Island of the Blue Dolphin Day 1. How do people survive in the wilderness?
Wilderness Character Analysis Upland Island Wilderness Fire...
Transcript of Wilderness Character Analysis Upland Island Wilderness Fire...
Revised 08/17/09
Wilderness Character Analysis
Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative
Angelina National Forest
Prepared by
Ira McWhorter
Fire Ecologist
National Forest and Grasslands in Texas
March 23, 2009
Revised 08/17/09
1
INTRODUCTION
The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas has proposed a project, entitled the Upland
Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative, to reduce hazardous fuels in Upland Island
Wilderness (UIW) on the Angelina National Forest through the use of prescribed
burning. The project proposal is to implement prescribed burning on as much as 11,990
acres within the wilderness and on an additional 990 acres on adjacent private property,
state lands and national forest lands. The proposed action alternatives include a No Burn
Area of approximately 1,260 acres in the vicinity of Graham and Cypress Creeks inside
UIW that would be excluded from prescribed fire.
The project will involve several cool season burns of approximately 220 to 5,180 acres.
These prescribed burns would occur on a 1 to 3 year cycle depending on weather, fuel,
and habitat conditions using hand ignition and aerial ignition methods.
The primary objective for burning is to reduce heavy accumulations of surface litter and
ladder fuels. The burns will be primarily conducted in the dormant season when weather
conditions are cooler, plants are dormant, and potential damage to overstory trees is
reduced. They will be conducted when the upper surface fuels are dry enough for
spreading head and flanking fires to remove a significant amount of the upper litter layer
but when the duff layer has ample moisture to protect the shallow root systems of mature
canopy trees. The initial burns will be conducted on short fire return intervals (annual or
biennial) in order to prevent the heavy, problematic fuel loadings that quickly materialize
when flammable shrubs re-sprout among the dead woody branches of recently top-killed
understory vegetation.
An important issue of concern that has been identified through the scoping process is the
effects on wilderness character and associated values. Although all aspects of wilderness
character are impossible to address, the following report provides an analysis of the
effects of the proposed alternatives on four important qualities of wilderness character
identified in the General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151, Monitoring Selected
Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework (Landres and others
2005).
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Upland Island Wilderness was established in 1984 and is situated in the southern part of
the Angelina National Forest. It is the largest of five wilderness areas established in
Texas and encompasses approximately 13,250 acres.
UIW is located in Management Area 7 (MA-7), Wilderness, as identified in the Revised
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the National Forests and Grasslands
in Texas (USDA Forest Service 1996). The desired future conditions for MA-7 are lands
that are administered to maintain or achieve a natural state. MA-7 permits prescribed fire
Revised 08/17/09
2
to manage wilderness as determined through site-specific environmental analysis that
addresses: (1) the role of fire in fire-dependent or related ecosystems, and (2) fuel
loadings which are a fire risk to resources and values outside of wilderness. This project
would occur primarily in upland sites dominated by pine or pine-hardwood within MA-7.
Riparian areas that lie adjacent to upland sites would be included in the prescribed burns
where they cannot be excluded without the construction of ground-disturbing fire control
lines. Fire would not be directly applied to riparian areas; rather, low intensity fire would
be allowed to back into streamside vegetation where it generally goes out naturally.
Two upland Ecological Management Units (EMUs) and two broader Landtype
Associations are represented within UIW. The southern portion of the wilderness is
located in the Catahoula EMU in the Mayflower Uplands Landtype Association and the
northern portion lies within the Manning EMU in the Sandy Uplands Landtype
Association. Historically, longleaf pine was a major vegetation type in both of these
EMUs. Longleaf pine in association with bluejack oak and blackjack oak characterized
the Catahoula EMU in the Mayflower Uplands in the southern portion of UIW. Longleaf
pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly pine-hardwood communities characterized the Manning
EMU in the Sandy Uplands, depending on topographic position and soil conditions.
(Stephen F. Austin State University 2004, USDA Forest Service 1996)
The longleaf pine ecosystems of Upland Island Wilderness are dependent on a natural
fire regime of frequent, low-intensity surface fires (Wade and others 2000) which limit
the encroachment of fire sensitive pines and hardwoods and maintain open conditions
that favor longleaf pine regeneration and diverse herbaceous communities including
numerous rare and endemic species.
WILDERNESS CHARACTER AND VALUES
Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states that ―…each agency administering any
area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character
of the area…‖ This legal mandate forms the overriding principle guiding management
of all wilderness areas (U.S. Congress 1983) and establishes wilderness character as a
core concept of the wilderness ideal.
Wilderness character is not defined in the Wilderness Act, however, upon exploring the
historical writings of its framers, three mutually reinforcing societal ideals emerge that
are integral to the historic purpose of wilderness and to understanding wilderness
character (Landres and others 2005, Kaye 2000, 2002, Nash 2004, Scott 2002).
Natural environments relatively free from modern human manipulation and
impacts. These environments include the native plants and animals, ecological
and evolutionary processes (including disturbances such as fire and insect
outbreaks), clean air, natural sounds, dark night skies, and the scenic quality that
come from such places.
Personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the
encumbrances and signs of modern society. Wilderness visitors may derive a
Revised 08/17/09
3
broad range of psychological benefits from experiences of challenge, self-
reliance, and self-discovery, as well as spiritual benefits. These experiences and
benefits are highly individual, and preserving wilderness character allows visitors
the freedom to experience wilderness in their individual ways.
Symbolic meanings associated with wilderness. In general, these symbolic
meanings of wilderness are associated with experiences and feelings of humility,
self restraint, and being part of and interconnected with the larger community of
life.
In summary, wilderness character may be described as the combination of biophysical,
experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguishes wilderness from other lands. These
ideals combine to form a complex and subtle set of relationships between the land, its
management, and the meanings people associate with wilderness (Landres and others
2005).
