA Forest Training Center during the past decade managers about accepting catastrophic Service, Willamette National Forest. Lawler, E. E. 1973. Motivation in Work Orga- to “foster interagency excellence in landscape change, conducting man- nizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks. wilderness stewardship” for all wilder- agement-initiated restoration to McCool, S. F., and D. W. Lime. 1988. Attitudes ness managers working for the four former conditions, or allowing visitor- of visitors toward outdoor recreation man- management agencies, individual initiated restoration alterations to agement policy. Proceedings—National Wil- derness Research Conference: Issues, agencies continue to address similar improve recreation opportunities. State-of-knowledge, Future Directions, pp. problems differently. The two case ex- Managers should be proactive in their 401–11. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service, amples here highlight that in these planning and anticipate visitor reac- Intermountain Research Station. Steers, R. M., and L. W. Porter. 1987. Motivation instances the National Park Service tions and agency management and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. may take a different approach from the responses to significantly altered land- Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, and T. A. Heberlein. U.S. Forest Service when it comes to scapes after the occurrence of a natural 1980. Perceptions of crowding and resource issues of natural forces transforming disaster in a wilderness area. IJW quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences 3: 367–81. the landscape and of visitor alteration Watson, A. E., and R. Cronn. 1994. How previ- of wilderness. However, little attention REFERENCES ous experience relates to visitors’ perceptions Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understand- has been given to determining how to of wilderness conditions. Backcountry Recre- ing Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. ation Management Trends 31(3): 43–46. best address the issues of how to react Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. to natural transformations of the land- Cole, D. N., A. E. Watson, T. E. Hall, and D. R. scape and whether visitors should be Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations in wil- JOSEPH FLOOD is an assistant professor in derness: Social and biophysical impacts, visi- the Department of Recreation and Leisure allowed to alter a site to re-create pre- tor responses, and management options. Gen. Studies at East Carolina University, existing or new on-site conditions. Tech. Rep. INT- RP-496. Ogden, UT: USDA Greenville, NC. E-mail: [email protected]. The intent of this article is to Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. CRAIG COLISTRA is a graduate student in encourage a dialogue between re- Flood, J. P. 2003a. Wilderness benchmarking: Is visitor acceptability creep a concern or the Department of Recreation and Leisure searchers and managers on how to best not? International Journal of Wilderness Studies at East Carolina University, handle significantly altered landscapes 9(3): 35-38, 27. Greenville, NC.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 41 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Wilderness Conservation in a Biodiversity Hotspot BY RUSSELL A. MITTERMEIER, FRANK HAWKINS, SERGE RAJAOBELINA, and OLIVIER LANGRAND

Endemic Richness The island of Madagascar is one of the world’s highest biodiversity conservation priorities. It is considered one of the most important of the world’s 18 megadiversity countries (Mittermeier et al. 1997) and one of the very highest priority biodiversity hotspots as well (Mittermeier et al. 1999; 2004). Madagascar’s privileged position in terms of biodiversity is based on its geological history and geographic placement. The world’s largest oceanic island—and the fourth largest island overall—has been separated from the

African mainland for more than 160 million years, so most Co-authors Russell A. Mittermeier (left) and Frank Hawkins. of its plant and animal life evolved in isolation. This resulted in very high levels of endemism at the species level. Valdivian Forests hotspots, each with seven, and for genera Madagascar is situated largely in the tropics (between 11o the Caribbean, with just 269 (Mittermeier et al. 2004). This 57’ S and 25o 37’ S) and also has very high species richness, means that Madagascar is critically important not just for especially given its relatively small size (587,041 km2) conservation of species, but for conserving a whole array of (226,600 mi2). For example, although Madagascar occu- deep evolutionary lineages representing