 Page 2
in the use of this concept, however. 55/ Two arguments for its use are generally implicit: (1) It expresses the value obtained by consumers; (2) it expresses the maximum revenue that can be obtained for the resource, if the resource owner is a discriminating monopolist. Neither argument stands up very well under close scrutiny. In the first place, the term "value" usually means price per unit or total revenue; these usages are those accepted as having meaning. Thus, we are reminded of the old riddle; why is the value (price per quart, say) of water much lower than the value of diamonds (price per quart)? After all, water is vital for life. The answer usually given is embodied in figure 30. Dw is demand for water, Da is demand for diamonds; supplies of the respective commodities are such that the price of diamonds is above the price of water. The value of water is generally taken to mean P (price per unit) or perhaps the value of W all the water consumed, P The points of this exercise are that (1) the vålue of anything can vary over a wide range; (2) consumer surplus is not particularly meaningful-certainly, if you were dying of thirst on a desert, you would pay a great deal for a drink of water. But this has no relevance to water's value here and now. The second argument advanced was that consumer's surplus measures what a discriminating monopolist make, In this context, consumer surplus is interpreted as upper bound for the value of recreation. The difficulty here is that the demand curve for a discriminating monopolist is not the same thing as the conventional demand curve. The discriminating monopolist case says: the monopolist charges each consumer what the traffic will bear for the first unit, then lowers the price so as to sell him a second unit, and so on. This distinction is rather clearly drawn by Friedman in his Marshallian demand curve discussion. 56/ Note that the curve fitted by the concentric zone approach is a conventional demand curve. A major difficulty in evaluating recreation benefits has been hinted at so far, which requires more direct examination, If the government follows a policy of setting a zero price for recreation services, then the value of those services is zero. This is an extension of the water-diamonds case. Obviously, there are free goods whose utility is not zero (for example, air, sunshine) but whose price is zero. Wilderness recreation is either a free good or is so defined by government. Under this interpretation the attempt to estimate benefits must proceed 55 Clawson, in op. cit., p. 31, notes: "The usefulness of esti mating consumer's surplus is questionable in any situation. Under almost any circumstances, some users of outdoor recreation will gain more from it than they would have been willing to pay if necessary. This may be taken for granted; but how can you capture it, would public policy permit you to try, and what is to be gained from estimating its amount?" Lawrence G. Hines, in "Measurement of Recreation Benefits: A Reply," Land Economics, vol. 34, No. 4, November 1958, p. 367, critically reviews the history of this "beguiling notion."
of recreation is zero. This is a general problem that arises in the evaluation of services furnished by government. Thus, Forte and Buchanan argue against including government services in estimates of national output: "'The free provision of services by government ... guarantees that resources will be adjusted in such a manner that the services will be treated as if they were, in fact, 'free' in the broader, zero-cost sense. And since 'free' goods have no economic value, they should not be counted in estimates for national output. The fact that the government actually uses up resources in acquiring these services and, in order to finance this acquisition, levies charges on the general taxpayer is not relevant at all. For purposes of measuring national output at market values, these services must be treated in the same way that any genuinely free good, say air, is treated."57/ Given a demand curve, it is possible to estimate the maximum net revenue that can be obtained, which equals the profits of the ordinary monopolist (obtained by setting marginal revenue equal to marginal cost). This maximum revenue figure will be less than the consumer surplus previously discussed. It is possible that an administrator might be guided to some decisions by considering the maximum revenue that can be obtained for two competing types of recreation, for example, wilderness recreation versus developed recreation, Maximum revenue might be derived for each case with choice among the alternatives based on which yielded the maximum revenue. Alternatively, given the marginal cost schedule in furnishing each type of recreation, the agency involved could act as a monopolist facing two separate markets, (This is another form of discriminating monopolist than the previous case.) This assumes the recreation resource can be divided between the two uses. Admittedly, there is a rather large gap between (1) estimating a hypothetical revenue based on a monopoly price and (2) actually setting a zero price (or a very low nominal price). An argument quite similar to this is presented by R. J. Hammond: ''Some benefits that are largely intangible-for instance, those connected with recreation, fish and wildlife-might be better excluded from an analysis which seeks to evaluate investment. Instead, they might be treated as items of collective consumption. If for any reason it is thought necessary to bring recreational benefits within the scope of a benefit-cost evaluation, the least objectionable course would be to set up a notional user-charge, multiply it by the number of users (suitably diminished to allow for the deterrent effect of such a charge), and treat it as a measure of income
56/Milton Friedman, "The Marshallian Demand Curve," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 57, No. 6, December 1949, p. 463.
57/ Francesco Forte and James M. Buchanan, "The Evaluation of Public Services," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 49 No. 2, April 1961, p. 110. Page 3
the definition of wilderness tract employed in this for each wilderness area. These have been averaged study reinforces this position. However, setting of and are presented for the California wilderness boundaries is likely to be a major decision problem a group. (The information for particular in practice. Hence some refinement and extension areas is of a confidential nature and is not presented of methods discussed here will be called for in here.) These values are judgment values, based on many cases. (Some additional discussion of such familiarity with land acquisitions and transfers in refinements will appear at the conclusion of this the wilderness areas. 65/ chapter.) The weighted average values as follows: Sieker states: "Lake shorelands suitable for camp commercial forests-$19 per acre, recreation landor picnic use might easily be worth $10,000 an acre $66.50 per acre, and wasteland-$5.60 per acre. or more. Prime resort sites, trout streams, or Recreation land includes (1) land near lakes and fishing lakes might be worth twice as much. On the streams and (2) land with moderate slope, perhaps other hand, ordinary forest land used for big game on the fringes of meadows. In the first category, hunting, hiking, riding, or wilderness travel might lakefront could easily bring $1,000 per acre. For be worth $50 an acre. It would be possible to assign the second group, an estimate of approximately reasonable present values to all of these lands-values $50 per acre was made, which squares with the supported by actual sales of similar private lands." Sieker estimate previously quoted. The private use This is indicative of the possible spread in wilder- of recreation land presumably would involve the ness land values. The $50 an acre judgment figure construction of a recreation residence. Such construcprobably refers to choice land which easily could tion is possible in some small areas of the lands be put into private recreation use (for example, classified as wastelands (for example, a hunting for summer houses), rather than to the average cabin), and this is probably the primary source of value of a wilderness area (which generally includes the value listed for wasteland. much wasteland). Estimated total land value for each wilderness The following items of evidence are submitted in area considered is listed in table 132-this ranges support of the thesis that wilderness land in California from $7.2 million for the High Sierra down to $2.8 is worth around $15 to $20 an acre. million for Marble Mountain. For the total listed value of $16.5 million for all California wilderness Item 1- Forest Service evaluations areas over 100,000 acres, commercial forest lands account for $2.9 million, recreation land for $9.9 In 1957, the Forest Service estimated the distribu- million, and wasteland for $3.7 million. tion of land types and values of designated wilderness, Average value per acre was obtained by dividing wild, and primitive areas in a report submitted to total value by acreage. Results ranged from $11 the General Services Administration. 64/ That infor- to $31 per acre. For all areas combined, the average mation will be applied here. value per acre was $17. Table 131 lists land type by acreage for each of the designated wilderness or primitive areas in Item 2- Park Service evaluation California over 100,000 acres in size. The land types are (1) commercial forest land, (2) recreation Some additional information was obtained from land, and (3) wasteland. Land was allocated to a the National Park Service. Great variability in particular category on the basis of its highest use; Park Service land values was noted. However, some thus, if commercial forest land would bring more as land acquisitions are being carried out at present, recreation land, it was placed in the latter category. and some data are available. Thus, minimum prices Recreation land is land that clearly can be used for purchases of desert land in the Joshua Tree for private recreation, 65/Original estimates were in the form of interval estimates made 64/ * Everett Jensen, "Peport to General Services Administration by Everett Jensen, Land Acquisition Specialist, Forest Serv. by Land Holding Agencies," U.S. Forest Service Regional ice, San Francisco regional office. The midpoint of each range Office, San Francisco, 1957. Unpublished. was then selected as the estimate for the corresponding class. Table 131 Acreage and average values of land types in California wilderness areas, 1957 Acres in Average Yolla value Salmon High Land type Marble Bolly. per acre, Trinity All Sierra Mountain Middle all areas Alps Eel combined
"Land usable as commercial forest had higher value in recreation use and was listed in that category. Page 4
(A wilderness area is here defined as a Forest Service designated area over 100,000 acres in size and is designated by *; a wild area is here defined as a designated area under 100,000 acres and is not designated by symbol. The Forest Service designated areas are defined as wilderness, wild, and primitive areas; these are indicated in the table by the symbols (W), (Wi), and (P), respectively. Dashes indicate data not available]
Arizona: *Blue Range (P) 110 250 84 84 120 80 180 490 450 540 495 720 805 Mount Baldy (P) 150 211 211 211 211 211 211 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,600 1,700 Chiricahua (Wi).. 47 29 16 16 62 93 20 100 100 80 200 240 300 Galiuro (Wi)..... 150 40 24 152 140 120 200 Sycamore (P) 174 335 1,335 875 990 1,080 1,155 1,285 1,200 1,010 1,220 1,220 Pine Mountain (Wi)... 520 570 630 650 760 775 1,165 520 520 150 400 450 200 *Mazatzal (W)... 1,600 1,600 1,880 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,730 1,800 2,600 2,500 2,800 3,200 Sierra Ancha (Wi) 100 100 100 100 100 75 75 100 150 100 100 100 100 *Superstition (W) 1,000 15,000 19,400 18,000 26,000 24,000 6,750 6,750 7,250 6,600 6,000 7,000 7,200 California: Agua Tibia (P).. 20 50 25 35 60 80 100 5 10 8 50 50 Caribou Peak (P) 8,400 6,000 6,392 Cucamonga (Wi) 60 350 850 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,300 600 650 650 750 1,500 Desolation Valley (P)..... 63,250 31,250 28,400 30,900 28,750 24,400 28,450 32,000 27,400 28,000 30,000 60,000 32,000 Devil Canyon (P) 1,250 1,125 1,225 1,375 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,200 2,000 1,600 2,000 Emigrant Basin (P).... 8,000 12,600 7,500 10,000 14,000 15,000 12,000 14,250 16,250 23,000 27,000 28,000 29,900 5,200 8,000 6,000 9,000 | 18,400 32,000 Inyo . 3,000 2,100 615 1,350 1,800 2,160 3,300 3,600 7,470 4,440 7,860 7,800 9,750 *Marble Mountain (W)... | 18,406 19,475 30,115 | 14,155 20,740 28,322 29,479 21,587 | 10,379 11,730 13,620 11,387 18,375 Mount Dana Minarets (P)... | 8,450 8,750 4,935 31,500 77,585 | 81,160 64,275 54,130 63,570 55,385 89,992 86,185 87,712 *Salmon-Trinity Alps (P).... 3,769 3,825 5,053 3,670 8,271 5,626 6,913 11,471 17,070 17,304 | 19,809 14,443 San Gorgonio (Wi) | 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 1,000 2,800 3,000 4,500 13,080 | 18,400 17,517 San Jacinto (Wi) 23,000 24,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 16,000 21,250 28,750 36,300 23,541 29,621 33,700 23,109 San Rafael (P).. 40 40 120 90 290 300 325 450 400 570 425 2,150 1,095 South Warner (P) 1,980 5,758 5,337 4,562 4,090 5,060 2,590 2,700 2,501 3,080 3,140 2,750 2,400 Thousand Lakes (Wi).... 12,800 | 14,000 15,328 Ventana (P). .... 3,000 2,400 4,750 4,750 4,750 5,000 5,000 5,500 6,600 7,500 7,500 7,000 8,000 *Yolla BollyMiddle Eel (W) 10,445 16,500 | 29,637 | 12,268 | 10,915 7,450 8,950 9,650 8,811 8,200 5,400 7,100 7,200 Page 5
Minnesota: *Boundary Waters...
69,075 201,931 235,947 221,404 93,410 114,000 121,400 191,205 147,330 298,000 353,000 364,000 525,000
Montana: *Selway (P)..... 27,245 32,480 33,425 24,291 | 35,224 36,046 38,719 38,467 41,023 50,969 52,305 59,700 * Anaconda (P).. 3,150 3,125 2,900 3,910 3,720 4,525 5,250 5,550 3,000 2,620 5,050 5,110 Absaroka (P) 630 1,490 1,750 1,750 2,100 2,275 2,275 2,800 2,450 2,800 2,450 1,680 *Beartooth (P). 2,810 2,960 3,035 2,635 3,100 2,950 3,400 9,850 7,020 *Marshall (W) 9,453 15,812 16,910 18,600 19,750 23,750 21,775 19,680 22,970 26,680 29,850 38,400 Gates (Wi)... 360 400 350 1,100 1,300 1,600 2,050 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 Spanish Peaks (P).... 650 650 700 700 700 1,600 1,600 1,800 1,850 1,875 2,250 2,250 Mission Mountain (P) .. 150 200 350 450 525 900 900 800 800 850 750 600 Cabinet Mountain (P) 525 460 650 1,400 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,650 2,315 2,750 2,820 3,070
63,200 7,900 2,520 11,880 32,500 1,500
Oregon: Diamond Peak (Wi) 450 800 *Eagle Gap (W).. 12,135 13,560 22,600 21,500 22,560 20,660 22,000 28,320 29,415 30,000 30,000 31,000 Gearhart Mountain (Wi).. 100 200 400 500 1,200 120 450 500 Kalmiopsis (Wi) 100 200 200 200 200 200 500 500 Mount Hood (Wi) 1,500 1,600 1,500 1,600 2,500 2,600 3,000 2,000 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,500 Mount Jefferson (P). . ] 3,500 5,000 7,380 5,580 7,375 6,120 14,250 13,361 15,400 15,700 24,050 Mount Washington (Wi) 2,300 2,950 Mountain Lakes (Wi)... 200 300 600 600 1,370 1,370 1,680 1,920 2,325 3,300 4,900 8,115 Strawberry Mountain (Wi).. 600 600 700 700 700 700 700 1,060 1,400 1,600 1,700 2,100
Utah: *High Vintas (P) 24,795 28,000 45,200 40,500 37,975 49,705 129,050 72,700
58,520 65,800 93,500 101,000 107,800
Wyoming: *Bridger (W).. 10,220 11,725 | 12,755 14,600 14,165 15,305 18,287 33,600 110,000 117,000 142,000 74,000 Cloud Peak (P).. 1,750 2,000 10,000 12,150 13,150 15,100 13,800 27,890 27,950 23,000 20,200 18,600 *Teton (W)... 16,000 12,200 18,000 21,175 21,175 12,000 5,000 20,000 20,000 24,000 25,000 27,000 *Glacier (P).... 2,300 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,080 2,000 5,000 4,400 5,200 5,800 *Stratified (P) 2,150 5,000 4,400 5,200 5,800 Popo Agie (P).. 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 5,400 4,800 3,000 4,000 4,800 4,000 *South Absaroko (W).. 1,680 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 *North Absaroka (W).. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 900 2,600 3,100 3,400
88,000 19,200 30,000 5,900 5,900 4,800
In table 137 and in the subsequent discussion, the following terminology will be employed: Any designated area over 100,000 acres will be termed a wilderness area; any designated area under 100,000 acres will be termed a wild area. Thus, wilderness area as used here can include both Forest Service designated wilderness and primitive areas. Primary attention will be given to the wilderness area as here defined; it should be noted that this wilderness area definition does not always agree exactly with the wilderness tract definition employed in earlier chapters. Wilderness tracts do not necessarily follow administrative boundaries; the wilderness area definition employed here does. It was decided to fit a series of explanatory equations to this data. Usually a simple least-squares fit of per capita use on per capita income was obtained. Results obtained were generally encouraging, considering the data limitations. These equations can be used in comparing use between types of recreation and between locations. Further, they can be used as predictive equations. The insertion of forecasts of future per capita income will yield estimates of future per capita use. These per capita estimates can then be multiplied by population projections to obtain forecasts of total future use (or total projected demand at zero price). Estimates obtained will have at least two important applications. These are (1) comparing projected use to capacity and (2) comparing benefits to costs. The prediction procedure outlined was in fact followed here using Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission projections of per capita income and population. Use equations were developed for a number of cases, and these will be reported in turn. The cases are (1) overall man-days of wilderness use; (2) comparative use for national parks, fishing
and hunting licenses; (3) an extended analysis of California data, including data on developed recreation; (4) man-days use, by State; and (5) man-days use for individual wilderness areas. The data in table 137 were handled in the following way: If data for an area were available for the entire period 1947-59, they were included in the subsequent analysis; areas with incomplete data were dropped. This was done to avoid overestimation due to past clerical decisions (and omissions) and the possible addition of areas over time, It turns out that man-days use for these included cases is very close to total wilderness use; thus, for 1959, wilderness man-days used in the analysis equaled 97 percent of total wilderness man-days. Again, wilderness area use (as defined here)averaged around 75 percent of combined wild and wilderness man-days use. Time series totals for these categories listed in table 138, and figures listed by Clawson 86/ as "wilderness" use are also presented. (Clawson's definition corresponds to the combined wild plus wilderness category as defined here.) For the included areas, data were aggregated to obtain state totals, and these, in turn, were aggregated to obtain United States totals. United States totals, omitting California and Minnesota, were also obtained. California and Minnesota use made up a large proportion of the total, and it was felt there might be differential growth rates between these regions and the rest of the United States. Thus, California averaged 27 percent of total United States wilderness use, and Minnesota averaged 28 percent of total United States wilderness used for the 1947-59 periods. (These are simple averages.) The state and aggregated United States totals appear in table 139,
86 Clawson, op. cit., appendix table 5, p. 14.
and wild areas, United States totals
proach one with increasing income. 88/ This condition, however, seems defensible in terms of both observed and expected behavior: linear equation results here appear encouraging, and for commodities with income elasticities well above 1, a drop in income elasticity as income increases may be expected, In table 142, figures on use per 1,000 persons are presented for selected years. Actual values are presented for 1947 and for the last year in the time series employed (1959 for overall use and California, 1957 for individual States and particular areas, and 1956 for other outdoor activities). Estimates are presented for 1959 for overall use and California; and for 1957 for individual States and areas, affording some comparison of actual and estimated values. In addition, predicted values for 1976 and 2000 are presented. Then, growth in use per 1,000 persons (equivalent to growth per capita) is presented by means of the ratios to the base period value of 1976 and 2000 values, respectively. (The 1959 value used here is the estimated value.) Similar figures for total use are presented in table 143. Growth is again indicated by the ratio to base period totals of 1976 and 2000 totals, respectively. Two sets of ratios are presented, consisting of (1) the ratio of future values to base period actual values and (2) the ratio of future values to base period estimated values. It is here argued that the second ratio is the more meaningful. The base period actual figure may be distorted by random fluctuations; hence, some sort of adjustment is necessary to avoid such distortion, and the use of predicted base period value seems a sensible way of making such an adjustment. In developing projections, the following procedures were employed: 1. The ORRRC projections of population and disposable income for the United States as a whole were taken as given. 89/ 2. Projections of United States disposable income per capita were then obtained, using the previous information, 3. It was noted there might be differential growth in disposable income per capita between United States regions. There has been a trend toward equalization of disposable income between regions. Regional trends were investigated, using Department of Commerce data, 90/ and on this basis United States growth rates were modified to fit individual regions of interest. These were the Southwest, Mountain, and Pacific regions. 4. With growth rates for per capita income established, corresponding estimates of per capita income were obtained. B/In the limit, o linear equation has income elasticity equal to 1. Let X equal consumption of a given commodity, Y equal income. Then income elasticity is (dx/dY) (Y/X). If X = a + by, then income elasticity is (b) Y/(a + bY), which ap proaches 1 as Y gets large. 89/Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, "Popula tion Projections and the American Economy in 1976 and 2000", Working Papers 17 and 18, Washington, 1961. 2010.S. Office of Business Economics, "U.S. Income and Out put," table 4, p. 38.
Per capita figures were then obtained by dividing by the appropriate population for a given year. The per capita use figures were then related to United States per capita disposable income for corresponding years. Income figures were in deflated (1954) dollars. 87/ Figures 31 and 32 plot the aggregated data. Mandays use is presented in terms of man-days per 1,000 population to avoid scale difficulties. The data, when plotted, yield approximately linear relations, and straight-line fits were obtained on this basis. The same sort of procedure was applied to the categories other than the overall United States category as previously enumerated. Table 140 lists predictive equations for the five major categories. (These results include intercept, slope, explained variance, standard error of estimate, calculated t ratio, and corresponding tabled value of t.) Table 141 lists information on the data used for each equation and, for selected years, presents estimates of income elasticities which were obtained as an application of predictive equation estimates. Income elasticity measures the percent change in use given a 1-percent increase in income. The use of linear
82/ Population figures were obtained from U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract"; income figures were obtained from U. S. Office of Business Economics, “U. S. Income and Output" and "Survey of Current Business," National Income Issue, Washington, 1960.
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 FIGURE 31. U.S. Wilderness Man Days Use Per 1000 Population On Per Capita Disposable Income
U.S. Wilderness Man Days Use Per 1000 Population Excluding California and Minnesota On Per Capita Disposable Income Page 6
Future level/present Level of activity per 1,000 persons (man-days use, expenditures, or visits) (per 1,000 persons) Variable to be predicted 1976/1959 2000/1959 1947 1959 1959 1976 2000 Predicted values used actual actual predicted predicted predicted 2.14 7.91 7.14 21.51 34.39 3.01 4.82 2. United States excluding Minnesota and California 1.09 3.28 3.15 9.61 15.42 3.05 4.90 3. Minnesota 0.48 2.97 2.10 6.27 10.01 2.98 4.77 4. California 0.57 1.66 1.89 5.62 8.96 2.97 4.74
"Definition of level of activity: In Parts A and B-level of activity per 1,000 persons in the United States; in Part C-level of activity per 1,000 persons in California; and in Parts D and E (except for Boundary Waters)- level of activity per 1,000 persons in the given
3 For other outdoor recreation activities, values refer to 1956 actual. Page 7
1947-59. 91/ Somewhat surprisingly, variable 3 yielded the lowest explained variance (59 percent), while variable 2 gave an explained variance of 71 percent and variable 1 an explained variance of 79 percent. It may be that measurement errors are relatively greater in variable 3 than in the other variables; this could be a factor in the results obtained.
nounced a growth trend. Thus, hunting and fishing license expenditures for 2000 are projected as approximately doubling relative to 1959, while national park visits are projected as approximately tripling. Figures 33 and 34 exhibit data and fitted linear relations for fishing license expenditures and national park visits. For California national forest recreation activities, wilderness use other than High Sierra use is projected as constant per 1,000 persons. Use of the High Sierra, on the other hand, leads in projected growth; 2000 is projected as over four times the 1959 level. Other activities projected for 2000 range from a doubling to a quadrupling relative to 1959; campsite use is lowest (and doubles), while picnic site use is highest (quadrupling). Growth in use per 1,000 persons varies markedly between States, with Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho projected as having the greatest relative growth. Forecast year 2000 levels are 9.5, 6.7, and 6.3 times the 1957 levels for Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, respectively. Marked variability occurs for individual wilderness areas for 2000 relative to 1957, ranging from no growth for Mazatzal, through a less than doubling for Sawtooth, and up to a ninefold increase for Three Sisters.
Income elasticities Table 141 also contains income elasticity estimates. For all the overall United States cases, 1947 income elasticity was around 7.8, with California and Minnesota values somewhat below this, and other area values somewhat above this. (This means that in 1947 a l-percent increase in income would result in a 7.8-percent increase in use.) By 1959, income elasticity had dropped to a round 3, while the 1976 forecast is around 1.75, and 2000 is a bit below 1.5. Hunting and fishing license expenditures, and national park visits have appreciably lower income elasticities in the 1947 and 1959 periods. Forecast values for 1976 and 2000 are very close to 1. Turning to California national forest recreation activities, picnic site use leads broad categories in terms of income elasticity, followed by other forest activities, wild plus wilderness use, and winter sports. All of these groupings have an income elasticity above 2 in 1959. Campground use has an income elasticity approximately equal to 1 for all years including 1947. High Sierra wilderness use, treated individually, turns out to have an income elasticity above all other cases; its value is 3.3 in 1959. There is a good deal of variation in State and individual area income elasticity. In 1959, Wyoming anni Colorado led the States with income elasticities of 6 and 4, respectively. In 1959, Three Sisters led the individual areas with a figure of 8.1, while San Juan and Hig Uintas followed with values close to 4. Some State and individual areas are listed as having 0 income elasticity. These are Arizona, Mazatzal, and California wilderness, excluding the High Sierra. In all cases the predicted equation obtained had negative slope, implying decreasing use per 1,000 persons over time if the equation were accepted. However, it seemed likely the Arizona and Mazatzal results might reflect data problems, while an investigation of the California cases indicated a pattern of declining use which appeared to level off. Hence, in all these cases it was decided to predict growth in use on the basis of population growth only; in line with this, income elasticity was set equal to 0.
