Over
the last few weeks I have been doing the Arthur Carhart National
Wilderness Training Center courses on wilderness management.
Through the application of computer technology I have been able to
take these courses on-line through ProValens Learning.
(http://provalenslearning.com/) ProValens
is the outcome of collaboration between
several educational organizations and institutions for the benefit of
those of us working with the National Park Service, US Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management and US Department of Fish and
Wildlife. These are Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands,
Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center (Univ of Montana),
Indiana University, National Center on Accessibility, National Park
Service, Indiana University Department of Recreation, Park, and
Tourism Studies, Indiana Parks and Recreation Association, World
Urban Parks, and World Parks Academy.
(https://provalenslearning.com/our_partners/) It has been a lot of
hard work but well worth the effort.
One
thing which I quickly learned was that decisions pertaining to the
care and management of the wilderness are extremely complicated. As
was pointed out in my most recent course - Natural Resource
Management in Wilderness: Challenges in Natural Resource Restoration
- the process is complicated by ambiguous legislation and agency
policy, insufficient funds and personnel resources, insufficient
scientific information, conflicting public and personal values.
Three of the four of these are obviously self-explanatory.
Insufficient scientific information is a problem because we don't
have enough long-term studies. Part of the reason for that goes back
to the influence of the other three problems - legislation and
policy, funds and conflicting values.
There
are five wilderness characteristics of which one must be aware when
proposing or evaluating a plan of action in the wilderness:
untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, solitude or primitive and
unconfined recreation and other features of value. One could write
books about each of these characteristics but I'm going try to give a
really brief explanation. Untrammeled is an archaic word but
exceptionally appropriate both in the Wilderness Act itself as well
as in making wilderness management decisions. Untrammeled basically
means uncontrolled. It is the "wild" in wilderness.
Undeveloped means that the area is free of any "permanent improvement" or human occupation. Natural is the quality of a
wilderness' indigenous species, patterns and/or ecological processes.
Sorry, but homo sapiens are not indigenous to any wilderness in
North America. Strictly speaking a very strong, scientific argument
is made that the homo sapien is only indigenous to limited areas of
East Africa. That means that anywhere else we are technically an
invasive species. Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation is
all about people. I find this a bit objectionable but, because of
the homo sapien's erroneous belief that it is the most important
animal on the planet, it is necessary to have this type of statement
in order to get a law such as the Wilderness Act passed. But my bias
is showing. Sorry! "Other features of value" is a
catch-all which includes archaeological sites or sites of historical interest/importance which may exist within the wilderness area.
When
the wilderness manager must make a decision whether or not to take
action which might be contrary to the law - viz. Wilderness Act of
1964 - they must go through a complex process called a Minimum
Requirement Analysis (MRA). My first prerequisite class was on the
Wilderness Act itself. The second prerequisite was on how to write
an MRA. By law, the decision-maker is only permitted to skip the MRA
in the case of an emergency such as a forest fire or search and
rescue. It is no wonder that decisions take so long. To write an MRA
is a long, laborious task. After you give all the details of the
project in your description, you must determine whether the
objectives can be achieved outside of the wilderness boundary,
whether there are any valid existing right, special provisions, other
laws which might have a say, and the impact on the characteristics.
Once you have determined that action is necessary, then you have to
determine minimum activity. You don't go into an area with a
bulldozer when a single man with a shovel can do the job just as
well. Here you deal with things like time restraint and then list the
component parts of the project, develop and compare alternative
before deciding how the project is going to be done.
If
that isn't complex enough, there are natural conflicts when you start
trying to maintain the characteristics of the wilderness. I'm going to
avoid the obvious; viz. natural conflicts between trammeling and
natural versus unconfined recreation; because I don't want my
personal bias to overshadow the real story. So let's take
untrammeled versus natural as an example.
One
wouldn't think that there should be any conflict. Both are for the
good and welfare of the wilderness. But here's a problem. Howard
Zahniser, the Wilderness Act's author, said, “Wilderness areas are
peculiarly those remnants of our land where the play of natural
forces and man’s accommodation of himself to these forces are to be
insisted upon for the continued preservation of the wilderness and
its special values to man. Those who have the custody of these areas
should manage them with this objective always in mind. As nearly as
possible, wilderness areas should be so managed as to be left
unmanaged.” To be kept untrammeled is to be kept wild and so in
relationship to trammeling we must say we manage people, not the
wilderness.
At
the same time the wilderness manager has responsibility to maintain
the natural quality of the wilderness. And so the question is posed
“What are the obligations, duties and responsibilities that
wilderness managers have in regards to protecting species, their
habitats, and natural processes?”
(http://eppley.org/lms/mod/url/view.php?id=3992) This would imply
that to meet this obligation we manage both people and wilderness.
