A Framework to Evaluate Proposals 

for Scientific Activities in Wilderness

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-234WWW

January 2010
Landres, Peter, ed. 2010. A framework to evaluate proposals for scientific activities in 

wilderness. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 74 p.

Abstract

Every year, the four Federal wilderness management agencies—U.S. DOI Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the USDA Forest Service—receive hundreds of proposals to conduct scientific studies within wilderness. There 

is no consistent and comprehensive framework for evaluating such proposals that accounts 

for the unique legal requirements of conducting such work inside wilderness, specifically the 

primary mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness character.” This mandate demands that the standard for approving scientific activities be higher inside wilderness 

than in other areas. This evaluation framework provides an approach for thinking through 

and documenting how proposals for scientific activities in wilderness may be evaluated in 

these wilderness management agencies based on four sequential filters: (1) Initial Review 

Filter, (2) Quality of Proposal Filter, (3) Legal and Policy Filter, and (4) Impacts and Benefits 

Filter. By using this framework, managers and scientists alike know up-front how proposals 

will be evaluated, fostering better communication. This framework aims to reduce conflict, 

help make defensible decisions, and document how those decisions are made. Our goals in 

developing this framework are to increase the relevance of science to improving wilderness 

stewardship and to bring the benefits of wilderness to society while preserving wilderness 

character.

Keywords: wilderness, scientific activities, scientific evaluation, wilderness permitting

Authors

Peter Landres is an Ecologist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

Mark Fincher is the Wilderness Specialist at Yosemite National Park, National Park Service, 

El Portal, CA.

Lewis Sharman is an Ecologist at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, National Park 

Service, Gustavus, AK.

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Publishing Services

Telephone	 (970) 498-1392

FAX	 (970) 498-1122

E-mail	 rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing Address	 Publications Distribution

	 Rocky Mountain Research Station

	 240 West Prospect Road

	 Fort Collins, CO 80526

Cover photo by Kevin Hood, Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness, Alaska
Judy Alderson is the Regional Wilderness Program Manager, Alaska Regional Office, National 

Park Service, Anchorage, AK.

Chris Barns is the Bureau of Land Management representative at the Arthur Carhart National 

Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, MT.

Tom Carlson is the USDA Forest Service representative at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, MT.

Richard L. Anderson is the Compliance Coordinator at the Alaska Regional Office, National 

Park Service, Anchorage, AK.

Susan Boudreau is the Superintendent at Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, National 

Park Service, Skagway, AK.

David J. Parsons is the Director of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 

Laurel Boyers (retired) was formerly the Wilderness Manager at Yosemite National Park, 

National Park Service, El Portal, CA.

Kevin Hood is the Coordinator for Special Uses/Wilderness/Outdoor Ethics (LNT) at 

Admiralty Island National Monument and the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National 

Forest, Juneau, AK.

Author’s Note: This publication was developed by a technical working group 

and solely represents the views of its authors. It does not represent and 

should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

i
ii

Acknowledgments

This framework was initially developed through a 2001 interagency workshop. We are 

indebted to the participants: Robin West and Danny Gomez (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); 

Bruce Van Haveren (Bureau of Land Management); Steve Bair, John Dennis, and David 

Graber (National Park Service); Dan Fagre (U.S. Geological Survey); and Kendall Clark and 

John Romanowski (USDA Forest Service).

We thank the participants, especially Allison Banks and Greg Streveler, in a workshop 

held at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve to develop an initial working model of this 

framework. We thank Tomie Lee, former Park superintendent, for her support and encouragement.

Joe Van Horn, Wilderness Program Coordinator for Denali National Park and Preserve, 

was instrumental in keeping our feet to the wilderness fire. Rob Mason, a former wilderness 

manager for the Forest Service, offered thoughtful advice on ways to make this evaluation 

framework more practical and useful to wilderness managers. Many other people offered 

cogent comments and suggestions, including Paul Gleeson, Gordon Olson, and the many 

workshop and discussion participants at several biennial George Wright Society meetings 

where previous drafts of this framework were presented.

We thank Rick Potts, former Chief of Wilderness Stewardship and Recreation Management 

in the National Park Service, for his unflagging support and encouragement. And we sincerely 

appreciate all the members of the National Park Service’s National Wilderness Steering Committee (now Wilderness Leadership Council) for their sustained interest and assistance in 

reviewing and revising this framework. We are especially grateful to Bob Winfree, National 

Park Service Alaska Regional Science Advisor, for sharing his depth of experience and for 

his help, support, and feedback throughout the many stages of developing this evaluation 

framework. David Graber, Chief Scientist for the Pacific West Region of the National Park 

Service, and Steve Ulvi (now retired from the National Park Service) were constant sources 

of wisdom, support, and humor to help us think through many difficult issues and decisions 

and to keep us focused on how to simultaneously support science and preserve wilderness 

character.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Evaluation Framework Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Limitations and Cautions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Compliance Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Evaluation Framework Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Initial Review Filter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Quality of Proposal Filter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Legal and Policy Filter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Proposals With Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Proposals Without Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Impacts and Benefits Filter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Numerical Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Local Flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Benefits Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Impacts Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Benefits and Impacts Decision Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Cumulative Impacts Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix A – Hypothetical Example of Climate Change Research Evaluation. . . . . . 31

Appendix B – Guidelines for Scientists Conducting Research in Wilderness. . . . . . . . 33

Appendix C – Agency Policies on Research and Scientific Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix D – Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example—Benefits and

Impacts Assessment Worksheets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix E – Worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

iii
Executive Summary

	 This evaluation framework provides a consistent and comprehensive approach

for thinking through and documenting how the four Federal wilderness managing agencies may evaluate proposals for scientific activities in wilderness.

This approach is based on the premises that both impacts and benefits need

to be assessed and that the decision to approve or deny a proposed activity ultimately depends on whether the benefits justify the impacts. Such an

approach provides a solid basis to improve communication between managers

and scientists, thereby reducing conflict and impacts to wilderness character,

increasing the relevance of science to improving wilderness stewardship, and

bringing the benefits of wilderness science to society.

Why is this evaluation framework needed?

	 The standard for approving scientific activities is, and should be, set higher

inside wilderness than in other areas because of the legislative requirement

from the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness character.” However,

there is no consistent and comprehensive framework for evaluating proposals

for scientific activities in wilderness. Different agencies, and offices within

an agency, may evaluate proposals differently and interpret the requirements

of wilderness legislation as well as agency policy in very different ways.

Typically, some impacts but not others are evaluated, while the benefits of

the proposed work may or may not be taken into account. Last, the trigger

for more detailed evaluation often is a proposed action that is prohibited by

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, and, while many scientific activities may

not reach that level of impact, they may still have a significant impact on

wilderness character. All of these habits lead to a lack of defensibility when

approving or denying proposals, as well as frustration and acrimony between

managers and scientists. These problems will likely become more frequent

and intense with increasing demands for research and monitoring in wilderness to understand the effects of global climate change and other pervasive,

regional, and national-scale threats to wilderness. 

How does this evaluation framework work?

	 This framework consists of a series of steps or filters that would typically be

used in the following sequence to reach a recommendation about the proposal:

• Initial Review Filter: identify any potential “red flags” or obvious problems

• Quality of Proposal Filter: ensure the activities will achieve their intended

outcome

• Legal and Policy Filter: evaluate conformance with existing legislation

and applicable agency policies

• Impacts and Benefits Filter: evaluate both impacts and benefits

iv
	 One of the purposes of this framework is to quickly identify proposals that

may be readily approved, those that are clearly not appropriate and will be

returned with an explanation, and those that will require substantial effort

to render a fair and transparent decision. While the framework may at first

seem complex, extensive pilot testing showed that, using this framework, most

proposals, after they have been carefully read, require about 15 minutes to

evaluate.

	 This framework applies to proposals from inside the wilderness management

agency and to proposals from other agencies, organizations, and individuals.

This framework is not intended for off-the-shelf use. Local staffs are required

to make several judgments within the filters described above, and these judgments strongly influence the outcome of this evaluation. This framework is

not intended to be prescriptive; rather, to balance the goals of consistency

and local relevance, it provides a logical structure within which staffs apply

specific modifications to fit local circumstances.

	 This framework will assist in the preparation of a National Environmental

Policy Act analysis, as well as a Minimum Requirements Analysis, if needed,

but it is not a substitute for either. Each agency and managing unit uses different procedures for triggering and fulfilling compliance requirements, so

each will need to develop its own methods for incorporating this framework

into compliance procedures.

v
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 1

A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for 

Scientific Activities in Wilderness

Peter Landres, Mark Fincher, Lewis Sharman, Judy Alderson, 

Chris Barns, Tom Carlson, Richard L. Anderson, Susan Boudreau, 

David J. Parsons, Laurel Boyers, and Kevin Hood

Introduction

	 Every year, the four Federal wilderness management agencies (U.S. DOI

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the USDA Forest Service) receive hundreds of proposals to conduct

scientific studies within wilderness. These proposals range from simple and

small to extraordinarily complex and large projects. Wilderness offers unique

opportunities for biophysical and social science in areas that are relatively

unmodified by modern people, and these studies may improve wilderness

stewardship and benefit both science and society (Albright 1933; Bratton 1988;

Graber 1988, 2002; Peterson 1996; Sharman and others 2007; Suarez 2009).

The legislative requirement of the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness character” demands that the standard for approving scientific activities

is, and should be, set higher inside wilderness than in other areas (Landres

and others 2003; Six and others 2000).

	 Some scientific activities in wilderness are illegal because wilderness legislation prohibits motorized equipment, mechanical transport, and installations.

These prohibitions prevent the use of certain scientific tools, data collection

installations, and otherscientific procedures unlessthese are explicitly deemed

“necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area

for the purpose of this Act” (Section 4(c) Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577).

Other activities may be legal but, nonetheless, diminish one or more of the

four qualities of wilderness character (see Landres and others 2008 for detailed

discussion about wilderness character). For example, the presence of research

staff compromises opportunities for solitude, monumentation of research sites

with permanent marking diminishes the undeveloped quality, and tagging

animals compromises the untrammeled quality of wilderness character (for

additional examples, see Oelf ke and others 2000; Parsons 2000; Parsons and

Graber 1991).

	 Different agencies, and even different offices within an agency, may interpret wilderness legislation and the agency’s policies in different ways, leading to inconsistency in evaluating proposals for scientific activities (Butler

and Roberts 1986). This inconsistency, combined with a lack of communication between managers and scientists, has led to increasing frustration and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 2

acrimony over scientific activities in wilderness (Barns 2000; Bayless 1999;

Eichelberger and Sattler 1994; Stokstad 2001). For example, Franklin (1987)

describes how scientists “are often uninformed about regulations and unwilling

to make necessary compromises to conform with wilderness values. Scientists can be arrogant and cryptic in their relations with managers...some may

feel that research gives them a license to do whatever they please.” Franklin

(1987) also describes how managers’ “attitudes toward research in wilderness

are also problems...which may include hostility and disinterest, [and] apparently reflect a lack of appreciation of the potential value of scientific study.”

These problems will likely become more frequent and intense with increasing

demands for research and monitoring in wilderness to understand the effects

of global climate change and other pervasive, regional, and national-scale

threats to wilderness. Appendix A offers an example of how this evaluation

framework relates specifically to climate change research and Appendix B

offers guidelines for scientists developing proposals to conduct research in

wilderness.

	 To help overcome these problems, this framework was developed to provide

a consistent approach across the four wilderness management agencies for

thinking through and documenting how proposals for scientific activities in

wilderness may be evaluated. Our premises include: (1) there is nothing inherently incompatible between science and wilderness;(2)science can substantively

contribute to improved wilderness stewardship and societal understanding

about the value of wilderness; and (3) both impacts and benefits of proposed

scientific activities must be fairly evaluated to decide whether to approve or

deny these activities. This framework should both set the stage for discussion

between managers and scientists early in the proposal development process

and be equally informative and useful to both groups. By improving communication between managers and scientists, this framework aims to reduce

conflict, increase the relevance ofscience to improving wildernessstewardship,

and help bring the benefits of wilderness science to society, while preserving

wilderness character.

	 This framework was initially developed at a workshop held in 2001 with

the four wilderness management agencies and the U.S. Geological Survey.

This initial framework was presented at several conference discussions and

workshops, and an intensive workshop was held at Glacier Bay National Park

and Preserve in 2005. The framework was then substantially revised by the

present authors, again presented at a conference workshop, and subsequently

revised and pilot tested.

Evaluation Framework Goals

The general goals for this framework are to:

• Improve communication—There is a fundamental need to have early and

clear communication between scientists and management staff about how

proposals for scientific activities in wilderness will be evaluated.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 3

• Improve awareness—There is an important need to improve awareness and

understanding among both scientists and management staff about (1) the

importance of preserving wilderness character, protecting the wilderness

resource, and the high standard that is required for conducting scientific

studies in wilderness; and (2) the direct and indirect benefits of science

to wilderness and its stewardship and to society.

• Improve defensibility—There is an urgent need to improve the defensibility of staff evaluations by using a framework that is (1) transparent and

explicit in the decision criteria, including the subjective judgments made

by agency staff; (2) based on the statutory language of the 1964 Wilderness

Act; and (3) consistent in its evaluation criteria across different proposals

and over time. Such an evaluation framework would become part of the

administrative record demonstrating how a decision was made.

	 To accomplish these goals, this framework is designed to be:

• Comprehensive and systematic—The framework provides a structured

basis for comprehensively evaluating the benefits and impacts of a proposed scientific activity, including the cumulative benefits and impacts

of this activity.

• Broadly applicable—The framework applies to every geographic area and

agency because it is based on the statutory language of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

• Flexible—The framework has been designed to allow local modification.

In fact, local modification is required in several places to ensure that decisions reflect local thinking and attitudes about wilderness and science.

Limitations and Cautions

There are several limitations and cautions about the use of this framework.

First, it was developed to evaluate proposals for scientific activities, not other

types of activities such as outfitter and guide permits. Scientific activities are

defined as all activities related to the collection of natural resource and social

science data, including research, inventory, and monitoring, generally conducted

by universities, Federal or State agencies, or private organizations. Second,

significant portions of thisframework are based on the statutory language of the

1964 Wilderness Act, and, therefore, it applies just to wilderness and not other

agency lands. Third, this framework is intended to apply equally to proposals

that come from outside or inside the Federal agency managing the wilderness.

Fourth, the framework does not specifically evaluate impacts to the intangible

aspects of wilderness character, such as impacts to humility, restraint, and the

value of having areas that remain a mystery and unknown (Landres 2005), in

other words, the virtue of having what Leopold (1949) described as “a blank

spot on the map.” These intangible values may be considered important by

management staff in this evaluation process.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 4

	 While this framework is intended to be widely applicable and useful, it is

not prescriptive and local staffs must adapt and modify it to fit their needs. As

with all management tools, the use of this framework needs to be tested within

the legal and policy context of the specific wilderness and the circumstances

being evaluated. In particular, this framework must be used with a clear understanding of wilderness values and the ability to translate this understanding to

a variety of complex proposals and situations. This framework is intended to

build upon and complement the knowledge and experience of local management

staffs, not to serve as a substitute for this knowledge. Despite the benefits of

a standardized evaluation process, no single evaluation process will work in

every situation, especially in cases that have become contentious and politicized. Last, this framework is not a policy or decision document, and, while

it may complement a minimum tool analysis and NEPA scoping and analysis

documents, it does not replace either of those if needed.

	 To fully implement thisframework, each agency will need to develop agencyspecific approaches not provided here to:

•	 Identify appropriate staff roles and responsibilities;

•	 Integrate this framework within existing agency policies and permitting

or approval programs, and make it part of the administrative record;

•	 Determine the appropriate balance between flexibility and consistency

among different offices within an agency;

•	 Develop communication tools such as a Web-based application to provide

a user’s guide to this framework; and

•	 Develop supporting documentation to improve communication between

management staff and scientists that would (1) explain why wilderness

character is important and the Federal responsibility to preserve it, (2) provide examples of activities that are allowed and those that are prohibited,

and (3) offer recommendations for sampling, monumentation, and other

activities that are likely to cause concern.

