By David Bedan

Beginning in the Nineteenth Century, most parks in the United States were established originally as places of recreation and tourism but many were also set aside to protect specific scenic wonders, geological curiosities or cultural resources. A growing appreciation of the values of wilderness influenced by Aldo Leopold and Robert Marshall led to the establishment of the Federal Wilderness System beginning in the 1920s and given force of law in 1964. As a result of the influence of thinkers such as Leopold and E. O. Wilson there has more recently been an increasing concern about the loss of biological diversity, and parks are now seen also as places where biodiversity can be restored.

In 1978 a system of Wild Areas was established in Missouri’s State Parks by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) based on the same principles as the federal Wilderness System. These areas—eleven in number totaling 23,000 acres—range from the Gans Creek Wild Area in Rock Bridge Memorial State Park, which is surrounded by Columbia’s suburban sprawl, to Goggins Mountain Wild Area in the eastern Ozarks, which is surrounded by many more square miles of scenic forested public and private lands.

As is the case for most public lands, the Missouri State Park System is managed for multiple uses and to protect multiple resources. The managers of state parks must value and protect all of these resources:

1. Resources for Recreational, Educational and Tourism Opportunities
2. Cultural Resources
3. Wilderness Resources
4. Biological Diversity and Integrity Resources

In many cases these values are complementary. For example, wild areas often simultaneously serve recreational, biodiversity and cultural values. But it is often difficult or impossible to maximize protection of all these resources on a specific tract of land. For example, if there is an endemic endangered species the area might be managed primarily for biological diversity and others uses limited or prohibited. If there is a rare archeological resource the same philosophy would apply. Inherently, protection of the value of wildness often requires severe limitations on other management goals.

Wild areas were established to protect the values of both wildness and naturalness. Disagreements arise about the appropriateness of management options, management methods, and permitted recreational activities. Decisions about management options often become confused with decisions about management methods. Decisions about management options often involve the degree to which the park’s resources are manipulated. Decisions about management methods involve how management is implemented and what tools are used, especially motorized vs. non-motorized methods. In both cases decisions must be made about whether the option interferes with other resource protection goals. The key to facilitating management decisions is realizing that not all acres in a park can be maximized for all of the resources and values. Obviously, choices have to be made.

The eleven designated Wild Areas comprise 16.6 percent of the 138,000-acre Missouri State Park System. These areas were chosen because wildness was judged to be their highest and best use. Other areas, such as Prairie and Taum Sauk State Parks, were deliberately not placed in the Wild Areas system because they were deemed to have more value for another purpose such as management for restoration of biological diversity, which would entail more aggressive management. About 71,000 acres (51 percent) of the park system is being managed for biological diversity through stewardship and Natural Area management plans. In these areas biodiversity can be maximized without compromising other values.

Although about 63,000 acres (4 percent) of the 1.5 million-acre Mark Twain National Forest have been designated as wilderness, there have been no wilderness or wild areas designated on the large acreage of state lands—nearly a million acres—owned or managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). Thus of the 1.1 million acres of natural resource lands managed by the state, only about 2% are wild areas. Restrictions on the management of wild areas are therefore affecting only a very small percent of the ecological restoration opportunities on public lands in Missouri. Similarly, wild area restrictions are impacting only a small part of the recreational opportunities on public lands in Missouri. In this context any deviation from wild area management policies should be extensively evaluated and justified and considered only when all other alternatives have been thoroughly explored. An explicit public decision-making process should be followed when considering such changes in policy.

In recent years conflicts have arisen regarding the management of the wilderness resources in relation to the other resources. In some cases state park managers have been tempted to disregard the wilderness resource in order to maximize one of the other resource values. To a large degree, this is due to a lack of institutionalization of the values inherent in the Wild Area concept. Policies, guidelines, and criteria are insufficient or too vague for to be useful for staff when making decisions about wild area management. And there has been no training in the values, policies, decision-making procedures and management of wild areas.

When the staff of the Park Division was faced with a conflict between an opportunity to restore open glade habitat in the Wild Area at Roaring River State Park and the ban on intrusive human activities, especially motorized, in the Wild Area they were hampered by this lack of institutionalization. To resolve this conflict they proposed to temporarily undesignate the Wild area while restoration activities were conducted using trucks and chainsaws. This would be followed by a redesignation of the Wild Area. But to advocates of wilderness, this would set a very poor precedent by which Wild Area designations could be made meaningless by a series of undesignations and redesignations implemented for a variety of management, policy and political reasons.

