USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-1

June 1998

Abstract—The allocation of recreation use is a task that has

challenged wilderness managers throughout the National

Wilderness Preservation System for nearly two decades. This

note reviews and evaluates approaches for allocating wilderness recreation use between commercially outfitted, institutionally outfitted, and nonoutfitted visitors to wildlands. Of

the 17 identified approaches to allocation, 11 of those are

sufficiently defined to allow a comparative evaluation to

determine how these approaches are able to address eight

wilderness recreation allocation goals. The analysis results

in a relative ranking of alternatives from most suitable to

least suitable for addressing the stated goals. Although this

evaluation was conducted specifically for one area (the Bob

Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana), the methods

reviewed and results obtained are likely to be applicable to

other wildernesses and wildland recreation areas with some

site-specific modifications.

Keywords: institutional outfitting, wilderness outfitting,

recreation policy, wildlands management

Suzanne Cable is a Backcountry Ranger for Glacier National Park in

northwestern Montana. Her interest is in continued employment in wilderness

management. She holds a B.A. degree in Environmental Studies from Brown

University, and an M.S. degree in Resource Conservation from the University

of Montana School of Forestry. Alan E. Watson is a Research Social Scientist

for the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula,

MT. He attended the School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, receiving a B.S., an

M.S., and in 1983 a Ph.D. degree. His research interests are primarily in

wilderness experience quality, including the influences of conflict, solitude,

and visitor impacts.

This research was supported cooperatively by the Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the

School of Forestry, University of Montana. The authors wish to acknowledge

major contributions and review by Dave Jackson and Steve McCool of the

University of Montana, and Steve Morton and Wendell Beardsley of the Forest

Service’s Northern Region.

Recreation Use Allocation:

Alternative Approaches for the

Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

Suzanne Cable

Alan E. Watson

Recreation use allocation is a pressing issue at many

Federally managed wilderness areas throughout the

United States. The question of how to make recreation

use allocation decisions to distribute available opportunities among outfitted (including institutional and

commercial) and nonoutfitted users, has challenged

managers and often has led to controversy. For instance, in Montana the Forest Service has been indecisive on the issue of recreation use allocation in the Bob

Marshall Wilderness Complex (BMWC) for more than

two decades. Because of concerns for social and resource impacts, in 1972, a ban was placed on the

issuance of any new outfitter permits for this wilderness complex. This initial ban was supplemented in

1980 by an informal moratorium on expansion of all

existing outfitter operations. The 1987 Recreation

Management Direction (United States Forest Service

1987) for the BMWC formalized the moratorium

pending a decision on desirable outfitted use levels.

This extended ban has been in effect for more than

15 years and awaits resolution of the initial issue

regarding outfitter-provided recreation use levels, as

well as the more basic question of how other uses and

wilderness conditions would be influenced by changes

in outfitted use.

In the meantime, the Limits of Acceptable Change

planning system (LAC) has been implemented, establishing baseline conditions, objective limits on impacts

from all recreation use, and an active monitoring program. LAC guides managers to focus on the impacts of

visitors, not purely on their numbers. After several

years of monitoring, managers may now have the

ability to anticipate how current conditions will be

affected by changes in outfitter services.

Since implementation of the 1980 moratorium, the

BMWC managers’ group has frequently acknowledged

the need to address the recreation allocation issue,

particularly the need to develop a definitive policy for

determining outfitted use. (The BMWC managers’ group

includes USDA Forest Service representatives from
2 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998

each of the five Forest Service Ranger Districts from

four National Forests that share responsibility for

management of the BMWC). As an issue of particular

concern, the managers have recognized the need to

identify an appropriate method (or approach) to allocate outfitter permits that considers the demand and

impacts of the commercially outfitted, the institutionally outfitted, and nonoutfitted segments on the wilderness resource. While progress has been made in

addressing the management of recreation use allocation since the 1972 ban, the original reasons for implementing the moratorium remain, and new ones have

arisen. Demand for access by current outfitting permit

holders continues to grow, requests for new permits

from commercial as well as institutional outfitters are

increasing, overall use of the BMWC steadily rises, and

a method for distributing use between the outfitted

and nonoutfitted public has not been identified.

