A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific ... · A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific Activities in Wilderness United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific Activities in Wilderness

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-234WWW

January 2010

Landres, Peter, ed. 2010. A framework to evaluate proposals for scientific activities in wilderness. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 74 p.

Abstract Every year, the four Federal wilderness management agencies—U.S. DOI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the USDA Forest Ser-vice—receive hundreds of proposals to conduct scientific studies within wilderness. There is no consistent and comprehensive framework for evaluating such proposals that accounts for the unique legal requirements of conducting such work inside wilderness, specifically the primary mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act to “preserve wilderness character.” This man-date demands that the standard for approving scientific activities be higher inside wilderness than in other areas. This evaluation framework provides an approach for thinking through and documenting how proposals for scientific activities in wilderness may be evaluated in these wilderness management agencies based on four sequential filters: (1) Initial Review Filter, (2) Quality of Proposal Filter, (3) Legal and Policy Filter, and (4) Impacts and Benefits Filter. By using this framework, managers and scientists alike know up-front how proposals will be evaluated, fostering better communication. This framework aims to reduce conflict, help make defensible decisions, and document how those decisions are made. Our goals in developing this framework are to increase the relevance of science to improving wilderness stewardship and to bring the benefits of wilderness to society while preserving wilderness character.

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

AuthorsPeter Landres is an Ecologist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

Mark Fincher is the Wilderness Specialist at Yosemite National Park, National Park Service, El Portal, CA.

Lewis Sharman is an Ecologist at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, National Park Service, Gustavus, AK.

Rocky Mountain Research StationPublishing Services

Telephone (970)498-1392 FAX (970)498-1122 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications Mailing Address PublicationsDistribution RockyMountainResearchStation 240WestProspectRoad FortCollins,CO80526

Cover photo by Kevin Hood, Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness, Alaska

Judy Alderson is the Regional Wilderness Program Manager, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK.

Chris Barns is the Bureau of Land Management representative at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, MT.

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

Richard L. Anderson is the Compliance Coordinator at the Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK.

Susan Boudreau is the Superintendent at Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, National Park Service, Skagway, AK.

David J. Parsons is the Director of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

Laurel Boyers (retired) was formerly the Wilderness Manager at Yosemite National Park, National Park Service, El Portal, CA.

Kevin Hood is the Coordinator for Special Uses/Wilderness/Outdoor Ethics (LNT) at Admiralty Island National Monument and the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Juneau, AK.

Author’s Note: This publication was developed by a technical working group and solely represents the views of its authors. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

i

ii

Acknowledgments This framework was initially developed through a 2001 interagency workshop. We are indebted to the participants: Robin West and Danny Gomez (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Bruce Van Haveren (Bureau of Land Management); Steve Bair, John Dennis, and David Graber (National Park Service); Dan Fagre (U.S. Geological Survey); and Kendall Clark and John Romanowski (USDA Forest Service). We thank the participants, especially Allison Banks and Greg Streveler, in a workshop held at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve to develop an initial working model of this framework. We thank Tomie Lee, former Park superintendent, for her support and encour-agement. Joe Van Horn, Wilderness Program Coordinator for Denali National Park and Preserve, was instrumental in keeping our feet to the wilderness fire. Rob Mason, a former wilderness manager for the Forest Service, offered thoughtful advice on ways to make this evaluation framework more practical and useful to wilderness managers. Many other people offered cogent comments and suggestions, including Paul Gleeson, Gordon Olson, and the many workshop and discussion participants at several biennial George Wright Society meetings where previous drafts of this framework were presented. We thank Rick Potts, former Chief of Wilderness Stewardship and Recreation Management in the National Park Service, for his unflagging support and encouragement. And we sincerely appreciate all the members of the National Park Service’s National Wilderness Steering Com-mittee (now Wilderness Leadership Council) for their sustained interest and assistance in reviewing and revising this framework. We are especially grateful to Bob Winfree, National Park Service Alaska Regional Science Advisor, for sharing his depth of experience and for his help, support, and feedback throughout the many stages of developing this evaluation framework. David Graber, Chief Scientist for the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service, and Steve Ulvi (now retired from the National Park Service) were constant sources of wisdom, support, and humor to help us think through many difficult issues and decisions and to keep us focused on how to simultaneously support science and preserve wilderness character.

Table of Contents

ExecutiveSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

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

EvaluationFrameworkGoals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

LimitationsandCautions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ComplianceRequirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EvaluationFrameworkOverview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

InitialReviewFilter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

QualityofProposalFilter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LegalandPolicyFilter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10ProposalsWithSection4(c)ProhibitedUses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12ProposalsWithoutSection4(c)ProhibitedUses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ImpactsandBenefitsFilter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18NumericalScoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20LocalFlexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20BenefitsAssessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21ImpactsAssessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24BenefitsandImpactsDecisionTable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26CumulativeImpactsAssessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

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

AppendixA–HypotheticalExampleofClimateChangeResearchEvaluation. . . . . 31

AppendixB–GuidelinesforScientistsConductingResearchinWilderness. . . . . . . 33

AppendixC–AgencyPoliciesonResearchandScientificActivities. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

AppendixD–YosemiteWildernessHypotheticalExample—BenefitsandImpactsAssessmentWorksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

AppendixE–Worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

iii

Executive Summary

ThisevaluationframeworkprovidesaconsistentandcomprehensiveapproachforthinkingthroughanddocumentinghowthefourFederalwildernessman-agingagenciesmayevaluateproposalsforscientificactivitiesinwilderness.Thisapproachisbasedonthepremisesthatbothimpactsandbenefitsneedto be assessed and that the decision to approve or deny a proposed activ-ityultimatelydependsonwhether thebenefits justifytheimpacts.Suchanapproachprovidesasolidbasistoimprovecommunicationbetweenmanagersandscientists,therebyreducingconflictandimpactstowildernesscharacter,increasingtherelevanceofsciencetoimprovingwildernessstewardship,andbringingthebenefitsofwildernesssciencetosociety.

Why is this evaluation framework needed?

Thestandardforapprovingscientificactivitiesis,andshouldbe,sethigherinsidewildernessthaninotherareasbecauseof thelegislativerequirementfromthe1964WildernessActto“preservewildernesscharacter.”However,thereisnoconsistentandcomprehensiveframeworkforevaluatingproposalsforscientificactivitiesinwilderness.Differentagencies,andofficeswithinanagency,mayevaluateproposalsdifferentlyandinterprettherequirementsof wilderness legislation as well as agency policy in very different ways.Typically, some impactsbutnotothers are evaluated,while thebenefitsoftheproposedworkmayormaynotbetakenintoaccount.Last,thetriggerformoredetailedevaluationoftenisaproposedactionthatisprohibitedbySection4(c)oftheWildernessAct,and,whilemanyscientificactivitiesmaynot reach that level of impact, theymay still have a significant impact onwildernesscharacter.Allofthesehabitsleadtoalackofdefensibilitywhenapprovingordenyingproposals,aswellasfrustrationandacrimonybetweenmanagersandscientists. Theseproblemswilllikelybecomemorefrequentandintensewithincreasingdemandsforresearchandmonitoringinwilder-nesstounderstandtheeffectsofglobalclimatechangeandotherpervasive,regional,andnational-scalethreatstowilderness.

How does this evaluation framework work?

Thisframeworkconsistsofaseriesofstepsorfiltersthatwouldtypicallybeusedinthefollowingsequencetoreacharecommendationabouttheproposal:

• Initial Review Filter: identifyanypotential“redflags”orobviousproblems

•Quality of Proposal Filter: ensuretheactivitieswillachievetheirintendedoutcome

• Legal and Policy Filter: evaluateconformancewithexistinglegislationandapplicableagencypolicies

• Impacts and Benefits Filter:evaluatebothimpactsandbenefits

iv

Oneofthepurposesofthisframeworkistoquicklyidentifyproposalsthatmaybe readilyapproved, those thatareclearlynotappropriateandwillbereturnedwith an explanation, and those thatwill require substantial efforttorenderafairandtransparentdecision.Whiletheframeworkmayatfirstseemcomplex,extensivepilottestingshowedthat,usingthisframework,mostproposals,after theyhavebeencarefully read, requireabout15minutes toevaluate. Thisframeworkappliestoproposalsfrominsidethewildernessmanagementagencyandtoproposalsfromotheragencies,organizations,andindividuals.Thisframeworkisnotintendedforoff-the-shelfuse.Localstaffsarerequiredtomakeseveraljudgmentswithinthefiltersdescribedabove,andthesejudg-mentsstronglyinfluencetheoutcomeofthisevaluation.Thisframeworkisnot intended to be prescriptive; rather, to balance the goals of consistencyandlocalrelevance,itprovidesalogicalstructurewithinwhichstaffsapplyspecificmodificationstofitlocalcircumstances. ThisframeworkwillassistinthepreparationofaNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActanalysis,aswellasaMinimumRequirementsAnalysis,ifneeded,butitisnotasubstituteforeither.Eachagencyandmanagingunitusesdif-ferentprocedures for triggeringand fulfillingcompliance requirements, soeachwillneedtodevelopitsownmethodsforincorporatingthisframeworkintocomplianceprocedures.

v

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

A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific Activities in Wilderness

Peter Landres, Mark Fincher, Lewis Sharman, Judy Alderson, Chris Barns, Tom Carlson, Richard L. Anderson, Susan Boudreau,

David J. Parsons, Laurel Boyers, and Kevin Hood

Introduction

Every year, the four Federalwildernessmanagement agencies (U.S.DOIBureauofLandManagement,FishandWildlifeService,NationalParkSer-vice,andtheUSDAForestService)receivehundredsofproposalstoconductscientificstudieswithinwilderness.Theseproposalsrangefromsimpleandsmalltoextraordinarilycomplexandlargeprojects.Wildernessoffersuniqueopportunities for biophysical and social science in areas that are relativelyunmodified bymodern people, and these studiesmay improve wildernessstewardshipandbenefitbothscienceandsociety(Albright1933;Bratton1988;Graber1988,2002;Peterson1996;Sharmanandothers2007;Suarez2009).Thelegislativerequirementofthe1964WildernessActto“preservewilder-nesscharacter”demandsthatthestandardforapprovingscientificactivitiesis,andshouldbe,sethigher insidewildernessthaninotherareas(Landresandothers2003;Sixandothers2000). Somescientificactivitiesinwildernessareillegalbecausewildernesslegis-lationprohibitsmotorizedequipment,mechanicaltransport,andinstallations.Theseprohibitionspreventtheuseofcertainscientifictools,datacollectioninstallations,andotherscientificproceduresunlesstheseareexplicitlydeemed“necessarytomeetminimumrequirementsfortheadministrationoftheareaforthepurposeofthisAct”(Section4(c)WildernessAct,PublicLaw88-577).Otheractivitiesmaybe legalbut,nonetheless,diminishoneormoreof thefourqualitiesofwildernesscharacter(seeLandresandothers2008fordetaileddiscussionaboutwildernesscharacter).Forexample,thepresenceofresearchstaffcompromisesopportunitiesforsolitude,monumentationofresearchsiteswith permanent marking diminishes the undeveloped quality, and tagginganimalscompromises theuntrammeledqualityofwildernesscharacter (foradditionalexamples,seeOelfkeandothers2000;Parsons2000;ParsonsandGraber1991). Differentagencies,andevendifferentofficeswithinanagency,mayinter-pretwildernesslegislationandtheagency’spoliciesindifferentways,lead-ing to inconsistency inevaluatingproposals for scientificactivities (ButlerandRoberts1986).Thisinconsistency,combinedwithalackofcommunica-tionbetweenmanagersandscientists,has led to increasing frustrationand


acrimonyoverscientificactivitiesinwilderness(Barns2000;Bayless1999;EichelbergerandSattler1994;Stokstad2001).Forexample,Franklin(1987)describeshowscientists“areoftenuninformedaboutregulationsandunwillingtomakenecessarycompromises toconformwithwildernessvalues.Scien-tistscanbearrogantandcrypticintheirrelationswithmanagers…somemayfeelthatresearchgivesthemalicensetodowhatevertheyplease.”Franklin(1987)alsodescribeshowmanagers’“attitudestowardresearchinwildernessarealsoproblems…whichmayincludehostilityanddisinterest,[and]appar-entlyreflectalackofappreciationofthepotentialvalueofscientificstudy.”Theseproblemswilllikelybecomemorefrequentandintensewithincreasingdemandsforresearchandmonitoringinwildernesstounderstandtheeffectsof global climate change and other pervasive, regional, and national-scalethreatstowilderness.AppendixAoffersanexampleofhowthisevaluationframework relates specifically to climate change research andAppendixBoffersguidelines for scientists developingproposals to conduct research inwilderness. Tohelpovercometheseproblems,thisframeworkwasdevelopedtoprovidea consistent approach across the fourwildernessmanagement agencies forthinkingthroughanddocumentinghowproposalsforscientificactivitiesinwildernessmaybeevaluated.Ourpremisesinclude:(1)thereisnothinginher-entlyincompatiblebetweenscienceandwilderness;(2)sciencecansubstantivelycontribute to improved wilderness stewardship and societal understandingaboutthevalueofwilderness;and(3)bothimpactsandbenefitsofproposedscientificactivitiesmustbefairlyevaluatedtodecidewhethertoapproveordenytheseactivities.Thisframeworkshouldbothsetthestagefordiscussionbetweenmanagersandscientistsearly in theproposaldevelopmentprocessandbe equally informative anduseful to both groups.By improving com-municationbetweenmanagersandscientists,thisframeworkaimstoreduceconflict,increasetherelevanceofsciencetoimprovingwildernessstewardship,andhelpbringthebenefitsofwildernesssciencetosociety,whilepreservingwildernesscharacter. This frameworkwas initiallydevelopedat aworkshopheld in2001withthe fourwildernessmanagement agencies and theU.S.Geological Survey.Thisinitialframeworkwaspresentedatseveralconferencediscussionsandworkshops,andanintensiveworkshopwasheldatGlacierBayNationalParkandPreservein2005.Theframeworkwasthensubstantiallyrevisedbythepresentauthors,againpresentedataconferenceworkshop,andsubsequentlyrevisedandpilottested.

Evaluation Framework Goals

Thegeneralgoalsforthisframeworkareto:

• Improve communication—Thereisafundamentalneedtohaveearlyandclearcommunicationbetweenscientistsandmanagementstaffabouthowproposalsforscientificactivitiesinwildernesswillbeevaluated.


• Improve awareness—Thereisanimportantneedtoimproveawarenessandunderstandingamongbothscientistsandmanagementstaffabout(1)theimportanceofpreservingwildernesscharacter,protectingthewildernessresource,andthehighstandardthatisrequiredforconductingscientificstudiesinwilderness;and(2)thedirectandindirectbenefitsofsciencetowildernessanditsstewardshipandtosociety.

• Improve defensibility—Thereisanurgentneedtoimprovethedefensibil-ityofstaffevaluationsbyusingaframeworkthatis(1)transparentandexplicitinthedecisioncriteria,includingthesubjectivejudgmentsmadebyagencystaff;(2)basedonthestatutorylanguageofthe1964WildernessAct;and(3)consistentinitsevaluationcriteriaacrossdifferentproposalsandovertime.Suchanevaluationframeworkwouldbecomepartoftheadministrativerecorddemonstratinghowadecisionwasmade.

Toaccomplishthesegoals,thisframeworkisdesignedtobe:

•Comprehensive and systematic—The framework provides a structuredbasisforcomprehensivelyevaluatingthebenefitsandimpactsofapro-posedscientificactivity, includingthecumulativebenefitsandimpactsofthisactivity.

• Broadly applicable—Theframeworkappliestoeverygeographicareaandagencybecauseitisbasedonthestatutorylanguageofthe1964Wilder-nessAct.

• Flexible—Theframeworkhasbeendesignedtoallowlocalmodification.Infact,localmodificationisrequiredinseveralplacestoensurethatdeci-sionsreflectlocalthinkingandattitudesaboutwildernessandscience.

Limitations and Cautions

Thereareseverallimitationsandcautionsabouttheuseofthisframework.First,itwasdevelopedtoevaluateproposalsforscientificactivities,notothertypesofactivitiessuchasoutfitterandguidepermits.Scientificactivitiesaredefinedasallactivitiesrelatedtothecollectionofnaturalresourceandsocialsciencedata,includingresearch,inventory,andmonitoring,generallyconductedbyuniversities,FederalorStateagencies,orprivateorganizations.Second,significantportionsofthisframeworkarebasedonthestatutorylanguageofthe1964WildernessAct,and,therefore,itappliesjusttowildernessandnototheragencylands.Third,thisframeworkisintendedtoapplyequallytoproposalsthatcomefromoutsideorinsidetheFederalagencymanagingthewilderness.Fourth,theframeworkdoesnotspecificallyevaluateimpactstotheintangibleaspectsofwildernesscharacter,suchasimpactstohumility,restraint,andthevalueofhavingareasthatremainamysteryandunknown(Landres2005),inotherwords,thevirtueofhavingwhatLeopold(1949)describedas“ablankspoton themap.”These intangiblevaluesmaybeconsidered importantbymanagementstaffinthisevaluationprocess.


Whilethisframeworkisintendedtobewidelyapplicableanduseful,itisnotprescriptiveandlocalstaffsmustadaptandmodifyittofittheirneeds.Aswithallmanagementtools,theuseofthisframeworkneedstobetestedwithinthelegalandpolicycontextofthespecificwildernessandthecircumstancesbeingevaluated.Inparticular,thisframeworkmustbeusedwithaclearunder-standingofwildernessvaluesandtheabilitytotranslatethisunderstandingtoavarietyofcomplexproposalsandsituations.Thisframeworkisintendedtobuilduponandcomplementtheknowledgeandexperienceoflocalmanagementstaffs,nottoserveasasubstituteforthisknowledge.Despitethebenefitsofastandardizedevaluationprocess,nosingleevaluationprocesswillworkineverysituation,especiallyincasesthathavebecomecontentiousandpoliti-cized.Last,thisframeworkisnotapolicyordecisiondocument,and,whileitmaycomplementaminimumtoolanalysisandNEPAscopingandanalysisdocuments,itdoesnotreplaceeitherofthoseifneeded. Tofullyimplementthisframework,eachagencywillneedtodevelopagency-specificapproachesnotprovidedhereto:

• Identifyappropriatestaffrolesandresponsibilities; • Integratethisframeworkwithinexistingagencypoliciesandpermitting

orapprovalprograms,andmakeitpartoftheadministrativerecord;

• Determine the appropriate balancebetween flexibility and consistencyamongdifferentofficeswithinanagency;

• DevelopcommunicationtoolssuchasaWeb-basedapplicationtoprovideauser’sguidetothisframework;and

• Developsupportingdocumentationtoimprovecommunicationbetweenmanagement staff and scientists thatwould (1) explainwhywildernesscharacterisimportantandtheFederalresponsibilitytopreserveit,(2)pro-videexamplesofactivitiesthatareallowedandthosethatareprohibited,and(3)offerrecommendationsforsampling,monumentation,andotheractivitiesthatarelikelytocauseconcern.

Over30differentproposalsforscientificstudieshavebeenpilot-testedusinganearlierdraftofthisframework.Thisversionreflectswhathasbeenlearnedfromthattesting.Notsurprisingly,pilottestingshowedthatfamiliaritywiththeframeworkiscriticalforefficientevaluationofaproposal.Inparticular,familiarityisneededwiththenumericalscoringsystemusedtoassessimpacts.Understandingthedetailsofaproposalalsomayrequireconsiderabletimeandeffort,especiallyforcomplexproposals.However,oncetheevaluatorunder-standsthematerial,onaverage,proposalsareevaluatedinabout15minutes.

Compliance Requirements

AllFederalactionsthatmighthaveanenvironmentaleffectaresubjecttotheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1970 (NEPA).Effectsonwilder-nesscharacterfromscientificactivitiesaresubjecttoNEPA,andtheconductoftheseactivitiesisunderthecontrolofthemanagingFederalagencyandis


thereforeconsideredaFederalaction.ThisistruewhethertheFederalwilder-nessmanagementagency,anotherFederalagency,aStateagency,aStateorprivateuniversityormuseum,oranindividualconductstheactivities.Thisisalsotrueregardlessofwhetheraresearchpermitisrequired.Ifnoresearchpermitisrequired,theagencystillhastheresponsibilityforwildernessman-agementandforNEPAanalysisofthescientificactivitiesandimpacts. This evaluation framework, like any Minimum Requirements Analysis(MRA),mayhelpprepareaNEPAanalysisbutisnotasubstitute.Portionsoftheevaluationframework,liketheMRA,maybetransferabletoasubsequentorconcurrentNEPAanalysis.Becauseagenciesandmanagingunitsusedif-ferentproceduresfor triggeringandfulfillingcompliancerequirements,nostandardmethod isoffered forhow this framework shouldbe incorporatedintothesecomplianceprocedures. Tosummarizethedifferencesbetweenthisevaluationframework,theMRA,andNEPA:

• Evaluation framework—usedtoevaluateallscientificactivitiesregardlessofwhethertheyareprohibitedundertheWildernessActSection4(c)ornot;evaluatesbothimpactsandbenefitsofaproposedactivityandweighstheseagainstoneanotherinthecontextofcumulativeeffectsfromotheractivities.