―At its core, wilderness character, like personal character, is much more than a physical
condition. It is an unseen presence capable of refocusing our perception of nature and
our relationship to it (Kaye 2000).‖ This transcendent quality of wilderness is expressed
by Howard Zahniser (1956), the chief author and originator of the Wilderness Act, when
he wrote ―… to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one‘s
littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.‖
To understand wilderness character, one must look to the definition of wilderness in
Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (Rohlf and Honnold 1988, Scott 2002, McCloskey
1999) which states ―A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
remain.‖ In this text, Zahniser (1959) used to the word ―untrammeled‖ to convey the
idea of ―not being subject to human controls that hamper the free play of natural forces.‖
However, his intent went beyond protecting physical conditions or natural processes from
human manipulations and impacts. He also recognized the importance of preserving the
opportunities for personal experiences in natural environments that are relatively free
from the encumbrances and signs of modern society (Kaye 2000, Scott 2002) and
embracing the symbolic meanings associated with wilderness such as feelings of humility
and being part of and interconnected with the larger community of life (Landres and
others 2005).
Section 2(c) goes further in describing wilderness as ―… an area of Federal land retaining
its primeval character and influence…protected and managed to preserve its natural
conditions and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man‘s work substantially unnoticeable.‖ It also states that
wilderness ―has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type
of recreation…and may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value.‖
Revised 08/17/09
4
Using the definition of wilderness from Section 2(c), four qualities of wilderness
character have been identified that allow a relevant, tangible and practical application to
forest planning and effects analysis (Landres and others 2005, 2008). These four
qualities as discussed below, address the perceptions and meanings associated with
wilderness character at a national level as well as the unique, local attributes of Upland
Island Wilderness including the specific values for which it was established, the
management direction established through the Limits of Acceptable Change planning
process, and relationships people have with the area.
There are also the intangible and symbolic qualities that are central to wilderness
character but mean different things to different people and are more difficult to quantify
or evaluate. These qualities are discussed within this document but not specifically
addressed in the effects analysis, however they are hopefully re-enforced and
strengthened through the management approach and the spirit in which the proposal has
been developed and the analysis conducted.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS
The following analysis assumes that for all action alternatives each unit will be burned at
least 3 times during the first 6 years of the project. This is considered the minimum
needed to show substantial progress in achieving project objectives. Table A provides a
summary of the effects of each alternative on each of the four character qualities and
includes both quantitative and adjective descriptors.
Untrammeled Quality – Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern
human control or manipulation.
The Wilderness Act, Section 2(c) states that wilderness is ―hereby recognized as an area
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.‖ The word
―untrammeled‖ is rarely used in ordinary conversation, but Howard Zahniser, the primary
author of the Wilderness Act, used untrammeled as a key word in the definition of
wilderness. Zahniser (1959) used to the word ―untrammeled‖ to convey the idea of ―not
being subject to human controls that hamper the free play of natural forces (Scott 2002).‖
Since passage of the Act, the word untrammeled and its meaning for wilderness
stewardship have been discussed at length (Landres and others 2005, Aplet 1999, Scott
2002). Untrammeled means ―allowed to run free‖ (American Heritage Dictionary 2006).
Synonyms for untrammeled include unrestrained, unmanipulated, unrestricted,
unhindered, unimpeded, unencumbered, self-willed, and wild.
Zahniser (1963) noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation ―is to use ‗skill,
judgment, and ecologic sensitivity‘ for the protection of some areas within which natural
forces may operate without man‘s management and manipulation.‖ Wilderness is very
different than other lands in that legislation dictates not only the goals of stewardship, but
how management is to be approached—with humility and with an eye toward not
Revised 08/17/09
5
interfering with nature and not manipulating the land and its community of life (Landres
and others 2005).
Actions that intentionally manipulate or control ecological systems inside wilderness
degrade the untrammeled quality of wilderness character, even though they may be taken
to restore natural conditions. For example, management ignited fire in Upland Island
Wilderness is proposed to be used, in part, as a first step in restoring the natural role of
fire. Such an action will diminish the untrammeled quality of wilderness in the short-
term, however, it will enhance the natural quality of wilderness over the long-term and
may eventually lead to reduced trammeling by creating conditions that will enhance
opportunities for managing lightning-caused wildfires to achieve wilderness objectives.
Unlike the management of any other land in the Nation, wilderness legislation directs the
managing agency to scrutinize its actions and minimize control or interference with
plants, animals, soils, water-bodies, and natural processes. The Wilderness Act
distinguishes ―untrammeled‖ quality from the ―natural quality‖, although the two are
clearly linked. In essence, the untrammeled quality relates to actions that intentionally
manipulate or control ecological systems, whereas the natural quality relates to the
intentional and unintentional effects from actions taken inside wilderness as well as from
external forces on these systems. Accordingly, ―untrammeled‖ suggests more about the
process of management rather than the outcomes. It refers to means rather than ends and
emphasizes the lack of human control rather than the lack of human influence (Cole
2000).
Affected Environment
Currently, there are no planned actions being taken in Upland Island that manipulate
ecological systems or processes. However, due to the heavy fuel loadings and their
associated risks to lives and property, fire suppression is currently used and will likely
continue to be used in initial response to all natural and unnatural ignitions. When fire
suppression is used, the untrammeled quality of wilderness is diminished.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The spatial boundaries for the direct and indirect effects analysis for the untrammeled
quality are the wilderness boundaries and the temporal boundaries are ten years. Short
term effects are those of short duration occurring within the first six years of the project.
Long term effects are those that persist for up to 10 years following the initiation of the
project.
The measures for evaluating the effects on the untrammeled quality are the number of
manipulating actions (i.e. prescribed burns), the extent and magnitude of those actions
(i.e. number of acres affected and the intensity of the manipulation), and the degree to
which those actions impact the future options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to
restore the natural role of fire.
Revised 08/17/09
6
Alternative 1-No Action
The no action alternative would both maintain and diminish the untrammeled qualities of
wilderness character. It would maintain the untrammeled quality by not allowing any
prescribed burning activities that manipulate wilderness ecosystems. However, the
argument can be made that it would also result in major long-term adverse effects on the
untrammeled quality by limiting the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to
restore the natural role of fire. Due to the heavy fuel loadings and associated risks, it
would be necessary to continue the use of fire suppression strategies and tactics in initial
response to all unplanned ignitions including lightning-caused ignitions.
