Results From the 2014 National 

Wilderness Manager Survey

Ramesh Ghimire, Ken Cordell, Alan Watson, 

Chad Dawson, and Gary T. Green 

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical

Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-336 September 2015
To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/

Ghimire, Ramesh; Cordell, Ken; Watson, Alan; Dawson, Chad; Green, Gary T. 2015. Results 

From the 2014 National Wilderness Manager Survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-336. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 96 p. 

Abstract

A national survey of managers was developed to support interagency wilderness strategic 

planning. The focus was on major challenges, perceived needs for science and training, and 

accomplishments of 1995 Strategic Plan objectives. The survey was administered to managers at the four federal agencies with wilderness management responsibilities: the Bureau of 

Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest 

Service. In spring 2014, responses were received from 368 managers. The highest ranking threat perceived was “lack of political and financial support for wilderness protection and 

management,” followed by “invasive species,” “disconnected urban audiences” and “adjacent 

land use and management.” The greatest need for science-based information was “public attitudes toward intervention to adapt to climate change influences” and “public attitudes toward 

ecological restoration activities.” The majority of managers commonly perceived no or only 

slight accomplishment of previous strategic plan objectives.

Keywords: Wilderness, manager survey, wilderness science, wilderness training, wilderness 

values.

Authors

Ramesh Ghimire is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Georgia, Athens, 

Georgia, ghimire@uga.edu; Ken Cordell is a scientist emeritus at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute, Missoula, Montana, and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, Georgia, kencordell@gmail.com; Alan Watson is 

a social scientist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana, awatson@

fs.fed.us; Chad Dawson is a professor emeritus at the College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y., and is editor-in-chief of the International 

Journal of Wilderness, chad@wild.org; Gary T. Green is an associate professor at the 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, gtgreen@uga.edu.
Contents

Introduction and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Survey and How It Was Distributed to Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pilot Testing and Pilot Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Wilderness Manager Survey Response Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Survey Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Manager Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Values That Managers Attach to Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Level of Potential Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Major Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Two Most Important Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Training and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Level of Need for Manager Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Research Needs Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Adequacy and Availability of Decision-Making Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Accomplishment of 1995 Strategic Plan Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Level of Accomplishment of Management Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . 17

Summary of Survey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix 1: Introduction and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Survey Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Example Letter to Prospective Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Time Burden of the Survey as Indicated by the Pilot Respondents . . . . . . 37

Appendix 2. Manager Profiles, Importance of Wilderness Values, 

 Perceived Threats, Challenges and Strategic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix 3: Training and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix 4: Accomplishment of the 1995 NWPS Strategic 

 Plan Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Appendix 5. Qualitative Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A5.1 Major challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A5.2 Two most important problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A5.3 Specific training needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

A5.4 Five specific research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

A5.5 Other threats (open ended responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A5.6 Final comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 1

Introduction and Methods

The year 2014 marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the U.S. Wilderness Act 

(Public Law 88-577). Across the nation, many celebrations; community events; acknowledgements in scientific journals, popular magazines and newspaper articles; and 

official actions celebrated the past and looked at the future of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (NWPS), which the Act established. One official action in 2014 

was release of a strategic planning document: 2020 Vision (http://www.wilderness.net/

toolboxes/documents/50th/2020_Vision.pdf) by the four agencies charged with wilderness management on federal lands: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National 

Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS). The only previous national, interagency wilderness strategic plan was 

released in 1995, just after the 30th anniversary of the Wilderness Act (Bureau of Land 

Management and others 1995). 

The National Wilderness Preservation System has changed since 1995, and the public’s 

relationships with it have also changed. The system now encompasses nearly 110 million 

acres, and hopes and methods of protecting wilderness values have spread around the 

world. The U.S. population is larger and more diverse and reasons for valuing wilderness have become more clear. The Nation’s economy, leisure patterns, and scientific 

knowledge have changed, and the landscape is under pressure from many political and 

environmental forces. In 2013, the Interagency Wilderness Policy Council directed the 

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute to facilitate revision of the 1995 plan, as documented by the 2020 

Vision. Both the Carhart Center and Leopold Institute provided oversight of the 2014 

National Wilderness Manager Survey (NWMS) to inform this plan revision. 

The Survey and How It Was Distributed to Managers

Although the 2020 Vision plan is intended to guide activities for only the next 5 years, the 

NWMS asked managers in all four agencies to consider the challenges facing wilderness 

stewardship over the next 20 years. Questions about the adequacy of scientific information concerned the current availability of knowledge, implying that if we are short of 

information now, these areas should be targeted for knowledge development. Depending 

upon the subject, these could be short-term emphases on knowledge transfer or could 

refer to long-term basic and applied science. 

The NWMS was administered online. It included questions about the respondent and 

featured open-ended as well as categorical response options about major challenges, 

threats, training, science needs, and strategic planning issues. Information gathered about 

respondents included their duties and tenure in wilderness management, years with the 

agency, duty station, and wilderness area in which most of their wilderness management work was done. Open-ended questions asked respondents to list major challenges, 

identify specific threats, suggest training topics, identify research needs, and list the two 

most important problems facing future wilderness stewardship. These items were deemed 

important for the strategic plan to address. 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Categorical questions typically asked managers to rate, on a multi-point scale, their perceived level of threat to the wilderness experience or resource, and the need for additional 

training and research. Two optional modules at the end of the survey could be completed 

at the discretion of the respondent on: (1) the importance of each of 13 previously studied 

wilderness values (Cordell et al. 2008) on a multi-point scale (asked of the general public 

in a nationwide survey), and (2) levels of perceived accomplishment of the 1995 NWPS 

strategic plan objectives (Bureau of Land Management and others 1995).

The survey instrument went through many rounds of team reviews and revisions. Both 

the instrument and its administration through SurveyMonkey® 1 (http://www.surveymonkey.com) were pilot-tested by a panel of career-rich retired wilderness managers who had 

worked at a variety of levels in one or more of the managing agencies. 

Survey administration of the final revised NWMS was meant to include all managers 

working with the NWPS. However, full population inclusion or even meaningful sampling was not possible owing to differences in management organizations across the four 

agencies, and, even within agencies, differences in job responsibilities across regions, 

parks, or states. The e-mail contact system in all agencies is oriented toward individuals, 

not wilderness management units. Therefore, we did not have an accurate estimate of the 

number of wilderness managers (survey population) nor up-to-date identification of specific employees who had been assigned wilderness management duties. To approximate 

the population of managers, requests to participate were sent to the field, regional, and 

national offices by a representative of each agency. 

Wilderness management by all four agencies was broadly defined to include resource and 

visitor management, law enforcement, public information, planning, and policy development. All levels of the organization were included, from the field to their Washington, 

D.C., offices. Completed surveys were forwarded automatically by SurveyMonkey to 

team members at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, for analysis. The analysis 

reported here summarizes survey data provided by NWPS managers overall, but has also 

been reported, in most cases, separately by the agency. The survey instrument and an 

example letter sent to prospective respondents are included in appendix 1.

Pilot Testing and Pilot Results 

A pilot test of the survey instrument and data collection methods was conducted by using 

a selected group of recently retired wilderness managers. Requesting retirees to complete 

and comment on the survey avoided using current managers for piloting and thus losing 

data from those respondents. Pilot respondents were asked to complete the survey, offer 

critiques of the question wording and survey instrument, and indicate how much time it 

took. A total of 17 retirees completed the pilot test survey, Although it was designed to 

take about 30 minutes to complete, some respondents reported that it took longer than 

anticipated. See appendix 1 for the approximate time burden they noted. 

The questionnaire was reduced in length and wording of items clarified based on feedback from this pilot test. Hence, the knowledge and experience these retired managers 

brought to the pilot test helped us improve the survey before submitting it to current 

managers within the agencies. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 3

Wilderness Manager Survey Response Metadata 

Between February 24 and May 19, 2014, a total of 368 responses was collected from 

wilderness managers across the four agencies. Table 1 shows the number of wilderness 

managers responding to the survey and the number and percentage of wilderness units 

and acreage represented by these responses. Appendix 1, table A1.4, provides a listing of 

states and NWPS areas represented by survey participants.

The survey population is fairly evenly distributed across agencies. However, NPS and 

USFWS response shares overrepresent, whereas the USFS and BLM response shares 

underrepresent, the proportion of wilderness units each agency manages. On the other 

hand, in terms of acreage managed, the BLM and USFWS are overrepresented, the NPS 

is underrepresented, and the USFS proportion of respondents is very close to the proportion of NWPS acreage managed by the agency. 

Table 1—Number and percentage of survey respondents and number and percentage of 

wilderness units and acreage represented by responding managers by agency, 2014.1

 Wilderness Responses per Responses per

Agency Responses units wilderness unit Acreage million acres

 number number number number number

 (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

National Park 82 61 43,926,153

Service (NPS) (22) (8) 1.34 (40) 1.87

Bureau of Land 76 221 8,710,087

Management (21) (28) 0.34 (8) 8.73

(BLM)

U.S. Fish and 95 71 20,702,488

Wildlife Service (26) (9) 1.34 (19) 4.59

(USFWS) 

U.S. Forest 109 439 36,165,620

Service (USFS) (30) (55) 0.25 (33) 3.01

Other combination 6

 (1.6)

Total 368 792 109,504,348

 (100) (100) (100)

1 Data related to wilderness units and acreage came from http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/fastfacts

Data Analysis

This report mostly provides a descriptive analysis of the survey findings. Simple descriptive analytics were used to develop summarization tables. Contents of the open-ended 

questions were coded using NVivo software (QSR International) to group similar types 

of comments within each set of question responses. Similar comments were then grouped 

into a small number of categories that the analysts felt best described the range of comments received. Results are summarized by these general categories. In many cases, 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

contents of more complex responses were sufficiently diverse to fit into multiple groupings. Hence, the count of responses or comments for open-ended questions across groups 

was greater than total number of respondents or responses. Some of the responses were 

very brief, sometimes just one word (for example, fire, technology, management). In 

these cases, analyst judgment was relied on for placement into groups.

The Survey Team 

The National Wilderness Manager Survey was developed by a national team of experienced social scientists. This Survey Team was assembled to design, test, execute, and 

report results for use in development of the national interagency strategic plan and to inform policy decisions over the next several years. The team included both federal agency 

and university collaborators.

Initial instrument content was developed by Alan Watson, research social scientist, Aldo 

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Forest Service, Missoula, Montana and Chad 

Dawson, professor emeritus, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry, State 

University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y. Additional modules, design, piloting, testing, 

revision, data management, and analyses were executed by team members in Athens, 

Georgia. The Athens team included Ramesh Ghimire, post-doctoral research associate, University of Georgia; Ken Cordell, scientist emeritus, Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute, and Gary T. Green, associate professor, University of Georgia. Other 

team members involved in all phases of the project included Rudy Schuster, branch chief, 

U.S. Geological Survey, and Troy Hall, professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon.1

Results

Manager Profiles

The profiles of responding managers can be described in terms of years in current position, years of wilderness management experience, agency employment, and location of 

wilderness management assignment. 

Respondents by agency and years in current position

Managers reported an average of 8 years of tenure in their current position (appendix 2, 

table A2.1), though a slight majority (55 percent) reported 0 to 5 years (fig. 1). Number of 

years in current position varied somewhat though the patterns were similar across agencies. The BLM and the USFS, however, had higher percentages of respondents with more 

than 20 years of experience than did the other agencies.

1 We thank Alexandra Fulmer (graduate student at the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources at the University of Georgia) for her help in qualitative data analysis.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 5

Respondents by years of having responsibility for wilderness 

stewardship

On average, responding managers had worked for about 12 years with responsibilities for 

wilderness stewardship (appendix 2, table A2.2). The USFS had a much smaller percentage of respondents with 5 or fewer years of stewardship assignment (21 percent), whereas 

the USFWS had a larger percentage (42 percent) of respondents with 5 or fewer years 

(fig. 2). 

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

Overall	
   BLM	
   NPS	
   USFS	
   USFWS	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  agency	
  

0-­‐5	
  years	
  

6-­‐10	
  years	
  

11-­‐15	
  years	
  

16-­‐20	
  years	
  

>20	
  years	
  

Figure 1—Respondent managers by agency and by years in current position.

Figure 2—Respondent managers by years of responsibility for wilderness stewardship for all agencies and 

for each agency. 

0	
  

5	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

25	
  

30	
  

35	
  

40	
  

45	
  

Overall	
   BLM	
   NPS	
   USFS	
   USFWS	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  agency	
  

0-­‐5	
  years	
  

6-­‐10	
  years	
  

11-­‐15	
  years	
  

16-­‐20	
  years	
  

>20	
  years	
  

Respondents by employing agency

The largest percentage of respondents (30 percent) was from the USFS, followed by 

USFWS (26 percent), NPS (22 percent), and BLM (21 percent) (fig. 3 and appendix 2, 

table A2.3). Hence, respondent numbers were somewhat evenly spread across agencies.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Respondents by office level in agency

Responding managers to the NWMS work at different levels of offices in their agency 

organizations. The majority of the BLM survey respondents were from the field offices 

(fig. 4 and appendix 2, table A2.3a). In the NPS, the majority (80 percent) of respondents 

worked at the Park level (fig. 5 and appendix 2, table A2.3b). In the USFS, the majority 

(65 percent) of respondents worked at the ranger district level (fig. 6 and appendix 2, 

table A2.3c). Moreover, the majority (86 percent) of survey respondents in the USFWS 

worked at the refuge level (fig. 7 and appendix 2, table A2.3d).

Respondents by primary professional responsibility

As shown in figure 8, primary management responsibilities included resource management (22 percent), planning (18 percent), public information and education (17 percent), 

policy (15 percent), visitor management (14 percent), and law enforcement (7 percent). 

Figure 3—Respondent managers by agency of employment.

30	
  

26	
  

22	
   21	
  

0	
  

5	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

25	
  

30	
  

35	
  

USFS	
   USFWS	
   NPS	
   BLM	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  agency	
  of	
  employment	
  

57	
  

24	
  

16	
  

4	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

Field	
   District	
   State	
   Na7onal	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Agency	
  organiza3on	
  

Figure 4—Respondent managers by level of office in the Bureau of Land Management.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 7

80	
  

10	
   10	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

Park	
   Regional	
   Na8onal	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  NPS	
  office	
  level	
  

65	
  

23	
  

7	
   5	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

District	
   Forest	
   Regional	
   Na9onal	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  office	
  level	
  in	
  the	
  USFS	
  

86	
  

8	
   5	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

100	
  

Refuge	
   Regional	
   Na7onal	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  office	
  level	
  in	
  USFWS	
  

Figure 5—Respondent managers by level of office in the National Park Service.

Figure 6—Respondent managers by level of office in the U.S. Forest Service.

Figure 7—Respondent managers by office level in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Agency-specific details are available in appendix 2, (table A2.4). In all cases, many respondents indicated more than one area of responsibility, so these summary numbers are 

not proportions of people, but the proportion of duties indicated among the population of 

respondents.

Respondents by time and efforts in wilderness stewardship and 

planning 

In the survey, 60 percent of respondents indicated that they spent 20 percent or less of 

their time and effort doing wilderness stewardship and planning related activities (fig. 9 

and appendix 2, table A2.5).

Figure 8—Respondent managers by primary professional responsibility.

6	
  

7	
  

14	
  

15	
  

17	
  

18	
  

22	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
  

Other	
  combina6on	
  

Law	
  enforcement	
  in	
  wilderness	
  

Wilderness	
  visitor	
  management	
  

Wilderness	
  policies	
  and	
  regula6ons	
  

Public	
  informa6on	
  and	
  educa6on	
  about	
  wilderness	
  

Wilderness	
  planning	
  

Wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Primary	
  professional	
  responsibility	
  

Figure 9—Respondent managers by time and efforts for wilderness stewardship and planning.

26	
  

34	
  

16	
  

8	
   8	
   8	
  

0	
  

5	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

25	
  

30	
  

35	
  

40	
  

<10	
   10-­‐20	
   21-­‐40	
   41-­‐60	
   61-­‐80	
   81-­‐100	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Percent	
  of	
  -me	
  and	
  efforts	
  for	
  wilderness	
  stewardship	
  and	
  planning	
  

Respondents by state 

As shown in fig. 10, the largest proportion of survey respondents (17) work in California, 

followed by 8 in Arizona, 7 in Alaska and Oregon, 6 in Colorado and Montana, 5 in 

Florida and New Mexico, and 4 in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah (appendix 2, table A2.6). For 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 9

the number of survey respondents by name of the wilderness unit in which they conduct 

the most of their work effort, see appendix 1, table A1.4.

Values That Managers Attach to Wilderness

Managers were asked to rate the importance (from not at all important to extremely 

important) of each of 13 wilderness values. These wilderness value descriptions are 

well established and have been used extensively in previous studies to convey how the 

American public perceives benefits from protecting wilderness (Cordell et al. 2008). 

Respondents returned 157 completed responses to this optional Wilderness Values module. The statement selected by the largest percentage of responding managers as the most 

important of the 13 (among those rated very or extremely important) was to ensure that 

1	
  

2	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

7	
  

8	
  

17	
  

0	
   2	
   4	
   6	
   8	
   10	
   12	
   14	
   16	
   18	
  

ME,TX,HI,LA,MI,MN,MO,ND,NE,MA,NJ,OH,SD,VA,

WI	
  

GA,MS,NH,SC,WY	
  

WA	
  

ID,NV,UT	
  

FL,NM	
  

CO,MT	
  

AK,OR	
  

AZ	
  

CA	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Respondents	
  by	
  state	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
   80	
   90	
   100	
  

Providing	
  income	
  for	
  tourism	
  industry	
  

Providing	
  recrea=on	
  opportuni=es	
  

Preserving	
  natural	
  areas	
  for	
  science	
  

Providing	
  spiritual	
  inspira=on	
  

Providing	
  scenic	
  beauty	
  

Protec=ng	
  air	
  quality	
  

Having	
  op=on	
  to	
  visit	
  WA	
  in	
  future	
  

Knowing	
  that	
  WA	
  exists	
  

Protec=ng	
  rare	
  and	
  endangered	
  species	
  

Protec=ng	
  wildlife	
  habitat	
  

Protec=ng	
  water	
  quality	
  

Preserving	
  unique	
  wild	
  plants	
  &	
  animals	
  

Knowing	
  future	
  genera=ons	
  will	
  have	
  WA	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  indica/ng	
  very	
  or	
  extremely	
  important	
  

Reasons	
  to	
  preserve	
  wilderness	
  

The	
  public	
   Managers	
  

Figure 10—Respondent managers by state.

Figure 11—Percentage of the public and of managers which assigned very to extreme importance to each of 13 reasons 

to preserve wilderness. 
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

future generations will have wilderness areas (97 percent). Following very closely was 

preserving unique wild plants and animals (94 percent) (see fig. 11 and appendix 2, table 

A2.7a for the agency breakdown). 

Percentages of the managers were compared with percentages of the American public 

(from an earlier separate study) in rating the importance of the same 13 wilderness values. Data for ranking wilderness values by the public were based on the National Survey 

on Recreation and the Environment, conducted in 2008.2 This comparison revealed 

some interesting differences (see fig. 11 and appendix 2, table A2.7b). Although a larger 

percentage of managers placed greatest importance (very to extremely important) on 

protecting wilderness to assure that future generations will have wilderness to visit or otherwise appreciate, the largest percentage of the public placed greatest importance (very or 

extreme importance) on wilderness for protecting air and water qualities. Protecting air 

quality and protecting water quality were the 3rd and 8th most important reasons identified 

by managers. Although managers and the public valued wilderness somewhat differently, 

they both indicated that the purpose of providing income for the tourism industry was the 

least important reason (ranked 13th) to preserve wilderness and recreation was also low 

(ranked 12th by managers and 10th by the public). Hence, both managers and the public 

demonstrate strong support beyond recreation and economic values of wilderness (appendix 2, table A2.7b). 

Level of Potential Threats

Managers were provided a list of 24 potential threats that could possibly degrade or damage wilderness character, specific resources, or visitor experiences over the next 20 years. 

Table 2 summarizes the percentage of managers who rated each of these potential threats 

high or very high to the wilderness area or wilderness areas where they work.

Lack of political and financial support for wilderness protection and management, 

invasive plant and animal species, disconnected urban audiences, adjacent land management and use, and designation legislation that included language that was viewed as 

compromising natural conditions or containing special provisions for management were 

the top five potential threats to resources or visitor experiences identified by managers. 

Percentages vary across agencies. The NPS and the USFS rated lack of political or financial support as a much higher threat than did the BLM and USFWS (table 2). The USFS 

rated many (7 out of 24) and NPS rated almost half (11 out of 24) of the listed threats 

higher than did the other agencies. The USFWS only rated two items as larger threats 

than the other agencies (water quality impacts and sea level rise/coastal erosion threats) 

(For details on each agency responses, please see appendix 2, table A2.8).

2 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) (2008), The Interagency National 

Consortium; coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, Georgia, and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 11

Table 2—Percentage of managers indicating level of potential threat to be high or very high for all 

agencies and for each agency.

