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