Due to the small size of the wilderness and fragmentation of the surrounding landscape,
the frequent, low intensity surface fires that characterized the natural fire regime no
longer occur. As a result, uncharacteristically heavy fuel loadings have developed that
could potentially result in extreme high intensity or severity wildfires with undesirable
consequences. Without the use of prescribed burning to reduce these fuel loadings,
lightning ignited fires will need to be suppressed due to the increased risks to firefighters,
private property and the wilderness resource.
Alternative 2- Proposed Action
This alternative would result in some level of trammeling in the short-term, however, it
would also enhance to some degree the untrammeled quality in the long-term by re-
establishing the natural fuel and vegetation conditions that would allow a broader range
of options for managing lightning-caused wildfires. This would help achieve the
wilderness fire management objective of restoring the natural role of fire.
This alternative would consist of an estimated 3 actions (prescribed burns) per year for
the first 6 years. The extent of the actions would be 11,990 acres burned during the
course of the project. The number of actions would represent a minor, short-term
negative effect that would be only slightly detectable with no overbearing results on
wilderness character. Even though the actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions
would represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the fact that these burns would
closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate
the natural ecosystem. Forest Service records indicate the lightning ignitions have been
recorded in all months of the year on the NFGT (Jurney and others, 2004). The fact that
the proposed burns were management ignited and not natural events would be unapparent
to most wilderness visitors once operations are complete.
There would be a major, long-term, beneficial effect by restoring fuel conditions over the
entire wilderness that would provide managers more options for managing lightning-
caused wildfires to achieve wilderness fire management objectives.
Revised 08/17/09
7
Alternative 3
First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.
This alternative would require an average of 13 actions (prescribed burns) per year for the
first 6 years in order to meet the objective of 3 burns per unit. The extent of the actions
would be 11,990 acres burned during the course of the project. The number of actions
per year (13) would represent a major short-term negative effect that would be highly
noticeable to the wilderness observer. Even though the actions are extensive, the
magnitude of the actions would represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the
fact that these burns would closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore
not substantially manipulate the natural ecosystem. The fact that these burns were
management ignited and not natural events would be unapparent to most wilderness
visitors once operations are complete.
There would be a major, long-term, beneficial effect by restoring fuel conditions over the
entire wilderness that would provide managers more options for managing lightning-
caused wildfires to achieve wilderness fire management objectives.
Alternative 4
First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.
This alternative would consist of an estimated 5 actions (prescribed burns) implemented
per year for the first 6 years. The extent of the actions would be 6,610 wilderness acres
burned during the course of the project. The number of actions per year would represent
a moderate short-term negative effect that would be clearly detectable with potential for
appreciable effects on the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. Even though the
actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions would represent a minor, short-term
negative effect due to the fact that these burns would closely mimic the natural fire
processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate the natural ecosystem. The
fact that these burns were management ignited and not natural events would be
unapparent to most wilderness visitors once operations are complete.
Because only 6,610 acres of wilderness would be burned, there would be a minor,
beneficial effect of improving the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to
achieve wilderness fire management objectives.
Alternative 5
First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.
This alternative would require an estimated 7 or 8 actions (prescribed burns)
implemented per year for the first 6 years in order for each unit to be burned at least three
times during this period. The extent of the actions would be 6,610 wilderness acres
burned during the course of the project. Seven or eight actions per year would represent
Revised 08/17/09
8
a major short-term negative effect that would be highly noticeable to the wilderness
observer. Even though the actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions would
represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the fact that these burns would
closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate
the natural ecosystem. The fact that these burns were management ignited and not
natural events would be unapparent to most wilderness visitors once operations are
complete.
Because only 6,610 acres of wilderness would be burned, there would be a minor,
beneficial effect of improving the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to
achieve wilderness fire management objectives.
Cumulative Effects
For cumulative effects, the area considered includes the wilderness, all Forest Service
lands within the Longleaf Ridge Special Area (MA-6) and all private lands adjacent to
the wilderness and east of State Highway 69. The temporal boundaries are the period
between wilderness designation and twenty years from the initiation of the project.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Fire suppression since wilderness designation has resulted in uncharacteristically heavy
fuel loadings and alteration (trammeling) of many of the natural processes associated
with a frequent fire regime. In addition, the current conditions preclude many options for
managing lightning-caused wildfire to achieve wilderness fire management objectives
due to the risk to resources within and outside wilderness boundaries. The cumulative
effects from these past actions coupled with a continuation of fire suppression would
result in adverse long-term impacts to the untrammeled quality of Upland Island
Wilderness.
Alternatives 2-5
A continuation of the current prescribed burning programs on adjacent federal lands and
cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners would result in more defensible fire
breaks along wilderness boundaries. This should enhance the untrammeled condition in
wilderness by allowing managers greater flexibility in responding to unplanned ignitions
within the wilderness including management of lightning-caused wildfires to achieve
wilderness fire management objectives. This would probably result in a moderate
positive effect.
Continued fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in more
trammeling due to the concern for private property and the perceived need to actively
suppress wildland fire. This would probably result in a slight negative effect.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would generally represent a continuation of the relative extent, duration, and
Revised 08/17/09
9
intensity levels of trammeling discussed above (see direct and indirect effects) for each
alternative. Depending on the objectives of future proposed projects, trammeling may be
reduced due to a decrease in the frequency of prescribed burning and increased frequency
in the management of lightning-caused wilfires to achieve wilderness fire management
objectives.
Natural Quality – Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects
of modern civilization.
One of the major themes running throughout the 1964 Wilderness Act is that wilderness
should be free from the effects of ―an increasing population, accompanied by expanding
settlement and growing mechanization‖ and that the ―earth and its community of life…is
protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions‖ and to retain ―its primeval
character and influence‖ (Sections 2(a) and 2(c), respectively). In today‘s terms, this
means that the native species composition, structures and functions of ecological systems
in wilderness are protected and allowed to be on their own, without the planned
intervention or the unintended effects of modern civilization (Landres and others 2008).