•MRA—usedtoevaluatethenecessityofaproposedactivityandhowtominimizeimpactsfromit,especiallyanactivitythatviolatestheWilder-nessActSection4(c)prohibitions.

•NEPA—comparesanddisclosestheenvironmentaleffectsofallthealter-natives,includingtheproposalandtheno-actionalternative.

Evaluation Framework Overview

Theframeworkiscomposedoffourfiltersorsteps(fig.1),followedbyarecommendation about the proposed activity. The purpose of each step isbrieflyexplainedbelowandexplainedindetailinitsownsection.

• Initial Review Filter—identify any potential “red f lags” and obviousproblemswiththeproposal

•Quality of Proposal Filter—ensure theproposedactivitieswillachievetheirintendedoutcome

• Legal and Policy Filter—evaluateconformanceoftheproposalwithexist-inglegislationandapplicableagencypolicies

• Impacts and Benefits Filter—assesstheimpactsandbenefitsofthepro-posal,includingcumulativeimpacts

• Recommendation—the final recommendation that is rendered from theevaluationprocess


Throughoutthisevaluationframeworkweusetheterm“proposal”torefertotheentiredocumentthatissubmittedtotheagencyforpermittingand“proposedactivity” forspecificcomponentsoftheproposal.Inreality,itwillmostlikelybeoneormorecomponentsofaproposalthatendupbeingtheprimaryfocusofscrutinyanddebate.Forexample,aproposalforclimatechangeresearchmayincludetheinstallationofameteorologicaltowerasoneofitsproposedactivities,andthistowerwouldlikelybecomethefocusoftheLegalandPolicyFilter.Thisframeworkisdesignedtobeconservativebyallowingaproposaltobeprovisionallydeniedateachofthedifferentsteps.Inmostcases,denialisprovisionalbecauseagencystaffwouldfirstdocumentthereasonfordenialandmaythennegotiatewiththescientisttoreducetheimpactsand/orincreasethebenefitsoftheproposal. Any evaluation process, including this one, strives to put complex andnuancedissuesintorelativelysimplecategoriesorintoblackandwhiteterms.Forexample,inthisframeworkaproposalwouldbereadilyapprovedifitisofsufficientqualitytoachieveitsintendedpurpose,doesnotviolatelaworpolicy,anddoesnotdegradewildernesscharacter.Incontrast,aproposalwouldbereadilydeniedifitisofpoorquality,violatedlaworpolicy,ordegradedwildernesscharacterwithoutprovidinganysignificantbenefits.Thesearebothsimplesituationsandmanyproposalswouldfallintooneortheothercategory.Muchmorecomplexandhardertoevaluate,however,isaproposalthatisof

PROPOSAL

IMPACTS & BENEFITS

FILTER

INITIAL REVIEW FILTER

QUALITY OF PROPOSAL

FILTER

LEGAL AND POLICY FILTER

RECOMMENDATION

Figure 1—Overall evaluation process.


goodquality,wouldprovideimportantbenefits,butrequirestheuseofSec-tion4(c)prohibitedactivities,and,therefore,degradeswildernesscharactertoachievethosebenefits.Shouldsuchaproposalbedeniedorapprovedafterappropriatenegotiation?Thisframeworkisintendedtohelpmanagersevaluatethese“gray”situationsinaconsistentandcomprehensivemanner,leadingtofairanddefensibledecisions.

Initial Review Filter

Thefirststepinthisevaluationframeworkistoidentifyanypotential“redf lags”orotherobviousproblemswiththeproposal.Foreverywildernessandissuetherewilllikelybeadifferentsetof“hot-button”issuesthatneedtobeidentifiedasearlyandasquicklyaspossible.Thepurposeofthisfilterisnottodenyaproposalbuttosetupappropriatemanagementreviewifneeded,orreturnitformodificationtocorrectobviousproblemsbeforefurtherevalu-ation.Themerepresenceofthisfiltershouldprovideastrongincentiveforscientiststotalkwiththewildernessmanagerwhiletheyaredevelopingtheirproposalandcertainlybeforetheproposalisformallysubmitted.Suchupfrontcommunicationmayforestallanyproblemsorantagonismthatmightpreventtheproposalfrombeingapprovedand,thereby,increasethespeedoftheevalu-ationprocess. Thisfilterissimplyalistofquestionsmanagementstaffshouldaskabouteachproposal.Thequestionsofferedbelowillustratethekindsofquestionsthatwouldtriggeraredf lag,butthislistmaynotcoverthefullrangeofissuesorconcernsthatarerelevanttoaspecificareaorproposal.Similarly,thislistmayincludequestionsthatarenotrelevanttoanarea.Thesequestionsinclude:

• Does the proposal include any activities requiring a use that is legallyprohibitedbySection4(c)oftheWildernessAct?

•Would the proposed activity degradewilderness character even if it islegallypermitted?

•Wouldtheproposedactivitylikelybecontroversialwithanypublics?

•Wouldtheproposedactivityposeotherlegalorpolicyproblems?

•Wouldtheproposedactivityinterferewithmanagementoperations?

•Wouldtheproposedactivityposeconsultationissuesoverlistedspeciesorculturalandheritageresources?

•Would the proposed activity require collecting plants or other naturalresources,handlingorremovinganimals,orintroducingplantsoranimalsintothewilderness?

•Would theproposedactivitypose timingor locationproblems, suchasoccurringinasensitiveareaortimeforparticularspecies?

•Wouldtheproposedactivityposeadditionalimpactinanareathatalreadyhasanunacceptablelevelofcumulativeimpactsorisclosetoanunac-ceptablelevelofcumulativeimpacts?


• If thesubmitterhasconductedwork in theareabefore,were thereanyproblemswithcompletingadministrativerequirements(suchassubmit-tingreports,removinginstallationsandotherdebrisfromtheactivity,orcompleting curatorial and specimen documentation requirements) in atimelyandprofessionalmanner?

Theintentinmanagersaskingthesequestionsattheoutsetoftheevaluationprocessisnottogointoathoroughanddeepanalysisofpotentialproblems.Rather,askingthesequestionsisimportanttoidentifywhethertheproposalmaytriggercertainproblemsthatcouldsubstantiallyinfluencehowthepro-posalwillbeevaluated.Forexample,iftheproposalaffectsthreatenedandendangeredspecies,consultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceisrequired,whichmay lead to a longer evaluation.Likewise, if the proposalrequiresuseofmotorizedequipmentormechanicaltransportordegradeswil-dernesscharacterinsomeotherway,theevaluationprocessmaytakelongerandthereisagreaterchanceitwillbedenied. If the answer to anyof these questions is “yes,” then additional effort isneededbythemanagertomoreclearlydefinewhatthepotentialproblemis.Atthispointcommunicationwiththepersonswhoofferedtheproposalisvitaltoinformthemofthepotentialproblem(s)andlikelyimplicationsforhowlongitmay take toevaluate theirproposal. If this InitialReviewFilter turnsupproblemsthatmaysignificantlydelaytheevaluationormakeitmorelikelyfortheproposaltobedenied,managementstaffmayallowtheproposaltobewithdrawnorrevised.Iftheansweris“no”toallofthequestions,thentheproposalwouldadvancetothenextstepinthisframework.

Quality of Proposal Filter

Thisfilteraskstwoquestions:

• Istheproposedscientificactivitysufficientlywelldesignedtoaccomplishitsstatedpurpose,therebyprovidingtheintendedbenefitstomanagementorscience?

• Doestheproposaladequatelydescribeanddiscussthepotentialbenefitsandimpactsoftheproposedactivitytowilderness,aswellasitsplanforcommunicatingwithlocalmanagementstaff?

Itisneitherthewildernessmanager’sresponsibilitytounderstandresearchdesign,samplingmethods,orstatisticalanalysis,northescientist’sresponsi-bilitytounderstandtheintricaciesandnuancesofwildernesslawandpolicy.Withthisfilterandthetwoquestionsabove,wearetryingtoforgecommongroundthatbothgroupsneedtomovetoward.Forexample,wildernessmanag-ersneedaninformedopinionaboutwhethertheproposedactivitywillfulfillitsintendedobjectives.Forproposalsthathavelittleornoimpact,thisisnotacrucialanalysis.ButforproposalsthatdegradewildernesscharacterorrequireactivitiesprohibitedbySection4(c)oftheWildernessAct,thisevaluationis


imperativetoaccuratelyassesswhetherthepurportedbenefitswouldbesuf-ficienttojustifyacceptingtheimpacts. Managerstypicallyhavefouroptionsforevaluatingscientificrigor:(1)reviewtheproposal themselves if theyarecapable; (2)askagencyresourceorsci-ence staff to review the proposal; (3) ask scientists outside the agency forreview;or(4)assumethattheproposalissufficientlywell-designedthatnoreviewisneeded.Thedrawbackstothefirstthreeoptionsarethestafftimeandfundingneededtoreviewproposals.Whilethefourthoptionmayappearspecious, somenational-level agencyactivities suchas theForestService’sForestInventoryandAnalysisprogramaredevelopedwithrigorousstandards,and,inthesecases,maynotneedtobereviewedforscientificquality.Insomecases,thereputationofthepersonsubmittingtheproposalorthemanager’sdirectexperiencewiththispersonmayleadtoacceptingthescientificrigoroftheproposalwithminimaladditionalreview. Insomecases,aproposalmaybefundedbeforeitissubmittedtotheagencyforapprovaltoconductthestudyonpublicland.Forexample,scientistsmaysubmitproposalstobefundedbytheNationalScienceFoundationorspecialcongressionallyfundedinitiativesthathavewell-establishedindependentreviewprocesses. In thesecases, if theproposalhaspassed therigorousscreeningofsuchprograms, thescientificqualityof theproposalmaynotneed tobequestioned.Havingalready received funding,however,neitherassures thataproposalwillbepermittednorexemptsitfrombeingassessedintheLegalandPolicyFilterandtheImpactsandBenefitsFilter. Iftheproposalisdeemedinadequatetofulfillitsintendedscientificpurpose,itmaybereturnedwitharequesttodemonstrate,byindependentreviews,thescientificqualityoftheproposal. ThesecondquestioninthisFilterevaluateswhethertheproposaladequatelydescribesitspotentialbenefitsandimpactstowilderness,aswellasitsplanforcommunicatingwithlocalmanagementstaff.Specifically,reviewersshouldask:

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

• DoestheproposaldescribethepotentialimpactsasdescribedintheImpactsandBenefitsFilterandshowhowthesewillbeminimizedormitigated?

• Doestheproposaldescribehowtheresultsandanyreportswillbecom-municatedtolocalmanagementstaff?

Bydescribingthepotentialbenefitsoftheactivity,theproposalhelpsman-agersunderstandthebroadercontextoftheproposedactivities.Bydescribingpotentialimpacts,theproposaldemonstratesthatthepersonssuggestingtheactivitiesareawareoftherangeofwildernessvaluesthatmightbeaffectedbytheirproposal.Iftheproposaldoesnotaddresstheseissues,oraddressestheminadequately,theproposalmaybereturnedforrevision.Inthiscase,itisclearlyinthescientist’sinteresttorevisetheproposaltoincreasethelikeli-hoodofitbeingpermitted.


Insomecases,managersmayfeelthattheimpactsareunacceptableandsug-gestwaysthescientistcouldreducethem.Forexample,ifaresearcherproposesusingachainsawtotakesectionsfromtreestodevelopanhistoricalrecordoffireinthewilderness,themanagermaysupporttheideaforsuchastudyandsuggestthatacrosscutsawbeusedinstead.Thescientistmaycounterthatachainsawisnecessarytoprovidethequalityandquantityofdataneededtoderiveanhistoricalfirerecord,andthechainsawallowsplungecuttingthatminimizestreedamage.Themanagermaythenrespondthatachainsawcanbeusedbutonlyincertaintimesandlocationstominimizeimpactstovisitors.Inaddition,themanagermayseektheopinionofanindependentscientistaboutwhether useof a chainsaw is necessary to acquire adequate samples.Suchfrankandback-and-forthdiscussioniscriticaltominimizingimpactswhilestillallowingdatatobecollectedthatissufficienttofulfillthepurposesoftheresearch. OneofthepurposesofthisQualityofProposalFilteristopromoteup-frontdiscussionbetweenmanagementstaffandscientists.Requiringdiscussionofbenefitsand impacts in theproposal shouldencouragescientists todiscusstheir ideaswithmanagement staffbefore the proposal is submitted.Whileinitiallytimeconsuming,suchdiscussionshouldleadtoaproposalthatpro-videsmoreusefulinformationtomanagers,maximizesbenefits,minimizesimpacts,andfostersamoreproductiveandmutuallybeneficialrelationshipbetweenmanagersandscientists.

Legal and Policy Filter

ThisFilter(fig.2)evaluatesconformanceoftheproposalwithexistingleg-islation and applicable agencypolicies. In essence, proposed activities thatviolate existing law (theWildernessAct andotherFederal laws)or agencypolicyarenotallowedinwildernessorotherpubliclands.Inpractice,how-ever,determininglegislativeandpolicyconformanceiscomplexbecauseofthewaydifferentlawsoverlapandhowtheyinteractwithpoliciesandotheradministrative direction—therefore, evaluating conformance may requiresubjective judgments. These judgmentsmay pose less of a problem if anyunderlyingassumptionsandrationalearemadeexplicit.Asdiscussedabove,thisLegalandPolicyFilterdoesnotreplaceorfulfillNEPAorothercompli-ancerequirements.Eachagencyhasdistinctpolicydirectiononresearchandother science activities insidewilderness, and staffmembersmustdefer totheir agency’s policies over this evaluation framework.Agency policies onresearch,asofthetimethisevaluationframeworkwaspublished,aregiveninAppendixC. ThefirststepinthisfilteristodeterminewhetheraproposalincludesauseoractivitythatisgenerallyprohibitedbySection4(c)oftheWildernessActof1964.TheAct lists severalusesandactivities thataregenerallyprohib-ited,includingerectingstructuresandinstallationsandusingnon-motorizedmechanicaltransport,motorvehicles,motorizedequipment,motorboats,and


landingaircraft(droppingorpickingthingsupfromaircraftthatdonotlandismanagedbyregulationorpolicyspecifictoeachagency).Inawell-writtenproposal,thisdecisionpointissimplebecauseitwillbeclearlystatedwhetheroneoftheseusesisproposed. However,theprohibitionoftheseusesisnotabsolute.Ifoneoftheusesisproposed,themanagermustdeterminewhetheritmeetsthe1964WildernessActSection4(c)exemptionofbeing“necessary tomeetminimumrequire-mentsfortheadministrationoftheareaforthepurposeof[theWilderness]Act.”Thisstatementhasbeenthesourceofmuchdebatebecauseitisunclearexactly what is meant by “necessary,” “minimum,” and “administration.”Differentagencies,differentofficeswithinanagency,anddifferentpeopleallmayusedifferentdefinitionsandcriteriafordeterminingwhichactivitiesmaybepermittedunderSection4(c).Anderson(1999)offersadetaileddiscus-sionofthisSection4(c)phraseanditsimplicationforresearchactivitiesinwilderness.Itisnotthepurposeofthisevaluationframeworktoresolvethesedebates;however,anyoneconductinganimpactassessmentmustbeawareofthisuncertaintyasasourceofreasonabledisagreementandcontention.Insuchcases,agencystaffmustcarefullydocumenttherationaleandanyunderlyingassumptionsusedtosupportthisjudgment.

Minimum Requirements Analysis –

Step 1: Is It Necessary? • Wilderness dependence

• Legislated exceptions

• Preservation of wilderness character

PROPOSED ACTIVITY

Yes No

IMPACTS & BENEFITS

FILTER For §4(c) prohibited uses,

including MRA Step 2:

What is the minimum

activity?

Yes

DENY

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Proposed use

prohibited by

§4(c)?

Change

proposal?

Law/Policy/Plan

restriction?

Change

proposal?

DENY

Figure 2—Legal and Policy Filter


In addition, science activities related to health and safety concerns mayvacatetheSection4(c)prohibitions.Forexample,seismographswereinstalledin the YosemiteWilderness to study whether precursor groundmovementcould predict rockfalls that would endanger visitors in the non-wildernessportionofYosemiteNationalPark.Inthiscase,upfrontdiscussionbetweenthescientistsandmanagementstaffresultedinascaled-downversionofthestudythatallowedthescientiststoderivemeaningfuldatawhileminimizingimpactstowildernesscharacter. Itisimportanttonotethatassessingwhetheraproposedactivityisprohib-itedbySection4(c) isnot theonlyscreeninthisLegalandPolicyFilter, itismerelythemostconvenientstartingpointbecauseofthehigherburdenof“necessity”placedontheseprohibitedactivitiesbytheWildernessAct.TheWildernessActalsomandatesthatmanagers“preservewildernesscharacter,”andevaluationofthiscriticalmandateismadeatseveralpointsinthisFilterandthroughoutthisevaluationframework.

Proposals with Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses

Ifanactivityoruse isproposed that isprohibitedbySection4(c), thenaMinimumRequirementsAnalysis(MRA)isrequiredtodetermineiftheactivitymeetsthe“necessarytomeettheminimumrequirements”clauseoftheWil-dernessAct.DifferentagencieshavedifferentproceduresforconductingthisMRA,butinthisevaluationframeworkweusetheMinimumRequirementsDecisionGuide(MRDG,availableathttp://www.wilderness.net),developedby the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, as a generalmodel.Thefirststepinthisanalysisconsiderswhetheranyscientificactivityisnecessaryregardlessofmethodology.Thereareatleastthreequestionsthatneed tobe answered todeterminenecessity: (1) Is the activitywilderness-dependent—thatis,canitbeconductedonlyinsidewildernessandinnootherplacetoprovidethesamebenefits?(2)Arethereprovisionsinotherlegislationthatallowthisactivity?(3)Is theactivitynecessarytopreservewildernesscharacter?Onemustrecognizethatwhetheraproposalpassesthesequestionsistosomeextentamatterofopinion,andcarefuldocumentationofhowtheanswersarereachedisnecessary.

Wilderness Dependence—One of the first questions themanager needsto ask iswhether the scientific activity iswilderness-dependent.There areessentiallytwowaysoflookingatwildernessdependence:

• Is thescientificactivitydependentonbeingconducted insideawilder-ness,regardlessofitsparticularlocation?Forexample,aresearcherwantstostudythepersonaltherapeuticbenefitsofawildernessexperienceandwantstointerviewpeoplewhiletheyareinsidethewilderness;inthiscasetheresearchmustbeconductedinsideawilderness,althoughitdoesn’tmatterwhichwildernessoreventheexactlocationwithinawilderness.


• Isthescientificactivitydependentonbeingconductedataparticularloca-tionthatjusthappenstobewithinwilderness?Forexample,aresearcherwantstostudyaparticulargeologicaloccurrencebyinstallingaseriesofseismographs,and thissiteoccursonly insideadesignatedwilderness;inthiscase,thedesignationofwildernessisincidentaltothepurposeoftheresearch,althoughitcanonlybeconductedwithinthewilderness.

A“yes”answertoeitherquestiongenerallysupportspermittingthescientificactivity.However,asdiscussedindetailbelow,wildernessdependencedoesnotguarantee that theproposedactivitywillbepermittedbecause the fullrangeofimpactsandbenefitsstillneedstobeevaluated. Insomecases,ascientificproposalmightbewilderness-dependent,buttheresultsof the studywillnotbeof immediatebenefit to thepreservationofwildernesscharacterormanagementofthearea.Forexample,therecouldbeaneedforamonitoringinstallationinwildernessthatwouldbevitaltohelpdeterminetheeffectsofclimatechangeand,therefore,greatlybenefitsociety,butnootherlocationissuitable.TheinstallationisaSection4(c)prohibiteduse,andeveryattemptmustbemadetoeitheravoidlocatingthefacilityinwildernessortocollectthedatawithoutaninstallation.Factorssuchascost,efficiency,andtimeconstraintsbasedonnon-wildernessfactorsshouldnotbeusedascriteriaforexcludingalternatemethodsandlocations.Theinstal-lationmaybepermittedifthemonitoringstationistheonlypossiblemethod,anditmustbeplacedinwildernesstomakeuseofanundisturbedlandscapeorgeophysicallocationthatisavailableonlyinwilderness.Whilethistypeofmonitoringcouldbeconsideredpartof the scientificvalueandapublicpurposeofwilderness(seethePreservationofWildernessCharactersectionbelow),theinstallationmustpassthroughboththeentireMinimumRequire-mentsAnalysisprocessandtheImpactsandBenefitsFiltertodetermineneedandtojustifyapproval. A“no”answertoeitherquestionaboutwildernessdependencemeansthattheproposaltoconducttheresearchinsidethewildernessfailstomeetthelegalminimumnecessaryrequirementandmustbedenied.Theresearcherwouldhavetheopportunitytoeithermovetheresearchlocationoutsidewildernessoreliminatetheprohibiteduse.Asanexample,apaleontologistproposestouseabackhoe—aprohibiteduseunderSection4(c)—insidewildernesstosampletwotonsofsedimentfromaparticulargeologicstratumandthenscreenthesedimentformicrofossils.Thestratumextendsoutsidethewilderness.Ifthescientistrefusesto“giveup”theprohibitedtool,theresearchrequestmustbedeniedasitcanbesatisfiedoutsidethewilderness.Conversely,thescientistcouldgiveuptheprohibiteduseandchangetheproposal toexcavateusinghandtools. Theremaybesituationswhereresearchrequiresaprohibiteduseandcanbe conductedoutside thewilderness, butbecauseof substantial benefits topreservingwildernesscharactertheresearchmaybepermitted(ormayevenbe desired) insidewilderness. For example, researchers can determine the


occurrenceanddemographyofgrizzlybears,but thisrequires installationsthat are conspicuous—each covers an area of several square meters—andtheymustbeleftinplaceforseveralyears(Kendallandothers2009).Inthiscase,eventhoughtheinstallationisaprohibiteduse, thebenefitsofknow-ingaboutbearpopulationsinsidewilderness—asacomponentofthenaturalqualityofwildernesscharacteraswellasformanagingvisitorusetoavoidbearencounters—mayoutweightheimpactsoftheresearch. Noneoftheaboveisintendedtodiscouragewilderness-dependentresearchorresearchthatdoesnotrequireaprohibiteduse.Infact,mangersmayencourageresearchinwildernessaslongasitdoesnotdegradewildernesscharacter.

