United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-151

April 2005

Monitoring Selected

Conditions Related to

Wilderness Character:

A National Framework

Peter Landres, Steve Boutcher, Linda Merigliano,

Chris Barns, Denis Davis, Troy Hall, Steve Henry,

Brad Hunter, Patrice Janiga, Mark Laker, Al McPherson,

Douglas S. Powell, Mike Rowan, Susan Sater
Abstract ________________________________________

Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Merigliano, Linda; Barns, Chris; Davis, Denis; Hall, Troy; Henry,

Steve; Hunter, Brad; Janiga, Patrice; Laker, Mark; McPherson, Al; Powell, Douglas S.; Rowan,

Mike; Sater, Susan. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character:

a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p.

One of the central mandates of the 1964 Wilderness Act is that “each agency administering any

area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the

area.” Although wilderness comprises about 20 percent of National Forest System lands (over

35 million acres), the agency lacks a way to evaluate progress in fulfilling this mandate. This

document, developed by the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee, lays the conceptual foundation for a national assessment of how wilderness character is changing over time.

The purpose of this monitoring is to provide managers a tool they can use to answer key questions

about wilderness character and wilderness stewardship:

• What is the current state of wilderness character?

• How is wilderness character changing over time?

• How are stewardship actions affecting wilderness character?

• What stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve wilderness character?

This monitoring uses the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness from the 1964 Wilderness Act to

identify four statutory qualities of wilderness, from which specific monitoring questions and key

monitoring indicators are derived. The status and trends of these national indicators are monitored,

allowing managers to evaluate how selected conditions and stewardship actions related to

wilderness character are changing over time within a wilderness. This Framework provides the

conceptual basis for combining this information into a single integrated assessment of wilderness

character within an individual wilderness, and whether it is degrading, stable, or improving over

time. This information is compiled for upward reporting, allowing regional and national program

managers to evaluate how wilderness character is changing and the effectiveness of wilderness

programs and policies to preserve wilderness character. No national standards are developed or

comparisons made among wildernesses in terms of their wilderness character because each

wilderness is unique in its legislative, administrative, social, and biophysical setting. While this

monitoring will provide vital information, it is only a portion of what could, and should, be monitored

in wilderness and of wilderness character.

Keywords: forest planning, monitoring, primitive and unconfined recreation, solitude,

undeveloped, untrammeled, wilderness, Wilderness Act, wilderness character,

wilderness stewardship

Cover: Large photo taken by Dave Spildie of Moccasin Lake, Eagle Cap Wilderness. The small photos, counterclockwise

from the upper left, are: 1) stocking fish from an airplane within a Sierra Nevada wilderness; 2) helicopter bringing gear for

sampling Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow populations within the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness, photo courtesy of

Chris Barns; 3) dam in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness; 4) burying storage tanks to provide water for bighorn sheep within

wilderness near Tucson, AZ; 5) headstone in a cemetery within the Charles C. Deam Wilderness, photo courtesy of Les

Wadzinski; 6) cabin on private inholding within the Lye Brook Wilderness, photo courtesy of Russ Eastwood; 7) bridge in the

Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, photo courtesy of Dave Spildie; 8) fenced goat allotment within the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness,

photo courtesy of Chris Barns; 9) stair providing lake access within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
The Authors ____________________

Peter Landres is a Research Ecologist at the Aldo

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, USDA Forest Service in Missoula,

Montana. He holds a Ph.D. degree in ecology and

biology from Utah State University and a B.S. degree in

natural science from Lewis and Clark College.

Steve Boutcher is the Information Manager for the

Washington Office, Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers

Staff, USDA Forest Service, based in Burlington, Vermont. He holds a B.S. degree in forestry, and a Coordinate Degree in environmental studies from the University

of Vermont.

Linda Merigliano is the Recreation and Wilderness

Program Manager for the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger

Districts on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Jackson, Wyoming. She holds an M.S. degree in wildland

recreation management from the University of Idaho and

a B.S. degree in natural resource management from

Cornell University.

Chris Barns is the BLM Representative at the Arthur

Carhart National Wilderness Training Center in Missoula,

Montana. He holds an M.S. degree in forestry from the

University of Minnesota and a B.A. degree from Cornell

University.

Denis Davis is a Strategic Planner for the Intermountain

Region of the National Park Service in Denver, Colorado.

He has had a diverse career with the Park Service as

Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Chief of Maintenance, Chief of Administration, Park Planner, and

Environmental Specialist. He has an M.S. degree in

outdoor recreation from Utah State University and a B.S.

degree in wildlife biology from Colorado State University.

Troy Hall is an Associate Professor of Protected Areas

Visitor Studies in the Department of Conservation Social

Sciences at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho.

She holds a Ph.D. degree in forest resources from

Oregon State University and M.S. (Duke University) and

B.A. (Pomona College) degrees in anthropology.

Steve Henry is an Ecologist with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service stationed at the Charles M. Russell

National Wildlife Refuge in Lewistown, Montana. He

holds an M.S. degree in wildlife ecology from the University of Michigan and a B.S. degree in biology from Holy

Cross College.

Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to

Wilderness Character: A National Framework

Brad Hunter is the Wilderness and Developed Recreation Manager on the Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass

National Forest in Petersburg, Alaska. He holds a B.S.

degree in forest management from Purdue University.

Patrice Janiga is the Assistant Director of the Inventory

and Monitoring Institute, USDA Forest Service in Fort

Collins, Colorado. Her career with the government has

included responsibilities for information systems analysis and technology transfer with the USDA Office of Chief

Information Officer and the Forest Service. She currently

manages projects that focus on inventory and monitoring

design and quality assurance. She holds a B.S. degree

in forest resource management from Virginia Tech.

Mark Lakeris an Ecologist at the Kenai National Wildlife

Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska. He holds

an M.S. degree in fisheries biology from the University of

Alaska and a B.S. degree in marine biology from the

Florida Institute of Technology.

Al McPherson is the Wilderness and Trails Program

Manager for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Roanoke, Virginia. He holds a B.A.

degree in biology from Hastings College.

Douglas S. Powell is the National Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator of the USDA Forest Service, and he is

located at the headquarters office in Washington, DC. He

holds a Ph.D. degree in ecology from Duke University, an

M.S.F. degree in forest ecology from West Virginia University, and a B.S. degree in forestry from the University

of Michigan.

Mike Rowan is currently the Resource Assistant on the

Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National

Forests, Naches, Washington. He holds a B.S. degree in

forest resources from the University of Washington.

Susan Sater is the Regional Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, and Congressional Designations Program

Manager, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Her education includes a B.A.

degree in art and a B.S. degree in forestry from the

University of Washington, and graduate study at the

University of Washington in forest ecology.

i
Acknowledgments ______________

This Framework was made possible because of the

passionate dedication to wilderness shown by so many

people who actively participated in discussing, reviewing, and supporting this effort. In the beginning stages of

developing this Framework, Roger Kaye, Dennis Roth,

Doug Scott, and especially Ed Zahniser patiently helped

the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee

understand the spirit behind the phrase “wilderness

character.” We are grateful to the over 40 wilderness

managers, scientists, and others who offered extensive

and thoughtful review comments on various drafts of this

Framework; these comments significantly helped the

Committee craft the broad view and the many details of

this monitoring Framework. In-depth discussions with

David Cole, David Parsons, and Alan Watson at the Aldo

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute helped refine the

overall goals and scope of this monitoring effort. Even

with all these review comments, the ideas expressed in

this Framework are solely those of the Forest Service

Wilderness Monitoring Committee.

This Framework was developed through the support of many people. Beth Boyst, as a new committee

member, brought fresh eyes and a sharp pencil to this

framework. Pam Wright, formerly with the Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute, gave invaluable help to the Committee to understand the advantages and disadvantages of various types of analyses.

Lane Eskew, Technical Publication Editor at the Rocky

Mountain Research Station, helped clarify the oftentimes

tortuously convoluted writing of this Framework. Don

Fisher, Forest Service National Wilderness Program

Manager, and Mary Wagner, Forest Service Director for

Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers, were a constant

source of support and help as this Framework reached

maturity. The Forest Service Wilderness Advisory Group

was instrumental both in their support and in getting this

monitoring effort recognized at the highest administrative

levels. Department of the Interior wilderness program

managers Geoff Middaugh and Jeff Jarvis (Bureau of

Land Management), Nancy Roeper (Fish and Wildlife

Service), and the late Wes Henry (National Park Service) offered encouragement and financial support for

their representatives on the Committee. Ultimately, the

biggest thanks are to Jerry Stokes, retired Forest Service National Wilderness Program Manager, for his

audacious vision pushing for wilderness monitoring

and starting the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring

Committee.

ii
Executive Summary

One of the central mandates of the 1964 Wilderness Act is that “each agency

administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the

wilderness character of the area.” Although wilderness comprises about 20 percent of

National Forest System lands (over 35 million acres), the agency lacks a way to evaluate

progress in fulfilling this mandate. This Framework document lays the conceptual

foundation for selecting and monitoring indicators of conditions and actions related to

wilderness character. Information on wilderness character that is consistently gathered

and reported offers managers a powerful tool to evaluate if wilderness character is

stable, degrading, or improving over time, and to communicate progress toward

fulfilling this central mandate of the Wilderness Act.

Why This National Wilderness Monitoring is Being Developed

The purpose of this monitoring is to improve wilderness stewardship by providing a

tool managers can use to evaluate how selected actions and conditions related to

wilderness character are changing over time. Many wilderness field and program

managers perceive a steady erosion of wilderness character, yet there is no consistent

means for describing this loss or the positive outcomes from stewardship decisions. A

national set of core indicators allows compilation of information at local, regional, and

national levels. Improvement in wilderness stewardship must occur at the local level,

but the ability to compile information at regional and national levels provides a powerful

communication tool essential to make the case for wilderness stewardship needs. This

monitoring Framework also improves wilderness stewardship by more clearly articulating what wilderness character means, which may help managers evaluate proposed

actions and improve agency performance measurement and policy review.

Turnover in wilderness managers with field knowledge also contributes to the lack of

understanding about how wilderness character is changing over time. Integrating this

Framework into agencywide monitoring programs and using consistent indicators can

make data available to a succession of managers. This information legacy is one of the

strongest defenses against the erosion of wilderness character and for the showing

positive outcomes of stewardship.

How This Monitoring Defines Wilderness Character

Although wilderness character is not defined in the Wilderness Act or its meaning

discussed in the legislative history of this Act, it may be described as the combination

of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguish wilderness from all

other lands. These ideals form a complex set of relationships between the land, its

management, and the meanings people associate with wilderness.

This Framework uses the Definition of Wilderness from Section 2(c) of the 1964

Wilderness Act to identify four qualities of wilderness related to wilderness character.

All wildernesses, regardless of size, location, or any other feature, are unified by this

statutory definition of wilderness. These four qualities of wilderness are:

• Untrammeled – wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human

control or manipulation.

• Natural – wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of

modern civilization.

• Undeveloped – wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or

modern human occupation.

iii
• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of

recreation – Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration

and physical and mental challenge.

Specific monitoring questions under each of these qualities, and indicators under each

question, are identified in this Framework. While these indicators are based on best

professional judgment combined with the available scientific literature, they will

undoubtedly be refined and improved over time.

Limitations of this National Wilderness Monitoring

While the indicators were selected to be useful to local wilderness managers, this

Framework is not intended to monitor all aspects of the wilderness resource or actions

needed to manage wilderness. In addition, this national program does not monitor the full

range of ecological and social conditions inside wilderness, aspects of wilderness

character unique to a particular wilderness, societal values of wilderness character, or the

experiences of visitors.

How This National Wilderness Monitoring Will Be Implemented

This monitoring will be implemented in several phases. The first phase was completing

this Framework that develops the conceptual foundation for this monitoring. The second

phase is developing the Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to

Wilderness Character, which will give detailed procedures for collecting, storing,

analyzing, reporting, and using the data. The third phase is testing and revising the

Technical Guide. National implementation of this monitoring on every National Forest

System wilderness is targeted to begin in the winter of 2006-2007.

For this national monitoring, every effort has been made to minimize impact on local

staff and funding needed by using data that are already being collected or available from

national datasets. For example, data will be used from the Forest Service’s Infra-WILD

and Natural Resource Information System. Existing national data sets will also be used

to estimate conditions within a wilderness. The use of standard templates for queries and

analysis will further reduce required staff time.

Most wildernesses lack detailed information on conditions since the time of designation, and although appropriate historical data may be used, the first time this Framework

is applied will likely become the baseline for evaluating change over time. Change is

evaluated only within a single wilderness, and the information resulting from this

monitoring cannot be used to compare different wildernesses. Such comparisons are

inappropriate because there are aspects of wilderness character that are unique to each

wilderness, determined by the area’s legislative, administrative, biophysical, and social

setting. This monitoring does not establish national standards for indicators, which

would need to be developed through formal planning processes.

The Forest Service is currently developing a coordinated, agencywide program for the

design, collection, and use of monitoring data, and the Framework described here fits

within this program. In addition, all wildernesses are part of the National Wilderness

Preservation System, and representatives from the other three wilderness managing

agencies have been an integral part of the team developing this Framework. This

participation allows ongoing interagency communication and lays the foundation for

monitoring that could be applied across the entire wilderness system.