 All

Potential Threats* Agency BLM NPS USFS USFWS

Lack of political and financial support for 

wilderness protection and management 74 61 80 88 63

Invasive species 56 60 73 48 46

Disconnected urban audiences 53 39 62 58 50

Adjacent land management and use 44 48 52 37 40

Legislation designating wilderness with 

compromised wilderness conditions 

or special provisions for management 41 39 41 52 30

Wild-land fire suppression and management 39 44 33 57 15

Motorized and mechanical equipment 

trespass and illegal use 38 50 22 48 27

Fragmentation and isolation of wilderness 

as ecological islands 38 37 38 40 34

Aircraft noise and airspace reservations 37 19 55 41 31

Increasing or changing non-commercial 

recreation 35 26 30 52 27

Air quality impacts 31 23 39 34 25

Risk of wildfire damage (outside wilderness) 

originating in wilderness 31 40 29 34 19

Visitor use of advanced technology and 

electronic equipment for navigation 

or communication 29 24 30 38 19

Disruption of wildlife corridors 29 26 34 24 28

Urbanization and encroaching 

development 28 32 25 30 22

Energy development and resource 

extraction 27 23 35 23 28

Increasing or changing commercial 

recreation 25 16 30 29 24

Pressure on threatened and 

endangered species management 25 24 26 24 23

Water quality impacts 23 14 19 20 33

Administrative access, facilities, or other 

administrative exceptions 22 20 32 24 13

Water projects facilities 19 15 29 22 8

Livestock grazing 18 21 18 23 7

Sea level rise; coastal erosion 15 8 14 5 37

Private inholdings and their uses 15 24 15 13 8

* Respondents were provided a five-point Likert-type scale (none to very high potential threat) and a “not sure” 

option to rate the level of potential threat over the next 20 years at the wilderness area or areas in which they 

work. This table summarizes the percentage of respondents that rated the level of potential threats high or 

very high. 
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Major Challenges

Managers were asked to describe up to five major challenges they will likely face over 

the next 20 years in wilderness stewardship or planning activities. Challenges were defined in the survey as “...type of wilderness stewardship or planning activities [that] will 

demand the most time and effort by wilderness managers or planners like you to be successfully accomplished.” A total of 1,355 challenges were described in this open-ended 

question by 368 responding managers. These challenges can be grouped into six broad 

categories, as shown in figure 12 (in appendix 5, see the “Major Challenges” section 

and table A5.1 for a detailed description of these categories and/or wording provided by 

respondents). Please note that, in many cases, contents of more complex responses were 

sufficiently diverse to fit into multiple groupings. 

5	
  

7	
  

20	
  

21	
  

32	
  

44	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Managing	
  other	
  resources	
  

Public	
  awareness	
  

Sustaining	
  natural	
  condi<ons	
  

Visitor	
  and	
  experience	
  management	
  

Resources	
  and	
  policy	
  for	
  management	
  

Management	
  of	
  external	
  threats	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  wilderness	
  stewardship/

planning	
  

Figure 12—Six categories of major challenges in wilderness stewardship or planning.

Management of external threats (such as encroachment, human-caused wildfire, climate 

change, invasive species, and impacts of external factors) was the category with the 

largest number of major challenges described by managers. Other categories of challenges included having inadequate resources and policies to support management (staff, 

funding, law enforcement, agency policy, agency priority, improving legal and physical 

access, etc.), managing visitors and conditions for their experiences (visitor management, 

maintaining wilderness values, protecting visitors’ experiences, protecting wilderness 

character, dealing with technologies that are sometimes inappropriate), sustaining natural 

conditions (restoring natural conditions, appropriately managing natural resources, attending to stewardship responsibilities, and adequately monitoring to detect change in 

character), public awareness (e.g., gaining public support), and managing resources other 

than natural resources (trails, cultural resource, etc.).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 13

Two Most Important Problems

In appendix 5, section A5.2 provides a detailed description of these categories and wording provided by respondents. A total of 632 problem descriptions were collected from 

the 368 responding managers. These were grouped into five broad categories, shown in 

figure 13. In appendix 5, the “Two Most Important Problems” section and table A5.2 

provide a detailed description of these categories and wording provided by respondents. 

Figure 13—Potential problems facing NWPS managing agencies in the next 20 years. 

Adequately monitoring and sustaining natural conditions (for example, protecting 

wilderness character; fire management; monitoring change in wilderness character; and 

maintaining and adequately monitoring air and water quality), external threats and their 

impacts (climate change, impact of human activities, encroachment, invasive species 

and weed control, adjacent land-use, etc.), adequate resources and policies to support 

management (funding, resources, workforce, protection of wilderness values, training 

for managers, relevant science for decisionmaking, etc.), building public awareness and 

support (increasing public awareness, educating the public, engaging urban populations, 

engaging the public in wilderness stewardship and management, developing partnerships, 

etc.), and on-site visitor and experience management (visitor management, increased visitation in wilderness, increased visitor access to wilderness, etc.) are the areas identified 

by managers as the most significant groups of problems that need to be addressed in the 

coming 20 years.

7	
  

22	
  

25	
  

29	
  

32	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
  

On-­‐site	
  visitor	
  and	
  experience	
  

management	
  

Building	
  public	
  awareness	
  and	
  support	
  

Resources	
  and	
  policy	
  for	
  management	
  

External	
  threats	
  and	
  impacts	
  

Monitoring	
  and	
  sustaining	
  natural	
  

condiEons	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

List	
  of	
  poten/al	
  problems	
  faced	
  by	
  

NWPS	
  
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Training and Research

Level of Need for Manager Training

Wilderness managers were asked to provide input on the level of need for training topics during the next 20 years for building greater competencies within their agencies. 

Responding managers were provided a listing of seven different training topics and asked 

to evaluate the level of need for each of the topics. Table 3 summarizes the percentages 

of managers indicating a high or very high need. Appendix 3, table A3.1, provides more 

detail for all levels of need from very high to no need. 

Table 3—Percentage of managers indicating high or very high need for training for all agencies 

and for each agency.

 All

Training Needs* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS

Wilderness history, law, regulation, and policy 58 53 62 61 51

Wilderness planning 57 51 71 61 47

Management skills related to communication, 

problem-solving, decision-making, and 

organizational management 57 56 57 61 50

Visitor use management and monitoring 55 51 61 68 41

Natural and cultural resources management 

and monitoring 51 44 66 45 47

Wilderness field skills 42 40 41 63 22

Managing special provisions 37 42 46 34 28

* Respondents were provided a five-point ranking scale (none to very high need) as well as a “not sure” 

response option. 

The highest rated training needs identified included wilderness history, law, regulation, 

and policy; wilderness planning; management skills related to communication, problemsolving, decisionmaking, and organizational management; visitor use management and 

monitoring; and natural and cultural resources management and monitoring. There were 

some differences in needs ratings across agencies. Generally, the USFWS managers rated 

the needs lower than managers in other agencies. The NPS and USFS managers rated 

most of the listed training topics higher.

Training Needs

The NWMS asked managers to describe (open-ended question) the top five specific training measures needed for themselves. A total of 1,272 responses were received from the 

368 respondents. These training needs were grouped into six broad categories, as shown 

in appendix A, Table A5.3. 

Wilderness resource management (economic and noneconomic resources, adjustments 

for staff and budget cuts, establishment of baselines, monitoring, maintaining wilderness 

character and values, fire management, etc.) was the top category of training need. This 

was followed by skills, technology and analytical competencies (specific skills, using 

science in decisionmaking, more competency in information technology, approaches to 

minimum requirements analysis, decision guides, etc.), threats management (responding 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 15

to climate change influences, managing invasive species, soundscape protection, restoration guidance, etc.), building partnerships and education (building partnership, public 

education and outreach, communicating wilderness values, consultation, communication 

with tribal groups, responding to political pressure, etc.), laws, regulations and policy 

(wilderness regulations, wilderness policy, wilderness planning, wilderness laws, legal 

and policy context including ANILCA, etc.), and wilderness recreation management 

(visitor management, commercial use of wilderness, search and rescue, safe access for 

people with disabilities, control of motorized activities, carrying capacity analysis, etc.).

Research Needs Categories

Five research needs categories for resource and visitor management in wilderness areas 

are explained in appendix 5, section A5.4. A total of 1,173 responses have been grouped 

into four categories.

The largest of these categories was threats and impacts management (impact on wilderness resources and on opportunities for solitude resulting from human and natural 

factors, invasive species, climate change impact on wilderness character, monitoring/

preserving soundscapes, ecosystem integrity, nearby land uses, etc.). The next largest 

category was wilderness resource management needs (such as emerging technologies to 

monitor wilderness use and access, how to incorporate science-based information into 

decisionmaking, fire, water resources, wilderness restoration, etc.), followed by building 

partnerships and education (employee development, communicating wilderness values 

with different public groups, partnership building, understanding wilderness values, and 

understanding public needs to get wilderness experience), and wilderness recreation management (visitor management, sanitation and waste management, conflict management, 

visitor impacts on wilderness character, capacity analysis, etc.).

Adequacy and Availability of Decision-Making Information

Responding managers were asked about 19 specific aspects of wilderness management 

and planning and asked to indicate how adequate and available science-based information is for each of these topics. Table 4 includes the percentages of managers indicating 

that science-based information is not adequate and available, or that it is only somewhat 

adequate for each of the 19 aspects. Appendix 3, table A3.2, provides a breakdown of 

percentages for each level of information adequacy and availability.

The five management decisionmaking topics with the highest percentage of managers rating them inadequate to somewhat adequate included public attitudes toward intervention 

to adapt to climate change, public attitudes toward ecological restoration activities (fire, 

vegetation, wildlife, etc.), relative value of wilderness benefits to different stakeholder 

groups, stewardship of spiritual values and uses, and managing field staff. Generally, 

higher percentages of the BLM managers felt that science-based information for these top 

five categories is neither adequate nor available. In contrast, relative to the other agencies, lower percentages of the USFWS managers felt that science-based information is 

not adequate.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Accomplishment of 1995 Strategic Plan Objectives

Introduction

In the optional part of the survey, wilderness managers were asked to assess the general 

success of their agencies in achieving the objectives laid out by the 1995 Interagency 

NWPS Strategic Plan. A total of 156 managers responded to this set of questions. Their 

evaluations were recorded on a scale that ranged from no achievement to very high 

achievement. 

The five goals of the 1995 plan included preservation of natural and biological values, 

management of social values, administrative policy and interagency coordination, 

training of agency personnel, and enhanced public awareness and understanding. In 

Table 4—Percentages of managers indicating science-based information is not adequate or only 

somewhat adequate for all agencies and for each agency.

 All

Decision-Making Information* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS

Public attitudes toward intervention to

adapt to climate change influences 58 65 56 56 53

Public attitudes toward ecological 

restoration (fire, vegetation, wildlife, 

etc.) activities 52 60 56 53 42

Relative value of wilderness benefits to 

stakeholder groups 51 55 53 47 51

Stewardship of spiritual values and uses 44 52 52 40 34

Managing field staff 36 45 39 32 31

Scenic quality protection 36 44 44 29 30

Visitor management (controlling use, 

managing conflict, mitigating impacts, etc.) 35 40 45 29 33

Wilderness monitoring protocol 34 35 47 29 28

Wilderness planning 33 31 41 35 28

Air quality protection 32 48 23 26 31

Cultural resources protection 30 30 38 25 30

Water resources protection 29 33 28 24 31

Managing subsistence activities and 

resources 29 29 36 31 25

Information and education for visitors 

and public 27 32 36 22 23

Historic resources protection 26 20 28 29 27

Grazing management 23 40 17 27 11

Fire and fuels management 22 24 21 28 16

Fish and wildlife management 21 24 22 26 10

Forest and vegetation resources protection 21 25 18 21 16

*Respondents were provided a five point Likert-type scale (not adequate, somewhat, moderate, good, and 

excellent). As well, “don’t know” option was provided. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 17

the following section, survey results are provided for each of the five overall goals and 

the objectives under each goal. To draw attention to objectives that need attention, and 

perhaps should be included in new strategic planning, percentages of managers who indicated there had been no or only slight progress and accomplishment are reported. 

Level of Accomplishment of Management Goals and 

Objectives

Percentages of managers indicating no to slight accomplishment of the objectives are 

presented for each goal and its objectives. In the tables, the objectives are ranked from 

highest to lowest percentages indicating no or slight accomplishment by all agency. 

Preservation of natural and biological values

The top five objectives rated as underachieved are (1) restoring fire to its natural role in 

the ecosystem, (2) inventorying and monitoring wilderness ecosystems and establishing 

long-term research, (3) restoring wilderness ecosystems damaged by humans, and identifying the processes needed to mitigate human-induced change, (4) implementing exotics 

management, and (5) retiring uses adversely affecting wilderness values.. Restoration, 

mitigation of human disturbances, and monitoring ecosystem conditions are themes that 

link these objectives. There is significant variation in scoring among the agencies. In 

general, smaller percentages of USFWS and NPS managers indicated no or low achievement of the seven natural and biological values management objectives stated in the 1995 

Strategic Plan objectives. The USFS percentages tended to be the highest for scoring 

these objectives as not achieved or slightly achieved. The average achievement score for 

all managers and all agencies is 1.89 in a zero (none) to four (very high) scale, indicating 

a slight to moderate accomplishment of the natural and biological values management 

objective. Across agencies, the NPS has the highest score and the USFS has the lowest 

score (table 5 and appendix 4, table A4.1). 

Management of social values 

The top five underachieved objectives across managers in all four agencies are (1) 

minimizing low-level overflights, (2) assessing and mitigating impacts of emerging 

technologies, (3) coordinating with neighboring agencies on use restrictions, (4) developing and using evolving recreation management tools, and (5) minimizing the impact of 

structures.. Higher percentages of the BLM managers indicated concern that overflight 

and new technology objectives had not been achieved. Except for integration of new 

recreation management tools, the USFWS scored lower percentages indicating lack of 

achievement of social value management objectives. The average achievement score for 

all managers and all agencies is 1.78 on a zero (none) to four (very high) scale, indicating 

slight to moderate accomplishment of the social values management objectives (table 6 

and appendix 4, table A4.2).
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table 5—Percentage of managers indicating accomplishment of the 1995 objectives under the goal of Preservation of 

Natural and Biological Values.

High or Very High

No or Only Slight Accomplishment Accomplishment

 All All

Preservation of Natural and Biological Values* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS Agencies

Restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem 43 49 35 47 35 16

Inventory wilderness ecosystems to collect 

baseline data. Identify indicators and 

develop monitoring standards for those 

elements critical to ecological integrity. 

Develop monitoring strategies for high 

priority indicators and provide feedback for 

adaptive management. Where appropriate, 

establish long-term research programs 40 43 40 43 31 19

Restore wilderness ecosystems damaged by 

humans to the degree feasible. Identify the 

processes needed to assess, restore, or 

mitigate human-induced change 39 41 23 49 35 16

Implement integrated exotic plant and animal 

management which includes prevention, 

education, detection, quick elimination of 

spot infestations, and control of major 

occurrences 33 43 29 35 19 21

Exchange, purchase, or retire uses adversely 

affecting wilderness values where rightsholders are willing 30 27 29 42 16 16

Pursue acquisition or exchange of inholdings, 

subsurface rights, and adjacent lands 

critical to wilderness protection 28 25 31 32 19 20

Manage wilderness within the context of 

larger landscapes to ensure the protection 

and integrity of natural and biological 

processes 26 27 15 37 15 26

Average achievement score (in a scale 

of zero, none, to four, very high)** 1.89 1.90 2.00 1.70 1.97

 (0.07) (0.16) (0.18) (0.11) (0.15) NA

* Respondents were provided a five-point scale for rating the accomplishment (none, slight, moderate, high, and very high) and 

don’t know or N/A.

**Values in parenthesis in average achievement score represent standard errors. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 19

Table 6—Percentage of managers indicating accomplishment of the 1995 objectives under the goal of Management of 

Social Values. 

High or Very High

No or Only Slight Accomplishment Accomplishment

 All All

Management of Social Values* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS Agencies

Coordinate with Department of Defense 

agencies and the Federal Aviation 

Administration to develop procedures 

and guidelines to avoid or mitigate 

low-level overflights 55 67 46 59 39 13

Assess impacts of new and emerging 

technologies on traditional wilderness 

values. Develop public information and 

education programs to address these 

effects and mitigate any unacceptable 

impacts 53 60 49 55 43 7

Coordinate with neighboring agencies and 

interests on wilderness use restrictions 

(such as campsite and fire regulations) 

and on the establishment of policies for 

limits such as group size and numbers 

of packstock 33 30 37 34 27 20

Develop, identify, and distribute information 

on new or evolving recreation management 

tools and techniques 33 24 34 34 46 20

Evaluate all existing and proposed structures 

and installations to minimize their impact 

on wilderness values 31 41 23 32 23 17

Emphasize opportunities outside wilderness 

for recreation activities that are not dependent 

on a wilderness setting 21 19 26 26 12 23

Establish an interagency national information 

network to provide wilderness information 

for public and agency use 17 14 23 22 8 45

Average achievement score (in a scale of zero, 

none, to four, very high)** 1.78 1.77 1.88 1.72 1.84

 (0.061) (0.124) (0.148) (0.095) (0.147) NA

* Respondents were provided a five point scaled for rating accomplishment (none, slight, moderate, high, and very high).

**Values in parenthesis in average achievement score are standard errors. 
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Administrative policy and interagency coordination 

The top five underachieved administrative and policy objectives as rated by managers 

include participation in local government planning, fiscal accountability, seeking new 

partnerships, expanding research, and ensuring flexible spending of fire funding. There is 

quite a range of differences between agencies. Generally, higher percentages of the USFS 

managers rated the listed objectives as not achieved while lower percentages of the NPS 

managers rated achievement of these objectives low. The average achievement score for 

all managers and all agencies is 1.86 on a zero (none) to four (very high) scale, indicating 

a slight to moderate accomplishment of the administrative and policy objectives. Across 

agencies, the NPS managers gave the highest scores and the USFWS managers gave the 

lowest score (table 7 and appendix 4, table A4.3).

Training of agency personnel 

Integrating wilderness manager and employee orientation training, expanding university 

partnerships, and developing a common understanding of wilderness management principles are the top three goals that are seen by managers as slightly or not at all achieved. 

Smaller percentages of the NPS managers rated the top two of these three objectives as 

underachieved while higher percentages of the USFS managers rated these two objectives 

as unachieved. The average achievement score for all managers and all agencies is 2.08 

on a zero (none) to four (very high) scale, indicating a moderate accomplishment of the 

agency personnel training objectives. Across agencies, the BLM gave the highest scores 

and the USFWS gave the lowest scores (table 8 and appendix 4, table A4.4). 

Public awareness and understanding 

The top three objectives evaluated by managers as underachieved were wilderness education, communication with diverse social groups, and creating a wilderness curriculum for 

K-12. Percentages across agencies varied with the BLM tending to show higher percentages and the NPS showing lower percentages indicating low achievement. The average 

achievement score for all managers and all agencies is 1.77 on a zero (none) to four (very 

high) scale, indicating a slight to moderate accomplishment of the public awareness 

and understanding objectives. Across agencies, the BLM had the highest score and the 

USFWS had the lowest score (table 9 and appendix 4, table A4.5). 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 21

Table 7—Percentage of managers indicating accomplishment of the 1995 objectives under the goal of Administrative 

Policy and Interagency Coordination.

High or Very High

No or Only Slight Accomplishment Accomplishment

Administrative Policy and All All

Interagency Coordination* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS Agencies

Participate in local government planning efforts 

to represent the wilderness resource 52 62 35 60 50 15

Ensure fiscal accountability in the budget process 

by identifying & tracking funding sources & 

accomplishments in the wilderness program 42 35 40 47 46 21

Aggressively seek new partnerships with diverse 

groups to support wilderness values and goals 34 33 29 37 42 18

Expand the emphasis of research to include 

natural and biological wilderness resources, 

and psychological and social values 33 43 29 28 35 16

Allow flexible spending of fire funding to cover 

prescribed fire 32 25 32 42 19 6

Maintain strong and professional leadership in 

wilderness stewardship at all levels. Each agency 

will: have a national wilderness coordinator; and 

require wilderness stewardship performance 

elements for those managing wilderness 31 8 34 42 35 34

Coordinate multiple-unit wildernesses to insure 

consistent administration 25 22 29 31 16 20

Create a National Interagency Steering Committee 

made up of the national wilderness coordinators of 

each agency to improve interagency understanding 

and consistency in managing the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, including: 

developing common guidelines, policies, and

regulations on key wilderness issues; and 

identifying and coordinating research priorities 

for the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, 

and training priorities with the Arthur Carhart 

Training Center 12 5 11 20 4 48

Average achievement score (in a scale of zero, 

none to four, very high)** 1.86 1.94 2.00 1.84 1.732

 (0.088) (0.180) (0.213) (0.132) (0.259) NA

*Respondents were provided a five point Likert-type scale (none, slight, moderate, high, and very high) and don’t know or N/A to rate 

the level of achievements of the 1995 objectives. 

**Values in parenthesis in average achievement score represent standard errors.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table 8—Percentage of managers indicating accomplishment of the 1995 objectives under the goal of Training of 

Agency Personnel. 

