The Interim Management Dilemma: the
High Peaks Wilderness Planning Process
from 1972 to 1997
Peter Newman
Chad P. Dawson
Abstract—The High Peaks Wilderness in the Adirondack Park of
New York State is one of 16 wilderness areas within the Adirondack
Park that was designated in 1972 by the New York State Legislature. Over the last 25 years, several versions of a proposed High
Peaks Wilderness Unit Management Plan have been drafted, discussed in public review, and recommendations made by a Citizen
Advisory Committee. To date, no plan has been approved, leaving
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
in the dilemma of managing without a plan for so long that current
users believe that what they are seeing and experiencing is what
was intended in the 1972 legislation. This case history identifies
some of the impediments to the planning process, outlining an
“iron triangle” type of policy situation that has slowed the wilderness planning process.
The Adirondack Park is forever wild and forever filled
with controversy as interest groups from all sides maneuver to achieve individual agendas. It has all the components
of classic environmental debates, like Hetch-Hetchy in
Yosemite National Park, or the spotted owl issues of the
Northwestern United States. At question is the fate of a
nonrenewable resource amidst stakeholders vying to maximize individual utility. An examination of the evolution
and management of the High Peaks Wilderness Area is
just such a case. Twenty-five years of planning has yielded
only a proposed final draft of a High Peaks Wilderness
Complex Unit Management Plan.
This paper outlines the implementation of the wilderness
planning process in the High Peaks Wilderness Area of the
Adirondack Park in New York State. It will give a brief
historical background of the High Peaks Wilderness Area
planning process from 1972 until the present and then
show why the process from allocation to planning and
management has not been completed.
In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 1998.
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation,
volume I; 1997 October; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Peter Newman is a Graduate Student at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210 U.S.A.
E-mail: pnewman@mailbox.syr.edu. Chad P. Dawson is a Professor at the
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998
Case Background _______________
The High Peaks Wilderness Area covers 226,435 acres
or 354 square miles (91,798 ha) in the center of the 6 million
acre Adirondack Park in northern New York State. This
Wilderness Area receives over 130,000 visitors annually,
far exceeding the visitation rates experienced at other wilderness areas in the Adirondack Park (NYSDEC 1996).
Within the High Peaks Wilderness Area is Mt. Marcy, the
State’s highest peak at 5,344 ft. The eastern portion of the
Wilderness Area receives the majority of recreation use,
while the western portion receives substantially less
(NYSDEC 1996). It is the largest of 16 Adirondack Park
Wilderness Areas.
Historical Overview ______________
In 1972, the State of New York legally designated over
one million acres of the Adirondack Park as Wilderness.
The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP)
was included in the Adirondack Park Agency Act. It was
designed to provide comprehensive guidelines for management and use of the State’s wildlands. In compliance with
the mandate, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was directed to develop
Unit Management Plans (UMPs) for each wilderness area
designated. The Unit Management Plans would, by law,
conform to the APSLMP but would be specific to each area
of designation. The courts have ruled that the APSLMP has
the force of law. The Unit Management Plans are mandated
to incorporate APSLMP guidelines and objectives into
planning for each designated area (NYSDEC 1996). Plans
are required to span a 5-year timeframe to reflect changing
ecological or sociological conditions.
The APSLMP uses a definition of wilderness that closely
parallels the United States Congressional definition used in
the 1964 Wilderness Act. The major difference is that the
APSLMP substitutes “forest preserve” for “federal land” and
increases the minimum size requirements from 5,000 acres
to 10,000 acres (NYSDEC 1996).
The Unit Management Plans have several objectives.
The two that are considered the most important are
involving and introducing the public to the planning process to promote a sense of pride and ownership, ensuring
that an increasing population does not occupy and modify
all natural areas within New York State (NYSDEC 1996).