Conflicts have also arisen in some other parks regarding trail maintenance and construction in wild areas. At Cuivre River State Park, for example, the staff is considering a massive project to rebuild eroded equestrian trails by using trucks to haul in large amounts of gravel. It is not clear whether all other options such as trail closure or re-routing, limitation of visitor use or the use of volunteers for trail work have been adequately explored.

Park managers have also cited invasive exotic plants as a problem in many, if not all, Wild Areas. These invasive plants include Bush Honeysuckle, Autumn Olive, Russian Buckthorn, Garlic Mustard, Kudzu, Cerezia Lespedeza, and Oriental Bittersweet. While most advocates of wilderness would agree that such exotics are not consistent with wilderness, the methods used to remove them could also have a negative effect. Again, it is important to explore all options before resorting to intrusive methods on wild areas.

Similar dilemmas and conflicts regarding wilderness management are occurring on other state and federal public lands across the nation. Landres and others summed this up well in a paper published in 2000 "Naturalness and natural variability: definitions, concepts, and strategies for wilderness management":

• Does manipulation compromise the very values that are protected and preserved in wilderness?
• Is there sufficient technical knowledge to use large-scale manipulation to restore wilderness landscapes?
• What are the consequences and risks of taking action versus not taking action?
• Does the public sufficiently trust the agency to allow such large-scale actions?
• Does the desire to restore the ecological value of naturalness outweigh the social value of wildness?
• How much trammeling is necessary and tolerable in wilderness?
• Is it appropriate to even define a target for desired future ecological conditions in wilderness?
• Must we accept, albeit reluctantly, the human "gardenification" of wilderness?"

To these questions can be added more complex questions regarding the goals of ecological restoration. If we decide to define a target for desired future ecological conditions in wilderness what is the desired target:

• Maximum biodiversity?
• Restoration of pre-human conditions?
• Restoration of pre-European settlement conditions?
• Eradication of invasive exotic species?

This issue is further complicated by confusion between decisions about management options and management tools. Deciding whether to restore a condition of biological diversity by removing cedars and setting controlled fires to restore glades is one thing. Deciding to use chains saws, ATVs and other vehicles as tools is another matter altogether.

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service have been grappling with these same issues. In a document released in 2000, "A Wilderness Agenda: Thinking Like a Mountain," the Forest Service discusses the dilemma of wilderness management as related to ecosystem restoration:

Since Missouri’s Wild Area Program was modeled on the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Missouri DNR might well research the methods and programs used by federal agencies in managing wilderness areas. (See Appendix One: "Excerpts from 2001 National Park Service Management Policies")

The complexity of the park manager’s task can be seen when we examine the broad variety of management purposes, options and tools. The manager must balance the values of providing recreational opportunities, restoring biodiversity, protecting wildness, and protecting cultural resources. The manager’s task is further complicated by decisions about what are the appropriate recreational, educational, commercial, and ecological and cultural preservation activities in a given park.

The increasing popularity of recreation in Missouri’s state parks often leads to conflicts between users or damage to other resources or park purposes. Managers will need to deal with these conflicts in new and creative ways. Not all parks can accommodate all of these activities in spite of public demand for them:

• Overnight visits, e.g., tent camping, RV camping, staying in lodges or cabins, etc.
• Self-propelled activities, e.g. hiking, backpacking, cross-country skiing, birdwatching, fishing, nature study, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, etc.
• Educational and interpretative activities.
• Horseback riding.
• Motorized activities, e.g., ATVs, Trailbikes, motorboating, jet skiing, etc.
• Preserving, restoring and interpreting cultural resources

To deal with conflicts among recreational interests and other park purposes, managers have a range of options. Some may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context. Obviously some would never be appropriate in wild areas. Some sample options:

• Constructing facilities, e.g., campgrounds, lodges, dams, docks, roads, parking lots, toilets, dump stations, trails, signs, visitor centers, museums, kiosks, etc.
• Manipulating vegetation, e.g., removing, cutting, girdling, flooding, burning, planting, seeding, etc.
• Manipulating animals, e.g., restocking, removing, feeding, hunting, trapping, etc.
• Controlling human visitors, e.g., permits, education, law enforcement, etc.
• Re-routing trails to allow healing of trampled or eroded areas, etc.
• Construction activities to protect and restore cultural resources.