High or Very High

No or Only Slight Accomplishment Accomplishment

 All All

Agency Personnel Training* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS Agencies

Integrate wilderness into other program training 

and vice versa. Develop basic wilderness 

orientation training for presentation to all 

agency personnel 50 52 43 52 50 14

Establish partnerships with colleges and 

universities to recruit volunteers, participate 

in curriculum development, provide training, 

and conduct research 32 27 17 40 38 15

Develop common understanding and training 

on wilderness principles such as the minimum 

tool concept 29 35 29 27 27 28

Identify the core competencies required for 

wilderness rangers, wilderness managers, and 

line officers with wilderness management 

responsibilities. Identify tools, methods, and 

techniques to master the needed abilities 27 29 37 23 20 31

Continue to develop, utilize, and support 

wilderness training programs 25 22 23 33 19 27

Each agency will support the Arthur Carhart 

Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute 9 5 14 11 4 46

Average achievement score (in a scale of zero, 

none to four, very high)** 2.08 2.25 2.10 2.05 1.88

 (0.064) (0.147) (0.140) (0.103) (0.147) NA

* Respondents were provided a five point Likert-type scale (none, slight, moderate, high, and very high) and don’t know or N/A to 

rate the level of achievements of the 1995 objectives. 

**Values in parenthesis in average achievement score represent standard errors. 

Summary of Survey Findings

In support of interagency strategic planning for the National Wilderness Preservation 

System (NWPS), a national survey was administered to managers with the four federal 

agencies charged with management of the NWPS. Included were Forest Service, National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service management 

personnel. The survey asked these managers about threats and challenges to stewardship 

of the NWPS. They were also asked to identify perceived needs for science information, 

and needed education and training to support decision-making over the next 20 years.

The National Wilderness Manager Survey conducted between February 24 and May 

19, 2014, collected responses from 368 agency personnel across four federal agencies 

that are responsible to manage the National Wilderness Preservation System. Primary 

wilderness management responsibilities of these respondents included resource or visitor 

management (36 percent of respondents), planning (18 percent), public information and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 23

education (17 percent), and policy (15 percent). Among them, about 60 percent of the 

managers participating in the survey spend 20 percent or less of their work time and effort on wilderness stewardship and planning duties. Thirty-two percent of the responding 

managers had worked in wilderness for more than 15 years; 33 percent had worked five 

or fewer years.

Twenty-four potential threats were provided as one of the questions and managers were 

asked to identify which of these represented the most significant threats. Drawing the 

highest percentage of response was lack of political or financial support for wilderness 

protection and management. Next most frequently identified were invasive species, 

disconnected urban populations, incompatible adjacent land uses, and legislation that 

contained stipulations viewed as compromising stewardship and protection of the 

System. Managers were also asked about general and specific training needs to build 

greater competencies within their agencies. Topping the list of general needs were 

courses in wilderness history, law, regulation, and policy; wilderness planning; effective 

communication, problem-solving and decision-making tools; visitor use management and 

monitoring; and natural and cultural resource management and monitoring. More specific 

needs identified included field skills, technology applications, analytical tools, addressing 

threats, building partnerships, education, laws, regulations, specific policies and recreation management. 

Table 9—Percentage of managers indicating accomplishment of the 1995 objectives under the goal of Public 

Awareness and Understanding. 

High or Very High

No or Only Slight Accomplishment Accomplishment

Public Awareness All All

and Understanding* Agencies BLM NPS USFS USFWS Agencies

Evaluate wilderness education programs to 

determine their effectiveness 54 60 49 49 58 7

Identify strategies to communicate wilderness 

education messages to diverse cultural, 

geographical, and sociological groups, including 

non-recreation users 53 57 46 55 50 12

Develop a wilderness curriculum for grades K 

through 12. Encourage state agencies to establish 

curricula for environmental/wilderness education 

in schools 38 38 37 42 31 14

Continue to support “Leave No Trace” as the 

official program for minimum impact recreation 8 8 12 4 12 61

Average achievement score (in a scale of zero, 

none to four, very high)** 1.77 1.88 1.82 1.80 1.36

 (0.07) (0.17) (0.19) (0.11) (0.15) NA

* Respondents were provided a five-point rating scale (none, slight, moderate, high, and very high) and a “don’t know” or N/A option 

for rating level of achievements of the 1995 objectives. 

**Values in parenthesis in average achievement score represent standard errors.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Managers were asked to identify general areas of research needs for resource and visitor management in wilderness areas they represent. The research needs identified were 

similar to identified training needs. Highest on their list was research focusing on threats 

and impacts management, followed by wilderness resource management, building partnerships and education, and wilderness recreation management. Another approach for 

identifying research needs was to ask about the adequacy of information and approaches 

for decision-making. The areas identified as not being adequate included understanding 

public attitudes toward intervention to adapt to climate change, public attitudes toward 

ecological restoration, differences in views of the benefits of wilderness among stakeholder groups, understanding spiritual values and uses, and effective management of field 

staff.

The most significant problems that will need to be addressed in the next 20 years as 

identified by the respondent managers were maintaining and sustaining stewardship of 

natural conditions, managing external threats and their impacts, inadequate resources and 

policies for wilderness protection, and lack of public awareness and support and effective 

management for on-site visitors and experiences management. 

In regard to how well the 1995 Strategic Plan objectives had been accomplished, managers indicated only slight to moderate accomplishment of many of the plan objectives. 

Finally, out of a list of 13 wilderness value statements, the one selected by managers 

as most important was preserving wilderness so that it is there for future generations. 

Following the value for future generations were preservation of unique plants and animals, contributions to water quality, protection of wildlife habitat, and protection for rare 

and endangered species. When presented with the same list of wilderness values in an 

earlier survey, the U.S. public listed contributions to air quality, contributions to water 

quality, having wilderness for future generations, protection of wildlife habitat, and preserving unique wild plants and animals as their top choices.

References

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Forest Service. [BLM, NPS, USFWS, and USFS]. 1995. Interagency Wilderness 

Strategic Plan 1995. http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/I-21.pdf. (November 15, 

2014).

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. [BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFS, 

and USGS]. 2014. 2020 Vision: Interagency stewardship priorities for America’s 

National Wilderness Preservation System. http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/

documents/50th/2020_Vision.pdf. (November 15, 2014).

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Fly, J.M.; Mou, S.; Green, G.T. 2008. How do Americans view 

wilderness. Internet Research Information Series. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 

Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources. http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/

nsre/IRISWild/IrisWild1rptR.pdf. (November 15, 2014).

QSR International. NVivo10 for Windows. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia. http://www.

qsrinternational.com/default.aspx.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 25

Appendix 1. Introduction and Methods

A1.1 Survey instruments

Part One—Primary survey presented via SurveyMonkey to respondents

Please complete the following survey on wilderness management. You have been selected 

to be part of this survey based on your current or recent past agency responsibilities related to wilderness in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Your input 

will be included in development of the 2014 Inter-agency Strategic Plan for the NWPS. 

The survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Each question will 

need to be answered before the survey will advance. Your response is anonymous with no 

answers being associated with you personally. We will not share your individual answers 

with anyone else. 

We appreciate your participation. 

Your Connection to Wilderness

Q1. During 2013 (or during your most recent year in wilderness management), approximately what percentage of your professional responsibilities was spent doing wilderness 

stewardship or planning-related activities? 

______ % of 2013 (or most recent year) time and effort

Q2. During 2013 (or most recent year), what types of wilderness stewardship or planning 

activities were your primary professional responsibilities? (Check all that apply) 

____ Law enforcement in Wilderness 

____ Public information and education about Wilderness

____ Wilderness resource management

____ Wilderness visitor management

____ Wilderness planning

____ Wilderness policies and regulations

____ Other (Please describe

Agency Employment

Q3. During 2013 (or most recent year), for which federal agency did you work in wilderness stewardship or planning? Please indicate your agency below and you will then be 

prompted to identify office level within your agency. 

 ̈	NPS

	  ̈ National

	  ̈ Regional

	  ̈ Park, Preserve, Monument or National Seashore/Lakeshore

 ̈ BLM

	  ̈ National

	  ̈ State

	  ̈ District

	  ̈ Field
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

 ̈ USFWS

	  ̈ National

	  ̈ Regional 

	  ̈ Refuge

 ̈ USFS

	  ̈ National

	  ̈ Regional

	  ̈ Forest

	  ̈ District

 ̈ Other affiliations or combinations? (please specify: __________________________ )

Q4. During 2013 (or during your most recent year working in wilderness management), 

in which one state and with which one wilderness area in that state did you spend the 

most time and effort in managing wilderness.

If you click on state name below, and then click next, you will see a drop-down list to 

select state.

	  ̈ State name 

	  ̈ Not applicable

Please select the state from the drop-down list below. Then click next and from the list of 

wilderness areas provided for that state, select the wilderness area to which you devote 

the most time and effort.

Major Challenges

Q5. Please identify major challenges you think wilderness managers will face over 

the next 20 years, such as law enforcement, making decisions about fire management, 

making decisions about restoring natural conditions, making decisions about intervention 

to adapt to climate change influences, protecting visitor experiences, managing staff or 

budgets, protecting water resources, understanding the role of wilderness in reducing 

impacts of severe weather events, etc.

By major challenges, we mean what type of wilderness stewardship or planning activities will demand the most time and effort by wilderness managers or planners like you to 

be successfully accomplished.

In the box below, please list up to five major challenges likely to be faced during the 

next 20 years.

Major challenges (please specify)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 27

Potential Threat

Q6. For each item listed below, please rate the level of potential threat over the next 20 

years to the wilderness resource or visitor experiences at the wilderness area or areas 

in which you work. By potential threats, we mean forces or changes that could degrade or 

damage wilderness character, specific resources, or visitor experiences.

Potential Threats

Level of threat predicted 

for the next 20 years None Slight Moderate High Very High

Not Sure

Adjacent land management and use

Administrative access, facilities, or other administrative 

exceptions

Visitor use of advanced technology and electronic equipment 

for navigation or communication

Air quality impacts

Aircraft noise and airspace reservations

Fragmentation and isolation of wilderness as ecological 

islands

Increasing or changing non-commercial recreation

Increasing or changing commercial recreation

Lack of political and financial support for wilderness protection and management

Legislation designating wilderness with compromised wilderness conditions or special provisions for management

Livestock grazing 

Energy development and resource extraction

Motorized and mechanical equipment trespass and illegal use

Invasive species

Risk of wildfire damage (outside wilderness) originating in 

wilderness

Private inholdings and their uses

Pressure on threatened and endangered species management

Urbanization and encroaching development

Water projects facilities 

Water quality impacts

Wildland fire suppression and management

Disconnected urban audiences

Disruption of wildlife corridors

Sea level rise; coastal erosion

Other, please specify: 
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Training Programs

Q7. Please evaluate the level of need for manager training during the next 20 years 

related to general wilderness management competencies within your agency. The competency list below can refer to training topics or specific skills that can be presented 

within several hours or days in a classroom, in the field, or by on line programs. 

Wilderness Manager Competencies

Level of need for training 

programs None Slight

ModerateHigh Very HighNot sure

Wilderness history, law, regulation and policy

Wilderness planning

Visitor use management and monitoring

Natural and cultural resources management and 

monitoring

Management skills related to communication, problem-solving, decision-making, and organizational 

management.

Managing special provisions

Wilderness field skills

Training Needs 

Q8. What do you believe are the top 5 specific training needs for wilderness managers, 

such as: making decisions about allowing appropriate research activities, incorporating 

scientific information into decision-making; building partnerships; communication with 

different public groups; tribal consultations; invasive species; soundscape protection; 

persons with disabilities; off-season use; conflicts, emerging technologies and uses; 

managing packstock use; responding to climate change influences, sanitation and waste 

management. 

Please list the top 5 specific training needs in the box below.

Specific Training Topics 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Decision-Making Information 

Q9. Listed below are various aspects of wilderness management and planning. How 

adequate and available is science-based information for each of these aspects of wilderness management and planning? 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 29

Aspects of Wilderness Management and Planning

Is the scientific information adequate on this topic? Not adequate Somewhat Moderate Good Excellent

Don’t Know 

Air quality protection

Cultural resources protection

Fire and fuels management 

Fish and wildlife management

Forest and vegetation resources protection

Grazing management

Historic resources protection

Information and education for visitors and public

Managing field staff

Scenic quality protection

Visitor management (controlling use, managing 

conflict, mitigating impacts, etc.)

Water resources protection

Wilderness monitoring protocol

Wilderness planning

Public attitudes toward intervention to adapt to 

climate change influences

Public attitudes toward ecological restoration (fire, 

vegetation, wildlife, etc.) activities

Relative value of wilderness benefits to stakeholder groups

Managing subsistence activities and resources

Stewardship of spiritual values and uses

Research Needs 

Q10. Please identify your top 5 specific research needs for resource and visitor 

management in wilderness areas, such as: incorporating scientific information into decision-making; building partnerships; communication with different public groups; tribal 

access and consultations; invasive species; soundscapes; workforce development; persons 

with disabilities; off-season use; visitor-to-visitor conflict, emerging technologies and 

uses; visitor fees; managing packstock use; sanitation and waste management; managing 

technological change. 

Please list your top 5 specific research needs in the boxes below. 

Specific Research

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Two Most Important Problems

Q11. Please describe what you believe are the two most important problems managers and agencies need to collectively address in strategic planning to protect wilderness 

qualities in the coming 20 years for the National Wilderness Preservation System.

a. _____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

b. _____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Information about You

Q12. How many years have you been in your current position? ____ Years

Q13. How many years have you had (or did you have) responsibility for wilderness 

stewardship? ____ Years

Q14. How many years total have you been employed by your current agency? ____ 

Years

Q15. Are you willing to answer some follow-up questions aimed at providing input on 

two additional important topics: 1) rating the values for which we manage wilderness, 

and 2) assessing the general success at accomplishing tasks in the 1995 inter-agency 

NWPS strategic plan. If yes, you will be directed to these two surveys on line.

 ̈ Yes, I want to complete these two important additional survey topics.

 ̈ No, thank you.

Do you have any comments to make about this survey or additional input to provide to 

the strategic planning process? If you do, please enter those comments here. Your opinions are highly valued.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 31

Part Two—Values and Accomplishments for the 1995 NWPS Strategic Plan

Wilderness Values

Q1. Wilderness areas are designated and managed to provide a variety of purposes. Please 

indicate how much importance you attach to each of the following potential wilderness 

values. Check one response for each value listed. 

Wilderness Values

Level of importance

Not at all 

important

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Extremely

(5)

For future generations

For scientific study

Future option to visit

Income for tourism industry

Just knowing it exists

Preserving ecosystems

Protecting air quality

Protecting water quality

Protection for endangered species

Protection of wildlife habitat

Providing spiritual inspiration

Recreation opportunities

Scenic beauty

Accomplishment of 1995 Objectives

Q2. Please evaluate the degree to which you believe the 1995 Interagency Wilderness 

Strategic Plan objectives have been accomplished to date within your agency. Check one 

response for each objective listed, although some objectives have multiple parts.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know or 

N/A

1. Preservation of natural and biological values

Manage wilderness within the 

context of large landscapes 

to ensure the protection and 

integrity of natural biological 

processes.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know or 

N/A

Inventory wilderness ecosystems to collect baseline data. 

Identify indicators and develop 

monitoring standards for those 

elements critical to ecological 

integrity. Develop monitoring 

strategies for high priority indicators and provide feedback for 

adaptive management. Where 

appropriate, establish long-term 

research programs.

Restore wilderness ecosystems 

damaged by humans to the 

degree feasible. Identify the 

processes needed to assess, 

restore, or mitigate humaninduced change.

Restore fire to its natural role in 

the ecosystem.

Implement integrated exotic 

plant and animal management 

which includes prevention, education, detection, quick elimination of spot infestations, and 

control of major occurrences.

Exchange, purchase, or retire 

uses adversely affecting wilderness values where rights-holders are willing.

Pursue acquisition or exchange 

of inholdings, subsurface rights, 

and adjacent lands critical to 

wilderness protection.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

2. Management of Social Values

Evaluate all existing and 

proposed structures and installations to minimize the impact 

on wilderness values.

Emphasize opportunities outside wilderness for recreation 

activities that are not dependent 

on a wilderness setting.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 33

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

Coordinate with neighboring 

agencies and interests on wilderness use restrictions (such as 

campsite and fire regulations) 

and on the establishment of 

policies for limits such as group 

size and numbers of packstock.

Coordinate with Department 

of Defense agencies and the 

Federal Aviation Administration to develop procedures and 

guidelines to avoid or mitigate 

low-level overflights.

Develop, identify, and distribute 

information on new or evolving 

recreation management tools 

and techniques.

Establish an interagency national information network to 

provide wilderness information 

for public and agency use.

Assess impacts of new and 

emerging technologies on 

traditional wilderness values. 

Develop public information and 

education programs to address 

these effects and mitigate any 

unacceptable impacts.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

3.Administrative Policy and Interagency Coordination

Maintain strong and professional leadership in wilderness 

stewardship at all levels. Each 

agency will: have a national 

wilderness coordinator; and 

require wilderness stewardship 

performance elements for those 

managing wilderness.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

Create a National Interagency 

Steering Committee made 

up of the national wilderness 

coordinators of each agency 

to improve interagency understanding and consistency in 

managing the National Wilderness Preservation System, 

including: developing common 

guidelines, policies, and regulations on key wilderness issues; 

and identifying and coordinating research priorities for 

the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute, and training priorities with the Arthur 

Carhart Training Center.

Coordinate multiple-unit wildernesses to insure consistent 

administration.

Expand the emphasis of research to include natural and 

biological wilderness resources, 

and psychological and social 

values.

Aggressively seek new partnerships with diverse groups to 

support wilderness values and 

goals.

Participate in local government 

planning efforts to represent the 

wilderness resource.

Ensure fiscal accountability in 

the budget process by identifying & tracking funding sources 

& accomplishments in the 

wilderness program.

Allow flexible spending of fire 

funding to cover prescribed fire.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 35

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

4. Training of Agency Personnel

Identify the core competencies 

required for wilderness rangers, wilderness managers, and 

line officers with wilderness 

management responsibilities. 

Identify tools, methods, and 

techniques to master the needed 

abilities.

Integrate wilderness into other 

program training and vice versa. 

Develop basic wilderness orientation training for presentation 

to all agency personnel.

Develop common understanding and training on wilderness 

principles such as the minimum 

tool concept.

Continue to develop, utilize, 

and support wilderness training 

programs.

Each agency will support the 

Arthur Carhart Training Center 

and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.

Establish partnerships with colleges and universities to recruit 

volunteers, participate in curriculum development, provide 

training, and conduct research.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

5. Public Awareness and Understanding

Evaluate wilderness education 

programs to determine their effectiveness.

Identify strategies to communicate wilderness education 

messages to diverse cultural, 

geographical, and sociological 

groups, including non-recreation 

users.
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Objectives

The level of accomplishment of 1995 objectives

None Slight Moderate High

Very 

High

Do not 

know 

Develop a wilderness curriculum for grades K through 12. 

Encourage state agencies to 

establish curricula for environmental/ wilderness education in 

schools.

Continue to support “Leave No 

Trace” as the official program 

for minimum impact recreation.

A1.2 Example letter to prospective respondents

Hello Wilderness Managers, Planners and others involved with Wilderness Stewardship 

in the Bureau of Land Management:

With this letter you are being invited to participate in the 2014 Wilderness Manager 

Survey (WMS). This survey is being sent to Wilderness managers throughout our agency, 

and as well, throughout the Park Service, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Results from the WMS will be the foundation for developing a new Strategic Plan to 

guide management of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) over the 

next 20 years. The survey will be sent to managers from field level to national offices. 

Your perspectives on the issues covered in this survey are critical for future strategic 

planning for the Wilderness System.

Results from the WMS will go to an interagency team to be used in drafting the new 

NWPS Strategic Plan. The last plan was developed in 1995 (http://wilderness.nps.gov/

document/I-21.pdf). Your agency scientists have collaborated with university researchers 

to develop, test, and implement the WMS to coincide with this 50th Anniversary year for 

the Wilderness Act. Results from you and your Wilderness manager peers will be presented and discussed at the 50th anniversary conference this coming October. Results will 

be distributed through many channels. Watch for them! 

There are two parts to the WMS. The first part looks at future challenges for management 

of the NWPS and should take only 25 to 30 minutes. The second, equally important part, 

asks you to reflect on what is valuable about wilderness, and on past accomplishments in 

managing the NWPS. This second part should require only about an additional 10 to 15 

minutes. Upon completing the first part of the survey, you will be given the opportunity 

to open and complete the second part. 

Please open this link (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CTGPBPD) as soon as you can 

and take the survey. All completed surveys will be forwarded by SurveyMonkey to Dr. 

Ramesh Ghimire at the University of Georgia. If you need more information you may 

phone Dr. Ghimire at 706-542-3098 or e-mail him at ghimire@uga.edu. Thank you for 

helping make this a successful national, interagency effort. The success of the WMS and 

development of a new Strategic Plan for the National Wilderness Preservation System 

depend on your participation and knowledge.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 37

A1.3 Time burden of the survey as indicated by the pilot 

respondents

Four respondents indicated how much time they had spent completing the survey (please 

see table A1.3a). In the comment box, one respondent mentioned it took 34 minutes to 

complete the survey (part I + part II). SurveyMonkey tracks the time used by each respondent in completing a survey (Table A1.3b).