Do
you see the almost unavoidable conflict? If you do something that
you believe is a part of your responsibility to protect a species
then you are necessarily going to have to do something in the
wilderness which is, by definition, trammeling. Let me share a couple
of examples. They do a good job of showing how complicated the entire
decision making process is.
The
first example is the Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). The Ponderosa
pine needs fire because of their pyriscence cones which are
stimulated by fire to release their seeds. There is an ongoing battle
between agencies - most notably National Park Service and US Forest
Service - about whether or not fires should be suppressed. [Here I
need to clarify that we're talking about fighting forest fires. Since
90% of all forest fires are caused by humans then we want to do
everything we can to help them avoid starting fires.] If we suppress fires the needles of the Ponderosa pine fall to the ground and can
become quite deep. When you add to this the accumulation of other
fuels you have a virtual tinder box. When a fire does start it is
going to be much hotter and more intense because of the abundance of
fuel. When this happens the fire is hot enough to burn through the
bark of the Ponderosa and into the cambial layer - the living
material under the bark - and kill the tree. To avoid this scenario
we might not suppress fires. But such an act, while fulfilling our
obligation to keep the wilderness untrammeled, might permit a
human-caused fire to destroy the last grazing area of a major animal
species. If we do something like rake the duff we might be able to
reduce the severity of the fire so that the tree can survive, but
that is obvious manipulation of the wilderness and therefore
contradicts our mandate to keep the wilderness untrammeled. There is
no absolute answer or absolute right. Decision makers can only work
to make the best decision for their particular circumstances.
Here's
an example right out of the course on Challenges in Natural Resource
Restoration.
"Whitebark
pine
grows in the northwestern United States and Canada. It is commonly
the highest-elevation tree in these regions, and almost 98% of its
range is within United States public lands. Their seeds contain
high-fat, high-energy food sources for several animal species.
Whitebark pine also contributes to watershed health and protection in
their ecosystems. They are an important part of the Natural quality
of many wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act and agency policy
require that managers protect and preserve all of the qualities of
wilderness character, including Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped,
Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Unconfined and Primitive
Recreation, and any of the Unique quality values that may be present.
However, whitebark pine is severely threatened by two human-caused
problems--introduced disease (white pine blister rust inadvertently
introduced from British Columbia in 1910) and fire suppression--which
are complicated by recent upsurges in mountain pine beetle.
Over
70 years of fire suppression has allowed succession of
fire-intolerant species such as subalpine fir and Englemann spruce to
increasingly replace whitebark pine throughout its range. Whitebark
pine mortality from the combination of blister rust and beetle
outbreaks exceeds 50% in some areas. Less than 5% of mature whitebark
pines have a genetic resistance to white pine blister rust. Natural
regeneration of whitebark pine trees from surviving individuals will
increase the spread of rust-resistant trees. Individual trees might
be protected by application of aerial sprays, but it is expensive,
ineffective range-wide, and may not be ecologically sound.
Mechanically removing the blister rust host species or pruning
infected branches is possible, but expensive and ineffective
range-wide. Seedlings from rust-resistant seeds have been propagated
and planted with good success in non-wilderness areas where the
environment has been restored and is conducive to survival.
In
an effort to allow fire to play its natural and historic role, wild
fires are no longer suppressed in some wilderness areas and where
they pose no threat to human life or property. Will restoration of
whitebark pine forests minimize threats from blister rust disease and
encroachment of other species? Will restoration allow stands to,
eventually, be healthy enough to withstand occasional mountain pine
beetle infestations. Should restoration actions be taken? If so,
which ones?" (http://eppley.org/lms/mod/url/view.php?id=3992)
Doing
the exercises in the course work can be quite humbling. You write a
plan that you believe is really good and it gets totally destroyed.
But the benefits of taking these classes has gone far beyond learning
information and skills that I might use in our work with the National
Park Service. They have opened my eyes to the gigantic task which
has been given to our wilderness managers. These are tasks having
tremendous impact upon our land and our world for which those given
the responsibility are not given adequate funding or resources
nevertheless any financial reward for their efforts. They often have
to find their own funding and make their own resources. Their reward
is seeing the fruits of their labor of love. Thankfully, that is of
great value and importance to them. It definitely makes me feel
proud to be one of their resources and I hope that taking these courses will enable me to be of greater service to them as a resource.
I
am able to take these classes because I work the for the National
Park Service as a volunteer. Pamela and I, like the other NPS
volunteers, have a contract with the NPS so we are treated like
employees. We are also members of the Glacier National Park Volunteer
Associates which is a major resource and partner of Glacier National
Park. If you would like to investigate the possibility of taking
some of these courses, please drop me a note and I'll help as much as
I can.
No comments:
Post a Comment