WILDERNESS RESTORATION:
WHAT ROLE DOES IT PLAY IN MANAGING
RECREATIONAL IMPACTS1 Jeffrey L. Marion, NPS, Research Biologist and Unit Leader,
Virginia Tech Cooperative Park Studies Unit, (703)231-6603
Introduction Environmental change is an inevitable consequence of recreational use in wilderness
environments. Such changes have the potential to impair the functioning of natural ecosystems and
processes and the quality of recreational experiences. Managers therefore consider these changes to
be "impacts", which should be prevented where possible, minimized where unavoidable, and
eliminated through restoration when unacceptable.
This paper describes the role of campsite and trail restoration in the management of wilderness
recreation impacts. A variety of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors are subject to
manipulation by managers in their efforts to prevent, minimize and rehabilitate such impacts. The
decision process regarding the selection of restoration as a tactic in the management of recreational
impacts is reviewed. Restoration practices for addressing campsite impacts are illustrated through
brief case studies of two wilderness area restoration programs. Finally, the Minimum Tool
Principle is described and its implications for wilderness restoration are discussed.
Recreation Impact Management Restoration must be considered as one of many options available
for managing the environmental changes resulting from recreational use. Its selection from among
these options begins with a consideration of the management framework that guides manager's
decision making. With increasing frequency, wilderness managers are turning from management
frameworks based on carrying capacities, which emphasize the regulation of recreational use, to
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) frameworks, which emphasize a wider spectrum of solutions
to recreation management problems (Stankey et al. 1985, Graefe et al 1990). LAC frameworks
require managers to define desired environmental conditions, select resource indicators and
standards that reflect those conditions, and employ monitoring to periodically compare the
standards to current conditions. The standards explicitly define the maximum allowable
"acceptable" change. When standards are exceeded managers must evaluate the causal factors and
select and implement the most appropriate and effective management tactic(s) to remedy the
deficient conditions.
An advantage of the LAC approach is that objectives and standards more explicitly define when
changes become management problems that require some type of action. Some environmental
change is unavoidable if recreational use is to be accommodated. A second advantage of LAC is
that it defines a decision process that guides managers in selecting strategies and tactics based on an
evaluation of problems and their underlying causes. Such an evaluation considers recreational
factors as well as their interrelationships with environmental and managerial factors. This approach
recognizes the complexity of problems and their causes and emphasizes the selection of effective
and appropriate solutions from a range of potential options.
1 - Marion, Jeffrey L. 1993. Wilderness restoration: What role does it play in managing recreational impacts. In:
Proceedings, National Interagency Wilderness Conference. A.C. Schmierer & C. Butler (compilers) May 1721, 1993, Tucson, AZ. U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Western Region, San Fancisco, CA. pp. 46-49.
Cole et al. (1987) offer further guidance
regarding the selection of strategies and tactics
for dealing with common wilderness
recreation problems. They describe eight
general strategies, which are defined as broad,
conceptual approaches to management, which
attack the basic causes of problems (Table 1).
Numerous tactics or specific actions are also
described for implementing each strategy.
The authors caution managers to "Choose
strategies that attack the primary causes of the
specific problem and tactics that do not
conflict with management objectives, that are
realistic given the visitor use, environment,
and management situation, and that minimize
costs to visitors and avoid or reduce unwanted
side effects".
Wilderness Recreation
Management Strategies
1)Reduce use of the entire wilderness
2)Reduce use of problem areas
3)Modify the location of use within problem
areas
4)Modify the timing of use
5)Modify type of use and visitor behavior
6)Modify visitor expectations
7)Increase the resistance of the resource
8)Maintain or rehabilitate the resource
A primary goal of wilderness management is the prevention of impacts that are avoidable. This
goal might be achieved through strategies which prohibit recreational use in fragile environments or
during times when vegetation or wildlife are particularly susceptible to disturbance. Type of use
and visitor behavior might also be regulated to prevent particularly damaging practices. Another
wilderness management goal is to minimize those impacts which are unavoidable. This goal might
be achieved through a strategy of visitor dispersal encouraging off-trail hiking and camping, or
visitor concentration emphasizing formal trails and designated campsites. Visitor education
through a Leave No Trace educational program represents another strategy for minimizing impacts.