Table A1.3a—Approximate time burden of the survey reported by pilot 

respondents

Reported time to complete (in minutes) Total time (in 

Respondent Initials Part I Part II minutes)

RO 23 7 30

TC 20 9 29

LT 46 20 66

Average time 30 14 44

Table A1.3b—Approximate time burden of the survey tracked by 

SurveyMonkey

Time used to complete both parts (in minutes) Number of respondents

Approximately 30 minutes 5

35-50 minutes 2

Approximately one hour 5

More than one hour 5

Average time 52 minutes

Table A1.4—Respondents by state and wilderness units

Respondents in Alaska Number of Respondents Percent

Aleutian Islands Wilderness 2 9

Becharof Wilderness 1 5

Denali Wilderness 1 5

Gates of the Arctic Wilderness 5 23

Innoko Wilderness 1 5

Izembek Wilderness 1 5

Katmai Wilderness 1 5

Kenai Wilderness 1 5

Mollie Beattie Wilderness 4 18

Togiak Wilderness 2 9

Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness 1 5

Other 2 9

Total 22 100

Respondents in Alabama Number of Respondents Percent

Dugger Mountain Wilderness 1 100
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Respondents in Arizona Number of Respondents Percent

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 1 4

Baboquivari Peak Wilderness 1 4

Cabeza Prieta Wilderness 1 4

Chiricahua National Monument Wilderness 1 4

Escudilla Wilderness 2 8

Havasu Wilderness 1 4

Hells Canyon Wilderness (AZ) 1 4

Juniper Mesa Wilderness 1 4

Kachina Peaks Wilderness 1 4

Kendrick Mountain Wilderness 1 4

Kofa Wilderness 1 4

Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness 1 4

Paiute Wilderness 1 4

Pajarita Wilderness 1 4

Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness 1 4

Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness 1 4

Saddle Mountain Wilderness 1 4

West Clear Creek Wilderness 1 4

Other 5 21

Total 24 100

Respondents in California Number of Respondents Percent

Agua Tibia Wilderness 1 2

Ansel Adams Wilderness 1 2

Bighorn Mountain Wilderness 1 2

Carson-Iceberg Wilderness 1 2

Cedar Roughs Wilderness 1 2

Dead Mountains Wilderness 1 2

Desolation Wilderness 2 4

Domeland Wilderness 1 2

Emigrant Wilderness 1 2

Golden Trout Wilderness 1 2

Grass Valley Wilderness 1 2

Hoover Wilderness 2 4

Imperial Refuge Wilderness 1 2

Inyo Mountains Wilderness 2 4

Ishi Wilderness 1 2

Jacumba Wilderness 1 2

John Krebs Wilderness 1 2

John Muir Wilderness 1 2

King Range Wilderness 1 2

Lassen Volcanic Wilderness 1 2

Marble Mountain Wilderness 2 4

Mojave Wilderness 2 4

Monarch Wilderness 2 4

Mt. Shasta Wilderness 1 2

Rocks and Islands Wilderness 1 2

San Gorgonio Wilderness 2 4

Santa Rosa Wilderness 2 4

Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness 6 11

South Fork Eel River Wilderness 1 2

Trinity Alps Wilderness 1 2

Ventana Wilderness 2 4

Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness 1 2

Yosemite Wilderness 2 4

Other 5 9

Total 53 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 39

Respondents in Colorado Number of Respondents Percent

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness 2 11

Comanche Peak Wilderness 1 5

Dominguez Canyon Wilderness 1 5

Gunnison Gorge Wilderness 1 5

Indian Peaks Wilderness 2 11

Mount Evans Wilderness 1 5

Mount Massive Wilderness 1 5

Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness 1 5

Sarvis Creek Wilderness 1 5

Weminuche Wilderness 3 16

Other 5 26

Total 19 100

Respondents in Florida Number of Respondents Percent

Cedar Keys Wilderness 2 13

Florida Keys Wilderness 2 13

J.N. “Ding” Darling Wilderness 2 13

Lake Woodruff Wilderness 2 13

Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness 3 19

Pelican Island Wilderness 1 6

St. Marks Wilderness 3 19

Other 1 6

Total 16 100

Respondent in Georgia Number of Respondents Percent

Brasstown wilderness 1 17

Cohutta wilderness 1 17

Okefenokee wilderness 3 50

Wolf Island Wilderness 1 17

Total 6 100

Respondents in Hawaii Number of Respondents Percent

Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness 3 100

Respondents in Idaho Number of Respondents Percent

Big Jacks Creek Wilderness 1 8

Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness 1 8

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness 4 33

Little Jacks Creek Wilderness 1 8

Owyhee River Wilderness 3 25

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 1 8

Other 1 8

Total 12 100

Respondents in Illinois Number of Respondents Percent

Crab Orchard Wilderness 1 100
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Respondents in Kentucky Number of Respondents Percent

Clifty Wilderness 1 100

Respondents in Louisiana Number of Respondents Percent

Breton Wilderness 1 33

Lacassine Wilderness 1 33

Other 1 33

Total 3 100

Respondents in Maine Number of Respondents Percent

Moosehorn (Baring Unit) Wilderness 1 25

Moosehorn Wilderness 2 50

Other 1 25

Total 4 100

Respondents in Massachusetts Number of Respondents Percent

Monomoy Wilderness 1 100 

Respondents in Michigan Number of Respondents Percent

Seney Wilderness 2 67

Sylvania Wilderness 1 33

Total 3 100

Respondents in Minnesota Number of Respondents Percent

Agassiz Wilderness 2 67

Tamarac Wilderness 1 33

Total 3 100

Respondents in Mississippi Number of Respondents Percent

Black Creek Wilderness 1 20

Gulf Islands Wilderness 3 60

Other 1 20

Total 5 100

Respondents in Missouri Number of Respondents Percent

Mingo Wilderness 2 67

Other 1 33

Total 3 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 41

Respondents in Montana Number of Respondents Percent

Absaroka-Beartooth 1 6

Anaconda Pintler 3 19

Bob Marshall 1 6

Cabinet Mountains 2 13

Lee Metcalf 3 19

Medicine Lake 1 6

Red Rock Lakes 1 6

Selway-Bitterroot 1 6

UL Bend 1 6

Other 2 13

Total 16 100

Respondents in Nebraska Number of Respondents Percent

Fort Niobrara Wilderness 1 50

Other 1 50

Total 2 100

Respondents in Nevada Number of Respondents Percent

High Rock Canyon Wilderness 1 9

Highland Ridge Wilderness 1 9

La Madre Mountain Wilderness 1 9

Mount Grafton Wilderness 1 9

Mt. Moriah Wilderness 1 9

Ruby Mountains Wilderness 1 9

South Jackson Mountains Wilderness 1 9

Spirit Mountain Wilderness 1 9

Other 3 27

Total 11 100

Respondents in New Hampshire Number of Respondents Percent

Pemigewasset Wilderness 2 40

Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness 2 40

Wild River Wilderness 1 20

Total 5 100

Respondents in New Jersey Number of Respondents Percent

Brigantine Wilderness 1 50

Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 1 50

Total 2 100
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Respondents in New Mexico Number of Respondents Percent

Aldo Leopold Wilderness 2 13

Bandelier Wilderness 1 6

Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness 1 6

Blue Range Wilderness 1 6

Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness 1 6

Gila Wilderness 2 13

Pecos Wilderness 3 19

Sabinoso Wilderness 1 6

Salt Creek Wilderness 1 6

Sandia Mountain Wilderness 2 13

Other 1 6

Total 16 100

Respondents in New York Number of Respondents Percent

Brigantine Otis Pike Fire Island

 High Dune Wilderness 1 100

Respondents in North Dakota Number of Respondents Percent

Chase Lake Wilderness 1 33

Lostwood Wilderness 2 67

Total 3 100

Respondents in Ohio Number of Respondents Percent

West Sister Island Wilderness 2 100

Respondents in Oklahoma Number of Respondents Percent

Wichita Mountains Wilderness 1 100

Respondents in Oregon Number of Respondents Percent

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness 1 5

Hells Canyon Wilderness (ID/OR) 3 14

Oregon Badlands Wilderness 4 19

Soda Mountain Wilderness 1 5

Spring Basin Wilderness 1 5

Steens Mountain Wilderness 5 24

Table Rock Wilderness 1 5

Three Sisters Wilderness 3 14

Waldo Lake Wilderness 1 5

Other 1 5

Total 21 100

Respondents in South Carolina Number of Respondents Percent

Cape Romain Wilderness 2 40

Congaree National Park Wilderness 3 60

Total 5 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 43

Respondents in South Dakota Number of Respondents Percent

Badlands Wilderness 2 100

Respondents in Texas Number of Respondents Percent

Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness 2 50

Other 2 50

Total 4 100

Respondents in Utah Number of Respondents Percent

Ashdown Gorge Wilderness 2 20

Mount Naomi Wilderness 1 10

Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness 1 10

Red Mountain Wilderness 1 10

Twin Peaks Wilderness 1 10

Zion Wilderness 2 20

Other 2 20

Total 10 100

Respondents in Vermont Number of Respondents Percent

Breadloaf Wilderness 1 100

Respondents in Virginia Number of Respondents Percent

Lewis Fork Wilderness 1 50

Saint Mary’s Wilderness 1 50

Total 2 100

Respondents in Washington Number of Respondents Percent

Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2 22

Glacier Peak Wilderness 2 22

Juniper Dunes Wilderness 2 22

Mount Baker Wilderness 2 22

Stephen Mather Wilderness 1 11

Total 9 100

Respondents in West Virginia Number of Respondents Percent

Otter Creek Wilderness 1 100

Respondents in Wisconsin Number of Respondents Percent

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 1 50

Wisconsin Islands Wilderness 1 50

Total 2 100

Respondents in Wyoming Number of Respondents Percent

Bridger Wilderness 1 20

Cloud Peak Wilderness 1 20

Jedediah Smith Wilderness 1 20

Other 2 40

Total 5 100
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A2.1—Respondents by years in current position 

 Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Years All Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0-5 190 (55) 42 (56) 41 (54) 56 (54) 51 (58)

6-10 68 (20) 14 (19) 15 (20) 18 (17) 20 (23)

11-15 45 (13) 6 (8) 12 (16) 17 (17) 10 (11)

16-20 15 (4) 4 (5) 5 (7) 2 (2) 3 (3)

>20 26 (8) 9 (12) 2 (3) 10 (10) 4 (5)

Total* 344 (100) 75 (100) 75 (100) 103 (100) 88 (100)

Mean 8 years 9 years 7 years 8 years 7 years

* Three respondents belonged to other combinations. 

Table A2.2—Respondents by years with responsibility for wilderness stewardship

 Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Years All Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0-5 114 (33) 28 (37) 26 (35) 22 (21) 37 (42)

6-10 71 (21) 14 (19) 16 (21) 22 (21) 19 (22)

11-15 49 (14) 10 (13) 11 (15) 15 (15) 13 (15)

16-20 44 (13) 7 (9) 9 (12) 19 (19) 8 (9)

>20 66 (19) 16(22) 13 (17) 25 (24) 11 (12)

Total* 344 (100) 75 (100) 75 (100) 103 (100) 88 (100)

Mean 12 years 12 years 12 years 15 years 10 years

* Three respondents belonged to other combinations. 

Appendix 2. Manager Profiles, Importance of 

Wilderness Values, Perceived Threats, Challenges 

and Strategic Issues

Table A2.3—Respondents by agency of employment

Agency Number Percent

Bureau of Land Management 77 21

National Park Service 82 22

U.S. Forest Service 109 30

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 96 26

Other combinations 4 1

Total 368 100

Table A2.3a—Respondents by level of office in Bureau of 

Land Management

Level Number Percent

Field 43 57

District 18 24

State 12 16

National 3 4

Total* 76 100

*Note: One respondent did not select Bureau of Land Management level.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 45

Table A2.3c— Respondents by level of office in U.S. 

Forest Service

Level Number Percent

District 71 65

Forest 25 23

Regional 8 7

National 5 5

Total 109 100

Table A2.3d—Respondents by level of office in U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Level Number Percent

Refuge 82 86

Regional 8 8

National 5 5

Total* 95 100

*Note: One respondent did not select U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

office level

Table A2.4—Respondents by primary professional responsibility

 Bureau of U.S. U.S. Fish and

Primary professional Land National Park Forest Wildlife

responsibilities All Agencies Management Service Service Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Law enforcement in 

 wilderness 77 (7) 9 (3) 14 (6) 28 (7) 25 (9)

Public information and 

 education about wilderness 203 (17) 50 (19) 30 (13) 69 (18) 53 (20)

Wilderness resource 

 management 260 (22) 61 (23) 51 (21) 89 (23) 59 (22)

Wilderness visitor 

 management 166 (14) 35 (13) 32 (13) 60 (15) 39 (15)

Wilderness planning 213 (18) 55 (21) 56 (23) 69 (18) 33 (12)

Wilderness policies and 

 regulations 178 (15) 42 (16) 45 (19) 54 (14) 37 (14)

Other combination 72 (6) 16 (6) 12 (5) 22 (6) 19 (7)

Total* 1169 (100) 268 (100) 240 (100) 391 (100) 265 (100)

*Three respondents belonged to other agency combinations. Since respondents were asked to check all professional 

responsibilities that apply, total frequencies are much greater than total number of respondents. 

Table A2.3b—Respondents by level of office in National 

Park Service

Level Number Percent

Park 66 80

Regional 8 10

National 8 10

Total 82 100
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A2.5—Respondents by time and effort on wilderness stewardship 

and planning

Proportion of Duties Number of Respondents Percent

<10 93 26

10-20 126 34

21-40 55 16

41-60 31 8

61-80 31 8

81-100 30 8

Total 366 100

Mean time and effort = 29 percent; Median time and effort = 20 percent

Table A2.6—Respondents by state

 Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

State All Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

California 55 (17) 20 (28) 14 (21) 20 (21) 1 (1)

Arizona 24 (8) 8 (11) 4 (6) 9 (10) 3 (4)

Alaska 23 (7) 1 (1) 8 (11) — 14 (19)

Oregon 21 (7) 15 (21) 1 (2) 5 (5) —

Colorado 19 (6) 7 (10) 3 (4) 9 (9) —

Montana 17 (6) 3 (4) 2 (3) 7 (8) 5 (7)

Florida 16 (5) — 4 (6) — 12 (16)

New Mexico 16 (5) 3 (4) 3 (5) 9 (9) 1 (1)

Idaho 11 (4) 6 (8) — 5 (5) —

Nevada 11 (4) 6 (8) 1 (2) 2 (2) 2 (3)

Utah 11 (4) 1 (1) 5 (8) 5 (5) —

Washington 9 (3) 2 (3) 1 (2) 6 (7) —

Georgia 7 (2) — — 3 (3) 4 (5)

Mississippi 5 (2) — 3 (5) 1 (1) 1 (1)

New Hampshire 5 (2) — — 5 (5) —

South Carolina 5 (2) — 3 (5) — 2 (3)

Wyoming 5 (2) — 2 (3) 3 (3) —

Maine 4 (1) — — — 4 (5)

Texas 4 (1) — 4 (6) — —

Hawaii 3 (1) — 3 (5) — —

Louisiana 3 (1) — — — 3 (4)

Michigan 3 (1) — — 1 (1) 2 (3)

Minnesota 3 (1) — — — 3 (4)

Missouri 3 (1) — — 1 (1) 2 (3)

North Dakota 3 (1) — — — 3 (4)

Nebraska 3 (1) — — — 3 (4)

Massachusetts 2 (1) — — — 2 (3)

New Jersey 2 (1) — — — 2 (3)

Ohio 2 (1) — — — 2 (3)

South Dakota 2 (1) — 2 (3) — —

Virginia 2 (1) — — 2 (2) —

Wisconsin 2 (1) — 1 (2) — 1 (1)

Arkansas 1 (0) — — — 1 (1)

Illinois 1 (0) — — — 1 (1)

Kentucky 1 (0) — — 1 (1) —

New York 1 (0) — 1 (2) — —

Oklahoma 1 (0) — — — 1 (1)

Vermont 1 (0) — — 1 (1) —

West Virginia 1 (0) — — 1 (1) —

Total 308 (100) 72 (100) 65 (100) 96 (100) 75 (100) 

Note: Dash in cells means no survey respondents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integers. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 47

Table A2.7—Values managers attach to wilderness 

Table A2.7a—Number and percentage of respondents rating each wilderness value as very or 

extremely important 

 Bureau of U.S. U.S. Fish and

 Land National Park Forest Wildlife

Wilderness Value All Agencies Management Service Service Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Knowing future generations 

 will have Wilderness Areas 153 (97) 35 (95) 35 (100) 54 (98) 26 (96)

Preserving unique wild 

 plants & animals 148 (94) 36 (97) 33 (94) 50 (91) 26 (96)

Protecting water quality 133 (85) 29 (79) 32 (91) 47 (85) 23 (85)

Protecting of wildlife habitat 132 (84) 31 (84) 32 (92) 44 (80) 22 (81)

Protecting rare and 

 endangered species 124 (79) 32 (87) 28 (80) 42 (76) 20 (74)

Knowing that Wilderness 

 Areas exists 108 (69) 24 (65) 25 (72) 37 (67) 19 (70)

Providing scenic beauty 101 (64) 23 (62) 25 (72) 34 (62) 18 (66)

Protecting air quality 101 (64) 22 (59) 21 (60) 39 (71) 17 (63)

Having option to visit 

 Wilderness Areas in future 100 (64) 21 (56) 21 (60) 43 (78) 14 (52)

Providing spiritual inspiration 100 (63) 24 (64) 23 (66) 36 (66) 16 (60)

Preserving natural areas for 

 science 94 (59) 19 (51) 25 (71) 31 (57) 17 (63)

Providing recreation 

 opportunities 91 (58) 21 (57) 17 (48) 36 (66) 17 (63)

Providing income for 

 tourism industry 15 (10) 4 (11) 3 (8) 4 (7) 4 (14)

* Respondents were provided a five point Likert-type scale (not at all important to extremely important) to rate the 

importance of each wilderness value. This table summarizes the number and percentage of respondents that rated the 

wilderness values very or extremely important. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integers. 
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A2.7c—Number and percentage of respondents by all agencies and each agency rating each 

wilderness value 

a. For future generations

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 127 (81) 30 (81) 32 (91) 40 (73) 22 (81)

Very important 26 (16) 5 (14) 3 (9) 14 (25) 4 (15)

Moderately important 3 (2) 2 (5) 0 (0) 1 (2) 1 (4)

Slightly important 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Not at all important 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

b. For scientific study

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 32 (20) 6 (16) 10 (28) 9 (17) 6 (22)

Very important 62 (39) 13 (35) 15 (43) 22 (40) 11 (41)

Moderately important 51 (33) 16 (43) 9 (26) 18 (33) 7 (26)

Slightly important 9 (6) 2 (6) 1 (3) 3 (5) 3 (11)

Not at all important 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

Table A2.7b—Comparison of percentages of the managers and the 

public rating each value as very or extremely important 

 Managers The public**

Wilderness Values *2013 2008

Knowing future generations will have WA 97 90

Preserving unique wild plants & animals 94 84

Protecting water quality 85 93

Protecting of wildlife habitat 84 89

Protecting rare and endangered species 79 83

Knowing that WA exists 69 78

Providing scenic beauty 64 80

Protecting air quality 64 93

Having option to visit WA in future 64 79

Providing spiritual inspiration 63 60

Preserving natural areas for science 59 67

Providing recreation opportunities 58 72

Providing income for tourism industry 10 38

* Respondents were provided a five-point Likert-type scale (not at all important to 

extremely important) to rate the importance of each wilderness value. This table 

summarizes the percentage of respondents that rated the wilderness values statements 

very or extremely important. 