a significant portion pies only about 1.9% of the land area of the African region, of our planet’s evolutionary history. it has more orchids than all of mainland Africa, and indeed This evolutionary history is demonstrated by lemurs that is home to perhaps as much as a third of all African plant are the nonhuman primate radiation in Madagascar, arguably species. Overall, about 83% of Madagascar’s plant species the single highest primate conservation priority on Earth. The are endemic (Goodman and Benstead 2003), and for ani- 69 lemur species and subspecies found there are divided into mals the proportion is usually even higher, the best example five families and 15 genera, all of which are endemic, a level of being the primates, which are 100% endemic. endemism simply unmatched on our planet. Brazil, the world’s While Madagascar’s species richness and endemism is single richest country for primates, with 104 species, also has impressive, it excels in endemism at higher taxonomic lev- five families and a total of 18 genera; however, none of the els. As a country, Madagascar’s numbers of endemic plant families and only three of the genera are endemic in a land and animal families and genera are rivaled only by Australia, area many times larger than Madagascar. Furthermore, if one which is 13 times larger. As a hotspot, Madagascar is simply takes into consideration the lemurs that existed on Madagas- unmatched in these categories. Indeed, the Madagascar and car until very recently, the numbers are even more striking. Indian Ocean Islands hotspot has unsurpassed endemism at When our species first arrived on Madagascar just 2,000 to the family and genus level, with a staggering 24 endemic 2,500 years ago, there were eight other genera and at least 16 families and 478 genera of vascular plants and vertebrates. other species of lemurs present in addition to the extant forms. The next highest on the list at the family level are the New These extant forms were all larger in size than the living le- Caledonia, New Zealand, and the Chilean Winter Rainfall/ murs, some of them giants, with one species growing to be

42 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 larger than an adult male gorilla. Some cal wealth of Madagascar is packed of these survived until perhaps as re- into a tiny land area. cently as 300 to 400 years ago, but all Erosion in some parts of Madagas- are now extinct. car, especially in extensive areas of the The statistics for other animal and central plateau, is simply staggering, and plant groups are comparably impres- as severe as anywhere on Earth. Indeed, sive. Plant endemism is extremely high when flying over parts of the country, at seven to eight endemic families; one is almost brought to tears by enor- there are five endemic bird families; mous erosion gullies, locally known as reptiles are represented by 340 spe- lavaka, and by the fragmentation and cies, of which 314 are endemic; and continuing burning of small patches of amphibians are at about 217 species, vegetation to achieve only a couple of of which 215 are endemic. Inverte- years of low-level agricultural produc- brate diversity and endemism are tivity—a tragic loss of biodiversity and extremely high, but we are only now a loss of future potential for the human starting to fully understand it. population as well. Wetlands, including lakes, rivers and marshes, are under

Environmental Impacts threat from transformation to rice fields, Figure 1—Highway of the Baobabs, near Morondava in Sadly, Madagascar is also one of the siltation from soil erosion, and intro- southwest Madagascar. Photo by Russell A. Mittermeier, world’s leaders in environmental loss. duced nonnative species. Conservation International. The threats to Madagascar are well Lemurs and other mammals such as documented, with forest destruction carnivores, tenrecs, fruit bats, some through slash-and-burn agriculture, birds, and some reptiles (e.g., tortoises) mining, and logging being the primary are very susceptible to hunting. The causes of habitat loss. It is estimated importance of hunting is now emerging that around 90,000 km2 (34,740 mi2) as a much more serious environmental of closed-canopy primary forest and problem than previously believed. The woodland remained as of 2000, with international pet trade has had a serious an average annual rate of loss during impact on endemic plants and animals the 1990s of 0.9% per year (M. of Madagascar, especially amphibians, Steininger 2005). Burney (2003) esti- reptiles, and succulent plants. In addi- mates that historically most of the tion, the proliferation of exotic plant island would have been covered in species is recognized as a major threat forested