Abstract—Wildlands continue to be challenged with the pressures of modern society as more people use and impact these special areas.
Complicated issues create situations where managers must strike a balance between offering a wilderness experience and protecting wilderness resources. Nine years ago, the Charles C. Deam Wilderness in the Midwestern United States provided just such a challenge to wilderness managers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service, Hoosier National Forest. This small wilderness had a very long list of problems that made this area bear little resemblance to the wild area for which it was intended. Several management actions were implemented to move this area to a wilderness condition. These actions resulted in improved trail conditions, better opportunity for solitude, fewer impacts from horses, less depreciative behavior, reduced user conflict, and a stronger appreciation of wilderness by users. Managers found a surprising degree of success in implementing some controversial changes, and attributed that success to two factors: extensive involvement by the public in the development phase of these changes, and the implementation of several concurrent management actions.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness in the
United States 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.” Such an area is to be a place where natural forces are dominant and one may find opportunities for solitude. This concept is supported by challenging visitors to cope with nature on its own terms. Modern conveniences such as developed facilities, the use of mechanical or motorized equipment, and roads are generally prohibited.
This wilderness character may be somewhat easier to achieve in the Western United States due to the remoteness, size, and original pristine condition of those areas. In contrast, eastern wildernesses are sometimes located near large metropolitan areas with accompanying overuse problems and evidence of past land abuses. Such factors often prevent a wilderness from providing the primitive character
Les Wadzinski is the Recreation Program Manager, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution Avenue, Bedford, IN 47421, U.S.A., phone: 812-275-5987, E-mail: lwadzinski
@fs.fed.us
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc.
RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
for which it was intended. The Deam Wilderness, although created by Congress in 1982, was suffering from these ills, and managers were doing little to offer a wilderness experience or resource protection.
The Deam Wilderness is a relatively small wilderness located in south-central Indiana in the midwestern area of the United States. The area covers almost 13,000 acres
(5,261 hectares) and is bounded on three sides by road and one by water. The terrain is rugged by midwestern standards with steep ravines, and is heavily forested predominantly with hardwood species and also nonnative pines. In the 1930s, it was occupied by 78 homes or farms and was laced with 57 miles (92 km) of roads. It is currently managed by the USDA Forest Service, and is part of the 198,000-acre
(80,128-hectare) Hoosier National Forest. Popular recreation uses include: hiking, horse riding, backpacking, and deer hunting.
The Deam Wilderness was plagued by a number of issues, with overuse as the overriding factor. A variety of seemingly unrelated conditions were occurring simultaneously, but together were degrading the wilderness experience and the wilderness resource. These conditions and their effects are summarized below.
Indiana is a very poor State in terms of public land available for outdoor recreation, with only 4 percent of the land base titled to a government entity. This is in sharp contrast to Western States where public land ownership often exceeds 50 percent. In addition, the Deam is the only wilderness in Indiana offering those seeking wilderness no other choice without traveling long distances. Indiana is also a densely populated state, resulting in a situation where there are many people wanting to use a small amount of public land.
Although wilderness is supposed to offer solitude, the location of this wilderness made it too easy for people to visit, thus encouraging overuse. The area is located adjacent to a busy State highway and a very popular reservoir, is within easy driving distance of several large metropolitan areas, and is bisected by a graveled county road. Another factor was an overabundance of access points into the area. Sixty-four access points were inventoried that further increased the ease in which large numbers of people could visit (USDA
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 199

Wadzinski
Forest Service 1993). It was believed that visitors came to the Deam Wilderness simply because of the convenience rather than for a wilderness experience.
A wilderness should also offer challenge, but in this case over 109 miles (175 km) of trail were available in this small area, creating a trail density of 5.35 miles (8.6 km) of trail per square mile (2.5 km
2
) of land (USDA Forest Service 1993).
Numerous short loops were everywhere and required little endurance or navigation skill to use. Such a density would be more appropriate in an urban setting than a wilderness.