	 Over 30 different proposals for scientific studies have been pilot-tested using

an earlier draft of this framework. This version reflects what has been learned

from that testing. Not surprisingly, pilot testing showed that familiarity with

the framework is critical for efficient evaluation of a proposal. In particular,

familiarity is needed with the numericalscoring system used to assessimpacts.

Understanding the details of a proposal also may require considerable time and

effort, especially for complex proposals. However, once the evaluator understands the material, on average, proposals are evaluated in about 15 minutes.

Compliance Requirements

All Federal actions that might have an environmental effect are subject to

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA). Effects on wilderness character from scientific activities are subject to NEPA, and the conduct

of these activities is under the control of the managing Federal agency and is
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 5

therefore considered a Federal action. This is true whether the Federal wilderness management agency, another Federal agency, a State agency, a State or

private university or museum, or an individual conducts the activities. This

is also true regardless of whether a research permit is required. If no research

permit is required, the agency still has the responsibility for wilderness management and for NEPA analysis of the scientific activities and impacts.

	 This evaluation framework, like any Minimum Requirements Analysis

(MRA), may help prepare a NEPA analysis but is not a substitute. Portions of

the evaluation framework, like the MRA, may be transferable to a subsequent

or concurrent NEPA analysis. Because agencies and managing units use different procedures for triggering and fulfilling compliance requirements, no

standard method is offered for how this framework should be incorporated

into these compliance procedures.

	 To summarize the differences between this evaluation framework, the MRA,

and NEPA:

• Evaluation framework—used to evaluate allscientific activitiesregardless

of whether they are prohibited under the Wilderness Act Section 4(c) or

not; evaluates both impacts and benefits of a proposed activity and weighs

these against one another in the context of cumulative effects from other

activities.

• MRA—used to evaluate the necessity of a proposed activity and how to

minimize impacts from it, especially an activity that violates the Wilderness Act Section 4(c) prohibitions.

• NEPA—compares and discloses the environmental effects of all the alternatives, including the proposal and the no-action alternative.

Evaluation Framework Overview

The framework is composed of four filters or steps (fig. 1), followed by a

recommendation about the proposed activity. The purpose of each step is

briefly explained below and explained in detail in its own section.

• Initial Review Filter—identify any potential “red flags” and obvious

problems with the proposal

• Quality of Proposal Filter—ensure the proposed activities will achieve

their intended outcome

• Legal and Policy Filter—evaluate conformance of the proposal with existing legislation and applicable agency policies

• Impacts and Benefits Filter—assess the impacts and benefits of the proposal, including cumulative impacts

• Recommendation—the final recommendation that is rendered from the

evaluation process
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 6

	 Throughout this evaluation framework we use the term “proposal” to refer to

the entire document that issubmitted to the agency for permitting and “proposed

activity” for specific components of the proposal. In reality, it will most likely

be one or more components of a proposal that end up being the primary focus

of scrutiny and debate. For example, a proposal for climate change research

may include the installation of a meteorological tower as one of its proposed

activities, and this tower would likely become the focus of the Legal and Policy

Filter. This framework is designed to be conservative by allowing a proposal

to be provisionally denied at each of the different steps. In most cases, denial

is provisional because agency staff would first document the reason for denial

and may then negotiate with the scientist to reduce the impacts and/or increase

the benefits of the proposal.

	 Any evaluation process, including this one, strives to put complex and

nuanced issues into relatively simple categories or into black and white terms.

For example, in this framework a proposal would be readily approved if it is

of sufficient quality to achieve its intended purpose, does not violate law or

policy, and does not degrade wilderness character. In contrast, a proposal would

be readily denied if it is of poor quality, violated law or policy, or degraded

wilderness character without providing any significant benefits. These are both

simple situations and many proposals would fall into one or the other category.

Much more complex and harder to evaluate, however, is a proposal that is of

PROPOSAL

IMPACTS & BENEFITS

FILTER

INITIAL REVIEW FILTER

QUALITY OF PROPOSAL 

FILTER

LEGAL AND POLICY FILTER

RECOMMENDATION

Figure 1—Overall evaluation process.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 7

good quality, would provide important benefits, but requires the use of Section 4(c) prohibited activities, and, therefore, degrades wilderness character

to achieve those benefits. Should such a proposal be denied or approved after

appropriate negotiation? Thisframework isintended to help managers evaluate

these “gray” situations in a consistent and comprehensive manner, leading to

fair and defensible decisions.

Initial Review Filter

The first step in this evaluation framework is to identify any potential “red

flags” or other obvious problems with the proposal. For every wilderness and

issue there will likely be a different set of “hot-button” issues that need to be

identified as early and as quickly as possible. The purpose of this filter is not

to deny a proposal but to set up appropriate management review if needed, or

return it for modification to correct obvious problems before further evaluation. The mere presence of this filter should provide a strong incentive for

scientists to talk with the wilderness manager while they are developing their

proposal and certainly before the proposal is formally submitted. Such upfront

communication may forestall any problems or antagonism that might prevent

the proposal from being approved and, thereby, increase the speed of the evaluation process.

	 This filter is simply a list of questions management staff should ask about

each proposal. The questions offered below illustrate the kinds of questions

that would trigger a red flag, but this list may not cover the full range of issues

or concerns that are relevant to a specific area or proposal. Similarly, this list

may include questions that are not relevant to an area. These questions include:

•	 Does the proposal include any activities requiring a use that is legally

prohibited by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act?

•	 Would the proposed activity degrade wilderness character even if it is

legally permitted?

•	 Would the proposed activity likely be controversial with any publics?

•	 Would the proposed activity pose other legal or policy problems?

•	 Would the proposed activity interfere with management operations?

•	 Would the proposed activity pose consultation issues over listed species

or cultural and heritage resources?

•	 Would the proposed activity require collecting plants or other natural

resources, handling or removing animals, or introducing plants or animals

into the wilderness?

•	 Would the proposed activity pose timing or location problems, such as

occurring in a sensitive area or time for particular species?

•	 Would the proposed activity pose additional impact in an area that already

has an unacceptable level of cumulative impacts or is close to an unacceptable level of cumulative impacts?
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 8

•	 If the submitter has conducted work in the area before, were there any

problems with completing administrative requirements (such as submitting reports, removing installations and other debris from the activity, or

completing curatorial and specimen documentation requirements) in a

timely and professional manner?

	 The intent in managers asking these questions at the outset of the evaluation

process is not to go into a thorough and deep analysis of potential problems.

Rather, asking these questions is important to identify whether the proposal

may trigger certain problems that could substantially influence how the proposal will be evaluated. For example, if the proposal affects threatened and

endangered species, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

required, which may lead to a longer evaluation. Likewise, if the proposal

requires use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport or degrades wilderness character in some other way, the evaluation process may take longer

and there is a greater chance it will be denied.

	 If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then additional effort is

needed by the manager to more clearly define what the potential problem is.

At this point communication with the persons who offered the proposal is vital

to inform them of the potential problem(s) and likely implications for how long

it may take to evaluate their proposal. If this Initial Review Filter turns up

problems that may significantly delay the evaluation or make it more likely

for the proposal to be denied, management staff may allow the proposal to be

withdrawn or revised. If the answer is “no” to all of the questions, then the

proposal would advance to the next step in this framework.

Quality of Proposal Filter

This filter asks two questions:

•	 Is the proposed scientific activity sufficiently well designed to accomplish

its stated purpose, thereby providing the intended benefits to management

or science?

•	 Does the proposal adequately describe and discuss the potential benefits

and impacts of the proposed activity to wilderness, as well as its plan for

communicating with local management staff?

	 It is neither the wilderness manager’s responsibility to understand research

design, sampling methods, or statistical analysis, nor the scientist’s responsibility to understand the intricacies and nuances of wilderness law and policy.

With this filter and the two questions above, we are trying to forge common

ground that both groups need to move toward. For example, wilderness managers need an informed opinion about whether the proposed activity will fulfill

its intended objectives. For proposals that have little or no impact, this is not a

crucial analysis. But for proposals that degrade wilderness character or require

activities prohibited by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, this evaluation is
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 9

imperative to accurately assess whether the purported benefits would be sufficient to justify accepting the impacts.

	 Managerstypically have four optionsfor evaluating scientific rigor:(1) review

the proposal themselves if they are capable; (2) ask agency resource or science staff to review the proposal; (3) ask scientists outside the agency for

review; or (4) assume that the proposal is sufficiently well-designed that no

review is needed. The drawbacks to the first three options are the staff time

and funding needed to review proposals. While the fourth option may appear

specious, some national-level agency activities such as the Forest Service’s

Forest Inventory and Analysis program are developed with rigorous standards,

and, in these cases, may not need to be reviewed for scientific quality. In some

cases, the reputation of the person submitting the proposal or the manager’s

direct experience with this person may lead to accepting the scientific rigor

of the proposal with minimal additional review.

	 In some cases, a proposal may be funded before it is submitted to the agency

for approval to conduct the study on public land. For example, scientists may

submit proposals to be funded by the National Science Foundation or special

congressionally funded initiativesthat have well-established independentreview

processes. In these cases, if the proposal has passed the rigorous screening

of such programs, the scientific quality of the proposal may not need to be

questioned. Having already received funding, however, neither assures that

a proposal will be permitted nor exempts it from being assessed in the Legal

and Policy Filter and the Impacts and Benefits Filter.

	 If the proposal is deemed inadequate to fulfill its intended scientific purpose,

it may be returned with a request to demonstrate, by independent reviews, the

scientific quality of the proposal.

	 The second question in this Filter evaluates whether the proposal adequately

describes its potential benefits and impacts to wilderness, as well as its plan

for communicating with local managementstaff. Specifically, reviewersshould

ask:

•	 Does the proposal describe the potential benefits as described in the

Impacts and Benefits Filter?

•	 Doesthe proposal describe the potential impacts as described in the Impacts

and Benefits Filter and show how these will be minimized or mitigated?

•	 Does the proposal describe how the results and any reports will be communicated to local management staff?

	 By describing the potential benefits of the activity, the proposal helps managers understand the broader context of the proposed activities. By describing

potential impacts, the proposal demonstrates that the persons suggesting the

activities are aware of the range of wilderness values that might be affected

by their proposal. If the proposal does not address these issues, or addresses

them inadequately, the proposal may be returned for revision. In this case, it

is clearly in the scientist’s interest to revise the proposal to increase the likelihood of it being permitted.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 10

	 In some cases, managers may feel that the impacts are unacceptable and suggest waysthe scientist could reduce them. For example, if a researcher proposes

using a chainsaw to take sections from trees to develop an historical record of

fire in the wilderness, the manager may support the idea for such a study and

suggest that a crosscut saw be used instead. The scientist may counter that a

chainsaw is necessary to provide the quality and quantity of data needed to

derive an historical fire record, and the chainsaw allows plunge cutting that

minimizes tree damage. The manager may then respond that a chainsaw can be

used but only in certain times and locations to minimize impacts to visitors. In

addition, the manager may seek the opinion of an independent scientist about

whether use of a chainsaw is necessary to acquire adequate samples. Such

frank and back-and-forth discussion is critical to minimizing impacts while

still allowing data to be collected that is sufficient to fulfill the purposes of

the research.

	 One of the purposes of this Quality of Proposal Filter is to promote up-front

discussion between management staff and scientists. Requiring discussion of

benefits and impacts in the proposal should encourage scientists to discuss

their ideas with management staff before the proposal is submitted. While

initially time consuming, such discussion should lead to a proposal that provides more useful information to managers, maximizes benefits, minimizes

impacts, and fosters a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship

between managers and scientists.

Legal and Policy Filter

This Filter (fig. 2) evaluates conformance of the proposal with existing legislation and applicable agency policies. In essence, proposed activities that

violate existing law (the Wilderness Act and other Federal laws) or agency

policy are not allowed in wilderness or other public lands. In practice, however, determining legislative and policy conformance is complex because of

the way different laws overlap and how they interact with policies and other

administrative direction—therefore, evaluating conformance may require

subjective judgments. These judgments may pose less of a problem if any

underlying assumptions and rationale are made explicit. As discussed above,

this Legal and Policy Filter does not replace or fulfill NEPA or other compliance requirements. Each agency has distinct policy direction on research and

other science activities inside wilderness, and staff members must defer to

their agency’s policies over this evaluation framework. Agency policies on

research, as of the time this evaluation framework was published, are given

in Appendix C.

	 The first step in this filter is to determine whether a proposal includes a use

or activity that is generally prohibited by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act

of 1964. The Act lists several uses and activities that are generally prohibited, including erecting structures and installations and using non-motorized

mechanical transport, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 11

landing aircraft (dropping or picking things up from aircraft that do not land

is managed by regulation or policy specific to each agency). In a well-written

proposal, this decision point is simple because it will be clearly stated whether

one of these uses is proposed.

	 However, the prohibition of these uses is not absolute. If one of the uses is

proposed, the manager must determine whether it meets the 1964 Wilderness

Act Section 4(c) exemption of being “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of [the Wilderness]

Act.” This statement has been the source of much debate because it is unclear

exactly what is meant by “necessary,” “minimum,” and “administration.”

Different agencies, different offices within an agency, and different people

all may use different definitions and criteria for determining which activities

may be permitted under Section 4(c). Anderson (1999) offers a detailed discussion of this Section 4(c) phrase and its implication for research activities in

wilderness. It is not the purpose of this evaluation framework to resolve these

debates; however, anyone conducting an impact assessment must be aware of

this uncertainty as a source of reasonable disagreement and contention. In such

cases, agency staff must carefully document the rationale and any underlying

assumptions used to support this judgment.

Minimum Requirements Analysis –

  Step 1:  Is It Necessary?

• Wilderness dependence

• Legislated exceptions

• Preservation of wilderness character

PROPOSED ACTIVITY

Yes No

IMPACTS & BENEFITS 

FILTER

For §4(c) prohibited uses, 

including MRA Step 2: 

What is the minimum 

activity?

Yes

DENY

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Proposed use 

prohibited by 

§4(c)?

Change 

proposal?

Law/Policy/Plan 

restriction?

Change 

proposal?

DENY

Figure 2—Legal and Policy Filter
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 12

	 In addition, science activities related to health and safety concerns may

vacate the Section 4(c) prohibitions. For example, seismographs were installed

in the Yosemite Wilderness to study whether precursor ground movement

could predict rockfalls that would endanger visitors in the non-wilderness

portion of Yosemite National Park. In this case, upfront discussion between

the scientists and management staff resulted in a scaled-down version of the

study that allowed the scientists to derive meaningful data while minimizing

impacts to wilderness character.

	 It is important to note that assessing whether a proposed activity is prohibited by Section 4(c) is not the only screen in this Legal and Policy Filter, it

is merely the most convenient starting point because of the higher burden of

“necessity” placed on these prohibited activities by the Wilderness Act. The

Wilderness Act also mandates that managers “preserve wilderness character,”

and evaluation of this critical mandate is made at several points in this Filter

and throughout this evaluation framework.

Proposals with Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses

If an activity or use is proposed that is prohibited by Section 4(c), then a

Minimum Requirements Analysis(MRA)isrequired to determine ifthe activity

meets the “necessary to meet the minimum requirements” clause of the Wilderness Act. Different agencies have different procedures for conducting this

MRA, but in this evaluation framework we use the Minimum Requirements

Decision Guide (MRDG, available at http://www.wilderness.net), developed

by the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, as a general

model. The first step in this analysis considers whether any scientific activity

is necessary regardless of methodology. There are at least three questions that

need to be answered to determine necessity: (1) Is the activity wildernessdependent—that is, can it be conducted only inside wilderness and in no other

place to provide the same benefits? (2) Are there provisions in other legislation

that allow this activity? (3) Is the activity necessary to preserve wilderness

character? One must recognize that whether a proposal passes these questions

is to some extent a matter of opinion, and careful documentation of how the

answers are reached is necessary.