A final wilderness management goal is to eliminate unacceptable impacts through restoration. The
objective of restoration is to return human-impacted resources to their natural state. It is the
primary strategy associated with this goal.
Restoration will do little to permanently resolve recreational impact problems unless the causes are
also effectively addressed by management. This is important to note because restoration as a
management tactic merely treats symptoms--the impacted areas. Clearly, restoration should not be
selected as the only tactic for addressing a wilderness management problem. The cause(s) must
also be addressed or the problem will simply reoccur. An exception might be preventive
restoration, in which visitors are directed to travel and camp in impact resistant or resilient areas.
Defining Restoration In the context of wilderness management, restoration may be defined as the
act of restoring natural resources to their former unimpaired condition. The term restoration is
typically reserved for active forms of human intervention which enhance the recovery of disturbed
resources. However, unassisted recovery may be considered as a special form of "natural"
restoration. Finally, restoration is similar but not synonymous with rehabilitation, which seeks to
restore the resource to a good or improved condition.
At the ecosystem scale the goal of restoration is to return the ecosystem to pre-Columbian
conditions and processes, or, ideally, to the condition it would be in had the Europeans never
colonized the continent. Clearly this is difficult to define or achieve. The goal is similar but
somewhat more manageable at the scale of a trail or campsite. Here, the goal is to return the area to
the natural conditions that would exist had the trail or site never been created. If defined in the
broadest sense, restoration can include elements of site selection and maintenance. For example,
managers might select or encourage visitors to travel and camp in environments which are resistant
to recreational trampling. Alternately, managers might encourage use of the most resilient
environments so that impacted areas will more quickly recover from disturbance. These actions
might be considered a form of "preventive" restoration. Restoration for established trails and
campsites can include elements of rehabilitation, such as adding soil to eroded areas to encourage
their use and discourage trail or campsite expansion. And finally, restoration can be applied to
closed trails or campsites or unnecessary portions of these features to speed the recovery of natural
conditions.
Restoration Literature Before initiating a restoration program, managers should consult the
literature for guidance. Although dated, the best guide to the restoration literature is a report titled
"Impacts of backcountry recreation: Site management and rehabilitation--An annotated
bibliography" by Cole and Schreiner (1981). A selection of references, including more recent
publications, are included at the end of this paper. The most comprehensive managerial guide is
titled "Disturbed site restoration: An introduction to principles and techniques", edited by Olds (in
press).
Restoration Case Studies
Campsite Restoration in the Shenandoah National Park Wilderness. Shenandoah National
Park, located in central Virginia, has 110,000 acres of backcountry with 80,000 acres designated as
wilderness. Camping is managaged under a dispersal strategy which directs visitors to camp out of
sight of trails and other groups and to forgo campfires. In response to significant recreation impacts
from high visitor use in the 1970's, the park initiated a campsite restoration program in 1981 as part
of a campsite inventory and rehabilitation study (Marion and Haskell 1988). A variety of
restoration treatments have been employed, including soil loosening and incorporation of organic
leaf litter, erection of "No Camping" posts, and placement of large rocks, branches, and small logs
within sites and across site access trails. The objectives of the program are to reduce the number
and hasten the recovery of illegal campsites, particularly those closest to trails that receive repeated
use. In addition to the campsite restoration program, a low-impact brochure is distributed to all
backcountry overnight visitors through a permit program.
The dispersal strategy and restoration program has met with mixed success. An inventory and
campsite monitoring program initiated in 1992 found 685 campsites, 58 percent of which were
within sight of park trails (Marion 1993). However, results from the survey a decade earlier
indicated that approximately 80 percent of the campsites were within sight of park trails.
Restoration efforts may be partly responsible for the decline in illegal campsites but repeated use of
"restored" campsites have prevented a higher level of success. Typically, the most effective
approach to preventing further use of sites has been the temporary placement of "No Camping"
posts on illegal sites, a practice managers reserve as a last resort. The park is currently revising its
Backcountry and Wilderness Management Plan, which calls for the development of designated
campsites in popular backcountry areas and a stronger emphasis on low-impact camping on
previously unused sites in remote areas. The role of site restoration is more explicitly defined under
each form of camping.