Legislated Exceptions—AnotherquestionintheMinimumRequirementsAnalysisiswhetherthereisalegislativeexceptionthatwouldallowthisgener-allyprohibitedactivity.Nolawtakesprecedenceoveranotherunlessitexplic-itlystatesthatitdoes,leadingtowhatmaybedifficultchoicesandtradeoffsasmangersseektocomplywithallthelawsthatapplytoanarea.Managersmustcomplywiththemandatesofallthelawsthataffectthewildernessforwhichtheyareresponsible,andinsomecases,thisotherlegislationmayallowactivities that are prohibited under the 1964WildernessAct. For example,whiletheuseofmotorvehiclesandstructuresisgenerallyprohibitedinsidewilderness,theAlaskaNationalInterestLandsConservationAct(PublicLaw96-487)allowsavarietyoftheseuses.Similarly,theWyomingWildernessAct(PublicLaw98-550,Section201(a)11)allows“occasionalmotorizedaccess”forthepurposeofmanagingbighornsheepintheFitzpatrickWilderness.Othernon-wildernesslegislationsuchastheEndangeredSpeciesActof1973mayimposeadditionalexceptionstothegeneralprohibitionsoftheWildernessAct. InsomecasesthisLegalandPolicyFiltermayleadtoquestionsaboutthemeaningofspecificsectionsorwordsinCongressionallegislation.Forexample,theremaybeuncertaintyaboutthemeaningof“may”or“shall”whenusedinlegislatedspecialprovisions,butthisuncertaintycanusuallyberesolvedbyreferringtoastandardlegaltextsuchasGarner(2001).Inthiscase,theword“may”inlegislationmeansthattheagencyhasthediscretiontoconsideraprohibiteduse,notthatitmustbeapproved.Ineffect“may”meansthataprohibiteduse“may”or“maynot”bepermitted.Incontrast,theword“shall”in legislationmeans that the prohibited usemust be approved—but unlessdetailedspecificationsaregiveninthelegislation,thewildernessmanagingagencyhastheauthoritytospecifywhen,where,andhowthisusewilloccur. Asanexample,theCaliforniaDesertProtectionActof1994includesthespecialprovisionthat“managementactivities tomaintainorrestorefishandwildlifepopulations…maybecarriedout…andshall include theuseofmotorizedvehiclesbytheappropriateStateagencies”(PublicLaw103-433,Section103(f ),emphasesadded).Toclarify interpretationof“may”and“shall”inthislegislation,theBureauofLandManagementdevelopedaseriesofpolicydocumentstoavoiduncertaintyinthefieldabouthowtoimplementthisprovision(WatsonandBrink1996).Incasesofambiguous


oruncertainlegislativedirection,FederalandStatepersonnelcanrefertotheappropriatelegislativehistoryandjudicialdecisionstohelpunderstandtheintentofCongress(Meyer1999),althoughthistypeofinformationisalsoopentointerpretation.

Preservation of Wilderness Character—Beforedeterminingwhetheranyactivityshouldbeundertaken(theMRAStep1decision),themanageralsoneedstodetermineifitisnecessaryto“preservewildernesscharacter,”whichistheprimarywildernessstewardshipmandatefromCongress. CongressionalintentforthemeaningofwildernesscharacterisexpressedintheDefinitionofWilderness,Section2(c)ofthe1964WildernessAct(McCloskey1999;RohlfandHonnold1988;Scott2002).Recentagencyreports(Landresandothers2005;Landresandothers2008)usethislegaldefinitiontoidentifyfourtangibleandequallyimportantqualitiesofwildernesscharacter:

•Untrammeled—Wildernessisessentiallyunhinderedandfreefrommodernhumancontrolormanipulation.

•Natural—Wildernessecologicalsystemsaresubstantiallyfreefromtheeffectsofmoderncivilization.

•Undeveloped—Wildernessretainsitsprimevalcharacterandinfluenceandisessentiallywithoutpermanentimprovementormodernhumanoccupa-tion.

• Solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—Wildernessprovidesoutstandingopportunitiesforsolitudeorprimitiveandunconfinedrecreation.

Inadditiontothesefourqualitiesofwildernesscharacterthatlegallyapplytoeverywilderness, theSection2(c)DefinitionofWilderness states thatawilderness“mayalsocontainecological,geological,orotherfeaturesofsci-entific,educational,scenic,orhistoricalvalue.”Inotherwords,everywilder-nessmayhave“features”thatarepartofthewildernesscharacteroftheareabutnotrepresentedinoneofthefourqualitiesdescribedabove.Akeypartofthissentenceistheword“may”becausesomewildernessesmayhavesuchfeatureswhileotherareasdonot—wheretheydooccur,thesefeaturesareauniquepartofthearea’swildernesscharacter. Featuresthatareecologicalorgeologicalwouldtypicallybeconsideredpartofthenaturalqualityofwildernesscharacter.Examplesofthesecouldincludespecies(e.g.,threatened,endangered,endemic,orofotherscientificinterestsuchasthermophilicbacteria),uniquegeologicalformations(e.g.,instrusiveplutons), or paleontological resources (e.g., fossils). Other features couldincludeculturalandhistoricalsitesthatareprotectedundertheArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionAct,NativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepatria-tionAct,andtheNationalHistoricPreservationAct. Inaddition, the ideaofwildernesscharacter isbroader than the tangible,legalqualitiesofwildernesscharacterandothersite-specificfeaturesthatmayoccurwithinawilderness.Therearealsointangiblevaluesassociatedwitha


wilderness.Forexample,spiritual,existence,orbequestvaluesofwildernessmaynotbeboundtothephysicalexistenceofanareaandhavelittleornoth-ingtodowithitsmanagement.Thesevalues,thoughintangible,arestillpartofwildernesscharacterandappropriateforscientificstudy. Ultimately,themanagerneedstodeterminewhetherthepurposeofthepro-posedscientificactivityisnecessarytopreservewildernesscharacter.Thisdeterminationmayoftenrequiresubjectivejudgmentthatbalancestheimpactsoftheactivitywithitsbenefits,andcarefuldocumentationisneeded. Inrarecases,preservingthescientificvalueofauniquefeaturemaydegradeoneormoreoftheotherqualitiesofwildernesscharacter.Barns(2000),forexample,describedhow theuseofahelicopterwasconsideredappropriateandtheminimumnecessarytooltoremovealargeandrarefossilfromthewildernessbeforeerosiondestroyedit(fig.3a).Theuseofahelicopterclearlytemporarilydegradestheundevelopedqualityofthewildernessandthequal-ityofsolitudeorprimitiveandunconfinedrecreation.Removalofthefossilisalsoaminor—thoughnonethelessreal—degradationofthenaturalquality.Butthefossil’sremovalwasessentialtopreserveauniquevalue:thescientificknowledge of the species thatmillions of years ago inhabitedwhat is nowwilderness,which,withoutaction,wouldhavebeenlosttoerosion.

Figure 3—(A) A helicopter was considered the minimum necessary tool to remove an intact rare fossil from the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness in New Mexico. (B) The

use of hand tools was required to excavate this fossil. Photos by Chis Barns.


Analyzingthiskindoftradeoff—whereascientificactivitywoulddegradeone aspect of wilderness character to preserve another—certainly poses adilemmaanddifferentpeoplecouldreasonablycometodifferentconclusionsaboutwhether toallowsuchaction.All suchdecisions requireupfront andexplicit communicationbetween scientists andmanagersandcarefuldocu-mentation.

Making the “Step 1” Decision—AfteraddressingthesescreensoftheMRA,adecisionmustbemadewhetheranyactionis“necessarytomeetminimumrequirementsfortheadministrationoftheareaforthepurposeof[theWilder-ness]Act,”thatis,topreservewildernesscharacter.Iftheactivityisdeemedtonotfulfillthisrequirement,theproposalshouldbereturnedwithsuitableexplanationand theopportunity shouldbegiven toamend theproposalbyexcludingtheprohibitedactivity,bolsteringhowtheactivitywouldpreservewildernesscharacter,orboth. Ifthisdecisionisthatsomeactionisnecessary,thenitmustbedeterminedwhethertheproposedactivityistheminimumnecessary,fulfillingStep2oftheMRA.TheImpactsandBenefitsFiltercanbeusedtodeterminewhethertheproposedactivityfulfillsthislegalrequirement.(Determiningthe“minimumnecessary” ispartof the legal requirementand, therefore, couldhavebeenincludedintheLegalandPolicyFilter;insteadweincludeitintheImpactsandBenefitsFiltersothetoolsdescribedtherecanbeusedtomakeanddocumentthisdetermination.)Thisdeterminationrequiresdevelopingaseriesofalterna-tivesandthenchoosingtheonethatbestmeetsthis“minimumnecessary”legalrequirement.Theminimumnecessarymayormaynotbetheactivityfromtheoriginalproposal.Furthermore,thevariouscomponentstepsinaproposalmayeachbeassigneddifferentdeterminationsonwhattheminimumnecessaryis.Forexample,inthefossilexcavationandremovalexampledescribedabove,nomotorizedequipmentwaspermittedfortheexcavation(handtoolswereused;fig.3b)andhelicopterusetoremovethefossilwaslimitedtooneday(Barns2000).Determining thisminimumwillmost likelynotbea linearprocess,butinsteadrequireextensivediscussionbetweenthemanagerandscientisttoderiveacompromise thatminimizes impacts towildernesscharacterwhileallowingthenecessaryscientificactivity.

Proposals Without Section 4(c) Prohibited Uses

IfnouseoractivitythatisgenerallyprohibitedbySection4(c)ofthe1964WildernessActisplanned(eitherintheoriginalproposalorafteritwasrevisedfollowingtheMRAprocesspreviouslydescribed),theproposalisreviewedtoseeifitisaffectedbysomeotherlegal,policy,orplanrestriction.Forexample,researchersmayproposecollectingdatainaparticularareabutthemanage-mentplanseverelyrestrictsthenumberofpeopleallowedinthatarea.Ifthereisarestriction,thentheproponenthastheopportunitytoamendtheproposaltoavoidtherestriction.IfthereisnorestrictiontheproposalmovesontotheImpactsandBenefitsFilter.


ItispossiblethataproposaldoesnotinvolveauseprohibitedbySection4(c)butclearlydegradeswildernesscharacterandwouldtherebybedenied.Forexample,aproposaltostudytheeffectsofpredatorremoval(byhuntingbutwithnoneoftheprohibiteduses)onthenaturaldistributionandabundanceof prey would clearly degrade the natural quality of wilderness character.However,suchsituationswouldlikelybecaughtintheInitialReviewFilterandtheproposalwouldbereturnedbeforeanyfurtherevaluation.Incircum-stancesthatarelessclearbutstilldubious,theseconcernswillbecaughtbytheImpactsandBenefitsFilter. WildernessdependencemayalsobeaconsiderationeventhoughtherearenoSection4(c)prohibiteduses.Inpractice,evenwithoutSection4(c)prohibiteduses,proposalsforscienceactivitieswillrangefromhavingnoimpactotherthanthepresenceoftheresearchertohavingsubstantialimpact.Forexample,aproposaltomeasurethestandstructureanddiameteroftreesinsideawilder-nesshasverylittleimpact,andthemanagersmaygainnewinformationaboutthearea.Incontrast,aproposaltocollectspecimensortointenselymanipulateordisturbanareausinghandtoolsnonethelesshasasignificant impact.Inthislattercase,wildernessdependenceshouldbeconsideredinevaluatingtheproposal. IfaproposalhasnoSection4(c)prohibiteduses,differentagencypoliciesrequiredifferenttypesofactions.Forexample,NationalParkServicepolicyrequiresanMRAforalladministrativeactionsinsidewilderness,includingapprovingscientificactivities,whereastheotheragenciesdonotrequirethisanalysis.ForestServicepolicyrequiresevaluatingwildernessdependenceforallproposedscientificactivitiesregardlessofwhetherthereisaprohibiteduseornot,whereastheotheragenciesdonot.

Impacts and Benefits Filter

ThepurposeoftheImpactsandBenefitsFilteristocomprehensivelyandsystematicallyassessthepotentialimpactsandbenefitsofaproposedactivity.Traditionally,evaluationprocessesreviewonlythelegalandpolicyaspectsof a proposal, or only the impacts, or they ask onlywhether the proposedstudy must be conducted inside wilderness (see Landres and others 2003fordiscussionaboutwhythesearenecessarybutinsufficient).ThisImpactsand Benefits Filter takes a very different approach by acknowledging thecomplexityofscientificprojectproposalsandtheuncertaintyofmanydeci-sionsinvolvingthe“minimumnecessary”mandateoftheWildernessActforSection4(c)prohibiteduses.ThisFilterexplicitlyaskswhethertheimpactsnecessarytoachievethebenefitsareacceptable.Thisnewapproachacknowl-edgesthateverymanagementactioncompromisesordiminishessomeaspectofwildernesscharacter,butcertainactionsmaystillbeallowedbecauseanimplicittradeoffhasbeenmadeinwhichthebenefitsoutweightheimpacts.Forexample,bridges,trails,andtoiletsareinstalledforresourceprotection,yettheydiminishotheraspectsofwildernesscharacter.Thisapproachiscertainly


differentphilosophicallyandpracticallyfromtraditionalapproachesusedtoevaluateproposalsforscientificactivities,anditbetterrepresentstherealityofmakingdifficultdecisions. ForproposalsthatincludeactivitieswithaSection4(c)prohibitedusethatweredeemedbytheLegalandPolicyFiltertobe“necessary,”theImpactsandBenefitsFilterisusedtocompleteStep2oftheMRAtodeterminewhattypesofactivityare the“minimum.”The legal requirement from theWildernessActisthatSection4(c)prohibitedusesmaybepermittedonlyiftheyarethe“minimumnecessary.”Usingthesetwofiltersincombinationallowsagencystafftofirstevaluatewhethertheactivitiesarenecessary,andthendeterminewhattheminimumactivitiesare.TofulfillMRAStep2,severalalternativesto theactivity fromtheproposalneed tobe identifiedandrun through theImpactsandBenefitsFilter.Theactivitywiththesmallestimpactwouldbeconsideredtheminimum.However,somealternativeswillalsodiminishthebenefitsoftheproposal,andthisFiltershouldalsoshowanytradeoffsbetweenimpactsandbenefitsfromthedifferentalternatives. ThisImpactsandBenefitsFilteriscomposedofseveralsteps(fig.4).Basi-cally,aproposalisrunthroughabenefitsassessmentandanimpactsassess-ment,yieldinganumericalscoreforeach.Thisscoreisthencategorizedorratedaseither“low,”“medium,”or“high”benefit,and“low,”“medium,”or“high”impact.Theseresultingcategoriesarethenweighedagainstoneanotherinatablethatyieldsaprovisionalrecommendationaboutwhethertoacceptordenytheproposal.

PROPOSAL

Benefits—

numerical assessment

Impacts—

numerical assessment

Benefits and Impacts Decision Table

Cumulative impacts acceptable? Change

proposal?

PROVISIONAL

DENIAL

PROVISIONAL

APPROVAL

DENY APPROVE

Yes

No

UNCERTAIN

No

Yes

Figure 4—Impacts and Benefits Filter.


Numerical Scoring

Thisfilterusesnumericalscorestoassessbenefitsandimpacts.Theadvan-tagesofusingnumericalscoresinclude:

• makingexplicitthethoughtprocessesandsubjectivejudgmentsmanagementstaffmembersuseinweighingbenefitsandimpacts,inturnprovidingastrongbasisfordiscussionbetweenmanagementstaffandscientists;and

• tallyingnumericalscorestoassesscumulativeimpacts(1)withinasingleproposalfromanaccumulationofrelativelysmallimpacts,and(2)acrossallscientificactivities,acrosslargerareas,andacrosslongertimeframes.

The use of numerical scores in assessing benefits and impacts, however,createsapotentialproblembecauseofthetendencytoassumethatthescoreshavemeaningandvalue,wheninfactthe numerical scores have no inherent meaning or value.Forexample,intheassessmentofbenefits,aproposalthatisoflimitedusetomanagementwouldreceiveascoreof“2”whileaproposalthat isspecificallydesignedtoaddressastewardshipissuewouldreceiveascoreof“10.”The2and10havenoinherentmeaningorvalue—the10doesnotrepresenta5-foldincreaseoverthe2.Rather,thesenumbersmerelyrep-resentthecollectiveopinionofstaffabouttherelativemagnitudeofbenefit.

Local Flexibility

Localf lexibilityinassessingbenefitsandimpactsrequireslocalstaffstomake several judgments.Although this creates an addedwork burden, theecological,social,administrative,andlegalcontextofaspecificareaalreadyrequireslocalstaffstobeengagedinmakingavarietyofprofessionaljudg-ments.Typically, local staffswouldmake these judgments justoncebeforeany proposal is evaluated and then use those judgments for evaluating allfuture proposals. This evaluation frameworkmakes these local judgmentstransparent,allowingscientiststoseeexactlyhowlocalstaffsweighcertainaspectsof theproposedwork, in turnproviding forexplicitdiscussionandbettercommunicationbetweenmanagementstaffandscientists. LocaljudgmentsarerequiredforseveralaspectsofthisImpactsandBenefitsFilter(asexplainedintherelevantsectionsbelow):

• BenefitsAssessment Identifyingthecategoriesofmanagementandscientificbenefitsthat

willbeusedforscoringintheBenefitsAssessmentWorksheet Assigninganumericalweightingfactorforeachbenefitcategory Assigningcut-pointstoseparatecategoriesoflow,medium,andhigh

benefit

• ImpactsAssessment Identifyingthetypesofimpactsandthenumericalscoringthatwill

beusedintheImpactsAssessmentWorksheet


Developingdocumentation for the rationale used in assigning thesenumericalscores

Assigningcut-pointstoseparatecategoriesoflow,medium,andhighimpact

• BenefitsandImpactsDecisionTable Assigningtheoutcomes(provisionalapproval,uncertain,provisional

denial)foreachcellofthetable

• CumulativeImpactsAssessment Identifyingthetypesofcumulativeimpactsthatmayoccurandtheir

effectonthefinaldecisionaboutaproposal Dependingonthetypeofscienceactivityproposed,thetypeofresources,andthecomplexityandpotentialproblemsoftheproposal,avarietyofinter-disciplinarymanagement staffmay need to be involved to ensure fair andbalancedjudgmentsindevelopingtheworksheetsandevaluatingaproposal. There will always be tension between standardized processes and localandsituationalf lexibility;thisframeworkstrivestoprovideappropriateandnecessary f lexibilitywithout renderingmeaningless thebenefitsofusingastandardizedprocess.Nevertheless,localofficesmayabusethisf lexibilitytoaccommodateaspecificproposalorperson,therebydefeatingthepurposeofthisevaluationframework.Anagencymayrecommendcertainlimitstolocalf lexibilitytoconstrainthispotentialforabuse.

Benefits Assessment

Scientificactivitiesmayprovideknowledgetohelpimprovewildernessstew-ardship,thatis,knowledgethathelpspreservewildernesscharacterwithinaspecificwildernessorelsewhereacrosstheNationalWildernessPreservationSystem.Scientific activities to preservewilderness character couldbenefitanyofthefourqualitiesofwildernesscharacter(Landresandothers2008)aswellastheuniquefeaturesofanareadescribedaboveintheLegalandPolicyFilter:

•Untrammeled—for example, to understand the impacts of altering thefrequencyandeffectsofnaturaldisturbancessuchasfireorf looding;ortounderstandtheimpactsofintroducingnon-indigenousspeciessuchasfishorlivestock,orremovingspeciessuchasindigenouspredators.

•Natural—forexample,toinventoryandmonitorthedistributionofnon-indigenousinvasiveplants;torestoretheeffectsofnaturalfireregimes;tounderstandtheeffectsofstructuressuchasdamsonnativeplantsandanimals;tomonitorairpollutantsandtheireffects;tounderstandgeologi-cal features;or tomonitorandunderstand theeffectsofglobalclimatechange.


•Undeveloped—for example, to understandhow tonaturalize or restoreareasthathavebeendegraded(suchascampsites,trails,orareasaroundadministrativestructures);howtoremovestructureswithoutusingmotor-izedequipmentandmechanicaltransport;andhowtoefficientlyinventoryandmonitorunauthorizeddevelopments.

• Solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—forexample,tounderstandtheimpactsofmanagementactions(suchasuseofpermits,designatedcampsites,oragency-providedstructures,suchasbearpolesorbearboxes,toprotectcampers’foodfromwildlife)onvisitorexperi-ences; tounderstandandmonitor the things thataffectsolitude;and tounderstandtheroleofnightskyvisibilityonvisitorexperiences.

•Unique features—forexample,tounderstandhowtobestpreserveauniquetypeofculturalsite,ortounderstandthecontributionofhistoricalsitesinside the wilderness to patterns of settlement throughout the broaderregion.

Scientificactivitiestohelpimprovewildernessstewardshipcouldprovideknowledgeabout:

•Urgent or important stewardship issues—forexample,tounderstandtheimpactsofshiftingpatternsofuse(suchasfrommoredispersedovernightusetomoreconcentrateddayuse)ontheoccurrenceofarareplantandonvisitorperceptionsofsolitude.Managementmaybeconsideringimposingrestrictionsontheuseofcertainareastomitigateadverseeffectsontherareplantandonsolitude,andthereisanurgentneedforbaselineinforma-tiononcurrentconditionsfromwhichtoassessimpactsofmanagementaction.Theremayalsobeanurgentneedfor research thatdevelopsanearlywarningabouthowwilderness character isdegrading inorder toavoidproblemsbeforetheyrequiremoredrasticaction.

• Evaluating the effectiveness of past management decisions or actions—forexample,tounderstandhowtomostefficientlyrestoredegradedcampsitesandtrails;ortoevaluatetheimpactofusingdesignatedcampsitesonvisi-torperceptionsofprimitiveandunconfinedrecreation;ortounderstandtheimpactsofinstallingdevelopedwatersourcesforcertainspeciesontheotherspeciesthatoccurinthewilderness.

Last,thebenefitsfromscientificactivitiesforwildernessstewardshipneedtobeevaluatedintermsofhowtheresultscouldbeapplied:

• Immediately or in the future—research designed to provide immediateresultsmaybeofgreaterbenefitthanresearchdesignedtoofferresultsonlyafter20yearsofstudy.Forexample,researchshowingcurrentpat-ternsofdayuseandovernightuse,andtheirimpacts,wouldlikelybeofmore immediatebenefit tomanagerscompared toastudyproposing tounderstandhowvisitorperceptionswillchangeoverthecomingyears.

• As tangible management action—research designed to give managersinformationthatcanresultinon-the-groundmanagementmaybeofgreater


benefitthanresearchthatcannotbeactedon.Forexample,researchonwhether the use of designated campsites has actually reduced impactstosoilandvegetationorreduceduserencounterscanresult in tangibleaction—continuingtorequiretheuseofdesignatedcampingorstoppingthispractice.Conversely,researchonthecontributionofnightskyvisibilitytovisitor’sexperiencemaybeimportantbutdoesnotresultininformationmanagerscanuseiftheprimarysourceoflightpollutionisanearbycity.

• Locally or only broadly—researchdesignedtohelppreservewildernesscharacter within a specific wilderness may be of greater benefit thanresearchdesignedacrossmanyareasthatmaybeonlygenerallyapplicabletoanyindividualarea.Forexample,intensiveresearchwithmultiplesitesonsnowpacktrendsmayshowthedirectimpactofglobalclimatechangewithinawilderness,whereas researchdesigned to showbroad, region-widetrendswithjustoneortwosnowpacksitesperwildernessmaynotyieldinformationbeneficialtothelocalwilderness.

Benefits to sciencemaybe applicable to specific fields of studyormorebroadlytoknowledgeingeneral.Peopleproposingthescientificactivityareresponsiblefordescribingandjustifyingsciencebenefits;ifthesebenefitsarenotsufficiently justified, themanagerhas theresponsibility toaskforhelpfromappropriate resource staff to review thesebenefits.Likemanagementbenefits,benefitstosciencearedividedintoseveraldifferentcategories:

• Howgeographicallybroadwillthebenefitstosciencebe?Forexample,wouldtheresultsimproveunderstandingaboutaphenomenonthatoccursonlyinaportionofthewilderness,acrosstheentirewilderness,ineverywilderness,oracrossanentireregion?

• Howfarover timewill theresultsbenefitscience?Forexample,wouldtheresultsprovideunderstandingthatisshort-term,suchasoneyear,orlong-term,suchastheforeseeablefuture?

• Howmanydifferentpeopleortypesofpeoplewillbenefitfromtheresults?For example,would the results benefit scientists in only one relativelynarrowfieldofstudy;orwouldtheybenefitscientistsinmanydifferentfields;orwouldtheybroadlybenefitscientistsandmanagers?

• Howimportantistheactivitytothescientificfieldofstudy?Forexample,wouldtheresultsaddasmallincrementofknowledgetoafieldofstudy,orwouldtheybecrucialtosubstantiallyadvancingthediscipline?

•Whatisthebreadthofscientificinquiry?Forexample,wouldtheresultsbeapplicabletoanarrowfieldofstudysuchasthetaxonomyofagenusofbeetles,ortomanydifferentfieldsofstudysuchastheeffectofclimatechangeonvegetation,disturbanceregimes,andwildlifehabitatsuitability?

Numerical Scoring of Benefits—Asimpleworksheetisusedtonumericallyscore benefits and derive a total benefits assessment score.AhypotheticalexampleillustratinguseofthisworksheetisgiveninAppendixDandblankworksheetsthatstaffcanusefortheirownevaluationaregiveninAppendixE.


Withineachofthebenefitcategoriesdiscussedabovethereisarangeofpos-siblebenefits,andthesearenumericallyscoredfrom0to10,with0havingnobenefitand10havingthemost.Foreachbenefitcategory,anindividualproposalmayfallanywherewithinthisrange.Forexample,ascientificstudythatdirectlyaddressesanimportantandurgentmanagementissuewouldberateda10forthebenefitcategoryfocusedonurgency,whileastudythatdoesnotaddressanurgentmanagementissuewouldberateda0. Thescoresfromeachbenefitcategoryarethenmultipliedbyaweightingfac-tor.Thisweightingfactorreflectslocalmanagementstaffperceptionsabouttherelativeimportanceofthebenefitcategories(seeAppendixDfortherationaleusedinthehypotheticalexampleworksheet).Thisrelativeimportanceisbasedonacombinationoffactors,includinglegislativedirection,planningguidance,ecologicalandsocialcontextforthearea,agencyandlocalofficeculture,aswellasassociationwithscientists(e.g.,anaffiliationwithalocalsciencecen-ter).Discussionbetweenagencystaffandscientistscouldhelpinformtheseweightingdecisionsandcreatemoreopenchannelsforcommunication.Forcomputationalease,theweightsacrossthe11benefitcategoriesaddto10,soeachcategoryisassignedaweightthatisafractionof10.Whentheweightedscoresforallbenefitcategoriesareaddedtogether,thetotalbenefitsassess-mentscorecanrangefrom0(nobenefit)to100points(maximumbenefit). Thistotalscoreisthenassignedasummaryratingoflow,medium,orhighbenefit.Localstaffspreviouslydeterminethenumericalcut-pointsthatseparatethesethreeratingssuchas0to25,26to75,and76to100.Localstaffsmayfeelthatusingonlythreesummarybenefitsratingsdoesnotprovidesufficientabilitytoevaluateproposals,sotheymaychooseinsteadtousefourcategoriesofbenefitsuchaslow,moderate,moderatelyhigh,andhigh.

Impacts Assessment

Traditionally, evaluating proposals for scientific activities in wildernessfocusedalmostexclusivelyonimpacts.Assessingimpactsiscriticallyimpor-tantinthisframework,butitispartofamorecomprehensiveevaluationthatalsotakesintoaccountthebenefitsoftheproposedactivity. Nearlyallmodernhumanactivitiescauseimpactstowilderness,yetaccept-abilityoftheimpactvariesfromoneactivitytoanother,fromonesituationtothenext,andfromonepersontoanother,oftenwithlittleconsistencyoradequatedefinition.Acceptabilitycanalsochangeover time.Forexample,relativelypristinewildernessconditionsareincreasinglyunique,andscientistsmayfeelthatcertainecologicalandsocialscienceresearchwithinwildernessyieldsbenefitsofincreasinglygreatervaluebeyondtheboundariesofthewil-derness.Incontrast,managersmayfeelthatprotectingthewildernessvaluesofthesesameplacesislikewiseincreasinglyimportant,includingprotectionfromtheimpactsofscientificactivitiesthatprovideonlybroad-scaleandmorelooselydefinedormerelypotentialsocietalbenefits.


Someagencypoliciesdirectmanagerstoconsiderwildernessvaluesforemostindecidingwhattypesofactivitiesareappropriate.Forexample,ForestServiceManualdirection(Section2320.6)states,“whereachoicemustbemadebetweenwildernessvalues…oranyotheractivity,preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value.Economy,convenience,commercialvalue,andcomfortarenotstandardsofmanagementoruseofwilderness”(emphasisadded).TheNationalParkServicehassimilarpolicylanguage.Undersuchpolicies,itisappropriateformanagementstafftoquestionallscientificactivitiesthatmayadverselyaffectwildernesscharacterand theecologicalor socialvaluesofwilderness,andtoplacewildernessvaluesoverandaboveothervalues.Forexample,theinstallationofabattery,solarpanels,andanantennatoprovidereal-timeinformationtoascientistmusthelppreservewildernesscharacterandnotbemerely for theconvenienceof thescientist.Thisquestionaboutunacceptableimpactsshouldleadtoexplicitdiscussionaboutthemethodsthatareappropriateandacceptableinwildernesstoaccomplishtheobjectivesoftheproposedactivity.

Statutory Classification of Impacts—Totiethisimpactsassessmentdirectlytothestatutorylanguageofthe1964WildernessAct,impactsarecategorizedby the fourqualitiesofwildernesscharacter (Landresandothers2005),asfollows:

• Untrammeled Manipulation(includesintroducing,restoring,removing[e.g.,tostudy

what’sleftbehind],moving,ordisturbing[e.g.,wildlifecollaring,trap-ping,feeding,sampling,coringtrees]anyaspectofthe“communityoflife”)

• Natural Collecting(biophysical,geological,oranthropologicalitems)

• Undeveloped Mechanicaltransport Motorizedequipment Installationsandstructures

• Solitudeoraprimitiveandunconfinedtypeofrecreation Groupsize Totalperson-daysperseason Visitorsurveys Surveillance Thiscategorizationschemeallowsassessingtheimpactfromasingleactiv-ity(suchasoneinstallation),multipleactivities(suchasseveralinstallations),different typesof activities (such as installations and theuseofmotorizedequipment),andcumulativelyacrossadministrativeandscientificactivitiesoneachqualityofwildernesscharacter.Placingtheimpactsfromaproposedactivityinthisstatutorycontextallowsmanagementstafftounderstandhow


theproposedactivityaffectstheirlegalresponsibilitytopreservewildernesscharacter.Itmayalsohelpaddressthetradeoffswhenthereisabenefittooneormorequalityofwildernesscharacterbutadverseeffectsonothers.Othertypesofconcernssuchashowtheproposedworkmightaffectsafetyorparkoperationsarenotconsideredinthisevaluationframeworkbutmayenterintothefinaldecision.

Numerical Scoring of Impacts—Asimpleworksheetisusedtonumericallyscore impacts and derive a total impacts assessment score.A hypotheticalexampleillustratinguseofthisworksheetandtherationalebehindtheimpactscoringisgiveninAppendixDandblankworksheetsthatstaffcanusefortheirownevaluationaregiveninAppendixE.LocalstaffswillneedtodevelopanImpactsAssessmentWorksheetthatshowstheimpactcategories(ortypesofimpacts),variationinthemagnitudeorintensitywithineachtypeofimpact,andthenumericalscoresthatwouldbeassignedtothedifferenttypesofactivi-tiesthatcouldoccurundereachimpactcategory.ActivitiesorusesprohibitedbySection4(c)ofthe1964WildernessActwouldtypicallyreceivethehigh-estnumericalimpactscores.LocalstaffswillneedtomakemanydecisionsbasedonprofessionaljudgmenttodevelopthisWorksheet.Oncecompleted,thisWorksheet is thebasis forevaluating impacts fromproposedactivitiesandwillbeakeytoolincommunicatingandnegotiatingwithscientists. ScoringtheImpactsAssessmentWorksheetdiffersfromtheBenefitsAssess-mentWorksheetinthreeways.First,toallowimpactscoringthatcanrangefromverysmalltoverylarge,impactscoresaredividedmorefinelytoallowamorepreciselevelofevaluationatthelowendofimpact,andanadditional“plus”columnisaddedtoaccommodatelargeimpacts.This“plus”columnallowsthemanagertoevaluatethefewproposalsthatwouldhaveatrulyhighimpact. Second, there is no separate weighting factor column because thedegreeofimpactwasbuiltintohowthescoreswouldbeassigned.Third,thisisanopen-endedscoringsystemwithnomaximumnumericallimit. Oncetheseparateimpactsassessmentsarecompletedtheyaresummedtoderiveatotalscore.Thistotalscoreisthenassignedasummaryratingoflow,medium,orhighimpact.Localstaffspreviouslydeterminethenumericalcut-pointsthatseparatetheseratings.Localstaffsmayfeelthatusingonlythreesummary ratings of impact does not provide sufficient ability to evaluateproposals,sotheymaychooseinsteadtousefourimpactratingssuchasnotdetectible,low,medium,andhigh.

Benefits and Impacts Decision Table

The goal of the benefits and impacts decision table is to weigh impactsagainstbenefitstodeterminewhetherthebenefitsaresufficienttooutweightheimpacts(orstateddifferently,whethertheimpactsareacceptabletoachievethebenefits).Localcircumstancessuchasenablinglegislationorotherlanguageusedintheestablishmentofawildernessthatspecificallyaddressesscientificand researchuses of thewildernessmay affect thisweight or balance.For


example,the1925PresidentialProclamationestablishingGlacierBayNationalMonument (and thearea thatwasdesignatedasGlacierBayWilderness in1980)states,“thisareapresentsauniqueopportunityforthescientificstudyofglacialbehaviorandofresultingmovementsanddevelopmentoff loraandfaunaandofcertainvaluablerelicsofancientinterglacialforests.” Intheexampletable(table1),localstaffsdecidewheretheentries“Provi-sionalApproval,”“ProvisionalDenial,”and“Uncertain”areplaced(theentriesin this tableareonlyfor thepurposeof illustratinghowthis table isused).“ProvisionalApproval”means that localstaffsbelieve thebenefitsaresuf-ficienttooutweightheimpacts,andtheproposalisprovisionallyacceptedtomoveontothenextstep.“ProvisionalDenial”meansthatlocalstaffsbelievethebenefitsarenotsufficienttooutweightheimpacts.Inthiscasethepro-posal isprovisionallydeniedand thescientistsaregivenanopportunity tomodifytheirproposaltoreducetheimpactsandincreasethebenefits.Aftertheproposalhasbeenrevised,itwillneedtobereevaluatedintheImpactsandBenefitsFilterbecausebothimpactsandbenefitsmaybedifferentfromwhattheywere.“Uncertain”meansthatthereisinsufficientinformationtomakeadeterminationabouttheproposalandthatfurtherevaluationanddiscussionisneededamongstaffandbetweenstaffandthescientists.

Table 1—A hypothetical Benefits and Impacts Decision Table showing how local staff may assign the evaluations of “Provisional approval,” “Provisional denial,” or “Uncertain” based on the interplay between benefits and impacts.

BENEFITSLow Medium High

IMPACTS

Low Provisional approval

Provisional approval

Provisional approval

Medium Provisional denial Uncertain Uncertain

High Provisional denial Uncertain Uncertain

Cumulative Impacts Assessment

ForcaseswheretherecommendationfromtheBenefitsandImpactsDeci-sionTableiseither“ProvisionalApproval”or“Uncertain,”managersshouldconductanassessmentofcumulativeimpacts.Thepurposeofthisassessmentistoplacetheproposedactivityinthecontextofimpactsfromalltheotheractivitiesoccurringinthearea(forexample,frommanagementandfromotherscientificaswellasrecreationalactivities)andaskwhethertheaccumulatedimpactsfromalltheseactivitiesareacceptable.Theconcernisnotwiththeimpactsoftheindividualproposalbeinganalyzed,butwithhowtheseimpactsaddtothosefromall theotheractivities thathaveoccurred,areoccurring,


orwilllikelyoccurinthearea.Iftheproposedactivityaddstheincrementofimpactthatmakesthetotalimpactunacceptable,thentheproposalmayneedtobemodifiedtoreduceitsimpactsorbedenied.Therefore,theeffectofthecumulative impacts assessment on the overall decision is either neutral, ifthereareminorornocumulativeimpacts,ornegative,iftherearesignificantcumulativeimpacts. Cumulativeimpactsarecomplexandtypicallynotconsideredinassessingimpactsofscientificactivities.However,aswildernessbecomesincreasinglyrecognized for its role providing baseline or benchmark data, cumulativeimpactsarebecomingmoreofaconcern(Landres2005).Thereareseveraldifferenttypesofcumulativeimpact,including:

• Spatial Assessedacrosstheentirewilderness Assessedwithinspecialareaswithinthewilderness

• Temporal Eachprojectisassessedwithinthecontextofallprojectsthatarebeing

conductedinthecurrentyear Eachproject isassessedwithin thecontextofallprojects thatwere

startedinpreviousyears Each project is assessedwithin the context of all projects thatwill

likelybeconductedinthefuture

• Effectsofaparticulartypeofimpactregardlessofsource(forexample,researchandotherscientificactivities,managementsuchassearchandrescueoradministrativeuse,andvisitoruse)

• Effectsacrossallimpactcategories • Impactstothefourqualitiesofwildernesscharacter • Impactstoselectedresources(forexample,selectedspeciesorecological

processes)

Cumulative impacts could be assessedusingGISor tabular databases, ifsuchdataexist.Inaddition,specificthresholdsfortriggeringconcernwouldneed to be established by local staff (for example, the number of projectsoccurringwithinaparticulararea,orthenumberofpeoplewithinacertainarea).Whilea“hard”thresholdthatwouldcauseaproposaltoberejectedispossible, thecomplexity inassessingcumulative impacts suggests that thiswouldberelativelyrare.Farmorelikelywouldbea“yellowlight”thresholdthatwouldtriggertheneedtonegotiatetoincreasebenefits(forexample,formanagementapplicability)ordecreaseimpacts(forexample,gotoadiffer-entwatershed,conductthestudyatadifferenttimeofyearorthefollowingyear,orremoveresearchorotherinstallationsintheareathatstaffpreviouslywantedgone),orboth.


ReferencesAlbright,H.M.1933.Researchinthenationalparks.TheScientificMonthly36:483-501.Anderson,R.L.1999.Researchadministrationinwilderness:definingthe“minimumrequire-ment”exception.Pages415-417 inOntheFrontiersofConservation:Proceedingsofthe10thConferenceonResearchandResourceManagementinParksandonPublicLands(D.Harmon,editor).TheGeorgeWrightSociety,Hancock,MI.

Barns,C.V.2000.Paleontologicalexcavations indesignatedwilderness: theoryandprac-tice.Pages155-159inWildernessScienceinaTimeofChange,Volume3(S.F.McCool,D.N.Cole,W.T.Borrie,J.O’Loughlin,compilers).USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationProceedingRMRS-P-15-VOL-3,FortCollins,CO.

Bayless,J.1999.RegulatingNationalParkServiceresearchandcollecting:afifty-yearsearchforalegal,f lexible,andstandardizedapproach.Pages418-422inOntheFrontiersofCon-servation:Proceedingsofthe10thConferenceonResearchandResourceManagementinParksandonPublicLands(D.Harmon,editor).TheGeorgeWrightSociety,Hancock,MI.

Bratton,S.P.1988.Environmentalmonitoringinwilderness.Pages103-112inWildernessBenchmark,ProceedingsoftheNationalWildernessColloquium.USDAForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportSE-51,SoutheasternForestExperimentStation,Asheville,NC.

Butler,L.M.,andR.S.Roberts.1986.Useofwildernessareasforresearch.Pages398-405in Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research (R.C.Lucas,compiler).USDAForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportINT-212,IntermountainResearchStation,Ogden,UT.

Eichelberger,J.,andA.Sattler.1994.Conflictofvaluesnecessitatespubliclandsresearchpolicy.TransactionsoftheAmericanGeophysicalUnion75:505-508.

Franklin, J.F. 1987. Scientific use of wilderness. Pages 42-46 in Proceedings--NationalWildernessResearchConference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, FutureDirections (R.C.Lucas,compiler).USDAForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportINT-220,IntermountainResearchStation,Ogden,UT.

Garner,B.A.2001.ADictionaryofModernLegalUsage,2ndEdition.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY.

Graber,D.M.1988.Theroleofresearchinwilderness.GeorgeWrightForum5(4):55-59Graber,D.M.2002.Scientificvaluesofpublicparks.GeorgeWrightForum19(2):63-66.Kendall,K.C.,J.Boulanger,A.C.Macleod,D.Paetkau,andG.C.White.2009.Demographyandgeneticstructureofarecoveringgrizzlybearpopulation.JournalofWildlifeMan-agement73:3-17.

Landres, P. 2005.Balancing the benefits and impacts of science inAlaska’swilderness.AlaskaParkScience4(2):44-46.