Most of the 109 miles (175 km) of trail were not designated trails that were built and maintained by the Forest Service.
Rather, they were “user made” trails that simply formed from repeated use by horse riders. As a result, many were located on steep slopes or poorly drained low areas, and on fragile soils creating severe erosion problems and muddy quagmires.
For over 50 years the area was popular for horse riding.
Horses can be extremely damaging to soil types found in this area. Their relatively small hooves, coupled with their great weight, create a gouging action as they use the trails. This problem is compounded when it occurs on wet and fragile soils or on steep slopes. In dry times, the trail tread is pockmarked, and in wet times it becomes a muddy bog. The effect is severe soil erosion and a very unpleasant experience for those using the trail for hiking. A large Forest Service public camp known as the Blackwell Horsecamp served as a major trailhead and access point, and was the source for most of this horse use.
For whatever the reasons, previous managers of the area did not intensively manage the land. As a result, few rules or regulations were in place or enforced, no staff was assigned, little money was budgeted, and no trail system was designated or maintained. Users could ride their horses wherever they wished, litter was common, and crimes such as drug use, excessive drinking, and fighting were prevalent at the Blackwell Horsecamp.
The concept of wilderness was new to most people in
Indiana, and many had no idea that a designated wilderness was a special place that required special behavior. In fact, many complained about the lack of facilities and couldn’t understand why the use of mechanical equipment was prohibited. Many visitors were simply looking for a place to drink beer, ride horses, and shoot guns. They did not seem interested in the wilderness values of solitude, challenge, and closeness to nature.
200
Management Actions to Protect Wilderness Experiences and the Resource
Hikers objected to damage caused by the horses, and some reported that horses interfered with their enjoyment. The horse clubs, on the other hand, became inflamed at even the hint of regulation. A study by Watson, Niccolucci, and
Williams (1993) indicated that separate trails for each use was generally supported by hikers but not by horse riders.
The Forest Service seemed caught in the middle as the hikers accused the Forest Service of siding with the horse people, and the horse clubs accused the Forest Service of being anti-horse. None of the groups were talking to each other. At a public meeting, the Forest Service suggested a compromise to limit horses to 60 miles (96.5 km) of designated trail. The result was a roomful of angry people, all feeling betrayed by the Forest Service. As one manager described it, Forest Service officials had “their backs to the wall and a long way to the exit” (Slover 1996). Other user groups, such as hunters and environmentalists, had their own concerns as well. It seemed everyone wanted the wilderness managed, but only for his or her activity.
Ideally, a wilderness should not contain roads or permanent reminders of human influence such as cemeteries.
However, as in all things, there are exceptions and this wilderness had plenty of them. This wilderness is actually divided into two segments, separated by a county road. This road functioned as an unofficial 5-mile (8-km) linear campground and attracted more than its share of unsavory characters and law enforcement problems.
There are also five cemeteries within the wilderness boundaries, with one of them privately owned and therefore exempt from wilderness regulation. A 1.5-mile (2.4-km) road leads to this cemetery, and access is guaranteed by the legislation that created the Deam Wilderness. The owners of this cemetery regularly drive back there to mow it with power mowers and occasionally conduct a burial. The remaining cemeteries have abandoned access roads in very poor condition but also are mentioned in the legislation as having access permitted. Several citizens not able to walk long distances have requested motorized access to these cemeteries so they could visit the graves of their loved ones.
This was a particularly challenging problem due to the fact that very extensive work would be needed to bring the roads up to a usable condition, not to mention the conflict between wilderness values and the humanitarian need to allow gravesite visitation.
The challenges facing managers of this area were indeed formidable. In 1992, several new Forest Service staff members were hired and upon arrival immediately saw a great need for change. This author was personally motivated after viewing the scene at the Blackwell Horsecamp the first weekend on duty in May 1992. Over 300 horse trailers were squeezed into a 40-acre (16-hectare) field, goats and pigs were running loose, teenagers were racing horses, loud
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Wadzinski music and alcohol was everywhere, and many riders sported pistols. It looked like a scene from a movie about the Wild
West. This horsecamp was the main entry into the wilderness and obviously contributed little to instill wilderness values.