Table 143 projects total use figures by multiplying forecasts of use per capita (obtained from table 142) by population forecasts. United States wilderness use for the year 1976 relative to 1959 is seen as having nearly a fourfold increase, while 2000 use is approximately 10 times as great as 1959 use (9.6). Hunting and fishing values for 2000 relative to 1959 are 4.2 and 4.6, respectively, while national park visits in 2000 are 5.6 times their 1959 level. National forest use in California for 2000 relative to 1959 shows approximately a tenfold increase for High Sierra use, picnic site use, and other forest activities. Winter sports use is 8.6 times its 1959 level, and campground use is 5.5 times its 1959 level. Wilderness, other than the High Sierra, increases only with population, approximately doubling. For individual States, the high in use growth to 2000 occurs for Wyoming (17 times the 1957 level) and Colorado (16 times). Low growth occurs for New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington (the last two States increasing only with population). For individual area use in 2000 relative to 1957, high growth in use is forecast for Three Sisters (20.5), San Juan (16.1), and High Vintas (15.6). Low growth is forecast for Sawtooth (3.3) and Mazatzal (3.6). There are several repetitions in the table with alternative forecasts, Thus, California wilderness use in 2000 is forecast as 9.4 and 10.4 times its 1959 level and 12.6 times its 1957 level, (But this latter forecast amounts to 10.4 times its 1959 level, so there are only two distinct forecasts.:) The difference between the 9.4 and 10.4 growth forecast stems primarily from the use of alternative explanatory variables. The first is based on growth in United States per
Growth in use per 1,000 persons Table 142 contains projections of growth in use per 1,000 persons. United States man-days use per 1,000 persons in 1976 is forecast as 3 times the 1959 level, while year 2000 use is forecast as 4.8 times the 1959 level. There is slightly less growth for Minnesota and California than for other areas of the United States, but differences here appear minor.
21 Dato on California di sposable income were secured from State of California, Department of Finance.
PER Capita Expenditures On Fishing Licenses Related To U.S. Per Capita Disposable Income In 1954 Dollars (1933-40, 1947-56)
PER Capita U.S. National Park Visits Related To Per Capita Disposable Income In 1954 ཆur (1933o, 1947-56)
in California income and population. Use for Boundary Waters Canoe Area shows a 9.4 increase for 2000 relative to 1959 using United States data and an 8.1 increase relative to 1957 using State use data. (This is only 6.3 relative to 1959.) This result reflects marked increases in 1958 and 1959 use figures which are reflected in the first equation (using data for 1947-59) and not in the second equation (which uses data for 1947-57).
increase, so this equation says, use decreases! However, none of the coefficients were significantly different from zero. The explanation for this result is fairly simple-all of the independent variables (the X's) were highly correlated. Statistically, little or nothing was gained by introducing the additional variables,
Evaluation of Use Projections
The discussion of the California and Minnesota cases points up the fact that forecasting is risky. Projections are based on discerned relationships that held in the past, but such relationships can change. Of course, this is a general hazard of forecasting, and results for scientific inquiry in general are subject to revision in the light of additional evidence. Problems involved in the procedures used here may be cataloged as (1) choice of variables, (2) measurement difficulties, and (3) form and stability of relationship.
In evaluating the forecasts derived here, some measurement difficulties should be made explicit. There are indications that data problems occur in some of the forecasts. It appears likely, for example, that for some cases estimating procedures generating the data were changed during the period in question. Table 144 exhibits some areas with data open to question: a sharp break occurs in the series of mandays of use. Again, data for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area are open to question. For the period 1951 through 1955, average length of visit was slightly over 2 days; in 1956, 1957, and 1958, this average increased to 3,5 days; and in 1959, it increased to 5.0 days. The marked increase in use noted previously reflects the great increase in average length of visit. This change may be a factor explaining the relatively low explained variance for Minnesota use in the overall category of forecasts. If the change noted reflects a change in estimation procedure by the agency, it is likely that predictions based on this data will be overstatements.
It seemed advisable to put variables into per capita terms and then account for population growth as a multiplier of per capita projections. This avoids a number of statistical problems. Per capita income was selected as an explanatory variable on the basis of economic theory, that is, consumer behavior is seen as a function of tastes and preferences, information, technology (including the availability of new products), and income. Per capita income was one of the few easily measured explanatory variables; it turned out to be the only useful variable and was, therefore, the only explanatory variable used. 92This is not to argue that income is necessarily the only variable of use in forecasting; the specification, observation, and measurement of additional explanatory variables would be most welcome. However, in cases where variation in the dependent variable is almost completely explained by income, it is doubtful whether additional explanatory variables will help very much in prediction. These remarks are exemplified by results for an alternative formulation. In this case, total United States man-days of wilderness use (Y) was related to total population (X1), disposable income per capita (X2), and intercity travel per capita (X3). 93/ Some rather peculiar results were obtained, with X2 and X3 22/11 is sometimes argued that other variables show much the same trend as income, and then the question is po sed: income. Any quarrel with income as an explanatory variable is a quarrel with rather basic economic theory. Statistically, the use of such alternative variables rai ses questions of spec- ification error. and Figures," Detroit, 1958, p. 41.
1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
1.0 15.0* 19.4 18.0 26.0 24.0 6.8* 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.0
4.9 31.5* 77.6* 81.2 64.3 54.1 63.6 55.4 90.0 86.2 87.7
1.8 1.6 1.5 2.1 4.4 5.2 6.0 5.2 8.0 6.0 9.0 18.4* 32.0*
1.5 2.4 9.1* 12.3 15.9 14.0 12.2 18.5 19.8 22.0 3.4* 4.2 5.0
1.8 2.0 10.0* 12.2 13.2 15.1 13.8 27.9* 28.0 23.0 20.2 18.6 19.2
11.8 13.1 12.8 16.3 16.2 18.1 18.6 19.6 22.6 23.8 74.0* 84.1 92.3
Finally, the rather low explained variance for states and individual areas may be explainable in terms of data difficulties in general. If income is used as explanatory variable, there is the problem of whether to use State income or United States income. Evidence to be presented subsequently indicates that national parks have more of a national market than do wilderness areas in national forests. The evidence indicates that more than half the use of latter areas is by residents of the States in which the
and estimates of actual national park visits per 1,000 persons Visits per 1,000 persons (Col. 3) Year (Col. 1) (Col. 2) Forecast/ Forecast Actual 1 actual
with national park use. Hence, State income might be preferable for national forest areas and United States income for national parks. An additional problem involved in the use of State income data is that of proper price deflators since State price level changes may vary somewhat from United States price level changes. It was assumed here that such differences are minor, and United States deflators were used. Some of the forecasts developed here are on rather shaky ground because of the low level of explained variance. This is the case for State and individual area forecasts. However, there is no reason to argue that these areas will not experience growth; the use forecasts presented are argued to be the best forecasts available, though they are not necessarily good forecasts.
Form and stability of relationship
VEstimates of actual vi sits per 1,000 persons based on total visits (in thousands): 1957-20,903; 1958–21,672; 1959–22,392; and 1960-26,630. 2/Indicates forecast not derived because income data not avail. able for this year. 3 Not comparable to previous figures. "During 1959, there was conducted a broad study of the methods used for collecting and reporting statistics on the public use of the national parks. As a consequence, widespread revisions have been made in ... data collection (and) ... in definitions. Thus, ... there may occur ... abrupt discontinuities in the statistical series, both for individual parks and the various aggregates." Sources: Column 1, U. S. Park Service, “Public Use, National Parks and Related Areas," Special Notice, Washington, January 1960; column 2, based on predictive equation developed for national park visits, table 137.
"These projections indicate that national forests and national grasslands could have as many as 635 million recreation visits by the year 2000."94/ This compares with 81.5 million visits in 1959, a ratio of 7.79.
It is of interest that, in the present study, California national forest use is projected as rising from an estimated 16.7 million man-days in 1959 to 129.5 million man-days in 2000; this ratio is 7.75.95/
A linear relationship was assumed on the basis of the scatter diagrams of the plotted data. It may be that a nonlinear relationship might sometimes give a better fit. In some cases, there is some suggestion of an accelerated increase of use, However, (1) this could reflect measurement changes (as in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area); (2) growth in use may really be S-shaped-accelerating now, decelerating later. Further, there is always the possibility of a change in relationships, particularly areas become crowded, that is, there has been no accounting for the effects of "congestion" on increased use, For example, as the High Sierra becomes "crowded" with the projected increase in use, wilderness users may turn in increasing numbers to substitute areas. Hence other California wilderness areas may have more of an increase in use than is projected here, while the High Sierra would have less than its projected increase. In general, growth in use may have self-inhibiting effects. As areas become crowded, user satisfaction may diminish so that use will not increase as fast as projected here. Other changes affecting use are possible, for example, changes in transportation technology. A check on the predictive equations can be made by comparing actual values for a later period to forecasts for that period. Thus, the national park visits equation was based on data through 1956. It is possible to compare forecast to actual values for the period 1957 through 1959, and this is done in table 145. Actual value for 1960 is not comparable because the Park Service estimating procedure was greatly revised between 1959 and 1960; the inference can be drawn that previous figures were markedly understated. This accounts for the great spurt in 1960 use. Results of the comparison for 1957 through 1959 are fairly encouraging.
The overall projections indicate that the California growth rate may approximately equal the United States growth rate; hence, there appears good agreement between projections here.
The National Park Service Mission 66 has projected 80 million national park system visits by 1966.96/ Relative to the approximately 55 million visits in 1956, this yields a ratio of 1.46 (or growth of 46 percent).
Use of the equation developed here for national park visits only (assuming growth here will approximate that of the system as a whole) yields a 1966 to 1956 ratio of 1.62, somewhat above the National Park forecast. 97/
Comparison With Other Projections
A number of projections are available for purposes of comparison. The National Forest Recreation Survey involved a detailed projection of recreational use of national forests. It is noted by Camp that
24 Harry W. Comp, "Recreation for the Future-U.S. Forest Serv vice Viewpoint," Proceedings, Society of American Foresters Meeting, Washington 1960, p. 77. 95/ Based on data in table 143. 26/Compare Ise, op. cit., p. 7. 92/Bolle, in op. cit., p. 198, notes ''Increased use is exceeding the projections of Mission 66." Page 8
see, a priori, why a doubling of one of these variables will necessarily double visits. Perhaps it will increase it only 1-1/2 times, or 1-1/3 times. Put in somewhat more sophisticated terms, this argument seems to say
Vt = (It/L) (Lt/Lo) (Tt/T.) Vo
of forest area use in California using population as the explanatory variable. 98/ Some additional forecasts of man-days were obtained using their equations; these are compared to 1959 actual values in table 146. The ratios of 2000 use to 1959 use were also obtained and are compared to the ratios developed in the present study in table 145. Predictions for 1959 are fairly close to 1959 actuals; somewhat less growth by 2000 is projected than is projected in the present study. Thus, a fivefold increase in wilderness use is forecast using the Zivnuska-Shideler equations; a ninefold increase is projected here. These differences probably stem from choice of variables. Clawson, Held, and Stoddard argue that population, per capita income, travel, and leisure changes will markedly affect recreation visits. 99/ They see "resource based" recreation visits (including wilderness recreation visits) as increasing from 116 million visits to 5 billion visits per year between 1956 and 2000 (a 43-fold increase). They argue: "Population per capita income, and travel will each roughly double its respective figure, and leisure will increase. What will these massive changes in the casual factors mean, in terms of recreation demand? ... Their effect seems to be multiplicative-twice as many people times twice as much income per person times twice much travel times considerably more leisure." Some doubts may be entertained about this multiplicative hypothesis. To begin with, leisure and travel have been highly correlated with real money income. This tends to preclude testing this hypothesis using time series data, On a more fundamental level, if increases in real income cause increases in leisure and travel, it may be redundant to include those items as variables. It may be argued that real income differs from real money income, that is, people can take increased real income in the form of more money or more leisure. Hence, there is something to be said for treating leisure and money income as separate variables (though possibly highly correlated variables). But, quite likely, travel is a function of the other variables. At any rate, even John Zivnu ska and Ann Shideler, "A Projection of the recreational Use of Public Forest Areas in California to 1965," Forest Science, vol. 3, No. 3, September 1957. 29/Clawson, Held, and Stoddard, op. cit., pp. 184 and 186.
where V = visits, I = income; L = leisure, T = travel, o base year, and t = future year. It seems pertinent to ask why this particular equation form was selected. Many alternatives are possible, and a good deal of empirical testing would appear necessary in the choice among such alternatives, Both sets of authors note the problem of changing underlying relationships. Thus, Zivnuska and Shideler state: "Probably the most sig ficant limitation on the results of such an analysis is the fact that the statistical projections are projections of consumption records, not of demand. ... The projections show where the type of practices we have followed up to now are taking us, and thus should be useful in decisions as to whether or not changes in these practices are desirable. They do not, however, show the results to be expected under changed practices."100/ Clawson, Held, and Stoddard state "The projections measure potential more than actual anticipated figures ... The use estimates assume that adequate areas will be available to satisfy a demand of this magnitude. If actual areas fall short, some curtailment of use or some greater intensity (of use, than that assumed will be necessary."101/ Ways to Improve Use Forecasts In attempting to improve use forecasts, efforts might be directed to developing both demand and supply relationships. If forecasts are made assuming zero price, it is possible that single-equation estimation will be adequate. The variables entering would involve user characteristics-including income, length of vacation, and other characteristics to be tested for possible significance-and recreation site characteristics, such as accessibility, presence of
Table 146 Comparison of projections of California national forest use 1959 Results using Zivnusko-Shideler equations actual 1959 man-days Forecast Forecast/ 2000/1959 (thousands) (thousands) actual
Campgrounds.... Picnic sites Winter sports Wilderness Other forest use
and amount of investment in recreation facilities. An analysis of covariance, involving both time series and cross-section data, might be useful in handling this problem, A small-scale preliminary investigation applied some of these notions. Data were obtained on 16 California national forest wild and wilderness areas (where designated primitive and wilderness areas are blanketed under the term wilderness). The dependent variable Y was man-days use of the area for 1959 (in thousands). The explanatory variables were: X1 = size of the area in thousands of acres X2 = air-line distance of the area from Los Angeles in miles X3 = distance of the area from the nearest highway in miles X4 = number of lakes within the area X5 = stream mileage within the area. Values of X2 through X5 were obtained by readings from maps containing the relevant information. (Readings on X4 and X5, in particular are subject to measurement error. Further, X4 is the number of lakes without any accounting for size of lake.) The data employed are exhibited in table 147. The equation derived had an explained variance of 0.94 and was of this numerical form:
tations; use increases with size of area and number of lakes and decreases with distance from Los Angeles and distance from the highway. However, the sign of stream mileage is negative, implying that use decreases as stream mileage increases, a surprising result rather difficult to accept. (Of course, this coefficient did not test as significantly different from zero.) Another difficulty stems from the effect of the High Sierra, which is well above the other areas in use and in the number of lakes. When the High Sierra observation was omitted, coefficients did not change appreciably; however, explained variance dropped from 0.94 to 0.54. Nevertheless, the results are such as to encourage further work along these lines.
Economic Insights From Survey Data Some additional information on man-days of use may be obtained from the sample survey which was discussed in chapter 5. The sample survey results also yield additional insights on a number of economic topics. 102/
Y = 23.48+.23X1-.022X2 -3.50X3 +.45X4-.24X5 (0.16) (0.043) (1.65) (0.11) (0.26)
Vacation length and income It has been argued that vacation length and income have probably been highly correlated over time. It was expected the same sort of relation would occur for cross-section data. A positive relationship does, in fact, seem to occur; however, it is not as pronounced as expected. For the sampled group with income below $8,000, average vacation length 102/Results presented in the following sections are based on some additional analyses of the University of California
where numbers in parentheses are standard errors of estimate. In this equation, only the coefficient of X4 tests as significantly different from zero at the 5-percent level, although the coefficient for X, is quite close to significance at that level.
Table 147 Data on man-days use per acre for California wild and wilderness are related to possible explanatory variables
Northern or central: Caribou Peak ... Desolation Valley Emigrant Basin High Sierra Marble Mountain Mount Dana Salmon-Trinity Alps South Warner. Thousand Lakes Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel. Southern: Cucamonga Devil Canyon San Gorgonio Son Jacinto. San Rafael Ventana.
6.4 32.0 29.9 253.5 18.4 87.7 14.4 2.4 15.3 7.2
16.4 40.7 97.0 393.9 212.6 82.2 221.0 68.2 15.7 107.2
310 250 195 135 400 175 375 350 350 330
6.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 0.5 12.0 6.0 2.0 10.0
10.0 45.0 90.0 338.5 102.6 45.0 81.4 81.3
tion length was 3 weeks; and for the group above rejected. (The critical x2 was 31.4; the calculated $15,000, vacation length was 3.1 weeks. However, a value was 46.3.) finer breakdown of income groups leads to some lack of regular progression in vacation length with income. Income, vacation length, and days spent These results are exhibited in table 148. in the wilderness Aside from differences in average vacation length, there appear to be differences in the distributions of Data on income, vacation length, and days spent in vacation lengths between classes. Thus, the lowest the wilderness were secured for the postenumeration income group has a large proportion with short vaca- sample of the Survey Research Center. This pertained tions but has a fairly substantial proportion with long to the combined sample of all seven wilderness areas. vacations. In general, there could be a disproportion- For this group, average days spent in the wilderness ate number of students, retired persons, and teachers was calculated for each combination of the vacation in the lower income groups; such persons would tend length and income categories. Simple averages for to have long vacations. each income group and simple averages for each vacaThe data on number of persons in each income- tion length were then obtained. This was done to revacation category was used to test the hypothesis there move any interaction between income and vacation were no significant differences between income classes length. Results appear in table 149. Using this Table 148 Vacation length related to income, using survey data
Table 149 Average length of stay in wilderness related to vacation length and income Income class Usual vacation length Under $5,000 $8,000 $10,000 $15,000 $5,000 7,999 9,999 14,999 average length of stay in wilderness, in days
1 week or less Average.
5.8 6.3 5.5 7.3 8.9 5.4 7.0 8.8 10.8 12.3 7.6 8.0 number of observations in each cell ? 12 3 46 22 18 10 14 8 11 96 54
1 week or less. Total
1/Overall average. 2/ Different from table 148 because (1) this is the postenumeration sample and (2) cases with no answer for length of stay were omitted here.
vacation length affect length of stay. For this sample, it would appear that vacation length has more pronounced an effect than income. However, some lack of agreement between cross-section and time series data would not be surprising. 103/ Further, it should be recalled that this refers to man-days use by people at the wilderness site and does not refer to man-days use of wilderness relative to the general population. Such use is a function of visits as well as length of stay, and income is perhaps much more significant in this case.
visit over time are examined for selected areas in table 151. There are some pronounced differences between areas and time periods. Thus, average length of visit for the High Sierra appears well below the other California wilderness areas. Again, length of visit (or the estimates of it) show some changes over time. Eight areas are listed. For all of these, save one, the 1951-54 period had a lower length of visit than the 1947-50 period, with apparent increases occurring in the 1955-59 period. For the eight areas listed, averages were 5.0 days for 1947-50, 4.0 days for 1951-54, and 4.3 days for 1955-59,
Average length of visit by area
Distance traveled and income
Given the survey data, it was possible to estimate average length of visit for each area and, then, in some cases, to compare these estimates to agency estimates. These figures appear in table 150. Here, length of visit for Bob Marshall, Gila, High Sierra, and Boundary Waters are compared with the Forest Service estimate for these areas. In each case, the Forest Service estimate is less than the survey estimate. This is especially pronounced in the case of the High Sierra. This would imply either (1) the Survey sample is not representative of the population or (2) Forest Service estimates of length of visit tend to be understatements, The former explanation appears most likely because interviewers were advised to concentrate attention on campers. So far as this were done, it would tend to omit day users of the area. Thus, the survey results may be interpreted as rough estimates of length of stay of campers, while Forest Service figures refer to length of stay by all users. Forest Service figures could be properly compared to the survey results if the distribution of the population between day users and campers were known for each area. There are some additional difficulties, however, in that the sample covered summer months only, and length of stay by hunters for example, may differ from that of summer recreationists.
In general, as income increases, there is an increase in average distance traveled from home to wilderness area. However, it turns out that the lowest income group averaged well above the distance travelled by most other groups. Perhaps some other variable is involved here, for example, age. Results for all areas appear in table 152. Averages for distances traveled and for income of users were also obtained for individual areas. No particular relation between income and distance is discerned here; evidently, a number of factors other than income are involved, for example, geographic location. Results appear in table 153.
Visits per capita related to distance
Table 150 Average length of visit in days U. S. Forest Service Average length of visit Ratio of in days Forest Service Area 1960 1959 estimate to survey sample survey Forest Service average estimate average
In the theoretical section of this chapter, the concentric zone approach was considered. In this approach concentric zones around an area are defined, and it is hypothesized that use of the area per capita (relative to the zone's population) declines as zone's distance from the area increases, There was some investigation of this hypothesis, using survey data, Table 154 examines visitors to each wilderness area by State of origin. There seems to be some general confirmation of the hypothesis on this level. There is also some confirmation of the notion national parks tend to have a national market, while national forests tend to have more local appeal. 104/ Thus, compare Yellowstone to Bob Marshall and Gila. The High Sierra is extremely localized in use, but this may reflect national geography. Detailed investigation of High Sierra use discourages the belief that distance is the only relevant factor in use per capita. As previously mentioned, if income, tastes, information, or availability of alternatives differ between zones, then the concentric zone approach does not yield what can be termed a demand curve. In investigating use per capita, visits to the High Sierra recorded by the survey were divided by the county population of the visitors. 105/ Table 155 04/ Thus, Bolle, in op. cit., p. 179: "National park visitors come from throughout the country, while national forest visitors are more likely to be local people." 105 Obtained from U.S. Bureau of the Census, "U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Number of inhabitants, California," Final Report PC (1)-6A, 46 p.
High Sierra, while San Francisco Bay area and other coastal counties had twice the adjoining county rate. Again, Los Angeles, Kern, and Orange counties were somewhat above the adjoining county rate. Distance and availability of alternatives apparently were manifested in use by far northern and far southern counties, which had rates below those of adjoining counties. It appears likely that income differences and, perhaps, differences in tastes, account for these results. With respect to the latter, it may be that people living very near to the High Sierra prefer vacations in large metropolitan areas. A factor again worthy of mention is that the sample was taken only during summer months; as a consequence, hunters were omitted, and this group might have different characteristics. Results obtained are presented in graphic form in figure 35.
Obtained by assignment of these assumed averages to distance classes: (1) 0- 50 miles: 25 miles.
Income levels of wilderness users
lists origin of visits by county groupings, population of those counties in 1960, and visits per million population, It turns out that counties adjoining the High Sierra did not have particularly high-use rates, while counties along the coast led in use rates (visits per million persons). Thus, the San Francisco County rate was three times that of counties adjoining the
Data on income of wilderness users presented in tables 36 and 153 indicate that average wilderness user income is above the United States average. Thus, table 36 indicates wilderness users differ from the United States population as a whole in terms of income distribution with a substantially larger proportion of high income groups represented. Table 156 compares income distribution for wilderness users and for the United States population as a whole. On the basis of these data, average incomes Page 9
Number of designated areas Thousands of acres (net) of designated areas- State Below 100,000 acres Above 100,000 acres Below 100,000 acres Above 100,000 acres Wild Primitive Wilderness Primitive Wild Primitive Wilderness Primitive Arizona 3 3 2. 11 93.9 70.8 329.1 180.1 California. 5 9 2 2 1 18.4 502.3 319.8 614.9 Colorado 4 5 0 2 207.1 236.4 0.0 355.9 Idaho. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,003.1 Minnesota 0 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montana.. 1 4 1 28.6 665.7 Nevada 1 0 0 0 64.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Hampshire 1 0 0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Mexico ... 3 2 2 75.3 36.6 603.4 298.8 North Carolina 1 0 0 0.0 Oregon .... 7 1 2. 0 249.6 86.7 413.0 0.0 Utah. 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.7 Washington 2 0 1 1 125.1 0.0 458.5 801.0 Wyoming 2 2 4 2 0.0 163.9 1,811.8 379.0 Gross total 28 25 15 17 Net total 3 28 24 15 16 975.8 1,373.7 5,772.3 6,539.0 Part of an area listed here is located in another state. 2/Canoe area included in wilderness classification. 3/ Areas located in two states counted only once in this total. Source: U. S. Forest Service, "Wildemes s-Type Areas," Publication 37 19, Washington, 1960. Figures obtained here were modified to ac count for (1) reclassification of the Bridger Area from primitive to wilderness status and (2) establishment of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area.