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... iii

1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 What This Monitoring Seeks to Accomplish .........................................................................2

1.2 Why This Monitoring Is Needed............................................................................................2

1.2.2 Meeting the Requirements of Wilderness Legislation and Agency Policy .....................3

1.2.3 Improving Wilderness Stewardship ...............................................................................4

2. DEVELOPING NATIONAL MONITORING OF CONDITIONS RELATED TO

WILDERNESS CHARACTER.....................................................................................................4

2.1 Understanding Wilderness Character ...................................................................................4

2.2 The Logical Basis for Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character ...................6

2.3 Scope and Limitations of This National Monitoring...............................................................7

2.3.1 Legislatively Defined Qualities of Wilderness ................................................................7

2.3.2 Selected Wilderness Conditions and Stewardship Actions ...........................................8

2.3.3 National Core Indicators ................................................................................................8

2.3.4 Summary of Scope and Limitations ...............................................................................9

2.4 Applying This Framework Nationally ..................................................................................10

3. USING LEGISLATIVE QUALITIES OF WILDERNESS AS A FOUNDATION

FOR MONITORING RELATED TO WILDERNESS CHARACTER ..........................................10

3.1 “Untrammeled” ....................................................................................................................11

3.2 “Natural” ..............................................................................................................................12

3.3 “Undeveloped” ....................................................................................................................15

3.4 “Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined

Type of Recreation”..........................................................................................................16

3.5 How Legislated Uses and Special Provisions Affect These Four Qualities ........................19

3.6 Defining Baseline Conditions and How These Four Qualities Change Over Time .............20

4. ANALYZING, REPORTING, AND USING THESE MONITORING DATA ................................20

4.1 Evaluating Current Status and Trends................................................................................20

4.1.1 Analysis of Core Measures and Core Indicators .........................................................21

4.1.2 Synthesis of Wilderness Qualities and Wilderness Character ....................................22

4.2 Reporting on Current Status and Trends ............................................................................23

4.3 Using This Monitoring Information ......................................................................................24

4.3.1 Using This Monitoring Information at the Local Level .................................................24

4.3.2 Using This Monitoring Information at the Regional and National Level .......................25

Contents________________________________________________

Page

v
5. CHANGE MANAGEMENT: REVISING AND IMPROVING THIS MONITORING

PROGRAM OVER TIME ..........................................................................................................26

6. APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................26

6.1 Monitoring Terms and Definitions .......................................................................................26

6.2 Monitoring Questions, Potential Core Indicators, and Potential Core Measures ................27

6.2.1 Further Discussion About Core Indicators ...................................................................28

6.2.2 Criteria for Selecting Core Indicators ..........................................................................29

6.2.3 Table of Monitoring Questions and Core Indicators ....................................................30

6.3 The Context of Agency Wilderness Monitoring...................................................................30

6.3.1 How This Effort Is Different From Previous Agency Wilderness

Monitoring Efforts .........................................................................................................30

6.3.2 How This Effort Fits With Agency Policy, Forest Planning, and Budget

and Accountability Systems .........................................................................................32

6.3.3 Integrating This Effort Within the Forest Service and With Other

Federal Agencies .........................................................................................................33

6.4 The Process Used to Develop This Framework .................................................................33

6.5 The Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee ......................................................34

6.6 References .........................................................................................................................35

vi

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this monitoring is to improve wilderness stewardship by providing

managers a tool they can use to evaluate how selected actions and conditions related to

wilderness character are changing over time. Although nearly 20 percent of all the land

managed by the Forest Service (about 35 million acres) is designated wilderness, the

agency lacks the means for evaluating fulfillment of the central mandate of the 1964

Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) to preserve the area’s wilderness character.

Wilderness monitoring is needed for various purposes, and while several programs

already monitor specific resources within wilderness, the most critical need is to monitor

what makes wilderness unique among all other National Forest System lands, its

wilderness character.

To build this national protocol, the conceptual foundation for monitoring wilderness

character must first be developed because, unlike other resources such as air, water, and

wildlife, the concept of wilderness character is poorly understood, cuts across many

resource areas, and has never been formally described or monitored. This monitoring

protocol is therefore composed of two distinct parts, this Framework that develops the

conceptual foundation, and a forthcoming Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected

Conditions Related to Wilderness Character that develops the protocols for data

collection, storage, analysis, reporting, and use (fig. 1).

Figure 1—The protocol for monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character is

composed of two documents, a Framework and a Technical Guide. The Framework develops the

conceptual foundation for this protocol, and the Technical Guide develops the detailed and

standardized protocols (figure adopted from Powell 2000).

Monitoring Selected Conditions

Related to Wilderness Character:

A National Framework

Peter Landres, Steve Boutcher, Linda Merigliano, Chris Barns,

Denis Davis, Troy Hall, Steve Henry, Brad Hunter, Patrice Janiga,

Mark Laker, Al McPherson, Douglas S. Powell, Mike Rowan,

Susan Sater
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

This national protocol is also embedded within a larger agency effort to develop better

monitoring systems to improve management. Part of this larger effort is developing

better integration to share data among all the various resource areas. From the wilderness

perspective, this means ensuring that other resource programs collect their data in

wilderness and that wilderness-appropriate methods are used.

1.1 What This Monitoring Seeks to Accomplish

This monitoring will provide information to help answer key questions about

wilderness character and wilderness stewardship:

• What is the current state of wilderness character?

• How is wilderness character changing over time?

• How are stewardship actions affecting wilderness character?

• What stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve wilderness character?

The primary goal for this monitoring is to develop a national assessment of trends in

wilderness character. This Framework establishes a logical and defensible foundation

for using a set of nationally consistent key indicators of wilderness conditions and

stewardship actions to assess trends in wilderness character. Within the context of this

national assessment, every effort has been made to select indicators that will be useful

and cost-efficient for the local wilderness to monitor.

As explained in detail below, this monitoring uses the Section 2(c) Definition of

Wilderness from the 1964 Wilderness Act to identify four statutory qualities of

wilderness, from which specific monitoring questions and key monitoring indicators are

derived. The status and trends of these national indicators are monitored, allowing

managers to evaluate how selected conditions and stewardship actions related to

wilderness character are changing over time within a wilderness. This Framework

provides the conceptual basis for combining this monitoring information into a single

integrated assessment of wilderness character within an individual wilderness, and

whether it is degrading, stable, or improving over time. This information is compiled for

upward reporting, allowing regional and national program managers to evaluate how

wilderness character is changing and the effectiveness of wilderness programs and

policies to preserve wilderness character.

These indicators are a vital core of what needs to be monitored in wilderness, but they

are only a portion of what could, and should, be monitored in wilderness and of

wilderness character. No national standards are developed or comparisons made among

wildernesses in terms of their wilderness character because each wilderness is unique in

its legislative, administrative, social, and biophysical setting. After pilot testing, national

implementation of this monitoring is targeted to begin in winter 2006-2007.

1.2 Why This Monitoring Is Needed

Many wilderness field and program managers perceive a steady erosion of wilderness

character, yet there is currently no consistent means for describing this loss or the positive

stewardship outcomes to protect wilderness character. This lack of agency monitoring

occurs despite (1) Zahniser’s (1961) declaration that “in all concern with wilderness, the

first safety must be for the wilderness character itself”; (2) increasing wilderness visitor

use (Cole 2002) and other widespread threats to wilderness character (Peine and others

1988, Cole and Landres 1996, Landres and others 1998); and (3) repeated calls for

monitoring to improve wilderness stewardship (Government Accounting Office 1989,

Fleischner 1992, Sellars 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000, Pinchot Institute 2001). This

monitoring Framework provides a more solid foundation than has previously existed to

tie key national monitoring indicators to the statutory requirements of wilderness

legislation and agency policy.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 3

This monitoring may also be useful to a variety of citizens who value wilderness and

who are interested in the preservation of wilderness character. For example, in their book

on Wilderness Ethics, the Watermans (1993) ask, “Once land is designated as wilderness,

how do we preserve the spirit of the land, its wildness and naturalness?” This monitoring

Framework provides an important part of the information that may be used to answer this

question.

1.2.2 Meeting the Requirements of Wilderness Legislation and

Agency Policy

Congressional legislation and agency policy mandate an affirmative responsibility for

preserving wilderness character. The Wilderness Act Statement of Policy, Section 2(a),

states that wilderness areas “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the

American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and

enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the

preservation of their wilderness character” (emphasis added). In addition to this

Statement of Policy, legal scholars Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999)

assert that Section 4(b), Use of Wilderness Areas, gives the primary management

direction for wilderness that “... each agency administering any area designated as

wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” The

Congressional Record (U.S. Congress 1983) reinforces this assertion, stating, “The

overriding principle guiding management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which

agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (section 4(b)) mandate to preserve their

wilderness character.” Section 4(b) further states that even when the agency administers

the area for other purposes, the agency must also “preserve its wilderness character.”

This monitoring also helps managers meet the requirements of Forest Service policy

pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Forest Service Manual Chapter 2320.2, No. 4, directs the

agency to “protect and perpetuate wilderness character” and to evaluate whether

wilderness character is degrading, stable, or improving over time (fig. 2). In addition, the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires Federal agencies to demonstrate accountability “by providing ... information about program results and service

Figure 2—The “Wilderness Management Model” modified from the Forest Service Manual 2320.6.

The vertical axis represents wilderness character, improving upwards. The horizontal axis

represents the amount of modern human influence on wilderness character, with increasing

influence to the right. The diagonal line shows the general relationship of increasing human

influence causing a decline in wilderness character. A goal of wilderness management is to

maintain or improve wilderness character from its state at the time of wilderness designation.

Modern Human Influence

Wilderness “X” at time of

designation

Wilderness

Character

Management preserves

or improves wilderness

character
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

quality.” This monitoring will yield information useful in documenting the outcomes of

agency decisions and actions to “preserve wilderness character.”

1.2.3 Improving Wilderness Stewardship

Linking a national core set of selected on-the-ground indicators to the concept of

wilderness character anchors wilderness stewardship to the mandates of the Wilderness

Act and agency wilderness policy (Babu and Reidhead 2000). While improving wilderness stewardship must occur at the local level, the ability to compile information at

regional and national levels provides a powerful communication tool that is essential to

make the case for wilderness stewardship needs and for evaluating program effectiveness

at all administrative levels. This monitoring can improve wilderness stewardship in

several ways, including:

• Inform decisionmaking by organizing information in NEPA analyses to more

clearly disclose the effects of proposed actions on wilderness character and

understand the trade-offs associated with different proposed actions.

• Evaluate program effectiveness and help prioritize where future actions should be

focused to improve wilderness character.

• Improve Land and Resource Management Planning, or Forest Planning, by

providing a framework to help describe desired future conditions for wilderness

and identify wilderness monitoring requirements.

• Express how different funding levels affect the statutory requirement to preserve

wilderness character.

• Link performance measures directly to the Wilderness Act mandate to preserve

wilderness character.

• Make all resource information about a particular wilderness more accessible to a

wilderness manager (including air quality, wildlife, watershed, and vegetation).

• Establish a permanent database that allows information to be passed on and used

by future managers.

2. DEVELOPING NATIONAL MONITORING OF CONDITIONS RELATED TO

WILDERNESS CHARACTER_________________________________________

To develop a practical and useful national monitoring program, it’s necessary to

understand the nature of wilderness character, to base this monitoring on a solid logical

structure or conceptual model, to clearly define the scope and limitations of this effort,

and to clarify the basis for applying this monitoring nationally.

2.1 Understanding Wilderness Character

Developing a national Framework to monitor wilderness character requires understanding the legislative origin of this concept, as well as the ideals, meanings, and

relationships inspired in this concept.

The Wilderness Act does not define “wilderness character” and despite a rich legislative

history on many aspects of the Wilderness Act, the Congressional committees that

developed and debated the Wilderness Act of 1964 did not discuss the meaning of this

phrase (Scott 2002). To develop a deeper understanding of the meanings of wilderness

character, Kaye (2000, 2002) and Scott (2002) explored the historical writings of the

framers of the Wilderness Act, especially those of Howard Zahniser, its principal author.

This exploration reveals three mutually reinforcing societal ideals that are integral to the

historic purpose of wilderness and to understanding wilderness character:
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 5

• Natural environments relatively free from modern human manipulation and

impacts.These environments include the native plants and animals, ecological and

evolutionary processes (including disturbances such as fire and insect outbreaks),

clean air, natural sounds, dark night skies, and the scenic quality that come from

such places.

• Personal experiences in natural environments that are relatively free from the

encumbrances and signs of modern society.Wilderness visitors may derive a broad

range of psychological benefits from experiences of challenge, self-reliance, and

self-discovery (for example, Driver and others 1987, Kaplan and Talbot 1987,

Roggenbuck and Driver 2000), as well as spiritual benefits (for example, Heintzman

2003). These experiences and benefits are highly individual, and preserving

wilderness character allows visitors the freedom to experience wilderness in their

individual ways.

• Symbolic meanings associated with wilderness. Wilderness is valued for what it

conveys about the relationship individuals and society have with this land, and its

effect on visitors and on others who may never set foot in a wilderness. Zahniser

(1956), for example, wrote that humility and the sense of dependence and

interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility are “... the distinctive ministration of wilderness to modern man, the characteristic effect of an area which we most

deeply need to provide for in our preservation programs” (emphasis in original).

In general, these symbolic meanings of wilderness are associated with experiences

and feelings of humility and being part of and interconnected with the larger

community of life, and with “our capacity for badly needed self-restraint in our

relationship to nature” (Nash 2004). Our unique American cultural heritage is also

symbolically tied to the existence of wilderness (Nash 1982).

The word “character” commonly means “the

combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another” (American Heritage Dictionary 1992)

or “the aggregate of distinctive qualities”

(Webster’s Dictionary 1976). Drawing on these

definitions, wilderness character may be described as the combination of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguishes

wilderness from other lands. These ideals combine to form a complex and subtle set of relationships between the land, its management,

and the meanings people associate with wilderness. These relationships and meanings are

described in this monitoring Framework as

“wilderness character.”

Agency decisions and actions may either

support or degrade wilderness character, and the humility, restraint, and respect shown

by managers is central to preserving wilderness character. For example, choosing not to

use a chain saw, not building a footbridge across a stream, or not suppressing a naturally

ignited fire may preserve certain qualities of wilderness character. In contrast, other

management actions such as requiring permits, designating campsites, or authorizing

administrative use of motorized equipment and mechanical transportation diminish

certain qualities of wilderness character. Because management decisions and actions in

wilderness may have a lasting effect on the land and on the meanings associated with

wilderness, the accumulation of seemingly small decisions may result in the loss of

Key Points

Wilderness character is...

• A primary administrative

responsibility mandated by the

Wilderness Act, but is not

defined in the Act.

• The biophysical, experiential,

and symbolic relationships and

meanings that distinguish

wilderness from all other lands.

• Supported or degraded by

stewardship decisions and

actions.

• In part, unique to each

wilderness.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

wilderness character. Wolke (2003) called this “creeping degradation,” and Udall (1995)

commented that there is “a real danger that hundreds and thousands of small decisions—

none of them too striking in and of themselves—will produce a cumulative effect that

effectively diminishes the wilderness resource the Act was written to protect.”

Because wilderness character is multidimensional, composed of both biophysical and

social aspects, actions taken to protect one aspect of wilderness character may diminish

another aspect. For example, a bridge built to protect a stream bank from erosion caused

by people or horses crossing the stream may also diminish the opportunity for people to

experience the challenge of crossing a stream. Similarly, the required use of designated

campsites to prevent the proliferation of sites and associated impact on soil and

vegetation may also diminish the opportunity for unconfined recreation and the sense of

freedom from the constraints of society.

While there are national perceptions and meanings associated with wilderness

character, there are also unique, place-dependent or locally based aspects within each

wilderness. Every wilderness is a unique biophysical environment, with specific establishing purposes, management direction, and relationships people have with the area.

The combination of biophysical environment, purposes, management, and relationships

results in aspects of wilderness character that are unique to each wilderness. Such aspects

of wilderness character can best be evaluated with locally meaningful monitoring

indicators.