The new managers inventoried the problems and arrived at the list previously described. It quickly became apparent that many forces were at work in preventing this wilderness from being wild, and there would be no single or easy solution. Forest Service officials knew that a “big picture” approach was needed but were not sure where to start. The biggest obstacle to proceeding with any changes to date had been the animosity of the user groups, both among themselves and with the Forest Service. For any changes to occur it would be critical to have support of the user groups, so the journey started there.
Forest Service officials had several options. They could simply ask a few users for opinions and then decree some changes based on what they thought was best. However, the public meeting previously described proved that approach was ineffective. Another option was to simply do nothing.
After all, the wilderness had been managed in this manner since 1982, and in fact, some users liked it the way it was.
Fortunately, Forest Service managers felt they had a greater responsibility. Yet another option was to embark on a methodical planning process that would involve the public, analyze multiple alternatives, and result in a clearly defined plan. It was no secret that if the users were part of that process they would be much more supportive of the outcome.
For that reason, the Forest Service selected a process known as the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) as described in
Stankey and others (1985).
LAC is an alternative to carrying capacity, designed to determine how much change is acceptable before management actions are needed to mitigate impacts. In this case, a citizen’s task force was formed to implement the process.
Interested parties could apply to be on the task force, and people in leadership positions from the user groups were encouraged to apply. This process brought the wilderness users together, and forced them to sit at the same table and work out their differences.
The process ultimately resulted in implementing management actions designed to promote a wilderness environment. The Forest Service cannot abdicate decisionmaking to nongovernment entities, so in this case the task force only provided recommendations. They developed three alternative solutions, with a variety of management actions in each.
One alternative favored recreation, another favored the resource, and a third alternative offered a compromise of the two.
The Forest Service went forward with additional public involvement using the compromise recommendation as a starting point. The process included numerous mailings and open houses to ensure that all citizens, not just those on the task force, had an opportunity to comment. Based on this additional input, managers analyzed the alternative management actions and incorporated most of the recommendations. Ultimately, some of the more significant management actions were incorporated into an amendment to the Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan. This plan provides
Management Actions to Protect Wilderness Experiences and the Resource long-term guidance for management of the forest that managers are required to follow. Additional management actions were also implemented through rules and regulations and by incorporation into other action plans.
Even though Forest Service officials were the final decisionmakers, there was good support from the public because they participated directly in the development process. Some actions were effective, some were not, and some were influenced by factors beyond anyone’s control. The management actions and their effects are discussed below.
It was recognized early on that the area was being overused, and mostly by people that were not really there for a wilderness experience. Rather, they wanted a convenient place in the woods to recreate. Therefore, the strategy focused on redirecting many of those users to nearby nonwilderness areas. The Forest Service certainly wanted the Deam Wilderness to remain open and accessible, but only to those willing and desiring to cope with the inconveniences and challenges of a wilderness experience.
One of the first orders of business was to designate a formal trail system and limit the number of trail miles. This was a drastic change from historical use, but users surprisingly accepted the change. The total number of trail miles in the wilderness was capped at 40 (64 km), down from the 109 miles (175 km) inventoried. It is encouraging to note that this number is far less than the 60-mile (96.5-km) “compromise” that initially met with such opposition. Managers attribute this success to the fact that the public had a chance to participate in the process. A 36-mile (58-km) route of several large loops was officially designated based on the recommendations of the LAC task force, leaving a 4-mile (6km) buffer for future uncertainties. Five of these miles (8 km) were set aside for hikers only, although hikers may also hike off trail if they choose. The large loops were selected to provide a challenge and discourage those users that were not seeking a wilderness experience. Short, easy loops were provided nearby at a trail in a nonwilderness area to serve those users.