OPPORTUNITY COSTS PER MAN-DAY FOR SPECIFIC AREAS
Some initial estimates of opportunity costs per man-day can be obtained using the data appearing in tables 132 and 137. Table 132 lists estimates of the total land values of the High Sierra, Marble Mountain,. Salmon-Trinity Alps, and Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel areas. Table 137 lists man-days of wilderness recreation. Multiplying land value by an assumed market. rate of interest of 5 percent will yield an estimate of rental value. Dividing this by man-days yields opportunity cost per man-day. For the areas in question, this ranged from a minimum of $1.42 for the High Sierra area, through $7.62 for the Marble Mountain area, and $11.08 for the Salmon-Trinity Alps, to a maximum of $22.92 for the Yolla BollyMiddle Eel area. (Note that this procedure ascribes all opportunity costs to wilderness recreation.) For the four areas combined, the average opportunity cost was $2.81. A summary of the computational procedure employed appears in table 158. In addition, this table lists acreage per man-day for these areas, which ranged from 1.55 for the High Sierra to 15.46 for the Salmon-Trinity Alps and averaged 3.30 for all four areas combined. It should be noted that estimates of opportunity costs here are based primarily on agency estimates. In some cases the agencies were reluctant to impart information on land values for fear it would interfere with their program of land acquisitions within national parks or national forests. This problem will probably occur for any additional work in this area. Further, it might have a tendency to introduce a downward bias in any figures obtained,
USE AND CAPACITY An important application of the use projections appearing in table 143 is in drawing inferences as to future capacity limitations. Put another way, these figures will give us some insight into use capacity. Table 159 relates acreage to man-days of use for various sub-categories of the system of Forest Service designated areas. For the system as a whole, one man-day of use involved 7.7 acres in 1959. Areas under 100,000 acres, as a group, had somewhat greater use intensity than did areas over 100,000 acres (5.7 acres per man-day versus 8.2 acres per man-day). For areas under 100,000 acres, use intensity in 1959 varied greatly between California and other areas. Thus, wild areas in California averaged around 1 acre per man-day, while wild areas outside California averaged 15 acres per man-day. Again, primitive areas of under 100,000 acres averaged about 3 acres per man-day in California, and averaged about 10 acres per man-day outside California. For wilderness and primitive areas over 100,000 acres, the following pattern seemed to emerge: There are several areas with high use intensity while the remaining areas have rather low use intensity. Thus, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area averaged about 1.7 acres per man-day, and the Bridger area averaged somewhat over 4 acres per man-day. The remaining 12 wilderness areas (for which data were available) averaged 21.3 acres per man-day. Turning to primitive areas over 100,000 acres, the High Sierra averaged around 1.5 acres per man-day, while the High Uintas averaged somewhat over 2 acres per man-day. The remaining 14 areas in this group averaged 21.3 acres per man-day, which equals the value obtained for the designated wilderness areas of low use intensity. Page 10
In the text of this chapter, it has been suggested Some items may be listed to exhibit the kinds of that detailed investigation of competitive and com- input and output information referred to in this context. plementary relationships might be an important area Clawson, Held, and Stoddard develop a table of land of future research. Such relationships can be looked use relationships in which a primary land use is at in terms of (1) the resources (factors of production) examined in terms of compatibility with a secondary and outputs involved; (2) the particular areas involved, land use. 2) This information may be pertinent in for example, an investigation of past decisions for this problem area. areas where important conflicts occurred; and (3) the Bolle defines three categories of use relationship; interest groups involved-who gets what, when, and these supplementary, complementary, and where? conflicting. 3/ This appendix will briefly consider each of these Supplementary uses are neither complementary nor topics in turn. This is not meant as an exhaustive competitive; for example, some uses do not use the treatment of these topics but rather involves a short, same area (mountain climbing and fishing); some uses and limited, review of some of the literature and a do not use the same area at the same time (picnicking discussion of some problem areas meriting further and skiing); and some uses may use the same area study. at the same time but, nevertheless, are neither complementary nor competitive. For complementary Competitive and Complementary Relationships uses, an increase in one use can increase its comin Production plement; thus, logging involves road construction, A sophisticated allocation procedure might be which may aid mining, developed recreation, etc. Competing uses involves reduction in other uses if developed in terms of activity analysis (a particular the competing use increases. Thus, heavy grazing type of linear programming). 1/ In this method, a set of alternative activities is specified. A particular may reduce forest reproduction; recreation use may increase forest fires; and heavy timber cutting may activity is seen as consuming specified levels of in conflict with camping. The last example illustrates puts for a unit level of the activity and yielding Bolle's argument that, to a large extent, supplespecified levels of output for that unit level. A number of inputs and a number of outputs generally mentary, competing, and conflicting relations are will be involved. Given prices of inputs and outputs, extensions of the same relation which changes with and the specification that only a limited amount of the degree of use. each input is available, the linear programming pro "Too much" of a given use is often alluded to in cedure yields the optimum set of activity levels, that terms of "self-conflict." For example, it is often is, the levels of the set of activities which maximize argued that deer populations tend to outrun their food net revenue. supply in the absence of harvesting; and recreational In considering the allocation of wilderness land, 'bveruse" has been previously mentioned as a set of possible allocations might be defined as important problem. There are several ways of alternative activities. Associated with each activity describing such "conflicts" in terms of economic is a collection of outputs; thus, for a wilderness allo- theory. This could be looked at in terms of produccation, outputs would be in terms of man-days of tion functions, with a maximum output attainable given wilderness recreation, level of stream flow, level some fixed inputs. Alternatively, this might be of wildlife (perhaps obtained by weighting the popula- handled in terms of demand relations. Demand for tion of each species by some defined weight), man-days recreation by an individual may be a function of how of scientific endeavor, and (perhaps) some measure many other people are engaged in that activity. In of vicarious benefit. An alternative activity, for the case of wilderness recreation, a desire for soliexample, might involve a program of water manage- tude may decrease utility as number of recreationists ment; here, stream flow would presumably be higher, increase; in the case of developed recreation, the and wilderness recreation might be lower. Other opposite relation may hold. 4/ alternatives would include primary concern with Another way of handling such problems is to view timber production or developed recreation, or wild- them as involving supply limitations (reflecting the life, etc. underlying production function). 5/ Inputs might be defined to include acres of produc In examining use relationships, there are obvious tive timberland, acres of unproductive land, units of conflicts between wilderness recreation on the one other physical features of the area (for example, number of lakes), the present wildlife population, and 2/Clawson, Held, and Stoddard, op. cit., table 52, p. 448. funds available for administration and development. 3/Bolle, op. cit., pp. 190-192. Information on input and output relationships is 4/"Most modern campers avoid solitude. Like skiers and bownecessary to make this sort of method applicable in lers, they are a gregarious bunch. They love nothing better practice. than to camp alongside one another in long, soldierlike rows Such information need not be developed specifi of tent cities." ("Recreation-Ah, Wilderness?'' Time Magacally for activity analysis, of course; it should be of zine, July 14, 1961, p. 51.) considerable interest in and of itself, S/This sort of approach is used for highway problems by M. Beckmann, C.B. McGuire, C.B. Minsten, "Studies in the EcoVA similar argument is made by Allen B. Richards, "Some Eco nomics of Transportation," published for the Cowles Commisnomic Considerations of the Multiple-Use of Forest Land," sion for Research in Economics, Yale University Press, 1956, Land Economics, vol. 34, No. 3, August 1958, pp. 263-268. Page 11
in Obtaining Empirical Results
This appendix exhibits some of the underlying data used in obtaining some of the empirical results discussed in the third section of this chapter. Tables 163 through 166 exhibit data used in developing the predictive equations obtained to project man-days of wilderness use. Table 163 exhibits data used for United States predictive equations. (United States overall cases and related recreation activities). Table 164 exhibits data on California
national forest recreation activities per 1,000 persons, Table 165 ewibits data on wilderness use per 1,000 persons for individual states, while table 166 exhibits data on wilderness use per 1,000 persons for selected areas. Table 167 is a detailed listing of state of origin of visitors to the wilderness areas of the Survey Research Center sample. A summary version of this table appears as table 154.
Table 163 Data used in developing predictive equations for recreation activities, United States (Dashes indicate data not available)
War years omitted. Sources: Col. 1: Estimated population by state- January 1, residing in each state, U. S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1959'' Washington, 1959, table 6, p. 10; 1959 value based on data in Joint Economic Committee, "Economic Indicators," August 1960, Washington, pp. 4-6. Col. 2: Office of Business Economics, "Survey of Current Business" (National Income Number), July 1960. Col. 3: Column 2/column 1. Col. 4-6: Total values from Marion Clawson, "Statistics on Outdoor Recreation," Resources for the Future, New York, 1958, Appendix. Values for 1,000 persons obtained by appropriate division by data in column 1. Page 12
in order to attain a desirable balance. The following and necessary in wilderness, and the factors governing sections will review the question of how much and management decisions. Section 2-Management Policies of Federal Agencies Public confusion is not uncommon regarding programs; the National Park Service through management policies and administration of wilderness shooting or trapping by ranger personnel. areas under several Federal jurisdictions. This can Overpopulation is not ordinarily a problem on be anticipated since authority and objectives for Indian Lands since Indian hunting keeps popuwilderness preservation vary from agency to agency, lations reduced. so it is appropriate in this section to outline these dif 4. Predator and rodent control.-Generally disferences in relation to specific management problems. couraged by all agencies except for few speciGenerally, there is agreement among agency policy fic cases. (Predator species in some areas declarations that wilderness conditions should be pre eliminated or considerably reduced in number served and wilderness recreation by primitive modes by activities in early years, and currently of travel permitted. Differences appear in policy on by activities outside of areas.] specific management issues, ranging from little or no 5. (a) Intentional introduction of exotic fauna, ininterference with natural biological processes to vigor cluding fish.-Only the National Park Servous management efforts to solve problems of recreation ice would not introduce exotics, but other uses in some wilderness areas, or to protect existing agencies would give careful consideration ecological stages from fire and insect or disease epi before doing so. (Exotic fish species are demics. There are numerous indications of efforts to already well established in many park and apply the policy and techniques of protection used for forest areas.) nonwilderness lands also to wilderness areas. (b) Stocking of native fish and game species.The policy background upon which management is All agencies do or would stock natives. predicated for each agency is given in chapter 1, 6. Control of forest insect and disease epidemConcepts. To determine administrative views on ics.-All agencies exercise control when necesmanagement problems common to most wilderness sary to protect existing forests or adjoining areas the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest areas. Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 7. Salvage logging.-Such activity practices by ForBureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife were asked est Service occasionally, and on limited scale to forward policy statements and regulations con by National Park Service for fuelwood or concerning 11 specific problems or practices (see table struction purposes only; no such activity as 168). Since wildlife refuges and ranges are not ad yet designated on Indian roadless areas. ministered as wilderness areas, only the replies of 8. Installation of simple recreation facilities.the first three agencies are summarized by topic as All agencies but Bureau of Indian Affairs follows (Wildland Research Center comments on construct improvements, especially where use agency replies are bracketed ( )): is heavy. 1. Control burning.-Generally not practiced or 9. Permit commercial uses.- Logging prohibited considered compatible with wilderness objectives by by all agencies; grazing permitted by Forest agencies. [Control burning has been performed in Service, and by National Park Service only a nonwilderness portion of Everglades National Park, under prior-right agreements; mining and and on small test scale in Gila Wilderness.) water developments usually permitted by law 2. (a) Preservation of preferred stage of ecologi on national forests, but prohibited-except cal succession.-Only National Park Service under specific Congressional authorizationwould preserve representative stages on National Park Service lands; commercial through control measures. (Fire protection recreation developments of simple type perby all agencies is, of course, a form of pres mitted by all agencies. (See chapter 3, Comervation of preferred ecological stages.] mercial Resources. (b) Elimination of undesirable ecological suc 10. (a) Administrative use of motorized vehicles cession stages.- No agency would eliminate and equipment.-All agencies authorize and these stages, except where exotic plants or a variety of such transportation and diseases have been introduced. [The Na equipment. tional Park Service has carried on exten (b) Public use of motorized equipment.- Forest sive programs of currant and gooseberry Service prohibits all such use except where bush eradication for over 30 years to elim use has become well established; National inate white pine blister rust disease. Con Park Service permits use of motorboats, trol has also been effected on National Park except in a few cases, and prohibits other Service lands for nonnative Kudzu plants, use of mechanical equipment. ponderosa pine infected with dwarf mistle- 11. Non-Federal lands within wilderness.-Acquisitoe, and wild cotton-to prevent spread tion is policy of all agencies. (These are critiof pink bollworms. ] cal problem areas in wilderness preservation 3. Big-game overpopulations.- All agencies at which the agencies have found difficult to solve tempt control of overpopulations; the Forest with any speed- mainly from lack of funds. Service through cooperation with State hunting See chapter 3 Commercial Resources.] Page 13
ciples and understanding, but political pressures, inadequate harvest of wildlife, and interagency coordination difficulties still affect wilderness wildlife habitat conditions. A State comment: “If the philosophy of wildernessarea management ultimately condones some vegetational manipulation to maintain the carrying capacity for big game, adequate game harvest will be a prerequisite because vegetation management will be futile where overuse persists. Also, there is nothing to be gained from increasing the size of a herd if there is no hope for increasing the hunting pressure in proportion." A State comment: “The deterioration of big game range is a matter of constant review and the acreage of deteriorated range in Wyoming could be anybody's guess. Deterioration of wilderness game range in this State, as elsewhere in the West, is most commonly the result of complex interrelationships between livestock and game. Some areas are utilized by stock in summer and game during winter. Prior to the advent of regulated grazing and when game numbers were relatively small, several areas in the Absaroka ranges were extremely heavily utilized by domestic livestock in the years immediately following the turn of the century. The lack of sufficient winter game range with the continued heavy use by both game and livestock has hastened the depletion of wilderness range.” A State comment: “Elk-livestock competition is present since a large portion of the area is a thick lodge pole pine type with limited open park areas. Much of the area does not support vegetative undercover hence competition exists for forage on open park areas. Growing season is extremely short in upper elevations thus limited forage is produced.” A State comment: “A condition developed in the late twenties, becoming most obvious during the thirties, of overused browse plants on winter elk range along the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River within and adjacent to the Bob Marshall Area. During those years, the Spotted Bear Game Preserve was in effect which prevented an adequate game harvest in some of the more critical portions of the South Fork of the Flathead. Also, hunting pressure was relatively light as compared to that which we observe in these areas today. Both of these areas with an approximate combined acreage of between 40,000 and 50,000 acres, still show the effects of this earlier overuse by elk. Such important plants as willow, mountain maple, dogwood, etc. were seriously retarded. These two areas are characterized by deep snow during the winter months. This causes elk to concentrate along the river and stream bottoms. These are the areas where considerable damage was done in the past to browse plants. The snow depth protected low-growing vegetation so that there was little, if any, damage to the soil cover. Actually, the carrying capacity for elk in these areas has also been considerably restricted by natural plant succession. Much of the important elk forage resulted from heavy burns of 1910 and lesser burns occurring in 1919,with a scattering of subsequent fires. With the reproduction of coniferous growth on these burns, mainly, lodgepole pine, the more desirable forage
by the thrifty growing pines in the natural plant succession pattern where burns are coming back into forest. This has in itself decreased the amount of forage available for elk." A State comment: “The Blue Range area south of Springerville, Arizona, is currently a seriously range problem. The principal causes of range deterioration have been overuse by both game and livestock. To remedy the situation, attempts have been made to more adequately reduce deer numbers and permitted livestock numbers have been cut up to 50 percent.” A State comment: “Extensive grazing by domestic sheep in high alpine basins will cause bighorn sheep to seek other pastures. Direct competition for forage between cattle and elk will cause the elk to retreat to those areas less accessible to the cattle." A State comment: “Prior to 1910, most of the Selway was densely forested with mature pine or fir. After extensive fires between 1910 and 1934 removed much of the timber, great browse fields containing willow, redstem ceanothus, serviceberry, and other palatable shrubs were formed. This provided a huge quantity of food, particularly on winter range. In the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, above the mouth of Big Creek, intensive use by livestock of the bunchgrass growing on open, lower slopes commenced prior to 1900. Cattle, domestic sheep, and horses once roamed the hillsides in great numbers. Eventually the bunchgrasses were practically eliminated. Cheatgrass, of little value or practically worthless to game, has replaced bunchgrasses; and rabbitbrush, big sagebrush, and bitterbrush increased and spread out over the area. Assorted forbs increased markedly, balsamorhiza being one of the most numerous. The soil has become disturbed from trampling, and downward soil movement has accelerated into erosion in many places. The same situation is also true on the South Fork of the Salmon River between Porphry Creek and Sheep Creek. "The results of these floral changes from climax to subclimax conditions are quite pronounced. In the Selway, there was a fair number of mule deer prior to the fires; elk were not numerous. After the browse fields grew up, mule deer rapidly became abundant. Severe winter conditions forced elk and deer to compete for available winter range. The deer were the natural losers, and by 1940 elk were more numerous than deer. "Mule deer have continued to decline, and two small white-tailed deer herds-one at Moose Creek and another at Whitecap Creek-have been depleted. The elk have never been harvested adequately. The disastrous dieoff in the winter of 1948-1949 depleted the elk herd considerably, but within a few years the hunter harvest was as large as ever, and the present herd is obviously using the winter range vegetation to an undesirable degree. The sidehills are steep; the soil is mostly loose, decomposed granite; and trampling by elk is disturbing soil cover over much winter range. Loss of soil to erosion is the ultimate effect. “Old-timers' in the Salmon River country mostly agree that in the early days the bighorn sheep were the most-numerous big game animal present. Deer Page 14
considerably exceeds the annual harvest. While many of the surplus animals are lost to disease and other causes, the unharvested surplus may cause deterioration of range conditions and influence general vigor of a herd inhabiting a wide area. A State comment: “Portions of the Uinta Mountain area support deer populations which are beyond the carrying capacity of restricted winter ranges lying, in general, below the wilderness areas. It is necessary to keep an active harvest program in operation to maintain desirable deer populations. This problem is currently being magnified by the reduction of deer winter range through the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam.” A State comment: “We do not have a problem in regard to the harvesting of big game overpopulation in any of our wilderness areas. A State comment: “In the Selway River only a fraction of the desired harvest is being taken. Poor quality of hunters and inadequate hunter distribution are important causes of this low harvest." A State comment: "Access roads into remote areas are an absolute necessity if adequate harvests are to be obtained.' A State comment: “What is needed is better hunting distribution. Enough hunters enter the wilderness areas but hunter success could be improved, and thus better harvesting, by getting more of the hunters into areas not hunted.” A State comment: “It would undoubtedly be possible even now to direct additional hunting pressure into wilderness areas needing a greater game harvest in order to prevent range abuse. It could well be questionable, however, that an adequate number of hunters will have available the necessary facilities or equipment to effect the needed harvest. Many of today's hunters desire to complete their hunting trip as quickly and with the least effort possible. Obviously this practice cannot provide an adequate harvest in isolated areas where horseback and by foot are the only means of transportation." A State comment: "The presence of wildernesstype conditions on our wildlife management areas acts to retard poaching and depletion and thus aids in achieving the major goal of management by giving animal populations an opportunity to expand. Of course, wilderness is not the only positive management tool that can be used. It is the experience on our areas that hunters generally will limit their activities to the vicinity of roads and trails. This often results in an uneven harvest in areas where roads and trails do not reach every nook and cranny. The fact that the range of most upland game found in our State (i.e. doves, quail, rabbits, squirrels, deer, wild boar) is very limited when coupled with the limited range of the hunter seems to intensify management problems. It would appear that a basic conflict exists between the objectives of game management and wilderness preservation. Extension of roads and trails will provide far more even harvest of game (an objective of game management). Apparently the hardy hunter is in danger of extinction." While not a reflection of State views on policy, we insert here a summary of a special report on elk population problems of the Bob Marshall Wilderness
wilderness management problem. Many species of game animals inhabit the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area; mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain grouse, and waterfowl are common. Present but less commonly seen owing to their secretive habits, low numbers, or isolated habitats are white-tailed deer, mountain goats, bighorn sheep, moose, grizzly bear, and predators such as wolves, wolverines, cougar, Canada lynx, and bobcat. The largest remaining population (estimated 400 to 500) of grizzly bears in the western United States roams the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and adjacent wild lands. As the acreage of wild lands has been diminished so have the numbers of these mighty bears. But the animal that has given the area its national reputation as an outstanding game area is the elk, whose numbers once declined to an alltime low near the turn of the century, built up to a record high by 1938, and have since experienced another but less severe decline. The complex of elk numbers and habits, plant succession, fire suppression, and the interrelated problems of biological and administrative relationships peculiar to dedicated wilderness areas is the subject of this brief report. A combination of several factors has been proposed to explain the rapid increase of elk that occurred in the upper South Fork Flathead River by the midthirties: 1. Inaccessibility of the area-2-day pack trip. 2. Difficult travel in case of early storms in hunting season. 3. Establishment of Spotted Bear Game Preserve. 4. Excessive control of mountain lions. 5. Decrease in hunting pressure by Flathead Indians. 6. Increased forage production following early fires. The area is still difficult to reach, but the packing and guiding services available to hunters have developed until few areas are not served. Private hunting parties have declined, however, Predator control is now almost nonexistent, and flexible seasons have been substituted for the protection once offered by the game preserves. The decline in elk numbers then must be considered from the standpoint of current range conditions and winter losses. Management of an elk herd involves several considerations-size and vigor of the herd, condition and trend of the winter range, desires and needs of the public, and the various political, legal, and economic considerations of the area. Wilderness area big game management usually provides recreation of a very high quality due to the nature of the terrain, the vegetation, and the isolated location of the wilderness game ranges. When elk are plentiful and ranges are in good condition the ideal situation prevails. Hunter success is high, the quality of the sport is high, and the outfitters develop a thriving business as the area's reputation spreads. Such was the case in the Bob Marshall for a period lasting
27 Report prepared by W. Leslie Pengelly, Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Montana State University, 60 pp. illus., 1960, for the Wildland Research Center. Page 15
Wilderness Area, and State personnel obtain authorization from the local forest supervisor before flying into these airports.” A State comment: “Our wilderness is not on scale or of a type to make aircraft, helicopters, and boats very practical. Trails, tractors, jeeps, and sno-cats are the principal factors in getting into such areas, other than by foot. Frequently, areas are more accessible by snowshoe in winter." A State comment: “Buildings are not needed to handle the wildlife problems. Airplanes and helicopters are useful tools for partial survey of populations and to locate deeryards and to transport hunters 'back in.' Sno-cats are essential to transport crews for winter surveys of deeryards and could be used to transport habitat improvement crews. Permanent roads are not essential for access or management. Trucks are used on restricted trails for fire fighting and fish managers use outboard motors.”
At the request of the Wildland Research Center, Elliott S, Barker, former Director of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, prepared a special report in 1960 on the Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico, Mr. Barker has had a special interest and knowledge of this area for many years, and to provide further illustration on wilderness wildlife problems we include a portion of his unedited comments on wildlife conditions, predator control, livestock grazing effects, and fires in the Pecos Wilderness.