2.2 The Logical Basis for Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character

The overall logical structure, or conceptual model, for this monitoring program is

shown in figure 3. The two elements of this figure enclosed by the box are derived

directly from the 1964 Wilderness Act, while the four elements outside the box are

developed in this monitoring effort. The first step uses the Section 2(c) Definition of

Wilderness to identify specific qualities of wilderness that are related to the concept of

wilderness character. Each of these legislative qualities of wilderness is sequentially

divided into a set of monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. As explained in

detail in Appendix 6.2, monitoring questions are the basic elements within each

Figure 3—The logical basis for this monitoring, showing the inferences (arrows) used to develop

indicators and measures from the concept of wilderness character. The downward-pointing

arrowheads show that the concept of wilderness character drives selection of all the subsequent

elements and ultimately the data that are collected. The upward-pointing arrowheads show how

data collected on the measures are used to evaluate successively higher elements.

Wilderness Character

Section 2(c) Definition

of Wilderness

Wilderness Act of 1964

Qualities of Wilderness

Monitoring Questions for each Quality

Indicators for each Monitoring Question

Measures for each Indicator

Wilderness Character

Section 2(c) Definition

of Wilderness

Wilderness Act of 1964

Qualities of Wilderness

Monitoring Questions for each Quality

Indicators for each Monitoring Question

Measures for each Indicator
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 7

legislative quality and set specific monitoring goals, indicators are the types of information used to answer each monitoring question, and measures are the numeric values that

are measured or derived to quantify the indicator. This hierarchical approach logically

links key indicators and measures to wilderness character.

2.3 Scope and Limitations of This National Monitoring

The idea of wilderness character is too complex and place-dependent to develop a

national monitoring protocol for the entire set of meanings and relationships embodied

by this concept. For example, there are important emotional, spiritual, and intangible

aspects of wilderness character (reviewed

by Putney and Harmon 2003) that form a

unique basis for the relationships that people

have with wilderness landscapes (Watson

2004). This monitoring does not monitor

these aspects or relationships, or “reduce

wilderness to data.” Instead, for the overall

purpose of this monitoring to improve stewardship that meets the intent of the Wilderness Act, the scope of this Framework is

narrowed to (1) legislatively defined qualities of wilderness, (2) selected conditions

and stewardship actions that influence these

legislatively defined qualities of wilderness, and (3) a set of indicators related to

these conditions and actions that can be

monitored consistently at the national level

and are meaningful at the local level.

2.3.1 Legislatively Defined Qualities of Wilderness

This Framework uses the Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) from the Wilderness

Act of 1964, to focus monitoring on relatively distinct qualities of wilderness that link

directly to wilderness character. The legislative Definition of Wilderness is used because

it directs management of Congressionally designated wilderness. In addition, legal and

wilderness scholars refer to this legislative definition to understand congressional intent

for the meaning of wilderness character (Rohlf and Honnold 1988, Scott 2002). For

example, McCloskey (1999) explains, “... what that character was intended to be can

only be determined by looking to the definition of wilderness.”

For the purposes of developing this Framework, agency interpretation of Section 2(c)

is used to derive four relatively distinct qualities of wilderness. These qualities, described

in detail in Section 3 Using Legislative Qualities of Wilderness as a Foundation for

Monitoring Related to Wilderness Character, are then used to develop monitoring

questions and indicators related to wilderness character. These qualities are “untrammeled,” “natural,” “undeveloped,” and “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined recreation.”

There are two general problems or concerns in using agency interpretation of Section

2(c) to derive specific qualities of wilderness that are linked to wilderness character.

First, by breaking the legislative definition of wilderness into four relatively distinct

qualities, this Framework imposes reductionistic thinking on the fundamentally holistic

concept of wilderness character. One problem of this reductionism is that, as discussed

in Section 2.1 Understanding Wilderness Character, a particular action may be associated with either a positive or negative outcome depending on the particular quality the

action is viewed from. The second concern is that by focusing on just these four qualities

Key Points

The scope of this Framework is

limited by...

• Using the legislative definition

of wilderness to identify

qualities of wilderness and its

stewardship that are linked to

wilderness character.

• Focusing on selected

conditions and stewardship

actions that are linked to these

legislatively defined qualities.

• Identifying indicators of these

conditions and actions that,

based on best professional

judgment, will be meaningful at

the local and national level.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

of wilderness, this Framework may allow managers and others to ignore important

experiential, symbolic, and intangible aspects of wilderness character (Putney and

Harmon 2003).

While both of these concerns have merit, the current lack of an explicit means to

monitor conditions related to wilderness character is hindering wilderness stewardship

because there is no way to evaluate how wilderness character is changing over time. To

address these concerns, the Framework and Technical Guide will provide specific

cautions about how this monitoring information should be interpreted and used, partly

to avoid reductionist interpretations. In addition, as explained in Section 5 Revising and

Improving This Monitoring Program Over Time, there will be opportunities to revise this

Framework as new and better knowledge is gained on integrating the legislative qualities

into a holistic expression of wilderness character, and on the experiential and symbolic

meanings of wilderness character. This national Framework, while far from perfect,

provides a solid foundation to tie wilderness stewardship to the legislative direction of

the Wilderness Act.

2.3.2 Selected Wilderness Conditions and Stewardship Actions

This Framework proposes monitoring a set of selected conditions and stewardship

actions that influence each of the legislated qualities of wilderness mentioned above. For

example, travel routes, recreation sites, and structures are physical evidence of modern

human occupation or modification that influence the “undeveloped” quality of wilderness. Likewise, mechanically reducing fire-suppression accumulated fuels across a

broad area is a stewardship action that directly influences the “untrammeled” quality of

wilderness.

2.3.3 National Core Indicators

Indicators for assessing these selected wilderness conditions and stewardship actions

are derived from management experience to be useful at the local level, and at the

regional and national levels when information from these indicators is compiled (see

Appendix 6.2 Monitoring Questions, Potential Core Indicators, and Potential Core

Measures for details on how indicators were chosen). The “wedding cake” model

adapted from Powell (2000) illustrates the intent as well as limitations of these national

core indicators (fig. 4). Nationally consistent indicators with data collected from

Figure 4—The “wedding cake” model adapted from Powell (2000). Each horizontal layer

represents the breadth of information needs of the different administrative levels within the agency.

The space enclosed by the dashed vertical lines represents national core indicators that cut across

all administrative levels. The portion of each administrative level outside the pair of vertical lines

shows the information needs of that level in addition to the core monitoring indicators. The “X”

represents the data collected from the individual wilderness under this monitoring Framework.

X Wilderness

Forest

Regional

National
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 9

individual wildernesses are necessary to paint a compelling picture of wilderness

stewardship needs and to assess trends across broader geographic areas.

As shown in figure 4 by the area outside the dashed lines at the local wilderness level,

the data collected for this monitoring are necessary but only part of the information

needed to manage the local wilderness. For example, an individual wilderness may need

information about specific areas (for example, popular campsites), particular resources

(for example, specific nonnative invasive plants), or place-dependent aspects of wilderness character (for example, a particular meadow discussed in designating legislation),

and these are beyond the scope of this national monitoring Framework. Given the broad

meaning and place-dependent nature of wilderness character, these national core

indicators do not provide a complete understanding of wilderness character in its entirety,

or of those aspects of wilderness character that are unique to an individual wilderness.

2.3.4 Summary of Scope and Limitations

Various aspects of the scope and limitations of this monitoring Framework were

discussed throughout the previous sections. These are summarized here to clearly

contrast what this monitoring does and doesn’t do:

• Monitors managerial progress in meeting the Wilderness Act mandate to preserve

wilderness character, not the full range of resources covered by other legislation

or management needs. This national Framework is designed to monitor selected

conditions and stewardship actions that are related to wilderness character based

on the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness from the 1964 Wilderness Act for the

purpose of improving wilderness stewardship. This Framework does not monitor

the full range of resources covered by other legislation that influences wilderness,

such as all the air quality related values that would be monitored under the Clean

Air Act, or detailed species population monitoring under the Threatened and

Endangered Species Act. In addition, this Framework does not cover the intensive

and site specific monitoring necessary to understand (1) natural ecological variation and change in ecological systems, or (2) visitor characteristics, preferences,

and the benefits or meanings derived from wilderness experiences and the

existence of wilderness within our society.

• Applies to designated wilderness, not to other lands. This national Framework

applies to all National Forest System wildernesses. Because it is designed to track

selected conditions and actions related to wilderness character, this monitoring

Framework is not intended for assessing the condition of lands outside wilderness.

• Monitors at the scale of an entire wilderness, not at the project scale. This national

Framework is designed to monitor selected conditions and stewardship actions

related to wilderness character at the level of an entire wilderness. While intended

to complement existing wilderness monitoring programs where they exist, this

Framework does not provide guidance for all the monitoring needed to manage an

individual wilderness. It does not replace project- or issue-specific monitoring, nor

does it monitor specific resources within a wilderness.

• Evaluates change over time within a wilderness, not in comparison with other

wildernesses. This national Framework provides information about changes in

selected conditions and stewardship actions related to wilderness character only

within an individual wilderness. Each wilderness is unique in its enabling legislative direction, condition at the time of designation, Forest Plan direction, and

ecological and social setting. This Framework therefore does not assign a single

national rating or standard for the legislatively defined wilderness qualities. The

value of using this Framework will be tracking trends within individual wildernesses over time and not in comparing one wilderness against another.
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

2.4 Applying This Framework Nationally

This monitoring Framework can be applied to all National Forest System wildernesses, regardless of size, location, or other place-specific attributes, because it is based

on the Section 2(c) legislative Definition of Wilderness, and every wilderness law

includes specific language that ties it to the provisions of the 1964 Act and this legislative

definition (Hendee and Dawson 2002, Landres 2003). While wilderness acts often

include specific exceptions or special provisions that apply to the uses and values of

particular areas, no act changes the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness provided in the

Wilderness Act, nor does any subsequent legislation change the affirmative management

responsibility of Section 4(b) for “preserving the wilderness character of the area.”

3. USING LEGISLATIVE QUALITIES OF WILDERNESS AS A FOUNDATION

FOR MONITORING RELATED TO WILDERNESS CHARACTER ____________

As introduced in previous sections, this Framework uses the Definition of Wilderness,

Section 2(c) from the Wilderness Act, to focus monitoring on qualities of wilderness

linked directly to wilderness character. Based on this Definition of Wilderness, the

following four qualities were chosen to represent the general level of concepts and ideals,

and sometimes subtle distinctions that distinguish wilderness from other lands:

• “Untrammeled”

• “Undeveloped”

• “Natural”

• “Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of

recreation”

These four qualities reinforce one

another and together comprise a

coarse approximation of wilderness

character for the purposes of this

national monitoring Framework. In

this Framework all of these qualities are equally important and none

is held in higher regard than the

others. Monitoring these four qualities provides management staff,

decisionmakers, and policymakers

a solid basis of information to tie

some of the changes occurring

within wilderness to the legislative

and policy direction for wilderness.

Legal and wilderness scholars

have interpreted Section 2(c) of the

Wilderness Act differently than in

this monitoring Framework. For

example, Rohlf and Honnold (1988)

interpret this section to mean that

wilderness is defined on the basis

two distinct elements: “absence of ...

evidence of human activities” and

“presence of a healthy, natural ecology.” Hendee and Dawson (2002)

The Wilderness Act of 1964, Section

2(c), Definition of Wilderness

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas

where man and his own works dominate the

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area

where the earth and its community of life are

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a

visitor who does not remain. An area of

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act

an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining

its primeval character and influence, without

permanent improvements or human habitation,

which is protected and managed so as to

preserve its natural conditions and which (1)

generally appears to have been affected

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2)

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3)

has at least five thousand acres of land or is of

sufficient size as to make practicable its

preservation and use in an unimpaired

condition; and (4) may also contain ecological,

geological, or other features of scientific,

educational, scenic, or historical value.”
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 11

interpret this section to mean “naturalness and solitude are the distinguishing qualities

of wilderness.” Scott (2002), relying on Senate testimony of Howard Zahniser and

legislative history of the definition of wilderness, concludes that the first sentence of

Section 2(c) defines the wilderness ideal as untrammeled, and that this ideal is the proper

meaning of “wilderness character.”

None of these interpretations, however, were for the purpose of developing monitoring to improve agency wilderness stewardship. Based on the combination of these

interpretations above, agency experience managing wilderness, and the scientific

literature, the four qualities used in this Framework are considered necessary and

sufficient for this national monitoring to improve agency wilderness stewardship.

Some parts of the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness were not used in identifying

qualities of wilderness for this monitoring Framework. Section 2(c)(3) was not used

because a wilderness must be managed as wilderness regardless of its size. Section

2(c)(4) was not used because the values described in this section may occur but are not

required for an area to be wilderness, and they do not apply uniformly to wildernesses

nationwide (Hendee and Dawson 2002).

Each of the four wilderness qualities is described in detail below. Each quality is first

described with relevant quotes from Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. For the purpose

of developing this monitoring Framework, an interpretation of the intent or meaning of

each quality is provided in terms that differentiate it from the others. This interpretation

is followed by a brief summary statement in italics of the quality as used in this

Framework. Government agencies are required to implement laws in their entirety; this

summary statement therefore reflects the qualifications in the 1964 Wilderness Act

(McClosky 1999). This brief summary statement is followed by detailed discussion of

the historic and scientific support for the quality and any specific concerns with using the

quality in this monitoring Framework.

3.1 “Untrammeled”

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its

community of life are untrammeled by man,” and “generally appears to have been

affected primarily by the forces of nature.” This quality monitors modern human

activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological

systems inside wilderness. In summary, wilderness is essentially unhindered and free

from modern human control or manipulation.

The word “untrammeled” and its meaning for wilderness management have been

discussed at length (for example, Aplet 1999, Scott 2002). Untrammeled means “allowed

to run free” (American Heritage Dictionary 1992); synonyms for untrammeled include

unrestrained, unrestricted, unhindered, unimpeded, unencumbered, self-willed, and

wildness. Zahniser (1963) noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation “is to use

‘skill, judgment, and ecologic sensitivity’ for the protection of some areas within which

natural forces may operate without man’s management and manipulation.” Adding to

this, Cole (1996) suggested that the management goal based on the word untrammeled

“is to protect some lands from human control, from conscious, active, intentional

manipulation.” Cole (2000) also stated that untrammeled “suggests more about the

process of management than it does about the outcomes of management,” reinforcing the

need to consider carefully all actions taken in the name of wilderness stewardship.