or densely vegetated habitats, affecting the biodiversity of Madagas- so nowadays only around 15 to 20 % car, and freshwater ecosystems, in of original primary vegetation remains. particular, have been seriously im- However, after spending a lot of time pacted by alien plants such as flying over many different parts of Eichhornia crassipes (Langrand and Madagascar, we doubt that more than Goodman 1995). This combination of 10% of the forest remains sufficiently very high biodiversity, amazing levels intact to be the subject of concerted of endemism, and severe threat have conservation efforts, much of it being combined to make Madagascar one of Figure 2—Devastating erosion in Madagascar. Photo by Russell so fragmented that little can be done the world’s highest biodiversity con- A. Mittermeier, Conservation International. to save it at this time. At best, we be- servation priorities. Indeed, in the lieve that perhaps 50,000 to 60,000 opinion of many, it should be consid- ments need to be far in excess of what km2 (19,300 to 23,160 mi2) remains ered the single highest priority has been invested in the past. New in a state that is still worth protecting. biodiversity hotspot, and the interna- viable long-term plans developed by If this is so, then the sobering fact tional community needs to make working closely with the government emerges that all the amazing biologi- serious investments now. New invest- of Madagascar and private initiatives

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 43 port of the international com- organizations are moving quickly to munity to the tune of a $50 stimulate investments in tourism. The million trust fund to help most recent unofficial reports indicate make this all a reality. This was that there has already been a substantial met with much international increase in tourist interest for 2006. approval and has resulted in All of this bodes well for the future, a great deal of conservation but what is the role of the wilderness activity within Madagascar. concept in a country like Madagascar, The international community where so much has already been lost has already committed $40 and where most of the protected areas million toward this fund in are significantly smaller than 100,000 less than two years, while the hectares (247,000 acres)? We believe government has created a that the wilderness concept does in fact Durban Vision Group to iden- have great value in Madagascar and that Figure 3—Local Antanjaka people waiting for us at our vehicles, Mahabo tify new areas to be protected. it fits in very well with the conservation Forest Reserve, June 19, 2005. Photo by Russell A. Mittermeier, Conservation International. By the end of 2005, it is ex- corridor concept that organizations pected that some 1.5 million such as Conservation International, could support conservation and envi- hectares (3.7 million acres) of new ar- World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife ronmentally sound development. eas will have been designated and on Conservation Society, the Institute for the path to the ultimate total of 6 mil- the Conservation of Tropical Protected Areas lion hectares (14.9 million acres). Environments, and the Malagasy NGO Clearly much needs to be done, and, In addition, Madagascar has Fanamby are trying to promote. This fortunately, good things are beginning received a totally unexpected and quite is especially relevant in the eastern rain to happen. Protected areas are critical. amazing windfall from Hollywood, in forest region of the country, where At present, the protected area network the form of a new full-length animated much of Madagascar’s biodiversity is of Madagascar (IUCN Categories I–VI) film entitled Madagascar, produced by concentrated. There the vision is to covers some 1.7 million hectares, (4.2 DreamWorks, one of the Hollywood’s create corridors in excess of several million acres) or about 3% of the coun- leading companies. This film, which million hectares, although the single try. Recent gap analyses conducted by premiered at the end of May, portrays largest existing protected area is Conservation International and partner Madagascar in a very positive light and Masoala National Park covering only organizations (including the Missouri is in the process of making it a 230,000 hectares (572,700 acres). Botanical Garden, the Wildlife Conser- household word in North America, Perhaps the best example of a forest vation Society, the World Wildlife Europe, and around the world. ecosystem corridor is the Zahamena- Fund, the Durrell Wildlife Trust, and Preliminary indications are that it will Mantadia Corridor, which connects two the Malagasy NGO Fanamby), indi- be seen by 100 