**Data for ranking wilderness values by the public were based on the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) conducted in 2008.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 49

c. Future option to visit

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 41 (26) 8 (21) 11 (31) 17 (31) 4 (15)

Very important 59 (38) 13 (35) 10 (29) 26 (47) 10 (37)

Moderately important 51 (32) 14 (38) 14 (40) 9 (16) 12 (44)

Slightly important 5 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 3 (6) 1 (4)

Not at all important 1 (1) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

d. Income for tourism industry

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 2 (7)

Very important 12 (8) 4 (11) 3 (8) 3 (5) 2 (7)

Moderately important 54 (34) 15 (41) 11 (31) 20 (36) 5 (19)

Slightly important 63 (40) 13 (35) 15 (43) 24 (44) 11 (41)

Not at all important 25 (16) 5 (13) 6 (17) 7 (13) 7 (26)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

e. Just knowing it exists

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 58 (37) 11 (30) 16 (46) 19 (34) 9 (33)

Very important 50 (32) 13 (35) 9 (26) 18 (33) 10 (37)

Moderately important 37 (24) 11 (30) 7 (20) 11 (20) 8 (30)

Slightly important 8 (5) 1 (3) 2 (5) 5 (9) 0 (0)

Not at all important 4 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 57 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

f. Preserving ecosystems

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 107 (68) 26 (70) 25 (71) 39 (71) 16 (59)

Very important 41 (26) 10 (27) 8 (23) 11 (20) 10 (37)

Moderately important 6 (4) 1 (3) 1 (2) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Slightly important 3 (2) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Not at all important 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

g. Protecting air quality

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 54 (34) 13 (35) 10 (29) 23 (42) 6 (22)

Very important 47 (29) 9 (24) 11 (31) 16 (29) 11 (41)

Moderately important 43 (27) 8 (22) 12 (34) 14 (25) 8 (30)

Slightly important 9 (6) 5 (14) 2 (6) 0 (0) 2 (7)

Not at all important 4 (3) 2 (5) 0 (0) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (10) 27 (100)

h. Protecting water quality

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 77 (49) 18 (49) 15 (43) 32 (58) 10 (37)

Very important 56 (36) 11 (30) 17 (48) 15 (27) 13 (48)

Moderately important 19 (12) 5 (13) 2 (6) 7 (13) 4 (15)

Slightly important 4 (3) 3 (8) 1 (3) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Not at all important 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

i. Protection for endangered species

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 66 (42) 18 (49) 15 (43) 22 (40) 9 (33)

Very important 58 (37) 14 (38) 13 (37) 20 (36) 11 (41)

Moderately important 26 (17) 3 (8) 7 (20) 10 (18) 5 (19)

Slightly important 5 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 2 (4) 2 (7)

Not at all important 2 (1) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

j. Protection of wildlife habitat

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 73 (46) 19 (51) 17 (49) 22 (40) 13 (48)

Very important 59 (38) 12 (33) 15 (43) 22 (40) 9 (33)

Moderately important 20 (13) 3 (8) 3 (8) 9 (16) 5 (19)

Slightly important 4 (3) 3 (8) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Not at all important 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 51

k. Providing spiritual inspiration

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 49 (31) 12 (32) 9 (26) 19 (35) 8 (30)

Very important 51 (32) 12 (32) 14 (40) 17 (31) 8 (30)

Moderately important 40 (25) 9 (25) 9 (26) 14 (25) 7 (26)

Slightly important 15 (10) 4 (11) 3 (8) 4 (7) 3 (11)

Not at all important 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 1 (3)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

l. Recreation opportunities

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 31 (20) 10 (27) 5 (14) 12 (22) 4 (15)

Very important 60 (38) 11 (30) 12 (34) 24 (44) 13 (48)

Moderately important 50 (32) 15 (40) 15 (43) 15 (27) 4 (15)

Slightly important 15 (10) 1 (3) 2 (6) 4 (7) 6 (22)

Not at all important 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)

m. Scenic beauty

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Importance Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Extremely important 44 (28) 11 (30) 9 (26) 17 (31) 6 (22)

Very important 57 (36) 12 (32) 16 (46) 17 (31) 12 (44)

Moderately important 47 (30) 12 (32) 9 (26) 19 (34) 7 (26)

Slightly important 7 (4) 2 (6) 0 (0) 2 (4) 2 (8)

Not at all important 2 (1) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 157 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 27 (100)
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A2.8—Level of potential threats over the next 20 years to the wilderness resource or visitor 

experiences

a. Adjacent land management and use

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 77 (22) 21 (28) 22 (29) 13 (12) 20 (22)

High 77 (22) 15 (20) 18 (23) 27 (25) 16 (18)

Moderate 116 (33) 23 (31) 22 (29) 37 (34) 33 (37)

Slight 68 (19) 13 (17) 14 (18) 28 (26) 13 (15)

None 13 (4) 3 (4) 1 (1) 3 (3) 6 (7)

Not sure 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total* 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

*3 respondents belonged to other combination. Hence row total and column total are not equal.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. 

b. Administrative access, facilities, or other administrative exceptions

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 25 (7) 5 (7) 6 (8) 7 (6) 6 (7)

High 54 (15) 10 (13) 19 (24) 19 (18) 5 (6)

Moderate 105 (30) 23 (31) 26 (34) 30 (28) 26 (29)

Slight 140 (40) 34 (45) 26 (34) 40 (37) 39 (44)

None 21 (6) 2 (3) 0 (0) 10 (9 ) 9 (10)

Not sure 7 (2) 1 (1) 0 (0) 2 (2) 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

c. Visitor use of advanced technology and electronic equipment for navigation or communication

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 40 (12) 9 (12) 9 (12) 15 (14) 6 (7)

High 61 (17) 9 (12) 14 (18) 26 (24) 11 (12)

Moderate 103 (29) 19 (26) 25 (32) 37 (34) 21 (24)

Slight 113 (32) 30 (40) 21 (27) 23 (21) 39 (44)

None 27 (8) 4 (5) 7 (9) 6 (6) 10 (11)

Not sure 8 (2) 4 (5) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 53

d. Air quality impacts

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 37 (11) 6 (8) 11 (14) 14 (13) 4 (4)

High 72 (20) 11 (15) 19 (25) 23 (21) 18 (21)

Moderate 107 (30) 17 (23) 25 (33) 43 (40) 22 (25)

Slight 102 (29) 29 (39) 15 (19) 24 (22) 34 (38)

None 25 (7) 10 (13) 4 (5) 4 (4) 7 (8)

Not sure 9 (3) 2 (2) 3 (4) 0 (0) 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

e. Aircraft noise and airspace reservations

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 59 (59) 2 (3) 23 (30) 20 (19) 12 (13)

High 71 (20) 12 (16) 19 (25) 24 (22) 16 (18)

Moderate 120 (34) 26 (35) 25 (32) 35 (32) 33 (37)

Slight 87 (25) 31 (41) 10 (13) 24 (22) 22 (25)

None 10 (3) 3 (4) 0 (0) 4 (4) 3 (3)

Not sure 5 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 3 (3)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

f. Fragmentation and isolation of wilderness as ecological islands

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 55 (16) 12 (16) 15 (19) 15 (14) 13 (15)

High 76 (22) 16 (21) 15 (19) 28 (26) 17 (19)

Moderate 83 (23) 20 (27) 19 (25) 27 (25) 15 (17)

Slight 106 (30) 20 (27) 17 (22) 33 (30) 35 (39)

None 25 (7) 6 (8) 8 (10) 5 (5) 6 (7)

Not sure 7 (2) 1 (1) 3 (4) 0 (0) 3 (3)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

g. Increasing or changing non-commercial recreation

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 50 (14) 4 (5) 6 (8) 28 (26) 10 (11)

High 75 (21) 16 (21) 17 (22) 28 (26) 14 (16)

Moderate 114 (32) 22 (29) 30 (39) 31 (29) 31 (35)

Slight 90 (26) 30 (40) 20 (26) 16 (15) 23 (26)

None 17 (5) 2 (3) 3 (4) 3 (3) 9 (10)

Not sure 6 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

h. Increasing or changing commercial recreation

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 29 (8) 0 (0) 11 (14) 11 (10) 6 (7)

High 59 (17) 12 (16) 12 (16) 20 (19) 15 (17)

Moderate 131 (37) 28 (37) 25 (32) 48 (44) 28 (31)

Slight 102 (29) 31 (41) 25 (32) 24 (22) 22 (25)

None 27 (8) 4 (5) 3 (4) 5 (5) 15 (17)

Not sure 4 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 3 (3)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

i. Lack of political and financial support for wilderness protection and management

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 153 (43) 24 (32) 37 (48) 63 (58) 26 (29)

High 110 (31) 22 (29) 25 (32) 33 (30) 30 (34)

Moderate 50 (14) 13 (17) 12 (16) 6 (6) 19 (21)

Slight 29 (8) 12 (16) 3 (4) 4 (4) 10 (11)

None 4 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 2 (2)

Not sure 6 (2) 3 (4) 0 (0) 1 (1) 2 (2)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

j. Legislation designating wilderness with compromised wilderness conditions or special provisions 

for management

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 61 (17) 14 (19) 15 (19) 18 (17) 11 (12)

High 86 (24) 15 (20) 17 (22) 38 (35) 16 (18)

Moderate 74 (21) 14 (19) 21 (27) 19 (18) 20 (22)

Slight 70 (20) 16 (21) 13 (17) 19 (18) 22 (25)

None 40 (11) 12 (16) 4 (5) 12 (11) 12 (13)

Not sure 21 (6) 4 (5) 7 (9) 2 (2) 8 (9)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

k. Livestock grazing

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 20 (6) 6 (8) 3 (4) 10 (9) 1 (1)

High 41 (12) 10 (13) 11 (14) 15 (14) 5 (6)

Moderate 72 (20) 27 (36) 11 (14) 27 (25) 5 (6)

Slight 79 (22) 25 (33) 20 (26) 24 (22) 9 (10)

None 134 (38) 7 (9) 30 (39) 32 (30) 65 (73)

Not sure 6 (2) 0 (0) 2 (3) 0 (0) 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 55

l. Energy development and resource extraction

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 51 (14) 9 (12) 15 (19) 14 (13) 13 (15)

High 44 (13) 8 (11) 12 (16) 11 (10) 12 (13)

Moderate 64 (18) 17 (23) 14 (18) 21 (19) 12 (13)

Slight 91 (26) 19 (25) 9 (12) 42 (39) 19 (21)

None 91 (26) 19 (25) 26 (34) 17 (16) 29 (33)

Not sure 11 (3) 3 (4) 1 (1) 3 (3) 4 (5)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

m. Motorized and mechanical equipment trespass and illegal use

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 53 (15) 16 (21) 8 (10) 21 (19) 6 (7)

High 81 (23) 22 (29) 9 (12) 31 (29) 18 (20)

Moderate 125 (36) 20 (27) 33 (43) 39 (36) 33 (37)

Slight 75 (21) 17 (23) 20 (26) 14 (13) 24 (27)

None 15 (4) 0 (0) 7 (9) 3 (3) 5 (6)

Not sure 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

n. Invasive species

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 87 (25) 18 (24) 24 (31) 17 (16) 27 (30)

High 109 (31) 27 (36) 32 (42) 35 (32) 14 (16)

Moderate 115 (32) 20 (27) 18 (23) 46 (43) 30 (34)

Slight 36 (10) 10 (13) 3 (4) 8 (7) 15 (17)

None 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0)

Not sure 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

o. Risk of wildfire damage (outside wilderness) originating in wilderness

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 45 (13) 14 (19) 8 (10) 16 (15) 6 (7)

High 64 (18) 16 (21) 15 (19) 21 (19) 11 (12)

Moderate 114 (32) 21 (28) 30 (39) 37 (34) 26 (29)

Slight 95 (27) 21 (28) 16 (21) 29 (27) 28 (31)

None 28 (8) 1 (1) 6 (8) 5 (5) 16 (18)

Not sure 6 (2) 2 (3) 2 (3) 0 (0) 2 (2)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

p. Private inholdings and their uses

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 14 (4) 4 (5) 2 (3) 3 (3) 4 (4)

High 39 (11) 14 (19) 9 (12) 11 (10) 4 (4)

Moderate 99 (28) 20 (27) 21 (27) 36 (33) 22 (25)

Slight 110 (31) 26 (35) 24 (31) 34 (31) 25 (28)

None 82 (23) 10 (13) 18 (23) 24 (22) 30 (34)

Not sure 8 (2) 1 (1) 3 (4) 0 (0) 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

q. Pressure on threatened and endangered species management

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 30 (9) 7 (9) 7 (9) 7 (6) 9 (10)

High 57 (16) 11 (15) 13 (17) 19 (18) 12 (13)

Moderate 117 (33) 25 (33) 26 (34) 44 (41) 21 (24)

Slight 113 (32) 21 (28) 25 (32) 34 (31) 33 (37)

None 26 (7) 8 (11) 5 (6) 3 (3) 10 (11)

Not sure 9 (3) 3 (4) 1 (1) 1 (1) 4 (5)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

r. Urbanization and encroaching development

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 41 (12) 10 (13) 7 (9) 13 (12) 10 (11)

High 56 (16) 14 (19) 12 (16) 19 (18) 10 (11)

Moderate 86 (24) 15 (20) 23 (30) 30 (28) 17 (19)

Slight 106 (30) 19 (25) 22 (29) 36 (33) 29 (33)

None 63 (18) 17 (23) 13 (17) 10 (9) 23 (26)

Not sure 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

s. Water projects facilities

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 21 (6) 3 (4) 6 (8) 10 (9) 1 (1)

High 46 (13) 8 (11) 16 (21) 14 (13) 6 (7)

Moderate 60 (17) 12 (16) 11 (14) 23 (21) 14 (16)

Slight 107 (30) 33 (44) 23 (30) 28 (26) 23 (26)

None 103 (29) 16 (21) 19 (24) 29 (26) 39 (44)

Not sure 15 (4) 3 (4) 2 (3) 4 (4) 6 (7)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 57

t. Water quality impacts

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 31 (9) 4 (5) 7 (9) 8 (7) 11 (12)

High 49 (14) 7 (9) 8 (10) 14 (13) 19 (21)

Moderate 103 (29) 13 (18) 23 (30) 41 (38) 25 (28)

Slight 126 (36) 34 (46) 29 (38) 37 (34) 26 (29)

None 40 (11) 16 (21) 9 (12) 8 (7) 7 (8)

Not sure 3 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

u. Wildland fire suppression and management

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 66 (19) 14 (19) 15 (19) 28 (26) 8 (9)

High 70 (20) 19 (25) 11 (14) 33 (31) 5 (6)

Moderate 99 (28) 23 (31) 25 (32) 28 (26) 23 (26)

Slight 77 (22) 15 (20) 21 (27) 13 (12) 28 (31)

None 33 (9) 2 (3) 4 (5) 6 (6) 21 (24)

Not sure 7 (2) 2 (3) 1 (1) 0 (0 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

v. Disconnected urban audiences

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 95 (27) 14 (19) 23 (30) 35 (32) 20 (22)

High 93 (26) 15 (20) 25 (32) 28 (26) 25 (28)

Moderate 77 (22) 15 (20) 18 (23) 28 (26) 16 (18)

Slight 53 (15) 18 (24) 6 (8) 10 (9) 19 (21)

None 18 (5) 8 (11) 4 (5) 1 (1) 5 (6)

Not sure 16 (5) 5 (6) 1 (1) 6 (6) 4 (4)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)

w. Disruption of wildlife corridors

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 45 (13) 10 (13) 12 (16) 9 (8) 12 (13)

High 55 (16) 10 (13) 14 (18) 17 (16) 13 (15)

Moderate 104 (30) 22 (29) 20 (26) 37 (34) 25 (28)

Slight 101 (29) 23 (31) 21 (27) 32 (30) 25 (28)

None 41 (12) 9 (12) 9 (12) 9 (8) 14 (16)

Not sure 6 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 4 (4) 0 (0)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

x. Sea level rise; coastal erosion

 All Bureau of National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Land Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 33 (9) 1 (1) 7 (9) 1 (1) 24 (27)

High 22 (6) 5 (7) 4 (5) 4 (4) 9 (10)

Moderate 40 (11) 6 (8) 12 (16) 9 (8) 12 (13)

Slight 54 (15) 11 (15) 12 (16) 17 (16) 12 (13)

None 185 (53) 44 (59) 40 (52) 71 (66) 30 (34)

Not sure 18 (5) 8 (11) 2 (3) 6 (5) 2 (2)

Total 352 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 108 (100) 89 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 59

Appendix 3. Training and Research

Table A3.1—Level of need for manager training during the next 20 years related to general 

wilderness management competencies within your agency

a. Wilderness history, law, regulation and policy 

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 76 (22) 15 (20) 23 (30) 24 (23) 12 (13)

High 125 (36) 25 (33) 25 (32) 40 (38) 34 (38)

Moderate 124 (35) 29 (39) 24 (31) 35 (33) 36 (40)

Slight 22 (6) 5 (7) 4 (5) 6 (6) 7 (8)

None 2 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Not sure 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Total* 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)

*3 respondents belonged to other combinations. Hence row total and column total are not equal.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.

b. Wilderness planning

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 71 (20) 15 (20) 24 (31) 17 (16) 15 (17)

High 131 (37) 23 (31) 31 (40) 48 (45) 27 (30)

Moderate 127 (36) 33 (44) 19 (25) 36 (34) 38 (43)

Slight 17 (5) 3 (4) 2 (3) 4 (4) 8 (9)

None 2 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Not sure 2 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)

c. Visitor use management and monitoring

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 92 (26) 17 (23) 26 (34) 33 (31) 15 (17)

High 103 (29) 21 (28) 21 (27) 39 (37) 21 (24)

Moderate 124 (35) 27 (36) 28 (36) 28 (26) 40 (45)

Slight 27 (8) 10 (13) 1 (1) 5 (5) 11 (12)

None 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1)

Not sure 2 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

d. Natural and cultural resources management and monitoring

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 69 (20) 10 (13) 27 (35) 15 (14) 14 (16)

High 108 (31) 23 (31) 24 (31) 33 (31) 28 (31)

Moderate 129 (37) 31 (41) 23 (30) 45 (42) 30 (34)

Slight 36 (10 10 (13) 0 (0) 10 (9) 16 (18)

None 4 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 3 (3) 0 (0)

Not sure 4 (1) 1 (1) 2 (3) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)

e. Management skills related to communication, problem-solving, decision-making, and organizational management.

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 94 (27) 20 (27) 25 (32) 30 (28) 18 (20)

High 104 (30) 22 (29) 19 (25) 35 (33) 27 (30)

Moderate 112 (32) 25 (33) 30 (39) 34 (32) 22 (25)

Slight 34 (10) 8 (11) 2 (3) 4 (4) 20 (22)

None 4 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3) 1 (1)

Not sure 2 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)

f. Managing special provisions

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 46 (13) 8 (11) 16 (21) 13 (12) 8 (9)

High 84 (24) 23 (31) 19 (25) 23 (22) 17 (19)

Moderate 149 (43) 28 (37) 31 (40) 48 (45) 42 (47)

Slight 52 (15) 12 (16) 7 (9) 12 (11) 21 (24)

None 10 (3) 3 (4) 1 (1) 6 (6) 0 (0)

Not sure 9 (2) 1 (1) 3 (4) 4 (4) 1 (1)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)

g. Wilderness field skills

 All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Level of Threats Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Very high 68 (19) 11 (15) 14 (18) 34 (32) 9 (10)

High 82 (23) 19 (25) 18 (23) 33 (31) 11 (12)

Moderate 119 (34) 29 (39) 28 (36) 26 (25) 34 (38)

Slight 66 (19) 13 (17) 14 (18) 11 (10) 28 (31)

None 7 (2) 0 (0) 2 (3) 2 (2) 3 (3)

Not sure 8 (2) 3 (4) 1 (1) 0 (0) 4 (5)

Total 350 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 106 (100) 89 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 61

Table A3.2—Adequacy and availability of science-based information for decision-making 

a. Air quality protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 40 (12) 16 (21) 4 (5) 8 (8) 10 (11)

Somewhat 70 (20) 20 (27) 14 (18) 19 (18) 17 (20)

Moderate 71 (21) 12 (16) 18 (24) 31 (30) 10 (11)

Good 78 (23) 9 (12) 27 (36) 22 (21) 19 (22)

Excellent 20 (6) 1 (1) 6 (8) 8 (8) 5 (6)

Don’t know 65 (19) 17 (23) 7 (9) 15 (15) 26 (30

Total* 344 (100) 75 (100) 77 (100) 103 (100) 89 (100)

*3 respondents belonged to other combinations. Hence row total and column total are not equal.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.

b. Cultural resources protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 33 (10) 5 (7) 14 (18) 8 (8) 5 (6)

Somewhat 70 (20) 17 (23) 15 (20) 17 (17) 21 (24)

Moderate 91 (27) 23 (31) 18 (24) 30 (30) 18 (21)

Good 103 (30) 17 (23) 26 (34) 37 (37) 23 (26)

Excellent 20 (6) 8 (11) 2 (3) 6 (6) 4 (5)

Don’t know 26 (8) 4 (5) 1 (1) 5 (5) 16 (18)

Total 343 (100) 74 (100) 76 (100) 103 (100) 87 (100)

c. Fire and fuels management

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 24 (7) 7 (9) 4 (5) 10 (10) 3 (3)

Somewhat 52 (15) 11 (15) 12 (16) 18 (18) 11 (13)

Moderate 103 (30) 28 (38) 19 (25) 33 (32) 22 (25)

Good 98 (29) 17 (23) 26 (34) 29 (28) 25 (29)

Excellent 34 (10) 8 (11) 12 (16) 8 (8) 5 (6)

Don’t know 31 (9) 3 (4) 3 (4) 4 (4) 21 (24

Total 342 (100) 74 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100)

d. Fish and wildlife management

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 15 (4) 3 (4) 2 (3) 8 (8) 2 (2)

Somewhat 57 (17) 15 (20) 14 (19) 19 (18) 7 (8)

Moderate 104 (30) 25 (33) 25 (33) 31 (30) 22 (25)

Good 126 (37) 22 (29) 26 (35) 36 (35) 42 (48)

Excellent 22 (6) 6 (8) 6 (8) 4 (4) 6 (7)

Don’t know 19 (6) 4 (5) 2 (3) 5 (5) 8 (9)

Total 343 (100) 75 (100) 75 (100) 103 (100) 87 (100)
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

e. Forest and vegetation resources protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 20 (6) 4 (5) 3 (4) 9 (9) 1 (1)

Somewhat 50 (15) 15 (20) 10 (14) 12 (12) 13 (15)

Moderate 110 (32) 24 (32) 25 (34) 36 (36) 25 (29)

Good 116 (34) 24 (32) 27 (36) 36 (36) 29 (33)

Excellent 14 (4) 4 (5) 6 (8) 2 (2) 2 (2)

Don’t know 30 (9) 4 (5) 3 (4) 6 (6) 17 (20)

Total 340 (100) 75 (100) 74 (100) 101 (100) 87 (100)

f. Grazing management

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 45 (13) 19 (25) 6 (8) 15 (15) 4 (5)

Somewhat 36 (10) 11 (15) 7 (9) 12 (12) 5 (6)

Moderate 65 (19) 16 (21) 13 (17) 24 (23) 12 (14)

Good 72 (21) 23 (31) 14 (18) 21 (20) 13 (15)

Excellent 19 (6) 3 (4) 8 (11) 6 (6) 2 (2)

Don’t know 106 (31) 3 (4) 28 (37) 25 (24) 50 (58)

Total 343 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 103 (100) 86 (100)

g. Historic resources protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 28 (8) 5 (7) 10 (13) 6 (6) 6 (7)

Somewhat 61 (18) 10 (13) 11 (15) 23 (23) 17 (20)

Moderate 96 (28) 26 (35) 18 (24) 33 (32) 19 (22)

Good 103 (30) 24 (32) 24 (32) 31 (30) 23 (27)

Excellent 19 (6) 5 (7) 5 (7) 4 (4) 5 (6)

Don’t know 34 (10) 5 (7) 7 (9) 5 (5) 16 (19)

Total 341 (100) 75 (100) 75 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100)

h. Information and education for visitors and public

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 39 (11) 8 (11) 11 (14) 12 (12) 7 (8)

Somewhat 56 (16) 16 (21) 17 (22) 10 (10) 13 (15)

Moderate 109 (32) 32 (43) 18 (24) 33 (32) 25 (29)

Good 102 (30) 14 (19) 24 (32) 34 (33) 29 (34)

Excellent 21 (6) 3 (4) 4 (5) 12 (12) 2 (2)

Don’t know 16 (5) 2 (2) 2 (3) 2 (2) 10 (12)

Total 343 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 103 (100) 86 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 63

i. Managing field staff

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 49 (14) 13 (17) 11 (14) 14 (14) 10 (12)

Somewhat 76 (22) 21 (28) 19 (25) 18 (18) 16 (19)

Moderate 84 (25) 16 (21) 16 (21) 32 (31) 20 (24)

Good 91 (27) 17 (23) 20 (26) 32 (31) 22 (26)

Excellent 12 (4) 3 (4) 3 (4) 3 (3) 3 (4)

Don’t know 29 (8) 5 (7) 7 (9) 3 (3) 14 (16)

Total 341 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 85 (100)

j. Scenic quality protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 41 (12) 9 (12) 10 (14) 11 (11) 9 (11)

Somewhat 80 (24) 24 (32) 22 (30) 18 (18) 16 (19)

Moderate 97 (29) 24 (32) 19 (26) 33 (33) 21 (25)

Good 72 (21) 13 (18) 12 (16) 27 (27) 20 (23)

Excellent 12 (4) 3 (4) 4 (5) 3 (3) 2 (2)

Don’t know 35 (10) 1 (1) 7 (9) 9 (9) 17 (20)

Total 337 (100) 74 (100) 74 (100) 101 (100) 85 (100)

k. Visitor management (controlling use, managing conflict, mitigating impacts, etc.)