Affected Environment
The natural qualities of Upland Island Wilderness have been altered due to the fact that
fires no longer burn with the frequency and intensity that characterized the natural fire
regime. Several factors have contributed to the situation: a) Upland Island Wilderness is
too small to receive enough natural ignitions within its boundaries to sustain the
frequency of the historic fire regime, b) human use and development in the surrounding
landscape and effective fire suppression have prevented wildland fire from spreading into
the wilderness from adjacent lands, and c) heavy fuel loadings resulting from years of fire
exclusion create the potential for high intensity and severity wildfires and the need for
continued fire suppression in wilderness. The result is that the structure, composition and
function of Upland Island Wilderness ecosystems have undergone considerable changes
and are no longer within the range of natural variability.
In order to understand the effects of the proposed action on natural qualities in Upland
Island Wilderness, it is important to establish baseline or reference conditions. Most
reference conditions are based on accounts of pre-settlement ecosystems and where this
information is lacking, reference conditions are typically based on the conditions at the
time of wilderness designation. Both pre-settlement and more recent conditions in
Upland Island Wilderness have been examined and described in several documents
(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004, Orzell 1990, LeGrande 1998,
McWhorter 2005).
In summary, these documents describe reference conditions consisting of: a wide variety
of habitat types resulting in an excellent representation of plant and animal species
(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, LeGrande 1998); extensive uplands supporting
open, spacious, park-like stands of longleaf pine with considerable aesthetic appeal
(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004); widespread, herbaceous understory
Revised 08/17/09
10
communities with an excellent representation of East Texas species including 46
infrequent, rare or very rare species (Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004,
Orzell 1990); the most extensive seepage bog system in the region with more than 20
hillside seepage areas, five of which contained pitcher plants (Sarracenia alata) (Stephen
F. Austin State University 1980, Orzell 1990); four colonies of red-cockaded
woodpeckers consisting of approximately 21 birds (Stephen F. Austin State University
1980); a wide variety of mammals, herpetofauna, insects and birds (Stephen F. Austin
State University 1980); and average fuel loadings of approximately 3 tons per acre
(Stephen F. Austin State University 2004, McWhorter 2005).
The inferred natural fire regime of Upland Island Wilderness is characterized by frequent
wide-spreading, low-intensity surface fires resulting from lightning-ignitions that
occurred throughout the year but mostly during the growing season. Natural fire return
intervals for the upland longleaf pine communities are estimated to be 1 to 4 years; for
shortleaf pine-hardwood communities, fire return intervals range from about 2 to 6 years;
and for mixed pine-hardwood communities within transitional areas along major streams,
the fire return intervals are probably about 5 to 10 years (Stephen F. Austin State
University 2004, Chapman 1932, Wahlenburg 1946, Platt and others 1988, Landers and
others 1990, Martin and Smith 1991, Ware and others 1993, Frost 1993, 1998,
Glitzenstein and others 1995, Harcombe and others 1993, Wade and others 2000).
Direct and Indirect Effects
The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
The measure for evaluating the effects on natural qualities is the number of acres where
there is substantial progress in moving the structure, composition and function of
wilderness ecosystems toward historic reference conditions within the range of natural
variability. It is assumed that substantial progress in a burn unit will be achieved when
that unit is burned at least three times during the first six years of the project.
Alternative 1- No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in continued degradation of natural conditions
within the wilderness including encroachment of dense woody understory growth, loss of
the native pyrophytic herbaceous layer, limited regeneration of longleaf pine, loss of
biodiversity and reduced fire frequency. There would also continue to be a buildup of
hazardous fuels with an increased potential for high intensity fires that are
uncharacteristic of the natural fire regime and that pose an unacceptable risk to lives and
property and to the wilderness resource.
Alternative 2- Proposed Action
This alternative would enhance natural qualities and ecological values by restoring fire-
related processes and moving the ecosystem toward the structure, composition and
function characteristic of historical reference conditions within the range of natural
Revised 08/17/09
11
variability. Although most natural fire events occur during the growing season, lightning
ignitions can occur throughout the year (Jurney and others 2004), and therefore the
proposed initial dormant season and early growing season burns are within the range of
natural variability and would approximate the ecological effects that were characteristic
of the natural fire regime. Specifically, the prescribed fires will reduce the dense
encroachment of understory woody vegetation, remove heavy accumulations of litter,
stimulate recovery of herbaceous communities, promote longleaf regeneration and
improve native wildlife habitat. The restoration of natural fuel loadings will also increase
the number of options for managing lightning-caused wildland fire to achieve wilderness
fire management objectives. This will improve natural qualities of wilderness character.
This alternative would result in major, long term beneficial effects on approximately
11,990 acres within the wilderness.
Alternative 3
Same as Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Same as Alternative 2 except that the effects will be moderate because they would only
be realized on 6,610 acres of the wilderness.
Alternative 5
Same as Alternative 2 except that the effects will be moderate because they would only
be realized on 6,610 acres of the wilderness.
Cumulative Effects
Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Fire suppression since wilderness designation has resulted in uncharacteristically heavy
fuel loadings and changes in the natural structure, composition and function of fire
adapted ecosystems in the wilderness. In addition, the current conditions preclude many
options for managing lightning-caused wildland fires due to the risk to resources within
and outside wilderness boundaries. The cumulative effects from these past actions
coupled with a continuation of fire suppression would result in adverse long-term impacts
to the natural quality of Upland Island Wilderness.
Alternatives 2-5
A continuation of the current prescribed burning programs on adjacent federal lands and
the implementation of burning on adjacent private lands would enhance natural qualities
Revised 08/17/09
12
of the wilderness by allowing managers greater flexibility in responding to unplanned
ignitions within the wilderness including management of lightning-caused wildfires to
achieve wilderness fire management objectives. These activities would also enhance the
opportunity for extirpated species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker to re-colonize
the wilderness.
Continued fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in loss of natural
qualities due to the concern for private property and the perceived need to actively
suppress all unplanned wildfires including lightning-caused ignitions.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would further enhance natural qualities and ecological values by restoring
fire-related processes and moving the ecosystem toward the structure, composition and
function characteristic of historical reference conditions within the range of natural
variability.
