INT-4901 Pub. #178

THE NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL.

SIGNIFICANT WILDERNESS QUALITIES:CAN THEY BE IDENTIFIED AND MONITORED?

Proceedings of the Third Annual NOLS Wilderness ResearchColloquium

August 10 - 15, 1987

David N. Cole and Robert C. Lucas, Compilers

INTRODUCTION

The third Research Colloquium, spon-sored by the National Outdoor LeadershipSchool (NOLS), convened the week ofAugust 10-15 in the Popo Agie Wilderness,Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Thepurpose of these colloquia is to facilitateinteraction and discussion between wil-derness managers, researchers, and NOLSpersonnel in a wilderness setting. At eachcolloquium, discussion centers around aselected theme. For the third colloquium,participants were asked to write a shortpaper on the theme. This report is a com-pilation of those papers, along with asynopsis of discussions held during thecolloquium.

The theme was formulated in the fol-lowing manner: Given that the goal ofwilderness managment is to avoid theimpairment of significant conditions, fea-tures and qualities of the wilderness re-source, 1) what are the most significant ofthese conditions, features, qualities? and 2)how can they be monitored to ascertainwhether or not they arc preserved?

This theme was selected because it isfundamental to all wilderness management.management should be focused on problemsthat threaten the most significant qualitiesof wilderness. And research that addressesthese threats, problems and potential miti-gation measures should be given a high pri-ority.

A more specific reason for selecting thistheme relates to interest in several recentlydeveloped management planning systems,such as Limits of Acceptable Change andVisitor Impact Management. These systemslink management objectives and monitoringby proposing that management be driven bymonitoring of key indicators--to determinewhether or not management objectives arebeing met. These systems are being widelyembraced because they provide for objec-tive, generally agreed upon judgments aboutwhere wilderness qualities have been orare being lost; however, their value hingesentirely upon the significance of the indi-cators that are selected. Indicators must beindicative of the most significant wilder-

ness qualities (or impacts on those qual-ities) and it must be feasible to accuratelymonitor those indicators. Otherwise, wil-derness qualities can erode away, despitemonitoring data that indicates objectivesare being met.

Many of the most significant wildernessqualities are relatively intangible. Con-gress wrestled with wilderness definitionsfor eight years before passing the Wil-derness Act, leaving definitions poetic andrather general. General and intangiblequalities are particularly difficult to moni-tor. Can they be monitored or can mean-ingful surrogates be developed? Furtherwrestling with this difficult theme seemedan appropriate task for a collection of man-agers and researchers some 23 years afterpassage of the Wilderness Act.

We gathered a diverse group of peoplefor the colloquium. We attempted to in-clude people from as many parts of thecountry, as many affiliations and as manybackgrounds as possible. Colloquium parti-cipants were:

Dan Burgette--Backcountry Manage-ment Ranger, National Park Service,Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming.

David Cole--Research Biologist, U.S.Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation, Montana.

Jim Currivan--Wilderness ProgramLeader, Bureau of Land Management,Arizona.

Tim Easley--Research Advisor, NOLS,and Chairman, Department of ForestResources, University of New Bruns-wick, New Jersey.

Bill Hammitt--Professor, Departmentof Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries,University of Tennessee.

Drew Leemon--Program Planner, Wyo-ming Branch, NOLS.

Bob Lucas--Project Leader, U.S. ForestService, Intermountain Research Sta-tion, Montana.

Bob Manning--Associate Professor,School of Natural Resources, Univer-sity of Vermont.

Jef f Mar ion--Research Scient is t ,National Park Service, Mid-AtlanticRegion, Pennsylvania.

Steve McCool--Professor, School ofForestry, University of Montana.

Dave Neary--Director , WyomingBranch, NOLS.

Debbie Overton--Graduate Student,Col lege of Fores t ry and Natura lResources, Colorado State University.

Sukey Richard--Assistant MarketingDirector, NOLS, Wyoming.

Toivo Sober--Wilderness Specialist,U.S. Forest Service, Kawishiwi RangerDistrict, Superior National Forest,Minnesota.

Dick Spray--Wilderness Staffer, U.S.Forest Service, Southwest Region, NewMexico.

The diversity of ideas and perspectivesin the papers that follow, all inspired bythe same theme, reflect the range of back-grounds and interests of colloquium parti-cipants.

Dave Parker--Board of Directors,NOLS, Washington, D.C.

WILDERNESS QUALITIES ANDBACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT

AT GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKby Dan Burgette

The question that we have been askedto address--- what are the conditions,features, and qualities that make up a highquality wilderness experience?-- is centralto how we manage wilderness areas. Thepersonal philosophy of wilderness mana-gers has led to a variety of de factoanswers to this question in the past. Somemanagers seem to think that the onlycondition required is proposing an area aswilderness, and saying that it will bemanaged according to the spirit of theWilderness Act. Others are asking ques-tions about Limits of Acceptable Change,how is wilderness managed differentlythan backcountry, and can wilderness man-agement actions be upheld in court whenchallenged? For many, there are morequestions than answers elicited by theabove question. Hopefully this colloquiumcan focus the questions, and provide direc-tion toward the answers. In Grand TetonNational Park there are 135,680 acres ofrecommended wilderness that are to bemanaged so as to preserve the wildernesscharacter and values until Congress decideswhether to include the area in the Na-tional Wilderness Preservation System.Wilderness management in the Tetons iscomplicated by three things. First: eachsummer about 165,000 people hike in therecommended wilderness area. Second:most of those hikers don’t know that theyare in recommended wilderness. Third: in1974, Wolfley analyzed backcountry use inthe Tetons and found that most users wereattracted by the physical aspects of thepark. They were not overly disturbed bythe visitor use levels, and most users wereseeking a less than “pure” wilderness-typeexperience.

Even though solitude is not necessaryfor most Teton visitors to meet their expec-tations, it is supposed to be a key attributeof a wilderness experience. It can be arguedthat most backcountry visitors have a highquality experience in the wilderness. Wil-derness purists wouldn’t have a highquality wilderness experience at Hidden

Falls on a busy day with up to 370 peoplepassing per hour. However, the wildernesspurist could meet his expectations in manyof the pristine areas of the park.

As Cole has written, limitations onwilderness recreational use cannot often bebased on ecological factors. Therefore, uselimits must be based on sociological factors.User expectations concerning numbers ofpeople encountered per hour, time of day,and location are very important in deter-mining quality of wilderness experience.Physical impacts such as trail and camp-site location, size and condition are aes-thetic factors as they relate to expectationsof users and managers.

Wilderness management in an area suchas Grand Teton National Park is a com-promise. The ideals of the Wilderness Actare the guide. The numbers of people thatvisit the backcountry to see the spectacularscenery can easily find “a primitive andunconfined type of recreation.” However,finding “outstanding opportunities for sol-itude” is impossible at some locations atsome times. Finding opportunities for soli-tude is always possible at many locations,however. The result of pragmaticallyblending the political realities of man-aging a popular area with the ideals of theWilderness Act is a compromise.

The compromise defined in the 1987Backcountry Management Plan for GrandTeton National Park stratifies the back-country into five Management Zones. Zone Iis comprised of corridors along gatewaytrails. Zone I I i s co r r i do r s a longmaintained trails not in Zone I. Zone III issemi-pristine areas with unmaintainedtrails created by visitor use. Zone IV ispristine areas. Zone V is open space, suchas sagebrush flats, not in other zones.Management objectives are defined for eachzone, with management actions outlined.