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 46 (13) 10 (13) 9 (12) 12 (12) 14 (16)

Somewhat 77 (22) 20 (27) 25 (33) 17 (17) 15 (17)

Moderate 105 (31) 23 (31) 22 (29) 40 (39) 19 (22)

Good 75 (22) 14 (19) 15 (20) 23 (22) 22 (25)

Excellent 16 (5) 5 (7) 2 (3) 6 (6) 3 (3)

Don’t know 24 (7) 3 (4) 3 (4) 4 (4) 14 (16)

Total 343 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100)

l. Water resources protection

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 35 (10) 9 (12) 5 (7) 6 (6) 14 (16)

Somewhat 65 (19) 16 (21) 16 (21) 18 (18) 13 (15)

Moderate 93 (27) 24 (32) 17 (22) 35 (34) 17 (20)

Good 89 (26) 13 (17) 26 (34) 29 (28) 21 (24)

Excellent 18 (5) 4 (5) 7 (9) 5 (5) 2 (2)

Don’t know 43 (13) 9 (12) 5 (7) 9 (9) 20 (23)

Total 343 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 87 (100)
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

m. Wilderness monitoring protocol

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 51 (15) 8 (11) 17 (22) 14 (14) 11 (13)

Somewhat 65 (19) 18 (24) 19 (25) 15 (15) 13 (15)

Moderate 80 (24) 17 (23) 22 (29) 23 (23) 18 (21)

Good 105 (31) 26 (35) 13 (17) 37 (37) 28 (33)

Excellent 21 (6) 4 (5) 4 (5) 9 (9) 3 (4)

Don’t know 18 (5) 2 (3) 1 (1) 3 (3) 12 (14)

Total 340 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 101 (100) 85 (100)

n. Wilderness planning

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 38 (11) 6 (8) 13 (17) 12 (12) 6 (7)

Somewhat 76 (22) 17 (23) 18 (24) 23 (23) 18 (21)

Moderate 101 (30) 23 (31) 18 (24) 33 (32) 27 (32)

Good 96 (28) 25 (33) 24 (32) 29 (29) 16 (19)

Excellent 9 (3) 1 (1) 3 (4) 2 (3) 3 (4)

Don’t know 20 (6) 3 (4) 0 (0) 2 (2) 15 (18)

Total 340 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 101 (100) 85 (100)

o. Public attitudes toward intervention to adapt to climate change influences

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 104 (31) 27 (36) 25 (34) 28 (28) 22 (26)

Somewhat 89 (27) 22 (29) 16 (22) 28 (28) 23 (27)

Moderate 35 (10) 3 (4) 10 (14) 9 (9) 12 (14)

Good 14 (4) 4 (5) 6 (8) 2 (2) 2 (3)

Excellent 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3)

Don’t know 91 (27) 19 (25) 16 (22) 33 (33) 23 (27)

Total 335 (100) 75 (100) 73 (100) 100 (100) 84 (100)

p. Public attitudes toward ecological restoration (fire, vegetation, wildlife, etc.) activities

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 79 (23) 19 (25) 12 (16) 29 (28) 18 (21)

Somewhat 100 (29) 26 (35) 30 (40) 26 (25) 18 (21)

Moderate 63 (19) 13 (17) 10 (13) 20 (20) 18 (21)

Good 35 (10) 5 (7) 10 (13) 8 (8) 12 (14)

Excellent 5 (1) 4 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Don’t know 58 (17) 8 (11) 13 (18) 19 (19) 18 (21)

Total 340 (100) 75 (100) 75 (100) 102 (100) 85 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 65

q. Relative value of wilderness benefits to stakeholder groups

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 74 (22) 18 (25) 15 (20) 20 (20) 19 (22)

Somewhat 100 (29) 22 (30) 25 (33) 28 (27) 25 (29)

Moderate 69 (20) 11 (15) 16 (21) 26 (25) 16 (19)

Good 46 (14) 16 (22) 8 (11) 14 (14) 8 (9)

Excellent 5 (1) 0 (0) 2 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1)

Don’t know 46 (14) 6 (8) 10 (13) 12 (12) 17 (20)

Total 340 (100) 73 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 86 (100)

r. Managing subsistence activities and resources

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 25 (7) 5 (7) 5 (7) 6 (6) 9 (11)

Somewhat 75 (22) 16 (22) 22 (29) 25 (25) 12 (14)

Moderate 57 (17) 13 (18) 11 (15) 19 (19) 12 (14)

Good 32 (9) 10 (14) 6 (8) 6 (6) 10 (12)

Excellent 5 (1) 1 (1) 3 (4) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Don’t know 144 (43) 28 (38) 28 (37) 46 (45) 41 (48)

Total 338 (100) 73 (100) 75 (100) 102 (100) 85 (100)

s. Stewardship of spiritual values and uses

Science-Based All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Information Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Not adequate 84 (24) 21 (28) 18 (24) 24 (23) 19 (22)

Somewhat 67 (20) 18 (24) 21 (28) 17 (17) 10 (12)

Moderate 58 (17) 12 (16) 13 (17) 22 (22) 11 (13)

Good 27 (8) 6 (8) 6 (8) 9 (9) 6 (7)

Excellent 1 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Don’t know 105 (31) 14 (23) 18 (24) 30 (29) 40 (47)

Total 342 (100) 75 (100) 76 (100) 102 (100) 85 (100)
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Appendix 4. Accomplishment of the 1995 NWPS 

Strategic Plan Objectives

Table A4.1—Preservation of natural and biological values 

a. Manage wilderness within the context of larger landscapes to ensure the protection and integrity of 

natural and biological processes

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 0 (0) 2 (6) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Slight 37 (24) 10 (27) 3 (9) 19 (35) 4 (15)

Moderate 61 (39) 16 (43) 14 (40) 21 (38) 9 (35)

High 28 (18) 7 (19) 8 (23) 7 (13) 6 (23)

Very high 13 (8) 3 (8) 4 (11) 3 (5) 3 (12)

Don’t know or N/A 14 (9) 1 (3) 4 (11) 4 (7) 4 (15)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

b. Inventory wilderness ecosystems to collect baseline data. Identify indicators and develop monitoring standards for those elements critical to ecological integrity. Develop monitoring strategies for 

high priority indicators and provide feedback for adaptive management. Where appropriate, establish long-term research programs.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 8 (5) 3 (8) 1 (3) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Slight 55 (35) 13 (35) 13 (37) 21 (38) 8 (31)

Moderate 51 (33) 12 (32) 10 (29) 20 (36) 9 (35)

High 21 (13) 4 (11) 5 (14) 5 (9) 6 (23)

Very high 9 (6) 3 (8) 3 (9) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 12 (8) 2 (5) 3 (9) 3 (5) 3 (12)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

c. Restore wilderness ecosystems damaged by humans to the degree feasible. Identify the processes 

needed to assess, restore, or mitigate human-induced change.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 6 (4) 0 (0) 1 (3) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Slight 54 (35) 15 (41) 7 (20) 24 (44) 8 (31)

Moderate 57 (37) 12 (32) 19 (54) 16 (29) 9 (35)

High 19 (12) 5 (14) 5 (14) 6 (11) 3 (31)

Very high 7 (4) 4 (11) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 13 (8) 1 (3) 3 (9) 3 (5) 5 (19)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 67

d. Restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 13 (8) 5 (14) 2 (6) 6 (11) 0 (0)

Slight 54 (35) 13 (35) 10 (29) 20 (36) 9 (35)

Moderate 48 (31) 12 (32) 11 (31) 19 (35) 6 (23)

High 18 (12) 2 (5) 8 (23) 6 (11) 2 (8)

Very high 6 (4) 3 (8) 0 (0) 1 (2) 2 (8)

Don’t know or N/A 17 (11) 2 (5) 4 (11) 3 (5) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

e. Implement integrated exotic plant and animal management which includes preservation, education, detection, quick elimination of spot infestations, and control of major occurrences.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 5 (3) 3 (8) 0 (0) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Slight 46 (30) 13 (35) 10 (29) 17 (31) 5 (19)

Moderate 55 (35) 11 (30) 13 (37) 21 (38) 10 (38)

High 24 (15) 4 (11) 7 (20) 7 (13) 6 (23)

Very high 10 (6) 4 (11) 2 (6) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Don’t know or N/A 16 (10) 2 (5) 3 (9) 5 (9) 4 (15)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

f. Exchange, purchase, or retire uses adversely affecting wilderness values where rights-holders are 

willing.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 6 (4) 2 (5) 2 (6) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Slight 41 (26) 8 (22) 8 (23) 21 (38) 4 (16)

Moderate 41 (26) 13 (35) 6 (17) 14 (25) 8 (31)

High 19 (12) 5 (14) 4 (11) 7 (13) 2 (8)

Very high 6 (4) 3 (8) 2 (6) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 43 (28) 6 (16) 13 (37) 10 (18) 12 (46)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

g. Pursue acquisition or exchange of inholdings, subsurface rights, and adjacent lands critical to wilderness protection.

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 4 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Slight 39 (25) 8 (22) 11 (31) 15 (27) 5 (19)

Moderate 45 (29) 12 (32) 6 (17) 19 (35) 8 (31)

High 18 (12) 7 (19) 3 (9) 3 (5) 4 (15)

Very high 12 (8) 6 (16) 2 (6) 4 (7) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 38 (24) 3 (8) 13 (37) 11 (20) 9 (35)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A4.2—Management of social values 

a. Evaluate all existing and proposed structures and installations to minimize the impact on wilderness values

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 5 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Slight 43 (28) 14 (38) 8 (23) 15 (27) 5 (19)

Moderate 62 (40) 9 (24) 19 (54) 25 (45) 8 (31)

High 22 (14) 8 (22) 5 (14) 5 (9) 4 (15)

Very high 5 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (2) 2 (8)

Don’t know or N/A 19 (12) 4 (11) 2 (6) 6 (11) 6 (23)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

b. Emphasize opportunities outside wilderness for recreation activities that are not dependent on a 

wilderness setting

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 2 (5) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Slight 30 (19) 5 (14) 9 (26) 13 (24) 3 (12)

Moderate 68 (44) 16 (43) 16 (46) 25 (45) 10 (38)

High 29 (19) 9 (24) 5 (14) 10 (18) 5 (19)

Very high 6 (4) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 20 (13) 2 (5) 4 (11) 4 (7) 8 (31)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

c. Coordinate with neighboring agencies and interests on wilderness use restrictions (such as campsite and fire regulations) and on the establishment of policies for limits such as group size and numbers of packstock

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 8 (5) 3 (8) 2 (6) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Slight 44 (28) 8 (22) 11 (31) 16 (29) 7 (27)

Moderate 50 (32) 17 (46) 9 (26) 20 (36) 4 (15)

High 26 (17) 6 (16) 8 (23) 8 (15) 4 (15)

Very high 5 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 23 (15) 2 (5) 4 (11) 5 (9) 11 (42)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 69

d. Coordinate with Department of Defense agencies and the Federal Aviation Administration to 

develop procedures and guidelines to avoid or mitigate low-level overflights

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 31 (20) 13 (35) 3 (9) 13 (24) 2 (8)

Slight 54 (35) 12 (32) 13 (37) 19 (35) 8 (31)

Moderate 30 (19) 5 (14) 8 (23) 12 (22) 5 (19)

High 17 (11) 3 (8) 6 (17) 6 (11) 2 (8)

Very high 3 (2) 1 (3) 2 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 21 (13) 3 (8) 3 (9) 5 (9) 9 (35)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

e. Develop, identify, and distribute information on new or evolving recreation management tools and 

techniques

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 10 (6) 2 (5) 1 (3) 5 (9) 2 (8)

Slight 42 (27) 7 (19) 11 (31) 14 (25) 10 (38)

Moderate 56 (36) 19 (51) 12 (34) 20 (36) 4 (15)

High 27 (17) 4 (11) 5 (14) 13 (24) 4 (15)

Very high 5 (3) 3 (8) 1 (3) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 16 (10) 2 (5) 5 (14) 2 (4) 6 (23)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

f. Establish an interagency national information network to provide wilderness information 

for public and agency use

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 6 (4) 1 (3) 2 (6) 2 (4) 1 (4)

Slight 21 (13) 4 (11) 6 (17) 10 (18) 1 (4)

Moderate 40 (26) 8 (22) 10 (29) 16 (29) 5 (19)

High 37 (24) 9 (24) 7 (20) 14 (25) 7 (27)

Very high 32 (21) 12 (32) 5 (14) 9 (16) 5 (19)

Don’t know or N/A 20 (13) 3 (8) 5 (14) 4 (7) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

g. Assess impacts of new and emerging technologies on traditional wilderness values. Develop public 

information and education programs to address these effects and mitigate any unacceptable impacts

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 17 (11) 4 (11) 3 (9) 7 (13) 2 (8)

Slight 65 (42) 18 (49) 14 (40) 23 (42) 9 (35)

Moderate 45 (29) 9 (24) 12 (34) 18 (33) 6 (23)

High 7 (4) 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (4) 2 (8)

Very high 5 (3) 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 17 (11) 2 (5) 4 (11) 3 (5) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A4.3—Administrative policy and interagency coordination

a. Maintain strong and professional leadership in wilderness stewardship at all levels. Each agency 

will: have a national wilderness coordinator; and require wilderness stewardship performance elements for those managing wilderness

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Slight 46 (29) 3 (8) 11 (31) 21 (38) 9 (35)

Moderate 42 (27) 13 (35) 7 (20) 15 (27) 7 (27)

High 36 (23) 14 (38) 9 (26) 8 (15) 5 (19)

Very high 17 (11) 5 (14) 4 (11) 6 (6) 2 (8)

Don’t know or N/A 12 (8) 2 (5) 3 (9) 3 (5) 3 (12)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

b. Create a National Interagency Steering Committee made up of the national wilderness coordinators of each agency to improve interagency understanding and consistency in managing the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, including: developing common guidelines, policies, and regulations 

on key wilderness issues; and identifying and coordinating research priorities for the Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute, and training priorities with the Arthur Carhart Training Center

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Slight 16 (10) 2 (5) 4 (11) 8 (15) 1 (4)

Moderate 41 (26) 15 (41) 9 (26) 14 (25) 2 (8)

High 56 (36) 10 (27) 14 (40) 19 (35) 13 (50)

Very high 18 (12) 5 (14) 3 (9) 7 (13) 3 (12)

Don’t know or N/A 22 (14) 5 (14) 5 (14) 4 (7) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

c. Coordinate multiple-unit wildernesses to insure consistent administration

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 5 (3) 0 (0) 2 (6) 1 (2) 1 (4)

Slight 35 (22) 8 (22) 8 (23) 16 (29) 3 (12)

Moderate 44 (28) 13 (35) 10 (29) 17 (31) 4 (15)

High 22 (14) 6 (16) 3 (9) 10 (18) 3 (12)

Very high 9 (6) 3 (8) 2 (6) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Don’t know or N/A 41 (26) 7 (19) 10 (29) 8 (15) 14 (54)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 71

d. Expand the emphasis of research to include natural and biological wilderness resources, and psychological and social values

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 6 (4) 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (4) 1 (4)

Slight 46 (29) 14 (38) 9 (26) 13 (24) 8 (31)

Moderate 53 (34) 11 (30) 15 (43) 22 (40) 5 (19)

High 19 (12) 2 (5) 4 (11) 8 (15) 5 (19)

Very high 6 (4) 3 (8) 2 (6) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 26 (17) 5 (14) 4 (11) 9 (16) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

e. Aggressively seek new partnerships with diverse groups to support wilderness values and goals

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 5 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (4) 1 (4)

Slight 49 (31) 11 (30) 9 (26) 18 (33) 10 (38)

Moderate 51 (33) 16 (43) 13 (37) 15 (27) 6 (23)

High 15 (10) 2 (5) 3 (9) 8 (15) 2 (8)

Very high 12 (8) 4 (11) 2 (6) 6 (11) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 24 (15) 3 (8) 7 (20) 6 (11) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

f. Participate in local government planning efforts to represent the wilderness resource

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 13 (8) 4 (11) 3 (9) 4 (7) 2 (8)

Slight 68 (44) 19 (51) 9 (26) 29 (53) 11 (42)

Moderate 28 (18) 5 (14) 11 (31) 5 (9) 6 (23)

High 15 (10) 5 (14) 5 (14) 4 (7) 1 (4)

Very high 8 (5) 2 (5) 0 (0) 6 (11) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 24 (15) 2 (5) 7 (20) 7 (13) 6 (23)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

g. Ensure fiscal accountability in the budget process by identifying & tracking funding sources & accomplishments in the wilderness program

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 19 (12) 3 (8) 3 (9) 6 (11) 6 (23)

Slight 47 (30) 10 (27) 11 (31) 20 (36) 6 (23)

Moderate 31 (20) 10 (27) 7 (20) 11 (20) 3 (12)

High 25 (16) 11 (30) 4 (11) 8 (15) 2 (8)

Very high 8 (5) 2 (5) 1 (3) 5 (9) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 26 (17) 1 (3) 9 (26) 5 (9) 9 (35)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

h. Allow flexible spending of fire funding to cover prescribed fire

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 17 (11) 4 (11) 3 (9) 8 (15) 1 (4)

Slight 32 (21) 5 (14) 8 (23) 15 (27) 4 (15)

Moderate 34 (22) 8 (22) 7 (20) 10 (18) 9 (35)

High 6 (4) 1 (3) 3 (9) 0 (0) 2 (8)

Very high 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 64 (41) 19 (51) 14 (40) 19 (35) 10 (38)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

Table A4.4—Training of agency personnel

a. Identify the core competencies required for wilderness rangers, wilderness managers, and line officers with wilderness management responsibilities. Identify tools, methods, and techniques to master 

the needed abilities

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 11 (7) 2 (5) 2 (6) 4 (7) 3 (12)

Slight 31 (20) 9 (24) 11 (31) 9 (16) 2 (8)

Moderate 58 (37) 11 (30) 11 (31) 22 (40) 13 (50)

High 39 (25) 10 (27) 8 (23) 15 (27) 6 (23)

Very high 9 (6) 3 (8) 2 (6) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 8 (5) 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (4) 2 (8)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

b. Integrate wilderness into other program training and vice versa. Develop basic wilderness orientation training for presentation to all agency personnel

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 8 (5) 1 (3) 2 (6) 4 (7) 1 (4)

Slight 70 (45) 18 (49) 13 (37) 25 (45) 12 (46)

Moderate 49 (31) 13 (35) 11 (31) 17 (31) 8 (31)

High 14 (9) 2 (5) 7 (20) 3 (5) 2 (8)