Campsite Restoration in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The BWCAW, located
in northeastern Minnesota, includes over 1 million acres. The Forest Service employs a
concentration or containment strategy for minimizing campsite impacts. Visitor access to the
wilderness is regulated through an entry point quota system but once inside visitors may camp in
any of the approximately 2000 designated campsites. The BWCAW has a long tradition of
restoration work beginning in the mid-1960's to expedite the recovery of acquired resort and cabin
sites, and logging camps. This work was extended to newly closed campsites following
implementation of the designated camping policy in 1975. Beginning in 1982 the restoration work
was expanded to include rehabilitation and site maintenance work on campsites not closed to use.
The objectives of this new program are to keep campsites open and in good condition through the
reduction of both the area and severity of impact at each campsite.
Work begins with an evaluation of campsite conditions, site layout, and environmental attributes.
Site-specific restoration and maintenance prescriptions are then prepared for each site to direct the
field crews who perform the work. The specific restoration practices are highlighted below, a more
detailed description can be found in Marion and Sober (1987). Campsite expansion has been
addressed by subtly improving tenting locations within core campsite areas and restoring peripheral
or satellite use areas. Future use is discouraged in these peripheral areas by embedding large rocks,
digging shallow pits and mounding soil, and transplanting locally available small trees and shrubs.
Loss of vegetation cover is minimized by anchoring fire grates to either bedrock outcrops or the soil
to concentrate activity in a single resistant location. Clumps of trampling resistant grasses are often
transplanted and occasionally grass seed, obtained from companies specializing in highly pure
native seed sources, has been used. All campsites are water accessed so shoreline boat landings are
also evaluated. Landings with bedrock or cobble at the shoreline are favored, unnecessary landing
sites and use areas are closed and restored. Soil erosion is addressed through rockwork to harden
the site and channel foot traffic.
The Minimum Tool Principle Both of the restoration programs described above evolved out of the
need to provide for wilderness camping opportunities while maintaining impacts within acceptable
levels. However, the appropriateness of these efforts and the practices they employ must be judged
in light of recognized wilderness management principles. One such principle, The Minimum Tool
Principle states that only the minimum regimentation necessary to achieve established wilderness
management objectives is justified (Hendee et al. 1990). This and other wilderness management
principles imply that restoration work should be ecologically and visually less obtrusive than the
human impacted conditions the work seeks to erase. Vegetative stock or seed should be native to
the area and propagated from the most local sources. And clearly, managers should use only locally
available materials which will easily blend with the natural environment.
Managers must be vigilant in questioning the appropriateness of their restoration work. How much
resource manipulation is justified in the restoration of natural conditions? Which techniques are
most appropriate? Which materials should be used? Finally, managers must strive to balance
preservation objectives with the provision of appropriate wilderness uses. The essential challenge
for managers is to prevent avoidable impacts, ensure that unavoidable impacts do not exceed
acceptable levels, and, when necessary, restore areas affected by human use to natural conditions.
Selected References
Cole, David N. and Edward G. S. Schreiner. 1981. Impacts of backcountry recreation: Site
management and rehabilitation--An annotated bibliography. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report
INT-121. Ogden, UT. 58 pp.
Cole, David N., Margaret E. Petersen, and Robert C. Lucas. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation
use: Common problems and potential solutions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report
INT-230. Ogden, UT. 60 pp.
Graefe, Alan R., Fred R. Kuss, and Jerry J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor impact management: The
planning framework. National Parks and Conservation Association. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.
105 pp.
Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole. 1987. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management.
John Wiley: New York, NY. 341 pp.
Hartmann, Hudson T. and Dale E. Kester. 1975. Plant propagation principles and practices. 3rd
ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 662 pp.
Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Robert C. Lucas (eds.) 1990. Wilderness Management.
2nd ed. North American Press, Golden, CO. 546 pp.
Hiebert, Ronald D. 1990. An ecological restoration model: Application to razed residential sites.
Natural Areas Journal 10:181-186.
Keammerer, Warren R. 1990. Monitoring restoration results. In: Hughes, H. Glenn, Thomas M.
Bonnicksen (eds.) Restoration '89: The new management challenge. First annual meeting of
the Society for Ecological Restoration; January 16-20, 1989; Oakland, CA. Society for
Ecological Restoration: 194-201.
Ketchledge, E. H., R. E. Leonard, N. A. Richards, P. F. Craul and A. R. Eschner. 1985.