million in theaters and of the country’s most important cated that the coverage of Madagascar’s by another 200 to 300 million in their parks—the 63,800-hectare (158,860 unique biodiversity by this network homes using DVD versions. This movie acres) Zahamena National Park and the was far from adequate and that a sig- is likely to stimulate a great increase in 10,000 hectare (24,900 acres) nificant increase in protected area tourism to Madagascar. Both the Mantadia National Park—and would coverage was necessary. President Marc international conservation community cover some 450,000 hectares (1.1 Ravalomanana, who took power in and the government of Madagascar are million acres) when completed. Farther 2002, recognized the value of protect- moving quickly to take advantage of to the south, the Ranomafana- ing the country’s natural heritage, and, this unique and historic opportunity. Andringitra Corridor will eventually to demonstrate his commitment, made The president has created a Task Force cover some 180,000 hectares (448,200 an historic declaration to triple his on Ecotourism reporting directly to his acres). Eventually the idea would be to country’s protected area coverage at the office, and Conservation International have what Alison Jolly, one of the World Parks Congress in Durban, has placed a highly experienced leading advocates for conservation in South Africa, in September 2003. At ecotourism specialist in the president’s Madagascar, has called “a string of the same time, he requested the sup- office. Other national and international pearls”—a series of corridors around

44 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 the periphery of the island where much duplicated in much of the rest of the trop- of the remaining natural vegetation is ics, which have seen human habitation to be found. This approach would for much longer. As befits the nature of ensure the long-term survival of this these sites, their fauna and flora are very country’s wonderful biological heritage. poorly known, and they have yielded a Some of the new protected areas being startling range of new species of insecti- proposed are mini-wilderness areas in vore and rodent, with several new genera their own right, perhaps the best and around 20 new species over the last example being the magnificent Makira 15 years, and even new primates, a total Forest in northeastern Madagascar, of 19 since 1994 and with several more which covers some 350,000 hectares awaiting formal description. Doubtless (871,500 acres) and is contiguous with there is much more to be learned about the 230,000-hectare (572,700 acres) these mysterious valleys. Masoala National Park on the peninsula The fact that one can think about of the same name. Within these actual and potential wilderness in what corridors, there exists the possibility of is often considered to be the classic highly Figure 4—Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) basking in declaring “wilderness core areas,” impacted biodiversity hotspot, once again the early morning sun, Berenty Private Reserve, Madagascar. Photo by Russell A. Mittermeier, which would be off-limits to tourism gives us hope for the future. IJW Conservation International. and restricted to only the most important forms of scientific research. REFERENCES Canada: Science and Management of Pro- The fact that Madagascar has seen Burney D. A. 2003. Prehistoric ecosystems. In tected Areas Association,. The Natural History of Madagascar, ed. S. M. Mittermeier, R. A, and C. G. Mittermeier. 1997. human presence for such a short time— Goodman and J. P. Benstead, pp. 47–51. Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest it was colonized at about the same time Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Nations. Garza Garcia N.L. Mexico: CEMEX. as many of the islands of the central Pa- Goodman, S. M., and J. P. Benstead, eds. 2003. Mittermeier R. A., N. Meyers, Gil P. Robles, and The Natural History of Madagascar. Chi- cific—means that people have not had C. G. Mittermeier. 1999. Hotspots. Garza cago: The University of Chicago Press. Garcia N.L. Mexico: CEMEX. enough time to even explore the entirety Langrand, O., and S. M. Goodman. 