Landres,P.,J.Alderson,andD.J.Parsons.2003.Thechallengeofdoingscienceinwilder-ness:historical,legal,andpolicycontext.GeorgeWrightForum20(3):42-49.

Landres,P.,S.Boutcher,L.Merigliano,C.Barns,D.Davis,T.Hall,S.Henry,B.Hunter,P.Janiga,M.Laker,A.McPherson,D.S.Powell,M.Rowan,andS.Sater.2005.Monitoringselectedconditionsrelatedtowildernesscharacter:anationalframework.USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationGeneralTechnicalReportRMRS-GTR-151,FortCollins,CO.

Landres,P.,C.Barns,J.G.Dennis,T.Devine,P.Geissler,C.S.McCasland,L.Merigliano,J.Seastrand,andR.Swain.2008.Keepingitwild:aninteragencystrategytomonitortrendsinwildernesscharacteracrosstheNationalWildernessPreservationSystem.USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationGeneralTechnicalReportRMRS-GTR-212,FortCollins,CO.

Leopold,A.1949.ASandCountyalmanacandsketcheshereandthere.OxfordUniversityPress.London,England.

McCloskey,M.1999.Changingviewsofwhat thewildernesssystemisallabout.DenverUniversityLawReview76:369-381.

Meyer,S.1999.Theroleoflegislativehistoryinagencydecisionmaking:acasestudyofwildernessairstripmanagementintheUnitedStates.InternationalJournalofWilderness5(2):9-12.


Oelfke,J.G.,R.O.Peterson,J.A.Vucetich,andL.MVucetich.2000.WolfresearchintheIsleRoyaleWilderness:dotheendsjustifythemeans?Pages246-251inWildernessSci-enceinaTimeofChange,Volume3(S.F.McCool,D.N.Cole,W.T.Borrie,J.O’Loughlin,compilers).USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationProceedingRMRS-P-15-VOL-3,FortCollins,CO.

Parsons,D.J.2000.Thechallengeof scientificactivities inwilderness.Pages252-257 inWildernessScienceinaTimeofChange,Volume3(S.F.McCool,D.N.Cole,W.T.Bor-rie,J.O’Loughlin,compilers).USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationProceedingRMRS-P-15-VOL-3,FortCollins,CO.

Parsons,D.J., andD.M.Graber. 1991.Horses, helicopters andhi-tech:managing scienceinwilderness.Pages90-94inPreparingtoManageWildernessinthe21stCentury(P.C.

PublicLaw88-577.WildernessAct.September3,1964.16U.S.C.1131-1136.PublicLaw96-487.AlaskaNationalInterestLandsConservationAct.December2,1980.94Statute2371-2551.

PublicLaw98-550.WyomingWildernessActof1984.October30,1984.98Statute2807-2815.PublicLaw103-433.CaliforniaDesertProtectionActof1994.October31,1994.108Statute4471-4525.

Reed,compiler).USDAForestServiceSoutheasternForestandExperimentStationGeneralTechnicalReportSE-66,Asheville,NC.

Rohlf,D.,andD.L.Honnold.1988.Managingthebalanceofnature:thelegalframeworkofwildernessmanagement.EcologyLawQuarterly15:249-279.

Peterson,D.L.1996.Researchinparksandprotectedareas:forgingthelinkbetweensci-enceandmanagement.Pages417-434inNationalParksandProtectedAreas:TheirRoleinEnvironmentalProtection(R.G.Wright,J.Lemmons,editors).BlackwellScience.

Scott,D.W.2002.“Untrammeled,”“wildernesscharacter,”andthechallengesofwildernesspreservation.WildEarth11(3/4):72-79.

Sharman,L.C.,P.Landres,andS.Boudreau.2007.Developingaframeworkforevaluatingproposalsforresearchinwilderness:sciencetoprotectandlearnfromparks.AlaskaParkScience6(2):100-103.

Six,D.L.,P.Alaback,R.A.Winfree,D.Snyder,andA.Hagele.2000.Wildernessforsci-ence:prosandconsofusingwildernessareasforbiological research.Pages271-275 inWildernessScienceinaTimeofChange,Volume3(S.F.McCool,D.N.Cole,W.T.Bor-rie,J.O’Loughlin,compilers).USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStationProceedingRMRS-P-15-VOL-3,FortCollins,CO.

Stokstad,E.2001.Utah’sfossiltrovebeckons,andtests,researchers.Science294:41-42.Suarez,A.V.2009.Scienceforparks/parksforscience.ParkScience26(1):14-16.Watson,J.,andP.Brink.1996.TheCaliforniaDesertProtectionAct:atimefordesertparksandwilderness.InternationalJournalofWilderness2(2):14-17.

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The LivingWilderness 59(Winter toSpring):37-43.


Appendix A—Hypothetical Example of Climate Change Research Evaluation

Withtheimpactsofclimatechangebecomingapparent,scientistsfromnearlyeverydisciplinearecallingformoreresearch.Shouldthisresearchbeconductedwithindesignatedwilderness?Manyhavesuggestedthatwildernesswouldbeanexcellentplacetoconductclimatechangeresearchbecausewildernessisrelativelyunaffectedbymanyofthedirectanthropogenicenvironmentalinsultsthatoccurinmostotherareas,sothesignalofclimatechangeanditseffectsmaybeclearertherethaninotherareas.Manywildernesses,becauseoftheirhigherelevationorlatitude,alsopresentextremeclimatesthatmightserveassentinelsoranearlywarningoftheeffectsfromclimatechange.Othersarguethatsinceclimatechangeresearchdoesnothelptheagenciespreservewilder-nesscharacter,any impacts fromsuchresearchare toogreat to justifyandthatthereareplentyofareasoutsidewildernessthatofferthesameresearchopportunities.Inanutshell,climatechangeresearchepitomizestheacrimonythatcandevelopamongpeoplewithdisparateviewpointsaboutresearchinwilderness.Wedevelopedthisframeworktohelpsortthroughtheseissues. Ourpositionisthatthereisnothinginherentlyincompatibleaboutclimatechangeresearch,oranyresearchforthatmatter,beingconductedinsidewil-derness.Theimportanceandurgencyofunderstandingtheeffectsofclimatechange,however,doesnotexemptscientistsfromadheringtothelegalrequire-mentsofthe1964WildernessAct.Manypotentialproblemsposedbyclimatechangeresearchcanbeavoidedifscientistsdiscusstheirideasandmeansforaccomplishingtheresearchwithmanagersearlyintheproposaldevelopmentprocess. Assuming there are no red f lags from the Initial Review Filter and theproposaliswrittenwellandpassestheQualityofProposalFilter,themajorconcerniswhethertheresearchrequiresauseoractivitythatisprohibitedbySection4(c)oftheWildernessAct.Ifnoprohibiteduseoractivityisproposed(forexample,therearenoinstallationsandnouseofmotorizedequipment),thentheimpactsandbenefitsoftheresearchareevaluatedintheImpactsandBenefitsFilterandadecision is reachedaboutwhether topermit thework.Say,forexample,fieldresearchwillmapthedistributionofcurrenttreelinetoobservehowitchangesovertimetotestclimatemodelpredictionsacrossavarietyoflatitudes.Thisresearchhasminimalimpactfromtheresearch-ersmappingtreelineandprovidesclearbenefitstosciencebyimprovingtheclimate models. Such research would likely be permitted even though thepresenceofresearcherswouldtemporarilyimpactthesolitudequalityofwil-dernesscharacter,andthereisnoimmediatebenefittopreservingwildernesscharacterotherthanunderstandingthecurrentdistributionoftreeline. Incontrast,ifaSection4(c)prohibiteduseoractivityisproposed,theben-efitbarwillberaisedinorderfortheresearchtobepermitted.Forexample,researchersmightwanttoinstallpermanentdatarecorderstomonitorwaterf low, temperature, precipitation, snowfall, or many others parameters that


haveimportanceforunderstandingtheecologicaleffectsofclimatechange.Or,researchersmightwanttousemotorizedequipmenttodrillandremovelake sediment cores to comparewith climatemodel predictions about howthevegetationanddisturbance regimeshavechangedover time in theareasurroundingthelake.BothexamplesviolateSection4(c)andare,therefore,illegalunlesstheycanbeproventomeetthe“minimumnecessary”criteriadiscussedintheLegalandPolicyFilter.Thesecriteriaare:

• theresearchiswilderness-dependent; • theprohibiteduseoractivityisthe“minimumnecessary;”and • theresearchhelpspreservewildernesscharacter. Ifscientistscandocumenthowtheirprohibitedactivities(installationsandmotorizedequipmentinthiscase)meetthislegalrequirement,themanagerwouldnextevaluatetheproposedresearchintheImpactsandBenefitsFiltertodeterminethe“minimumnecessary”toaccomplishtheresearch.Insomecases,however,theresearchmaymeetthefirsttwocriteriabutnotthethirdoratleastmaynotprovideimmediatebenefittopreservingwildernesscharacter.Insuchcases,we recommendmoving forward to the ImpactsandBenefitsFiltertoevaluatewhetherthebenefitsoutweightheimpacts. In everycasewhereproposed research involves aSection4(c)prohibitedactivity, because the immediate impacts towilderness character are great,thebenefitsalsoneed tobegreat inorder for the research tobeapproved.TheImpactsandBenefitsFilterprovidestheopportunityforthemanagerandscientist todiscussspecificrequirementstominimizetheseimpacts.Theserequirements, for example, might include camouflaging an installation inparticularwaysorsuggestingotherlocationsthatwouldsatisfytheresearchcriteriabutbelessobvioustowildernessvisitors.Insomecases,theseoptionstominimizeimpactsmayalsoreducethequalityofthedata,therebyreducingthepotentialbenefitsoftheresearch.Suchcasesrequireclosecommunicationandcooperationbetweenscientistsandmanagerstodiscussvariousoptionsandtheirimpactsandbenefits.Toavoidacrimonyandhassle,theearlierthiscommunicationoccurs,thebetter. Resentmentbetweenclimatescientistsandwildernessmanagerswouldonlyaddtothemanytragediescausedbyrapidclimatechange.Bothgroupssharemanyvaluesandgoalscenteredonunderstandingandpreservingthenaturalworld.Climatescientistsmayfeelthatwildernessisthebestplacetoconducttheirresearch,whilewildernessmanagersandadvocatesmayfeel thatwil-dernessprotection,preciselybecauseofthepervasivenessofenvironmentalthreatsandglobalclimatechange,shouldnotbecompromised.Onepurposeofthisevaluationframeworkistopushbothscientistsandmanagerstowardupfrontcommunicationandmutualunderstanding—doingsoshoulddecreasetheimpactstowildernesscharacterwhileallowingthewildernesstobeusedasasourceofinspirationandscientificunderstanding.


Appendix B—Guidelines for Scientists Conducting Research in Wilderness

Thefollowingguidelinesareforscientistswhowanttoconductscientificactivitiesinwilderness.Theseareonlybriefguidelinesintendedtohelpsci-entistsunderstandandcommunicatewithlocalmanagers,therebyexpeditingtheprocessofevaluatingaproposalforscientificactivities.

Education

Assurethatyouunderstandthespecialrequirementsforworkinginwildernessandwhytheyexist.

1.UnderstandthelegalrequirementsoftheWildernessActandagencypolicyforconductingscienceactivitiesinsidewilderness.Thisincludesunderstand-ing that the primarymanagement responsibility is to preservewildernesscharacter.Moreinformationisavailableathttp://www.wilderness.net.

2.Understand the legal prohibitions against using motorized equipment(suchasdrills),mechanicaltransport(suchasgamecartsoranywheeledvehicles),landingaircraft,andinstallations(suchasdataloggersorplotmarkers),andunderwhatconditionsexceptionsmaybeallowed.

3.Identify which local agency office(s) administer the portion(s) of thewilderness youwant towork in.Be aware that somewildernesses areadministeredbymorethanoneFederalagency.

4.Understand agency and local administrative procedures for evaluatingyourproposalandpermit requirements forworking inwilderness.Dif-ferentlocalofficesmayhavedifferentrequirements,andthefourFederalagenciesthatadministerwildernesshavedifferentpoliciesforpermittingscientificactivities.

5.Askyourselfhowyoursciencewillbenefitthewildernessyouwouldliketoworkin.

Communication

Communicate as early aspossiblewith the localmanagers aboutwhatyouwanttodo.

1.Make initial contact with themanagers in all of the local offices thatadministertheportion(s)ofthewildernessyouareinterestedinworkingin.Donotassumethatdifferentofficescommunicatewithoneanotherorusethesameproceduresforevaluatingaproposalforscientificactivities.

2.Discussyourresearchinterestsandsamplingdesignwiththelocalmanagersbeforeyouwriteaproposal,andconsultwiththemoftenasyoudevelopyourproposal.


3.Askifthereareanypotentialproblemswithanyaspectoftheresearch,includinglocation,timing,access,numberofpeople,typeofequipment,typeofwork,monumentation,orpurposeoftheresearch.Thisdiscussionshould center onhow tominimize the impacts towilderness characterwhilestillaccomplishingyourresearchobjectives.

4.Askifthelocalmanagershaveanyresearchorotherneedsthatyoucouldhelpwithwhileyou’reinthebackcountry.Forexample,amanagermightaskyoutoreportifyouseeacertainrarespeciesortoremoveunwanteddebrisfromanareawhenyourresearchcrewscomeoutofthewilderness.

5.Askaboutlocaladministrativeandpermittingrequirements,andifneeded,getawildernessuseandresearchpermit.Trytoestablishcontactwithlocalmanagersbeforeapplyingforfunding.Donotassumethatapermitwillbegrantedsimplybecauseyoualreadyhavefunding,evenifthatfundingisfromtheNationalScienceFoundationoranotherprestigioussource.

6.Askthelocalmanagersiftheywouldlikeyoutoprepareasmallposteraboutyourworkthatcanbeplacedonthetrailheadbulletinboardtoletwildernessvisitorsknowwhatyouaredoing,aswellasthegeneralloca-tionofyourresearchandwhenyouwillbetheresovisitorsmayavoidthisareaiftheywantto.

7.Ask the localmanagershow theywould like tobe informedwhenyouareenteringthewilderness,whereyouwillbecamped,andwhenyouareleavingthewilderness.

8.Askwhetherthereareopportunitiestopresentorshareanyaspectofyourresearchwithagencystafforvisitors.

In the Field

You’reworkinginauniqueplacethatrequiresspecialskills,attitudes,andconsiderationofotherwildernessvisitors.

1.Makesureyouandyourcrewshavethegearandexperience(ortraining)toworkandliveinwilderness.

2.Learnandpractice“LeaveNoTrace”skills.Beawarethatwildernesschar-acterisreducedbybothecologicalandsocialimpacts.Youcanminimizetheseimpactsbyusingequipment that isnotbrightlycolored,avoidingareasthearefrequentlyusedbywildernessvisitors,campinginareasthatareremoteorhidden,andgenerallybeingconsiderateofotherswhoaretheretoenjoysolitudeandprimitiverecreation.

3. Cleanupandremoveallevidenceofyourcamping(suchasfireringsandwoodpiledforfires)andyourresearch(suchasf lagging,stakes,trash,andtags)tomeetlocalrequirementsunlessyouarespecificallypermittedtoleavecertainitems.

4.Be readyandwilling toanswerquestions fromanywildernessvisitorsyoumayencounter.


Appendix C—Agency Policies on Research and Scientific Activities

Thefollowingsectionsaretakendirectlyfromcurrentagencypolicyregard-ing researchandotherscientificactivities inwilderness.Thepoliciesgivenbelowarecurrentasof the timethis frameworkwaspublished,butpolicieschangeovertimeandstaffmembersmustconsulttheirownsourcestoensuretheyarereferencingthemostcurrentpolicyfortheiragency.Inaddition,onlypoliciesdirectlyrelatedtoresearchandotherscientificactivitiesareincludedhere,butotherpoliciesmayalsoberelevant.

U.S Department of Agriculture—Forest Service

ForestServicewildernesspolicyisfromtheForestServiceManual(FSM)2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Chapter2320WildernessManagement,asamendedJanuary22,2007.

2324.4—Research in Wilderness2324.41—Objective.Toprovideappropriateopportunityforscientificstud-

iesthataredependentonawildernessenvironment.2324.42—Policy

1. Encourage research inwilderness that preserves thewildernesscharacterofthearea(FSM2320.3).

2. Identifywildernessmanagementornationalissuesthatmayrequireresearchinforestplans.

3. Reviewproposalstoconductresearchinwildernesstoensurethatresearchareasoutsidewildernesscouldnotprovidesimilarresearchopportunities. Direct projects that would jeopardize wildernessvaluestoareasoutsidewilderness.

4. Review researchproposals to conduct research inwilderness toensurethatresearchmethodsarecompatiblewithwildernessvalues.Donotallowtheuseofmotorizedequipmentormechanicaltrans-portunlesstheresearchisessentialtomeetminimumrequirementsforadministrationof theareaaswildernessandcannotbedoneanotherway(Section4(c)oftheWildernessAct).Includespecificstipulationsintheapprovaldocument.

5. Exceptforstudiesthatclearlyrequirecontactwithinwilderness,allowinterviewsordirectcontactwithvisitorsonlyoutsidewilderness.6.Permitscientificstudyofculturalresourcesites/areasconsistentwiththedirectioninFSM2323.8.


U.S. Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management

BureauofLandManagementwildernesspolicyisfromtheFederalRegister,Volume 65, Number 241, 78357-78376[00-31656]. Thursday, December 14,2000.

43 CFR Part 6300—Management of Designated Wilderness AreasSubpart6302—UseofWildernessAreas,ProhibitedActs,andPenalties

§ 6302.16—WhenandhowmayIgatherscientificinformationaboutresourcesinBLMwilderness?

(a)Youmayconduct research, includinggathering informationandcol-lectingnaturalorculturalresourcesinwildernessareas,usingmethodsthatmay cause greater impacts on thewilderness environment thanallowedunder§6302.15(a),if—(1) Similarresearchopportunitiesarenotreasonablyavailableoutside

wilderness;(2) Youcarryoutyourproposedactivityinamannercompatiblewith

thepreservationofthewildernessenvironmentandconformingtotheapplicablemanagementplan;

(3) Anygrounddisturbanceorremovalofmaterialistheminimumnecessaryforthescientificpurposesoftheresearch;and

(4) YouhaveanauthorizationfromBLM.(b)Youmustreclaimdisturbedareas,andBLMmayrequireyoutoposta

bond.

U.S. Department of the Interior—Fish and Wildlife Service

FishandWildlifeServicewildernesspolicyisfromitsNaturalandCulturalResourcesManagement,Part610WildernessStewardship,Chapter2Wilder-nessAdministrationandResourceStewardship(610FW2).

2.27 How does the Service conduct research in wilderness?A.The scientificvalueofwildernessderives from the relativelyundis-

turbedconditionofthebiophysicalenvironmentanditsecologicalandevolutionary processes. Because such undisturbed natural areas areincreasingly rare,wilderness areas provide unique opportunities forscientificinvestigation.Everyoneassociatedwithresearchinwilder-nessmustknowandunderstandthepurposes,values,andprotectiveprovisionsofwilderness.

B.Wewillnotalloworengageinresearchthathassignificantorlong-termadverseimpactsonwildernesscharacterorrefugepurposes.

C.Wepermitresearchinwildernessonlyifitfurtherstheadministrativeor educational objectives or scientific knowledge of the area. Theremustbe a reasonable assurance that thebenefits tobederived fromtheresearchoutweighanyimpactsonwildernesscharacter.Werequireresearchers to restore disturbed areas to their previous condition to


thegreatestextentpractical.Existingandpotentialresearchactivitiesshouldbedescribedandevaluatedintherefuge’sWSPorCCP.(1) ResearchasaRefugeManagementActivity.WeadministerRefuge

SystemandRefugeSystemsponsoredresearchasrefugemanage-mentactivities.WewillevaluateresearchproposalsthroughanMRA(see610FW1.18).

(2) ResearchasaRefugeUse.Wemayauthorizeprivateresearchinawildernessarea,withaspecialusepermit(SUP)ifitisappropri-ateandcompatiblewithrefugepurposes, includingWildernessActpurposes,anddoesnotinvolvegenerallyprohibiteduses(seesection2.7and610FW1.16foradditionalinformation).

2.28 How does the Service conduct inventory and monitoring activities in wilderness?Long-termwildernessstewardshiprequiresthatweinventoryandmonitorwildernesscharacter.Conditionsprevailingwithinawildernessareaatthetimeofdesignationserveasabenchmarkforthearea’swildernesscharacter.

A.Wewillnotallowdegradationoftheseconditions.B.Weshouldconductbaselineinventoriesforkeywildernessresourcesand

identifythenature,magnitude,andsourceofanythreatsthatoriginatebothwithinandoutsidethewildernessarea.Baselinedataalsoprovideaframeofreferenceforthelimits,thresholds,andindicatorsidentifiedintheWSPthatmaytriggerrefugemanagementactivities,includinglimitingpublicuse.

C. Inventoriesalsogiveustheinformationnecessarytoevaluatetheeffectsofrefugemanagementactivities,refugeuses,andexternalthreatsonwildernesscharacter.Wewillevaluateproposedinventoryandmoni-toringprotocolsandactivitiesinanMRAanddocumentinventoryandmonitoringactivitiesintherefuge’sWSP.