Rehabilitation of alpine vegetation in the Adirondack Mountains of New York State. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Research
Paper NE-553. Upper Darby, PA. 6 pp.
Kuss, Fred R., Alan R. Graefe and Jerry J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor impact management: A review of
research. National Parks and Conservation Association. Volume 1. Washington, D.C. 256 pp.
Lester, William and Sue Calder. 1979. Revegetative the forest zone of North Cascades National
Park. In: Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings. R. Ittner, D. R. Potter, J.
K. Agee, S. Anschell (Editors) October 27-29, 1978, Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. No. R-6-001-1979, pp.
271-275.
Little, Silas and John J. Mohr. 1979. Reestablishing understory plants in overused wooded areas of
Maryland State Parks. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. Research Paper NE-431. Upper Darby, PA. 9 pp.
Mann, Donald L. and Ken Dull. 1979. Six years of site restoration at Lyman Lake. In:
Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings. R. Ittner, D. R. Potter, J. K. Agee,
S. Anschell (Editors) October 27-29, 1978, Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 276-279.
Marble, James R. 1985. Techniques of revegetation and reclamation of land damaged by off-road
vehicles in the Lake Mead Recreation Area. University of Nevada, Department of Biological
Sciences, National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit. No. CPSU/UNLV 027/03. Las
Vegas, NV. 71 pp.
Marion, Jeffrey L. 1993. A review and recommendations for backcountry campsite management
in Shenandoah National Park. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Unpublished
report submitted to Shenandoah National Park. 19 pp.
Marion, Jeffrey L. and David Haskell. 1988. An analysis of visitor impacts and rehabilitation
methods for backcountry campsites at Shenandoah National Park. U.S. Department of Interior,
National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region. Research/Resources Management Report.
Philadelphia, PA. 38 pp.
Marion, Jeffrey L. and Toivo Sober. 1987. Environmental impact management in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern J. Applied Forestry 4(1):7-10.
Meyer, Jeffrey C., Robert D. Comer and Susan B. Davidson. 1987. Evaluation of servicewide
reclamation techniques for NPS units. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service,
Mining and Minerals Branch. Final Report. Denver, CO. 202 pp.
Miller, Joseph W. and Margaret M. Miller. 1979. Propagation of plant material for subalpine
revegetation. In: Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings. R. Ittner, D. R.
Potter, J. K. Agee, S. Anschell (Editors) October 27-29, 1978, Seattle, WA. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. No. R-6-001-1979, pp.
304-310.
Nuzzo, Victoria A. and Evelyn A. Howell. 1990. Natural area restoration planning. Natural Areas
Journal 10:201-209.
Olds, Douglas. (In Press). Disturbed Site Restoration: An Introduction to Principles and
Techniques. Student Conservation Association. Washington, D.C. 429 pp.
Schreiner, Edward and Bruce B. Moorhead. 1979. Human impact inventory and management in
the Olympic National Park backcountry. In: Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference
Proceedings. R. Ittner, D. R. Potter, J. K. Agee, S. Anschell (Editors) October 27- 29, 1978,
Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Portland, OR. No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 203-212.
Smith, Bernard A. 1979. Image Lake rehabilitation project: Glacier Peak Wilderness. In:
Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings. R. Ittner, D. R. Potter, J. K. Agee,
S. Anschell (Editors) October 27-29, 1978, Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 280-283.
Stephenson, W. R., R. Dowhan and M. Stranak. 1980. Removing exotic vegetation from Point
Pelee National Park. Parks 5(3):12-16.
Van Horn, Joseph C. 1979. Soil and vegetation restoration at the Sunrise Developed Area, Mount
Rainier National Park. In: Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings. R.
Ittner, D. R. Potter, J. K. Agee, S. Anschell (Editors) October 27- 29, 1978, Seattle, WA. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. No.
R-6-001-1979, pp. 286-291.
Vogelmann, H. W. and R. E. Leonard. 1982. Effects of fertilizer on alpine vegetation in the Green
Mountains of Vermont. Recreation Resource Management Bulletin 2(2):21-22.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 1981. Eagle Cap Wilderness campsite and abandoned trail
restoration project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest, Eagle Cap Ranger District. Unpublished Report 7 pp.