Stratifying the backcountry recognizedthat not everyone needs pristine resources tohave a high quality wilderness experiencethat meets their expectations. Visitorswho can meet their expectations in Zones Ior II will be directed there. Zone III areasare mainly used by climbers, or hikerslooking for areas away from the crowds.Zone IV areas are intended for wildernesspurists that need pristine areas to meet

4their expectations. Zone V areas are sel-dom used for recreational activities.

By stratifying the resource and themanagement actions for various zones, thevisitor is provided a range of opportunitiesthat should meet the needs of the hikerwanting to look at the scenery, and thewilderness purist that doesn’t want to seemany others in a pristine setting. At thesame time, the resource is being preservedso that future generations should havesimilar opportunities to meet their eX PeC-

tations for a high quality wilderness exper-ience.

The ideals that are the foundation ofthe Wilderness Act are hopefully evidentin this compromise. Most of the use is in theZone I and II trail corridors. Most of therecommended wilderness is in Zones I andIV. But there are difficulties to be addres-sed. Campers are managed by a permitsystem. Day use, the majority of back-country use is uncontrolled. As the popula-tion grows and recreational pressure in-creases on a finite amount of wild land,where and how should controls be estab-lished to protect the opportunities for qual-ity wilderness experiences? And when es-tablished, will the limits be defensible incourt if challenged like limits at Mt. Rai-nier National Park were?

So back to the question-- what is it thatmakes a quality wilderness experience? Itis assumed that the setting needs to benatural-- by someone’s definition. Afterthat it seems to depend on the user’s expec-tations. How many human impacts or en-counters that are acceptable depends on theindividual’s expectation. The fact thatover 300 people per hour can pass HiddenFalls with hardened trails and buck andrail fences to channel foot traffic andpeople still have a positive experience in-dicates that their expectations are dif-ferent than campers at Cirque Lake thatdon’t expect to see (m)any others. It isclear, however, that there must be someupper limit of encounters per hour beyondwhich few visitors would consider theexperience positive. Determining thesesociological limits, in light of managementobjectives, seems to be the key to answeringthe question.

When discussing use limits that willallow continued high quality wildernessexperiences, several questions arise rela-tive to different user groups’ expectations.How many people can meet their expec-tations in a natural setting with givencharacteristics? How does this numberimpact on other potential user groups? Howmany people per hour, for example, istolerable for which groups? What educa-tional means can be used to effectivelychannel groups into areas that meet theirneeds? How important are physical im-pacts such as campsites or fire rings perarea to various user groups? What strate-gies are most effective in educating visitorsthat aren’t attuned to wilderness behaviorethics? How can visitors be taught theimportance of not visiting pristine areasunless they need pristine areas to meettheir wilderness experience needs? Wherein these educational efforts do we considerthe effects of talking about pristine areas?One reason that these areas are still pris-tine is because not many people visit them.Educating people about them may be likeadvertising them.

An underlying question deals withwhat should the management objectives fora wilderness area be. Whose definition of“quality wilderness experience” should beused? Obviously the purist’s definition hasbeen exceeded in Grand Teton’s Zone I, andin some Zone II areas. But the definition forthe average user has likely not beenexceeded. Should a more “pure” definitionbe the standard? Should the entire wil-derness area be held to the same standard,or is stratification tolerable? Clearly,reducing the standard for an entire wil-derness area so there are no pristine orsemi-pristine areas is unacceptable. But ifa more “pure” standard, based on the“outstanding opportunities for solitude”clause is the basis for area wide mana-gement, how can managers defend neces-sarily strict use limits in court?

In Grand Teton National Park, pastmanagers started use limits such as nocampfires above 7,000 feet elevation, partysize of six maximum, groups of twelve max-imum, no groups allowed to camp in off-trail areas, horse users must stay on main-tained trails and use processed feed for

5their animals. As a result, physical im- that are attracted to a popular nationalpacts, and certainly ecological impacts, are park will be the biggest challenge fornot the biggest challenges for future mana- future managers concerned about providinggers. Sociological factors that affect the opportunities for quality wilderness experi-quality of wilderness experience, especial- ences.ly among day users, are not well understood.Social pressures that come with crowds

CRlTlCAL WILDERNESS QUALITIES,RECREATIONAL USE AND

MONITORING NEEDSby David N. Cole

Clearly the primary goal of wildernessmanagement is to protect the qualities thatmake an area valued as a wilderness re-source. A number of agents of change candegrade these qualities. Some of thesesources of degradation are the result of on-site activities, such as recreation and min-ing; others arc the result of external activi-ties, such as where industrial developmentpollutes air or water, if entire watershedsare not protected. Often these threats arequite indirect, such as where suppression offires alters fire regimes or where elimin-ation of winter habitat outside the wil-derness alters populations within the area.The activity that I will address here,recreational use, is one of the most obvious,direct, on-site sources of degradation, but itis only one potential source. Depending upon the wilderness at issue or, more im-portantly, one’s personal opinion about themost important qualities of wilderness,recreational use may or may not be amongthe most important sources of degradation.

Regardless of the source of degradation,the general qualities of wilderness in needof protection arc: 1) natural conditions andprocesses, and 2) a perception of natural-ness, wildness and solitude. The naturalconditions of concern might usefully besubdivided into vegetation and soil, ani-mals, water and air, as long as we recognizethe complex interactions between these ele-ments. Perceptions might be divided intointeraction with other humans and inter-action with the natural environment. Ob-viously there arc also links betweennaturalness and perceptions of naturalness.

Although perceptions of naturalnessand wildness have been severely eroded inmany places, this too is not a problemeverywhere or for everybody. As with oth-er animals, only certain visitors in certainplaces arc highly susceptible. Those thatseek out truly wild places-- and know howto find them-- can do so within the wil-derness system, although there are somespecific areas where this type of use is not

6allowed. Similarly, the susceptibility ofmany of those who choose to visit morepopular areas seem low. This might inc-lude those whose preference is for morehighly altered environments -- well-main-tained trails or established campsites,those who do not perceive much of thealteration around them and those whoenjoy contacts with local authorities. Inmany places, this represents the majority ofvisitors.

The most susceptible people seem to bethose that seek wilder places, but that arenot comfortable leaving many of the con-veniences, such as trails; the most sus-ceptible places seem to be those currentlywild places that are relatively accessible.Solitude and the perception of a naturalenvironment are vulnerable in such placesand are frequently difficult for such peopleto find. Along with protection of threat-ened animals, I think that solitude and ap-parently natural environments, in undis-turbed but relatively accessible places, arcthe wilderness qualities most threatenedby recreational use.

In contrast to the difficulty of moni-toring animal populations, monitoring ofthese other qualities has been researchedextensively. One consistent finding is thattrails and campsites develop even at uselevels so low that little interaction be-tween groups occurs. This suggests that ifwe monitor the development of trails andcampsites and take actions to prevent theirproliferation, there is little need to monitorvisitors and their interactions (in little-used places.) In such places, recording in-formation on the presence or absence oftrails and campsites is probably more im-portant than information on their con-dition.

Although high levels of the qualitiesthat make wilderness unique cannot beattained in popular places, limits on de-gradation can be developed. Monitoring ofinteractions between visitors is probablycritical. Local disruption of natural condi-tions will be high and the perception ofnaturalness will be severely reduced. Dis-ruption of these qualities can be limited,however, if monitoring of visitation keepsencounters to a reasonable number. Never-theless, unless popu1ar places receive in-

tensive site management (concentration ofuse and rehabilitation of closed impactedareas), campsites and trail systems shouldalso be monitored in popular places.