Wilderness Dependence—One of the first questions the manager needs

to ask is whether the scientific activity is wilderness-dependent. There are

essentially two ways of looking at wilderness dependence:

•	 Is the scientific activity dependent on being conducted inside a wilderness, regardless of its particular location? For example, a researcher wants

to study the personal therapeutic benefits of a wilderness experience and

wants to interview people while they are inside the wilderness; in this case

the research must be conducted inside a wilderness, although it doesn’t

matter which wilderness or even the exact location within a wilderness.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 13

•	 Is the scientific activity dependent on being conducted at a particular location that just happens to be within wilderness? For example, a researcher

wants to study a particular geological occurrence by installing a series of

seismographs, and this site occurs only inside a designated wilderness;

in this case, the designation of wilderness is incidental to the purpose of

the research, although it can only be conducted within the wilderness.

	 A “yes” answer to either question generally supports permitting the scientific

activity. However, as discussed in detail below, wilderness dependence does

not guarantee that the proposed activity will be permitted because the full

range of impacts and benefits still needs to be evaluated.

	 In some cases, a scientific proposal might be wilderness-dependent, but the

results of the study will not be of immediate benefit to the preservation of

wilderness character or management of the area. For example, there could be

a need for a monitoring installation in wilderness that would be vital to help

determine the effects of climate change and, therefore, greatly benefit society,

but no other location is suitable. The installation is a Section 4(c) prohibited

use, and every attempt must be made to either avoid locating the facility in

wilderness or to collect the data without an installation. Factors such as cost,

efficiency, and time constraints based on non-wilderness factors should not

be used as criteria for excluding alternate methods and locations. The installation may be permitted if the monitoring station is the only possible method,

and it must be placed in wilderness to make use of an undisturbed landscape

or geophysical location that is available only in wilderness. While this type

of monitoring could be considered part of the scientific value and a public

purpose of wilderness (see the Preservation of Wilderness Character section

below), the installation must pass through both the entire Minimum Requirements Analysis process and the Impacts and Benefits Filter to determine need

and to justify approval.

	 A “no” answer to either question about wilderness dependence meansthat the

proposal to conduct the research inside the wilderness fails to meet the legal

minimum necessary requirement and must be denied. The researcher would

have the opportunity to either move the research location outside wilderness or

eliminate the prohibited use. As an example, a paleontologist proposes to use

a backhoe—a prohibited use under Section 4(c)—inside wilderness to sample

two tons of sediment from a particular geologic stratum and then screen the

sediment for microfossils. The stratum extends outside the wilderness. If the

scientist refuses to “give up” the prohibited tool, the research request must be

denied as it can be satisfied outside the wilderness. Conversely, the scientist

could give up the prohibited use and change the proposal to excavate using

hand tools.

	 There may be situations where research requires a prohibited use and can

be conducted outside the wilderness, but because of substantial benefits to

preserving wilderness character the research may be permitted (or may even

be desired) inside wilderness. For example, researchers can determine the
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 14

occurrence and demography of grizzly bears, but this requires installations

that are conspicuous—each covers an area of several square meters—and

they must be left in place for several years (Kendall and others 2009). In this

case, even though the installation is a prohibited use, the benefits of knowing about bear populations inside wilderness—as a component of the natural

quality of wilderness character as well as for managing visitor use to avoid

bear encounters—may outweigh the impacts of the research.

	 None of the above isintended to discourage wilderness-dependent research or

research that does not require a prohibited use. In fact, mangers may encourage

research in wilderness as long as it does not degrade wilderness character.

Legislated Exceptions—Another question in the Minimum Requirements

Analysis is whether there is a legislative exception that would allow this generally prohibited activity. No law takes precedence over another unless it explicitly states that it does, leading to what may be difficult choices and tradeoffs

as mangers seek to comply with all the laws that apply to an area. Managers

must comply with the mandates of all the laws that affect the wilderness for

which they are responsible, and in some cases, this other legislation may allow

activities that are prohibited under the 1964 Wilderness Act. For example,

while the use of motor vehicles and structures is generally prohibited inside

wilderness, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law

96-487) allows a variety of these uses. Similarly, the Wyoming Wilderness Act

(Public Law 98-550, Section 201(a)11) allows “occasional motorized access” for

the purpose of managing bighorn sheep in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness. Other

non-wilderness legislation such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 may

impose additional exceptions to the general prohibitions of the Wilderness Act.

	 In some cases this Legal and Policy Filter may lead to questions about the

meaning ofspecific sections or wordsinCongressional legislation. For example,

there may be uncertainty about the meaning of “may” or “shall” when used

in legislated special provisions, but this uncertainty can usually be resolved

by referring to a standard legal text such as Garner (2001). In this case, the

word “may” in legislation means that the agency has the discretion to consider

a prohibited use, not that it must be approved. In effect “may” means that a

prohibited use “may” or “may not” be permitted. In contrast, the word “shall”

in legislation means that the prohibited use must be approved—but unless

detailed specifications are given in the legislation, the wilderness managing

agency has the authority to specify when, where, and how this use will occur.

	 As an example, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 includes the

special provision that “management activities to maintain or restore fish

and wildlife populations...may be carried out...and shall include the use

of motorized vehicles by the appropriate State agencies” (Public Law 103-

433, Section 103(f ), emphases added). To clarify interpretation of “may”

and “shall” in this legislation, the Bureau of Land Management developed

a series of policy documents to avoid uncertainty in the field about how to

implement this provision (Watson and Brink 1996). In cases of ambiguous
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 15

or uncertain legislative direction, Federal and State personnel can refer to

the appropriate legislative history and judicial decisions to help understand

the intent of Congress (Meyer 1999), although this type of information is

also open to interpretation.

Preservation of Wilderness Character—Before determining whether any

activity should be undertaken (the MRA Step 1 decision), the manager also

needs to determine if it is necessary to “preserve wilderness character,” which

is the primary wilderness stewardship mandate from Congress.

	 Congressional intentforthemeaning of wilderness characteris expressed in the

Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act (McCloskey

1999; Rohlf and Honnold 1988; Scott 2002). Recent agency reports (Landres

and others 2005; Landres and others 2008) use this legal definition to identify

four tangible and equally important qualities of wilderness character:

• Untrammeled—Wildernessis essentially unhindered and free from modern

human control or manipulation.

• Natural—Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the

effects of modern civilization.

• Undeveloped—Wildernessretainsits primeval character and influence and

is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation.

• Solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—Wilderness

provides outstanding opportunitiesforsolitude or primitive and unconfined

recreation.

	 In addition to these four qualities of wilderness character that legally apply

to every wilderness, the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness states that a

wilderness “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” In other words, every wilderness may have “features” that are part of the wilderness character of the area

but not represented in one of the four qualities described above. A key part

of this sentence is the word “may” because some wildernesses may have such

features while other areas do not—where they do occur, these features are a

unique part of the area’s wilderness character.

	 Features that are ecological or geological would typically be considered part

of the natural quality of wilderness character. Examples of these could include

species (e.g., threatened, endangered, endemic, or of other scientific interest

such as thermophilic bacteria), unique geological formations (e.g., instrusive

plutons), or paleontological resources (e.g., fossils). Other features could

include cultural and historical sites that are protected under the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

	 In addition, the idea of wilderness character is broader than the tangible,

legal qualities of wilderness character and other site-specific features that may

occur within a wilderness. There are also intangible values associated with a
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 16

wilderness. For example, spiritual, existence, or bequest values of wilderness

may not be bound to the physical existence of an area and have little or nothing to do with its management. These values, though intangible, are still part

of wilderness character and appropriate for scientific study.

	 Ultimately, the manager needs to determine whether the purpose of the proposed scientific activity is necessary to preserve wilderness character. This

determination may often require subjective judgment that balancesthe impacts

of the activity with its benefits, and careful documentation is needed.

	 In rare cases, preserving the scientific value of a unique feature may degrade

one or more of the other qualities of wilderness character. Barns (2000), for

example, described how the use of a helicopter was considered appropriate

and the minimum necessary tool to remove a large and rare fossil from the

wilderness before erosion destroyed it (fig. 3a). The use of a helicopter clearly

temporarily degrades the undeveloped quality of the wilderness and the quality of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Removal of the fossil

is also a minor—though nonetheless real—degradation of the natural quality.

But the fossil’s removal was essential to preserve a unique value: the scientific

knowledge of the species that millions of years ago inhabited what is now

wilderness, which, without action, would have been lost to erosion.

Figure 3—(A) A helicopter was considered the minimum necessary tool to remove 

an intact rare fossil from the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness in New Mexico. (B) The 

use of hand tools was required to excavate this fossil. Photos by Chis Barns.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 17

	 Analyzing this kind of tradeoff—where a scientific activity would degrade

one aspect of wilderness character to preserve another—certainly poses a

dilemma and different people could reasonably come to different conclusions

about whether to allow such action. All such decisions require upfront and

explicit communication between scientists and managers and careful documentation.

Making the “Step 1” Decision—After addressing these screens of the MRA,

a decision must be made whether any action is “necessary to meet minimum

requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of [the Wilderness] Act,” that is, to preserve wilderness character. If the activity is deemed

to not fulfill this requirement, the proposal should be returned with suitable

explanation and the opportunity should be given to amend the proposal by

excluding the prohibited activity, bolstering how the activity would preserve

wilderness character, or both.

	 If this decision is that some action is necessary, then it must be determined

whether the proposed activity isthe minimum necessary, fulfilling Step 2 of the

MRA. The Impacts and Benefits Filter can be used to determine whether the

proposed activity fulfills this legal requirement. (Determining the “minimum

necessary” is part of the legal requirement and, therefore, could have been

included in the Legal and Policy Filter; instead we include it in the Impacts and

Benefits Filter so the tools described there can be used to make and document

this determination.) This determination requires developing a series of alternatives and then choosing the one that best meetsthis “minimum necessary” legal

requirement. The minimum necessary may or may not be the activity from the

original proposal. Furthermore, the various component steps in a proposal may

each be assigned different determinations on what the minimum necessary is.

For example, in the fossil excavation and removal example described above, no

motorized equipment was permitted for the excavation (hand tools were used;

fig. 3b) and helicopter use to remove the fossil was limited to one day (Barns

2000). Determining this minimum will most likely not be a linear process,

but instead require extensive discussion between the manager and scientist to

derive a compromise that minimizes impacts to wilderness character while

allowing the necessary scientific activity.

Proposals Without Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses

If no use or activity that is generally prohibited by Section 4(c) of the 1964

Wilderness Act is planned (either in the original proposal or after it was revised

following the MRA process previously described), the proposal is reviewed to

see if it is affected by some other legal, policy, or plan restriction. For example,

researchers may propose collecting data in a particular area but the management plan severely restricts the number of people allowed in that area. If there

is a restriction, then the proponent has the opportunity to amend the proposal

to avoid the restriction. If there is no restriction the proposal moves on to the

Impacts and Benefits Filter.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 18

	 It is possible that a proposal does not involve a use prohibited by Section 4(c)

but clearly degrades wilderness character and would thereby be denied. For

example, a proposal to study the effects of predator removal (by hunting but

with none of the prohibited uses) on the natural distribution and abundance

of prey would clearly degrade the natural quality of wilderness character.

However, such situations would likely be caught in the Initial Review Filter

and the proposal would be returned before any further evaluation. In circumstances that are less clear but still dubious, these concerns will be caught by

the Impacts and Benefits Filter.

	 Wilderness dependence may also be a consideration even though there are no

Section 4(c) prohibited uses. In practice, even without Section 4(c) prohibited

uses, proposals for science activities will range from having no impact other

than the presence of the researcher to having substantial impact. For example,

a proposal to measure the stand structure and diameter of trees inside a wilderness has very little impact, and the managers may gain new information about

the area. In contrast, a proposal to collect specimens or to intensely manipulate

or disturb an area using hand tools nonetheless has a significant impact. In

this latter case, wilderness dependence should be considered in evaluating the

proposal.

	 If a proposal has no Section 4(c) prohibited uses, different agency policies

require different types of actions. For example, National Park Service policy

requires an MRA for all administrative actions inside wilderness, including

approving scientific activities, whereas the other agencies do not require this

analysis. Forest Service policy requires evaluating wilderness dependence for

all proposed scientific activities regardless of whether there is a prohibited use

or not, whereas the other agencies do not.

Impacts and Benefits Filter

	 The purpose of the Impacts and Benefits Filter is to comprehensively and

systematically assess the potential impacts and benefits of a proposed activity.

Traditionally, evaluation processes review only the legal and policy aspects

of a proposal, or only the impacts, or they ask only whether the proposed

study must be conducted inside wilderness (see Landres and others 2003

for discussion about why these are necessary but insufficient). This Impacts

and Benefits Filter takes a very different approach by acknowledging the

complexity of scientific project proposals and the uncertainty of many decisions involving the “minimum necessary” mandate of the Wilderness Act for

Section 4(c) prohibited uses. This Filter explicitly asks whether the impacts

necessary to achieve the benefits are acceptable. This new approach acknowledges that every management action compromises or diminishes some aspect

of wilderness character, but certain actions may still be allowed because an

implicit tradeoff has been made in which the benefits outweigh the impacts.

For example, bridges, trails, and toilets are installed for resource protection, yet

they diminish other aspects of wilderness character. This approach is certainly
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 19

different philosophically and practically from traditional approaches used to

evaluate proposals for scientific activities, and it better represents the reality

of making difficult decisions.

	 For proposals that include activities with a Section 4(c) prohibited use that

were deemed by the Legal and Policy Filter to be “necessary,” the Impacts and

Benefits Filter is used to complete Step 2 of the MRA to determine what types

of activity are the “minimum.” The legal requirement from the Wilderness

Act is that Section 4(c) prohibited uses may be permitted only if they are the

“minimum necessary.” Using these two filters in combination allows agency

staff to first evaluate whether the activities are necessary, and then determine

what the minimum activities are. To fulfill MRA Step 2, several alternatives

to the activity from the proposal need to be identified and run through the

Impacts and Benefits Filter. The activity with the smallest impact would be

considered the minimum. However, some alternatives will also diminish the

benefits of the proposal, and this Filter should also show any tradeoffs between

impacts and benefits from the different alternatives.

	 This Impacts and Benefits Filter is composed of several steps (fig. 4). Basically, a proposal is run through a benefits assessment and an impacts assessment, yielding a numerical score for each. This score is then categorized or

rated as either “low,” “medium,” or “high” benefit, and “low,” “medium,” or

“high” impact. These resulting categories are then weighed against one another

in a table that yields a provisional recommendation about whether to accept

or deny the proposal.

PROPOSAL

Benefits—

numerical assessment

Impacts—

numerical assessment

Benefits and Impacts Decision Table

Cumulative impacts acceptable? Change 

proposal?

PROVISIONAL

DENIAL

PROVISIONAL

APPROVAL

DENY APPROVE

Yes

No

UNCERTAIN

No

Yes

Figure 4—Impacts and Benefits Filter.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 20

Numerical Scoring

This filter uses numerical scores to assess benefits and impacts. The advantages of using numerical scores include:

•	 making explicit the thought processes and subjective judgmentsmanagement

staff members use in weighing benefits and impacts, in turn providing a

strong basis for discussion between management staff and scientists; and

•	 tallying numerical scores to assess cumulative impacts (1) within a single

proposal from an accumulation of relatively small impacts, and (2) across

all scientific activities, across larger areas, and across longer time frames.

	 The use of numerical scores in assessing benefits and impacts, however,

creates a potential problem because of the tendency to assume that the scores

have meaning and value, when in fact the numerical scores have no inherent 

meaning or value. For example, in the assessment of benefits, a proposal that

is of limited use to management would receive a score of “2” while a proposal

that is specifically designed to address a stewardship issue would receive a

score of “10.” The 2 and 10 have no inherent meaning or value—the 10 does

not represent a 5-fold increase over the 2. Rather, these numbers merely represent the collective opinion of staff about the relative magnitude of benefit.

Local Flexibility

Local flexibility in assessing benefits and impacts requires local staffs to

make several judgments. Although this creates an added work burden, the

ecological, social, administrative, and legal context of a specific area already

requires local staffs to be engaged in making a variety of professional judgments. Typically, local staffs would make these judgments just once before

any proposal is evaluated and then use those judgments for evaluating all

future proposals. This evaluation framework makes these local judgments

transparent, allowing scientists to see exactly how local staffs weigh certain

aspects of the proposed work, in turn providing for explicit discussion and

better communication between management staff and scientists.