Undeveloped quality – Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or
modern human occupation.
Wilderness is defined in Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act as ―an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation,‖ with ―the imprint of man‘s work
substantially unnoticeable.‖ The basic idea that wilderness is undeveloped runs through
every definition of wilderness. For example, Aldo Leopold (1921) envisioned wilderness
as ―a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open to lawful hunting
and fishing, devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages, or other works of man.‖ Hubert
Humphrey (1957), an original sponsor of the Wilderness Act, clarified his definition of
wilderness as ―the native condition of the area, undeveloped… untouched by the hand of
man or his mechanical products.‖ The Wilderness Act identifies ―expanding settlement
and growing mechanization‖ as forces causing wild country to become occupied and
modified, and further clarifies in Section 4(c) that ―there shall be no temporary road, no
use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no
other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation.‖
An early Forest Service review of wilderness policy (USDA Forest Service 1972) found
that motorized equipment and mechanical transport make it easier for people to occupy
and modify the land. Zahniser (1956) articulated this idea when he argued the need for
―areas of the earth within which we stand without our mechanisms that make us
immediate masters over our environment.‖ While the use of motorized equipment or
mechanical transport affects the opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet and
primitive recreation, these uses also impact the undeveloped quality due to their close
association with people‘s ability to develop, occupy, and modify wilderness.
Human developments can also degrade both the undeveloped quality and the solitude or
primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Following the Interagency Strategy to
Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character, all non-recreational developments (such as
Revised 08/17/09
13
administrative sites, dams, stock fencing, fixed instrumentation sites, or trails and roads
used to access inholdings) are included in the undeveloped quality. All recreation-
focused developments (such as trails, campsites, shelters, or toilets) are included in the
solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. For the purposes of this effects
analysis, the construction and maintenance of fire breaks are included in the undeveloped
quality and the use of motorized equipment is included in the opportunities for solitude or
primitive and unconfined recreation quality.
Affected Environment
There are currently no significant signs of human development in the wilderness except
for approximately 17.5 miles of old abandoned road beds. Many of these were surfaced
with gravel in the past and are fairly free of vegetation. Others are badly overgrown
however most all are clearly detectable to the visitor. The presence of these roads will
likely be evident for many years due to the hardened surfaces, the limitations to
vegetation growth on these hardened surfaces, occasional culverts and bridges, and deep
roadside ditches.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
The measures for evaluating the effects on the undeveloped quality is the number of
miles of constructed fire breaks on both abandoned road beds and on natural undisturbed
surfaces, and the number of days of helicopter and motorized equipment use. The effects
of construction of exterior lines and preparing natural fuel breaks are the same for all
action alternatives.
Alternative 1-No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in no effect to the undeveloped quality of
wilderness character.
Alternative 2- Proposed Action
The effects from construction of exterior lines will be the same for all alternatives and the
magnitude of the effect would depend on whether the lines are on private lands or within
the wilderness. Currently, there are signed agreements with private landowners that
allow establishing control lines on approximately 10.7 miles of the 13.5 miles of private
lands adjacent to the wilderness boundary. This represents about 79% of the total
exterior lines needed for the project. In general, the effects of establishing the remaining
2.9 miles of lines in wilderness would be minor, due to the fact that they would be short
term in duration and only slightly detectable to the visitor and would not have an
overbearing effect on other wilderness character qualities.
Revised 08/17/09
14
This alternative would establish cleared interior control lines along old road beds and no
lines on natural undistrubed surfaces. The effects from the interior line construction are
considered minor, short-term negative effects because they involve approximately 6.3
miles and would be only slightly detectable as they are located on old road beds that are
still relatively open. The impacts would result in very little ground disturbance and, once
burns are completed, vegetation and litter cover should rapidly return to pre-burn
conditions.
The effects of preparing natural fuel breaks would be very minor, short-term effects
occurring in very scattered, localized areas that would be of very short duration and only
slightly detectable to visitors.
Helicopter use would average around 3 days per year and use of motorized equipment
such as leafblowers and water pumps would be about 3. These effects are minor, short-
term effects with no overbearing results on wilderness character.
Alternative 3
The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.
This alternative would involve the construction of approximately 33 miles of interior
lines including 17.6 miles on old road beds and 15.4 miles on previously undisturbed
surfaces. The effects would be considered major due to the amount of constructed fire
lines and the extent and magnitude of disturbance to previously undisturbed surfaces.
The impacts on the undisturbed surfaces would also be of greater intensity than on the
road beds due to the greater amount of soil disturbance and vegetation manipulation that
would be needed. The effects would be highly noticeable to visitors and would have
substantial impact on wilderness character.
There would be no use of helicopters or motorized equipment.
Alternative 4
The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.
There are approximately 12.7 miles of constructed interior lines including approximately
6.2 miles on old road beds and 6.5 miles on previously undisturbed surfaces. The overall
effects would be considered moderate, short-term due to the moderate amount of
encounters visitors would have with constructed interior lines and the moderate
magnitude of disturbance to previously undisturbed surfaces.
Helicopter use would average around 5 days per year and use of motorized equipment
would be about 10. These effects are moderate, short-term effects that are clearly
detectable with some potential for appreciable effect on wilderness character.
Revised 08/17/09
15
Alternative 5
The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.
The overall effects of line construction are the same as Alternative 3, except that there are
approximately 18.3 miles of constructed interior lines including approximately 9.9 miles
on old road beds and 8.4 miles on previously undisturbed surfaces.
There would be no use of helicopters or motorized equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
Alternative 1-No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in no cumulative effect to the undeveloped
quality of wilderness character.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The re-opening of the trail systems and recreational sites at nearby Boykin Springs and
Bouton Lake could result in increased recreational use in the wilderness. Utilization of
the established control lines in wilderness as travel corridors may result in continued
evidence of human occupancy and use and adversely affect the undeveloped quality of
wilderness character.
Because the established lines are limited to old road beds that are fairly resistant to
human impacts, the effects would probably be minor and only slightly detectable.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would be continued maintenance of the cleared fire lines and continued
evidence of human use at the same relative levels as in the direct effects analysis.
