28
Revised 08/17/09 Wilderness Character Analysis Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative Angelina National Forest Prepared by Ira McWhorter Fire Ecologist National Forest and Grasslands in Texas March 23, 2009

Wilderness Character Analysis Upland Island Wilderness Fire …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Revised 08/17/09

Wilderness Character Analysis

Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative

Angelina National Forest

Prepared by

Ira McWhorter

Fire Ecologist

National Forest and Grasslands in Texas

March 23, 2009

Revised 08/17/09

1

INTRODUCTION

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas has proposed a project, entitled the Upland

Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative, to reduce hazardous fuels in Upland Island

Wilderness (UIW) on the Angelina National Forest through the use of prescribed

burning. The project proposal is to implement prescribed burning on as much as 11,990

acres within the wilderness and on an additional 990 acres on adjacent private property,

state lands and national forest lands. The proposed action alternatives include a No Burn

Area of approximately 1,260 acres in the vicinity of Graham and Cypress Creeks inside

UIW that would be excluded from prescribed fire.

The project will involve several cool season burns of approximately 220 to 5,180 acres.

These prescribed burns would occur on a 1 to 3 year cycle depending on weather, fuel,

and habitat conditions using hand ignition and aerial ignition methods.

The primary objective for burning is to reduce heavy accumulations of surface litter and

ladder fuels. The burns will be primarily conducted in the dormant season when weather

conditions are cooler, plants are dormant, and potential damage to overstory trees is

reduced. They will be conducted when the upper surface fuels are dry enough for

spreading head and flanking fires to remove a significant amount of the upper litter layer

but when the duff layer has ample moisture to protect the shallow root systems of mature

canopy trees. The initial burns will be conducted on short fire return intervals (annual or

biennial) in order to prevent the heavy, problematic fuel loadings that quickly materialize

when flammable shrubs re-sprout among the dead woody branches of recently top-killed

understory vegetation.

An important issue of concern that has been identified through the scoping process is the

effects on wilderness character and associated values. Although all aspects of wilderness

character are impossible to address, the following report provides an analysis of the

effects of the proposed alternatives on four important qualities of wilderness character

identified in the General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151, Monitoring Selected

Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework (Landres and others

2005).

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Upland Island Wilderness was established in 1984 and is situated in the southern part of

the Angelina National Forest. It is the largest of five wilderness areas established in

Texas and encompasses approximately 13,250 acres.

UIW is located in Management Area 7 (MA-7), Wilderness, as identified in the Revised

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the National Forests and Grasslands

in Texas (USDA Forest Service 1996). The desired future conditions for MA-7 are lands

that are administered to maintain or achieve a natural state. MA-7 permits prescribed fire

Revised 08/17/09

2

to manage wilderness as determined through site-specific environmental analysis that

addresses: (1) the role of fire in fire-dependent or related ecosystems, and (2) fuel

loadings which are a fire risk to resources and values outside of wilderness. This project

would occur primarily in upland sites dominated by pine or pine-hardwood within MA-7.

Riparian areas that lie adjacent to upland sites would be included in the prescribed burns

where they cannot be excluded without the construction of ground-disturbing fire control

lines. Fire would not be directly applied to riparian areas; rather, low intensity fire would

be allowed to back into streamside vegetation where it generally goes out naturally.

Two upland Ecological Management Units (EMUs) and two broader Landtype

Associations are represented within UIW. The southern portion of the wilderness is

located in the Catahoula EMU in the Mayflower Uplands Landtype Association and the

northern portion lies within the Manning EMU in the Sandy Uplands Landtype

Association. Historically, longleaf pine was a major vegetation type in both of these

EMUs. Longleaf pine in association with bluejack oak and blackjack oak characterized

the Catahoula EMU in the Mayflower Uplands in the southern portion of UIW. Longleaf

pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly pine-hardwood communities characterized the Manning

EMU in the Sandy Uplands, depending on topographic position and soil conditions.

(Stephen F. Austin State University 2004, USDA Forest Service 1996)

The longleaf pine ecosystems of Upland Island Wilderness are dependent on a natural

fire regime of frequent, low-intensity surface fires (Wade and others 2000) which limit

the encroachment of fire sensitive pines and hardwoods and maintain open conditions

that favor longleaf pine regeneration and diverse herbaceous communities including

numerous rare and endemic species.

WILDERNESS CHARACTER AND VALUES

Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states that ―…each agency administering any

area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character

of the area…‖ This legal mandate forms the overriding principle guiding management

of all wilderness areas (U.S. Congress 1983) and establishes wilderness character as a

core concept of the wilderness ideal.

Wilderness character is not defined in the Wilderness Act, however, upon exploring the

historical writings of its framers, three mutually reinforcing societal ideals emerge that

are integral to the historic purpose of wilderness and to understanding wilderness

character (Landres and others 2005, Kaye 2000, 2002, Nash 2004, Scott 2002).

Natural environments relatively free from modern human manipulation and

impacts. These environments include the native plants and animals, ecological

and evolutionary processes (including disturbances such as fire and insect

outbreaks), clean air, natural sounds, dark night skies, and the scenic quality that

come from such places.

Personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the

encumbrances and signs of modern society. Wilderness visitors may derive a

Revised 08/17/09

3

broad range of psychological benefits from experiences of challenge, self-

reliance, and self-discovery, as well as spiritual benefits. These experiences and

benefits are highly individual, and preserving wilderness character allows visitors

the freedom to experience wilderness in their individual ways.

Symbolic meanings associated with wilderness. In general, these symbolic

meanings of wilderness are associated with experiences and feelings of humility,

self restraint, and being part of and interconnected with the larger community of

life.

In summary, wilderness character may be described as the combination of biophysical,

experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguishes wilderness from other lands. These

ideals combine to form a complex and subtle set of relationships between the land, its

management, and the meanings people associate with wilderness (Landres and others

2005).