	 Local judgments are required for several aspects of this Impacts and Benefits

Filter (as explained in the relevant sections below):

•	 Benefits Assessment

	 Identifying the categories of management and scientific benefits that

will be used for scoring in the Benefits Assessment Worksheet

	 Assigning a numerical weighting factor for each benefit category

	 Assigning cut-points to separate categories of low, medium, and high

benefit

•	 Impacts Assessment

	 Identifying the types of impacts and the numerical scoring that will

be used in the Impacts Assessment Worksheet
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 21

	 Developing documentation for the rationale used in assigning these

numerical scores

	 Assigning cut-points to separate categories of low, medium, and high

impact

•	 Benefits and Impacts Decision Table

	 Assigning the outcomes (provisional approval, uncertain, provisional

denial) for each cell of the table

•	 Cumulative Impacts Assessment

	 Identifying the types of cumulative impacts that may occur and their

effect on the final decision about a proposal

	 Depending on the type of science activity proposed, the type of resources,

and the complexity and potential problems of the proposal, a variety of interdisciplinary management staff may need to be involved to ensure fair and

balanced judgments in developing the worksheets and evaluating a proposal.

	 There will always be tension between standardized processes and local

and situational flexibility; this framework strives to provide appropriate and

necessary flexibility without rendering meaningless the benefits of using a

standardized process. Nevertheless, local offices may abuse this flexibility to

accommodate a specific proposal or person, thereby defeating the purpose of

this evaluation framework. An agency may recommend certain limits to local

flexibility to constrain this potential for abuse.

Benefits Assessment

Scientific activities may provide knowledge to help improve wildernessstewardship, that is, knowledge that helps preserve wilderness character within a

specific wilderness or elsewhere across the National Wilderness Preservation

System. Scientific activities to preserve wilderness character could benefit

any of the four qualities of wilderness character (Landres and others 2008) as

well as the unique features of an area described above in the Legal and Policy

Filter:

• Untrammeled—for example, to understand the impacts of altering the

frequency and effects of natural disturbances such as fire or flooding; or

to understand the impacts of introducing non-indigenous species such as

fish or livestock, or removing species such as indigenous predators.

• Natural—for example, to inventory and monitor the distribution of nonindigenous invasive plants; to restore the effects of natural fire regimes;

to understand the effects of structures such as dams on native plants and

animals; to monitor air pollutants and their effects; to understand geological features; or to monitor and understand the effects of global climate

change.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 22

• Undeveloped—for example, to understand how to naturalize or restore

areas that have been degraded (such as campsites, trails, or areas around

administrative structures); how to remove structures without using motorized equipment and mechanical transport; and how to efficiently inventory

and monitor unauthorized developments.

• Solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—for example,

to understand the impacts of management actions (such as use of permits,

designated campsites, or agency-provided structures, such as bear poles

or bear boxes, to protect campers’ food from wildlife) on visitor experiences; to understand and monitor the things that affect solitude; and to

understand the role of night sky visibility on visitor experiences.

• Unique features—for example, to understand how to best preserve a unique

type of cultural site, or to understand the contribution of historical sites

inside the wilderness to patterns of settlement throughout the broader

region.

	 Scientific activities to help improve wilderness stewardship could provide

knowledge about:

• Urgent or important stewardship issues—for example, to understand the

impacts of shifting patterns of use (such as from more dispersed overnight

use to more concentrated day use) on the occurrence of a rare plant and on

visitor perceptions of solitude. Management may be considering imposing

restrictions on the use of certain areas to mitigate adverse effects on the

rare plant and on solitude, and there is an urgent need for baseline information on current conditions from which to assess impacts of management

action. There may also be an urgent need for research that develops an

early warning about how wilderness character is degrading in order to

avoid problems before they require more drastic action.

• Evaluating the effectiveness of past management decisions or actions—for

example, to understand how to most efficiently restore degraded campsites

and trails; or to evaluate the impact of using designated campsites on visitor perceptions of primitive and unconfined recreation; or to understand

the impacts of installing developed water sources for certain species on

the other species that occur in the wilderness.

	 Last, the benefits from scientific activities for wilderness stewardship need

to be evaluated in terms of how the results could be applied:

• Immediately or in the future—research designed to provide immediate

results may be of greater benefit than research designed to offer results

only after 20 years of study. For example, research showing current patterns of day use and overnight use, and their impacts, would likely be of

more immediate benefit to managers compared to a study proposing to

understand how visitor perceptions will change over the coming years.

• As tangible management action—research designed to give managers

information that can result in on-the-ground management may be of greater
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 23

benefit than research that cannot be acted on. For example, research on

whether the use of designated campsites has actually reduced impacts

to soil and vegetation or reduced user encounters can result in tangible

action—continuing to require the use of designated camping or stopping

this practice. Conversely, research on the contribution of nightsky visibility

to visitor’s experience may be important but does not result in information

managers can use if the primary source of light pollution is a nearby city.

• Locally or only broadly—research designed to help preserve wilderness

character within a specific wilderness may be of greater benefit than

research designed across many areas that may be only generally applicable

to any individual area. For example, intensive research with multiple sites

on snowpack trends may show the direct impact of global climate change

within a wilderness, whereas research designed to show broad, regionwide trends with just one or two snowpack sites per wilderness may not

yield information beneficial to the local wilderness.

	 Benefits to science may be applicable to specific fields of study or more

broadly to knowledge in general. People proposing the scientific activity are

responsible for describing and justifying science benefits; if these benefits are

not sufficiently justified, the manager has the responsibility to ask for help

from appropriate resource staff to review these benefits. Like management

benefits, benefits to science are divided into several different categories:

•	 How geographically broad will the benefits to science be? For example,

would the results improve understanding about a phenomenon that occurs

only in a portion of the wilderness, across the entire wilderness, in every

wilderness, or across an entire region?

•	 How far over time will the results benefit science? For example, would

the results provide understanding that is short-term, such as one year, or

long-term, such as the foreseeable future?

•	 How many different people or types of people will benefit from the results?

For example, would the results benefit scientists in only one relatively

narrow field of study; or would they benefit scientists in many different

fields; or would they broadly benefit scientists and managers?

•	 How important is the activity to the scientific field of study? For example,

would the results add a small increment of knowledge to a field of study,

or would they be crucial to substantially advancing the discipline?

•	 What is the breadth of scientific inquiry? For example, would the results

be applicable to a narrow field of study such as the taxonomy of a genus

of beetles, or to many different fields of study such as the effect of climate

change on vegetation, disturbance regimes, and wildlife habitatsuitability?

Numerical Scoring of Benefits—A simple worksheet is used to numerically

score benefits and derive a total benefits assessment score. A hypothetical

example illustrating use of this worksheet is given in Appendix D and blank

worksheets that staff can use for their own evaluation are given in Appendix E.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 24

Within each of the benefit categories discussed above there is a range of possible benefits, and these are numerically scored from 0 to 10, with 0 having

no benefit and 10 having the most. For each benefit category, an individual

proposal may fall anywhere within this range. For example, a scientific study

that directly addresses an important and urgent management issue would be

rated a 10 for the benefit category focused on urgency, while a study that does

not address an urgent management issue would be rated a 0.

	 The scores from each benefit category are then multiplied by a weighting factor. This weighting factor reflectslocal managementstaff perceptions about the

relative importance of the benefit categories (see Appendix D for the rationale

used in the hypothetical example worksheet). This relative importance is based

on a combination of factors, including legislative direction, planning guidance,

ecological and social context for the area, agency and local office culture, as

well as association with scientists (e.g., an affiliation with a local science center). Discussion between agency staff and scientists could help inform these

weighting decisions and create more open channels for communication. For

computational ease, the weights across the 11 benefit categories add to 10, so

each category is assigned a weight that is a fraction of 10. When the weighted

scores for all benefit categories are added together, the total benefits assessment score can range from 0 (no benefit) to 100 points (maximum benefit).

	 This total score is then assigned a summary rating of low, medium, or high

benefit. Localstaffs previously determine the numerical cut-pointsthatseparate

these three ratings such as 0 to 25, 26 to 75, and 76 to 100. Local staffs may

feel that using only three summary benefits ratings does not provide sufficient

ability to evaluate proposals, so they may choose instead to use four categories

of benefit such as low, moderate, moderately high, and high.

Impacts Assessment

Traditionally, evaluating proposals for scientific activities in wilderness

focused almost exclusively on impacts. Assessing impacts is critically important in this framework, but it is part of a more comprehensive evaluation that

also takes into account the benefits of the proposed activity.

	 Nearly all modern human activities cause impacts to wilderness, yet acceptability of the impact varies from one activity to another, from one situation

to the next, and from one person to another, often with little consistency or

adequate definition. Acceptability can also change over time. For example,

relatively pristine wilderness conditions are increasingly unique, and scientists

may feel that certain ecological and social science research within wilderness

yields benefits of increasingly greater value beyond the boundaries of the wilderness. In contrast, managers may feel that protecting the wilderness values

of these same places is likewise increasingly important, including protection

from the impacts of scientific activities that provide only broad-scale and more

loosely defined or merely potential societal benefits.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 25

	 Some agency policies direct managersto consider wilderness valuesforemost

in deciding what types of activities are appropriate. For example, Forest Service

Manual direction (Section 2320.6)states, “where a choice must be made between

wilderness values...or any other activity, preserving the wilderness resource is 

the overriding value. Economy, convenience, commercial value, and comfort

are not standards of management or use of wilderness” (emphasis added). The

National Park Service has similar policy language. Under such policies, it is

appropriate for management staff to question all scientific activities that may

adversely affect wilderness character and the ecological or social values of

wilderness, and to place wilderness values over and above other values. For

example, the installation of a battery, solar panels, and an antenna to provide

real-time information to a scientist must help preserve wilderness character

and not be merely for the convenience of the scientist. This question about

unacceptable impacts should lead to explicit discussion about the methods that

are appropriate and acceptable in wilderness to accomplish the objectives of

the proposed activity.

Statutory Classification of Impacts—To tie thisimpacts assessment directly

to the statutory language of the 1964 Wilderness Act, impacts are categorized

by the four qualities of wilderness character (Landres and others 2005), as

follows:

•	 Untrammeled

	Manipulation (includes introducing, restoring, removing [e.g., to study

what’s left behind], moving, or disturbing [e.g., wildlife collaring, trapping, feeding, sampling, coring trees] any aspect of the “community

of life”)

•	 Natural

	Collecting (biophysical, geological, or anthropological items)

•	 Undeveloped

	Mechanical transport

	Motorized equipment

	 Installations and structures

•	 Solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

	 Group size

	 Total person-days per season

	 Visitor surveys

	 Surveillance

	 This categorization scheme allows assessing the impact from a single activity (such as one installation), multiple activities (such as several installations),

different types of activities (such as installations and the use of motorized

equipment), and cumulatively across administrative and scientific activities

on each quality of wilderness character. Placing the impacts from a proposed

activity in this statutory context allows management staff to understand how
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 26

the proposed activity affects their legal responsibility to preserve wilderness

character. It may also help address the tradeoffs when there is a benefit to one

or more quality of wilderness character but adverse effects on others. Other

types of concerns such as how the proposed work might affect safety or park

operations are not considered in this evaluation framework but may enter into

the final decision.

Numerical Scoring of Impacts—A simple worksheet is used to numerically

score impacts and derive a total impacts assessment score. A hypothetical

example illustrating use of this worksheet and the rationale behind the impact

scoring is given in Appendix D and blank worksheetsthatstaff can use for their

own evaluation are given in Appendix E. Local staffs will need to develop an

Impacts Assessment Worksheet that shows the impact categories (or types of

impacts), variation in the magnitude or intensity within each type of impact,

and the numerical scores that would be assigned to the different types of activities that could occur under each impact category. Activities or uses prohibited

by Section 4(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act would typically receive the highest numerical impact scores. Local staffs will need to make many decisions

based on professional judgment to develop this Worksheet. Once completed,

this Worksheet is the basis for evaluating impacts from proposed activities

and will be a key tool in communicating and negotiating with scientists.

	 Scoring the Impacts Assessment Worksheet differsfrom the Benefits Assessment Worksheet in three ways. First, to allow impact scoring that can range

from very small to very large, impact scores are divided more finely to allow

a more precise level of evaluation at the low end of impact, and an additional

“plus” column is added to accommodate large impacts. This “plus” column

allows the manager to evaluate the few proposals that would have a truly high

impact. Second, there is no separate weighting factor column because the

degree of impact was built into how the scores would be assigned. Third, this

is an open-ended scoring system with no maximum numerical limit.

	 Once the separate impacts assessments are completed they are summed to

derive a total score. This total score is then assigned a summary rating of low,

medium, or high impact. Local staffs previously determine the numerical cutpoints that separate these ratings. Local staffs may feel that using only three

summary ratings of impact does not provide sufficient ability to evaluate

proposals, so they may choose instead to use four impact ratings such as not

detectible, low, medium, and high.

Benefits and Impacts Decision Table

The goal of the benefits and impacts decision table is to weigh impacts

against benefitsto determine whether the benefits are sufficient to outweigh the

impacts(orstated differently, whether the impacts are acceptable to achieve the

benefits). Local circumstances such as enabling legislation or other language

used in the establishment of a wilderness that specifically addresses scientific

and research uses of the wilderness may affect this weight or balance. For
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 27

example, the 1925 Presidential Proclamation establishing Glacier Bay National

Monument (and the area that was designated as Glacier Bay Wilderness in

1980) states, “this area presents a unique opportunity for the scientific study

of glacial behavior and of resulting movements and development of flora and

fauna and of certain valuable relics of ancient interglacial forests.”

	 In the example table (table 1), local staffs decide where the entries “Provisional Approval,” “Provisional Denial,” and “Uncertain” are placed (the entries

in this table are only for the purpose of illustrating how this table is used).

“Provisional Approval” means that local staffs believe the benefits are sufficient to outweigh the impacts, and the proposal is provisionally accepted to

move on to the next step. “Provisional Denial” means that local staffs believe

the benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the impacts. In this case the proposal is provisionally denied and the scientists are given an opportunity to

modify their proposal to reduce the impacts and increase the benefits. After

the proposal has been revised, it will need to be reevaluated in the Impacts and

Benefits Filter because both impacts and benefits may be different from what

they were. “Uncertain” means that there is insufficient information to make

a determination about the proposal and that further evaluation and discussion

is needed among staff and between staff and the scientists.

Table 1—A hypothetical Benefits and Impacts Decision Table showing how local staff 

may assign the evaluations of “Provisional approval,” “Provisional denial,” or 

“Uncertain” based on the interplay between benefits and impacts.

BENEFITS

Low Medium High

IMPACTS

Low Provisional 

approval

Provisional 

approval

Provisional 

approval

Medium Provisional 

denial Uncertain Uncertain

High Provisional 

denial Uncertain Uncertain

Cumulative Impacts Assessment

For cases where the recommendation from the Benefits and Impacts Decision Table is either “Provisional Approval” or “Uncertain,” managers should

conduct an assessment of cumulative impacts. The purpose of this assessment

is to place the proposed activity in the context of impacts from all the other

activities occurring in the area (for example, from management and from other

scientific as well as recreational activities) and ask whether the accumulated

impacts from all these activities are acceptable. The concern is not with the

impacts of the individual proposal being analyzed, but with how these impacts

add to those from all the other activities that have occurred, are occurring,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 28

or will likely occur in the area. If the proposed activity adds the increment of

impact that makes the total impact unacceptable, then the proposal may need

to be modified to reduce its impacts or be denied. Therefore, the effect of the

cumulative impacts assessment on the overall decision is either neutral, if

there are minor or no cumulative impacts, or negative, if there are significant

cumulative impacts.