In summary, the most important wil-derness qualities with a high potential fordisruption by recreational use, the placeswhere disruption is most likely, and thetypes of monitoring that are most criticalseem to be:

1) Undisturbed animal populations.Probably currently most vulnerable inlightly used places with increasing use (as-suming susceptible species are already gonein popular places.) Uncertain how best tomonitor.

2) Undisturbed vegetation and soil andperception of no impact in places that arelightly used but where use is increasing.Monitor the distribution of campsites andtrails.

3) Reasonable levels of solitude in pop-ular places. Monitor encounters betweengroups, particularly in destination areas.

4) Limited degradation of vegetation,soil and water in popular places. Monitorcampsites, trail systems, and perhaps wa-ter quality, at popular destination areas.

It seems. to me that air quality is notsubject to substantial degradation from re-reational use. Moreover, water, vegetation

7and soil seem less subject to severe de-gradation than the other qualities. Wherewater bodies or particular vegetation orsoil types are rare and subject to con-centrated recreational use, serious degrad-ation may occur; however, I think that thisis not common in wilderness. Localized de-terioration occurs in many places, but from alarger perspective this does not threatenthe integrity of the wilderness resource.

Animal populations, on the other hand,might be substantially altered-- in popu-lation structure, distribution and behavior-- by recreational use. This certainly doesnot apply to all species in all places. Itapplies primarily to larger mammals, birdsand certain fishes, I think, in addition to afew localized populations disturbed byconcentrated recreational use on rare hab-itats (this latter case is similar to that forvegetation, soil and water.)

Unfortunately, we know little aboutthe nature and severity of recreational im-pacts on animals. We can make someintelligent speculation, but little docu-mentation is available. We have a numberof case studies of species and places whererecreational disturbance of animals isoccurring, but there has been little attemptto integrate this into a coherent perspectiveon threatened species and places. This mustbe done before monitoring programs can beefficiently targeted at potential degrad-ation.

WILDERNESS QUALITY, IMPACTCONDITIONS AND THEIR

MONITORINGby William E. Hammitt

We were asked to comment on the qual-ity of wilderness, use impact conditions andhow they might be monitored. After think-ing about this task and after hearing tripparticipants struggle with it, I feel my bestcontribution to the topic might be to sharesome of my thoughts in clarifying the topic.

Quality of the Wilderness Experience:Although user impacts to the wildernessresource and wilderness experience detractfrom the natural and solitude conditions ofwilderness, I am not convinced that userimpacts are major deterrents of the wil-derness experience. Even with higherlevels of visitor encounters and campsitetrampling, the majority of wilderness usersare able to find enough remoteness, natur-alness, and privacy when the entire trip isconsidered to realize a “satisfying” wil-derness experience. I feel the issue at stakeis, “are we to provide the ‘most satisfying’wilderness experience we can, or only sat-isfying experiences?” What degree of qual-ity are we to provide? There is no doubtthat user impacts detract from the qualityof wilderness, but it may not be significant.

User impacts: Ecological vs. Recrea-tional Significance: It is generally agreedthat wilderness should be managed on anecosystem basis. If this is so, then do user

impacts affect the conditions of wildernesson an ecosystem basis? Are campsite im-pacts and trail encounters significant fac-tors at affecting the processes of wildernessecosystems and the quality of wildernessecosystems? The answer is probably no formost impacts. For example, campsite tram-pling and trail encounters affect a minimalportion of the total acreage in wildernessecosystems. However, trail erosion mightcontribute considerable sediment to smallstreams and significantly affect thoserestricted aquatic ecosystems within wil-derness. Wildlife disturbance may be an-other ecosystem level impact.

While use impacts may not be sig-nificant factors in destroying the quality ofwilderness ecosystems, they are significantfactors in detracting from the quality ofwilderness recreation experiences. In otherwords, user impacts, even when called “eco-logical impacts” may not be significantfactors in affecting wilderness ecosystemsbut can be significant factors affectingwilderness recreation and experiences. Userimpacts in wilderness have recreationsignificance, while probably little ecosys-tem importance.

Monitoring conditions: Two systems orlevels of monitoring are called for, one forrecreation quality impact conditions and asecond for ecosystem quality impact con-ditions. Both have significance but theyare probably mutually exclusive with mostwilderness user impacts.

HIGH QUALITY WILDERNESSCONDITIONS

by Robert C. Lucas

At the national wilderness preserva-tion level, two conditions would Seem im-portant, representation of a wide range ofecosystems and a distribution of wildernessthat at least roughly corresponds to thedistribution of population (to facilitateopportunities to experience wilderness.)There are major problems with both criter-ia, but I won’t elaborate here.

The value of individual wildernesses,which is closer to our concern here, isreflected in the total system. This valuedepends on two general sorts of conditions,one bio-physical and one. experience-re-lated. The existence of natural processesand resulting natural conditions, in alltheir natural variability, is the firstcritical quality. It consists of many morespecific interconnected conditions affectedby a variety of forces. Because natural pro-cesses have often been substantially alteredand rarely can be fully restored, bothprocesses and conditions need to be con-sidered. Ideally, we would let totallynatural processes operate, and whateverconditions resulted would, by definition, beentirely natural. In the real world, it is notso simple; remedial action will sometimesbe necessary.

At the broad scale of an entire wilder-ness or major sections of it, wilderness bio-physical values depend on natural vegeta-tion communities, usually influenced by fireas well as climate, soil, altitude, etc. Fireis generally the force most altered by“technological man,” but climate is increas-ingly a concern, and, in some places, live-stock grazing also alters natural vegeta-tion.

Wildlife species in numbers and distri-butions that would occur naturally are an-other important component, and one that isprobably quite sensitive to internal dis-turbance by recreation, by alterations of fireregimes that affect vegetation, by com-petition with livestock, and by outsidepollution that may affect water and vege-tation, as well as loss or degradation ofparts of wildlife ranges outside wilderness.

Water may be polluted by visitors,although it does not seem particularly sen-sitive to recreational use, by inflows wherea wilderness does not contain stream head-waters, or by acid rain and deposition.

At the site scale (what an observer onfoot could see), human use impacts that areminimal in degree and few in number en-hance wilderness natural values. Grazingaffects some places, water storage fewerplaces, and mineral activities very fewlocations. In contrast, recreational use af-fects many places in almost every wilder-ness. Overall, trail impacts probably resultmore from trail construction than use, butcampsite impacts from visitors and some-times their stock are a serious concern. It istrue that effects on natural communityvalues are probably little more than tinyscattered “pimples” of visitor impacts, butexperience effects may be significant.

The experience that yields importantwilderness values is described in theWilderness Act as “enjoying wilderness aswilderness” and defined as offering “out-standing opportunities for solitude or prim-itive recreation.” Challenge is added inthe so-called Eastern Wilderness Act. The“or” between solitude and primitive recrea-tion causes some confusion and semanticquibbling. The most common view is that“or” is used as in “or, in other words,” not asone or the other. I think some degree ofsolitude must be an integral part of primi-tive recreation. This experiential valuealso includes a composite of interconnectedconditions. Development should be simpleand l imited, ideal ly jus t a minimal ,primitive trail system. Visitor freedomand minimal regulation are desirable. Useshould be light enough that “outstandingopportunities” for solitude (few contactswith other people) are available, and inthe most heavily used areas, encounters arenot clearly excessive for a wilderness ex-perience. Campsite solitude is most critical.Visitor experiences should take place in asetting that at least can be perceived asessentially natural. Man’s impacts atcampsites are the most widespread andimportant factors affecting perception ofnaturalness.