―At its core, wilderness character, like personal character, is much more than a physical

condition. It is an unseen presence capable of refocusing our perception of nature and

our relationship to it (Kaye 2000).‖ This transcendent quality of wilderness is expressed

by Howard Zahniser (1956), the chief author and originator of the Wilderness Act, when

he wrote ―… to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one‘s

littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.‖

To understand wilderness character, one must look to the definition of wilderness in

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (Rohlf and Honnold 1988, Scott 2002, McCloskey

1999) which states ―A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works

dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its

community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not

remain.‖ In this text, Zahniser (1959) used to the word ―untrammeled‖ to convey the

idea of ―not being subject to human controls that hamper the free play of natural forces.‖

However, his intent went beyond protecting physical conditions or natural processes from

human manipulations and impacts. He also recognized the importance of preserving the

opportunities for personal experiences in natural environments that are relatively free

from the encumbrances and signs of modern society (Kaye 2000, Scott 2002) and

embracing the symbolic meanings associated with wilderness such as feelings of humility

and being part of and interconnected with the larger community of life (Landres and

others 2005).

Section 2(c) goes further in describing wilderness as ―… an area of Federal land retaining

its primeval character and influence…protected and managed to preserve its natural

conditions and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of

nature, with the imprint of man‘s work substantially unnoticeable.‖ It also states that

wilderness ―has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type

of recreation…and may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,

educational, scenic, or historical value.‖

Revised 08/17/09

4

Using the definition of wilderness from Section 2(c), four qualities of wilderness

character have been identified that allow a relevant, tangible and practical application to

forest planning and effects analysis (Landres and others 2005, 2008). These four

qualities as discussed below, address the perceptions and meanings associated with

wilderness character at a national level as well as the unique, local attributes of Upland

Island Wilderness including the specific values for which it was established, the

management direction established through the Limits of Acceptable Change planning

process, and relationships people have with the area.

There are also the intangible and symbolic qualities that are central to wilderness

character but mean different things to different people and are more difficult to quantify

or evaluate. These qualities are discussed within this document but not specifically

addressed in the effects analysis, however they are hopefully re-enforced and

strengthened through the management approach and the spirit in which the proposal has

been developed and the analysis conducted.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

The following analysis assumes that for all action alternatives each unit will be burned at

least 3 times during the first 6 years of the project. This is considered the minimum

needed to show substantial progress in achieving project objectives. Table A provides a

summary of the effects of each alternative on each of the four character qualities and

includes both quantitative and adjective descriptors.

Untrammeled Quality – Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern

human control or manipulation.

The Wilderness Act, Section 2(c) states that wilderness is ―hereby recognized as an area

where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.‖ The word

―untrammeled‖ is rarely used in ordinary conversation, but Howard Zahniser, the primary

author of the Wilderness Act, used untrammeled as a key word in the definition of

wilderness. Zahniser (1959) used to the word ―untrammeled‖ to convey the idea of ―not

being subject to human controls that hamper the free play of natural forces (Scott 2002).‖

Since passage of the Act, the word untrammeled and its meaning for wilderness

stewardship have been discussed at length (Landres and others 2005, Aplet 1999, Scott

2002). Untrammeled means ―allowed to run free‖ (American Heritage Dictionary 2006).

Synonyms for untrammeled include unrestrained, unmanipulated, unrestricted,

unhindered, unimpeded, unencumbered, self-willed, and wild.

Zahniser (1963) noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation ―is to use ‗skill,

judgment, and ecologic sensitivity‘ for the protection of some areas within which natural

forces may operate without man‘s management and manipulation.‖ Wilderness is very

different than other lands in that legislation dictates not only the goals of stewardship, but

how management is to be approached—with humility and with an eye toward not

Revised 08/17/09

5

interfering with nature and not manipulating the land and its community of life (Landres

and others 2005).

Actions that intentionally manipulate or control ecological systems inside wilderness

degrade the untrammeled quality of wilderness character, even though they may be taken

to restore natural conditions. For example, management ignited fire in Upland Island

Wilderness is proposed to be used, in part, as a first step in restoring the natural role of

fire. Such an action will diminish the untrammeled quality of wilderness in the short-

term, however, it will enhance the natural quality of wilderness over the long-term and

may eventually lead to reduced trammeling by creating conditions that will enhance

opportunities for managing lightning-caused wildfires to achieve wilderness objectives.

Unlike the management of any other land in the Nation, wilderness legislation directs the

managing agency to scrutinize its actions and minimize control or interference with

plants, animals, soils, water-bodies, and natural processes. The Wilderness Act

distinguishes ―untrammeled‖ quality from the ―natural quality‖, although the two are

clearly linked. In essence, the untrammeled quality relates to actions that intentionally

manipulate or control ecological systems, whereas the natural quality relates to the

intentional and unintentional effects from actions taken inside wilderness as well as from

external forces on these systems. Accordingly, ―untrammeled‖ suggests more about the

process of management rather than the outcomes. It refers to means rather than ends and

emphasizes the lack of human control rather than the lack of human influence (Cole

2000).

Affected Environment

Currently, there are no planned actions being taken in Upland Island that manipulate

ecological systems or processes. However, due to the heavy fuel loadings and their

associated risks to lives and property, fire suppression is currently used and will likely

continue to be used in initial response to all natural and unnatural ignitions. When fire

suppression is used, the untrammeled quality of wilderness is diminished.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The spatial boundaries for the direct and indirect effects analysis for the untrammeled

quality are the wilderness boundaries and the temporal boundaries are ten years. Short

term effects are those of short duration occurring within the first six years of the project.

Long term effects are those that persist for up to 10 years following the initiation of the

project.

The measures for evaluating the effects on the untrammeled quality are the number of

manipulating actions (i.e. prescribed burns), the extent and magnitude of those actions

(i.e. number of acres affected and the intensity of the manipulation), and the degree to

which those actions impact the future options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to

restore the natural role of fire.

Revised 08/17/09

6

Alternative 1-No Action

The no action alternative would both maintain and diminish the untrammeled qualities of

wilderness character. It would maintain the untrammeled quality by not allowing any

prescribed burning activities that manipulate wilderness ecosystems. However, the

argument can be made that it would also result in major long-term adverse effects on the

untrammeled quality by limiting the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to

restore the natural role of fire. Due to the heavy fuel loadings and associated risks, it

would be necessary to continue the use of fire suppression strategies and tactics in initial

response to all unplanned ignitions including lightning-caused ignitions.