	 Cumulative impacts are complex and typically not considered in assessing

impacts of scientific activities. However, as wilderness becomes increasingly

recognized for its role providing baseline or benchmark data, cumulative

impacts are becoming more of a concern (Landres 2005). There are several

different types of cumulative impact, including:

•	 Spatial

	 Assessed across the entire wilderness

	 Assessed within special areas within the wilderness

•	 Temporal

	 Each project is assessed within the context of all projects that are being

conducted in the current year

	 Each project is assessed within the context of all projects that were

started in previous years

	 Each project is assessed within the context of all projects that will

likely be conducted in the future

•	 Effects of a particular type of impact regardless of source (for example,

research and other scientific activities, management such as search and

rescue or administrative use, and visitor use)

•	 Effects across all impact categories

•	 Impacts to the four qualities of wilderness character

•	 Impacts to selected resources (for example, selected species or ecological

processes)

	 Cumulative impacts could be assessed using GIS or tabular databases, if

such data exist. In addition, specific thresholds for triggering concern would

need to be established by local staff (for example, the number of projects

occurring within a particular area, or the number of people within a certain

area). While a “hard” threshold that would cause a proposal to be rejected is

possible, the complexity in assessing cumulative impacts suggests that this

would be relatively rare. Far more likely would be a “yellow light” threshold

that would trigger the need to negotiate to increase benefits (for example, for

management applicability) or decrease impacts (for example, go to a different watershed, conduct the study at a different time of year or the following

year, or remove research or other installations in the area that staff previously

wanted gone), or both.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 29

References

Albright, H.M. 1933. Research in the national parks. The Scientific Monthly 36:483-501.

Anderson, R.L. 1999. Research administration in wilderness: defining the “minimum requirement” exception. Pages 415-417 in On the Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of the

10th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands (D.

Harmon, editor). The George Wright Society, Hancock, MI.

Barns, C.V. 2000. Paleontological excavations in designated wilderness: theory and practice. Pages 155-159 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3 (S.F. McCool,

D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Research Station Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3, Fort Collins, CO.

Bayless,J. 1999. Regulating National Park Service research and collecting: a fifty-yearsearch

for a legal, flexible, and standardized approach. Pages 418-422 in On the Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Research and Resource Management in

Parks and on Public Lands (D. Harmon, editor). The George Wright Society, Hancock, MI.

Bratton, S.P. 1988. Environmental monitoring in wilderness. Pages 103-112 in Wilderness

Benchmark, Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium. USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report SE-51, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

Butler, L.M., and R.S. Roberts. 1986. Use of wilderness areas for research. Pages 398-405

in Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research (R.C.

Lucas, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Eichelberger, J., and A. Sattler. 1994. Conflict of values necessitates public lands research

policy. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 75:505-508.

Franklin, J.F. 1987. Scientific use of wilderness. Pages 42-46 in Proceedings--National

Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions (R.C.

Lucas, compiler). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220, Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Garner, B.A. 2001. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 2nd Edition. Oxford University

Press, New York, NY.

Graber, D.M. 1988. The role of research in wilderness. George Wright Forum 5(4):55-59

Graber, D.M. 2002. Scientific values of public parks. George Wright Forum 19(2):63-66.

Kendall, K.C., J. Boulanger, A.C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2009. Demography

and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:3-17.

Landres, P. 2005. Balancing the benefits and impacts of science in Alaska’s wilderness.

Alaska Park Science 4(2):44-46.

Landres, P., J. Alderson, and D.J. Parsons. 2003. The challenge of doing science in wilderness: historical, legal, and policy context. George Wright Forum 20(3):42-49.

Landres, P., S. Boutcher, L. Merigliano, C. Barns, D. Davis, T. Hall, S. Henry, B. Hunter, P.

Janiga, M. Laker, A. McPherson, D.S. Powell, M. Rowan, and S. Sater. 2005. Monitoring

selected conditions related to wilderness character: a national framework. USDA Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151,

Fort Collins, CO.

Landres, P., C. Barns, J.G. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C.S. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J.

Seastrand, and R. Swain. 2008. Keeping it wild: an interagency strategy to monitor trends

in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. USDA Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212,

Fort Collins, CO.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University

Press. London, England.

McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about. Denver

University Law Review 76:369-381.

Meyer, S. 1999. The role of legislative history in agency decision making: a case study of

wilderness airstrip management in the United States. International Journal of Wilderness

5(2):9-12.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 30

Oelf ke, J.G., R.O. Peterson, J.A. Vucetich, and L.M Vucetich. 2000. Wolf research in the

Isle Royale Wilderness: do the ends justify the means? Pages 246-251 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3 (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceeding RMRSP-15-VOL-3, Fort Collins, CO.

Parsons, D.J. 2000. The challenge of scientific activities in wilderness. Pages 252-257 in

Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3 (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3, Fort Collins, CO.

Parsons, D.J., and D.M. Graber. 1991. Horses, helicopters and hi-tech: managing science

in wilderness. Pages 90-94 in Preparing to Manage Wilderness in the 21st Century (P.C.

Public Law 88-577. Wilderness Act. September 3, 1964. 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136.

Public Law 96-487. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. December 2, 1980.

94 Statute 2371-2551.

Public Law 98-550. Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984. October 30, 1984. 98 Statute 2807-2815.

Public Law 103-433. California Desert Protection Act of 1994. October 31, 1994. 108 Statute

4471-4525.

Reed, compiler). USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest and Experiment Station General

Technical Report SE-66, Asheville, NC.

Rohlf, D., and D.L. Honnold. 1988. Managing the balance of nature: the legal framework of

wilderness management. Ecology Law Quarterly 15:249-279.

Peterson, D.L. 1996. Research in parks and protected areas: forging the link between science and management. Pages 417-434 in National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role

in Environmental Protection (R.G. Wright, J. Lemmons, editors). Blackwell Science.

Scott, D.W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness character,” and the challenges of wilderness

preservation. Wild Earth 11(3/4):72-79.

Sharman, L.C., P. Landres, and S. Boudreau. 2007. Developing a framework for evaluating

proposals for research in wilderness: science to protect and learn from parks. Alaska Park

Science 6(2):100-103.

Six, D.L., P. Alaback, R.A. Winfree, D. Snyder, and A. Hagele. 2000. Wilderness for science: pros and cons of using wilderness areas for biological research. Pages 271-275 in

Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3 (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3, Fort Collins, CO.

Stokstad, E. 2001. Utah’s fossil trove beckons, and tests, researchers. Science 294:41-42.

Suarez, A.V. 2009. Science for parks/parks for science. Park Science 26(1):14-16.

Watson, J., and P. Brink. 1996. The California Desert Protection Act: a time for desert parks

and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 2(2):14-17.

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59(Winter to

Spring):37-43.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 31

Appendix A—Hypothetical Example of Climate 

Change Research Evaluation

With the impacts of climate change becoming apparent,scientistsfrom nearly

every discipline are calling for more research. Should thisresearch be conducted

within designated wilderness? Many have suggested that wilderness would be

an excellent place to conduct climate change research because wilderness is

relatively unaffected by many of the direct anthropogenic environmental insults

that occur in most other areas, so the signal of climate change and its effects

may be clearer there than in other areas. Many wildernesses, because of their

higher elevation or latitude, also present extreme climates that might serve as

sentinels or an early warning of the effects from climate change. Others argue

that since climate change research does not help the agencies preserve wilderness character, any impacts from such research are too great to justify and

that there are plenty of areas outside wilderness that offer the same research

opportunities. In a nutshell, climate change research epitomizes the acrimony

that can develop among people with disparate viewpoints about research in

wilderness. We developed this framework to help sort through these issues.

	 Our position is that there is nothing inherently incompatible about climate

change research, or any research for that matter, being conducted inside wilderness. The importance and urgency of understanding the effects of climate

change, however, does not exempt scientists from adhering to the legal requirements of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Many potential problems posed by climate

change research can be avoided if scientists discuss their ideas and means for

accomplishing the research with managers early in the proposal development

process.

	 Assuming there are no red flags from the Initial Review Filter and the

proposal is written well and passes the Quality of Proposal Filter, the major

concern is whether the research requires a use or activity that is prohibited by

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. If no prohibited use or activity is proposed

(for example, there are no installations and no use of motorized equipment),

then the impacts and benefits of the research are evaluated in the Impacts and

Benefits Filter and a decision is reached about whether to permit the work.

Say, for example, field research will map the distribution of current treeline

to observe how it changes over time to test climate model predictions across

a variety of latitudes. This research has minimal impact from the researchers mapping treeline and provides clear benefits to science by improving the

climate models. Such research would likely be permitted even though the

presence of researchers would temporarily impact the solitude quality of wilderness character, and there is no immediate benefit to preserving wilderness

character other than understanding the current distribution of treeline.

	 In contrast, if a Section 4(c) prohibited use or activity is proposed, the benefit bar will be raised in order for the research to be permitted. For example,

researchers might want to install permanent data recorders to monitor water

flow, temperature, precipitation, snowfall, or many others parameters that
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 32

have importance for understanding the ecological effects of climate change.

Or, researchers might want to use motorized equipment to drill and remove

lake sediment cores to compare with climate model predictions about how

the vegetation and disturbance regimes have changed over time in the area

surrounding the lake. Both examples violate Section 4(c) and are, therefore,

illegal unless they can be proven to meet the “minimum necessary” criteria

discussed in the Legal and Policy Filter. These criteria are:

•	 the research is wilderness-dependent;

•	 the prohibited use or activity is the “minimum necessary;” and

•	 the research helps preserve wilderness character.

	 If scientists can document how their prohibited activities (installations and

motorized equipment in this case) meet this legal requirement, the manager

would next evaluate the proposed research in the Impacts and Benefits Filter

to determine the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the research. In some

cases, however, the research may meet the first two criteria but not the third or

at least may not provide immediate benefit to preserving wilderness character.

In such cases, we recommend moving forward to the Impacts and Benefits

Filter to evaluate whether the benefits outweigh the impacts.

	 In every case where proposed research involves a Section 4(c) prohibited

activity, because the immediate impacts to wilderness character are great,

the benefits also need to be great in order for the research to be approved.

The Impacts and Benefits Filter provides the opportunity for the manager and

scientist to discuss specific requirements to minimize these impacts. These

requirements, for example, might include camouflaging an installation in

particular ways or suggesting other locations that would satisfy the research

criteria but be less obvious to wilderness visitors. In some cases, these options

to minimize impacts may also reduce the quality of the data, thereby reducing

the potential benefits of the research. Such cases require close communication

and cooperation between scientists and managers to discuss various options

and their impacts and benefits. To avoid acrimony and hassle, the earlier this

communication occurs, the better.

	 Resentment between climate scientists and wilderness managers would only

add to the many tragedies caused by rapid climate change. Both groups share

many values and goals centered on understanding and preserving the natural

world. Climate scientists may feel that wilderness is the best place to conduct

their research, while wilderness managers and advocates may feel that wilderness protection, precisely because of the pervasiveness of environmental

threats and global climate change, should not be compromised. One purpose

of this evaluation framework is to push both scientists and managers toward

upfront communication and mutual understanding—doing so should decrease

the impacts to wilderness character while allowing the wilderness to be used

as a source of inspiration and scientific understanding.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 33

Appendix B—Guidelines for Scientists Conducting 

Research in Wilderness

The following guidelines are for scientists who want to conduct scientific

activities in wilderness. These are only brief guidelines intended to help scientists understand and communicate with local managers, thereby expediting

the process of evaluating a proposal for scientific activities.

Education

Assure that you understand the special requirements for working in wilderness

and why they exist.

	 1.	Understand the legal requirements of the Wilderness Act and agency policy

for conducting science activitiesinside wilderness. Thisincludes understanding that the primary management responsibility is to preserve wilderness

character. More information is available at http://www.wilderness.net.

	 2.	Understand the legal prohibitions against using motorized equipment

(such as drills), mechanical transport (such as game carts or any wheeled

vehicles), landing aircraft, and installations (such as data loggers or plot

markers), and under what conditions exceptions may be allowed.

	 3.	Identify which local agency office(s) administer the portion(s) of the

wilderness you want to work in. Be aware that some wildernesses are

administered by more than one Federal agency.

	 4.	Understand agency and local administrative procedures for evaluating

your proposal and permit requirements for working in wilderness. Different local offices may have different requirements, and the four Federal

agencies that administer wilderness have different policies for permitting

scientific activities.

	 5.	Ask yourself how your science will benefit the wilderness you would like

to work in.

Communication

Communicate as early as possible with the local managers about what you

want to do.

	 1.	Make initial contact with the managers in all of the local offices that

administer the portion(s) of the wilderness you are interested in working

in. Do not assume that different offices communicate with one another or

use the same procedures for evaluating a proposal for scientific activities.

	 2.	Discuss yourresearch interests and sampling design with the local managers

before you write a proposal, and consult with them often as you develop

your proposal.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 34

	 3.	Ask if there are any potential problems with any aspect of the research,

including location, timing, access, number of people, type of equipment,

type of work, monumentation, or purpose of the research. This discussion

should center on how to minimize the impacts to wilderness character

while still accomplishing your research objectives.

	 4.	Ask if the local managers have any research or other needs that you could

help with while you’re in the backcountry. For example, a manager might

ask you to report if you see a certain rare species or to remove unwanted

debris from an area when your research crews come out of the wilderness.

	 5.	Ask about local administrative and permitting requirements, and if needed,

get a wilderness use and research permit. Try to establish contact with local

managers before applying for funding. Do not assume that a permit will

be granted simply because you already have funding, even if that funding

is from the National Science Foundation or another prestigious source.

	 6.	Ask the local managers if they would like you to prepare a small poster

about your work that can be placed on the trailhead bulletin board to let

wilderness visitors know what you are doing, as well as the general location of your research and when you will be there so visitors may avoid this

area if they want to.

	 7.	Ask the local managers how they would like to be informed when you

are entering the wilderness, where you will be camped, and when you are

leaving the wilderness.

	 8.	Ask whether there are opportunities to present or share any aspect of your

research with agency staff or visitors.

In the Field

	 You’re working in a unique place that requires special skills, attitudes, and

consideration of other wilderness visitors.

	 1.	Make sure you and your crews have the gear and experience (or training)

to work and live in wilderness.

	 2.	Learn and practice “Leave No Trace” skills. Be aware that wilderness character is reduced by both ecological and social impacts. You can minimize

these impacts by using equipment that is not brightly colored, avoiding

areas the are frequently used by wilderness visitors, camping in areas that

are remote or hidden, and generally being considerate of others who are

there to enjoy solitude and primitive recreation.

3.	 Clean up and remove all evidence of your camping (such as fire rings and

wood piled for fires) and your research (such as flagging, stakes, trash,

and tags) to meet local requirements unless you are specifically permitted

to leave certain items.

	 4.	Be ready and willing to answer questions from any wilderness visitors

you may encounter.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 35

Appendix C—Agency Policies on Research and 

Scientific Activities

	 The following sections are taken directly from current agency policy regarding research and other scientific activities in wilderness. The policies given

below are current as of the time this framework was published, but policies

change over time and staff members must consult their own sources to ensure

they are referencing the most current policy for their agency. In addition, only

policies directly related to research and other scientific activities are included

here, but other policies may also be relevant.

U.S Department of Agriculture—Forest Service

	 Forest Service wilderness policy is from the Forest Service Manual (FSM)

2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Chapter

2320 Wilderness Management, as amended January 22, 2007.

2324.4—Research in Wilderness

2324.41—Objective. To provide appropriate opportunity forscientific studies that are dependent on a wilderness environment.

2324.42—Policy

1.	 Encourage research in wilderness that preserves the wilderness

character of the area (FSM 2320.3).

2.	 Identify wilderness management or national issuesthat may require

research in forest plans.

3.	 Review proposals to conduct research in wilderness to ensure that

research areas outside wilderness could not provide similar research

opportunities. Direct projects that would jeopardize wilderness

values to areas outside wilderness.

4.	 Review research proposals to conduct research in wilderness to

ensure thatresearch methods are compatible with wilderness values.

Do not allow the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport unlessthe research is essential to meet minimum requirements

for administration of the area as wilderness and cannot be done

another way (Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act). Include specific

stipulations in the approval document.

5.	 Exceptforstudiesthat clearly require contactwithinwilderness, allow

interviews or direct contact with visitors only outside wilderness.

6. Permit scientific study of cultural resource sites/areas consistent

with the direction in FSM 2323.8.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 36

U.S. Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management

	 Bureau of Land Management wilderness policy is from the Federal Register,

Volume 65, Number 241, 78357-78376[00-31656]. Thursday, December 14,

2000.