While public use of buildings and motorized transport is ordinarily prohibited in wilderness areas, there are a number of facilities and different types of mechanized vehicles used with some regularity by agency rangers and administrators, as well as State agencies concerned with wildlife management. The development and use of facilities, particularly in conspicuous locations, in wilderness areas can easily become a problem in wilderness management. Such facilities may occupy sites favorable for wilderness environment camping, and administrative use of mechanized transport is not always understood by recreationists who either resent the intrusion or do not comprehend why such use is permitted for wilderness travel. Most wilderness areas contain a number of administrative developments such as cabins, corrals, fencing, etc., and the Idaho, Selway-Bitterroot, Bob Marshall, and Gila national forest primitive or wilderness contain constructed air landing strips for administrative use. Helicopter landing sites have recently been developed extensively in many areas also. In Idaho the situation is complicated by a number of airstrips located on private lands and (open for public use) in interior portions of wilderness areas. Primitive roads, open only to private "inholder" landowners (in areas where these exist) and to agency administrators are also located in wilderness portions of both national parks and forests, Airstrips and roads closed to the public are used regularly for routine administrative duties as well as for emergency purposes. Other vehicles for cross country travel are also used whenever special need arises. The States were queried on use of mechanized transportation for wildlife management in wilderness areas, and their replies suggest that mechanized travel is perhaps more common for such purposes than that employed by area administrators. The States see a continuing need for travel by a wide variety of vehicles in both summer and winter, and cooperative use of existing area facilities. Present facilities appear adequate in number, but use of these will probably increase in future years. A State comment: “Administrative patrol cabins, corrals, etc. are maintained throughout this State's wilderness areas by the various agencies responsible for their administration. Supplies and equipment have been air-dropped to personnel utilizing these cabins but airports and heliports, as such, are considered unnecessary and undesirable. Fishing on high wilderness area lakes can be adequately accomplished by small raft-type watercraft, and the prohibition of motorboats is desirable. A more complete utilization of existing facilities and equipment would seem more desirable than additional equipment and facilities at this time.” A State comment: “Airplanes, helicopters, and motorboats are commonly used for wildlife surveys, inspections, and general administration." A State comment: “Cooperative use of facilities belonging to the Forest Service is helpful in our work and we have found occasional use of airplanes and helicopters effective. The Forest Service maintains
Wildlife Conditions “Mule deer are distributed over the entire area and elk over most of it in summer, but both species must come down below 10,000 feet to winter except on a few very steep, grassy south slopes. Some winter outside the Wilderness Area. Black bear are widely scattered in summer, but of course hibernate in winter. They are not abundant. ulation of mule deer in summer is perhaps not over 1,200 head. In the Pecos basin there was a heavy loss in the winter of 1957-58 due to heavy snows and predation by lions and coyotes, followed by two seasons for hunting of either sex which reduced the population there far below normal. “Elk number perhaps 1,000 head well distributed throughout the Canadian zone in summer, occasionally feeding above the timber line. Grouse are not abundant but they are well distributed above 9,000 feet, wintering mainly in the spruce and fir trees with tree needles their principal diet. Merriam wild turkeys range up to 11,000 feet in summer raising their young and come down to the lower elevations mainly outside the area in winter. There are not many turkeys here. .. “While elk were indigenous to the area they were completely exterminated from the entire State by about 1890. Their hereditary habit of going to the lower country to winter made
improve the fishing resources very much. "Ptarmigan were formerly found in a limited range around the Peaks and Santa Barbara Divide, but they are all gone now. “Mountain lions and bobcats were indigenous, but coyotes were originally more of a plains animal. Apparently they followed the herds of sheep into the high mountains. Others were driven there to escape the hazard of traps and poison in the foothill and prairies. Some remained and have bred up a bigger and more formidable clan. They have become vicious deer killers and must be rigidly controlled.
prospectors. They were re-established here by the Department of Game and Fish in 1915 when 37 head shipped in from Wyoming were released near Cowles, and they have done well, providing a harvest of two to three hundred each year. “Rocky mountain bighorn originally inhabited the limited suitable habitat within the area, but they, too have become extinct. The last one was killed in 1902 near Lake Katherine. Unlike the elk their decimation seems not to have been due to hunting but more likely to being infected by disease or infested by parasites-lung worm, liver fluke, scabies, etc.-brought in by domestic sheep which began using the high country in the 1860s. In 1934, as State Game Warden, I endeavored to re-establish them by importation of four ewes and two rams from Canada, but they failed to survive, perhaps because domestic sheep still are being grazed in part of the bighorn habitat. “That magnificent game animal, the grizzly bear, was found to be plentiful in the area by L.L, Dyche, the Naturalist from the University of Kansas, in 1880-84. But elk, he reported, were by then exceedingly scarce. In 1907-09 I hunted grizzlies here and killed eleven to relieve depredations on stock. One grizzly killed 14 of mine and my father's cattle on Beaver Creek in a ten day period. The last bear in the area, grizzly that is, was killed by a rancher in 1923. “It is most regrettable that this fine animal had to go. No one deplores the fact more than I. But the grizzly's love of beef and mutton and his propensity to kill for fun as well as for food made him intolerable where livestock are grazed. The facts are that elk were the grizzly bear's natural prey. He could catch them but deer eluded him. Man killed off the elk and substituted cattle and sheep and the grizzly gratefully accepted the substitute. That got him in trouble. “Whitetail deer (Odocoileus Virginianus Macrourus) were indigenous to the area, particularly the brushy slopes in the Pecos basin and the east slopes and canyons of the Las Vegas Range. E.W. Nelson (later Chief of the U.S. Biological Survey) in 1883 found them more plentiful than mule deer near Cowles. As a boy and young man I found them plentiful on the east slopes of the Las Vega3 Range. They have mysteriously disappeared, except for a possible remnant northwest of Hermits Peak, while mule deer have thrived. "Beaver, of course, were indigenous to the area and held out in the Canadian and Rio Grande tributaries but were early exterminated from the Pecos watershed. In the 1930s I reestablished them in the Pecos and most of its tributaries and now they are abundant with literally hundreds of dams on a dozen or more streams which add greatly to the interest and
“During the past 60 years I haye personally I observed cycles of wildlife abundance and scarcity. There are many factors which may contribute to such cycles. For instance in 1917-18 we lost most of our grouse through some kind of disease. They were slow to recover, even though the hunting season was closed for eight years. Intensive control of coyotes, bobcats, and goshawks would surely have speeded their recovery because their depleted numbers could ill afford the loss to predators that normal numbers could withstand. “I have seen deer populations in this area and in many other places hit bottom due to excessive coyote and mountain lion predation, and recover quickly when the predators were reduced to a minimum. When predators get the upper hand of any game species it is time for man to step in and reduce the predators. Perhaps nature might balance itself in time, but the time can be shortened by giving a helping hand. “Conversely, when human harvest of big game is insufficient to keep big game numbers down to within the carrying capacity of its habitat it is time to permit predators to increase enough to take annually the excess numbers produced. It works both ways. . . “In the Pecos Wilderness Area hunter demand for deer, bear and elk exceeds the annual increase. Therefore, we cannot afford to contribute much of it to predators. With human demand for big game and modern firearms to satisfy it we no longer need predators to keep big game numbers within the carrying capacity of the habitat. Therefore, I can see no way that predator control can affect the habitat. It can, however, and does, affect the harvestable numbers of game. For instance a lion will kill at least 50 deer a year, one a week, so his take equals that of 50 to 75 hunters. ... “Among modern wildlife technicians there is prevalent a great prejudice against predator control. They insist upon harvesting a number of big game animals each year equal to the annual increase. We old timers who have been on the job for over a half century agree with them in that, where a range is fully stocked. But predators each year equal to their annual increase? Is there anything inconsistent in that?
“I have personally seen deer seriously depleted in parts of this area on two occasions due to excessive numbers of coyotes. I've seen them build up again when coyotes were reduced to low numbers and a few lions were taken. Lack of predator control and excessive doe hunting is contributing heavily to a serious shortage of deer in the Pecos basin portion of the Wilderness Area right now. Predator control initiated now (doe hunting was stopped in 1960) would make possible and hasten recovery to normal populations. There is nothing inconsistent about control and management of predators in or outside a Wilderness Area any more than there is about control and management of big game animals. "Elk are not appreciably affected by predators here since the grizzly bear is gone. Of course bear have no enemies other than man and periodic food shortages.
thrived, “Anyway the beautiful and productive parks of the Pecos Wilderness Area are in great jeopardy. If they are lost, not only will wildlife habitat all but disappear but grazing resources will be greatly reduced. Furthermore the area will lose much of its beauty and attractiveness for Wilderness recreational experiences. “The Forest Service last summer began experimental elimination of the young conifer reproduction from some of the park areas. The project is not to change, but rather to maintain the Wilderness in its historic, natural, beautiful and productive state. “We have been discussing the Santa Fe forest portion of the Wilderness. The situation on most of the Carson portion is quite different. There the grazing is principally sheep and they have not yet been brought down to the carrying capacity of the range. The fine meadows in the upper portion of the three forks of the Santa Barbara River and around the lakes on the Trampas River are annually grazed down to the grass roots. The contrast between these areas and those on the Santa Fe Forest side is amazing. Even in the spruce fir forests the carpet of huckleberry, wintergreen and asters so pleasing on the Pecos watershed has been all but eliminated. The rocky, open ridges, particularly the Santa Barbara Divide-Jicarrita Peak ridge, are in better condition. The Forest Service has not been able to make the necessary reductions due to local economic conditions, but it will come sooner or later. An exclusion plot near the Santa Barbara ranger cabin shows in an alarming contrast what the country should look like.
Livestock Grazing Effects
“But another effect, presumably of the early day livestock overgrazing and consequent breaking up of the natural sod and ground mulch, is much more serious and becoming more apparent all the time. "It is the very extensive encroachment of young spruce and fir reproduction upon the natural park areas. Foxtail pine, which marries young and produces seed cones at two to three feet tall, is a bad offender in some areas. We expect old burns to eventually become reforested but not natural parks. Yet here these valuable, even indispensable, park lands are rapidly being taken over by coniferous reproduction. It is also occurring in many aspen areas. “Our theory that past soil disturbances due to past livestock grazing is responsible for this phenomenon is partly borne out by the age of the young trees. Then, outside the area are many examples of young ponderosa pines coming in following severe soil disturbance by goat grazing and other factors. Another thing is that in 1904 there was a terrible flood that literally washed away meadows and grassy plots along creek banks and replaced them with deposits of rubble, boulders and sandy soil.
" The last major fire that occurred in what is now the Pecos Wilderness Area was 80 to 100 years ago. There are some old burned over areas of considerable extent which have, for many years, provided good grazing for livestock and excellent habitat for wildlife. These burns are now, for the most part, gradually reforesting through natural processes, but it was slow to get started. Actually these burned over areas add to the attractiveness and value of the area by providing more open country for grazing of livestock and wildlife.”
Section 4-The Gila Wilderness: A Case History
Since wilderness preservation problems have been especially difficult in a number of national forest primitive area designations, we have selected the Gila as representing a cross section of administrative and biological problems typical of many such western reserves. The solution to these problems for this area and administrative actions are not necessarily representative of all primitive areas, but
many basic aspects of wilderness preservation on national forest lands are outlined in this case history. Sources of information for this section were correspondence and report files of the Forest Service in the Gila National Forest Headquarters, Silver City, New Mexico, in the regional office at Albuquerque and the national offices in Washington, D.C.; various publications regarding the area; and a 2-month period of
Warner, field investigator of the Wildland Research Center. The Gila Wilderness Area within the Gila National Forest in southwestern New Mexico has the distinction of being the first such reserve established in the United States. In 1924 Regional Forester Frank C. W. Pooler designated 574,000 acres in the Gila National Forest as the “Gila Primitive Area.” This designation was recommended by Assistant Regional Forester Aldo Leopold, and as a regional classification was not subject to approval by the Washington office. A more comprehensive study of the area was subsequently made in 1930 under Forest Service Regulation L-20. This resulted in revised boundary descriptions which encompassed 695,000 acres in the Mogollon and Black Ranges, and mesa lands lying between the two ranges. Since its inception the wilderness has experienced several subdivisions and boundary changes, and today the Gila Wilderness encompasses 438,600 cares. Part of the original area now forms the Black Range Primitive Area (170,000 acres), and part was left as the Gila Primitive Area (133,000 acres). The present Gila Wilderness was formally reclassified in 1953 from primitive area status by the Secretary of Agriculture under Regulation U-1. A 1937 memorandum dealing with the classification of the Gila Primitive Area reflects the variety of Forest Service views extending over the years regarding this area. An assistant regional forester made the following statement in reference to primitive area size: "The Gila Primitive Area is the only large remaining high mountain area in the Southwest where roadless conditions still exist. Its size constitutes its chief value and any decrease in size would more than correspondingly decrease its value.” 2/
clouds creates an extreme fire hazard in mountainous areas during early summer before the rains begin. During early July, showers accompany the lightning storms but by mid-July or the first of August the country is generally well soaked from daily rains. The higher elevations in the northwest receive the heaviest rainfall of the region. Here the wilder if heavily forested with subalpine stands of fir, spruce, and aspen, interspersed at lower elevations with open glades and meadows. Rainfall decreases in the southeastern portion where dry, brushy hillsides are common and streamflow usually intermittent; sycamore, oaks, maples, and some alder form the primary riparian association. Shower frequency diminishes in September, making the fall months generally dry. Snows begin during late November at higher elevations, and the snow pack ordinarily remains on the ground until the spring thaw. A spring growing season occurs while the ground is still moist from melting snow. Germination of overwintering seeds and perennial sprouting takes place with the onset of warmer weather, but the growth period is relatively short, continuing only until the warm dry weather removes remaining surface and shallow soil moisture. Plant growth recommences with July thundershowers, and by September the stream bottoms and other favorable areas are overgrown with a variety of flowering forbs, shrubs, and grasses. When this critical growth period is favorable the entire wilderness flora exhibits a marked response to the summer precipitation. Grass on the higher mesas turn green, shrubs add new growth, and the ponderosa pine forests become noticeably greener and fresher in appearance. Should the summer rains prove insufficient for adequate production of forage, the productivity of the deer herds diminishes, and livestock must be supplementarily fed. During these periodic dry years, it is difficult to prevent range damage by livestock, even when grazing is reduced during these periods.
The Mogollon Range forming the greater portion of the Gila Wilderness rises above the surrounding plateau and hill country. The highest peaks, Mogollon, Whitewater, and Center Baldys, all over 10,000 feet, are believed to represent the eastern extremity of a fault scarp stretching hundreds of miles westerly into and across Arizona. The effect, from the summits of peaks in western portions of the area, is that of being at the upper edge of an immense inclined plain, the land sloping down and away to the east. The plain itself is deeply dissected by canyons whose streams flow easterly. Two prominent discontinuities are the Jerky and Diablo Mountain Ranges, which lie to the east of the Mogollon Range and are several thousand feet lower.
The cover types may be divided into two dominant groups, forests and woodland-grassland. The forest types include ponderosa pine, Mexican white pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, cork bark fir, Engelmann spruce, and aspen. The woodland-grassland type is composed of various oaks, juniper, pinyon pine, brush, and open grassland. Acreage of timber cover is approximately 250,000 acres; and of woodland-grassland type cover 187,000 acres, Fire control efforts by the Forest Service since shortly after the turn of the century have apparently reduced the natural forest thinnings which occurred occasionally from lightning-caused ground fires. So forests are becoming less open and parklike and filling in dense reproduction in places. In common with the early history of many western mountain areas, the Gila Wilderness was subjected to extensive overuse by domestic livestock for many decades. Settlers moved into the country in the mid1800's, bringing with them cattle, sheep, goats, and
1900 much of the high country grass had been severely depleted, with subsequent soil erosion and flooding at lower elevations. The trampled and exposed mineral subsoil has created conditions favorable for the establishment of ponderosa pine seedlings in meadow areas. Without such conditions for germination, this species cannot ordinarily compete with grasses. Recently, in a joint attempt to halt further encroachment upon remaining meadows, the Forest Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish initiated a program of meadow restoration. Selected meadows and grassy parks are periodically cleared of young pine in order to preserve forage areas. The restoration program is an attempt to maintain an important component of native habitat, that was formerly self-regenerating and is now disappearing because of past livestock use and efficient fire protection. Some artificial reseeding of abandoned agricultural lands within the wilderness has also been attempted, sometimes with exotic species.
Today Merriam's elk is livestock use. A series of unusually severe winters may also have been contributing factors. By 1900, prior to establishment of the Gila Wilderness, the last of the species was gone. A half century later another species of elk was introduced into the Mogollon Range. During the period 1954-57, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish released a total of 254 Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) either into the Gila Wilderness Area or around its periphery.4/
The Gila Wilderness is noted for the excellence of its game populations and hunting is reported to be among the best in New Mexico, Wildlife species inhabiting the wilderness are those normally identified with the Southwest subalpine and upper sonoran vegetative associations. Only those forms presently considered in wilderness management will be discussed.
Prior to the elk introductions the New Mexico Game and Fish Department purchased the Heart-Bar Ranch, north of Gila Hot Springs, within the wilderness for $136,000. The grazing lease covering a large section of the wilderness, was returned to the Forest Service with the agreement that elk would be introduced in areas formerly grazed by livestock. This purchase eliminated a ranch development within the wilderness which is now maintained as a State operated administrative facility. Despite initial dieoffs a substantial breeding population was established and has grown rapidly to a herd of from 500 to 1,000 animals. Elk hunting seasons have already been held, but responsible Federal officials express alarm over the difficulties-some say impossibility-of controlling elk herd increases. reason given is inadequate hunting pressure arising from lack of motorized access. The Department of Game and Fish has acknowledged the possibility of inadequate harvests with resulting range damage, but it has expressed confidence in its ability to effect population control as the need arises. There is a clear difference of opinion here between the managers of elk habitat and the game production authorities. The possibility of uncontrollable overpopulations of elk occurring in the wilderness back country, aided by the persistent removal of large predators in the region, is eminent. 5/ Perhaps the greatest problem which the elk herd presents to the wilderness is an eventual demand for a hunter access road into the area to facilitate elk reduction. There is a precedent in this region of road construction to aid in game
Two species of deer inhabit the wilderness-the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) and the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi). Both provide considerable sport, being the most abundant big game species. They attract several hundred hunters into the wilderness during the fall months. It is very doubtful whether the annual increases of the species are harvested by sportsmen. Records reveal previous overpopulations of deer with serious damage to the range. Intensive programs of predator removal from the area in earlier years and presently from peripheral regions has further aggravated the situation. There is little precise data available on population numbers and range trends, but there is evidence that game populations and habitat have been out of balance. Range deterioration due to deer has not been reported recently though it occurred in the early 1930's. Domestic livestock use continues to be a major source of plant and soil attrition, especially along the wilderness area boundaries.
3/ Joseph Asaph Allen, 1895, "Notes on the Mammals of Portions of Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, " Essex Institute Bulletin 6(1874): 43-66. "E. M. Lang, "Elk of New Mexico," New Mexico Department of Fish and Game, Bulletin 8, 1958 5! Predator control activities have been unusually vigorous in the Gila Wilderness for many years. The famed hunter, Ben Lilly, was employed in this region in the 1910's and 1920's and successfully reduced lion and bear populations to a minimum. Lilly is credited with taking over 500 lions and nearly an equal number of bears from this general region, since his organized sport hunting for lion and bear continued for many years. Predator control in this region, as well as throughout the State, continues. The predator kill under Federal participation for New Mexico from 1941 through 1960 was 116 bears, 22,256 lynxes and bobcats, 104,933 coyotes, 251 mountain lions, and 48 wolves-a total of 127,604 predators. This does not include many of those poisoned or unreported to authorities.
Merriam's elk (Cervus merriami) were present in the Mogollon Mountains in historic times and were abundant in other mountain areas of Arizona and New Mexico. Although usually isolated by surrounding arid country, large numbers of this species in 1870 Page 16
wrote concerning the Copperas Canyon Road in a 1937 memorandum, 6/ “During 1930, in order to facilitate the removal of the overpopulation of deer, the Forest Service did enough work on the road to make it passable.” The North Star road, constructed in the early 1930's, which split the Gila Primitive Area into two parts, was partially justified to control deer overpopulation in the canyon and mesa region between the Mogollon and Black Ranges.
management in New Mexico is population control. As expressed by E.M. Lang of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish: 8/ “The major problem facing the deer manager today, in many areas of overabundant deer supply, is the lack of adequate harvest of deer by hunters, primarily because of rough and inaccessible terrain.” This is particularly true in the wilderness area where travel is restricted either to horseback or afoot. Protecting large predators within the wilderness boundaries would help to maintain an adequate annual harvest. In the absence of sufficient human hunting pressure, they act as a natural and desirable check on deer productivity.
The black bear (Euarctos americanus), which in the past had been hunted as a predator and for sport, is today considered an important game species, although the annual kill is considerably less than that of deer. During the 1930's the Forest Service initiated a program to encourage withdrawal of sheep from the Gila Wilderness. This, plus some bear predation upon sheep, combined with other difficulties plaguing sheep growers, caused them to withdraw their herds from the wilderness and seek range elsewhere. At this time 18,000 head of sheep grazed the area for a 3-month season, and nearly 9,000 head of cattle and horses grazed on a yearlong basis. ? / Overgrazing by sheep had already caused widespread damage to parts of the range. Predation by black bear upon domestic livestock within the wilderness today is negligible, owing to the removal of most livestock from the centermost wilderness portions and the shift from sheep to cattle. Several sources have reported that with the advent of 1080 poisoning near the wilderness the bear population has dwindled steadily until today the species is present in only a fraction of its previous numbers. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service control programs require that 1080 be put out and taken up when the bears are in hibernation, the probability of some bear losses due to poisoning is good.
The smaller species of carnivores, (coyote, bobcat, fox skunk, weasel, etc.) are encountered only rarely. Continued use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in lands adjoining the wilderness is believed to be materially reducing their numbers. Fish and Wildlife Service predator-control personnel report that because of the secondary and tertiary effects (coyote eats poisoned carcass, dies; crow eats coyote, dies, fox eats crow, dies), one poison set is effective for an area of about one township, or thirty-six square miles. When placed at or near the wilderness boundaries, as they often are, these poison sets must profoundly effect carnivore populations well into the interior of the “protected area.
The wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo, is well established in the wilderness area,commonly found where open timbered ridges are found in combination with good grass cover. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish is presently attempting to increase the turkey population with the wilderness. Artificial watering units, composed of a large metal cistern and a ground level concrete drinking basin, have been constructed in a dozen or more locations on the assumption that in drier areas, water is the factor of limiting distribution and population density. This raises the question of whether such management practices consistent with preserving wilderness conditions in as near a natural state as possible.
The only large predator present in any appreciable number within the wilderness boundaries today (the wolf is now extinct) is the mountain lion (Felis concolor). This species, once abundant and a major predator upon the deer populations, has been reduced through continued hunting and predator control activities. Despite the lion's ignominious status as a "varmint,” it offers perhaps the most exciting sport of any large mammal inhabiting the wilderness and warrants consideration as a game species. Sport hunting without predator control and poisoning should serve adequately to reduce lion numbers as needed. Today the degree of predation by lions upon livestock has, as with the bear, been greatly reduced through elimination of high country livestock grazing. Such predation as does occur can probably be controlled as individual cases rather than attempting to eradicate or greatly suppress the lion population.
Non-Federal acreage within the Gila Wilderness in 1960 was 225.6 acres. 9/ These are used in various parcels for livestock production by local
Rex King, Memo, op.cit. 1 Jan. 18, 1930, Report on Gila Primitive Area, U. S. Forest Service, Silver City, N. Mex.
8/ YE. M. Lang, "Deer of New Mexico," New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Bulletin 5, 1957. 95. Serviss, U.S. Forest Service, Silver City, N. Mex., Personal communication, Sept. 2, 1960
within wilderness boundaries is only approximate and not an accurate indicator of total pressure on the habitat. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cattle are being grazed for parts of each year within lower portions of the wilderness. Most of this use is by cattle and a little by horses and mules. This compares with 5,689 head of cattle and horses and 19,500 sheep and in 1953 and 8,829 head of cattle and horses and 18,000 sheep in 1930. Grazing by horses within the wilderness boundaries is slowly increasing as a result of special use permits issued to packers. Increased recreation packing has a tendency to increase the number of corrals, fenced pastures, and grazing pressure within wilderness boundaries.
management. Since the original establishment of the Gila Primitive Area private land inholdings have been recognized by administrators as a principal problem in wilderness preservation. They have been a major factor in reduction of the original area to its present size. Private lands were originally obtained through various homestead, mineral, and agriculture settlement land disposal laws of the Federal Government prior to the reservation of the Gila Wilderness. In the 1924 plan of management and at intervals in succeeding years it was recommended that these areas be acquired by land exchange. In 1937 a Forest Service regional officer wrote, “In my opinion, one of the greatest dangers to the primitive area in the future is going to be the privately owned land within it and I believe we should acquire as much as can as rapidly as possible.” No evidence of an aggressive program for this purpose is available, so that in the 1953 reclassification it became necessary to eliminate the Gila Hot Springs private lands which are located near the center of the original primitive area. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has lately acquired lands within the wilderness through purchase of private patents. Upon these they are constructing or improving cabins for use of their field personnel, as well as building pastures for pack and saddle stock, the Miller Springs development being one example. These structures, while not elaborate, are already a source of controversy. While the Forest Service plans to progressively reduce certain administrative developments in the heart of the wilderness on the assumption that it detracts from wilderness conditions, the Department of Game and Fish is maintaining permanent buildings, pastures, and other refinements for administrative purposes.