However, these effects could be mitigated by redesigning burn units to utilize more
natural fire breaks in lieu of constructed hand lines. This will be feasible once fuel
reduction objectives are achieved.
Alternative 3
First paragraph same as Alternative 2.
Because the established lines consist of numerous old road beds as well as previously
undisturbed surfaces that are vulnerable to human impacts, the effects would probably be
major and highly detectable by visitors.
Revised 08/17/09
16
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
First paragraph same as Alternative 2.
The effects would be the same as Alternative 3 except the intensity would probably be
moderate due to the amount of constructed lines.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.
Alternative 5
First paragraph same as Alternative 2.
The effects would be the same as Alternative 3.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.
Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality –
Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and
unconfined recreation, including values of inspiration and physical and mental
challenge.
The Wilderness Act states in Section 2(c) that wilderness has ―outstanding opportunities
for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.‖ The intended meaning of
this wording by the framers of the Wilderness Act isn‘t recorded in the legislative history
of the Act, however, early wilderness writings of Aldo Leopold, Robert Marshall,
Howard Zahniser, and others paint a rich picture of the type of experience envisioned in
wilderness environments (see Landres and others 2005 for examples). These writings
strongly enforce the vital role of solitude in places that are primitive and unconfined as
central to the idea of wilderness.
The meanings associated with solitude range from a lack of seeing other people to
privacy, freedom from societal constraints and obligations, and freedom from
management regulations (Hall 2001). Given the content of early wilderness writings, it is
likely that solitude was viewed holistically, encompassing attributes such as separation
from people and civilization, inspiration (an awakening of the senses, connection with the
beauty of nature and the larger community of life), and a sense of timelessness (allowing
one to let go of day-to-day obligations, go at one‘s own pace, and spend time reflecting).
Primitive and unconfined recreation has also been the subject of much debate. Primitive
recreation has largely been interpreted as travel by non-motorized and non-mechanical
Revised 08/17/09
17
means (for example by horse, foot, or canoe) that reinforces the connection to our
ancestors and American heritage. However, primitive recreation also encompasses
reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities
or outside help (Roggenbuck 2004).
Unconfined encompasses attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom
from societal or managerial controls (Hendee and Dawson 2002, Lucas 1983). Primitive
and unconfined environments together provide ideal opportunities for the physical and
mental challenges associated with adventure, real consequences for mistakes, and
personal growth that result from facing and overcoming obstacles (Borrie 2000, Dustin
and McAvoy 2000).
Many different factors contribute in different ways to the experience of solitude or
primitive and unconfined recreation (Hendee and Dawson 2002) and as a result it is
difficult to evaluate the effects for each person. The mandate of the Wilderness Act is
not for individuals to want or appreciate solitude or unconfined recreation, but for
wilderness manager‘s to provide outstanding opportunities for one to experience these
qualities.
Affected Environment
Currently, the opportunities for solitude and a primitive and unconfined recreation are
found in most interior areas of the wilderness. Sights and sounds of civilization are more
evident near the wilderness boundaries. For some people the un-natural dense vegetation
growth in some areas may create a sense of confinement and detract from the connection
with the beauty of nature. Others may find these conditions opportunities for physical
and mental challenges.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
The measures used to evaluate the effects are the duration and extent to which the actions
diminish opportunities for finding solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.
Although the noise and visual presence of fire crews in wilderness would diminish the
visitor‘s opportunities, it is likely that wilderness closures for safety precautions will be
the primary cause of lost opportunities during prescribed burning operations. Therefore,
the most relevant factor is the number of days that the wilderness is closed due to
prescribed burn operations and not the level of noise or presence of fire crews and
helicopters that would diminish the opportunities to experience solitude or unconfined
recreation. It is assumed that each burn will require about three days of closure.
For initial line preparation, no motorized equipment is used in any of the alternatives, and
the measure is the total number of days that fire crews are working in the wilderness
preparing lines.
Revised 08/17/09
18
Alternative 1- No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in no effects on existing opportunities.
Alternative 2- Proposed Action
This alternative would diminish opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined
recreation, however, the effects would be localized and occur only during days that line
preparation or prescribed burning activities are in progress. During periods with no
burning activities, the opportunities would increase as more areas of the wilderness
would be accessible for finding solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.
Assuming an average of 3 burns per year and a three day operation for each burn, the
estimated maximum number of days per year with loss of opportunities would be
approximately 9. There would also be an additional 7 days of line preparation the first
year which would limit opportunities for solitude or recreation on a localized basis. The
overall effect would be minor due to the number of days where opportunities are lost.
Lost opportunities would only be slightly detectable to wilderness visitors.
Alternative 3
1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.
Assuming a maximum of 13 burns would be feasible in any one year, the estimated
number of days per year with loss of due to prescribed burning operations would be
approximately 39. There would also be an additional 35 days of line preparation for each
of the first two years of the project totaling 70 days for the project with localized effects.
The overall effect would be major due to the number of days where opportunities are lost.
The high degree of lost opportunities would have a highly noticeable influence on visitors
and a potential for substantial effects on wilderness character.
Alternative 4
1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.
Assuming a maximum of 5 burns would be conducted in any one year, the estimated
maximum number of days per year with loss of opportunities would be approximately 15.
There would also be an additional 29 days of line preparation the first year of the project.
The overall effect would be moderate due to the number of days where opportunities are
lost. The moderate degree of lost opportunities would be clearly detectable to visitors
and have an appreciable effect on wilderness character.
Revised 08/17/09
19
Alternative 5
1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.
Assuming a maximum of 8 burns in any one year, the estimated maximum number of
days per year with loss of opportunities would be approximately 24. There would also be
an additional 39 days of line preparation the first year of the project. The overall effect
would be major due to the number days where opportunities are lost. The high degree of
lost opportunities would have a highly noticeable influence on visitors and a potential for
substantial effects on wilderness character.
Cumulative Effects
Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.
Alternative 1-No Action
The No Action Alternative would result in no cumulative effects to the opportunities for
solitude and recreation.