Due to the small size of the wilderness and fragmentation of the surrounding landscape,

the frequent, low intensity surface fires that characterized the natural fire regime no

longer occur. As a result, uncharacteristically heavy fuel loadings have developed that

could potentially result in extreme high intensity or severity wildfires with undesirable

consequences. Without the use of prescribed burning to reduce these fuel loadings,

lightning ignited fires will need to be suppressed due to the increased risks to firefighters,

private property and the wilderness resource.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

This alternative would result in some level of trammeling in the short-term, however, it

would also enhance to some degree the untrammeled quality in the long-term by re-

establishing the natural fuel and vegetation conditions that would allow a broader range

of options for managing lightning-caused wildfires. This would help achieve the

wilderness fire management objective of restoring the natural role of fire.

This alternative would consist of an estimated 3 actions (prescribed burns) per year for

the first 6 years. The extent of the actions would be 11,990 acres burned during the

course of the project. The number of actions would represent a minor, short-term

negative effect that would be only slightly detectable with no overbearing results on

wilderness character. Even though the actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions

would represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the fact that these burns would

closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate

the natural ecosystem. Forest Service records indicate the lightning ignitions have been

recorded in all months of the year on the NFGT (Jurney and others, 2004). The fact that

the proposed burns were management ignited and not natural events would be unapparent

to most wilderness visitors once operations are complete.

There would be a major, long-term, beneficial effect by restoring fuel conditions over the

entire wilderness that would provide managers more options for managing lightning-

caused wildfires to achieve wilderness fire management objectives.

Revised 08/17/09

7

Alternative 3

First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.

This alternative would require an average of 13 actions (prescribed burns) per year for the

first 6 years in order to meet the objective of 3 burns per unit. The extent of the actions

would be 11,990 acres burned during the course of the project. The number of actions

per year (13) would represent a major short-term negative effect that would be highly

noticeable to the wilderness observer. Even though the actions are extensive, the

magnitude of the actions would represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the

fact that these burns would closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore

not substantially manipulate the natural ecosystem. The fact that these burns were

management ignited and not natural events would be unapparent to most wilderness

visitors once operations are complete.

There would be a major, long-term, beneficial effect by restoring fuel conditions over the

entire wilderness that would provide managers more options for managing lightning-

caused wildfires to achieve wilderness fire management objectives.

Alternative 4

First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.

This alternative would consist of an estimated 5 actions (prescribed burns) implemented

per year for the first 6 years. The extent of the actions would be 6,610 wilderness acres

burned during the course of the project. The number of actions per year would represent

a moderate short-term negative effect that would be clearly detectable with potential for

appreciable effects on the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. Even though the

actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions would represent a minor, short-term

negative effect due to the fact that these burns would closely mimic the natural fire

processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate the natural ecosystem. The

fact that these burns were management ignited and not natural events would be

unapparent to most wilderness visitors once operations are complete.

Because only 6,610 acres of wilderness would be burned, there would be a minor,

beneficial effect of improving the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to

achieve wilderness fire management objectives.

Alternative 5

First paragraph is the same as Alternative 2.

This alternative would require an estimated 7 or 8 actions (prescribed burns)

implemented per year for the first 6 years in order for each unit to be burned at least three

times during this period. The extent of the actions would be 6,610 wilderness acres

burned during the course of the project. Seven or eight actions per year would represent

Revised 08/17/09

8

a major short-term negative effect that would be highly noticeable to the wilderness

observer. Even though the actions are extensive, the magnitude of the actions would

represent a minor, short-term negative effect due to the fact that these burns would

closely mimic the natural fire processes and would therefore not substantially manipulate

the natural ecosystem. The fact that these burns were management ignited and not

natural events would be unapparent to most wilderness visitors once operations are

complete.

Because only 6,610 acres of wilderness would be burned, there would be a minor,

beneficial effect of improving the options for managing lightning-caused wildfires to

achieve wilderness fire management objectives.

Cumulative Effects

For cumulative effects, the area considered includes the wilderness, all Forest Service

lands within the Longleaf Ridge Special Area (MA-6) and all private lands adjacent to

the wilderness and east of State Highway 69. The temporal boundaries are the period

between wilderness designation and twenty years from the initiation of the project.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Fire suppression since wilderness designation has resulted in uncharacteristically heavy

fuel loadings and alteration (trammeling) of many of the natural processes associated

with a frequent fire regime. In addition, the current conditions preclude many options for

managing lightning-caused wildfire to achieve wilderness fire management objectives

due to the risk to resources within and outside wilderness boundaries. The cumulative

effects from these past actions coupled with a continuation of fire suppression would

result in adverse long-term impacts to the untrammeled quality of Upland Island

Wilderness.

Alternatives 2-5

A continuation of the current prescribed burning programs on adjacent federal lands and

cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners would result in more defensible fire

breaks along wilderness boundaries. This should enhance the untrammeled condition in

wilderness by allowing managers greater flexibility in responding to unplanned ignitions

within the wilderness including management of lightning-caused wildfires to achieve

wilderness fire management objectives. This would probably result in a moderate

positive effect.

Continued fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in more

trammeling due to the concern for private property and the perceived need to actively

suppress wildland fire. This would probably result in a slight negative effect.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would generally represent a continuation of the relative extent, duration, and

Revised 08/17/09

9

intensity levels of trammeling discussed above (see direct and indirect effects) for each

alternative. Depending on the objectives of future proposed projects, trammeling may be

reduced due to a decrease in the frequency of prescribed burning and increased frequency

in the management of lightning-caused wilfires to achieve wilderness fire management

objectives.

Natural Quality – Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects

of modern civilization.

One of the major themes running throughout the 1964 Wilderness Act is that wilderness

should be free from the effects of ―an increasing population, accompanied by expanding

settlement and growing mechanization‖ and that the ―earth and its community of life…is

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions‖ and to retain ―its primeval

character and influence‖ (Sections 2(a) and 2(c), respectively). In today‘s terms, this

means that the native species composition, structures and functions of ecological systems

in wilderness are protected and allowed to be on their own, without the planned

intervention or the unintended effects of modern civilization (Landres and others 2008).