This paper includes a review of 17 approaches to

recreation use allocation, identification of allocation

goals defined by managers of the BMWC, and the

results of a comparative evaluation of the potential

for the approaches to achieve the defined allocation

goals. This review should provide useful insight to

wildland managers facing similar wilderness management decisions.

Recreation use allocation is a term that has not been

universally defined and can include a variety of subtle

variations in meaning, depending on the situation in

question. For the purposes of this paper, recreation use

allocation is defined as the deliberate distribution of

recreation use opportunities between the commercially

outfitted, the institutionally outfitted, and the

nonoutfitted sectors of the public. More specifically, it

is the process by which a public land management

agency determines what proportions of total potential

use will be distributed to these various groups (or user

categories) utilizing public lands for recreation.

Methods _______________________

To comparatively evaluate alternative approaches

to recreation use allocation in the BMWC, methods

were developed to identify alternative approaches, to

determine goals for wilderness allocation in the

BMWC, and to evaluate the alternatives. A more detailed discussion of the methods utilized can be found

in Cable (1996).

Identification of Alternative Allocation

Approaches

A total of 17 alternative approaches to recreation

use allocation were identified through the following

three search methods: (1) review of published professional and academic literature in the recreation management, economics, and resource policy disciplines;

(2) requests for information regarding proposed and

existing recreation use allocation systems from public

land managers throughout the United States; and

(3) review of unpublished public land management

agency documents regarding recreation use allocation

obtained from land managers. Once the alternatives

were compiled, the list was further refined to include

11 of these alternatives, excluding those that were

determined by the BMWC managers to be clearly

unimplementable because of feasibility or suitability

constraints (see Cable 1996 for complete discussion of

exclusionary criteria).

Determination of Recreation Use

Allocation Goals

The BMWC managers’ group utilized an interactive

multistep process and five sources of information to

determine goals for the allocation of recreation use

opportunities in the BMWC. The five sources of information were:

1. Example allocation goals from existing recreation

use allocation systems in other National Forests and

National Parks.

2. Example allocation goals (both theoretical and

applied) from the recreation management literature.

3. Overall wilderness management goals for the

BMWC as defined by the BMWC Recreation Management Direction—a document that defines management prescriptions for the BMWC based on LACgenerated indicators and standards.

4. A list of questions formulated by the BMWC

managers used to define the recreation use allocation

issue in the BMWC.

5. Allocation goals identified by the public in response to a request for comments conducted specifically for this study.

After thorough review of all information sources, the

BMWC managers compiled draft and final lists of

allocation goals based on professional judgment about

suitability.

Evaluation of Alternatives

The evaluation of alternatives was conducted using

a multicritera decisionmaking model as explained by

Trosper (1988) and based on the work of Arrow and

Raynaud (1986). The model includes the following

three sequential steps:

Step 1—Ranking alternative allocation approaches

on their ability to achieve the allocation goals (called

the “preliminary ranking”).

Step 2—Creating a matrix to compare the relative

success of each alternative in its ability to achieve the

goals (called an “outranking matrix”).

Step 3—Identifying, in ranked sequential order from
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998 3

best to worst, the relative success of the alternative

allocation approaches in achieving the goals (called the

“final ranking”).

In addition to the above steps, this application of

the Trosper/Arrow and Raynaud model assumes

that: (a) there is equal “distance” between each of the

ranked alternatives in both the preliminary and final

rankings where “Distance” refers to the qualitative

space between alternatives in the rankings (for example, in a sequential ranking from best to worst, each

successive alternative is an equal amount worse than

the previous ranked alternative); (b) the goals are

independent from each other; (c) no goal is paramount

over the others, nor must it be achieved by an alternative, for it to be further considered; and (d) all goals are

equally important. The model, as explained by Trosper,

includes the option to weight the goals to indicate their

relative importance. The BMWC managers’ group, however, decided not to weight the goals in this analysis

and to consider them all of equal importance.