Monitoring is absolutely essential, butmust be selective. The following are listed

1 0in order of priority in my view, first forwidespread conditions, then site impacts.1) Area-wide, air pollution effects must bemonitored closely and frequently. Effectsmay be substantial, almost irreversible,and are often not obvious or well under-stood. 2) Wildlife effects may be large, butare poorly understood. They are often notobvious, and can be irreversible. Methodsfor monitoring mobile and furtive animalsunder wilderness conditions need to bedeveloped and adapted from wildlife cen-susing techniques. 3) Determining vege-tation conditions and fire effects in light of

knowledge of natural fire regimes and theireffects is essential. I put it last amongarea-wide monitoring only because itprobably can wait better than air qualityrelated values and wildlife. Fire has beenexcluded for over 70 years in most places,and the rate of change is usually slowenough that no irreversible consequences arelikely over the next few years.

Site monitoring priorities are: 1)Campsite numbers and severity of userimpacts. a) Within this general category,the size of the area essentially devege-tated of ground cover heads my list. It, andnumber of sites, indicate the aggregateimpact of camping. It is the factor mostlikely to affect visitor perceptions of

naturalness. b) Tree damage is next. It alsoaffects perceptions. Unlike some vegeta-tion loss, it can be avoided. Research toclarify camper perceptions of campsiteimpacts is needed to help design mon-itoring. 2) The solitude dimension. a)Campsite isolation is the specific aspectmost needing monitoring. Trail encountersare less significant, and likely to be ac-ceptable if campsite solitude and campsiteimpacts are kept at acceptable levels.Systems for monitoring campsite isolationare poorly developed and need R&D work.Visitor perceptions of campsite solitude arebetter understood than perceptions ofimpacts, but doubts about past social carry-ing capacity concepts suggest a need for re-examination.

Standards should vary within a wil-derness, extremely strict in some parts, lessso in other parts (the opportunity classconcept in Limits of Acceptable Change).This means campsite condition and isola-tion monitoring can’t concentrate just on themost-or-least-used sections; standards, al-though different, may be threatened any-where. Results of initial monitoring couldidentify those areas needing the most in-tensive monitoring.

11

FREE TO BE YOU OR MEOR

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTSABOUT WILDERNESS

MANAGEMENTby Robert Manning

This is a difficult topic. Who-ever thought up these questionsshould be proud of themselves fordeveloping such clear insights intothe hear t of wi lderness man-agement. Either that, or theyshould be ashamed of themselvesfor putting their colleagues (andformer friends) in such an awkwardposition. After some thought, I’vedecided to approach these ques-tions much like some of my studentsapproach my exams: they simplybegin to wri te and hope thatsomewhere in their narrative theymight stumble upon the (an) an-swer. Here goes. . .

Science vs. Standards

A few years ago I read a newchildren’s book to my daughterstitled Free to Be You and Me. Themessage of the book was that it’sokay to be different. Sure, we’re allhuman beings, and so we all lookpretty much alike and even havesome relatively standard or com-mon forms of behavior. But withinthese broad parameters of “hu-manness” or “oneness” exist amultitude of individuals: we alllook a little different than ourfriends and neighbors and, for themost part, we tend to think and acta little differently as well. In theend, the book suggests we takepride in both our commonality anduniqueness. We should be proud ofour basic physical and mentalcapacities which bind us as aspecies, and we should revel in theways each of us as individuals useand apply those capacities.

In moving between my familyand professional lives, I was re-minded that wilderness areas too,

though they are all part of thelarger National Wilderness Pre-servation System, are different,even unique. Wilderness managersare individuals too. (Wildernessresearchers, I think, are just plain“different.“) This obviously isn’t anew idea, just a reaffirmation.We’ve argued for years about thedifference between eastern andwestern wilderness. More recently,Alaska has been added to thediscussion as a potential third“type” of wilderness. Severalyears ago someone suggested aseries of wilderness zones (Classes I-V) varying in size, naturalness,remoteness and management pre-scriptions. There were even severalspecialized zones for horsebackriders, OEC users and subsistenceliving. Indeed, Rod Nash hasdriven home the notion that wil-derness is a relative concept: areaswith any types and levels ofqualities can be (and are) con-sidered wilderness.

The moral of the story? Let’snot be afraid to recognize thatwilderness areas differ from onea n o t h e r a n d t o m a n a g e t h e maccordingly. In our search for the“most significant . . . conditions,f e a t u r e s a n d q u a l i t i e s ” o fwilderness, let’s recognize thatthese might (will) vary from areato area. This is not to say weshouldn’t seek to understand moredeeply the things people valueabout wilderness and to managewilderness more effectively basedon this knowledge. But in our questfor scientific management, let’s notstandardize the wilderness.

Mildly interesting, but not thathelpful, huh? Let’s try somethingelse . . .

Tourism, Sense of Placeand Wilderness

The tides of student interest ebband flow across the campuses ofAmerica. In the park and recre-ation departments of the nation,

1 2

the current buzz word is “tourism.”Students once interested in stateand national parks and wildernessnow want to get rich. Those of us onthe faculty must teach them how.(Perhaps th is i s the u l t imateconfirmation of that cynical adage“those who can’t, teach.“)

Two years ago I developed andtaught a new course at the Un-iversity of Vermont called TourismPlanning. I must admit I’ve enjoyedit more than I anticipated. One ofthe reasons for this is that I’veborrowed heavily from my morelong-standing interest in publicland management. In particular,I’ve tried to apply the concept ofcarrying capacity to the complexplaces called tourist areas. I’vefound some nice parallels. For ex-ample, I’ve found an emergingconcept in the planning literaturecalled “sense of place.” Likecarrying capacity, it suggests thattourist areas draw visitors becausethese areas possess certain qual-ities which make them distinctiveand appealing. Moreover, theseareas can accommodate only certaintypes and levels of developmentand use before their special qual-ities re-diminished to an unaccept-able degree. But what are thesespecial qualities? To plan andmanage tourism effectively, wemust know what needs to bemaintained or preserved.

We’ve begun some very pre-liminary work on exploring sense ofplace in Vermont. It seems clearthere are some environmentalfactors involved. There must bemountains, clear babbling brooks,and forests interspersed with clear-ings of a pastoral or agriculturalnature. And there must be cows,preferably more cows than people.

There are also important social andcultural factors like small, compactvi l lages wi th whi te c lapboardchurches, village greens, and con-servative residents with a drysense of humor who generallypunctuate their conversation with“yup”, “nope” and “ayuh” (whichcan mean both yup and nope de-pending on the circumstances.)There should also be some man-agement factors such as downhillski areas, hiking trails, countryinns, and good hunting and fishing.

But sense of place seems to bemore than these discrete entities:rather it is the unique combinationof these qualities which marks anddefines the distinctiveness of spe-cial places. There is a synergism insense of place which makes thewhole more than the sum of itsparts.

I expect there is a “wilderness”sense of place as well. From pre-vious research we know thatcertain factors or variables are im-portant to some wilderness visitors.I’ve compiled a short list of thesefactors from my own reading of thesocial science literature (Table 1.)Others have longer l i s t s . Butwilderness is surely more thanthese individual factors or even acollection of these factors. Isn’t itinteresting that we can rarely ex-plain statistically more than 20-30% of the variation in satisfactionamong wilderness visitors? Wil-derness is a total, larger environ-ment created by a combination ofenvironmental, social and manager-ial elements.