2.29 How does the Service protect cultural resources in wilderness?B.ArcheologicalResearch.Weadministerarchaeologicalresearchwithin

wildernessareasaccordingtotheconditionsoutlinedforresearchinsec-tion2.27.Weencouragearcheologicalresearchemployingnoninvasiveandnondestructivesurveyandinventorymethods.TherefugemanagerandtheRHPOwillreviewproposalsforarcheologicalresearch.TheRegionalDirectorapprovesordeniesarchaeologicalresearchpermitsbased on the recommendation of the refuge manager and Regionalarcheologist.Wewillapprovearcheologicalresearchrequiringdigging,trenching,orother formsofexcavation inwildernesswhenrequiredtoprotectathreatenedresource.Wemayalsoapproveotherresearchinvolving excavation when it can be demonstrated that significantarchaeologicalinformationmaybeobtainedthatcannotreasonablybeexpectedtobeobtainedfromnonwildernesslands.


U.S. Department of the Interior—National Park Service

NationalParkServicewildernesspolicyisfromits2006ManagementPoli-cies,Chapter6:WildernessPreservationandManagement.

6.3.6 – Scientific Activities in WildernessThestatutorypurposesofwildernessincludescientificactivities,andtheseactivities areencouragedandpermittedwhenconsistentwith theService’sresponsibilitiestopreserveandmanagewilderness.

6.3.6.1 – General Policy TheNationalParkServicehasaresponsibilitytosupportappropriatescientificactivitiesinwildernessandtousesciencetoimprovewildernessmanagement.TheServicerecognizesthatwildernesscanandshouldserveasanimportantresourceforlong-termresearchintoandstudyandobservationofecologicalprocessesandtheimpactofhumansontheseecosystems.TheNationalParkServicefurtherrecognizesthatappropriatescientificactivitiesmaybecriticaltothelong-termpreservationofwilderness. Scientificactivitiesaretobeencouragedinwilderness.Eventhosescien-tificactivities(includinginventory,monitoring,andresearch)thatinvolveapotentialimpacttowildernessresourcesorvalues(includingaccess,grounddisturbance,useofequipment,andanimalwelfare)shouldbeallowedwhenthebenefitsofwhatcanbelearnedoutweightheimpactsonwildernessresourcesorvalues.However,allsuchactivitiesmustalsobeevaluatedusingthemini-mumrequirementconceptandincludedocumentedcompliancethatassessesimpactsagainstbenefits towilderness.Thisprocessshouldensure that theactivity is appropriate and uses theminimum tool required to accomplishproject objectives. Scientific activities involving prohibitions identified insection4(c)oftheWildernessAct(16USC1133(c))maybeconductedwithinwildernesswhenthefollowingoccur:

• Thedesiredinformationisessentialforunderstandingthehealth,manage-ment,oradministrationofwilderness,andtheprojectcannotbereasonablymodifiedtoeliminateorreducethenonconformingwildernessuse(s);orifitincreasesscientificknowledge,evenwhenthisservesnoimmediatewildernessmanagementpurposes,provideditdoesnotcompromisewilder-nessresourcesorcharacter.Thepreservationofwildernessresourcesandcharacterwillbegivensignificantlymoreweightthaneconomicefficiencyand/orconvenience.

• CompliancewiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(includingcomple-tionof documented categorical exclusions, environmental assessments/findingsofno significant impact,or environmental impact statements/recordsofdecision)andotherregulatorycompliance(includingcompli-ancewithsection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct(16USC470(f))areaccomplishedanddocumented.


• All scientificactivitieswillbeaccomplished inaccordancewith termsandconditionsadoptedatthetimetheresearchpermitisapproved.LaterrequestsforexceptionstotheWildernessActwillrequireadditionalreviewandapproval.

• Theprojectwillnotsignificantlyinterferewithotherwildernesspurposes(recreational, scenic, educational, conservational, or historical) over abroadareaorforalongperiodoftime.

• Theminimumrequirementconcept isapplied to implementationof theproject.

Researchandmonitoringdevices(e.g.,videocameras,dataloggers,meteoro-logicalstations)maybeinstalledandoperatedinwildernessif(1)thedesiredinformationisessentialfortheadministrationandpreservationofwildernessandcannotbeobtainedfromalocationoutsidewildernesswithoutsignificantlossofprecisionandapplicability;and(2)theproposeddeviceistheminimumrequirementnecessarytoaccomplishtheresearchobjectivesafely. Parkmanagerswillworkwith researchers tomakeNPSwilderness arearesearchamodel for theuseof low-impact, less intrusive techniques.Newtechnologyandtechniqueswillbeencouragediftheyarelessintrusiveandcauselessimpact.ThegoalwillbeforstudiesinNPSwildernesstoleadthewayin“lightontheresource”techniques. Deviceslocatedinwildernesswillberemovedwhendeterminedtobenolongeressential.Permanentequipmentcachesareprohibitedwithinwilder-ness.Temporarycachesmustbeevaluatedusingtheminimumrequirementconcept. Allscientificactivities,includingtheinstallation,servicing,removal,andmonitoringofresearchdevices,willapplyminimumrequirementconceptsandbeaccomplishedincompliancewithManagement Policies,director’sorders,andproceduresspecifiedinthepark’swildernessmanagementplan.(See Studies and Collections 4.2; Social Science Studies 8.11)

6.3.6.2 – Monitoring Wilderness Resources Ineveryparkcontainingwilderness,theconditionsandlong-termtrendsofwildernessresourceswillbemonitoredtoidentifytheneedfororeffectsofmanagementactions.Thepurposeof thismonitoringwillbe toensure thatmanagementactionsandvisitorimpactsonwildernessresourcesandcharacterdonotexceedstandardsandconditionsestablishedinanapprovedparkplan. Asappropriate,wildernessmonitoringprogramsmayassessphysical,biologi-cal,andculturalresourcesandsocialimpacts.Monitoringprogramsmayalsoneedtoassesspotentialproblemsthatmayoriginateoutsidethewildernesstodeterminethenature,magnitude,andprobablesourceofthoseimpacts.


Appendix D—Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example—Benefits and

Impacts Assessment Worksheets

ThefollowingbenefitsandimpactsassessmentworksheetsareanexampleofahypotheticalproposedscientificstudyinYosemiteWilderness.Theredboxesontheworksheetsshowtheagencystaffevaluationsofthebenefitsandimpactsforthehypotheticalscientificactivitydescribedbelow.Therationaleforthebenefitsweightingfactorsandtheimpactscoringfollowseachwork-sheet.BlankworksheetsthatstaffcouldmodifyfortheirownuseareprovidedinAppendixE—detailsforfillinginthesebenefitsandimpactsassessmentworksheetsaregivenatthebeginningofthatappendix. Forthishypotheticalexample,theproposedscientificactivityistoinstallfivemeteorologicalsamplingstationsinYosemiteWildernesslocatedatdifferentelevationstotrackclimatechangeeffectsontemperature,precipitation,andavarietyofotherweatherdata.Thestationswillbeusedinconjunctionwithlong-termstudiesontrendsintheoccurrenceofplantandanimalspeciesintheareaoftheweatherstations.Eachstationisrelativelyconspicuouswitha10-fthightowerand3-by3-ftsolarpanelstopowerthestationandbatteriesusedtostorethedataforayear.Theweatherstationswillbebackpackedinandsetupbyateamoffivepeopleinoneday.Aresearchteamoffivepeoplewillcampinthegeneralareaofthestationforfivedaystorecordplantandanimaloccurrencesandconductmaintenanceontheweatherstationsasneeded.Thisteamwillvisiteachofthefivestationsonceperyear.Theintentistoconductthisresearcheveryyearfor20yearsandthenleavethemeteorologicalstationsinplacefortheforeseeablefuture.Thisresearchplanwillresultinatotalof190person-daysofusethefirstseason,andthen175person-daysperseasonthereafter(includingbackpackingtimeintoandoutfromthesites;5peoplex7daysx5sites).(Thistersedescriptionisinsufficientforarealproposal,butissufficientforthepurposeofillustratinghowtheseworksheetsareused.)


Yos

emite

Wild

erne

ss H

ypot

hetic

al E

xam

ple

– Be

nefit

s Ass

essm

ent W

orks

heet

Dat

e___

____

Ap

plic

atio

n #

____

____

__

Nam

e___

____

____

____

____

To

pic

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Bene

fit C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Ben

efit

(0 =

no b

enef

it, 10

= hi

gh b

enef

it)

Scor

eW

eight

ing

Fact

orRo

wTo

tal

02

46

810

Bene

fits t

o St

ewar

dshi

p:W

ould

the r

esul

ts

addr

ess a

n ur

gent

stew

ards

hip

issue

?

Not u

rgen

t No

t urg

ent n

ow bu

t mi

ght b

e in t

he

futur

e

Urge

nt no

w bu

t thr

eat o

r issu

e ap

pear

s to b

e stat

ic or

decre

asing

Urge

nt no

w an

d thr

eat o

r issu

e like

ly to

conti

nue a

t its

curre

nt sta

te

Urge

nt no

w an

d thr

eat o

r issu

e like

ly to

acce

lerate

Pres

ent c

risis

that

may b

e at th

e poin

t of

irrev

ersib

ility

8 1.

8 14

.4

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

ad

dres

s an

impo

rtan

tst

ewar

dshi

p iss

ue?

Not im

porta

nt No

t impo

rtant

but

migh

t be i

n the

fut

ure

Impo

rtant

but

occu

rs ov

er a

relat

ively

small

area

or

timefr

ame

Impo

rtant

and

occu

rs ov

er a

relat

ively

large

area

or

long

timefr

ame

Impo

rtant,

affec

ting

one o

r mor

e key

bio

phys

ical o

r soc

ial

aspe

cts ov

er a

lar

ge ar

ea or

long

tim

efram

e; po

tentia

l co

ncer

n for

huma

n he

alth/s

afety

Impo

rtant,

affec

ting

irrev

ersib

le ch

ange

s to

key b

iophy

sical

or

socia

l asp

ects

over

a l

arge

area

or lo

ng

timefr

ame;

major

co

ncer

n for

huma

n he

alth/s

afety

6 2.

0 12

.0

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

be

appl

icabl

e im

med

iate

ly to

st

ewar

dshi

p?

Basic

rese

arch

that

does

not a

ppea

r to

be ap

plica

ble to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Basic

rese

arch

that

has s

light

appa

rent

appli

cabil

ity to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Basic

rese

arch

that

has m

oder

ate

appa

rent

appli

cabil

ity to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Appli

ed re

sear

ch

that h

as sl

ight to

mo

dera

te ap

pare

nt ap

plica

bility

to a

curre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

Appli

ed re

sear

ch

that h

as m

oder

ate

to hig

h app

aren

t ap

plica

bility

to a

curre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

Rese

arch

is

spec

ificall

y de

signe

d to a

nswe

r a c

urre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

0

0.8

0

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

lik

ely b

e app

licab

le to

futu

rest

ewar

dshi

p iss

ues?

Basic

rese

arch

that

is hig

hly un

likely

to

be ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Basic

rese

arch

that

is un

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Rese

arch

that

is un

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e exc

ept a

s a

base

line t

o ass

ess

futur

e cha

nge

Rese

arch

is

mode

ratel

y like

ly to

be ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Rese

arch

is lik

ely to

be

appli

cable

in th

e fut

ure

Rese

arch

is hi

ghly

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e 4

0.6

2.4

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

all

owef

fect

ive

actio

n on

a st

ewar

dshi

p iss

ue?

Mana

gers

would

lik

ely no

t be a

ble to

tak

e any

actio

ns

that a

ffect

the is

sue

Mana

gers

could

aff

ect th

e iss

ue on

ly by

tryin

g to

influe

nce b

road

so

cietal

chan

ges

Mana

gers

could

tak

e effe

ctive

actio

n on

ly by

chan

ging

mana

geme

nt pr

ioritie

s

Mana

gers

could

take e

ffecti

ve ac

tion

only

with

signif

icant

costs

to ot

her

wilde

rnes

s valu

es

Mana

gers

could

tak

e effe

ctive

actio

n wi

th mi

nimal

cost

to oth

er w

ilder

ness

va

lues

Mana

gers

could

ea

sily a

nd

imme

diatel

y tak

e eff

ectiv

e acti

on w

ith

no co

st to

other

wi

ldern

ess v

alues

0 0.

3 0

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

im

prov

est

ewar

dshi

p of

this

loca

l wild

erne

ss?

Resu

lts ar

e not

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e slig

htly

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e slig

htly

to mo

dera

tely

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e mo

dera

tely

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e high

ly ap

plica

ble to

the

wilde

rnes

s in w

hich

the re

sear

ch is

co

nduc

ted

Resu

lts ar

e sp

ecific

ally

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

10

0.7

7.0

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example — Benefits Assessment Worksheet (CONTINUED)


Bene

fit C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Ben

efit

(0 =

no b

enef

it, 10

= hi

gh b

enef

it)

Scor

eW

eight

ing

Fact

orRo

wTo

tal

02

46

810

Bene

fits t

o Sc

ience

: Ho

w br

oad

geog

raph

ical

ly w

ill th

e res

ults

ben

efit

scien

ce?

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

only

a sm

all ge

ogra

phic

area

or po

rtion o

f the

wild

erne

ss

Resu

lt ben

efit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

wilde

rnes

s

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

regio

n

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

coun

try

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

simi

lar

biore

gions

glob

ally

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce ac

ross

the

entire

plan

et 4

0.6

2.4

How

far o

ver t

ime

will t

he re

sults

be

nefit

scien

ce?

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a

shor

t term

bene

fit Re

sults

prov

ide a

sh

ort to

mod

erate

ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a mo

dera

te ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a mo

dera

te to

long

term

bene

fit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

alon

g ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a pe

rman

ent b

enefi

t 8

0.2

1.6

How

man

y diff

eren

t pe

ople

or t

ypes

of

peop

le wi

ll ben

efit

from

the r

esul

ts?

Resu

lts be

nefit

only

a few

scien

tists

and

mana

gers

Resu

lts be

nefit

only

visito

rs, sc

ientis

ts,

or m

ange

rs in

the

spec

ific w

ilder

ness

Resu

lts be

nefit

visito

rs, sc

ientis

ts,

and m

anag

ers i

n an

y wild

erne

ss

Resu

lts be

nefit

local

visito

rs, re

siden

ts,

scien

tists,

and

mana

gers

Resu

lts be

nefit

regio

nal v

isitor

s, re

siden

ts, sc

ientis

ts,

and m

anag

ers

Resu

lts be

nefit

peop

le na

tiona

lly or

glo

bally

8

0.8

6.4

How

impo

rtan

t is

the a

ctivi

ty to

the

scien

tific

field

of

stud

y?

Simi

lar re

sear

ch

has b

een c

ondu

cted

many

times

befor

e an

d atte

mpts

to an

swer

relat

ively

trivial

ques

tions

Simi

lar re

sear

ch

has b

een c

ondu

cted

many

times

befor

e an

d atte

mpts

to an

swer

relat

ively

mino

r que

stion

s

Rese

arch

expa

nds

sligh

tly on

prev

ious

work

and a

ttemp

ts to

answ

er re

lative

ly mi

nor q

uesti

ons

Rese

arch

expa

nds

signif

icantl

y on

prev

ious w

ork a

nd

attem

pts to

answ

er

major

ques

tions

Rese

arch

is

grou

ndbr

eakin

g or

prec

eden

t sett

ing

for th

e fiel

d and

att

empts

to an

swer

ma

jor qu

estio

ns

Rese

arch

is

grou

ndbr

eakin

g or

prec

eden

t sett

ing

for th

e fiel

d and

att

empts

to an

swer

fun

dame

ntal

ques

tions

6 1.

6 9.

6

Wha

t is t

he b

read

thof

scien

tific

inqu

iry?

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

, mino

r co

mpon

ent o

f the

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

syste

m wi

th litt

le aff

ect o

n othe

r co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

comp

onen

t of

the ec

osys

tem or

so

cial s

ystem

with

litt

le aff

ect o

n othe

r sy

stems

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

proc

ess o

f the

ecos

ystem

or

socia

l sys

tem th

at aff

ects

a mod

erate

nu

mber

of ot

her

comp

onen

ts

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

proc

ess o

f the

ecos

ystem

or

socia

l sys

tem th

at aff

ects

many

co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on m

any

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

proc

esse

s and

co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

proc

esse

s and

co

mpon

ents

comp

rehe

nsive

ly 6

0.6

3.6

T

otal

Bene

fits A

sses

smen

t Sco

re =

B

enef

its A

sses

smen

t (Lo

w, M

ediu

m, H

igh)

=

60 Med


Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example Rationale for Benefits Assessment Worksheet Weighting Factors

Therationaleusedforthebenefitsweightingfactorsisacrucialpartoftheassessmentprocess.Theseweightsarealsoimportantforcommunicatingwithothers about theprofessional judgmentsmade in evaluating thebenefits oftheproposedactivities.Asanexample,thefollowingrationaleisprovidedtoexplainhowtheweightingfactorsintheaboveBenefitsAssessmentWorksheetwere derived for Yosemite Wilderness—different wilderness staffs wouldmostlikelydevelopdifferentrationalesfromthosegivenhere.Similarly,theirresultantscoringwouldreflectlocalconditionsandattitudes.

Benefits to StewardshipWould the results address an important stewardship issue? FollowingHowardZahniser’swildernessstewardshipdictum“managedtobeleftunmanaged,”manypeopleviewstewardshipprimarilyasaresponsetothreatstowildernesscharacter.ThiscategoryisgiventhehighestweightbecauseitdirectlyaddressesourobligationundertheWildernessActtopreservewildernesscharacter.

Would the results address an urgent stewardship issue? The urgency of athreatshouldobviouslyaffectourresponsetoit,includingthebenefitofanyresearchthatinformsourresponse.Ourabilitytorespondquicklytoathreatmayaffectnotonlyimpactstowildernesscharacter,buttheamountofman-agementneededinthefuture.Forexample,aquickresponsetoaninvasiveexoticspeciescanhavethisdoublebenefit.Thisdoublebenefitresults inahighweightforthisfactor.

Would the results be applicable immediately to stewardship? This factorassessesaqualityoftheresearchresultsratherthanthequalitiesofthethreat.Research that isn’tdesignedtoanswerspecificstewardshipquestionsoftenproduces results thatare insufficient tomakestewardshipdecisions.Whilethisisimportant,itdoesn’tderivedirectlyfromtheActasdothetwofactorswithhighweights.

Would the results improve the stewardship of this local wilderness?Again,thisassessesthequalityoftheresultsmorethanthenatureofthethreat.Localapplicabilityisobviouslyimportant,butismoreofabonuscomparedtotheoverallapplicabilityreflectedinthecombinationofallsix“benefitstostew-ardship”factors.Assuch,itisgivenamediumweight.

Would the results likely be applicable to future stewardship issues?Whilethisisobviouslynotasimportantasresultsthatwouldbeimmediatelyapplicable,itstillwarrantsamediumweight.Basicresearchmaybeusefulinthefuture,asscientificknowledgeiscumulative.


Would the results allow effective action on a stewardship issue?Therelativelylowweightingforthisfactorreflectsthatthereissomebenefitfromunder-standingathreattowildernesscharactereveniftheresearchprovidesresultsthatdonotalloweffectivemanagementaction.

Benefits to ScienceHow important is the activity to the scientific field of study? Thisistheonlyfactorthatwasgivenahighweight,asitgetstotheheartofthepurposeofscientificinquiry:theadvancementofknowledge.

How many different people or types of people will benefit from the results? Asameasureofthebreadthofthebenefit,thisfactormeritsamediumscorebecauseasmoretypesofpeopleareinterestedintheresults,themorepotentialusestheyhave.Ofthethreefactorsrelatedtothebreadthoftheresults,thisonewasgivenslightlygreaterweighttoreflectthedirectlinktotheresultsbeingused.

How broad geographically will the results benefit science?Asanothermeasureofthebreadthofthebenefit,thisfactoralsomeritsamediumweightbecauseresearchcanhavegreaterbenefit if it improvesourunderstandingacrossalargerarea.

What is the breadth of scientific inquiry?Thelastmeasureofthebreadthofthebenefit,thisfactoralsomeritsamediumweightrecognizingtheimpor-tanceofsynthetic,generalistresearchthathelpsusunderstandwholesystems.

How far over time will the results benefit science?Thisfactorwasassignedthesmallestweight.Whileitmattersthatresultsmaybebeneficialtoscienceforalongtime,theimportanceandbreadthoftheresultswereconsideredtobefarmoreimportantthanhowquicklytheinformationmaybecomeobsolete.