To begin the evaluation of alternatives (step 1 above),

each allocation approach was ranked according to its

relative ability to achieve each unweighted goal. Following Trosper (1988, p. 829), each alternative was

ranked according to each of the goals by “try[ing] to

make assumptions which seem reasonable or seem

to reflect commonly held beliefs...” The preliminary

ranking of each alternative allocation method was

defined according to the discretion of the BMWC managers’ group utilizing input from:

1. Two institutional outfitters

2. Two commercial outfitters

3. Two members of the nonoutfitted public

4. Two academics, one involved in recreation use allocation studies and the other in studies of biodiversity.

Next, the results were entered into a matrix indicating the relative success of each alternative in its competition against the other alternatives, similar to a

round-robin tournament format (step 2). The alternatives comprised both the columns and rows of the

matrix. The number of times that each alternative was

successful in being ranked higher than each other

alternative at achieving the goals was summed and

entered in the appropriate location in the matrix. The

completed matrix summarized the results of each competition for achieving each goal, between each of the

alternatives. After the matrix was created, a final

ranking was prepared that reflected the overall success

of each alternative allocation approach in achieving all

the goals (step 3). Through careful analysis of the

outranking matrix, the alternatives were sequentially

removed from the matrix and placed in the final ranked

order according to the overall number of successful

contests of each alternative, over the others, in achieving the goals.

Results ________________________

Alternative Allocation Approaches

The 17 approaches for allocation between groups are

listed in table 1. This table defines each approach, its

level of development (proposed, theoretical, or applied), the source of the approach, and examples of

locations where it has been used, if applicable. The

allocation approaches are alternative contexts for

making recreation use decisions between commercially outfitted, institutionally outfitted, and nonoutfitted sectors of the public. The approaches reviewed

vary significantly in their design. Some approaches can

more accurately be referred to as methods, procedures,

processes, or even paradigms. However, because of

the variability in their design and in their means of

implementation, they are collectively referred to as

alternative approaches. Additionally, not all of the

approaches adhere strictly to the allocation definition

used in this text. For example, the Spatial and Temporal Zoning approaches allocate use according to where

and when, rather than to a specific quantity of use, but

still achieve the same objective of distributing use

between groups. Also, the No Allocation with Equal

Opportunity and Freedom of Choice approaches deliberately do not allocate use, but are alternatives that

still manage use.

Of the 17 alternatives listed in table 1, the following

11 were determined by the BMWC managers’ group to

be potentially applicable, and were selected for further

evaluation: Historical Use, Even-Split, Needs Assessment, Objective Analysis and Subjective Decision,

Public Opinion, Spatial Zoning, Temporal Zoning, Economic Impact, Even-Pool Variation of an Even-Split,

Freedom of Choice, and No Allocation with Equal

Opportunity.

Recreation Use Allocation Goals

Allocation goals can be placed into two categories:

those based on allocation theory and those driven by

applicability for use in the field by land managers.

Theoretical goals address the general objective of resource allocation—distributive justice—while applied

goals relate to both the social and resource concerns of

wilderness management. Detailed discussion of distributive justice theory, in regard to recreation use

allocation, can be found in Cable (1996). The BMWC

managers’ group identified eight applied recreation

use allocation goals. The allocation approach corresponding to each of these eight goals should:

1. Ensure protection of wilderness resource values,

including, but not limited to, LAC standards. LAC

standards refer to the “Limits of Acceptable Change”

management strategy used in the BMWC. The LAC system requires management of the wilderness according
4 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998

Table 1—Approaches for allocation between groups.

Level of

Approach Description development Sourcea Example locations used

Historical Use Assignment of use shares is made according Applied A,B,C Beaverhead National Forest (NF);

to historic use of the area based on a variety Wallowa-Whitman NF; Gallatin NF;

of formulas; for example, average of highest Grand Canyon National Park (NP);

2 years of annual actual use during last 5 years Smith River, Lewis and Clark NF

(often used with Needs Assessment).

Even-Split Use is evenly split between groups; for Published B,C,D, Tongass NF; Chugach NF

example, 50/50 when there are two groups, and applied E,F

or 33/33/33 when there are three groups.