1995. Moni- Mittermeier, R. A., Gil P. Robles, M. Hoffmann, J. of the forests of the island, particularly in toring Madagascar’s ecosystems: A look at Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier,J. Lamoreux, the east. Indeed, for the first few hun- the past, present and future of its wetlands. In and G. A. B. da Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected areas, Revisited. Garza Garcia N.L. Mexico: CEMEX. dred years of occupation of Madagascar ed. T. B. Herman, S. Bondrup-Nielsen, J. H. Steininger, M. 2005. Personal communication. there is no evidence that humans lived in M. Willison, and N. W. P. Munro. Wolfville, Continued on page 6 highland or forested areas at all. Although not large by neotropical or central Afri- can standards, it is still possible to explore forested valleys, particularly those with dense vegetation high on the slopes of mountains such as Marojejy and Andringitra, that have in all likelihood never been visited by humans. Rural Malagasy people do visit forests to hunt and collect forest products, but these highland valleys do not hold much in the way of interesting prey or forest products, and the vegetation is so dense that one has to crawl on one’s belly in many areas. Although such areas are probably quite small, in the tens or low hundreds of hectares, the idea that such genuine wilderness areas still exist is very inspir- Figure 5—Sisal fields along the Mandrare River, Madagascar. Photo by Russell A. Mittermeier, Conservation International. ing, and is a phenomenon unlikely to be

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 45 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

Eight New World Heritage information on the designations, visit guide government managers in Sites Designated http://iucn.org/en/news/archive/2005/ determining how many cattle may graze, Fossils of whales with legs, the world’s 07/new_wh_sites_designated.pdf. where, and for how long without biggest meteorite impact site, the harming resources. Source: Los Angeles deepest fjords, vast tropical forests, Warnings about Grazing Times; more at http://seattletimes. and outstanding marine sites. These Impacts Altered by nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ are among the eight new natural World Politicians 2002340217_graze18.html. Heritage sites designated by the United The Bush administration altered critical Nations Educational, Scientific and portions of a scientific analysis of the Goodbye Gaylord: Cultural Organization (UNESCO) environmental impact of cattle grazing Founder of Earth Day Dies World Heritage Committee, which on public lands before announcing Former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord met in Durban, South Africa, in July. relaxed grazing limits on those lands, Nelson’s best known achievement is They include Wadi Al-Hitan/Whale according to scientists involved in the the founding of Valley (Egypt), the Valley of Flowers study. A government biologist and a Earth Day in National Park (India), Shiretoko hydrologist, who both retired this year 1970. Descri- (Japan), the Islands and Protected from the Bureau of Land Management bed by American Areas of the Gulf of California (BLM), said their conclusions that the Heritage Magazine (Mexico), West Norwegian Fjords proposed rules might adversely affect as “one of the (Norway), Coiba National Park water quality and wildlife, including most remarkable (Panama), Vredefort Dome (South endangered species, were excised and happenings in Africa), and Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai replaced with language justifying less the history of Forest Complex (Thailand). The stringent regulations favored by cattle democracy,” international committee of 21 ranchers. A BLM official acknowledged Earth Day made countries unanimously approved changes were made in the analysis but environmental protection a major IUCN’s recommendations for said they were part of a standard editing national issue. A distinguished and inscribing these sites on the prestigious and review process and were based on influential public servant, Nelson World Heritage List. “These new “good science.” Critics often complain served 10 years in the Wisconsin World Heritage sites illustrate the that the Bush administration has made Senate, was twice elected governor of global importance of preserving a practice of distorting scientific studies Wisconsin, and, in 1962, began an 18- marine biodiversity for our future to weaken regulations to serve its year career in the U.S. Senate. Senator well-being, especially commercial fish political objectives. Grazing regulations, Nelson’s many achievements include stocks and endangered species,” said which affect 160 million acres (64.3 legislation to: preserve the 2,000-mile David Sheppard, head of the IUCN million hectares) of public land in 11 (3,225 km) Appalachian Trail; Programme on Protected Areas and the western states, set the conditions under mandate fuel efficiency standards in IUCN delegation in Durban. For more which ranchers may use that land, and automobiles; control strip mining; ban

Submit announcements and short news articles to STEVE HOLLENHORST, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected].