Yos

emite

Wild

erne

ss H

ypot

hetic

al E

xam

ple

– Im

pact

s Ass

essm

ent W

orks

heet

Dat

e___

____

Ap

plic

atio

n #

____

____

__

Nam

e___

____

____

____

____

To

pic

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Impa

ct C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Im

pact

(0 =

negl

igib

le Im

pact

, 10 =

hig

h Im

pact

) Sc

ore

01

23

510

+Un

tram

mele

d Qu

ality

Mani

pulat

ion

No

ne

Sl

ight

Mode

rate

Larg

e0

Risk

of U

nint

ende

d Ef

fect

s No

ne

Sligh

t Mo

dera

te La

rge

1Di

stur

banc

eNo

ne

Sm

allMo

dera

te La

rge

0Na

tura

l Qua

lity

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

U

nobt

rusiv

e No

ne

Small

amt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

rMo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

r Mo

d amt

, long

dur

Lrg a

mt, lo

ng du

ratio

n0

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

O

btru

sive

None

Sml a

mt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

r Mo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

rMo

d amt

, long

dur

Lrg a

mt, lo

ng du

ratio

n0

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

V

ery O

btru

sive

None

Sml a

mt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

rMo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

ratio

nMo

d or L

arge

amt, l

ong d

ur

0

Colle

ctio

n:

A

mou

nt an

d Ra

rity

None

An

y amo

unt, c

ommo

nSm

l amt

, unc

ommo

nMo

d amt

, unc

ommo

nLr

g amt

, unc

ommo

nSm

l amt

, of c

once

rn

Mod a

mt, o

f con

cern

Sml a

mt, r

are

Lrg a

mt, o

f con

cern

Med o

r larg

e amo

unt, r

are

0Un

deve

lope

d Qu

ality

Tran

spor

t Hu

man

only

1-12

stoc

k day

s 13

-60 s

tock d

ays

61-9

0 stoc

k day

s1-

10 w

heele

d day

s 91

-150

stoc

k day

s 10

-15 w

heele

d day

s 15

1-30

0 stoc

k day

s16

-30 w

heele

d day

s 1 m

otoriz

ed us

e

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 30

stoc

k day

s +1

each

addtl

3 wh

eel d

ays

+10 e

ach a

ddtl m

otor u

se

0

Equi

pmen

tNo

ne

Any a

moun

t of

unob

trusiv

e use

An

y amo

unt o

f less

ob

trusiv

e use

1-

10 da

ys of

ob us

e11

-30 d

ays o

b use

1 d

ay ve

ry ob

use

30+

days

ob us

e2 d

ays v

ery o

b use

+5

each

day v

ery o

b use

2In

stall

atio

ns:

B

arely

Disc

erna

ble

None

1-

50, s

hort

dura

tion

1-40

, mod

dura

tion

1-20

, long

dura

tion

51-1

50, s

hort

dur

41-6

0, mo

d dur

21

-30,

long d

ur

151-

250,

shor

t dur

61

-100

, mod

dur

31-5

0, lon

g dur

251-

500,

shor

t dur

101-

200,

mod d

ur

51-1

00, lo

ng du

r

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 50

shor

t dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 20

mod

dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 10

long

dur

0

Inst

allat

ions

:

Uno

btru

sive

None

1-10

, sho

rt du

ratio

n11

-50,

shor

t dur

1-

10, m

ed du

r 51

-100

, sho

rt du

r11

-50,

mod d

ur

1-10

, long

dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 10

shor

t dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 5

mod d

ur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl lo

ng du

r 0

Inst

allat

ions

:

Obt

rusiv

e No

ne

1-

3, sh

ort d

urati

on4-

5, sh

ort d

ur

1-3,

mod d

ur

1, lon

g dur

6-10

, sho

rtdu

r4-

5, mo

d dur

2-

3, lon

g dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl sh

ort d

ur+2

each

addtl

mod

dur

+3 ea

ch ad

dtl lo

ng du

r 0

Inst

allat

ions

:

Ver

y Obt

rusiv

e No

ne

1 s

hort

dur

+10 e

ach a

ddtl s

hort

dur

+20 e

ach a

ddtl m

od du

r +3

0 eac

h add

tl lon

g dur

20

0

Solit

ude o

r Prim

itive

and

Unco

nfin

ed Q

ualit

yGr

oup

Size

1-8

8-15

16+

(ove

r limi

t)1

Pers

on-D

ays/S

easo

n

1-50

51

-150

151+

27

Visit

or S

urve

ys

None

No

n-W

ilder

ness

Le

ss ob

trusiv

eMo

re ob

trusiv

e0

Surv

eillan

ce

None

Le

ss ob

trusiv

e Mo

d obtr

usive

Very

obtru

sive

0

Impa

cts A

sses

smen

t (Lo

w, M

ediu

m, H

igh)

=

Tota

l Impa

cts A

sses

smen

t Sco

re =

231

Hig

h

Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example — Impacts Assessment Worksheet


Yosemite Wilderness Hypothetical Example Rationale for Impact Assessment Worksheet Scores

Therationaleusedforthenumericalscoresisacrucialpartofcommunicat-ingwithothersabouttheprofessionaljudgmentsmadeinevaluatingproposedactivities. As an example, the following rationale is provided for how thenumericalscoresintheaboveImpactsAssessmentWorksheetwerederivedforYosemiteWilderness—differentwildernessstaffswouldmostlikelydevelopdifferentrationalesfromthosebelow.Similarly,theirresultantscoringwouldreflectlocalconditionsandattitudes.

Manipulation—Three broad categories of manipulation are listed. Thefirstcategory“manipulation”considersmanipulationofprocessesorcondi-tions,withImpactScoresof2,5,and+.Area,intensity,andpermanenceofthismanipulationwouldallbeconsidered.The“slight” impactclassmightbeusedtoscoreexperimentalcampsiterestorationtechniquesor tramplingstudiesinvolvingsmallareas.The“moderate”impactclassmightbeusedtoscoreasmallexperimentalprescribedburn.The“high”impactclasswouldbeusedforstudiesproposingsuchactionsastheintroductionoreradicationofspecies,whichmayhavelong-lasting,cascadingeffects.Scoringforthiscategoryisnotdependentonwhethertheproposedmanipulationisattemptingtoincreasethehealthornaturalnessoftheecosystem.Thehighscoresassoci-atedwithimpactclassesforthiscategoryreflecttheprimacyofuntrammeledwildernessintheWildernessAct. The second manipulation category is “risk of unintended effects” withImpactScoresof1,5,and+.Riskintermsofarea,intensity,andpermanenceofthepotentialeffectwouldbeconsideredaswellastherisk.Aproposalmayreceiveascore for thisparametereven ifno intentionalchange isplanned.Oneexamplemightbehigh-riskanimalcapturesofararespecies. Bothoftheabovecategoriesshouldalsoconsidertheimpacttothefuturescientificvalueofwilderness.Muchofthescientificvalueofwildernessliesinitsuntrammeledstateandmanipulationreducesthatvalue. Thethirdbroadcategoryis“disturbance”withImpactScoresof2,5,and+.Thisusuallyinvolvesmanipulatingindividualorganismsorspecificareasratherthanprocessesorconditionsandisoftenmoreofanimpacttothesocialandsymbolicvaluesofwildernessthantoecologicalorscientificvalues.Thismayincludesuchactivitiesasfeeding,trapping,sampling,marking,banding,collar-ing,orinstrumentinganimals.Itmayalsoincludedisturbanceofparticularlysymbolicentitiessuchasveryoldoriconictrees,largerarefiercepredators,other iconicorhistoric features,or areasor species sacredorotherwiseofculturalimportancetolocalNativeAmericans. Twoaspectsofdisturbancewouldbeconsidered.Thefirstisthemagnitudeorintensityofinsultandattemptstogaugethereductionofwildnesstotheindividual,thereductionofthepowerofthesymbolofwildness,andthesac-rilegetosacredplacesorspeciesthatwouldresultfromtheproposedactivity.Thesecondcomponentinthiscategoryconsiderstheamountdisturbed—this


wouldbeconsideredbothabsolutelyandasapercentageofpopulationsize.Duetotheabstractnatureofthiscategory,theconditionclassesarepurpose-fullyleftvague.Oneusefulwaytoconsiderscoringthiscategorymightbetoconsidertheamountofprotestthatwouldensueiftheproposalwerepublicized.

Collection—ImpactScoresforthiscategoryare1,2,3,5,10,and+.Col-lectinginvolvesremovingmaterials,bothlivingandnon-living,fromtheareaforstudiesordocumentation.Threedifferentaspectsareconsidered:

• Scarring—collection sometimes leaves a scar, such as tree notches orbedrockdrillholes.Scarringisconsideredseparatelyfromtheactualcol-lectionandisscoredbyobtrusiveness,permanence,andamount.Someresearchmayinvolvescarringthatisnotincidentaltocollecting;thatisscoredhereaswell.

• Rarity—rarity isacomplextopicbecauseaparticularresourcemaybeglobally,regionally,orlocallyrare;itmaybeendemicornon-endemic;itmayfacevarioustypesofthreats;anditmaybedistributedinwaysthatmakeitmoreorlessvulnerable.Allofthesefactorsshouldbeconsideredwhen assigning scores for collecting.Rarity is divided into four broadcategories:

Common:Thiswouldincludewater,commonrocksandsoil,andcom-monplants.

Uncommon:Thiswouldincludespeciesathighertrophiclevels,includ-ingmostanimals.

Ofconcern:Notrare,butmightbeatriskorisamemberofadeclin-ingpopulation,orofparticularimportancetoecosystemhealth.Thiscouldincludespecieswithunknownlocalpopulationsize.

Rare: The high scores for the rare category reflect the seriousnessof removing rare speciesormaterials from theecosystem.The rarecategoryincludesmorethanjustlistedspecies;aspeciesmaybeonlylocallyrare,oritmaybemoderatelycommonlocallybutthreatenedordecliningatalargerscale—itwouldstillbescoredasrare.

• Amount—theimpactclassesareintentionallyleftvagueastheamountissomewhatdependentonrarity.Amountshouldbeconsideredbothabsolutelyandasapercentageofpopulationsize.Anunknownpopulationsize(forinstance,aresearchproposalthatentailscollectingtwoofeveryspeciesregardlessofrarity,includingpossiblenewspecies)wouldbescoredas“ofconcern”or“rare.”Aswiththetransportandequipmentcategoriesbelow,morethanonecolumnmaybeappropriate,inwhichcasetheindividualcolumnscoresaresummedtoobtainthetotal.

Transport—ImpactScoresforthiscategoryare0,1,2,3,5,10,and+torepresent the range of transportation impacts proposed. The impact scoreconsidersboththetypeandamountoftransportused.Animpactscoreof0isassignedforwalking,andhighervaluesrepresentincreasinglevelsofimpactfromtheuseofpackstock,wheeledtransportation,suchaswheelbarrowsor


gamecartsusedtotransportgear,andmotorizedtransportation,suchasheli-copters,fixedwingaircraft,motorboats,orsnowmobiles. Animpactscoreof3 is foranywheeled(butnon-motorized) transport,aprohibitionunderSection4(c)oftheWildernessAct,andwouldtriggeraMini-mumRequirementsAnalysis.The10+categoryisformotorizedmechanicaltransport(helicopters,ATVs,snowmachines,fixedwingaircraft,andskiffs).Local units need to assign howmuchmore than 10 such an impact ranksbecauselocalcircumstancessuchasvegetationandtopographyvarywidelyand strongly affect how far noise will travel. Other variables to considerincludetheheightabovegroundlevel,intendedtravel(forexample,landingoronlyf lyingover),evidenceofpassage(forexample,fromsnowmobiletracks),enablinglegislationthatallowsf lightsforotherpurposes,distanceoff lights,remoteness,andtiming. Theamountofuseisconsideredseparately.Humanorstocktransportusuallyreceivesascoreof0,or1or2,respectively.Theremaybecircumstancesthatrateahigherscore,however,suchaslargeamountsofstockuseinareasthatdon’tnormallyreceivesuchuseorareparticularlyvulnerabletotheimpactsofstock,orwherestockisotherwiseprohibited.Theamountofmechanizedtransportiscountedbythetotaldaysofuse,whiletheamountofmotorizedtransport is counted by individual uses; for example, if several f lights areconducted during a single day, each would be counted. The difference incountingmethodshelpsreflectthemuchgreaterimpactsofmotorizedtrans-port.Ifmorethanonemodeoftransportationisused,morethanonecolumnwouldbechecked,withthecolumnscoresaddedtogethertofindthetotal.Forexample,ifateamofresearchersproposetohikeintoinstallaninstrumenttowerusing12stockdays(score:1)totransporttheirgearandonehelicopterf light(score:10)totransportthetoweritself,thetotaltransportscorewouldbe11.

Equipment—ImpactScoresare1,2,3,5,10,and+.Thesescoresrepresentacombinationof(1)visibility,(2)sound,and(3)technologicalsophisticationandpowerleverage.Thislatteraspectattemptstoexplainthereasonwhymotor-izedequipmentwasincludedasaSection4(c)prohibitionintheWildernessAct—wildernessisaplacewhereweare“withoutourmechanismsthatmakeusimmediatemastersoverourenvironment”(Zahniser1956).Impactscoresandexamplesare:

• 1 – non-motorized; small; simple; silent (for example, tapemeasure orbinoculars)

• 2–non-motorizedbutlarger(e.g.,mistnet);morenoise(e.g.,stardrill);couldincludesmallsolid-stateelectronics

• 3–electricmotor;small,nottooloud(e.g.,cordlesselectricdrill) • 5–louderand/orlonger-durationmotor(e.g.,chainsaw) • 10or10+–multipleusesofmotorizedequipment


Aswithtransport,ifmorethanonetypeofequipmentuseisproposed,morethanonecolumnmaybechecked,withthecolumnscoresaddedtogethertofindtheequipmenttotal.

Installations—ImpactScoresare1,2,3,5,10,and+.Installationsareanyplotmarkers,instruments,clustersofinstruments,orstructuresthatareleftunattendedformorethanafewdays.Thesearedividedintofourcategories:

• Barely discernable—includes buried rebar, camouflaged tree tags, andother tinymarkersormicro-instruments.While theseare installations,thisscoringsystemrecognizesthatasingleinstallationofthistypehasanegligibleimpactbyitself.Rather,theimpactliesinthecumulativeeffectofmanysuchinstallations.Thus,ittakesmanysuchinstallationstorisetothelevelrequiringanMRA.

• Unobtrusive—includeslargerinstrumentsandplotmarkersthatareeas-ilyvisiblefromashortdistancebutgenerallynotnoticeablefromgreaterdistances.Thiscategoryincludesthingslikerebarwith largeendcaps,PVCwellsorpiezometersthatprotrudeafootabovethegroundsurface,orbrightly-coloredplasticf laggingorsurveytape,whichmaybequitesmallbuthighlyvisible.

• Obtrusive—includes larger instruments that are visible from a greaterdistancesuchaswaterorairsamplersandmediumtolargeboxesshelter-ingelectronics.

• Veryobtrusive—includesclustersofinstruments,towers,solarpanelsandantennas, and buildings.Components thatmove and are, thereby, eye-catching(e.g.,anemometerorwindturbine)willoftenplaceaninstallationintothisimpactcategory.

Technologicalsophisticationshouldalsobeconsideredwhenscoringinstal-lations.Forexample,asmallrockcairnorsmallpieceofwoodwouldusuallybepreferabletoametalorplasticpoleforuseasaplotmarker. Permanenceisgroupedintothreecategories.Thesecategoriescanbemodi-fiedforeacharea,butthefollowingisagoodstartingpoint:shortdurationisupto1year;moderatedurationis1to5years;longdurationisover5years.Forsimplicityonlythreecategoriesareused,butthisalsomeansthatinterpola-tionandextrapolationareoftennecessaryandappropriate.Forexample,fiveobtrusiveinstallationsthatwillbeinplaceforonlytwoweeksmightscorea3or4ratherthana5,whiletwoobtrusivelong-terminstallationsarelikelytoscorehigherthan10iftheyareintendedtobepermanent.

Group Size—ImpactScoresare1,2,and3andreflectthetypicalgroupsizeforrecreationalvisitors.Useof“legallimit”isdonepurposefullytostronglydenotethatthisisaredf lag,althoughitisrecognizedthattheremaynotbealegallimitinsomeareas.Theseconditionclassesshouldbedeterminedlocally.Inallcases,groupsizesthatexceedthelegallimitforrecreationistsshouldrateathree.


Total Person-Days—ImpactScoresare1,2,and3andreflectthethinkingoflocalstaffabouthowthepeopleaddedtotheareafromscientificactivitieswouldaffect thenumberofvisitorsanareaalready receives.Somewilder-nessesoperateattheirmaximumtotalperson-dayswithrecreationalvisitorsalone,soanyresearcherswouldeithereffectively“bump”recreationalvisitorsorincreasethemaximumallowableperson-days.Thisisveryplace-specific.Forexample,Yosemitelikelywouldhaverelativelyhighnumbersofperson-days(1to50,50to100,greaterthan100)whileGlacierBaywouldlikelyhavelowernumbers(1to10,10to20,greaterthan20).Thesescoresmightincreaseifasubstantialnumberofperson-dayswerespentinaveryremotearea.

Visitor Surveys—ImpactScoresare1,2,and3.The1representsanintru-sion,albeitasmallone.Agreaterimpactonvisitorsoccurswhenthesurveyisconductedfartherfromthetrailheadorinamoreremotearea.Otherelementsmayaffectthescoreaswell,includingthenumberofvisitorsinterviewed,thetypicalvisitordensityinthearea,orthelengthoftheinterview.Interviewsattrailheadsandwildernesspermitstationsmaystillhaveanimpactonvisi-torexperience,particularlyifvisitorsareaskedtorecordencountersorothervariableswhileinthewilderness.

Surveillance—ImpactScoresare1,2,and10andrepresentlocalthinkingabouthowsurveillancemightreducevisitor’ssenseofwilderness(forexample,unencumberedandfreefromtheconstraintsofsocietywhilevisitingwilder-ness)andfreedomfrombeingwatched.Threeelementsareintegratedintothisimpactcategory:(1)whetherthetooltocollectdataonvisitorbehavior(apersonwatching,camera,trailcounter)isvisibletothevisitor,(2)whetheravisitorcouldbeidentified(forexample,fromapersonwatchingorfromacamera)ornot,and(3)whetherthetoolofsurveillanceisapersonoramachine.Localstaffsmustdecidehowthesethreeelementsvaryandinteract toassigntheimpactscores.Forexample,somelocalstaffsmayassignavisiblesurveillancetool(thatnonethelesscannotdiscerntheidentityofindividuals)ashavinglessimpact thanawell-hiddencamerathatrecordsimagesinwhichindividualscanberecognized.


Appendix E—Worksheets

Sampleworksheetsareprovidedonthefollowingpagesforeachofthefiltersinthisevaluationframework.Theseworksheetsmaybeanimportantpartoftheadministrativerecordfordecisionsaboutproposalsforscientificactivitiesinsidewilderness.Theseworksheetsshouldbemodifiedtofitlocalcircum-stancesandjudgments,butshouldnotbemodifiedforindividualproposals.

Instructions for Using the Worksheets

Cover Sheet Theintentofthecoversheetistorecordbasicadministrativeinformationabouttheproposedactivity.The“topic(s)”entryisforagencyusetosummarizethebroadtypesofproposalsreceived,suchas“geology,”“visitorexperiences,”“invasivespecies,”oranyothercategoryofinterestorusetotheadministeringoffice,toaidinorganization.

Initial Review Filter Questions included in the worksheet likely apply in most wildernesses,butlocalstaffsshouldreviewtheseanddeleteanythataren’tapplicableandaddanythatare.Afterreviewingtheproposal,agencystaffwouldchecktheappropriate“yes”or“no”boxforeachquestion.Any“yes”answersindicatethattheproposedscientificactivitymayraisesignificantproblemsandmayneedtobereturnedtothescientistwithanexplanationoftheproblem,ortheproposalwouldlikelyrequiresignificantlymoretimetoevaluate.

Quality of Proposal Filter Thequestionsincludedintheworksheetlikelyapplyinmostwildernesses,but local staffs should review theseandmodify themasappropriate.Afterreviewing the proposal, agency staffwould check the appropriate “yes” or“no”boxforeachquestion.Any“no”answers indicate that theproposal isinsufficientandmayneedtobeimmediatelyreturnedtothescientistwithanexplanationoftheproblem.

Legal and Policy Filter Thesteps included in theworksheetshouldapply inallwildernesses,butlocal staff members should still review these steps to make sure they areapplicable,andaddanystepsasappropriateforcompliancepurposesandfortheadministrativerecord.Severalofthestepsrequiresubjectiveevaluation,and,insuchcases,therationaleneedstobecarefullydocumented,especiallyforproposalsthatmightbecontroversial.

Impacts and Benefits Filter Therearetwoworksheets,oneforthebenefitsassessmentandonefortheimpacts assessment. Once the worksheets are completed, the benefits andimpactsdecisiontableisusedtodetermineaprovisionaldecision.Basedontheoutcomeof thisdecision, theproposal iseither returned for revisionor


isevaluatedforitscontributiontocumulativeimpacts.Afterthiscumulativeimpactsassessment,a final recommendationabout theproposal isgiven tothedecisionmaker. Thebenefitsand impactsassessmentworksheetsrequiresubstantivestaffreviewandshouldberevisedtobemaderelevanttothelocalwilderness.Tousetheseworksheets,localstaffwould:

1. Preparetheworksheets.a. Reviewthecategorydescriptions(boldtextattheleftofeachrow

onbothworksheets)andmodifythemasappropriatefortheirlocalsetting;but,inmostcases,theonesofferedhereshouldfit.

b. Reviewthetextdescriptionsforeachlevelofimpactorbenefitthatareunderthenumericalscoresandmodifythemtofitlocalneeds.For thebenefits assessmentworksheet, the textdescriptions arewrittengenerallyandwouldlikelybeapplicableinmostwilder-nesses.Fortheimpactsassessmentworksheet,thetextdescriptionsstrongly reflect conditionswithin theYosemiteWilderness andmustbemodifiedtofitthecontextoftheindividualwilderness.

c. Forthebenefitsassessmentworksheetonly,developweightingfac-torsthatreflectlocalperceptionsabouttherelativeimportanceforeachcategory(rowsintheworksheet).Thesumofall11weightingfactorsshouldequal10sothatwhenthescoresaremultipliedbytheweightingfactorsandsummed,themaximumtotalassessmentscorecannotbegreaterthan100.Theseweightsshouldbedevelopedoncetofitlocalneedsandnotmodifiedforindividualproposals.

d. Developthecutoffsforlow,medium,andhightotalbenefitsandimpactsassessmentscores.Thesecutoffswillbeusedtobroadlycategorizethebenefitsandimpacts;theyshouldbedevelopedonceandnotmodifiedforindividualproposals.