Even when agreement can be reached on the management goals and options, conflicts may arise regarding the appropriate tools to implement the options. Lack of funding and staff often becomes a justification for using mechanical means such as chainsaws, ATVs, or other vehicles. This causes severe conflict with values of solitude and wildness that are part of the wilderness experience. In federal wilderness areas this dilemma is often solved by enlisting volunteer workers to maintain trails or do restoration work. In Missouri many volunteers have already performed such services in both natural areas and wild areas. Some of the following management tools may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context, while others may never be appropriate in wild areas:

• Prescribed fire
• Use of non-powered hand tools, e.g. handsaws, shovels, drills, Pulaskis, etc.
• Electric powered hand tools, e.g., chainsaws, drills
• Gasoline powered hand tools e.g. chainsaws
• Chemicals, e.g., herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, etc.
• Pack animals, e.g. horses, mules, llamas, etc.
• Human powered vehicles, bicycles, canoes, kayaks, paddle boats etc.
• Powered transportation/patrol vehicles, cars, trucks, SUV/ATVs, trail bikes, motor boats, etc.
• Powered construction vehicles, e.g., bulldozers, graders, bobcats, ditch diggers, etc.
• Volunteer work parties
• Contract labor
• Timber sale contracts.

Balancing conflicting resource values and deciding on appropriate recreational, educational, commercial and ecological or cultural preservation activities, together with appropriate management options and tools, is a complex task and should not be done in an ad hoc or casual manner. A process should be developed to make sure that all issues are considered in managing wild areas particularly when deviating from the basic policy of leaving wild areas wild, without obvious human manipulation. The concept of "minimum requirement analysis" is a promising tool for making sure that all issues are explored and any actions are fully justified. Such decisions should also be made with meaningful public participation. DNR has developed an excellent program for involving the public in decisions about planning for new parks. A similar public participation process should be developed for decisions to alter management plans for wild areas.

Finally, it seems imperative that there be a voice or voices within the agency whose responsibility it is to speak for and defend the resource of wildness when these issues are deliberated. The agency routinely provides a balance of voices in reviewing issues that affect other cultural, recreational, and scientific priorities, and does so successfully. There can and should be a voice for wildness in these deliberations, a voice apparently at present missing from the dialogue.

In light of recent discussions about the Missouri Wild Area System, it seems reasonable to conclude that this DNR program is in need of review and revitalization. The upcoming 25th anniversary of the program in 2003 offers DNR a tremendous opportunity to implement just such a renewal of commitment to this very special set of resources. The following concepts are offered as a preliminary menu of actions that could lead to a revitalized program:

1. Publicly restate the agency’s commitment to the preservation and perpetuation of the special values of the Wild Area System, including in particular the resource of wildness that is at its heart.
2. Develop a commitment of executive support and leadership for the program, including adequate allocations of funds, staff, and equipment for proper management of Wild Areas, within policy guidelines.
3. Develop a more complete policy statement articulating the philosophy and goals of protecting the wilderness resource that gives priority to the values of wildness. (See Appendix One: "Excerpts from 2001 National Park Service Management Policies.")
4. Review the administrative framework of the system, giving special attention to development of a broader and deeper degree of ownership of the program among DNR's various programs, including cultural and recreational as well as natural history staff. Develop more detailed guidelines and procedures for managing Wild Areas, including management plans for each area.
5. Institute regular training for DSP staff regarding wilderness values, with emphasis on understanding the resource of wildness and how to protect, perpetuate, and render accessible that resource. Include training in the policies, guidelines and procedures for wilderness area management, such training to extend to field as well as central office staff. (Training resources are available from the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center; see Appendix Two: "Excerpts from Minimum Requirement Decision Guide.")
6. Develop procedures for resolving within policy guidelines conflicts between managing for wildness and for other values or resources of the parks (recreational, biological and cultural). Include consultation with constituencies that are knowledgeable and supportive of the core values of the system concerning management issues that have been brought forward.
7. Develop and disseminate a Minimum Requirement Analysis for major management decisions affecting Wild Areas. All management decisions affecting Wild Areas must be consistent with the minimum requirement concept. This concept is a documented process used to determine whether administrative activities affecting wilderness resources or the visitor experience are necessary, and how to minimize impacts (see Appendix Two: "Excerpts from Minimum Requirement Decision Guide.") Incorporate this analysis into each Wild Area Management Plan. Hold public hearings and take account of public comment on these decisions before making them final.
8. Establish much stronger ties of communication and consultation with other agencies responsible for administration of wilderness resources, including especially those administering such resources in our general region, such as the Mark Twain and Ozark-Ouachita National Forests, the Buffalo National River, and the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge.
9. Expand the existing volunteer program in the parks to assist in the management of wild areas using wilderness-compatible, non-motorized, and non-intrusive methods. Specifically recruit volunteers from wild area user groups.
10. Develop a more aggressive program of publicity and interpretation of the Wild Area program, so that the public can understand and enjoy more fully the benefits of the system, and also so that a knowledgeable constituency is nurtured to help ensure that the resource of wildness is available in perpetuity. For example, describe and explain the Wild Areas System in Missouri’s Masterpieces and on the DNR web site.
11. Plan a significant 25th anniversary celebration of the Wild Areas System in 2003, such celebration to include various forms of publicity, a conference, and statements of commitment of the agency to the perpetuation of this resource for the people of Missouri.

These comments and recommendations, based on discussions with a number of interested persons, are offered as a basis for further discussion and consideration of a Missouri Wild Area Management Policy.

Excerpts from:

The National Park Service will evaluate all lands it administers for their suitability for inclusion within the national wilderness preservation system. For those lands that possess wilderness characteristics, no action that would diminish their wilderness suitability will be taken until after Congress and the President have taken final action. The superintendent of each park containing wilderness will develop and maintain a wilderness management plan to guide the preservation, management, and use of the park’s wilderness area, and ensure that wilderness is unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

The National Park Service will manage wilderness areas for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Management will include the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The public purpose of wilderness in the national parks includes the preservation of wilderness character and wilderness resources in an unimpaired condition, as well as for the purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, education, conservation, and historical use.

All management decisions affecting wilderness must be consistent with the minimum requirement concept. This concept is a documented process used to determine whether administrative activities affecting wilderness resources or the visitor experience are necessary, and how to minimize impacts. The minimum requirement concept will be applied as a two- step process that determines:

• Whether the proposed management action is appropriate or necessary for administration of the area as wilderness and does not pose a significant impact to wilderness resources and character; and The techniques and types of equipment needed to ensure that impact to wilderness resources and character is minimized.
• In accordance with this policy, superintendents will apply the minimum requirement concept to the context of wilderness management planning, as well as to all other administrative practices, proposed special uses, scientific activities, and equipment use in wilderness. When determining minimum requirement, the potential disruption of wilderness character and resources will be considered before, and given significantly more weight than, economic efficiency and convenience. If a compromise of wilderness resources or character is unavoidable, only those actions that preserve wilderness character and/ or have localized short-term adverse impacts will be acceptable.

While park managers have flexibility in identifying the method used to determine minimum requirement within the approved wilderness management plan, the method used must clearly weigh the benefits and impacts of the proposal, document the decision- making process, and be supported by an appropriate environmental compliance document. Parks with no approved wilderness management plan must develop a separate process to determine minimum requirement until the plan is finally approved. Parks will complete a minimum requirement analysis on those administrative practices and equipment uses that have the potential to impact wilderness resources or values. The minimum requirement concept cannot be used to rationalize permanent roads or inappropriate or unlawful uses in wilderness.

Administrative use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport will be authorized only:

• If determined by the superintendent to be the minimum requirement needed by management to achieve the purposes of the area as wilderness, including the preservation of wilderness character and values; or
• In emergency situations (search and rescue) involving the health or safety of persons actually within the area. Such management activities will be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations, policies, and guidelines, including minimum requirement protocols as practicable.

Such management activities will also be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations, policies, and guidelines and, where practicable, will be scheduled to avoid creating adverse resource impacts or conflicts with visitor use.