Affected Environment

The natural qualities of Upland Island Wilderness have been altered due to the fact that

fires no longer burn with the frequency and intensity that characterized the natural fire

regime. Several factors have contributed to the situation: a) Upland Island Wilderness is

too small to receive enough natural ignitions within its boundaries to sustain the

frequency of the historic fire regime, b) human use and development in the surrounding

landscape and effective fire suppression have prevented wildland fire from spreading into

the wilderness from adjacent lands, and c) heavy fuel loadings resulting from years of fire

exclusion create the potential for high intensity and severity wildfires and the need for

continued fire suppression in wilderness. The result is that the structure, composition and

function of Upland Island Wilderness ecosystems have undergone considerable changes

and are no longer within the range of natural variability.

In order to understand the effects of the proposed action on natural qualities in Upland

Island Wilderness, it is important to establish baseline or reference conditions. Most

reference conditions are based on accounts of pre-settlement ecosystems and where this

information is lacking, reference conditions are typically based on the conditions at the

time of wilderness designation. Both pre-settlement and more recent conditions in

Upland Island Wilderness have been examined and described in several documents

(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004, Orzell 1990, LeGrande 1998,

McWhorter 2005).

In summary, these documents describe reference conditions consisting of: a wide variety

of habitat types resulting in an excellent representation of plant and animal species

(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, LeGrande 1998); extensive uplands supporting

open, spacious, park-like stands of longleaf pine with considerable aesthetic appeal

(Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004); widespread, herbaceous understory

Revised 08/17/09

10

communities with an excellent representation of East Texas species including 46

infrequent, rare or very rare species (Stephen F. Austin State University 1980, 2004,

Orzell 1990); the most extensive seepage bog system in the region with more than 20

hillside seepage areas, five of which contained pitcher plants (Sarracenia alata) (Stephen

F. Austin State University 1980, Orzell 1990); four colonies of red-cockaded

woodpeckers consisting of approximately 21 birds (Stephen F. Austin State University

1980); a wide variety of mammals, herpetofauna, insects and birds (Stephen F. Austin

State University 1980); and average fuel loadings of approximately 3 tons per acre

(Stephen F. Austin State University 2004, McWhorter 2005).

The inferred natural fire regime of Upland Island Wilderness is characterized by frequent

wide-spreading, low-intensity surface fires resulting from lightning-ignitions that

occurred throughout the year but mostly during the growing season. Natural fire return

intervals for the upland longleaf pine communities are estimated to be 1 to 4 years; for

shortleaf pine-hardwood communities, fire return intervals range from about 2 to 6 years;

and for mixed pine-hardwood communities within transitional areas along major streams,

the fire return intervals are probably about 5 to 10 years (Stephen F. Austin State

University 2004, Chapman 1932, Wahlenburg 1946, Platt and others 1988, Landers and

others 1990, Martin and Smith 1991, Ware and others 1993, Frost 1993, 1998,

Glitzenstein and others 1995, Harcombe and others 1993, Wade and others 2000).

Direct and Indirect Effects

The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

The measure for evaluating the effects on natural qualities is the number of acres where

there is substantial progress in moving the structure, composition and function of

wilderness ecosystems toward historic reference conditions within the range of natural

variability. It is assumed that substantial progress in a burn unit will be achieved when

that unit is burned at least three times during the first six years of the project.

Alternative 1- No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in continued degradation of natural conditions

within the wilderness including encroachment of dense woody understory growth, loss of

the native pyrophytic herbaceous layer, limited regeneration of longleaf pine, loss of

biodiversity and reduced fire frequency. There would also continue to be a buildup of

hazardous fuels with an increased potential for high intensity fires that are

uncharacteristic of the natural fire regime and that pose an unacceptable risk to lives and

property and to the wilderness resource.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

This alternative would enhance natural qualities and ecological values by restoring fire-

related processes and moving the ecosystem toward the structure, composition and

function characteristic of historical reference conditions within the range of natural

Revised 08/17/09

11

variability. Although most natural fire events occur during the growing season, lightning

ignitions can occur throughout the year (Jurney and others 2004), and therefore the

proposed initial dormant season and early growing season burns are within the range of

natural variability and would approximate the ecological effects that were characteristic

of the natural fire regime. Specifically, the prescribed fires will reduce the dense

encroachment of understory woody vegetation, remove heavy accumulations of litter,

stimulate recovery of herbaceous communities, promote longleaf regeneration and

improve native wildlife habitat. The restoration of natural fuel loadings will also increase

the number of options for managing lightning-caused wildland fire to achieve wilderness

fire management objectives. This will improve natural qualities of wilderness character.

This alternative would result in major, long term beneficial effects on approximately

11,990 acres within the wilderness.

Alternative 3

Same as Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Same as Alternative 2 except that the effects will be moderate because they would only

be realized on 6,610 acres of the wilderness.

Alternative 5

Same as Alternative 2 except that the effects will be moderate because they would only

be realized on 6,610 acres of the wilderness.

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Fire suppression since wilderness designation has resulted in uncharacteristically heavy

fuel loadings and changes in the natural structure, composition and function of fire

adapted ecosystems in the wilderness. In addition, the current conditions preclude many

options for managing lightning-caused wildland fires due to the risk to resources within

and outside wilderness boundaries. The cumulative effects from these past actions

coupled with a continuation of fire suppression would result in adverse long-term impacts

to the natural quality of Upland Island Wilderness.

Alternatives 2-5

A continuation of the current prescribed burning programs on adjacent federal lands and

the implementation of burning on adjacent private lands would enhance natural qualities

Revised 08/17/09

12

of the wilderness by allowing managers greater flexibility in responding to unplanned

ignitions within the wilderness including management of lightning-caused wildfires to

achieve wilderness fire management objectives. These activities would also enhance the

opportunity for extirpated species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker to re-colonize

the wilderness.

Continued fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in loss of natural

qualities due to the concern for private property and the perceived need to actively

suppress all unplanned wildfires including lightning-caused ignitions.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would further enhance natural qualities and ecological values by restoring

fire-related processes and moving the ecosystem toward the structure, composition and

function characteristic of historical reference conditions within the range of natural

variability.

Undeveloped quality – Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or

modern human occupation.