46 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 the use of the pesticide DDT; ban the lands in the coastal area of northern more clearly articulating what wilderness use of 245T (agent orange); and California; the Ojito area of New Mexico; character means, which may help creation of the St. Croix Wild and the Wild Sky area outside of Seattle, managers evaluate proposed actions and Scenic Riverway and the Apostle Washington; and the El Toro region of improve agency performance measure- Islands National Lakeshore. Senator Puerto Rico. Source: The Wilderness ment and policy review. The publication Nelson also cosponsored the National Society (http://www. wilderness.org/). is available at http://leopold.wilderness. Environmental Education Act and net/pubs/544.pdf. wrote legislation to create the Upper Publication Provides Tool Great Lakes Regional Commission and for Monitoring Wilderness Mapping Last of the Wild Operation Mainstream/Green Thumb, Character Where is the last of the truly wild? The which employed the elderly in What is wilderness character? Why Wildlife Conservation Society, with the conservation projects. He is the monitor wilderness character? How will Center for International Earth Science recipient of numerous awards, this monitoring benefit a specific Information Network at Columbia including two from the United Nations wilderness? What does this monitoring University, partnered with National Environment Programme. Gaylord consist of and how will it be used? How Aeronautic and Space Administration Nelson became counselor of The will this monitoring affect staff time and scientists in the Last of the Wild Project Wilderness Society in January 1981. budget? How will this monitoring be to assemble satellite and land use data In his 14 years at The Wilderness implemented? These are the important to plot the extent of the global Human Society, Nelson focused his efforts on questions addressed in a new USDA Footprint. The Human Footprint is a protecting America’s national forests, Forest Service publication entitled quantitative analysis of human influence national parks, and other public lands. Monitoring Selected Conditions Related across the globe. In this map, human Source: www.Earthday.net. to Wilderness Character: A National impact is rated on a scale of 0 Framework by Peter Landres, Steve (minimum) to 100 (maximum) for each Four Wilderness Bills Boutcher, Linda Merigliano, Chris Barns, terrestrial biome. A score of 1 indicates Passed by U.S. Senate Denis Davis, Troy Hall, Steve Henry, Brad the least human influence in the given The U.S. Senate unanimously passed Hunter, Patrice Janiga, Mark Laker, Al biome. However, because each biome wilderness legislation that will McPherson, Douglas Powell, Mike has its own independent scale, a score permanently protect thousands of acres Rowan, and Susan Sater. The purpose of 1 in a tropical rain forest might reflect of roadless wildlands in California, of the publication is to improve a different level of human activity than Washington, Puerto Rico, and New wilderness stewardship by providing a in a broadleaf forest. The collaborators Mexico. “Today’s unanimous vote in the tool managers can use to evaluate how chose four types of data to measure Senate is yet another sign of the growing selected actions and conditions related human influence: population density, national support for protecting our to wilderness character are changing land transformation, human access, and country’s remaining wild places,” said over time. Many wilderness field and power infrastructure. The result is William H. Meadows, president of The program managers perceive a steady colorful maps where the zones closest Wilderness Society. “Our Senators have erosion of wilderness character, yet there to pristine pop out as patches of leafy done a great job moving these important is no consistent means for describing this green. Worldwide, the project found that measures through the process. We hope loss or positive stewardship outcomes. only 17% of land is still virtually that the House of Representatives will A national set of core indicators allows untouched—mostly because it is follow the Senate’s lead and act quickly compilation of information at local, inhospitable to humans. In areas capable to protect these special places.” “In regional, and national levels. of growing basic crops, and therefore addition to these four efforts there are Improvement in wilderness stewardship most able to support people, untouched active wilderness campaigns across the must occur at the local level, but the lands have diminished to just 2% of the country that continue to gain ability to compile information at regional total. Alaska holds the vast majority of momentum,” said Meadows. “We hope and national levels provides a powerful least altered lands in the United States. to see lawmakers setting aside other communication tool essential to make In the more settlement-friendly lower 48 special places before the end of this the case for wilderness stewardship states, the wildest areas have become Congress.” The four bills that were needs. This monitoring framework also islands ringed by interstates, farms, passed by the Senate include federal improves wilderness stewardship by towns, and cities, making up only 0.9%