Alternatives 2-5
The opening of the forest through burning in conjunction with the continued
fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in a decrease in
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation by increasing the sights
and sounds of human activities near wilderness boundaries.
The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the
wilderness would be to continually limit opportunities at the same relative levels as in the
direct effects analysis. Depending on the design and objectives of future proposed
projects, opportunities may be increased due to a decrease in the frequency of prescribed
burning and reduction in the amount of constructed hand line needed in the wilderness.
Revised 08/17/09
1
Table A. Summary of Effects Analysis
Quality Indicator
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor
Untrammeled
estimated number of
actions
(burns)/year*
0 no effect 3 minor
short-term
negative
effect
13 major short-
term negative
effect
5 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
8 major short-
term negative
effect
extent and intensity
of actions (acres
burned and the
degree of
manipulation)
0 no effect 11,990 minor
short-term
negative
effect
11,990 minor short-
term negative
effect
6,610 minor
short-term
negative
effect
6,610 minor short-
term negative
effect
acres of wilderness
with improved
conditions for
managing lightning
ignitions
0 major
long-term
negative
effects
11,990 major
long-term
positive
effects
11,990 major long-
term positive
effects
6,610 minor
long-term
positive
effects
6,610 minor long-
term positive
effects
Natural
acres of wilderness
with improved
ecological attributes
(structure,
composition and
function)
0 major
long-term
negative
effects
11,990 major
long-term
positive
effects
11,990 major long-
term positive
effects
6,610 moderate
long-term
positive
effects
6,610 moderate
long-term
positive
effects
Revised 08/17/09
2
Quality Indicator
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor
Undeveloped
miles of constructed
control lines on old
road beds
0 no effect 6.3 minor short-
term
negative
effect
17.5 major short-
term negative
effect
6.2 minor short-
term
negative
effect
9.9 moderate
short-term
negative effect
miles of constructed
control lines on
undisturbed surfaces
0 no effect 0 no effect 15.6 major short-
term negative
effect
6.6 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
8.5 major short-
term negative
effect
estimated number of
days/year with
helicopter use over
wilderness
0 no effect 3 minor short-
term
negative
effect
0 no effect 5 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
0 no effect
estimated number of
days/year with
motorized
equipment (leaf-
blowers, water
pumps) use within
wilderness
0 no effect 3 minor short-
term
negative
effect
0 no effect 10 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
0 no effect
Revised 08/17/09
3
Quality Indicator
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor
Opportunities
for solitude or
primitive and
unconfined
recreation
estimated number of
days/year with
wilderness closures
due to implementing
burns and mop-up**
0 no effect 9 minor short-
term
negative
effect
39 major short-
term negative
effect
15 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
24 major short-
term negative
effect
estimated total
number of days with
fire crews
conducting initial
line preparation***
0 no effect 7 minor short-
term
negative
effect
70 major short-
term negative
effect
29 moderate
short-term
negative
effect
39 major short-
term negative
effect
*Assumes roughly one/half of the units will be burned each year with each unit being burned at least three times within the first six years of the project.
**Assumes 3 day operation for each burn including preparation, implementation and mop-up
***Assumes a 20 man crew with production rate of 1 mile per day on abandoned roads and .3 miles per day on undisturbed surfaces.
Definitions of Adjective Descriptors of Effects Used in Analysis:
Measures Descriptors Definition
Duration
short-term temporary in duration and occurring within the first 6 years of the project
long-term long lasting effects that persist for up to 10 years
Magnitude
negligible not detectable to the visitor with no discernible outcomes
minor slightly detectable though not expected to have overbearing results on wilderness character
moderate clearly detectable with potential for appreciable effect on one or more aspects of wilderness character
major highly noticeable influence on the visitor's experience with potential for substantial effects on one or more aspects of wilderness character
Extent
minor occurs at site specific locations within the wilderness
major occurs across large areas of wilderness
Revised 08/17/09
5
References
American Heritage Dictionary, fourth ed. 2006. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
MA. 2112 p.
Aplet, G.H. 1999. On the nature of wildness: exploring what wilderness really protects.
Denver University Law Review 76:347-367.
Borrie, W.T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the meaning of wilderness. In: Watson,
A.E., Aplet, G. H., Hendee, J.C., comps. Personal, Societal, and Ecological
Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedngs on
Recreation, Mangement, and Allocation, Volume II; 1998 Oct 24-209, Bangalore,
India, Proc. RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 87-88.
Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf Pine Communities of the West Gulf
Coastal Plain. Natural Areas Journal 9(4):246-263.
Brown, J.K. 2000. Ecological Principles, Shifting Fire Regimes and Management
Considerations. Pages 185-203 in J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, editors. Wildland
Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service, RMRS-
GTR-42-Volume 2.
Chapman, H.H. 1932. Is the Longleaf Type a Climax? Ecology 13(4):328-334.
Christensen, N.L. 1981. Fire Regimes in Southeastern Ecosystems. Pages 112-136 in
H.A. Monney, T.M. Bonnickson, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Reiners,
editors. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-26. Washington, D.C., USA.
Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf Pine Communities of the West Gulf
Coastal Plain. Natural Areas Journal 9(4):246-263.
Cole, D.N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: ecological restoration in wilderness.
Ecological Restoration 18(2):77-86.
Cole, D.N. 2002. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management.
Pages 413-459 in Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of
Resources and Values (J.C. Hendee and C.P. Dawson, editors). Third Edition.
Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO.
Dustin, D.L., L.H. McAvory. 2000. Of what avail are forty freedoms: the significance of
wilderness in the 21st century. International Journal of Wilderness 6(2):25-26.
Frost, C.C. 1993. Four Centuries of Changing Landscape Patterns in the Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem. Pages 17-43 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem:
Ecology, Restoration and Management. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference, No. 18, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida,
USA.
Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement Fire Frequency Regimes of the United States: A First
Approximation. Pages 70-81 in T.L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan, editors. Fire in
Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription.
Proceedings of the 20th
Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Hall, T.E. 2001. Hikers‘ perspectives on solitude and wilderness. International Journal of
Wilderness 7(2):20-24.
Revised 08/17/09
6
Harcombe, P.A., J.S. Glitzenstein, R.G. Knox, S.L. Orzell, and E.L. Bridges.1993.