The next step was to improve trail conditions, which was accomplished through additional funding. This included rerouting some poor trails, installing drainage devices, and hardening the trail with gravel in some instances. Signs were installed so users would know which trails were official.
Horse users were then required to ride only on this designated trail system. A regulation was implemented requiring this, and riders found off trail were fined. This action forced riders to stay only on trails that were properly located and maintained, and could sustain the impact. For the most part, riders observe this rule although there is still some evidence of user-made trails.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 201

Wadzinski
To help accomplish the above actions, personnel were reassigned from other jobs to the wilderness. A large Forest
Service campground outside the wilderness was changed from a Forest Service operation to a concession, thereby freeing up Forest Service staff for wilderness work. A staff member was appointed to the position of wilderness ranger and worked full time in the wilderness. Other technicians were assigned to help as needed. Duties consisted of enforcing rules, performing trail maintenance, and simply being visible so the public knew that the agency cared enough about the area to be present. Forest Service law enforcement staff also increased patrols of the area.
A horse and mule augmented the staffing. In accordance with wilderness law, even the Forest Service as the managing agency may not use modern equipment for maintenance.
Therefore, it is beneficial to resort to older and more primitive means of assistance such as the use of animals. All trail work is accomplished using a plow and grader pulled by a mule, and equipment and supplies are packed in using the animals. Although a common feature in Western States, this wilderness was believed to be the first to use animals east of the Mississippi River.
The horse is used mainly for patrol and provides two major benefits. First, it is an efficient means of travel and has been very helpful in search and rescue and enforcement of rules.
Second, and perhaps more significant, it provides credibility with the horse community. When the Forest Service is a horse owner just like the users, the users are more apt to accept the
Forest Service opinion on issues involving horse use.
The Blackwell Horsecamp was redesigned to decrease capacity but improve the experience. Large, fenced exclosures were installed to decrease the available area, thus limiting the number of campers that could crowd into the camp. This action is allowing vegetation and badly needed shade trees to return to the area. Aging restrooms were replaced and small corrals were built. Law enforcement patrols were stepped up, and regulations were implemented and enforced. In one short year, this campground turned from a party spot to a family campground. To help serve those users who did not like the changes at the Blackwell Horsecamp, the Forest Service worked with adjacent private horsecamp owners to provide access to the nonwilderness trails on the
Hoosier National Forest. These camps offered more amenities such as water, electrical hookups, short loop trails, and so on, and were able to attract and provide for those users not seeking a wilderness experience.
The problem of too many access points and the problem with camping along the county road was eliminated by limiting wilderness access points to five trailheads. All others were closed, and parking and camping was limited
Management Actions to Protect Wilderness Experiences and the Resource along the county road only to those designated sites. While ultimately successful, there was initially a jurisdictional conflict with the county. County officials and some citizens opposed the restrictions based on their belief they had control over a right-of- way extending beyond the edge of the road. The Forest Service prevailed, and the restrictions remained in place. This action greatly reduced the number of people coming to the area for a nonwilderness experience.
The Forest Service publicized information on alternative areas nearby where visitors could still find a roadside camping opportunity.
The problem of lack of wilderness knowledge or ethics was addressed through an educational program and facilities.
For the first few years, the forest entered into an agreement with Indiana University to provide a wilderness education specialist. This person roamed the wilderness providing a wilderness message, and also had an active program in local junior high schools. Selected classes participated in a fivepart series of field trips and classroom exercises, and at the end held a wilderness summit where students developed their own solutions to ongoing management issues. After that program was completed, the Forest Service kept up the effort through volunteers and seasonal employees.
The forest also moved an old log cabin from a remote location to an entry into the wilderness. The cabin serves as a visitor contact station for wilderness users, and is staffed by volunteers who provide a message on wilderness values.
Other educational efforts included the development of bulletin boards and wayside exhibits at each major trailhead.