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3 47 of land. In the lower 48 states of the Forest Service study found this area The canyon area is protected United States, four of the wildest areas to be the healthiest part of the wilderness. State officials are stand out: Columbia River basin. There is little working with nearby communities • Jarbidge Wilderness (Idaho, Nevada). pressure from sprawl or recreational on sustainable development. Heavy grazing in the 20th century development, given the rugged and • Texas Grasslands (Texas). A coastal damaged soils; mining was also remote terrain. But logging and prairie along the Gulf of Mexico, prevalent early in the century. Grazing road building on national forest about 1% of the wild grassland is now limited and recreational use is lands are possible. remains, in patches as small as 10 light, owing to its remoteness, so the • Endless Mountains and Grand Canyon square miles (3.8 square kilometers). wilderness is recovering well. It has of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). A These areas are being rapidly some of the best air in the United rugged area in north-central degraded. Three percent of Texas States; also good water quality. Pennsylvania that includes the Tioga land is under public control; • Central Idaho Wilderness (Idaho). A State Forest; home to elk, bald conservation efforts rely mostly on crown jewel of American natural eagles, and other wildlife. Deer private landowners. areas. National forest lands surround overpopulation; mine waste in the For more information and additional protected wilderness zones in a rich, watershed. A once busy railway maps, visit http://www.ciesin.org/ self-sustaining ecosystem. A recent through the canyon is now a trail. wild_areas/. Book Review How Should America’s ket forces in the private sector are best this book is also weakened by the in- Wilderness Be Managed? suited to effectively manage wilderness. ability of each opposing chapter to edited by Stuart A. Kallen. 2005. These first two chapters serve as a tem- directly address the points made in the Greenhaven Press, Farmington Hills, MI. plate for the remaining seven specific previous chapter. Also, in order to 125 pp., $19.95 (paperback). issues addressed in the next 14 chapters. keep the price of books in this series The extensive At Issue series published That is, one chapter extolling one opin- low, the chapters have been edited for by Greenhaven Press addresses a wide ion on one issue is followed by another length, and longer articles that could range of contemporary social issues in chapter providing an alternate or oppos- provide more in-depth analysis of the America, from Do Animals Have Rights? ing view on the same issue. The question various issues are not included. to Gay Marriage to Is Racism a Serious of whether public or private management Despite the serious shortcomings of Problem?. This series is designed to fo- of wilderness is more effective is followed this type of book, How Should America’s cus a wide range of viewpoints onto a by chapters on (1) road development in Wilderness be Managed? succeeds at in- single controversial issue and provide in- wilderness, (2) the impact of George troducing the complexity of issues depth discussions by leading advocates. Bush’s new forest policies, (3) oil drilling involved in wilderness management, In each small book, previously pub- in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, (4) addresses some key wilderness issues, lished material is used to highlight logging in the Tongass National Forest, and forces the reader to consider both various components of each issue. (5) the impacts of coal bed methane drill- sides of each issue raised. The impor- How Should America’s Wilderness Be ing, (6) ORVs in wilderness areas, and tance of political ideology and personal Managed? begins with a reprint of a pa- (7) the ethics of “monkeywrenching” in and societal values in deciding how per published in the International Journal protecting the natural environment. wilderness should be managed is illus- of Wilderness in 2001. Hendee and Although some fascinating and im- trated well—although not directly Dawson’s paper documenting 17 threats portant topics are covered in this book, mentioned—in this book. It would be to wilderness provides an excellent in- a focus on wilderness is not always a useful reference source for high school troduction to the challenges facing evident; that is, whereas some chap- and perhaps entry-level undergraduate wilderness managers, The following ters deal specifically with designated students, and would serve well as a chapter challenges their view that wil- wilderness, other relate to protected lightning rod for further discussions on derness management should be in areas or the natural environment more the important issues raised. public hands, suggesting that free mar- generally. Like all series of this type, Review by JOHN SHULTIS

48 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3