Vegetation of the Longleaf Pine Region of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Pages 83-
105 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology,
Restoration, and Management. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
Conference, No.18, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Hendee, J.C., and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and
Protection of Resources and Values, Third Edition. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden,
CO.
Humphrey, H.H. 1957. Testimony June 19-20 for the U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, published hearings on S. 1176.
Kaye, R.W. 2000. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge: an exploration of the meanings
embodied in America‘s last great wilderness. Pages 73-80 in Wilderness Science
in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context of
Larger Systems (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and J.O‘Loughlin,
compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Kaye, R.W. 2002. Wilderness Character: the Historical Basis, Meaning, and Function of
the Concept in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Wilderness Stewardship
Policy of 2001. Manuscript on file at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research
Institute, Missoula, MT.
Landers, J.L., N.A. Byrd, and R. Komarek. 1990. A Holistic Approach to Managing
Longleaf Pine Communities, Pages 135-167 in Proceedings of the Symposium on
the Management of Longleaf Pine, R.M. Farrar, Jr, editor. USDA Forest Service
Technical Report. SO-75. New Orleans, LA. 293 pp.
Landers, J.L. 1991. Disturbance Influences on Pine Traits in the Southeastern United
States. Pages 61-95 in Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
No. 17, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida, USA.
Landres, P.B., P.S. White, G. Aplet and A. Zimmermann. 1998. Naturalness and Natural
Variability: Definitions, Concepts, and Stategies for Wilderness Management.
Pages 41-50 i D.L. Kulhavy and M. H. Legg, editors. Wilderness and Natural
Areas in the Eastern United States: Research, Management and Planning.
Proceedings of a Symposium, 1998, Center for Applied Studies in Forestry,
Arthur Temple College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches, Texas.
Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; Barns, C.; Davis, D.; Hall, T.; Henry, S.;
Hunter, B.; Janiga, P.; Laker, M.; McPherson, A.; Powell, D.S.; Rowan, M.;
Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: a
national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
38p
LeGrande, G.M. 1998. Vegetation Composition on the Turkey Hill and Upland Island
Wilderness Areas. M.S. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches, Texas. 219 pp.
Leopold, A. 1921. The wilderness and its place in forest recreational policy. Journal of
Foresty 19(7):718-721.
Revised 08/17/09
7
Lucas, R.C. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation management. Western Wildlands
9(2):6-10.
Martin, D.L. and L.M. Smith. 1991. A Survey and Description of the Natural Plant
Communities of the Kisatchie National Forest; Winn and Kistachie Districts.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 372 pp.
McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about.
Denver University Law Review 76:369-381.
McCulloch, D.L. and W.S. Pickrell. 1980. An Ecological Investigation of Graham
Creek, a Proposed Wilderness Area; Entomolgical Aspects. National Science
Foundation and Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. 17 pp.
McWhorter, I.V. 2005. Effects of Fire Exclusion on the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem of
Upland Island Wilderness. M.S. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches, Texas. 120 pp.
Means, D.B. and G. Grow. 1985. The Endangered Longleaf Pine Community. ENFO
Report, 85(4):1-12.
Nash, R. 1980. The value of wildness. American Wildlands (Spring):7-10.
Nash, R. 2004. Celebrating Wilderness in 2004. George Wright Forum 21(3):6-8.
Orzell, S.L. 1990. Texas Natural Heritage Program Inventory of National Forests and
Grasslands in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, USA.
Noss, R.F. 1988. The Longleaf Pine Landscape of the Southeast: Almost Gone and
Almost Forgotten. Endangered Species Update Vol. 5, No. 5, School of Natural
Resources, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 8 pp.
Outcalt, K.W. and R.M. Sheffield.1996. The Longleaf Pine Forest: Trends and Current
Conditions. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research
Station. Resource Bulletin SRS-9. Asheville, North Carolina, USA. 23 pp.
Platt, W.J., G.W. Evans, and S. L. Rathbun, 1988. The Population Dynamics of a Long-
Lived Conifer (Pinus palustris). American Naturalist 131(4):491-525.
Public Law 88-577. 1964. Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136.
Roggenbuck, J.W. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International
Journal of Wilderness 10(3):21-24.
Rohlf, D., and D.L. Honnold. 1988. Managing the balance of nature: the legal framework
of wilderness management. Ecology Law Quarterly 15:249-279.
Scott, D.W. 2002. ―Untrammeled,‖ ―wilderness character,‖ and the challenges of
wilderness preservation. Wild Earth 11(3/4):72-79.
Stephen F. Austin State University. 2004. Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management
Plan. Unpublished document on file. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas,
USDA Forest Service, Lufkin Texas. 48pp.
United States Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98-40 from the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, March 18, page 43.
USDA Forest Service. 1972. Wilderness Policy Review, May 17, 1972. Worf, W.A.,
C.G. Gorgensen, R.C. Lucas, authors. Unpublished document on file at U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula MT. 56 pp. plus
appendices.
Revised 08/17/09
8
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the National Forests and Grasslands
in Texas. Lufkin, Texas.
Wade, D.D., B.L. Brock, P.H. Brose, J.B. Grace, G.A. Hoch, W.A. Patterson III. 2000.
Fire in Eastern Ecosystems. Pages 53-96 in J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, editors.
Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service,
RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 2.
Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946. Longleaf Pine, Its Use, Ecology, Protection, Growth, and
Management. Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation. Washington, D.C. USA. 429pp.
Ware S., C.C. Frost, and P.D. Doerr. 1993. Southern Mixed hardwood Forest: The
Former Longleaf Pine Forest. Pages 447-493 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and
A.C.Echernacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States. Lowland
Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59(Winter to
Spring):37-43.
Zahniser, H. 1959. letter to C. Edwards Graves, April 25, Wilderness Society files.
Zahniser, H. 1961. Editorial: Managed to be left unmanaged. The Living Wilderness
76(Spring to Summer):2.
Zahniser, H. 1963. Editorial: Guardians not gardeners. The Living Wilderness 83(Spring
to Summer):2.