43 CFR Part 6300—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

Subpart 6302—Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties

§ 6302.16—When and how may I gatherscientific information about resources

in BLM wilderness?

(a)	You may conduct research, including gathering information and collecting natural or cultural resources in wilderness areas, using methods

that may cause greater impacts on the wilderness environment than

allowed under § 6302.15(a), if—

(1)	 Similar research opportunities are not reasonably available outside

wilderness;

(2)	 You carry out your proposed activity in a manner compatible with

the preservation of the wilderness environment and conforming

to the applicable management plan;

(3)	 Any ground disturbance or removal of material is the minimum

necessary for the scientific purposes of the research; and

(4)	 You have an authorization from BLM.

(b)	You must reclaim disturbed areas, and BLM may require you to post a

bond.

U.S. Department of the Interior—Fish and Wildlife Service

	 Fish and Wildlife Service wilderness policy is from its Natural and Cultural

Resources Management, Part 610 Wilderness Stewardship, Chapter 2 Wilderness Administration and Resource Stewardship (610 FW2).

2.27 How does the Service conduct research in wilderness?

A.	The scientific value of wilderness derives from the relatively undisturbed condition of the biophysical environment and its ecological and

evolutionary processes. Because such undisturbed natural areas are

increasingly rare, wilderness areas provide unique opportunities for

scientific investigation. Everyone associated with research in wilderness must know and understand the purposes, values, and protective

provisions of wilderness.

B.	We will not allow or engage in research that has significant or long-term

adverse impacts on wilderness character or refuge purposes.

C.	We permit research in wilderness only if it furthers the administrative

or educational objectives or scientific knowledge of the area. There

must be a reasonable assurance that the benefits to be derived from

the research outweigh any impacts on wilderness character. We require

researchers to restore disturbed areas to their previous condition to
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 37

the greatest extent practical. Existing and potential research activities

should be described and evaluated in the refuge’s WSP or CCP.

(1)	 Research as aRefuge Management Activity. We administerRefuge

System and Refuge System sponsored research as refuge management activities. We will evaluate research proposals through an

MRA (see 610 FW 1.18).

(2)	 Research as a Refuge Use. We may authorize private research in a

wilderness area, with a special use permit (SUP) if it is appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes, including Wilderness

Act purposes, and does not involve generally prohibited uses (see

section 2.7 and 610 FW 1.16 for additional information).

2.28 How does the Service conduct inventory and monitoring activities 

in wilderness? Long-term wilderness stewardship requires that we inventory

and monitor wilderness character. Conditions prevailing within a wilderness

area at the time of designation serve as a benchmark for the area’s wilderness

character.

A.	We will not allow degradation of these conditions.

B.	We should conduct baseline inventoriesfor key wildernessresources and

identify the nature, magnitude, and source of any threats that originate

both within and outside the wilderness area. Baseline data also provide

a frame of reference for the limits, thresholds, and indicators identified

in the WSP that may trigger refuge management activities, including

limiting public use.

C.	 Inventories also give usthe information necessary to evaluate the effects

of refuge management activities, refuge uses, and external threats on

wilderness character. We will evaluate proposed inventory and monitoring protocols and activities in an MRA and document inventory and

monitoring activities in the refuge’s WSP.

2.29 How does the Service protect cultural resources in wilderness?

B.	 Archeological Research. We administer archaeological research within

wilderness areas according to the conditions outlined for research in section 2.27. We encourage archeological research employing noninvasive

and nondestructive survey and inventory methods. The refuge manager

and the RHPO will review proposals for archeological research. The

Regional Director approves or denies archaeological research permits

based on the recommendation of the refuge manager and Regional

archeologist. We will approve archeological research requiring digging,

trenching, or other forms of excavation in wilderness when required

to protect a threatened resource. We may also approve other research

involving excavation when it can be demonstrated that significant

archaeological information may be obtained that cannot reasonably be

expected to be obtained from nonwilderness lands.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 38

U.S. Department of the Interior—National Park Service

	 National Park Service wilderness policy is from its 2006 Management Policies, Chapter 6: Wilderness Preservation and Management.

6.3.6 – Scientific Activities in Wilderness

The statutory purposes of wilderness include scientific activities, and these

activities are encouraged and permitted when consistent with the Service’s

responsibilities to preserve and manage wilderness.

6.3.6.1 – General Policy

	 The National Park Service has a responsibility to support appropriate scientific

activities in wilderness and to use science to improve wilderness management.

The Service recognizes that wilderness can and should serve as an important

resource for long-term research into and study and observation of ecological

processes and the impact of humans on these ecosystems. The National Park

Service further recognizes that appropriate scientific activities may be critical

to the long-term preservation of wilderness.

	 Scientific activities are to be encouraged in wilderness. Even those scientific activities (including inventory, monitoring, and research) that involve a

potential impact to wilderness resources or values (including access, ground

disturbance, use of equipment, and animal welfare)should be allowed when the

benefits of what can be learned outweigh the impacts on wilderness resources

or values. However, all such activities must also be evaluated using the minimum requirement concept and include documented compliance that assesses

impacts against benefits to wilderness. This process should ensure that the

activity is appropriate and uses the minimum tool required to accomplish

project objectives. Scientific activities involving prohibitions identified in

section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 USC 1133(c)) may be conducted within

wilderness when the following occur:

•	 The desired information is essential for understanding the health, management, or administration of wilderness, and the project cannot be reasonably

modified to eliminate or reduce the nonconforming wilderness use(s); or

if it increases scientific knowledge, even when this serves no immediate

wilderness management purposes, provided it does not compromise wilderness resources or character. The preservation of wilderness resources and

character will be given significantly more weight than economic efficiency

and/or convenience.

•	 Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act(including completion of documented categorical exclusions, environmental assessments/

findings of no significant impact, or environmental impact statements/

records of decision) and other regulatory compliance (including compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC

470(f )) are accomplished and documented.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 39

•	 All scientific activities will be accomplished in accordance with terms

and conditions adopted at the time the research permit is approved. Later

requestsfor exceptionsto the Wilderness Act will require additional review

and approval.

•	 The project will not significantly interfere with other wilderness purposes

(recreational, scenic, educational, conservational, or historical) over a

broad area or for a long period of time.

•	 The minimum requirement concept is applied to implementation of the

project.

	 Research and monitoring devices(e.g., video cameras, data loggers, meteorological stations) may be installed and operated in wilderness if (1) the desired

information is essential for the administration and preservation of wilderness

and cannot be obtained from a location outside wilderness without significant

loss of precision and applicability; and (2) the proposed device is the minimum

requirement necessary to accomplish the research objective safely.

	 Park managers will work with researchers to make NPS wilderness area

research a model for the use of low-impact, less intrusive techniques. New

technology and techniques will be encouraged if they are less intrusive and

cause less impact. The goal will be for studies in NPS wilderness to lead the

way in “light on the resource” techniques.

	 Devices located in wilderness will be removed when determined to be no

longer essential. Permanent equipment caches are prohibited within wilderness. Temporary caches must be evaluated using the minimum requirement

concept.

	 All scientific activities, including the installation, servicing, removal, and

monitoring of research devices, will apply minimum requirement concepts and

be accomplished in compliance with Management Policies, director’s orders,

and procedures specified in the park’s wilderness management plan.

(See Studies and Collections 4.2; Social Science Studies 8.11)

6.3.6.2 – Monitoring Wilderness Resources

	 In every park containing wilderness, the conditions and long-term trends of

wilderness resources will be monitored to identify the need for or effects of

management actions. The purpose of this monitoring will be to ensure that

management actions and visitor impacts on wilderness resources and character

do not exceed standards and conditions established in an approved park plan.

	 As appropriate, wilderness monitoring programs may assess physical, biological, and cultural resources and social impacts. Monitoring programs may also

need to assess potential problems that may originate outside the wilderness to

determine the nature, magnitude, and probable source of those impacts.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 40

Appendix D—Yosemite Wilderness 

Hypothetical Example—Benefits and 

Impacts Assessment Worksheets

	 The following benefits and impacts assessment worksheets are an example

of a hypothetical proposed scientific study in Yosemite Wilderness. The red

boxes on the worksheets show the agency staff evaluations of the benefits and

impacts for the hypothetical scientific activity described below. The rationale

for the benefits weighting factors and the impact scoring follows each worksheet. Blank worksheets that staff could modify for their own use are provided

in Appendix E—details for filling in these benefits and impacts assessment

worksheets are given at the beginning of that appendix.

	 For this hypothetical example, the proposed scientific activity isto install five

meteorological sampling stations in Yosemite Wilderness located at different

elevations to track climate change effects on temperature, precipitation, and

a variety of other weather data. The stations will be used in conjunction with

long-term studies on trends in the occurrence of plant and animal species in

the area of the weather stations. Each station is relatively conspicuous with a

10-ft high tower and 3- by 3-ft solar panels to power the station and batteries

used to store the data for a year. The weather stations will be backpacked in and

set up by a team of five people in one day. A research team of five people will

camp in the general area of the station for five days to record plant and animal

occurrences and conduct maintenance on the weather stations as needed. This

team will visit each of the five stations once per year. The intent is to conduct

this research every year for 20 years and then leave the meteorological stations

in place for the foreseeable future. This research plan will result in a total of

190 person-days of use the first season, and then 175 person-days per season

thereafter (including backpacking time into and out from the sites; 5 people x

7 days x 5 sites). (This terse description is insufficient for a real proposal, but

is sufficient for the purpose of illustrating how these worksheets are used.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 41

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example – Benefits Assessment Worksheet Date_______ Application # __________ Name___________________ Topic _________________________________________________ 

Benefit Category Numerical Score of Benefit (0 = no benefit, 10 = high benefit) Score Weighting Factor Row Total 0 2 4 6 8 10

Benefits to Stewardship:Would the results address an urgentstewardship issue? 

Not urgent Not urgent now but 

might be in the future 

Urgent now but threat or issue appears to be static or decreasing 

Urgent now and threat or issue likely to continue at its current state 

Urgent now and threat or issue likely to accelerate 

Present crisis that may be at the point of irreversibility 8 1.8 14.4 

Would the results address an importantstewardship issue? 

Not important Not important but 

might be in the future 

Important but occurs over a relatively small area or timeframe 

Important and occurs over a relatively large area or long timeframe 

Important, affecting one or more key biophysical or social aspects over a large area or long timeframe; potential concern for human health/safety 

Important, affecting irreversible changes to key biophysical or social aspects over a large area or long timeframe; major concern for human health/safety 

6 2.0 12.0 

Would the results be applicable immediately to stewardship? 

Basic research that does not appear to be applicable to a current stewardship issue 

Basic research that has slight apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Basic research that has moderate apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Applied research 

that has slight to moderate apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Applied research 

that has moderate to high apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Research is specifically designed to answer a current stewardship issue 

0 0.8 0 

Would the results likely be applicable to futurestewardship issues? 

Basic research that is highly unlikely to be applicable in the future 

Basic research that is unlikely to be applicable in the future 

Research that is unlikely to be applicable in the future except as a baseline to assess future change 

Research is moderately likely to be applicable in the future 

Research is likely to be applicable in the future 

Research is highly likely to be applicable in the future 4 0.6 2.4 

Would the results allow effective action on a stewardship issue? 

Managers would likely not be able to take any actions that affect the issue 

Managers could affect the issue only by trying to influence broad societal changes 

Managers could take effective action only by changing management priorities 

Managers couldtake effective action only with significant costs to other wilderness values 

Managers could take effective action with minimal cost to other wilderness values 

Managers could easily and immediately take effective action with no cost to other wilderness values 

0 0.3 0 

Would the results improvestewardship of this local wilderness?

Results are not applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are slightly applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are slightly to moderately applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are moderately applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are highly applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are specifically applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

10 0.7 7.0 

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example — Benefits Assessment Worksheet (CONTINUED)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 42 Benefit Category Numerical Score of Benefit (0 = no benefit, 10 = high benefit) Score Weighting Factor Row Total 0 2 4 6 8 10 Benefits to Science: How broad geographically will the results benefit science? Results benefit science in only a small geographic area or portion of the wilderness Result benefit science in the whole wilderness Results benefit science in the whole region Results benefit science in the whole country Results benefit science in similar bioregions globally Results benefit science across the entire planet 4 0.6 2.4 How far over time will the results benefit science? Results provide a short term benefit Results provide a short to moderate term benefit Results provide a moderate term benefit Results provide a moderate to long term benefit Results provide a long term benefit Results provide a permanent benefit 8 0.2 1.6 How many different people or types of people will benefit from the results? Results benefit only a few scientists and managers Results benefit only visitors, scientists, or mangers in the specific wilderness Results benefit visitors, scientists, and managers in any wilderness Results benefit local visitors, residents, scientists, and managers Results benefit regional visitors, residents, scientists, and managers Results benefit people nationally or globally 8 0.8 6.4 How important is the activity to the scientific field of study? Similar research has been conducted many times before and attempts to answer relatively trivial questions Similar research has been conducted many times before and attempts to answer relatively minor questions Research expands slightly on previous work and attempts to answer relatively minor questions Research expands significantly on previous work and attempts to answer major questions Research is groundbreaking or precedent setting for the field and attempts to answer major questions Research is groundbreaking or precedent setting for the field and attempts to answer fundamental questions 6 1.6 9.6 What is the breadth of scientific inquiry? Research is conducted on a single, minor component of the ecosystem or social system with little affect on other components Research is conducted on a single component of the ecosystem or social system with little affect on other systems Research is conducted on a single process of the ecosystem or social system that affects a moderate number of other components Research is conducted on a single process of the ecosystem or social system that affects many components Research is conducted on many ecosystem or social processes and components Research is conducted on ecosystem or social processes and components comprehensively 6 0.6 3.6 Total Benefits Assessment Score = Benefits Assessment (Low, Medium, High) = 60 Med
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 43

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example Rationale for 

Benefits Assessment Worksheet Weighting Factors

	 The rationale used for the benefits weighting factors is a crucial part of the

assessment process. These weights are also important for communicating with

others about the professional judgments made in evaluating the benefits of

the proposed activities. As an example, the following rationale is provided to

explain how the weighting factorsin the above Benefits Assessment Worksheet

were derived for Yosemite Wilderness—different wilderness staffs would

most likely develop different rationales from those given here. Similarly, their

resultant scoring would reflect local conditions and attitudes.

Benefits to Stewardship

Would the results address an important stewardship issue? Following Howard

Zahniser’s wilderness stewardship dictum “managed to be left unmanaged,”

many people view stewardship primarily as a response to threats to wilderness

character. This category is given the highest weight because it directly addresses

our obligation under the Wilderness Act to preserve wilderness character.

Would the results address an urgent stewardship issue? The urgency of a

threat should obviously affect our response to it, including the benefit of any

research that informs our response. Our ability to respond quickly to a threat

may affect not only impacts to wilderness character, but the amount of management needed in the future. For example, a quick response to an invasive

exotic species can have this double benefit. This double benefit results in a

high weight for this factor.

Would the results be applicable immediately to stewardship? This factor

assesses a quality of the research results rather than the qualities of the threat.

Research that isn’t designed to answer specific stewardship questions often

produces results that are insufficient to make stewardship decisions. While

this is important, it doesn’t derive directly from the Act as do the two factors

with high weights.

Would the results improve the stewardship of this local wilderness? Again,

this assesses the quality of the results more than the nature of the threat. Local

applicability is obviously important, but is more of a bonus compared to the

overall applicability reflected in the combination of all six “benefits to stewardship” factors. As such, it is given a medium weight.

Would the results likely be applicable to future stewardship issues? While this

is obviously not as important as results that would be immediately applicable,

it still warrants a medium weight. Basic research may be useful in the future,

as scientific knowledge is cumulative.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 44

Would the results allow effective action on a stewardship issue? The relatively

low weighting for this factor reflects that there is some benefit from understanding a threat to wilderness character even if the research provides results

that do not allow effective management action.