139
The proposed 1996 High Peaks Unit Management Plan
states:
Without a UMP, Wilderness area management can
easily become a series of uncoordinated reactions to immediate problems. When this happens, unplanned management actions often cause a shift in focus that is
inconsistent and often in conflict with wilderness preservation goals and objectives. A prime objective of
Wilderness planning is to use environmental and social
science to replace nostalgia and politics. Comprehensive
planning allows for the exchange of ideas and information before actions, that can have long term effects, are
taken. A written plan stabilizes management despite
changes in personnel or the influences of multiple administrative units where several managers and/or disciplines
have different perceptions on how wilderness should be
managed. In view of tight budgets and competition for
monetary resources, plans that clearly identify management objectives and actions have demonstrated greater
potential for securing needed funding.
In spite of this statement, the implementation of the High
Peaks Unit Management Plan is still pending. As of 1993,
six of the 16 designated wilderness area Unit Management
Plans were completed or near completion (Dawson and
others 1994). Despite two completion date extensions,
New York State has developed unit plans for under 38
percent of its Adirondack Park Wilderness Areas.
Unit Management Planning
Impediments ___________________
James Dawson (1990) outlined some early impediments to
the Unit Management Plan process in the Adirondack Park:
(1) lack of full-time staff to complete the UMP’s, (2) insufficient NYSDEC priority for plan completion, (3) a wide
variety of responsibilities competing for NYSDEC’s limited
resources, (4) disincentives to complete plans, especially
the increased management flexibility afforded by the absence of plans, (5) lack of NYSDEC resources in the Division of Fish and Wildlife to prepare sections of the UMPs,
and (6) differences between the Adirondack Park Agency
and the NYSDEC in interpreting the State Land Master
Plan. In the High Peaks Wilderness Area, many of these
impediments still hold true. However, the situation in the
High Peaks is even more complex and urgent; as the funds
allocated to resource management continue to fall, the popularity and numbers of users in the High Peaks continue to
grow (table 1).
The High Peaks Unit Management
Plan ___________________________
To be in compliance with the APSLMP, the State was
mandated to develop a management plan specifically for
the High Peaks Wilderness Area within 5 years of the 1972
designation. By 1974, the High Peaks Wilderness Area
was growing in popularity and use, while the average
number of years of hiking experience by users decreased
(NYSDEC 1978). The NYSDEC responded to this situation by developing “The High Peaks Advisory Committee.”
Under the chairmanship of a NYSDEC representative, the
140
Table 1—High Peaks trailhead registrations from 1983 to 1995
(NYSDEC 1996).
Year
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
Number of visitors
131,110
123,092
114,067
109,412
100,751
93,233
89,647
83,983
84,774
78,779
67,354
63,405
57,016
group was asked to investigate and develop possible solutions to growing resource impacts. The report, finalized in
February 1977, found that High Peaks planning and
management had been constantly under financed and that
there were high amounts of trail erosion and alpine deterioration due to soil types, water erosion, and human use
(NYSDEC 1978). The report’s findings and recommendations helped shape the first proposed High Peaks Unit Management Plan in 1978; however, it was never implemented.
In 1985, the NYSDEC distributed another draft of the
High Peaks Plan but later withdrew the document (Ringlee
1994). A Citizens Advisory Committee was re-established
in 1992 and released their findings in 1994. In 1996, the
Final Draft of the High Peaks Plan was released, restating
several of the issues and management actions outlined
18 years earlier (table 2).
Nearly 20 years after the first proposed High Peaks Unit
Management Plan, the latest plan, seeking to accomplish
many similar objectives, has yet to be adopted and implemented. The governing agency clearly sees the need to
implement a management strategy, but at the same time,
all of the parties involved cannot seem to come to a
consensus. Issues transcend internal bureaucratic incrementalism and involve external parties, including NYSDEC,
non-government organizations, town councils, the public,
and the New York State Legislature. No party involved
seeks the demise of the High Peaks Wilderness; each just
wants it managed from their vantage point. As growing
interest in recreation threatens to degrade our wild resources, we struggle with a major paradox for wilderness.