Very high 7 (5) 3 (8) 0 (0) 4 (7) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 8 (5) 0 (0) 2 (6) 2 (4) 3 (12)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 73

c. Develop common understanding and training on wilderness principles such as the minimum tool 

concept

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2) 1 (4)

Slight 42 (27) 13 (35) 9 (26) 14 (25) 6 (23)

Moderate 61 (39) 12 (32) 14 (40) 23 (42) 10 (38)

High 35 (22) 8 (22) 7 (20) 14 (25) 6 (23)

Very high 10 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) 2 (4) 1 (4)

Don’t know or N/A 5 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2) 2 (8)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

d. Continue to develop, utilize, and support wilderness training programs

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 1 (4)

Slight 37 (24) 8 (22) 8 (23) 17 (31) 4 (15)

Moderate 70 (45) 16 (43) 20 (57) 21 (38) 11 (42)

High 30 (19) 8 (22) 3 (9) 12 (22) 7 (27)

Very high 12 (8) 5 (14) 3 (9) 3 (5) 1 (4)

Don’t know or N/A 5 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2) 2 (8)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

e. Each agency will support the Arthur Carhart Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Slight 13 (8) 2 (5) 5 (14) 5 (9) 1 (4)

Moderate 42 (27) 4 (11) 11 (31) 18 (33) 8 (31)

High 51 (33) 15 (41) 10 (29) 17 (31) 8 (31)

Very high 20 (13) 9 (24) 3 (9) 5 (9) 3 (12)

Don’t know or N/A 29 (19) 7 (19) 6 (17) 9 (16) 6 (23)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

f. Establish partnerships with colleges and universities to recruit volunteers, participate in curriculum development, provide training, and conduct research

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Slight 47 (30) 10 (27) 6 (17) 19 (35) 10 (38)

Moderate 63 (40) 20 (54) 18 (51) 17 (31) 8 (31)

High 15 (10) 0 (0) 7 (20) 7 (13) 1 (4)

Very high 7 (5) 4 (11) 0 (0) 3 (5) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 21 (13) 3 (8) 4 (11) 6 (11) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A4.5—Public awareness and understanding

a. Evaluate wilderness education programs to determine their effectiveness

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 15 (10) 5 (14) 2 (6) 5 (9) 3 (12)

Slight 68 (44) 17 (46) 15 (43) 22 (40) 12 (46)

Moderate 34 (22) 6 (16) 7 (20) 19 (35) 2 (8)

High 6 (4) 2 (5) 2 (6) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Very high 4 (3) 2 (5) 1 (3) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 29 (19) 5 (14) 8 (23) 6 (11) 9 (35)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

b. Identify strategies to communicate wilderness education messages to diverse cultural, geographical, and sociological groups, including non-recreation users

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 12 (8) 1 (3) 1 (3) 6 (11) 4 (15)

Slight 70 (45) 20 (54) 15 (43) 24 (44) 9 (35)

Moderate 31 (20) 7 (19) 7 (20) 13 (24) 4 (15)

High 13 (8) 3 (8) 3 (9) 5 (9) 2 (8)

Very high 7 (4) 3 (8) 2 (6) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 23 (15) 3 (8) 7 (20) 5 (9) 7 (27)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

c. Develop a wilderness curriculum for grades K through 12. Encourage state agencies to establish 

curricula for environmental/wilderness education in schools

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 16 (10) 3 (8) 5 (14) 5 (9) 3 (12)

Slight 43 (28) 11 (30) 8 (23) 18 (33) 5 (19)

Moderate 33 (21) 8 (22) 5 (14) 16 (29) 3 (12)

High 15 (10) 1 (3) 3 (9) 7 (13) 4 (15)

Very high 7 (4) 3 (8) 2 (6) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Don’t know or N/A 42 (27) 11 (30) 12 (34) 7 (13) 11 (42)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)

d. Continue to support “Leave No Trace” as the official program for minimum impact recreation

Level of All Bureau of Land National Park U.S. Forest U.S. Fish and

Accomplishment Agencies Management Service Service Wildlife Service

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - number (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

None 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Slight 11 (7) 3 (8) 3 (9) 2 (4) 3 (12)

Moderate 40 (26) 8 (22) 9 (26) 15 (27) 7 (27)

High 70 (45) 15 (41) 17 (49) 27 (49) 11 (42)

Very high 25 (16) 11 (30) 3 (9) 7 (13) 2 (8)

Don’t know or N/A 9 (6) 0 (0) 2 (6) 4 (7) 3 (12)

Total 156 (100) 37 (100) 35 (100) 55 (100) 26 (100)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 75

Appendix 5. Qualitative Analysis Results

The National Wilderness Manager Survey 2014 asked a number of open-ended questions 

in order to identify major challenges in wilderness stewardship and planning, needs 

for training and research, and major problems likely to face the NWPS in the future. 

Respondents could list up to five major challenges, five specific training needs, five 

research needs for resource and visitor management, and two most important problems. 

At the end of the survey, responding managers were given the opportunity to provide any 

final comments about the survey or about the strategic planning process.

Contents of responses to each of the open-ended questions were coded to assist in interpreting and grouping the diversity of responses and comments. The coding was done 

through NVivo which is a qualitative data coding and analysis software (http://www.

qsrinternational.com/default.aspx). This software is widely used for coding, analyzing 

and summarizing qualitative data, such as that produced by the open-ended question in 

the WMS. Initial groupings were based on analyst interpretations within NVivo, and 

were read and crosschecked manually to see if the groupings made sense and to identify 

whether there were similarities in contents within groups. In many cases, contents of 

more complex responses were sufficiently diverse to cover multiple topics and thus fell 

into more than one group. Hence, the count of responses or comments typically exceeded 

the number of respondents. In other cases, responses to the WMS open-ended questions 

were very brief, sometimes just one word (e.g., fire, technology, management). In these 

cases, analyst judgment was relied on for placement in categories and for interpretation. 

A5.1 Major challenges 

Respondents were asked to indicate up to five major challenges they were likely to face 

over the next 20 years in wilderness stewardship or planning. A total of 1355 responses 

were collected from 368 respondent managers. These challenges were coded into six 

broad categories, as shown below in Figure A5.1. For detail category to these challenges, 

please see Table A5.1.

Figure A5.1—Major challenges in wilderness stewardship or planning 

5	
  

7	
  

20	
  

21	
  

32	
  

44	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Managing	
  other	
  resources	
  

Public	
  awareness	
  

Sustaining	
  natural	
  condi<ons	
  

Visitor	
  and	
  experience	
  management	
  

Resources	
  and	
  policy	
  for	
  management	
  

Management	
  of	
  external	
  threats	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  wilderness	
  stewardship/

planning	
  
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A5.1—Major challenges 

Categorization of challenges (Figures A5.1, A5.1-1 – A5.1-5) Number Percent

a. Management of external threats 594 44

- Encroachment 139

- Wildfire 130

- Climate change/adaptation to climate change 126

- Controlling of invasive/endangered species 93

- Maintaining wilderness characters/impact on wilderness 

resources (due to fire, visitors, weather cycle, etc.) 60

- Pressure to use wilderness for different reasons (e.g., 

commercial activities) 24

- Grazing management 11

- Pollution 11

b. Management of resources and policy 431 32

- Staff/budget/funding 253

- Law enforcement 72

- Agency policy and priority 45

- Improving legal and physical access 24

- Use of science in planning and management 15

- Managing conflicting objectives (agency level) 12

- Ground level knowledge 10

c. Visitor and experience management 287 21

- Visitor management 130

- Maintaining wilderness values 93

- Protecting visitors’ experiences and wilderness characters 45

- Dealing with new technology (used by visitors) 19

d. Sustaining natural conditions 274 20

- Restoring of natural conditions (in face of climate change, 

wildfire, encroachment, etc.) 115

- Natural resource management (water, wildlife, etc.) 83

- Stewardship responsibility 39

- Monitoring wilderness characters 37

e. Public awareness 91 7

- Gaining public supports & public education and awareness 91

f. Managing other resources 67 5

- Trail maintenance 51

- Managing or maintaining cultural resources 16

Total frequencies 1744

Total responses 1355

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 

Management of external threats, which included all references to encroachment, wildfire, 

controlling of invasive species, climate change, etc., contained the largest number of 

specific challenges. This was followed by items coded as resources and policy for management, which included references to staff/budget/funding, law enforcement, agency 

policy and priority, etc., visitor and experience management, which included visitor management, maintaining wilderness values, protecting visitors’ experiences and wilderness 

character, etc., sustaining natural condition (restoring natural conditions, natural resource 

management, stewardship responsibility), and public awareness (gaining public support). 

All other challenges listed were coded as managing other resources, such as trails, cultural resource, etc. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 77

Figure A5.1-1—Potential sources of external threats

2	
  

2	
  

4	
  

10	
  

16	
  

21	
  

22	
  

23	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
  

Pollu-on	
  

Grazing	
  management	
  

Pressure	
  to	
  use	
  wilderness	
  

Maintaining	
  wilderness	
  character	
  

Invasive/endangered	
  species	
  

Climate	
  Change	
  

Wildfire	
  

Encroachment	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  poten.al	
  external	
  threats	
  

Below, each challenges category is explained with examples of items coded into that 

category of response:

a. Management of External Threats: External threats to wilderness come from different 

sources outside the wilderness and management of these threats could be a challenge in 

wilderness stewardship or planning in the next 20 years.

Encroachment of wilderness resources (from neighboring land owners, motorists, and 

urbanization) was the most common external threat listed in this category; followed by 

wildfire; climate change; controlling invasive species or protecting endangered species; managing wilderness character in the face of climate change, wildfire, excessive 

visitation, and weather cycles; pressure to use wilderness for different reasons (e.g., commercial activities); grazing management; and pollution (Figure A5.1-1). 

b. Resources and Policy for Management: Many respondents indicated that resources and 

policies are a major category of challenges in wilderness stewardship or planning for the 

next 20 years.

Management of staff/budget/funding to protect wilderness and to conduct research was 

by far the most frequent set of items in this category. Law enforcement, managing conflicting policies, improving legal and physical access to maintain wilderness character, 

use of science in planning and management, and improving ground level knowledge are 

the other miscellaneous resources and policy management related challenges listed by 

respondents (Figure A5.1-2). 

c. Visitor and Experience Management: Visitor management issues dominated this 

category of challenges listed by managers. Maintaining wilderness values among the 

public, protecting visitors’ experiences and wilderness characteristics, and dealing with 

new technology used by visitors are also seen as challenges over the next 20 years 

(Figure ̨A5.1-3). 
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

d. Sustaining Natural Conditions: Restoring natural condition in the face of climate 

change uncertainties, wildfire, encroachment; management of natural resources (e.g., 

water, wildlife, etc.); the changing role in stewardship responsibility (gradually shifting 

stewardship responsibility toward the public); and monitoring wilderness characteristics 

are the major categories of challenges listed by managers to sustain natural condition over 

the next 20 years (Figure A5.1-4).

e. Public Awareness: A small proportion of respondents specifically mentioned gaining 

public support and maintaining public education and awareness as a major challenge over 

the next 20 years (Figure A5.1)

f. Managing Other Resources: Most of the other resources challenges were about trail 

maintenance and managing or maintaining cultural resources over the next 20 years 

(Figure A5.1-5). 

2	
  

3	
  

6	
  

13	
  

17	
  

59	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
  

Improving	
  ground	
  level	
  knowledge	
  

Use	
  of	
  science	
  in	
  planning	
  and	
  

management	
  

Improving	
  legal	
  and	
  physical	
  access	
  

Agency	
  policy	
  and	
  priority	
  

Law	
  enforcement	
  

Staff/budget/funding	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  resources	
  and	
  policy	
  

for	
  management	
  

7	
  

16	
  

32	
  

45	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Dealing	
  with	
  new	
  technology	
  

Protec9ng	
  visitors	
  experiences	
  and	
  wilderness	
  

characteris9cs	
  

Maintaining	
  wilderness	
  values	
  

Visitor	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  visitor	
  and	
  experience	
  

management	
  

Figure A5.1-2—Challenges in resources and policy for management

Figure A5.1-3—Challenges in visitors and experience management
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 79

A5.2 Two most important problems 

Respondents were asked to describe the two most important problems managers and 

agencies need to collectively address in strategic planning to protect wilderness qualities 

in the coming 20 years. A total of 632 responses were collected from 368 responding 

managers and were grouped into five broad categories, shown in Figure A5.2. Appendix 5 

(Table A5.2) provides a more detailed listing of the types of items included in these categories and/or wording provided by respondents.

14	
  

14	
  

30	
  

42	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
  

Monitoring	
  wilderness	
  characteris7cs	
  

Stewardship	
  responsibility	
  

Natural	
  resource	
  management	
  

Restoring	
  natural	
  condi7ons	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  sustaining	
  natural	
  

condi4ons	
  

24	
  

76	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
   80	
  

Managing	
  or	
  maintaining	
  cultural	
  

resources	
  

Trail	
  maintenance	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Challenges	
  in	
  managing	
  other	
  

resources	
  

Figure A5.1-4—Challenges in sustaining natural conditions

Figure A5.1-5—Challenges in managing other resources
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

7	
  

22	
  

25	
  

29	
  

32	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
  

Onsite	
  visitor	
  and	
  experience	
  

management	
  

Building	
  public	
  awareness	
  and	
  support	
  

Resources	
  and	
  policy	
  for	
  management	
  

External	
  threats	
  and	
  impacts	
  

Monitoring	
  and	
  sustaining	
  natural	
  

condiEons	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  poten.al	
  problems	
  faced	
  by	
  

NWPS	
  

Figure A5.2—Potential problems faced by NWPS 

Table A5.2—Two most important problems in NWPS

Categorization of problems in NWPS (Figures A5.5, A5.5-1 – A5.5-5) Number Percent

a. Monitoring and sustaining natural conditions 201 32

- Resource management (wilderness resource management 

in face of climate change, wildfire, invasive species, 

budget and staff cuts, population growth and urbanization 

or encroachment, etc.) 60

- Protecting wilderness character (in face of climate change, 

budget/staff cuts) 34

- Fire management 23

- Scientific monitoring wilderness character (in face of 

budget/staff cuts) 19

- Air and water quality maintaining and monitoring 18

- Wildlife management (in face of climate change, increased 

visitation, improper grazing) 17

- Maintaining ecological function/ecological restoration 13

- Habitat conservation and preservation (endangered species, 

native species) 9

- Protect the integrity of the wilderness act 8

b. External threats and impacts 181 29

- Climate change and wilderness resources (e.g., invasive 

species, water, air) 61

- Impact of human and nonhuman factors on Wilderness 

(human impact on the landscape, population growth, energy 

development, climate change) 30

- Encroachment (population growth, urbanization, technological 

changes, motorized access) 27

- Invasive species and weed controls 24

- Adjacent land use 10

- Disconnection to the natural world 9

- Controlling illegal activities (e.g., marijuana growing operation, 

woodcutting, illegal motorized incursion, etc.) 7

- Commercial activities management (commercial filming, 

commercial fishing, etc.) 7

- Lack of political supports to wilderness 6

(continued)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 81

Table A5.2—Continued.

Categorization of problems in NWPS (Figures A5.5, A5.5-1 – A5.5-5) Number Percent

c. Management Resources and Policy 155 25

- Protecting wilderness values (upper level management 

understanding wilderness values, better communication 

with different groups - public, top management) 28

- Funding/budget/resources 64

- Staff/workforce 45

- Use of science in decision making 7

- Train managers (skill development, management trainings to 

older managers) 11

d. Building public awareness and supports 137 22

- Increasing public awareness (on wilderness and wilderness 

stewardship, communicating the value of wilderness to the 

public, gaining public supports on wilderness stewardship) 85

- Educating public (importance of wilderness) 18

- Engaging urban population to wilderness 12

- Engaging public on wilderness stewardship and management 8

- Developing partnership (with people, volunteers) 8

- Connecting youth to wilderness 6

e. On-Site visitor and experience management 46 7

- Visitor management (increase in visitor use, conflict management) 25

- Increased visitation in wilderness 11

- Increased visitor access to wilderness 10

Total frequencies 720

Total responses 632

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 

The category of monitoring and sustaining natural conditions included a broad category of wilderness resource management (in the face of such threats as climate change, 

wildfire, invasive species, budget and staff cuts, population growth, urbanization, and encroachment), protecting wilderness character (in the face of climate change, budget/staff 

cuts), fire management, the need for more scientific monitoring of wilderness character, 

and maintaining/monitoring air and water quality (Figure A5.2-1). Lesser topics included 

those related to wildlife management, restoration, habitat conservation and protecting the 

integrity of the Wilderness Act.

The importance of focus on external threats and impacts for strategic planning was 

largely focused on climate change issues and protection of wilderness resources (e.g., invasive species, water, air, etc.), impacts (human impact on landscape, population growth, 

energy development, and climate change), encroachment (population growth, urbanization, technological change and motorized access), invasive species and weed control, 

and adjacent land-uses (Figure A5.2-2). Managers also listed a range of specific issues 

affecting them, including problems that are illegal activities, commercial exceptions, and 

lack of political support.
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

4	
  

4	
  

6	
  

8	
  

9	
  

9	
  

11	
  

17	
  

30	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
  

Protec1ng	
  integrity	
  of	
  wilderness	
  act	
  

Habitat	
  conserva1on	
  and	
  preserva1on	
  

Maintaining	
  ecological	
  func1on/ecological	
  

restora1on	
  

Wildlife	
  management	
  

Maintaining/monitoring	
  air	
  and	
  water	
  quality	
  

Scien1fic	
  monitoring	
  wilderness	
  characters	
  

Fire	
  management	
  

Protec1ng	
  wilderness	
  character	
  

Wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  problems	
  in	
  monitoring	
  and	
  sustaining	
  

natural	
  condi5ons	
  

Figure A5.2-1—Problems in monitoring and sustaining natural conditions

3	
  

4	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

13	
  

15	
  

17	
  

34	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
  

Lack	
  of	
  poli3cal	
  support	
  

Commercial	
  ac3vi3es	
  management	
  

Controlling	
  illegal	
  ac3vi3es	
  

Disconnec3on	
  to	
  the	
  natural	
  world	
  

Adjacent	
  land	
  use	
  

Invasive	
  species	
  and	
  weed	
  control	
  

Encroachment	
  

Impact	
  of	
  human	
  and	
  nonhuman	
  factors	
  

Climate	
  change	
  and	
  wilderness	
  resources	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  external	
  threats	
  to	
  wilderness	
  

Figure A5.2-2—External threats to wilderness
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 83

Managers listed many important strategic planning issues that were categorized into 

resources and policy for management. These included protecting wilderness values 

(improving understanding of wilderness values among upper level management, better 

communicating wilderness values to different publics and top level management), funding, budgets, staffing, use of science in decision making, and training managers (on using 

new technology) (Figure A5.2-3). 

Increasing public awareness (of wilderness and wilderness stewardship, the values of 

wilderness, and gaining public support), engaging urban populations to wilderness, 

and developing partnerships (with publics, volunteers, etc.) were also combined into a 

category interpreted as building public awareness and support (Figure A5.2-4). Those 

suggestions about the need to address how to connect youth to wilderness were also 

included in this category. 

Visitor use management (in the face of increased use and user conflicts) and threats to 

wilderness resources from increased visitation and visitor access were coded into the 

broad category of onsite visitor and experience management (Figure A5.2-5). 

5	
  

7	
  

18	
  

29	
  

41	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
  

Use	
  of	
  science	
  in	
  decision	
  making	
  

Train	
  managers	
  

Protec<ng	
  wilderness	
  values	
  

Staff/workforce	
  

Funding/budget/resources	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  topics	
  in	
  resources	
  and	
  policy	
  

for	
  management	
  

Figure A5.2-3—Problems in resources and policy for management

Figure A5.2-4—Problems in building pub lic awareness and support

4	
  

6	
  

6	
  

9	
  

13	
  

62	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
  

Connec0ng	
  youth	
  to	
  wilderness	
  

Developing	
  partnerships	
  

Engaging	
  public	
  on	
  wilderness	
  stewardship	
  

and	
  management	
  

Engaging	
  urban	
  popula0on	
  to	
  wilderness	
  

Educa0on	
  public	
  

Increasing	
  public	
  awareness	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

List	
  of	
  topics	
  in	
  building	
  public	
  

awareness	
  and	
  support	
  
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

22	
  

24	
  

54	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
  

Increased	
  visitor	
  access	
  to	
  wilderness	
  

Increased	
  visita7on	
  in	
  wilderness	
  

Visitor	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics	
  in	
  onsite	
  visitor	
  and	
  

experience	
  management	
  

Figure A5.2-5—Problems in onsite visitor and experience management

A5.3 Specific training needs

The WMS asked respondents to indicate the top 5 specific training needs for wilderness 

managers. A total of 1272 responses were received from 368 respondent managers. The 

training needs suggested by managers have been grouped into six broad categories, as 

shown below in Figure A5.3.

A general category labeled wilderness resource management included the greatest number of suggested training topics; followed by skills, technology and analytics; threats 

management; building partnership and education; law, regulation and policy; and wilderness recreation management (Figure A5.3). Please see Table A5.3 for details on these 

categories of training needs, as described below.