Wilderness is defined in Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act as ―an area of

undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without

permanent improvements or human habitation,‖ with ―the imprint of man‘s work

substantially unnoticeable.‖ The basic idea that wilderness is undeveloped runs through

every definition of wilderness. For example, Aldo Leopold (1921) envisioned wilderness

as ―a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open to lawful hunting

and fishing, devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages, or other works of man.‖ Hubert

Humphrey (1957), an original sponsor of the Wilderness Act, clarified his definition of

wilderness as ―the native condition of the area, undeveloped… untouched by the hand of

man or his mechanical products.‖ The Wilderness Act identifies ―expanding settlement

and growing mechanization‖ as forces causing wild country to become occupied and

modified, and further clarifies in Section 4(c) that ―there shall be no temporary road, no

use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no

other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation.‖

An early Forest Service review of wilderness policy (USDA Forest Service 1972) found

that motorized equipment and mechanical transport make it easier for people to occupy

and modify the land. Zahniser (1956) articulated this idea when he argued the need for

―areas of the earth within which we stand without our mechanisms that make us

immediate masters over our environment.‖ While the use of motorized equipment or

mechanical transport affects the opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet and

primitive recreation, these uses also impact the undeveloped quality due to their close

association with people‘s ability to develop, occupy, and modify wilderness.

Human developments can also degrade both the undeveloped quality and the solitude or

primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Following the Interagency Strategy to

Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character, all non-recreational developments (such as

Revised 08/17/09

13

administrative sites, dams, stock fencing, fixed instrumentation sites, or trails and roads

used to access inholdings) are included in the undeveloped quality. All recreation-

focused developments (such as trails, campsites, shelters, or toilets) are included in the

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. For the purposes of this effects

analysis, the construction and maintenance of fire breaks are included in the undeveloped

quality and the use of motorized equipment is included in the opportunities for solitude or

primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Affected Environment

There are currently no significant signs of human development in the wilderness except

for approximately 17.5 miles of old abandoned road beds. Many of these were surfaced

with gravel in the past and are fairly free of vegetation. Others are badly overgrown

however most all are clearly detectable to the visitor. The presence of these roads will

likely be evident for many years due to the hardened surfaces, the limitations to

vegetation growth on these hardened surfaces, occasional culverts and bridges, and deep

roadside ditches.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

The measures for evaluating the effects on the undeveloped quality is the number of

miles of constructed fire breaks on both abandoned road beds and on natural undisturbed

surfaces, and the number of days of helicopter and motorized equipment use. The effects

of construction of exterior lines and preparing natural fuel breaks are the same for all

action alternatives.

Alternative 1-No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no effect to the undeveloped quality of

wilderness character.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

The effects from construction of exterior lines will be the same for all alternatives and the

magnitude of the effect would depend on whether the lines are on private lands or within

the wilderness. Currently, there are signed agreements with private landowners that

allow establishing control lines on approximately 10.7 miles of the 13.5 miles of private

lands adjacent to the wilderness boundary. This represents about 79% of the total

exterior lines needed for the project. In general, the effects of establishing the remaining

2.9 miles of lines in wilderness would be minor, due to the fact that they would be short

term in duration and only slightly detectable to the visitor and would not have an

overbearing effect on other wilderness character qualities.

Revised 08/17/09

14

This alternative would establish cleared interior control lines along old road beds and no

lines on natural undistrubed surfaces. The effects from the interior line construction are

considered minor, short-term negative effects because they involve approximately 6.3

miles and would be only slightly detectable as they are located on old road beds that are

still relatively open. The impacts would result in very little ground disturbance and, once

burns are completed, vegetation and litter cover should rapidly return to pre-burn

conditions.

The effects of preparing natural fuel breaks would be very minor, short-term effects

occurring in very scattered, localized areas that would be of very short duration and only

slightly detectable to visitors.

Helicopter use would average around 3 days per year and use of motorized equipment

such as leafblowers and water pumps would be about 3. These effects are minor, short-

term effects with no overbearing results on wilderness character.

Alternative 3

The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.

This alternative would involve the construction of approximately 33 miles of interior

lines including 17.6 miles on old road beds and 15.4 miles on previously undisturbed

surfaces. The effects would be considered major due to the amount of constructed fire

lines and the extent and magnitude of disturbance to previously undisturbed surfaces.

The impacts on the undisturbed surfaces would also be of greater intensity than on the

road beds due to the greater amount of soil disturbance and vegetation manipulation that

would be needed. The effects would be highly noticeable to visitors and would have

substantial impact on wilderness character.

There would be no use of helicopters or motorized equipment.

Alternative 4

The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.

There are approximately 12.7 miles of constructed interior lines including approximately

6.2 miles on old road beds and 6.5 miles on previously undisturbed surfaces. The overall

effects would be considered moderate, short-term due to the moderate amount of

encounters visitors would have with constructed interior lines and the moderate

magnitude of disturbance to previously undisturbed surfaces.

Helicopter use would average around 5 days per year and use of motorized equipment

would be about 10. These effects are moderate, short-term effects that are clearly

detectable with some potential for appreciable effect on wilderness character.

Revised 08/17/09

15

Alternative 5

The effects of exterior lines and natural fuel breaks are the same as Alternative 2.

The overall effects of line construction are the same as Alternative 3, except that there are

approximately 18.3 miles of constructed interior lines including approximately 9.9 miles

on old road beds and 8.4 miles on previously undisturbed surfaces.

There would be no use of helicopters or motorized equipment.

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

Alternative 1-No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no cumulative effect to the undeveloped

quality of wilderness character.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The re-opening of the trail systems and recreational sites at nearby Boykin Springs and

Bouton Lake could result in increased recreational use in the wilderness. Utilization of

the established control lines in wilderness as travel corridors may result in continued

evidence of human occupancy and use and adversely affect the undeveloped quality of

wilderness character.

Because the established lines are limited to old road beds that are fairly resistant to

human impacts, the effects would probably be minor and only slightly detectable.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would be continued maintenance of the cleared fire lines and continued

evidence of human use at the same relative levels as in the direct effects analysis.