How do you manage for pristine or natural conditions and
still allow 130,000 visitors to experience such naturalness?
The High Peaks Wilderness Area
Iron Triangle ____________________
In an analysis of the interactions among the USDA
Forest Service, committees of the U.S. Senate and House
of Representatives, and the public, LeMaster (1984) described an “iron triangle” in which adversarial relationships between public agencies, private interest groups,
and the public interlock to hinder action.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998
Table 2—A comparison of selected management actions in the proposed High Peaks Unit Management Plans: 1978 and 1996.
Selected management
actions
Proposed High Peaks Unit Management Plan
1978
1996
Group size restriction
Must obtain a permit for groups greater
than 10 people.
Overnight group size limit at 12. Day-use group
size is 15. Large groups from each division must
be split into “self-sustaining” groups and not
congregate into larger groups.
Carrying capacity of
designated camping
areas and lean-tos
The overnight carrying capacity estimated
at 1,200 people in designated campsites
and lean-to’s.
Carrying capacity is addressed from a theoretical
standpoint, but no quantitative estimates are given.
Telephone lines
Considered nonconforming to the APSLMP.
Proposed to be removed as soon as possible.
Considered nonconforming to the APSLMP.
Proposed to be removed.
Bridges
Replace bridge entirely if damaged beyond repair.
Reduce the number of interior bridges to the
minimum necessary.
Within the High Peaks Wilderness Area, many of these
relationships can be found. However, the situation in the
Adirondacks is more complicated than the “iron triangle”
described by LeMaster. In the High Peaks Wilderness Area,
conflict occurs between the NYSDEC, non-government
organizations, the public, and the New York State Legislature. This conflict is complicated by the fact that several of
the non-government organizations and the two State
agencies involved (the Adirondack Park Agency and
NYSDEC) have separate agendas. The complex and intertwined relationships in the High Peaks “iron triangle” highlight the philosophical differences that each party has in
interpreting the APSLMP, and the problem of managing
today’s wilderness users while preserving our wildlands for
future generations (fig. 1).
The Adirondack Park Agency
Overseeing the policy planning process is the Adirondack
Park Agency. Their job is clearly stated in Section 801 of
the Adirondack Park Agency Act: “to insure that contemporary and projected future pressures on the park resources
are provided for within a land use control framework which
recognizes not only matters of local concern but also those of
regional and state concern.”
All Unit Management Plans and policy must be approved
by the Adirondack Park Agency. The decisionmaking
power at the Agency rests not with the executive director
and his or her staff, but with the commissioners appointed
by the governor. In the last 25 years, political changes in
elected and appointed state officials have affected this
Wilderness legislation (New York State, 1972)
Wilderness allocation
Wilderness planning
Adirondack Park Agency
(Policy)
State Legislature
(High Peaks Wilderness Area
proposed Unit Management Plans)
1977, 1978, 1985, 1992, 1996
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(Resource management)
Non-government Organizations
Public
Special interests
Wilderness management implementation 1997 (still pending)
Figure 1—The “Iron Triangle” policy situation of the High Peaks
Wilderness Area.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998
141
agency and resulted in little consistency, making passage
of the High Peaks Unit Management Plan that much more
arduous. This situation, combined with State cuts in budget and personnel, have further slowed this bureaucratic
process.
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Writing the Unit Management Plans and managing the
resource is the responsibility of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Department has
the task of managing a park with limited funds, while
wilderness users have unlimited access to the trails. The
Department must also contend with its own agency image
and public perception. If public satisfaction with the Department is low, the New York State Legislature has less
incentive to maintain or increase their fiscal budget. The
Department must also work closely with interest groups
like the Adirondack Mountain Club who manage a major
access point to the High Peaks Wilderness Area. In 1995,
35 percent of High Peaks users chose the Adirondak Loj as
their entry point (NYSDEC 1996). The Adirondak Loj is a
facility owned and managed by the Club. The Department
shares some responsibility in management of the High
Peaks Area with the Adirondack Mountain Club because of
the Club’s management of this major access point and
volunteer work of Club trail maintenance crews.