Fire Suppression The flora of the Gila Wilderness Area evolved under natural fires occurring at irregular intervals for several centuries. A Forest Service report states, “Prior to the administration of the Government, this area was subject to forest fires which burned large areas in the high country." 10/ Records for the last several decades indicate an annual average of 60 lightning-caused fires within the wilderness boundaries alone. The yearly average for the entire Gila National Forest is 250 fires, 95 percent of them lightning-caused. The response of flora to former incessant burning of the habitat is visible throughout the wilderness. The larger individual trees are spaced some distance apart, and ground cover is primarily grass with a scattering of shrubs, particularly in the watercourses. While fire control programs on the smaller sized fires have been successful, other problems have arisen because of this success. In the last decade, about $1.8 million were spent for fire control on the Gila National Forest, during which period over 2,500 fires occurred. In one particularly bad year (1956), 529 fires were started and 5,470 acres of forest were burned; fire control costs were $226,400. Fire protection efforts in the past 50 years have created many changes in understory vegetation. It appears that successful fire control in a number of areas within Gila Wilderness has led to 1. Greatly increased accumulations of fuels on the forest floor, with more opportunity for much “hotter" fires to occur than previously. 2. Replacement of grassy meadows by pine trees (complicated and accelerated by overgrazing). 3. Increased scrub tree and brush area. 4. Development of thick stands of “doghair” reproduction in areas formerly containing only open, parklike stands of large ponderosa pine. Since competition is mostly for water, not light, the normal suppression pattern characteristic of humid forests does not occur in southwestern ponderosa pine. Small trees continue to grow at a constant slow rate. Their neutral mortality is low in stands unaffected by fire. 11/
Land use of properties immediately surrounding the wilderness is chiefly livestock grazing, with a few private and commercial recreation developments. Some logging occurs outside the north boundary. Grazing allotments extend into the wilderness along much of its boundary. Livestock use within these interior margin areas is generally heavy. Range damage has occurred in the past, and some stream-bottom areas, especially near the boundaries, are still heavily used by livestock. This arid mountain country does not appear capable of supporting profitable cattle operations on a long term basis in its present condition. Even moderate stocking now results in diminishing plant cover without satisfactory recovery. Unfortunately, each wilderness allotment represents a local rancher trying to maintain a cattle operation on less than optimum ranges, which vary with rainfall from year to year. Without these acreages, many individuals would be unable to continue operations. This poses a difficult problem with no immediate satisfactory solution. Rangeland carrying capacities, coupled with periodic droughts and increasing costs of operation, may in time render wilderness grazing profitless.
10 Jan. 18, 1930 USFS report, op.cit. Charles F. Cooper, 1960, "Changes in Vegetation Structure, and Growth of Southwestern Pine Forests Since White Settlement," Ecological Monographs 30: 129-164.
hunters near the boundary) are in the area dur- There seems to have been no gross change in the situation during the intervening years. Hunting lions for sport in the wilderness was at one time a lucrative and exciting business. Ranchers regularly took out hunters, usually supplying horses, gear, and food, and in some cases guaranteeing the sportsman a lion. Prices ranged from $100 to $500 per trophy. 13/ This form of recreation has nearly ceased owing to a marked reduction in the mountain lion population. There has been no extensive development of resort or packer operations in the region, and the few facilities available are limited and scattered in outlying areas surrounding the wilderness. With an increasing number of harvestable elk arising from the transplanting program, a greater number of hunters may be expected to use the wilderness during the fall months. Most of these will pack in by horse and mule.
heat when a fire is started and escapes control. The result may destroy major portions of a forest rather than just litter and flammable young growth as was formerly the case. The result of such fires appear to be 1. Destruction of mature trees. 3. A regression in plant succession to grass and/ or scrub. The four large fires which the wilderness and adjacent primitive areas have experienced within the last decade all exhibit the above characteristics. The McNight (Black Range) fire in 1951 which burned 45,000 acres, the Little Creek fire in 1951 which covered 14,000 acres, the Lookout Mountain fire in 1953 which consumed 5,000 acres, and the Jerky Mountain fire which, in 1956, destroyed 1,700 acres of wilderness forest, are all cases in point. Cooper, in referring to southwestern pine forests, writes, “Whether the trend toward excessively dense pine thickets, with their accompanying problems of stagnation, can be reversed and the forest returned to anything like its original condition by the use of prescribed fire is questionable. Forty years of fire protection have perhaps allowed the situation to get beyond control." Lightning storms, of course, did not begin coincidentally with settling of the country or with its protection from fire. No doubt, the white man influenced the character of the forest during the early days, but the underlying ecological aspect-open parklike stands with grass understory-is still evident today. The foregoing suggests the most important factor in the extraordinarily destructive fires of 1951 and 1953 was the gradual accumulation of fuels which, when ultimately ignited, produced sufficient heat thai the forest's natural ecological protection against fire damage became ineffective. It appears that present fire protection programs may lead to a fire pattern of intermittent conflagrations periodically destroying large portions of the wilderness forest. It also appears that a fire-climax forest without fires, steadily loses those features which originally made it so attractive for recreation. Carrying capacity for wildlife decreases, scenic values may diminish and the character of the forest itself becomes altered. All of these are presently occurring in the Gila Wilderness Area.
Developments within the wilderness are presently confined to the miscellaneous construction activities of the U.S. Forest Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Some habitat improvement by the game and fish department has been completed, and plans are being formulated for additional projects. Numbers of wire mesh dams have been constructed along watercourses to capture floating debris and create pools. Turkey and big game watering units have been installed in drier areas, and other habitat-manipulation programs, including meadow restoration, are contemplated The principal Forest Service administrative facility is a comfortable ranger station development with house, barns, and irrigated pasture in the center of the wilderness at White Creek. This station is connected with the Willow Creek entrance to the wilderness on the north boundary by a very wide, well-graded trail, constructed originally with a mechanical trail building tractor. The most recent large development project within the wilderness has been the construction of a 2,700foot air landing strip at McKenna Park. Originally proposed in 1955 by the Forest Service as a fire control measure, the plan met with local and conservation organization opposition and was dropped. In 1958 the Forest Service renewed the idea as essential for fire control and administrative purposes. Local administration felt the airstrip would permit discontinuance of mechanized ground equipment for hauling supplies to wilderness facilities. Justification for the airstrip was based primarily on anticipated improved fire control activities, and on increased ease in transporting field personnel to work in the area. With the
Records reveal little change in the estimated recreational use of the Gila from 1942 to the present. In 1942 there were 1,300 visits to the area and 5,200 man-days of use. In 1959 there were 1,500 visits amounting to 4,500 man-days of use. A Forest Service statement pertaining to the years immediately previous to 1952 estimated as follows: “About 100 people a year ride or hike through it (the wilderness) because they enjoy the wild outdoors. Some 300 to 400 sportsmen fish the streams near the boundaries with a fairly large number making some use of the out-of-way streams in the center of the area. About 200 saddle, and pack animals, and the
in 1959 for administrative use only near the center of the wilderness. After 1 year of intermittent use, chiefly by the ranger headquartered at White Creek near the airstrip, fire control officers have expressed the opinion that the airstrip is no longer of primary importance to their operations. Helicopters, though expensive, can do a better job. The airstrip is still helpful, however, in transporting personnel and supplies in routine administration, and for quick inspections of the area.
The first and largest boundary alteration occurred in 1933, when approximately 130,000 acres were removed from the Gila Primitive Area and administratively reclassified as the Black Range Primitive Area. In 1927, Gila National Forest personnel made proposals for improving a wagon road through the Gila Primitive Area to private ranch lands between the Mogollon and Black Ranges. It was believed the road would facilitate fire protection and administration, and assist in controlling a deer overpopulation in this vicinity. At the time, there was disagreement within the Forest Service as to whether the road was advisable or not. In a 1927 memorandum from the assistant regional forester, it was stated: “In the discussion extension of the North Star Road it developed that from a wilderness standpoint, Mr. Cheney did not favor any extension of this road, and that Operation believed that its extension was virtually unnecessary as an aid to fire protection; it being pointed out that the record for the past fifteen years showed that comparatively few fires had occurred within the area on the west slope of the Black Range that would be served by this road," 14/ The 1930 Forest Service “Report on the Gila Primitive Area," however recommended: “1) Reconstruction of old North Star Road and Copperas Canyon Road... for forest protection purposes; 2) Other protection roads when need develops and no limit on the number of trails or other protective improvements needed in adequately handling forest fires within the area." 15/ In 1931-32 the Forest Service, with the help of CCC labor,extended the North Star Road northward about 30 miles until it bisected the primitive area from south to north. The road ran through relatively level mesa-type country most of the distance and connected several private ranch developments within the area. Sentiments of a few prominent ranchers with private holdings along the road encouraged the construction decision. It also enabled private landholders west of the road to extend primitive roads considerable distances to their
there were in-Service protests against having a road penetrate the primitive area. The issue was concluded in a September 1932 letter directed to the Chief Forester from the regional forester in Albuquerque which read in part: “In accordance with Major Stuart's suggestion, we are planning to revise the Gila Primitive Area report and probably submit two, one covering the Mogollon area and one enlargement of the area in the Black Range, cutting out the portion along the Continental Divide, which is now traversed by the Forest development North Star Road. The Supervisor is being requested to submit revised reports for these two areas."16/ The 1933 “Revised Report on Gila Primitive Area” eliminated a belt of land along the North Star Road and redesignated the original primitive area into two parts. 17/ During this period a low-standard road was constructed 12 miles up Copperas Canyon into the Gila Primitive Area by the Forest Service for fire control purposes. Like the North Star Road, it followed the route of an old wagon road over rough, rocky terrain made 50 to 60 years previously by the Army while fighting Indians. Subsequent to this improvement in the 1930's, the Forest Service resisted a number of highly publicized efforts by the owner of mineral deposits on Alum Mountain near Copperas Canyon, to further improve the road with government funds. Development of the Copperas Canyon Road and further improvement by land owners greatly facilitated travel within the primitive area to the Gila Hot Springs private holdings. With vehicular traffic able to reach the inholdings, there began a steady increase in development and use of the area along the Gila River bottoms, including a recent subdivision and sale of cabin sites. The surrounding region is economically dependent on livestock grazing, a limited amount of lumbering, and some mining. Fall hunting is an important local activity and some source of income to surrounding communities. The people and culture of the region a mixture of Anglo-Spanish American, with a long history of dependency on grazing and mining. In 1944, war demands resulted in further amendment excluding 5,150 acres containing fluorspar deposits along the southwest boundary of the primitive In this instance Forest Service regulations were superceded by Federal mining laws. In 1952 the Forest Service began proceedings to reclassify the area from primitive area (L-20) to wilderness area (U-1) category. A public hearing was called in Silver City, New Mexico, to discuss "Proposed Modification of the Gila Wilderness
14 "Memorandum for Files" from Assistant District Forester (RR. Minor Roads and Trails. L. Recreation, Wilderness Area.) dated March 30, 1927, received at U.S. Forest Serv ice, Silver City, N. Mex., April 1, 1927. 15/ "Report on Gila Primitive Area" (L. Recreation Gila) U.S. Forest Service, Silver City, N. Mex., Jan. 18, 1930.
16/ Letter to the Forester, Washington, D.C., from Regional Director, U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, N. Mex., (L. Classification, Primitive and Natural Areas, Experimental Forests.) Sept. 2, 1932. 11 "Revised Report on Gila Primitive Area,”' (L. Classification, Gila.) U.S. Forest Service, Silver City, N. Mex., March 9, 1933.
inate 188,000 acres of the Gila Primitive Area and classify the remaining 375,000 acres as the Gila Wilderness. The elimination included the eastern third of the primitive area (4,200 acres of private patented lands, 75,000 acres of commercial timberland, and the balance in mesa woodland-grass and canyon areas). Another 4,500 acres of timberland on Iron Creek Mesa near the northwest boundary of the area was also proposed for elimination. The principal factors influencing the large acreage elimination proposal were a number of private land parcels concentrated in the Gila Hot Springs Area on the Gila River, the extensive public auto travel occurring on lands east of the Gila River, and the presence of commercial timberlands within the primitive area boundaries. The two latter factors will be discussed further:
The 1930 Management Plan for the Gila Primitive Area discussed “forest values” in the following statement: “At present, none of the volume of timber (605, 382 M.B.F. in the primitive area) is merchantable due to its inaccessibility. Last summer, District Logging Engineer Lang made a study of the Gila drainage with a view to determining the possibility of logging this area. His report brings out the fact that a portion of this area could possibily be logged but at present the expense involved would not justify logging this country and the timber within the area should be withheld from general market sales until 1940."
as the demand for timber picture might change.” 18 / The regional forester's 1952 boundary proposal statement reviewed the wilderness timber situation as follows: “There is very little interest in harvesting timber stands inside the wilderness at this time. Nevertheless, New Mexico does need more industries to balance its overall economy and the harvesting and utilization of timber stands offers important possibilities in that respect. Counties also receive 25 percent of receipts from timber sales so they are interested in income from national-forest land. “In this connection, there seems little doubt that some of the timbered areas along the north end should have been included in the wilderness. Most of the timber lies in the northwest part although there are minor stands east of the Gila River. Included in the timbered area are approximately 320,000 acres supporting an estimated gross volume of about 500 million board feet. The proposed boundary adjustment would eliminate some 75,000 acres of commercial type timber and a hundred million board feet but would leave within the area the largest reserved body of ponderosa pine in the country-some 400 million board feet. “In analyzing the timber situation, one must of course, consider the long-time values and the interests of all people, including the downstream watershed dependencies in Arizona, The Forest Service, however, does not feel that there is justification for the elimination of very much of the timber type in this drainage. The nation's timber supply should never be allowed to fall so low as to require logging of rough, interior areas; to do so would only increase the annual cut of timber by a few million board feet, whereas a large, unbroken wilderness area should be worth far more than that, both locally and nationally. It is felt, however, that the remainder of Iron Creek Mesa should be eliminated since it does represent a very good tract of timber land that can be easily and economically harvested and managed for timber production. New Mexico and the nation should raise timber for commodity use on such as that. Also, the elimination should include the bottom of Iron Creek to allow both sides of the creek to be used for camping and recreational development in the future, if needed for that purpose.” The second major reason for the 1952 boundary adjustment proposal dealt with the many miles of wilderness boundary today where the lines are wholly illogical or present such handicaps to control as to make the enforcement of wilderness area restrictions virtually impossible."19/ The Forest Service stated that “With development of motorized travel,
In the 1933 revised management plan for the Gila Wilderness Area, the following comments were made concerning timber production potential: “The main timber unit is on the east slope of the Mogollon range and consists of 73,000 acres, with an estimated stand of 258,560 M.B. feet. This unit is located on several drainages and railroad construction, even for the portions which might under some conditions ultimately be operated, would be extremely expensive, each drainage being in the nature of a box canyon from 500 to 1,500 feet deep and cutting the area from east to west. "In view of the above facts and the natural adaptability of this area to wilderness conditions, the cutting of saw timber in this area will be discouraged and deferred until a direct demand develops and it shall be demonstrated that operation is economically feasible and desirable. However, the area will be open for sales of poles, posts, and cordwood for strictly local use.”
Since 1933, road improvements have made the northern portion of the wilderness more accessible. Another view was expressed in 1943 by Assistant Regional Forester E.G. Miller: “When the primitive areas were established in New Mexico, I doubt if many people had in mind permanently witholding all timber included within the boundaries from commercial use, or that great difficulty would be exper
Letter from E. G. Miller, Assistant Regional Forester, to Regional Forester, November 1, 1943. 19 Otto C. Lindh, "A statement regarding the proposed boundary adjustment of the Gila Wilderness Area," 1952. Page 17
to the wilderness at innumerable points along the east side where the open, rolling terrain permitted cross-country travel almost at will. Vehicles have penetrated far into the wilderness where hunters set up their 'auto' camps, serenely unconscious of, or indifferent to, the wilderness boundaries." A review of events prior to 1952 helps to explain the establishment of vehicle use of portions of the Gila Primitive Area. Soon after the North Star Road was completed in 1932, it became an easy matter to drive long distances over the mesas west of the road, without use of road systems. Owners of a few scattered parcels of private ranching lands immediately took advantage of this access opportunity, and deer hunters soon followed in creating motor trails to hunting camps far in the interior of the primitive area. There was no particular reason for the Forest Service to halt or control this use in the 1930's, since primitive areas were not firmly designated at that time to preserve wilderness conditions. They were best described as designations to reserve certain lands pending demands for commercial utilization, and the plan for the Gila Primitive Area included provisions for utilization and boundary changes as these demands developed. After the creation of U-1 regulation in 1939 authorizing a more restrictive wilderness designation, the Forest Service issued orders that all primitive areas should be managed as though under Regulation U-1, pending official reclassification to U-1. By this time motorized use in the region under discussion had become so well established and difficult to control that local administrators found it an awkward and distasteful public relations problem to suddenly enforce new interpretations of the Gila Primitive Area regulations. There were several sporadic and unsuccessful attempts to reduce vehicular travel, but the restriction provisions were never clearly established in the general region. Consequently, at the time of the 1952 reclassification hearings. it was proposed to eliminate
designate as wilderness only that portion of the Gila Primitive Area not easily accessible by autobiles. At the same time jeep and truck travel had been developing at campers' entrances to the primitive area on both the north and south boundaries. Local forest administrators found it very difficult to apprehend and effectively prosecute these violations in the Federal courts. Such cases are given low priority in the Federal court proceedings, and the regulations concerning wilderness areas do not appear to contain sufficient strength to make a solid case in Federal courts. At least, aggressive action in these matters has never been pursued in this region. At the 1952 hearings there was a surprising amount of protest to the idea of eliminating the 138,000 acre tract, and paradoxically by some persons who used the area by automobile in hunting seasons. As a result the tract was left in primitive area status, but its eventual elimination from this classification seems probable. In 1953, specific authorization 20/ was granted by the Forest Service for public auto use of existing unimproved roads within the primitive area. Since then these roads have been “signed to prevent vehicular travel, but some auto traffic still occurs. In January 1953, the Secretary of Agriculture formally established the Gila Wilderness Area under Regulation U-1, with a total area of 438,626 acres. Boundary changes at the time of establishment left the large acreage between the Gila River and the North Star Road, a belt of land on the north boundary, and Copperas Canyon outside the wilderness and in primitive area status. The proposed elimination of 4,500 acres of timberland in Iron Creek Mesa were placed in the Gila Wilderness classification. In July 1957 a corridor up Copperas Canyon was created under Regulation U-1, eliminating the road to Gila Hot Springs from the Primitive Area. Since that time the boundary has remained stable.
Section 5–Fire Suppression and Ecological Succession
The fact that unmodified natural conditions do not exist in any extensive area in the continental United States has been previously indicated in this report. Natural conditions have been so disrupted by the direct or indirect activities of man that it is a most difficult problem to determine what pre- Indian or preWhite Man natural conditions may have been; or what they would be today, had they never been disturbed even by indirect influences of man. Apparent plant successional trends and interrelationships among plant and animal life have been ascertained in different sections of the country, but the native ecology in all its aspects is still not fully known. There are, of course, species of plants and animals known to have existed before the arrival of white man which have vanished or virtually disappeared from developed regions, but which still can be found in restricted locations. These areas are museum type preser
vations, however, and are not necessarily representative of conditions under natural biologic succession. Of those factors altering the course of natural processes and ecological succession, forest fire suppression is of special importance. Lightningand Indian-caused fires occurring with some regularity over previous centuries played a primary role in creating the forests and vegetation first viewed by American settlers. But as fire suppression efforts have become increasingly effective, the forest distribution, composition, and structure in apparently unmodified areas have changed accordingly. Where periodic native fires originally helped to maintain variety in the landscape, including meadows, grassy park areas, and "open" forests, fire protection is now
pretations now employed by these agencies will obligate reexamination of fire control policies or at least public information programs. What is suggested here, is the possibility of establishing different and perhaps less rigorous fire protection policies for portions of some wilderness areas, to assist in perpetuating natural processes and landscape diversity for future rezreation and scientific purposes. The unique character of wilderness might be best maintained under policies where modified suppression is exercised in selected wilderness zones, In other zones it may be possible to simulate the processes of nature by periodic controlled burning where adequate natural barriers to fire spread exist. In any instance, such programs would require intensive study and reorientation from current practices, and separate fire plans for individual wilderness areas. There are many problems inherent in such a proposal, and it is suggested here as a countermeasure to disappearance of important wilderness values. To illustrate the influence of fire and fire suppression on natural ecology, examples of widely varying vegetation conditions represented by several wilderness areas are included in the remainder of this section,
shrinkage of grass acreage, and proportional decrease of numbers of tree species less tolerant of shade, such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white pine and red pine. Successful fire suppression in wilderness areas does not necessarily provide the optimum recreation area. Loss of some kinds of big game range which is especially suitable for many years following fires dimunition of grass zones for recreation stock grazing or camping, and elimination of scenic observation sites are evident in several western wilderness areas. Fire blackened forest sites with stumps and snags, are not usually regarded as esthetically pleasing; but any evaluation of this aspect should consider the conditioned public response to such scenes and that fire areas are often covered with sort of greenery in relatively few years. Fires are variable also, depending on the nature of fuel and fire weather conditions; so they produce different results, sometimes burning most of the vegetation and at other times only part of it. Under fire protection, perhaps the most serious trend is toward accumulating an abnormal amount and variety of fuels. When fires start in these situations in critically dry years they are difficult to stop with the best available suppression measures; if not halted, they may become so hot as to cause more damage to an area's vegetation and watershed than that of periodic fires occuring. before fire suppression became so effective. Present fire control policies of public agencies are generally to detect and suppress all fires as quickly as possible. The uncertainties of fire behavior in any situation and the complex factors of fire behavior forecasting, require the same intensity of fire suppression effort inside as well as outside wilderness areas. However, as fire behavior relationship to fuel conditions under a variety of weather conditions becomes better known, it should be feasible to consider other approaches to fire protection in wilderness areas. The National Park Service has defined wilderness as "an area whose predominant character is the result of interplay of natural processes” 21/ and has further elaborated; "the Park Service has a prime obligation to preserve its parks in an essentially unmodified natural condition.'' 22/ The Forest Service has commented, “Wilderness areas provide the last frontier where undisturbed nature retains its primeval state,” 23/ and a recent publication states, “Here are the wilderness, the wild and primitivelands of the National Forests. They are today as they were before our ancestors, as they will be beyond our time and the time of our children.” 24/
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana
The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area 25/ embraces 990,000 acres of mountainous terrain along the Continental Divide south of Glacier National Park. It contains the upper drainages of the South Fork of the Flathead River and the North Fork of the Sun River-two major rivers within the area. The wilderness elevations range from 4,000 feet at boundary locations to a maximum of 9,253 feet on Swan Mountain. Annual rainfall averages 21 inches west of the Continental Divide and 15 inches east of the divide, with most of the precipitation normally falling in spring and early summer. Three-fourths of the area is covered with forests, and 10 percent is in alpine and barren rocky regions, and another 10 percent is meadow, grass, and brushland. Vegetation composition and distribution have been strongly governed by a long history of periodic fires, mostly lightning caused, over the past several centuries. Lodgepole pine is the predominant species in the area, but Douglas-fir, larch, and Engelmann spruce are also extensively distributed. Ponderosa pine is found in limited numbers at scattered locations within the wilderness. Seasonal lightning fires and some started in early days by Indians have created a widely varied vegetative pattern in a region famous for a number of annually occurring fires. Since the earliest known records there have been several major conflagrations in the area, notably in 1889 and 1910. The 1910 fire burned an estimated 245,000 acres, or 25 percent
National Park Service, “Preservation of Natural and Wilder ness Values in the National Parks," 1957, 29 pp. 22/ National Park Service, Acting Director, memorandum on public land management] Assistant Secretary of Interior, Aug. 16, 1960 23 Edward P. Cliff, "'The Care and Use of National Forests,” Lond: Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA 1958, pp. 392-401. 24/U.S. Forest Service. "Wilderness-The National Forests America's Playgrounds," P.A. 459, June 1961.