There, visitors are able to obtain a wilderness ethics message, as well as information about the area and rules. A high quality map available for a modest fee was developed that showed the trails and topographic details of the area, and also included a wilderness message. A free handout map was also developed with a similar theme, and the same information is also available on the Hoosier Forest website at: www.fs.fed.
us/r9/hoosier
The cemetery access issue proved to be particularly challenging, but a workable solution was found. The portion of the Deam Wilderness legislation that addressed cemetery access was vague, and required a good bit of legal analysis.
At issue was the conflict between wilderness values (no roads or motorized equipment) and the rights of families to visit their loved ones. It was determined that the Forest
Service did indeed have an obligation to provide access. The problem, however, was that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be needed to bring the roads to these cemeteries up to driveable standards. The forest was reluctant to get into the business of rebuilding and maintaining an extensive road system in a wilderness, and did not have the resources for such an undertaking.
A cemetery visitation policy was developed and has been successful thus far. The forest first cleared all the roads to cemeteries to make them at least minimally passable during dry times. If a visitor requests motorized access, the forest
202 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Wadzinski first determines that the request is legitimate. The forest will then set up a time to have a Forest Service official provide transportation to the cemetery using an all terrain vehicle or four wheel drive vehicle. This access is dependent on the weather, however, because the roads are not passable when wet. Fortunately, there are only one or two requests a year, and people seem to be satisfied with this arrangement.
Additional management actions have also been implemented to deal with the other issues raised during the public involvement process. A 10-person party limit is in effect to promote the concept of solitude. Hunting is still permitted, but target shooting is not allowed in order to promote a quieter environment. Camping is prohibited within 100 feet
(30.5 m) of water sources. Horse users are required to purchase a daily permit for $3 or annual permit for $25, with the revenues used for trail maintenance.
Overall, the Deam Wilderness can be said to be vastly improved from its 1992 condition. The trails are in much better condition, erosion has been greatly reduced, it is possible to find solitude, and users seem at least a little more aware that the wilderness is a special place that requires special treatment. Progress has been made on the goal of reducing use and impacts.
However, the area is still a long way from being a true wilderness. Unlike the pristine western wildernesses, this area has a lot of healing to do because of the many years of human influence. Nature will have to play a lot of “catch up” to be the dominant force as described in the Wilderness
Act of 1964. Fortunately, the recent management actions implemented by the Forest Service are providing a good start to the process. Not so fortunately, though, some conditions remain that will make the job inherently difficult and may never be resolved. For example, the lack of public land,
Management Actions to Protect Wilderness Experiences and the Resource proximity to large populations, and the cemetery issues will likely be around for some time.
Most visitors appear to be happy with the situation and few complaints are received. Some dissatisfaction remains, such as the few hikers who don’t want horses allowed at all, and the few horse riders that want more trails. All new concerns and suggestions are considered, although the Forest
Service intends to continue to use the current guidance unless new information or changed conditions become apparent.
In summary, Deam Wilderness managers attribute the accomplishments thus far to the big-picture approach to problem solving, and focusing on a variety of issues simultaneously. One significant component of this approach was the high degree of public involvement. The situation would not have changed without public support, even if new rules and regulations were applied. Rather, because the users themselves actually helped form some of the policy, the Forest
Service was able to make the sweeping changes that improved the Deam’s wilderness character. Wilderness managers plan to continue this approach, keeping in mind the ultimate goal of providing a quality wilderness experience while protecting the wilderness resource.
Slover, Bruce L. 1996. A music of opinion: collaborative planning for the Charles C. Deam Wilderness. Journal of Forestry. 94(5): 19.
Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen,
Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-76. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
[now the Rocky Mountain Research Station]. 37 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Deam Wilderness citizen’s task force summary and recommendations.
Bedford, IN: Hoosier National Forest. 35 p.
Watson, Alan; Niccolucci, M.; Williams, D. 1993. Hikers and recreational stock users: predicting and managing recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. Res. Pap. INT-468. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station [now Rocky Mountain Research Station]. 35 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 203