All actions that manipulate or control ecological systems inside wilderness diminish

the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. For example, when naturally ignited

fires are suppressed inside wilderness, when dams are built that impede natural flood

cycles, when animals or plants are transplanted inside wilderness, wilderness is manipulated and the untrammeled quality of wilderness character diminished. Furthering this
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

notion, Lucas (1973) commented, “If ecological processes operate essentially uncontrolled within the Wilderness frame of reference, the results, whatever they might be, are

desirable by definition. The object is not to stop change, nor to recreate conditions as of

some arbitrary historical date, nor to strive for change favorable to big game or scenery.

The object is to let nature ‘roll the dice’ and accept what results with interest and scientific

curiosity.” This applies to all manipulation since the time of wilderness designation but

does not apply to manipulations that occurred prior to wilderness designation, for

example, the use of fire by native people to promote game habitat. In addition, the intent

of monitoring this untrammeled quality is to track significant manipulations such as

reducing fire-accumulated fuels over a large area, and not track small-scale manipulations such as removing a single hazard tree. An explicit definition of “significant

manipulation” will be developed in the Technical Guide.

This untrammeled quality monitors all actions that manipulate or control ecological

systems in wilderness, including actions that managers traditionally authorize for

restoring natural conditions. For example, many wildernesses have nonnative invasive

plants, and various actions, including the release of biocontrol agents and the use of

herbicides, are used to control these invasive plants and restore natural plant communities. Similarly, the problems of fire exclusion in wilderness are well known, and

managers are considering reducing human-caused fuel accumulations with mechanical

treatments or management-ignited fire as a first step toward restoring natural fire

regimes. All such actions diminish the untrammeled quality of wilderness in the short

term, even though they are intended to restore natural conditions and support the natural

quality of wilderness over the long term, and may eventually lead to reduced trammeling.

By monitoring both the action and the reasons behind the action, managers will be able to

evaluate how they are affecting the untrammeled quality of wilderness over time. Other

aspects of restoration actions are discussed in the natural quality of wilderness below.

The tools used to manipulate resources are not monitored under this untrammeled

quality. For example, it doesn’t matter if a chain saw or a cross cut saw is used to thin trees

because wilderness is still trammeled by the action to reduce forest fuels. In this example,

use of a chain saw would be monitored as an administrative use of motorized equipment

under the undeveloped quality (see Section 3.3 “Undeveloped”).

Every manipulation of wilderness, even those intended for a specific purpose, may

also cause unintended and often unknown effects on the ecological system. For example,

when a fire is suppressed inside wilderness, the long-term effects on vegetation

composition and patterns, and therefore on animal distributions and populations, are

rarely considered. For several reasons, this national monitoring Framework separates the

actions (tracked in this untrammeled quality) from the effects of these actions (tracked

under the natural quality, described below). First, given the prominence of “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act, it is important to provide explicit monitoring direction for

this important wilderness concept. Second, actions and their effects are often confounded

and blurred with one another, hampering monitoring, understanding of cause and effect,

and effective management analysis and planning. Third, natural conditions in wilderness

are affected by actions taken there as well as by a host of regional impacts such as air

pollutants that may have nothing to do with management actions inside wilderness.

Separating actions from effects therefore allows more explicit and effective monitoring

direction.

3.2 “Natural”

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve

its natural conditions.” This quality monitors both intended and unintended effects of

modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since the time the area was
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 13

designated. In summary, wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the

effects of modern civilization.

One of the major themes running throughout the Wilderness Act is that the “earth and

its community of life” in wilderness should be free from the effects of “an increasing

population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization” (Section 2(c) and 2(a), respectively, Wilderness Act of 1964). In today’s terms, this means

that the native species composition, structures, and functions of ecological systems in

wilderness are protected and allowed to function on their own, without the planned

intervention or even the unintended effects of modern civilization. Arguably, the single

greatest result of such protection is allowing evolution to occur unfettered by the desires

or effects of modern people (Nash 1980, Landres 1992, Western 2001, Ashley and others

2003). Only through such protection may wilderness truly serve as “a laboratory for the

study of land-health” (Leopold 1949) and as an ecological baseline for understanding the

effects of modern civilization on natural systems (Arcese 1997).

The purpose of this monitoring is to track the effects of modern people on wilderness

ecological systems, not to maintain static or unchanging natural conditions in wilderness.

Ideally, all threats, all impacts of these threats, and the status of all natural conditions in

wilderness would be monitored. Practical and conceptual constraints, however, require

that only a limited set of threats to natural conditions and a limited set of effects of humancaused changes to biophysical conditions and processes will be monitored. For example,

this monitoring is not intended for understanding the status of the full range of ecological

conditions in wilderness such as trends in species populations, landscape scale vegetation patterns, and ecological processes such as carbon or mineral cycling. Monitoring

impacts to natural conditions also implies that there is sufficient understanding about

these conditions and how they naturally vary over time and across a landscape to separate

human-caused from natural change. In practice, this understanding is lacking in nearly

all wildernesses. Understanding cause-and-effect relationships is likewise beyond the

purpose, and practical and technical scope, of this current effort. Therefore this monitoring, at least initially, will focus on selected threats and human-caused effects that are

directly relevant to this natural quality of wilderness, and track how these change from

one monitoring period to the next.

Ecological conditions are also directly affected by a variety of actions intentionally

taken inside wilderness. These actions manipulate wilderness ecological systems causing both

the anticipated as well as unintended impacts.

For example, nonnative fish are intentionally

introduced for recreational angling, yet the farreaching and unintended effects on native biological diversity and nutrient cycling in wilderness lakes are just now becoming known (Knapp

and others 2001). Wilderness is also intentionally manipulated for the purpose of restoring

natural conditions, for example by applying

herbicides to eradicate invasive nonnative plants or by using chemicals to eliminate

nonnative fish. The negative impact on the untrammeled quality of wilderness from these

types of manipulations is monitored in this Framework, as is the positive intent of this

action to restore natural conditions. Despite the best of intentions, however, restoration

actions may cause unintended, long-term, subtle, or as-yet-unknown effects on wilderness ecological systems (Cole and Landres 1996, Murray 1996). While beyond the

current scope of this national monitoring Framework, monitoring these effects should be

an integral part of all projects that intentionally manipulate wilderness.

For Example...

Authorization to use prescribed

(or management-ignited) fire in

wilderness is monitored under the

untrammeled quality because it

is a decision to manipulate

wilderness. The ecological effects

of this manipulation are monitored

under the natural quality.
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

Actions that occur outside wilderness may also have unintended effects on the

ecological systems inside wilderness. Wildernesses are increasingly isolated within a

“sea” of modern development, and the impacts of this development can be seen in just

about every wilderness (Landres and others 1998). For example, naturally ignited fires

that start outside wilderness and would have spread into the wilderness are now typically

suppressed, irreversibly changing wilderness vegetation patterns (Christensen 1995).

Dams outside wilderness alter hydrological flow regimes, adversely affecting the

riparian plant communities within wilderness (Cowell and Dyer 2002). Air pollutants

from sources outside wilderness disperse long distances, affecting wilderness vegetation, soils, and aquatic systems (Schreiber and Newman 1987).

For several reasons it is difficult to establish “natural reference” conditions for

determining modern anthropogenic impacts on wilderness ecological systems. First,

many areas were substantially affected from burning, logging, farming, road building,

and a variety of other human activities long before wilderness designation. Young and

others (1994), for example, showed that driving railroad ties down streams from the

1860s through 1940 significantly affected current riparian vegetation, coarse woody

debris within the stream, and stream channel structure in the Savage Run Wilderness,

Wyoming. Second, there is a general lack of understanding about natural conditions prior

to current impacts. In a few cases there is fairly good understanding about specific

ecological conditions or processes derived from empirical data, but in most cases this

understanding comes from opinions or from conceptual and statistical models, with

varying levels of certainty and variability. Third, all ecological systems, including those

in wilderness, are in a constant state of natural change (Pickett and Ostfeld 1995), making

it difficult to identify change that is solely anthropogenic. And fourth, for some largescale anthropogenic impacts, such as global climate change, differentiating natural from

human-caused change typically requires an intensive research effort beyond the means

of this monitoring Framework.

Not being able to establish “natural reference” conditions has several important

implications for this monitoring Framework:

• Change over time in indicators of the effects of human-caused changes are only

“red flags” that suggest the need for research and more intensive monitoring to

verify the change and understand its cause.

• The baseline for determining human-caused change in biophysical conditions and

processes is ideally the time of wilderness designation, but practically baseline will

likely be determined the first time this monitoring is conducted. This does not

assume or imply that current conditions are “natural” or in a desired condition, but

current conditions are the only practical baseline from which change can be

evaluated forward in time. For example, prior to wilderness designation nonnative

fish were stocked in many naturally fishless lakes to provide recreational fishing

opportunities, and these fish do not become native or “naturalized” when this

monitoring starts. Monitoring change in the number of lakes that have nonnative

stocked fish would allow managers to evaluate whether existing conditions in

aquatic systems are stable (in other words, the number of lakes with nonnative fish

has not changed between the two monitoring periods), improving (in other words,

there are fewer lakes with nonnative fish), or degrading (in other words, there are

more lakes with nonnative fish).

• Management actions may cause a variety of ecological impacts that will not be

tracked under this natural quality because of insufficient understanding about these

impacts. Suppressing naturally ignited fires, for example, may directly change the

species composition and spatial distribution of vegetation and cause many other

indirect ecological impacts, on wildlife and aquatic systems for example. But
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 15

detailed, local understanding of prior vegetation conditions and how ecological

succession in that area is affected by fire suppression is required to evaluate these

ecological impacts. In general, understanding these types of impacts would require

research that is beyond the scope of this monitoring Framework.

3.3 “Undeveloped”

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or

human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” and “with the

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” This quality monitors the presence

of structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence

or occupation. In summary, wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements

or modern human occupation.

A basic requirement of wilderness is that it is undeveloped Federal land. This theme

runs through every definition of wilderness. For example, Aldo Leopold (1921) envisioned wilderness as “a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open

to lawful hunting and fishing, devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages, or other works

of man.” Marshall’s (1930) definition of wilderness conveyed a similar theme: “I shall

use the word wilderness to denote a region which contains no permanent inhabitants,

possesses no possibility of conveyance of any mechanical means... The dominant

attributes of such an area are ... that it preserves as nearly as possible the primitive

environment.” Humphrey (1957), the original sponsor of the Wilderness Act, clarified

his definition of wilderness as “the native condition of the area, undeveloped ...

untouched by the hand of man or his mechanical products.” Contemporary support can

be found in a recent survey of visitors to Shenandoah Wilderness within Shenandoah

National Park, where “undeveloped” emerged as the second most frequently mentioned

response when visitors were asked to define wilderness in their own words (Kendra and

Hall 2000).

The Wilderness Act identifies “expanding settlement and growing mechanization” as

forces causing wild country to become occupied and modified. An early Forest Service

review of wilderness policy noted that buildings or structures are usually installed for

only one purpose – to facilitate human activity (USDA Forest Service 1972). The

building or structure not only “occupies” the land, but also makes it easier for people to

impose their will on the environment, thereby modifying it. The policy review also found

that motorized equipment and mechanical transport similarly make it easier for people

to occupy and modify the land. Zahniser (1956) articulated this idea when he argued the

need for “areas of the earth within which we stand without our mechanisms that make

us immediate masters over our environment.” While the use of motorized equipment or

mechanical transport affects the opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet and

primitive recreation, these uses are included under this undeveloped quality due to the

close association in the legislative history between motorized use, mechanical transport,

and people’s ability to develop, occupy, and modify wilderness.

This undeveloped quality of wilderness character monitors present-day physical

indicators such as the presence and development level of trails, campsites, and structures

that were built before wilderness designation as well as those built since designation. One

of the concerns with these kinds of physical evidence is the impact on the opportunity

visitors have to experience a “primitive” environment since wilderness is supposed to be

a place where the evidence of human activity is “substantially unnoticeable.” Some

physical evidence of occupancy and use may be acceptable because of special provisions

in legislation or because it may be considered “necessary to meet minimum requirements

for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Act” (Section 4(c), 1964
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

Wilderness Act). For example, a minimal system of trails and campsites is considered

essential to manage the effects of recreation use while allowing people to use and enjoy

wilderness. However, since campsites, travel routes, and structures strongly influence

people’s opportunity to experience wilderness, managers must exercise restraint in

fulfilling their administrative responsibilities so that wilderness does not appear developed, occupied, and modified.

At least 17 wilderness acts specifically authorize facilities and structures or allow

some motorized use and mechanical transport for a variety of purposes (Hendee and

Dawson 2002). While special provisions represent legal uses of wilderness, the resulting

facilities, structures, and authorizations for motorized use and mechanical transport can

have far-reaching effects on wilderness character (Hendee and Dawson 2002). The

different special provisions unique to each wilderness underscore the importance of

using information gained from this monitoring to compare only one wilderness against

itself over time, rather than using this information to compare different wildernesses.

This Framework is designed to monitor changes in these physical indicators of

occupancy and use over relatively long periods. For example, an upward trend over the

course of 5 to 10 years in the number of trail miles, structures, recreation sites, or

authorized actions for motorized use should trigger a red flag to both the local manager

and regional manager to determine why there is an increasing trend and what can be done

to reverse or at least stabilize this trend.

3.4 “Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of

Recreation”

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude

or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” This quality monitors conditions that

affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude or primitive, unconfined

recreation in a wilderness setting, rather than monitoring visitor experiences per se. In

summary, wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and

physical and mental challenge.

The human experience of wilderness is shaped by interaction with conditions related

to all four qualities discussed in this Framework. However the Act’s mandate to “provide

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”

is the one quality that relates only to the human experience. Due to the complexity of

human interactions with their environment and with other people, this quality has long

been a source of debate and varying interpretations. It is essential at the outset to

understand what monitoring this quality intends and does not intend to accomplish. First,

wilderness stewardship is focused on the Wilderness Act’s mandate to provide outstanding opportunities for wilderness experiences; thus the monitoring goal is to evaluate if

and how these outstanding opportunities are changing over time. This monitoring will

not answer questions related to whether people perceive these changes as good or bad,

nor will it answer questions about whether the changes are causing people to alter their

expectations or their behavior. While important, these questions are beyond the current

scope of this Framework which focuses on assessing how the opportunity is changing,

not how visitors are changing. Second, wilderness experiences are multidimensional,

influenced by far more than the conditions people find in wilderness (Manning and Lime

2000, Hendee and Dawson 2002, Borrie and Birzell 2001), and this monitoring, focusing

on the mandate of the Wilderness Act, will not track how these other dimensions of the

experience are changing over time.

What the framers of the Wilderness Act specifically meant by solitude or a primitive

and unconfined type of recreation is not recorded in the legislative history of the

Act. In such situations, the dictionary is used to define the common meaning of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 17

words (see Meyer 2000 for guidelines on using legislative history and interpretation).