However, these effects could be mitigated by redesigning burn units to utilize more

natural fire breaks in lieu of constructed hand lines. This will be feasible once fuel

reduction objectives are achieved.

Alternative 3

First paragraph same as Alternative 2.

Because the established lines consist of numerous old road beds as well as previously

undisturbed surfaces that are vulnerable to human impacts, the effects would probably be

major and highly detectable by visitors.

Revised 08/17/09

16

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

First paragraph same as Alternative 2.

The effects would be the same as Alternative 3 except the intensity would probably be

moderate due to the amount of constructed lines.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Alternative 5

First paragraph same as Alternative 2.

The effects would be the same as Alternative 3.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality –

Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation, including values of inspiration and physical and mental

challenge.

The Wilderness Act states in Section 2(c) that wilderness has ―outstanding opportunities

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.‖ The intended meaning of

this wording by the framers of the Wilderness Act isn‘t recorded in the legislative history

of the Act, however, early wilderness writings of Aldo Leopold, Robert Marshall,

Howard Zahniser, and others paint a rich picture of the type of experience envisioned in

wilderness environments (see Landres and others 2005 for examples). These writings

strongly enforce the vital role of solitude in places that are primitive and unconfined as

central to the idea of wilderness.

The meanings associated with solitude range from a lack of seeing other people to

privacy, freedom from societal constraints and obligations, and freedom from

management regulations (Hall 2001). Given the content of early wilderness writings, it is

likely that solitude was viewed holistically, encompassing attributes such as separation

from people and civilization, inspiration (an awakening of the senses, connection with the

beauty of nature and the larger community of life), and a sense of timelessness (allowing

one to let go of day-to-day obligations, go at one‘s own pace, and spend time reflecting).

Primitive and unconfined recreation has also been the subject of much debate. Primitive

recreation has largely been interpreted as travel by non-motorized and non-mechanical

Revised 08/17/09

17

means (for example by horse, foot, or canoe) that reinforces the connection to our

ancestors and American heritage. However, primitive recreation also encompasses

reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities

or outside help (Roggenbuck 2004).

Unconfined encompasses attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom

from societal or managerial controls (Hendee and Dawson 2002, Lucas 1983). Primitive

and unconfined environments together provide ideal opportunities for the physical and

mental challenges associated with adventure, real consequences for mistakes, and

personal growth that result from facing and overcoming obstacles (Borrie 2000, Dustin

and McAvoy 2000).

Many different factors contribute in different ways to the experience of solitude or

primitive and unconfined recreation (Hendee and Dawson 2002) and as a result it is

difficult to evaluate the effects for each person. The mandate of the Wilderness Act is

not for individuals to want or appreciate solitude or unconfined recreation, but for

wilderness manager‘s to provide outstanding opportunities for one to experience these

qualities.

Affected Environment

Currently, the opportunities for solitude and a primitive and unconfined recreation are

found in most interior areas of the wilderness. Sights and sounds of civilization are more

evident near the wilderness boundaries. For some people the un-natural dense vegetation

growth in some areas may create a sense of confinement and detract from the connection

with the beauty of nature. Others may find these conditions opportunities for physical

and mental challenges.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

The measures used to evaluate the effects are the duration and extent to which the actions

diminish opportunities for finding solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

Although the noise and visual presence of fire crews in wilderness would diminish the

visitor‘s opportunities, it is likely that wilderness closures for safety precautions will be

the primary cause of lost opportunities during prescribed burning operations. Therefore,

the most relevant factor is the number of days that the wilderness is closed due to

prescribed burn operations and not the level of noise or presence of fire crews and

helicopters that would diminish the opportunities to experience solitude or unconfined

recreation. It is assumed that each burn will require about three days of closure.

For initial line preparation, no motorized equipment is used in any of the alternatives, and

the measure is the total number of days that fire crews are working in the wilderness

preparing lines.

Revised 08/17/09

18

Alternative 1- No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no effects on existing opportunities.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

This alternative would diminish opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined

recreation, however, the effects would be localized and occur only during days that line

preparation or prescribed burning activities are in progress. During periods with no

burning activities, the opportunities would increase as more areas of the wilderness

would be accessible for finding solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

Assuming an average of 3 burns per year and a three day operation for each burn, the

estimated maximum number of days per year with loss of opportunities would be

approximately 9. There would also be an additional 7 days of line preparation the first

year which would limit opportunities for solitude or recreation on a localized basis. The

overall effect would be minor due to the number of days where opportunities are lost.

Lost opportunities would only be slightly detectable to wilderness visitors.

Alternative 3

1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.

Assuming a maximum of 13 burns would be feasible in any one year, the estimated

number of days per year with loss of due to prescribed burning operations would be

approximately 39. There would also be an additional 35 days of line preparation for each

of the first two years of the project totaling 70 days for the project with localized effects.

The overall effect would be major due to the number of days where opportunities are lost.

The high degree of lost opportunities would have a highly noticeable influence on visitors

and a potential for substantial effects on wilderness character.

Alternative 4

1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.

Assuming a maximum of 5 burns would be conducted in any one year, the estimated

maximum number of days per year with loss of opportunities would be approximately 15.

There would also be an additional 29 days of line preparation the first year of the project.

The overall effect would be moderate due to the number of days where opportunities are

lost. The moderate degree of lost opportunities would be clearly detectable to visitors

and have an appreciable effect on wilderness character.

Revised 08/17/09

19

Alternative 5

1st paragraph same as Alternative 2.

Assuming a maximum of 8 burns in any one year, the estimated maximum number of

days per year with loss of opportunities would be approximately 24. There would also be

an additional 39 days of line preparation the first year of the project. The overall effect

would be major due to the number days where opportunities are lost. The high degree of

lost opportunities would have a highly noticeable influence on visitors and a potential for

substantial effects on wilderness character.

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and temporal boundaries are the same as in the untrammeled quality analysis.

Alternative 1-No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no cumulative effects to the opportunities for

solitude and recreation.

Alternatives 2-5

The opening of the forest through burning in conjunction with the continued

fragmentation and development of adjacent lands may result in a decrease in

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation by increasing the sights

and sounds of human activities near wilderness boundaries.

The cumulative effects from any future projects to conduct prescribed burning in the

wilderness would be to continually limit opportunities at the same relative levels as in the

direct effects analysis. Depending on the design and objectives of future proposed

projects, opportunities may be increased due to a decrease in the frequency of prescribed

burning and reduction in the amount of constructed hand line needed in the wilderness.

Revised 08/17/09

1

Table A. Summary of Effects Analysis

Quality Indicator

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor

Untrammeled

estimated number of

actions

(burns)/year*

0 no effect 3 minor

short-term

negative

effect

13 major short-

term negative

effect

5 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

8 major short-

term negative

effect

extent and intensity

of actions (acres

burned and the

degree of

manipulation)

0 no effect 11,990 minor

short-term

negative

effect

11,990 minor short-

term negative

effect

6,610 minor

short-term

negative

effect

6,610 minor short-

term negative

effect

acres of wilderness

with improved

conditions for

managing lightning

ignitions

0 major

long-term

negative

effects

11,990 major

long-term

positive

effects

11,990 major long-

term positive

effects

6,610 minor

long-term

positive

effects

6,610 minor long-

term positive

effects

Natural

acres of wilderness

with improved

ecological attributes

(structure,

composition and

function)

0 major

long-term

negative

effects

11,990 major

long-term

positive

effects

11,990 major long-

term positive

effects

6,610 moderate

long-term

positive

effects

6,610 moderate

long-term

positive

effects

Revised 08/17/09

2

Quality Indicator

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor

Undeveloped

miles of constructed

control lines on old

road beds

0 no effect 6.3 minor short-

term

negative

effect

17.5 major short-

term negative

effect

6.2 minor short-

term

negative

effect

9.9 moderate

short-term

negative effect

miles of constructed

control lines on

undisturbed surfaces

0 no effect 0 no effect 15.6 major short-

term negative

effect

6.6 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

8.5 major short-

term negative

effect

estimated number of

days/year with

helicopter use over

wilderness

0 no effect 3 minor short-

term

negative

effect

0 no effect 5 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

0 no effect

estimated number of

days/year with

motorized

equipment (leaf-

blowers, water

pumps) use within

wilderness

0 no effect 3 minor short-

term

negative

effect

0 no effect 10 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

0 no effect

Revised 08/17/09

3

Quality Indicator

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor Quantity Descriptor

Opportunities

for solitude or

primitive and

unconfined

recreation

estimated number of

days/year with

wilderness closures

due to implementing

burns and mop-up**

0 no effect 9 minor short-

term

negative

effect

39 major short-

term negative

effect

15 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

24 major short-

term negative

effect

estimated total

number of days with

fire crews

conducting initial

line preparation***

0 no effect 7 minor short-

term

negative

effect

70 major short-

term negative

effect

29 moderate

short-term

negative

effect

39 major short-

term negative

effect

*Assumes roughly one/half of the units will be burned each year with each unit being burned at least three times within the first six years of the project.

**Assumes 3 day operation for each burn including preparation, implementation and mop-up

***Assumes a 20 man crew with production rate of 1 mile per day on abandoned roads and .3 miles per day on undisturbed surfaces.

Definitions of Adjective Descriptors of Effects Used in Analysis:

Measures Descriptors Definition

Duration

short-term temporary in duration and occurring within the first 6 years of the project

long-term long lasting effects that persist for up to 10 years

Magnitude

negligible not detectable to the visitor with no discernible outcomes

minor slightly detectable though not expected to have overbearing results on wilderness character

moderate clearly detectable with potential for appreciable effect on one or more aspects of wilderness character

major highly noticeable influence on the visitor's experience with potential for substantial effects on one or more aspects of wilderness character

Extent

minor occurs at site specific locations within the wilderness

major occurs across large areas of wilderness

Revised 08/17/09

4

Revised 08/17/09

5

References

American Heritage Dictionary, fourth ed. 2006. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,

MA. 2112 p.

Aplet, G.H. 1999. On the nature of wildness: exploring what wilderness really protects.

Denver University Law Review 76:347-367.

Borrie, W.T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the meaning of wilderness. In: Watson,

A.E., Aplet, G. H., Hendee, J.C., comps. Personal, Societal, and Ecological

Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedngs on

Recreation, Mangement, and Allocation, Volume II; 1998 Oct 24-209, Bangalore,

India, Proc. RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 87-88.

Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf Pine Communities of the West Gulf

Coastal Plain. Natural Areas Journal 9(4):246-263.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Ecological Principles, Shifting Fire Regimes and Management

Considerations. Pages 185-203 in J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, editors. Wildland

Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service, RMRS-

GTR-42-Volume 2.

Chapman, H.H. 1932. Is the Longleaf Type a Climax? Ecology 13(4):328-334.

Christensen, N.L. 1981. Fire Regimes in Southeastern Ecosystems. Pages 112-136 in

H.A. Monney, T.M. Bonnickson, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Reiners,

editors. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.

Rep. WO-26. Washington, D.C., USA.

Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf Pine Communities of the West Gulf

Coastal Plain. Natural Areas Journal 9(4):246-263.

Cole, D.N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: ecological restoration in wilderness.

Ecological Restoration 18(2):77-86.

Cole, D.N. 2002. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management.

Pages 413-459 in Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of

Resources and Values (J.C. Hendee and C.P. Dawson, editors). Third Edition.

Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO.

Dustin, D.L., L.H. McAvory. 2000. Of what avail are forty freedoms: the significance of

wilderness in the 21st century. International Journal of Wilderness 6(2):25-26.

Frost, C.C. 1993. Four Centuries of Changing Landscape Patterns in the Longleaf Pine

Ecosystem. Pages 17-43 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem:

Ecology, Restoration and Management. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire

Ecology Conference, No. 18, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida,

USA.

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement Fire Frequency Regimes of the United States: A First

Approximation. Pages 70-81 in T.L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan, editors. Fire in

Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription.

Proceedings of the 20th

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tallahassee,

Florida.

Hall, T.E. 2001. Hikers‘ perspectives on solitude and wilderness. International Journal of

Wilderness 7(2):20-24.

Revised 08/17/09

6

Harcombe, P.A., J.S. Glitzenstein, R.G. Knox, S.L. Orzell, and E.L. Bridges.1993.

Vegetation of the Longleaf Pine Region of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Pages 83-

105 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology,

Restoration, and Management. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology

Conference, No.18, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Hendee, J.C., and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and

Protection of Resources and Values, Third Edition. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden,

CO.

Humphrey, H.H. 1957. Testimony June 19-20 for the U.S. Congress, Senate Committee

on Interior and Insular Affairs, published hearings on S. 1176.

Kaye, R.W. 2000. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge: an exploration of the meanings

embodied in America‘s last great wilderness. Pages 73-80 in Wilderness Science

in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context of

Larger Systems (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrrie, and J.O‘Loughlin,

compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Kaye, R.W. 2002. Wilderness Character: the Historical Basis, Meaning, and Function of

the Concept in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Wilderness Stewardship

Policy of 2001. Manuscript on file at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research

Institute, Missoula, MT.

Landers, J.L., N.A. Byrd, and R. Komarek. 1990. A Holistic Approach to Managing

Longleaf Pine Communities, Pages 135-167 in Proceedings of the Symposium on

the Management of Longleaf Pine, R.M. Farrar, Jr, editor. USDA Forest Service

Technical Report. SO-75. New Orleans, LA. 293 pp.

Landers, J.L. 1991. Disturbance Influences on Pine Traits in the Southeastern United

States. Pages 61-95 in Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference

No. 17, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida, USA.

Landres, P.B., P.S. White, G. Aplet and A. Zimmermann. 1998. Naturalness and Natural

Variability: Definitions, Concepts, and Stategies for Wilderness Management.

Pages 41-50 i D.L. Kulhavy and M. H. Legg, editors. Wilderness and Natural

Areas in the Eastern United States: Research, Management and Planning.

Proceedings of a Symposium, 1998, Center for Applied Studies in Forestry,

Arthur Temple College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University,

Nacogdoches, Texas.

Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; Barns, C.; Davis, D.; Hall, T.; Henry, S.;

Hunter, B.; Janiga, P.; Laker, M.; McPherson, A.; Powell, D.S.; Rowan, M.;

Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: a

national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

38p

LeGrande, G.M. 1998. Vegetation Composition on the Turkey Hill and Upland Island

Wilderness Areas. M.S. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University,

Nacogdoches, Texas. 219 pp.

Leopold, A. 1921. The wilderness and its place in forest recreational policy. Journal of

Foresty 19(7):718-721.

Revised 08/17/09

7

Lucas, R.C. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation management. Western Wildlands

9(2):6-10.

Martin, D.L. and L.M. Smith. 1991. A Survey and Description of the Natural Plant

Communities of the Kisatchie National Forest; Winn and Kistachie Districts.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 372 pp.

McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about.

Denver University Law Review 76:369-381.

McCulloch, D.L. and W.S. Pickrell. 1980. An Ecological Investigation of Graham

Creek, a Proposed Wilderness Area; Entomolgical Aspects. National Science

Foundation and Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. 17 pp.

McWhorter, I.V. 2005. Effects of Fire Exclusion on the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem of

Upland Island Wilderness. M.S. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University,

Nacogdoches, Texas. 120 pp.

Means, D.B. and G. Grow. 1985. The Endangered Longleaf Pine Community. ENFO

Report, 85(4):1-12.

Nash, R. 1980. The value of wildness. American Wildlands (Spring):7-10.

Nash, R. 2004. Celebrating Wilderness in 2004. George Wright Forum 21(3):6-8.

Orzell, S.L. 1990. Texas Natural Heritage Program Inventory of National Forests and

Grasslands in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, USA.

Noss, R.F. 1988. The Longleaf Pine Landscape of the Southeast: Almost Gone and

Almost Forgotten. Endangered Species Update Vol. 5, No. 5, School of Natural

Resources, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 8 pp.

Outcalt, K.W. and R.M. Sheffield.1996. The Longleaf Pine Forest: Trends and Current

Conditions. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. Resource Bulletin SRS-9. Asheville, North Carolina, USA. 23 pp.

Platt, W.J., G.W. Evans, and S. L. Rathbun, 1988. The Population Dynamics of a Long-

Lived Conifer (Pinus palustris). American Naturalist 131(4):491-525.

Public Law 88-577. 1964. Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136.

Roggenbuck, J.W. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International

Journal of Wilderness 10(3):21-24.

Rohlf, D., and D.L. Honnold. 1988. Managing the balance of nature: the legal framework

of wilderness management. Ecology Law Quarterly 15:249-279.

Scott, D.W. 2002. ―Untrammeled,‖ ―wilderness character,‖ and the challenges of

wilderness preservation. Wild Earth 11(3/4):72-79.

Stephen F. Austin State University. 2004. Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management

Plan. Unpublished document on file. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas,

USDA Forest Service, Lufkin Texas. 48pp.

United States Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98-40 from the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs, March 18, page 43.

USDA Forest Service. 1972. Wilderness Policy Review, May 17, 1972. Worf, W.A.,

C.G. Gorgensen, R.C. Lucas, authors. Unpublished document on file at U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula MT. 56 pp. plus

appendices.

Revised 08/17/09

8

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental

Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the National Forests and Grasslands

in Texas. Lufkin, Texas.

Wade, D.D., B.L. Brock, P.H. Brose, J.B. Grace, G.A. Hoch, W.A. Patterson III. 2000.

Fire in Eastern Ecosystems. Pages 53-96 in J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, editors.

Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service,

RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 2.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946. Longleaf Pine, Its Use, Ecology, Protection, Growth, and

Management. Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation. Washington, D.C. USA. 429pp.

Ware S., C.C. Frost, and P.D. Doerr. 1993. Southern Mixed hardwood Forest: The

Former Longleaf Pine Forest. Pages 447-493 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and

A.C.Echernacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States. Lowland

Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59(Winter to

Spring):37-43.

Zahniser, H. 1959. letter to C. Edwards Graves, April 25, Wilderness Society files.

Zahniser, H. 1961. Editorial: Managed to be left unmanaged. The Living Wilderness

76(Spring to Summer):2.

Zahniser, H. 1963. Editorial: Guardians not gardeners. The Living Wilderness 83(Spring

to Summer):2.