|
Criteria for Ecological
Wilderness
This outline summarizes the draft guidelines for Wilderness Area
Identification and Selection, Design, and Prioritization developed
by The Rewilding Institute’s EcoWild Working Group. Comments are
welcome. To generally endorse these guidelines and this approach,
Click Here.
These guidelines will continue to be revised. Further details are
forthcoming. Some Rewilding Institute Fellows are available to give
conservation groups presentations on these guidelines.
This outline includes the historic criteria used by federal
wilderness-managing agencies (particularly the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management) and by conservation groups for comparison
with the ecological criteria.
IDENTIFICATION of lands for wilderness study, and SELECTION of
particular wilderness study areas for proposal as designated
wilderness areas.
Traditional Criteria by Agencies and Conservationists:
- Roadless
- Over 5,000 acres
- Federal lands
- Offer outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation and
travel
- Offer solitude for the visitor
- Scenic in the classic “Crown Jewel” model
- Habitat for big game and sport fish
- Resource conflicts absent or limited, seen as “reasonable”
- Exclude “redundant” areas
Ecological Criteria:
Roadlessness is good, but not essential (nor is it required by
the Wilderness Act)
- roads should be measured within cultural and economic context
- roads are “puncture wounds” that should be closed to heal
- roadlessness nurtures more hot spots of biodiversity
- lightly roaded areas can be used to link Wilderness Areas
Areas of less than 5,000 acres qualify as Wilderness, but bigger
is always better scale is important for ecosystem processes and
species
Placement in landscape for wildlife movement connectivity and
permeability accommodate migration routes, winter range, and other
dynamic processes core Wilderness may lie in a matrix of federal,
state, and private land
Geological, educational, scenic, historical, and primitive
recreational values Areas that protect and restore the diversity of
life unusual and underrepresented ecosystems and landforms
habitat for rare, sensitive, imperiled, and highly interactive
species riparian and wetland habitats
Resource conflicts may exist; “reasonable” has been replaced by
ecological criteria
Natural vegetation (present or restorable) including ancient
forests
Use precautionary principle
DESIGN of proposed wilderness areas, and drawing boundaries for
proposed wilderness areas and identification of units to be included
or not included
Agency Criteria:
- Topographically “defensible” boundaries
- Exclude areas with resource conflicts
- Exclude flat areas or areas without vegetative screening
(“lack of solitude”)
- Exclude areas with fading signs of roads and other human use
(“purity”)
- Exclude “unmanageable” areas
- Exclude areas agency perceives are of “lower quality”
- Exclude areas with limited recreational appeal
- Exclude “redundant” areas
Traditional Conservationist Criteria:
- Extend boundaries out to surrounding roads
- Exclude some major resource conflicts
- Generally exclude signs of human impact but to lesser degree
than do agencies
- Cherrystem roads and other human intrusions
Ecological Criteria:
- Design to accommodate components of varied ecosystems and
landforms
- May include areas where resource conflicts exist and where
management will be challenging if of high ecological value
- Include areas showing some sign of human use if ecologically
important such as riparian, wetland, natural vegetation, habitat
for focal species
- Design with rounded boundaries whenever possible to maximize
internal area and minimize edges
- Do not cherrystem roads and other human intrusions that can be
closed or restored close roads or gate roads for permit holders’
access only
- Implement connectivity within wildlands network bring
boundaries of separate units closer together extend boundaries
to roads and suitable buffers
- Consider landscape dynamics changes in vegetation over time
influenced by changing fire regimes and exotic species affected
by scale and connectivity
- Use precautionary principle
Consider defensible boundaries for management purposes but not
necessarily based on “topographical” landmarks
Bigger is always better
PRIORITIZATION of proposed wilderness areas: determining relative
priority for designation of proposed wilderness areas in a region
Agency Criteria:
- Scenic in the classic “Crown Jewel” model
- Exclude areas with resource conflicts
- Exclude areas of controversy and opposition
- Exclude areas perceived as “too much” or unreasonable
Traditional Conservationist Criteria:
- Follow agency criteria but to a lesser degree
- Areas with a strong constituency
- Exclude areas perceived as “too much” or unreasonable (but
more liberal than agencies)
- Areas palatable to members of Congress
- Areas that without protection would be vulnerable to
degradation
Ecological Criteria:
Consider placement in landscape to function as part of a
wildlands network including areas with potential for restoration as
core Wilderness
Ecological value for sustaining and restoring biodiversity
particularly focal species such as large carnivores or highly
interactive species that serve as an umbrella for ecosystem
protection
also “hot spots” of biodiversity
Larger areas, though not exclusively, which are more manageable
and more self-regulating also consider islands and small areas
within cultural and ecological context Areas that offer fire
restoration opportunities
Areas with plant communities and landforms not well represented
in protected area systems
Areas with potential core habitat for large carnivores
Use precautionary principle
Note: In some cases, ecological criteria replaces agency and
traditional conservationist criteria; in other cases, it modifies or
adds to agency and traditional conservationist criteria. Ecological
criteria are not in conflict with, nor do they denigrate, scenic and
recreational (experiential) values. Since the 1980s,
conservationists have been generally moving in the direction of
ecological criteria. Keep in mind that this is an outline and not a
detailed discussion.
|