In addition, early wilderness writings paint a rich picture about the type of experience

envisioned in wilderness environments. There are a variety of ways to categorize the

themes emerging from these wilderness writings (Borrie 1995, Kaye 2000, Hendee and

Dawson 2002). For this monitoring Framework, the language from Section 2(c) of the

1964 Wilderness Act is used to structure discussion of this quality around three core

themes: solitude, primitive recreation, and unconfined recreation. Along with providing

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation,

“inspiration” and “physical and mental challenge” are also identified in Forest Service

Policy (Forest Service Manual 2320.3, 2330.6, and 2323.12) and subsequent wilderness

legislation (in particular, the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1975). Discussion of the

three core themes includes these additional values of inspiration and physical and mental

challenge. Each core theme is described first with quotes from prominent wilderness

writers, and then in terms of this monitoring Framework.

• Solitude. Marshall (1930) expressed this notion as: “For me, and for thousands with

similar inclinations, the most important passion of life is the overpowering desire

to escape periodically from the clutches of a mechanistic civilization. To us, the

enjoyment of solitude, complete independence, and the beauty of undefiled

panoramas is absolutely essential to happiness.” Leopold (1949) wrote, “Recreation is valuable in proportion to the intensity of its experiences, and to the degree

to which it differs from and contrasts with workaday life.” And Zahniser (1956)

wrote, “We have a profound, fundamental need for areas of wilderness – a need that

is ... essential to our understanding of ourselves, our culture, our own natures, and

our place in nature.” Solitude is defined as the “state of being alone or remote from

society” (Webster’s Dictionary 1976). The meaning of solitude has been at the

center of considerable debate among researchers and the public (for example,

Washington Trails Association 1997), with meanings ranging from a lack of seeing

other people, to privacy, to freedom from societal constraints and obligations, to

freedom from management regulations (Hollenhorst and Jones 2001). Given the

content of early wilderness writings, it is likely that solitude was viewed holistically, encompassing attributes such as separation from people and civilization,

inspiration (an awakening of the senses, connection with the beauty of nature and

the larger community of life) and a sense of timelessness (allowing one to let go of

day-to-day obligations, go at one’s own pace, and spend time reflecting).

• Primitive recreation. Leopold (1949) expressed the sense of primitive recreation

as: “Wildernesses are first of all a series of sanctuaries for the primitive arts of

wilderness travel, especially canoeing and packing.” Marshall wrote that “a

wilderness journey provides the ideal conditions for developing physical hardiness. If he gets into trouble he must get himself out of it or take the consequences”

(quoted from Zahniser 1956).Primitive is defined as “pertaining to an early age;

characterized by simplicity” (Webster’s Dictionary 1976). Primitive recreation in

wilderness has largely been interpreted as travel by nonmotorized and nonmechanical

means (such as horse, foot, canoe) that reinforce the connection to our ancestors

and our American heritage. However, primitive recreation also encompasses

reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on

facilities or outside help.

• Unconfined recreation. Leopold (1949) addressed the importance of opportunities

for unconfined recreation when he wrote, “I am glad I shall never be young without

wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot

on the map.” Marshall (1937) wrote passionately about the adventure and challenge of primitive, unconfined environments: “To countless people the wilderness
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

provides the ultimate delight because it combines the thrills of jeopardy and beauty.

It is the last stand for that glorious adventure into the physically unknown.”

Unconfined means “not kept within limits” and encompasses attributes such as

self-discovery, exploration, and freedom from societal or managerial controls

(Lucas 1983, Nash 1996, Hendee and Dawson 2002). Primitive and unconfined

environments provide ideal opportunities for the physical and mental challenges

associated with adventure, real consequences for mistakes, and personal growth

that result from facing and overcoming obstacles (Dustin and McAvoy 2000,

Borrie 2000).

Wilderness visitors generally believe that the attributes described in these three core

themes define wilderness (Brown and Haas 1980, Hall 2001, Kaye 2000, Kendra and

Hall 2000). However, the complexity of human experiences suggests that many factors

contribute in known and unknown ways to the experience of solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation. For example, experiences may be influenced by factors largely

beyond the control and influence of managers, including attributes of the physical

landscape, the presence of certain animals (such as mosquitoes and grizzly bears), local

weather, intra- and intergroup dynamics, and the skills and knowledge an individual

brings to the experience. In contrast, managers may exert some control over use levels,

types and patterns of use, level of development (both inside and adjacent to wilderness),

amount and type of information available about the wilderness, and kinds of regulations

imposed, all of which influence the opportunity to experience solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation (Lucas 1973, Cole and others 1987, McDonald and others

1989, Watson 1995, Patterson and others 1998, Cole 2001, Hollenhorst and Jones 2001).

These latter factors suggest that managers strive to protect outstanding opportunities in

wilderness by:

• Minimizing the number of people seen or heard.

• Minimizing the sounds and sights of motorized equipment and mechanical

transport.

• Promoting “primitive” means of traveling, camping, and accomplishing stewardship work.

• Promoting self-reliance by minimizing developments and facilities.

• Promoting unconfined recreation by minimizing regulatory controls and maximizing the opportunity visitors have to make their own choices and discover things for

themselves.

• Allowing some degree of challenge, such as streams that must be forded, log

stringers in rivers that must be negotiated, rough trails.

• Maximizing the contrast of the wilderness environment with the sounds and sights

of civilization so that natural sounds and sights dominate.

• Promoting immersion in nature.

This monitoring Framework does not and will not establish standards for what is an

acceptable degree of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Such standards

need to be developed at the local level incorporating enabling legislation, planning

direction, and place-based information about the area. This Framework is solely intended

to give managers a tool to evaluate how selected conditions and actions that influence the

outstanding opportunities visitors have available to experience solitude or a primitive

and unconfined type of recreation are changing over time.

To date, social science in wilderness has primarily focused on understanding wilderness visitor characteristics and exploring issues related to use density. These investigations have led to greater understanding about the nature of wilderness experiences, but
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 19

meaningful correlations between experience quality and measures of crowding have not

emerged (Patterson and Hammitt 1990, Watson and Williams 1995, Borrie and Birzell

2001, Cole 2001). Very little research has been done to explore how specific wilderness

conditions influence the opportunity for people to experience solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation, and it is unrealistic to expect this monitoring Framework

to answer basic research questions. However, in order to fulfill the mandate of the

Wilderness Act, managers must strive to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude

or primitive and unconfined recreation. Understanding how these outstanding opportunities are changing over time is the first defense managers have to guard against the loss

of this essential wilderness quality.

3.5 How Legislated Uses and Special Provisions Affect These Four Qualities

In this national monitoring Framework, legislated uses and special provisions are

monitored for their impacts on wilderness character. Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act

states that there are several legislated uses of wilderness: “Except as otherwise provided

in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational,

scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” Section 4(d) of the

Wilderness Act contains several special provisions allowing activities that would

typically be prohibited in wilderness, such as mining and commercial livestock grazing,

or landing of aircraft or use of motorboats, where these uses were already established

before wilderness designation. Subsequent wilderness legislation often includes specific

language to continue activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the 1964

Wilderness Act (reviewed in Hendee and Dawson 2002). For example, several laws have

special provisions allowing mining (for example, Central Idaho Act, West Virginia

Wilderness Act, Florida Wilderness Act), wildlife management activities (for example,

Wyoming Wilderness Act, California Desert Protection Act), and structures (for example, Utah Wilderness Act, Vermont Wilderness Act, Arizona Wilderness Act) that

would otherwise be prohibited.

Although the managing agency may be required to allow all legislated uses and special

provisions, none of these uses or provisions from the 1964 Wilderness Act or from

subsequent laws modify or amend the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness, or the

Section 4(b) direction that agencies preserve wilderness character when allowing other

uses (Hendee and Dawson 2002). This monitoring Framework therefore does not include

the uses or special provisions from the Wilderness Act of 1964, or from other wilderness

legislation, as a part of wilderness character. For example, while aircraft landing strips

may be legally allowed inside the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, they are

not part of the wilderness character in this wilderness. The impacts to wilderness

character from all such legally allowed uses and special provisions are monitored in this

national Framework.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) is perhaps

the most important example of legislated use and special provision language because this

one law established roughly 55 percent of the area in the entire National Wilderness

Preservation System and about 16 percent of National Forest System wilderness acreage

(Landres and Meyer 2000). Recognizing the unique conditions in Alaska and the

importance of subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, ANILCA includes special

provisions allowing subsistence hunting and gathering of natural resources inside

wilderness, certain uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport (including

snowmobiles, motorboats, and airplanes), maintenance of existing cabins and building

new ones for public use, and permanent facilities for fisheries management. These

special provisions range in applicability from the general public to Alaska Natives and

non-Native rural resident subsistence users, and to individual special use permit holders.

With the passage of ANILCA, however, Congress did not modify the basic provisions
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

of the 1964 Wilderness Act (Hendee and Dawson 2002), the definition of wilderness, or

the mandate to preserve wilderness character. While ANILCA’s special provision uses

may be legally allowed, they also may diminish certain qualities of wilderness as defined

in Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act and are therefore monitored for their impacts

to wilderness character over time.

3.6 Defining Baseline Conditions and How These Four Qualities Change Over Time

Baseline conditions are the reference point against which change over time in the

indicators and four qualities of wilderness is measured and evaluated. Ideally this

baseline is described at the time a wilderness is designated. For already designated

wildernesses, appropriate historic data, if available, may be used to describe retrospectively this baseline condition. However, few existing wildernesses actually have this

information, so baseline condition would most likely be described the first time this

monitoring Framework is applied. When newly designated wildernesses use this

Framework to describe baseline conditions, change in the indicators and qualities of

wilderness can be evaluated from this baseline forward in time.

There are two important implications from describing baseline conditions at the time

of designation or the first time this monitoring Framework is applied:

• For existing wildernesses, describing baseline conditions from the first time this

monitoring Framework is applied may not give an accurate picture of how the

wilderness has changed since the time of designation or an accurate picture of

historical changes prior to designation.

• For newly designated wildernesses, describing baseline conditions in terms of this

monitoring Framework may not give an accurate picture of historical changes that

occurred within the wilderness prior to the start of this monitoring.

Baseline conditions are simply the beginning point for tracking change and do not

imply that these conditions are “good,” “bad,” or “desired.” For example, at the time of

designation a wilderness may have existing roads. In this monitoring Framework such

roads would be part of the baseline condition of this wilderness, and monitoring would

simply show how the undeveloped quality of wilderness stays the same if the roads are

not removed, and improves if these roads are removed. This will allow wilderness

managers to evaluate how wilderness character is changing over time in accordance with

the Wilderness Management Model (fig. 2 as modified from Forest Service Manual

2320.6). Baseline conditions are the starting point for tracking change over time; local

interpretation is crucial for placing this change in its proper historical and legislative

context, and for evaluating its relevance.

4. ANALYZING, REPORTING, AND USING THESE MONITORING DATA ______

This section describes the overall strategy for how collected data will be analyzed,

reported, and used. The actual protocols for these actions will be developed in the

forthcoming Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness

Character.

4.1 Evaluating Current Status and Trends

The goal of this monitoring is to determine if wilderness character is stable, improving, or degrading over time. This goal is accomplished by evaluating the status and trends

of the indicators to answer the monitoring questions. These answers are then used to

determine how the four qualities and ultimately wilderness character are changing over

time. The types of indicators and analyses will be nationally consistent, allowing
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 21

compilation and summarization of data regionally and nationally, even though the

baseline condition for an indicator is unique to each wilderness. For example, if the

number of campsites is used as a measure of the recreation sites indicator, then all

wildernesses would consistently collect these data and perform subsequent analyses,

even though the baseline number of campsites for each wilderness would be different.

Overall, this evaluation is composed of two phases: an analysis phase providing a

detailed evaluation of individual measures and indicators, and a synthesis phase

providing an overall picture of how the qualities of wilderness character are changing

over time.

4.1.1 Analysis of Core Measures and Core Indicators

In this phase, the analysis of specific measures or groups of measures for a given

indicator is performed. Standard analytical, graphing, and display techniques allow indepth understanding of the status of an individual measure or indicator. Two general

types of data analysis and presentation are needed for each measure and indicator:

comparison of the currently measured data value against the baseline data value, and

long-term trends (where the data allow). Each of the indicators will vary in the period that

is relevant for evaluating change, and these periods will be described in the Technical

Guide. Supporting text would explain any data quality limitations and the type of

baseline data used.

Local wilderness managers may need or want detailed analyses of the core measures

and indicators. In addition to this detailed analysis, regional and national wilderness

program managers may want more general and standardized information on how each

of the measures and indicators have changed between monitoring periods. Because the

sampling unit for each measure is different, change in the measure and indicator will

expressed as a standardized or “normalized” change (fig. 5), ranging from –1 (a decline

of 100 percent) to +1 (a gain of 100 percent). (Simply expanding the scale can easily show

change greater or less than 100 percent, but it is not anticipated that such large changes

would occur.) Normalizing the data in this way may be useful for understanding and

communicating how the measures and indicators are changing but requires data from two

monitoring periods.

Figure 5—An example directional histogram for some of the individual measures associated

with the “undeveloped” wilderness quality. Data values for each measure have been normalized

by comparing the current observed value with the baseline reference value. The result is a scale

ranging from +1 (the current observed value is 100 percent greater than the baseline value)

to –1 (100 percent less than the baseline value). If there is no change between the current and

baseline value, the data value is 0 (as shown for the # dams above).
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

4.1.2 Synthesis of Wilderness Qualities and Wilderness Character

Although evaluating detailed information on individual measures and indicators is

critical, the synthesis phase of the evaluation process helps managers understand the

larger picture—the status and trends of qualities related to wilderness character and

whether wilderness character is stable, improving, or degrading. The purpose of this

synthesis is to facilitate this larger, more comprehensive understanding in a narrative and

diagrammatic form. There are at least two important reasons for developing and using

such integrative diagrams to portray wilderness qualities and wilderness character. First,

the Wilderness Act mandates the Forest Service to preserve wilderness character, not

four separate qualities of wilderness. An amoeba diagram (see fig. 6 for an example)

displaying the four qualities in one figure provides a better approximation of wilderness

character than any single wilderness quality could on its own. This single representation

of all the qualities makes the impacts associated with certain decisions clearer. Using

herbicides to eradicate invasive weeds, for example, may improve the natural quality of

wilderness character while adversely affecting the untrammeled quality. Second, a single

diagram is potentially more powerful and effective for communicating the overall status

and trend of wilderness qualities and wilderness character to a broad audience, including

the public, agency decisionmakers and policymakers, and legislators (Failing and

Gregory 2003).