Needs Assessment Public need for use by different groups Unpublished G,H proposed Roosevelt Ranger District

is determined according to assessment theoretical and (RD), Ashley NF; Klamath RD,

of various criteria; for example, current applied Winema NF

resource conditions, skills & equipment,

knowledge, safety, management objectives.

“Objective” Analysis Based on “objective” analysis of a variety of Applied I,J,K Palisades RD, Targhee NF; Olympic NF;

& Subjective defined factors, a managerial decision is made Payette NF; Jicarilla RD, Carson NF;

Decisionb regarding use assigned to a group, or each Tonto NF; Bitterroot NF; Yellowstone NP;

group. Jackson RD, Bridger-Teton NF

“Marketplace” The shares of use assigned to groups are Unpublished L Bridgeport RD, Toiyabe NF

based on use proportions observed during theoretical and

several years when no regulatory constraints applied

existed on the amount of use.

Value-Based Shares Judgments are made about the relative social Proposed for B,M,I None identified

value of recreation opportunities provided by discussion

each group, and shares of use are assigned

accordingly to ensure adequate opportunities

for each.

Relative Resource Each group is assigned shares of use according Published B,M,N, None identified

Impact to their relative contribution to total impact theoretical & O

based on an analysis of use levels and impact proposed for

levels. discussion

Test Casesc Develop a test case resource area and Published D None identified

determine relative demand between groups theoretical

for use in an unregulated situation, then use

those shares to determine use allocation in

other areas.

Public Opinionc Allot shares to groups according to public Published B,D None identified

opinion process that would determine public theoretical

preferences.

Spatial Zoningc Assign use to groups in specific areas rather Published B,C,D None identified

than by shares of use over the entire area. theoretical

Temporal Zoningc Assign use to groups for specific times of Published B,C,D None identified

year, rather than by shares of use over the theoretical

entire area.

Legislative Directionc Assign use according to legislative mandate Published B,D None identified

of shares for each group. theoretical

Economic Impactc Assign use according to economic impact Published D None identified

of groups on local communities adjacent to theoretical

resource area.

Even-Pool Variationc Variation of Even-Split technique, but unused Published B,C,D None identified

portions of shares to be made available to other theoretical

groups, with annual default to 50/50 (if two

groups). (con.)
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998 5

Percentage Allot use each year such that by a given date Published B,C,D None identified

Disappointment the number of applicants for each sector theoretical

(group) is known and an equal proportion of

each sector receives a permit resulting in an

equal percentage of denials, or disappointment,

to each group.

Freedom of Choiced Does not allocate use among groups, but Published B,C,D, Flathead River, Flathead NF

requires all users to gain a permit, then the theoretical, N,P,Q

individual chooses whether to use the services awaiting

of an outfitter or go on their own. application

No Allocation with Does not allocate use between groups and Proposed for R None identified

Equal Opportunitye allows equal opportunity to all users with discussion

equal management prescriptions; outfitters

are permitted but are not allocated priority

use days, do not have reserved camps or

grazing permits—essentially treated the

same as the nonoutfitted public and must

comply with the same regulations.

a

Sources: A Beaverhead NF 1986 J Payette NF n.d.

B Wallace n.d. K Jicarilla RD 1995

C Cruz and Jiron 1994 L Richter 1985

D McCool and Utter 1981 M Proposed by University of Montana Wilderness Institute, personal correspondence, August 31, 1995

E Tongass NF 1991 N Personal discussion with Bill Chaloupka, University of Montana Professor of Political Science, September 28, 1995

F Shelby 1991 O Penner 1985

G Barker 1994 P Stokes 1991

H Dillon Resource Area 1993 Q Leaper 1991

I Targhee NF 1992 R Proposed by Jerry Burns, Lincoln Ranger District, Helena NF, personal correspondence, received September 7,

1995 b

Objective Analysis & Subjective Decision includes “objective” analysis of a variety of defined factors. While it is referred to as “objective”, the author recognizes there

are subjective aspects of the objective component of this approach—such as decisions made regarding what data to collect, and interpretation by individuals while collecting

data. c

Developed with intended application being river use.

d

While Freedom of Choice is not a method to allocate use between groups, it is included in the discussion because it achieves the same ultimate objective of regulating

access and use of the resource between outfitted and nonoutfitted users. e

No Allocation with Equal Opportunity is not an approach to allocate use between groups, but is included since similar to Freedom of Choice, it achieves the same ultimate

objective of regulated access and use of the resource between outfitted and nonoutfitted users.

Table 1 (Con.)

Level of

Approach Description development Sourcea Example locations used

to prescriptions intended to achieve minimally impacted resource conditions. Additional information

regarding LAC standards can be found in the Bob

Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wildernesses

Recreation Management Direction published by the

Flathead, Lolo, Helena, and Lewis & Clark National

Forests (1987).

2. Allow for a diverse range of wilderness-dependent

recreation activities for all users in a variety of settings

and at various times.

3. Establish use shares for the commercially and

institutionally outfitted publics.

4. Provide the opportunity for high quality wilderness-dependent recreation experiences for all users, as

defined by the LAC standards.

5. Consider the public need for outfitting services. It

is important to distinguish the difference between

public need and public demand. One Forest Service

wilderness manager (Barker 1994) defines “public

need” as “need identified by the Forest Service which

is deemed essential or required for the well-being of

the public and to meet the intent of the Forest’s mission

to manage and protect wilderness resources, provide

for public safety, and provide high quality public

recreation services.” Public demand is considered to be

one component of public need and reflects public requests for outfitting services (Merigliano and Morton

1996).

6. Consider historic use levels.

7. Be flexible and dynamic in response to public need.

8. Conform with the principle of minimum regulation. The “principle of minimum regulation” refers to

one of 12 wilderness management principles used by

the Forest Service throughout the National Wilderness

Preservation System. The exact wording of the principle is, “Control and reduce the adverse physical and

social impacts of human use in wilderness through

education or minimum regulation” (United States Forest Service 1987).
6 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998

Ranking Of Alternatives

Completion of the evaluation method described above

results in the following final ranking (from best to

worst) of alternatives in their ability to achieve the

eight allocation goals:

1st Objective Analysis and Subjective Decision

2nd Needs Assessment

3rd Public Opinion

4th Historical Use

5th Economic Impact

6th Even-Pool Variation

7th Even-Split

8th (tie) Spatial Zoning, Temporal Zoning, Freedom

of Choice, and No Allocation with Equal Opportunity

Cable (1996) explains the preliminary rankings and

outranking matrix that provide more in-depth review

of the successes of each alternative in achieving the

individual goals.

Discussion and Conclusions ______

The final ranking of alternatives indicates that Objective Analysis and Subjective Decision is the alternative most successful in its ability to achieve the allocation goals. This approach has often been applied, relying

on the tradition of professional discretion based on

good information when making management decisions.

Second place is held by the Needs Assessment alternative. While a relative newcomer to the field of recreation use allocation, the Needs Assessment alternative

holds good potential for future application when the

situation warrants greater public involvement and

review of management actions. These first and second

place finishes reflect the consistently high ranking of

these two alternatives over all the others. In the preliminary ranking they were ranked in the top three

positions for all goals in their competition against other

alternatives. This result reflects the high frequency

with which these alternatives will achieve, or will

provide opportunity to achieve, all the goals compared

to the other alternatives.

The remaining nine alternatives, ranked in the third

through eighth positions, show decreasing performance

in their ability to achieve the allocation goals. While

each of these alternatives may be successful at achieving one or a few of the allocation goals, they generally

fail to be successful at meeting at least one or more of

the goals.

In the BMWC, the managers’ group is currently in

the process of selecting an alternative for implementation based on the results of this evaluation. Following

their adoption of an approach, recreation use allocation

decisions will be made and implemented. In other

allocation situations, the process described here of

defining goals and specifically evaluating the ability

of the alternatives to achieve goals should prove useful

in assisting managers with assessing possible approaches to decision making. While allocation goals in

other wilderness and wildland areas may vary according to local circumstances, the alternatives and goals

provided here establish a starting point for further

modification, development, and application. The alternative allocation approaches evaluated offer a wide

variety of options; however, many of these methods are

not fully developed procedures, and therefore offer

only general guidance for approaching the allocation

issue—potentially with unsatisfactory results. While

this study has provided a process for selection of a

preferred alternative from those available, a welldeveloped, theoretically grounded method for the allocation of recreation use in wilderness is clearly lacking.

Only with additional research and further development of approaches for resolving challenging allocation issues will truly satisfactory alternatives be available to wildland managers.

References _____________________

Arrow, Kenneth J.; Raynaud, Herve. 1986. Social choice and

multicriterion decision-making. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

127 p.

Barker, Monte F. 1994. Allocation and public need. Cody, WY: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shoshone National

Forest. 14 p.

Beaverhead National Forest. 1986. Beaverhead National Forest

outfitter and guide policy. Dillon, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Beaverhead National Forest. 20 p.

Cable, Suzanne. 1996. An evaluation of alternative approaches for

recreational use allocation in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry. 186 p.

Cruz, Paul E.; Jiron, Terry. 1994. Chetco Wild and Scenic River

analysis of public use. Grants Pass, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 31 p.

Dillon Resource Area. 1993. Dillon Resource Area outfitter management guidelines. BLM-MT-GT-93-004-4333. Dillon, MT: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte

District Office, Dillon Resource Area. 58 p.

Flathead, Lolo, Helena, and Lewis & Clark National Forests. 1987.

The Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat Wildernesses

recreation management direction. Kalispell, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 67 p. Available from: U.S.

Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; 1987-791-017.

Jicarilla Ranger District. 1995. Environmental assessment for the

determination of outfitter/guide capacity. Bloomfield, NM: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Carson National Forest, Jicarilla Ranger District. 16 p.

Leaper, Eric. 1991. Rationing recreational river use: a question of

equality and freedom of choice. Western Wildlands. Winter: 10-14.

McCool, Stephen F.; Utter, Jack. 1981. A process for allocating public

recreation resources. In: Buist, Leon J., ed. Recreation use allocation. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Reno, Nevada Agricultural

Experiment Station: 60-76.

Merigliano, Linda; Morton, Steve. 1996. Outfitter and guide needs

assessment. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 7 p.

Payette National Forest. [n.d.]. Projected recreation use (PAOTDAYS). McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Payette National Forest. 8 p.

Penner, Steve P. 1985. The proposed freedom of choice allocation

system on the Flathead Wild and Scenic River. Professional

Development Paper. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. 56 p.
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-1. 1998 7

Richter, Fred. 1985. Bridgeport Ranger District wilderness capacity

and outfitter guide policy environmental assessment. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District. 38 p.

Shelby, Bo. 1991. Allocation of public access rights on western rivers.

Western Wildlands. Winter: 8-12.

Stokes, Gerald L. 1991. New wildland recreation strategies: the

Flathead experience. Western Wildlands. Winter: 23-27.

Targhee National Forest. 1992. Analysis of the management situation, outfitter and guide, Targhee National Forest. St. Anthony,

ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Targhee

National Forest. 10 p.

Tongass National Forest. 1991. Tongass land management plan

revision—supplement to the draft environmental impact

statement—proposed revised forest plan. R10-MB-146. Sitka, AK:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National

Forest. 47 p.

Trosper, Ronald L. 1988. Multicriterion decision making in a tribal

context. Policy Studies Journal. 16 (4): 826-842.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. An enduring resource of wilderness:

management principles. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Pamphlet.

Wallace, Joseph P. [n.d.]. Chattooga River recommended management objectives, maximum use limits, rationing techniques.

Columbia, SC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District. 67 p.

For Further Reading _____________

Ashley National Forest. 1996. Draft High Uintas Wilderness outfitting and guiding “public need” analysis. Roosevelt, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National

Forest. 6 p.

Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. 1996. Guidebook on outfitter-guide administration. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 40 p.

Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen,

Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The limits of acceptable

change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 p.

Winema National Forest. 1994. Mountain Lakes Wilderness outfitting & guiding “public need” analysis. Klamath Falls, WA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Winema National

Forest. 8 p.