Table 1. Potentially ImportantElements of the Outdoor RecreationEnvironment.

NATURAL SOCIAL MANAGEMENTENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

Trail erosion

Campsite erosion

Campsite groundcover

Damage to trees/shrubs

Water quality

Presence of wildlife

Litter

Vandalism

Shading of campsites

Location proximate towater body or otherattraction

Number of trail encounters

Number of camp encounters

Type of groups encountered

Size of groups encountered

Behavior of groupsencountered

Location of encountersbetweenpups

Perceptions of alikenessbetween parties

Noise

Rule violations

Perceptions of naturalnessof the environment

Opportunities for activities Perceptions of regimentation(e.g. fishing, hunting) by management

Perceptions of opportunitiesto fulfill selected motivations(e.g. closeness to nature, risk,avoid crowds)

Use limitations

Type of use limitation

Control over route or itinerary

Use fee

zoning

Type of access

Party size limits

Trail standards

Campsite standards

Law enforcement

Rules and regulations

Presence of rangers

Presence of sanitary facilities

Type of sanitary facilities

14

The organizers of this collo-quium ask, “will keeping thenumber of fire rings below someagreed-upon number preserve whatwe really value about wilderness?”The answer seems to be, ines-capably, “no.” Attention to firerings is necessary but insufficient forgood wilderness management.

Let’s try another idea . . .

Daniel Boone, Bob Marshalland Bob Lucas

Legend has it that when Dan-iel Boone could see the smoke fromanother cabin it was time to moveon. To him wilderness had to beabsolutely pristine and pure. BobMarshall lived in a different time,only a few generations ago. He sawcivilization encroaching on the lastgreat unexplored reaches of theNorth American continent and hehiked extraordinary distances toseek solitude and naturalness. BobLucas is here with us now. He fliesand drives long distances to findthe islands of wilderness left in oursea of civilization. He reserves hiswilderness permits in advance,pays his entrance fees where neces-sary and endures the thousands ofother modern-day wilderness en-thusiasts just like him. So who isbetter off, Daniel Boone, BobMarshall or Bob Lucas? I expect itwould be a tie: all three wouldscore in the high range of our Likertscales of wilderness satisfaction forthey are all creatures of theirtimes.

The point? Wilderness is arelative concept not only spatially,but temporally. Again, I defer toRod Nash: wilderness is createdand defined by culture. It seems tofollow that as our culture changes,so will wilderness. In fact, ifwilderness doesn’t “keep up withthe times,” it may disappear al-together. It seems to follow furtherthat the “conditions, features and

qualities” which define wildernesscan be expected to evolve over time.Given the pace of change in con-temporary American society, theymay change quite rapidly.

I think I’ve opened up a can ofworms with this topic. I bettermove on...

“Aggressive Flexibility”:A New Management Style

Americans love managementstyles. Consequently, I’m going tosuggest a new one aimed at wil-derness management. It may seem abit paradoxical at first, but bearwith me. After all, we’ve just comethrough a period of “hands off”management based on RonaldReagan’s personal style and lookhow far that’s gotten us!

First, wilderness managers mustget aggressive. The organizers ofthis colloquium point out that all ofthe wilderness management plan-ning frameworks of today-- LAC,VIM, ROS -- ca l l for es tab-lishment and maintenance of ex-plicit, quantifiable managementobjectives. Can so many wildernessresearchers be wrong? (Don’tanswer that!) Wilderness mana-gers must get on with this process asquickly as possible so wildernessconditions don’t change increment-ally and inexorably in unknowingand possibly undesirable ways.

Now I know wha t you’ rethinking. Given the uncertaintyover what the proper conditions ofwilderness are, or should be, howcan this be done? That’s whereflexibility comes into play. First,wilderness management plans areunlikely to be either perfect orpermanent. (My apologies to thewilderness managers I know I’vejust offended.) Almost by defini-tion, planning is an iterative pro-cess. That is, we are constantlyplanning or recycling through theplanning process. Thus decisionsmade in the planning process can

1 5

always be revised when necessaryor desirable. Indeed, the monitor-ing phase of planning demands thatwe monitor and evaluate conditionsand revise plans appropriately.This should give some comfort towilderness managers and encouragethem to proceed with planningwithout fear of irreversible orunduly heavy implications. Thus,while decisions about managementobjectives should be approachedwith all due care and considera-tion, they are not immutable andshould not forestall the manage-ment planning process.

Second, establishment of man-agement objectives is ultimately avalue judgment which must be madeby wilderness managers. Researchand planning can help by devel-oping important bases of inform-ation on current wilderness condi-tions and use. But establishment ofthe explicit and qualifiable man-agement objectives called for is notyet a precise enough matter to bedetermined exclusively throughresearch. Given that human valuesarc involved, it probably neverwill be. Managers must be preparedto contribute their reasoned judg-ment in determining managementobjectives.

Finally, wilderness managersshould take into consideration thediversity in public conceptions ofwilderness. Management objectivesshould be formulated to reflect arange of conditions for factors im-portant to wilderness visitors. Thuseach wilderness area or zone shouldbe considered as an integratedcomponent of the total wildernesssystem rather than a separate andisolated entity. This should makedecis ion making a l i t t le lessformidable by adding diversity andflexibility to the management pro-cess.

Let me try one more idea . . .

Recreation is Only One ofMany Wilderness Uses

To this point my paper has beenwritten as though recreation werethe only use of wilderness. It isn’t.In fact, it may not even be the mostimportant. A recent study in Colo-rado, for instance, found thatresidents of that state would pay$14/year to maintain their wil-derness areas as recreation reserves.However they would pay evenmore -- an additional $19/yr--simply to be comforted that suchareas exist and that they are beingprotected for future generations.Wilderness apparent ly servesmany values in society includingecological protection, scientificresearch, cultural and historicalmeaning, an expression of moral andethical commitment, aesthetics,intellectual and artistic creativity,political freedom, physical andmental therapy, religious and spir-itual meaning, and even economicworth. Wilderness should be man-aged for these values as well asrecreation In fact, these valuesmay suggest more restrictive ‘lim-i ts of acceptable change” onwilderness qualities than recrea-tion alone. Try to imagine thecarrying capacity -- and the man-agement objectives -- of a wil-derness area or zone that is to bemanaged primarily for scientificresearch or as an expression ofman’s moral and ethical commit-ment to nature.

At this point I’m going to in-voke my college exam analogy andsay that I’m out of time. Did Ianswer any of the questions?

1 6

SIGNIFICANT QUALITIES OFWILDERNESS AND

MONITORINGby Jeffrey L. Marion

The value of wilderness re-sources is directly related to theirwildness. The American legalconcept of wilderness requires anexpansive area without roads,buildings, powerlines or any othersubstantial human imprint. Wil-derness also connotes natural eco-systems unaffected by man, in-cluding clean water, clean air, andnaturally balanced plant and an-imal populations composed of apre-Columbian complement of nat-ive organisms. Such areas havemany specific values and uses, butall are dependent upon the con-tinued naturalness of these areas.Their wildness, in whatever speci-fic form, is what distinguishesthem from more modified non-wilderness environments and pro-vides the basis for their humanvalues.

Social qualities of wilderness,such as a visitor’s ability to ex-perience solitude, escape fromcivilization and self-reliance, arealso important. However, in myopinion these aspects are secondaryattributes as they are dependent onthe existence of a wilderness envi-ronment and are more easily man-ipulated by management controlthan are factors which affect wil-derness environments.

The ecological and environ-mental sciences have clearly de-monstrated the interelatedness ofall ecosystem components. There-fore, it is difficult and perhapsinappropriate to single out parti-cular environmental components asbeing “significant” constituents ofthe wilderness resource. Impacts toany single component will in-variably result in indirect impactsto other components. Unfortunate-ly, choices are often required in

order to prioritize, limited re-search and management resources.

The identification of signifi-cant conditions, features, and qual-ities of wilderness resources must, tosome extent be area-specific. Acidprecipitation and water pollutionmay be a problem for some areas butnot for others. Furthermore, thebasis for such an identification mustbe defined. In my opinion suchdecisions should be based largelyupon ecological factors, such as thesensitivity or resistance to humanrelated impacts and the relativeecosystem importance of the var-ious wilderness environment com-ponents. Our present scientificknowledge is far from complete,however, so factors relating tohuman perception must also beconsidered. Another constraint isthe capability of management toeffectively monitor all resourcecomponents for human-inducedchanges. Such constraints have ledto the need for selecting only alimited number of impact indicatorsfor each significant environmentalcomponent and developing moni-toring programs accordingly. Arecent study by the University ofIdaho identified numerous bio-physical indicators based on a com-mon set of evaluative criteria.

Based on my personal opinionand the factors discussed above Iwould conclude that the mostsignificant qualities of wildernessresources are naturally functioningecosystems undisturbed by humanimpacts of any form. Externalthreats, such as air and waterpollution, are perhaps the most sig-nificant threats to monitor becauseof their ability to affect entireecosystems in potentially irrever-sible ways. Internal impacts, suchas fire regime, domestic animalgrazing, and recreation use are inmany instances also critical.

My own area of exper t isepertains to the study and monitor-ing of vegetation and soil impacts

17

on recreation sites, so I will confinemy comments regarding monitoringto this topic. Recreation sites areoften a primary focus of visitoractivity in many wildland environ-ments. Such concentrated activityproduces adverse physical, veg-etative, and soil changes. A solidinformation base concerning thesechanges is essential for managersseeking to develop and refine visi-tor and resource management pol-icies and techniques.

A number of scientific studieshave been conducted to evaluatethe nature and severity of changesresulting from recreational use ofthese sites (Cole 1982, 1983 a, Kussand Graefe 1984, Marion andMerriam 1985, Cole and Marion1986). A variety of campsite impactassessment and monitoring systemshave a lso been developed tostandardize procedures for collect-ing, summarizing, and evaluatinginformation on recreational im-pacts. These management-orientedsystems provide site-specific in-formation to document changes overtime. Such a database allowsmanagers to: 1) detect and evaluatedeteriorating or improving condi-tions on individual or groups ofsites, 2) evaluate the success orfailure of resource protection meas-ures, and 3) set and monitor limitsof acceptable change for resourceconditions.

A variety of campsite impactassessment and monitoring systemshave been developed for use byresource managers. These include

three basic types: 1) single para-meter systems based on descriptivevisual cr i ter ia of overa l l s i teconditions (Frissell 1978, Hendee etal. 1976), 2) multiple parametersystems based on individual ap-praisals and measurements of speci-fic resource impacts (Parsons andMacLeod 1980, Cole 1983b), and 3)photographic systems based onvisual comparison of site conditions(Magi11 1965). Cole (1983 b),Marion (1984), and Marion and Cole(1987) have reviewed and evalu-ated these systems and also dis-cussed important characteristics toconsider in the selection of anappropriate system. These includefunding and manpower constraints,type and accuracy of informationrequired, number of sites to beassessed, flexibility, and reliabil-ity.

In general, single parametersystems are rapidly and easilyapplied but provide only a sum-mary assessment of site conditions.The visual criteria employed inthese systems is somewhat subjec-tive and requires careful training ofpersonnel to achieve consistent re-sults. Multiple parameter systemsrequire more application time butprovide reliable information for avariety of impact parameters. Thisinformation can also be aggregatedto form summary impact ratings.Photographic systems provide use-ful visual records and are primarilyuseful as supplementary docu-mentation.

REFERENCESCole, D.N. 1982. Wilderness

campsite impacts: Effect ofamount of use. USDA, For.Serv., lntcrmountain For. Expt.Stn., Rcs. Pap. INT-284.

Cole , D.N. 1983 a . Campsi teconditions in the Bob MarshallWilderness, Montana. USDA,For. Serv., lntcrmountain For.Expt. Stn., Rcs. Pap. INT-312.

Cole, D.N. 1983 b. Monitoring thecondition of wilderness camp-sitcs.USDA, For. Serv., Inter-mountain For. Expt. Stn., Rcs.Pap. INT-312.

Cole, D.N. and J.L. Marion. i986.Wilderness campsite impacts:C h a n g e s o v e r t i m e . I N :Proceedings, National Wildcr-ness Research (compiler) ,USDA Forest Service, lntcr-mountain For. Expt. Stn., Gen.Tech. Rpt. INT-212.

Frisscll, S.S. 1978. Judging re-creation impacts on wildernesscampsites. J. For. 76:481-483.

Hendee, J.C., ct al. 1976. Code-A-Site: A system for inventory ofdispersed recreational sites inroadcd areas, backcountry, andwilderness. USDA For. Serv.,Pacific Northwest For. Expt.Stn., Rcs. Pap. PN-209.

Kuss, F.R. and A.R. Graefe. 1984.Rccrcation impacts: Vegetationand soil relationships to carry-ing capacity considerations.

Dept. of Recreation, Univ. OfMaryland, College Park, MD.

Magill, A.W., and R.=H. Twiss.1965. A guide for recordingesthetic and biological changeswith photographs. USDA For.Serv., Pacific Southwest For.Expt. Stn., Res. Note PSW-77.

,Marion, J.L. 1984. Campsite impactassessment systems: Applica-tion, evaluation, and develop-ment. IN: 1984 National RiverRecreation Symposium Proceed-ings. Joseph S. Popadic andothers (editors), School ofLandscape Architecture, Lou-is iana Sta te Univ . , BatonRouge, LA. pp. 561-573.

Marion, J.L. and L.C. Merriam.1985. Recreational impacts onwell-established campsites inthe Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness Station Bul-letin AD-SB-2502, AgriculturalExperiment Station, Univ. ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1987.Recreational impact assessmentand monitoring systems: Past,present and future. IN: Pro-ceedings, Conference on Sciencein the National Parks, Colo-rado State., CO.

Parsons, D.J. and S.A. MacLeod.1980. Measuring impacts ofwilderness use. Parks S(3): 8-11.

1 9

CONDITIONS, FEATURES,QUALITIES COMPOSING A

HIGH QUALITY WILDERNESSRESOURCE

by Stephen F. McCool

1) What are the most signifi-cant of these conditions, featuresand qualifies?