This synthesis will not produce a single numerical index of each wilderness quality or

of wilderness character. Such a numerical index would be theoretically and practically

invalid because of the uniqueness of each wilderness (as explained in Section 2

Developing National Monitoring of Conditions Related to Wilderness Character),

leading to inappropriate comparisons among the different legislated qualities of wilderness, as well as among different wildernesses. Certain comparisons among wildernesses

based on this monitoring Framework, however, may be appropriate and useful. For

example, it may be useful for a regional wilderness program manager to compare

administrative use of motorized equipment or mechanical transportation across several

wildernesses. Any such comparisons, along with their uses and limitations, will be

developed in the Technical Guide.

Many graphical display techniques facilitate synthesis of distinct elements, including

amoeba (or radar) diagrams and wind roses. Specific recommendations for these

diagrammatic tools will be developed in the Technical Guide. Amoeba diagrams

graphically represent the performance of different elements that cannot be expressed

mathematically as a function of one another (fig. 6); in other words, elements cannot be

combined. Each “ray” of the amoeba diagram represents an indicator with values along

the ray showing the normalized or percent change of the indicator. When all the

normalized data points from each ray are connected, the resulting amoeba shape

represents visually the differences among time periods or between the current year and

the expected baseline condition (fig. 6). No summary statistics or aggregate values are

generated. Instead, the amoeba diagram is simply a graphical way to tell the stories of

how a suite of indicators contribute to the overall status and trend of each wilderness

quality and of wilderness character. Standard “plug-in” templates will be developed

using data stored in Infra-WILD to automatically produce the appropriate amoeba

diagram.

In addition to these amoeba diagrams of a legislative wilderness quality, it may be

possible to develop specific amoeba diagrams or other syntheses of data to evaluate

distinct parts of the definition of wilderness, specific stewardship concerns, or specific

threats. For example, separate amoeba diagrams could be produced focusing on specific

aspects of “motorized equipment and mechanical transportation,” or on specific concerns with “urban proximate,” large, or small wildernesses. Amoeba diagrams or other
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 23

syntheses of the normalized data could also be used to understand regional or national

trends in how wildernesses are changing in relation to their own baseline. All data

syntheses will be described in the Technical Guide.

4.2 Reporting on Current Status and Trends

The goal for reporting is to describe the current status and trends over time of the

indicators, the monitoring questions, the four qualities related to wilderness character,

and of wilderness character within an area as stable, improving, or degrading, compared

to the baseline conditions in that area. In addition, reporting would offer detailed, sitespecific information on the likely reasons and causes for the status and trends reported.

To facilitate reporting, standardized database queries will be developed. Monitoring

reports would not define or set recommended values or “desired future conditions” for

the qualities of wilderness or for wilderness character because such standards would need

to be developed through formal planning processes. Details of reporting frequency,

organization, and content will be described in the Technical Guide for Monitoring

Selected Condition Related to Wilderness Character.

The report’s highlights or the whole report could be included in the monitoring and

evaluation report issued by the National Forest, as required by planning regulations.

Figure 6—An example amoeba diagram for trends in the untrammeled quality of wilderness. The

straight black lines divide the circle into four zones for each monitoring question under this

untrammeled quality. Each concentric ring shows the normalized (or percent) change in each

indicator (1.0 is 100 percent increase from the previous sampling period, 0.5 is a 50 percent

increase, –0.5 is a decline of 50 percent, and –1.0 is a 100 percent decline). The thin double ring

shows “no change,” that is, 0 percent change in the indicator between monitoring periods. Each

ray represents an indicator, and the normalized percent change of each indicator in this example

is shown by the black squares in relation to the concentric rings. In this example, an increase in

the percentage of “trammelings” represents a decrease in this untrammeled quality of wilderness.

The heavy black line connecting the squares shows an overall graphic portrayal of the trends in

this untrammeled quality.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

Furthermore, these compiled monitoring data may be useful for the annual “State of the

Wilderness” report to Congress, as required by the 1964 Wilderness Act.

4.3 Using This Monitoring Information

This monitoring is a tool that will help managers improve wilderness stewardship by

gathering and synthesizing information at the local, regional, and national levels about

conditions and actions related to the central mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act—

preserving wilderness character. Information from this monitoring will help answer key

questions about wilderness character and wilderness stewardship:

• What is the current state of wilderness character?

• How is wilderness character changing over time?

• How are stewardship actions affecting wilderness character?

• What stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve wilderness character?

Forest Service national policy (Forest Service Manual 2320.6) directs managers to

improve, or at least maintain, wilderness character relative to the conditions that existed

at the time of designation. This monitoring provides local, regional, and national

managers a way to assess whether or not wilderness stewardship programs are improving

or maintaining conditions related to wilderness character over time and fulfilling agency

policy. Each of the different components of this monitoring program (qualities, questions, indicators, and measures) reflects only part of the wilderness character in an area,

and may not be sufficient on their own to evaluate change. Together, however, the

“weight of evidence” from the compilation of multiple indicators should be sufficient to

evaluate change and to identify where future stewardship efforts could be focused to

“preserve wilderness character.”

4.3.1 Using This Monitoring Information at the Local Level

For most wildernesses, the first time this Framework is applied the information will

describe the “baseline” state of conditions related to wilderness character. With first-year

monitoring information, managers will be able to examine only the status of individual

indicators and use this information to inform decisions if locally-developed standards

defining acceptable conditions have been established for some of the measures. However, with only baseline information it will not be possible to evaluate whether these

conditions related to wilderness character are stable, improving, or declining. This

monitoring will have greater value in subsequent years when it will be possible to

evaluate how conditions related to wilderness character are changing over time. Trend

information over 5 years or more and information that transcends the careers of

individual wilderness managers will be especially powerful in efforts to preserve

wilderness character. For example, knowing the number and type of actions taken to

manipulate vegetation occurring now versus what will occur 10 years from now is a

valuable indicator about whether management programs are trending toward more or less

interference with natural processes. Similarly, knowing the number of campsites that

exist today versus the number that will exist 5 years or more from now is a valuable

indicator about whether the evidence of human occupation and modification is increasing or decreasing. Such trend information can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of

existing stewardship programs and help prioritize what actions will most improve

wilderness character.

This monitoring information will also be useful in other ways at the local wilderness

level. Wilderness managers may use the logical structure of this Framework to organize

NEPA documentation for proposed actions. For example, a manager may analyze the

effects of a proposed action such as the use of prescribed fire on the untrammeled,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 25

undeveloped, natural, and outstanding opportunities qualities of wilderness. By explicitly analyzing the effects of a proposed action on these qualities of wilderness, managers

can make informed decisions that result in a net benefit to wilderness character.

Additionally, this Framework can be used to develop wilderness direction and monitoring requirements in Forest Plans. For example, desired future condition direction could

be described in terms of the desired untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and outstanding

opportunities qualities for the particular wilderness. Individual indicators and measures

from this Framework could be incorporated into Forest Plan monitoring requirements

along with additional monitoring requirements unique to each wilderness. For example,

local managers could ask themselves, “Are we monitoring the right things?” and “What

should we be monitoring?” in light of the qualities, questions, and indicators discussed

in this Framework.

Monitoring information about locally important or place-dependent aspects of wilderness character is also important, and this Framework is intended to compliment—not

replace—these local information needs. It is recognized that some wildernesses have

insufficient resources for any monitoring, and in these cases this Framework will provide

a minimum set of core information requirements.

4.3.2 Using This Monitoring Information at the Regional and National

Level

At the regional and national level, the information from this monitoring Framework has

two primary uses: to improve agency performance measurement, and to improve agency

policy review and oversight to support wilderness stewardship needs at the local level.

• Agency Performance Measurement. Information from this monitoring Framework

can be incorporated into agency performance measurement and reporting systems.

To fulfill the mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness

character,” the agency needs to account for trends in wilderness character across

National Forest System wildernesses. Having nationally consistent indicators

allows compilation of trend information to produce simple graphic and narrative

summaries showing the number of wildernesses in which wilderness character is

stable, improving, or declining. The summary can also show which qualities are

most significant in creating the overall trend picture for wilderness character.

Simple displays that capture the essence of complex concepts offer a powerful

communication tool for both “external” and “internal” uses. The “external” use

would be reporting to Congress and other interested stakeholders on agency

wilderness stewardship performance. This reporting could be built into a “State of

the Wilderness” report and an annual report of the Forest Service. The “internal”

use would be for agency evaluation of whether current priorities are appropriate

and if the level of investment (funding, staffing, attention of leadership) is

sufficient to meet the intent of Congress.

• Agency Policy Review and Oversight. Information from this monitoring Framework can be used to help evaluate if current wilderness management policy is

fulfilling the mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness character.” If wilderness character across the Forest Service is declining, a review of

policy implementation may provide information on whether this decline is due to

existing policies that are not being consistently implemented, or to existing policies

that are consistently implemented but are insufficient to preserve wilderness

character. For example, a widespread trend showing an increase in the number of

administrative uses of motorized equipment could trigger a review about why this

is occurring. Such a review could examine whether current policies are sufficient,

examine the consistency of policy implementation, and assess the need for higher

level direction to help stabilize or reverse the trend.
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

5. CHANGE MANAGEMENT: REVISING AND IMPROVING THIS MONITORING

PROGRAM OVER TIME _____________________________________________

A change management process to revise and improve this monitoring program over

time will be described in detail in the forthcoming Technical Guide and will include the

following topics:

• The need for a dedicated team responsible for overseeing the change management

process and for reviewing and evaluating implementation of this monitoring.

• A regularly scheduled process for reviewing and evaluating the implementation

and success of this monitoring program, including:

o Frequency of this review

o Appropriateness of the currently used legislated wilderness qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures

o Need for changing or adding new monitoring questions, indicators, and measures and the process used to develop, test, and incorporate these

o Data collection, storage, and analysis procedures

o Peer and program review of the proposed revisions

• The circumstances that would trigger a special review of this monitoring program

and the process, if different from the regular process, that would be followed to

accomplish this review

• The potential for each Forest Service region or forest to supplement this wilderness

monitoring Framework

A change management process is necessary in all monitoring programs, but especially

so in this Framework because a national program to monitor selected conditions related

to wilderness character has never been attempted before. The desire to change and

improve on indicators and measures that have already been selected, however, needs to

be tempered by the potential loss of compatibility between the new indicators and the old

ones. Close interaction between managers and scientists will be needed to evaluate the

effectiveness of this monitoring program, and for generating new research on the

appropriateness and effectiveness of the four qualities of wilderness, monitoring questions, and the core indicators and measures (Landres and others 1994). Research will also

be needed to gain better understanding of the experiences, meanings, and benefits

associated with wilderness character and how these are affected by stewardship actions.

And research will be needed to evaluate the statistical rigor and ability to make inferences

from the data collected under this monitoring Framework.

6. APPENDICES ___________________________________________________

These appendices provide information that, while not crucial for understanding this

conceptual Framework for monitoring wilderness character, is important for understanding the context of the monitoring terms and definitions used in this Framework, potential

indicators being considered for development in the Technical Guide, how this monitoring fits within the broader the agency monitoring context, and how this Framework was

developed and who developed it.

6.1 Monitoring Terms and Definitions

There are different definitions for “monitoring” but all convey the same basic elements:

data are collected to answer particular questions; data are collected in a standardized,

systematic fashion; and data are collected over time. A successful monitoring program is

composed of four necessary components that drive one another (fig. 7). First, monitoring
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 27

goals need to be established, with a clear explanation of how these are derived and their

relevance to management. Second, these goals drive the selection of what will be

monitored, allowing managers to evaluate accomplishment toward the goals. Third,

standardized methods need to be developed and tested for how these indicators will be

monitored—that is, collecting the data. And fourth, standardized methods need to be

developed and tested for analyzing, reporting, and using the resulting data.

Wright and others (2002) discuss the nuances of many terms commonly used in

monitoring programs. They recommend the phrase reference value as the most inclusive

and general term for giving “a point of reference to help interpret what we know about

an indicator ... to help us assess whether we are moving forward in the desired direction.”

In contrast, this monitoring protocol uses the term baseline because it conveys the

specific sense of “initial conditions” from which long-term trends in the four qualities of

wilderness may be evaluated.

Several other commonly used terms are not used in this monitoring Framework.

Standard is an agreed upon measurable target, often defined in a Forest Plan, and may

define a legal or regulatory target. Standards are based on a unique combination of

legislative direction, ecological and cultural setting, public discussion, and administrative direction for a specific area. Therefore, this monitoring Framework does not propose

or endorse any national standards for measures associated with the qualities of wilderness. Benchmark is a “point of reference against which a measurement can be made and

against which others may judge progress” (Wright and others 2002). While this term does

convey the notion of “initial conditions,” it also is commonly used in the sense of a

“guidepost” to assess progress toward some desired future condition, and therefore it was

deemed inappropriate for this Framework. Trigger and threshold are used to denote a

specific condition that, when reached, causes a specific action to occur. Triggers and

thresholds are not appropriate in this national Framework for two reasons: this Framework assesses long-term trends and does not determine the actions that occur as a result

of these trends, and similar to standards, they must be determined at the level of the

individual wilderness.

6.2 Monitoring Questions, Potential Core Indicators, and Potential Core Measures

As explained in Section 2.2 The Logical Basis for Monitoring Conditions Related to

Wilderness Character, each of the four qualities derived from Section 2(c) of the

Wilderness Act is progressively divided into a set of monitoring questions, potential core

indicators, and potential core measures. Each of these phrases has a specific meaning in

this monitoring Framework:

• Monitoring questions are the relatively distinct components contained within each

of the qualities of wilderness. These questions reflect the best professional

judgment of the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee about the

Figure 7—The four necessary elements of a monitoring program.
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

components that directly relate to the statutory language in Section 2(c) of the

Wilderness Act and that may be practically monitored. Although the phrase

“monitoring questions” is used in this Framework for conformance with other

Forest Service monitoring protocols, each question is functionally equivalent to

what is often considered a monitoring goal or “endpoint” as described by Failing

and Gregory (2003).

• Core indicators are the types of information used to answer each monitoring

question. In this national monitoring Framework, each wilderness would be

required to report on the status of each core indicator. Further discussion about

these core indicators is presented in Section 6.2.1 below.

• Core measures are the types of numeric values that are measured or derived to

quantify the indicator. These data will be reliable (that is, different people, when

trained, would collect the same data), practical (the data are easy and cheap to

collect), and repeatable (data collection is standardized over time and across all

National Forest System wildernesses). Core measures will be developed in the

forthcoming Technical Guide to Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to

Wilderness Character and are not reported here.