From: 2001 NPS Management Policies: http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/chapter6.htm

More than 100 million acres of Federal land are managed as wilderness, a Congressional mandate that began with the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. In partnership with the public, wilderness managers have a responsibility to preserve and protect wilderness values.

Simply designating a wilderness does not assure its preservation. Careful management is needed to minimize the impacts from human activities in wilderness, including grazing, access to private lands, mining, management of fish and wildlife, fire and recreation. These activities have the potential to negatively impact the values that we are charged with protecting.

This guide is provided to assist managers in making appropriate decisions about their administrative actions in wilderness. The guidance comes from the Wilderness Act, agency policies, and the experience of 35 years of wilderness management. The wilderness resource is fragile and can be lost through the erosion from seemingly inconsequential decisions.

A clear understanding and appreciation of the purposes and definitions contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act are necessary before considering appropriate management actions in wilderness.

The purpose of the Act is stated in Section 2 (a), "to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."

Section 4 (c) of the Act prohibits certain activities in wilderness by the public and, at the same time, allows the agencies to engage in those activities in some situations. Section 4 (c) states:

In the above language, Congress acknowledged that even though certain activities are prohibited, there are times when exceptions to these prohibitions will need to be made for administration of the area. However, from the regulations, special orders, and internal agency policy contained in Appendix A of this guide, it is clear that the wilderness management agencies should not view the language in Section 4 (c) as blanket approval to conduct projects or allow activities without an analysis of (1) whether the project or activity is necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area, and (2) which tool or method should be used to complete the project that results in the least impact to the physical resource or wilderness values.

Agency employees entrusted with management of wilderness should set the highest standard possible when reviewing management practices in wilderness. Wilderness is intended to be managed differently from other public lands and this difference needs to be demonstrated to the public.

There isn’t an all encompassing definition of traditional or primitive tools, but generally defined they include a variety of non-motorized devices such as hand saws, axes, shovels, and certain tools that give a mechanical advantage such as wedges, block and tackles, and winches. The Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport, but not mechanized equipment. Technological advances have improved the efficiency and function of traditional tools over the years. These improvements don’t eliminate them from consideration as traditional tools. The defining characteristic of traditional or primitive tools is the reliance on human or animal power.

Mechanical transport includes travel within the wilderness by motorized vehicle of any kind. It also includes mechanical devices that provide transportation such as bicycles.

The use of traditional tools has been a cornerstone of wilderness management philosophy since 1964. As a result, certain skills that almost certainly would have vanished, have been kept alive. So few opportunities still exist to perpetuate these skills that are an important cultural tradition in our country. This is one of the benefits of wilderness.

This guide has been developed to help provide consistency to the way project proposals in wilderness are evaluated and to ensure that we constantly strive to maintain or improve wilderness character through the decisions that are made. The information in this guide needs to be accompanied by a clear understanding of wilderness values and the ability to translate that understanding to a variety of complex and/or difficult projects in wilderness.

The guide is not a NEPA document, decision document or policy, but rather a series of self-explanatory worksheets designed to assist in thinking through and/or documenting your analysis. The worksheets include a two step minimum requirements analysis: first, to determine if the project or activity proposed is the minimum necessary for administration of the area for the purpose of the Act, and second, to determine which tool(s) will have the least impact to the wilderness resource. The worksheets lead the wilderness manager through a series of questions to provoke thought and understanding about the necessity of the proposed project and the most appropriate tools to use.

The minimum requirements analysis is provided to stretch our imaginations for the least impactive way of administering the wilderness. The wilderness manager may authorize any of the generally prohibited activities or uses listed in Sec. 4(c) of the Wilderness Act if they are determined to be the minimum necessary to do the job and meet wilderness management objectives.

When deciding what projects or activities to undertake and tools to use, follow these steps:

1. Complete a minimum requirement analysis, Step 1 of the worksheets, for all proposed projects or activities. This step should not be used to justify use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport, but rather, to scrutinize the project or activity and make the best decision for wilderness in the long term.