In mation on this area was provided in special reports to the Wildland Research Center prepared in 1960 by Professor Robert W. Steele and Lawrence C. Merriam, Jr., of the School of Forestry, Montana State University; Leslie W. Pengelly, Extension Wildlife Specialist, Montana State University; and from various publications.
of the wilderness has burned in fires over 500 acres in size. Of 239 fires in the area since 1940, 222 were lightning caused. Fire danger rises in irregular years when precipitation is unusually light in early summer months. Previous fires have helped to establish a fire hazard condition within the area that at present is broadly rated as medium-forest fire fuels are not so abundant generally as to require more than a "standard” amount of forest fire protection. Since forest fire suppression efforts have been increasingly effective through the use of aerial detection and suppression techniques, the fuel accumulations are gradually increasing in amount and extent. Of 239 fires occurring since 1940, only 3 burned areas more than 100 acres in size.
a growth of herbaceous vegetation consisting of fireweed, thimbleberry, bear grass, bracken fern, and dogbane. These are followed by a dense growth of shrubby vegetation including willow, aspen, redstem ceanothus, snowbrush, chokecherry, serviceberry, mountain maple, and others. Seral stages of shrubby growth resulting from fire provide an almost unlimited source of deer food and encourage increases in grouse populations. 26/ In winter, elk are found associated with these extensive shrub areas, which dominate sites from 6 to 10 years after fires. When the shrubs are overtaken and eventually crowded out by conifers, the abundant browse disappears. Past fires in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area have provided excellent habitat conditions for elk and deer. Protection afforded by game preserves since 1913, together with ample winter food on burned areas and reduced predator populations, allowed the Sun River and South Fork elk herds to increase to maximum size by about 1930. 27/ Big game hunting opportunities have been superior in this area for the past 50 years, but overpopulation problems have also been evident.
From 1926 to 1936 the elk population on the national forests of region 1 more than doubled to an estimated 32,500 animals. Plant succession following the early fires had not progressed past the seral shrub stage into timber stages and the elk increased in numbers. 28/ This was accompanied by a shift in game management emphasis from protection to harvesting
The normal undisturbed succession of tree species for the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area is a gradual march toward the climax forest (one in which reproduction can become established and survive in the shade of parent trees), composed of shade tolerant species such as Engelmann spruce, alpine fir, white fir, and western hemlock. The climax is an eventual result of a series of developmental stages and is the most advanced expression of vegetation possible under the existing climate. Much of the area would be dominated by forests composed of these species were there no forces such as fire to arrest and set back the progress of succession. Some subdominant plants of this climax type include huckleberry, currants, wintergreen, pipsissewa, baneberry, pyrolas, saxifrage, twinberry, and mountain ash. Associated animals are elk, deer, bear, marten, red squirrels, snowshoe rabbits, porcupine, spruce grouse, and pine grosbeak. Lodgepole pine, aspen, Douglas-fir, larch and ponderosa pine are considered "fire-type" species because fire was a major factor in their establishment. There are many examples throughout the wilderness area of these forest types, either as pure stands or as mixtures. Of these, lodgepole pine is the most pronounced fire-type because the cones generally require heat to be opened in numbers, although this is not true on all sites. The least extensive type is the ponderosa. Douglass-fir, larch, and ponderosa pine prefer mineral soil on which to germinate, and considerable sunlight to thrive. Aspen is commonly associated with the young lodgepole stands and is an important wildlife food. vides a contrast in color and form that enhances the scenery. The diverse forest types with their varied age classes and density, along with grassy meadows and open parks, afford habitat conditions for a wide range of wildlife, including elk and deer. This diversity of flora and fauna is lacking when the climax type dominates large areas. The grassy parks, though not extensive, are important because of the high volume of palatable feed they produce, and are varied enough in size so that no monotony of scenery is experienced. They are an asset to wilderness recreationists and are essential to wildlife in significant numbers.
Vegetation changes due to fire protection As previously discussed, past fires have maintained extensive areas of big game habitat and landscape variety in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Now current fire protection methods employing smoke jumpers, airplanes, helicopters, and chemical retardants have reduced the role of fire in ecological succession, and the influence of protection is becoming apparent. Along the North Fork of the Sun River, a 19th century grassland type has altered due to complete fire protection. Today this area is broken up into many different size parks with the intruding timber forming patches of lodgepole pine and aspen. These "meadow invasions” are gradually shrinking areas of open parks, which are essential for several kinds of recreational value. Some protected areas of the Bob Marshall have reached the spruce-alpine fir climax. This type, though desirable in limited quantity, does not favor
20 Leslie W. Pengelly, "Elk Population Problems in the 3ob Marshall Wilderness Area," report prepared for the Wildland Research Center, 1960. 27 Merle D. Rognrund, "A study of Big Game in the Continental and Adjacent Units," Montana Fish and Game Dept., Wild land Rest. Div., Helena, Mont., 1950, 188 pp. mimeo. 28/ Leslie W. Pengelly, "Elk Population Problems in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, " Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, mimeo report, 1960, 60 pp.
well-maintained trails. In other places the small amount of open ponderosa pine type is decreasing due to fire protection. Here encroachment by Douglass-fir and lodgepole is evident. The open ponderosa pine site is highly desirable for camping. It also generally produces recreation stock forage on the forest floor. Such forage is a factor already limiting the number of pack parties using this area. It is estimated that more than 90 percent of the Bob Marshall Wilderness use is by saddle horse with pack stock. The change in vegetation type resulting from fire protection is creating an area more uniformly covered with timber, with fewer parks and smaller natural openings. It provides less diversity of type and decreased browse and other wildlife foods. The variety and numbers of wildlife species also are reduced as a forest moves to its climax stages. Observation of wildlife adds greatly to a wilderness experience, and hunting provided by wildlife species is an important wilderness activity: over 50 percent of the current recreation use of this area is in hunting. There is little doubt that continued intensive fire protection will change recreational opportunities and activities and will tend to make the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area a different wilderness from what it is today or was when first set aside. Questions are therefore raised whether rigid fire protection is desirable and whether a policy of less intensive protection is feasible. This very preliminary review suggests that preservation of uniq'ie wilderness values may require a reexamination of current fire protection policies. After more adequate fuel, topography, and weather prediction data become available, modifications in protection and suppression plans, as well as management by control burning of selected sites, may be feasible and desirable.
sufficient to establish a continuous young hardwood forest on most pineland sites, which occupy a minor, but distinctive, portion of the park. Sawgrass fires burning down into the deeper peat and marl deposits produce ponds of open water which, along with the sloughs, drainage channels, and alligator holes, help provide dry season refuges for fish and other aquatic life. In accordance with park policy, wildfire control has been carried on since park establishment in 1947. Though fires in the area are deplored, there is a sufficient concern over the effects of long-term complete fire exclusion that control burning experimentation in the pinelands near road developments is Complete fire exclusion here tends to build up fuel concentrations, which make future fires more difficult to control, and creates the potential for excessive disruption of native conditions, The Everglades have been affected by drainage operations prior to the creation of a national park in a portion of the region. The maintenance of original water levels on the glades is the central problem in management of the park wilderness conditions. It is probable that the glades cannot be long maintained in their present aspect with or without fire, unless this problem is satisfactorily solved. The National Park Service is currently negotiating with the Army Engineers to divert additional water from Lake Okeechobee through the park area. The lowering of the water table with concurrent protection of the glades from fire has brought about successional changes that create problems in maintaining the park in its former natural condition. Though raising of the water level or maintenance of water over the glades for longer periods of time will help, a policy of rigid fire suppression may still bring about alterations of the area from its original state.
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Everglades National Park The Everglades National Park, comprising an area of over 2,188 square miles, contains vast expanses of marshy sawgrass, mangrove trees, and open water. It is a southwesterly draining plain barely above sea level and located at the southern tip of Florida. Preserved here is the largest and most representative section of semitropical wilderness in the United States. The plant cover is one of the distinctive attractions of the area and consists of five main vegetative types—the hammocks or raised islands of hardwood forests, the bayheads or tree islands in the sawgrass, the pinelands, the mangrove swamps, and the sawgrass everglades. The endless reaches of sawgrass with their tree islands constitute the major scenic elements of the interior freshwater areas, This is a wilderness submerged for half the year, yet its original and present condition have been shaped by wildfire. Studies have revealed that natural fire has been a major ecological influence in the Everglades National Park Area and that fire suppression may eventually substantially modify the firemaintained subclimax vegetation types, the pine forest and the sawgrass prairies. 29/
The Okefenokee Swamp is an area covering approximately 412,000 acres in southern Georgia and northern Florida. A large part of it is the 329,000 acre national wildlife refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The swamp's elevation above sea level ranges from about 130 feet on the northeast side to about 105 feet on the southwest side. Its existence is due to a former sandhar, now a ridge, formed during the early Pleistocene period when the coastline was about 70 miles further inland. The sea level at this time was about 160 feet higher in relation to the land than at present. After the recession of the coastline, the ridge acted as a barrier to prevent drainage of the shallow basin forming the swamp. The principal outlet of the swamp is the Suwannee River emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, but some drainage is through the St. Marys River emptying into the Atlantic. The watershed of the swamp is relatively small, including only a mile wide area between the swamp and Trail Ridge to the northeast. The sandy ridge soil erodes sparingly and consequently deposits very little silt into the swamp. About 300,000 acres of flat sandy soil with little erosion drain into the swamp from the north and northwest. This almost complete
age. Except for a few small open water areas, the swamp is filled with peat almost to the average water level. The peat deposit, ranging to a depth of 20 feet or more, serves as the swamp floor. About 85 percent of the swamp is covered with forests dominated by either pond cypress or swamp blackgum. Marsh and open water areas called "prairies" make up the rest of the area. Small clumps of trees scattered throughout the prairies are called "houses"and larger stands of timber within the swamp are called "bays”.
from suppression of such fires as may occur, are subjected to no special treatment. 31/ Complete fire suppression over a long period of time, though doubtful of attainment, would remove a natural force that has affected the area and would result in conditions no longer reflecting the unique swamp characteristics that have made this wilderness the refuge worthy of special protection. This area also presents the possibility of control burning to maintain desirable ecological stages and distinctive natural processes. If fire as a natural agency in ecological succession is effectively suppressed, should control burning be substituted and to what extent and under what conditions ? This example serves to further define an issue which will be reviewed in more detail later.
Fires have long played an important part in the ecology of Okefenokee Swamp. There are records of droughts and accompanying fires in 1844, 1910, and 1932. The Okefenokee prairies or open water areas were caused by extremely hot fires that killed all plants, including root systems, and reduced peat levels sufficiently to prevent the reestablishment of vegetation. There is evidence of earlier fires even more devastating than those recently recorded. Undoubtedly, the prairie lakes resulted from great holes or pockets that burned out in the peat. At least 40 of these lakes are large enough to be designated by names, and there are innumerable smaller ones. Esthetically and ecologically they are unique aspects of the swamp. During an extended 1954-55 drought, extensive fires occurred in the Okefenokee Swamp and adjacent upland. The peat fires which ensued could not be controlled, with the result that fire swept over about 80 percent of the Swamp. Following the fires the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife instituted a special study of the fire effect. 30/ It was concluded that although 318,000 acres of swamp were burned over, the damage to the swamp was relatively small. Most of the swamp sustained little or no permanent damage. Damage to about 40,000 of pine timber on the upland, however, was vere. Coppice growth is rapidly replacing the timber killed in the more severely burned spots in the swamp. The fish populations, though drastically reduced during the drought, are rapidly recovering with the exception of largemouth bass where recovery has been slow. Alligators, sandhill cranes, herons, waterfowl, and bears were not adversely affected, and habitat conditions appear to have been improved. Otters, raccoons, and snakes, though reduced in numbers, are recovering. Since 1950, fire protection measures for the refuge have included a program of controlled burning on buffer lands on the periphery of the swamp. A perimeter fire control road has been constructed around the entire swamp. In addition, a sill or water control structure and levee has been completed across the Suwannee River at the outlet to the swamp, to hold water levels high enough to prevent recurrence of major swamp fires. The control burning does not pertain to the swamp proper or any of its islands, all
Other sections of this report have revealed how fire has always been a natural agency affecting the succession and general character of many wilderness areas. It has been pointed out how plant succession under fire protection is producing changes undesirable for recreation, game production and even fire protection. The Idaho and Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Areas have a past history of fire, as do many other western areas. Here burns resulting in browse fields, provided excellent conditions for big game population increase. A comparable situation exists in the southern portion of Yellowstone Park. Without periodic fires, protected areas often attain a subclimax or climax forest stage unfavorable to big game species. Changes due to fire suppression in the Gila Wilderness Area have been mentioned in a previous section. In the Southwest generally, the coming of the white man brought many new factors to disturb the ecological balance of the region. Domestic livestock grazing and fire protection have been the most significant modifiers of natural processes in this region. Under natural conditions, light surface fires, set by lightning or by Indians, burned through all parts of the pine forest at irregular intervals. These fires acted as natural thinning agents and reduced surplus fuel. With few fires to think dense stands of young pine help maintain meadow openings, forests are growing in extent and density. Barker has commented on the gradual loss of open park areas in the Pecos Wilderness Area in New Mexico, with subsequent loss of recreation and game range area. 32/ Man's exclusion of fire without the substitution of some other agent to thin sapling stands and to remove excess fuel has created a condition of near stagnation in some areas, and of fire hazard of increasing seriousness. 33/ Controlled burning or less intensive
31W.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Acting Director, memorandum (on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge management policy] to Secretary of the Interior, April 19, 1950. 32/Elliott S. Barker, "Bioecological Report on the Pecos Wilder ness Area," report prepared for Wildland Research Center, University of California, 1960. 33 Charles F. Cooper, "Changes in Vegetation, Structure, and Growth of Southwestern Pine Forests Since White Settlement," Ecological Monographs, April 1960, 30: 129–164.
Page 18
gested as possible management alternatives. Graham, in commenting on fire, states, “if naturalness is an
justified except for the protection of surrounding values." 34/
Section 6-Forest Insect and Disease Epidemics
(3) to prevent creation of fire hazards prevalent, at least for temporary periods, in insect and disease killed forests, Some confusion has arisen regarding the responsibility of the Forest and Park Services toward suppression of native insect and disease epidemics in wilderness areas. This has been created not only by agency declarations that natural conditions and processes are being preserved, but by various conservation group interpretations of agency obligations in regard to wilderness. It is patently clear that natural processes in all wilderness areas are being controlled or manipulated by the public agencies in increasing degree through fire, insect, and disease suppression. The result is temporary maintenance of certain preferred stages of ecological succession. And as management practices are applied to natural processes, the environmental manipulation problems not infrequently become more complex-requiring intensification of control efforts. Current insect and disease control policies and suppression activities of the principal agencies concerned with wilderness preservation are outlined in the following pages.
Efforts to suppress forest insects and diseases in National Park Service and national forest wilderness and primitive areas have increased in recent years. This activity is the result of more intensive surveys and knowledge of vegetation change caused by insects and diseases. Also, more funds are now available to government agencies for surveys and suppression programs on these natural forces. The two principal groups of forest insects are defoliators and bark beetles. Defoliating insects are combatted by aerial spraying of chemicals, usually over extensive acreages. Bark beetle infestations have required on-the-ground treatment of individual trees through various combinations of logging, peeling, burning, and chemical treatment. Such methods are most efficiently accomplished where roads provide access to insect epidemic areas being controlled. It is well recognized now that insect and disease epidemics can change landscape vegetation in wilder areas just as drastically as fire, although the processes are slower and not so spectacularly immediate. The situation is complicated by accidental introductions of foreign insects and diseases (exotics) which can spread rapidly through forest regions with severe consequences. There has never been serious controversy on the control of exotic pests; these are controlled wherever possible as funds permit. For example, over $5 million has been expended in the past 30 years to eliminate white pine blister rust in national parks and monuments. Alternate hosts to the rust (currant and gooseberry bushes) have been eliminated by hand grubbing and chemical spraying on 376,000 acres, to protect native species of five-needle pines common on many parks and monuments, The Forest Seryice has carried out a much more elaborate program on the national forests to protect commercial stands of white pine. The question of native insect and disease epidemic suppression in wilderness areas is, however, still controversial,even among professional entomologists and pathologists. Certainly control efforts negate the preservation of natural conditions frequently espoused for national forest and park wilderness areas. The natural factors controlling insect and disease epidemics, the intensity and distribution of epidemics without suppression, and the effects of chemical insect spraying on total biota of a forest area, are not well known for most forest insect species and for several chemicals in general use for spraying. Current agency policies are directed at suppressing insect and disease epidemics wherever feasible in both national forest and park wilderness areas on three bases: (1) To prevent spread of epidemics originating or maintained in wilderness areas to outlying areas of commercial timber or agriculture areas, (2) to preserve forests or tree species in which are judged by administrators to be the most desirable scenic and recreation environments, and
While the basic National Park Act of 1916 states that the Park Service shall “conserve the scenery and natural ... objects and wildlife therein,” interpretation regarding timberlands has been supplied by section 3 of the act, which states: "He (the Secretary) may also, upon terms and conditions to be fixed by him, sell or dispose of timber in those cases where, in his judgment, the cutting of such timber is required in order to control the attacks of insects or disease or otherwise conserve the scenery or natural or historic objects in any such park, monument or reservation”. The Act of September 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 857), further provides that: “The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to protect and preserve, from fire, disease, or the ravages of beetles, or other insects, timber owned by the United States upon the public lands, national parks, national monuments, ... either directly or in cooperation with other departments of the Federal Government, ... and appropriations are hereby authorized to be made for such purposes.' ." Probably as a result of these congressional act provisions a predilection exists for maintenance of certain vegetation features of national parks and
34/5. A. Graham, "Should Insect Outbreaks and Fires Within Nat ural and Wilderness Areas be Controlled?" report prepared for the Wildland Research Center, University of California, 1960.
processes. Regarding suppression of insects and diseases in wilderness areas the Park Service has stated that, “Control will be undertaken when it is considered necessary to protect significant species or plant communities, or to halt destructive invasion of nearby high value areas or resources outside the parks.” Insect and disease suppression activities for many years have been conducted regularly whenever considered necessary in nearly all parks and monuments. Major efforts are directed to maintaining certain tree species or forest stands (which are threatened by pest epidemics) in and near zones of park developments, but suppression has also been extended to considerable acreages in wilderness portions of certain parks and monuments. Aerial spraying with DDT and malathion, and pruning, tree removal, and chemical treatment of individual trees are commonly practiced within National Park Service areas. Since 1958, 770,000 acres in parks and monuments throughout the country have had suppression measures applied, and over 150,000 trees have been individually treated. Cost of this program for the 3 years activity was $512,000. In the past 20 years a continuing program of tree bark beetle suppression has been in effect for many parks and monuments. Aerial spray programs, sometimes in cooperation with the Forest Service, have been conducted in a number of epidemic areas for such defoliating insects as the spruce budworm, lodgepole needle miner, white fir needle miner, and caterpillars. Control efforts are also expanding on dwarf mistletoe (ponderosa pine infestations) in the West and oak wilt diseases in the Easi. Insects of potential danger to agriculture crops in areas surrounding parks and monuments have also been suppressed: an epidemic of Mormon crickets in Dinosaur National Monument was reduced by distributing poisoned grain to protect livestock forage both within and outside the monument; 25,000 wild cotton plants were destroyed in Everglades National Park to prevent establishment and spread of the Caribbean pink bollworm; and the white fringed beetle (a southern agriculture insect pest) was treated with dieldren in Fort Pulaski National Monument. Before controls are applied to any insect or disease outbreak, conditions are analyzed by the Park Service as well as possible, with advice solicited from other Government agencies regarding techniques, losses versus benefits, and possible adverse effects. Federal law places primary responsibility for forest pest control research with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Forest Service experiment station assistance is sought in pilot testing for suppression programs in park and monument areas. While some extensive fish losses from DDT spraying in several parks have been reported, it is claimed by the Park Service that these were not serious and are readily replaceable.
areas unless it is crystal clear that there will be disastrous consequences to forest values outside the areas." Programs generally for national forest wilderness areas have not been as extensive or intensive as in National Park Service areas-particularly for bark beetle control. Biological appraisal of insect and disease outbreaks on all national forest lands are conducted by forest experiment stations, but the decision for action on any particular situation is made by national forest administrative officers. Special evaluation factors for insect and disease control on national forest dedicated areas are listed in section 5231.43 of the Forest Service Manual. These cover basic policy factors previously mentioned in this report, and also state that commercial timber values within dedicated areas are not considered in deciding for or against suppression. The Forest Service's position on forest pest control was recently expressed in a statement to the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands: "If insects and diseases are not controlled, wilderness areas may serve as sources of infection to surrounding nationalforest land. Aerial spraying is effective against some insects and diseases but not against others. Every blowdown of timber in a wilderness area poses problems and is an ideal breeding ground for subsequent insect epidemics." 35 / The dangers of destroying timber adjacent to wilderness reserves, as well as interior values if infestations within wilderness areas are not controlled, have been particularly emphasized by those Forest Service personnel advocating control. The Forest Service indicates that control of forest insects and diseases will be undertaken “When necessary to protect wilderness and adjoining areas from the spread of insects and forest diseases.” Measures that may be employed at the discretion of the regional forester are aerial spraying and ground control measures that do not require roads. The Chief's approval must be obtained for insect or disease control measures requiring roads and for salvage of insect-infested, or diseased timber. Roads needed for these operations are considered temporary and are blocked or obliterated so far as possible after having served their specific purpose. 36/ During the past 20 years, portions of 12 national forest wilderness, wild, and primitive areas have been aerially sprayed with DDT (at 1 pound per acre) to suppress defoliator insects. A total of 807,000 acres (550,000 in the Idaho Primitive Area) were sprayed in these programs. In the same period 21,000 trees were individually treated with ethylene dibromide for bark beetle suppression in four primitive areas. In these areas 2.5 miles of roads were constructed (and later blocked to vehicle use) to facilitate suppression measures. In the Mission
Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service is supressing forest insect and disease epidemics on •Wilderness lands. The Forest Service, however, has
35/Statement of Richard W. McArdle, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, on S. 1176 before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Cong., Ist sess., June 19, 1957. 36 Letter and enclosures from U.S. Forest Service to Director, ORRRC, July 27, 1960.
brushland. Elk and deer use the area in summer and fall, and numerous lakes and streams interspersed among the meadow and forest lands provide excellent fishing. The area is chiefly used for summer domestic sheep grazing and for wilderness recreation. Its climate, flora, and fauna are typical of the western Colorado Rockies slope.
temporary roads were constructed to remove 5 million board feet of insect-killed timber. Plans for extensive temporary road systems in the Flat Tops Primitive Area in Colorado, to salvage Engelmann spruce beetle-killed forests, were abandoned when a proposed utilization plant nearby did not materialize. The Forest Service position on the relation of wilderness insect epidemics to surrounding commercial timberlands is well illustrated in its statement: 'In a few instances it has been necessary to treat infested trees within these special areas as part of an entomological unit to protect timber outside their boundaries. In these cases the objective has been to locate and treat an insect outbreak and reduce populations before an epidemic develops and sweeps through the wilderness-type areas into merchantable timber outside the area boundaries. You may recall the epidemic of a few years ago in the Flat Tops Primitive Area where three billion board feet of spruce were killed by an epidemic that came out of the primitive area on such a broad front we couldn't control it until it practically burned itself out."37/ Specific data costs of suppressing insect attacks on national forest wilderness, wild, and primitive areas were not collected, but the most recent annual expenditure for suppression of insects and diseases on national forests was approximately $6 million,
The Flat Tops Primitive Area Insect Epidemic
Epidemic chronology In mid-June 1939, a severe windstorm blew down large numbers of Engelmann spruce northeast of the Flat Tops Primitive Area, and in other areas of western Colorado. An endemic population of Engelmann spruce beetles attacked the wind-damaged trees, and finding ideal conditions for survival, developed into extremely large populations by the summer of 1941. Adult beetles emerged from the wind-fallen trees and attacked standing green trees in the surrounding area. Southwesterly winds then carried adult beetles into the remote areas of the Flat Tops. Because the Nation was at war, little control could be exerted upon the outbreak. By 1943, the beetles were attacking trees of all ages but mortality was predominantly in the medium and large sized Engelmann spruce. Logging, being cheaper and more effective as a control measure than chemical treatment, was begun wherever feasible outside the primitive area, and it was later authorized by the Chief of the Forest Service within the area-chiefly to reduce fire hazards. Although the authorization is still in existence, logging operations in the primitive area were never conducted because of the large amount of more accessible dead spruce available elsewhere, and because of market conditions. By 1944, 90 percent of the spruce trees 8 inches and above in diameter were dead on the White River National Forest. Other tree species on the Forest were mostly unaffected by the spruce beetles. In 1950, almost all the Engelmann spruce sawtimber north of the Colorado River on this forest- about 3.5 billion board feet-was dead, covering an area of 600,000 acres, the largest semicontiguous acreage of insect-killed timber on record. By 1948, the beetles had killed most of the host material on the White River and adjacent Grand Mesa National Forests. The next year, northeasterly winds carried adult beetles south across the Colorado River into previously uninfested timber. A great number of beetles failed to successfully cross the 30-mile, nontimbered valley. This resulted in lowering the beetle population, and widely dispersing those beetles which did reach the green timber.