6.2.1 Further Discussion About Core Indicators

Monitoring programs often use the term “variable” to describe the type(s) of

information required to answer specific monitoring questions. In contrast, “indicator” is

purposefully used in this Framework. The term “indicator” is used when the actual

variables of interest are too difficult or costly to monitor or when it is uncertain exactly

what types of information are needed to answer the monitoring question (National

Research Council 2000, Dale and Beyeler 2001). There is little existing guidance on the

types of information needed to answer the monitoring questions posed in this Framework

and on the relationship between these questions and the qualities of wilderness. The term

“indicator” is therefore more appropriate for this monitoring framework.

The indicators used in this Framework are surrogates that estimate conditions related

to wilderness character based on best professional judgment and the available scientific

literature. Each indicator reveals a relatively small and partial understanding about the

quality of wilderness. Change in an indicator is foremost a red flag for further investigation, both about the conditions the indicator is tracking and about the appropriateness of

the indicator and the quality of the data. Evaluating trends in a quality of wilderness

should be based on how the set of all indicators is changing, rather than change in any

one indicator (Failing and Gregory 2003). The indicators currently in the Framework are

a first iteration that will be revised over time, and new indicators and measures will be

developed based on experience from this monitoring effort and new research. These

indicators will likely be most effective for evaluating change over relatively long periods.

Using four relatively discrete qualities of wilderness means that some indicators could

fit under more than one quality. For example, a dam and its effects could be monitored

under all four qualities:

• “Untrammeled” – because the dam was built to manipulate water flows inside

wilderness.

• “Natural” – because the dam causes ecological impacts to natural streams.

• “Undeveloped” – because the “dam is an imprint of man’s work.”

• “Outstanding opportunities” – because the dam may interfere with the outstanding

opportunity visitors have to experience a primitive recreation environment.

Such crosscutting indicators are not intended to be more important than any other

indicator within this monitoring Framework. Instead, such crosscutting indicators reflect
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 29

the holistic nature of wilderness character. In some cases an indicator may be placed

under just one quality if it appears directly and primarily connected to it. In other cases,

an indicator may be placed in more than one quality to monitor subtle differences among

the different qualities. For example, in the case of dams, the action to build a dam is

monitored in the untrammeled quality, the ratio of stream miles to number of dams is

monitored as a surrogate for the ecological effects of dams, the presence of the dam as

a structure is monitored in the undeveloped quality, and its presence would also affect

the amount of area free of development under the outstanding opportunities quality.

6.2.2 Criteria for Selecting Core Indicators

Indicators were selected by applying nine criteria, grouped into four broader categories of feasibility, significance, responsiveness, and credibility. The categories and

criteria used in selecting indicators are:

Feasibility

• Affordable: the indicator is relatively inexpensive to monitor or data for it already

exist.

• Practical: the indicator does not cause a significant increase in workload or require

significant funding and skill levels.

Significance

• Useful: the indicator has value and meaning for the quality of wilderness that can

be applied to all National Forest System wildernesses, and it has value and meaning

to managers of an individual wilderness.

• Explainable: the indicator and its value toward assessing the quality of wilderness

are explainable to a layperson.

Responsiveness

• Responsive: the indicator responds readily to management actions.

• Free from environmental variation: the indicator is relatively free from environmental variation and changes in the indicator can be reasonably attributed to the

effects of modern people or management actions.

Credibility

• Measurable: the indicator can be measured accurately with a high degree of

confidence.

• Reliable: the indicator yields the same result when measured by different people

when conditions are the same.

• Repeatable: the indicator yields the same result when measured over time and

across different wildernesses when conditions are the same.

While an attempt was made to maximize application of all the criteria in choosing each

indicator, feasibility criteria were generally given the most weight. Giving feasibility the

most weight means that only a small number of indicators will be used for any given

monitoring question. For example, under the natural quality, only a few of the many

different indicators used to monitor air quality related values are initially recommended

for monitoring because data are already being collected for them in many wildernesses,

and equal-value isogram lines may be used to interpolate data for all other National Forest

System wildernesses across the United States.

Some indicators were selected because they were considered critical to wilderness

character even though they may not be entirely under the control of Federal land

managers. Light pollution that degrades night sky related values, for example, may be

considered a component of the natural quality of wilderness. It is important to report on

the trends in these indicators over time because they may reflect broad, regional impacts

to the local wilderness character regardless of managers’ ability to alter those trends. In
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

addition, monitoring these external factors is sometimes a good and less expensive proxy

for measuring the actual quality within wilderness.

The desired or needed level of certainty of monitoring data, determined in large part

by the purpose for which the information will be used, strongly affects selection of

indicators. Highly contentious issues, for example, require highly accurate and precise

data to answer very specific questions, in turn requiring indicators and sampling methods

of typically great cost. By carefully selecting indicators that provide general information

on national trends in the wilderness qualities, this national monitoring program strives

to reduce costs by optimizing certainty and feasibility. For example, as described in the

next section, actions that manipulate plants and animals are used as an indicator of

impacts to the untrammeled quality of wilderness, providing data of relatively high

certainty and low cost.

6.2.3 Table of Monitoring Questions and Potential Core Indicators

Each quality of wilderness and its related monitoring question(s) and potential core

indicators are presented in the hierarchical table on page 31. The potential core

indicators described in this table are merely illustrative and not final because they will

certainly change based on the work of the subject-matter experts and their associated

Technical Teams who are developing the Technical Guide for Monitoring Conditions

Related to Wilderness Character. For example, the indicators currently are not

structured or worded to be consistent in their directionality, as they will be in the

Technical Guide.

Under the “monitoring question” column, italics clarify and emphasize how specific

monitoring questions under each quality differ from one another. Under the “potential

core indicator” column, examples, in italics, are given in some cases to clarify the specific

types of indicators that would be monitored; these examples are meant to be illustrative,

not exhaustive. Potential core measures are not reported in this table because the

Technical Teams will develop them.

6.3 The Context of Agency Wilderness Monitoring

The need for a national program of wilderness monitoring within the Forest Service

and the other wilderness managing agencies has long been recognized. Since 1985, there

have been five formal recommendations calling for improved wilderness monitoring,

and two task forces charged with developing wilderness monitoring direction. Several

of these efforts were in response to a Government Accounting Office (1989) report on

Forest Service wilderness management, which found that the agency could not assess the

status and trends of wilderness conditions because of a lack of monitoring. Cole (1990),

reviewing the status of wilderness management since passage of the Wilderness Act in

1964, concluded that monitoring, along with other actions, was needed for “professional

wilderness management.” Recently, the Forest Service wilderness agenda and action

plan “Thinking Like a Mountain” (USDA Forest Service 2000) identified wilderness

monitoring as one of the top three priorities for improving the agency’s capacity for

wilderness stewardship. Similarly, the blue-ribbon panel report “Ensuring the Stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System” (Pinchot Institute 2001) identified

wilderness monitoring as one of four key recommendations to improving wilderness

stewardship. Despite all these calls for wilderness monitoring and the work of two task

forces, no national program of wilderness monitoring has yet been developed.

6.3.1 How This Effort Is Different From Previous Agency Wilderness

Monitoring Efforts

This current effort is different from past agency efforts to develop wilderness

monitoring in four important ways. These differences are partly due to different
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 31

Quality of

Wilderness

Monitoring

Question

Potential Core Indicator

Actions that control or manipulate (for

example, actions that ignite fire, 

mechanically reduce fuels, physically

remove plants or animals, introduce plants

or animals, amend soil or water, apply

herbicides or pesticides, control flooding)

“Untrammeled” –

wilderness is

essentially

unhindered and

free from modern

human control or

manipulation

What are the status

and trends of

intentional modern

human controls or 

manipulation of

wilderness?

Suppressed natural fire starts

Pollutants that degrade air quality and air

quality related values that affect plants,

animals, soil, water (for example, ozone

and wet deposition)

Developments that degrade the freeflowing condition of rivers and streams (for

example, dams)

Nonnative species that alter the

composition of natural plant and animal

communities (for example, nonnative

plants, animals, fish, livestock,

invertebrates, and pathogens)

What are the status

and trends of human

threats to natural

conditions?

Light pollution that degrades night sky

quality and night sky quality related values

Visibility (for example, anthropogenic fine

nitrate and sulfate, deciview)

Water quality

Ecosystems, plant communities, and plant

species that are rare or at risk

“Natural” –

wilderness

ecological systems

are substantially

free from the

effects of modern

civilization

What are the status

and trends of selected

biophysical conditions

and processes

sensitive to human

threats? Fire regime (for example, fire regime

condition classes)

What are the status

and trends of physical

evidence of modern

human occupation or

modification?

Evidence of physical developments (for

example, buildings, system trails and

major trail features, dams & other instream structures, roads, utility

infrastructure)

“Undeveloped” –

Wilderness is

essentially without

permanent

improvements or

modern human

occupation

What are the status

and trends of the use

of motorized equipment

and mechanical

transport?

Mechanical transport and motorized

equipment use authorizations

Remote, trailless wilderness (for example,

amount of wilderness more than 1⁄4 mile

from open trail or road)

What are the status

and trends of

outstanding

opportunities for

solitude?

Wilderness visitation (for example,

wilderness users within the primary service

area)

“Outstanding

opportunities for

solitude or a 

primitive and

unconfined type

of recreation” –

Wilderness

provides

outstanding

opportunities for

people to

experience

solitude or

primitive and

unconfined

recreation,

including the

values of

inspiration and

physical and

mental challenge.

What are the status

and trends of

outstanding

opportunities for

unconfined recreation?

Management restrictions on visitor

behavior (for example, permits, fees,

quotas, regulations)

What are the status

and trends of

outstanding

opportunities for

primitive recreation?

Creature comforts (for example, amenities

provided by management such as toilets,

shelters, developed water sources,

developed campsites)

Trail development level (for example,

amount of trails in primitive condition

classes)
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

circumstances within the Forest Service now compared to when previous wilderness

monitoring efforts were undertaken, and partly due to choices made during the development of this Framework. Collectively, these differences improve the chances of successfully developing and implementing a national program to monitor selected conditions

related to wilderness character:

• This Framework focuses on a relatively small number of indicators that are cost

effective and explicitly related to the qualities of wilderness. Unlike previous

monitoring efforts that developed extensive lists of conditions that could be

monitored within a wilderness, the indicators within this Framework use data that

are already being collected within the Forest Service or are available nationally.

• This Framework is focused on implementing a program of wilderness monitoring.

Consequently, the Committee developing this Framework is composed largely of

field-level wilderness staff and representatives of key Forest Service national

monitoring programs. These two groups, respectively, ensure practical and relevant management application of this monitoring Framework and facilitate integration of wilderness monitoring across agency organizational levels and resource

programs.

• This Framework is directly tied to several agency monitoring programs, such as the

Infrastructure Project, the Natural Resource Information System, and Forest

Inventory and Analysis. These programs are actively seeking to integrate wilderness information needs into their programs, just as the wilderness program is

seeking to use information from these other programs

• This Framework evaluates trends in conditions related to wilderness character at

the level of an individual wilderness and compiles this information up to the forest,

regional, and national levels. Consequently, instead of offering a variety of

monitoring methods that individual wildernesses may choose from, the forthcoming Technical Guide will describe standardized techniques that are applied consistently across all National Forest wildernesses.

6.3.2 How This Effort Fits With Agency Policy, Forest Planning, and

Budget and Accountability Systems

This monitoring is consistent with existing Forest Service policy. Protecting and

perpetuating wilderness character is a national wilderness management objective (Forest

Service Manual 2320.2, No. 4), and this monitoring enables managers to determine if

wilderness character is stable, declining, or improving over time (Forest Service Manual

2320.6).

With approximately 75 percent of National Forests containing wilderness, a similar

percentage of Forest Plans contain wilderness management direction. Although the

Framework can be implemented without Forest Plan amendment or revision, few current

Forest Plans use wilderness character to describe the desired future condition, standards,

or monitoring requirements. This monitoring Framework provides forests with the

conceptual basis to amend or revise Forest Plans with a focus on this core wilderness

stewardship responsibility.

Although the Forest Service’s new 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and

current budget and performance accountability processes do not directly address

wilderness character, there is overlap between these efforts and this monitoring. In the

short term, implementation of this monitoring will provide useful information for these

efforts. In the long term, this monitoring will allow the Forest Service to explicitly

address preservation of wilderness character in budget and accountability systems.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 33

6.3.3 Integrating This Effort Within the Forest Service and With Other

Federal Agencies

This effort to monitor selected conditions related to wilderness character is integrated within a broader movement to refine and focus inventory and monitoring

activities across the Forest Service. This effort is integrated with these larger efforts in

several ways. First, the Washington Office Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers staff

and Ecosystem Management Coordination staff chartered the Committee developing

this Framework. Second, key representatives from Forest Service national inventory and

monitoring staffs directly participated in developing this Framework. Third, when

completed, this wilderness monitoring will be incorporated into agencywide Inventory

and Monitoring Program Plans. And fourth, this Framework document and the forthcoming Technical Guide follow a standard template used by other monitoring “protocol

development teams” and will become part of the Forest Service directives system.

The other wilderness managing agencies (Bureau of Land Management, National

Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are integrated into this Forest Service

effort to monitor selected conditions related to wilderness character. All wildernesses,

regardless of which agency administers them, are part of a single National Wilderness

Preservation System. Although each of the wilderness-managing agencies has a unique

culture and set of traditions, as well as unique needs for monitoring wilderness, all share

the same legal responsibilities under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent

wilderness legislation. Representatives from each of the other agencies have been active

members of the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee making significant

contributions to this Framework. This participation ensures ongoing interagency communication, with the intent of eventually developing a monitoring program that could be

applied across the entire National Wilderness Preservation System.

6.4 The Process Used to Develop This Framework

This monitoring Framework was developed over 2 years of biannual Committee

meetings, monthly conference calls, two formal reviews, and many informal reviews.

Many different monitoring needs and tasks were identified at the first face-to-face

meeting of the Committee. From among all the tasks and needs that were identified, the

Committee decided to focus on two parallel efforts: (1) develop better integration

between the wilderness program and other resource programs to capitalize on the

monitoring that was already being conducted inside wilderness, and (2) develop a new

protocol to monitor wilderness character because this is what is truly unique in

wilderness, and no other resource program has direction to monitor it.

Initially, a subgroup of the Committee worked to craft the general direction of this

Framework document. As the Framework matured, the entire Committee became

involved, and work on this document has to date dominated the time and energy of the

Committee.

