Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Whooping crane

After a brief illness, White died alone in his family

home at the age of 72.

[Kimberley A. McGrath]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Jenkins, A. C. The Naturalists: Pioneers of Natural History. New York:

Mayflower Books, 1978.

Lockley, R. M. Gilbert White. London: H. F. and G. Witherby, 1954.

White House Office on Environmental

Policy

see

Council on Environmental Quality

Lynn Townsend White Jr. (1907 – 1987)

American historian and writer

For most readers interested in environmental issues, White

is known by only one article: “The Historical Roots of Our

Ecological Crisis,” first published in Science in 1967, and

widely reprinted. That article, like most of White’s work,

grew out of his professional interest in medieval technology,

including technology’s role in “dominating nature.” Born in

San Francisco, schooled at Stanford and the Union Theolog-

ical Seminary, White received a doctorate in history from

Harvard University in 1934. He taught at Princeton and

Stanford Universities, spent 15 years as the President of

Mills College (1943–1958), and retired from his position of

university professor of history at the University of California

in Los Angeles in 1974.

White received most of the honors his profession could

bestow. He was a founding member of the Society for the

History of Technology, served as its president, and was also

elected president of the History of Science Society, president

of the American Historical Association, and a Fellow of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Perhaps the best

introduction to his work can be obtained from two collec-

tions of articles, Machina ex Deo: Essays in the Dynamism of

Western Culture (1968) and Medieval Religion and Technol-

ogy: Collected Essays (1978).

White’s article on the ecological crisis traced that crisis

back to “modern science [as] an extrapolation of natural

theology.” The modern technology that emerged from that

science “is at least partly to be explained as an Occidental

voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s tran-

scendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature.” White then

concluded that, since modern science and technology have

led us into an ecological crisis, “Christianity bears a huge

burden of guilt.” Numerous articles over many years either

1507

picked up on White’s argument or took issue with it, a

debate White extended by “Continuing the Conversation”

in 1973, and a debate that continues today.

Although White’s article received widespread atten-

tion, his more significant contributions may have been

achieved through his extensive research on technology and

its relationship to culture and society. Of particular impor-

tance has been his establishment of connections between

religion and the way a culture perceives technology. Such

perceptions have profound implications for human relation-

ships to the

environment

. White also embraced the cause

of women’s rights, using his presidency at Mills College as a

pulpit to advance those rights, especially in higher education.

Feminist issues, such as reproduction or status, also have

profound implications for human-environment relation-

ships, and his writings in this area are still worth reading

today.

[Gerald L. Young Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Eckberg, D. L., and T. J. Blocker. “Varieties of Religious Involvement and

Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.” Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 28 (December 1989): 509–517.

Hall, B. S. “Lynn Townsend White, Jr. (1907–1987).” Technology and

Culture 30 (January 1989): 194–213.

Shaiko, R. G. “Religion, Politics, and Environmental Concern: A Powerful

Mix of Passions.” Social Science Quarterly 68 (June 1987): 244–262.

White Jr., L. T. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science

155 (March 10, 1967): 1203–7.

Whooping crane

The whooping crane (Grus americana) has long been consid-

ered the symbol for

wildlife conservation

in the United

States. This large, white, wading bird of the family Gruidae

is our tallest North American bird, standing nearly 5 ft (1.5

m) tall and having a wingspan of 7.6 ft (2.3 m). Whooping

cranes have been threatened with

extinction

since the twen-

tieth century.

Overhunting

in the latter part of the nine-

teenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as

habitat

loss—

primarily due to the conversion of

prairie wetlands

into

agricultural land—have been major contributors to this de-

cline. In modern times, the number one cause of death in

fledged birds has been collision with high power lines.

In 1937 the federal government established the Arkan-

sas

National Wildlife Refuge

on the south Texas coast,

which is the wintering grounds for the whooping crane, in

order to protect this species’ dwindling population. At the

time the refuge was established, the population was at an all

time low of 12 birds with a probable founding group of only

six to eight birds. There were 31 birds found during a 1950

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

Whooping crane. (Photograph by Robert J. Huffman.

Field Mark Publications. Reproduced by permission.)

census and 36 were located in 1960. The year 1961 marked

the first captive breeding program for the whooping crane.

Whooping cranes usually reach maturity at four years

of age. After that they establish a lifelong mate with whom

they will typically nest once a year, although a pair will skip

a nesting season if resources are scarce, or, in some cases for

no reason whatsoever. Even though two eggs are usually

laid, the parents will only raise one of the chicks. With this

in mind, part of the captive breeding program involved the

removal of one of the eggs from the whopping cranes’ nest

for mechanical incubation. In 1967, 50 eggs were removed

for incubation at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in

Laurel, Maryland. There were 48 birds at the end of 1967,

the same year the whooping crane was listed as a federally

endangered species

Several years of egg removal and artificial incubation

followed. Beginning in 1975, eggs from whooping crane

nests in their primary nesting area, Wood Buffalo National

Park, as well as captive-bred eggs, were placed in the nests

of sandhill cranes of Grays Lake, Idaho. This cross-fostering

experiment was done to get the more numerous sandhill

cranes to help raise whooping cranes to adulthood, and thus

increase the population at a faster rate. The experiment has

been successful and by 1977, the whooping crane population

increased to 120 birds. Today there are nearly 400 in the

wild and in captivity.

1508

A flock of 14 captive-raised birds was reintroduced to

the Kissimmee Prairie in Florida during the winter of 1993.

Nineteen more were released within the year, however, 70%

of these released birds were lost due to bobcat predation.

There were over 60 whooping cranes in this area by 2000

with indications of hatchlings. An additional facility in Cal-

gary, Canada, has accepted over 30 birds since 1992 in

order to establish another captive flock. Another approach to

reinforce the population is to reestablish a second migratory

route. Ten hatchlings were raised in captivity and followed

an ultralight aircraft from Wisconsin to Florida to spend

the winter. Five of the cranes returned back to Wisconsin

unassisted April 18, 2002.

[Eugene C. Beckham]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Ehrlich, Paul. Birds In Jeopardy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.

ERIODICALS

May, Peter, and David Henry. “A Whooping Crane Reintroduction Project

on the Canadian Prairies: Identifying Relevant Issues Using Expert Consul-

tation.” Endangered Species Update 12, no. 7: (1995).

Vergano, Dan. “Endangered Cranes Set to Begin Migration.” USA Today

(October 11, 2001).

THER

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. Experimental Flock of Whooping

Cranes Return to Central Wisconsin. April 18, 2002 [cited May 2002].

<http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/media/nr-4-19-02.htm>.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968, during

the same week as the National Trails System Act, in the

shadow of the

Wilderness Act

(1964), and in the aftermath

of a heated controversy involving

dams

in the Grand Can-

yon. The main focus of the law is to prevent designated

rivers from being dammed.

The act establishes three categories of rivers: wild,

scenic, and recreational. Wild rivers are completely undevel-

oped and accessible only by trail. Scenic rivers are mainly

undeveloped but are accessible by roads. Recreational rivers

have frequent road access and may have been developed in

some way. As was the case in the Wilderness Act, there

would be no transfer of lands from one agency to another

after designations were made. That is, for example, desig-

nated rivers in national forests are managed by the

Forest

Service

, and designated rivers under

Bureau of Land Man-

agement

jurisdiction are to be managed by the BLM. Even

state agencies could manage designated rivers. The law pro-

vides for the preservation of land at least 0.25 mi (0.4 km)

wide on both sides of designated rivers. The act emphasizes

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wild river

the use of easements on private lands, rather than acquisition,

to achieve this purpose.

The first wild rivers bill, based primarily on studies

done by the Agriculture and Interior Departments, was in-

troduced in 1965 by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The

main controversy of the bill focused on which rivers to pro-

tect. In order to lessen opposition, only rivers with the sup-

port of home state senators would be immediately desig-

nated. The Senate passed the bill in early 1966. A wild rivers

bill was not seriously considered in the House that year, so

the process began again in 1967. The Senate passed a modi-

fied version of Church’s bill in August 1967. There was

some concern that the House would not pass a bill before the

end of the session, but under the leadership of Representative

John Saylor of Pennsylvania, it did so in September 1968.

The House and Senate worked out a compromise bill in

conference, and the law was signed by President Lyndon

Johnson in October.

Due to the compromise involving home state approval

for each designated river, only eight rivers were designated

immediately by the act, totaling 773 mi (1,244 km). Twenty-

seven rivers were designated for further study. The law allows

for the study and potential inclusion of rivers not listed in

the original act. Additionally, rivers could be added if states

request the federal government to designate a river in the

state as part of the system (this has happened for two rivers

in Ohio and one in Maine). This system encompasses rivers

throughout the country. For example, the first group of

designated rivers were in California, Idaho, Minnesota, Mis-

souri, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. As of 2002, 10,955 mi

(17,630 km) of 156 rivers had been designated under the act.

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Allin, C. W. The Politics of Wilderness Preservation. Westport, CT: Green-

wood Press, 1982.

Dana, S. T., and S. K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy. 2nd ed. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Palmer, T. Endangered Rivers and the Conservation Movement. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1986.

Wild river

By the mid-1960s, many rivers in the United States had

been dammed or otherwise manipulated for flood control,

recreation

, and other water development projects. There

was a growing concern that rivers in their natural state would

soon disappear. By 1988, for example, roughly 17% (600,000

mi [965,400 km]) of all the previously free-running rivers

in the United States had been trapped behind 60,000

dams

1509

The Klamath River in northern California, desig-

nated a wild rive under the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. (Visuals Unlimited. Reproduced by per-

mission.)

In 1968, Congress passed the

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act

, establishing a program to study and protect outstanding,

free-flowing rivers. Federal land management agencies such

as the

Forest Service

and the

National Park Service

(NPS)

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wilderness

were directed to identify rivers on their lands for potential

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

In 1982, the NPS published the National Rivers Inventory

(NRI), a list of 1,524 river segments eligible under the act,

though budgetary constraints prevented them from including

all eligible rivers.

Eligible river segments must be undammed and have

at least one outstanding resource—a

wildlife habitat

,or

other recreational, scenic, historic, or geological feature. Riv-

ers can be added to the national system through an act of

Congress or by order of the

U.S. Department of the Interior

upon official request from an individual state. Congress in-

tended all types of free-flowing rivers to be included—re-

mote rivers as well as those that flow through urban areas—

provided they meet the established criteria. Both designated

rivers and rivers under study for inclusion in the system

receive numerous protections. The act prohibits the building

of hydroelectric or other water development projects and

limits mineral extraction in a designated river corridor.

The act also mandates the development of a land man-

agement plan, covering an average of 320 acres (129 ha) per

river mile (1.6 km) and roughly 0.25 mi (0.4 km) on either

side of the river, which must include measures to conserve

the riverside land and resources. If the land is federally

owned, the responsible agency is required to specify allowable

activities on the land, depending on whether the river is

classified as wild, scenic, or recreational. If it is privately

owned, federal and state agencies will coordinate with local

governments and landowners to specify appropriate land uses

within the corridor using zoning and other ordinances.

Identifying a potential wild and scenic river often stirs

controversy within local communities, usually among ripar-

ian landowners concerned that such a designation will curtail

the use of their property. There is no federal power to zone

private land, and although the act allows federal agencies

to purchase land in a designated corridor, there are strict

limitations. Generally, these agencies prefer to assist state,

local, and private interests in developing a cooperative plan

to conserve the river’s resources.

Aware of the importance of riverways for local eco-

nomic development, and concerned about the issue of prop-

erty rights, Congress made the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

flexible. Riparian landowners are not forced to move from

their land, and designation does not affect existing land

uses along the river, such as farming, mining, and

logging

Designation can lead to some restrictions on new develop-

ment, but most development will be allowed as long as it

occurs in a manner that does not adversely affect the charac-

ter of the river. These questions are addressed on a site-

specific basis in the management plan, which is developed

by all affected and interested parties, including landowners.

1510

As of 2002, 156 rivers are designated, for a total 10,955

mi (17,630 km). Some of the segments included are the

American and Klamath rivers in California, the Rio Grande

in Texas, the upper and middle Delaware in New York,

New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and the Bluestone in West

Virginia. See also Ecotourism; Federal Land Policy and Man-

agement Act; Land-use control; Riparian land; Riparian

rights

[Cathryn McCue]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Coyle, K. J. The American Rivers Guide to Wild and Scenic River Designation:

A Primer on National River Conservation. Washington, DC: American

Rivers, 1988.

Wilderness

Wilderness is land that humans neither inhabit nor cultivate.

Through the ages of western culture, as the human relation

to land has changed, the meaning and perception of wilder-

ness also has changed. At first, wilderness was to be either

conquered or shunned. At times, it was the place for contri-

tion or banishment, as in the biblical account of the Israelites

condemned to wander 40 years in the wilderness. To Euro-

pean settlers of North America, wilderness was the untamed

land entered only by the adventurous or perhaps the fool-

hardy. But the wilderness also held riches, making it new

land to be exploited, tamed, and ultimately managed. Few

saw wilderness as having value in its own right.

The idea of wilderness as land deserving of protection

and preservation for its own sake is largely a product of late

nineteenth and twentieth century North American thought.

Rapidly expanding cultivation and industry not only created

wealth, but it also increased the nonconsumptive, intrinsic

values of wilderness. Gradually, people began to perceive

the wilderness as a land of enjoyment and welcome solitude

through intimacy with

nature

. For some, it became an im-

portant link to their cultural past, providing assurance that

some part of the earth would be left in its primeval condition

for

future generations

, and to many their image of the

wilderness is as important as its physical reality.

This relatively new attitude toward wild lands has been

fostered by scientific considerations. Such lands can hold a

tremendous store of unadulterated native genetic material

that may be important in maintaining diversity within and

among

species

. Wilderness also can support nondestructive,

unobtrusive research projects, which serve as references from

which to gauge ecological effects in other areas.

The value of wilderness was promoted from roughly

the mid-nineteenth century to mid-twentieth century by

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wilderness

many influential people, including George Catlin,

Henry

David Thoreau

John Muir

, and most notably

Aldo Leo-

pold

and

Robert Marshall

. Their ideas were ultimately

incorporated into the platforms of two major organizations:

the

Wilderness Society

and the

Sierra Club

. With the

creation of these groups, a formal movement had begun to

convince the public and lawmakers that wilderness should

be preserved and protected. A significant event in this move-

ment occurred in 1951 at the Sierra Club’s second Wilder-

ness Conference when Howard Zahniser of the Wilderness

Society proposed the idea of a federal wilderness protection

bill. Zahniser’s work came to fruition 13 years later, four

months after his death.

In 1964, the United States Congress passed the

Wil-

derness Act

, establishing the National Wilderness Preserva-

tion System (NWPS). The act grew out of a concern that

an expanding population, with its accompanying settlement

and mechanization, would leave no lands in the United

States or its possessions in their natural condition. Congress

intended to preserve areas of federal lands “to secure for

the American people of present and future generations the

benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” The act

defines wilderness as follows: “A wilderness, in contrast with

those areas where man and his own works dominate the

landscape, is hereby recognized 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.” Further,

wilderness is to “be protected and managed so as to preserve

its natural conditions,” unimpaired for future use and en-

joyment.

The National Wilderness Preservation System began

with 54 wilderness areas totaling a little over 9 million acres

(3.6 million ha), which were administered by the

Forest

Service

in the

U.S. Department of Agriculture

. In the first

three decades after passage of the Wilderness Act, the system

has grown to nearly 500 units covering almost 95 million

acres (38.5 million ha), about the size of Montana. These

units are administered by the Forest Service, and by the

National Park Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

, and

Bureau of Land Management

, in the

U.S. Department

of the Interior

. The NWPS increased to about 100 million

acres (40.5 million ha), roughly the size of California, follow-

ing the passage of the California Desert Protection Act

of 1994.

The years of greatest growth for the wilderness system

were from 1978 to 1984. In 1980, 83 units comprising more

than 61 million acres (24.7 million ha) were added to this

system; most of this land (56 million acres [22.7 million ha]

in 35 units) was added in Alaska with the passage of the

Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. All but

six states, in the northeast and midwest, have wilderness

areas. The western United States, with about 20% of the

1511

nation’s population (11% in California) has almost 95% of

NWPS lands. However, the largest tracts of wilderness are

in Alaska, which contains nearly two-thirds of the wilderness

system acreage.

Although the Wilderness Act generally defines the

minimum size for wilderness as 5,000 acres (2,025 ha), it

permits land “of sufficient size as to make practicable its

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” Conse-

quently, wilderness areas range in size from the nearly 9-

million-acre (3.6-million-ha) Wrangell–Saint Elias Wilder-

ness in Alaska to the 6-acre (2.4-ha) Pelican Island Wilder-

ness in Florida.

In addition to designated wilderness areas in the

NWPS, Congress has established the National Scenic Trails

System and the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Also, several

states have designated their own form of wilderness areas,

the most notable of which is the Adirondack Forest Preserve

in northern New York. These state systems, which are of

various types and purity, help broaden the diversity of pro-

tected ecosystems and their allowable uses.

Despite the wilderness movement, not everyone agrees

that wilderness preservation is a good idea. Opponents object

to the restrictions imposed by the Wilderness Act, arguing

that they “lock up” huge tracts of land, greatly limiting their

use and value to society. The act prohibits roads, use of

motorized vehicles or equipment, mechanical means of

transport, structures, and commercial enterprises, including

timber harvesting. Some low-impact uses, such as hiking,

hunting

, and fishing are allowed, as are limited livestock

grazing and mining.

Before passage of the Wilderness Act, the debate over

wilderness concerned whether or not it should be preserved.

However, after 1964 the debate shifted to two major ques-

tions: How much is enough, and how should wilderness be

managed? The first question was nearly settled, at least in

law, with passage of the California Desert Protection Act.

This was probably the last sizable addition to the wilderness

areas in the United States. The second question may seem

oxymoronic, but it presents a substantial challenge to the

federal agencies charged with overseeing the health and wel-

fare of these areas. As population pressures increase, deci-

sions become more difficult. For example, wilderness and

resource experts must determine an acceptable level of graz-

ing; they must also decide what role fire should play; and,

perhaps most importantly, the amount of recreational activity

to be allowed.

These management issues are dynamic, and the con-

cept of wilderness likely will change in the future as society’s

values change. Moreover, decisions regarding management

of adjacent lands will influence the management of wilder-

ness areas. Finally, ecosystems themselves change—that

which is preserved today will not be what exists tomorrow, as

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wilderness Act (1964)

fires, storms, volcanic eruptions, and ecological

succession

reshape the landscape.

Concerns, challenges, and emotional debate over pres-

ervation of native ecosystems have arisen in other parts of the

world, including Europe and the

Amazon Basin

. Although

international concepts of wilderness are different from that in

the United States, other countries are studying the American

model for possible

adaptation

to their own situations. Apart

from certain differences, concepts of wildernesses around

the globe have some strong commonalities: Wilderness is

the antithesis of industry; it exists in the body of the earth

and in the mind of humanity; and in wilderness lies the

ballast of civilization. See also Adirondack Mountains; Bio-

diversity; Frontier economy; National park; National forest;

National wildlife refuge; Old-growth forest; Overgrazing;

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Wild river; Wilderness Study

Area; Wildfire; Wildlife; Wildlife management

[Ronald D. Taskey]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas. Wilderness Management.

Golden, CO: North American Press, 1990.

ERIODICALS

Journal of Forestry 91 (February 1993).

THER

U.S. Forest Service. The Principal Laws Relation to Forest Service Activities.

Agriculture Handbook No. 453. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-

ing Office, 1978.

Wilderness Act (1964)

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wil-

derness Preservation System, an area of land that now en-

compasses over 95 million acres (38.5 million ha). According

to the law,

wilderness

is “an area where the Earth and its

community of life are untrammeled by man, where man

himself is a visitor who does not remain...land retaining its

primeval character and influence, without permanent im-

provements or human habitation, which is protected and

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” This law

represents the core idea of preservation: the need to preserve

large amounts of land in its natural condition. This idea,

which arose in the late 1800s, is in stark contrast to the

desire to control

nature

and exploit the resources of nature

for economic gain.

The early preservation movement focused on pro-

tecting natural areas through their designation as national

parks. The birth of the wilderness system, however, can be

traced back to the period around 1920. In 1919, Arthur

1512

Carhart, a landscape architect, recommended that the area

around Trapper’s Lake in the White Mountain

National

Forest

of Colorado be kept roadless, a recommendation that

was followed. A few years later, he recommended that a

roadless area be established in the Superior National Forest

of Minnesota, a recommendation that was also followed

(this area was later named the

Boundary Waters Canoe

Area

). In 1921,

Aldo Leopold

, then a

Forest Service

em-

ployee in New Mexico, proposed that large areas of land be

set aside as wilderness in the national forests. For Leopold,

wilderness would be an area large enough to absorb a two-

week pack trip, “devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages,

or other works of man.” He recommended that such an area

be established in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico.

The next year, Leopold’s superiors acted on his recommen-

dation and established a 574,000-acre (232,400-ha) wilder-

ness area.

The first attempt to establish a more general wilderness

policy by the Forest Service came in 1929 when the agency

issued Regulation L-20. This directed the Chief of the Forest

Service to establish a series of “primitive areas” in which

primitive conditions would be maintained. Instructions on

implementing this regulation, however, indicated that tim-

ber, forage, and

water resources

could still be developed

in these areas. This effort was plagued by unclear directives

and the lack of support of many foresters, who favored the

use of resources, not their preservation.

The issue of Forest Service wilderness designation in-

creased in importance in the 1930s, primarily due to the

concern of the Forest Service that all of its scenic areas would

be transferred to the

National Park Service

for manage-

ment.

Robert Marshall

, head of the

Recreation

and Lands

Division in the Forest Service, led the fight within the agency

to increase wilderness designation on Forest Service lands.

He and his supporters argued that increased wilderness des-

ignation was wise because: 1) it would demonstrate to Con-

gress that the Forest Service could protect its scenic resources

and that transfer of these lands to the

National Park

Service

was unnecessary; 2) it would be several years before these

resources might be needed, so they could be protected until

they were needed; and 3) wilderness and its recreation, re-

search, and preservation uses were suitable for national forest

lands. These arguments led to the adoption of the U-Regula-

tions in 1939, which were more precise and restrictive than

Regulation L-20.

Three new wild land classifications were established

by these regulations. “Wilderness” areas were to be at least

100,000 acres (40,500 ha) in size, designated by the Secretary

of Agriculture, and contain no roads, motorized

transporta-

tion

, timber harvesting, or occupation. “Wild” areas would

be from 5,000 to 100,000 acres (2,025 to 40,500 ha) in size

and were to be under the same management restrictions

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wilderness Act (1964)

as wilderness areas with the exception that they would be

designated by the Chief of the Forest Service. Lastly, the

regulations created “recreation” areas, which were to be of

100,000 or more acres and were to be managed “substantially

in their natural condition.” In such areas, road-building and

timber harvesting, among other activities, could take place

at the Chief’s discretion. Lands that had been classified as

“primitive” under the L-20 Regulation were to be reviewed

and re-classified under the U-Regulations.

The wilderness movement lost much momentum in-

side the Forest Service with the death of Marshall in 1939.

Following World War II, preservationist groups began to

discuss the need for statutory protection of wilderness due

to controversies over the re-classification of primitive lands

and the desire for stronger protection. The proposal for such

legislation was first made in 1951 by Howard Zahniser,

director of the

Wilderness Society

, at the Sierra Club’s

Biennial Wilderness Conference. This legislative proposal

was put on hold during the battle over the proposed Echo

Park dam, but in 1956 preservationists convinced Senator

Hubert Humphrey to introduce the first wilderness bill.

This original bill, drafted by a group of preservation and

conservation

groups, would apply not only to national for-

ests, but also to national parks, national monuments,

wildlife

refuges, and Indian reservations. Within these areas, no

farming,

logging

, grazing, mining, road building, or motor-

ized vehicle use would be allowed. No new agency would

be created; rather existing agencies would manage the wilder-

ness lands under their jurisdiction. All Forest Service wilder-

ness, wild, and recreation lands would be immediately desig-

nated as wilderness, as well as 49 national parks and 20

wildlife refuges. The expansion (or reduction) of the Na-

tional Wilderness Preservation System would rest primarily

with the executive branch: it would make recommendations

that would take effect unless either chamber of Congress

passed a motion against the designation within 120 days.

By 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, this

original bill had changed substantially. Sixty-five different

bills had been introduced and nearly 20 congressional hear-

ings were held on these bills. The chief opposition to the

wilderness system came from commodity and development

interests, especially the timber, mining, and livestock indus-

tries. The wilderness bill met with greater success in the

Senate, where a bill was passed in 1961. The House proved

a more difficult arena, as Wayne Aspinall of Colorado, chair

of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, opposed the

wilderness bill. In the end, the preservationists had to com-

promise or risk having no law at all. The final law allowed

established motorboat and aircraft use to continue; permitted

control of fires, insects, and diseases; allowed established

grazing to continue; allowed the President to approve water

developments; and allowed the staking of new mineral claims

1513

under the Mining Law of 1872 through December 31, 1983,

and development of legitimate claims indefinitely. The act

designated 9.1 million acres (3.7 million ha) as wilderness

immediately (Forest Service lands classified as wilderness,

wild, or canoe). National park lands and wildlife refuges

would be studied for potential designations, and primitive

lands were to be protected until Congress determined if they

should be designated as wilderness. The act also directed

that future designations of wilderness be made through the

legislative process.

Since the passage of the Wilderness Act, most of the

attention on expanding the wilderness system has focused

on Forest Service lands and Alaska lands. In 1971, the Forest

Service undertook the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

(RARE I) to analyze its holdings for potential inclusion in

the wilderness system. It surveyed 56 million acres (22.7

million ha) in a process that included tremendous public

involvement. Based on the review, the agency recommended

12 million additional acres (4.9 million ha) be designated

as wilderness. This recommendation did not satisfy preserva-

tionists, and the

Sierra Club

initiated legal action challeng-

ing the RARE I process. In an out-of-court settlement, the

Forest Service agreed not to alter any of the 56 million acres

(23 million ha) under study and to undertake a

land use

plan and

environmental impact statement

In response to RARE I, Congress passed the Eastern

Wilderness Act (1975), which created 16 eastern wilderness

areas and directed the Forest Service to alter its methods so

that it considered areas previously affected by humans. In

1977, the Forest Service launched RARE II. Over 65 million

acres (26.3 million ha) of land were examined, and the Forest

Service recommended that 15 million acres (6 million ha)

be declared wilderness. Preservationist groups were still not

satisfied but did not challenge this process. Based upon these

recommendations, additional wilderness has been designated

on a state-by-state basis. The Forest Service recommenda-

tions have been the starting ground for the political process

typically involving commodity groups opposed to more wil-

derness and preservationist groups favoring designations be-

yond the Forest Service’s recommendations. Thus far,

RARE II additions have been made for all but a few states.

The completion of RARE II designations will not mean the

end of the designation process, however, as preservationists

will continue to fight for more wilderness land. The Alaska

National Interest Conservation Land Act (1980) led to more

than a doubling of the wilderness system. The act designated

57 million acres (23 million ha) as wilderness, primarily in

national parks and wildlife refuges.

As of 1992, 95.3 million acres (38.6 million ha) of

land are designated as wilderness. The Forest Service man-

ages 386 areas of 34 million acres (13.8 million ha), the

National Park Service 41 areas of 39.1 million acres (15.8

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wilderness Society

million ha), and the

Fish and Wildlife Service

75 areas of

20.6 million acres (8.3 million ha). The lands managed by the

Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) were not included

in the Wilderness Act, but the

Federal Land Policy and

Management Act

of 1976 directed the agency to review its

lands for wilderness designation. The BLM now manages

66 areas of 1.6 million acres (648,000 ha), but this figure

will increase as the wilderness review and designation process

is completed. Ironically, as more lands are designated wilder-

ness by law, de facto wilderness in the nation has been steadily

declining.

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Allin, C. W. The Politics of Wilderness Preservation. Westport, CT: Green-

wood Press, 1982.

Dana, S. T., and S. K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy. 2nd ed. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Nash, R. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1982.

Wilderness Society

This national

conservation

organization focuses on pro-

tecting national parks, forests,

wildlife

refuges, seashores,

and

recreation

areas and lands administered by the Interior

Department’s

Bureau of Land Management

(BLM),

which total almost one million mi

(2.6 million km

). The

Society has played a leading role on many environmental

issues in the last half of the century involving public lands,

including protecting 84 million acres (34 million ha) of land

wilderness

areas since 1964.

The Society was founded in 1935 by naturalist

Aldo

Leopold

and other conservationists, in part to formulate and

promote a

land ethic

, a conviction that land is a precious

resource “to be cherished and used wisely as an inheritance.”

One of the Society’s proudest accomplishments was the pas-

sage of the landmark

Wilderness Act

(1964), which recog-

nized for the first time that the nation’s wild areas had a

value and integrity that was worthy of protection and should

remain places where “man is a visitor who does not remain.”

The Society has played an important role in other

major legislative victories, including passage of the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

(1968); the National Trails

System Act (1968); the

National Forest Management Act

(1976); the Omnibus Parks Act (1978); the Alaska National

Interest Conservation Land Act (1980); the Land and

Water

Conservation

Fund Reauthorization (1989); and the Ton-

gass Timber Reform Act (1990).

1514

The Society’s agenda for the future is to prevent

oil

drilling

in Alaska’s

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

;to

double the size of the National Wilderness System by 2015;

to eliminate

national forest

timber sales that lose money

for the government; and to expand the number of wild and

scenic rivers.

One of the group’s major projects is to save the last re-

maining old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest area of

the United States, some 90% or more of which have already

been cut. These ancient forests, found in Washington, Ore-

gon, and northern California, harbor some of the world’s old-

est and largest trees, as well as such

endangered species

the

northern spotted owl

. Some of these trees, such as the

western hemlock, Douglas fir, cedar, and Sitka spruce, were

alive when the Magna Carta was signed over 700 years ago;

some now tower 250 ft (76 m) in the air. These forests are

home to over 200

species

of wildlife. A single tree can harbor

over 100 different species of plants, and a stand of trees can

provide

habitat

for over 1,500 species of invertebrates. The

Society is fighting plans by the U.S.

Forest Service

to allow

the

logging

, often by

clear-cutting

, of most of the remaining

ancient forest. The Society estimates that these forests are be-

ing cut at a rate of 170 acres (69 ha) a day—the equivalent of

129 football fields every 24 hours.

The Wilderness Society stresses professionalism and

has a full-time staff of over 130 people, including ecologists,

biologists, foresters, resource managers, lawyers, and econo-

mists. Its main activities consist of public education on the

need to protect public lands; testifying before Congress and

meeting with legislators and their staff, as well as with federal

agency officials, on issues concerning public lands; mobiliz-

ing citizens across the nation on conservation campaigns;

and sponsoring workshops, conferences, and seminars on

conservation issues. The Society publishes a quarterly maga-

zine, Wilderness, as well as a variety of brochures, fact sheets,

press releases, and member alerts warning of impending

environmental threats.

[Lewis G. Regenstein]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

The Wilderness Society, 1615 M St, NW, Washington, D.C. USA 20036,

Toll Free: (800) THE-WILD, Email: member@tws.org, <http://

www.wilderness.org>

Wilderness Study Area

A Wilderness Study Area is an area of

public land

that is

a candidate for official Wilderness Area designation by the

United States Government. Federally recognized Wilderness

Areas, created by Congress and included in the National

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), are legally pro-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wildfire

tected from development, road building, motorized access,

and most resource exploitation as dictated by the

Wilder-

ness Act

of 1964.

The process of identifying, defining, and confirming

the areas included in the NWPS is, however, long and slow.

In preparation for Wilderness Area designation, states survey

their public lands and identify Wilderness Study Areas

(WSAs). These areas are parcels of undeveloped and undis-

turbed land that meet

wilderness

qualifications and on

which Congress can later vote for inclusion in the NWPS.

Out of over 300 million acres (121.4 million ha) of federally

held roadless areas, about 23 million acres (9.3 million ha),

comprising 861 different study areas, were identified as

WSAs between 1976 and 1991. Of these WSAs, only a

small percentage were finally recommended to Congress for

Wilderness Area status.

Nearly all WSAs are on lands currently administered

by the

Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) or the

Forest

Service

, and nearly all are in western states. Relatively little

undisturbed land remains in eastern states, and most eastern

Wilderness Areas were established relatively quickly in 1975

by the Eastern Wilderness Bill. But at the time of this bill

adequate surveys of the West had not been completed. The

Wilderness Act had ordered western surveys back in 1964,

but initial efforts were hasty and incomplete, and the West

was excluded from the 1975 Eastern Wilderness Bill.

In 1976 Congress initiated a second attempt to identify

western wilderness areas with the

Federal Land Policy and

Management Act

. According to this act, each state was to

carefully survey its BLM, Forest Service, and

National Park

Service

lands. All roadless areas of 5,000 acres (2,000 ha)

or more were to be identified and their wilderness, recre-

ational, and scenic assets assessed. Each state legislature was

then required to create a policy and management plan for

these public lands, identifying which lands could be consid-

ered Wilderness Study Areas and which were best used for

development,

logging

, or intensive livestock grazing. This

public lands survey was known as the Second Roadless Area

Review and Evaluation (RARE II). Although RARE II

recommendations from business-minded BLM and Forest

Service administrators did not satisfy most conservationists,

the survey’s WSA lists represented a substantial improve-

ment over previous wilderness identification efforts.

As potential Wilderness Areas, WSAs require a num-

ber of basic “wilderness” attributes. As stressed in the 1964

Wilderness Act, these areas must possess a distinctive “wil-

derness character” and allow visitors an “unimpaired” wilder-

ness experience. Set aside expressly for their wildness, these

areas’ intended use is mainly low-impact, short-term

recre-

ation

. Ideally, human presence should be invisible and their

impact negligible. Roadless areas are the focus of wilderness

surveys precisely because of their relative inaccessibility.

1515

However, because all federal laws involve compromise, wil-

derness designation does not exclude livestock grazing, an

extremely common use of public lands in the West. Mineral

exploration and exploitation, a potentially disastrous activity

in a wilderness, is also legal in Wilderness Areas.

Long and bitter conflicts between

conservation

and

development interests have accompanied every state wilder-

ness bill. Some western state legislatures, steered by business

interests, have recommended less than ten percent of their

roadless areas for inclusion in the NWPS. Once recommen-

dations are made, further study can continue on each WSA

until Congress votes, usually considering just a few areas at

a time, to include it in the NWPS or to exclude it from

consideration. See also Ecosystem; Environmental policy;

Habitat; Land-use control

[Mary Ann Cunningham Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Allin, C. W. The Politics of Wilderness Preservation. Westport, CT: Green-

wood Press, 1982.

ERIODICALS

Stegner, P. “Backcountry Pilgrimage.” Wilderness 49 (1986): 12–17+.

THER

U S. Forest Service. Final Environmental Statement: Roadless Area Review

and Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979.

Wildfire

Few natural forces match fire for its range of impact on the

human consciousness, with a roaring forest fire at one ex-

treme and a warming and comforting campfire or cooking

flame at the other. Along with earth, water, and air, fire is

one of the original “elements” once thought to comprise the

universe, and it has frightened and fascinated people long

before the beginning of modern civilization. In

nature

, fire

both destroys and renews.

Fire is an oxidation process that rapidly transforms

the potential energy stored in chemical bonds of organic

compounds into the kinetic energy forms of heat and light.

Like the much slower oxidation process of

decomposition

fire destroys organic matter, creating a myriad of gases and

ions, and liberating much of the

carbon

and

hydrogen

carbon dioxide

and water. A large portion of the remaining

organic matter is converted to ash which may go up in the

smoke

, blow or wash away after the fire, or, like the

humus

created by decomposition, be incorporated into the

soil

Although fire often is considered bad and was once

thought to destroy natural ecosystems, modern scientists

have recognized the importance of fire in ecological

succes-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wildfire

sion

and in sustaining certain types of plant communities.

Fires can help maintain seral successional stages, prolonging

the time for the community to reach climax stage. Some

ecosystems depend on recurring fire for their sustainability;

these include many prairies, the

chaparral

of mediterranean

climatic regions, pine savannas of the Southeastern United

States, and long-needle pine forests of the American West.

Fire controls competing vegetation, such as brush in

grass-

lands

, prepares new seed beds, and kills harmful insects and

disease organisms. Nonetheless, diseases sometimes increase

after fire because of increased susceptibility of partially

burned, weakened trees.

The effects of fire on an

ecosystem

are highly variable,

and they depend on the nature of the ecosystem, the fire

and its fuel, and weather conditions. In climatic regions

where natural fires occur seasonally, grasslands usually are

the first ecosystems to burn because the fuel they supply has

a large surface area to volume ratio, which allows it to dry

rapidly and ignite easily. Grassland fires tend to burn quickly,

but they release little energy compared to fires with heavier

fuel types. As a result, the effect on soil properties normally

is minor and short-lived. The intense greening of a grassland

as it recovers from a burn is due largely to the flush of

nutrients released from mature and dead plants and made

available to new growth. Grassland fires have been set inten-

tionally for many generations in the name of forage im-

provement.

Naturally caused brushland fires, including the infa-

mous chaparral fires of the southwestern United States, usu-

ally start somewhat later in the season than the first grass

fires, and they normally have more intense, longer lasting

impacts. These fires burn very rapidly but with far more

thermal output than grassland fires, because fuel

five to fifty times greater.

The season for forest fires normally begins somewhat

later than that for grass or brush fires. The fuel in a mature

forest, which may be 100 times greater than that of a medium

density brushland, requires more time to dry and become

available for

combustion

. When the forest burns, the ground

may or may not be intensely heated, depending on the ar-

rangement of fuels from the ground to the forest canopy.

Under a hot burn with the heavy ground fuel found in some

forests, heat can penetrate mineral soil to a depth of 12 in

(30 cm) or more, significantly altering the physical, chemical,

and biological properties of the soil. When the soil is heated,

water is driven out; soil structure, which is the small aggrega-

tions of sand,

silt

, clay, and organic matter, may be destroyed,

leaving a massive soil condition to a depth of several inches.

Forest and brushland soils often become hydrophobic,

or water repellent. A hydrophobic layer a few inches thick

commonly develops just below the burned surface. This con-

dition is created when the fire’s heat turns organic matter

1516

into gas and drives it deeper into the soil, where it then

condenses on cooler particle surfaces. Under severe condi-

tions, water simply beads and runs off this layer, like water

applied to a freshly waxed car. Soil above the hydrophobic

layer is highly susceptible to sheet and rill

erosion

during

the first rains after a fire. Fortunately, it is soon broken up

by insects and burrowing animals, which have survived the

fire by going underground; they penetrate the layer, allowing

water to soak through it.

Forest fires decrease soil acidity, often causing

increase by three units (e.g., from 5 to 8) before and after

the fire. Normally, conditions return to prefire levels in

less than a decade. Fires also transform soil nutrients, most

notably converting nutritive

nitrogen

into gaseous forms

that go up in the smoke. Some of the first plants to recolonize

a hotly burned area are those whose roots support specialized

bacteria that replenish the nutritive nitrogen through a pro-

cess called

nitrogen fixation

. Large amounts of other nutri-

ents, including

phosphorus

, potassium, and calcium, re-

main on the site, contributing to the so-called “ashbed

effect.” Plants that colonize these fertile ashbeds tend to be

more vigorous than those growing outside of them. When

heating has been prolonged and intense in areas such as

those under burning logs, stumps, or debris piles, soil color

can change from brown to reddish. Fires hot enough to

cause these color changes are hot enough to sterilize the

soil, prolonging the time to recovery.

In the absence of heavy ground fuels, so much of the

energy of an intense forest fire may be released directly to

the

atmosphere

that soils will be only moderately affected.

This was the case in the great fires at

Yellowstone National

Park

in 1988, after which soil scientists mapped the entire

burn area as low or medium intensity with respect to soil

effects. Although soils on some sites did suffer intense heat-

ing, these were too small and localized to be mapped or to

be of substantial ecological consequence, and most of the

areas recovered quickly after the fires.

Although fire is vital to the long-term health and

sustainability of many ecosystems, wildfires take numerous

human lives and destroy millions of dollars of property each

year. Controlling these destructive fires means fighting them

aggressively. Fire suppression efforts are based on the fact

that any fire requires three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen.

Together, these make up the three legs of the so–called “fire

triangle” known to all fire fighters. The strategy in all fire

fighting is to extinguish the blaze by breaking one of the

legs of this triangle. An entire science has developed around

fire behavior and the effects of changing weather,

topogra-

phy

, and fuels on that behavior.

Competing conceptions of the costs and benefits of

wildfires have led to conflicting fire management and sup-

pression objectives, most notably in the national parks and