This is a good question. And, Iam probably not the one to providea definitive answer. The short andpragmatic answer to this question islook to the Wilderness Act and itslegislative history. The long an-swer, and more philosophical, is toexamine and understand the mean-ing of wilderness. The concept ofwilderness, as it is used in our soci-ety does not have an accepted andspecific definition-- outside of theWilderness Act. The term “wild-erness” is used to refer to manysituations ranging from an un-developed lot in midwestern ruralsubdivisions to remote, pristineareas of Alaska, Montana andWyoming. The features of thesesituations vary significantly, evenwithin the pristine end of thespectrum. (Further, We don’t havean accepted definition of what ismeant by a “quality” resource.)However, regardless of this varia-tion, it appears that the wildernessconcept is usually directed at unde-veloped environments, and at oneswhich are unmodified through di-rect action on the part of humans.There also appears to be agreementthat the concept of “unmodified”also applies to passive human in-terference, where ecosystems havebeen human-influenced as a resultof the lack of action.

The Leopold report on wildlifemanagement in the national parks,I feel, was a turning point in ex-panding our definition of wilder-ness. The Leopold committee, atthe very least, implied that parks(as wildernesses) should preservethe operation of natural processes.This shifted, it seems to me, the

focus from unmodified and unde-veloped landscapes to ecologicalprocesses.

Certainly, the term “wilder-ness resource” has a meaning beyondthat of the individual biotic andabiotic components of a particulardesignated wilderness. Thus, onedoes not necessarily significantlydamage the wilderness resource bycausing barren soil impacts at acampsite, for example. The term“wilderness resource”, therefore, isconcerned with a total greater thanthe sum of its parts. Managementplans which refer to prevention ofdamage to the wilderness resourcegenerally are referring to soils andvegetation. However , i f onedefines the wilderness resource interms of natural processes, thendamage accrues only when suchprocesses (weather , f looding,insects and disease, earthquakes,fire, so forth) are prevented fromoperating or when the consequencesof such processes are directlyinfluenced or modified. Thus, theconsequences of a flash flood in awilderness cannot be referred to as“damage” to the fishery or fishhabitat .

Beyond the ecological defini-tion of wilderness is the experien-tial definition. This definitionviews wilderness as a place for hu-mans to derive specific types ofrecreational benefits. These arebenefits different from those wederive from having a place whereecological processes operate in anunfettered way. This experience is,however, characterized as de-pending upon a place where theseprocesses operate freely, and wherehumans, in general, are relativelyscarce. I would say this experienceshould be more inspirational thanrecreational. This does not rule outrecreation from happening in wild-erness. Unfortunately, I cannot de-fine what I mean by inspirational.

2 0

2) How can these conditions bemonitored to ascertain whether ornot they are being preserved?

There may be two ways to mon-itor these conditions. First, assumethat wilderness is indeed wilder-ness and thus monitor only impactscaused by humans. This is whatthe Limits of Acceptable Changeprocess (as well as other processes)does. This process establishesstandards for indicators which arebasically biotic or abiotic compo-nents of the wilderness which re-ceive impact. It establishes theamount of impact we, in our judg-ment, arc willing to tolerate. Asecond approach, a more positiveone, is to identify indicators, of“wildness” and monitor those. Inthis case, standards would be de-fined as what we want to achieverather than what we are willing totolerate. I have been remindedthat monitoring such items as firerings, barren core, etc.; is trivial;that what we should be doing ismonitoring the wilderness resource(as I have attempted to define itabove.1

It seems to me that this secondapproach requires selection of in-dicators of several different typesof things. First, you would want tomonitor populations of species(animals and plants) that are foundin naturally functioning systems.Second, you would want to monitorprocesses -- for example, the fre-quency of lightning strikes or theamount of area burned by naturallyoccurring fire. Third, some other

types of variables which concernwilderness conditions would also bemonitored. These might be suchthings as trail density, and per-haps some other measures of humaninfluence such as air and waterquality. Fourth, there would alsobe some monitoring of humandensity or encounters. For the firsttwo items at least, there is adifficulty in interpreting data inthe short run. Populations rise andfall, weather is different from yearto year. If this variation is natu-ral, then that is what you want tooccur. So the fact that an elk popu-lation has declined naturally is notinherently bad.

Monitoring processes providesan intrinsically difficult challenge.The way we determine what var-iation in conditions and processestypifies wilderness is through longterm observation. To determine ifwilderness values are adequatelyprotected, we have to monitor- orin other words observe. Thus, iswhat we really observe reallywilderness? Because natural pro-cesses undoubtedly have many dif-ferent periodicities (and many ofthem very long-- for example,glaciation), it may take many,many years to determine if indeedwe do have wilderness. This sug-gests that monitoring conditions orhuman impact may be a more vi-able way of determining if wilder-ness quality or the wild integrity isbeing adequately protected.

SOME THOUGHTS ON TWOQUESTIONSBy Toivo Sober

Answers to the two questionsposed for discussion at the Wilder-ness Colloquium depends much onthe personal experience and valuesof the individual answering themas on the various components of thewilderness itself. Some peoplehave gone so far as to say that wil-derness exists mainly in the mind ofthe beholder, that it is a percep-tion as variable as the users of thewilderness themselves. Dave Coleand Bob Lucas too, in their letter toparticipants, must have had simi-lar thoughts since they referred tothe first question as the “philo-sophical part.” So I would expandthe two questions to:

1. What arc the most signifi-cant conditions, features, and qual-ities of wilderness, and according towhose perception?

2. How can these conditions bemonitored to ascertain whether ornot they are being preserved and bywho’s standards of acceptability?

My own role in wildernessmanagement has most often beenone of interpreting and implement-ing the laws and policies applica-ble to the Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness (BWCAW) inMinnesota. I tend to use the laws asthe first source of answers.

As a starting point for answer-ing the first question, the 1964Wilderness Act defines wildernessas an area ” . . . retaining its prim-eval character and influence . . .managed so as to preserve itsnatural conditions and which . . .has outstanding opportunities forsolitude . . .”

Apply these words to the BW-CAW for LAC purposes, we definedits wilderness values as:

1. Opportunity for solitude.2. Waters free of (or low in)

man-caused pollutants.3. Natural scenery (without

man’s habitation and develop-ment.)

4. Natural system of water-ways

5. Fish, vegetation and wild-life which are produced by naturalforces.

6. Air free of unnatural odor.7. Visibility not limited by

man-caused impairment.8. Opportunity for primitive

recreation (i.e. challenge, risk, etc.)9. Natural geologic features.10. Historic and prehistory re-

sources (i.e. pictographs & pre-historic use sites.)

11. Opportunity for educationand scientific research of naturalecosystems.

12. Relative freedom from un-natural sounds.

These values were developedby a professional group, an inter-disciplinary team. Perhaps weshould also have asked the publicat large what it most values aboutthis particular wilderness. We docontact the public in a more generalway through our land managementplanning (Forest Plan) process, butshould it be done more specificallythrough periodic sampling of publicopinion on wilderness? The Wild-erness Act states that wildernesseswill be ” . . . administered for theuse and enjoyment of the Americanpeople . . ” Perhaps we shouldconsider not only the people we findusing the wilderness but also thosewho for various reasons have notyet used it or have been displaceddue to current management prac-tices.

My own answer to the first ofour two questions is that the valuesdeveloped by professional man-agers for a particular wilderness betested against and modified ac-cording to the perceptions of a

2 2

rather broad sample of the usingand/or interested public. Thissampling of the public, I believe,should be done at least every 10 or15 years to reflect the periodicchanges in our society.

Answering the second question,it seems to me, is easier, once wehave defined the values. Wilder-ness legislation prescribes some ofthe standards and professionalmanagers know that limits must beset on some other processes to pre-vent irreversible damage to wil-derness values. But here too, weneed to ask our various publicswhat their perceptions are. Stan-dards and monitoring techniquescan then reflect not only the legalmandates and management judg-ments but also the values and per-ceptions of the people for whom wemanage the wilderness.