Two specific projects were undertaken and completed to provide background information for developing this Framework. First, the Committee conducted an exploratory

survey in spring 2002 to evaluate the types of monitoring currently being conducted in

all National Forest System wildernesses. This survey showed there was a lot of resourcespecific monitoring, especially related to recreation, but no systematic monitoring of

conditions specifically related to wilderness character. The second project was to

develop specific questions about the Committee’s interpretation of wilderness legislation in crafting the conceptual foundation for this monitoring program. The Committee

solicited informal opinions on these questions from several lawyers familiar with

wilderness legislation and judicial decisions regarding this legislation. In all cases, the

Committee’s interpretation was supported by these informal opinions.
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

The Committee adopted a two-phase review strategy. The purpose of the first review,

conducted in the fall of 2002, was to solicit comments from a relatively small group of

individuals intimately familiar with wilderness and its management. Responses were

received from 37 individuals: 13 from Forest Service personnel; nine from agency,

academic, and nongovernmental organization scientists; seven from the National Park

Service; three from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and one from the Bureau of Land

Management. Three Committee members individually reviewed all responses to ensure

that a particular concern or nuance of a concern wouldn’t be missed if just one person

reviewed the responses. All together, approximately 420 person-hours were spent

reviewing and discussing these comments. Personal responses were sent to each

reviewer with the decision of how the Committee would address each of their comments.

The purpose of the second review, conducted during the summer of 2004, was to solicit

comments from across the entire Forest Service, including all staff areas in National

Forest Systems and Forest Service Research and Development.

In addition to these formal reviews, many informal reviews and discussions took place

over the course of developing this Framework. Both formal and informal reviews and

discussions greatly helped the Committee craft the final concepts presented in this

Framework.

6.5 The Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee

The Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee was chartered in the spring of

2001 by two Washington Office staff groups. The Committee is composed primarily of

staff with direct field experience managing wilderness, and together, Committee

members have a cumulative 130 person-years of experience directly managing wilderness. The Committee also includes representatives from Washington Office monitoring

staffs and from the other Federal wilderness managing agencies to ensure two-way

communication. The Committee is composed of:

• Chris Barns, Bureau of Land Management Representative to the Arthur Carhart

National Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, MT

• Steve Boutcher, Committee co-chair, Wilderness Information Manager, Washington Office-Remote, South Burlington, VT

• Beth Boyst, Wilderness Specialist, White River National Forest, Minturn, CO

• Denis Davis, Strategic Planner, National Park Service Intermountain Regional

Office, Denver, CO

• Troy Hall, Associate Professor, Department of Conservation Social Sciences,

College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID

• MaryBeth Hennessy, Wilderness Management, Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA

(no longer active on the Committee)

• Steve Henry, Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charles M. Russell

National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT

• Brad Hunter, Wilderness and Developed Recreation Manager, Tongass National

Forest, Petersburg, AK

• Patrice Janiga, Assistant Director Design and Quality Assurance, Forest Service

Inventory and Monitoring Institute, Fort Collins, CO

• Mark Laker, Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kenai National Wildlife

Refuge, Soldotna, AK (no longer active on the Committee)

• Peter Landres, Committee co-chair, Research Ecologist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Missoula, MT
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 35

• Al McPherson, Wilderness and Trails Program Manager, George Washington

and Jefferson National Forests, Roanoke, VA

• Linda Merigliano, Recreation/Wilderness/Trails Program Manager, Bridger-Teton

National Forest, Jackson, WY

• Doug Powell, National Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, Washington

Office, Washington, D.C.

• Mike Rowan, Resource Assistant, Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee

National Forest, Naches, WA

• Susan Sater, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Manager, Pacific

Northwest Region, Portland, OR

6.6 References

American Heritage Dictionary. 1992. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Aplet, G.H. 1999. On the nature of wildness: exploring what wilderness really protects. Denver University

Law Review 76:347-367.

Arcese, P. 1997. The role of protected areas as ecological baselines. Journal of Wildlife Management

61:587-602.

Ashley, M.V., M.F. Wilson, O.R.W. Pergams, D.J. O’Dowd, S.M. Gende, and J.S. Brown. 2003.

Evolutionarily enlightened management. Biological Conservation 111:115-123.

Babu, S.C., and W. Reidhead. 2000. Monitoring natural resources for policy interventions: a conceptual

framework, issues, and challenges. Land Use Policy 17:1-11.

Borrie, W.T. 1995. Measuring the multiple, deep, and unfolding aspects of the wilderness experience using

the experience sampling method. Ph.D. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.

Borrie, W.T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the meaning of wilderness. Pages 87-88 in Personal, Societal,

and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedings on Recreation,

Management, and Allocation, Volume II; 1998 Oct 24-29, Bangalore, India (A.E. Watson, G.H. Aplet,

and J.C. Hendee, compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Borrie, W.T., and R.M. Birzell. 2001. Approaches to measuring quality of the wilderness experience. Pages

29-38 in Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience: Proceedings (W.A. Friedmund and D.N. Cole,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-20, Fort Collins, CO.

Brown, P.J., and G.E. Haas. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences: the Rawah case. Journal of Leisure

Research 12: 229-241.

Christensen, N.L. 1995. Fire and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 1(1):30-34.

Cole, D.N. 1990. Wilderness management: has it come of age? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

45:360-364.

Cole, D.N. 1996. Ecological manipulation in wilderness—an emerging management dilemma. International

Journal of Wilderness 2(1):15-19.

Cole, D.N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration

18(2):77-86.

Cole, D.N. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: a historical review of research. Pages 11-

20 in Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience: Proceedings (W.A. Friedmund and D.N. Cole,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-20, Fort Collins, CO.

Cole, D.N. 2002. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. Pages 413-459 in

Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values (J.C. Hendee and C.P.

Dawson, editors). Third Edition. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO.

Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs.

Ecological Applications 6:168-184.

Cole, D.N., M.E. Petersen, and R.C. Lucas. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use: common problems

and potential solutions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-230, Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cowell, C.M., and J.M. Dyer. 2002. Vegetation development in a modified riparian environment: human

imprints on an Allegheny River wilderness. Annals of the Association of American Geographers

92:189-202.

Dale, V.H., and S.C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators.

Ecological Indicators 1:3-10.

Driver, B.L., R. Nash, G. Haas. 1987. Wilderness benefits: a state-of-knowledge review. Pages 294-319 in

Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

(R.C. Lucas, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220, Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Dustin, D.L., and L.H. McAvoy. 2000. Of what avail are forty freedoms: the significance of wilderness in

the 21st century. International Journal of Wilderness 6(2):25-26.

Failing, L., and R. Gregory. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest

policy. Journal of Environmental Management 68:121-132.

Fleischner, T.L. 1992. Preservation is not enough: the need for courage in wilderness management. Pages

236-253 in Wilderness Tapestry: An Eclectic Approach to Preservation (S.I. Zevelof, L.M. Vause, and

W.H. McVaugh, editors). University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.

Government Accounting Office. 1989. Wilderness Preservation: Problems in Some National Forests Should

be Addressed. GAO/RCED-89-202. Washington, DC.

Hall, T.E. 2001. Hikers perspectives on solitude and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness

7(2):20-24.

Heintzman, P. 2003. The wilderness experience and spirituality: what recent research tells us. Leisure Today

74(6):27-31.

Hendee, J.C., and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources

and Values, Third Edition. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO.

Hollenhorst, S.J., and C.D. Jones. 2001. Wilderness solitude: beyond the social-spatial perspective. Pages

56-61 in Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience: Proceedings (W.A. Friedmund and D.N. Cole,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-20, Fort Collins, CO.

Humphrey, H.H. 1957. Testimony June 19-20 for the U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, published hearings on S. 1176.

Kaplan, S., and J.F. Talbot. 1987. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In Behavior and the

Natural Environment (I. Altman and F.F. Wohlwill, editors). Plenum, New York, NY.

Kaye, R.W. 2000. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge: an exploration of the meanings embodied in

America’s last great wilderness. Pages 73-80 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference,

Volume 2: Wilderness Within the Context of Larger Systems (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and

J.O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Kaye, R.W. 2002. Wilderness Character: the Historical Basis, Meaning, and Function of the Concept in the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy of 2001. Manuscript on file at the

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT.

Kendra, A.M., and T.E. Hall. 2000. Is there a shared idea of “wilderness” among outdoor recreationists?

Evidence from three recreation sites. Pages 188-195 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change

Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T.

Borrrie, and J.O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Knapp, R.A., P.S. Corn, and D.E. Schindler. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish into wilderness lakes:

good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended consequences. Ecosystems 4:275-278.

Landres, P. 1992. Temporal scale perspectives in managing biological diversity. Transactions of the North

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:292-307.

Landres, P. 2003. Database of Wilderness Laws and Their Management Language. Excel database on file

at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT.

Landres, P., D.N. Cole, and A. Watson. 1994. A monitoring strategy for the National Wilderness

Preservation System. Pages 192-197 in International Wilderness Allocation, Management, and Research

(J.C. Hendee, V.G. Martin, editors). International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation, Fort

Collins, CO.

Landres P., S. Marsh, L. Merigliano, D. Ritter, and A. Norman. 1998. Boundary effects on national forest

wildernesses and other natural areas. Pages 117-139 in Stewardship Across Boundaries (R.L. Knight and

P.B. Landres, editors). Island Press, Washington, DC.

Landres, P., and S. Meyer. 2000. National Wilderness Preservation System Database: Key Attributes and

Trends, 1964 Through 1999. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-18-Revised

Edition. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Leopold, A. 1921. The wilderness and its place in forest recreational policy. Journal of Forestry

19(7):718-721.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press,

London, England.

Lucas, R.C. 1973. Wilderness: a management framework. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

28:150-154.

Lucas, R.C. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation management. Western Wildlands 9(2): 6-10.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005 37

Manning, R.E., and D.W. Lime. 2000. Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation

experiences. Pages 13-52 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 4: Wilderness

visitors, experiences, and visitor management (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and J.O’Loughlin,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Ogden, UT.

Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilderness. Scientific Monthly 30:141-148.

Marshall, R. 1937. The universe of the wilderness is vanishing. Nature Magazine, April:238.

McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about. Denver University Law

Review 76:369-381.

McDonald, B., R. Guldin, and R. Wetherhill. 1989. The spirit of wilderness: the use and opportunity of

wilderness experience for personal growth. Pages 193-207 in Wilderness benchmark 1988: proceedings

of the national wilderness colloquium (H.R. Freilich, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report SE-51, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

Meyer, S.S. 2000. Legislative interpretation as a guiding tool for wilderness management. Pages 343-347

in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and

management (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and J.O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest

Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Murray, M.P. 1996. Natural processes: wilderness management unrealized. Natural Areas Journal 16:55-61.

Nash, R. 1980. The value of wildness. American Wildlands (Spring):7-10.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Nash, R. 1996. A wilderness ethic for the age of cyberspace. International Journal of Wilderness 2(3):4-5.

Nash, R. 2004. Celebrating Wilderness in 2004. George Wright Forum 21(3):6-8.

National Research Council. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. National Academy Press, Washington,

DC.

Patterson, M.E., and W.E. Hammitt. 1990. Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and

their relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Research 22: 259-275.

Patterson, M.E., A.E. Watson, D.R. Wiliams, and J.R. Roggenbuck. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to

studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 30: 423-452.

Peine, J., J. Burde, and W. Hammitt. 1988. Threats to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Pages

21-29 in Wilderness Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium (H.R.

Freilich, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-51, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, Asheville, NC.

Pickett, S.T.A., and R.S. Ostfeld. 1995. The shifting paradigm in ecology. Pages 261-278 in A New Century

for Natural Resources Management (R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates, editors). Island Press, Washington, DC.

Pinchot Institute. 2001. Ensuring the Stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System. A report

to the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, US Geological Survey. Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC.

Powell, D.S. 2000. Forest Service Framework for Inventory and Monitoring. “White Paper” for the

Washington Office Ecosystem Management Corporate Team and Interregional Ecosystem Management

Coordinating Group, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Public Law 88-577. 1964. Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136.

Putney, A.D., and D. Harmon. 2003. Intangible values and protected areas: towards a more holistic

approach to management. Pages 311-326 in The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible

(Harmon, D., and A.D. Putney, editors). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland.

Roggenbuck, J.W., and B.L. Driver. 2000. Benefits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness. Pages 33-49 in

Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific

Inquiry (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and J.O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service

Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Rohlf, D., and D.L. Honnold. 1988. Managing the balance of nature: the legal framework of wilderness

management. Ecology Law Quarterly 15:249-279.

Schreiber, R.K, and J.R. Newman. 1987. Air quality in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. Pages 104-

134 in Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future

Directions (R.C. Lucas, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220, Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Scott, D.W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness character,” and the challenges of wilderness preservation.

Wild Earth 11(3/4):72-79.

Sellars, R.W. 2000. The path not taken: National Park Service wilderness management. The George Wright

Forum 17(4):4-7.

Udall, S. 1995. Letter to the Editor. Wilderness Watcher 6(1):7.
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. 2005

USDA Forest Service. 1972. Wilderness Policy Review, May 17, 1972, authored by W.A. Worf, C.G.

Gorgensen, and R.C. Lucas. Unpublished document on file at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research

Institute, Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. A Wilderness Agenda: Thinking Like a Mountain. Recreation, Heritage, and

Wilderness Resources Program, Washington, DC.

U.S. Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98-40 from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March

18, page 43.

Washington Trails Association. 1997. Comments on wilderness solitude. Special reprint from Signpost for

Northwest Trails. Seattle, WA.

Waterman, L., and G. Waterman. 1993. Wilderness ethics: preserving the spirit of wildness. Countryman

Press, Woodstock, VT.

Watson, A.E. 1995. Opportunities for solitude in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern

Journal of Applied Forestry 12(1):12-18.

Watson, A.E. 2004. Human relationships with wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 10(3):4-7.

Watson, A.E., and D.R. Williams. 1995. Priorities for human experience research. Trends 32(1):14-18.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. 1976. G. & C. Merriam

Company, Springfield, MA.

Western, D. 2001. Human-dominated ecosystems and future evolution. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science USA 98:5458-5465.

Wolke, H. 2003. National Wilderness Preservation System under siege. Wild Earth 13(1):15-19.

Wright, P.A., G. Alward, T.W. Hoekstra, B. Tegler, and M.G. Turner. 2002. Reference values overview

paper. Pages 157-172 in Monitoring for Forest Management Unit Scale Sustainability: The Local Unit

Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test. USDA Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring

Institute Report No. 4, Fort Collins, CO.

Young, M.K., D. Haire, and M.A. Bozek. 1994. The effect and extent of railroad tie drives in streams of

southeastern Wyoming. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 9:125-130.

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59(Winter to Spring):37-43.

Zahniser, H. 1961. Editorial: Managed to be left unmanaged. The Living Wilderness 76(Spring to

Summer):2.

Zahniser, H. 1963. Editorial: Guardians not gardeners. The Living Wilderness 83(Spring to Summer):2.
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION