Is the National Park Service serious about Wilderness?

“The Park Service has done relatively little to demonstrate that it has taken its wilderness management responsibilities seriously nor has it implemented a management program which reasonably provides for the day-to-day and long-term preservation of this resource. The lack of evidence that the Service has met even its most basic responsibilities as required by the Wilderness Act, and its own policies…has generated a growing distrust of the agency by the public…This distrust is exacerbated by the growing number of incidents throughout the Service wherein NPS staff violate the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act…with little or no consequences.” —Jim Walters, former NPS Intermountain Region Wilderness Coordinator

By Mark Peterson

When one thinks of wild landscapes in the U.S., national park areas come quickly to mind. Yet, as we celebrate 60 years of the Wilderness Act this year, wild places in too many of even our most iconic parks have been left behind and left vulnerable. Deserving areas suitable for wilderness designation in parks from Acadia to Yellowstone and 13 areas in Alaska have not been protected under the
Wilderness Act.

While only Congress can designate Wilderness, the law requires the National Park Service (NPS) to identify lands that qualify for wilderness designation and make recommendations to the President,
and ultimately to Congress, as to which lands should be designated Wilderness. NPS policies require recommended wilderness to be administered as Wilderness, though the NPS often doesn’t abide by the policy. As one former NPS wilderness specialist wrote, “…NPS’ wilderness program
remains erratic, poorly defined, and vaguely implemented in most parks within the system.”

Recent examples reveal there is no guarantee that Wilderness and potential wilderness areas in our national parks will be managed according to the letter and spirit of the law. National Park Service administration has strayed far from the Wilderness Act, a particularly discouraging fact given it oversees so many of our nation’s wildest crown jewels. Consider these NPS actions in national park Wildernesses:

Olympic—replacing old trail-side shelters with new structures helicoptered in;
Point Reyes—fencing native Tule elk out of much of the area to appease ranchers that graze cattle there, then hauling water troughs and water to keep the elk herd alive;
Cumberland Island—transporting visitors via passenger vans on primitive routes through Wilderness;
Everglades—over 3,000 helicopter landings in Wilderness in one year for fire management and research projects with inadequate analysis of non-mechanized, wilderness-compatible alternatives;
Sequoia-Kings Canyon—more than 20,000 acres of Wilderness landscaping (logging, burning, and planting) to create managers’ desired conditions in giant sequoia groves, rather than allowing nature to determine the conditions there;
Glacier Bay—a draft plan that would designate a less protective shoreline zone permitting a radio tower and up to 10 repeater towers and research installations; and
Gulf Islands—allowing misuse of personal watercraft and motorboats within Wilderness.

The NPS administers more Wilderness than any other federal land management agency, including 53 park areas designed as Wilderness and at least 31 additional areas identified as “recommended,” “proposed,” “potential,” and “eligible” as Wilderness. And this number likely underestimates qualifying lands since the NPS has not conducted assessments to identify potential wilderness designations in every park with wild lands, despite the law requiring it do so.

Since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, three NPS task forces have documented the problems of NPS wilderness management. And in 2002, a committee of knowledgeable individuals from the academic and environmental community provided additional perspective and recommendations on the NPS wilderness program. Yet, while there has been some progress, the agency has ignored or only superficially adopted most of the recommendations, to the great detriment of its wilderness lands.

One key factor contributing to the poor state of wilderness management is the program’s continued and intentional invisibility throughout the NPS. Although roughly 86% of all NPS lands are designated, recommended, or potential wilderness, wilderness management in the national office consists of only one policy position. Throughout the agency, the wilderness program is generally buried and largely ignored.

“The lack of accountability and oversight regarding Wilderness is a huge problem for the agency,” says Bob Krumenaker, former Superintendent of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, who orchestrated the designation of 80% of the park as the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. “Superintendents are allowed wide discretion on how their park is managed. Decentralization provides for useful nimbleness and flexibility, but it…allows wilderness protection to be compromised. Evaluating superintendents’ wilderness performance should be part of their annual evaluation.”

Examples of the NPS wilderness accountability problem are not hard to find. In 1999, park staff discovered that Devils Postpile National Monument had been designated Wilderness in 1984. Apparently, for 15 years park staff were unaware of that status and the park was managed without a wilderness plan or consideration. Likewise, in 2003, Sequoia-Kings Canyon issued rules that would allow the routine use of helicopters and other motorized equipment prohibited within Wilderness, with no public involvement and no wilderness management plan to guide decisions.

In 2004, NPS’ Intermountain Region Wilderness Coordinator, Jim Walters, wrote to his boss, NPS Director Fran Mainella, “…the NPS has a poor record for completing wilderness management plans even though this has been a policy requirement for nearly two decades…less than 20% [of parks with designated Wilderness] currently have a wilderness management plan. Of these, approximately half are badly outdated and do not meet the basic requirements for a wilderness plan….”

“The Park Service needs to do a much better job of wildland planning,” Krumenaker says. “We need to develop a simple template to make basic wilderness planning easier—clear legal boundaries, managing visitors, protocols for scientific research and monitoring, identifying unacceptable activities, and strategies for preservation. Basic park-specific guidelines are essential to ensure that parks with wilderness resources aren’t compromised, and that its wilderness stewardship program is not subject to the whims of individual superintendents who come and go.”

On the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, the words of Richard Sellers, NPS Historian and Wilderness Steering Committee member in the early 2000s, capture today’s challenge and opportunity before his agency: “…the Park Service’s wilderness management puts to the test NPS’s belief in itself as a preservation agency. This belief is in everyone’s heart, but is still not reflected
in everyone’s action. As we know, Wilderness is statutorily different from typical backcountry, and the law requires very special treatment of Wilderness. National Park Service compliance with the law should recognize the tremendous significance of Wilderness as outstanding examples of America’s most pristine landscapes—areas of great ecological, spiritual, and recreational value.”

“Let the Park Service now live up to its belief in its preservation mission, and match the nobility of national park Wilderness—and of the Wilderness Act itself—with a strong and decisive wilderness
management program that is institutionalized throughout the National Park System.”