Benefits to Science

How important is the activity to the scientific field of study? This is the only

factor that was given a high weight, as it gets to the heart of the purpose of

scientific inquiry: the advancement of knowledge.

How many different people or types of people will benefit from the results? 

As a measure of the breadth of the benefit, this factor merits a medium score

because as more types of people are interested in the results, the more potential

uses they have. Of the three factors related to the breadth of the results, this

one was given slightly greater weight to reflect the direct link to the results

being used.

How broad geographically will the results benefit science? As another measure

of the breadth of the benefit, this factor also merits a medium weight because

research can have greater benefit if it improves our understanding across a

larger area.

What is the breadth of scientific inquiry? The last measure of the breadth of

the benefit, this factor also merits a medium weight recognizing the importance of synthetic, generalist research that helps us understand whole systems.

How far over time will the results benefit science? This factor was assigned

the smallest weight. While it matters that results may be beneficial to science

for a long time, the importance and breadth of the results were considered to

be far more important than how quickly the information may become obsolete.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 45

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example – Impacts Assessment Worksheet Date_______ Application # __________ Name___________________ Topic _________________________________________________

Impact Category Numerical Score of Impact (0 = negligible Impact, 10 = high Impact) Score 0 1 2 3 5 10 +

Untrammeled QualityManipulation None Slight Moderate Large

0

Risk of Unintended Effects 

None Slight Moderate Large 1

Disturbance None Small Moderate Large

0

Natural QualityCollection Scarring:  Unobtrusive 

None Small amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short durMod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod dur Mod amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, long duration

0

Collection Scarring:  Obtrusive 

None Sml amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short dur Mod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod durMod amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, long duration

0

Collection Scarring:  Very Obtrusive 

None Sml amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur 

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short durMod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod durationMod or Large amt, long dur 

0

Collection:  Amount and Rarity 

None 

Any amount, common Sml amt, uncommon Mod amt, uncommon Lrg amt, uncommon

Sml amt, of concern 

Mod amt, of concernSml amt, rare 

Lrg amt, of concernMed or large amount, rare 

0

Undeveloped QualityTransport Human

only 

1-12 stock days 13-60 stock days 61-90 stock days

1-10 wheeled days 

91-150 stock days 10-15 wheeled days 

151-300 stock days16-30 wheeled days 1 motorized use 

+1 each addtl 30 stock days +1 each addtl 3 wheel days +10 each addtl motor use 

0

Equipment None 

Any amount of 

unobtrusive use 

Any amount of less 

obtrusive use 

1-10 days of ob use 11-30 days ob use 

1 day very ob use 

30+ days ob use2 days very ob use 

+5 each day very ob use

2

Installations:  Barely Discernable 

None 1-50, short duration 1-40, mod duration

1-20, long duration 

51-150, short dur41-60, mod dur 21-30, long dur 

151-250, short dur 61-100, mod dur 31-50, long dur 

251-500, short dur101-200, mod dur 51-100, long dur 

+1 each addtl 50 short dur+1 each addtl 20 mod dur +1 each addtl 10 long dur 

0

Installations:  Unobtrusive 

None 1-10, short duration 11-50, short dur 

1-10, med dur 

51-100, short dur11-50, mod dur 1-10, long dur 

+1 each addtl 10 short dur+1 each addtl 5 mod dur +1 each addtl long dur 

0

Installations:  Obtrusive 

None 1-3, short duration 4-5, short dur 

1-3, mod dur 1, long dur 

6-10, short dur4-5, mod dur 2-3, long dur 

+1 each addtl short dur+2 each addtl mod dur +3 each addtl long dur 

0

Installations:  Very Obtrusive 

None 1 short dur +10 each addtl short dur

+20 each addtl mod dur +30 each addtl long dur 

200 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined QualityGroup Size 1-8 8-15 16+ (over limit) 1Person-Days/Season 1-50 51-150 151+ 27 Visitor Surveys None Non-Wilderness Less obtrusive More obtrusive

0

Surveillance None Less obtrusive Mod obtrusive Very obtrusive

0

Impacts Assessment (Low, Medium, High) =

Total Impacts Assessment Score = 231

High 

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example — Impacts Assessment Worksheet
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 46

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example Rationale for 

Impact Assessment Worksheet Scores

	 The rationale used for the numerical scores is a crucial part of communicating with others about the professional judgments made in evaluating proposed

activities. As an example, the following rationale is provided for how the

numerical scores in the above Impacts Assessment Worksheet were derived for

Yosemite Wilderness—different wilderness staffs would most likely develop

different rationales from those below. Similarly, their resultant scoring would

reflect local conditions and attitudes.

Manipulation—Three broad categories of manipulation are listed. The

first category “manipulation” considers manipulation of processes or conditions, with Impact Scores of 2, 5, and +. Area, intensity, and permanence of

this manipulation would all be considered. The “slight” impact class might

be used to score experimental campsite restoration techniques or trampling

studies involving small areas. The “moderate” impact class might be used to

score a small experimental prescribed burn. The “high” impact class would

be used for studies proposing such actions as the introduction or eradication

of species, which may have long-lasting, cascading effects. Scoring for this

category is not dependent on whether the proposed manipulation is attempting

to increase the health or naturalness of the ecosystem. The high scores associated with impact classes for this category reflect the primacy of untrammeled

wilderness in the Wilderness Act.

	 The second manipulation category is “risk of unintended effects” with

Impact Scores of 1, 5, and +. Risk in terms of area, intensity, and permanence

of the potential effect would be considered as well as the risk. A proposal may

receive a score for this parameter even if no intentional change is planned.

One example might be high-risk animal captures of a rare species.

	 Both of the above categories should also consider the impact to the future

scientific value of wilderness. Much of the scientific value of wilderness lies

in its untrammeled state and manipulation reduces that value.

	 The third broad category is “disturbance” with Impact Scores of 2, 5, and +.

This usually involves manipulating individual organisms orspecific areasrather

than processes or conditions and is often more of an impact to the social and

symbolic values of wilderness than to ecological or scientific values. This may

include such activities asfeeding, trapping,sampling, marking, banding, collaring, or instrumenting animals. It may also include disturbance of particularly

symbolic entities such as very old or iconic trees, large rare fierce predators,

other iconic or historic features, or areas or species sacred or otherwise of

cultural importance to local Native Americans.

	 Two aspects of disturbance would be considered. The first is the magnitude

or intensity of insult and attempts to gauge the reduction of wildness to the

individual, the reduction of the power of the symbol of wildness, and the sacrilege to sacred places or species that would result from the proposed activity.

The second component in this category considers the amount disturbed—this
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 47

would be considered both absolutely and as a percentage of population size.

Due to the abstract nature of this category, the condition classes are purposefully left vague. One useful way to consider scoring this category might be to

consider the amount of protest that would ensue if the proposal were publicized.

Collection—Impact Scores for this category are 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and +. Collecting involves removing materials, both living and non-living, from the area

for studies or documentation. Three different aspects are considered:

•	 Scarring—collection sometimes leaves a scar, such as tree notches or

bedrock drill holes. Scarring is considered separately from the actual collection and is scored by obtrusiveness, permanence, and amount. Some

research may involve scarring that is not incidental to collecting; that is

scored here as well.

•	 Rarity—rarity is a complex topic because a particular resource may be

globally, regionally, or locally rare; it may be endemic or non-endemic; it

may face various types of threats; and it may be distributed in ways that

make it more or less vulnerable. All of these factors should be considered

when assigning scores for collecting. Rarity is divided into four broad

categories:

	Common: This would include water, common rocks and soil, and common plants.

	 Uncommon: This would include species at higher trophic levels, including most animals.

	 Of concern: Not rare, but might be at risk or is a member of a declining population, or of particular importance to ecosystem health. This

could include species with unknown local population size.

	Rare: The high scores for the rare category reflect the seriousness

of removing rare species or materials from the ecosystem. The rare

category includes more than just listed species; a species may be only

locally rare, or it may be moderately common locally but threatened

or declining at a larger scale—it would still be scored as rare.

•	 Amount—the impact classes are intentionally left vague as the amount is

somewhat dependent on rarity. Amountshould be considered both absolutely

and as a percentage of population size. An unknown population size (for

instance, a research proposal that entails collecting two of every species

regardless of rarity, including possible new species) would be scored as “of

concern” or “rare.” As with the transport and equipment categories below,

more than one column may be appropriate, in which case the individual

column scores are summed to obtain the total.

Transport—Impact Scores for this category are 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and + to

represent the range of transportation impacts proposed. The impact score

considers both the type and amount of transport used. An impact score of 0 is

assigned for walking, and higher values represent increasing levels of impact

from the use of packstock, wheeled transportation, such as wheelbarrows or
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 48

game carts used to transport gear, and motorized transportation, such as helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, motor boats, or snowmobiles.

	 An impact score of 3 is for any wheeled (but non-motorized) transport, a

prohibition under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, and would trigger a Minimum Requirements Analysis. The 10+ category is for motorized mechanical

transport (helicopters, ATVs, snowmachines, fixed wing aircraft, and skiffs).

Local units need to assign how much more than 10 such an impact ranks

because local circumstances such as vegetation and topography vary widely

and strongly affect how far noise will travel. Other variables to consider

include the height above ground level, intended travel (for example, landing or

only flying over), evidence of passage (for example, from snowmobile tracks),

enabling legislation that allows flights for other purposes, distance of flights,

remoteness, and timing.

	 The amount of use is considered separately. Human orstock transport usually

receives a score of 0, or 1 or 2, respectively. There may be circumstances that

rate a higher score, however, such as large amounts of stock use in areas that

don’t normally receive such use or are particularly vulnerable to the impacts

of stock, or where stock is otherwise prohibited. The amount of mechanized

transport is counted by the total days of use, while the amount of motorized

transport is counted by individual uses; for example, if several flights are

conducted during a single day, each would be counted. The difference in

counting methods helps reflect the much greater impacts of motorized transport. If more than one mode of transportation is used, more than one column

would be checked, with the column scores added together to find the total. For

example, if a team of researchers propose to hike in to install an instrument

tower using 12 stock days (score: 1) to transport their gear and one helicopter

flight (score: 10) to transport the tower itself, the total transport score would

be 11.

Equipment—Impact Scores are 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and +. These scores represent a

combination of (1) visibility, (2)sound, and (3) technologicalsophistication and

power leverage. This latter aspect attempts to explain the reason why motorized equipment was included as a Section 4(c) prohibition in the Wilderness

Act—wilderness is a place where we are “without our mechanisms that make

us immediate masters over our environment” (Zahniser 1956). Impact scores

and examples are:

•	 1 – non-motorized; small; simple; silent (for example, tape measure or

binoculars)

•	 2 – non-motorized but larger (e.g., mist net); more noise (e.g., star drill);

could include small solid-state electronics

•	 3 – electric motor; small, not too loud (e.g., cordless electric drill)

•	 5 – louder and/or longer-duration motor (e.g., chainsaw)

•	 10 or 10+ – multiple uses of motorized equipment
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 49

As with transport, if more than one type of equipment use is proposed, more

than one column may be checked, with the column scores added together to

find the equipment total.

Installations—Impact Scores are 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and +. Installations are any

plot markers, instruments, clusters of instruments, or structures that are left

unattended for more than a few days. These are divided into four categories:

•	 Barely discernable—includes buried rebar, camouflaged tree tags, and

other tiny markers or micro-instruments. While these are installations,

this scoring system recognizes that a single installation of this type has a

negligible impact by itself. Rather, the impact lies in the cumulative effect

of many such installations. Thus, it takes many such installations to rise

to the level requiring an MRA.

•	 Unobtrusive—includes larger instruments and plot markers that are easily visible from a short distance but generally not noticeable from greater

distances. This category includes things like rebar with large end caps,

PVC wells or piezometers that protrude a foot above the ground surface,

or brightly-colored plastic flagging or survey tape, which may be quite

small but highly visible.

•	 Obtrusive—includes larger instruments that are visible from a greater

distance such as water or air samplers and medium to large boxes sheltering electronics.

•	 Very obtrusive—includes clusters of instruments, towers, solar panels and

antennas, and buildings. Components that move and are, thereby, eyecatching (e.g., anemometer or wind turbine) will often place an installation

into this impact category.

	 Technological sophistication should also be considered when scoring installations. For example, a small rock cairn or small piece of wood would usually

be preferable to a metal or plastic pole for use as a plot marker.

	 Permanence is grouped into three categories. These categories can be modified for each area, but the following is a good starting point: short duration is

up to 1 year; moderate duration is 1 to 5 years; long duration is over 5 years.

Forsimplicity only three categories are used, but this also meansthat interpolation and extrapolation are often necessary and appropriate. For example, five

obtrusive installations that will be in place for only two weeks might score a

3 or 4 rather than a 5, while two obtrusive long-term installations are likely

to score higher than 10 if they are intended to be permanent.

Group Size—Impact Scores are 1, 2, and 3 and reflect the typical group size

for recreational visitors. Use of “legal limit” is done purposefully to strongly

denote that this is a red flag, although it is recognized that there may not be a

legal limit in some areas. These condition classesshould be determined locally.

In all cases, group sizes that exceed the legal limit for recreationists should

rate a three.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 50

Total Person-Days—Impact Scores are 1, 2, and 3 and reflect the thinking

of local staff about how the people added to the area from scientific activities

would affect the number of visitors an area already receives. Some wildernesses operate at their maximum total person-days with recreational visitors

alone, so any researchers would either effectively “bump” recreational visitors

or increase the maximum allowable person-days. This is very place-specific.

For example, Yosemite likely would have relatively high numbers of persondays (1 to 50, 50 to 100, greater than 100) while Glacier Bay would likely have

lower numbers (1 to 10, 10 to 20, greater than 20). These scores might increase

if a substantial number of person-days were spent in a very remote area.

Visitor Surveys—Impact Scores are 1, 2, and 3. The 1 represents an intrusion, albeit a small one. A greater impact on visitors occurs when the survey is

conducted farther from the trailhead or in a more remote area. Other elements

may affect the score as well, including the number of visitors interviewed, the

typical visitor density in the area, or the length of the interview. Interviews

at trailheads and wilderness permit stations may still have an impact on visitor experience, particularly if visitors are asked to record encounters or other

variables while in the wilderness.

Surveillance—Impact Scores are 1, 2, and 10 and represent local thinking

about how surveillance might reduce visitor’ssense of wilderness(for example,

unencumbered and free from the constraints of society while visiting wilderness) and freedom from being watched. Three elements are integrated into this

impact category: (1) whether the tool to collect data on visitor behavior (a person

watching, camera, trail counter) is visible to the visitor, (2) whether a visitor

could be identified (for example, from a person watching or from a camera) or

not, and (3) whether the tool of surveillance is a person or a machine. Local

staffs must decide how these three elements vary and interact to assign the

impact scores. For example, some local staffs may assign a visible surveillance

tool (that nonetheless cannot discern the identity of individuals) as having less

impact than a well-hidden camera that records images in which individuals

can be recognized.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 51

Appendix E—Worksheets

Sample worksheets are provided on the following pages for each of the filters

in this evaluation framework. These worksheets may be an important part of

the administrative record for decisions about proposals for scientific activities

inside wilderness. These worksheets should be modified to fit local circumstances and judgments, but should not be modified for individual proposals.

Instructions for Using the Worksheets

Cover Sheet

The intent of the cover sheet is to record basic administrative information

about the proposed activity. The “topic(s)” entry isfor agency use to summarize

the broad types of proposalsreceived,such as “geology,” “visitor experiences,”

“invasive species,” or any other category of interest or use to the administering

office, to aid in organization.

Initial Review Filter

	 Questions included in the worksheet likely apply in most wildernesses,

but local staffs should review these and delete any that aren’t applicable and

add any that are. After reviewing the proposal, agency staff would check the

appropriate “yes” or “no” box for each question. Any “yes” answers indicate

that the proposed scientific activity may raise significant problems and may

need to be returned to the scientist with an explanation of the problem, or the

proposal would likely require significantly more time to evaluate.

Quality of Proposal Filter

	 The questions included in the worksheet likely apply in most wildernesses,

but local staffs should review these and modify them as appropriate. After

reviewing the proposal, agency staff would check the appropriate “yes” or

“no” box for each question. Any “no” answers indicate that the proposal is

insufficient and may need to be immediately returned to the scientist with an

explanation of the problem.

