Managing Water and Soil Resources in Wilderness
Principles
Principles in wilderness management are laid out in Hendee and Dawson (2002) Chapter 7, pages 191-206. In this chapter the authors define 13 principles or fundamental assumptions to help managers make consistent wilderness decisions. Hammett and Cole (1987) also list principles of wilderness management, pages 195-198. Their six principles include the concept that change is natural, impacts are an inevitable result of recreation use, impacts are relatively predictable in spatial pattern but can vary greatly between environments, and all elements of the environment are interrelated.
When combined, these principles provide strategies for protecting and managing water and soil resources within wilderness.
Strategies and Techniques for Managing Water and Soil Resources in Wilderness (mitigations for threats)
In designated wilderness “Watershed restoration is permitted only where human activities have caused soil deterioration or other loss of wilderness values, where watershed conditions could cause unacceptable environmental impacts or threaten life or property outside the wilderness, and where natural revegetation is insufficient.” (USDA Forest Service Policy, however similar policy is stated in BLM, FWS, and NPS policy). As Howard Zahniser said land managers are “wilderness guardians not gardeners.” ( values and benefits).
The best strategy to mitigate soil and water resource impacts is to treat the threat before soil and water functions and processes are lost. Once water quality or water quantity is diminished or the soil eroded or its productivity lost, restoration can be a long and expensive proposition.
The first line of defense for protecting soil and water resources is recreation/visitor use management. Often visitor use impacts can be prevent through education, information and regulation (i.e., educating people to stay on established trails and to not cut switchbacks or implementing camping and grazing setbacks from water). The Wilderness Act (Section 2(a)) acknowledges that wilderness “… shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people…” With human use come impacts so managers must insure that the areas are administered “…in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness…”
If visitor management does not produce the desired results, watershed restoration may be prescribed to manage threats to wilderness values ( restoration toolbox). It is important to recognize the magnitude of the impact, its location and implications. For example is the impact localized as with a campsite or trail segment or landscape in scope as with non-native invasive plants or wildfire? Secondly, restoration should not be undertaken unless the source of the impact has been addressed and corrected. The goal of restoration is re-establishment of natural conditions, not enhancement or improvement to benefit a particular resource or use.
Restoration of campsites and abandoned or unneeded trail sections are the most common type of watershed restoration taken by managers. For example in the Eagle Cap Wilderness in NE Oregon, watershed specialists, wilderness researchers, and wilderness managers teamed up to tackle campsite and abandoned and eroded trail segments in a subalpine environment. This work was accomplished over several seasons and requires constant monitoring and vigilance to ensure that progress is not undone. Along the way, many lessons were learned. It is recommended that prior to undertaking this type of effort; wilderness managers correspond with others in similar landscapes to help define the proposed project. Similar work has been done in the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness (WenatcheeNF, WA), the Desolation Wilderness (EldoradoNF, CA), and the Sawtooth Wilderness (Sawtooth NRA, ID) to name a few. Case studies for these projects and other restoration efforts are found in the Restoration toolbox or the Wilderness and Backcountry Site Restoration Guide (2006) ( restoration toolbox).
The BLM is actively mitigating the impacts of OHV use and roads in desert wilderness areas. Case studies can be found at restoration toolbox.
Landscape level restoration activities are rare but have been implemented to mitigate the effects of fire suppression or to address non-native invasive plant or animal concerns. For example the Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT) and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (MT and ID) both have active fire use programs. The Coconino NF (AZ) and the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness (ID) both have plans and guidelines to lessen the effects of invasive plants within wilderness ( toolboxes invasive plants). The landscape level concern of acid rain is being mitigated in the St. Maries Wilderness (Blue Ridge Mountains, VA).
Some wilderness bills contain special provisions related to restoration. For example, many eastern wilderness areas were created out of abandoned farm and/or forest land with past damage and/or old buildings and roads. These wilderness areas may have language in the bill that requires preservation and enhancement of wilderness character and active restoration at a landscape level.
Many handbooks and manuals on watershed restoration have been published. The Wilderness Restoration Toolbox ( toolboxes) provides wilderness specific examples for watershed restoration techniques. Agency Soil Scientists and Hydrologists also have a wealth of restoration information at their fingertips.