Looking aback on an actualcase: The development of campsitestandards for the BWCAW. Theywere developed by a group of man-agers as a part of the LAC process,adapting material from the earlierwork of Cole, Marion and Lucas,and WC used their advice as well.The standards were field tested in1985 and full implementation, afteradjustments, was scheduled for1986. Now, nearly at the end of the1987 season, we are doing only lim-ited monitoring of the sites a n dhave yet to implement the stan-dards themselves.

In reviewing the events duringtheir development, one can identifya number of reasons for our failure tomeet original schedule. Reducedwilderness budgets and a shortageof field crew time were a part ofthe problem. But, in my own opin-ion, most of the slowdown was at-tributable to our failure to ade-quately involve the public and ourown field crews. The public, whichusually reacts with keen interesteven to small changes in BWCAWmanagement, didn’t seem to carethat we were going to monitorcampsite conditions and hoped tolimit their size to 1,800 square feetof area and a few other manage-ment selected parameters. It ap-parently was not particularly highon their scale of wilderness values,or they h a d not been invo lvedenough to recognize the need forcampsite management. The reac-tion of our field crew was positivebut not nearly enthusiastic enoughfor purposeful implementation.The lesson: measure public percep-tion and involve them and the fieldpeople early in the process. Ourcampsite standards will no doubt beimplemented, but at a much slowerrate.

In summary, I believe thatmonitoring the public’s perceptionof wilderness values can be just asimportant as monitoring the wil-derness resource itself.

2 3

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

As was true at the two previousNOLS research colloquia, discus-sions among participants were in-tense and wide-reaching. Groupdiscussions, using the presentationsby each person as a springboard,were the setting for most of the ex-change of ideas, and the source forthe summary which follows.

The main benefits of the collo-quia, however, probably do notcome directly from the scheduledprograms. Repeatedly one hearsthat the most useful outcomes oftypical research conferences occur inhallways and lobbies, not from theformal presentations-- the confer-ence is almost an excuse to getscientists together so they can in-teract professionally. That obser-vation is even more true of theNOLS colloquia, but the interactionis in the wilderness, on the trail (Icould usually count three separateconversations going on, 95 per cent ofthem of a professional nature), incamp, out fishing, and even whiletrying to fall asleep, and it in-volves more than just scientists.Networks are formed, and ideas aretested and expanded in a way thatgoes well beyond what happens inthe usual conference setting in ahotel.

All participants are togetherfor most of five days with never atelephone call. Some sort of specialchemistry has worked on each ofthe first three colloquia that hasresulted in the development of astrong sense of community. Every-one has ample time to express theirideas and all comments seem to beheard and considered thoughtfullyand respectfully, even the occa-sional far out brainstorm. The pos-turing and status-seeking that isfound too often at formal confer-ences blessedly seems totally absentin the wilderness setting.

The group discussions startedwith comments about what par-ticipants hoped to gain from thesession. A wide range of goalsemerged: learn about research withpractical applications, further de-velopment of NOLS research mis-sion, prioritize the qualities thatreally define wilderness, open upthe key issues, explore ways NOLScan provide a service helping withmonitoring, the down-to-earth de-tails of how to monitor (hands-and-knees, tape rule procedures,) testingideas developed in isolation, thefunctions wilderness serves (whatdo people take away from it?), therespective roles of managers andresearchers and their interaction,identification of research needs,sharpening basic wilderness defin-itions and especially how to mon-itor social conditions.

The discussion of colloquiumgoals was followed by the round-robin responses of every participantto the question about the importantqualities of wilderness and howthey can be monitored. Writtenversions of most of these were sub-mitted and included in this report.

Wednesday evening the groupdeveloped a list of issues and ques-tions related to the overall themeof the colloquium, with the hopethat these could help structuresome of our later discussions. Thelist is difficult to categorize on anysingle logical dimension or level ofgenerality, but it included the fol-lowing:

1. The role of zoning wilderness,especially standards for conditions.

2. How to monitor impacts tothe wilderness resource.

3. The concept of wilderness asa combination of many conditions.

4. Wilderness as a state of mind(cultural definitions of wilderness).

2 4

5. Do wilderness experiencesrequire truly natural conditions, orwould a reasonable appearance ofnaturalness suffice?

6. The need to balance concernfor terrestrial ecosystems withmore attention to aquatic ecosys-tems.

7. The need to monitor “wild-erness manners” exhibi ted byvisitors.

8. How significant ecologicallyarc many of the aspects frequentlymonitored?

9. How can NOLS best serve asa laboratory for wilderness ques-tions?

10. The balance between bio-centric and anthropocentric wilder-ness concepts.

11. How can education bestserve wilderness visitors and man-agers?

12. How can wilderness re-searchers, managers, and visitorsrelate most productively?

13. Can we reduce the most im-portant qualities of wilderness tothings we can measure?

We returned to many of thesetopics in our discussions, althoughWe decided not to try to focus on oneor two specifically.

Thursday we reviewed the re-sults of our minimum impact camp-ing above Cloverleaf Lake Ourgroup campfire the night before ona fire-resistant “blanket” was un-detectable. We could find almostno signs of our two nights of use.One tent group challenged the restto discover where they had cooked.They won; We could not find theirkitchen.

A friendly, hungry Wind Riverbear persuaded us to move camp.Along the way we gathered on alarge, rather impacted campsite onMiddle Lake -- a site with about2,500 square feet of devegetatedarea. This served as a case exam-ple for a discussion of acceptabilityof campsite impacts, and appropri-ate low impact camping practices,and management actions. The prosand cons of encouraging dispersal orconcentration of wilderness wereexplored. The practice of managersdeveloping tent sites was discussed,without any consensus.

The potential use of wildernessmanagement zones to structure min-imum impact messages was consid-ered, with a general feeling thatthis could be effective.

We returned to our basic themeand finally agreed that we had notbeen very successful defining wild-erness conditions in the abstract.We agreed that it is an extremelydifficult question, although criti-cally important. It reminded one ofus of trying to define pornography--“I can’t define it, but I know it whenI see it!” The idea of a standard,agency-wide set of specific wilder-ness indicators with standards foreach, which the Forest Service wasconsidering, was considered a poorapproach.

Our last structured discussioncentered on future colloquia. Anumber of ideas were proposed, in-cluding:

1. Have each participant comewith a problem they are concernedabout and a possible solution.

2. Focus on a case study, for ex-ample, the new wilderness man-agement plan for Grand Teton Na-tional Park.

3. Examine the involvement ofthe public in wilderness manage-ment planning, perhaps using therecent experience in LAC planning

2 5

for the Bob Marshall Wildernesscomplex as a case study.

The NOLS representa t ivespointed out that future colloquia donot need to be conducted in theWind River range. NOLS couldsupport a colloquium just aboutanywhere. NOLS plans to continuesponsoring the colloquia. A volun-teer to organize the next one has yetto step forward. We all hopesomeone will rise to the challenge.Our experience indicates it is some

work, but not overwhelming, andvery rewarding. We recommend it!

NOLS deserves a great deal ofcredit for conceiving the colloquiaand following through effectivelyand persistently, and being so tol-erant of researchers. The colloquiaprovide uniquely valuable oppor-tunities for wilderness users, ed-ucators, managers and researchersto become well acquainted and tolearn from one another.