2. Complete a "minimum tool" analysis for the project. This analysis can follow the attached worksheet or, if not, should at least address the same points. If the analysis shows a justifiable need for motorized equipment, it is important to have this analysis in writing to provide to the official(s) who can authorize the use of mechanical transport or motorized equipment in wilderness. For some units, this analysis may become an integral part of an environmental analysis required to document a decision to use motorized equipment.

Ongoing management practices, especially if they involve mechanical transport, motorized equipment, or structures, should be reviewed to determine if they are still necessary or the best way to complete the task at hand.

The minimum requirement analysis is intended to assist you in making a decision and the worksheets will document your analysis. This process does not take the place of NEPA.

If a formal decision under NEPA will be required to implement your project, consider formatting your minimum tool analysis so that it can be incorporated directly into your environmental analysis. The minimum requirements analysis will tie to your statement of Purpose and Need for the project in your environmental analysis.

From The Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center: http://www.wilderness.net/carhart

The challenges faced by the managers of Missouri State Parks regarding wild area management are also being faced by other public land managers. There is a growing body of literature on the subject. This is small sampling from the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.

From http://www.wilderness.net/leopold/htopics/restor.htm, the Web site of the

LEOPOLD INSTITUTE P.O. BOX 8089 MISSOULA, MT 59807 406-542-4190

THE WILDERNESS RESTORATION DILEMMA

Managing wilderness in the 21st century is complicated. Recently, a debate regarding ecological restoration in federally designated wilderness has intensified - how should we manage for "naturalness" or "wildness" or both? Leopold Institute investigators have weighed in on this issue in a number of topical journal articles as listed below.

SYNOPSIS

Many problems that face US federal wilderness managers were undoubtedly unforeseen by the authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act. According to this Act, wilderness should support both the attributes of naturalness and wildness. In this context "naturalness" describes an ecological condition. Within the Act, wilderness is defined as land "retaining its primeval character and influence... which is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions." Additionally, according to the Act, wilderness is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man." Untrammeled is synonymous with unconfined, unmanipulated, unhampered, self-willed, and free. The word "wildness" represents this social condition, one in which an area is untrammeled and free from human control, regardless of preexisting conditions or future consequences. A dilemma arises when managers consider manipulating wilderness ecosystems and trammeling the wilderness in order to restore natural conditions, in effect assuming that the ends (natural conditions) justify the means (trammelling). Thus, managing for naturalness may sometimes conflict with managing for wildness.

Historic fire suppression, livestock grazing, exotic species introduction, and global climate change are all human influences that affect the ecological character and function of wilderness. In the face of these changes, the primary dilemma is how to simultaneously manage lands to be both natural and wild. For managers and wilderness advocates the challenges within this wilderness restoration dilemma revolve around agreeing on target conditions and deciding when to take action. Philosophical and practical questions surrounding this debate are addressed in the following articles:

Cole, David, N. 2001. Management Dilemmas That Will Shape Wilderness in the 21st Century. Journal of Forestry 99(1): 4-8.

Abstract:
How we resolve two management dilemmas will determine the future nature and value of wilderness. The first dilemma is providing for use and enjoyment while protecting wilderness conditions. The second is whether wilderness ecosystems should be left wild and "untrammeled" or, paradoxically, be manipulated toward a more natural state. Alternative solutions are explored. Because compromises between value systems will tend to homogenize wilderness areas, such that no area will fully meet any goal, we should consider allocating separate lands to each goal. Expanding our conception of wilderness will help us develop a diverse system that satisfies multiple needs.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 419 DOWNLOAD pdf.

Landres, Peter; Brunson, Mark W.; Merigliano, Linda. 2001. Naturalness and Wildness: The Dilemma and Irony of Ecological Restoration in Wilderness. Wild Earth 10(4): 77-82.

Abstract:
The fires throughout the western United States in the summer of 2000 raise a difficult question about all wildlands and especially federally designated wilderness: should fuels accumulated from decades of fire suppression be removed to restore more natural ecological conditions? More generally, when and how do wilderness managers decide to take actions to restore natural conditions in wilderness? What is gained and what is lost by such actions? Here we explore the dilemma and irony surrounding two concepts, naturalness and wildness, that arises over proposals to restore natural ecological conditions in designated wilderness. We assert that the right course of action is not simply doing what is necessary to restore natural conditions because the goal in wilderness is to restore and support both naturalness and wildness.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 417

Cole, David N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: Ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18(2): 77-86.