The New York State Legislature
Agency funds are controlled by the New York State
Legislature which has been allocating less money to the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Adirondack Park Agency each year. State legislators
interested in re-election respond to constituents, who are
represented as voters and lobbyists from many special
interest groups and non-government organizations. These
New York State constituents make up over half of the
High Peaks Wilderness users (NYSDEC 1996).
The Non-government Organizations, the
Public, and Special Interests
Some non-government organizations supply concessions
and services to the recreationists. In doing so, certain of
these organizations have an interest in controlling access
to the High Peaks and in providing trail maintenance
and interpretive services at a low cost to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and to the
public. The Adirondack Mountain Club is a good example of
a group who has the power to influence the wilderness
planning process. The Club has over 23,000 members, around
90 percent of which are New York State residents (Freeman
1997). This constituency base gives them leverage in setting its agenda. According to Ringlee (1994), the Club is
concerned with the “strong reliance on additional rules
and limits” set by the Department in the High Peaks
142
Wilderness Area. Several other non-government organizations represent recreationists in the High Peaks Wilderness Area including: The 46’ers, The Association for the
Protection of the Adirondacks, and The Adirondack League.
Each group represents a different interest, increasing the
number of agendas that must be considered during the
public input phase of the planning process.
Effects on the Resource
In the meantime, delays can lead to resource degradation. For example, implicit in the federal 1964 Wilderness
Act is the expectation that lands recommended for wilderness status would not be degraded prior to Congressional
decision on wilderness designation or release (Crumbo 1994).
The National Park Service takes this one step further
under its Management Policies (1988), requiring lands recommended by the agency as wilderness to be managed as
such until Congressional decision. The High Peaks Wilderness Area of New York State has fallen short of this ideal.
Although the area is treated as a State-designated wilderness, 25 years of interim management has not protected
the resource as originally intended. Carrying capacity
analyses as well as several uses and facilities are still not in
conformance as outlined in the policies of the Adirondack
Park State Land Master Plan in 1972.
Policy is the authoritative allocation of values for all of
society (Easton 1965). In this way, wilderness policy is educational, and wilderness management sets a precedent for
“pristine” or other values set in the manager’s objectives.
This can be seen in the changing values we have witnessed
since the passage of the federal 1964 Wilderness Act. For
example, Watson and Landres (in press) reported that 64
percent of surveyed wilderness users in Oregon believed
that they should be able to camp wherever they pleased
just 1 year after passage of the 1964 Act. In 1993, that
proportion had changed to 22 percent. These attitudinal
and behavioral changes may develop much slower when
management objectives are postponed or waived.
The condition of the High Peaks Wilderness Area has
the power to shape wilderness expectations and values of
wilderness users, and herein lies the dilemma. In the 25
years of non-implementation, user norms have developed.
Dawson (1994) suggests that this has led to problems in
management as users’ perceptions have been molded by a
“wilderness” setting different from “wilderness” defined in
the Adirondack Master Plan. Wilderness is the highest preservation classification that the New York State system confers to land. Wilderness areas are designated to uphold a
preservation-oriented ethic in land use and management.
In 25 years of interim management, we may have settled
for less than that, impacting this preservation ethic and
the High Peaks Wilderness Area resource.
Conclusions ____________________
Each group involved in the High Peaks planning process
“iron triangle” is a stakeholder because each one is affected
by the decisionmaking process, and each has the power to
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998
affect the outcome of the planning process. Because each
group has shown little interest in compromise, this 25 year
planning process has not been completed in the High
Peaks Area.
This situation is not an anomaly in wilderness planning
processes across the country. In the Adirondacks, approximately 62 percent of wilderness areas lack completed Unit
Management Plans (Dawson and others 1994). Likewise,
across the United States, roughly the same percentage of
federally designated wilderness areas lack implemented
Unit Management Plans (Reed and others 1989).
In Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, a situation
very similar to that of High Peaks is in progress. The battle
in this Park began several years ago and involves 12 groups,
all concerned with the extent of motorized recreational
access allowed in the park. Through mediated dispute resolution, 10 of 12 members supported a compromise that
offered first-time stability to the area (Schott Hunt 1997).
The Plan needs full consensus to pass and efforts are underway to reach a final compromise. This effort should offer a
model for the dilemma in the High Peaks Wilderness Area.
Although consensus has not yet been reached in Voyageurs
National Park, these ongoing mediation efforts can bring
them closer to resolution.
Interim management of High Peaks in the last decade is
bringing the wilderness closer to the objectives set in the
1972 Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. However,
the conditions still fall short of the objectives, causing users’
perceptions of wilderness to be different than the conditions outlined in the APSLMP. In 1997, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Wilderness
Forest Ranger for the High Peaks Wilderness Area said,
“Without a Unit Management Plan, we can’t protect the
environment from the people and the people from the environment” (Fish 1997). Passage of the Plan may stabilize
funding and support management efforts that are consistent
and suitable for wilderness areas, meeting the original
objectives of the Adirondack Master Plan.
Acknowledgments ______________
This study was funded by the New York State Center for
Forestry Research and Development and the SUNY College
of Environmental Science and Forestry.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998
References _____________________
Crumbo, Kim. 1994. Interim wilderness management: Grand
Canyon and the Colorado River. Published in the Sixth National Wilderness Conference Proceedings, November 14-18;
Santa Fe, NM.
Dawson, C. P.; Alberga, K.; Washburn, M. 1994. Wilderness use
and preservation: a proposed Adirondack Wilderness planning
strategy. Published in the Fifth World Wilderness Congress
Proceedings. Eds: Hendee, J. C.; Martin, V.; Tromso, Norway;
September 1993.
Dawson, C. P. 1994. Adirondack forest preserve trail users: conditions affecting trail selection and use. Published in the Sixth
National Wilderness Conference Proceedings, November 14-18;
Santa Fe, NM.
Dawson, J. 1990. New York State Wilderness: management
plans and issues in the Adirondack Forest Preserve. In: Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource. Ed. D. Lime.
St. Paul: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.
Easton, D. 1965. A system analysis of political life. New York:
Wiley Publishing. 212 p.
Freeman, J. 1997. Personal Communication with Adirondack
Mountain Club. October 7, 1997.
Fish, P. 1997. Association for the protection of the Adirondacks;
wilderness roundtable II: Panel discussion. Ausable Club,
St. Huberts, New York, September 27.
LeMaster, D. C. 1984. Decade of change. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
National Park Service (NPS) policies. 1988. Wilderness preservation management. In: NPS-88 Management policies, chapter 6.
Washington DC: USDI National Park Service.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). 1996. High Peaks Unit Management Plan: Ray
Brook, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). 1978. High Peaks Unit Management Plan: Ray
Brook, New York.
Reed, P.; Haas, G.; Beum, F.; Sherrick, L. 1989. Non-recreational
uses of the National Wilderness Preservation System: A 1988
telephone survey. In: Wilderness benchmark 1988—proceedings
of the National Wilderness Colloquium. Comp. H. Freilich.
USFS General Technical Report SE-51.
Ringlee, Bob. 1994. It’s time for the High Peaks Unit Management
Plan. Adirondack Magazine. Adirondack Mountain Club
Publication.
Schott Hunt, J. R. 1997. Mediation talks near end for Voyageurs
National Park: panel unable to collectively agree. In: Wilderness News. Minneapolis, MN: Quetico-Superior Foundation.
Watson, Alan; Landres, Peter. [In press]. Changing wilderness
values. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, USDA
Forest Service. In: Cordell, Ken H., Comp. Outdoor recreation in
American life: a National assessment of demand and supply
trends. Sagamore, II: Sagamore Publishing Company.
143