One of the most extensive insect epidemics in a United States wilderness occurred in the national forest Flat Tops Primitive Area of northwestern Colorado between 1940 and 1945.38 / Here an outbreak of Engelmann Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus engelmanni) killed nearly all the Engelman spruce over 8 inches in diameter in a 39,000-acre spruce-fir forest. Only a few thousand acres of spruce sawtimber sized trees remained after the epidemic, which eventually covered a large portion of western Colorado, Because this wilderness insect infestation has been frequently cited as an example of the need for insect suppression and for salvage logging in wilderness areas, it and related conditions are outlined in some detail. The primitive area of 98,600 acres, set aside in 1932 by the Forest Service, lies within the White River National Forest north of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Most of the area is a rolling plateau ranging in altitude from 8,500 to 11,950 feet, bounded by steep cliffs and rimrock which make road construction into the area nearly prohibitive in cost. About half the is forested (with young spruce, alpine fir, aspen, and lodgepole pine), and the remainder is
37/U.S. Forest Service, Chief's letter to Wildland Research Cen ter, May 12, 1961. 38 Much of the material presented on the Flat Tops area was ob tained from a special report to the Wildland Research Center in 1960 by Norman A. Bishop, under the guidance of Prof. J.V.K. Wagar, Colorado State University.
Basic causes of the epidemic The "triggering' of the epidemic was apparently the blowdown of 1939, which created optimum conditions for the survival of a very high percentage of the insects. An enormous supply of green down timber was made available just as the endemic population of adult beetles was emerging in mid-June. More beetles successfully attacked the down green spruce than would have successfully attacked standing, vigorous trees, partly because of a negative reaction to intense light and high temperatures.
would have died as a result of the action of parasites, predators, and low winter temperatures. In the down trees, however, two of these controlling factors were lacking. Woodpeckers were prevented from reaching the broods, and because of deep snows covering the down trees, the broods were insulated from low temperatures. Freed from these controls, the beetle population exploded into epidemic proportions.
Factors influencing the epidemic decline In the Flat Tops Primitive Area, the beetle epidemic decline was primarily a result of the exhaustion of host material. There were insufficient live trees left by 1946 to support more than a low residual population of beetles. The epidemic continued, however, over a wide area in western Colorado. Factors which led to a significant decline in the epidemic following the reduction of beetle numbers (which occurred during the 1949 crossing of the Colorado River Valley) were the extremely low temperatures during the winter of 1950-51, natural predation by woodpeckers, reduction by other biotic enemies, and chemical and silvicultural controls. The epidemic ran its course, and suppression programs were too late to have more than a minor rolę in the decline of insect populations. Natural biological regulators, such as three species of woodpeckers, a parasitic insect (Coelides dendroctoni), and very low winter temperatures, constituted a formidable depressing force on the epidemic decline. Professional opinion has been expressed that if present knowledge, funds, and manpower had been available at the time of this beetle outbreak the epidemic might have been halted or at least greatly curtailed.
been economically harvested dead or alive. In 1958 the Forest Service reported a total volume of 5 billion board feet of timber killed by the beetle between 1941 and 1951, of which only 29 million board feet had been salvaged. The inaccessibility of beetle-killed stands in Colorado was stressed by Nelson. He noted that over one-third of the State's Engelmann spruce stands are considered inoperable. 41/ 2. Subalpine fir stands in the region were not affected by the epidemic, and natural regeneration of new stands (predominantly fir but spruce also) is progressing satisfactorily. Forage area for elk, deer, and livestock has temporarily increased over conditions preceding the timber kill. The numbers and composition of wildlife species have adjusted to changed habitat conditions, but this is a natural phenomenon and not detrimental to wilderness values. The beetle kill of mature spruce did not permanently affect the recreational use or esthetic value of the area. "Reports on the area include such statements as “The brown spruce lends a certain beauty-not a distraction-certainly the area's wilderness values have not been destroyed by the beetle infestation." 42/ 3. Fire hazard conditions resulting from beetle kill have been considered severe by some experienced observers and not critical by others. The latter base their opinions on low summer wind velocities, few lightning storms, high moisture content of the rotting spruce, historically few man-caused fires, and the discontinuous location of dead spruce in patches, 4. Watershed values have not decreased as a result of vegetation changes, but instead water yield from spruce-fir areas increased significantly during and after the beetle epidemic.
Some Results of Control Programs
Poste pidemic summary Pertinent features of the beetle epidemic in the Flat Tops Primitive Area are briefly summarized in the following statements. 1. The infestation in western Colorado did not spread only from a wilderness area but from numerous blowdowns throughout this region. Furthermore, it grew to epidemic proportions in most forests containing mature spruce trees where conditions for spruce beetle propagation were ideal. Earlier epidemics 39 / indicate that such dieoffs have probably always been a natural decimating force on Engelmann Spruce in Colorado. It is perhaps a natural sequence in the ecology of this area. With aerial detection and present control methods, it is possible that containment of future insect outbreaks on the Flat Tops or in similar situations would be temporarily successful; but only if windfall areas were immediately and carefully checked and treated. Craighead and others have commented that “there is no fully effective method for controlling bark beetles on a large scale at reasonable costs." 40/ Much of the timber, both
Nearly 20 million forested acres in the United States have been sprayed with DDT using a pound or less per acre. Included in this acreage are wilderness areas. The costs of aerial sprayings in forested areas total many millions of dollars, and the toxic effects of DDT on fish and wildlife, on beneficial insect life, on food-chain organisms, and on man are additional costs, many as yet not fully evaluated monetarily or biologically. 43/ Cottam estimates that wildlife values lost to pesticides are nearly $8 billion a year. 44/ Research findings reveal that DDT is toxic to fish at concentrations of as little as 1 part per 100 million and that fish mortality will be noted at applications in excess of 0.25 pounds per acre. Though DDT is less toxic to birds, little field damage being reported until
39/ A.D. Hopkins, "Practical Information on the Scotylid Beetles of North American Forests. 1. Bark Beetles of the Genus Dendroctonus," U.S. Bureau of Entomology, Bulletin 83, 1909, 164 pp. Interviews with F.C. Craighead, Sr., February 1961.
41 Arthur L. Nelson, "Beetles Kill Four Billion Feet of Fngelmann Spruce in Colorado," Journal of Forestry 48 (3): 182-183, 1950. 42 Frank Kops, et al., "The Colorado Flat Tops Primitive Area Observations and Recommendations," 1957. 43 John L. George, "The Pesticide Problem," The Conservation Foundation, New York, 1957. 44 Clarence Cottam, "Chemical Controls in Relation to Wild life." International Union for Protection of Nature, Proceedings and Papers, Technical Meeting, 1954, 5:100-109.
accumulating that in birds, sublethal doses lead to a decrease in reproductive potential, survival of young, and increased mortality rates in adults. 45/ In large-area field application of DDT, mortality of birds has occurred at applications averaging 1 pound per acre. This is because it is very difficult to obtain an even coverage of the toxin when it is applied through aerial spraying. In some areas the spray is concentrated by overlap, while other spots are missed. Residual insect populations live on in the untreated
moth were in excess of $39,000,000 from all sources and at that time annual costs exceeded $1,500,000 from all sources. 49/ While control efforts have been in existence for over 70 years, the gypsy moth is still widespread. The uncertainty of several programs to control forest diseases is illustrated by Craighead and Nelson observations after 7 years of research, surveys, and control on oak wilt in Pennsylvania; “Our surveys are inadequate in detecting the disease and the control is not effective. Nevertheless, approximately $50,000 to $60,000 is spent each year on oak wilt control in Pennsylvania.” 50/ The controversial nature of extensive forest spraying programs and their total effects, especially on the natural biota wilderness areas, illustrate the need for caution in chemical spraying, until all aspects of their influence have been carefully investigated. While spraying programs have resulted in abrupt decimations of fish and insect populations, in many cases these populations recover in a few years to normal levels; however, the complete effects of extensive spraying on ecosystems have not yet been fully assessed.
The Question of Insect Epidemic Control
Many aquatic arthropods are killed after applications of 0.1 pound of DDT per acre. Some western streams have been impoverished of food organisms for a full season or longer. In Montana and Wyoming, the spruce budworm control program in 1955 was responsible for heavy losses in fish populations in the Yellowstone River drainage. In the fall, about 3 months after DDT was applied at 1 pound per acre, large numbers of trout, whitefish, and suckers, including many or most of the young of the year, were found dead along more than a 100-mile stretch of the stream. The loss of food organisms may have been serious enough to have caused the death of the fish. A 1957 aerial spraying of 155,000 acres of timberland to control an outbreak of black-headed budworm on Vancouver Island, using 1 pound of DDT per acre, resulted in near elimination of coho salmon fry and juvenile stages of trout and steelhead on four major streams affected. 46/ During spruce budworm control treatment of almost 1 million acres with 1 pound of DDT per acre on three national forests in Montana in 1956, numbers of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates were greatly reduced by the spray even though maximum concentration of DDT in water samples was 0.33 parts per million, one-half hour after spraying. Fish exposed to a 1957 spruce budworm DDT treatment at 1 pound per acre in the Yellowstone River drainage in 1957 were analyzed and all found to have DDT in their bodies. The poison was found in all fish at all seasons, and for more than 11 months after the spraying. 47/ DDT residues have similarly been detected in deer and other mammals which provide the hunter's game meat, although pesticide concentrations ordinarily used for forest spraying do not have serious adverse effects on warm-blooded animals. 48/ Chemical insect control programs are controversial not only within but outside wilderness areas. Results to date of the gypsy moth control program are not encouraging. Many entomologists feel that widescale spraying for the gypsy moth is not economically sound, yet expenditures continue in the millions.
Regarding the need to control or suppress insect epidemics in wilderness areas in order to protect timber in surrounding regions, 51/ the assumption is commonly made that an insect outbreak is usually the result of movement of insects into a location followed by an outbreak. It is often stated that a certain insect species came in and defoliated the stand, when actually there was nowhere for it to come from. Instead, the outbreak developed where it appeared because conditions there were favorable for multiplication of the insect. That flights from population centers do occur is a well-known fact. Mass flights of such insects as the spruce budworm and other insects have been recorded, but seldom are they followed by outbreaks in the areas invaded. This apparent anomaly is easily explained on ecological grounds. Only in locations where conditions are especially favorable for an insect species can that species persist in outbreak proportions. If a locality surrounding an outbreak contains different vegetation
19 F.C. Craighead and C.W. Collins, statement presented at Conference on Gypsy Moth, 13 pp. mimeographed, Dec. 4, 1934. 50 F.C. Craighead and J.C. Nelson, "Oak Wilt in Pennsylva nia," Journal of Forestry, vol. 58, No. 11, Nov. 1960. SV Information in this section developed from a report "Should Insect Outbreaks and Fires Within Natural and Wilderness Areas Be Controlled?'' prepared for the Wildland Research Center, 1960, by Professor Emeritus of Forest Entomology Samuel A. Graham, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, and from comments by Dr. F.C. Craighead, Sr., Entomologi st formerly in charge of the Division of Forest Insect Investigations, USDA Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine; Dr. R.W. Stark, Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California; and several Federal agency research entomologi sts. Page 19
will not spread into the adjacent locality. On the other hand, if conditions are favorable the ever-present insects will attain outbreak numbers whether or not invasion from the outside takes place. As an example, the southern pine beetle extending from Pennsylvania to Texas is almost impossible to collect by a trained entomologist during endemic years, yet when conditions are right for outbreaks (usually deficient rainfall) the beetle population builds up rapidly. Flights of the spruce budworms into southern Ontario have been observed without any appreciable increase in the population of this insect during the following season. A number of years ago a mass flight of the same insect descended on forested areas in New York State. Fear of a serious outbreak was expressed, and plans were made for a spraying program, but no outbreak materialized. If, however, a forest has developed into a susceptible state, in the case of the spruce budworm in the East with the predominance of balsam fir in a dominant position, an outbreak is as certain as death or taxes, and will develop, awaiting only the right combination of weather. Thus, insect outbreaks are usually local phenomena, are restricted to areas in a condition favorable for them, and cannot spread much beyond these limits. Therefore, the control of an insect within a wilderness area in order to protect adjacent timberlands cannot ordinarily be justified-unless the species composition and condition of timber is very similar both inside and outside the wilderness, and then only if logging and utilization are feasible outside the area before postinsect-epidemic regeneration reaches merchantable size. As timber stands surrounding wilderness areas are placed under more intensive management, with overmature trees eliminated and vigorous young forests predominating, the probability of insect epidemics spreading from older wilderness forests into managed forests will be considerably lessened. Possibly an exception to the previous discussions might be certain outbreaks of bark beetles that can attack and kill vigorous trees when their population level reaches a high point. Ordinarily these insects, such as the Douglas-fir beetle, Engelmann spruce beetle, and western pine beetle, live in dying trees, causing little damage. However, where timber is wind-thrown in unusual amounts or burned over, where logging has left large quantities of culled logs, the beetles may build up to outbreak numbers and attack surrounding green timber. Such outbreaks are most likely to develop in stands that are approaching maturity or are overmature, although, once an outbreak gets under way, trees of any size are killed. As insect epidemics develop, natural control factors correspondingly expand to suppress these outbreaks. Without control, epidemics decline and forests are regenerated with young growth; sometimes the same and sometimes different from the killed species. While suppression of bark beetle epidemics may be desirable and feasible, effective control measures are not yet universally successful. Craighead, Miller, Evenden, and Keen made an evaluation of bark beetle control projects which used methods similar to some currently in use. They found that a large proportion had failed to check the outbreaks against which they
of a bark beetle outbreak hinged upon the possibility of finding and treating nearly all of the infested trees during a single season. Unless this was carefully done and followed up by a cleanup treatment the following season (to treat trees infested by beetles emerging from trees inevitably missed during the first season), the outbreak could not be brought under, control. Recent advances in use of chemicals and aircraft for control of bark beetles have led to entomologist claims that bark beetle control methods are now much more efficient than previously possible, but other professionals urge caution in being overly optimistic at the present time. Graham's report concluded "that control of expanding bark beetle outbreaks on natural or wilderness areas is only justified for the protection of surrounding valuable timber, and then the prospects of effective control are so unpromising that the usual procedure should be no control on the wilderness area, but intensive salvage of infested trees on any surrounding managed areas. Naturally, the variables involved will be many, and a generalized recommendation such as this can only be taken as a guide to be modified as conditions indicate.” Other aspects mitigating against forest insect blanket control programs in wilderness areas include the fact that many of these areas are at relatively high altitudes where insect control methods are more difficult and expensive than in lower regions. In addition, timber adjacent to some wilderness areas is often difficult and costly to log properly, is not always susceptible to sustained yield management, and contains a higher proportion of low value species. In mature forests many insect outbreaks occur in out-of-the-way places, where the timber will not be accessible or merchantable for 25 to 50 years or more, and consequently the losses there will be largely offset by new growth before the stand can be utilized. 52/ Control may at times be desirable where exotics such as the balsam woolly aphid, white pine blister rust, and others are concerned. Where possible, the introduction of natural biological enemies to check pests might be the best approach. Every insect infestation and wilderness area presents different conditions and problems, each situation must be analyzed independently.
Decadence and death of living organisms accelerated by insect and disease attacks are natural processes that make room for regeneration and young species. Current agency programs of fire, insect, and disease protection within wilderness areas are aimed at protecting surrounding crop and timberlands and perpetuating existing vegetation conditions. The disturbance of toxic chemical sprays to wilderness biota does not appear to be fully assessed, and the danger of insect epidemics originating in wilderness areas and spreading to surrounding commercial lands
52/F.C. Craighead, Sr., "Insect Enemies of Eastern Forests," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 657, 679 pp., 1950. Page 20
However, the act of 1916 is still considered to contain the basic statement of purpose for the National Park Service-to promote and regulate the use of national parks, monuments, and certain other reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." This statement of purpose really defines two objectives of the Park Service; to conserve and to provide for the enjoyment of its resource. But these goals present the Service with a dilemma, since conventional provisions for enjoyment are not easily compatible with conserving the resource. Thus, the Service must continually strike a compromise between essentially opposite purposes, and this predicament is reflected in the Service's definition of wilderness. As Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall wrote in the article cited above: "Over the years, some of the wisest men in the Interior Department have wrestled with this dilemma, and it is not surprising that many policy directives have touched off controversy."
for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes." Congress later recognized that, in the establishment of forest reserves, land more valuable for uses other than those authorized in the forest reserve acts and besides those excepted in these acts might easily have been blanketed in the proclamations creating the reserves. An act of February 28, 1899, for example, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to rent or lease forest reserve lands adjacent to mineral, medicinal, or other springs for the erection of sanitariums and hotels. This was the first recognition of recreation or quasi-recreation resources on forest reserve lands; but there was as yet no recognition of recreation as a use to be administered by the agency having jurisdiction over the reserves. It is not surprising that wilderness reservation was not recognized as an objective, for nearly all the forest reserves were in a wilderness condition. In 1960, Congress enacted the so-called Multiple Use Act (16 U.S. C., 1958 ed., Supp. II, sec, 528-531), which enlarged the congressional mandate concerning the purposes for which 'national forests are established and shall be administered" to include 'butdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.' The act further directed that 'In the administration of the national forests due consideration shall be given to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas. The establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purpose and provisions of this Act." (emphasis supplied) This act gave congressional affirmation to longestablished Forest Service policies developed through administrative precedent; it further established more specific authority for wilderness reservations and other activities not previously defined. It did not alter procedure for establishment of wilderness areas and it did not affect existing management policies for areas already classified, The steps in evolution of this policy relevant for this discussion have been reviewed in the section on Administrative Concepts in chapter 1: establishment of the Gila Wilderness Area in 1924, primitive areas authorized under Regulation L-20 in 1929, and the U-regulations in 1939 authorizing the establishment of wilderness and wild areas. It is the policy embodied in these regulations to which the underlined sentence above from the Multiple Use Act refers. Most probably, the earlier justification for these regulations has been interpretation of the act of 1897 to include preservation of values in the national forests other than those in timber and water and to protect those values from destruction. This interpretation would appear to be consistent with the power to regulate use and occupancy. It is significant, however, that recognition of values other than timber and water has required considerable judgment by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Service, often with little to guide them. For example, the initial form of Regulation L-20 cited public inspiration as a reason for establishment of primitive areas; but the regulation was amended a year later to delete this value, possibly on the grounds that the basic authority could not
The authority to establish primitive and wilderness areas within national forests has been basically the authority vested in the Executive to administer the national forests. The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 (as amended, 16 V. S. C. 471 et seq.) provided that the President could from time to time set apart and reserve public lands "wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not." That the reserves need not be of commercial value carries a clear implication that other values could be recognized in them. This act, however, made no provisions for administration of the forest reserves. It was, therefore, soon followed by the Forest Reserve Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475 et seq.), also known as the Forest Administration Act, which authorized the Secretary to make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction." Further, this act placed stricter limitations on the nature of land which could be included in national forests than those in the act of 1891. It stated that "no public forest reservation shall be established except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber" and that 'it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions ... to authorize the inclusion (in national forests of Page 21
invalid, fraudulent, or at the very least, questionable. The National Forest Advisory Council's "Report on the Problem of Mining Claims on the National Forests," issued in January 1953, stated: 'It is a matter of common observation that thousands of mining claims have been patented over the years with very little if anything to show except the so-called 'discovery hole'. Many of these claims have been located on lands which have high value for timber, water, home sites, real estate development areas, or other valuable resources or uses of the surface." Both legitimate and abusive entry have taken place under provisions of the 1872 mining act. At the time this law was enacted it was the policy of the Federal Government to vest title to public land in private ownership. Development of much of the country was subsidized with public resources rather than with cash, and the process was very effective in opening the West. The mining laws, especially, were generous and offered the prospector and miner maximum benefits in minerals and other resources with a minimum outlay. The surface resources, which had little monetary value at the time, were largely disregarded in the location and patenting of mining claims. But as surface resources became more important, provisions related to surface resources in the 1872 act remained unchanged. And the great increase in value of surface resources provided a strong incentive to obtain title to them through whatever means were available. Some of the early legislation which strengthens the position of mining in national forests include 16 U.S.C. 475 (See Forest Reserve Acts, pages ), providing that 'lands more valuable for the mineral . . . than for forest purposes" were not to be included in national forests; 16 U.S.C. 482, directing that lands in national forests "found better adapted for mining ... than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain;" 16 U.S.C. 520, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to permit prospecting, development, and utilization of mineral resources in national forests acquired under the Weeks Law (36 Stat. 961); and 16 U.S.C. 524, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights of way for dams, etc., for mining purposes in national forests. Lands in national forests are also subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), providing for leases for coal, oil and gas, phosphate, and other leasable minerals. However, since the granting of leases is discretionary, and they are not exclusive or permanent vested interests, the operation of the mineral leasing law creates a minor problem as compared with the operation of the mining law. Some restraints on mining in national forests have been exercised by the courts. The location of a mining claim does not withdraw the land from jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and no right is conferred to use the land except for mining (U.S. v. Rizzinelli, D.C. Idaho 1910, 182 F. 675). Mining locations made on lands while a part of national forests are invalid unless a valid discovery of mineral within the boundaries thereof has been made under the laws of the United States. (U.S. v. Mobley, D.C. Cal, 1942, 46 F. Supp. 676). The same ruling found that mining locations made on lands while a part of a national forest, sub
poses of establishing a summer resort, were invalid insofar as they conflicted with prior special use permit. Initiation of specious mining claims in the national forests in order to obtain some unrelated benefit has been a long-standing problem. "Claims for common varieties of mineral materials, such as sand, stone, gravel, and pumice, were frequently located for other than mining purposes because these materials were so easy to find."8/ The act of July 23, 1955 (Public Law 167, 84th Cong., 1st sess., 69 Stat. 367), does not allow claims to be located for the above common minerals and limits location of "valid" claims for locatable minerals such as gold. However, it requires a formal contest upon formal charges, with opportunity for a formal hearing, followed by formal decision and possible or probable appeals, to determine in any case whether the mineral claimed is a common variety or a locatable mineral; and further, whether mixed with a common variety there has been discovered a locatable mineral. The same sort of proceeding is necessary to determine whether there has been a discovery of valuable mineral sufficient to validate a claim located before July 23, 1955. And after a claim has been invalidated at the end of a proceeding, the locator can immediately relocate it if there is no intervening withdrawal (the general withdrawal for national forest purposes is not such a withdrawal as precludes relocation). Of course, a relocation after July 23, 1955, makes the claim subject to management of its surface resources by the Forest Service, but only until the claim is patented. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 does not name mining as a purpose of the national forests, and it carefully avoids treading on the status of mining vis-a-vis those purposes: "Nothing herein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands." (74 Stat. 215). Mining is not named in Regulation U-1, and it was not mentioned in Regulation L-20. In the Forest Service Manual and Handbook, however, there are more than 400 pages devoted to mining-an indication of the discouraging complexity of its administration. The major problem posed by mining in maintenance of wilderness areas is that under the mining laws an individual who makes a valid find such that a prudent man would be induced to develop it for its mineral potential can obtain the right of egress and ingress, But another problem is the on-site damage to the ground incurred through compliance with either Federal or State requirements for maintenance of a claim. While it has been observed that the scars of several forms of shaft mining become obscured by new vegetation, some mining operations can do considerable permanent damage. Strip mining has in recent times been the subject of regulation through laws specially applicable to it, particularly State laws in the Eastern States. Such laws have generally been upheld as protecting the public health, safety, and welfare even though they interfere with the use of private property.