Abstract:
Wilderness ecosystems should ideally be wild (untrammeled), natural, and primeval. This essay explores differences between these attributes and implications of these differences to the appropriateness of manipulative ecological restoration in wilderness. It concludes with the suggestion that we seriously consider practicing manipulative restoration in some wilderness areas while leaving other wilderness lands unmanipulated.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 374

Cole, David N. 2000. Natural. Uncrowded or Free: Which of These Should Wilderness Be? International Journal of Wilderness 6(2): 5-8.

Abstract:
The most important and desirable attributes of wilderness are that it is natural, wild, uncrowded, and free. However, these attributes come into conflict with each other as society faces difficult decisions about wilderness management. This article discusses these attributes, ultimately suggesting that the value of wilderness might be optimized by embracing a diverse wilderness system, a system in which wilderness values are maximized or minimized in different areas.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 411

Landres, Peter B.; Brunson, Mark W.; Merigliano, Linda; Sydoriak, Charisse; Morton, Steve. 2000. Naturalness and Wildness: The Dilemma and Irony of Managing Wilderness. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 2000 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 377-381.

Abstract:
This paper summarizes a dialogue session that focused on two concepts that strongly influence nearly all wilderness management: wildness and naturalness. The origin and value of these concepts are discussed, as well as the dilemma and irony that arises when wilderness managers contemplate manipulating the environment to restore naturalness at the risk of reducing wildness. To illustrate this irony, a case study of a proposed large-scale manipulation to stop the loss of cultural resources in the Bandelier Wilderness is discussed. It is concluded that large scale wilderness restoration based on manipulating the environment will always cause a dilemma and entail the irony of balancing wildness against naturalness. One of the biggest hurdles facing wilderness policy-makers and managers today, as well as the concerned public, is how to reconcile these views and manage wilderness for both wildness and naturalness.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 408 DOWNLOAD pdf.

Sydoriak, Charisse A.; Allen, Craig D.; Jacobs, Brian F. 2000. Would Ecological Landscape Restoration Make the Bandelier Wilderness More or Less of a Wilderness?. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 2000 May 23 - 27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2000.

Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to foster discussion on the basic issue of whether it is appropriate or not to intervene in designated wilderness areas that have been "trammeled by man" and, as a result, no longer retain their "primeval character and influence." We explore this wilderness management dilemma (whether we can or should actively manage wilderness conditions to restore and protect wilderness and other values) by asking seven questions relating to a wilderness area that is no longer "natural." (For the purposes of this discussion, "natural" is defined by words and phrases used in the 1964 Wilderness Act: "a community of life untrammeled by man"; "land retaining its primeval character and influence"; and or existing in an "unimpaired condition."). Debate on this issue is not new, but is intensifying, since most wilderness areas in the continental United States are not pristine and ecosystem research has shown that conditions in many are deteriorating. To facilitate dialog on this wilderness management topic we focus on a case-study of a proposed large-scale project to restore piñon-juniper woodlands in the Bandelier Wilderness, New Mexico.

DOWNLOAD pdf.

Cole, David N. 1996. Ecological manipulation in wilderness--an emerging management dilemma. International Journal of Wilderness 2(1): 15-19.

Abstract:
The 1964 Wilderness Act contains at least three conflicting goals: preservation of natural or pristine conditions, avoidance of intentional ecological manipulation, and provision of opportunities for use. As anthropogenic disturbance of wilderness intensifies, managers must increasingly face the dilemma of choosing between the goals of restoring pristine conditions and avoiding conscious manipulation of ecosystems. At the crux of this dilemma are questions about the value of wilderness as a reference area or baseline and what wilderness should provide a reference to. Several compromise approaches with the potential for partial resolution of this dilemma are offered but more ideas and debate are needed.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 283

Landres, P.B., P.S. White, G. Aplet, and A. Zimmermann. 1998.

Naturalness and natural variability: definitions, concepts, and

strategies for wilderness management. Pages 41-50 in Wilder-ness

& natural areas in eastern North America: research, management

and planning (D.L. Kulhavy, M.H. Legg, editors). Center

for Applied Studies, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin

University, Nacoghoches, TX.