Legal and Policy Filter

	 The steps included in the worksheet should apply in all wildernesses, but

local staff members should still review these steps to make sure they are

applicable, and add any steps as appropriate for compliance purposes and for

the administrative record. Several of the steps require subjective evaluation,

and, in such cases, the rationale needs to be carefully documented, especially

for proposals that might be controversial.

Impacts and Benefits Filter

	 There are two worksheets, one for the benefits assessment and one for the

impacts assessment. Once the worksheets are completed, the benefits and

impacts decision table is used to determine a provisional decision. Based on

the outcome of this decision, the proposal is either returned for revision or
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 52

is evaluated for its contribution to cumulative impacts. After this cumulative

impacts assessment, a final recommendation about the proposal is given to

the decision maker.

	 The benefits and impacts assessment worksheets require substantive staff

review and should be revised to be made relevant to the local wilderness. To

use these worksheets, local staff would:

1.	 Prepare the worksheets.

a.	 Review the category descriptions (bold text at the left of each row

on both worksheets) and modify them as appropriate for their local

setting; but, in most cases, the ones offered here should fit.

b.	 Review the text descriptions for each level of impact or benefit that

are under the numerical scores and modify them to fit local needs.

For the benefits assessment worksheet, the text descriptions are

written generally and would likely be applicable in most wildernesses. For the impacts assessment worksheet, the text descriptions

strongly reflect conditions within the Yosemite Wilderness and

must be modified to fit the context of the individual wilderness.

c.	 For the benefits assessment worksheet only, develop weighting factors that reflect local perceptions about the relative importance for

each category (rows in the worksheet). The sum of all 11 weighting

factors should equal 10 so that when the scores are multiplied by

the weighting factors and summed, the maximum total assessment

score cannot be greater than 100. These weightsshould be developed

once to fit local needs and not modified for individual proposals.

d.	 Develop the cutoffs for low, medium, and high total benefits and

impacts assessment scores. These cutoffs will be used to broadly

categorize the benefits and impacts; they should be developed once

and not modified for individual proposals.

2.	 Conduct the assessments.

a.	 Reading across each row, circle the appropriate statement for the

level of benefit or impact.

b.	 From the circled statement, read up the column to derive the

numerical score.

c.	 Record this number for the row under the column titled “Score.”

d.	 For the benefits assessment, multiply this score with the weighting

factor to derive the row total.

e.	 Add all the individual row totals to derive the total assessments

score.

f.	 Based on the cutoffs identified earlier, assign the overall assessment of low, medium, or high.

	 The benefits and impacts decision table is used to weigh the expected benefits against the impacts of the scientific activity. Before it can be used, local

staff members must prepare the table by assigning “Provisional Approval,”

“Provisional Denial,” and “Uncertain” to each of the cells. These assignments
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 53

are fundamentally subjective, reflecting discussion and consensus among

local staff. These assignments should be developed once and not modified for

individual proposals.

	 Last, staff members need to identify the types of cumulative impacts that are

relevant to the wilderness and determine how the proposed scientific activity

would be evaluated for its potential contribution to these impacts.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 54

COVER SHEET – PROPOSAL FOR SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY

Date proposal received:

Wilderness:

Name of agency staff evaluating this proposal:

Application #:

Title of proposal:

Name of person submitting this proposal:

Contact information for this person

Affiliation:

Address:

Phone number:

Email:

Topic(s):

Final recommendation:

Date of final recommendation:

Record of communication between manager and scientist:
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 55

INITIAL REVIEW FILTER – QUESTIONS WORKSHEET

Date_______    Application # ____________    Short Title ________________________________

Initial Review Question Yes or No

Does the proposal include any activities requiring a use that is legally prohibited

by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act?             

Would the proposed activity degrade wilderness character even if it is legally

permitted?             

Would the proposed activity likely be controversial with any publics?             

Would the proposed activity pose other legal or policy problems?             

Would the proposed activity interfere with management operations?             

Would the proposed activity pose consultation issues over listed species or

cultural and heritage resources?             

Would the proposed activity require collecting plants or other natural resources,

or the handling or removing of animals, or the introduction of plants or animals

into the wilderness?

            

Would the proposed activity pose timing or location problems, such as occurring

in a sensitive area or time for particular species?             

Would the proposed activity pose additional impact in an area that already has

an unacceptable level of cumulative impacts or is close to an unacceptable level

of cumulative impacts?

            

If the submitter has conducted work in the area before, were there any problems

with completing administrative requirements (such as submitting reports,

removing installations and other debris from the activity, completing curatorial

and specimen documentation requirements) in a timely and professional

manner?

            

OTHER QUESTIONS

Comments or Notes:  
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 56

QUALITY OF PROPOSAL FILTER – QUESTIONS WORKSHEET

Date_______    Application # ____________    Short Title ________________________________

Quality of Proposal Questions Yes or No

Is the proposed scientific activity sufficiently well designed to accomplish its

stated purpose, thereby providing the intended benefits to management or

science?

            

Does the proposal describe the potential benefits of the proposed activity in

terms of the Benefits Assessment described in the Impacts and Benefits Filter?             

Does the proposal describe the potential impacts of the proposed activity in

terms of the Impacts Assessment described in the Impacts and Benefits Filter,

and show how these will be minimized or mitigated?

            

Does the proposal describe how the results and any reports will be

communicated to local management staff?             

OTHER QUESTIONS

If necessary, describe action taken to ensure independent review of the proposal:

Comments or Notes:  
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 57

LEGAL AND POLICY FILTER – FLOWCHART WORKSHEET

Date_______    Application # ____________    Short Title ________________________________

Step 1:  Does the proposed activity include any actions or uses that are prohibited by Section 4(c)

of the Wilderness Act?

If no, skip Steps 2 – 4 and go to Step 5.

If yes, go to Step 2 and describe the actions or uses:

Step 2:  Are the prohibited actions or uses necessary?  To answer this question, answer the

following the questions:

A. Does the proposed work address an urgent or important health and safety concern?

If yes, go to Step 5.  If no, go to Step 2.B.

Explanation if there is a health and safety concern:

B. Can the prohibited actions or uses only be conducted inside the wilderness?

If yes, go to Step 2.D.  If no, go to Step 2.C.

Explanation:

C. If the prohibited actions or uses can be conducted outside the wilderness, will the

benefits to wilderness stewardship (i.e., preserving wilderness character) or to science

be reduced?

    If yes, go to Step 2.D.  If no, deny the proposed work.

    Explanation:

D. Are there any legislated exceptions that allow the actions or uses that would normally

be prohibited?

    If yes, go to Step 2.E.  If no, still go to Step 2.E.

    Explanation if there is a legislated exception:

E. Will the proposed actions or uses help preserve wilderness character?

If yes, go to Step 4.  If no, go to Step 3.

Explanation:

Step 3:  Return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is being returned.  The

revised proposal should include an explanation of changes.  Go back to Step 1 with the revised

proposal.

Step 4:  Go to the Impacts and Benefits Filter.

Step 5:  Is there a restriction in law, policy, or management plan that would prevent the actions or

uses, or limit where or when they could be used?

If yes, go to Step 3.  If no, go to Step 4.

Explanation:
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 58

IMPACTS AND

BENEFITS

FILTER

—

BENEFITS

ASSESSMENT

WORKSHEET

Date_______ Application

#

____________

Short Title

________________________________

Benefit Category Numerical Score of Benefit (0 = no benefit, 10 = high benefit) Score Weighting Factor Row Total 0 2 4 6 8 10

Benefits to Stewardship:Would the results address an urgentstewardship issue? 

Not urgent Not urgent now but 

might be in the future 

Urgent now but threat or issue appears to be static or decreasing 

Urgent now and threat or issue likely to continue at its current state 

Urgent now and threat or issue likely to accelerate 

Present crisis that may be at the point of irreversibility 

Would the results address an importantstewardship issue? 

Not important Not important but 

might be in the future 

Important but occurs over a relatively small area or timeframe 

Important and occurs over a relatively large area or long timeframe 

Important, affecting one or more key biophysical or social aspects over a large area or long timeframe; potential concern for human health/safety 

Important, affecting irreversible changes to key biophysical or social aspects over a large area or long timeframe; major concern for human health/safety 

Would the results be applicable immediately to stewardship? 

Basic research that does not appear to be applicable to a current stewardship issue 

Basic research that has slight apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Basic research that has moderate apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Applied research 

that has slight to moderate apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Applied research 

that has moderate to high apparent applicability to a current stewardship issue 

Research is specifically designed to answer a current stewardship issue 

Would the results likely be applicable to futurestewardship issues? 

Basic research that is highly unlikely to be applicable in the future 

Basic research that is unlikely to be applicable in the future 

Research that is unlikely to be applicable in the future except as a baseline to assess future change 

Research ismoderately likely to be applicable in the future 

Research is likely to be applicable in the future 

Research is highly likely to be applicable in the future 

Would the results allow effective action on a stewardship issue? 

Managers would likely not be able to take any actions that affect the issue 

Managers could affect the issue only by trying to influence broad societal changes 

Managers could take effective action only by changing management priorities 

Managers could take effective action only with significant costs to other wilderness values 

Managers could take effective action with minimal cost to other wilderness values 

Managers could easily and immediately take effective action with no cost to other wilderness values 

Would the results improvestewardship of this local wilderness?

Results are not applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are slightly applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are slightly to moderately applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are moderately applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are highly applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Results are specifically applicable to the wilderness in which the research is conducted 

Impacts and Benefits Filter — Benefits Assessment Worksheet (CONTINUED)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 59 Benefit Category Numerical Score of Benefit (0 = no benefit, 10 = high benefit) Score Weighting Factor Row Total 0 2 4 6 8 10 Benefits to Science: How broad geographically will the results benefit science? Results benefit science in only a small geographic area or portion of the wilderness Result benefit science in the whole wilderness Results benefit science in the whole region Results benefit science in the whole country Results benefit science in similar bioregions globally Results benefit science across the entire planet How far over time will the results benefit science? Results provide a short term benefit Results provide a short to moderate term benefit Results provide a moderate term benefit Results provide a moderate to long term benefit Results provide a long term benefit Results provide a permanent benefit How many different people or types of people will benefit from the results? Results benefit only a few scientists and managers Results benefit only visitors, scientists, or mangers in the specific wilderness Results benefit visitors, scientists, and managers in any wilderness Results benefit local visitors, residents, scientists, and managers Results benefit regional visitors, residents, scientists, and managers Results benefit people nationally or globally How important is the activity to the scientific field of study? Similar research has been conducted many times before and attempts to answer relatively trivial questions Similar research has been conducted many times before and attempts to answer relatively minor questions Research expands slightly on previous work and attempts to answer relatively minor questions Research expands significantly on previous work and attempts to answer major questions Research is groundbreaking or precedent setting for the field and attempts to answer major questions Research is groundbreaking or precedent setting for the field and attempts to answer fundamental questions What is the breadth of scientific inquiry? Research is conducted on a single, minor component of the ecosystem or social system with little affect on other components Research is conducted on a single component of the ecosystem or social system with little affect on other systems Research is conducted on a single process of the ecosystem or social system that affects a moderate number of other components Research is conducted on a single process of the ecosystem or social system that affects many components Research is conducted on many ecosystem or social processes and components Research is conducted on ecosystem or social processes and components comprehensively Benefits Assessment (Low, Medium, High) = Total Benefits Assessment Score =
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 60

Pa

ge 12

IMPACTS AND

BENEFITS

FILTER

— IMPACTS

ASSESSMENT

WORKSHEET

Date_______ Application

#

____________

Short Title

________________________________

Impact Category Numerical Score of Impact (0 = negligible Impact, 10 = high Impact) Score 0 1 2 3 5 10 +

Untrammeled QualityManipulation None Slight Moderate LargeRisk of Unintended Effects 

None Slight Moderate Large

Disturbance None Small Moderate LargeNatural QualityCollection Scarring:  Unobtrusive 

None Small amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short durMod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod dur Mod amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, long duration

Collection Scarring:  Obtrusive 

None Sml amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short dur Mod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod durMod amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, long duration

Collection Scarring:  Very Obtrusive 

None Sml amt, short dur Mod amt, short dur 

Sml amt, mod dur 

Lrg amt, short durMod amt, mod dur Sml amt, long dur 

Lrg amt, mod durationMod or Large amt, long dur 

Collection:  Amount and Rarity 

None 

Any amount, common Sml amt, uncommon Mod amt, uncommon Lrg amt, uncommon

Sml amt, of concern 

Mod amt, of concernSml amt, rare 

Lrg amt, of concernMed or large amount, rare 

Undeveloped QualityTransport Human

only 

1-12 stock days 13-60 stock days 61-90 stock days

1-10 wheeled days 

91-150 stock days 10-15 wheeled days 

151-300 stock days16-30 wheeled days 1 motorized use 

+1 each addtl 30 stock days +1 each addtl 3 wheel days +10 each addtl motor use 

Equipment None 

Any amount of 

unobtrusive use 

Any amount of less 

obtrusive use 

1-10 days of ob use 11-30 days ob use 

1 day very ob use 

30+ days ob use2 days very ob use 

+5 each day very ob use

Installations:  Barely Discernable 

None 1-50, short duration 1-40, mod duration

1-20, long duration 

51-150, short dur41-60, mod dur 21-30, long dur 

151-250, short dur 61-100, mod dur 31-50, long dur 

251-500, short dur101-200, mod dur 51-100, long dur 

+1 each addtl 50 short dur+1 each addtl 20 mod dur +1 each addtl 10 long dur 

Installations:  Unobtrusive 

None 1-10, short duration 11-50, short dur 

1-10, med dur 

51-100, short dur11-50, mod dur 1-10, long dur 

+1 each addtl 10 short dur+1 each addtl 5 mod dur +1 each addtl long dur 

Installations:  Obtrusive 

None 1-3, short duration 4-5, short dur 

1-3, mod dur 1, long dur 

6-10, short dur4-5, mod dur 2-3, long dur 

+1 each addtl short dur+2 each addtl mod dur +3 each addtl long dur 

Installations:  Very Obtrusive 

None 1 short dur +10 each addtl short dur

+20 each addtl mod dur +30 each addtl long dur 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined QualityGroup Size 1-8 8-15 16+ (over limit)Person-Days/ Season 1-50 51-150 151+Visitor Surveys None Non-Wilderness Less obtrusive More obtrusiveSurveillance None Less obtrusive Mod obtrusive Very obtrusive

Impacts Assessment (Low, Medium, High) =

Total Impacts Assessment Score =

Impacts and Benefits Filter — Impacts Assessment Worksheet
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 61

IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — EXPLANATION OF ASSESSMENT SCORES WORKSHEET

Explanation of Benefits Assessment Scores

Benefits to Stewardship:

Benefits to Science:

Explanation of Impacts Assessment Scores

Impacts to the Untrammeled Quality:

Impacts to the Natural Quality:

Impacts to the Undeveloped Quality:

Impacts to the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Quality:
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. 2010 62

IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — BENEFITS AND IMPACTS DECISION TABLE WORKSHEET

Date_______    Application # ____________    Short Title ________________________________

BENEFITS

Low Medium High

IMPACTS

Low   

Medium   

High   

In the prepared Benefits and Impacts Decision Table (see instructions), circle the intersection

between the assigned benefits and impacts assessments.

If “Provisional Denial,” return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is

being returned.  

Explanation:

If “Provisional Approval,” go to the Cumulative Impacts Assessment.

If “Uncertain,” discuss concerns with other management staff (as needed) and the

scientist to determine if the benefits and impacts were properly assessed, re‐assess the

proposal if needed, then go to the Cumulative Impacts Assessment.

Explanation:

IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Step 1:  Are the additional impacts of the proposed scientific activity acceptable when viewed in

the context of all the other impacts in the wilderness?

If yes, the proposed activity is recommended for approval.  If no, go to Step 2.

Explanation:

Step 2:  Return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is being returned.   

Explanation:
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Rocky

 Mountain

 Research Station