9	
  

11	
  

16	
  

16	
  

20	
  

47	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Wilderness	
  recrea5on	
  management	
  

Law,	
  regula5on,	
  and	
  policy	
  

Building	
  partnerships	
  and	
  educa5on	
  

Threats	
  management	
  

Skills,	
  technology,	
  and	
  analy5cs	
  

Wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

Training	
  Topics	
  

Figure A5.3—Training needs for wilderness managers
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 85

Table A5.3—Areas of specific training needs 

Categorization of need for training (Figures A5.3, A5.3-1 – A5.3-6) Number Percent

a. Wilderness resource management 601 47

- Resource management (economic and non-economic 

resources including adjustment with budget/staff cuts) 189

- Resource use (natural and non-natural - resource baseline 

monitoring and management, dealing with growing resource 

extraction pressure, visual resource management) 116

- Wilderness monitoring 56

- Maintaining/communicating wilderness character/values 54

- Fire management 47

- Sanitation and waste management 34

- Conflicts management (conflict with other resource 

management, e.g., grazing) 27

- Protection (landscape, species) 26

- Wildlife management 18

- Wilderness stewardship 18

- Assessment and monitoring water, air quality 16

b. Skills, technology and analytics 260 20

- Skills (field, traditional skills, mass communication) 61

- Incorporating science into decision making 47

- Information technology 45

- Emerging technology and use 42

- Minimum requirement analysis/decision guide 35

- Primitive or traditional skills 16

- GPS/GIS 9

- Funding opportunities and grant writing 5

c. Threat management 199 16

- Responding to climate change influences 86

- Managing invasive species 81

- Soundscape protection 18

- Restoration wilderness (e.g., weed control) 14

d. Building partnerships and education 198

- Building partnership (inside and outside constituencies for 

wilderness) 82

- Public education and outreach/communication with different 

public groups 72

- Communicating wilderness values (with different stockholders) 21

- Consultation, partnership, communication with tribal groups 18

- Responding to political pressure 5

e. Law, regulation and policy 143 11

- Wilderness law and regulation 40

- Wilderness policy 34

- Wilderness planning 34

- Improve understanding (wilderness acts, policies) 22

- Legal and policy context (including ANILCA wilderness) 13

f. Wilderness recreation management 112 9

- Visitor management training (excessive visitation, capacity 

issues relative to permits and fees) 52

- Commercial use of wilderness (commercial filming, managing 

commercial services to preserve wilderness characters, need 

assessment for commercial use) 29

- Search and rescue and safe access to people with disabilities 10

- Controlling of motorized activities 8

- Understanding carrying capacity training 7

- Communicating and transferring wilderness ethnics to visitors 

 (e.g., leave no trace) 6

Total frequencies 1513

Total responses 1272

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

a. Wilderness Resource Management: The top five training needs in the very large category of wilderness resource management are human resource management (economic 

and non-economic resources including adjustment with staff/budget cuts), resource use 

(natural and non-natural – resource baseline monitoring and management, dealing with 

growing resource extraction pressure, visual resource management), wilderness monitoring, maintaining/communicating wilderness values/characteristics, and fire management 

(Figure A5.3-1). 

b. Skills, Technology and Analytics: With much less items coded into this category, skill 

development (field, traditional/primitive skills, mass communication, etc.), incorporating 

science into decision making, information technology, emerging technology and use, 

and minimum requirement analysis/decision guides are all one general type of suggested 

training needs (Figure A5.3-2). 

c. Threat Management: Managers suggested the need for more training in threats 

management including managing/responding to threats resulting from climate change, 

managing invasive species, soundscape protection, and restoration (e.g., weed control) 

(Figure A5.3-3). 

d. Building Partnerships and Education: Managers identified training needs related 

to building partnerships (inside and outside constituencies for wilderness); in public 

education and outreach to communicate wilderness values (to different groups); to do 

consultation, partnership and communication with tribal groups; and in responding to 

political pressure (Figure A5.3-4). 

3	
  

3	
  

3	
  

4	
  

4	
  

6	
  

8	
  

9	
  

9	
  

19	
  

31	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
  

Assessment	
  and	
  monitoring	
  water/air	
  quality	
  

Wilderness	
  stewardship	
  

Wildlife	
  management	
  

ProtecCon	
  (landscape,	
  species)	
  

Conflict	
  management	
  

SanitaCon	
  and	
  waste	
  management	
  

Fire	
  management	
  

Maintaining/communicaCng	
  wilderness	
  

character/values	
  

Wilderness	
  monitoring	
  

Resource	
  use	
  

Resource	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Figure A5.3-1—Training needs in wilderness resource management
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 87

2	
  

3	
  

6	
  

13	
  

16	
  

17	
  

18	
  

23	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
  

Funding	
  opportuni4es	
  and	
  grant	
  wri4ng	
  

GPS/GIS	
  

Primi4ve	
  or	
  tradi4onal	
  skills	
  

Minimum	
  requirement	
  analysis/decision	
  

guide	
  

Emerging	
  technology	
  and	
  use	
  

Informa4on	
  technology	
  

Incorpora4ng	
  science	
  into	
  decision	
  

making	
  

Skills	
  development	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  skills,	
  technology,	
  and	
  

analy6cs	
  

7	
  

9	
  

41	
  

43	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Restora1on	
  in	
  wilderness	
  

Soundscape	
  protec1on	
  

Managing	
  invasive	
  species	
  

Responding	
  to	
  climate	
  change	
  influences	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  threat	
  

management	
  

Figure A5.3-2—Training needs in skill, technology, and analytics

Figure A5.3-3—Training needs in threat management
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

3	
  

9	
  

11	
  

36	
  

41	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
  

Responding	
  to	
  poli5cal	
  pressure	
  

Consulta5on,	
  partnership,	
  

communica5on	
  with	
  tribal	
  groups	
  

Communica5ng	
  wilderness	
  values	
  

Public	
  educa5on	
  and	
  outreach	
  

Building	
  partnership	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  building	
  

partnership	
  and	
  educa5on	
  

Figure A5.3-4—Training needs in building partnership and education

e. Law, Regulation and Policy: Areas for training needs in wilderness law, regulation, and 

policy include trainings to improve knowledge and understanding of various laws and 

regulations in wilderness, wilderness policy, wilderness planning, wilderness acts, and 

legal and policy context (including ANILCA wilderness) (Figure A5.3-5). 

f. Wilderness Recreation Management: Some specific training topics in wilderness recreation management emerged, including general visitor management issues, like capacity 

issues relative to permits and fees, visitor conflicts and excessive visitation management. 

Managers also indicated interest in training about commercial uses of wilderness (commercial filming, managing commercial services and preserve wilderness characters, need 

assessment for commercial use), search and rescue operations and providing safe access 

to people with disabilities, controlling motorized activities, carrying capacity training, 

and communicating wilderness ethics to visitors (e.g., leave no trace) (Figure A5.3-6). 

Figure A5.3-5—Training needs in wilderness law and regulation

9	
  

15	
  

24	
  

24	
  

28	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
  

Legal	
  and	
  policy	
  context	
  (including	
  

ANILCA	
  wilderness)	
  

Wilderness	
  acts	
  

Wilderness	
  planning	
  

Wilderness	
  policy	
  

Wilderness	
  law	
  and	
  regulaCon	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  law,	
  regula4on,	
  

and	
  policy	
  
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 89

Figure A5.3-6—Training needs in wilderness recreation management

5	
  

6	
  

7	
  

9	
  

26	
  

46	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Communica3ng	
  wilderness	
  ethics	
  to	
  

visitors	
  

Carrying	
  capacity	
  training	
  

Controlling	
  motorized	
  ac3vi3es	
  

Search	
  and	
  rescue	
  and	
  safe	
  access	
  to	
  

people	
  with	
  disabili3es	
  

Commercial	
  use	
  of	
  wilderness	
  

Visitor	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Training	
  topics	
  in	
  wilderness	
  

recrea3on	
  management	
  

A5.4 Five specific research needs 

Respondents were asked to identify their top five research needs for resource and visitor 

management in wilderness areas. A total of 1173 responses were collected from 368 respondent managers. These responses have been grouped into four very general categories, 

shown below in Figure A5.4. In the broadest sense, these research needs were described 

as threats and impact management, wilderness resource management, building partnerships and education, and wilderness recreation management. Please see Table A5.4 for 

details about these categories. 

24	
  

24	
  

28	
  

35	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
  

Wilderness	
  recrea3on	
  management	
  

Building	
  partnerships	
  and	
  educa3on	
  

Wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Threats	
  and	
  impact	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics/areas	
  for	
  research	
  needs	
  

Figure A5.4—Research needs in resource and visitor management
90 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A5.4—Areas of specific research needs

Categorization to research need (Figures A5.4, A5.4-1 – A5.4-4) Number Percent

a. Threats and impact management 412 35

- Impact assessment (impact on wilderness resources and 

solitude due to human and nonhuman/natural factors) 109

- Invasive species (survey, impact assessment, etc.) 104

- Climate change impacts on wilderness characters 54

- Soundscape (monitoring soundscape, preserving soundscapes 

and ecosystem integrity) 33

- Land use, land management 25

- Managing wilderness character (in face of technological changes, 

internal/external threats) 23

- Ecosystem fragmentation and ecosystem health 20

- Urban encroachment 15

- Weed management (e.g., controls) 11

- Impacts from improper grazing (livestock, wild horse, and wildlife) 10

- Impact of commercial activities (including visitor attitude toward 

commercial services in wilderness) 8

b. Wilderness resource management 333 28

- Technological changes (emerging technology to monitor 

wilderness, emerging technology visitor can use to gain 

access to wilderness areas, impact on wilderness character, etc.) 84

- Incorporating scientific information into decision-making 52

- Fire (impact, fire history, post fire effects, and natural fire regime) 42

- Water resources (quality/quantity assessment and monitoring) 32

- Wilderness restoration (ecosystem, habitat, etc.) 28

- Wildlife management 22

- Resource management (natural resources, cultural/heritage to 

preserve wilderness character) 20

- Inventories of wilderness resources (e.g., species, flora and 

fauna, etc.) 15

- Ecological changes (e.g., monitoring) 12

- Native species (e.g., survey, stock, impact assessment) 9

- Landscape archaeological research 9

- Island ecology 8

c. Building partnerships and education 287 24

- Human resource development 80

- Communicating wilderness values (with different public groups) 54

- Partnership building (with different groups - locals/government 

officials, etc.) 39

- Understanding wilderness values (public attitude, ecological 

values, benefit of wilderness) 29

- Understanding public needs - to get wilderness experience, etc. 27

- Tribal access and consultations 21

- Attitude toward wilderness (public and employees) 18

- Wilderness benefits (intangible benefits of wilderness) 11

- Social values (social values of wilderness) 8

d. Wilderness recreation management 285 24

- Visitor management (overuse of wilderness, user group conflict, 

visitor use monitoring, use of new technology to monitor 

wilderness/in face of new technology used by visitors) 158

- Sanitation and waste management 40

- Conflict management (visitor to visitor conflicts, human-wildlife 

conflicts) 31

- Wilderness character and visitor impacts (due to excessive 

use of wilderness resources) 23

- Capacity analysis (carrying capacity of wilderness areas/resources) 15

- User charges (fees to charge) 12

- Visitor demographics (user group demographics) 6

Total frequencies 1317

Total responses 1173

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 91

a. Threats and Impact Management: Impact assessments (gauging the impact on wilderness resources and solitude from human and nonhuman/natural forces), invasive species 

surveys, climate change impact on wilderness characteristics, soundscape (monitoring 

soundscapes, preserving soundscapes and ecosystem integrity), and land-use and land 

management impacts are the top five research needs identified by respondent and placed 

in this general category (Figure A5.4-1). 

b. Wilderness Resource Management: Technological changes (emerging technology to 

monitor wilderness, emerging technology visitors can use to gain access to wilderness 

areas, impact on wilderness characteristics), incorporating scientific information into 

decision-making, fire (impact, fire history, post-fire effects, and natural fire regime), 

water resources (quality/quantity assessment and monitoring), and wilderness restoration 

(ecosystem, habitat) research questions were all gathered into wilderness resource management (Figure A5.4-2).

c. Building Partnerships and Education: Science to support human resource development, 

communicating wilderness values (with different public groups), partnership building 

(with different groups – locals/government officials), understanding wilderness values, 

and understanding public needs (to get wilderness experience) are one large category of 

research needs identified (Figure A5.4-3). 

2	
  

2	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

6	
  

8	
  

13	
  

25	
  

26	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
  

Impact	
  of	
  commercial	
  ac6vi6es	
  

Impacts	
  from	
  improper	
  grazing	
  

Weed	
  management	
  

Urban	
  encroachment	
  

Ecosystem	
  fragmenta6on	
  and	
  ecosystem	
  health	
  

Managing	
  wilderness	
  character	
  

Land	
  use,	
  land	
  management	
  

Soundscape	
  

Climate	
  change	
  impacts	
  on	
  wilderness	
  character	
  

Invasive	
  species	
  

Impact	
  assessment	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics	
  in	
  threats	
  and	
  impact	
  management	
  

Figure A5.4-1—Research needs in threat and impact management
92 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

2	
  

3	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

7	
  

8	
  

10	
  

13	
  

16	
  

25	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
  

Island	
  ecology	
  

Landscale	
  archeological	
  research	
  

Na;ve	
  species	
  

Ecological	
  changes	
  

Inventories	
  of	
  wilderness	
  resources	
  

Resource	
  management	
  

Wildlife	
  management	
  

Wilderness	
  restora;on	
  

Water	
  resources	
  

Fire	
  

Incorpora;ng	
  scien;fic	
  informa;on	
  

Technological	
  changes	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics	
  in	
  wilderness	
  resource	
  

management	
  

Figure A5.4-2—Research needs in wilderness resource management

3	
  

4	
  

6	
  

7	
  

9	
  

10	
  

14	
  

19	
  

28	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
  

Social	
  values	
  

Wilderness	
  benefits	
  

A>tude	
  toward	
  wilderness	
  

Tribal	
  access	
  and	
  consultaAons	
  

Understanding	
  public	
  needs	
  

Understatning	
  wilderness	
  values	
  

Building	
  partnership	
  

CommunicaAng	
  wilderness	
  values	
  

Human	
  resource	
  development	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics	
  in	
  building	
  partnership	
  and	
  

educa5on	
  

Figure A5.4-3—Research needs in building partnership and education
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 93

d. Wilderness Recreation Management: The long-standing wilderness research topics 

of visitor management, including issues of overuse of wilderness resources, user group 

conflicts, visitor use monitoring, monitoring wilderness using new technology/in face of 

new technology used by visitors, sanitation and waste management, other conflict management (e.g., human-wildlife conflicts), research about wilderness character and visitor 

impacts (due to excessive use of wilderness resources), and capacity analysis (carrying 

capacity of wilderness areas/resources) remain to have needs expressed by managers for 

information to guide decisions (Figure A5.4-4).

Figure A5.4-4—Research needs in wilderness recreation management

24	
  

24	
  

28	
  

35	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
  

Wilderness	
  recrea3on	
  management	
  

Building	
  partnerships	
  and	
  educa3on	
  

Wilderness	
  resource	
  management	
  

Threats	
  and	
  impact	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  responses	
  

Topics/areas	
  for	
  research	
  needs	
  

A5.5 Other threats (open ended responses) 

Those taking the survey were also provided a single-line opportunity to describe any 

“other” threats they perceive to exist to wilderness over the next 20 years. Only 37 

managers “wrote in” items and these responses fall into three broad categories, shown in 

Figure A5.5. 

Managers mostly listed threats that result from human use of wilderness resources (e.g., 

encroachment, energy development, illegal activities, overuse of wilderness resources, 

etc.), lack of support for wilderness and wilderness management (lack of budget or 

funding, lack of political support, influence of interest groups, etc.), and natural threats 

(climate change, availability of water, etc.). Please see Table A5.5 for additional details 

about these categories. 
94 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

11	
  

32	
  

78	
  

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
   80	
   90	
  

Natural	
  threats	
  

Lack	
  of	
  support	
  

Human	
  use	
  threats	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

List	
  of	
  poten/al	
  threats	
  

Figure A5.5—Potential threats to wilderness resources or visitor experience (open-ended responses)

Table A5.5—Other potential threats 

Categorization of other potential threats (Figure A5.2) Number Percent

a. Human use threats 29 78

- Management related - over development of ranger stations in 

NPS wilderness areas, lack resource on ground, conflicting goals, 

lack of management supports, management intervention, lack of 

coordination among agencies, commercialization of wilderness areas 7

- Encroachment - influence of human on wilderness resources 6

- Illegal activities - marijuana plantations, trespassing, illegal border 

traffic 6

- Wildlife management - unmanaged wild horse herds, non-native 

fish stocking 5

- Overuse of wilderness resources - commercial fishing pressure, 

overuse of wilderness areas 3

- Energy development - power line construction 1

- Search and rescue operation 1

b. Lack of supports 12 32

- Political supports - lack of congressional supports/ high level 

supports 4

- Financial resources - lack of funding/budget 3

- Maintaining wilderness character - decreasing value placed on 

wilderness 3

- Influence of interest groups - lobbying of interest group and their 

influences of policy 2

c. Natural Threats 4 11

- Climate change 2

- Availability of water 2

d. Survey related 2

- Survey related - omission of some wilderness areas in the 

 survey, wording of some questions 2 5

Total frequencies 47

Total responses 37

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015. 95

A5.6 Final comments

Respondents were provided an opportunity to provide any final comments about the survey or the strategic planning process. A total of 82 managers provided responses to this 

question, which fall into six broad categories, as shown below in Figure A5.6. Please see 

Table A5.6 for details about these categories. 

Forty-four percent of comments are wilderness management related (e.g., connection 

to wilderness is no longer a necessary goal, continued emphasis from the Chief’s Office 

with clear expectations is critical, better priority to get more budget, staffs, need to designate more lands, need for region specific survey, cohesive and coordinated approach 

to manage wilderness by 4 agencies is important, need to place priority on fire and 

resources, outreach to youth, utilize partnership to manage wilderness, etc.). Likewise, 

thirty-seven percent of the comments are survey related and respondents want to use 

survey findings in the formulation of wilderness policy (e.g., wording of some survey 

questions, some questions are not relevant to all respondents, appreciation for the survey, 

need to cover more ground level reality, etc.). The rest of the comments are personal 

experiences and appreciation for conducting the survey, budgets/staff/resource related, 

comments about wilderness values, public support, and appreciation (gaining public 

support – better communication with the public and with agencies, educating the public, 

conflict in priority – higher priority at the national level, but no priority at the field level, 

etc.), agency policy and priority (e.g., conflicting priority – higher priority at the national 

level, but no priority at the field level, need for wildfire emergency action plan, etc.). 

4	
  

5	
  

12	
  

18	
  

37	
  

44	
  

0	
   5	
   10	
   15	
   20	
   25	
   30	
   35	
   40	
   45	
   50	
  

Agency	
  policy	
  and	
  priority	
  

Wilderness	
  values,	
  public	
  support,	
  and	
  

apprecia>on	
  

Budget/staff/resources	
  at	
  grounds	
  

Personal	
  experience	
  and	
  apprecia>on	
  to	
  

conduc>ng	
  the	
  survey	
  

Survey	
  related	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  survey	
  findings	
  

for	
  policy	
  formula>on	
  

Wilderness	
  management	
  

Percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  

List	
  of	
  topics	
  convered	
  in	
  final	
  comments	
  

Figure A5.6—Categories of final comments 
96 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-336. 2015.

Table A5.6—Final comments 

Categorization of final comments (Figure A5.6) Number Percent

a. Wilderness management 36 44

- Management related (connection to wilderness is no longer a 

necessary goal, continued emphasis from the Chief’s Office with 

clear expectations is critical, better priority to get more budget, 

staffs, need to designate more lands, need for region specific survey, 

cohesive and coordinated approach to manage wilderness by the 

4 agencies is important, place priority on fire and resources, 

outreach to youth, utilize partnership to manage wilderness, etc.) 34

- Adaptation to climate change (climate smart change adaptation) 2

b. Survey related and use of survey findings for policy formulation 30 37

- Survey related (make it simple and easily understandable, some 

questions are not relevant to all respondents, appreciation to the 

survey, need to cover more ground level problems, time is not 

suitable for the survey so send it early spring/late fall, future use 

of the survey findings, seasonal workforce are out of the 

survey, etc.) 26

- Use of survey for policy (results of this survey must guide 

development of a new strategic plan for the NWPS and 

include measurable objectives) 4

c. Personal experience and appreciation to conducing survey 15 18

- No comments (e.g., just thank you and appreciation to 

conducting the survey) 8

- Personal experiences (different geographic regions have 

different problems or challenges, wilderness managers work in 

multiple wilderness so geo-specific question is misleading, etc.) 7

d. Budget/staff/resources 10 12

- Lack of budget/staffs (need more hands and resources at grounds, 

funding, create more position at ground level, etc.) 10

e. Wilderness values, public support, and appreciation 4 5

- Gaining public supports (better communication with the public 

and with agencies, educating the public, etc.) 3

- Technology related (development of new apps and make it 

available for users to increase public attachment and appreciation) 1

f. Agency policy and priority 3 4

- Agency policy (need for wildfire emergency action plan, no 

recognition of conservation component in the BLM) 2

- Conflict in priority (higher priority at the national level, but no 

 priority at the field level) 1

Total frequencies 82

Total responses 98

Note: Some responses fit into multiple categories. Hence, total frequencies are greater than total 

respondents and percentage total is greater than 100. 
To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, 

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/

parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted 

or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_

cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or 

(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.