2. Conducttheassessments.a. Readingacrosseachrow,circletheappropriatestatementforthe

levelofbenefitorimpact.b. From the circled statement, read up the column to derive the

numericalscore.c. Recordthisnumberfortherowunderthecolumntitled“Score.”d. Forthebenefitsassessment,multiplythisscorewiththeweighting

factortoderivetherowtotal.e. Addall the individualrowtotals toderive the totalassessments

score.f. Basedonthecutoffsidentifiedearlier,assigntheoverallassess-

mentoflow,medium,orhigh.

Thebenefitsandimpactsdecisiontableisusedtoweightheexpectedben-efitsagainsttheimpactsofthescientificactivity.Beforeitcanbeused,localstaffmembersmustprepare the tablebyassigning“ProvisionalApproval,”“ProvisionalDenial,”and“Uncertain”toeachofthecells.Theseassignments


are fundamentally subjective, reflecting discussion and consensus amonglocalstaff.Theseassignmentsshouldbedevelopedonceandnotmodifiedforindividualproposals. Last,staffmembersneedtoidentifythetypesofcumulativeimpactsthatarerelevanttothewildernessanddeterminehowtheproposedscientificactivitywouldbeevaluatedforitspotentialcontributiontotheseimpacts.


COVER SHEET – PROPOSAL FOR SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY Date proposal received: Wilderness: Name of agency staff evaluating this proposal: Application #: Title of proposal: Name of person submitting this proposal: Contact information for this person Affiliation: Address: Phone number: Email: Topic(s): Final recommendation: Date of final recommendation: Record of communication between manager and scientist:


INITIAL REVIEW FILTER – QUESTIONS WORKSHEET

Date_______ Application # ____________ Short Title ________________________________

Initial Review Question Yes or No Does the proposal include any activities requiring a use that is legally prohibited by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act?

Would the proposed activity degrade wilderness character even if it is legally permitted?

Would the proposed activity likely be controversial with any publics? Would the proposed activity pose other legal or policy problems? Would the proposed activity interfere with management operations? Would the proposed activity pose consultation issues over listed species or cultural and heritage resources?

Would the proposed activity require collecting plants or other natural resources, or the handling or removing of animals, or the introduction of plants or animals into the wilderness?

Would the proposed activity pose timing or location problems, such as occurring in a sensitive area or time for particular species?

Would the proposed activity pose additional impact in an area that already has an unacceptable level of cumulative impacts or is close to an unacceptable level of cumulative impacts?

If the submitter has conducted work in the area before, were there any problems with completing administrative requirements (such as submitting reports, removing installations and other debris from the activity, completing curatorial and specimen documentation requirements) in a timely and professional manner?

OTHER QUESTIONS

Comments or Notes:


QUALITY OF PROPOSAL FILTER – QUESTIONS WORKSHEET Date_______ Application # ____________ Short Title ________________________________

Quality of Proposal Questions Yes or No Is the proposed scientific activity sufficiently well designed to accomplish its stated purpose, thereby providing the intended benefits to management or science?

Does the proposal describe the potential benefits of the proposed activity in terms of the Benefits Assessment described in the Impacts and Benefits Filter?

Does the proposal describe the potential impacts of the proposed activity in terms of the Impacts Assessment described in the Impacts and Benefits Filter, and show how these will be minimized or mitigated?

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

OTHER QUESTIONS

If necessary, describe action taken to ensure independent review of the proposal: Comments or Notes:


LEGAL AND POLICY FILTER – FLOWCHART WORKSHEET Date_______ Application # ____________ Short Title ________________________________ Step 1: Does the proposed activity include any actions or uses that are prohibited by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act? If no, skip Steps 2 – 4 and go to Step 5. If yes, go to Step 2 and describe the actions or uses: Step 2: Are the prohibited actions or uses necessary? To answer this question, answer the following the questions:

A. Does the proposed work address an urgent or important health and safety concern? If yes, go to Step 5. If no, go to Step 2.B. Explanation if there is a health and safety concern: B. Can the prohibited actions or uses only be conducted inside the wilderness? If yes, go to Step 2.D. If no, go to Step 2.C. Explanation: C. If the prohibited actions or uses can be conducted outside the wilderness, will the

benefits to wilderness stewardship (i.e., preserving wilderness character) or to science be reduced?

If yes, go to Step 2.D. If no, deny the proposed work. Explanation:

D. Are there any legislated exceptions that allow the actions or uses that would normally be prohibited?

If yes, go to Step 2.E. If no, still go to Step 2.E. Explanation if there is a legislated exception:

E. Will the proposed actions or uses help preserve wilderness character? If yes, go to Step 4. If no, go to Step 3. Explanation:

Step 3: Return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is being returned. The revised proposal should include an explanation of changes. Go back to Step 1 with the revised proposal. Step 4: Go to the Impacts and Benefits Filter. Step 5: Is there a restriction in law, policy, or management plan that would prevent the actions or uses, or limit where or when they could be used? If yes, go to Step 3. If no, go to Step 4. Explanation:


IMPA

CTS AND BEN

EFITS FILTER

— BEN

EFITS ASSESSM

ENT W

ORK

SHEE

T Date_

____

__ App

lication # __

____

____

__ Sho

rt Title __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Bene

fit C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Ben

efit

(0 =

no b

enef

it, 10

= hi

gh b

enef

it)

Scor

eW

eight

ing

Fact

orRo

wTo

tal

02

46

810

Bene

fits t

o St

ewar

dshi

p:W

ould

the r

esul

ts

addr

ess a

n ur

gent

stew

ards

hip

issue

?

Not u

rgen

t No

t urg

ent n

ow bu

t mi

ght b

e in t

he

futur

e

Urge

nt no

w bu

t thr

eat o

r issu

e ap

pear

s to b

e stat

ic or

decre

asing

Urge

nt no

w an

d thr

eat o

r issu

e like

ly to

conti

nue a

t its

curre

nt sta

te

Urge

nt no

w an

d thr

eat o

r issu

e like

ly to

acce

lerate

Pres

ent c

risis

that

may b

e at th

e poin

t of

irrev

ersib

ility

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

ad

dres

s an

impo

rtan

tst

ewar

dshi

p iss

ue?

Not im

porta

nt No

t impo

rtant

but

migh

t be i

n the

fut

ure

Impo

rtant

but

occu

rs ov

er a

relat

ively

small

area

or

timefr

ame

Impo

rtant

and

occu

rs ov

er a

relat

ively

large

area

or

long

timefr

ame

Impo

rtant,

affec

ting

one o

r mor

e key

bio

phys

ical o

r soc

ial

aspe

cts ov

er a

lar

ge ar

ea or

long

tim

efram

e; po

tentia

l co

ncer

n for

huma

n he

alth/s

afety

Impo

rtant,

affec

ting

irrev

ersib

le ch

ange

s to

key b

iophy

sical

or

socia

l asp

ects

over

a l

arge

area

or lo

ng

timefr

ame;

major

co

ncer

n for

huma

n he

alth/s

afety

W

ould

the r

esul

ts

be ap

plica

ble

imm

edia

tely

to

stew

ards

hip?

Basic

rese

arch

that

does

not a

ppea

r to

be ap

plica

ble to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Basic

rese

arch

that

has s

light

appa

rent

appli

cabil

ity to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Basic

rese

arch

that

has m

oder

ate

appa

rent

appli

cabil

ity to

a cu

rrent

stewa

rdsh

ip iss

ue

Appli

ed re

sear

ch

that h

as sl

ight to

mo

dera

te ap

pare

nt ap

plica

bility

to a

curre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

Appli

ed re

sear

ch

that h

as m

oder

ate

to hig

h app

aren

t ap

plica

bility

to a

curre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

Rese

arch

is

spec

ificall

y de

signe

d to a

nswe

r a c

urre

nt ste

ward

ship

issue

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

lik

ely b

e app

licab

le to

futu

rest

ewar

dshi

p iss

ues?

Basic

rese

arch

that

is hig

hly un

likely

to

be ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Basic

rese

arch

that

is un

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Rese

arch

that

is un

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e exc

ept a

s a

base

line t

o ass

ess

futur

e cha

nge

Rese

arch

ismo

dera

tely l

ikely

to be

appli

cable

in th

e fut

ure

Rese

arch

is lik

ely to

be

appli

cable

in th

e fut

ure

Rese

arch

is hi

ghly

likely

to be

ap

plica

ble in

the

futur

e

Wou

ld th

e res

ults

all

owef

fect

ive

actio

n on

a st

ewar

dshi

p iss

ue?

Mana

gers

would

lik

ely no

t be a

ble to

tak

e any

actio

ns

that a

ffect

the is

sue

Mana

gers

could

aff

ect th

e iss

ue on

ly by

tryin

g to

influe

nce b

road

so

cietal

chan

ges

Mana

gers

could

tak

e effe

ctive

actio

n on

ly by

chan

ging

mana

geme

nt pr

ioritie

s

Mana

gers

could

tak

e effe

ctive

actio

n on

ly wi

th sig

nifica

nt co

sts to

othe

r wi

ldern

ess v

alues

Mana

gers

could

tak

e effe

ctive

actio

n wi

th mi

nimal

cost

to oth

er w

ilder

ness

va

lues

Mana

gers

could

ea

sily a

nd

imme

diatel

y tak

e eff

ectiv

e acti

on w

ith

no co

st to

other

wi

ldern

ess v

alues

W

ould

the r

esul

ts

impr

ove

stew

ards

hip

of th

is lo

cal w

ilder

ness

?

Resu

lts ar

e not

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e slig

htly

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e slig

htly

to mo

dera

tely

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e mo

dera

tely

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Resu

lts ar

e high

ly ap

plica

ble to

the

wilde

rnes

s in w

hich

the re

sear

ch is

co

nduc

ted

Resu

lts ar

e sp

ecific

ally

appli

cable

to th

e wi

ldern

ess i

n whic

h the

rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

Impacts and Benefits Filter — Benefits Assessment Worksheet (CONTINUED)


Bene

fit C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Ben

efit

(0 =

no b

enef

it, 10

= hi

gh b

enef

it)

Scor

eW

eight

ing

Fact

orRo

wTo

tal

02

46

810

Bene

fits t

o Sc

ience

: Ho

w br

oad

geog

raph

ical

ly w

ill th

e res

ults

ben

efit

scien

ce?

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

only

a sm

all ge

ogra

phic

area

or po

rtion o

f the

wild

erne

ss

Resu

lt ben

efit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

wilde

rnes

s

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

regio

n

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

the w

hole

coun

try

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce in

simi

lar

biore

gions

glob

ally

Resu

lts be

nefit

scien

ce ac

ross

the

entire

plan

et

How

far o

ver t

ime

will t

he re

sults

be

nefit

scien

ce?

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a

shor

t term

bene

fit Re

sults

prov

ide a

sh

ort to

mod

erate

ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a mo

dera

te ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a mo

dera

te to

long

term

bene

fit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a lon

g ter

m be

nefit

Resu

lts pr

ovide

a pe

rman

ent b

enefi

t

How

man

y diff

eren

t pe

ople

or t

ypes

of

peop

le wi

ll ben

efit

from

the r

esul

ts?

Resu

lts be

nefit

only

a few

scien

tists

and

mana

gers

Resu

lts be

nefit

only

visito

rs, sc

ientis

ts,

or m

ange

rs in

the

spec

ific w

ilder

ness

Resu

lts be

nefit

visito

rs, sc

ientis

ts,

and m

anag

ers i

n an

y wild

erne

ss

Resu

lts be

nefit

local

visito

rs, re

siden

ts,

scien

tists,

and

mana

gers

Resu

lts be

nefit

regio

nal v

isitor

s, re

siden

ts, sc

ientis

ts,

and m

anag

ers

Resu

lts be

nefit

peop

le na

tiona

lly or

glo

bally

How

impo

rtan

t is

the a

ctivi

ty to

the

scien

tific

field

of

stud

y?

Simi

lar re

sear

ch

has b

een c

ondu

cted

many

times

befor

e an

d atte

mpts

to an

swer

relat

ively

trivial

ques

tions

Simi

lar re

sear

ch

has b

een c

ondu

cted

many

times

befor

e an

d atte

mpts

to an

swer

relat

ively

mino

r que

stion

s

Rese

arch

expa

nds

sligh

tly on

prev

ious

work

and a

ttemp

ts to

answ

er re

lative

ly mi

nor q

uesti

ons

Rese

arch

expa

nds

signif

icantl

y on

prev

ious w

ork a

nd

attem

pts to

answ

er

major

ques

tions

Rese

arch

is

grou

ndbr

eakin

g or

prec

eden

t sett

ing

for th

e fiel

d and

att

empts

to an

swer

ma

jor qu

estio

ns

Rese

arch

is

grou

ndbr

eakin

g or

prec

eden

t sett

ing

for th

e fiel

d and

att

empts

to an

swer

fun

dame

ntal

ques

tions

W

hat i

s the

bre

adth

of sc

ientif

ic in

quiry

?

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

, mino

r co

mpon

ent o

f the

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

syste

m wi

th litt

le aff

ect o

n othe

r co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

comp

onen

t of

the ec

osys

tem or

so

cial s

ystem

with

litt

le aff

ect o

n othe

r sy

stems

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

proc

ess o

f the

ecos

ystem

or

socia

l sys

tem th

at aff

ects

a mod

erate

nu

mber

of ot

her

comp

onen

ts

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on a

single

proc

ess o

f the

ecos

ystem

or

socia

l sys

tem th

at aff

ects

many

co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on m

any

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

proc

esse

s and

co

mpon

ents

Rese

arch

is

cond

ucted

on

ecos

ystem

or so

cial

proc

esse

s and

co

mpon

ents

comp

rehe

nsive

ly

Bene

fits A

sses

smen

t (Lo

w, M

ediu

m, H

igh)

=

Tota

l Ben

efits

Ass

essm

ent S

core

=


Page

12

IMPA

CTS AND BEN

EFITS FILTER

— IM

PACT

S ASSESSM

ENT W

ORK

SHEE

T Date_

____

__ App

lication # __

____

____

__ Sho

rt Title __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Impa

ct C

ateg

ory

Num

erica

l Sco

re o

f Im

pact

(0 =

negl

igib

le Im

pact

, 10 =

hig

h Im

pact

) Sc

ore

01

23

510

+Un

tram

mele

d Qu

ality

Mani

pulat

ion

No

ne

Sl

ight

Mode

rate

Larg

eRi

sk o

f Uni

nten

ded

Effe

cts

None

Sl

ight

Mode

rate

Larg

e

Dist

urba

nce

None

Small

Mode

rate

Larg

eNa

tura

l Qua

lity

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

U

nobt

rusiv

e No

ne

Small

amt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

rMo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

r Mo

d amt

, long

dur

Lrg a

mt, lo

ng du

ratio

n

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

O

btru

sive

None

Sml a

mt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

r Mo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

rMo

d amt

, long

dur

Lrg a

mt, lo

ng du

ratio

n

Colle

ctio

n Sc

arrin

g:

V

ery O

btru

sive

None

Sml a

mt, s

hort

dur

Mod a

mt, s

hort

dur

Sml a

mt, m

od du

r Lr

g amt

, sho

rt du

rMo

d amt

, mod

dur

Sml a

mt, lo

ng du

r

Lrg a

mt, m

od du

ratio

nMo

d or L

arge

amt, l

ong d

ur

Colle

ctio

n:

A

mou

nt an

d Ra

rity

None

An

y amo

unt, c

ommo

nSm

l amt

, unc

ommo

nMo

d amt

, unc

ommo

nLr

g amt

, unc

ommo

nSm

l amt

, of c

once

rn

Mod a

mt, o

f con

cern

Sml a

mt, r

are

Lrg a

mt, o

f con

cern

Med o

r larg

e amo

unt, r

are

Unde

velo

ped

Quali

tyTr

ansp

ort

Huma

non

ly 1-

12 st

ock d

ays

13-6

0 stoc

k day

s61

-90 s

tock d

ays

1-10

whe

eled d

ays

91-1

50 st

ock d

ays

10-1

5 whe

eled d

ays

151-

300 s

tock d

ays

16-3

0 whe

eled d

ays

1 moto

rized

use

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 30

stoc

k day

s +1

each

addtl

3 wh

eel d

ays

+10 e

ach a

ddtl m

otor u

se

Equi

pmen

tNo

ne

Any a

moun

t of

unob

trusiv

e use

An

y amo

unt o

f less

ob

trusiv

e use

1-

10 da

ys of

ob us

e11

-30 d

ays o

b use

1 d

ay ve

ry ob

use

30+

days

ob us

e2 d

ays v

ery o

b use

+5

each

day v

ery o

b use

Inst

allat

ions

:

Bar

ely D

iscer

nabl

e No

ne

1-50

, sho

rt du

ratio

n1-

40, m

od du

ratio

n1-

20, lo

ng du

ratio

n 51

-150

, sho

rt du

r41

-60,

mod d

ur

21-3

0, lon

g dur

151-

250,

shor

t dur

61

-100

, mod

dur

31-5

0, lon

g dur

251-

500,

shor

t dur

101-

200,

mod d

ur

51-1

00, lo

ng du

r

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 50

shor

t dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 20

mod

dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 10

long

dur

Inst

allat

ions

:

Uno

btru

sive

None

1-10

, sho

rt du

ratio

n11

-50,

shor

t dur

1-

10, m

ed du

r 51

-100

, sho

rt du

r11

-50,

mod d

ur

1-10

, long

dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 10

shor

t dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl 5

mod d

ur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl lo

ng du

r In

stall

atio

ns:

O

btru

sive

None

1-3,

shor

t dur

ation

4-5,

shor

t dur

1-

3, mo

d dur

1,

long d

ur

6-10

, sho

rt du

r4-

5, mo

d dur

2-

3, lon

g dur

+1 ea

ch ad

dtl sh

ort d

ur+2

each

addtl

mod

dur

+3 ea

ch ad

dtl lo

ng du

r In

stall

atio

ns:

V

ery O

btru

sive

None

1 sho

rt du

r+1

0 eac

h add

tl sho

rt du

r+2

0 eac

h add

tl mod

dur

+30 e

ach a

ddtl l

ong d

ur

Solit

ude o

r Prim

itive

and

Unco

nfin

ed Q

ualit

yGr

oup

Size

1-8

8-15

16+

(ove

r limi

t)Pe

rson

-Day

s/ Se

ason

1-50

51

-150

151+

Visit

or S

urve

ys

None

No

n-W

ilder

ness

Le

ss ob

trusiv

eMo

re ob

trusiv

eSu

rveil

lance

No

ne

Less

obtru

sive

Mod o

btrus

iveVe

ry ob

trusiv

e

Impa

cts A

sses

smen

t (Lo

w, M

ediu

m, H

igh)

=

Tota

l Impa

cts A

sses

smen

t Sco

re =

Impacts and Benefits Filter — Impacts Assessment Worksheet


IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — EXPLANATION OF ASSESSMENT SCORES WORKSHEET Explanation of Benefits Assessment Scores Benefits to Stewardship: Benefits to Science: Explanation of Impacts Assessment Scores Impacts to the Untrammeled Quality: Impacts to the Natural Quality: Impacts to the Undeveloped Quality:

Impacts to the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Quality:


IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — BENEFITS AND IMPACTS DECISION TABLE WORKSHEET

Date_______ Application # ____________ Short Title ________________________________

BENEFITS Low Medium High

IMPACTS Low

Medium High

In the prepared Benefits and Impacts Decision Table (see instructions), circle the intersection between the assigned benefits and impacts assessments.

If “Provisional Denial,” return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is being returned. Explanation: If “Provisional Approval,” go to the Cumulative Impacts Assessment. If “Uncertain,” discuss concerns with other management staff (as needed) and the scientist to determine if the benefits and impacts were properly assessed, re‐assess the proposal if needed, then go to the Cumulative Impacts Assessment. Explanation:

IMPACTS AND BENEFITS FILTER — CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Step 1: Are the additional impacts of the proposed scientific activity acceptable when viewed in the context of all the other impacts in the wilderness? If yes, the proposed activity is recommended for approval. If no, go to Step 2. Explanation: Step 2: Return the proposal for revision with an explanation of why it is being returned.

Explanation:

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Station HeadquartersRocky Mountain Research Station

240 W. Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada Fort Collins, Colorado Albuquerque, New Mexico Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Documents

A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific ... · A Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific Activities in Wilderness United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service