BU.S. Forest Service, "What is the New Multiple-Use Mining Law?'' Washington, 1956. Page 22
In 1930, Congress passed the Shipstead-Nolan Act (46 Stat. 1020) which directed that, with certain narrowly defined exceptions, there was to be no timber cutting within 400 feet from the natural waterline of any stream or lake contiguous to or wholly within the area, In the same act, Congress dealt with the problem of wilderness versus water and power development. It decided to recognize only those applications for development which had been pending before the Federal Power Commission on January 1, 1928. With this exception, it directed that the Secretary of Agriculture preserve the natural water level of lakes and streams, and that no alteration would be permitted by any official or commission 'which will result in flooding lands of the United States within or immediately adjacent to the Superior National Forest" unless authorized by special act of Congress covering each such project. Exceptions were the requirements of international treaties, small reservoirs not exceeding 100 acres for "transportation of logs" or for "authorized recreational uses.' Where found essential for logging, the water le els could be maintained temporarily at the normal highwater mark. In addition, nothing in the act should prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from listing for homestead entry (under 16 U.S.C. 506) any lands "found by him to be chiefly valuable for agriculture and not needed for public purposes." Here Congress had tried to protect the wilderness values by limiting and yet not denying the timber production and water supply functions; it left agriculture preeminent. Having acted to protect the Superior roadless area, 18 years later Congress reinforced its reservation status by authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to "acquire any lands ... within the area ... where in his opinion development or exploitation, or the potentialities for development or exploitation, impair or threaten to impair the unique qualities and natural features of the remaining wilderness canoe country." (16 U.S.C. 577c, June 22, 1948, c.593, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 568). At about the same time that Congress was authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire alien lands, President Truman issued Executive Order 10092, filed December 20, 1949, "Establishing an Airspace Reservation Over Certain Areas of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota," which prohibited private aircraft from flying over the area below 4,000 feet except in case of emergencies. The order was upheld by the United States District Court in Duluth, Minnesota, on September 26, 1952; by the U. S. Court of Appeals, St. Louis, Missouri, on May 25, 1953, and by the U. S. Supreme Court on October 12, 1953. The nature of public use of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been of considerable interest to Congress. The area has received greater attention
national forest system and more even than many national parks. It is clear from the record of treaties, legislation, executive orders, and court decisions pertaining to the area that the intent of the Federal Government and the State of Minnesota has been to maintain a primitive environment-primarily for canoe travel-open to the citizens of both Canada and the United States. In connecting with this intent, Forest Service management plans for the area imply complete control of motorboat and certain other uses of the waters in the area to insure the intended environment. However, the Forest Service does not have full jurisdiction over the waters and the management plans carry stronger implications than are justified, by virtue of not spelling out limitations on Forest Service control. In a letter to the Wildland Research Center from the regional forester in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the following limitations on Forest Service control were outlined. "'The majority of the lakes within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area are navigable. Many of these waters were fur trade routes many years ago, and it has been held that waters with similar history were navigable and that they, with the portages between them, constituted one of the routes of commerce intended to be maintained as public highways under Article 4 of the Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory and subsequent legislation including R.S. 2476 (43 U.S.C. 931), Economy Light and Power Co, v. United States, 256 U.S. 113 (1931). "The Minnesota rule is that the State 'in its sovereign capacity and as trustee for the people, holds all navigable waters and the lands under them for the public use', Nelson v. Delong, 7 N.W.2d 342, 346 (Minn, 1942). "'The waters which constitute a boundary with Canada are subject to an international treaty . (Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 - 8 Stat.s72). The last sentence of Article 11 of this treaty reads as follows: 'It being understood that all water communication and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon River, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries.' ... The control of motorboat use is and will continue to be a major problem in managing the area." The present situation reflects clearly certain Forest Service policies and the lack of full Forest Service jurisdiction. The management plan for the area states that motorboating will be prohibited except where it has become well established. Yet the term "well established" is not defined. Consequently, over the years motorboating has progressed deeper into the area until it occurs on many lakes throughout the area from the southern border to the Canadian line. Figure 1 indicates the extent of "established" motorboating as reported by the Forest Service, At this writing, the discrepancy between "established" and "well established"in Forest Service communications is not clear, The following is a review of the present situation with respect to motorboats as reported by a Wildland Research Center field investigator who spent the Page 23
trout fishing. 5. Abiquiu Dam now under construction will flood lower 15 miles of run. Taos Box C..nyon of the Rio Grande, Colorado and New Mexico. 1. Antonito, Colorado, to Ranches of Taos, New Mexico. 2. 60 miles. 3. 1 May to 1 July. 4. Fast, hazardous water in spring runoff; excel lent native trout fishing; spectacular basalt cliffs rising 1,000 feet from river level. 5. One existing bridge; 1 proposed bridge; 1 power plant proposed near midpoint of run at junction of Red River, Rio Grande River, Big Bend National Park, Texas. 1. From Lajitas to Boquillas, Texas. 2. 80 miles. 3. Spring and fall. 4. A hazardous trip with currents fluctuating violently at times; deep rocky canyons; oc casional Indian ruins. 5. None.
1. Lily Park, Colorado, to Echo Park in Dinosaur National Monument (may extend down Green River to Jensen, Utah). 2. 40 miles (2 or 3 days). 3. Late spring and summer. 4. Like other rivers in Colorado Plateau. Trip runs through Dinosaur National Monument. 1. Ouray, Utah, to Green River, Utah. desert country. 5. None Lower Green River, Utah and Colorado 1. Green River, Utah, to Junction with Colorado River (trip may extend down Colorado to Hite, Utah). 2. 100 miles (5 to 7 days). 3. Late spring and summer. 4. Like the rest of the Green River and most of the Colorado River, this stretch is beautifully described in the Journals of John Wesley Powell. The particular stretch is mostly quiet water beneath towering cliffs, 5. None. Upper Colorado River, Utah. 1. Moab, Utah, to Hite, Utah. water through Cataract Canyon; described by John Wesley Powell. Like the other rivers of the Colorado Plateau, there are varihued cliffs and gorges; desert country. 5. One roadhead, no bridges. Grand Canyon of the Colorado, Arizona, 1. Lee's Ferry to Lake Mead. 5. One resort in Grand Canyon. San Juan River-Four Corners area, New Mexico and Utah, 1. Shiprock, New Mexico, to Mexican Hat, Utah. 2. 70 miles. 3. 1 April through 1 July. 4. Cliff dwellings; roadless desert country; unique "sand waves''; several large rapids. 5. Passes near settlement of Bluff, Utah, and one bridge near Aneth oil fields, Utah, White Rock Canyon of the Rio Grande, New Mexico. 1. San Ildefonso to Cochiti Wier, New Mexico. 2. 25 miles. 3. March through June. 4. Prehistoric cliff dwellings in Bandelier, New Mexico; interesting tributary canyons; 1,500 foot vertical walled canyons; swift water. 5. Proposed Cochiti Flood Control Dam to replace present Cochiti Wier. No other developments. Canon de Chama of the Rio Chama, New Mexico. 1. El Vado, New Mexico, to junction Rio Chama and Rio Puerco. 2. 40 miles.
Grand Canyon of the Snake River, Oregon and Idaho. 1. Homestead, Oregon, to Lewiston, Idaho. 2. 120 miles. 3. Late spring and summer. 4. One of the deepest canyons in North America; excellent sturgeon fishing; magnificent rapids and falls. 5. Some old ranches and abandoned mines; pro posed Hells Canyon Dam would inundate this
Selway River, Idaho. 1. From Paradise guard station (Selway-Bitter root Primitive Area) to Selway Falls. 2. 50 miles. 3. June and July. 4. Excellent cutthroat trout fishing; beautiful for ests and canyons; exciting white water interspersed with tranquil stretches; completely pristine environment with abundant wildlife of all sorts. 5. No significant developments. This is one of the finest wilderness rivers left in the country since virtually its whole watershed has not been disturbed. 1. Bear Valley Creek to junction at Salmon River. 2. 120 miles, 3. All summer. 4. Most of length through Idaho Primitive Area; abundant wildlife; deep and impressive canyon; challenging white water. 5. A few ranches with air strips; no highways or other developments. Salmon River, Idaho. 1. From junction of Middle Fork to Riggins, Idaho. 2. 100 miles, 3. Late spring and summer. Page 24
Problems exemplified in cave preservation are in some ways comparable to the problems of wilderness area preservation. The need to preserve wildlife and certain ecological conditions is widely felt. But the need for protecting caves is little recognized; speleology is a field with few practicing scientists, and the ease with which cave resources may be destroyed is not widely appreciated. Cave ecology and structure are much more fragile than surface features of the earth, and there is danger that careless intrusion of caves, quite apart from deliberate vandalism, can quickly destroy their value, There are three major classes of caves: limestone, lava, and sea caves. Though unique and valuable in certain respects, lava and sea caves are usually of less scientific and recreational value than are limestone caves. Besides being more spectacular in appearance, limestone caves are more varied in their biological and structural characteristics. By nature they are less self-protecting than other caves and they are more fragile. For these reasons the following comments pertain mainly to limestone caves. A limestone cave is formed by the solution action of percolating water in underground deposits of limestone. Extensive regions of limestone-sections of Kentucky, for example-called karst regions, are often riddled by these caves as well as by various other solution forms such as sinks, swallowholes, and solution valleys. Within a cave, decorationsstalactites (growing from the roof), stalagmites (growing from the floor) and similar forms-are precipitated from evaporating waters in which mineral calcite has been dissolved. The process is very slow, and the beautiful and fragile deposits which result are the main reason for greater significance being attached to limestone caves. They are also the focus for most problems in cave protection. The United States is richly endowed with cave resources, Two caves in particular, Mammoth and Carlsbad, compare favorably with other caverns throughout the world. Their surrounding regions, the Mammoth Cave area of Edmonson County, Kentucky, and the Carlsbad region of Eddy County, New Mexico, are comparable to famous regions abroad. Mexico has three major cave regions: the well known Cuernevaca area, the eastern coastal region of San Luis Potosi ranging north to the beautiful Grutas de Garcia near Monterrey, and the famous sinkhole-cenote region of Yucatan. Although a few interesting locations exist to the north, Canadian caves more limited. The Nakimu Caves of British Columbia and several caves near Quebec might be mentioned. Some unsubstantiated reports indicate that caves of interest may lie in Canadian Territories. No of magnitude have been reported from Alaska, nor does such a prospect seem likely. From the viewpoint of American tourist trade, there will be little attraction to the caves of Canada. With suitable development, especially in the highway system and accommodations, many Americans should gravitate to the splendid caves of Mexico. Scientific
sites, especially in Sonora, will continue to be of interest, and indeed as a scientific resource we may regard northwestern Mexico and the American Southwest as a contiguous cave region. Dependence on foreign locations, however, is hazardous, and there is good reason for America to continue safeguarding and developing its own resources, even where there are good foreign locations close by. Because of less advanced preservation concepts to the south and few resources to the north, the United States is the most secure repository for cave science in North America. Besides the obvious recreational interest in caves as geological curiosities, they have considerable scientific importance. They are important for certain geologic and hydrologic studies; they have proved invaluable as archaeological and paleontological sites; and they have provided some unique biological and ecological discoveries. In karst regions, cave study is essential to understanding regional hydrology. Water, instead of running on the surface in normal stream patterns, finds its way through cracks and fissures, often developing vast underground networks of storm channels such as occur in Indiana. Tracing these interrelated systems can become exceedingly complex. It is not uncommon for subterranean streams to reverse direction completely, or for two streams to pass one above the other at right angles. A typical karst cycle in a humid region is one where depressions (sinkholes) form first on a young plain containing limestone formations; this is followed by solution valleys formed by coalescing collapse over underground solution. The mature form of old limestone topography is a new plain at a lower level with residual hills and solution structures scattered over its surface. The peculiar land forms of a limestone region are integrally related to water supplies-and to water pollution. It is much easier to pollute inadvertently a karst area than an area of normal drainage because contaminants can move readily through the open cracks and solution passages without appreciable filtering. Atomic contamination is particularly critical in limestone country. Because caves may exert extensive control over a regional geology, they may also offer valuable clues to a region's geology, especially if the cave interior is unmolested. Many caves of the Grand Canyon of Arizona, being difficult of access, have this value. Studies of cave areas around dams and other construction sites are important; failure to evaluate nearby cave terrain has resulted in cases of collapse or leakage. In still other cases, project expense has been increased by the need for subsequent grouting and filling at possible points of weakness or water loss. Caves have proved immeasurably valuable as repositories of prehistoric material. Early man used caves extensively as natural shelters during the hunting and food gathering stages of culture. After the development of agricultural communities, many
like conditions of many caves, especially those in the Southwest, act to preserve perishable artifacts that cannot be found under other conditions. Preservation depends on the absence of light, on approximately constant temperature and, in the more favorable sites, upon relatively low moisture conditions. Gypsum Cave, not far from Lake Mead in southern Nevada, preserved intact the skin of prehistoric ground sloths and provided a North American link between man and ice-age mammals. Another example from Nevada, Lovelock Cave in the west central part of the state, has yielded extensive records of early basketry and other perishable materials. Sandia Cave in New Mexico linked early man with mammoths, camels, and ground sloths. And the recently excavated Russell Cave in Alabama yielded an unbroken sequence of materials spanning more than 9,000 years. Paleontological sites are similar to those of archeology. Caves have played a fundamental role in the recognition and study of ice-age mammals. Sites such as Samwel and Potter Creek Caves in Shasta County, California, are basic to the entire science and are nearly equivalent in importance to the better known tar pits of La Brea. The Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland is of similar value. All of these sites and many others yielded vast assemblages of ice-age fossils, many of which were unknown prior to their excavations. The field of cave biology has experienced a recent surge of interest and has become an important branch of cave study. In the late 19th Century, cave biology in America received significant attention because of the degenerate and blind organisms found to have evolved in the cave habitat. Scientists such as Packard and Eigenmann investigated animals from caves in Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, and other States nearby. These investigations then flagged for some time; but recently, biologists have again become interested in cave life forms. The new trend is toward studies of cave ecology, a fascinating and unique biological phenomenon which could have extensive implications. Caves as unique biological laboratories, more than for any other purpose, require uncontaminated conditions. It is impossible to study the delicate relations among life forms in a cave which has been vandalized or polluted by, for example, picnic debris. Unlike archeological and paleontological sites where the primary value comes from the first few excavations, biological sites may be sampled, studied, restudied, and checked so long as they are not haphazardly influenced. It is impossible to predict what unique or otherwise valuable organism might be lost or what important balances might be upset by ignorant exploration of caves. Recreational interest in caves depends on several properties. Caves may be attractive for the spectacle of their internal configuration, as in the well-decorated Wyandotte Cave of Indiana, The interest may be historical as in Massanutten Caverns in Virginia; or it may have evolved from fiction, as in Mark Twain Cave in Missouri (the cavern described in "Tom Sawyer"). For recreational use, besides being of some interest, caves must be accessible. And they must be capable of internal trail development. These
are interrelated. Thus, Carlsbad Caverns are developed for their huge size, despite their rather remote location; Mammoth Cave is similarly developed despite trail difficulties posed by the Green River; and the Indian talus caves of Yosemite National Park are developed, although they are relatively uninteresting, because of easy access and visitor demand from intensive use of the whole park. Once a wilderness area has been well explored and mapped, it is still useful as a wilderness area. But when a cave has been extensively explored by even a handful of people and the results published in journals and circulars of the field, the elements of discovery and exploration vanish. The cave becomes valuable as a recreational resource or, if initial exploration has not been too damaging, as a scientific resource. Dr Harold Urey once said that science exists to amuse scientists. If the truths it uncovers become useful, so much the better. This is not entirely facetious; speleologists enjoy discovering new caves and extending the exploration of those already discovered. There are a great many amateurs in the field who enjoy these pursuits as well. The danger is that amateur discovery often destroys or diminshes the scientific values before they can be fully evaluated. This is not to depreciate amateurs, for energetic discovery has been invaluable to scientists who are far fewer in number. There is no such thing as a tract of land the location of which is not known. Quite the contrary, however, with caves. Except in a few special cases, cave resources in the United States have been poorly mapped, managed, and conserved. The main reason for this is that the importance of caves has generally been little recognized by the public, by amateur cave explorers, or by the public agencies responsible for land on which caves have been discovered. It is inevitable that any limestone cave which becomes publicized will be damaged or vandalized unless it is protected. A protected cave is one where access is rigidly controlled. Owners of private caves recognize this fact well and accomplish protection by guided tours-not self-guided. Gates and supervisory personnel are essential to adequate protection. Caves that are not open to tours must be protected as well. Blasting or similar closure of entrances is the worst way to protect a cave since it destroys the cave ecology which depends on a steady flow of food and air from sunlit areas outside. A protective gate should be so installed that it permits circulation of air and movement of small animals. Barred gates deeply set into the entrance walls with angles and construction such as to discourage forced entry are most suitable. A few caves have sufficient natural protection in the form of vertical passages that they do not require gates. This number diminishes as more persons become familiar with the rope and ladder techniques necessary to enter these caves. Because a group is technically competent to enter a cave, however, does not imply that it can be trusted to leave the cave unmolested. This poses a problem on public lands since to accompany each group with an official of the land management agency is clearly impractical. The most reasonable means of protecting a cave and yet allowing legitimate study would seem to be to
and then require a report on the cave condition. Periodic inspection would be an effective means of enforcing such a policy. Vandalism, intentional or otherwise, may take many forms. Breakage of interior decorations is common, This is usually accompanied by littering; food remnants, tin cans, papers, discarded batteries and flashlights, fragments of rope, and other debris may be found strewn throughout many caves, Carbide dumping is a common practice poisonous to life forms but not often recognized as a form of vandalism. It would seem not unreasonable, however, to require exploring parties to save spent carbide and dump it outside. Writing on walls is another common practice. Inscribing names and dates of visits as well as markers and arrows should be rigorously avoided. Any expedition which requires string or marked arrows should probably have a guide. Often such groups cannot distinguish their own arrows from those of other groups. If the cave is so complex as to require arrows, there are luminescent markers on the market which can be removed on the way out. Inscribed arrows and string fragments are usually the first indications of a vandalized cave. Caves of value for archeological or paleontological interest may be randomly dug and stripped of their main material while the remainder is left strewn about the passage. Other sites may be plundered for their biology. Colonies of bats, salamanders, or crayfish have been decimated or wiped out entirely by caving groups. Published lists of cave locations have accelerated the problems of cave preservation. They greatly increase use and consequent chance of vandalism without at the same time providing protection. The field of protection has lagged far behind the field of cave inventory. The scientific value of these lists has not yet been adequately demonstrated; certainly, public organizations should not release such lists for public consumption without careful consideration of their consequences. Many of the country's most interesting caves are land controlled by the National Park Service, Although many of these are open to the public, an even greater number have not yet been developed. However, caves have not been managed uniformly. Often cave management and protection have been roughly proportional to the caves' spectacular visual qualities. Self-guided public tours, for example, were permitted in Crystal Cave in Sequoia National Park for several seasons. The cave was more heavily damaged during this period than in all its previous history. Because of tourist concentration at parks having, at the same time, little systematic protection, undeveloped caves within park boundaries are often in a more vulnerable position than if they were outside the parks. The most unfortunate result so far has been the closure by blasting of Clough Cave in Sequoia National Park.
same problems as the Park Service-insufficient knowledge at the local level and insufficient coordination at the top. So far, however, vandalism has not been so serious in the forests as in the parks simply because tourist pressure has not been so great. In a few locations, such as Boyden's Cave in California, the Forest Service has followed its general policy concerning suitable for commercial development and has leased the cave to a concessionaire. A uniform set of standards, however, is urgently needed for inventory and protection of caves in national forests, since only a few caves will be attractive to private development and protection. Nationwide standards among States resources under their jurisdiction are lacking also. Standards vary widely from region to region. States such as Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia, where the importance of caves is widely appreciated, are advanced in their knowledge of cave management, Other States, where caves are less important, have almost no concept of the problems involved. Caves located on Indian lands pose special problems. Vandalism is generally less intense because Indian lands are more isolated and casual travel is more restricted than on lands under other jurisdictions. Treaties and the wishes of tribal councils often restrict protective action that might be taken. The care and protection of the resources-many of them have religious and traditional significancemust rest largely with the Indians themselves and with the Bureau of Indian Affairs where Federal assistance seems advisable. Privately owned caves are a large part of America's total cave resources. Many of these caves protected better than the caves on public land; the private owner is fully aware of the possible value of an unvandalized cave economic asset. However, many private owners are not aware of the full scientific importance of their caves. It seems reasonable to assume that private owners would protect their scientific resources wherever feasible if they were made aware of them. A comprehensive Government document on the subject is urgently needed. In summary, there are three pressing necessities for caves on public lands: First, a comprehensive and confidential survey of known caves as to type and location and recreational and scientific value; second, a coordinated policy for use of caves involving means of protection from vandalism and encouragement and rapid protection of new discoveries; finally, means should be found to permit full scientific use followed by recreational use where there is a demand for it. The scientific value of a cave is similar to the mineral value of a mine; once the resource has been mined out only a hole in the ground remains. Caves, like minerals, are a valuable but non-renewable resource.
DATA ON NATIONAL FOREST AND NATIONAL PARK AREAS Table C-1 Vegetative cover acreages of U. S. Forest Service wild and primitive areas and National Park Service areas (5,000-100,000 acres) (Data in thousands of acres) Forest State and area Barren Brush- Subalpine Alpine Other land Other grassland woodland
Arizona: USFS areas: Chiricahua W.A... Galiuro W.A. Mount Baldy P.A. Pine Mountain P.A... Sierra Ancha W.A. Sycamore Canyon P.A. NPS areas: Canyon de Chelly N.M. Chiricahua N.M... Petrified Forest N.M. Saguaro N.M... Wupatki N.M. Total State California: USFS areas: Agua Tibia P.A....... Caribou Peak P.A. Cucamonga W.A. Desolation Valley P.A. Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon P.A. San Gorgonio W.A. San Jacinto W.A. San Rafael P.A.. South Warner W.A. Thousand Lakes W.A. Ventana P.A. NPS areas: Channel Islands N.M. Lava Beds N.M.. Pinnacles N.M. Total, State Colorado: USFS areas: Gore Range-Eagle Nest P.A... LaGarita-Sheep Mountain P.A. Maroon Bells-Snowmass W.A... Mount Zirkel-Dome Peak W.A. Rawah W.A...... Uncompahgre P.A. West Elk W.A.Wilson Mountains P.A. ..... NPS areas: Black Canyon of the Gunnison N.M.. Colorado N.M. Great Sand Dunes N.M. Mesa Verde N.M. Total, State See footnotes at end of table.
25.9 16.4 9.0 41.3 36.2 33.9 20.6 74.2 68.9 15.7 52.1
13.3 17.6 35.0 51.1 503.7
areas (5,000-100,000 acres)-Con.
Page 25
areas (5,000-100,000)-Con.
Wyoming: USFS area: 0.8 45.1 Cloud peak P.A...... 23.0 17.5 7.5 93.9 17.5 7.5 Total, State 12.0 Grand Total, U.S. 243.9 292.5 376.5 530.5 891.3 544.0 2,891.1 "Data concerning six primitive areas under 100,000 ocres, but contiguous with areas over 100,000 acres, are not included in this table, but will be found in table 1 (chapter 3). Page 26
backcountry oreos (5,000-100,000 acres) in 1960 Percent of visits Duration Season Mode of travel State and great Visits 2 Man-days? Motor Foot Horse Boot Spring travel
Arizona: USFS sreos: Chiricohus W.A. Galiuro W.A.. Mount Baldy P.A. Pine Mountain P.A. Sierro Ancha W.A. Sycamore Canyon P.A. NPS dress: Canyon de Chelly N.M. .... Chiricohua N.M.. Petrified Forest N.M. Saguoro N.M. Wupotki N.M... Total, State California: USFS oreos: Aguo Tibia P.A.... Caribou Peok P.A. Cucamongo W.A. Desolation Valley P.A. Devil Conyon- Bear Canyon P.A...... Son Gorgonio W.A.. San Jacinto W.A. San Rafael P.A.. South Warner W.A. Thousand Lakes W.A. Ventana P.A. NPS areas: Channel Islands N.M. Lova Beds N.M.. Pinnacles N.M.. Total, State Colorado: USFS areas: Gore Ronge-Eagle Nest P.A. Lo Garito-Sheep Mountain P.A. .... Peak W.A. Wilson Mountains P.A. NPS areas: Black Canyon of the Gunnison N.M...... Colorado N.M. Great Sand Dunes N.M. Total, State
1,000 17,700 9,098 350 900 3,500 4,200
1,000 23,800 16,495 1,150 3,500 7,000 8,400
See footnotes at end of table. |
Consumers are willing to pay a much lower price for water than for diamonds because ______.
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
